The Four Graspings Of Henry de Saint Didier

 This was an A&S entry from 2006.  

The Four Graspings

Of

Henry de Saint Didier

Presented by TJ Harmon, known in the Society as Philippe de Lyon

Overview

In an effort to gain an idea of renaissance French Rapier Combat, we studied the Rapier manual of Henry de Saint Didier. During the course of that study we discovered Didier consistently states that the off hand is used as a last defense, but then does nothing with it in any of his basic rapier techniques. After further study, we found, in the advanced sections of the book, a section on blade grabbing. In this section Didier talks about how to grasp the opponent’s blade and take it away from him. We then began to look intently at his section on “Graspings”. In this section, he gives detailed descriptions of four different methods to disarming your opponent, along with the counter for each. These are given as a fight between a Lieutenant and a Provost and work very well as a training exercise. We decided to reconstruct the exercises in order to get a better understanding of how they work. Building on the basic rapier for Didier (The Six hits of Henry de Saint Didier, a reconstruction entered in A&S and taught as a basic class), we reconstructed the exercises and then practiced with them to see how effective they would be in combat as well as in SCA sport fencing. During the process of the reconstruction, we found that the “graspings” are not disarms but simply attacks where the weapon of the opponent is controlled. The opponent’s weapon is not taken away but given up in order to preserve their own life. The first three of these attacks are very efficient and easy to execute. We have no doubt that they would be effective in combat. The fourth exercise however seems difficult to maneuver and we have some doubts as to its effectiveness in real combat. However, the fourth exercise would work very well in SCA combat and has been successfully used in tournament. The third exercise works as well and turned out to be the “standard” attack used in the SCA with blade grabbing. The first two exercises cannot be used in the SCA as they are written. With slight modification so that the blade is grabbed and not the hilt, they can be used and are very effective..

The Manual

In 1573, Henry de Saint Didier, a noble of Provence, wrote a fencing manual entitled “Traicte Contenant les secrets D V Premier Livre Svr L’espee Sevle, Merede toutes armes, Qui font dspee dague, cappe, targue, bouclier, rondelle, l’espee deux mains & les deux espees, auec fes pourtraicturs, ayans les armes au poing pour se deffendre and offencer a’ un mesme temps des coups qu’on peut tirer, tant en assaillant qu’en deffendant, fort utile & Suposts de Mars: redige par art, order & pratique”. This work was the first French rapier manual to be printed

. Little is know about the author except for the information in his dedication. Didier claims his 25 years of service in the military as proof of his knowledge in the science of arms. “I will then justly attribute having worn out my life in the experience in practicing arms: so much that one can take the length of time as proof that it will at least have engendered in me some perfection of the art and practice of this.”

This practical attitude sets the tone for his work. The book is very light on theory and instead focuses on the practical use of the single sword. The majority of the book is taken up by a series of encounters between a Lieutenant and a Provost. Didier then describes each encounter by showing what the Lieutenant does and how the Provost should respond. The encounters are broken up into several types. The first three are the “unsheathing” and describe how to draw your weapon and settle yourself into your guard. The next section covers the Six hits. These are the basic attacks that are used by an aggressor in any encounter. The next section deals with special attacks and includes sections on the Attack of the triangle and the quadrangle, grasping (disarms), and subtleties (feints). Didier is the first of the Fencing Masters to use this format for his work.

The Exercises

Didier sets the tone for his manual in the first section of his book where he discusses “The six Hits”. These are the basics attacks, defenses and counters for his style. The next sections of his book build upon these and teach the advanced techniques, unique attacks and ways to disarm your opponent. The section on “Graspings” depict the Lieutenant and the Provost taking his opponent’s sword away from him. There are 4 exercises; each is given as a series of attacks and counters leading up to the “grasping” and then a counter where Didier shows how to prevent your opponent from grasping your sword and how you can grasp theirs instead.

The first two graspings are hilt grabs. Where you are reaching in and grasping the hilt of your opponent’s sword. The second two are blade grabs where you are controlling your opponent’s weapon by grabbing the blade of his sword. .

Historical Perspective of Blade Graspings.

Didier’s use of grabbing your opponent’s weapon was not a new concept. In fact it is very old. Grasping of your opponent’s blade with a bare hand is shown repeatedly in German and Italian manuscripts. In Germany, Hans Tallhoffer published a manual of combat in 1443 entitled “Fechtmeister” which is literally translated as “fight master”.¹ In this manual are numerous examples of longsword combat where the combatants are grabbing both their own blades (to get better leverage) and their opponent’s. In most of these examples, grabbing your opponent’s blade is a preliminary move to wrestling with your opponent. Similar moves are depicted in an Italian manual also published in the Fifteenth-Century by Filippo Vadi.² A blade grab similar to those shown by Didier can be found in the Single sword exercise of Achille Marozzo. In that exercise, Marozzo describes blocking the cut with the sword, grasping the opponent’s blade in the left hand and then thrusting to the opponent’s face.³ Although the Graspings are not new, Didier does seem to be the first Master to break down the technique and show exactly how it is done and how to block it.

Didier’s Basic Technique

It is assumed for the purpose of this class that the student already posses a basic understanding of Didier⁴. All of the techniques shown in the “Grasping” exercises are nerley extensions of these basic techniques. Didier spends little to no time in these exercises explaining technique; he also assumes that you understand the basics of his style by this point in the manual.

During the exercise the main principles explained previously in the manual are Didier’s concept of distance, methods of defense and the counter to that defense. As Didier does not use any cuts in the graspings, we do not need to concern ourselves with these.

For distance⁵, you need to begin facing your partner with your feet together and your arm extended. You should be just able to touch your partners chest with the tip of the rapier. Then step back with your right foot⁶. Your shoulders and hips should be squared with the weight distributed between the two feet. Keep your feet no more than a shoulders width apart both horizontally and diagonally. The sword is held in the right hand⁷. The sword hand should be held so that the knuckles are down and the thumb is up. The right arm is held out straight in front of the body; the height at which the sword is held varies depending on the guard⁸.

Thrusting attacks are made with a small angled step forward. During the step, you want to remain with your weight forward, towards the ball of the foot. As the right foot passes to the left if will become the front foot. The step is made at a slight angle with the big toe of the right foot pointing at the opponent. This brings you slightly off line and closer to your opponent. Remember that the steps are small and proper foot distance should be maintained. Be careful about overextending at this point. This passing step will bring you within range of your opponent. It your attack is successful and the point lands on its target you can then lean forward pushing the point into the target in order to get fatal penetration⁹. Keep your posture centered and erect until you are sure of the attack landing and you are safe.

The defense to this attack is to step back with the left foot, while pivoting slightly on the ball of the right foot (bringing you back in line with the attacker). Make sure to keep proper foot distance. If you step back too far, you will loose reach and be unable to counter attack. As you step back, you want to cross blades with your opponent, by making contact with the base (forte) of your blade and the last third (foible) of the opponent’s. Your sword hand should be turned so that the palm is up and the sword arm should be extended just enough so that the opponent’s blade will travel up and to your left missing the body if he continues the thrust¹⁰. Now simply extend the arm and lean into the attack to thrust at your opponent’s head.

The counter to this is refered to as “unwrapping”. As the defender goes to cross blades with you, you will stop your attack, bring the point of your sword under the defender’s hilt to the other side, and then continue the attack. Do not let the defender cross swords with you for then your blade may be trapped and you will be easily hurt.

All of the remaining techniques are described in detail in the exercises, so we will not take time on them here.

Equipment

The first thing we needed to do before we started the reconstruction was to find out what type of sword Didier recommended. Unfortunately, he is very vague on this subject. His only reference to the type of sword he preferred seems to be in the small section on Tennis at the very end of his book. There he advised his readers to choose a racquet that is: …light and good to the hand: because all thus that in the said arms, is required a light sword and a weighty dagger, also in tennis it is necessary to have a light racquet and a weighty ball…”

The other evidence we had were the wood cuts in the manual. These show simple cross guard swords of varying length and thickness. However, Castle warns us not to rely on the pictures of the swords. “It is needless to remark that the swords used in personal combat at that period were never so heavy and clumsy as they are therein shown. Even the weighty “estocade” the favorite arm of the French, - to which, by the way, Saint Didier seems exclusively to devote his attention, - was incomparably slender.”

Egerton Castle even supplies us with a print showing an Estocade, which he labeled as coming from the period of Charles IX.

This weapon has a several rings on the guard and is fairly wide at the “forte” (part of the blade closest to the hilt). The overall length of the blade is 43 inches. This gave us a good idea of size of the blade, but not of the weight of the sword. For that we consulted a chart of sizes of rapiers in the Wallace Collection (London)¹¹. There were 5 swords dated between 1560 and 1575. These ranged from 2.6 to 3.5 pounds, and were anywhere from 41.5 to 47.8 inches in overall length.

We decided to go with our “list legal” schlagers for the exercise. This gave us two advantages. The first was the rubber tip on the end of the sword to protect us from a “mistake”. The second advantage would be in applying the exercise and thus the techniques to SCA combat. The swords we used have blades that are 35 inches in length, with a total length of 42 to 43 inches. Both swords weight just under 2 pounds. Our Schlagers gave us a good length (although on the short end) but are on the light side. We decided that these weapons gave us the best compromise for authenticity and safety.

