[Craig Peters]

[Max von Bargen]

George, thanks a lot for all of the links. Some of this looks really helpful.

But to return to the topic at hand: From my own experience, limited though it may be, it still seems like it's more likely that one would accidentally injure oneself with the leading edge of the blade than with the reverse. I know I've come close to doing that a few times, but I just don't see how it's possible to generate enough force with the reverse edge of the blade to significantly injure oneself unless one is specifically trying to do so.

Vincent, the stuff that you said about the origin of the phrase was very interesting. The only reason I'm proposing the theory of ignorance is that I can think of no other good reason for this phrase's coming into existence. Also, even in 1672, I don't believe (although I could be wrong) that the general public still had to train for war, and all it takes is one person who is ignorant of a weapon to propagate untruthful sayings about said weapon. After all, there are many misconceptions among the general public about modern weapons that are used every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some examples:

-the idea that an M16 is a machine gun
-the idea that even an armoured Hummer should be able to withstand a direct hit from an RPG
-the idea that assault rifles can fire on full automatic for very long periods without reloading

And this is in an age where accurate information is much more readily available to the common person. So I would say it is still quite possible that this phrase originated in ignorance. But you're right, it would be very nice indeed if this was the only misconception about swords today.

I suppose what I'm getting at is:

1: I don't think this phrase makes any sense because of my own experience and because of logic (although if anyone actually has or has come close to being injured with the reverse edge of their own blade, I'd be interested to hear it)
2: I am assuming that this phrase came into being because of ignorance simply because I can't think of any other explanation.

If someone can think of a better explanation for its origins, or if anyone actually has been injured severely by the reverse edge of their own blade, I'd be quite willing to reconsider either point.

[George Hill]

[Max von Bargen]

I have actually cut with an Albion before. I think it's certainly possible to, for example, cleave one's collarbone in two if it is done intentionally, but I still don't see how a professional warrior could actually make that much of a mistake. I've never come close to doing anything like that, and I have practiced with very clumsy swords indeed (as well as very good ones). I have actually come close to cutting my shins with the leading edge, but those blows had they even struck home would just have drawn a tiny amount of blood and that would be it. A person who has never picked up a sword before might do something like that when they pick up a good sword like an Albion for the first time if they are extremely unlucky, but I don't see how a professional warrior attempting an attack could accidentally hit himself badly enough. Cosmetic damage, probably, maybe taking out an eye if one is extremely unlucky, but I don't see something as serious as cutting any sort of bone. Perhaps I'm just using different techniques, but my blade never comes close enough to my collarbone to hit it with sufficient force. Either it's too far away to actually get close enough quickly enough that I wouldn't be able to stop it, or it's so close that it wouldn't be able to get the momentum going for anything more than a superficial cut. If you're using some sort of technique that I'm not, that might explain our differences of opinion, and it's quite possible.

[Nathan Robinson]

George, you've derailed this topic. You can take this discussion to another site. I don't want it here. Stop now.

Anything further on the matter can be sent to me via private message.

[Craig Peters]

To be honest, anyone who is whipping in and out of guards so fast that they accidentally cut themselves with the false edge is probably not in control of their cuts during a strike either. And, as both Max and I have suggested, I can only imagine the rankest newbie causing damage to him or herself in this manner.

[Jean-Carle Hudon]

