Book review – Miriam Vogelaar, The Mokken Collection: Books and manuscripts on fencing before 1800

(MMIT Publishing, 2020) 208 pp. Price: € 75
ISBN: 978-94-93166-19-6

The book is a laborious and significant contribution to the history of fencing, martial arts and European martial culture. The focus of the book is the fight book collection of Wiebe Mokken, honorary member and former chairman of the Royal Dutch Fencing Association (KNAS). The collection, as presented in this publication, is undoubtedly one of the most important of its kind. Previous catalogues and bibliographical works on fencing, namely by Jacopo Gelli (1895) and Carl Thimm (1896) were published more than a century ago; therefore, Vogelaar’s contribution to this field of study is a welcomed modern scientific update. The author makes one of the largest collections of its kind accessible to the public in the form of a comprehensive lavish catalogue. The book allows a glimpse into a unique treasure that highlights the wealth and depth of material regarding martial culture. By exploring fight books, tangible records of intangible martial traditions, the reader is immersed in the information that these unique objects provide regarding martial cultures, particularly in social-civic environments and not from the usually discussed military perspective.

The structure of the book is straightforward. Wiebe Mokken has provided an emotional preface in English and French, which allows some insight to the psyche of a passionate collector and fencing aficionado. Remarks on the catalogue entries by the author act as a key, an explanation and a de facto clarification on the systematic cataloguing and presentation that follows. The entries, that construct the vast majority of the publication, are arranged alphabetically by the last name of the author. Each entry includes exhaustive technical details on the discussed publication, followed by analytical comments deriving from research on the author or the publication. Finally, bibliographical notes and references to the works used for the bulk of the text are displayed on the end of each entry. One of the most invaluable and unique characteristics of this publication are Vogelaar’s comments in each entry regarding technical observations on the discussed entry as an object such as restoration, watermarks, stains. These additions separate this publication from every else of its kind and highlights the importance of considering the insights of a book expert. After the entries, a supplementary timeline of the books discussed helps contextualize them by placing them in chronological order with a visual snippet of each entry. Besides the aforementioned contextualization, this assists in the instantaneous observation of the changing and fluctuating visual trends of the genre. The publication is completed with a bibliography and with an index of authors, editors and compilers. 

The book comes in a large format (27×21), which certainly benefits a publication that relies on the reader observing detailed images. The hardback format and the linen bound spine facilitate reading the book in full spread without the fear of damaging it. All images are presented in full colour and excellent quality. Two reading ribbons further add to the premium presentation. The technical characteristics of the book complement the content and overall make for an impressive publication.

Perhaps the most notable drawback of the book is its bibliography, which is primarily focused on publications regarding other catalogues and bibliographies. Some modern scholarship on the literary genre of fight books is also included. Whereas the first type of publication is exhaustively included in this part, research on fight books is only fragmentarily represented. This is largely due to the lack of the contextual discussion of the presented publications and because each entry focuses solely on a very strict discussion on each object. An expanded recommended bibliography for further research would benefit readers and would link this catalogue to the current scholarship on the subject of fight books. The publication would also benefit from supporting essays on fight books and their evolving social contexts that created the necessity for their production. Of course, each bibliographical entry is accompanied by the aforementioned dedicated description and discussion, but besides the beautiful and sentimental preface by Wiebe Mokken, there is not body of text that discusses the overall cultural or historical context of the genre. This context is also absent in the book timeline, which presents in chronological order only the material from the collection. However, this is more of a wish from a scholarly perspective rather than a criticism regarding quality, and the exclusion of such essays does not diminish the value of the work as a catalogue. Both of the aforementioned issues stem from the nature of the book as a specialized publication focusing on a single specific and incredibly rich trove of books and manuscripts.

These minor critiques aside, Vogelaar’s book on the Mokken Collection is arguably the best reference work on the subject of the history of fight books. It is a great tool for the book and martial arts scholar, providing quick access to precise bibliographical information and concentrated key details for each entry. Furthermore, it can be a remarkable stimulus for professionals from adjacent disciplines and subjects, as well as for fencing enthusiasts in order to understand better the history of European martial arts and the bibliographical context and wealth of source material available. Vogelaar’s book can ignite interest on the subject for students in an academic context as well as for those practicing in the fencing hall, and it will most certainly assist future librarians and professionals working in the art industry. It is a comprehensive and informative catalogue of the highest quality in both content and production, and it elucidates the cultural production of recorded European martial arts for over three centuries.

War and Medieval Scotland’s Urban Communities – the case of Berwick-upon-Tweed

Fourteenth-century Scotland was dominated by the Wars of Independence. In this conflict, Scotland’s towns were a key element of control for both sides. What effect this had on their inhabitants is somewhat difficult to ascertain, due to a lack of detailed evidence from the towns themselves. But English record evidence, for periods when these communities were under occupation, provides some insight into the participation of townspeople in the war going on around them. Berwick-upon-Tweed is perhaps the best example of an English-held town, due to its endurance as an English possession. Captured in 1296 by Edward I of England, it was not returned to Scottish allegiance until 1318. It only remained Scottish for another fifteen years before it fell to Edward III. And evidence for the period after 1333 provides quite detailed material on the experience of war for the Berwick townspeople and their martial involvement in the town’s defence.[1]

Berwick Castle
Founded by David I in the twelfth century, this once mighty fortress changed hands several times during the prolonged and often bloody fighting between Scotland and England in the medieval period. Warfare, neglect and ultimately, the construction of the station and the railway bridge, reduced the castle to the ruin we see today. The fragment of the castle seen in the picture is known as “the White Wall”.

