"The vorporal pen went snicker-snack."

As I read Maitre d’Armes Adam A. Crown’s "When Valor Preys upon Reason: On the book, Renaissance Swordsmanship, by Mr. John Clements," I couldn’t help but think that that as he wrote, Mr. Crown was smiling, laughing, and shouting "TAKE THAT, YOU LOUT," with every witty line he wrote.

It’s too bad he didn’t actually review the book, while he was at it.

Before I begin. For anyone who reads this, let me set some parameters.:

First, I am not a rapier fencer, nor even much of a fencer, in terms of the modern sport. I have fenced, I have studied contemporary fencing masters, I am familiar with the difference between the modern sport, those who call themselves "classical fencers," and the growing idea of "historical fencing." My own interests in swordplay are primarily those of the Medieval and early Renaissance periods: the sword, the longsword, the two-hand sword, the spear, the axe, the buckler and shield., and this is what my practice is focused on.

Secondly, as of this writing (March ’99) I have never met John Clements, although I have corresponded with him by email and phone. I agree with much of his theories of combat, and his ideas on how to recreate these virtually lost martial arts. I also disagree with certain things as well, but have found that Mr. Clement’s rationale and approach is consistent and whole.

Thirdly, I have met Mr. Crown briefly at several of the Jubilee Old English Faires in which he and his students performed "rapier" exhibitions, although with the number of people attending the Faire, I wouldn’t expect him to remember me. Having watched him fence, and having watched one of my own friends, who is a respectable epeeist, cross blades with him, I have no doubt that his skills as a modern fencing instructor are top-notch, and his title of "Maitre" well earned.

This said, I feel capable of saying that what Mr. Crown’s review displays is:

• his contempt for an "amateur" daring to write of swordplay authoritatively;
• a well structured piece of literary character assassination that provides a host of "errors" that are often presented out of context;
• a lack of understanding on Mr. Crown’s part of the difference between a small-sword and a rapier, or of the pointlessness of trying to force reconstruction of Renaissance fighting arts to be "reverse engineered" from modern fencing forms that have little in common with their martial ancestors.

Now, before the reader assumes that this will be a refutation of everything Adam Crown has to say in his review, I want to begin by bringing up the two points of his critique that are legitimate and valuable.

1. A lack of citations. Mr. Clements has a full bibliography, but does not use in-line comparisons of where his ideas are coming from, or footnotes to that effect.
2. On page 57 the Bolognese dagger is shown being gripped so as to protect the thumb, not the knuckles.

In writing to Mr. Clements, his feeling is that the book was not designed to be an academic study of who said what, but to try and produce a synthesis of these works into a coherent overview of the rapier and cut and thrust sword schools. A similar approach was taken in the recent work English Martial Arts by Terry Brown, and received similar criticism. Although I do not particularly agree with that approach, it was the choice of the author, who is a martial artist, not an academic, and the book will have to be judged accordingly by each reader for itself.

As to the dagger grip, it is apparently one of many errors that appear in the first edition, courtesy of Paladin Press, who have given this book the sloppiest editing I may have ever seen in a mass-market publication.

From the erratta:

"p. 57 - The illustration of the correct grip of a parrying dagger should show the side-ring facing downwards so as to protect the fingers and not the thumb."

Now we turn to the review as a whole. Mr. Crown begins with the following:

"There is an old saying, ‘You can’t judge a book by its cover.’

Well, sometimes perhaps you can."

He then goes on to criticize the book because Paladin Press publishes it. For those of you who haven’t heard of Paladin, they publish a variety of survivalist, gun, and espionage books. Some of their titles make the Anarchist’s Cookbook seem like Chaucer. However, Paladin also publishes a variety of martial arts, knife-fighting, and military-collectible books, simply because these are topics that aren’t carried by modern "sporting" publishers, or Asian Art dominated martial arts publishers. I can think of a variety of reasons to find fault with Paladin Press’ publication of Renaissance Swordsmanship, which I’ll detail below, but to dismiss a first time author because you don’t like his publisher shows a complete lack of understanding in the difficulty of finding a mass-market publisher for obscure topics.

Mr. Crown next goes on to explain that his impression was that this book would combine and eclipse "Thim and Castle and Stone and Gaugler and Hutton and Burton and Evangelista and Norman combined."

But this is deceptive. Thim, Castle and Norman are historical works, not technical ones, that further suffer from the inherent Victorian prejudice that there must be a continuous "evolution," of fencing, until as Castle was proud to claim, "it has nearly reached perfection in our own age." Well, I suppose we’ll never get to pit a Victorian fencing Maitre against a Medieval knight, a cavalier duelist, or an Elizabethan Master of Defense to test this theory, but I’m quite skeptical of what his chances would have been.

