[Nat Lamb]

[Peter Johnsson]

Thank you all for your comments, thoughts and questions.

It is with conflicting feelings I write this post. One one hand it is great to finally talk about something that has been demanding most of my time awake these past two years, on the other hand it is impossible to write about this in the format of a post on a discussion forum. I am bound to leave important things out or put my words in a clumsy manner that will later be misinterpreted and later used in arguments for or against my hypothesis.

(And I find myself writing this in answer to a thread at the Off-Topic forum! That is really funny and shows just the nature of discussions of internet forums.)

Geometry is a wonderful tool to organize and express ideas and develop designs. It has been used through out history as a trick of the trade of artists, artisans and engineers.

A problem for later era research is that geometry by nature is both exact and flexible. It might suggest levels of precision never intended by original makers and it can be used in incredibly complex structures to prove a plan where no such plan ever existed. We can twist things around and find "proof" that a rune stone or a rock carving is a device for astronomical observation or a that a painting carries the code to secrets messages in the bible.
This is why the Lady Geometry is the darling to both mystics and artist as well as engineers and mathematicians.
We know that sometimes geometry was indeed a very important tool and concept. Sometimes it was completely unrelated. It remains for us to decide the one situation from the other. I believe the picture is more complex than an absolute yes or no.

This idea that the design of the medieval sword could be derived from geometrical drawing is new. It is what I propose as a possibility.
It is indeed a hypothesis and very much a work in progress. I am frustrated by my mistake with the incorrect use of words when I named my presentation a *theory* for the design of the medieval sword, when I have otherwise strived to be strict with how I present things. I thank Michael Harley for pointing this out. This is an important distinction.
If this idea is to be accepted as a workable theory it has to be published in peer review periodicals. I am working on that. I am at a stage where I really need to input and critique from scholars of medieval philosophy, history and art. I need to weed out flawed conclusions and find new openings. I have gathered material that must be presented in a way that makes it coherent and understandable. Musth of this works still remains to do, even if I have made some small beginning.
Perhaps this idea of mine is one huge waste of time. Or it can be the start to something exiting. We shall see.

So far the hypothesis has been published twice: the catalogue for the 2012 Park Lane Arms Fair and an essay in the catalogue for the Wallace Collection exhibit: The Noble Art of the Sword. It is impossible to present the hypothesis in its full in posts in a discussion forum. Those of you who are interested to learn more about this idea, will find more detailed presentations there.

2012 Park Lane Arms Fair Catalogue can be ordered here: http://www.londonarmsfair.com/catalogue.html

The Noble Art of the Sword exhibition catalogue can be found on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/NOBLE-ART-THE-SWORD-Ren...+the+sword

I will hold presentations of different aspects of the hypothesis at the R L Scott conference in Glasgow in September and an interdisciplinary seminar about the sword at the university in Freiburg in October, later this year. At these events I hope to get into rewarding discussions. There is interest from the Wallace Collection, the Royal Armouries in Leeds and the Victoria & Albert museum, that can lead to great research opportunities and perhaps possibly an exhibition or two.
This is all in the vague future. I hope for the best.

Robin Smith brings up an important question: do all cruciform medieval swords confirm to a geometrical structure of proportions? So far it seems to me that many do, but not all. So far, I have also noted that swords from the viking period does not seem to follow the same principles in their design.
Some swords resist a definition by geometry. I take comfort from this fact.

We need to be aware of some important things when looking for a possible underlying geometrical structure of design.
First of, we must have a *truthful* depiction of the sword that is to be analyzed.

I cannot stress the importance of this enough.

A photograph is no good at all for the purpose of analysis. There is always distortion from perspective in photographs. Published drawings may not always be trusted either. They can be tracings of photographs rather than tracing of the object itself.
That will nullify any results of our analysis.

We must work from good quality tracings of originals, or scans with no distortion from perspective.

If a solution is to be accepted as valid, it has to define *both the overall structure as well as the details*.
This is a central idea to this type of design.
It is difficult to lay out the specifications for this principle in a post like this. There is much to study and understand in how medieval artists and engineers used geometry. It is not simply about geometry. It is about how it was used in medieval times. We must know enough of this to be able to look for valid patterns and structure of design in medieval swords.

A key element is that the parts must relate to each other and to the whole following just a few simple schemes.
When looking for a valid structure we must keep in mind what forms were important to the makers.It might also be important just in what way the interact and define each other. There is a hierarchy of shapes in the design of a sword. This is very important to understand. We must approach analysis the same ways as would a sword maker.

