Some treatises are less clear than others, this cannot be denied. However, we have to resist the temptation to overly editorialize or glue extra tidbits onto weirder passages in fencing texts in order to make them “work” to our satisfaction. When reading Meyer, Fiore, Vadi, &c, try to use an interpretive Occam’s Razor and reflect on if your actions are the simplest ones that could match the text, or if you’ve added more things in.
For a Meyer example some folks include a grip change in their longsword Rose Cut interpretation. However, does it tell you to do so? Do other passages in the text have explicit grip change advice? Meyer has multiple examples of telling you exactly when to do things like reversing, overgripping, or even thumb gripping your sword, so slapping it in when it’s not included is likely an over complication.
Agree? Disagree? Have examples where going more complicated actually solved a long-standing interpretive problem? Let me know in the comments!
BTW here is my Rose Cut interpretation: simply a cutty disengage/provoker meant to draw your opponents hands low and create high openings to attack.
Share this post