Ledall translation

[Stevie T]

I've done a translation of the Ledall MS, mainly grammar and stuff, but with a little bit of interpretation due to what I perceive as errors in the original "copyist" version that we have today.

It's available here

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Ledall_Roll_ ... S_39564%29

When I have more time I'll explain the alterations I've made, but feel free to offer constructive criticism or ask any questions!

[Stevie T]

I also hope to produce a more interpreted version of the translation in the coming weeks. This will not go into the specifics of techniques but will expand upon the generalities of the MS.

[Megalophias]

Hey Steve

Looks fine at a quick read over. I am curious why the quarters are "fare" before you?

I notice you've switched around the titles of the 14th and 15th points. I agree with you that this is an error in the original, but I think that "The Turning Quarter" should actually refer to the first section of what is the 16th point in the original, while "The Defence that Nowt Shalt ???" should be the title of the second section of the 16th point. Which means that the 14th point should have a different title, and there should actually be one more number in there. I agree that the 15th point is the actual "Broken Spring with the Foin".

The 16th point seems to consist of two separate complete sequences (both beginning with proffer-rake-quarter and ending with quarter-void), so I think it makes sense that this is an error and they should be separately named and numbered, and the first section sure seems to be a "turning quarter".

[Michael Chidester]

That actually looks like a relic of the previous translation I had. It's not Stevie's doing. I can reset it to the original sequence if he prefers, or further edit it to make more sense.

[admin]

Hi guys, this is a little off topic but probably of interest to anyone working with these early English sources. Back in 2001 Neil Melville wrote a very good little article in the 18th Park Lane Arms Fair catalogue documenting a distinctly English group of two-handed swords. You can acquire this publication through Ken Trotman books. In his article he showed that there are two main groups of English two-handers - one group dating to the 1440's-60's (long longswords, with straight knob-ended guards and elongated pommel types) and another group which covered a long period of time from just after the aforementioned period right the way through the 16th century. This latter group is very distinctive and there are a surprising number of surviving examples in English collections and with English provenance. You would also notice that it is this sword type that led to the development of the Scottish 'Lowland' style sword. If these early English fencing texts are dealing with a distinctly English type of two-handed sword then this is probably it.

Here is an example of the latter group, shown with Henry VIII's tonlet armour. You with notice the features that are universal to all swords of this group - long straight guard with knob terminals, long grip, narrow double-edged diamond-section blade of around 45 inches on average and spherical ball pommel (interesting to note that ball pommels then appear commonly on early English baskethilts and also on the two-handers shown on the cover of Swetnam's treatise in 1617!). These swords are always long and narrow, and surprisingly light for their length.

[Stevie T]

I think the type of sword is highly relivant to the discussion of Harley and Ledall. they each fall into one of the catagories date wise and it is noticable that Ledall has several techniques that use only one hand and Harley always uses two hands.

[admin]

The earlier group are quite big as well, but tend not to be as big. They are what we might call big longswords, with blades in the 35-40 inch range and hilts about the same length as your average 'feder'. There is one example in the Museum of London and at least two were recovered from the 'Castillon' hoard of over 80 swords which probably date to the battle in 1453. One example:



This example is very similar to a longsword pulled out of the Thames and also now living in the Museum of London.

This earlier English group often share similar guards (knobbed again), but a variety of pommels, from the Sempach type, to scent-stoppers as shown above, through to fish-tails. I have never seen one with a wheel pommel.

[Stevie T]

I've made three basic changes to the manuscript, after that I've kept as close to the original as possible. Though all these changes aren't visible in the wiktenauer site so I'll go into a little more detail here.

The original layout is

2 x flourishes
1 named play
Chases
Counters (in wrong order)
2 named plays.

I have corrected the order in the counters section, so that they follow the numerical titles. I have also put the flourishes and the 1st named play together with the two named plays. Rather than having them at the beginning of the document I have put them at the end. I think it's impossible to tell whether they belong at the beginning or the end.

