Phil,
Sharp Phil said:
The book is Methods and Practice of Elizabethan Swordplay, by Craig Turner and Tony Soper. It's not explicitly a guide to sword theatrics; rather, it's an analysis of Di Grassi, Saviolo, and Silver, that is "a scholarly work that also serves as a suggestive guide to theatrical staging" (or so says Joseph Papp in the foreward).
Yep, I have that one too. It's useful on some level, but it's also very problematic, as Amberger originally noted in his old
Hammerterz Forum newsletter, and later in his awesome
Secret History of the Sword.
I must apologize, though; I wrote "Amberger" before when I was thinking of Richard Cohen -- specifically, By the Sword: A History of Gladiators, Musketeers, Samurai, Swashbucklers, and Olympic Champions.
Oh, OK--gotcha.
I mentioned Lane's book because he made the following laughable assertion:
"Like other modern sports, fencing is all about rules and competition, winning and losing. It bears no close relationship to human combat--real or staged--than the superficial resemblance its foils, epees, and sabers have to historical weapons. Although modern fencing derives much of its form and terminology from the teachings of the early "masters of fence", only stage combat remains completely faithful to the letter and spirit of those sources--recreating both the inner world and outward reality of our sword-bearing ancestors."
Lane is wrong about so many things above. He ignores modern fencing's obvious origins in the 18th century
escrime with the smallsword (this is where the modern foil and epee come from), and the fact that the epee is in fact close in weight and size to that older weapon (hence, there is more than a mere "superficial resemblance" there, regarding both the weapons themselves and the technique used). He also seems unaware (or perhaps is unwilling to admit) that a combat sport like fencing retains genuine combative application (unlike stage "fighters"--who rely on choreographed moves--fencers at least engage in a form of free-play). Finally, trying to compare stage combat to actual historical sword usage is just a complete joke.
(BTW, I'm not trying to get into a "combat sport vs. martial art" debate with anything above--I'm simply pointing out the obvious absurdity in Lane's statements).
The book is, as I said, a little impenetrable at times -- by which I mean there are times when I feel like I don't understand quite what Cohen is talking about, or that I'm missing the full context of what he's saying, as if the book was written for members of some secret club to which I haven't yet secured membership. It's still worth reading, though.
I agree with your general assessment regarding the "imprenetrable" deal here. Cohen's book is interesting, but it also contains some questionable material. The very first edition actually contained a completely false account of the English Sword vs. Italian Rapier fight of Cheese and Jeronimo ("false", at least, in that it was clearly
not drawn from George Silver's
Paradoxes, which is our only source for that particular engagement). I mentioned this on several websites (MMA.tv, Swordforum, etc), and curiously enough, the current edition gives a more accurate account of the Cheese-Jeronimo fight.
Some stuff in Cohen's book is really intriguing though, like his story about how the Italian light duelling saber and its corresponding method of use was supposedly influenced by Cossack saber methods--I just wish that Cohen had provided sources for that claim. Considering the other problems with accuracy in his work, I fear that all his stuff must remain suspect, until proven otherwise.
It is interesting, though.
Peace,
S e P
