Swetnam’s Postulate
(9/28/2009)
Image from Swetnam
“…yet regard chiefly the words rather than the Picture.” ~ Joseph Swetnam
First, a postulate is to maintain or assert that something is self-evident. It is part of the fundamental element or basic principle of a logical argument.
Second, a primary source is an original text (like a fencing manual) or an object (like a sword). We will use a primary source to draw conclusions about a topic. A fencer might study the book of Salvator Fabris to understand Italian rapier. Darkwood Armory might study a rapier from the original time period to understand how to create a training weapon for fencers today.
In our case, a primary source is important in identifying the origin of the information we want to interpret. Primary sources are given greater value than secondary sources. A secondary source is information or discussion of the primary source that is not originated from the primary source. For example, you could argue that our recreation of Destreza based on an English translation is a tertiary source because it is based on a secondary source (the English translation).
This becomes tricky in a fencing manual when we consider the images. For example, Ridolfo Capoferro’s work has been subjected to some intense scrutiny in this regard and I have been involved in some heated discussions about the position of the feet, the nature of offline steps, and the gaining of the weapon. While the plates in the text are very important we need to remember Joseph Swetnam’s advice.
“…yet regard chiefly the words rather than the Picture.”
I call this Swetnam’s Postulate. Unless the fencing master himself is listed as the artist, the images are not a primary source of information but rather a secondary source.
Interpreting a Text
When interpreting a fencing text, I use a hierarchy of sources in which item 1 is given the highest priority and item 7 the lowest.
- The text in the original language is a primary source.
- Swetnam’s Postulate - Unless we can prove the master created the images, the artwork is a secondary source.
- The translated text is a secondary source.
- Masters in the same tradition, weapon, and time period can provide insight to technique.
- Masters in the same tradition, weapon, and a different time period, can also provide insight.
- Masters in the same tradition with similar weapons (for example classical Italian fencing) can provide insight.
- My own experience or experimentation.
For example… If Capoferro indicates that I should travel directly forward on the line of direction, I should obey the text even when it contradicts (or seems to contradict) the images rather than reinterpret the author’s instructions based on my understanding of pictures created by an artist. If other sources within the tradition also seem to confirm Capoferro’s text, rather than a picture that could arguably be on the line or off it, this provides us additional incentive to trust the author’s voice.
Likewise, as an interpreter, I need to be aware of my fencing biases and try to avoid item 7 as much as possible. When I change ‘canonical‘ technique or add technique of my own this needs to be clearly stated in my interpretation. (In this sense, I use the term ‘canonical‘ to indicate a deviation from the original text or texts.)
For example, at WMAW 2009 I applied principles from Ettenhard’s book in order to create new techniques appropriate for left-handed fencers. When I demonstrated these variations to the class, I made certain to explain that these were my variations and not Ettenhard’s original work.
By expressing some dissatisfaction with the images in his book and asking the reader to give his words precedence over the plates, Swetnam reminds us that the author’s voice is the first and primary source of information an interpreter should consider.
Somewhere in there there might be room for informed practitioners of the same period but from a different tradition facing informed practitioners from the tradition, with the weapon, and of the time period one is interested in understanding. I’m thinking here in particular of Italians writing about Spaniards, and vice versa, though related to this would be Spanish diestros writing about techniques from la destreza comun/vulgar (however, since none of those writings survive today, or if they do, they’re hidden, that last example is a bit beyond the scope of the immediate discussion). Now, there might be some distortions (à la vii), and this may not be a first-order concern (i.e., we can defer looking at those sources, if they exist, to see what light they might shed), but I thought I’d toss it out there, esp. where it seems to corroborate what one has already concluded using something like the methodology above. In other words, there might be room for expanding the synchronic comparisons a bit; I might even want to give this one at least as much weight as the diachronic comparisons.
By Charles Blair on September 28, 2009 7:35 pm
Absolutely the pictures cannot be used as primary documentation. A clear example is the plates in Agrippa showing fencing in the nude.
But it also helps to know how far removed the plates are from the master. I’ve been told by a local woodcut artist that no plates were produced in England during the sixteenth century, and they were sending the work to the continent to be done. This means that the woodcuts in any English book were not only not done by the fencing master, but he was not in the same country to be consulted when they were being cut.
Italian and German plates are more likely to be accurate, because the artist is much likelier to have direct feedback from the author during the work.
