Well after making this three times in the last year I should probably post it here.

Today’s comes from “The Good Huswifes Jewell” published in 1596.  As far as I can tell the Turkey came back to Spain very early after discovering the New World; and by the 1530s it was common enough in England to be anecdotaly one of the king’s favorite meals.  By the 1590s it begins appearing in cookery books.

To baje a Turkie and take out his bones.
Take a fat Turkie, and after you haue
scalded him and washed him cleane, lay
him vpon a faire cloth and slit him through-
out the backe, and when you haue taken
out his garbage, then you must take out
his bones so bare as you can, when you
haue so doone wash him cleane, then trusse
him and pricke his backe toghether, and so
haue a faire kettle of seething water and
perboyle him a little, then take him vp that
the water may runne cleane out from him,
and when he is colde, season him with pep-
per and Salt, and then pricke hym with a
fewe cloues in the breast, and also drawe
him with larde if you like of it, and when
you haue maide your coffin and laide your
Turkie in it, then you must put some But-
ter in it, and so close him vp. in this sorte you
may bake a goose, a Pheasant, or capon.

This one is fairly easy as most of the steps are already done when you buy a turkey these days.

To Bake a Turkey

• Turkey
• Bacon enough to cover it
• Salt
• Pepper
• Cloves
• Butter – optional

1. Take your turkey and lay him breast down on your cutting board, this will be messy, so don’t have anything near.
2. You will need a bowl for the bones (roast them and make stock from them after, it tastes great), a long thin knife (slicing knife), and a pair of bone sheers.  If you don’t have those you can do it all with knives but it is a bit more dangerous and takes longer.
3. Use your bone shears to cut up each side of the spine and remove the spine from the back.
4. Use the knife to slowly release each of the bones and remove them.  You may need to use the sheers again to cut the cartridge connecting the leg bones to the thigh bones.  I normal leave the wing bones and leg bones but remove everything else.
5. Go slowly, don’t rush or you’ll cut yourself. the breast bone needs to be removed very slowly.  You don’t want to penetrate the skin by accident.
6. Once this is done rub the bird down with salt and pepper, then truss it up so it looks like a normal turkey (though smaller now).
7. If you want you can put some butter inside the bird, but it’s really not that necessary.  We wont be cooking it in a coffin (this time) so it isn’t really needed.
8. Use a small knife to poke holes in the skin and a little into the meat and stick cloves in them.  Clove the breast to your preference, but I find that people like the flavour of the cloves, so go nuts.
9. Wrap the whole thing in bacon.  Last time we did it we used a lot of bacon, but we’ve done everything from one tray to half a box. The bacon keeps the bird moist during cooking and adds some great flavour.
10. Put it in your preferred method of roasting (roasting pan, turkey cooker, etc) and cook it till a knife going in has clear juices come out of it.  Or you can go by a meat thermometer.
11. Remove from the roaster, take the legs and wings off and slice the rest like a roast.

We did this the other week as the main meat for Winters Tourney and everyone loved it.  The fact that the king loves bacon didn’t hurt .

I hope to do this some time with a proper coffin.

This is part of an ongoing project to summarize and provide SCA focused commentary on The Schoole of the Noble and Worthy Science of Defence by Joseph Swetnam, published in 1617.

For links to the other sections of the Swetnam Project please go here.

I am using this facsimile: http://tysonwright.com/sword/SwetnamSchooleOfDefence.pdf for the project.

This chapter lays out all the ways that a coward avoids a true show of his skill.

Chap. X. The trickes of a Coward.

The first way to know a coward is that he will carry a lot of weapons.  Swetnam is quick to point out that he doesn’t call all men who go about heavily armed cowards, but he says that if you pay attention you can tell which is which.

When a coward is challenged he will mention several places for the combat, but then will pick the location when only the challenger and he knows where it is.  He will then go to a different spot which he had mentioned previously and brag to everyone that he was there to fight the challenger but they didn’t show up, because the challenger is at the actual location.

Again, cowards will brag and insult a man when that man is with friends and in public so that everyone will see and hear what a valorous man he looks like, or he will draw his weapons at a fair or market because he knows that the fight will be stopped before anyone is hurt.  Swetnam says this is not true valour for there is no true test of skill or “manhood”.

Some cowards challenge a well to do man, but at the duel he makes a great speech about how he didn’t realize what a good man the other was and that he refused to fight such a good man, thus he seems brave for the challenge, and seems honorable for not trying to hurt a good man, but truly is neither.

A cunning coward when he is challenged will begin bragging and acting tough; talking about how there’s no chance that he can be beaten, and about how the man who challenged him won’t show up because he’ll be too afraid of the fight, and the coward will talk about how he doesn’t draw his sword in vain.  If this doesn’t work the coward will, if he knows his opponent well, talk about how to men this close shouldn’t let it come to blows, and if he is of higher rank than his opponent he’ll talk about how he wouldn’t lower himself to fighting someone so base.  Attached to this he adds:

“I have known in a strange place, that a scurvy base fellow will stand so much upon his gentilitie, and think to make the world beleve he is a great man in his own country”

If it turns out that he can not escape his challenger, for example if he’s at a tavern and there are too many people about, he will draw his dagger with little reason so as to show that he wants to fight right then and there, and so those around them will calm him and his opponent down so that they won’t fight in the middle of the tavern. Swetnam doesn’t oppose this so much (the friends stopping a fight), but he does oppose any falling out over something small like a cup of wine or a pipe.