Rank newbies,
now, that is a fine example of specialized rhetoric. If one has not played with the Sca or other linked organizations, one would wonder what the hell the person is referring to when talking about '' rank newbies''... which brings me back to the issue of language and the topic, which is the meaning of the time honoured expression '' the double edged sword'' or, for our francophone friends '' la lame a deux tranchants'', which is the expression used in the vernacular, moreso than '' a double tranchant'', anyway the point is this: it is an expression, simply an expression, which means that this particular situation can ''cut both ways''. It has nothing to do with the evaluation of a particular individual's swordmanship, but everything to do with the fact that the situation could '' boomerang'', ''swing both ways'' (no sexual inuendoes please), and so on and so forth...just an expression. Taking offense of this expression is somewhat akin to contesting Shakespears' affirmation that '' a rose by any other name would smell as sweet... ''
Any man who has held a blade equally sharpened on both sides knows that it is just as foolish to slide one's hand on one side as the other, both will cut you just as bad, and there lies the image of the double edge, ''les deux tranchants'', no more , no less.This is different than your kitchen or butcher's knife, which only cuts one way.
On another point, the use of english as the ''international language of business'', has nothing to do with linguistic characteristics, just as the use of latin had nothing to do with some innate value back when Rome ruled the world (limited world though the world then was). English became predominant through the combination of british imperial success over the spanish and french, the failure of the germans to break through with their austrian-hungarian allies in the first WW, and the emergence of the ex-american colonies as a military-industrial complex second to none after years of quasi-isolationist policies, though it took the japanese to convince them that it was time to join the rest of the world. Since then, and with the particular tendency of America not to encourage bilingualism, the english language has taken on a role which was quite unforeseen when England was the backwater of Europe in the classical age... but that's the beauty of the history of humanity, it just goes to show that there ain't no master plan.
Anyway that was my two cents worth on the topic, and now I await those who would take umbrage on ''the bull's eye'' as the center of the target as being incorrect as the eye of the bull is not dead center on the poor animal, except in some Picasso frames, or other more colourful expressions that I would not post on this site. As the wise man said: '' sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...''

Regards to all,
Jean-Carle

[Jean Thibodeau]

Thanks Jean-Carle: Seems to me that getting into sword handling debates in the context of this expression is looking for answers in the wrong place. ( In agreement with you there. )

[Taylor Ellis]

[Geoff Wood]

Jean-Carle
I think you've summarised the situation very well.
Thanks
Geoff

[Max von Bargen]

Very nice insight, Jean-Carle. Goes a long way to explaining this. I made the error of assuming that the phrase referred to powerful cleaving blows on both sides rather than small cuts on both sides.

One discrepancy still exists, though:

[Bryce Felperin]

[Jean-Carle Hudon]

Max,
the expression has the same basic meaning in either language. When a lawyer presents an argument for his client which turns out to be double edged, it generally means that even though his purpose was one sided, to advance his case, it just turns out that the argument can be turned against his self interest, and for that reason one should think twice about invoking such an argument. Sometimes you just don't have much choice in the matter as it is the only argument available given the facts of the case at bar, so you go with it and hope the jury, or the presiding judge, prefers your side, or edge, over the side, or edge, which cuts against your self-interests.
Bryce,
I am only competent in two languages, so I would hesitate to guess how spanish, german or italian and russian goes about expanding vocabulary after contacts with other tongues, but I can assure you that the french language assimilates terms from other languages quite regularly. In fact, we in Canada have an ongoing rivalry with the continental french as they will regularly use english terms that we do not. They will say ''le weekend'', we say ''fin de semaine'', they will say ''drugstore'' we use ''pharmacy'', and the list goes on and on. The french call soccer ''football'', and the americans call their game, where they carry the ball in their hands and make forward passes with their hands, where half the players are ineligible to even touch the ball: ''football'', and on it goes. The point I was answering had to do with an affirmation that the use of english as an international medium in the business world had to do with some characteristics of the language itself, rather than the political and economic history of nations. Also I enjoyed your comment about having the best media in the world. I can't say I share your point of view, but I understand how belief systems allow people to make broad statements of like nature. I have american friends who believe that New York has more cultural values to offer than London, Paris and Berlin combined. I have some american friends who do not share that point of view. I enjoy New York, hate Paris and love London, so to each his own, a chacun ses gouts...
Regards to you both,
Jean-Carle Hudon

[Eric Allen]

You know, I pretty much ingnored thes thread when I saw it. I just read through it on a whim, and Jean-Carle's post actually made me stop and think about the phrase.