The last thing we needed to look at was attire. The woodcuts in Didier’s manual show all of the participants in street clothes. None are in armor of any kind. As the Exercises are choreographed and we will not be moving at full speed, we decided to dress in appropriate garb and not wear fencing armor. This gives us a better feel for the restrictions and freedom from wearing civilian clothes. A photocopy of the graspings is in the Appendix and gives several good examples of typical French attire for fencers of Didier’s time period.

The Reconstruction

Now that we have the basics of Didier's style and we have the proper weapons and costumes we are now ready to look at the exercises themselves. Each exercise is broken down into a series of attacks and counters between a Lieutenant and a Provost. Both will, over the course of the four exercises, take turns initiating the blade grabbing. The first two exercises are hilt grabs; that is, the aggressor will be grabbing the hilt of his opponent’s sword. In the first exercise the Provost will be reaching underneath her own arm and grasping the hilt of the Lieutenant’s sword. Didier then tells the Provost to “… giving a turn, for him to do it to leave, as you will see here after, holding the point of the sword right at the forehead as is shown here above…” We originally thought that the turn was twisting the blade out of the Lieutenant,s hand. However this presented a couple of problems. The first is that not everyone would be able to do that as it took a certain amount of strength. The second problem with this theory is that it took some time to accomplish and we ended up in a wrestling match. All of this seemed inconsistent with the rest of the manual. Didier relies on timing not strength and shows no wrestling anywhere in the manual (including the graspings). The answer came when we tried it with an un tipped sword. The point coming at my face (in a same and controlled manner) made me back up in a hurry; however, I could not because the Provost had the hilt of the sword. In order to escape the thrust to the face the Lieutenant had to let go of the hilt stepping back out of range of the attack. This just happened to be the last step of the exercise. Thus it is the point staying online that will cause the Lieutenant to let go, the twisting of the hilt seems to be merely to move the Lieutenant’s point off line (away from the Provost). This was also the case in the second and third exercise.

In the first exercise the Counter Grasping is a way for the Lieutenant to protect himself from the Provosts grasping. In this counter the Lieutenant will grab the Provost’s hilt at the same time. This ties up both swords. Didier says to let go of your sword, and hang on to the opponent’s hilt. This leaves your opponent holding a sword in a way that the sword cannot be used and opens up your good hand to defend yourself if your opponent tries to attack. Castle thinks that this is the move referred to in the famous dueling scene in the play Hamlet.

The counter in the Second exercise actually stops the Lieutenant from doing the blade grabbing and allows the Provost to grab the Lieutenant’s blade in stead. This is not true for the counters in the Third and Fourth Graspings. Here the counter simply shows the defender being able to do the grasping just as well as the Attacker. It does not show how to stop the grasping.

The third exercise is a blade grab. It is made by the Lieutenant after the Provost has crossed blades with him. It is the quickest and probably the most effective of the graspings.

The fourth and last Grasping gave us a lot of problems as well. This grasping is also a blade grasping. It has the Lieutenant garbing the tip of the Provost’s rapier, unwrapping his point underneath the hilt of the Provost’s sword and laying the foible of his sword on wrist of the Provost. The Lieutenant then lowers the tip of the Provost’s sword down and out so that the blade crosses his own, causing the Lieutenant’s sword to dig into the wrist of the Provost. Didier then explains that the Provost can either have his wrist cut (as the Lieutenant pulls on his sword) or he can let go saving his arm. The problem comes in with cutting the Provosts wrist. If he does not let loose of the sword we should be able to cut though a shirtsleeve and definately through bare skin. However, the majority of the woodcuts show the fencers wearing long sleeved doublets. We have some doubt that this method would cut through the doublet. We finally decided that we would assume that it would work and would cut the arm just as Didier suggests. With that assumption we decided that the defender would have to release her sword before the aggressor had the pressure on the blade. If the sword were released afterwards, she would still be cut. The last problem with the exercise came with the ending. When the defender released the sword, it was on top of the aggressor’s sword tying up the defenders own weapon. We decided that it would be safest to step back after the release in order to give time and room to untangle the sword and get it back on line.

The last problem we had came from writing up the reconstruction of the Third and Fourth Grasping. Didier became lax in his explanation of the exercise, particularly of the counter graspings. Didier skipped though all of the steps that preceded the actual grabbing of the weapon, in order to save time. When we wrote the reconstruction we added in all of the skipped steps in order to keep the format consistent. We have indicated in the reconstruction where we have added these instructions.

Application to SCA Combat

The reconstructions of the third and fourth grasping are usable exactly as written. The third grasping is very close to what most fencers in the SCA are already doing. It was the easiest to use and is very efficient and effective. The fourth grasping also works very well. Although it takes more skill to successfully use, it works well. I had no problem producing enough force and length of the cut in order for my opponent to accept it. It is also the flashiest of the grasping if done correctly. It received a lot of notice and attention.

The first two graspings, however, cannot be used in SCA combat as they are reconstructed. The problem comes from grabbing the hilt of the Sword. In SCA Rapier combat, this move is forbidden. The solution is to modify the technique so that you are grabbing the blade right in front of the hilt and not the hilt itself. This seems to work fine in combat. With these modifications all of the graspings are usable under the Rapier rules for the Middle Kingdom.

One of the benefits from the exercises was completely unexpected. That was to train yourself to let go of the sword when someone has control of it. In a sport fencing setting we had assumed that letting go of the sword would be unnecessary and offered no advantages. In SCA rapier combat (Middle Kingdom) you have to let go of the sword blade if it twists in your hand. With this technique it is easy to free your weapon. Unfortunately a quick opponent may still deliver an attack or two before you can complete the twist. By letting go and backing out of your opponent's range, you save yourself and are now in a defensive position in case they continue the attack. In one instance the aggressor took the sword and then continued the attack. I was able to grasp his blade and take his sword away from him.

.

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Henry de Saint Didier, Traicte Contenant Les Secrets D V Premier livre svr l’espe deuz mains &les deux espees, auec fes pourtraictures, ayans les armes au poing pour se deffendre & offencer aun mesme temps des coups qu’on peuttirer tant en assaillant qu’en deffendant, fort utile & suposts de Mars: redige par art, ordre & pratique. Paris 1573

Giacomo DiGrassi, Giacomo Di Grassi his true Arte of Deface, plainlie teaching by ifallable Demonstrations, apt Figures and perfect Rules the manner and forme houw a man without other teacher or master may safelie handle all sortes of weaponsas well offinsive as defensive… First written in Italian by the fore said author and Englished by I. G. Gentleman. London 1594

Secondary Sources:

Henry de Saint Didier, Tract containing the secrets of the first book on the single sword mother of all arms, which are sword, dagger, short cloak, square shield, buckler, target, two handed sword, and two swords, with these portraits showing the weapons in position for ones defense and offense at the same time as the hits which one desires to place, as much in attacking as in defending, very useful and profitable for the gentleman to learn, and for the followers of war: written for art, order, and practice. Translated and published by Laura Angotti 1997.

Achille Marozzo, Opera Nova, original published in Italy in 1550, abridged and translated by William Willson and made available at his web site http://mac9.edu/manuscripts/marozzo-sca.pdf

Hans Talhoffer, Medieval Combat, a Fifteenth-Century Illustrated Manual of Swordfighting and Close-Quarter Combat, Translated and edited by Mark Rector. Green hill books 2000 ISBN 1-85367-418-4

Fillippo Vadi, Arte Galdatoria Dimicandi, 15^th Century Swordsmanship of Master Filippo Vadi, Translated by Luca Porzio and Gregory Mele. Published by Chivalry Bookshelf 2002 ISBN 1-891448-18-8.

Castle Egerton, Schools and Masters of Fence, London 1982

Don Terence the Arcane, Some Examples of Sizes of Rapiers in the Wallace Collection (London). Published on the web at

www.musketeer.org/rapiers/wallace.htm

TJ Hamron, The Six Hits of Henry de Saint Didier, Entered in A&S compition in 2005 by TJ Harmon and Dan Harszy, self published on the web.

Reconstruction of the Four Graspings of Henry de Saint Didier

First Grasping¹²

Lieutenant: Begin with the left foot forward. The sword is held out at length and just below the shoulder (middle guard). The left hand is held up to defend the face.

Provost: Begin with the left foot forward. The sword is held out at length and just above the shoulder (high guard). The left hand is held just in front of the left nipple.

Lieutenant: Pass forward with the right foot, while making a right thrust at the face of the Provost. Sword hand should be palm up and the left and is protecting the face.

Provost: Pass back with the left foot while crossing swords with the Lieutenant, your fort to his foible with your sword hand palm up. The point of your sword should be at his face. Pass forward with the left foot and grasp Lieutenant’s sword hilt with your left hand, coming up from underneath your own sword arm. Twist the hilt so that the point comes off line, while keeping your point at his face. Make a thrust to the face.

Lieutenant: Let go of the sword pass back with the right foot (avoiding the Provost’s thrust), left hand is protecting the face.

Provost: Tuck the Lieutenants blade underneath your left arm while keeping the point of your sword at his face.

Counter Grasping

Lieutenant: Begin with the left foot forward. The sword is held out at length and just below the shoulder (middle guard). The left hand is held up to defend the face.

