I have a dilemma for all the serious documenters of historical armour who post on this board.
Some people say if there is not a surviving example of some armour somewhere in some collection, then it never existed, and folks who are striving for historically accurate reproductions should not make things up, no matter how plausible the creativity might be.
Others say we really do not have a large collection to choose from, and since we thought of an idea in present tense it is possible that armourers back then also thought about and tried something similar. Just because no example exists presently does not mean it was not tried or even common historically.
For example: H. Russell Robinson talks about the Roman Attican helmet for the Praetorian Guard and officers. Examples are found on Trajan’s Column and a relief in the Musée de Louvre. Yet I have another book by somebody who seems pretty knowledgeable yet states that because no physical examples exist, Trajan’s Column’s depiction of Attic helmets must be an example of artistic license.
Example 2: The Corrazina cuirass. It is my understanding that only one or two examples exist of this type. One is a reconstruction whose accuracy is in question. Because of other surviving examples of covered cuirasses that contain faulds, some people then conclude that the Corrazina in the Met is inaccurate (which it may be), or that any Corrazina reproduction is completely inaccurate (which is unlikely, IMO).
Example 3: The Sugarloaf great-helm. I know of no historical example that exists. Granted, my resources are limited, but I have never seen one, either in person, in a period painting, or in print. I have never heard anybody on this board talk about one existing in some collection. I have not heard about one in a funerary brass. Maybe I missed it. My point is I have heard some people say it never existed. To me it seems to be a transition between the flat-topped great helm and a bascinet, having characteristics of both. But because no known example exists, “It never happenedâ€
Historical documentation argument,(long)
Moderator: Glen K
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
Hi Scott C,
I'll reply at some length when I get a chance. I think you need to understand the concept of a speculative reconstruction, and the idea that more evidence from a variety of soureces leads to a sound theoretical argument for the probablility of existance of an item.
There are less than a dozen homogeneous suits of 15th century plate armour. There are, I believe over a hundred complete suits of composite elements, and from what I have seen a thousand or more individual pieces of 15th century armour ranging from items in good condition to excavated condition.
There are on the order of 20 or more complete brigandines, with hundreds of substantial fragments, and thousands of plates - even I was able to purchase two authentic brigandine fragments thanks to the kindness of Wade Allen.
It gets dicier the earlier you go back for survivablility of items, but there are on the order of 20 great helms, and from what I have seen there must be over a hundred bascinets of various types in public and private collections.
We know enough to be very certain regarding the construction of plate armour in the 15th century for instance, and also about brigandine torso protection (but are clueless about such items as brigandine pauldrons of which we have nothing but inventory accounts and pictoral evidence, or brigandine work horse defences). We know only a little about textile defences, as so few have survived, wheras we have a wealth of types described in some detail. We are pretty sure for instance on the construction of a 15th century padded jack, between Louis XI ordinances of 1483, and the Howard Household accounts, but are clueless as to how one would be "stuffed with mail" or "stuffed with horn".
The short answer is that to be truthful acedemicaly, we have to answer "we aren't sure" to quite a few questions, and can only answer firmly when we are on solid ground. That is the nature of the beast, and I'm sorry if you find it frustrating, but it is the honest answer.
There is one extant "sugarloaf" helm, dating to the 1340's in a Swiss museum, to cheer you up.
------------------
Bob R.
I'll reply at some length when I get a chance. I think you need to understand the concept of a speculative reconstruction, and the idea that more evidence from a variety of soureces leads to a sound theoretical argument for the probablility of existance of an item.
There are less than a dozen homogeneous suits of 15th century plate armour. There are, I believe over a hundred complete suits of composite elements, and from what I have seen a thousand or more individual pieces of 15th century armour ranging from items in good condition to excavated condition.
There are on the order of 20 or more complete brigandines, with hundreds of substantial fragments, and thousands of plates - even I was able to purchase two authentic brigandine fragments thanks to the kindness of Wade Allen.
It gets dicier the earlier you go back for survivablility of items, but there are on the order of 20 great helms, and from what I have seen there must be over a hundred bascinets of various types in public and private collections.
