by

Adam Adrian Crown, Maitre d'Armes

Adam Adrian Crown bio

Well, sometimes, perhaps you can.

My first sense of foreboding regarding Renaissance Swordsmanship by Mr. John Clements came when I perused the publisher's catalogue. Paladin Press apparently specializes in such volumes of literary integrity and scholarly merit as Whispering Death: Secrets of Improvised and State-of the-Art-Silencers and Homemade Grenade Launchers and a variety of other titles certain to appeal to the paranoid, the gun fetishist, the "survivalist," the criminally inclined and the militiaman looking forward to a race war. I wondered why a book on the noble science should be relegated to the domain of such fringe dwellers. I was soon to find out.

My next warning was the pompous hyperbole on the back cover which proclaims the book to be "the most thorough work on historical European swordsmanship ever undertaken." Really? To elaborate in detail the principles of the Spanish School and the Italian School (either of which took good and practical men fairly a life-time to master)? And to eclipse Thimm and Castle and Stone and Gaugler and Hutton and Burton and Evangelista and Norman combined? And to accomplish such a Herculean task in a mere 138 pages, too. Impressive, if true.

If.

When I read the author's biography, I was struck by his apparent modesty. Most authors do not hesitate to list their degrees, diplomas and other honors. But Mr. Clements only mentions that he has studied fencing for 14 years (having started at the age of 14), has won a kung-fu contest (he doesn't say how many other competitors were in it), and has taught a course at a community college (indeed, who hasn't?). He does not mention with whom he studied fencing or for how long, or any fencing tournaments he participated in successfully, nor any degrees, or diplomas or even martial arts ranks that might suggest he had some familiarity with the subject.

I should point out that it isn't impossible for a gifted amateur to have something worthwhile to say on a subject. George Silver, after all, made no claim to being a master of fence, and yet offered some solid observations, though not his alone. Still, if you were about to have heart surgery, and knew nothing else about your surgeon, would you prefer to have it done by someone self-taught, or by someone who had attended medical school and was board certified to perform the procedure?

Diplomas do not, unfortunately, always guarantee expertise. And, as the quip goes, the race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong. But that most certainly is the way to bet.

Finally, I took a quick look at Mr. Clements' bibliography. His primary sources include most if not all the standard references on the subject along with one or two of dubious value. Likewise, his secondary sources. He then lists "Major Works of the European Swordmasters" and blesses those he believes are "more significant" with an asterisk.

He gives the nod (or asterisk) to Marozzo but not to Agrippa, arguably the first real rapier-man. Neither does he believe that the work of Carranza is very important - though Carranza is the "father" of the Spanish School. For some reason, Mr. Clements thinks Carranza was Portuguese. Actually, I believe the gentleman was from Seville. No doubt Mr. Clements is confused because one of Carranza's books, published in 1582, was published in Lisbon. Of course, by that time Phillip had added Portugal to the Spanish Empire (1580). Carranza's earlier work La filosofia... was published in San Lucar in 1569.

Naturally, Mr. Clements would have known all this if he'd done any - let alone exhaustive - research. It took one of my students about five minutes to look it up in our library. I must conclude Mr. Clements is much too easily exhausted.

Mr. Clements doesn't much value Swetnam, in his time the personal instructor to royalty, nor Le Perche, La Touche, L'Abbat, nor indeed ANY of the late rapier (smallsword) teachers. Besnard doesn't get a mention. Not even Angelo, a solid teacher, whose book is not only quite good, but quite beautiful as well, gets an accolade from Mr. Clements.

In all, only Lebkommer, Marozzo, di Grassi, Meyer (who more or less copied the Italian School), St. Didier, Viggiani, Saviolo, Fabris and Capo Ferro number among the more significant works according to Mr. Clements.

Thus, I launched into Mr. Clements' book.

To compile a comprehensive list of all the errors in Renaissance Swordsmanship would take, well, a book. Since it seems foolish to take more care and expend more effort critiquing Mr. Clements' book than he himself obviously did to write it, I hope that noting a few of his worst offences will suffice.

First and foremost is this:

Mr. Clements claims his work is the product of "exhaustive research." He claims to have studied all the 16^th -17^th century books and would have us believe that his ideas are derived therefrom (indeed that he and only he has any true understanding of them). He claims that historical works support his many - shall we say "unique" - ideas. Yet, he does not cite a single reference nor offer a single quote from any of those books, to support his assertions. Not one.

This alone would suffice to remove his book from the arena of serious scholarship.

Citing sources is elementary to both scholarship and courtesy. The omission of citations reduces the text to nothing more than the author's collected personal opinions. And since he offers us no credentials, we don't know much about him and have little to pin our hopes on.

We have no way of knowing which of the author's assertions he is presenting as the word of the various masters of the period and which are his own. This is something certain to mislead those unfamiliar with the writings of 16th century masters of fence and I suspect the resulting confusion is not entirely accidental.

Make no mistake - serious scholarship is a daunting task. It's no easy matter to ferret out the meaning of something written in Spanish or Italian or French - or even in English - written three or four hundred years ago. Apparently, Mr. Clements just wasn't up to the task.

