Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Salvator Fabris"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 177: Line 177:
 
| <p>[1] '''''General discourse of the first book. The principles of the sword alone.'''''</p>
 
| <p>[1] '''''General discourse of the first book. The principles of the sword alone.'''''</p>
  
<p>In opening our promised work we shall begin with the sword alone, for on the knowledge of the sword depend the principles of all other arms. Many rules will be given which may serve excellently for the sword accompanied by the dagger or any other arm. He who can use the sword alone well will easily learn to use it in conjunction with other arms. You must know then that the rules of the sword are founded on four guards in which are formed all the posi-tions and counter positions. From them arise the ''times'', ''counter-times'', disengagements, counter-disengagements, double disengagements, half disengagements, and re-engagements; nor in short can anything be done in attack or defence which does not partake of the nature of one of these four guards. They are differently formed, as will be seen in the accompanying plates. These we have introduced in order that you may recognise with what variations of position of the sword, feet and body, they are made. We shall describe the nature of each guard in its place and the plates will show the results which may arise from them. The discourses will be such that you will easily see when to apply the various rules, and how to the best advantage you must approach your adversary in order to come within presence. Though one who understands the art may approach as he pleases, since in whatever position he is he will succeed by his knowledge of distances, weak and strong positions, exposed and unexposed parts. Nevertheless it is certain that one position is better than another, and a man may approach with more security when he parries his arms in the proper manner. When within distance he must proceed in various ways, according to the changes made and the opportunities offered by his adversary, and according to the distance in which he finds himself. The distances are two, and what is good in the one is not so in the other. These distances control the whole attack and defence, as we shall explain. First we shall describe the four principal guards, why they are called, ''prime'', ''seconde'', ''tierce'' and ''quarte'', and the origin of these names. Then we shall treat of the divisions of the sword, then of counterpositions, distances, and some other matters which we consider necessary and useful to the good student of this art.</p>
+
<p>In opening our promised work we shall begin with the sword alone, for on the knowledge of the sword depend the principles of all other arms. Many rules will be given which may serve excellently for the sword accompanied by the dagger or any other arm. He who can use the sword alone well will easily learn to use it in conjunction with other arms. You must know then that the rules of the sword are founded on four guards in which are formed all the positions and counter positions. From them arise the ''times'', ''counter-times'', disengagements, counter-disengagements, double disengagements, half disengagements, and re-engagements; nor in short can anything be done in attack or defence which does not partake of the nature of one of these four guards. They are differently formed, as will be seen in the accompanying plates. These we have introduced in order that you may recognise with what variations of position of the sword, feet and body, they are made. We shall describe the nature of each guard in its place and the plates will show the results which may arise from them. The discourses will be such that you will easily see when to apply the various rules, and how to the best advantage you must approach your adversary in order to come within presence. Though one who understands the art may approach as he pleases, since in whatever position he is he will succeed by his knowledge of distances, weak and strong positions, exposed and unexposed parts. Nevertheless it is certain that one position is better than another, and a man may approach with more security when he parries his arms in the proper manner. When within distance he must proceed in various ways, according to the changes made and the opportunities offered by his adversary, and according to the distance in which he finds himself. The distances are two, and what is good in the one is not so in the other. These distances control the whole attack and defence, as we shall explain. First we shall describe the four principal guards, why they are called, ''prime'', ''seconde'', ''tierce'' and ''quarte'', and the origin of these names. Then we shall treat of the divisions of the sword, then of counter-positions, distances, and some other matters which we consider necessary and useful to the good student of this art.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| {{section|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf/9|1|lbl=1}}
 
| {{section|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf/9|1|lbl=1}}
Line 248: Line 248:
  
 
<p>There are some who, in endeavouring to hit with the point, hurl the arm violently forward so as to give it greater force. This method is not good for the reasons which we shall bring forward. In the first place when you rush in with the sword, should your adversary anticipate you and defend the part where you intended to hit, you cannot change your line, as would be necessary, so that the adversary is sure of his defence. If he has also realised the weakest part of your thrust and pushed your sword in the direction in which it is being naturally carried, he will drive it out of line all the more quickly. His defence will be very simple without using any force, because if he pushes the sword in the direction in which it is naturally falling, it will fall the quicker without any resistance. In this manner his ''faible'' is stronger than the ''forte'' of the hitter. Moreover in completing the rush the point of the sword drops so that it cannot hit exactly the point aimed at, and <sup>also</sup> at the end of the extension it is impossible to prevent the arm and sword from dropping to the great advantage of your adversary. Further after one rush it is impossible to make another without withdrawing the arm again, which takes so long that, if the adversary has not hit at the first fall of your sword he could hit while you are withdrawing your arm, and recover before the second rush, with excellent opportunity of parrying and hitting even if he did it in two ''times'', that is parrying first and then hitting. The rule of the two ''times'' then would be good enough against such a method, and all the more successful as those who rush cannot make any good feint; for in feinting they move the foot or the body without advancing the sword, or if they advance it often withdraw it even further than before in order to hit with greater force, a very slow and dangerous ''time''.
 
