The thing that makes HEMA distinct amongst all of the martial arts is the unique nature of our reliance upon historical treatises. It is from these that we can claim historical validity, to these that we look for guidance, and with these that we must be consistent. It is not too much to say that without the historical documentation there is no HEMA.
So it would stand to reason that one thing every serious HEMA student eventually wants to do is to dive into a treatise and try to interpret it. This could be because they want to research something very new (or at least new to them), to deepen their understanding of a weapon well known to them, or perhaps just for the sake of doing it to help their overall understanding of the art.
The only problem is, diving into these documents isn't terribly easy -- and this is, of course, assuming that we're just talking about interpreting an easily available translation, not working through an original in the native language. That makes it something entirely different.
So today's blog entry is going to be some tips regarding how you can approach the process of interpreting the treatises and manuals upon which we rely. It can be very daunting to begin this, so hopefully, these tips will make it a little easier for someone to get it started.
A few things to point out beforehand: First, as I alluded to above, these tips will be in regard to approaching a translation into modern English and not the original language. My modern German isn't the best and my 15th-century Swabian non-existant, so I have no guidance for someone wanting to go all the way back to the original source; all I can help with is once you've found something on Wiktenauer that you'd like to analyze.
Second, these tips are all about approaching the treatises as historical documents, and not in any way about interpreting the documentation itself. I'm talking about making sense of what can appear to be a jumbled mass of information, not telling you what the Nurenburg Hausbuch, nor Leckuchner, nor Capoferro mean to say.
Third, this is entirely my own system. It has worked well for me and it is the approach I use, but that's just me. Maybe it won't fit your style. No problem. If you have something different that works well for you, awesome. But, if you don't and you've never tried to do this before, and are feeling a little overwhelmed, maybe these tips will help you get started.
Although this might seem fairly obvious at first, I think what entirely too many folks do is dive in and start trying to interpret the very first play. Then, after a while, they move on to the next, then perhaps the third, and before long they are very confused and overwhelmed. The treatise has suddenly turned into a jumble of disconnected techniques that seem to have no bearing on reality nor to each other.
This strikes me as a little bit like leaving on an epic journey with no clue of where you're going, in what direction you're headed, or what conditions you'll be experiencing. If you're going to analyze a treatise it stands to reason that you'd want to familiarize yourself with it first, so find a comfy chair and settle in for a nice long read.
Read it cover to cover just as you would any other book. Become acquainted with the content, but also the structure of the book and potentially even the mind of the writer. As you do, jot down notes of anything you think relevant -- not about the techniques yet, because you're not to that point, but rather the way the document is put together. This will serve you well in the next step.
Reading the entirety of a treatise allows you to begin understanding the internal logic of the piece. Because you're able to view the thing as a continuous whole rather than in small chunks at a time, you can begin figuring out the mind of the writer -- in other words how and why it was constructed in the way it was.
Here's the tricky thing about the internal logic of a written document, especially one that might be several hundred years old by this point: while there is a definite logic to it, it most likely isn't your logic. Because of this, the temptation is to assume the treatise is nothing but a trainwreck of unrelated techniques, stitched together on a whim, and perhaps little more than a collection of trick moves that acted as advertising for the master.
But given human nature, there will always be some kind of internal logic. We want to organize things because that helps us develop a sense of control over our world; this is especially true when we're trying to teach something. The problem is, however, that what seems perfectly reasonable and logical in one culture or time might seem absurd in another. Yet despite that, woven into the very fabric of the piece you're trying to analyze, is some kind of internal logic.
Reading the entire piece first will help you find that logic, and finding it can help you understand how the various moves discussed are in fact related. This can help you begin to synthesize the techniques into a systematic whole.
One way that people have always communicated with each other is through explicitly or tacitly agreed upon conventions. It is just basically a convenient shortcut in exchanging knowledge when everyone knows that certain things are accepted as stipulations.
An example of this in the modern era would be instructions showing how to put together furniture that has an "exploded" illustration of the piece, or a picture showing the inside of a ship, building, plane, etc., that makes it appear there's a gaping hole in it. These are conventions to which we're all accustomed, so much so that we've never thought about a time we weren't. Everyone knows the desk is not blowing up, nor is there actually a giant hole in the castle everyone is ignoring. It's a convention.
However, much like the internal logic, these conventions are very much based upon a specific time, place, and/or culture. To someone outside of the loop, the convention is unknown, and much of the information is lost.
Just as we have our own modern illustrative conventions so too did the medieval and Renaissance artists to which we look for guidance. As you read the piece and work out the internal logic, see if there is some kind of convention in the illustrations (such as the fighter on the left always initiates the move, or is the victor, or that the illustrations always show the technique midway through) that can help you piece together what's going on.
Breaking it down is the unintentional step one I mentioned earlier. This is the classic process of reading the text, checking the art (assuming there is some; looking at you, Jeu de l'Hache!), and by doing so developing an understanding of the constituent parts.
