Just a short post to explain the logic of the short description of the 7 Wards we are given in I.33.

Folio 1r: “Notandum quod ars dimicatoria sic describitur Dimicatio est diversarum plagarum ordinatio & diuiditur in septem partes vt hic”

Translated, this is “Note that the art of fencing is described thus: Fencing is the ordering of diverse strikes, and is here divided into seven parts”

Let’s break this statement down. It is found on the first page of the manual, right after the listing and naming of the 7 Wards, and the initial statement that all fencers with a sword use the 7 Wards.

“the art of fencing is described thus:” – self-explanatory. The following verse is describing the art of fencing.

“Fencing is the ordering of diverse strikes” – so, the art of fencing is the ordering of diverse strikes. We’ll come back to this later.

“and is here divided into seven parts” – again, self-explanatory. The art of fencing, which is the ordering of diverse strikes, is divided into 7 parts.

So adding that all up, we have: art of fencing = ordering of diverse strikes = divided into 7 parts.

Now, the key part is the meaning of “ordering of diverse strikes”. I believe this is one of the most important lines in the entire manual, and outlines the overall concept of the system.

The latin words used are “diversarum”, “plagarum”, and “ordinatio”.

“plagarum” or “plaga” or “plagam” is found many times throughout I.33, and is the consistent way that cuts/strikes are described.

“diversarum” or “diversus” can be pretty directly translated to “diverse” in English.

“ordinatio” can be translated as “ordering”, “regulating”, “arranging”, “decreeing”, or “ordaining”. This is the key word of the verse. It gives us the very valuable description of the system found in I.33. According to the author, the art of fencing is defined as the ordering, regulating, and arranging of diverse strikes. I like the word “classifying” to encompass these meanings. This is crucial. We are being told that the definition of the art according to Lutegerus is classifying different strikes, and that the way we can classify them is to divide them into 7 parts, as shown in I.33.

Now, some might counter and say “well, can’t arranging or ordering mean that we are supposed to arrange strikes ourselves, and the art of fencing is using diverse strikes against our opponent?”. Well, possibly. But I think the manual itself gives the answer to that. The entire manual shows us all the various ways to use the Obsessio to beat the Wards, as well as consistently advocating that we don’t do direct strikes at the opponent without first controlling the bind.

Some might also counter with “most/every other medieval and renaissance fencing manual uses guards to fight from, cut into and out of, etc. Doesn’t that mean I.33 should probably be interpreted the same?”. Well, taking that question in isolation, the answer would be “yes”. All things being equal, the basic assumption would be that I.33 is the same or similar to the majority of fencing manuals. I used to interpret it that way. But the problem is that interpretation falls apart once you start examining the text of I.33. It’s hard to maintain that the Wards are the same as a Guard, positions to stand in, fight from, cut and parry in, when we are specifically told that 1) all actions end in Langort, not the other Wards, 2) the Wards are used to classify diverse strikes, which is the art of fencing, and 3) throughout the entire manual we are shown that we are supposed to fight by analysing an opponent’s Ward and countering him with an Obsessio, and we are repeatedly shown that getting caught in a Ward by an Obsessio is a bad thing.

The problem is that people naturally look for consistency. There is a natural tendency to look for parallels, similarity, and comparison. In many cases, it’s justified. But it is something that needs extra care when examining historical fencing manuals. We cannot start from the assumption that these different systems taught by different people at different times in different places all follow the same approach. Certainly some do, maybe even most of them do. But that doesn’t mean we should start with that as an assumption.