I'm more than delighted--but feel like I've been hit with a ton of
bricks--to report that the beginners' foil class at Volkshochschule Soest has
maxed-out enrollment, as of yesterday 20 enrolled and a week to go before the
semester begins.
When the class first meets next Thursday, we will be trying to arrange
splitting it into two sections, the new one on Tuesday evenings, since 20 students
is simply unwieldy for the standards aimed for to be achieved.
The curriculum will be based on the first three ranks--perhaps the fourth if
progress is good--of the two-year Model Curriculum outlined on the "Unser
Modelltrainingsprogramm" page of the Klassisches Fechten Soest website. It is
easily clicked to in English.
That program was developed only with the gracious contributions--here in
alphabetical order, and I must stress equal importance of all--of Maestro Nick
Evangelista, Maestro William M. Gaugler (the German edition of whose manual
will be a vital component), and Prevot Walter Green, in addition to many
others. This has turned into quite a project, and if things go wrong, I'm to blame
though!
As for the website, thanks are due to all those who commented on the Word
version of the drafts. Thanks also to those who were immediately shipped links
to the site right away and who especially responded quickly to let me know
about broken links. Those have been fixed and will (I hope!) stay that way!
_http://www.soestfechten.de_ (
http://www.soestfechten.de)
Most of the typos have also been corrected. There were few. We ran into a
program error addressing those on the "Wir sind wir" page. One really bugs
me; somehow I typed "de" for "le" in the name of the French Encyclopedist
d'Alembert in the English text-only version and since I concentrated on the
German (translation was a bear and a half) it was overlooked. I nearly had a
heart attack when I saw it, and had angina when I couldn't get it out. So, too, a
missed capital "F" needed when citing the St. Louis Classical fencing (!)
Society Salle d'Armes. The d'Alembert is really embarrassing, so I'll
neurotically fret about it until later this fall, when we will add a photo gallery
for instructional purposes and we hope add text to the "Wissenschaftliche
Forschung" page. There may be a very few others to correct then. Feel free to
alert me to them.
As for the site itself: In addition to the two-year curriculum, we offer a
"normative" and "historical" definition of classical fencing that has, well,
"underlying code" of very thorny issues that even occupy historians and
philosophers of history: "history" is about discrete events or things in time, we
assert principles that persist over time historically grounded. I mention
this because on the surface the position might seem contradictory, but it has
been around for over 200 years (some would say 2000) as well and folks are
still arguing over it. This is very different from concern for period weapons
and bears directly on training and practice issues. The same position, and we
rely on teachers who are prominent on our site, informs both aspects of
fencing--at least to me! It is the basis for our focus on the foil. A parallel
"functional" definition appears on the training program page. This stance is
also informed by the work of historians of the 17th century who have treated
"the sword problem" in the history of science and the duel in social and
intellectual context: Steven Shapin of Harvard, Alan Gabbey of
Columbia/Queens-Belfast, Peter Dear of Cornell.
The "Wissenschaftliche und Forschung" page--the phrase auf Englisch can be
read as "Scholarly Research"--very strongly states we want submissions, and
means what it says about the page NOT having a party line. I toyed with a
discussion list, but that's a hassle and frankly we've all agreed here that
substantial work is to be encouraged. Submissions are welcome that disagree with
the KFS program and the historical and technical ideas that support it.
Submissions will be peer-reviewed. That does not mean exclusion of
different ideas. What is looked for from my point of view is clarity of argument,
critical use of sources, and so on. Reviewers will not be restricted to
fencers. Depending on the subject--historical, technical, administrative,
instructional, etc.--professional scholars and other knowledgeable folks will be
asked to review. While we certainly find the medieval and Renaissance periods
fascinating, I for one would really like to see more interest in the 18th, 19th,
and early 20th centuries.
We are not looking for anecdodal material. For example, work on late 19th
century fencing in US urban immigrant communities (the Germans are really
important here) should ask questions about how social and physical environments
shaped fencing. The "Wir sind wir" page says loud and clear what historical,
social, and community contexts influence practice at KFS.
I'll take care of the stubborn typos when we expand the site in a couple of
months. (That is, after figuring out what the program error was.) By then,
we ought to also have another page in the works: On a "business model" for
fencing groups. This is boring but essential stuff and we'll be discussing it
here, well, maybe, trying to determine whether the institutional and
community outreach approach used in Soest is exportable. I'm not sure it is. Right
now, in fact, I think it isn't, but then....Financial and other book-keeping
chores, well, the situation here in Soest might not supply the data for a
model for people elsewhere to set up book-keeping, fund-raising, and promotional
methods. I dunno. But discussion of those things is, to me, vital to the
survival of classical fencing. Anyway, that's another page being considered.
There will be a German PowerPoint for presentation to corporate suits....hm.
Oh, well. Post that?
Finally about the definitely-planned photo gallery. It will not be meant as
aesthetic. It will be designed to illustrate the successes and the
failures, too, of what goes on. I make it very clear on the site that we will never
pose for perfection, will always try to show the "real" not the "ideal." I
mean that. That may read strangely after the "historical" probelm stuff
above, but it's not--it reflects the core of the problem heavy-duty guys have been
quarreling over for a long time. It actually just takes on a real problem
that has plagued fencing with disputes for centuries. Anyway, we'll display our
mistakes and take our lumps.
It'll be hard to keep that one inadvertent howler in the English version of
"Wer sind wir" and that "f" off my anal retentive little mind, I may just
throw up my hands and call the guy who led me out of the wilderness of
Dreamweaver in the first place, but if anyone wants to get querulous about it, heck,
I know it's there even after an hour fiddling with HTML--the bugger just
didn't come out! Don't waste your e-mail.
I hope we hear from you, though, about real issues!
Bill Leckie
_soestfechten@aol.com_ (mailto:soestfechten@aol.com)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUI...LSAA/VRUolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets.
http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/classicalfencing/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
classicalfencing-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Linear Mode
