New Editorial: Interrelatedness

[Webmaster]

Here's one we forgot to release last year, new in the public essays section:

Interrelatedness within the Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe

[Tyrone Artur Budzin]

Good article there by Mr. Clements. There is one part though which I cannot concur with.

"Given that these are extinct cultural practices that were not exclusively linked to any one national identity, efforts to study them now must identify with the Art rather the geographic source of the teachings. Therefore, no current nation or country can claim a special connection to reviving and reconstructing a lost tradition by mere right of the literature being in their root language or having once been taught and practiced in the same region. This is even more so if the craft was never preserved intact nor in any meaningful way retained in the locality."

Is Mr. Clements trying to say that the cultural links to certain arts should be ignored due to lack of preservation or any present traditions existing of the craft? Therefore opening the doors for any person to claim the art to be universal in aspect and not tied to any one's history or culture no matter what indications exist proving the contrary?

For example, should we now say that Kampfringen is an international martial art and cannot be considered a German martial art because the practitioners/scholars are from different parts of the world?

I do agree with the interrelatedness point of view, as many of the old masters must have done much travelling in order to learn more and also instruct those who were interested to become students of the art. The similarities in many manuscripts and other instructional materials proves this.

Hoping to just disagree without being disagreable on this matter.

[Stacy Clifford]

No, what he is trying to say is that, to use Germany as an example, just because these arts were taught in Germany and written in German back then does not mean that because you are a modern German, you necessarily have more insight into interpretation of the art than a modern non-German studying the same manuals. Both local and foreigner are now far removed from intimate understanding of the ancient German culture, and the arts themselves are not uniquely German, therefore no one can claim to be more "right" in their interpretation simply because they were born in the same geographic location. Being a good fighter and a good scholar is more important to unlocking the art than being German.

[Tyrone Artur Budzin]

@Stacy:

If that is what Mr. Clements was trying to infer then I must have misunderstood his message. I fully agree with your point, anyone can claim to know a certain art but to be proficient at it is another matter entirely.

[Tom Reynolds]

Tyrone Artur Budzin wrote:

@Stacy:

If that is what Mr. Clements was trying to infer then I must have misunderstood his message. I fully agree with your point, anyone can claim to know a certain art but to be proficient at it is another matter entirely.

Tom Reynolds wrote:

Absolutely. Or by way of analogies, it is like saying that because spaghetti was originally invented by Italians, therefore only Italian nationals can make good spaghetti. This is patently obviously not true. While it is clear that Italians originated our modern understanding of spaghetti, it is not clear that Italians were the first to ever think of it at all. And anyway, by now it has been a world dish for a very long time.

Shakespeare was English, and this fact should be understood and respected and retained by all students of Shakespeare. But this does not mean that only modern British nationals are qualified to study Shakespeare. For one thing, even in Shakespeare's day there was no such thing as specifically, uniquely ENGLISH literature without any external influences. For another thing, Elizabethan culture and language are almost as foreign to a modern English person as they are to the French or Germans.

[Benjamin Parker]

Good article.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Hello,

I think the article dismisses the importance of language a bit too quickly.

If you can't understand the source language you are relying on translations and in many cases (especially the earlier sources, which are not that explicit) they are colored with interpretation. If you must learn the language and the art, it takes more time... And probably your vision of the art will change as you learn more about the language.

It's true that languages also change and I experienced that personally when I discovered Thibault's text after reading Sainct Didier (not sure if it is the language that had changed or just Sainct didier that was not as good a writer as Thibault, though ). But still when you can read a text in your native language it gives you a head start in my opinion.

It doesn't mean that people from any nation and culture cannot learn new languages and cannot become very proficient in the application of the art, it's just that in order to say things with any authority about a written work, it's necessary to be very fluent with the language or at least have a translation from someone mastering the language. And in that latter case, it's best to check with the translator if the interpretation fits the words...

Regards,

[Stacy Clifford]

I don't think John is discounting the usefulness of having a head start - I picked Di Grassi to work on largely because it was translated into English in the period when it was still being used, and I don't speak Italian - but I think the article is focused more on where you ultimately end up as a martial artist than where you begin. Being the webmaster, I often get to have conversations with John about articles when they are released, and this one was primarily intended to counter an attitude he has encountered many times that "you can NEVER be as right as I am about German sources because I'm German and you're not." In the early stages certainly the native speaker has an advantage, but because this is ultimately a physical art, the tools are available for any of us to overcome our language deficiencies in the modern age and all of us to reach a high level of understanding and fighting ability. It's that "never" chauvinism over the long run that is intended to be the issue here, not our natural advantages in the short run. Sound reasonable? And I do know what you mean about language changing, 1594 English has given us our share of headaches and confounded looks too.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

In the early stages certainly the native speaker has an advantage, but because this is ultimately a physical art, the tools are available for any of us to overcome our language deficiencies in the modern age and all of us to reach a high level of understanding and fighting ability. It's that "never" chauvinism over the long run that is intended to be the issue here, not our natural advantages in the short run. Sound reasonable?

Yes I certainly agree that people from all over the world have the potential to reach a high level in understanding and ability.

I just wish this article won't be misunderstood as saying that it's OK to not be able to read any of the source language and still claim full understanding of the sources. In a sense, the understanding is shared between the one that can perform the moves and the translator that was able to extract the descriptions of the moves. Of course that could be the same person, but people who can read manuals in their own root language do not depend on a translator...

And I do know what you mean about language changing, 1594 English has given us our share of headaches and confounded looks too.

In fact my problem with Sainct Didier is not so much language but rather style. He tends to be a bit repetitive at times... Thibault is more enjoyable to read but also more voluminous
I suppose the time when language become close enough to modern depends on the language too, but for French ~1600 seems close to the mark.

Regards,