If a coward lives to be old he may boast that he is the best man in the world because he was never tried and never had to draw his sword, even though it was his cowardice rather than his skill that kept his skin whole.

A wise or valorous man could say the same thing, for a man can answer a challenge and yet keep himself safe. And why should we fear death by combat? You do not fear a bed, yet men die in their beds. You do not fear crossing the sea, but many men die at sea. Swetnam says that there “is less danger in fighting a good quarrel with skill and discretion” than in many other things that we do every day.

It once was that a coward will have a sword or rapier at the length of half a pike (6 feet), but now that shorter swords are the fashion it is harder to tell a coward by the length of their sword. In this Swetnam seems to dislike the fashion for very short swords, but at the same time says that he won’t be vocally opposed as he knows a number of good men who prefer the shorter weapon.  Now instead of the very long weapon the coward buys the most expensive weapon he can, yet Swetnam again says that you cannot know a coward by his weapon any more than you can by his injuries or scars.  You can’t know how good a judge is by his robe, or a sailor by his whistle.  You don’t know if gold is good till you’ve tested it. Similarly you don’t know if a man is a Man or a Coward till he’s been tested.  But you will rarely see a coward use his weapon in earnest except when he’s drunk or forced into it, but he will draw his weapon frequently around others and shows off tricks with his sword in an attempt to get people to believe that he’s a good fencer.  Cowards will, by speaking libels and dealing underhandedly, revenge themselves upon others in private because they can not respond “manfully”.  But at the same time the coward gets upset when he hears of other men called brave or valourous, as he doesn’t want any other man to be better than himself.  If he hears of anyone commended for being valourous a coward will reply that “he is no body; or he is not the man you take him for”.

A coward delights in creating quarrels between people and in spreading rumors and tales.  Swetnam claims that the chief cause of cowardly minds is ignorance and want of skill.  He warns that you should never trust “a coward in his fury” and to not let him closer than “the point of thy rapier”.  Let the coward have his word, but don’t let him get any advantage on you, or give him room to do any tricks, especially if he is your enemy.

Swetnam won’t say that all of those who practice throwing a dagger or “darting” a rapier are cowards, but he does say that anyone who uses it in a fair fight is a coward.

He then gives us a real world example of a coward.  One Cosbe had a quarrel with the Lord of Burke.  It grew and they arranged a duel.  Just before they began Cosbe said “my Lord you have spurs which may annoy you” and said that he should take them off.  As Burke was removing his spurs Cosbe ran him through and killed him.  Lord Burke was a skillful swordsman and would have done well in a fair duel, but instead he was murdered and Cosby was hanged for it.

Swetnam ends with a final anecdote which seems to be more about murderers and less about cowards.  A man commits murder and is granted leniency by a judge. He later kills a second man and is granted leniency again by the same judge.  He kills a third man and the judge sentences him to death as he has been warned twice.  The murder then said that the judge is wrong to condemn him for killing three men because the judge killed two of them.  The judge asked what he meant and the man replied that if the judge had hanged him for the first offense he wouldn’t have killed the other two, therefore he was guilty of killing only one man and the judge was guilty of killing two.  Swetnam references this story to remind us that a “man-slayer” should be hanged for the first offense if it wasn’t in self defense or for a true quarrel.

SCA Take

I don’t believe that there is much of an SCA rapier take from this chapter.  But the chapter is an important one for understanding the early 17th century concept of honour.  The killing of a man in a fair duel over a good reason was not an evil thing, but the use of any tricks or pretending to be what you are not was dishonorable.

I think the most important thing to take from this is to remember that it is dishonorable to present yourself and your skill level as greater than they truly are.  I may have more to say on this later, but I’ll come back and edit this some time for that.

This is part of an ongoing project to summarize and provide SCA focused commentary on The Schoole of the Noble and Worthy Science of Defence by Joseph Swetnam, published in 1617.

For links to the other sections of the Swetnam Project please go here.

I am using this facsimile: http://tysonwright.com/sword/SwetnamSchooleOfDefence.pdf for the project.

This chapter has two purposes.  The first is to remind us that skill is something that can always increase, and the second is a condemnation of telling tales or gossip.

Chap. IX. Sheweth what an excellent thing skill is, with persuasion to all men to forbeare the maintaining of idle quarrels.

In Favour of Skill

Swetnam begins this chapter by giving a disclaimer that though perfect skill is what we aspire to, it is also impossible to reach. Even if a man traveled the entire earth or soared through the sky, or dove to the bottom of the seas he would not achieve perfect skill.

“[skill] is so large that I cannot compas it, so high I cannot reach it, and so deepe a hidden secret, that I cannot sound the bottom of it; for I cannot travaile so far, climbe so high, nor wade so deepe”

But he says that he has seen so much that he knows that even though imperfect those who focus their minds on learning, knowing they can never truly achieve perfection, become the most famous of men; for we admire and reward skill, and how it “abateth the choller and courage of the hasty and furious man” and tempers him, just as iron is tempered with steel to make a blade, for steel alone is to brittle, and iron alone can not be sharp enough. So the learned man knows that those who are furious and hasty are soon killed. Skill, use (training/practicing), and exercise are the three key parts of ability.

Skill makes people more prepared to fight, so they do not wince at every blow. A natural coward when he has gained skill becomes bold.