We know enough to be very certain regarding the construction of plate armour in the 15th century for instance, and also about brigandine torso protection (but are clueless about such items as brigandine pauldrons of which we have nothing but inventory accounts and pictoral evidence, or brigandine work horse defences). We know only a little about textile defences, as so few have survived, wheras we have a wealth of types described in some detail. We are pretty sure for instance on the construction of a 15th century padded jack, between Louis XI ordinances of 1483, and the Howard Household accounts, but are clueless as to how one would be "stuffed with mail" or "stuffed with horn".
The short answer is that to be truthful acedemicaly, we have to answer "we aren't sure" to quite a few questions, and can only answer firmly when we are on solid ground. That is the nature of the beast, and I'm sorry if you find it frustrating, but it is the honest answer.
There is one extant "sugarloaf" helm, dating to the 1340's in a Swiss museum, to cheer you up.
------------------
Bob R.
-
Guest
Whoops!
My .01% posting was supposed to go here!
------------------
Full time civil servant, part time blacksmith, and seasonal Viking ship captain.
Visit your National Parks: www.nps.gov
Go viking: www.wam.umd.edu/~eowyn/Longship/
Hit hot iron: www.anvilfire.com
My .01% posting was supposed to go here!
------------------
Full time civil servant, part time blacksmith, and seasonal Viking ship captain.
Visit your National Parks: www.nps.gov
Go viking: www.wam.umd.edu/~eowyn/Longship/
Hit hot iron: www.anvilfire.com
Thanks, Chef. I really appreciate your reply. It is not the "not sure" answers that bug me. I enjoy the speculation and thought that goes into such answers. Ie, "We are not sure how they did this, but it makes sense to me that they did it this way." What bugs me me are the answers such as "We are not sure how they did this, but if you do it any other way than what I described you are doing it wrong."
As for the number of suits, I REALLY appreciate your answer. Only a dozen homogenous suits seems like such a small percent of what existed. But a thousand individual pieces would give us a somewhat clearer picture, I think, of what the norm would be like. Any idea what item makes up the largest single surviving sample? And certainly 100 bascinets is much more than I expected to exist, and as such I must admit historians can be pretty clear on their construction and use.
And thanks for the sugarloaf verification. Next time I hear somebody dispute their existance I will be sure to remember you.
Thanks again. I feel better. And I appreciate your always forthright answers.
ScottC
(Edited because I had too many sentences starting with "And")
[This message has been edited by ScottC (edited 04-22-2002).]
As for the number of suits, I REALLY appreciate your answer. Only a dozen homogenous suits seems like such a small percent of what existed. But a thousand individual pieces would give us a somewhat clearer picture, I think, of what the norm would be like. Any idea what item makes up the largest single surviving sample? And certainly 100 bascinets is much more than I expected to exist, and as such I must admit historians can be pretty clear on their construction and use.
And thanks for the sugarloaf verification. Next time I hear somebody dispute their existance I will be sure to remember you.
Thanks again. I feel better. And I appreciate your always forthright answers.
ScottC
(Edited because I had too many sentences starting with "And")
[This message has been edited by ScottC (edited 04-22-2002).]
-
wcallen
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4713
- Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: North Carolina, USA
- Contact:
I had work to do, so others plugged in before me - but more opinions can't be bad, right?
I think it is a reasonable question, and that many of the people on the list will have different opinions.
I come from an academic background, so I kind of like for there to be some proof that something actually existed before I will claim that it is an authentic style.
I agree that there is a very small percentage of all of the original armour that was manufactured that actually survives. This is true of all of the periods - more so as you go earlier. Given this, it seems unreasonable to insist that there be a surviving piece to claim that something is reasonable.
When working with any source, it is necessary to take into account the reliability and accuracy of the source. My constant comments about the Met Suit are as a result of having talked to the curator and knowing the background of the former owner. We know (in this particular case) that what looks like a complete harness is not really and that it has had (at least) significant modifications in the early 20th century.
This is much like using Carcassonne as a good example of what a medieval walled city should look like. It was heavily re-built by Violet-le-Duc - and even the tour guides admit that he got it wrong in some specific ways.