Here are some specific examples:

• P5: the author refers to The Three Musketeers and Zorro as "Renaissance cavaliers." Of course, neither Dumas' The Three Musketeers nor "Zorro" (based on The Curse of Capistrano by Johnston McCulley) occurred during the Renaissance, a period that includes the 14^th, 15^th and 16^th centuries and but only the first few minutes of the 17^th. Perhaps he's exercising "poetic license" here.
• On the same page the author states that "the rapier is different from its ancestor and Elizabethan cousin the cut-and-thrust sword."
  A rapier is a weapon of the Elizabethan period. The native English arm is referred to by Silver as the "shortsword."
• On page 6: "The accepted hypothesis is that the weapon is of Italian origin." Accepted by whom? Actually, most scholars and Fencing Masters agree that the rapier had its beginning in Spain. The very term "rapier" is probably derived from Spanish, a term which, incidentally, was not used in Italy where the sword was known as the "spada". Mr. Clements would know this if he'd actually read the books he lists as his primary sources.

This is just one example, by the way, of the author's repeated use of phrases such as "It has been said..." "It's said..." "Reportedly..." and the like, in which he tries to pass off his own speculations as traditional wisdom. Such phrases are often employed by those who wish to sound authoritative without actually being held responsible for what they're saying.

Likewise he uses modifiers such as "probably" and "somewhat" in such a manner that it suggests someone leaving himself an "out" if anyone tries to pin him down. It gives the impression that he really isn't all that sure what he's talking about.

A good editor would have done Mr. Clements the great favor of tossing the manuscript back for a re-write. Paladin did Mr. Clements no such valuable service. Indeed, the poor quality of the writing/editing has resulted in a rumor that Mr. Clements subsidized the publication of his book in the "vanity" fashion. However, I contacted Paladin Press and they informed me that they do not do that sort of arrangement. Thus some of the stylistic and grammatical burden of guilt must be shouldered by them.

A minor point, but one I found antagonizing (I admit it is a pet peeve of mine), is the author's use of words like "slash" and "stab" instead of the generally accepted "cut" and "thrust." He also uses "tip" instead of "point."

Page 6: "The fencing saber is a pseudo-weapon; real sabers tend to have more pronounced curves."
"Fencing sabers are light flexible, and very narrow with barely any noticeable curvature."

In fact, the modern sabre as used in the sport of fencing today HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CURVE AT ALL.
He would know that if he'd ever had a sabre lesson or read a fencing book.

Page7: The author refers to a "popular weapon catalogue" as an example without naming it. Thus we have no way to check the veracity of his statement.

Page 7: "It has been said that..." and "It's said..."

By whom?

Page 8: "disengaging back and forth..."

Here the author implies that 16^th century rapiers were easily capable of multiple feints and he later repeats this Not true. Indeed specific admonishments against them can be found in Capo Ferro. Multiple feints are a characteristic of the smallsword.

Page 8: "A mere pressure of a few pounds..."

Actually, penetration requires something less than a single pound.

Page 8: "Reportedly...."

Reported by whom? He doesn't tell us.

Page 8: Death was not always instantaneous....

Indeed, instantaneous death would be unusual.

Page 8: Although historical accounts....

Which historical account? No citation.

Page 9: It's ability to riposte (counter-attack)...

Of course, the rapier doesn't have the ability to riposte; only the swordsman does. A riposte is not the same thing as a counter-attack. Not even close. Apparently Mr. Clements has no knowledge of fencing theory . None of my intermediate students would make this mistake. His grasp of terminology is no better. He often uses a term like "scoop up" (page 53) instead of parry or prise du fer.

Page 9: "only...in the 1700's did duels begin to be fought linearly."

Wrong. Ridolfo Capo Ferro presents linear actions in 1610. Which means it had to be in use a bit earlier to say the least.

Page 10: "traditional fencing 'cat-walk' form of stepping"

I have no idea what this "cat-walk" thing is supposed to mean. Here he invents a term he does not define for a technique that does not exist.

Page 10: "The grip is essentially held parallel to the wrist."

Wrong. The rapier pommel should lie outside the wrist. His description of the rapier grip cannot be found in any period source I have examined. The idea of extending the index finger is wholly erroneous.
AVB Norman (one of Mr. Clements primary sources) directly contradicts this and cites examples from 16^th century texts.
Or if Mr. Clements would simply take a moment to study the period illustrations he has included in his own book, he would see that they all contradict him.

Page10:...the enclosed bars and cages restricted the hand...

No, the hand can move quite freely.

P10-11: "The rapier also tends to have a noticeably smaller pommel...."

Smaller than what?
This stuff about the rapier having a smaller pommel so you can hold it on the center of the wrist is completely incorrect. That sort of grip is along the lines of the French foil school and has nothing whatsoever to do with 16^th century rapiers. Rapiers had substantial pommels, which, in any case, were not held centered on the wrist. (on Page 37 he thus illustrates grip for the rapier incorrectly)

Page 11: "...break a thrusting blade."

It is actually quite difficult to break a good blade.