Provost: Begin with the left foot forward. The sword is held out at length and just above the shoulder (high guard). The left hand is held just in front of the left nipple.

Lieutenant: Pass forward with the right foot, while making a right thrust at the face of the Provost. Sword hand should be palm up and the left and is protecting the face.

Provost: Pass back with the left foot while crossing swords with the Lieutenant, your fort to his foible with your sword hand palm up. The point of your sword should be at his face. Pass forward with the left foot and grasp Lieutenant’s sword hilt with your left hand, coming up from underneath your own sword arm. Twist the hilt so that the point comes off line, while keeping your point at his face.

Lieutenant: As Provost grabs your hilt, pass forward with the left foot and grasp his hilt from underneath (just as he did). Twist the hilt so that the point comes off line.

With both of the hilts locked up, both of you should let go and pass backwards with the front foot while tucking the blade of the sword up under the left arm so that you can grasp the hilt with the right hand.

Second Grasping¹³

Lieutenant: Begin with the left foot forward and the sword held at length and about waist high (low guard). The left hand should be protecting the left nipple.

Provost: Start with the left foot forward and with the sword held out straight from the shoulder (middle guard). The left hand should be held over the left thigh.

Lieutenant: Pass forward with the right foot and make a right-handed thrust at the Provost’s face. The left hand should be protecting the left nipple.

Provost: Pass backwards with the left foot, while crossing swords with the Lieutenant, your fort to his foible with the palm of the sword hand up. Make a thrust at Lieutenant’s face.

Lieutenant: Unwrap your blade underneath the hilt of Provost, making a Crosscut at the face shoulder of the Provost.

Provost: Cross blades again with the Lieutenant, with the palm of the sword hand down, and make a thrust at the face of the opponent.

Lieutenant: As Provost crosses blades with you, pass forward with the left foot and grasp the hilt of his sword. Twist the hilt of his blade as you slide your sword down is blade forcing it off line (and flat), while keeping your point aimed at his stomach. Make a thrust to Provost’s stomach.

Provost: let go of sword while passing back with the right foot; bring the left hand to protect the left nipple.

Lieutenant: Tuck the blade of Provost’s sword up underneath your left arm while keeping your point on line.

Counter Grasping

Lieutenant: Begin with the left foot forward and the sword held at length and about waist high (low guard). The left hand should be protecting the left nipple.

Provost: Start with the left foot forward and with the sword held out straight from the shoulder (middle guard). The left hand should be held over the left thigh.

Lieutenant: Pass forward with the right foot and make a right-handed thrust at the Provost’s face. The left hand should be protecting the left nipple.

Provost: Pass backwards with the left foot, while crossing swords with the Lieutenant, your fort to his foible with the palm of the sword hand up. Make a thrust at Lieutenant’s face.¹⁴

Lieutenant: Unwrap your blade underneath the hilt of Provost, making a Crosscut¹⁵ at the face shoulder of the Provost.

Provost: Cross blades with the Lieutenant’s sword. Pass forward with the left foot and grasp the Lieutenant’s hilt. Twist his hilt to bring the point off line as you slide the fort of your blade down his forcing his point off line. Keep your point aimed for his stomach. Thrust at his stomach.

L: Let go of the sword passing back with the right foot. The left hand should be protecting the left nipple.

P: Tuck the Lieutenant’s sword blade up underneath your left arm while keeping your point on line.¹⁶

The Third Grasping¹⁷

Lieutenant: Begin on the left foot, sword held extended forward about shoulder high (middle guard). The left hand should be over the thigh.

Provost: Begin also on the left foot, sword is held out at length and just above the shoulder. Left hand is protecting the thigh.

Lieutenant: While passing forward with the right foot, make a thrust to the P face. Left hand is protecting the left nipple.

Provost: Pass backward with the left foot. Cross swords with the Lieutenant, your fort to his foible, and make a thrust to his face. Left hand is protecting the left nipple.

Lieutenant: As the Provost crosses swords with you; you will grasp the flat of the blade with your fingers extended (the blade lying along your arm). Thrust at the Provost face.

It is important to note that you do not step forward in this move.

Provost: Pass backward with the right foot, while letting go of your sword. Left hand should be protecting the face.

Counter Grasping

Lieutenant: Begin on the left foot, sword held extended forward about shoulder high (middle guard). The left hand should be over the thigh.

Provost: Begin also on the left foot, sword is held out at length and just above the shoulder. Left hand is protecting the thigh.

Lieutenant: While passing forward with the right foot, make a thrust to the Provost face. Left hand is protecting the left nipple.¹⁸

Provost: Cross swords with the Lieutenant while passing back with the left foot. Unwrap your sword under his hilt grasping the Lieutenant’s sword with the open hand and supporting his blade under your forearm. Thrust at the belly of the Lieutenant.

Lieutenant: Let go of the sword and using the left hand to defend your face, pass backwards with the right foot.

The Fourth Grasping¹⁹

Lieutenant: Begin on the stance of the left foot. Sword arm is extended and held out in front of you just above the shoulder. Left and left hand held low just over the thigh.

Provost: Also begin on the stance of the left foot. Sword held straight out in front of the body at shoulder height. Right hand held low over her thigh.

Lieutenant: Advance right foot, passing the left and make a thrust to the face of the Provost.

Provost: Step back with the left foot and cross blades with the Lieutenant, the fort of your blade with the foible of his. Thrust at the Lieutenants face.

Lieutenant: Unwrap sword poi8nt under the Provost’s hilt, allowing the point of your sword to land on the inside of the Provosts arm. While doing this Grasp the blade of the Provost at the foible in an overhand grip. Bear down with the left hand using the Provost’s blade to aid in cutting his right arm.

Provost: To prevent the cut to the arm, Let go of the sword, stepping back with the Right foot and defending the chest with the left hand.

Counter Grasping

Lieutenant: Begin on the stance of the left foot. Sword arm is extended and held out in front of you just above the shoulder. Left and left hand held low just over the thigh.

Provost: Also begin on the stance of the left foot. Sword held straight out in front of the body at shoulder height. Right hand held low over her thigh.

Lieutenant: Advance right foot, passing the left and make a thrust to the face of the Provost.²⁰

Provost: Step back with the left foot and cross blades with the Lieutenant, the fort of your blade with the foible of his. Then grasp the point of the Lieutenants blade in an overhand grip with the left hand as you unwrap your sword point underneath the Lieutenants hilt and place the blade on the inside of his arm and using his own blade to apply pressure to yours make a deep cut on the arm.

Lieutenant: To stop the cut, let go of your sword and step back with the right foot, brining the left hand up to protect the chest.

1 From the translation by Mark Rector.

2 Translated by Luca Porzio and Gregory Mele.

3 From the Translation by William Wilson.

4 These are covered in the work ”The Six Hits of Henry de Saint Didier”. This was presented in the A&S competition in 2005 within the SCA. It was presented by TJ Harmon and Dan Harszy, known in the SCA as Philippe de Lyon and Mircea din Iaszy. This has been self published on the Internet and the address can be found in the Bibliography.

5 Didier does not specifically discuss distance in his manual. These are conclusions drawn from the reconstruction of the Six Hits.

6 Although either foot can be placed forward, all of the Graspings are done with the left foot forward.

7 Didier assumes that both the Provost and Lieutenant are right handed.

8 Each exercise starts by describing the guard for both the Provost and lieutenant. We therefore saw no reason to describe the three guards here.

9 DeGracie states that 3 fingers deep into the body is fatal.

10 This is done by the quillions are cross guard of the sword. See picture of the first attack of the second grasping in the appendices.

11The web site is maintained by Don Terence the Arcane. The address is listed in the Bibliography.

12 Angoti, page 61-66

13 angoti, page 67-70

14 These first sections of the Counter grasping for the Second hit were added in to make the exercise flow better. In the manual the counter grasping started with the cut by the Lieutenant in the next move.

15The translation here shows that this should be a right hand blow. If it is to be the same move as done by the Lieutenant (and to stay with how the second grasping worked) it needs to be a cross blow.

16 This has been added to give a consistent ending to the exercises. Although not shown for the counter grasping it is shown in the Second Grasping.

17 Angoti, page 71-74

18 These notations have been added for clarity. The explanation of the counter to the third grasping starts with the next move.

19 Angoti, page 75-78

20 Again, the proceeding moves of the Counter grasping has been added for clarity, the explanation of the counter actually starts with the next move.

"Fighting in the French Style", Class Notes

 

Fighting in the French Style

A look at who was teaching, what they taught,

and what written resources were available to the French

in the 15,16, and early 17^th century.

By Thomas Harmon, known in the SCA as Philippe de Lyon

mandritta@yahoo.com

I have long been interested in French Fencing during the 16^th Century. Ever since finding the fencing manual of Henri de Sainct Didier translated by Lori Angoti some 15 years ago, I have been fascinated by the concept of a French fencing system. At that time Didier was all I knew about. Over the years more information has been found and made available on the web. This class is an attempt to cover the resources I have been able to find and give a picture of what fighting in France during the Renaissance was like. I do not plan to go in to depth on any one system or manual. The purpose of this article is to give information and resources for those wishing to study the French system or for those looking for a fighting style to complement their French persona.