The best source is a surviving piece where its history is known and we know that it has not been messed with since it was in use (very rare). As an example - we know what happened with the Mantova armours of the 15th century. They were hung up in the 16th c. to dress up some dummies and no one touched them until they were brought down very recently. They had very specific restoration done, and they were well published. They are a good source for 15th c. Italian armour.
Some illustrations are almost as good as surviving pieces. The detailed effigies of Edward the Black Prince and Richard Earl of Warwick are good examples (assuming you recognize that the Warwick armour represents one he could not possibly have worn...). The Bayeux tapestry is a different story. You can get overall ideas, but any reconstruction based solely on it will be at least partially conjecture - there is just not enough detail in most of it to be sure you are right.
When I have made armour I have almost never copied an actual piece detail for detail. I admit that. I often take the design elements of more than one piece of the same type and from the same period and build a piece that is 'probably' like something they would have done. My guesses are based on years of working with and studying period pieces and illustrations. They are still my interpretations of what things would have been like. When doing this you have to be very careful to be sure that you are not taking from pieces from different sources (german salad with an italian cuirass as a 15th century armour is not the first bits to glue together) or pieces from different times - even 20 years can be too wide a range.
For me, the sources I prefer (in order of preference) are:
1. actual, authentic pieces in my hands that I can play with.
2. actual, authentic pieces in museums I can look at (the closer the better).
3. illustrations of actual, authentic pieces (photographs, not drawings unless I really trust the artist. There are not many of those).
4. period illustrations, taking into account the detail level of the picture. There are some illustrations that are nearly life-like including reflected images in the armour. Those are good. Brasses and effigies are big, so they can have reasonable detail. some manuscript illustrations are very detailed and seem to be realistic. Others are very difficult do decipher.
I think that (unless someone's goal is fantasy armour, art, costume - something that makes no claim to authenticity) we should always work as closely as we can with surviving evidence and not use the 'well, they could have' excuse. Making things that are as like the originals as possible and using them helps us learn both how they may have made things and helps us to see how they could have been used.
If someone can point to original illustrations (especially if there are many of them that depict the same thing) I have not problems with claims of authenticity for the reproduction. You can almost never be as sure that you 'got it right' as you can if there is a surviving piece, but you can do a good job and get a result that is realistic.
I do not recommend that anyone use anyone's modern pieces as 'authentic' references. Mac's stuff is good (ok, REALLY good), but he always tells everyone to look at the originals instead. You can judge my work - but whatever you think about it, please work from originals instead.
It can be very useful to talk to modern armourers and ask why they did something and how they did it. No matter how much time they have in the craft, they still may not be doing it the 'right' way. Several of us have come up with different ways to produce very similar results. Maybe one of them is right, maybe the armourers of old did it an entirely different way. Maybe different groups of armourers produced similar results in very different ways - there were no trade journals (much the opposite - they had trade secrets).
In the same way, you have to be very careful in believing what you read in modern armour books (notice that talked about the illustrations above and not the text). Some of it is good, some wrong. It takes a long time to learn which is which.
I think it is a reasonable question, and that many of the people on the list will have different opinions.
I come from an academic background, so I kind of like for there to be some proof that something actually existed before I will claim that it is an authentic style.
I agree that there is a very small percentage of all of the original armour that was manufactured that actually survives. This is true of all of the periods - more so as you go earlier. Given this, it seems unreasonable to insist that there be a surviving piece to claim that something is reasonable.
When working with any source, it is necessary to take into account the reliability and accuracy of the source. My constant comments about the Met Suit are as a result of having talked to the curator and knowing the background of the former owner. We know (in this particular case) that what looks like a complete harness is not really and that it has had (at least) significant modifications in the early 20th century.
This is much like using Carcassonne as a good example of what a medieval walled city should look like. It was heavily re-built by Violet-le-Duc - and even the tour guides admit that he got it wrong in some specific ways.
The best source is a surviving piece where its history is known and we know that it has not been messed with since it was in use (very rare). As an example - we know what happened with the Mantova armours of the 15th century. They were hung up in the 16th c. to dress up some dummies and no one touched them until they were brought down very recently. They had very specific restoration done, and they were well published. They are a good source for 15th c. Italian armour.
