Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Salvator Fabris"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 392: Line 392:
 
| <p>[16] '''Advice on how to proceed against tall, short, weak,''' and '''strong opponents,''' and '''against the choleric''' and the '''phlegmatic.'''</p>
 
| <p>[16] '''Advice on how to proceed against tall, short, weak,''' and '''strong opponents,''' and '''against the choleric''' and the '''phlegmatic.'''</p>
  
<p>In meeting your adversary you must subtlely consider not only his character, but his strength and height, because you must proceed differently according to the particular qualities of your opponent. Therefore we will treat somewhat of this matter and advise you as to the best method of holding yourself. A tall man meeting a small man should recognise his advantages; for being taller his reach is longer both because of his height and the bend of his body. His body goes so far forward that he can reach his adversary, while his adversary cannot reach him. For this reason it seems he should incline to the attack, rather than to the defence. There is no necessity for him to gain the superiority over his adversary's sword, though this is good, but merely to keep his own free in order to hit when his adversary approaches, and before his own body is in danger. He must contrive to keep his adversary at a distance, for he must recognise that he is first within distance, and, when the shorter adversary tries to advance to get within his distance, that is the time for the taller to hit, or to throw his adversary into disorder by making a feint of having taken the ''time'' offered by his movement, and then hitting in the part he has uncovered by going to the defence; and immediately breaking ground, for then he will be out of the shorter man's reach.</p>
+
<p>In meeting your adversary you must subtlely consider not only his character, but his strength and height, because you must proceed differently according to the particular qualities of your opponent. Therefore we will treat somewhat of this matter and advise you as to the best method of holding yourself. A tall man meeting a small man should recognise his advantages; for being taller his reach is longer both because of his height and the bend of his body. His body goes so far forward that he can reach his adversary, while his adversary cannot reach him. For this reason it seems he should incline to the attack, rather than to the defence. There is no necessity for him to gain the superiority over his adversary's sword, though this is good, but merely to keep his own free in order to hit when his adversary approaches, and before his own body is in danger. He must contrive to keep his adversary at a distance, for he must recognise that he is first within distance, and, when the shorter adversary tries to advance to get within his distance, that is the time for the taller to hit, or to throw his adversary into disorder by making a feint of having taken the ''time'' offered by his movement, and then hitting in the part he has uncovered by going to the defence; and immediately breaking ground, for then he will be out of the shorter man's reach. Or if he can do none of these things, it is well to play the adversary by breaking ground as often as he advances, never letting him carry out his plan, and to continue this until he finds a chance to hit or to put his adversary in subjection. He should proceed without passing, but merely carry his body out of the line when his adversary passes, or break ground so that he cannot pass, but is held and met by the point. In this way the shorter man will have to adopt another method, give up all idea of hitting, and defend, since he cannot hit without first bringing his body into danger. Therefore it is more useful and necessary for the short man to gain the superiority and engage his adversary's sword in order to prevent a thrust, when he advances to gain distance. When he is within distance and finds a ''time'' to hit, it is better for him then to pass, for he will have penetrated his adversary's point so far, that he will with difficulty get out again in time without being hit, unless the sword of the taller man is so far out of line, or so far withdrawn, that the shorter man clearly perceives he has time to recover and return to his guard. For he could not recover so far, in one movement without the sword of the tall man, owing to his length, reaching him.</p>
 
 
<p>Or if he can do none of these things, it is well to play the adversary by breaking ground as often as he advances, never letting him carry out his plan, and to continue this until he finds a chance to hit or to put his adversary in subjection. He should proceed without passing, but merely carry his body out of the line when his adversary passes, or break ground so that he cannot pass, but is held and met by the point. In this way the shorter man will have to adopt another method, give up all idea of hitting, and defend, since he cannot hit without first bringing his body into danger. Therefore it is more useful and necessary for the short man to gain the superiority and engage his adversary's sword in order to prevent a thrust, when he advances to gain distance. When he is within distance and finds a ''time'' to hit, it is better for him then to pass, for he will have penetrated his adversary's point so far, that he will with difficulty get out again in time without being hit, unless the sword of the taller man is so far out of line, or so far withdrawn, that the shorter man clearly perceives he has time to recover and return to his guard. For he could not recover so far, in one movement without the sword of the tall man, owing to his length, reaching him.</p>
 
  
 