Here he has a note that skill and practice help a man to be able to use both of his hands the same way – being equally skilled with either.

Every man should learn as much skill in weapons as he can, and also learn as many different guards with each weapon as possible so that you may be able to defend yourself in a fight.  For if you have skill with only one weapon, or know only one guard or one kind of blow or thrust you will not be able to protect yourself against the man who knows many guards, blows, thrusts, and weapons.

Man does not know what he is capable of until he not only tries, but practices, and gains experience. Skill is the best armour, for it allows you to fight without fear, and allows you to hurt without being hurt yourself.

Against Gossip

Many people tell tall tales, and boast, but do not put any confidence in the speech of a drunkard, a coward, or a fool, for you should not trust what they say. Similarly a Gentleman, or any good many, should not tell tales. But if you hear a friend of yours “wronged behind his back” you should answer on your friends behalf with reasonable words, but do not tell your friend what was said unless it concerns his life, as you don’t want to be repeating the words of a fool.

Remember: a carrier of tales can never truly deliver a man’s speech without adding or talking away from it, which changes the speech. So it is better to not say anything.  “Tale-bearers are the breeders of great mischiefe”.

When words are passed from one party to another to another malice is perceived, and offense is taken from them, when none was meant. This can create a grudge that may be kept for a long time. Swetnam encourages us to confront each other instead of holding grudges so that everything is out in the open and resolved, either “with weapons or with words or by the persuasions of friends”. Do not let envy, or hatred remain in your heart against anyone, for any reason. Talk with whoever spoke ill of you, be courteous to them, do not be angry until you have heard his tale, for there may be no cause for the quarrel.

Do not meddle with men above your station even if they wrong you, and you have good cause, for you will gain little by the quarrel. It is better to endure the malice of the mighty and to let the quarrel go than to try to maintain it, for by doing so you prove yourself to be the more honourable man.  Do not rail against them, or talk behind their back, for that is dishonourable.

To the might Swetnam says this: do not offer wrong against those lower in station than you. For many men would rather lose their lives than their honour, and so they will fight with no fear of the law. For they know that they have no standing before the law against a powerful or well connected man regardless of what they do. Here Swetnam quotes a proverb “The rich men have the Lawe in their owne hands”.

Swetnam closes this chapter by reminding us that the poor fear to offend the rich and powerful, but the implication is that it does not give the mighty the right to take advantage of those who are lesser.

SCA Take

We have two very important parts in this chapter, one of which is directly applicable to SCA combat and one which is directly applicable to life in general.

There is no way to achieve perfect skill, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t try. Swetnam wants us to practice and practice and train and train until we are as close as possible to perfect skill.

The second section of the chapter is very different.  It is about gossip. He has several things to say about gossip, the first of course is DON’T. But also he recomends that if we hear gossip about someone we know refute it if you can, but don’t repeat it, even to the person it was about. The only reason to pass on gossip is if someone’s life might be in danger.

If you hear gossip about you find the person who said it and figure out who started it, then talk with them.  Find out why the said it and what they meant by it.

And finally do not start a quarrel with those above you, even if you feel that it is deserved. In the SCA if someone of higher rank insults you and the talking it out method doesn’t work let it go.  Do not insult them back either to their face or to others. By doing this you will show yourself to be a more honorable person than the one who insulted you.

Also, do not start a quarrel with those below you in rank, for if you do then you are not living up to the honourable conduct expected of someone of your rank.

This is part of an ongoing project to summarize and provide SCA focused commentary on The Schoole of the Noble and Worthy Science of Defence by Joseph Swetnam, published in 1617.

For links to the other sections of the Swetnam Project please go here.

I am using this facsimile: http://tysonwright.com/sword/SwetnamSchooleOfDefence.pdf for the project.

This chapter is a brief overview of the types of weapons that are currently used and some philosophy on the use and knowledge of weapons.

Chap. VIII. How the use of weapons came, also the number of weapons used from time to time, with other good instructions.

Mankind was created without natural weapons.  We have hands to push away that which annoys, and feet to run from that which scares us.  But other creatures are naturally armed with teeth, claws, horns, beaks, venom, etc.

When man fought with tooth and nail, hand and foot, it was the strongest man who won.  Even with the advent of basic weapons it was still the strongest who survived. (Swetnam references Sampson here)

Over time weapons improved from clubs, staves, sings and darts, and other weapons were invented, and armour created.  From iron chariots to armed elephants and horses, to swords spears, bills, halberds, javelins, partisans, crossbows, longbows etc.  By Swetnam’s time, he says, most of these had been left behind and instead the weapons of the time are musket, arquebus, crossbow, calieuer (small cannon?), pike, sword, and rapier, all of which he says are “weapons of great danger” – not only to an opponent, but to the wielder as well.  (He seems to imply here

Swetnam goes on to say that because we have all sorts of dangerous weapons we should train everyone how to use them so that they know how to defend themselves without being hurt by their own weapon. He points out though that the best weapons to train people in are the ones that are the “most safe to defend, and yet most dangerous and hurtfull to thy enemy”.

Those who make good quality weapons are admired, but more admired are those who are skillful at the use of the weapons.  Those who are skillful and famous are given titles – like Knight. Similarly it is now expected that all men should not only be able to carry and use a weapon, and also be able to “speak and to discourse” about weapons with anyone.

Fencing was created by the Romans, who created entire armies of sword fighters.