I have a cloak I had made based on the woodcuts in the English translation of di Grassi. Once I saw the ones in the original Italian, I abandoned what I now call my “bad research cloak”
By Jay Rudin on September 28, 2009 9:16 pm
In response to Charles Blair:
Saviolo is moderately good at describing a few moves of the other masters, by way of contrasting it with his own. For instance, when he tells you to point the dagger at your opponent, not straight up and down “as some other masters teach”, he is documenting other styles than his own.
Since this is one London teacher describing other London teachers, he probably has a fairly good idea about it.
By Jay Rudin on September 28, 2009 9:20 pm
Hola Charles,
That is an excellent point and I think there would be some value for other researchers to read what Pacheco says about specific authors like Fabris, Marozzo and more. I have often used quotes from George Silver when presenting on the Spanish tradition and while we should treat these as a possibly hostile secondary source, it is still interesting information.
To be fair, I’m not certain that a numbered list is a complete representation of my interpretive process either. It might more correctly be a weighted list. That being said, we can apply the same principles from other fields to interpretation of sword texts.
Is the interpretive process transparent?
Does the interpreter present verifiable information?
Does the interpreter correctly identify assumptions, possible bias, and conflicts of interest.
Does the interpretation make martial sense?
Hopefully, by presenting information publicly we fulfill those commitments and improve the interpretation.
By puck on September 28, 2009 10:39 pm
Hola Jay,
I don’t want to imply that we should ignore the plates and anything goes, but in a conflict between the plates and the author’s voice, we should defer to the author. As you indicate in your example of Giacomo di Grassi, the original images from the Italian should trump the 2-D cartoon plates from the English version. (And the original Italian text trumps both.)
Of course, the English were actually 2-D people until the mid-1600s with people eventually occupying 3-D space as the Renaissance developed.
~P.
By puck on September 28, 2009 10:46 pm
I am pleased that you posted such a clear and concise article on the subject of illustrations, Puck. I have long argued that an artist’s interpretation is rarely just as the author intended. Moreover, how many artists were fencers? Titan is about the only one of whom I’m aware. I’d put more faith in the Elizabethan playwrights than in an artist.
By Orlando on September 29, 2009 2:15 am
Well, the problem with Capoferro is not just that his plates don’t always match the text, but that the text doesn’t always match the text. In this case, we have the additional problem of determining which text takes precedence. Of course, this isn’t unique to Capoferro–he’s just one of the biggest offenders.
In the case of Capoferro, for the most part, his plates don’t really disagree with the accompanying text. However, they might differ from the text in another section of the treatise: for example, his admonition against feints in his theory contrasted by his heavy use of them in his actions, or his statement that he only holds one guard to be good and then his free use of other guards in his actions. Thus, the heated discussions as interpreters attempt to reason these contradictions in the text.
However, your point is absolutely true regarding the text trumping the images. A clear example of this is in Giganti. As I’m sure everyone who is familiar with his treatise has notice, the figures show a guard with a very wide stance. Yet Giganti clearly says: “…in un passo giusto, & più presto ristretto che longo…” (tr: “…in a moderate step, more narrow than wide…”)
Steve
By Steven Reich on September 29, 2009 2:19 pm
Hola,
I’m glad you liked the article Orlando.
All good points Steve and after spending time with Capoferro, it is terribly refreshing to read the Fabris translation which isn’t just clear but provides nuance as well.
~P.
By puck on September 29, 2009 5:37 pm
I very much enjoyed you post on this subject. It’s an excellent reminder of the limitations of the images in manuals and the need to sometimes take them with a grain of salt.
By Alison Kannon on September 30, 2009 2:03 pm
Hola Puck,
I have become frustrated and somewhat put off by trying to decode period manuals. I believe that there is way too much left unsaid when many of the language were not standardized, and we are left to go by pictures. Could you imagine futuristic SCAdians trying to replicate football from view extant copies of sports illustrated? I feel that many of the practitioners I know are deceiving themselves by claiming to have gained a complete understanding of a manual in a foreign langauge and devoid of cultural context, I can not make such a claim. My hat is off to you and your wonderful Lady for your scholastic efforts!
I will continue to fight in what I refer to as a SCAdian manner and apply what I believe to be universal truths revealed by a number of sources. Once there has been a complete reviewed work, I will attempt to adopt a specific style. But I refuse to cite manuals as if I can read them like a Harry Potter series.