<p>There are some who, in endeavouring to hit with the point, hurl the arm violently forward so as to give it greater force. This method is not good for the reasons which we shall bring forward. In the first place when you rush in with the sword, should your adversary anticipate you and defend the part where you intended to hit, you cannot change your line, as would be necessary, so that the adversary is sure of his defence. If he has also realised the weakest part of your thrust and pushed your sword in the direction in which it is being naturally carried, he will drive it out of line all the more quickly. His defence will be very simple without using any force, because if he pushes the sword in the direction in which it is naturally falling, it will fall the quicker without any resistance. In this manner his ''faible'' is stronger than the ''forte'' of the hitter. Moreover in completing the rush the point of the sword drops so that it cannot hit exactly the point aimed at, and <sup>also</sup> at the end of the extension it is impossible to prevent the arm and sword from dropping to the great advantage of your adversary. Further after one rush it is impossible to make another without withdrawing the arm again, which takes so long that, if the adversary has not hit at the first fall of your sword he could hit while you are withdrawing your arm, and recover before the second rush, with excellent opportunity of parrying and hitting even if he did it in two ''times'', that is parrying first and then hitting. The rule of the two ''times'' then would be good enough against such a method, and all the more successful as those who rush cannot make any good feint; for in feinting they move the foot or the body without advancing the sword, or if they advance it often withdraw it even further than before in order to hit with greater force, a very slow and dangerous ''time''.
In treating of the rule of the two ''time'', we say that, although it may succeed against some, it is not to be compared with the rule of parrying and hitting at the same time, be-cause the true and safe method is to meet the body as it advances, before it has had time to withdraw and recover. If you then pursue you give an opportunity for parrying and hitting again. It has been our experience, that most of those who observe this rule of two ''times'', if they can engage the adversary's sword, generally beat it in order then to proceed with the stroke. This would be successful but for the danger of being deceived. He whose sword has been beaten on the ''faible'' certainly cannot hit at the same time, as he is thrown into disorder by the beat. But if he happens to disengage he causes the sword which has beaten and missed to drop still further, and has an excellent chance of hitting. Even if he made a feint of beating, so that when the adversary disengaged he might beat in another part, he would still be in danger of being hit, because the adversary might make a feint of disengaging and return, and in this way the one who had meant to beat would not be able to parry. Finally it may be taken as established that it is impossible to beat your adversary's sword without putting your own out of line. Moreover sometimes if you attempt to beat the ''faible'', according to rule, you meet the adversary's ''forte'', which he has pushed forward, so that the beat fails and your adversary proceeds to hit without your being able to prevent him. In dealing with one who does not rush, but controls his sword, even though you beat his ''faible'', his ''forte'' does not move, so that he can parry. Therefore, we conclude for these reasons and for many others which might be adduced, that it is better to parry and hit at the same time, though with the sword alone great judgment is required to effect the two at one moment. As to controlling the sword or thrusting with violence, controlling it is beyond comparison better, first because he who controls his sword, when it is beaten by the adversary, who means to hit in another line, can let it yield in the direction of the beat, and the ''forte'' will still defend, if the sword is held well advanced. Further it is certain that when your sword is beaten, it is immediately freed. Similarly it is more useful to know how to be master of your sword, to engage the adversary's faible and make a hit as opportunity offers, always holding his sword in subjection. If he cannot free his sword he cannot hit. Therefore this rule can be followed only by one who moves his sword without violence, works in such a way as to be always master of it, and if he is prevented by his adversary in any plan can abandon it and adopt another. He will hit at the very moment when his adversary has meant to prevent him, and without deviating his point or withdrawing it he will be able to carry it on to the adversary's body. The principle to be observed is this, that in proceeding to make a hit either by a feint of disengaging or any other change, when once you have begun to approach, the point toward the adversary, you must continue until you reach the body; for if you check the sword in order to disengage or change your line you will not arrive in time. This principle cannot be observed by one who rushes, so that the difference is easily understood. Moreover the sword which is held firm and accompanied by the foot and the body has greater force and exactness. He who so hold[!] it always controls it and does not let it drop after a hit. He has only to withdraw his foot in order to bring his body to safety, unless he has passed, and to engage the adversary's sword again. If your adversary as you withdraw, pursues or advances, you can hit again, defending at the same time. All this is because of the union between the sword, the feet and the body. If this rule is observed in the manner we have described, your parrying will be safe, whereas with the rule of the two ''times'' it is false; this will be better understood in its place.</p>
+
In treating of the rule of the two ''time'', we say that, although it may succeed against some, it is not to be compared with the rule of parrying and hitting at the same time, because the true and safe method is to meet the body as it advances, before it has had time to withdraw and recover. If you then pursue you give an opportunity for parrying and hitting again. It has been our experience, that most of those who observe this rule of two ''times'', if they can engage the adversary's sword, generally beat it in order then to proceed with the stroke. This would be successful but for the danger of being deceived. He whose sword has been beaten on the ''faible'' certainly cannot hit at the same time, as he is thrown into disorder by the beat. But if he happens to disengage he causes the sword which has beaten and missed to drop still further, and has an excellent chance of hitting. Even if he made a feint of beating, so that when the adversary disengaged he might beat in another part, he would still be in danger of being hit, because the adversary might make a feint of disengaging and return, and in this way the one who had meant to beat would not be able to parry. Finally it may be taken as established that it is impossible to beat your adversary's sword without putting your own out of line. Moreover sometimes if you attempt to beat the ''faible'', according to rule, you meet the adversary's ''forte'', which he has pushed forward, so that the beat fails and your adversary proceeds to hit without your being able to prevent him. In dealing with one who does not rush, but controls his sword, even though you beat his ''faible'', his ''forte'' does not move, so that he can parry. Therefore, we conclude for these reasons and for many others which might be adduced, that it is better to parry and hit at the same time, though with the sword alone great judgment is required to effect the two at one moment. As to controlling the sword or thrusting with violence, controlling it is beyond comparison better, first because he who controls his sword, when it is beaten by the adversary, who means to hit in another line, can let it yield in the direction of the beat, and the ''forte'' will still defend, if the sword is held well advanced. Further it is certain that when your sword is beaten, it is immediately freed. Similarly it is more useful to know how to be master of your sword, to engage the adversary's faible and make a hit as opportunity offers, always holding his sword in subjection. If he cannot free his sword he cannot hit. Therefore this rule can be followed only by one who moves his sword without violence, works in such a way as to be always master of it, and if he is prevented by his adversary in any plan can abandon it and adopt another. He will hit at the very moment when his adversary has meant to prevent him, and without deviating his point or withdrawing it he will be able to carry it on to the adversary's body. The principle to be observed is this, that in proceeding to make a hit either by a feint of disengaging or any other change, when once you have begun to approach, the point toward the adversary, you must continue until you reach the body; for if you check the sword in order to disengage or change your line you will not arrive in time. This principle cannot be observed by one who rushes, so that the difference is easily understood. Moreover the sword which is held firm and accompanied by the foot and the body has greater force and exactness. He who so hold[!] it always controls it and does not let it drop after a hit. He has only to withdraw his foot in order to bring his body to safety, unless he has passed, and to engage the adversary's sword again. If your adversary as you withdraw, pursues or advances, you can hit again, defending at the same time. All this is because of the union between the sword, the feet and the body. If this rule is observed in the manner we have described, your parrying will be safe, whereas with the rule of the two ''times'' it is false; this will be better understood in its place.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
Line 263: Line 263:
 