Those who are skillful are sad that so many men die in duels which had no good reason beyond aspiring to praise.  The dead men did not understand that praise and admiration is given for skill, and not for the duel itself. (Swetnam seems to be implying that if more people devoted themselves to learning skill rather than testing skill in duels they would attain the praise they want).

The wise man prepares for Winter during the Summer, and for war during peace time.  War always follows peace, and similarly there is no one alive who will not be so wronged that he must fight.  Thus the wise man is armed with both weapons and skill beforehand so that if an occasion comes where he must fight he will be prepared.

SCA Take:

As this section is mostly philosophy it’s not as applicable, but there are two SCA related things to mention:

It is expected that you not only know how to use a weapon without hitting yourself in the foot, but how to talk about weapons.

It is one thing to be able to win in a tournament, but it is a better thing to focus on your skill first – winning in tournaments will come after that.

This is part of an ongoing project to summarize and provide SCA focused commentary on The Schoole of the Noble and Worthy Science of Defence by Joseph Swetnam, published in 1617.

For links to the other sections of the Swetnam Project please go here.

I am using this facsimile: http://tysonwright.com/sword/SwetnamSchooleOfDefence.pdf for the project.

This chapter discusses the difference between a cowardice, anger, valour, and skill.  We’ve dipped back into philosophy here, but Swetnam also brings up one of his most important concepts.

Chap. VII. That Feare and Fury are both enemies to true valour.

Fear is an enemy of valour; the fearful man will always outwardly excuse others insults even when they are inexcusable, but will remember them and will get his revenge by subtle means such as obtaining an office which he can exploit to avenge a past wrong. Only when there is great need does the coward show valour

But when a cowardly man is trained and sees that they can defend themselves he looses his fear in the certainty of his defences.  Thus by training you may make a cowardly man valorous.  It is easier to make a cowardly man valourus than to make a drunken man forsake his drunkenness or to make an angry and hasty man calm and civil.

The only thing to make a drunken man forsake drink is death or poverty, and the only ways to make an angry or hasty man civil is by receiving many dangerous wounds, imprisonment, or death.  Though some times old age will bring experience and that will calm the hasty man down.

When two men, even skillful men, fight while angry they do not show the true art, but instead will fight wildly.  If distance is broken then both men will receive injuries and will not be able to maintain the true art.  After the fight they will understand their folly, but it will be too late.

Swetnam is not asking people to “turn coward” and turn away from a just quarrel, but rather to avoid idle brawls such as those that spring from drunkenness.  If someone truly offends you then you should stand against him and challenge him, both for your honour and also so that others will think twice about offending you.

There are people who are valorous by nature, and yet are not skillful.  Swetnam would that they hold back from challenges, as they are likely to end up dead in their first duel.  Swetnam points out that there are many examples of this in France, Flanders, and Ireland.

Swetnam says that it is better to retreat if your safety is in danger rather than to be slain.  He is quick to state though that he does not recommend running away, but rather retreating for cause.  He reminds us that running away is cowardly.  But you can retreat with no disgrace – here he references that many men have been considered valiant even though they retreated from overwhelming odds.  Sometimes you must accept a great wrong, as long as you can rectify it later without the loss of your life.  Remember that only a fool puts all of his goods in one ship, or all of his money on one throw of the dice. If you know that you can not be victorious then you should back down even if it is to your discredit.

Here he sums up the chapter with saying that you should always use your weapon with discretion, without anger, and to let wisdom guide you and you will be successful in many a quarrel and skirmish.

“There is no exercise learned but by often practice, for so it is made perfect: valour, and stomach commeth by nature, but skill never commeth by nature and he which is grounded in skill by arte and practice will not fear the proud brags of any man” (57)

Always depend on your skill.  Remember to keep your distance.  And remember the best way to end a fight is unhurt.

SCA Take:

In the SCA we’re not supposed to be fighting in anger, which you’d think would make this chapter redundant.  But the number of times I’ve seen an otherwise good fencer blow their cool and forget their skill shows that to be a false conclusion.  Fencers in the SCA need this reminder just as much as they did in the 17th century.  Anger and skill do not mix.

That being said, the commentary on cowardice isn’t truly needed as the SCA is not very close to a true duel situation.  As I’ve commented before it is much closer to a practice bout, even in high end tournaments.

Other than not fighting in anger the biggest take away from this chapter is: Depend on your skill, skill comes from practice; keep your distance, the true art is harder at close range; the best way to end a fight is unhurt, don’t sacrifice one part of your body to make a kill shot – this is combat, not tag.

Those three points seem like they are going to form the basis of Swetnam’s style, so I”m sure we will be revisiting and delving deeper into them.

This past weekend my wife and I went to July Coronation.  It was a very long court for me to have forgotten my chair, but some very well deserving people were recognized.

After court we went back to Mistress Safiye’s sunshade and got out the brazier, filled it with charcoal, and got to work.  It was flatbread day.  I’d been planning this one for a while, so I’m very happy with how it turned out.

I did two different versions.  One standard flatbread and one desert flatbread.

The first was translated in Medieval cuisine of the Islamic World by Lilia Zaouali.  But me being stupid forgot to write down the page number or which manuscript it was from originally.

Take semolina and moisten it, energetically mixing with a little water and salt.  Divide the dough into pieces and knead each piece with clarified butter.  Roll it out, first by hand and then with a rolling pin, fold it, add clarified butter, and roll it out again to obtain a very thin layer.  For this purpose use a shaubak, which is a piece of carved wood, thick in the center and thin at the extremities.  Small lumps of dough can be rolled out three at a time, placing one on top of the other with clarified butter between each layer.

