Wiktenauer Feedback

[Richard Marsden]

I had a thought.

Hands.

Hand position seems to be talked about frequently and with all this art, is there a way to show various grips in detail. Imagine a sub-section that was just hands, or feet for that matter?

[Myles Cupp]

I had a thought.

Hands.

Hand position seems to be talked about frequently and with all this art, is there a way to show various grips in detail. Imagine a sub-section that was just hands, or feet for that matter?

We're not interested in your foot fetish Richard!

But more seriously I do agree. I often try to get higher resolution images and zoom in so I can see the individual brushstrokes the artist attempted to make while sketching the figures. The Talhoffer and Fabris materials pay quite a bit of attention to detail.

[Richard Marsden]

Funny you mention that. I have a video planned on feet soon!

[Michael Chidester]

I don't think zooming in on the hands or feet specifically would really work with our format, but I try to include images in high resolution whenever possible to allow such details to be discerned.

[Michael Chidester]

One thing I'm curious about is whether people would like to see a Wiktenauer codification. Some time ago someone suggested to me that, having a full composite set up on the wiki, I should assign a unique number to all of the plays of Fiore to assist in discussions. This was in frustration after he was trying to tell me something about one of the dagger plays but couldn't find an easy way to let me know which one (at the moment, the best you can do is indicate which page and position in one of the versions).

However, such a scheme could be applied much more widely. It would not be difficult to number all of the manuals in the index for easy reference, similar to how people will still sometimes refer to a manuscript by its Hils Catalog (HK) reference number. It would also be easy enough to number each play or device in the individual treatises to offer an objective reference point independent of any manuscript. For example, we could number the devices in Ott Jud's famous wrestling treatise from 1-67 and thus avoid confusion when a particular manuscript only has fifty of them.

[Richard Marsden]

Let me know if I understand this correctly.

Let's say there are 'Three Manuals' from the same master and each one is different. Would you codify it so that each of the three manuals had a modern index and a list of techniques 1 to whatever. And if so, does that mean people discuss, "Manual 1 technique 7" and "Manual 2 technique 4" and "Manual 3 technique 5", and might be talking about the same technique?

[Michael Chidester]

I'd probably place the numeration in the translation columns, to make it clear that the numbers aren't part of any manual transcription (the transcriptions would continue to be labeled by folio number like they are now).

In the case of dissimilar manuscripts by the same master, we'd use a distinct numeration for each one. The only master I can think of that fits that description is Hans Talhoffer, and his works are currently compiled together. I'm not sure this was the best decision from the perspective of being faithful to Talhoffer's intent, so we may separate them out again in the future.

[Richard Marsden]

Sounds good to me. I'd like to remember a more modern numeration for quick reference and use the Wiki-stuff as a way to communicate with others easily.

[John Harmston]

Here's a thought:

What I believe would be useful, which I don't think the Wiktenauer currently has, is a comprehensive primer for newbies. What I am imagining is an article that explains the place that historical manuals have in a historical and HEMA context. Then, an explanation of who generally wrote the manuals, how they work, how they were preserved/discovered, etc. Also, an explanation of terms like CGM, glossa, etc. Basically a comprehensive orientation of manual research that will help a newcomer who stumbles upon the site and is quickly overwhelmed.

I would volunteer to write such a thing, but I am not an expert in the area.

[Michael Chidester]

The manual directory explains some of that, and other important terms like gloss and epitome have their own articles. But a full explanation of their historical context would be a good subject for a book, not a wiki article. (I expect I'll write such a book eventually.)