In trying to identify a French system or style of combat I first looked at who was teaching. Were there fencing guilds? Who was allowed to teach? What were they teaching? This last question leads into what written material was available to the French. Not everyone would have access to a teacher and thus what printed works were available would greatly influence how people were fighting.

Guilds¹

By the beginning of the 16^th century, France and its sounding areas already had three guilds dedicated to the study of war. These were the Guild of Saint Sebastian for the archers, the Guild of St. George for the crossbowman, and the guild of Saint Barbara for the couleuvriniers or cannoniers. These were loose confraternities with rules varying from city to city. They were open to the average citizen and were dedicated to preparation for war. They were also used by the local towns as ready supply for guards. Some of the guilds even had service to the town guard as requirement of membership.

There did not seem to be a formal group for the training of sword. Instead there were informal groups that were getting together for training and sport. In 1513 we find the first reference to a 4^th confraternities or company. The company of St. Michael was for sword play and referred to as Escrimeurs. By 1567 we see a charter for a formal fencing guild in Paris organized under the authority of the crown. The charter still required guild members to participate in the guard, but those requirements are not spelled out in the surviving documents. We do have a detailed charter of the Paris Masters. It set forth the requirements to become a master including training from another master, serving two years as a provost, and then testing for the position as Master. The document also states that foreign masters may only demonstrate or teach for no more than six weeks without seeking entry to the guild. In the 1644 charter for the Weapons Masters of Paris the requirements in order for a prevost (senior student) to become a master, the prevost must be a native of France and fight an open demonstration against other prevosts at single sword and sword and dagger. They must also face six Masters with single sword, sword and dagger, and espadone (two handed sword). The charter further states that the prevost “... will be exempted from the use of a halberd and stick in front of the Master's assembly …”² This is the first reference to only allowing Frenchmen to test for Master. From this we have some idea of what was being taught in the schools. We also see that the Paris Masters were trying to keep foreign fencing masters out of their guild.

Pike Legions³

In the 15^th century the French infantry was predominately composed of crossbowman and foreign mercenary (predominantly Swiss). In 1531 King Francis I founded the Legions of Nomandy, Langedoc, Champagne and Picardy. These were 6000 man formations composed of pikemen, halberdiers and shot. These consisted of levies that could be called up as needed. The Legions would muster occasionally during peace. The Legions were maintained or revived through the 16^th century and well into the 17^th until replaced with a standing army.

We know that each region had to be prepared to call up the levies and were required to give some sort of training. Exactly what was being taught and whether training was uniform through out the Legions is unknown.

Written Material

At this point we have an idea of who was teaching and what type weapons they would have been using. Unfortunately we have no idea of what they were teaching or how they were using these weapons. I have no documentation that shows a curriculum or set system being taught by the French masters. Because the rules of the guilds varied from city to city it is reasonable to hypothesize that what was being taught and how also varied. The varied written material on the subject lends some credibility to this argument. We have several surviving written works in French that were published in the 16^th and early 17^th century. By reviewing this written material we may get a better understanding of what could have been taught at the schools (or in private).

Traitte de lEspee

The ealiest known work was a three volume set named “Traittie de lEspe,” literally The Treatise of the Sword. It was listed in the library of the kings of France in 1373 and 1411, but disappeared in 1435 when the library was dispersed.⁴

This was the only known copy of the work, we have no idea of who wrote it or what was in it.

Christine de Pizan

Christine de Pizan wrote her work “The book of Deeds of Arms and of Chivalry” around 1410. Her work primarily concerns warfare and is considered to be based on the work of Vegtius (Publius Favius Vegtius was a 4^th century Roman writer).⁵ In the work Pizan discusses how to train with the sword and some guidelines for its use. She also discusses current practices of her time for warfare. Among these practices she lists the trainng of youth in the art of war and that they should be taught to wrestle, leap and vault, staff, spear, throwing of the spear and dart, and use of the sword and sheild. It is also possible that she as also had access to The Treatise of the Sword. She did have royal patronage and they book was in the possession of the Crown at that time.

le Jeu de la Hache

The next work is “le jeu de la Hache. This is the oldest surviving work in French.⁶ The manuscript, believed to be written sometime in the 15^th century, deals with the use of the poleaxe. The weapon is usually depicted as having a hammer head, back spike or beak, top spike, a butt spike or steel cap and is about five feet in length. There are surviving examples of this weapon with a small axe head instead of the hammer head. The weapon was a staple of knightly combat and was a formidable weapon in the lists as well as on the battlefield. According to Dupuis “This manuscript could scarcely be more anonymous. In addition to not carrying any information about the author , the document bears no indication about the dating or origin”.⁷ In “Burgundian Poleaxe, the noble art of Chivalric Axe Combat” Jason Smith argues that the work is indeed Burgundian and written by Master Ambrose of Milan who was well known for the use of the poleaxe. The book is a detailed translation and interpretation of the manuscript.⁸ a free translation of the manuscript is available at Wiktenaur.com.

Andre Paurnfeyndt

In 1538 “ la NobleScience des Joueurs d'Espee” was published. This is a French translation of Andre Paurnfeyndt's work Ergrundung Ritterlisher kunst de Fechterey (foundations of the Chivalric Art of Swordplay) originaly written in German and published in 1516. Paurnfeyndt states that this work is for beginners and explains the use of the word (two handed), dussack/messer, and staff. The Wiktenaur website has a translation of the original work, the original in German, and the French text. The 1516 work is credited with being the first printed work to include illustrations.

Achille Marozzo

“Livre de'escrime,pour apprendre a tirer de lepee & de toutes armes was a French translation of Achille Marozzo's work “Opera Nova”. It was published by Pierre Marechal in Lyon, France.⁹ No copy of the French translation survived. Opera Nova is considered to be one of the dominant works in the “Bolognese” school of fencing.¹⁰ Marozzo covers a variety of weapons including the two handed sword, sword and buckler, the sword alone, partisan, spear/pike, and poleaxe/halberd/bill. Marrozzo's work is extremely influential as it was reprinted many times through out the 16^th and 17^th century. A partial translation of the work can be found at www.marozzo.org.

Jacques Descars

Jacques Descars may have written a work on fencing in 1568. It has one mention, there was no name recorded for the work and no copy survived.¹¹

Henry de Sainct Didier

“Tracte contenant les Secrets Du Premier Livre de L'Espee Seule” Written by Henri de Sainct Didier published in 1573 and is considered to be the first treatise conceived written, and printed in French.¹² Didier claims to have been a soldier for 25 years who fought under Charles IX and Francis the II. He claimed to have fenced with the king himself although the Archives of the Maitres d'armes of Paris state it was the king's brother.¹³ We know that Didier was a master of the Paris guild and had connections at court.¹⁴ Didier's manual was focused on the single sword and had detailed instructions for its use. There is a reference in his work to other books he intended to write on sword and dagger, sword and cloak, sword and buckler, and two handed sword. Many feel Didier is based on the Bolognes school of fencing and is only an adaption of Marozzo's works.¹⁵ Tim Rivera in “An Essay Containing a Detailed Comparative Analysis of the the streatise of Henri de Sainct Didier” has a different take.” Rivera argues that the similarities of Sainct Didiers's style to those of the examined authors, its likely that his treatise represents a style native to southern France, which would of course share similarities with styles from neighboring Spain and Italy.”¹⁶ There is an english translation of the manual on Wiktenaur.

Hieronymus Cavalcabo

“Treatise or Instruction for Fencing” by Hieronymus Cavalcabo of Bologna was originally published in Italian and was translated into French by Lord Vellamont in 1597. The work also includes a short essay by the Poternostrier of Rome (Fencing master of Rome). Although Cavalcabo was an Italian he was also the fencing master of Henry IV of France. He was suceeded by his son Cesar who was the Master of Arms to the French Court until 1642¹⁷. Cavalcabo primarily focuses on sword and dagger. He does discuss sword and cape and single sword but states that sword and dagger is the stronger system. Cavalcabo seems to be a mix of the Bolognese school and the Roman school (Agrippa). His work was praised by Dancie and was in the library of Desbordes (two French fencing masters we will be discussing shortly). Portions of Cavalcabo's work appear in the “book of Lessons” by Don Pedro de Heredia and will be be cited in other French books until the 18^th century.¹⁸ He is probably one of the most influential fencing masters for the French.

Capitaine Peloquin

“Le Cabinet d'Escrime de l'Espee Poignard de Peloquin” is a manuscript in the Hauge that was writen by De la Haye and was presented to Maurice de Nassau (the younger brother of the Prince of Orange). De La Hay claims to have received the work from Capitaine Peloquin a French fencing Master who supposedly taught Henri De Navarre fencing before he became king of France. However there is no trace of Capitaine Peloquin to be found in the historical records¹⁹. Peloquin's work focuses on the sword and dagger and uses a very unique system in his illustrations to depict the techniques. The illustrations show a disembodied face and heart on a grid work. It shows the students foot and sword positions and subsequent moments in relationship to an opponent.

The system shows a striking similarity to Cavalcabo's work and to the Bolognese system. However, like Didier, there are enough differences that this could be a unique system influenced by the Italian masters and not a direct copy. A free English translation with illustrations can be found on Wikteneaur.