I'm not going to go into much detail for this part because, after all, this is the obvious set of interpreting a treatise. However, I will say this: Go slowly, think carefully, and write out as many notes as you need to. It's very possible your initial interpretation is wrong, but you likely won't get that if you work through a technique and move on. So just take your time and really think about what you're doing.
As you go through the process of breaking down the techniques to better understand them individually, search out the overarching principles that bind them all together as a cohesive whole. It must always be remembered that every martial arts system is just that, a system, and not a jumble of loosely connected techniques. If it were there would be no cohesion. It would be more like someone thinking off the cuff saying "In this case, you could do this, or maybe you could do this, or even that" rather than an actual system.
Finding these principles will also help inform you about how best to interpret techniques generally, but especially things that might be hard to figure out. The principles will provide a nice paradigm from which to understand each new technique you encounter as well as those that might seem a little tricky. As long as you keep the principles in mind, the interpretation of the techniques tends to follow naturally.
After having broken down everything to understand the constituent parts, now build everything back to understand the document as a whole. In other words, first, you analyze and then synthesize. It's only by breaking down something into its individual parts that you can then conceptualize the entire system.
Now that you've gone through this time consuming and laborious process, understand one very important thing: You very well could be wrong. Anytime people interpret anything, regardless of how careful or well-intentioned, there is always a chance they made a mistake.
So the final step in interpreting your treatise is to test and check, and then test and check again. In fact, this last step never really ends at all. We always have to be ready to explain the logic of our interpretation and the historical validity of it. At the same time, we also have to be prepared to demonstrate the functionality of our interpretation in a real-life setting against an unwilling partner, as well as to consider alternatives if the way we saw things seems wrong. That's the nature of HEMA.
Of course, we need to never conflate "wrong" with "different," so long as either option is historically valid and consistent with the source material. Different ways of interpreting the same technique, all of which are equally valid, is also the nature of HEMA. This is why we need to check our work against other's interpretations, be willing to consider another's way of looking at things, but also to accept there may be different ways of working out the same issue.
Listen, if you're not having fun doing this, then why are you? You will likely never garner either fame or fortune for your interpretation. If you're making yourself miserable by trying to work through a treatise then perhaps you should stop; there are enough things to make you miserable, your hobby shouldn't be one of them.
But once you've done your work, have fun demonstrating your new skill set! If it's giving informal classes to club mates, teaching seminars at different places, maybe just sparring just for fun, enjoy yourself! That is, ultimately, the whole reason we do this thing called HEMA.
OK, folks, I hope you've found this useful, and I hope you can apply it to your own interpretations!
Stay loose and train hard.
-- Scott
So it would stand to reason that one thing every serious HEMA student eventually wants to do is to dive into a treatise and try to interpret it. This could be because they want to research something very new (or at least new to them), to deepen their understanding of a weapon well known to them, or perhaps just for the sake of doing it to help their overall understanding of the art.
The only problem is, diving into these documents isn't terribly easy -- and this is, of course, assuming that we're just talking about interpreting an easily available translation, not working through an original in the native language. That makes it something entirely different.
So today's blog entry is going to be some tips regarding how you can approach the process of interpreting the treatises and manuals upon which we rely. It can be very daunting to begin this, so hopefully, these tips will make it a little easier for someone to get it started.
A few things to point out beforehand: First, as I alluded to above, these tips will be in regard to approaching a translation into modern English and not the original language. My modern German isn't the best and my 15th-century Swabian non-existant, so I have no guidance for someone wanting to go all the way back to the original source; all I can help with is once you've found something on Wiktenauer that you'd like to analyze.
Second, these tips are all about approaching the treatises as historical documents, and not in any way about interpreting the documentation itself. I'm talking about making sense of what can appear to be a jumbled mass of information, not telling you what the Nurenburg Hausbuch, nor Leckuchner, nor Capoferro mean to say.
Third, this is entirely my own system. It has worked well for me and it is the approach I use, but that's just me. Maybe it won't fit your style. No problem. If you have something different that works well for you, awesome. But, if you don't and you've never tried to do this before, and are feeling a little overwhelmed, maybe these tips will help you get started.
Read the Entire Thing
Although this might seem fairly obvious at first, I think what entirely too many folks do is dive in and start trying to interpret the very first play. Then, after a while, they move on to the next, then perhaps the third, and before long they are very confused and overwhelmed. The treatise has suddenly turned into a jumble of disconnected techniques that seem to have no bearing on reality nor to each other.
This strikes me as a little bit like leaving on an epic journey with no clue of where you're going, in what direction you're headed, or what conditions you'll be experiencing. If you're going to analyze a treatise it stands to reason that you'd want to familiarize yourself with it first, so find a comfy chair and settle in for a nice long read.
Read it cover to cover just as you would any other book. Become acquainted with the content, but also the structure of the book and potentially even the mind of the writer. As you do, jot down notes of anything you think relevant -- not about the techniques yet, because you're not to that point, but rather the way the document is put together. This will serve you well in the next step.
