Nice to see you on here. I have had recent relations with the groups studying historical western martial arts. An occassional student of mine has recently opened up a full-time academy in Basall Common and teaches Foire (a medieval Italian martial art I believe).
Thanks for posting this nicely compiled little piece from YouTube. Bartitsu will certainly be a starting for me in my book concerning self-defence innovators and those who bucked the system in martial arts. Graham Noble wrote an excellent article on early British self-defence books and found that it was so rare that the British thought of martial arts as self-defence during the 19th century that Barton-Wright felt he had to explain that the rest of the world did not always train to fight by the rules. Unfortunately Bartitsu was not a success and it perhaps did more to help promote the popularity of Japanese Ju Jutsu and Judo than anything else. It would appear that Barton-Wright, like a certain French contemporary of his, was well ahead of his time by encouraging overt cross training in martial arts and concentrating on the self-defence aspects.
Bartitsu's line pretty much died out with Barton-Wright who ceased teaching it after his gym closed down and his instructors went their separate ways to teach their respective arts. The Bartitsu practiced today is pretty much in line with the rest of the historial martial arts resurectionists in that it uses the manuals, writings etc. to re-create the art rather than having it passed on by a practitioner who can trace their lineage to Barton-Wright. However, I wouldn't be surprised that if one of the new proposed Sherlock Holmes films(and I believe there are three with - god help us1 - Guy Richie directing one) make a point of promoting Bartitsu we will see some opportunist emerge from the woodwork claiming to have had the discipline passed onto him via one of Barton-Wright's students.
Just a little note I haven't seen any historical notes that say that formalised western boxing ever allowed any techniques below the waist and the British had a severe dislike of kicking. There is even one 19th century boxing writer who suggests that a man who kicks, even in self-defence, should be "horse-whipped!" My view on this that is probably stemmed from the post-Waterloo ill-feeling between the French and English. There were bouts organized between French La Savate boxers and British boxers, and British boxing writers made their dislike of French boxing well known. Pugilism, which was called Boxing even in the 19th century, allowed grappling above the waist, but no groundwork, in addition to bare-knuckle punching. There are illustrations of boxers kicking one another as there are of them grappling to the ground, but there is no text I have read that allowed for this in the rules. A round was finished when one fighter fell, which led to many a fighter falling on purpose to get a rest.
Back to Bartitsu: Incidentally Doyle's inclusion of the art, which you rightly explained was mispelled in "The Empty House" short story as "baritsu" and described as a "Japanese form of wrestling", was a anachronism. The incidents being described were set in 1891, the year of the publication of "The Final Problem" where Holmes supposedly plummets to his death whilst engaged in single combat with Professor Moriarty on the Reichenbach Falls in Switzerland, a good few years prior to the creation of Bartitsu. However, "The Empty House", the sequel to "The Final Problem" where Holmes explains how he escaped the clutches of Moriarty and by use of "Baritsu", is set three years later but was, in fact, published in 1904. Doyle had clearly been made aware of the short-lived Bartitsu trend and used it in his story without considering its history. A tongue-in-cheek "unauthorized biography" of Sherlock Holmes published a couple of years ago proposed that Holmes actually used Ju Jutsu after all and Doyle - his biographer with Watson - had made the mistake because of the current interest in Bartitsu. Given that Doyle describes the art as "Japanese wrestling" this actually makes more sense!
Thanks again for posting this, Mark. I have a lot of respect for what you guys are doing when considered through the proper critical eye of a historian. I know research by others in your field has helped me with my overall research into the martial arts.
Logged
The administrator has disabled public write access.
>>Just a little note I haven't seen any historical notes that say that formalised western boxing ever allowed any techniques below the waist and the British had a severe dislike of kicking.<<
As you say, I think kicking was mostly disallowed under formal rules - I think the London Prize Ring rules of 1743 forbade it. I haven't personally looked at boxing treatises in any depth, though there seem to be a lot available - from the late-18thC right up to WWI. My comments are based on having seen (as you mention) period illustrations (British ones) of bare-knuckle matches where one person is kicking the other in the leg. Of course that may be showing an illegal blow being traded, or maybe the fact that such things were made illegal just shows that they did happen. I agree it wasn't normal after 1743 though.
Fascinating stuff about the Batitsu/Ju Jitsu matter in regard to Sherlock Holmes!
I guess you're probably aware, but the medieval and renaissance sources do cover some 'self defence' material. The source I work with (Fiore dei Liberi's Fior di Battalgia from circa 1410) deals with unarmed defence against a dagger attacker in various situations, and you can find similar material in other 15th, 16th and 17th century treatises. It's interesting how the knife-defence material changes between the 15th and 17th centuries (partly because of the change in weapons, partly probably because of broad changes in society and the law).
I guess the guy teaching Fiore you mentioned is Jim Sephton, who I know pretty well and consider a mate. Small world!
Yes, that would be the one! He's a welcome member of CCMA's Facebook group and I am a proud member of the Grange's equivalent. We look forward to putting on some combined events - historical revivalists meet modern progressives! Could be a great exchange of knowledge and information.
As you say, I think kicking was mostly disallowed under formal rules - I think the London Prize Ring rules of 1743 forbade it. I haven't personally looked at boxing treatises in any depth, though there seem to be a lot available - from the late-18thC right up to WWI. My comments are based on having seen (as you mention) period illustrations (British ones) of bare-knuckle matches where one person is kicking the other in the leg. Of course that may be showing an illegal blow being traded, or maybe the fact that such things were made illegal just shows that they did happen. I agree it wasn't normal after 1743 though.