Some illustrations are almost as good as surviving pieces. The detailed effigies of Edward the Black Prince and Richard Earl of Warwick are good examples (assuming you recognize that the Warwick armour represents one he could not possibly have worn...). The Bayeux tapestry is a different story. You can get overall ideas, but any reconstruction based solely on it will be at least partially conjecture - there is just not enough detail in most of it to be sure you are right.
When I have made armour I have almost never copied an actual piece detail for detail. I admit that. I often take the design elements of more than one piece of the same type and from the same period and build a piece that is 'probably' like something they would have done. My guesses are based on years of working with and studying period pieces and illustrations. They are still my interpretations of what things would have been like. When doing this you have to be very careful to be sure that you are not taking from pieces from different sources (german salad with an italian cuirass as a 15th century armour is not the first bits to glue together) or pieces from different times - even 20 years can be too wide a range.
For me, the sources I prefer (in order of preference) are:
1. actual, authentic pieces in my hands that I can play with.
2. actual, authentic pieces in museums I can look at (the closer the better).
3. illustrations of actual, authentic pieces (photographs, not drawings unless I really trust the artist. There are not many of those).
4. period illustrations, taking into account the detail level of the picture. There are some illustrations that are nearly life-like including reflected images in the armour. Those are good. Brasses and effigies are big, so they can have reasonable detail. some manuscript illustrations are very detailed and seem to be realistic. Others are very difficult do decipher.
I think that (unless someone's goal is fantasy armour, art, costume - something that makes no claim to authenticity) we should always work as closely as we can with surviving evidence and not use the 'well, they could have' excuse. Making things that are as like the originals as possible and using them helps us learn both how they may have made things and helps us to see how they could have been used.
If someone can point to original illustrations (especially if there are many of them that depict the same thing) I have not problems with claims of authenticity for the reproduction. You can almost never be as sure that you 'got it right' as you can if there is a surviving piece, but you can do a good job and get a result that is realistic.
I do not recommend that anyone use anyone's modern pieces as 'authentic' references. Mac's stuff is good (ok, REALLY good), but he always tells everyone to look at the originals instead. You can judge my work - but whatever you think about it, please work from originals instead.
It can be very useful to talk to modern armourers and ask why they did something and how they did it. No matter how much time they have in the craft, they still may not be doing it the 'right' way. Several of us have come up with different ways to produce very similar results. Maybe one of them is right, maybe the armourers of old did it an entirely different way. Maybe different groups of armourers produced similar results in very different ways - there were no trade journals (much the opposite - they had trade secrets).
In the same way, you have to be very careful in believing what you read in modern armour books (notice that talked about the illustrations above and not the text). Some of it is good, some wrong. It takes a long time to learn which is which.
"Still the world is wondrous large,--seven seas from marge to
marge--
And it holds a vast of various kinds of man;
And the wildest dreams of Kew are the facts of Khatmandhu
And the crimes of Clapham chaste in Martaban.
Here's my wisdom for your use, as I learned it when the moose
And the reindeer roared where Paris roars to-night:--
"There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays,
"And--every--single--one--of--them--is--right!"
-"In the Neolithic Age" by Rudyard Kipling
The more examples of helmets we have, the more different styles we will be able to show. Armorers didn't buy parts from the same pattern cutting shop, they made what they thought was a good design. Just like today, there were different levels of ability. There were regional, as well as individual styles. I've been looking at a lot of burgeonets lately, and there were scores of "different" types of helmets. Variations on the crest, the back of the helmet, the brim, cheekpiece, etc.
Is the armorer claiming the piece to be an "exact" duplicate of an item he held and took measurements from? Is he making one based on one he has seen but not touched? He saw it in a book? Most of our pieces are derivatives, not duplicates. I like some better than others, but that is personal taste. Does someone want to complain that the eyeslots on Mac's Pembridge style helm are a quarter inch too wide? Talk to the hand...
Perhaps the reason the Saxons lost at Hastings was because they had no helmets, after all, earlier today I read that only 4 examples of Anglo-Saxon helmets exist today...
marge--
And it holds a vast of various kinds of man;
And the wildest dreams of Kew are the facts of Khatmandhu
And the crimes of Clapham chaste in Martaban.