Heat an iron skillet or one of unglazed clay. Take a piece of the rolled out dough and heat it until it has become white and lost all its moisture, at which point remove it from the fire and beat it with the hands in order to separate the layers.

Fairly self explanatory.  I picked up some semolina at our local mill, used sea salt (yes, I know they would have used rock salt, but I work with what I had), and ghee (clarified butter).

I put about two cups of semolina in the bowl, added about two teaspoons of salt and enough water to turn it into dough.  Mixed in a bit of ghee and kneaded it a bit.  I set it aside to rest as I heated my skillet (cast iron in this case).  I rolled out three balls, flattened them a bit, then stacked them with some ghee in between.  Rolled it out.

Now that the pan was hot enough I put down the flatbread and cooked it till it had nice spots on the bottom, flipped it and did the same.  Then I served it up with some hummus.

The top and bottom layers were nice and crispy, great for dipping, and the center layer was a tasty bread like consistency, which when taken with part of the top or bottom added a great texture.

The biggest issue was that my pan was too large for the brazier, so I had to continuously move it to keep the pan evenly heated without smothering my coals.

The second batch I took the same dough and rolled it out like the previous one but this time I was using a different recipe.

A Baghdad cookery Book, Charles Perry pg. 104

Fatayir. It is dough that you make thin, then fry it as cakes in sesame oil in a frying pan.  Take it out, dip in syrup and sprinkle sugar on it.

I put some sesame oil in the skillet and added the flatbread and fried it up.  Once it was done I removed it, poured some simple syrup over it and dusted it with sugar.  It was very tasty, if a little greasy.

I assume that this recipe is intended to be made without the ghee, as that way it wouldn’t be as greasy.

Next time:

The first flatbread plan worked amazingly.  The only change for next time is to use a bigger brazier, and roll them out smaller.

The sweet flatbread however needs a few changes.  First it was too greasy.  I think that if I roll them out individually without the extra ghee and then fry them crisp one at a time in the oil it will work better.  Also my 4 cups sugar to 3 cups water with some lemon juice added at the end syrup needs to be thicker.  I think I will go with a 2:1 sugar to water ratio.

Now I wish I had taken pictures.  I’m sure all of us in Ottoman Turkish clothing lounging around the sunshade with some fresh made flatbread looked wonderfully periodish.

I was alerted to a good looking period fruitcake recipe by Medieval Cooking, and kinda want to try it.  Of course I then went to backtrack it and found that the original was translated by a Charles Potter… of course I can’t find that translation yet, but I’ll keep trying.  It seems he’s in the SCA so I should be able to find him eventually.

The original text is called Libro Novo and is in Italian.  I speak absolutely no Italian so a good translation is a must.  What intrigues me the most is that there are four bread recipes in it, so I will need to find a full copy eventually.  That being said.  Lets take a look at the recipe that was posted at Medieval Cooking .

First recipe:

In the Libro Novo, which was written in 1557, it says:

To Make Mostazzoli of Sugar
Take three pounds of candied citron cut very finely, five pounds skimmed honey, five eights of an ounce of pepper, one scruple of saffron, three quarters of an ounce of cinnamon, three grains of musk, and enough flour that it will hold all these together. Make the Mostazzoli large or small as you would like them to be. You will bake them as you would pampapati.

Ok – fairly straight forward.

• 3 lb Candied Citron – diced
• 5 lb honey (6 2/3 cups)
• 5/8 oz pepper
• pinch saffron
• 3/4 oz cinnamon
• 3 grains musk
• flour

Now here’s the big assumption, water or no water.  As I’ve found in the past it is sometimes incorrect to assume the addition of water to a recipe if it doesn’t call for it.  Based on the amount of honey compared to the rest of the ingredients I’m going to say that probably no water except as needed to bring out the best in the saffron.

And the second version she posted (this time from Compendio de i secreti rationali)

The way to make “pan forte” that is made by the Spiciers (Chapter 39, Fifth book)
The strong bread that is made by the spiciers of Rome is called Peppered bread, because it contains pepper, in Bologna it is called spiced bread because they put inside many more types of spices, and in Venice they call it strong bread because of the pepper they put in, and in other places it is called in many other ways, however in all these places the way of making it is almost only one, and one makes it thus that is, one takes flour, and one gives it it’s raising agent (bigo) the same as one does for making bread, and then one pastes it (mixes it) with water and honey more of the one (first) than the other (second), and one puts into it pepper, saffron, cumin, cloves, candied gourd (could be squash given time period of writing) and candied orange peel, and all these above things one puts in in the quantity that is the opinion of the spicier, that one agrees is better to add to this bread; and when it is mixed make the bread and leave it to raise, and then put it to cook in the oven, taking care that the oven is not too hot when you add the bread, and this is very healthy to the stomach because of the spices it has inside.

• flour
• leaven
• water
• honey
• pepper
• saffron
• cumin
• cloves
• candied gourd
• candied orange peel

Jennifer Strobel has much more experience at this than I do, and so I should probably follow her redaction of the two.  But being me I’ll try bashing around like a bull in a china shop instead.