As to Burton and Hutton, these gentlemen were so appalled by the decline in European swordsmanship that they were turning to the works of Renaissance masters such as Marozzo and di Grassi to try and restore fencing’s martial skills. However, again, their work was based upon trying to take historical treatises and apply their ideas to modern fence. With the exception of Hutton’s "Old Swordplay," these were not efforts to recreate historical swordplay, but to revive modern saber and singlestick work.

Gaugler and Evangelista are teachers of modern sport fencing. Excellent teachers perhaps, but irrelevant to the study of the Renaissance sword forms, and the cutting sword in particular. In the case of Mr. Evangelista’s recent "Encyclopaedia of the Sword," I find it a bit hard to praise someone who essentially re-writes the work of a man long dead (in this case, Castle), adds little or nothing new, and calls it his own work.

Why should Clements’ book be compared to that of these men then? Because these are friends, idols or "authorities of fencing," to Mr. Crown, and help frame his own preconceptions.

Crown next feels a need to discuss credentials. The bio in Renaissance Swordsmanship says that John Clements studied fencing for 14 years, won a US Kung-Fu Weapon Championship (using western swordsmanship), boxed, kick boxed, and taught swordfighting at Nevada community college. Of course, Maitre Crown is quite contemptuous of all of this, wanting to know what fencing lineage he comes from, what fencing degrees, or Asian martial arts experience he has to claim understanding.

Interesting. Mr. Crown, has all of the following credentials:

Fencing Master Diploma: American Fencing Academy, Ithaca, New York (1980)

Maitre d'Armes d'Escrime: United States Fencing Coaches Association

Third Degree Black Belt: American Martial Arts Foundation Portland, Maine (1984)

Maitre de l'Academie d'Armes: International Academy of Armes Paris, France (1993)

Sport Administration Course: American Coaching Effectiveness Program, Champaign, Illinois (1993)

My only question is when did the American Fencing Academy in Ithaca, NY, start teaching rapier, rapier and dagger, sword and buckler, etc., as part of their curriculum? What national tournament did he compete in, in which these weapons were used, subject to a minimum of rules, and unlimited targets? At what time did his Kung Fu instructor provide him with a cruciform sword, and tell him to have-at? So, how exactly do these credentials make him an authority on the use of weapons that fell out of use centuries earlier?

Crown acknowledges that a "pedigree" isn’t necessary to write on swordplay. "I should point out that it isn’t impossible for a gifted amateur [emphasis mine] to have something worthwhile to say on a subject. George Silver, all, made no claim to being a master of fence, and yet offered some solid observations, though not his alone."

George Silver certainly was not a member of the London Masters of Defense, but in this statement, Mr. Crown shows that he himself has a very imperfect knowledge of the Elizabethan fencing community. The London Company was essentially a guild of swordsmen, and one that, until the late Elizabethan era, was viewed contemptuously by the gentry. Silver, proudly points out that he is a "gentleman," and an instructor of soldiers, not ruffians. He would be denigrated by being a member of such a guild, just as an English knight, fighting on foot at Agincourt would have been mortified, if his station and training had been compared to that of a simple man-at-arms.

Mr. Crown follows up his own misunderstanding of history throughout his review. He critiques Clements’ assertion that "the rapier was predominantly used by the lower classes," as erroneous, yet for the period in question, namely the 16^th and early 17^th centuries, it was. The Masters of Defense, the German Brotherhoods, the wealthy, Italian merchants with their new found fighting skills – regardless of their wealth or its lack, these were still members of the peasantry, as they had been throughout the Medieval period that preceded the Renaissance. The rapier did not begin to find purchase amongst the nobility until they began to lose their own original purpose as a military elite. This is a common misperception of the period, but an unforgivable one from a man with such a collection of diplomas and awards. Indeed, if he was a fan of Castle or Aylward, he would know that they cite this as well, and show the evidence of the legislation often passed against schools of fence from as early as the 12^th century.

The fast and free playing with history continues. "[The Renaissance] ….a period that includes the 14^th, 15^th and 16^th centuries, but only the first few minutes of the 17^th..." Strange, that not a single Medieval scholar has ever thought of the 14^th century, best known for the Hundred Years War, the Black Death, and a cooling of the European climate, as being remotely part of the Renaissance. Sure, it was the growth out of such a calamitous time that helped spur the Renaissance, but that is hardly the same thing. Barbara Tuchman’s famous A Distant Mirror remains easily available at any bookstore or library, and is the quintessential popular study of the 14^th century. I would heartily recommend it to Mr. Crown, before he makes this claim in an academic forum.