Andre desBordes

“Discours de la Theorie de la pratique et de lExcellence des Armes” or the “Discourse on Theory, Practive, and Excellence at Arms”, was written by Andre desBordes in 1610 and dedicated to the Duke of Lorraine²⁰. Andre desBordes forcused on the use of the sword and dagger. It has been argued that his work is really just a french translation of “Discorso di Camillo Palladini Bolgnese sopra l'arte della scherma come L'arte della scherma e necessaria a chi si diletta d'arme” by Camillo Palladini written in Italian in 1600²¹. DesBordes had a coppy of Palladini's work in his library.²²I was unable to find a translation of desBordes work that was free on line.

Francois Dancie

Francois Dancie wrote two works on fencing. “Discorse of Armes and Method to properly fence with the Sword and Dagger” is a manucript written in 1617. The manuscript formed the basis for his book “The sword of Combat” published in 1623.²³ Dancie's work is based on the sword and dagger and the single sword. His method is very pragmatic. In addition to technical discussion of the use of the sword Dancie also discusses mindset, attitude, and the necessity of regular practice in order to maintain speed and judgment²⁴. A translation of the manuscript is available for free at the Renaissance Sword Club website.

Don Pedro de Heredia

“The book of lessons and its collection of Illustraions” is a set of three manuscripts that are believed to be writen by Don Pedro de Heredia sometime between 1600 and 1648²⁵. The manuscripts set forth a series of lessons using sword and dagger and the single sword. The manuscripts contin between 54 and 71 illustrations. The work is in French but uses some Spanish fencing terms. “The work focuses on tactical advice and exercises to understand the use of time, the use of the free hand, strokes against a a left-handed opponent, etc.”²⁶ Discussions of the work and a link to purchase a translation can be found at The Renaissance Sword Club web site.

Nicoletto Giganti

There is a French translation of Nicoletto Giganti's book “ Scola overo Teatro” (writen in 1610). The work was translated into French by Jacques de Zaeter in 1619.²⁷ Giganti's work is focused on the use of the rapier both single and with a dagger and was the first work to break down the mechanics of the lunge.²⁸ Wiktenauer has a trascription of the Italian and French texts and an English translation based on the Italian text avalable for free on Wikenauer.com.

Gerard Thibault d'Anvers

“Academie de L'Espee” was written by Gerard Thibault d'Anvers and was published in 1628. The work is extremely detailed and well illustrated and discusses his version of the Spanich system known as Destreza.²⁹

Was there a French System

This is a contested point and there are no easy answers. Dupuis points out “...that in this period there were as many translations of Italian fight books published as original French works.”³⁰ This becomes fairly obvious as one looks through the written works listed above. Dupuis further states “...fencing at the court of Valois and even during Henri IV's reign is undoubtedly marked by the Italian fencing fashions.” But why was this. The answer may go back to King Francis I and his love for all things Italian. He was bringing Italian artisans to his court. Most notable were Leonardo daVincie and Benvenuto Celinni ( a famous goldsmith from Rome). He was obsessed with the conquest of Milan, He even married his eldest son to an Italian noble woman, Katherine de Medici. As regent and queen mother to several of her sons while they were king, she had considerable influence on the monarchy and thus on France. This may be why we see so few works from native French masters, there simply was no incentive to publish works and there was no royal patronage being offered. Dupuis believes that there was no interest in the monarchy for this type of work. “The case of the Kings of France is a good Illustration, outside the intriguing Traittie de lEspe discussed before; le Jeu de Hache is the only fencing treatise belonging to the library of the king of France in 1542. A reason for the absence of French fight books at the beginning of the Renaissance seems to be the lack of interest of the great and good for this type of technical document.”³¹ This may be why we do not see any works by French masters until after Charles IX of France creates the the French fencing academia in 1567. Over the next 100 years we have six French fencing Masters publishing books on fencing.

We aslo see that when we do have Dancie, a Frenchman, writing works in the 17^th century it is the Italian Cavalcabo he credits as the foundation of his work and not his fellow Frenchman Didier or Peloquin. The same goes for DesBordes. He does not mention any of the French masters when he writes his book. There seems to be no continuity between the French masters.

The other issue we should address here is what weapons the French fencing guilds were teaching compared to what what weapons appear in the manuals. We stated earlier that the guilds (at least in Paris) were teaching single sword, sword and dagger, two handed sword, halberd, and staff (baton). The written material of the French masters only cover the single sword, and sword and dagger. Although they do cover other weapon combinations such as sword and cloak, none of the French masters discuss the use of two handed sword, halberd or staff. Didier does mention that he was going to produce a work on two handed sword but as far as we know he never did. To find instructions on the two handed sword, halberd and staff we have to look at the foreign masters. The German master

Andre Paurnfeyndt discusses the use of two handed sword and the staff in his work. He also states that the staff is the foundation of all hafted weapons thus we could deduce that it would apply to the halberd as well. The Italian Master Achille Marozzo also discusses the use of the two handed sword in his work. Marozzo also teaches the use of the poleaxe and states that it is the foundation for hafted weapons that can cut and he includes the halberd in that list.

I would like to make the argument that the manuscript “le jeu de la Hache” focuses on

Poleaxe and thus could be applied to the use of the halberd and could be used to teach staff as well. Christine de Pizan does mention staff as one of the weapons used in training youth for the battlefield. It very well could have been used as a teaching/training devise for the poleaxe.

Conclusion

What we can say is that there is evidence through the manuals available in French, of the German systems, Italian Bolognese and Roman schools, and Spanish schools of combat were available to the French. These works may or may not have been being taught by the French fencing masters but would have definitely influenced later generations. We also have evidence of a distinctive version of combat that was being taught by French masters. These masters were certainly influenced by the works that preceded them but they are distinctive enough to be consider a native style and influential in their own right.

So to answer the second part of our original question. What type of fighting styles can be used by someone with a French persona? The answer is just about anything. The influence of the foreign masters was considerable. These masters represented most of the major thoughts on combat from across the continent. You can also use materiel from one or more of the French masters for a more home grown feel on the subject. We an safely argue that all of these system were being taught and used in some form or another in France during the 15^th, 16^th, and early 17^th century.

Bibliography:

“French Fencing Guilds of Parris , Lille, and Amiens in the 16^th and 17^th century.” translated by Pierre Pichon , Edited by Jean Changler, SDA NOLA & Roger Norling GHFS/MFFG.

https://hroarr.com/article/french-fencing-guilds/

Renaissance Warfare website.

www.home.mysoul.com.au/graemecook/renaissance/16_French.html

These Airfax Maagzine articles based on George Gush's book “Renaissance Warfare”

“The French Fencing traditions, from the 14^th century to 1630 through Fight Books”. Olivier Dupuis 2016.

This is an essay that was downloaded from Brill.com on 8/30/2020.

“The Book of the Deeds of Arms and of Chivalry”, By Christine de Pizan , translated by

Sumner Willard (Brig. Gen., USA, Ret.) and edited by Charity Cannon Willard.

“The Burgundian Poleaxe, the nobel Art of Chivalric Axe Combat, and illustrated guide to Le Jue De La Hache”. Jason Smith 2020.

Wiktenauer.com A HEMA Alliance Project, is a website dedicated to European martial arts. It specifically deals with Masters, and written works of the 15^th, 16^th and 17^th centuries.

“Secrets of the Sword Alone”, by Henri de Sainct Didier and translated by Chris Slee. 2014.

“An Essay Containing a detailed comparative analysis of the treatise of Henri de Sainct Didier to the treatises of Giovanni Anbonio Lovino, Domingo Luis Godinho, and Pedro de Herdia, illuminating their technical similarities, in order establish a place for Sainct Didier's treatise, very useful and beneficial all supporters of the arts of Mars.” composed by Tim Rivera 2013.

Treatise or instruction for Fencing: By Hieronymus Calvacabo of Balogna and Paternostrier of Rome, Translated by rob Runacres

The Renaissance Sword Club. www.renaissanceswordclub.com

a translation of Francois Dancie, “Discourse of Arms and Method to Properly Fence with the Sword and Dagger (ore 1617) is available as a PDF file on their Translations page.

Additional Resources:

The Renaissance Sword Club has some great videos and resources for the the 17^th century fencing masters. I highly recommend their site. http://www.renaissanceswordclub.com/

The St. Louis School of Arms focuses on the Bolognese system. The instructor Ken Harding has a patreon account that has videos and several works on his interpretation of the Bolognese masters. Ken also has a YouTube Chanel with a videos covering the use of the single sword, two handed sword, poleaxe and other hafted weapons. I highly recommend his work.

Wiktenauer.com is a wonderful website with an exhaustive list of Fencing Master, manuscripts and books of the 15^th, 16^th, and 17^th centuries. They have biographical information, links to museums and library for extant copies of works, as well as free translations for some of the manuals .

1Most of this section comes form “French Fencing Guids”, translated by Pierre Pichon and edited by Jean Chandler and Roger Norling.

2“French Fencing Guids”, translated by Pierre Pichon and edited by Jean chandler and Roger Norling.

3From the Renaissance Warefare website. Under the article on the French.

4The French Fencing Traditions, from 14^th century to 1630 through Fight Books, Ollivier Dupuis. 2016

5“The book of the Deeds of Arms and of Chivalry”, By Christine de Pizan , translated by Sumner Willard (Brig. Gen., USA, Ret.) and edited by Charity Cannon Willard. Page 2.