I like the first version – however it omits leaven and water – which I generally consider essential in most doughs.  The second gives those two ingredients – so I’ll give it a shot.  I’ll be using mostly the first version – but will be using cumin and cloves instead of musk seed (I’m being lazy and have cumin and cloves in my spice cabinet but not musk seed).

• 3 lb Candied Citron – diced
• 5 lb honey (6 2/3 cups)
• 5/8 oz pepper (2 1/2 Tbsp)
• large pinch saffron (about a gram)
• 3/4 oz cinnamon (3 Tbsp)
• cumin (1/2 Tbsp)
• 5 cloves ground
• flour
• 7 cups water
• 2 tbsp yeast

Ok, that’s a lot.  So I’ll pare it down.

• 3/4 lb candied citron
• 1 1/2 cups honey
• 1 Tbsp fine ground pepper
• small pinch saffron
• 1 tbsp cinnamon
• 1/2 tsp cumin
• 2 cloves ground
• 2 1/3 cups warm water
• 1 tbsp yeast
• 1 cup whole wheat flour
• 2 cups white flour
• extra white flour to feel

1. in a large bowl take warm water, add saffron, wait about five minutes
2. add yeast (I know I should be using barm, but I’m out), spices, and honey
3. add ww flour and mix into batter
4. Cover with two cups white flour
5. Cover bowl and let stand 1 hour
6. Turn out and kneed adding flour as needed
7. kneed in candied citron and place in greased bowl to rise
8. pre-heat oven to 375 with baking stone inside
9. lightly squish down dough and form into round
10. bake till cooked in center

Ok, doesn’t look too hard.  My worries:

• no salt.  This could cause an odd flavour
• crust.  I’m not doing the first one with steam to see how it turns out.  It could be a little hard inside instead of nice and chewy

I’ll be trying this out next week hopefully and testing it out on my co-workers.

Many thanks to Jennifer Strobel for doing this on her blog as without her I wouldn’t have even known about this recipe.

This is part of an ongoing project to summarize and provide SCA focused commentary on The Schoole of the Noble and Worthy Science of Defence by Joseph Swetnam, published in 1617.

For links to the other sections of the Swetnam Project please go here.

I am using this facsimile: http://tysonwright.com/sword/SwetnamSchooleOfDefence.pdf for the project.

This chapter is about how to use Joseph Swetnam’s manual.  However, there are the usual digressions.  It’s a good chapter.  I’m finding the slow transition from philosophy of combat into theory of combat interesting.

Chap. VI. Diverse reasons or introductions to bring thee the better unto the knowledge of thy weapon

Swetnam begins this chapter by telling us that if you want to get anything out of his book you have to read the whole thing, not just look at the pictures.

The instructions around each picture are more helpful than the pictures themselves, as you will need to move to the points he tells you to.  Even if you’re off by an inch you could be doing it completely wrong.

On Styles

Swetnam uses the example of a scrivener for several pages, but here are the basic ideas he’s trying to get across.

This manual is not a comprehensive overview of combat – that isn’t necessary.  Instead it is one style.  Swetnam recommends that you study only one style until you have learned it perfectly, and then you can branch out; otherwise you are too likely to be just ok at a number of styles and master of none.

Practice is the key to success.  You must exercise and practice often.  Without this there is no success.  At the same time you must practice with the direction of someone who is skillful.  You can not just start swinging a sword around and learn how to fight.

Once you’ve learned how to fight well then you can learn a number of different styles you will figure out which one you like best.

Do not mix styles until you have become a master.  You need to focus on one coherent system or you will become confused and sloppy in your fighting.

You need to learn the whole of a system though – if you do not you will believe that a single guard can protect you from everything when it can not.

The Importance of Practice

The most important parts of combat are Distance and Guard, both of which will require you to practice frequently.

As you practice you will find that your hands will become faster and you will become more skillful in your defense

Similarly your stance, movement, and attacks will be improved by practice.

You need to have someone who is skillful help you with your practice or your fighting will simply become one “foolish trick or other”.  Worse is that if this happens it is very hard to untrain the tricks.  If you work with someone who is skillful they will be able to help you untrain these.  Remember that the use of force does not come automatically, but must be trained.

Many young men must be almost forced to practice even though it will be very helpful to them.  They are willing to start and to try it for a few days but they quickly tire of it and go to try the next interesting thing.  He lists several follies of young men, but most of them come down to being too easily distracted or bored.  Swetnam encourages his readers to examine themselves and their lives to see if they fall pray to the same foolishness, and by identifying it avoid it.

General Commentary

Swetnam agrees that those who use “foolish tricks” without realizing that they are tricks can win.  He compares this to the man who runs without looking where he is going.  He has the ability to get where he is going faster than the man who pays attention, but he will eventually fall.  Thus the man who focuses on the true art will ensure that his guard is steady, and that his feet and hands are in the right place.  A trick may fool someone who has never seen it before, but it becomes useless against someone who knows it.

When learning fencing you do not need to force yourself into the habits of the past.  Swetnam says that you do not need to mimic the stances or positions of the masters from the past, nor do you need to learn first the sword and then the rapier.  He says instead you should focus on the rapier because it is more useful for the thrust, and the thrust is the best attack.  The sword does have the advantage in cutting, but Swetnam says that when you cut you give the advantage away to your opponent, who will thrust into you before you can connect.  he also promises that he will later explain how you can defend against a cut easily regardless of your strength.  The rapier allows you to defend against the sword while at the same time attacking.  The sword however does not have this advantage.  He reminds us that it is best to defend and attack in the same motion.

