Goals and Methodologies of Source-Use in Historical Fencing and Martial Arts

 

When historical fencers want to follow the guidance in our fencing sources as strictly as possible, we need to understand the meaning of their guidance as best we can. Dictionaries, thesauruses, grammar guides, and similar tools can help with this. However, they are often insufficient on their own because fencing is a specialty topic, and they might not include the specialized use-cases for a word or concept found in fencing sources. 

As a result, gaining a deep understanding of a technique, concept, or tactical idea sometimes requires consulting examples of it in more than one fencing source. However, doing so also creates certain information integration challenges. When we consult multiple sources to develop our training program and want to follow the instructions of our sources as strictly as possible, which source’s guidance should we follow if their content differs?

Additionally, the very act of deciding which sources to consult can steer the outcome of our study of a concept. Depending on which sources we choose and what those sources say, our results can be more a product of the decisions we make as modern people than the sources themselves. This is something many people trying to practice a “historical” art might like to avoid, and it raises the question of how to select and group sources together in a way that minimizes the effect our choices have on our own analysis.

This article's central topic is methodology, and it covers an in-depth examination of different methods for grouping multiple sources together while also trying to strictly follow their advice. It explores this topic in more detail than is needed for someone whose goals are simply “to get started with fencing.” However, it may be relevant to people who want to take a close look at certain source-facing aspects of historical fencing and martial arts, such as instructors, researchers, source-minded fencing students, and anyone working to interpret historical sources to develop a training program. 

This is worth thinking about because understanding these issues helps us chart a path through the sources and make decisions more thoughtfully and independently. It helps us identify when a new source will provide useful information, and assess how to integrate it into our thinking and practice. Conversely, it also helps us identify when studying an additional source will not offer much value for our goals.

Methodology is also worth thinking about because it helps us frame the conversations we have with others. When we can quickly understand whether someone else’s goals or methods match ours, it is easier to have a productive conversation in which we mutually benefit. Similarly, understanding goals and methods can help us avoid unproductive discussions, or temper the vehemence of disagreements that may arise.

Ultimately, each practitioner needs to decide for themselves what sources they include or exclude from the group of sources they refer to. For this reason, this article is not written to "solve problems" for the reader, as there is no universal solution possible to methodological issues. Rather, this article's goal is twofold: First, to highlight that certain problems around source-use arise naturally when we choose certain goals and methods of pursuing them; and second, to provide a framework for thinking through them so that we are more likely to produce a high-quality result that reflects conscious decisions instead of unconscious biases. 

-----------------------------------

This article was written in concert with a companion article by Adam Franti, available here, that is not "required" to read before reading this article, but which may be helpful to have read.