For the record, the Renaissance is usually considered to have begun in Italy around 1450 and ends, depending on the scholar, between 1600 and 1650. In the case of the later, I’d hardly call that "the first few minutes of the 17^th [century]." Likewise, the assertion that Clements’ fails to "take into account the success of the Roman Legions – who used the thrust to substantial effect," begs the question. The gladius was the weapon of a soldier, used in mass formation, and has about as much in common with a rapier as a chainsaw does with a jeweler’s saw. It is irrelevant in the discussion of the rapier as a civilian weapon. Any military historian could explain that, without ever having cut or thrust with a blade in his life.

What struck me so strangely about the whole review up to this point, was that Mr. Crown’s dismissal of the work is based on historical grounds, yet he constantly bends history to serve the needs of providing grounds for that dismissal.

Some further examples:

• He complains that Clements does not reference La Touche, L’Abbat or the legendary Angelo and their work on the smallsword. Why would he? The work covers the weapons of the Elizabethan and Jacobite era;the smallsword and its adherents post-date this period by two generations. You do not quote a modern firearms expert to explain how to use a flintlock, so why would you quote a smallsword instructor for the use of the rapier. Especially when the introduction says quite plainly that the book will not address the smallsword.
• He doesn’t consider Swetnam a major source. Well, I personally would agree with Mr. Crown that Swetnam is an important source to we English speakers. But, all in all, compared to Silver, di Grassi, Capo Ferro, and St. Didier, he truly offers nothing new.
• He claims that the term "void" is used instead of volte, but this is not true. To void a blow is a perfectly good term from the Renaissance masters for avoiding or dodging a blow, the volte being a specific step and counter-attack. I have no idea what "volte" has come to mean in modern fencing, but this is it’s historical meaning.
• A lack of use of modern terminology, such as "prise du fer," and a lack of clear explanation of the form and size of the modern epee and saber. Mr. Crown never explains why the use of modern, French terminology is important in an English work written for anyone interested in Elizabethan swordplay,
• In the assertion by Clements’ that "The rapier also tends to have a noticeably smaller pommel…" Mr. Crown snorts, "smaller than what?" The answer, made obvious in the text, and to anyone whose handled these weapons is, "smaller than the earlier cutting swords."
• Mr. Crown takes exception at the idea that kicking and grappling was an important part of the rapier fight, and says it is not illustrated in the fencing manuals. Well, Silver and Swetnam certainly are quite concerned with "grips" or grapples, and the famous Castiglione’s "Book of the Courtier" advises the courtier to not only take up weapons, but wrestling, upon which all combat is based. Finally, a simple reading of the accounts of 16^th and early 17^th century dueling makes it quite clear how often the rapier fight, when not "playing for points," came down to brawling.
• He mocks the idea of parrying with the flat (I presume in the section on the cut and thrust sword), and demands proof. By this, I assume he does not include the pre-rapier masters, or the work of scholars like Dr. Sydney Anglo or Ewart Oakeshott to be relevant?

By the end of the review, it has simply come down to name calling and nit picking. (Do we really need to know that he doesn’t like the words "stab" or "tip," and prefers "thrust" and "point?" )

Now, as I’ve said, I’ve never sparred with John Clements, or seen him spar. Perhaps he doesn’t know a thing about how to use a rapier. When it comes to judging the technical accuracy of his book, I am primarily relegated to my academic research, and my own practice with cutting swords. To my mind, the books is too brief, and Paladin should be forced to send every owner of the first edition a rebate check for the sloppy proof-reading they did. Furthermore, some footnote citations would have been a great help, and would have gone a long way to making these sorts of reviews unnecessary.

All of that said, I have seen Mr. Crown "instruct," the public using a schlagger as a rapier substitute, and I can tell you that what I saw was epee work, perhaps smallsword, with an overweighted weapon, and a bit of theatrical flourish thrown in. This is not in keeping with the Elizabethan manuals, but rather is in keeping with the efforts of Victorian romantics, trying to return to a lost era. Sadly, because of this, Mr. Crown seems threatened that someone from outside his "establishment" has dared to write the book that he couldn’t.

(Note: With so much of "historical fencing" being the work of reconstruction and speculation, the reader should never take anyone's word as absolute. In keeping with that idea, here is a link to Mr. Crown's original article, at the In Ferro Veritas page:http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages/ifv/Crown_review.html)