My personal belief is that they belong at the begining, the copiest having started correctly, then made a mistake in starting on the chases and so just tagged the remaining name plays on at the very end of the document. However, in the translation document I have put the flourishes and named plays at the end. The reason for this is that these plays are much more complicated than others and I felt it would be more useful to the modern reader to go through the simpler plays first.

The most contencious change I have made will be the change from "smite back a quarter" to "smite a quarter backwards", in the 6th, 9th and 10th Chases.

the thinking behind this stems from the errors I've mentioned previously.

In the 3rd Chase we have
" A down-right stroke voiding back the left leg, a back-thrust voiding back the right right leg, following in with the left leg smite a quarter backward."

basically a pass back with the right followed by a left gather.

In the 6th,

"with an other down-right stroke followed with the right foot, then bring back the same foot with a back-thrust, set in the left foot and smite back a quarter."

Here we can see the type of repitition of techniques that are common in Ledall, except for the final strike. The use of language here is also unusual for Ledall. There are only two other occasions where the author uses a language that indicates a responce to an opponent. It is exactly the same phrase used in the 9th and 10th Chase.

9th Chases
"A down-right stroke voiding back the left leg, suddenly play a rake followed with the right leg. Standing still play a quarter fare before you, then set in the left leg and smite back a quarter ."

10th Chase
"Then void back the left leg with another down-right stroke and play a back-thrust voiding back the right leg, step in with the left leg and smite back a quarter ."


What is noticable about all these plays is that they are incredibly similar to the 3rd Chase; they all pass back with the right foot before gathering with the left. They also all force the opponent into some form of position where the sword is on the left hand side. While Ledall will make multiple strikes to the same target he doesn't do this at the end of the play except in the 6th, 9th and 10th play, if we take them as wrote.

However, we can see at least one definite copyist error, and have a potential for another with the separation of the named plays. I would therefore suggest the "smite back a quarter" should be the same as the 3rd chase and be "smite a quarter backwards". The error being to use a phrase that was becoming more popular towards the end of the C16th into the C17th (so I am led to believe), rather than what was written on the original.

(For what it's worth my interpretation of the "quarter backwards" would be to make an upwards strike underneath the guard cutting into the arms.)

[Cutlery Penguin]

The most contencious change I have made will be the change from "smite back a quarter" to "smite a quarter backwards", in the 6th, 9th and 10th Chases.

I'm curious as to why you decided this must be wrong when it exists three times in the document. And if we accept that it is wrong why you changed "smite back a quarter" to "smite a quarter backwards" and not "smite a back quarter". After all we have back thrusts, so why not back quarters?

However, we can see at least one definite copyist error,

Could you explain more about this? What is a definite error? Could it not simply be a lack of contextual understanding on our part?

[Stevie T]

The definite error is the counter order being 1,2,3, 22, 23, "stopping rabetts", "dragon's tayle", 4,5,6.....

I think it's fare to assume that the original is 1,2,3,4,5,6.... with 22, 23 coming after 21. I really can't envisage a context where the numbering in the original document would not follow accepted sequences in general.

The main reason for choosing the "quarter backwards" is the footwork of 6,9,10 fits with the footwork of 3 where it is refered to as a "quarter backwards". The 6th and 9th actually have the same preceeding techniques while 10 appears to be a variation on 3,6 and 9. Ledall is full of these type of repeated "combos" used at different points in different plays ("quarter, quarter void", doubles rounds followed by downright strokes voiding back the left leg, etc). So, it is in part a matter of my perception of continuity within the document.

In addition there is no mention of a "back quarter" anywhere in the document.

Other potential supporting facts would come down to interpretation of what the actual terms mean in reference to specific techniques, and I have tried to ensure that the translation isn't based on any specific interpretation of technique.

[Stevie T]

The earlier group are quite big as well, but tend not to be as big. They are what we might call big longswords, with blades in the 35-40 inch range and hilts about the same length as your average 'feder'. There is one example in the Museum of London and at least two were recovered from the 'Castillon' hoard of over 80 swords which probably date to the battle in 1453. One example:


This example is very similar to a longsword pulled out of the Thames and also now living in the Museum of London.

