Jason,
granted that all my points were not 'errors' as such in my post, it does not mean that there were no errors. You seem to concentrate on the points of interpretation, which is understandable due to you not being that familiar with the actual treatise. In any case, I am fine with that, even though it is a shame. I would personally be more interested in discussing things like 'what makes Fiore Bolognese?'.
I did not mean to suggest that there were no errors—only that the bulk of the comments were more usefully treated under another heading. That’s why I concentrate on your points of interpretation.
As far as Fiore and the Bolognese background, I read the prologue and found a reference to “Premariocco of the Diocese of the Patricarch of Aquilegia.”
As you point out yourself, this is time-consuming discussion work, so you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t spend time boning up on my Italian geography for that one.
So I'll have to take your word for it, and guess that either A) It's a mistake missed in editing, or B) He meant to lump Fiore into the Bolognese school of fence for some reason.
As an additional question that occurred to me—does it actually keep that reference in the published version, or is it only on this (as Stacy pointed out, somewhat older) online PDF version? If there is a mistake in the printed version, then I’m sure John would like to know.
I only posted the above because people here so keenly asked for some references. I spent an hour or so re-reading the essay and then making some general remarks. The reason why I did not do so in the first place was because it is very time consuming, and I would be happy to review John's writings if he asked me to do so, and even happier if it could be done before publication.
Well, yes, I did ask for your remarks. The response I posted was not an attempt to attack you for having posted them—as I noted more than once, I appreciated the time you put into doing so.
I thank William for standing up for some of the points, I'll second what he said.
And I thank him as well. I asked for references, and he provided them. This is a basic tenet of the academic discussion, give and take, and I will try to look through those points and respond to Mr. Elder when I have the time. Mr. Elder—I’d like to add that I appreciate the tone of your post, which was professional and direct without attacking me personally or the value of my contribution.
Besides that, I hope you don't mind me giving you two advices: 1) read the manual before commenting, and 2) make a distinction between a published article and a forum post.
Are you suggesting that if I have not read the entire treatise, I shouldn’t be posting? I have been reading the manual, ever since the original post drew me into the discussion. The fact that I haven’t completed that process yet should not exclude my opinions from having value, especially when, wherever possible, I have read the specific section of the source material under discussion. The question I raised about the masters and half-swording against the dagger were honest requests for information because I could not find the sections, or translations of those sections that were clear, and I felt I needed help in doing so.
With the manual I of course refer to Fiore, and I hold the opinion that a totally different level of attention to proof-reading, source checking, editing, reviewing etc. should go to a published article than to forum discussion.
Aside from the Latin, which I could only meaningfully discuss through source-checking, I did not hold you to any unnaturally high standard. Your post made claims that I felt should be addressed, so I addressed them using the text of the post. If there were ways in which you felt the scrutiny was unfair, then I apologize, for that was truly not my intention. As I said, I wanted to address your ideas with the care and respect they deserved.
Multiple opponents: if someone, who is serious about his martial arts ability, knows how to defend against people attacking one by one with one strike thinks they can handle two or three opponents, they are in for a big surprise... BTW, did you know that Agrippa teaches how to handle skirmishes of four people? Look at the pictures...
I’m not arguing that if you can do one, you can do the other. When I teach self-defense and personal protection through my original system’s school, I spend significant time on evasion, defense, human shielding, psychological tactics, force multipliers, etc. when more than one attacker is involved. I’m quite aware of the differences in the two. I’m arguing that there is a reference to multiple opponents in the text, which there is. Nothing more. Even if Fiore says “ride away in fear of his friends,” as I believe you stated elsewhere, that’s a reference to it (and incidentally the best such advice of all). Mr. Clements mentions it in passing, and it is there. This is also not an attempt to hold you to a higher standard, by the way, but to clarify what I saw as Mr. Clements’ intentions in his comment.
Latin: you're absolutely right about the Latin on 6a, thanks for pointing that out. I'll have to do a closer look at the Latin on PD, there might be even more.
I’ve been looking myself. If I find any further references, I’ll post them.
Segno: I was asking for the reference to the segno in the use as a wall/floor diagram in the 15th century out of pure interest. Forum discussion, you know? I didn't mean it as an error in the text. You know what? If I could I would now change the first line of that post, since I couldn't resist leaving my post only to the factual errors. I probably should have, but it's late now. Do you have this reference?