Gothic geometrical design is powerful in that it normally use only a few combinations of basic geometrical forms. The important aspects of the design are defined by the primary forms of the geometrical shapes involved. We cannot hope t find solutions by piling an assortment of geometrical forms on top of each other until some kind of pattern emerges. It is the other way around: Medieval geometric drawing often involved ingenious ways to use a rather simple structure to define many parts of a design. The geometric structure ha an element of celtic or zoomorphic knot work to it. It is like a riddle or poem expressed in geometrical shapes. There is beauty to the structure itself that lends grace and power to the object it defines.

There seems to be rules involved in this method of geometrical design. Like Chess it can be repeated endlessly without repetition, while still following a basic set of rules.

As the Goldsmith Hanns Schmuttermeyer says in the introduction to his handbook in Gothic Design printed in the 1480´s:
"... Fundamentally, this art is more freely and truly planted and developed out of the centre of the circle, together with its circumference, correct rules, points and setting out."
We should note that there are correct rules to observe, and we have to know how to define points and set out shapes properly.
I know that my hypothesis has been inspiring many already to bring out paper, compass and ruler, trying the ideas out for themselves. While this is great, I am also afraid that there are going to be many "discoveries" and claims coming into circulation that will be harmful to the credibility to the hypothesis.
We must be careful in what claims we make from geometrical analysis.
Many swords must be analyzed and compared. The structures found should also be compared with structures revealed in the analysis of artwork and architecture of the period. We should look for similarities in application, level of detail and precision.
I am working on this.

I cannot imagine that all swords in the medieval period were made according to these principles. If there is any truth to the idea, it is reasonable to think it was a method used in larger centers of production, for example in places like Passau that was under the direct influence of the church (but not limited to such).
It is also reasonable to think that such designs were coped by other makers that were not introduced to the "inner secrets". That would result in swords that are close, but not quite following the ideal proportions. Sometimes such swords could be very close indeed.

Swords were not always made with the same demand for precision. Some are obviously more sloppily made than others. We must be aware of this when we analyze the proportions of a sword. Some will show a greater margin of error than others. Also, swords are not like stones that make up the span in a Gothic arc: there is not the same need for precision. This is an important observation for the evaluation of a geometrical analysis. We should expect some margin of error, but not to a degree that allows just about any deviation from the intended.

Wear and tear can also have an effect on the proportions of a sword.

All this has to be taken into account.

Then there is the fact that geometrical structures can be made to coincide with just about anything if they are made complex enough.
This has caused geometrical analysis of gothic architecture to been more or less abandoned after critique on the credibility of such results was published by Konrad Hecht in the 1970´s. Anyone interested in a discussion on the methodological problems in the study of Gothic geometry and Konrad Hecht´s critique of geometrical research are recommended to read pages 11-20 of the introduction to prof. Robert Bork´s The Geometry of Creation, Ashgate 2011.
Robert Bork has revealed the actual geometrical structures that underlies the design of Gothic cathedrals by looking for pin pricks of the compass and un-inked construction lines left in original drawings made on parchment.
From this we can learn that analysis of geometrical construction is far from unproblematic, but that critique of the result does not change the fact it was an important principle for creative work in the medieval period.

Over the past two years I have been working on this hypothesis I have used and discarded many methods of drawing and definition and in the process may have found some trends in the designs of swords from the 11th century to the late 15th century. It s still too early to say anything definite about this, but I believe there are things to be found here. I am currently working on this and many other aspects. Work is far from completed.
As I make my living as a sword smith, every day spent working on research means a day away from the smithy and a day without income.

Blaz Berlec and Robin Smith discussed wether Albion swords of my design follow principles of geometry in their design. The present swords are obviously not based on geometry as their design date from before the idea took hold of me in the summer of 2010.
However, I have been using the golden section as a principle for design since the very beginning of my cooperation with Albion. This is because I have found such proportions in surviving originals. I used to calculate a system of modules based on the golden section to lay out the proportions of the swords. Going back I see that such proportions may also correlate to geometrical structures. (I will post some examples of this later). In one way this could be seen as an argument against the presence of geometrical structure in the design of medieval swords, but I think we make a flawed conclusion by thinking like that. By using a system of modules based on the golden section I strived to develop designs that incorporated proportions that are present in original medieval swords. If I by this roundabout way sometimes was successful in getting the proportions just right, it should not be written of as pure luck. The golden section *is* present in medieval swords. I presently believe it was defined by the use of geometry, but I used to calculate dimensions with a pocket calculator. It is a difference of means and perhaps in the end result, but it should not be surprising if we find some correlations afterwards.

