MS I.33 contains two primary demonstrators in each illustration: The Priest, and his Student. The Priest is referred to as “sacerdos” or “priest”, or “clerus”, which means “cleric” or “clergy”. His counterpart is referred to as “scolaris” or scholar, “clientum” or client, and “iuvenium” or youths. Throughout, we also find references to the “priestly” way of fencing, and the “common” or “general” way of fencing. What further insight can we gain from these terms?

It’s often repeated that I.33 contains 3 skill levels: the common fencer who fights from the Wards, the fencer who uses the Obsessio to counter the 7 Wards, and then the fencer who knows how to beat those Obsessio from the Wards. Other variations of this idea are also around, but they often share the idea that I.33 is teaching us how to use the 7 “common” Wards to beat enemies. Regarding the context of I.33, there are many speculations. Some people suggest that it’s for judicial dueling. Others for self defence. Others still for some kind of clerical militia-like purpose. Maybe even for sport and entertainment. Perhaps all those reasons combined.

So how does this all tie together? My current idea is that the 7 Wards are not positions that common fencers fight from (although it’s possible for someone to fight from them, I don’t believe that’s their purpose outlined in I.33). The 7 Wards are a tool developed by the Priest so that we may classify how our opponent is attacking us, and thereby know how to defeat him. The manual then proceeds to show us how to beat each of the Wards, as well as how we might survive and retake control of the fight if our opponent catches us in a Ward. So, in a sense, the idea of 3 “skill levels” is somewhat correct, except for the fact that I don’t believe I.33 is advocating that we use any of the 7 Wards to fight from, and ideally, with perfect skill and distance management, we would never be caught in a Ward and have to fend off our opponent’s Obsessio. It’s worth noting that when we break down the plays of I.33 (as I did here), we see that most of the time, the person who did the Obsessio against the Ward ends up “winning” the exchange (in that the final technique in the sequence has them winning). So while we are certainly given counters that can be done from the Wards in order to try and win the fight, I think it’s quite clear that it is not the strategy to fight from the Wards and try to beat the Obsessio, but rather, to classify your opponent’s actions into the Wards and beat him by using the Obsessio, and we are simply shown a multitude of ways that our opponent can make this difficult for us.

How does this relate to the intended audience of I.33? Well, I believe I.33 has a very broad audience. The young fencers learning from the Priest are described as Scholars, Clients, and Youths. I don’t believe these are just off-hand generic remarks. I believe it is referencing 3 distinct types of students of the Priest. There are the Scholars, presumably young clergymen, clerics, priests, or others involved in the Church. There are the Clients, which has the clear connotation of people paying and/or hiring the Priest for his teaching. Then there are the Youths, who might represent other young men, possibly nobles or sons of nobles, squires, young knights, and possibly including other young men from the surrounding area. Of course, let me clarify, this is all speculation. But the sword and buckler had a wide range of uses in history, from battlefield combat, to skirmishes and raids, to sieges, to civilian self defence, to duels, to judicial combat, to sport and entertainment. Now, the amount of thrusting and striking to the face and head would seem to rule out the possibility of I.33 being for sport (not to mention the general tightness of actions that are often not wide and entertaining but subtle and quick). But I see no reason why the Priest teaching his system could not be teaching for all of these uses. I.33 would certainly be an effective system for duelling and judicial combat, with it’s emphasis on protection and cover, and making small thrusts and cuts at the opponent. It’s frequent use of the point, as well as grappling, would make it suitable for battlefield combat, even against lighter armor. As a self-defence system, I believe it shines, again with its focus on protecting oneself and not taking risks.

All this being taken into account, I think it’s quite possible that I.33 represents the syllabus or course reference textbook for a fencing school run by a cleric or priest, possibly through his Church, although we can’t know for certain. This fencing school might teach young mercenaries, people preparing for judicial combats or duels, young nobles wanting to learn self-defence, or members of the clergy who want to take up arms in an era where the concept of the Holy Warrior was known. Interestingly, I.33 even mentions a contemporary fencing school or fencing master referred to as “de Alkersleben”, implying a possible community of fencing schools or masters in the region. Again, without any concrete historical discoveries, this is all speculation and theory, although I believe it to be very reasonable.

What about the so-called “common fencer”? I think it’s pretty straight-forward. The common fencer is not an idiot, nor is he extremely skilled. It’s just “common”. I simply think that this is the Priest referring to what is common practice, from his experience. Where, for example, it’s “common” for fencers with a sword and buckler to strike directly at their opponent without controlling the bind first, or without using a schiltslac. It’s “common” for fencers with sword and buckler to enter distance with Langort. It’s “common” for fencers to make strikes that try to cut to separate your sword and shield. It’s not to say that any of the “common” techniques are horrible and bad and will never work. Maybe some are. Maybe some will actually work decently sometimes. Regardless, they are common, for better or worse. It’s also not to say that the “common” fencing is something to aspire to. While it’s not necessarily totally stupid and unskilled, it’s certainly not the safest. The Priest is simply giving us his opinion and experience on what we are most likely to face. So for example, if our opponent is looking to strike from 2nd Ward, and we use the Halfshield Obsessio, we can expect that it will be common to have our opponent try to strike to separate our sword and shield. Is it the best option for him? No. Is it a totally stupid and bad option that will never work? Definitely a no. But for whatever reason, the Priest tells us that this is common (at least in 14th century Franconia).

What about the whole system of Ward and Obsessio? Well, I think it’s simple. We are being given a versatile system of defence using sword and buckler that can be used in almost any context, against many different weapons. Whether it’s in an encounter between two scouting parties armed with light weaponry, or a drunken aggressor on the street at night, or in an arena with someone that you have a legal dispute with, we can classify their actions and respond with an appropriate defense. In a way, I almost see a philosophical similarity with Sir William Hope’s New Method. Hope’s system is built on being able to classify our opponent’s attacks into limited categories, from which we use a set of standard responses and counters. It has a focus on versatility and safety, being designed to work with and against a multitude of weapons, in different situations from duels and self defence to battles, with a prime focus on keeping yourself safe and protected (complete with criticism of the common method of the period!).

Conclusion: I.33 is a very intricate system, useful in a variety of situations, and has some very intriguing hints at who was learning from this mysterious Franconian Cleric named Lutegerus.

P.S. What about Walpurgis? Well, that’s a topic for a completely separate article. But in short, it seems to be a reference to a popular saint at that time, with some possible symbolism.