Swetnam also cautions all those who carry large sums of money to carry a staff at all times.  This is because a man with a little training in the staff can easily counter a man with a sword and dagger.

He here breaks off and reminds us that you should not mock or scoff at those who are just learning, as everyone was once a beginner.  It is better to encourage all, as it is better to have started learning late than to never start at all.

Though some people brag about how many men they can fight at a time, Swetnam says that it is very difficult to defend yourself even against two men, if they are both willing to kill.  However, if you can be in a narrow place where they can not get behind you then you can defend against several men.

Left handed fighters have an advantage over right handed fighters.  This is because the left handed fighter regularly practices against right handed fighters, but the right handed fighter rarely works with a left handed fighter.  The other reason is that a left handed fighter will have a different angle of attack, and so a minor opening against a right handed fighter suddenly becomes a major opening.  Swetnam then recommends using “back-sword” guard against a left handed man, and to ensure that you have a very solid guard.  He finishes off by letting us know that he will talk more about that later.

SCA Take:

You can’t skim this manual.  The pictures are only a small part of the whole.  If you’re going to read it, you need to read it… hmmm, good thing that’s what I am doing with it.

No, really, RTFM.  The words around the pictures will explain what’s happening, how you get there.

Style:

This manual is only one style.  Use it, learn it well, and then once you’ve learned all you can from it try another style.  Don’t mix styles as you learn or you will not learn any of them correctly.  Don’t take a guard from here and a thrust from there.

That’s an interesting way of putting it, especially as it is quite standard in the SCA to create an amalgam of styles.  Though Tir Righ standard is the basic style here with other things added on.

Practice:

Practice and you will get better, faster, and more solid.  But don’t just practice by yourself.  Have someone help you so that you don’t practice incorrectly – as that is hard to untrain.

General Comentary:

Yes you can win with tricks.  But you can’t always win with tricks and if you focus on them then you won’t know what to do against good fighters.

You don’t need to mimic the stances of the past if they don’t work for you.  So although some of the manuals have people leaning at odd angles or utilizing guards that do not work against a rapier that doesn’t mean you have to.  This is an interesting thing to look at, especially as I’m reading a 400 year old manual, but I think what Swetnam is getting at is that you don’t need to learn Marazzo or other longsword/sidesword techniques in order to learn rapier.  You should learn rapier to learn rapier.

Don’t make fun of the newbie.  Ever.  You were there once too.

Fighting multiples is difficult.  It has more to do with the terrain than with your skill.

Left handed fighters are dangerous, both because it’s difficult for those who don’t fight against lefties often, but also because they will be attacking from a slightly different angle, which means that you need to adjust your guard appropriately.

First: I had forgotten how heavy a double wide was.  On the other hand it’s much harder for my opponent to push me out of the way.  It’s also significantly longer.

Blade:

Heavier: I think my sword blade is over twice as heavy as my previous one.  This means a few things.  On the plus side it evens things up a bit on the controlling the blade side.  It’s harder for my opponent to push me off line unless I let them, while easier for me to control my opponents blade.  On the down side my right wrist, arm and shoulder are sore.  I need to work on arm strength again.  Ahh well, that can be done while I’m gaining tip control.  With a blade this heavy my arm gets tired quickly and with that goes tip control.

Longer: From 36″ to 42″ is a huge difference.  This is both good and bad.  The bad is that I”m not used to the length and hit Sebastian a little too hard several times during slow work.  The good news is that I can make my attacks from 6″ further away, I can parry earlier, I enter range at the same time as my opponent instead of a step later, I have a blade more suited to the type of period sword play I want to do, and I’m sure I’ll find many more.  Don Pierce used to say “an inch is a mile” so what is six?

Balance: very similar to my previous blade.  The balance point has moved about an inch further forward on the blade.  That combined with the new length means that the balance point is essentially the same based on total length of the sword.  This is helping because my sword is quite similar in handling to before.

Stance:

I haven’t been able to pick up a sword in over two months.  I haven’t even been in stance for about that long.  So some issues my stance has had because of this: my back foot wants to be in perfect line with my front.  When I move it my body wants to square up.  My dagger position needs to change, I no longer need it to protect my body, my sword is now more than long enough to cover nearly all of me, so my dagger no longer needs to have such a prominent position – allowing me to turn my shoulders a bit more.  My lunge sucks.  Part of the back issue I had affected my leg muscles (long story) this means that my right thigh was in agony the day after practice.  I’ll need to do many lunges to get them clean again.  They were slow and wobbly.  I think I need a lot more individual solo practice – lunges and thrusts – before I’ll be even close to ready for full speed.

I got to play with what some period wards looked like with my new blade.  They seem a lot more natural and protective now.  Sebastian dislikes most of the period wards as they don’t protect the center line enough.  I keep thinking that the only reason they don’t protect me as much as I want is that I don’t know the wards well enough.  But I’m going to leave that to the experts.  I’ll be focusing on a central guard – Tir Righ Standard – until I’m more comfortable with my sword, or until I get to that part in Swetnam.

Conclusion:

I had a blast at practice even though I only got to actually work for about 45 minutes total due to mandatory breaks.  On the plus side my back was not strained at all by practice.  Now my arms and legs on the other hand….

It’s going to take me a while to get back into fencing shape.  I’ve lost some weight (down to 217), but I’ve also lost some muscle.  I’ll have to gain that back in slow work.  On the plus side I don’t expect to be okayed for full speed work until August, so I have a while to work.