Konrad Hecht was critical of the geometrical analysis of Gothic architecture of his contemporaries. He saw that many who did geometrical analysis of gothic architecture were carefree and less than exact in their work. This made him write of geometry as the source and principle of Gothic design.
It is easy to be seduced by the Lady Geometry: her beauty may in fact undermine ones powers of reason, just as likely as strengthen them. Instead Hecht proposed that only modular systems were used in the development of architecture and that any correlation to geometrical structures was purely coincidental. Prof. Robert Bork has now clearly proven that this is wrong and that geometry is at the very core of gothic architectural design.

This is why it is important to be strict and careful in analysis and claims. It is possible to find different structures conforming to one single sword. The proportions are there, but there are different ways to arrive at a geometrical structure that can be seen to define them. We must seek a solution that is both simple and also follows the example of what is otherwise known from medieval art and engineering.

I do not agree with Quinn W that there is in general a good understanding of the intricacies of sword design. On the contrary, ideas on the design of swords are still confused with misunderstandings and flawed conclusions. There are many who are eager to "demystify" the principles of sword design that simply keep muddying the waters. I am often met with the results of this in dealing with customers and enthusiasts.

Please do not get me wrong.

I am not making any claims to know the full or final truth of these matters. Far from it.

The talks I held at Arctic Fire 2012 represent *my* take on these matters, presented to the best to my ability (meaning I am bound to have made slips here and there. Using the word "Theory" instead of "Hypothesis" is a good example).
Also, I do not intend to represent the ideas, theories or methods of any other makers currently active, and what I say should not be understood as the current common understanding of contemporary makers. In my presentations you will recognize terms and reasonings from discussions here at the forum, but the talks represent for better and worse, *my own* understanding on how to approach the analysis of medieval swords and the design and making of swords today.

I have found the Lady Geometry to be a very inspiring muse. She is a great guide in the work of the designer and I will use these ideas in the making of swords in my own smithy. I believe that the possibility of the use of geometry in the design of medieval swords is something that we should not disregard. On the contrary, there is much to say that cutlers needed some means to define the parts of swords that were made by sub contractors. Some plan and design must have bee involved. As geometry was close at hand for medieval artisans and engineers it should be one of our prime suspects when we look for principles of design in medieval swords.
... And there still remains quite a bit of work on this idea
;-)

[Michael Harley]

Fascinating work Peter, I wish you all the best with it and look forward to your findings.

[Chad Arnow]

[Robin Smith]

Thank you for addressing a few of my thoughts Peter! Your post touches on a few reservations I had floating around in the back of my head, and helps clarify. Another thought that is nagging at me:

You say that Viking Swords do not follow this design philosophy, yet there is a very clear (at least to me) lineal development from the swords of the viking age into in the early medieval forms. Some of the early medieval designs are little separated from their viking forebearers (in particular the Gaddhjalts or the Leppaho finds with wheel pommels, etc... ). So at what point do you believe this geometrical way of design take hold?

[Peter Johnsson]

[Peter Johnsson]

[Blaz Berlec]

Peter, thank you very much for all the insights! After fooling around with geometry, various modules and trying to make sense of it all I ordered Robert Bork´s The Geometry of Creation. After reading the introduction and checking it on Google books it seems like a very informative stuff!

[Joshua Anthony]

Awesome, thanks for posting the link! I thought Peter's comments regarding how a sword is designed for motion not being dissimilar to an aircraft wing very enlightening.

[Quinn W.]

Admittedly the geometry hypothesis does indeed sound a little Da Vinci Code conspiracy theory-esque at first, but I am highly reassured by Peter's constant caution in mentioning that when looking for a pattern, people tend to find one. Good scholarship involves forming an opinion based on evidence, but all to often it works the other way around.
When coming up with a very new idea people frequently and understandably put a lot of pride in their research and end up clinging to it. It is clear that Peter's ultimate goal, however, is not the elevation of his own ideas, but the elevation of our academic understanding.
Bravo!

[Patrick Kelly]

Peter,

It's wonderful to see you still working and expanding on your theories regarding sword design. It seems hard to believe it's been nearly a decade since I first heard you discuss them, you've come a long way in that time. The one thing that has always impressed me about your viewpoint is your ability to view the sword as a series or proportional relationships, rather than a simple exercise in mechanics. This is a very rare thing in the craft and, in my opinion, allows you to take it to an entirely new level. Then again, perhaps it's just a rediscovering of old things forgotten?

Through my own studies I've built the belief that our medieval ancestors viewed their world in a much more organic fashion than we do. In a way our technology has separated us from the world around us and has limited our perception of it. A medieval artisan building a cathedral and a modern engineer building a skyscraper might use the same basic knowledge to get the job done, but the artisan may have viewed it more as a series of proportional and spatial relationships rather than as a set of fixed linear equations.