<p>The principal cuts are four; they are delivered in different ways and in different directions, as will be seen in the plate which follows (pl. 1.) with their names. The names are derived from the four principal cuts, that is ''mandiritto'', ''riverso'', ''sottomano'' and ''montante''. They are delivered in various ways, for some deliver them from the shoulder, some from the elbow, some from the wrist, and some again from the shoulder but with the arm extended and stiff, keeping the point always directed towards the adversary. In making the first cut from the shoulder, the arm is raised and makes a circle with the sword in order to strike with greater force. This is the worst of all because of its excessive slowness and because you may easily be hit as you raise the arm, as you let it fall, or after it has fallen; for as the sword is not supported by the adversary's weapon or body, there is nothing to prevent it from passing on behind his back; or if the hit is made downwards, the sword is in danger of being broken on the ground. In either case so much time is lost that your adversary may easily hit. The second method from the elbow also carries the hand out of line, both when it is raised and when it falls after missing, so that in this case too you may be hit, but not so easily, as the sword does not make such a large circle, nor does the raising of the arm uncover so much, nor the sword fall so far. Therefore as the movement is quicker and you remain better covered, this method is better than the first. The third method, made from the wrist downwards with the arm straight, although the sword makes a circle is beyond comparison better than the two first described, since the body is more covered. Nor can you be so easily hit, since it is quicker, and the point in falling remains in such a position that you can parry with the ''forte'' either thrust or cut, and can cut again. Similarly the fourth method with the arm stiff and extended is far better than the two first, since you hit without making a circle with the sword, raising it little or nothing. The sword is allowed to fall on an exposed point, and when your adversary makes a circle with his sword in order to hit, with this fourth method you can continue your stroke, as you will certainly hit before his falls. You will be all the more secure if you have worked with the feet and the body, as you should, because if you remained upright when your sword fell, you could not recover in time, especially if your adversary's cut had been made from the elbow. But if you lower your body the sword is more quickly recovered and has less distance to move in returning to the defence, for as you hit with the arm stiff and extended without bending the wrist, the sword still remains in front and can easily return to the straight line. For this reason the fourth method is better than the two first and in defence better than the third, although it appears to us that the third is much freer or less restricted, and without requiring so much strength has more variety and can more easily deceive the adversary.</p>
 