6The French Fencing Traditions, from 14^th century to 1630 through Fight Books, Ollivier Dupuis. 2016

7The French Fencing Traditions, from 14^th century to 1630 through Fight Books, Ollivier Dupuis. 2016

8“Burgundian Poleaxe”, Jason Smith 2020.

9The French Fencing Traditions, from 14^th century to 1630 through Fight Books, Ollivier Dupuis. 2016

10Wiktenaur.com

11The French Fencing Traditions, from 14^th century to 1630 through Fight Books, Ollivier Dupuis. 2016

12The French Fencing Traditions, from 14^th century to 1630 through Fight Books, Ollivier Dupuis. 2016

13“secrets of the Sword Alone”, by henry de Sainct Didier and translated by Chris Slee.

14The French Fencing Traditions, from 14^th century to 1630 through Fight Books, Ollivier Dupuis. 2016

15The French Fencing Traditions, from 14^th century to 1630 through Fight Books, Ollivier Dupuis. 2016

16“ An Essay containing a detailed compaarative analysis of the treatise of Henri de Sainct Didier...” compase by Tim rivera 2013.

17Treatise or instruction for Fencing: By Hieronymus Calvacabo of Balogna and Paternostrier of Rome, Translated by rob Runacres

18The French Fencing Traditions, from 14^th century to 1630 through Fight Books, Ollivier Dupuis. 2016

19The French Fencing Traditions, from 14^th century to 1630 through Fight Books, Ollivier Dupuis. 2016

20he French Fencing Traditions, from 14^th century to 1630 through Fight Books, Ollivier Dupuis. 2016

21Wiktenaur.

22The French Fencing Traditions, from 14^th century to 1630 through Fight Books, Ollivier Dupuis. 2016

23The Resnaissance Sword Club website on the Traslations page.

24he French Fencing Traditions, from 14^th century to 1630 through Fight Books, Ollivier Dupuis. 2016

25The French Fencing Traditions, from 14^th century to 1630 through Fight Books, Ollivier Dupuis. 2016

26The French Fencing Traditions, from 14^th century to 1630 through Fight Books, Ollivier Dupuis. 2016

27The French Fencing Traditions, from 14^th century to 1630 through Fight Books, Ollivier Dupuis. 2016

28Siktenauer.com on the page for Nicoletto Giganti.

29Wiktenauer.com from the page on Gerard Thibault d'Anvers.

30The French Fencing Traditions, from 14^th century to 1630 through Fight Books, Ollivier Dupuis. 2016

31The French Fencing Traditions, from 14^th century to 1630 through Fight Books, Ollivier Dupuis. 2016

Personal possessions of the working class during the Tudor perid.

 