Here's my wisdom for your use, as I learned it when the moose
And the reindeer roared where Paris roars to-night:--
"There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays,
"And--every--single--one--of--them--is--right!"
-"In the Neolithic Age" by Rudyard Kipling
The more examples of helmets we have, the more different styles we will be able to show. Armorers didn't buy parts from the same pattern cutting shop, they made what they thought was a good design. Just like today, there were different levels of ability. There were regional, as well as individual styles. I've been looking at a lot of burgeonets lately, and there were scores of "different" types of helmets. Variations on the crest, the back of the helmet, the brim, cheekpiece, etc.
Is the armorer claiming the piece to be an "exact" duplicate of an item he held and took measurements from? Is he making one based on one he has seen but not touched? He saw it in a book? Most of our pieces are derivatives, not duplicates. I like some better than others, but that is personal taste. Does someone want to complain that the eyeslots on Mac's Pembridge style helm are a quarter inch too wide? Talk to the hand...
Perhaps the reason the Saxons lost at Hastings was because they had no helmets, after all, earlier today I read that only 4 examples of Anglo-Saxon helmets exist today...
Another place to look at weapons ( and very little armour) would be the old manor houses the highland regiments are atached to. I think it is the athole highlanders manor that i saw ( its been 4 years) but the basicaly got new weapons every so many years and the old got naild to the wall. there are halberds swords targes shields muskets flintlocks al the way up to the riffels the nailed up in the 80s. I wonder what they have now?
What nags at me is due to the small sample base we have of many of the period pieces.
What occurs to me is that if we only take instruction from those few historical armors that still exist today...how can we be sure we are copying typical armors? How do we know that they were not atyipcal or divergent from the normal run of armor in some way? They may have been the exception rather than the norm. If we only base our reconstructions on those that still exist, in an effort to be historically accurate, we may misrepresent one armor as more popular than it truly was, and under-represent those armors that were indeed popular. All we would be doing is recreating a false version of the past that does not take into account the large variety of armors that must have existed.
There are two ways to look at this:
1) the more popular the style of armor, the more would have been made, and the more that should have survived up to the present day. Or
2) that the best armors were the most popular armors...because they worked the best and therefore they were worn the most and passed down the most, until such time as they became unusable, unservicable and recycled into something else. As such, the most popular armors would be the least likely to survive, because they were in continuous use until they broke.
What occurs to me is that if we only take instruction from those few historical armors that still exist today...how can we be sure we are copying typical armors? How do we know that they were not atyipcal or divergent from the normal run of armor in some way? They may have been the exception rather than the norm. If we only base our reconstructions on those that still exist, in an effort to be historically accurate, we may misrepresent one armor as more popular than it truly was, and under-represent those armors that were indeed popular. All we would be doing is recreating a false version of the past that does not take into account the large variety of armors that must have existed.
There are two ways to look at this:
1) the more popular the style of armor, the more would have been made, and the more that should have survived up to the present day. Or
2) that the best armors were the most popular armors...because they worked the best and therefore they were worn the most and passed down the most, until such time as they became unusable, unservicable and recycled into something else. As such, the most popular armors would be the least likely to survive, because they were in continuous use until they broke.
-
David deKunstenaar
- Archive Member
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Louisville, KY
- Contact:
The knowledge about the technology and resources of various locations and times is one of an ever growing field, and this also can give some insight into how something was manufactured and assembled. I will often differ to the knowledge of many of the prople here because they hold that knowledge. Sometimes when no existing item exist save for a paintings or illuminations, I might look at it and think, well it looks to have been done ______ way. That is where the knowledge above comes into play with the most common method used at that time. Perhaps not 100%, but I am shoting more at 10% myself without this knowledge.
I just asked a question about the use of whale bone in the late 13thc. I asked because while I might make conjecture on what I see, the likely hood that I would make incorrect assumptions is great due to the fact that what I have read is based on a book on armor written about 1020 I think. There has been a lot of work done since then, so at the risk of making a fool of myself I ask and try to goad people to part with the knowledge they have gained.
The older I get and the more I learn, the dumber I feel because the more I realize that I don't know.