<p>The principal cuts are four; they are delivered in different ways and in different directions, as will be seen in the plate which follows (pl. 1.) with their names. The names are derived from the four principal cuts, that is ''mandiritto'', ''riverso'', ''sottomano'' and ''montante''. They are delivered in various ways, for some deliver them from the shoulder, some from the elbow, some from the wrist, and some again from the shoulder but with the arm extended and stiff, keeping the point always directed towards the adversary. In making the first cut from the shoulder, the arm is raised and makes a circle with the sword in order to strike with greater force. This is the worst of all because of its excessive slowness and because you may easily be hit as you raise the arm, as you let it fall, or after it has fallen; for as the sword is not supported by the adversary's weapon or body, there is nothing to prevent it from passing on behind his back; or if the hit is made downwards, the sword is in danger of being broken on the ground. In either case so much time is lost that your adversary may easily hit. The second method from the elbow also carries the hand out of line, both when it is raised and when it falls after missing, so that in this case too you may be hit, but not so easily, as the sword does not make such a large circle, nor does the raising of the arm uncover so much, nor the sword fall so far. Therefore as the movement is quicker and you remain better covered, this method is better than the first. The third method, made from the wrist downwards with the arm straight, although the sword makes a circle is beyond comparison better than the two first described, since the body is more covered. Nor can you be so easily hit, since it is quicker, and the point in falling remains in such a position that you can parry with the ''forte'' either thrust or cut, and can cut again. Similarly the fourth method with the arm stiff and extended is far better than the two first, since you hit without making a circle with the sword, raising it little or nothing. The sword is allowed to fall on an exposed point, and when your adversary makes a circle with his sword in order to hit, with this fourth method you can continue your stroke, as you will certainly hit before his falls. You will be all the more secure if you have worked with the feet and the body, as you should, because if you remained upright when your sword fell, you could not recover in time, especially if your adversary's cut had been made from the elbow. But if you lower your body the sword is more quickly recovered and has less distance to move in returning to the defence, for as you hit with the arm stiff and extended without bending the wrist, the sword still remains in front and can easily return to the straight line. For this reason the fourth method is better than the two first and in defence better than the third, although it appears to us that the third is much freer or less restricted, and without requiring so much strength has more variety and can more easily deceive the adversary.</p>
  