Forum discussion, yes. But I can only respond to what you actually said. Am I supposed to guess that since it’s only a forum post, you probably meant something other than erroneous? Especially given the original post about non-interpretive errors, my response was logical. And no, I don’t have the reference, though if I find it, I will post it.
Same goes for much of the later points. Let's discuss interpretation. Or let's discuss the factual errors. I think it is quite obvious to any reader that not all my points were 'errors', but rather something I have an issue with.
As I mentioned twice in my original post, it is
not obvious to any reader. It was not obvious to me until I pulled out all three texts—your post, the essay, and the manual—and read them in tandem. A casual reader just sees the post and says, “wow, that’s a lot of mistakes.” So discussing which of the points that you labeled erroneous aren’t errors is extremely valuable to this discussion, which includes casual readers.
The actual errors are points:
1, 4, 8, 10, 14, 16 and 17
which are of such basic level that they gave me the impression that the original article is rather cut&paste than analysis of the primary sources.
All right, that’s good. There are seven factual errors you’re concerned about. I’m not saying that you haven’t found or wouldn’t find others, but again, I can only respond to the post in question. And I will examine these more closely—again, when I have more time. This kind of material takes a greater level of research, and deserves a closer analysis.
Oh, and what is versetzen and what is a volarica? Can you tell me? Did the article explain?
The article says “Though Fiore does not appear to specifically indicate they are used
to simultaneously defend and offend in one motion as with the German Versetzen displacements or the volarica(“jewel of the art”) as later described by master Vadi, they can indeed be interpreted and applied this way. [emphasis mine.] So these concepts refer to a movement that both blocks and strikes simultaneously with different parts of the blade.
I. Hartikainen wrote:Stacy Clifford wrote:As for Jason's response, he could only refute what you actually said, not what you thought you meant before you corrected yourself, and he clearly stated the limitations of his response, so I see no sense in saying that he really didn't contribute anything. He forced you to clarify your meaning and intentions in order to make your point, which makes this discussion more useful, and therefore contributed to the overall process of discovery. That's what we encourage here. I for one would like to see this discussion continue in public rather than go private because it is the kind that gets more people to take their own look at the manuals to see what you're talking about, and regardless of affiliation we all want that.
Indeed. He could've done that with less words though.
I realize you’re not making a serious criticism—but I would like to say that if it was too long, it was just me trying to cover all my bases and assure any reader that my comments were not an attack on you or your group affiliations.
Apart from the carta 6a of the PD (thanks for that, hadn't noticed it before, and feel embarrassed) your post did not really add much information to the discussion
If someone wishes to discuss points of interpretation, or even more, acknowledge or correct the points which I state erroneous, great! But whether you agree or disagree with the organization and contents of my list, that's private messaging material - it's not useful for others.
Ilkka, I must admit I am rather disappointed by these comments. I spent significant time and energy to give your ideas a fair shake, and I assumed that you had an intelligent, professional, and educated basis from which you made them. The least you can do is afford me the same courtesy. I freely admitted that I came into this discussion without significant background in Fiore, but as someone with other skills and experience to offer. The fact that you are trying to discount and minimize my contribution to this discussion is upsetting and frankly insulting.
Again, I can only respond to what you seemed to be claiming in your post: “these are errors, and John Clements doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” If that’s not what you wanted to say, I’m okay with that; accept that there was a miscommunication and we can move on, don’t try to claim that my entire approach was useless.
You’ve pointed out the things you feel are factual errors, so now any discussion that goes forward can focus on those elements. Real discourse isn’t about just adding data, if that’s what you mean by information, but about deciding what is important to talk about and what belongs in what category. That is what I did, along with trying to make clear to other readers (again, many of whom will
not be doing their own fact-checking) what the discussion is about. In particular, I felt the need to respond for the record to the comment that John Clements had not read Fiore. Maybe you didn’t mean that literally, but other readers don’t know that, whatever you may think. Therefore, I believe my response is eminently “useful for others.” Others on this board, in fact, have already commented on how useful they felt it was.
And for everybody, I am not asking or expecting anyone to read my list and comment on it, I only posted something because I am a man of my words, and others requested me to stand up for my comments.
You didn’t request it, but others did, and, as I said, they implied that the lack of a response meant that there wasn’t one. I am not saying that
you implied anything of the sort, only that someone else did, which a quick glance over the thread will show to be true. You responded to keen requests for comments, I responded to keen requests for a response. And even if you don’t care what I have to say, I
will read your remaining factual comments for my own edification. Which is what this is all about.
Respectfully,
Jason
I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it.--The Day the Earth Stood Still