Keeping Berwick Safe?

The English, upon the town’s capture, were concerned about the loyalty of its Scottish inhabitants. Although the town’s garrison contained Scots who supported the alternative English-backed Balliol regime in the kingdom, the political affiliation of the townspeople was more dubious.[2] As a result, Edward III encouraged English people to settle in Berwick, sending letters to nineteen English towns and offering inducements to encourage such a move.[3] As late as 1337 Edward III remained worried about a lack of Englishmen and reissued his appeal for more migrants as ‘delay is dangerous.’[4] Those who did move may have recognised a need to participate in urban defence.

Richard Colle of Norham petitioned the king for a messuage in Berwick as a reward for good service in the Scottish wars, ‘so that he can henceforth have a certain income [to contribute to the] strength and defence of the town.’[5] And Henry Chesham petitioned the king to town land for a reduced rent so that he ‘could build on it and incur expenditure and live on it to the strengthening of the town.’[6] However, by 1342 such men may have grown tired of dependence on their efforts. For in this year Edward III sent orders that the burgesses of Berwick should no longer be retained in the defence of the town. This appears to have been in response to an appeal by the burgesses that they should not be required to provide military service. The Berwick administration’s response, however, only exacerbating the burgesses’ disquiet.

For felons were utilised in place of the townsmen as a means of replacing the lost manpower. This upset Berwick’s burgesses and merchants once again who duly complained to Edward III. But in this instance their protestations found a less sympathetic ear and the king rebuked the townsmen and ordered them not to interfere with the work of the king’s ministers. Indeed, it may have been the king himself who ordered the recruitment of felons for Berwick’s defence as orders of January 1343 suggest.[7] But local discontent with the town’s administration and defence may have been of longer standing. In 1341, the keepers of the town gates were accused of extorting merchants and stealing their produce. Edward III ordered Berwick’s constable and his ministers to desist such activity and ‘conduct themselves honourably.’[8] But such examples emphasise that relations between townsmen and administration were often fraught.


Berwick-upon-Tweed was a vital base for English forces in Scotland, as well as a political and economic prize. And yet, English efforts for its defence were often half-hearted, underfunded, and created tensions with the town’s populace. As late as 1349, the townsmen of Berwick were writing to Edward III complaining that they:

have often shown the king and the council the misfortunes and perils of their town, daily hoping that some remedy might be sent for their salvation, but they have found no relief, and are now abandoned and forgotten. Since all their earthly hope of recovery rests in the king, they inform him that the town was never in such peril since it came into his hands, because it is totally lacking in men and victuals. The Scots are greatly cheered because of the [Black Death]; they daily do all the injuries they can by land and sea, and capture victuals coming to the town from England. They have made ladders and other engines to come to the town, to try if they can to take it. The writers cannot resist their malice […] and they ask that help be quickly sent.[9]

Although likely an exaggeration of their situation, any threats to the town were a blow to English strategy and English pride. And in 1355 such fears were realised as the town’s walls were overcome by a surprise Scottish attack that, though ultimately unsuccessful, demonstrated weaknesses in Berwick’s defence. The townsmen of Berwick, therefore, likely had every right to be fearful and to consider that their safety remained insufficiently protected.

[1] For more on this period of conflict, and on Berwick in particular, see Iain A. MacInnes, Scotland’s Second War of Independence, 1332-1357 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2016); J. Donnelly, ‘An open economy: the Berwick shipping trade, 1311-1373’, Scottish Historical Review, 96.1 (2017), 1-31; J. Donnelly, ‘An open port: the Berwick export trade, 1311-1373’, Scottish Historical Review, 78.2 (1999), 145-169; A. Tuck, ‘A Medieval Tax Haven: Berwick upon Tweed and the English crown, 1333-1461’, Progress and Problems in Medieval England: Essays in honour of Edward Miller, ed. R. Britnell and J. Hatcher (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 148-167.

[2] These included several Lothian-based knights and their followers, including Thomas Bisset, David and John Marshall, and Henry and John Ramsay (The National Archives, London, E101/22/9, f. 1).

[3] Rotuli Scotiae in Turri Londinensi et in Domo Capitulari Westmonasteriensi Asservati, ed. D. Macpherson et al. (London, 1814-19), i, p. 258; Tuck, ‘Medieval Tax Haven’, pp. 149-150.

[4] Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland: Supplementary volume v, ed. J. Galbraith and G.G. Simpson (Edinburgh, 1986), no. 767.

[5] Northern Petitions Illustrative of Life in Berwick, Cumbria and Durham in the Fourteenth century, ed. C.M. Fraser (Surtees Society, 1981), pp. 20-21.

[6] Northern Petitions, p. 27.

[7] CDS, v, no. 796.

[8] Rot. Scot., i, pp. 613-615.

[9] CDS, v, no. 810.

Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search