One of the most pernicious errors of lexicology to be found
among the HEMA crowd is the use of the word “Federschwert” (lit. “feather sword”), or just “Feder,” to describe
the swords used in training and in the competitions known as Fechtschulen (that
a Fechtschule is a competition and not the term for a martial arts school is
yet another ignorant mistake they make, but we will set that aside for now). This mistake is as deeply entrenched as it is
completely misunderstood among HEMA groups—so much so, that they are not even
aware there might be an issue. They do not
even know to question it, and most wouldn’t care if they did.
The first use of the term Feder I have been able to find
comes from Egerton Castle, who uses it to refer to the practice rapiers used by
the Federfechter (Castle 1893 p. 106).
The “Freifechter von der Feder zum Greifenfels” was a fencing guild
founded around 1570. The origin of their name is unclear, however, their arms depict two hands holding a feather and two
sword blades with feathered wings for crosses.
The Federfechter were in conflict with a previously
established fencing guild called the Marxbruder (“The Brotherhood of Saint Mark”),
a group established sometime before 1470.
They were the only group authorized by Frederick III to certify masters
of the sword at that time. Hans
Talhoffer may have been a member as their badge shows up at least twice in his
Thott Codex from 1459, once on his coat of arms and once on a necklace around
the master’s neck (MS Thott.290.2º ff. 101v and 102r respectively).
The Marxbruder and the Federfechter generally represented two
different sides of the culture of Germany.
The Marxbruder was primarily comprised of working men, while the
Federfechter were generally scholars and what we today would call “white collar”
workers. As a result, the Brothers of
St. Mark viewed the Federfechter as somewhat effete and unskilled.
This perception of the Federfechter, coupled with what the
Marxbruder considered an infringement of their monopoly, led to acrimony
between the two groups. This acrimony resulted
in a series of fierce encounters in both Fechtschulen and in words. For example, this is an excerpt from a poem
written by a Marxbruder named Cristoff Jung:
Ein Marx Bruder bin
Ich worn
Dieser thut den
Federfechtern Zorn.
…
Dann Gennssfed’n und
Khil
Braucht man nit zum
Ritterspiel
(A Marxbruder am I, / One who causes the feather fencers anger
… Because goose feathers and quills / Are not needed for knightly games; tr. by
the author) (Wassmanndorff 1870 p.37.)
The derision is manifest, as is the clear implication that
the Federfechter would do better to stick to their quill pens and leave swords
to the Marxbruder.
Note, however, that none of this indicates the use of the
word Feder to mean a practice sword, except by Castle, who wrote long after the
period and who does not support his assertion. Indeed, linguistically, the term
Federschwert appears to refer to fighting with words rather than swords—in other
words, using feathers (i.e., quill pens) to do your fighting (e.g., see Heidecker
1739).
Thus, it seems obvious that the use of the term Feder or
Federschwert to refer to practice longswords represents a thorough
misunderstanding of the word and the practice should be abandoned immediately
by anyone with any pretension to academic accuracy. Like the mistaken use of the word gambeson
(see my previous blog entry), it presents one more distasteful example of the
HEMA community’s utter lack of concern for scholarship. Only the "feather brained" will continue to get
it wrong.
Some will ignore this, arguing that language changes all the
time and that we should just accept that fact, allowing the ignorance of hoi
polloi to rule us. Nonsense. Certainly language changes over time, and
that is not necessarily a bad thing, but we should eschew such changes when
they represent error and misinformation, or when they diminish the precision or
clarity of the words being changed. Just
insisting that because a large group of people fail to know the correct term for
a thing means we should change what that thing is called is to embrace willful ignorance. For it to happen in a group which should
pride itself on scholarship is deplorable.
What, then, should we call practice swords? As with many such problems, the answer is
easily found simply by looking at the terminology in use at the time. Wassmannsdorff provides
us with an account of a Fechtschule held in Stuttgart in 1570 in which a
Marxbruder by the name of Hildebrand blinded his opponent with a bloß-Fechtschwert (p.19). This term can be seen in other sources as
well. Thus, the term used in period
seems to have been Fechtschwert (pl. Fechtschwerter), and there is no reason
not to follow that practice today.
[1] Castle, Egerton. Schools
and Masters of Fencing—From the Middle Ages to the Eighteenth Century.
London, 1893, p. 106
[2] Christoff Jung von Breißlaw in Wassmannsdorff, Karl. Sechs Fechtschulen der Marxbrüder undFederfechter: aus den Jahren 1573 bis 1614. Heidelberg, 1870, p. 37.
Accessed 5/16/19.
[3] Heidecker, Gotthard. DieLeyr Tyri: Das ist: Altfränkische Possen, mit welchen P. Rudolf Baffer. Frankfurt,
1739, p. 20. Accessed 5/16/19.
No comments:
Post a Comment