Schools and Masters of Fencing by Egerton Castle

Review by Steven Reich

Paperback: 336 pages Publisher: Dover Publications (May 20, 2003) ISBN: 0486428265 List Price: $16.95

In 1858, Egerton Castle published a history of western swordsmanship based on his extensive survey of the historic manuals known at the time. For this work, Castle reviewed nearly one hundred works (from counting the titles listed in his bibliography)--truly a monumental task. However, the current revival of the western martial arts progresses, this book is becoming more and more "dated" as modern researchers dispel the myths of early swordsmanship discussed (but certainly not invented) by Castle. However, this book has an important place in the field of historic fencing as one of the first resources printed in English.

Castle approaches his survey as a historian who shows the development of fencing as a progression from a beginning of crude feats of strength to the "scientific" systems of his day. He clearly does not believe that there was much skill involved in the fighting of the Middle Ages, as this quote from his introduction plainly states:

A thorough examination of the text of Fiore dei Liberi completely dispels this myth, yet this was the common belief of the day and indeed continues today in the minds of many. Castle continues on this track through the book, showing a progression from primitive to increasingly more sophisticated styles and techniques of swordsmanship. Somehow, he seems to neglect tying together the techniques to the types of weapons used--sometimes missing the existence of a master’s methodical system despite the fact that many facets of it are well documented. A good example of this can be seen in his commentary on Manciolino’s work of 1531:

I find this to be a strange statement indeed, given that Manciolino clearly describes ten guards, as well as attacks and counters to be made from each of them. In addition, he includes three assalti, preset plays similar to the kata of Japanese sword arts, that give good examples of the flow and function of the guards and attacks he describes. Furthermore, while his work definitely talks of various aspects of the duel--the bulk of his text is devoted to various techniques of his system. Manciolino’s main failing, from my point of view is that it does not lay out his system with the same view towards pedagogy as do the works of some later masters, such as Salvator Fabris.

As Castle continues on to the age of the rapier, he seems unable to divorce himself from contemporary fencing techniques. In his discussion of rapier techniques he rarely considers that actions with the rapier might be made with different intentions or for different reasons than outwardly similar movements made with the much lighter fencing weapons used in his era of fencing. In general, I find many of his conclusions borne of logic applied by someone who was unable to try the techniques with accurate reproductions of the weapons for which they were developed. As such, I would be very cautious before coming to any conclusions about the methodologies and techniques of an historic author covered in this book based merely on the writings of Castle. However, I am not going to do a chapter-by-chapter analysis of what I perceive to be the inaccuracies of this book, as I am writing a general review rather than a point-by-point rebuttal.

In reading this book, I found parts of it to be strangely familiar as I realized that it is still the basis for a significant amount of the common knowledge of the historic fencing community. The oft-repeated statement that the lunge was unknown prior to the late 1500s seems to derive from this text, as does the claim of Capoferro’s text being the pinnacle of rapier-play. I must confess that I find it strange that a work biased to the Victorian view on fencing is often used as a foundational text for a modern understanding of historical swordsmanship--not only by the uneducated layman, but also by historic fencers. Castle’s conclusions are often at odds with the current understanding of historic techniques, so I believe his book is better read as an historic work, in the same way one would read a history of Rome written in the 1700s.

Although I have strong reservations about Castle’s opinion of historical swordsmanship, I still recommend this book to the serious practitioner of historical fencing for two reasons. First, Castle covers a significant number of the masters in chronological order. After reading his book a student will have at least a passing familiarity with most of the important historical names of his chosen pursuit as well as a general understanding of their relative time and relationship in history. Second, as a work of history, this book is excellent for understanding the source of so many of the erroneous views on western swordsmanship. Reading this book with the correct amount of skepticism can be beneficial to the western martial artist, but I do not believe it is an accurate survey of the development of western swordsmanship.