Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Salvator Fabris"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1,079: Line 1,079:
 
| <p>[58] </p>
 
| <p>[58] </p>
  
<p>This hit in ''seconde'' against an opponent in ''quarte'' who has advanced the left foot may easily arise in the following manner: the adversary, being in ''quarte'', has tried to engage your sword, which is in ''tierce'', on the outside. You have disengaged, still in ''tierce''. He has attempted a hit in ''quarte'' through your ''faible'', advancing the left foot. But in the same ''time'' as you disengaged you have dropped your point under his hilt, also advancing the left foot. By bringing the whole weight of the body on to the left foot and turning the hand into ''seconde'', you have got far out of the line of you adversary's point and made the hit. It might arise in another manner: both being in ''tierce'' on the inside, you have moved your point, making a slight turn of the hand towards ''quarte''. The adversary, seeing the opening, has tried to engage your ''faible'' and hit in the same ''time'' by advancing the left foot. But before he has reached your ''faible'' you have dropped your point under his hilt, so that he has failed to find your point, and in the same ''time'' carried your body out of line, bringing the weight on to the left foot, which has advanced. In this low position you have been able to penetrate to his body, as you were already advanced. Or again, both being in ''tierce'' on the outside, the adversary has tried to engage your sword; in the same ''time'' you have threatened a cut of ''mandiritto'' at the head, using the wrist and keeping the arm steady. He has changed from ''tierce'' to ''quarte'' in order to defend the head, and advanced the left foot in order to hit in the same ''time''. At that moment you have checked your sword near the adversary's, without touching it, and immediately changed your hand to ''seconde'', lowering the point under his hilt, advancing the left foot, with the body so bent, that his point, which would have hit in the chest, has passed over. Therefore you may see how dangerous it is to parry, even with a thrust in the same ''time''. Therefore, unless forced, it is always best not to parry.</p>
+
<p>This hit in ''seconde'' against an opponent in ''quarte'' who has advanced the left foot may easily arise in the following manner: the adversary, being in ''quarte'', has tried to engage your sword, which is in ''tierce'', on the outside. You have disengaged, still in ''tierce''. He has attempted a hit in ''quarte'' through your ''faible'', advancing the left foot. But in the same ''time'' as you disengaged you have dropped your point under his hilt, also advancing the left foot. By bringing the whole weight of the body on to the left foot and turning the hand into ''seconde'', you have got far out of the line of you adversary's point and made the hit. It might arise in another manner: both being in ''tierce'' on the inside, you have moved your point, making a slight turn of the hand towards ''quarte''. The adversary, seeing the opening, has tried to engage your ''faible'' and hit in the same ''time'' by advancing the left foot. But before he has reached your ''faible'' you have dropped your point under his hilt, so that he has failed to find your point, and in the same ''time'' have carried your body out of line, bringing the weight on to the left foot, which has advanced. In this low position you have been able to penetrate to his body, as you were already advanced. Or again, both being in ''tierce'' on the outside, the adversary has tried to engage your sword; in the same ''time'' you have threatened a cut of ''mandiritto'' at the head, using the wrist and keeping the arm steady. He has changed from ''tierce'' to ''quarte'' in order to defend the head, and advanced the left foot in order to hit in the same ''time''. At that moment you have checked your sword near the adversary's, without touching it, and immediately changed your hand to ''seconde'', lowering the point under his hilt, advancing the left foot, with the body so bent, that his point, which would have hit in the chest, has passed over. Therefore you may see how dangerous it is to parry, even with a thrust in the same ''time''. Therefore, unless forced, it is always best not to parry.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| <p><br/></p>
 
| <p><br/></p>

Revision as of 02:09, 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.