Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Salvator Fabris"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 765: Line 765:
 
| <p>[39]</p>
 
| <p>[39]</p>
  
<p>This plate illustrates the first hit in ''quarte''. It is a lunge against a guard in ''tierce''. It may arise as follows. The adversary, who is in ''tierce'' has made a feint of hitting on the inside, whilst you also were in ''tierce''. He has come forward in order to make you parry. But you have taken the ''time'', carried your hilt up to his point and driven on your point to make a hit. By advancing the right foot, bending the body and turning your hand into ''quarte'', you have encountered and hit your adversary, as may be seen, at the moment of his coming forward. He has not been able to parry, while his foot was in the air and he was advancing. Similarly it may happen that you both are in ''tierce'' on the outside, and the adversary has tried to disengage to the inside line, advancing his sword and body to force you to parry, with the intention of hitting you in that ''time'' by changing from ''tierce'' to ''seconde'', and lowering his body; or he intended to return to the outside in ''tierce'' in order to hit over the sword. Both these methods would have been effective, if you had done what he desired. But you, being steady on your guard, with your sword free, within wide distance, were awaiting the ''time'' in order to hit or seize some advantage. As soon as you saw the movement of his sword and body bringing him forward, you realised that although he had not moved his feet, he still could not break ground, since it is impossible to advance and retire at one moment. Hence you may realise the great danger of moving without a ''time'', in order to advance, when you are already within wide distance, especially when the adversary's sword is free. If you are forced to move in order to free yourself from some danger it is better to retire than to advance, especially if your adversary is steady on his guard, and thus free yourself in such a manner, that if your adversary attempts to hit in that ''time'', you can defend yourself and attack at the same instant. Even if you have moved your sword and body, provided that your feet are steady, you can always save yourself when within wide distance. But within close distance the smallest movement involves great danger, as we showed in treating of distances and ''times''. Further you must consider that, while your adversary's sword is free and steady, to make a feint, in our judgment, is merely to hurry fruitlessly. If your adversary makes a feint, he can never hit, even though you parry, as long as you are steady on your feet,[!] If after a feint he tries to hit, you can break ground, so that he will not reach, and will be thrown into disorder with danger of being hit before he recovers. Therefore to make a feint you must await some movement of your adversary, or not his sword free, but engage it first, so that he cannot hit in that line. Afterwards you can feint, without abandoning your advantage. In making this feint you must go forward, so that if he does not parry, the feint will hit, and if he parries, you can by a change of line reach his body, before he can save himself by breaking ground. For the one who has moved with the feint will arrive more quickly than the one who has awaited the second ''time'' in order to break ground. If when you make the feint, your adversary breaks ground, you must not advance, for you are too far away. You must stop and return to the engagement. If the one who has been hit in the present case, had observed that principle sooner, he would have been the hitter rather than the hit, or would at least have saved himself. We have made a long discourse on this present hit with respect to its advantages and dangers, and not only that, but the manner of its arising, and how else it might arise, and how he who was hit might have found safety. For before the attack many remedies were possible, though they were of no avail after the thing was done. But in the following hits we shall state only the cause and the effect, leaving the rest, lest the reader should be wearied.</p>
+
<p>This plate illustrates the first hit in ''quarte''. It is a lunge against a guard in ''tierce''. It may arise as follows. The adversary, who is in ''tierce'' has made a feint of hitting on the inside, whilst you also were in ''tierce''. He has come forward in order to make you parry. But you have taken the ''time'', carried your hilt up to his point and driven on your point to make a hit. By advancing the right foot, bending the body and turning your hand into ''quarte'', you have encountered and hit your adversary, as may be seen, at the moment of his coming forward. He has not been able to parry, while his foot was in the air and he was advancing. Similarly it may happen that you both are in ''tierce'' on the outside, and the adversary has tried to disengage to the inside line, advancing his sword and body to force you to parry, with the intention of hitting you in that ''time'' by changing from ''tierce'' to ''seconde'', and lowering his body; or he intended to return to the outside in ''tierce'' in order to hit over the sword. Both these methods would have been effective, if you had done what he desired. But you, being steady on your guard, with your sword free, within wide distance, were awaiting the ''time'' in order to hit or seize some advantage. As soon as you saw the movement of his sword and body bringing him forward, you realised that although he had not moved his feet, he still could not break ground, since it is impossible to advance and retire at one moment. Hence you may realise the great danger of moving without a ''time'', in order to advance, when you are already within wide distance, especially when the adversary's sword is free. If you are forced to move in order to free yourself from some danger it is better to retire than to advance, especially if your adversary is steady on his guard, and thus free yourself in such a manner, that if your adversary attempts to hit in that ''time'', you can defend yourself and attack at the same instant. Even if you have moved your sword and body, provided that your feet are steady, you can always save yourself when within wide distance. But within close distance the smallest movement involves great danger, as we showed in treating of distances and ''times''. Further you must consider that, while your adversary's sword is free and steady, to make a feint, in our judgment, is merely to hurry fruitlessly. If your adversary makes a feint, he can never hit, even though you parry, as long as you are steady on your feet,[!] If after a feint he tries to hit, you can break ground, so that he will not reach, and will be thrown into disorder with danger of being hit before he recovers. Therefore to make a feint you must await some movement of your adversary, or not leave his sword free, but engage it first, so that he cannot hit in that line. Afterwards you can feint, without abandoning your advantage. In making this feint you must go forward, so that if he does not parry, the feint will hit, and if he parries, you can by a change of line reach his body, before he can save himself by breaking ground. For the one who has moved with the feint will arrive more quickly than the one who has awaited the second ''time'' in order to break ground. If when you make the feint, your adversary breaks ground, you must not advance, for you are too far away. You must stop and return to the engagement. If the one who has been hit in the present case, had observed that principle sooner, he would have been the hitter rather than the hit, or would at least have saved himself. We have made a long discourse on this present hit with respect to its advantages and dangers, and not only that, but the manner of its arising, and how else it might arise, and how he who was hit might have found safety. For before the attack many remedies were possible, though they were of no avail after the thing was done. But in the following hits we shall state only the cause and the effect, leaving the rest, lest the reader should be wearied.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| <p><br/></p>
 
| <p><br/></p>

Revision as of 01:16, 4 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.