Huh. That makes sense.

Just to summaraze and coalesce my thoughts: being a "double-edged sword" makes sence when you think of the issue being able to wound used either way--say there's a maker's mark on one side of a sword blade. You can use the sword with the maker's mark on your thumb-side or your fingers side and it works just as well either way. Alternatively, you can cut your opponent with a double-edged sword swinging both "foreward" and "backward" (cutting with the true and false edges).

I think it might be that the phrase is used to mean something that can hurt both the "target" and the "user" that confusion arose that the phrase somehow implies that a double-edged sword is just as dangerous to the user as to the victim.

I think I'll continue to utilize the phrase

thanks, Jean-Carle for that excellent post!

[Rod Parsons]

The use of the metaphor might have more to do with etiquette than function and there could be an element of punning in the use of the word "double", both in the sense of the character of the act and in the mirroring, having two cutting edges, and so consequences in both directions, returning evil for evil.
Rod.

[Max von Bargen]

I think someone who uses this phrase in French, where the "double" has a negative connotation (I believe Vincent mentioned that a while back) or who actually knows a good deal about swords is justified in its use. My conclusion now is that it simply shouldn't have been translated from French so literally, and in fact, I'm curious as to why it was translated almost verbatim. I don't know practically any French, but I'm fluent in Spanish, and for most English phrases there are Spanish phrases that mean the same thing but are in different words because (as is the case here) the original meaning doesn't quite translate appropriately.

[Felix Wang]

In regard to the French usage of "double", it may be worth considering that one way of naming the two edges of a double edged sword is "true edge/false edge". What is false about the false edge anyway? Or even better, the long and short edge - when both are exactly the same length?

[Jean Thibodeau]

Double is also related to saying TWO and TWO as in the expression being TWOFACED.

A different expression, twofaced, and I don't want to confuse the issue even more but I sense, maybe wrongly, some sort of similarities between the two expressions.

With twofaced one could be smiling pleasantly saying something nice about a person and then turn around with and unpleasant expression and trash this same person behing their back.

With two edged sword, we have as in Jean-Carle's example, the use of an argument that is dangerous to use because it might help you if seen one way ( edge ) or against you if seen in another negative way ( other edge ).

So not interchangeble expressions, but somewhat similar in " duality ".

Lets maybe conclude that this is an interesting comparative language discussion and a search for the origins of the expression as well as trying to make complete sense of it, but has little to do with any real life sword handling.

[George Hill]

Here's something I just came across, and as it's directly related....

The Knight's sword, In the semblance of a cross, it symbolizes justice.

Unto a knight is given a sword, which is made in the semblance of a cross to signify that our lord God Vanquished in the cross the death of human linage, to which he was judged for the sins of our first father Adam. Likewise a Knight owes to vanquish and destroy the enemies of the cross by the sword, for chivalry is to maintain justice.

And therefore the sword is made to cut on both sides, to signify that the knight ought with the sword to maintain Chivalry and justice.


It's from Ramond Lull's "Book of Knighthood and Chivalry" Chivalry Bookshelf edition, page 64.

[Jean-Carle Hudon]

Well, we know that Roman justice at the time made extensive use of the cross, as the slaves in Spartacus' rebellion came to find out , but I feel that it is a bit twisted to equate the treatment meeted out to Jesus of Nazareth as justice... and this thred also doesn't leave much room for baskethilted swords, nor any other sword which does'nt use the cruciforme hilt configuration... I must admit that I'm not one for reading celestial design into something as mundane and lethal as a sword or a dagger, and straight angled quillons don't make them any more heavenly. I guess I'll settle for the blinfolded lady with the scales as a proper symbol of justice, though I think it fair to say that her blindfold shows what a two edged sword human justice can be: on the one hand her blindfold preserves her from judging by appearances, but by the same token her blindfold may impede her ability to take in the body language of the witnesses and thus miss some important information that should go into the scales of justice....
cheers.