Fascinating stuff Peter, thank you for your continuing efforts.

[Peter Johnsson]

Patrick!

This is an important observation, I think. The idea that all of creation comes together in a harmonious structure was something that meant much to medieval man.
Macrocosm and microcosm were in harmonic relationship to each other. Man was made into an image of God and the proportions of the human body reflected proportions observed in creation.

If artists, engineers and craftsmen worked according to systems of proportions rather than sets of dimensions, it only reflected ideas of how reality was put together by the supreme being.
(I do not mean to say that measurements and dimension was unimportant in medieval times. On the contrary, but standards of measurements tended to be local, and were used side by side with constructions based on modular and geometrical principles)

Today we have access to standardized measurements, standardized raw materials and grid paper.
Without these commodities it puts the maker in a situation he has to set up standards for his own work. It makes sense to base a construction, a lay out or a design on proportions rather than dimensions. If you learn the basics of using a compass and straight edge to build geometric forms, this is a very handy and powerful method to establish proportions.
It was until only recent in our history that geometric drawing was not an uncommon skill among craftsmen and artists.

[Jean Henri Chandler]

I think you are on to something really interesting and important here Peter, and are taking the appropriate caution. Like all sword or fencing related things seem to be, this demands a great deal more context. But I can say that from the research I've been doing on craft-guilds in the Medieval Baltic this resonates with what I've started to come to see as the late Medieval reality, right down to the surprisingly ubiquitous education in the 7 liberal arts you mentioned as well as in some other areas, and the standard practices of the craft guilds, vis a vis planning, subcontracting and so on.

It's also interesting to me that we have a link with the cutlers here, since we have some fencing Masters who were cutlers and also links to one of the fencing guilds (the federfechter).

I bought the Wallace Collection book largely on the strength of your article, though I've found much more there to enjoy. I look forward to reading more about this as you develop your hypothesis further.

My only complaint is that I wish those Arctic Fire lectures were a bit more accessible, I think more people should see them.

J

[Robin Smith]

One thing that has been bothering me though. A sword put together using these principles is going to naturally have a visual harmony to its design... A visual harmony that seems to be lacking from many originals. In fact, quite often some originals will in fact look rather ungainly. For example awkward cross guards just a little too wide for visual harmony, or the pommel will be too small or too large for the proportions, etc...

This is by no means all or even the majority, but some are obviously not proportionally correct. Many are exquisitely crafted by an artisan who obviously has quite good grasp on harmonious design, but many at least to my eye seem to be lacking that harmony.

[Peter Johnsson]

[P. Norton]

Peter, am I correct in supposing that the Albion Munich's proportions conform to your hypothesis? Since its measurements match those of the Bayerisches longsword to within fractions of a millimeter, and the original sword presumably would have been designed using the principles you describe, I would think that this is the case. I suppose the same principle would apply to the Museum Line as well.

[Peter Johnsson]

[Peter Johnsson]

[Mark T]

One thing - among many - that stood out for me in Peter's lectures was his reference to the role of memory in medieval times. For Peter, and anyone else interested in this topic, there are some good resources:

The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature), Mary Carruthers

The Medieval Craft of Memory: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures (Material Texts), ed. Mary Carruthers and Jan M. Ziolkowski

Among other things, these texts show how illuminated manuscripts were designed to aid recollection and memory, and introduces the idea of mnemonic-architectonics, where visualising a building can help one arrange information. The relation of thought to images and art is picked up in this companion volume:

The Craft of Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric, and the Making of Images, 400-1200 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature), Mary Carruthers

Cheers,
Mark T

[Jean Henri Chandler]

This memory palace or 'method of loci' technique was commonly taught as a tool of rhetoric, going back to Roman times. I think it is highly relevant to fencing as well. As Peter mentioned in his lecture, rhetoric was one of the 7 liberal arts which were commonly taught in Schools in Medieval Europe, including to craftsmen in the larger cities. The subjects they taught both in school and University are rather impressive compared to the subjects we teach children today.

For example according to this book the primary school in Wroclaw, established in 1267, taught Latin, Greek, Hebrew, grammar, rhetoric, the dialectic, philosophy, and "physics".

This is another interesting book related to the Method of Loci, a detailed and very well sourced account of a jesuit missionary in China who used his memory training to impress mandarin officials by memorizing Chinese alphabets and questions for Chinese civil service exams. He was one of the first missionaries allowed to travel through China (outside of Macao) as a result. He also made a really cool map though that is perhaps a bit OT.

J