This earlier English group often share similar guards (knobbed again), but a variety of pommels, from the Sempach type, to scent-stoppers as shown above, through to fish-tails. I have never seen one with a wheel pommel.

The difference in hilts is quite interesting as with Ledall it is mainly the right hand that is released from the sword, rather than the left you see in other traditions. I wonder if when Ledall says "and with the left hand make X" he is not so much suggesting a total release of the right hand but that the left is in control while the right is relaxed and moved back from the cross to increase range.

[Cutlery Penguin]

The definite error is the counter order being 1,2,3, 22, 23, "stopping rabetts", "dragon's tayle", 4,5,6.....

I think it's fare to assume that the original is 1,2,3,4,5,6.... with 22, 23 coming after 21. I really can't envisage a context where the numbering in the original document would not follow accepted sequences in general.

Really? You can't imagine a context where plays, techniques, or guards are numbered and then taught in a non numerical order? Kind of the way it is done in I.33, or in some instances with Fiore's dagger? It is perfectly possible that the order is wrong and assembled by someone other than the originator of the system, but it is equally possible that the order we have them in is an order thought to be more appropriate by someone who understood the system well enough to make that judgement. To dismiss the order they are in simply on the basis of numbers seems a little short sighted to me.

The main reason for choosing the "quarter backwards" is the footwork of 6,9,10 fits with the footwork of 3 where it is refered to as a "quarter backwards".

What is the footwork of smite back a quarter? Or smite a back quarter?

The 6th and 9th actually have the same preceeding techniques while 10 appears to be a variation on 3,6 and 9. Ledall is full of these type of repeated "combos" used at different points in different plays ("quarter, quarter void", doubles rounds followed by downright strokes voiding back the left leg, etc). So, it is in part a matter of my perception of continuity within the document.

In addition there is no mention of a "back quarter" anywhere in the document.

But there is a repeated mention of smite back a quarter and you've dismissed it. So whether it is in the document or not isn't really relevant. Is it not just as likely that if it is a mistake it is supposed to be a back quarter and we simply don't know what that means? Personally I'd be very wary about dismissing something that appears three times. Once might be a mistake, twice less likely, three times even less likely.

Other potential supporting facts would come down to interpretation of what the actual terms mean in reference to specific techniques, and I have tried to ensure that the translation isn't based on any specific interpretation of technique.

So could it simply not just be a different technique?

[Michael Chidester]

I don't think it matters that much if he chooses to modernize "smyte bake a quarter" as "strike a quarter backwards". The original text is right there for comparison, at least in my presentation.

[Cutlery Penguin]

I don't think it matters that much if he chooses to modernize "smyte bake a quarter" as "strike a quarter backwards". The original text is right there for comparison, at least in my presentation.

Surely it is signifcant if "smite back a quarter" and "smite a quarter backwards" actually describe different things?

[Michael Chidester]

Do they?

[Cutlery Penguin]

Do they?

That is exactly my point. I certainly don't know and I'm trying to find out if Stevie does.

In my opinion disregarding a phrase that appears three times in favour of a different yet similar one is not translating into modern English. It is making an interpretive judgement about the meaning of the phrase and altering it accordingly.

[Stevie T]

Do they?

That is exactly my point. I certainly don't know and I'm trying to find out if Stevie does.

In my opinion disregarding a phrase that appears three times in favour of a different yet similar one is not translating into modern English. It is making an interpretive judgement about the meaning of the phrase and altering it accordingly.

I've been typing a full responce but people keep ringing the call centre I work in and it's a bit too distracting.

I would say however that adding any form of grammar is also an interpretive judgement about the meaning of the phrase and altering accordingly. A 'comma' a couple of words too early can change the way a play is done siginifacntly.

[Cutlery Penguin]

Do they?

That is exactly my point. I certainly don't know and I'm trying to find out if Stevie does.

In my opinion disregarding a phrase that appears three times in favour of a different yet similar one is not translating into modern English. It is making an interpretive judgement about the meaning of the phrase and altering it accordingly.

I've been typing a full responce but people keep ringing the call centre I work in and it's a bit too distracting.