Figure out the Internal Logic
Reading the entirety of a treatise allows you to begin understanding the internal logic of the piece. Because you're able to view the thing as a continuous whole rather than in small chunks at a time, you can begin figuring out the mind of the writer -- in other words how and why it was constructed in the way it was.
Here's the tricky thing about the internal logic of a written document, especially one that might be several hundred years old by this point: while there is a definite logic to it, it most likely isn't your logic. Because of this, the temptation is to assume the treatise is nothing but a trainwreck of unrelated techniques, stitched together on a whim, and perhaps little more than a collection of trick moves that acted as advertising for the master.
But given human nature, there will always be some kind of internal logic. We want to organize things because that helps us develop a sense of control over our world; this is especially true when we're trying to teach something. The problem is, however, that what seems perfectly reasonable and logical in one culture or time might seem absurd in another. Yet despite that, woven into the very fabric of the piece you're trying to analyze, is some kind of internal logic.
Reading the entire piece first will help you find that logic, and finding it can help you understand how the various moves discussed are in fact related. This can help you begin to synthesize the techniques into a systematic whole.
Look for Illustrative Conventions
One way that people have always communicated with each other is through explicitly or tacitly agreed upon conventions. It is just basically a convenient shortcut in exchanging knowledge when everyone knows that certain things are accepted as stipulations.
An example of this in the modern era would be instructions showing how to put together furniture that has an "exploded" illustration of the piece, or a picture showing the inside of a ship, building, plane, etc., that makes it appear there's a gaping hole in it. These are conventions to which we're all accustomed, so much so that we've never thought about a time we weren't. Everyone knows the desk is not blowing up, nor is there actually a giant hole in the castle everyone is ignoring. It's a convention.
However, much like the internal logic, these conventions are very much based upon a specific time, place, and/or culture. To someone outside of the loop, the convention is unknown, and much of the information is lost.
Just as we have our own modern illustrative conventions so too did the medieval and Renaissance artists to which we look for guidance. As you read the piece and work out the internal logic, see if there is some kind of convention in the illustrations (such as the fighter on the left always initiates the move, or is the victor, or that the illustrations always show the technique midway through) that can help you piece together what's going on.
Break it Down
Breaking it down is the unintentional step one I mentioned earlier. This is the classic process of reading the text, checking the art (assuming there is some; looking at you, Jeu de l'Hache!), and by doing so developing an understanding of the constituent parts.
I'm not going to go into much detail for this part because, after all, this is the obvious set of interpreting a treatise. However, I will say this: Go slowly, think carefully, and write out as many notes as you need to. It's very possible your initial interpretation is wrong, but you likely won't get that if you work through a technique and move on. So just take your time and really think about what you're doing.
Find the Overarching Principles
As you go through the process of breaking down the techniques to better understand them individually, search out the overarching principles that bind them all together as a cohesive whole. It must always be remembered that every martial arts system is just that, a system, and not a jumble of loosely connected techniques. If it were there would be no cohesion. It would be more like someone thinking off the cuff saying "In this case, you could do this, or maybe you could do this, or even that" rather than an actual system.
Finding these principles will also help inform you about how best to interpret techniques generally, but especially things that might be hard to figure out. The principles will provide a nice paradigm from which to understand each new technique you encounter as well as those that might seem a little tricky. As long as you keep the principles in mind, the interpretation of the techniques tends to follow naturally.
Build it Up Again
After having broken down everything to understand the constituent parts, now build everything back to understand the document as a whole. In other words, first, you analyze and then synthesize. It's only by breaking down something into its individual parts that you can then conceptualize the entire system.
Test and Check
Now that you've gone through this time consuming and laborious process, understand one very important thing: You very well could be wrong. Anytime people interpret anything, regardless of how careful or well-intentioned, there is always a chance they made a mistake.
So the final step in interpreting your treatise is to test and check, and then test and check again. In fact, this last step never really ends at all. We always have to be ready to explain the logic of our interpretation and the historical validity of it. At the same time, we also have to be prepared to demonstrate the functionality of our interpretation in a real-life setting against an unwilling partner, as well as to consider alternatives if the way we saw things seems wrong. That's the nature of HEMA.
Of course, we need to never conflate "wrong" with "different," so long as either option is historically valid and consistent with the source material. Different ways of interpreting the same technique, all of which are equally valid, is also the nature of HEMA. This is why we need to check our work against other's interpretations, be willing to consider another's way of looking at things, but also to accept there may be different ways of working out the same issue.
Have Fun!
Listen, if you're not having fun doing this, then why are you? You will likely never garner either fame or fortune for your interpretation. If you're making yourself miserable by trying to work through a treatise then perhaps you should stop; there are enough things to make you miserable, your hobby shouldn't be one of them.
But once you've done your work, have fun demonstrating your new skill set! If it's giving informal classes to club mates, teaching seminars at different places, maybe just sparring just for fun, enjoy yourself! That is, ultimately, the whole reason we do this thing called HEMA.
⚔
OK, folks, I hope you've found this useful, and I hope you can apply it to your own interpretations!
Stay loose and train hard.
-- Scott
Comments
Post a Comment