Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Salvator Fabris"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1,957: Line 1,957:
 
<p>Thus far we have spoken of the principles with which every professor of arms must be acquainted, though few understand them well or practise them with due exactness. Now we shall treat of some theories, which are not only no longer expounded by other professors, but which they have never considered, or if they have considered have not grasped or understood; they have been put aside as too subtle by the most acute exponents of this art. Desiring perhaps to cover their lack of capacity they have been forced to reject them, basing their reasons on that common maxim, that the student must remain steady in presence and wait a ''time'' in order to hit, and that he who attacks without a ''time'' will be hit. We allow that is well to know how to await a ''time'' and an opportunity to hit, because from that waiting <sup>follows</sup> the understanding of distances, ''times'', ''counter-time'', and all the tricks which an adversary may employ. Still we maintain that between two opponents steady on their guard there is no advantage, because both are awaiting the same thing, so that the opportunity may come to either; both are awaiting with equal danger, and and[!] if sometimes one is seen to have obtained an advantage, it is because he has engaged the other's sword and prevented him from hitting in his present line; but still the one who has obtained the advantage waits for a ''time'', thinking he cannot hit before his adversary moves. By such delay it often happens that one who has won an advantage not only loses it, but his adversary obtains an advantage over him, a truly inexcusable error that a man should allow himself to be robbed of what he has won with such danger. It appears to us that it would have been better, having the advantage to proceed without waiting, secure that your adversary's sword cannot hit in its present line, and not to give him time to consider his danger and form a new plan.</p>
 
<p>Thus far we have spoken of the principles with which every professor of arms must be acquainted, though few understand them well or practise them with due exactness. Now we shall treat of some theories, which are not only no longer expounded by other professors, but which they have never considered, or if they have considered have not grasped or understood; they have been put aside as too subtle by the most acute exponents of this art. Desiring perhaps to cover their lack of capacity they have been forced to reject them, basing their reasons on that common maxim, that the student must remain steady in presence and wait a ''time'' in order to hit, and that he who attacks without a ''time'' will be hit. We allow that is well to know how to await a ''time'' and an opportunity to hit, because from that waiting <sup>follows</sup> the understanding of distances, ''times'', ''counter-time'', and all the tricks which an adversary may employ. Still we maintain that between two opponents steady on their guard there is no advantage, because both are awaiting the same thing, so that the opportunity may come to either; both are awaiting with equal danger, and and[!] if sometimes one is seen to have obtained an advantage, it is because he has engaged the other's sword and prevented him from hitting in his present line; but still the one who has obtained the advantage waits for a ''time'', thinking he cannot hit before his adversary moves. By such delay it often happens that one who has won an advantage not only loses it, but his adversary obtains an advantage over him, a truly inexcusable error that a man should allow himself to be robbed of what he has won with such danger. It appears to us that it would have been better, having the advantage to proceed without waiting, secure that your adversary's sword cannot hit in its present line, and not to give him time to consider his danger and form a new plan.</p>
  
<p>There are others who, when within distance, seek to gain no advantage, but, seeing that their adversary does not move, try to make him move by giving him an opening or offering a ''time'' or by an ''appel'' or a feint in order to take the ''time'' of his moving; such methods may succeed against men ill-instructed, but are fatally dangerous against one who understands the art; for if you consider such a proceeding, it is clear that the one who offers a ''time'' in order to make his adversary move forgets that his is the first danger, and, although his intention is to offer so small a ''time'' that his adversary cannot hit, still it cannot be so small that the adversary has no chance of seizing some advantage, from which the first man cannot free himself without great danger of being hit, moreover he could be deceived by feints. We do not condemn these theories and stratagems nor any of the principles already put forward; it is well to understand them, but they are useless and inapplicable in our case, when we have to find a way of proceeding in order to be able to hit the adversary immediately after grasping the sword and without remaining steady, in whatever position or guard the adversary may be, whether he offers a ''time'' or not, parries or hits, advances or retires; the object is to hit him inevitably, whatever method he adopts. If our method is followed with all its conditions, you will be incomparably safer than when waiting. It is true that much skill and art are needed so to control your adversary that you may be confident of hitting, whatever he does or however much he knows, and when he has the same weapons as you, even though he is ignorant of these principles; if your adversary understands these same principles, matters would be equal. But if your adversary follows the old rules even to perfection, he will always be defeated if you follow our principles, because you will be able to put him into subjection and free him to do what you want, whether he desires to attack or defend; this will make your proceedings easy, since you will foresee your adversary's intention. In order to explain this truth better we shall treat first of the advantage of attacking with resolution, and then of the method of attacking.</p>
+
<p>There are others who, when within distance, seek to gain no advantage, but, seeing that their adversary does not move, try to make him move by giving him an opening or offering a ''time'' or by an ''appel'' or a feint in order to take the ''time'' of his moving; such methods may succeed against men ill-instructed, but are fatally dangerous against one who understands the art; for if you consider such a proceeding, it is clear that the one who offers a ''time'' in order to make his adversary move forgets that his is the first danger, and, although his intention is to offer so small a ''time'' that his adversary cannot hit, still it cannot be so small that the adversary has no chance of seizing some advantage, from which the first man cannot free himself without great danger of being hit, moreover he could be deceived by feints. We do not condemn these theories and stratagems nor any of the principles already put forward; it is well to understand them, but they are useless and in-applicable in our case, when we have to find a way of proceeding in order to be able to hit the adversary immediately after grasping the sword and without remaining steady, in whatever position or guard the adversary may be, whether he offers a ''time'' or not, parries or hits, advances or retires; the object is to hit him inevitably, whatever method he adopts. If our method is followed with all its conditions, you will be incomparably safer than when waiting. It is true that much skill and art are needed so to control your adversary that you may be confident of hitting, whatever he does or however much he knows, and when he has the same weapons as you, even though he is ignorant of these principles; if your adversary understands these same principles, matters would be equal. But if your adversary follows the old rules even to perfection, he will always be defeated if you follow our principles, because you will be able to put him into subjection and free him to do what you want, whether he desires to attack or defend; this will make your proceedings easy, since you will foresee your adversary's intention. In order to explain this truth better we shall treat first of the advantage of attacking with resolution, and then of the method of attacking.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  

Revision as of 03:07, 5 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.