In service to the dream,
L
By Paul Wolf /Leon Jeronimo Suarez on September 30, 2009 6:11 pm
Hola Paul(Leon),
I completely understand this frustration. Reading the texts and producing a system that works in competitive freeplay is a significant challenge made more complicated by the small size of the community researching the same material.
Bootstrapping a martial tradition from a 400-year-old text is like giving birth. It’s painful, you don’t look great while you are doing it, and at first your baby looks like a lizard covered in strange goo.
Thankfully, we live in a new Renaissance of western martial arts and some traditions (Italian rapier, Italian longsword, German longsword) seem to have achieved very similar interpretations even while working separately. This interpretive convergence that makes the Italian rapier guys all look alike seems to indicate that the traditions are slowly being realized again. It may not be much comfort because people teaching an effective version of the system are not easily accessible, but I think it is happening.
Imagine for a moment that in our lifetime all the currently known books on western martial arts may actually be translated into English. Even within the last month, I have heard of four different English translations that have been released. (Giganti, Agrippa, Didier, and Ettenhard) Someday all of the works will be readily available and martial artists will continue to work together to bring the traditions back into full flower. It’s a wonderful, exciting, and sometimes difficult time to live, but it’s also very rewarding.
~P.
By puck on September 30, 2009 8:39 pm
A few comments:
First, I am not sure I agree with Swetnam’s Postulate. That is specific to a particular work. I can think of other fencing treatises where the opposite is likely to be the case: For example, the works of Hans Talhoffer, where the text is extremely limited, cryptic, and functions as a sort of mnemonic, and the vast majority of the information is codified in the pictures themselves.
Also, the fact of the matter is that fencing instructors do not always describe their own actions accurately, and may not even be completely aware of what they are doing. I have seen some fairly high-level instructors in various arts explaining technique, but leaving out any mention of some significant (but subtle) technical detail that makes a lot of difference in terms of successful execution. Considering that the artists who did the illustration in most of these works were skilled professionals, who made a living from accurate observation and rendering of reality into illustration, there is the very real possibility (and liklihood in many cases) that the illustration contains more accurate information than the text.
Second, I think the list of interpretive preferences needs to include other traditions (same period) using similar weapons, other traditions (later period) using similar weapons, and eventually same or other traditions using different weapons, but facing the same or similar tactical or technical problem. Case in point: The description of the use of the Atajo to defeat an incoming cut (by “helping it to fall”; by using the assistance of gravity; and the advantage gained by being on top of the opposing blade) is very useful in understanding techniques as different as the overbinds in I.33 and the “rompere di punta” in Fiore dei Liberi’s Flos Duellatorum. Greg Mele gave an excellent lecture on a “concentric circle” method of interpretation, which meshes your ideas and the ones I’ve expressed just above.
By Matt Galas on December 24, 2009 6:00 pm
Thinking about this, what you are really talking about is how to resolve conflicts between the images and the text. Lawyers (and I are one) have an interpretive principle for dealing with conflicts in contracts and statutes. The general rule is that you attempt to interpret conflicting clauses in a way that reconciles them as much as possible before simply saying that one or the other is wrong or unintended. I would suggest the same principle in our field of endeavor.
By Matt Galas on December 24, 2009 6:19 pm
It’s nice to see we aren’t marching in lock-step together since it will keep me honest.
I’m afraid that some of my writing is polemic in nature and I hope it fairly addresses problems I see with interpretation and fencing theory. While it isn’t my goal to be adversarial, I do want to challenge some of the preconceived notions and address what I see as problems.
In particular, Swetnam’s Postulate is a razor directed at created material that contradicts or ignores the text. I have spoken with several teachers that create a “platypus” in their work by adding new theory and jargon based on images while disregarding the text. In the best cases, the platypus interpretation quietly fades when more accurate information is presented. In the worst cases, the platypus becomes a 6-ton monster stomping through the community with a will of its own.
It isn’t that I disagree with you or Greg on process so much as I’m saying, “Don’t make up stuff based solely on the pictures that conflicts with the written text.” If the author’s written meaning is clear and it contradicts the image, trust the text first. If you must add theory be clear about what has been added.
Certainly, if the entire manual is written as a cryptic poem, we need more information and we have to look to other works.
For example:
“Weak and Strong,
Indes - that word always remember.”
~Tobler’s Liechtenauer Translation
There we need to look further than the poem to find the meaning. I’m not certain we disagree so much if at all.
~P.
By puck on December 25, 2009 9:38 am