Page11: " ...in the rush of battle..."

The author fails to recognize here one of the chief characteristics of the rapier - it is a civilian weapon. (But then he contradicts himself on page 35 "Being civilian weapons, rapiers...")
He also, incidentally, fails to take into account the success of the Roman Legions - who used the thrust to substantial effect.

Page 12: " ...the rapier was predominantly used by the lower classes."

No. Swords, especially fashionable ones were expensive (and still are!). Lower classes could not afford them and in some cases might be barred from wearing them by law. This notion is complete nonsense.

Page 12: "The rapier was almost always used with a companion weapon, typically a parrying dagger.....this was primarily because the weapon was lacking in offensive cutting power."

The non sequitor award goes to this one. The 16^th century masters recognized the sword alone as the foundation of fencing. The dagger was used to facilitate stesso tempo actions. It had nothing to do with "offensive cutting power." I wonder, by the way, what "defensive cutting power" would be?

Page 12: First the author says the rapier "naturally favors distance" then he insists that "much kicking, punching , grappling....." was used. How, if at long distance? And why then isn't much kicking, punching and grappling illustrated in rapier manuals of the time?

Page 12: "It has been surmised that ......"

Apparently, the author has no idea why the dagger ceased to be used in some environs. It occurred about the time when the sword became sufficiently light that one could manage to deceive parries with the dagger. In some places it remained fashionable. Angelo (1763) includes an illustration or two of the rapier and dagger.

Page 12: "It can me surmised..."

Here we go again. Surmising in the next paragraph. The author does a lot of surmising.

Page 12: "resistance blocking"

Another quaint term invented by Mr. Clements that he does not bother to define. I speculate that he is referring to what actual fencers would call an "opposition parry."

Please note that we are now only up to page 12.
By page 20 I was livid.
By page 40 I was depressed.
By page 60, I didn't know whether to laugh or to cry.
Around page 70, I decided that laughter was probably best.

Indeed, to take this book or the author of it seriously is to praise with faint condemnation, if I may twist an old cliché.

The following are some of the other errors I found among the more entertaining. But these are just my personal favorites. There are many others to choose from.

Page 30. In his diagram of a rapier, Mr. Clements provides no scale, uses the incorrect term "pas d'ane" for the arms of the hilt (though he's not the only one to have made this error), omits the pommel nut from the hilt and labels as "Turk's Head" a ferrule that is not a Turk's Head. On the next page, he shows a variety of weapons but fails to provide any scale or dimensions with the result that his modern epee, his smallsword, and his rapier all seem to be about the same size.

Page 36. "the metal mesh fencing mask was also developed in the late 1800's by the French master La Boksshire"

In reality, the woven wire mask appeared in the mid-18^th century (ca .1750), generally accredited to La Boessiere (le pere).

He uses the term "blunted prongs" for "point d'arret".

His description of a modern epee is very vague, considering that the specifications are quite precise: maximum length 110cm, maximum weight 750 grams.

Page 42. He uses the term "voiding" for the volte or esquive. This unhappy term is also used by Soper and Turner, from whom I assume he plagiarized it. I have been in only a few deadly situations and each time "voiding" was an issue, but not in the sense indicated here. Why make up a term when there already exists one? To feign originality.

Page 43. The author believes the first written description of a lunge to appear in Giganti in 1606. Actually, Viggiani describes it quite well in 1570.

Page 57. Illustrates the grip on the dagger - incorrectly of course. The ring on the Bolognese dagger protects the knuckles. One doesn't put the thumb in it.

Page 64.This one I consider quite revealing. Here, Mr. Clements uses the term "Florentine" to describe a case (not a "brace" as he calls it) of rapiers. As far as I have been able to determine, there is a Florentine dialect Italian, "Florentine" in cuisine (meaning "with spinach") but no such term ever existed in swordplay. It is, I believe simply a made-up term from the SCA. Of course, Mr. Clements may have historical documentation for it. But we'll never know because he doesn't cite any source for it.

Page 79. He advocates, believe it or not, parrying with the flat of the blade. I'd love to see a source for this idea.

Page 104. "Contact sparring"

If by "sparring" he means "bouting," I wasn't aware there was any other kind.

Page 111. He advocates an attack to the opponent's unarmed hand. I trust this one can pass without further comment.

Page 135 "live blade practice" is something he endorses.

By "live" we mean "sharp." If this is also what he means (he doesn't define the term for us) he is irresponsible as well as ignorant. No wonder he includes an extravagant disclaimer on page v. Anyone who took this advice on how to practice would be courting grave injury.

One thing about Mr. Clements' book does impress me. I can't imagine how he packed so many errors into so few pages. It may indeed be the worst book on fencing ever written (and there are some heavyweight competitors for that title). It certainly belongs in every fencer's library. In the fiction and fantasy section.

Is the book completely devoid of any worthwhile observation?

No.

But what is good in the book is not original and has been said before by much better authors, in a much better way, probably because they knew something about the subject matter.

The greatest value of this sad little tome is that is stands as an almost perfect negative example of both scholarship and swordsmanship.

[ Return to Top ]