Personal Possessions of the Working Class During the Tudor Period

Thomas Harmon known in the society as Maiter Philippe de Lyon

Kingdom A&S Fair 2015 A look at Tudor probate inventories and archeological evidence from the Mary Rose to get an understanding of personal possessions in Tudor England. We will be focusing on the working class and what type of items they would have owned. I have been involved with the Living History groups for 19 years. When I first started attending reenactments I wore doublets and hose bought from a renaissance fair and was quite pleased. I also acquired feast gear, jewelry, and a bag from a garage sale. As my involvement increased I found myself continually asking what would some one from the renaissance have owned and used. After doing just a little research I decided on looking at the lower classes of Tudor era England. I focused my research on the farmers and tradesmen of the era. These individuals would have still worked for a living but were self sufficient and not living in poverty. I hoped that by focusing on this class I would be able to find a small list of possessions that I would be capable of making or would be inexpensive to purchase. I then started researching on what type of possessions a person of this class would have. I found several websites for enactors with a list of suggested items, but nothing that I could document. Unable to find anything definitive I decided to go ahead and use the lists from the website and to begin researching what these items would be like. During my research I came across several wonderful sources. The museum of London published a series of books cataloging items found during digs in London. Among these books were “Dress Accessories” and “Household Goods”. Both of thses books delt with artifact that would have been owned by the working class from the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries. ‘these were inventories made or individuals that died without a will. I also found the “Before the Mast” a wonderful book that gave us a look into the life of the crew aboard the Mary Rose. The Mary Rose was a Tudor Error War ship, commissioned by Henry the Eighth and sank in 1643. The wreckage was discovered and raised in the 20th century and is now on display at its own museum in England. Among the artifacts recovered were chests of some of the crew that held their possessions. Among the chests we found work related items and personal items. Personal items are defined by xxxxxxx as items owned by a single individual for their personal use. These include marked items and items that would be carried on the individual. It is the personal items that I was interested in. But the chests only gave us one look at the personal items owned by the working class Tudor subject. Because of the these individual living on a ship, we could not get a good idea of the items they would have owned for the day to day use of fixing food, sleeping, etc. Further research led me to Tudor probate inventories and tax inventories. These were written assessments of the worth of the individual for the purpose of paying taxes and for distributing the worth of someone who did not leave a will. While reading the inventories I realized that the wealth of the working class varied greatly. This could range from one pound of accessed values all the way to as much as one hundred pounds, although the majority would be worth between one and four pounds. Because of this the quality and number of their possessions varied greatly. But it became very apparent that the type of possessions were fairly consistent. By using these resources we can create a list of personal possessions that were owned by the working class in Tudor England. To accomplish this we need to define the time period and status of the individuals and which possessions and what artifacts we will be focusing on. So the fist thing we are doing to narrow the focus of this project is to limit the time period of our search. The Tudor period in England started with the coronation of the henry the 7th and runs through the death of Elizabeth the first. Henry 7th became King of England in 14XX. This brought to a conclusion a 50 year civil war known as the War of the Roses. It also brought a lot of social change for the kingdom and its subjects. Henry the 7th brought peace and stability to a kingdom that had been at war for two generations. His heir Henry the 8th patroned the arts, kept the country in almost constant warfare, increased England’s fleet of ships, and dissolved the catholic churches and monasteries and created the church of England. Under his daughter Queen Mary, relations with Spain flourished and she brought the country back to the Catholic Faith. Queen Elizabeth, Mary’s successor, returned the country to the Church of England. Spent considerable time and energy to enhance the English economy, created public work houses, orphanages and hospitals and brought a time of relative peace to the country. During the Tudor period, particularly during the reighn of Henry the VII and VIII, there was a considerable increase in the lower classes of society. After the civil war there was a labor shortage and a lot of empty land that needed to be teneded or it would revert to forest. Both of these conditions allowed the peasants, farming class, and craftsmen to flourish. These would be the working class of the Tudor Society. These individual would do the farming, baking, blacksmithing, weaving and any other work needed. In the countryside that was primarily farming but would also include servants and craftsmen in the cities. These individuals would comprise the majority of the population. Not all of these individuals were poor. Many of them would be part of the Yeomen class. These were farmers that owned land and was able to support themselves. Legally the group was defined as having at least 4 pounds worth of personal possessions and land. Comparable to the Yeomen were the Craftsmen. These individuals were a part of the guild and would go through an apprentice system to learn a marketable skill. The guilds were regulated by the crown and jealously guarded there professions. Together they made up the working class. Above them were the Gentry, those individuals who were armigarious, and the Nobility, those individuals who were in the line of accession for the throne. There were laws that applied to specific classes regarding rights, taxes, responsibilities, clothing, and ownership of property. The one thing not regulated by station in life was wealth. There were many members of the Yeomen and Craftsmen that were well off financially. This included some that were wealthier than members of the Gentry. It was not uncommon for a member of the gentry to marry a daughter of the Yeomen or Craftsmen class for a large dowery. Next we need to define what we mean by personal possessions. In the article Artifacts and Personal identity, they are defined as “…personal artifact is those used by an individual, belonging to one person and used exclusively by that individual over the course of the artifacts use life or persons lifetime. Within this category of artifacts are objects used by individuals and passed on the others through heredity – objects that see multiple, successive owners. Finally, the most narrowly defined kind of personal artifacts are those that are exclusively associated with the bodies of individual people—artifacts worn or used by a single person or about their body.“1 We will also narrow down a little more to exclude items used for work or to apply ones trade. These items are not of personal choice and would be highly specialized. To find out what items were owned by the working class, we will turn to historical data. During the Tudor period Inventories of subjects personal property were made to assess the worth of the individual for the purpose of lay subsidies and probate courts. According to Roger Fieldhouse in the article “Social structure from Tudor Lay subsidies and Probate Inventories”, lay subsidies was a tax on property used extensively to raise funds for specific purposes, such as war, to be levied at so much for every pound which each person was considered worth in goods, real estate and wages.2 For the Lay subsidie of 1564 households were assessed a tax if they were worth 1 pound or more. Those households with less than 1 pound of accesed value were exempt from the tax. 46 percent of the population paid no taxes. The second largest group made up 33 percent and had a value of 1-3 pounds. About 6 percent of the population would have been considered well off but not rich. This class would have started at about 4 pounds in value and would go up from there.3 Similarly the probate inventories used the same methods to calculate the worth of the individual at death. This was done for tax purposes and also to protect inheritance for those who died without a will. In “Tudor Inventories from Appleby, 1530-1601,” Alan Roberts4 gives us 9 inventories to look at. These households were valued from 3 pounds to 92 pounds. All of these were from the working class and the largest from a farmer named Edward More. In total we have 11 probate inventories and two lay subsidies made up from members of 39 percent of the Tudor population. 5 There are a few problems with using the inventories to show personal posessions. To show these lets look at one of the inventories, Peter Wryght from the 1564 inventory.6 Peter owned: 4 brass potts 8s 4d 2 culdron 15s 10 peces of pewter, 3 sacers, salt celler 6s 8d chafynd disgh and 3 candlesticks 2s 4d A cupboard, a cawlle, and ambry and 2 chards 10s 2 bedds, a chiste and a presse 3s A ton, a bacaris bourd with other tubs 2s 5 linen sheets with 2 codwares 6s 8d 5 hardyn sheets and 3 codds 4s 3 coverletts, 3 quysshynnes, 2 blanketts and a bolster 6s Total 7 pound 4 sterling (s) and 0 pennies (d) So the main issue is what was recorded. The inventories only show items of value. In the inventories I have nothing less in value than 1 sterling is listed. Dishes and drinking vessels of wood are not listed, presumably because they were not of sufficient value to be considered. In addition the inventories do not discuss the clothing and items on the persons body. Several of the inventories do not discuss clothing at all, and the ones that do discuss what are in chests. None of the inventories discuss items for grooming, shoes, belts, etc. Weather this is because they were not worth enough to include or because they were not on the property at the time of the inventory is unknown. Because of this, the inventories give us a great look into personal items of the home but not what would have been carried on the person. In addition to the inventories we will take a look at the chests found about the wreck of the Mary Rose. The Mary Rose was the premier war ship of Henry the VIII. She was built in 15XX and sank in 1548. The Mary Rose was the first purpose made warship. She was fitted with gun ports and cannons of both iorn and bronze. She had over 2XX men aboard when she was sunk in battle.7 Nearly half of the ship was recovered in the 1960s and has been moved to a museum in Portsmouth. Among the finds were a number of wooden chests. Some of these were storage for arrows and such, but 17 or them contained personal gear of the crew. Some of the chests have only afew items were several of the chests belonged to crew that may have held skilled positions and were fairly well off. One such chest is designated as Chest 81A1415.8 it is made of Elm and was in good condition. The contents are listed as: Flask, Leather 81A1214/1-2 Handle 81A0880 Brush? 81A1322 Comb 81A1320 Manicure Set? 81A4130 Mirror? 81a4139 Razor 81A1315 Axe (handle) 81A1321 Tool-holder 81A0879 Tool-holder 81A1317 Handle, chisel 81A1316 Saw (handle) 81A1314 Ruler 81A1319 Thimble Ring 81A4600 Whetstone 81A4129 We can see by the contents of this chest that it contains both personal and professional equipment, as most of the chests do. The chests constitute what may have been the only private space that the crew would have had. This is where they would have stored what little possessions they would have had. The chests give us a really good view of what meant the most to the crew that they would spend their money on and store in what little space they had to call their own. There are a couple of problems with using the chests. First of all it still does not account for what the crew would have had on their person. All of the these items would have been extra items or things not used on a daily basis. It also does not account for bedding or other items that were stored outside of the chests. Several wooden bowls and drinking vessels were found in the galley are that had personal marks on them. Lastly the crew had access to communal property that belonged to the ship such as cooking space. Despite these problems, the chests give us a good look at the small less expensive items that were missing from the inventories. Using all of the inventories and surviving chest on the Mary Rose that had personal effects in them, I have created a chart showing the items contained. As professional items are not personal affects I have not added them to the chart. These included tools, military weapons (swords, scabbards, gun shield, and kidney daggers), farming equipment, live stock, and stored grains. I have also lumped similar items together even if made out of different materials, such as candlesticks, eating vessels, jewelry, and flasks. Individuals would have owned the highest quality of item they could afford. We are interested in more in what they had than in the quality of it. Below is a breakdown of the items and number of times they appear in the sample group (please note that this is not how many items there were but in how many of the sources did they appear in). Pots and Pans 9 Bed 10 Bedding 8 Chest 27 Drinking Vessels 2 Clothes 9 (including unidentified masses that may have been fabric there were 20) Pepper Mill 1 Eating Vessels 13 Knife 14 Whetstone 7 Pouch 10 Aiglet/lacing/strap 9 Jewelry 8 Sundial / compass 3 Comb 8 Shoes 6 Razor 3 Brush 4 Dice 5 Fishing Supplies 6 Mirror 1 Manicure Set 1 Pin/needle 3 Sewing bobbin 2 Ring Thimble 3 Coins 12 Ink pot 1 Book 3 Flask 8 Bags, boxes 7 This gives us a nice look at all of the personal possessions these people had. Arbitrarily I will narrow this list down to items appearing 7 or more times. This would represent ¼ of the sample provided. Now we need to look at what these items are and what was available to the working class. First on the list is Pots and Pans. In most instances there was either one pot or a pot and a pan. In only two of the inventories was there more than one pot. There was also one cooking pot found in one of the chests from the Mary Rose. Pots were made out of copper or brass. They may have had a handle or a bail for hanging, they may have feet or a rounded bottom. A good picture of pots and pans can be found in a woodcut of a landsknecht woman with a pack on her back. The pots and pans are coming out of the top of the pack.9 All but one of the inventories mentions a bed, with two of the inventories mentioning multiple beds. These would have been wooden structures. I do not have a good woodcut to show you what they would have been. There is some evidence that most of the crew of the Mary Rose would have slept on the decks. There is no surviving evidence of a bed or hammocks. Find more information on period beds and practices on the Mary Rose. All of the inventories metions bedding of some sort. From sheets to blackets to coverlets. The amount of bedding varys greatly from inventory to inventory. Blankets were mentioned the most. In several of the inventories they refer to blankets and coverlets. Linnen and fine linen sheets were also mentioned in a couple of the inventories. Again, we have no information on what would have been on the Mary Rose. The fact that everyone of the inventores mention bedding leads me to believe that this was a basic thing. Chests are mentioned in every one of the inventories. It asppears that chests were the main storage space during the Tudor period. The construction of the chests vary greatly. They could have been large wooden containers fitted with iron straps and hinges as well as locks. During the 14th century some of these would have been quite large and would not have been portable. Of the chests found on the Mary Rose, all of them were wood. Most had iron hinges and several of them had built in locks. Several of the chests are referred to as bench boxes as they had legs attached and were designed to be used as a seat. Several of the chests also had markings on the outside of them. One such mark is clearly an ownership mark but the others are decorative and one could possible be a game board. 