We'll rather have to put up multiple FAQs for all the different points of view, methinks
Greg,
Once again you're explaining what the other fencing texts describe, and I don't disagree with that, and I don't think Oz's or Jon's or mine views on Silver's time are at odd with that. But if you include Viggiani in the references for explanations of time, then you're not in agreement with Aristotle, you're in agreement with Aristotle as applied to fencing by the Bolognese school (well, Viggiani really), which may not be what Silver taught. The basic argument made by Oz (and I agree on that) is that this interpretation makes the text less clear than it could be. For example, you have to say that 'time of the foot' takes a different meaning depending on the sections, becoming either a true time or false time.
So let's go back to Aristotle. Time is a motion between two rests. But then Silver tells us that the hand is faster than the foot, and names his times according to the body parts. That means that he subdivides his times into parts, just like the full and half blows as you point out, presumably according to the rests of each of the parts.
What you're saying is that the names of the times are given according to what moves first. What I think (and perhaps Jon agrees) is that they are named according to what completes its action first (or by the slowest part moving if completion is simultaneous). Both seem sensible as far as Aristotle is concerned. Actually other fencing texts don't name times like that, so both are fine from this point of view too.
So Time of the hand is moving just the hand. Time of the hand, body and foot is moving hand, body and foot at full speed such that the hand is done with its motion (in the case of an attack, strikes the target) before the body or foot have finished. So the effect happens in time of the hand, even though the total motion (hence, the time) is longer. Indeed T:H < T:HB < T:HBF but this is for the total motion, not the time when the effect happens. Still, the hierarchy is also there.
Similarly the false times all take at least the time of a foot motion, and the effect happen after the foot has stopped. Hence they are slower and more dangerous, irrespective of whether the hand is in front or not (a detail that Silver does not mention in his description of time, and which would be better described by a concept of space).
Now, I believe Oz is convinced that all true times happen at the same distance, while I think that T:H covers less distance than T:HBF. But contrary to you, I don't think T:HBF covers a full step either... Time is still related to distance but you can't make a true time at any range, and certainly not from a full step away from your intended target.
The full-range lunge, where the foot and sword strike at the same time, is a time of the foot by that interpretation (simultaneous ends of the motions, named by the slowest mover). So what? Silver had every right to dislike first-intention attacks over a full step (and this is an opinion shared by Thibault). Jon has given options to attack that are all viable and never strike a target or act on the opponent's weapon from one step away, or within a longer time than that of the hand's motion. Well except when the opponent is not lookingThe good part is that you don't have to detail which true time beats which, just as you wouldn't detail which false time beats which. You defeat false times with true times, full stop. Black and white, maybe, but that wouldn't surprise me from Silver's part
And that in no way contradicts what other masters said... At worst, restricts it. Just like saying "thrust rather than cut" restricts your options.
Regards,
Bookmarks