<p>On the other hand it is true, that, although the tall man has the advantage of the reach, a matter of great importance, his movements are slower and there are more uncovered parts, so that he cannot so easily get out of line. Offering a larger target he gives the small man a great advantage in hitting, when the small man knows how to conduct himself within distance. For the sword of the small man covers him more; he does not need to make such large movements in order to defend himself, and he has passed the greatest danger, that is penetrated the point, before his adversary has penetrated his. Since his exposed parts are smaller he is in less danger, and consequently his movements are safer than those of the tall man.</p>
 
<p>On the other hand it is true, that, although the tall man has the advantage of the reach, a matter of great importance, his movements are slower and there are more uncovered parts, so that he cannot so easily get out of line. Offering a larger target he gives the small man a great advantage in hitting, when the small man knows how to conduct himself within distance. For the sword of the small man covers him more; he does not need to make such large movements in order to defend himself, and he has passed the greatest danger, that is penetrated the point, before his adversary has penetrated his. Since his exposed parts are smaller he is in less danger, and consequently his movements are safer than those of the tall man.</p>

Revision as of 22:20, 3 June 2022

Salvator Fabris
Born 1544
Padua, Italy
Died 11 Nov 1618 (aged 74)
Padua, Italy
Occupation
Nationality Italian
Alma mater University of Padua (?)
Patron
  • Christianus Ⅳ of Denmark
  • Johan Frederik of Schleswig-
    Holstein-Gottorp
Influenced
Genres Fencing manual
Language Italian
Notable work(s) Scienza d’Arme (1601-06)
Manuscript(s)
Translations

Salvator Fabris (Salvador Fabbri, Salvator Fabriz, Fabrice; 1544-1618) was a 16th – 17th century Italian knight and fencing master. He was born in or around Padua, Italy in 1544, and although little is known about his early years, he seems to have studied fencing from a young age and possibly attended the prestigious University of Padua.[citation needed] The French master Henry de Sainct Didier recounts a meeting with an Italian fencer named "Fabrice" during the course of preparing his treatise (completed in 1573) in which they debated fencing theory, potentially placing Fabris in France in the early 1570s.[1] In the 1580s, Fabris corresponded with Christian Barnekow, a Danish nobleman with ties to the royal court as well as an alumnus of the university.[2] It seems likely that Fabris traveled a great deal during the 1570s and 80s, spending time in France, Germany, Spain, and possibly other regions before returning to teach at his alma mater.[citation needed]

It is unclear if Fabris himself was of noble birth, but at some point he seems to have earned a knighthood. In fact, he is described in his treatise as Supremus Eques ("Supreme Knight") of the Order of the Seven Hearts. In Johann Joachim Hynitzsch's introduction to the 1676 edition, he identifies Fabris as a Colonel of the Order.[3] It seems therefore that he was not only a knight of the Order of the Seven Hearts, but rose to a high rank and perhaps even overall leadership.

Fabris' whereabouts in the 1590s are uncertain, but there are rumors. In 1594, he may have been hired by King Sigismund of Poland to assassinate his uncle Karl, a Swedish duke and competitor for the Swedish crown. According to the story, Fabris participated in a sword dance (or possibly a dramatic play) with a sharp sword and was to slay Karl during the performance when the audience was distracted. (The duke was warned and avoided the event, saving his life.)[4] In ca. 1599, Fabris may have been invited to England by noted playwright William Shakespeare to choreograph the fight scenes in his premier of Hamlet.[5][2] He also presumably spent considerable time in the 1590s developing the fencing manual that would guarantee his lasting fame.

What is certain is that by 1598, Fabris had left his position at the University of Padua and was attached to the court of Johan Frederik, the young duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp. He continued in the duke's service until 1601, and as a parting gift prepared a lavishly-illustrated, three-volume manuscript of his treatise entitled Scientia e Prattica dell'Arme (GI.kgl.Saml.1868 4040).[2]

In 1601, Fabris was hired as chief rapier instructor to the court of Christianus Ⅳ, King of Denmark and Duke Johan Frederik's cousin. He ultimately served in the royal court for five years; toward the end of his tenure and at the king's insistence, he published his opus under the title Sienza e Pratica d’Arme ("Science and Practice of Arms") or De lo Schermo, overo Scienza d’Arme ("On Defense, or the Science of Arms"). Christianus funded this first edition and placed his court artist, Jan van Halbeeck, at Fabris' disposal to illustrate it; it was ultimately published in Copenhagen on 25 September 1606.[2]

Soon after the text was published, and perhaps feeling his 62 years, Fabris asked to be released from his six-year contract with the king so that he might return home. He traveled through northern Germany and was in Paris, France, in 1608. Ultimately, he received a position at the University of Padua and there passed his final years. He died of a fever on 11 November 1618 at the age of 74, and the town of Padua declared an official day of mourning in his honor. In 1676, the town of Padua erected a statue of the master in the Chiesa del Santo.

