![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lonemagpie8- GERMAN LONGSWORD STUDY GUIDE by Keith Farrell and Alex Bourdas
This is a handy roundup of variations between the different manuscripts in the Liechtenauer tradition, from the HS3227 through the next couple of centuries. It’s not a manual, but works as a good resource for contextualising the chronology, and the differences in the various masters and manuscripts within it. There are also a couple of essays by the authors on what they learned from the comparisons, and a lovely bibliography – mainly for online monographs – of stuff to read.
Ir comes over as a good choice for HEMA students who’ve studied at least one of the historical sources referenced, who might benefit from the contextualisation, or be guided in which other sources to study next. I find that it has nice concise comparisons that will help teachers and coaches to communicate these contextualisations more efficiently and confidently too. A good thing.
The authors seems to have a slightly mixed attitude to non-sourced actions – this is pretty common on HEMA, mind you – sometimes overlooking that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and sometimes wisely acknowledging things such as taking care of one’s knees, which are never mentioned in period. Of course, as with everything in HEMA, it’s stuffed with points which might spark ideas for writings or videos in any interested readers.
One thing, however, bugs the living shit out of me, and that’s their weird choice of spellings of German terms, other than when quoting the exact period text’s word or another modern writer. They have every -hau be -haw, and every unter- be under- for no readily apparent reason. Since they quote other modern writers with the correct spellings I can only assume maybe they’ve done it consistently this way in their own bits as some kind of copyright-protecting trap, lest anyone try to paste their text into something.
Anyway, otherwise it’s useful context for some, and undoubtedly inspiraional for others, even myself.
This is a handy roundup of variations between the different manuscripts in the Liechtenauer tradition, from the HS3227 through the next couple of centuries. It’s not a manual, but works as a good resource for contextualising the chronology, and the differences in the various masters and manuscripts within it. There are also a couple of essays by the authors on what they learned from the comparisons, and a lovely bibliography – mainly for online monographs – of stuff to read.
Ir comes over as a good choice for HEMA students who’ve studied at least one of the historical sources referenced, who might benefit from the contextualisation, or be guided in which other sources to study next. I find that it has nice concise comparisons that will help teachers and coaches to communicate these contextualisations more efficiently and confidently too. A good thing.
The authors seems to have a slightly mixed attitude to non-sourced actions – this is pretty common on HEMA, mind you – sometimes overlooking that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and sometimes wisely acknowledging things such as taking care of one’s knees, which are never mentioned in period. Of course, as with everything in HEMA, it’s stuffed with points which might spark ideas for writings or videos in any interested readers.
One thing, however, bugs the living shit out of me, and that’s their weird choice of spellings of German terms, other than when quoting the exact period text’s word or another modern writer. They have every -hau be -haw, and every unter- be under- for no readily apparent reason. Since they quote other modern writers with the correct spellings I can only assume maybe they’ve done it consistently this way in their own bits as some kind of copyright-protecting trap, lest anyone try to paste their text into something.
Anyway, otherwise it’s useful context for some, and undoubtedly inspiraional for others, even myself.