I would say however that adding any form of grammar is also an interpretive judgement about the meaning of the phrase and altering accordingly. A 'comma' a couple of words too early can change the way a play is done siginifacntly.

I get that, but I worry about simply disregarding a phrase and replacing it with a similar phrase just because it fits with what we expect to see.

To my mind there are two options:

1) You are completely right and it is indeed a copyist's error.
2) It is something specific and changing it changes the meaning of the work.

My question really is how do you know which one is the case? And even if option 1 is the case why not simply smite a back quarter? We have back thrusts after all, why not a back quarter? That only means we have to swap the position of two words rather than replace the phrase with one kinda similar.

I think you have done wonderful things with this source, you have found some very interesting correlations with other contemporary works and shed a lot of light on a very murky subject. But, and it is a big but, any time someone tells me that they understand their source better than the person who wrote it I start to worry.

When you change the order of the sections I want to see evidence that doing so is the right thing to do, not just that it looks more ordered to a modern eye.

When you change a phrase to a different phrase I want to know how you know it is wrong, not just that doing it the other way fits. How do you know that it doesn't fit the way it is written? What was the thought process behind dumping it? What possible explanations of smite back a quarter did you try before abandoning them all?

I'm not trying to be problematic, I just don't really understand your reasoning.

[Stevie T]

The first 3 counters all depict plays that start with the "proffer, rake, quarter", getting progessively more complicated. The 4th, 5th, 6th.... Counters in turn start with the "proffer, rake, quarter" and to my mind show a development of the principles of 1 to 3. The 22nd, 23rd and 'Stopping Rabetts' do not build upon those lessons and so stand out from the flow and development of the plays.

In addition the 'Stopping Rabetts' shows us quite a complicated play incorporating a 'Rabett' which has previously not been mentioned. It is however mentioned in the 4th chase where it is introduced as an addition to the "combo" learnt in the previous 3 counters. The Rabett appears again in the 8th counter where it is still a much simpler play that the "stopping Rabetts". I there fore see 22, 23, Stopping Rabetts and Dargon's Tayle as being out of the pattern of the general structure of the lessons.


smite back a quarter/smite a back quarter/ smite a quarter backwards.

As I mentioned the use of a term that would suggest a blow in responce to an opponent action, "smite back a quarter", would be anomalous with the rest of the MS. It was this that caught my attention to it in the first place. As has been said this is a common term in later English manuals, but it doesn't appear in the earlier manuals. This combined with other changes to the MS lead me to believe that it is likely that it is another error.

The closest Ledall gets to refering to the opponent would be "thrust forthe a foyne at his face", but this does not show a direct responce but rather specifying a target area. Alternatively there is the 23rd Counter "Also standing at your defence; when your enemy begins to come in with a proffer, look steadfastly in his face and then set in your left leg across before your right leg, and lithely smite a full spring at his leg." No mention of "smite back" or equivilant.

If Ledall intended one to " set in the left leg and strike back a quarter" he would be much more likely to use the phrase "set in the left leg with a quarter" as can be seen in many of his other plays.

As I've mentioned before, striking a normal quarter from the postion that the previous techniques leave one in would mean striking against an opponent who was already in a position covering that side of his body. This is presuming that with the left foot forward you are striking from your left, it is possible that one is striking to the other side, though the mechanics would be wrong and I don't see this occuring elsewhere in the MS. While Ledall does strike to the same side twice, or more, in some occasions it is done within a play and is followed by other techniques - it appears that he uses this to ensure the opponent is fully committed to guarding that side before attacking to the other side. Doing this at the end of play, and not following it up with a strike ito the otherside therefore, according to Ledall's general principles, would seem more than a little odd.

Whether it should read "smite a back quarter" is a good question. The other techniques that have the prefix of "back" or are done "backwards" would be the "back-thrust" or "double round backwards". I believe that they ultimately mean the same basic thing and that it is a pretty general instruction rather than a specific technique. I went for the "quarter backwards" because that is what is mentioned previously, and it would conform with Ledall's use of language.