9 of the sample have extra clothing in them. Of these most were accessories such as a shirts or smocks, hats, and aprons. One of the inventories lists a suit of clothes, and another has several gowns, a frock and a petticoat listed. The only clothing items in the chests that were identifiable were a couple of hats and a pair of gloves. 10 of the chests had masses of an unidentified substance that may have been cloth. It was degraded enough that it did not survive retrieval and is listed in the original divers notes as merely Unidentified. It seems safe to presume that at least some of these were extra clothing. We know that some clothing in the form of green jerkins and linen shirts were provided to the crew of the Mary Rose at the crowns expense.10 We also have written records that a suit of clothing was issued to Elizabethan soldiers twice a year. A light weight one for summer and a heavy one for winter. These suits usually contained a jerken/doublet, slops, 2 shirts, 2 socks, and 1 or 2 pairs of shoues.11 In the case of both the inventories and the chests these items would have been extra clothing. We must assume that the owner of the estate and the chests had at least one full set of clothes that they were wearing. Probably the most diverse group of items was eating vessels. These varied from pewter plates to wooden bowl to wooden trenchers. 13 or the 27 sources mention an eating vessel of some sort. In addition to what was in the chests the galley of the Mary Rose was filled with loos dishes.12 Most of the wooden bowls and mugs, and several of the wooden trenchers had owner marks carved on them. This would show that a lot more crew owned bowls, trenchers, mugs and possibly pewter plates than was shown by the contents of the chests. Also conspicuously missing from the inventories and the chests were spoons. Several were found in the Galley. They were made of wood or pewter.13 One of the wood spoons had a makers mark on it. This would lead me to believe that the spoons were not communal supplies but at least some were owned by members of the crew. 14 One of the most common item on the Mary Rose was the knife. Only 3 chests did not have one and several of the chests had more than one. These were not weapons (That would be the kidney or ballock daggers. They were excluded from this study as they are primarily weapons) but were tools. They would have been used for eating, working in the riggings and anything else you could imagine. Most everyone would have carried one and as is attested to the contents of the chests, almost everyone had a spare. The Mary rose knives vary in quality but the majority are slender blades four to six inches in length. Several had a rat tail toung and would have been shoved into a block of wood. Others were scale tanged handles were slabs of wood or bone were pineed together through the tang of the blade. There were no intact leather sheaths recovered on the Mary Rose15, but many wood sheaths were. These sheaths are unique to the Mary Rose and have not been found in the rest of Tudor culture. Related to the ownership of knives were wetstones. These were used to sharpen knives and bladed tools. Several wetstones where found in a box containing personal gear as well as carpentry tools. In this case it is unclear as to whether this was a personal item or a professional tool used to sharpen chisels and planes. Most of the wetstones were found in personal chests not containing tools. Two of the wetstones were found with shallow wooden trays that they would sit in while being used.16 A pouch would refer to a bad designed to hang from a belt or girdle. There were many different designs used by Tudor society. The simplest is a bag held closed by a drawstring with a belt loop and cover attached. One such pouch was found on the Mary Rose. Other types include kidney pouches with multiple compartments that was made out of later. More expensive pouches would include a metal frame called a hanger, or would be made of heavy cloth. Several straps, laces and loose aglets were found in the Mary Rose chests. These would have been used to secure clothing by either lacing them together or using them as a garter and tying or buckling them around your leg or arm. The laces were woven and would have had aglets or small metal cones or brass, attached to either end. One bundle of 10 laces was found. They were wrapped together and tied into a knot. Several of the chests had loose aglets. Most probably these were attached to laces that did not survive. The straps would have been made of leather and would have had a buckle or could have been tied. Many of the jerkins found had lacing holes in them. One cloth doublet had buttonholes going down both side. Most likely these would have been fastened with a lace. There were lots of jewelry found in the inventories and chests. These ranged from wooden paternosters, lead tokens, to silver pendants, charms, and rings. Several wooden paternosters (prayer beads) were found aboard the Mary Rose. There were also beads of stone and bone found that could have been from paternosters or other jewelry.17 There was a lead token in the shape of a small coin that may have been a religious token. There were several silver pieces in the chests as well. One was a cross medallion with a garnet in the center. Two finger rings were found. One with small bumps all over it and the other was a signet ring with the letter K on it. Although these were of value and were much more than most could afford18 they do not begin to compare with the jewelry of the gentry or nobles. 19 20 The combs found on the Mary Rose were mainly made of wood, except for one of ivory, and were all small double sided. In addition to the ones found in the chests, many combs were found in association to human remains. They were a key item for personal grooming. Some of the combs found also had a leather case they were inside of. In addition several other items of personal grooming were found in chests. Several brushes and razors were found, as well as a manicure set and small mirror. These were not wide spread among the finds but do show us other items that might be owned. The razor would have been an expensive item for an individual to own. Also among the grooming items were found a manicure set made of bone. This had a pick for cleaning your teeth, a blade like item for cleaning your fingernails, and a small spoon for cleaning out your ears. Sets of this kind were common in the 15th and 16th century. Several versions of these tools appear in the Museum of London book on dress accessories. They are made of wood, bone, and bronze.21 Almost half of the chests and inventories had coins. These varied from silver coins of various demoninations and origins to gold coins. This means that it was quite common for the working class to have coin. This parrelles a growing trend in tudor society twords a cash economy and more people using money to get basic needs than providing it for themselves. The fact that half of the samples came from a ship, may skew the data on having coins and savings. This is a category that surprised me. There were several flasks found. Most were leather but there was one of pewter, one of ceramic, and one of glass. These area small containers for holding liquid. It is impossible to know from the flasks found on the Mary Rose, contained. The leather flasks have multiple parts stitched together and then the whole piece was coated in wax. The flasks range in size from being rather small holding less than 8 oz, to large, holding 16 or more. This last catagorie of out top items contains small boxes, bags, and baskets. These seem to be used for storage of small items. The boxes were made of joined wood or out of wood staves that were shaved and soaked. The bags were both closth and leather. They had drawstrings and a bottom piece sewed on the the sides. 22 There were several items that while not prevalent amoung the inventories and chests were represented enough to make note of. Several of the items found in the chests were items used during leisure time. The dice would have been for gamining or gambling. There were two game boards found carved in to chests (containing supplies not personal gear) and one on the top of a barrel. There were also gaming pieces and a backgammon board found abord the Mary Rose that were not associated with a personal chest. Also falling into this catagorie would be the books that were found. 3 different chests had books stored in them. We can no longer be sure what the content of the books were. There were also 6 chests that had fishing equipment. These would also be used during leisure time as they would have food provided for them. Any fish caught would be an added bonus to supplement personal provisions. Among the finds were lead fishing wheights, floats, a hook disgorger, and frames for winding the fishing line. None of the line survived but it was most likely made of linen. Although these items give us a good view of what type of things were owned by the Tudor working class it does not account for everything. There were several items on our list that only appears once. Such as the manicure set, pepper mill, and mirror. That does not mean that they were uncommon it simply means that they were not prevalent in our study points. Care must be taken in using this study to state that something was not used or owned by the working class. The example of one of the probate inventories that were worth 80 pounds showed that even the working class could be very comfortable and afford luxuries such as silver and gold jewelry. Even the amount of possesions will vary greatly from person to person. Some of the chests only had a few items and a couble had 10 or more itms. The same with the inventories. Some had very little personal possesions were one of the inventories had many. This also applies to the quality of the items themselves. Many of the clothing items found in the chests were leather and wool. But several silk lined hats were recovered and linen is mentiond frequently in the inventories. As we saw with the eating inventories there were bowls and trenchers of wood as well as pewter plates. In most cases the individual would posses an item that was of the best quality they could afford. This would show there social standing and how well off they were. 23 Now we have our list of items and a general understanding of what those items would be like and be made of. Unfortunatly this list is far from complete. We have some obvious holes in the research that do affect our findings. First of all is the fact that we have used the findings from a ship. Individuals would not need person cooking apparatus as they would have access to communal cooking facilities were measl would be made for them. They also would be provided places to sleep, although no such facilities were survived from the Mary Rose. The next issue with the samples we used is that none of them account for what was on the person. We have no evidence as to what they would have carried. There was some evidence of items found in the vicienty of human remains from the Mary Rose. The problem is that we cannot know which skeleton had what artifactsAlthose they can give us an idea of what was carried they cannot tell us who had them and in what combination. . Were their dive records that plot out were items were found in conjunction with skeletons as they did for the chests? We have the same issue with the inventories. Were people buried in their clothes? Were personal items berried with them? These are questions that would should be looked at as further research is done. Despite these concerns, we can get a very good look at what items a member of the working class in Tudor England would have. From the inventories and the personal chests found on the mary rose we can create a list of what these individuals had in common . These items include: a pot or pan, a bed, blankets and or sheets, a chest for storage, extra clothing, a plate or bowl, a utility knife, a whetstone, laces or leather straps for securing clothing, a piece of jewelry, a comb and possibly a leather case, some coins, a flask for carrying liquids, and small bags or boxes to keep small itmes in. From this list we can create a kit for the renactors wanting to portray a member of the Tudor working class. This would be the basic kit and then could be supplemented as needed based on the class and wealth of the person being portrayed. This would also allow the renactors to use the items and live within the restraints that Tudor society had placed upon its subjects. Personal items were few. It would aslo allow the reinactor to think in terms for what was available to the Tudor working class to cook, clean, and to do during leisure time. In short it gives us as renactors a chance to experiment with what life would be like if all of our worldly possessions had to be kept in a single chest. Bibliography: “Artifacts and Personal Identity” by Carolyn L White and Mary C. Beaudry. Published 2009 Available on line at www.academia.edu/198170/artifacts_and_personal_identity International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, published 2009 Roger Fieldhourse, “Social structure from Tudor Lay Susidies and Probate Inventories, A Case Study: Richmondshire (Yourkshire). “Tudor Inventories from Appleby, 1530-1601,” Alan Roberts “Before the Mast: Life and Death aboard the Mary Rose. The Archaeology of the Mary Rose, Volume 4” edited by Julie Gardiner with Michael J. Allen Websites: The Mary Rose Museum and Trust: www.maryrose.org 1 Carolyn L. White and Mary C Beaudry “Artifacts and Person Identity” 2 Roger Fieldhourse, “Social structure from Tudor Lay Susidies and Probate Inventories, A Case Study: Richmondshire (Yourkshire). 3 Roger Fieldhourse, “Social structure from Tudor Lay Susidies and Probate Inventories, A Case Study: Richmondshire (Yourkshire). 4 “Tudor Inventories from Appleby, 1530-1601,” Alan Roberts 5 We have very little information on the posesions of those belowe one pound in value as no inventories were recorded for them. Roger Fieldhourse, “Social structure from Tudor Lay Susidies and Probate Inventories, A Case Study: Richmondshire (Yourkshire). 6 Roger Fieldhourse, “Social structure from Tudor Lay Susidies and Probate Inventories, A Case Study: Richmondshire (Yourkshire). 7 No one knows for Shure why the Mary Rose sunk. It is believed that she capsized making a turn during the battle and took water in through her gun ports. 8 “Before the Mast: Life and Death aboard the Mary Rose. The Archaeology of the Mary Rose, Volume 4” edited by Julie Gardiner with Michael J. Allen 9 Wood Cut of Landsknecht couple 1520. 10 Need sitation 11 Need Sitation 12 Need Sitation 13 Need Sitation 14 From the Mary rose museum website. 15 There were several loose pieces of leather that could have been a knife sheath but there is no was to tell for sure. 16 Need sitation 17 Sitation needed 18 If we go back to the inventories and look at the 46% who were exempt from taxes, they would not be able to buy any of these items. 19 From the Mary rose museum website. 20 From the Mary rose museum website. 21 Museum of London, Dress Accessories Need Sitation 22 From the Mary Rose Museum website, copyright by the Mary Rose Trust 23 Need sitation