This also gives me time to focus on the Swetnam work I’ve been doing.

This is part of an ongoing project to summarize and provide SCA focused commentary on The Schoole of the Noble and Worthy Science of Defence by Joseph Swetnam, published in 1617.

For links to the other sections of the Swetnam Project please go here.

I am using this facsimile: http://tysonwright.com/sword/SwetnamSchooleOfDefence.pdf for the project.

We now begin to get to the combat application part of Joseph Swetnam.  Chapter five is a combination of how to fight a duel with a bit towards the end on avoiding duels.

Chap. V. The cause of quarrells, and what preparation you aught to be prepared with to answer a challenge.

Swetnam truly has it in for people who duel without cause.  He does give leave to duel if your reputation is truly insulted, but for other than grave insults he admonishes us to turn the other cheek.

If you must duel Swetnam gives the rules of the duel:
The challenged man chooses the weapon, time, and place
The challenged man chooses whether to fight on foot or horse
This lets the challenged man play to his strengths or his opponents weaknesses

On Dueling:

He then goes into a number of things to keep in mind while dueling.

If your opponent is hasty you should keep your point trained directly on him at all times so that if he tries to press you he will run himself onto your sword.

Remember to make your confessions to God before the duel.

Remember your skill while you fight.  Too many people forget what they learned and loose because of that.

If you both know a lot of tricks (false play) stick to the basics (true play) because if you use a trick your opponent knows he will counter it.  Tricks may work sometimes though if you know a rare one.

It doesn’t take very much of a fight to figure out who is more skillful.  Remember that there is always someone better than you.

If you fight someone of equal or greater skill focus on disarming him or breaking his weapon so that you can end the fight faster.

Stay at long range against a better opponent, do not let them close or you will be in more danger.

Don’t move to defend any specific part of your body too quickly, as that may open up another part.  Wait until your opponent has committed.

Insure that you are well trained in defending with the weapon you usually carry so that you will be able to both defend against your enemies attack but answer him at the same time.

It is best to attack quickly after your opponent.

Keep your defense up as long as you are within range of your opponent until you strike, and make sure that you strike correctly.  After your attack return to your defense.

If part of your opponent seems open, hesitate.  They may be opening it on purpose and you will be out of place when he attacks.

Do not attack from the shoulder or elbow, but instead attack from the wrist, as it is faster.  Do not stop after the first attack.  Make multiple attacks at once then recover.  Watch your enemies face and not the tip of his sword or you may be deceived by a feint.

Be experienced in both true and false play – the use of and defense against both.  This way you will not be deceived, and you will be able to fight all mane of men.

Do not be hasty, because you are more likely to miss your attack.

Do not ripost every attack of your opponent.  Make short attacks until you have the measure of your opponent and understand what he is planing to do

If both combatants are experienced the fight may last almost the whole day, or until one of them gets tired.

Use a close hilted dagger and rapier as it is better than sword and dagger, though in both cases it is more a matter of skill than weapons.

You will not always need everything you’ve learned in every fight, but you may need them sometimes.

Don’t get distracted when engaging your opponent.  And don’t complain about your opponnets cowardly attack if he attacks while you are distracted.

At the same time do not create distractions or tricks beyond the fight as it is not manly/chivalrous

Avoiding duels

He then returns to discussion of how to avoid duels.  He reminds us to let reason guide us and not to give in to fighting over every little thing, but if a man is insistant on fighting you and does everything he can to provoke you then he should be answered.  Do not begin a quarell, but end it.  He goes on to explain that while some people say that if someone gives you the lie and you do not answer with a duel then you are a coward, Swetnam says that it is better to answer such with words rather than with weapons lest you end up committing murder.

Swetnam closes with saying that you will be the happiest if at the end of your years you can say:

“I thanke my God, I never bare malice, nor I never iniuriously wronged any man, in thought, word, or deed in all my life.”

SCA Take:

Swetnam gives us a lot of points to think about.  So I’ll break it down into a few sections.  In addition I’m still curious about this “close hilted dagger”.

Period dueling:

The best reason to duel is if someone first calls you a liar and then assaults your person either by hitting or slapping you in some way.  This way you have been insulted in word and deed and you can then respond.  He calls anything less frivolous.  In setting up the duel remember that the challenged man gets to choose the Weapon, the Time, and the Place.

Advice on Dueling:

• Keep your weapon trained on your opponent at all times
• Don’t forget your training
• There is a difference between true skill and tricks.  Know the difference, know both, and use the skill most of the time and the ocasional trick.
• There is always someone better than you, never assume you’re the best.
• Don’t let an opponent who is better than you close, the better fencer has the advantage closer in
• Train with the same weapon you use in tournament
• Don’t watch the sword, watch the whole person
• Rapier and dagger is the best combination
• Don’t get distracted by things beyond the fight, and don’t purposefully create a distraction beyond the fight.

On Guards:

• Keep your guard up and don’t fall for feints – a blatant opening may be a feint
• Always recover into guard

On Attacks:

• Throw your cuts from the wrist as that is faster
• Make sure that every attack you make has multiple ends and can go into a second or third hit
• Don’t make your full attack until you have the measure of your opponent

On Riposting:

• Be quick
• Return to guard fast after a riposte
• Don’t be hasty, take your time to find the right attack, don’t riposte every attack.