The traditional model of the modern fencing lesson is led by an instructor. The instructor determines the content, decides how to present it, and then teaches it to the student who is expected to learn what the instructor has taught. In all likelihood, this is also how the vast majority of historical fencing lessons were taught.

Yet is this how all historical lessons should be taught today? The history of the historical modern fencing movement suggests that we need to do more than introduce the subject matter instructor in the role of the source of all knowledge. Virtually everything we do today in medieval and renaissance swordplay depends on the study and interpretation of the original sources. The development of a skilled historical fencer depends on that fencer being able to read (in original or competent translation) and interpret the historical record to discover technique.

That reality suggests that more than the modern teaching lesson is needed to convey new material. I suggest the use of a guided discovery learning process that I will call the interpretive lesson. It has two goals: to teach a new technique and, in the process, to teach how to interpret historical sources. The My Long Sword program has used this model for the past year and found that it engages students, results in better learning, and creates a better shared understanding of techniques and tactics with more focus on the problem.

Lesson development varies to some extent depending on the nature of the font being used and the number of items describing the technique. I will take the work that we are currently doing using the Goliath manuscript, specifically Mike Rassmussen’s translation of the Krakow manuscript. Goliath provides a version of Liechtenauer’s teaching verse, a gloss explaining the verse by an uncertain author (commonly attributed to Peter von Danzig zum Ingolstadt), and illustrations of some of the techniques. To illustrate the process:

First, we read Liechtenauer’s original teaching verse and, based on it, try to develop an understanding of the technique and its use. This usually results in a very incomplete idea of ​​what the teacher intended.

Second: We then read the gloss, compare it to the verse, and try to execute the technique using the gloss wording.

Third: We compare technique as we understand it from gloss and verse to available illustration (and this may require looking at more than one illustration to make sure you’re using the correct one, as placement can be problematic). Based on that comparison we arrive at a final interpretation.

Fourth, and if other sources are available, we can compare our understanding to how those sources describe the technique.

Fifth: then we delve into the technique.

This is not a quick lesson: when combined with the warm-up, other skills activities, and the combat of a verse and a gloss it fills our normal hour-long lesson. Obviously, more complex material will take longer, and less complex or unique items will take less.

From the instructor’s perspective, this is a demanding way of teaching. You should have a strong background on the weapon, read the material, gain a rough understanding of the technique (it will change as you and the students work with the source), have questions ready to guide the students, know supplemental material that will help. their understanding, and be willing to relinquish control, both physically and intellectually, as students work through the material. However, I think it is an important way to engage your students with the actual text and to develop fencers who can fence historically.