The one illustration I was thinking of showed a powerful-looking front kick to the stomach. Mind you there is one with an incredible uppercut where the receiver looks like he is performing a back somersault, so I think we can put a lot of the depictions down to a certain degree of romanticization. Given that these bouts were technically illegal the reporters could pretty much put in what they liked.
I guess you're probably aware, but the medieval and renaissance sources do cover some 'self defence' material. The source I work with (Fiore dei Liberi's Fior di Battalgia from circa 1410) deals with unarmed defence against a dagger attacker in various situations, and you can find similar material in other 15th, 16th and 17th century treatises. It's interesting how the knife-defence material changes between the 15th and 17th centuries (partly because of the change in weapons, partly probably because of broad changes in society and the law).
The time period is fascinating, but so are the countries/cultures. The only western self defence pictures I have seen prior to the Barton-Wright era appear to come from Europe. Boxing was often described as the "noble art of self-defence", but this topic is rarely given more than a few lines on the topic in British boxing manuals produced in the 19th century. The British, and particularly the English, seem to have a strong tradition of the "square go" that descends first from Trial by Combat then from duelling and ending up with boxing - the old "step outside" idea. What appears to have happened is that Jim Figg was recognized and patronized by the aristocracy from 1720 onwards and this is where most historians trace the history of boxing. I would fascinated in reading any material prior to this or even around this time before the 19th century that shows formalized methods of self defence - as opposed to sports contests - being taught in Britain. The Brits seem to have plenty of combat sports and military arts from our forms of staff, archery (an art that the English really excelled at particularly during the 1300s and 1400s), swordsmanship, folk wrestling (Lancashire, Cornish etc.), but little (if any) to address civilian self defence before the days of Barton-Wright.
Logged
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Sadly we don't have any close-combat treatises from Britain prior to 1599 (George Silver). We were a bit backward in that regard - our earliest martial treatise is Ascham's Toxopholy (on archery) from 1545. The medieval treatises mostly come from Germany and Italy - the leaders of the renaissance of book making and libraries. By 1600 (and the spread of the printing press) you can find treatises all over western Europe, though the Germans and Italians were still producing more than most other nations until about 1650. The British treatises don't become numerous until the 18thC.
In terms of self-defence type material, you can find it in a bunch of treatises over the whole period. Fiore dei Liberi (1410) deals with being attacked with a dagger when you're sitting down, being attached with a sword when you only have a dagger, being attacked with a dagger when you have nothing, using a rolled-up hat or small stick to defend yourself and how to escape a knifeman who has grabbed the front of your clothes. Some examples containing similar stuff are Marozzo (1536), Paschen (1659) and Petter (1674), to name a few - there are many more.
The thing which is conspicuous is that knives/daggers were far more commonly carried and used in earlier periods, so self-defence related to this. There isn't much point learning to box in an age where every man, woman and child carried at least a pointy eating knife.:)
Of course the sword vs. sword type material (ie. the bulk of the historical treatises) is also applicable to some self-defence situations. However, in medieval England and France for example it was generally illegal to carry swords within cities, unless you were a high ranking noble, or a city official. These laws relaxed from around 1500 and many men started wearing swords around town. Most pre-1500 street fights recorded in the coroners rolls (something I study) therefore happened with knives, sticks or other improvised weapons. Contrary to popular belief, medieval people did not wander around armed to the teeth, unless they were travelling cross-country.
>>little (if any) to address civilian self defence before the days of Barton-Wright.<<
Well, combat treatises weren't terribly numerous in Britain until the 18thC. In the 18thC treatises you can find wrestling material which could be used in any context - see Zachary Wylde's treatise of 1711 for example: http://www.sirwilliamhope.org/Library/Wylde/
Well, combat treatises weren't terribly numerous in Britain until the 18thC. In the 18thC treatises you can find wrestling material which could be used in any context - see Zachary Wylde's treatise of 1711 for example: http://www.sirwilliamhope.org/Library/Wylde/
I was aware of the Italian and German material and this just seems to reinforce Barton-Wright's feeling that the British - or at least the Victorians - were not as acquainted with self-defence as the rest of the world. In fact, I probably collected some of your online notes and I think Noble quotes the examples of Marozzo, Paschen and Petter. However, I think the Zachary Wylde treatise is new to me. The moves may be applicable to civilian self defence, but does he discuss them in this context. I couldn't find the treatise in your link, only a reference.
I believe that the rise in boxing corresponded with the eventual decline and banning of duelling (for the second time, as you mentioned). I always thought it very interesting that one of Jim Figg's most famous boxing bouts contained a round of back sword, a round of pugilism and a final round with the cudgel, demonstrating the broad range of skills a western boxer had during the 1700s comparable to what we would call Chinese boxing when the English encountered Chinese martial arts.
On a tangent note, were you were aware of the final ever case of someone legally challenging his accuser to trial-by-combat, by use of quarter staff I believe? It happened in 1818 when the accuser tried to invoke an old Henry VII law to re-accuse the probable murderer and rapist of his sister. The defendant got off on a technically, so the brother tried to use this old law but failed to read the second half whereby the defendant could challenge the right to trial by combat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashford_v._Thornton
Logged
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Brilliant Youtube Vid. I wondered what this was Bartitsu! It was mentioned in The Way of the Warrior by chris Crudelli. Now I can further read up on the Web. CHeers
Forum 
Favoured: 0