[Cutlery Penguin]

The first 3 counters all depict plays that start with the "proffer, rake, quarter", getting progessively more complicated. The 4th, 5th, 6th.... Counters in turn start with the "proffer, rake, quarter" and to my mind show a development of the principles of 1 to 3. The 22nd, 23rd and 'Stopping Rabetts' do not build upon those lessons and so stand out from the flow and development of the plays.

In addition the 'Stopping Rabetts' shows us quite a complicated play incorporating a 'Rabett' which has previously not been mentioned. It is however mentioned in the 4th chase where it is introduced as an addition to the "combo" learnt in the previous 3 counters. The Rabett appears again in the 8th counter where it is still a much simpler play that the "stopping Rabetts". I there fore see 22, 23, Stopping Rabetts and Dargon's Tayle as being out of the pattern of the general structure of the lessons.

Ok, that makes sense. It does however raise the question of why they are out of order. Do you have any thoughts? Have pages been bound wrongly when assembling the manuscript? Was is copied out by someone who didn;t understand it and they simply got it wrong?

smite back a quarter/smite a back quarter/ smite a quarter backwards.

As I mentioned the use of a term that would suggest a blow in responce to an opponent action, "smite back a quarter", would be anomalous with the rest of the MS. It was this that caught my attention to it in the first place. As has been said this is a common term in later English manuals, but it doesn't appear in the earlier manuals. This combined with other changes to the MS lead me to believe that it is likely that it is another error.

On first reading it does seem to suggest a counter to a move by the other person, but not necessarily. Could "back" in this instance not simply mean in the direction you came? So you have cut across in one direction and then you are instructed to cut back with a quarter?

The closest Ledall gets to refering to the opponent would be "thrust forthe a foyne at his face", but this does not show a direct responce but rather specifying a target area. Alternatively there is the 23rd Counter "Also standing at your defence; when your enemy begins to come in with a proffer, look steadfastly in his face and then set in your left leg across before your right leg, and lithely smite a full spring at his leg." No mention of "smite back" or equivilant.

I accept that the vast majority of mentions of the other person are simply telling where to target you action, but this phrase exists three times. Surely that is enough to raise suspicion that it might be there on purpose?

If Ledall intended one to " set in the left leg and strike back a quarter" he would be much more likely to use the phrase "set in the left leg with a quarter" as can be seen in many of his other plays.

And by the same token if he meant smite a quarter backwards he'd have said that. As arguments go this one is defunct. He did say "smite back a quarter".

As I've mentioned before, striking a normal quarter from the postion that the previous techniques leave one in would mean striking against an opponent who was already in a position covering that side of his body. This is presuming that with the left foot forward you are striking from your left, it is possible that one is striking to the other side, though the mechanics would be wrong and I don't see this occuring elsewhere in the MS. While Ledall does strike to the same side twice, or more, in some occasions it is done within a play and is followed by other techniques - it appears that he uses this to ensure the opponent is fully committed to guarding that side before attacking to the other side. Doing this at the end of play, and not following it up with a strike ito the otherside therefore, according to Ledall's general principles, would seem more than a little odd.

This is where I get concerned. The biggest weakness of HEMA is that we are trying to recreate a dead system and that leaves ample opportunity to get it wrong. When it comes to the difficult bits we have to go out of our way to ensure that we aren't simply making it up because it feels right. Anyone using their own interpretation (and this is exactly what you describe above - your interpretation of his system) to claim the source material is wrong smacks of arrogance.

I'd much rather see someone saying "We don't know what this bit means yet, but as it stands this move fits the patterns we have discovered." rather than "This move works here so the manuscript must be wrong as it describes something else."

Whether it should read "smite a back quarter" is a good question. The other techniques that have the prefix of "back" or are done "backwards" would be the "back-thrust" or "double round backwards". I believe that they ultimately mean the same basic thing and that it is a pretty general instruction rather than a specific technique. I went for the "quarter backwards" because that is what is mentioned previously, and it would conform with Ledall's use of language.

You could be right in that they all mean the same thing, but I seriously doubt something that occurs multiple times is a complete error. It is there, it has a meaning, we don't know what it is.