Arti
I just asked a question about the use of whale bone in the late 13thc. I asked because while I might make conjecture on what I see, the likely hood that I would make incorrect assumptions is great due to the fact that what I have read is based on a book on armor written about 1020 I think. There has been a lot of work done since then, so at the risk of making a fool of myself I ask and try to goad people to part with the knowledge they have gained.
The older I get and the more I learn, the dumber I feel because the more I realize that I don't know.
Arti
-
David deKunstenaar
- Archive Member
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Louisville, KY
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by David deKunstenaar:
<B>The knowledge about the technology and resources of various locations and times is one of an ever growing field, and this also can give some insight into how something was manufactured and assembled. I will often differ to the knowledge of many of the people here because they hold that knowledge. Sometimes when no existing item exist save for a paintings or illuminations, I might look at it and think, well it looks to have been done ______ way. That is where the knowledge above comes into play with the most common method used at that time. Perhaps not 100%, but I am shoting more at 10% myself without this knowledge.
I just asked a question about the use of whale bone in the late 13thc. I asked because while I might make conjecture on what I see, the likely hood that I would make incorrect assumptions is great due to the fact that what I have read is based on a book on armor written about 1920 I think. There has been a lot of work done since then, so at the risk of making a fool of myself I ask and try to goad people to part with the knowledge they have gained.
The older I get and the more I learn, the dumber I feel because the more I realize that I don't know.
Arti</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
(to little coffee, to many children... damn the typos, full post ahead!)
<B>The knowledge about the technology and resources of various locations and times is one of an ever growing field, and this also can give some insight into how something was manufactured and assembled. I will often differ to the knowledge of many of the people here because they hold that knowledge. Sometimes when no existing item exist save for a paintings or illuminations, I might look at it and think, well it looks to have been done ______ way. That is where the knowledge above comes into play with the most common method used at that time. Perhaps not 100%, but I am shoting more at 10% myself without this knowledge.
I just asked a question about the use of whale bone in the late 13thc. I asked because while I might make conjecture on what I see, the likely hood that I would make incorrect assumptions is great due to the fact that what I have read is based on a book on armor written about 1920 I think. There has been a lot of work done since then, so at the risk of making a fool of myself I ask and try to goad people to part with the knowledge they have gained.
The older I get and the more I learn, the dumber I feel because the more I realize that I don't know.
Arti</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
(to little coffee, to many children... damn the typos, full post ahead!)
-
Egfroth
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4577
- Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Ballarat, Victoria, Australia
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Alcyoneus:
Perhaps the reason the Saxons lost at Hastings was because they had no helmets, after all, earlier today I read that only 4 examples of Anglo-Saxon helmets exist today...</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And none of them are from later than 750 AD. On the other hand, the same applies to the Normans. And apparently none of them wore mail armour, either, because no mail rings have been found in Normandy, or even France (except for one which MAY have been a mail ring) from the 11th century. On the other hand, there have been THREE finds of "plaques a' broigne" - metal scales. So, obviously, the Normans all wore scale armour.
Seriously, though, particularly with early stuff, we have to admit how little we know, and the less information we have, the more cautious we have to be about what we use, not less.
------------------
Egfroth
Power! It corrupts! I can FEEL it!
see my webpage at www.geocities.com/egfrothos
[This message has been edited by Egfroth (edited 04-23-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Egfroth (edited 04-23-2002).]
Perhaps the reason the Saxons lost at Hastings was because they had no helmets, after all, earlier today I read that only 4 examples of Anglo-Saxon helmets exist today...</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And none of them are from later than 750 AD. On the other hand, the same applies to the Normans. And apparently none of them wore mail armour, either, because no mail rings have been found in Normandy, or even France (except for one which MAY have been a mail ring) from the 11th century. On the other hand, there have been THREE finds of "plaques a' broigne" - metal scales. So, obviously, the Normans all wore scale armour.
Seriously, though, particularly with early stuff, we have to admit how little we know, and the less information we have, the more cautious we have to be about what we use, not less.
------------------
Egfroth
Power! It corrupts! I can FEEL it!
see my webpage at www.geocities.com/egfrothos
[This message has been edited by Egfroth (edited 04-23-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Egfroth (edited 04-23-2002).]