Why Look Just Like the Manual?
by Steven Reich

In my last essay, You Look Just Like the Manual, I gave an overview on how we practice. I emphasized how we strive to accurately reproduce the actions described by the masters we study and as a result we look like the images in the manuals. Although I intimated our reasons for this approach, I did not delve into the heart of our reasoning. As such, many who read that article may have asked themselves why we care so much about producing an exact replica of the somatic aspects of a particular system. Why, for example worry about bending the body so far forward like Plate 8 from Fabris’ manual when doing a pass in seconda? After all, Capoferro and Alfieri both show passes in seconda where the body is not so forward or low, so such an action is not technically "incorrect." This is only one example among many techniques that seem to have a fair amount of variety in the form from one master to another. Since we are assuming that all of these masters were competent swordsmen, then certainly we are not claiming that the pass of seconda described by Fabris is correct and the passes of seconda described by Capoferro and Alfieri are wrong. Our reason for this is not one of absolute correctness (that is, we do not believe that only one master was correct), nor is our reason merely one of aesthetics. Instead, we believe that the accurate reproduction of the techniques described by a master is the first step to attaining an understanding of that master’s system.

Because Historical Swordsmanship is a martial art, proficiency is more than the mechanical repetition of movements or techniques. Proficiency requires a full understanding of the underlying theory. Knowing how to perform a lunge in seconda is important, but equally important is knowing when and why to perform a lunge in seconda. Note that I do not mean just learning these concepts in the intellectual sense, but also internalizing them. That is, if I am talking about learning the measures of Italian rapier, I need to know more than the textbook definition of measure. I need to internalize this concept so that I "feel" the measures automatically and I am always instantly aware of whether I am in or out of measure. Even with the master of a system, learning these concepts is not a trivial undertaking, but in historical fencing we almost never have direct access to a master. Instead, we must extract all of the information from the text--an extremely difficult task even when following every action to the letter. Herein lies the danger of modifying the method of execution of the technique: if I change how I perform an action from that described in the manual--however slight--I cannot be sure that this does not change the circumstances under which it is correctly utilized.

Fabris, Plate 8 Fabris' pass of seconda

For a simple example of what can happen when a technique is modified in a seemingly minor way, we will return to Fabris’ pass of seconda as described in Plate 8 of his manual. When I demonstrate this to new students, they will often balk at performing a pass so low. This action is difficult to learn and requires many repetitions before it becomes a routine movement for a fencer. However, changing it by not bending the body so low completely changes the outcome and the goal of the technique. In Plate 40 from Fabris’ manual we see a tactical play that utilizes the action he describes in Plate 8. Now compare that to the technique of Plate 9 in Capoferro’s manual, which also utilizes a pass of seconda. They are clearly different:

Fabris, Plate 40 fencer performing pass of seconda on the right Capoferro, Plate 9 fencer performing pass of seconda on the right

Just failing to lower the body changes the action from the void and counter described by Fabris to a parry and counter as described by Capoferro--a significant difference. Both actions are completely valid, but by changing the bend of the body, we have produced a completely different result than that described by the master. In this example, the effect of this particular modification of the technique is easy to see. However, the effect of many modifications is not so obvious.

One particular aspect that fencers seem quick to modify is the guard. A quick perusal through the manuals of Fabris, Giganti, Capoferro and Alfieri will show a wide array of guards. Many fencers erroneously conclude from this that the guard is an arbitrary body position from which to launch attacks. After all, if no two masters use exactly the same guard, then it must be okay to come up with your own. Nothing could be further from the truth. For example look at the difference between the natural terza and the well-formed terza as described by Fabris in Plates 9 and 10, respectively:

Fabris, Plate 9 the natural terza Fabris, Plate 10 the well-formed terza

Perhaps, after holding the position of Plate 10 during several minutes of free play, a fencer lowers his hand into the position of Plate 9 to relieve some of the strain on his arm. What effect does this seemingly minor change have? In this case, since Fabris describes both guards, he writes about the strengths and weaknesses of each guard.¹ In fact, just changing the arm position in this way effects such things as (and this is not a complete list): execution of cavazioni, parts of the body open to attack, mechanics performing the parry, and performing an attack. These reasons are all described by Fabris. Again, we have the benefit of reading about the effects of the change in this example, but in many cases we do not have this luxury.

I have given a few examples to illustrate how significant seemingly minor changes to a technique can be. These were simple examples, and the effects of the changes are relatively easy to determine. However, imagine learning a set of techniques in a new system where you have little understanding and experience. An action that is very effective when performed as described, with only one minor change, can immediately become unsound or ineffective. Even if it is effective, the success of the modified technique might depend on a different principle or set of circumstances, since the technique you are performing is essentially different than that described by the manual. Learning a master’s art is a long and demanding process, and the strict adherence to his instructions is the shortest route to understanding his writings. The meticulous practice of what you see in the manual--exactly as it is described--will reward you with a more complete understanding of your art.

¹ The differences between the seemingly similar positions of Plate 9 and Plate 10 are actually significant and many; a full examination of them would require a fairly in-depth article of its own.