The importance of Fabris' work can hardly be overstated. Versions of his treatise were reprinted for over a hundred years, and translated into German at least four times as well as French and Latin. He is almost universally praised by later masters and fencing historians, and through the influence of his students and their students (most notably Hans Wilhelm Schöffer), he became the dominant figure in German fencing throughout the 17th century and into the 18th.

Treatise

Additional Resources

References

  1. Didier, Henry de Sainct. Les secrets du premier livre sur l'espée seule. Paris, 1573. pp 5-8.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Fabris, Salvator and Leoni, Tom. Art of Dueling: Salvator Fabris' Rapier Fencing Treatise of 1606. Highland Village, TX: Chivalry Bookshelf, 2005. pp XVIII-XIX.
  3. Fabris, Salvator and Leoni, Tom. Art of Dueling: Salvator Fabris' Rapier Fencing Treatise of 1606. Highland Village, TX: Chivalry Bookshelf, 2005. p XXIX.
  4. Andersson, Henrik. Salvator Fabris as a Hired Assassin in Sweden. Association for Renaissance Martial Arts. Retrieved 2011-12-18.
  5. Barbasetti, Luigi. Fencing Through the Ages.[Full citation needed]
  6. Originally "asseruatore", but corrected in the errata.
  7. This seems like a mistranslation of rompere di misura at first blush, but according to Kevin Murakoshi, this is an archaic piece of fencing jargon that was still current in the early 20th century. It means to "break measure" or withdraw. ~ Michael Chidester
  8. Originally "richeide", but corrected in the errata.
  9. Originally "dirarsi", but corrected in the errata.
  10. Originally "longuezza", but corrected in the errata.
  11. Originally "mettre", but corrected in the errata.
  12. Originally "volto", but corrected in the errata.
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 There's no conclusion of this word on the next page, just a new sentence.
  14. Originally "occcsione", but corrected in the errata.
  15. Originally "albassare", but corrected in the errata.
  16. Originally "& migliore", but corrected in the errata.
  17. Originally "temerariemente", but corrected in the errata.
  18. Originally "bisogna", but corrected in the errata.
  19. The letter 'F' was omitted in the print and hand-corrected in all copies.
  20. Originally "guardia", but corrected in the errata.
  21. Originally "equali", but corrected in the errata.
  22. Originally "poco", but corrected in the errata.
  23. Originally "poco", but corrected in the errata.
  24. Originally "non buoni", but corrected in the errata.
  25. Originally "queui", but corrected in the errata.
  26. Originally "che spada", but corrected in the errata.
  27. Originally "accorgendosi", but corrected in the errata.
  28. Originally "con pugnale", but corrected in the errata.
  29. Originally "mouendolo", but corrected in the errata.
  30. Originally "diuersi", but corrected in the errata.
  31. Originally "dentro la spada", but corrected in the errata.
  32. Originally "andere", but corrected in the errata.
  33. Originally "richede", but corrected in the errata.
  34. Originally "in suoi", but corrected in the errata.
  35. This word can't be read on the photos I have. It's a 6-letter word that seems to end in "s?ed". The Italian word means to move or advance, and Tom Leoni translates it as "fling".
  36. Originally "della", but corrected in the errata.
  37. Originally "la dette", but corrected in the errata.
  38. Originally "è passare", but corrected in the errata.
  39. The errata adds "l’".
  40. Originally "farmarsi", but corrected in the errata. The errata says it should be on page 232, but this is the only instance of the word in the book.
  41. This large blank space was probably meant to be filled in later with a suitable translation for brezza, which means "breeze" though that's obviously not the intended meaning here. It might be a spelling of brecca, meaning "breach". Tom Leoni translates it "rampart". ~ Michael Chidester
  42. Originally "sforza", but corrected in the errata. The errata says it should be on page 241, but this is the only instance of the word on the correct line.
  43. Should be 183.
  44. Originally "ineguale", but corrected in the errata.