<p>He who wishes to make a cut with safety, must wait a fitting opportunity, since he cannot make the stroke in a moment, and the ''time'' might have passed before the sword arrived. You can make a feint in order to put the adversary in subjection, and whilst he is parrying the cut, thrust at him, or make a feint of a thrust, and cut. The latter method would be necessary if you wish to move without waiting, for, if your adversary remained steady, it would not be good to make a feint of a cut in order to thrust, owing to the length of the movement, during which you might be hit. You can, as has been said, make a feint of a thrust in order to cut, and even if he parries the cut, still make a thrust. Further the feint of a cut, when your adversary stands firm, is not good because of the two ''times'' involved in raising and dropping the arm. All the cuts are very long, and he who cuts cannot do so in the ''time'' of a parry (we speak of the sword alone), whilst the adversary has always time to protect himself and even to make a hit when you are trying to parry. It is true that in parrying you can put your adversary in subjection and deprive him of the power to do anything, and even hit him be-fore he can save himself; but of this we shall speak when we treat of the defence and the attack.</p>
+
<p>He who wishes to make a cut with safety, must wait a fitting opportunity, since he cannot make the stroke in a moment, and the ''time'' might have passed before the sword arrived. You can make a feint in order to put the adversary in subjection, and whilst he is parrying the cut, thrust at him, or make a feint of a thrust, and cut. The latter method would be necessary if you wish to move without waiting, for, if your adversary remained steady, it would not be good to make a feint of a cut in order to thrust, owing to the length of the movement, during which you might be hit. You can, as has been said, make a feint of a thrust in order to cut, and even if he parries the cut, still make a thrust. Further the feint of a cut, when your adversary stands firm, is not good because of the two ''times'' involved in raising and dropping the arm. All the cuts are very long, and he who cuts cannot do so in the ''time'' of a parry (we speak of the sword alone), whilst the adversary has always time to protect himself and even to make a hit when you are trying to parry. It is true that in parrying you can put your adversary in subjection and deprive him of the power to do anything, and even hit him before he can save himself; but of this we shall speak when we treat of the defence and the attack.</p>
  
 
<p>Since cutting is not very useful we shall not dilate on it more than is necessary to show the respective merits of the thrust and the cut. Still it is well to be acquainted with both. In cutting greater strength is required, which is a disadvantage. The sword, if it misses, is thrown into disorder, and the body too. Recovery is not so easy, so that you are in more danger than with the thrust. Further it is less deadly; so that in all respects thrusting is more advantageous. With the point you reach further, more quickly and can more easily recover. In brief thrusting is more noble and excellent, for it includes all the subtlety of arms, whereas in cutting there is neither the ''counter-time'' nor the ''time'', since for the most part two ''times'' are involved. We do not intend to discuss this further than we have done in the preceding chapter in relation to the two ''times'', but to consider the more subtle, difficult and profitable points. If for example two men were opposed, one who excelled at the cut and the other at the thrust, without a doubt the latter would prevail for the reasons we have given, though his opponent were the stronger man. We conclude that it is better to use the point only, especially in engagements ''corps à corps'' without armour. With armour we should deem it good to use both; so too against a number of opponents, for the cut causes greater confusion and may parry several thrusts.</p>
 
<p>Since cutting is not very useful we shall not dilate on it more than is necessary to show the respective merits of the thrust and the cut. Still it is well to be acquainted with both. In cutting greater strength is required, which is a disadvantage. The sword, if it misses, is thrown into disorder, and the body too. Recovery is not so easy, so that you are in more danger than with the thrust. Further it is less deadly; so that in all respects thrusting is more advantageous. With the point you reach further, more quickly and can more easily recover. In brief thrusting is more noble and excellent, for it includes all the subtlety of arms, whereas in cutting there is neither the ''counter-time'' nor the ''time'', since for the most part two ''times'' are involved. We do not intend to discuss this further than we have done in the preceding chapter in relation to the two ''times'', but to consider the more subtle, difficult and profitable points. If for example two men were opposed, one who excelled at the cut and the other at the thrust, without a doubt the latter would prevail for the reasons we have given, though his opponent were the stronger man. We conclude that it is better to use the point only, especially in engagements ''corps à corps'' without armour. With armour we should deem it good to use both; so too against a number of opponents, for the cut causes greater confusion and may parry several thrusts.</p>
Line 282: Line 282:
 
<p>In defence of the thrust you must understand that its effect is swifter and more deadily[!]. In defending against it more subtlely[!] and ingenuity are required but less strength. To parry is more dangerous and deceptive owing to the rapid changes which it renders possible. It often happens that although you use the subtle combination of the parry and thrust at the same time, you are still deceived because your adversary, seeing your plan, removes his body out of the line, allows the point to pass and then hits in the part uncovered by the movement; so that avoiding is more subtle in defence and attack against one who makes a ''time''-thrust, if its use is well understood. You must then understand both this and the parry and know how to avail yourself of the one or other as occasion offers. It is even more effective to use both methods together, making half a motion to defend with the sword and half a motion with the body. This defence is quicker, disorders the sword less, and deprives the adversary of the advantage of changing his line. Such avoiding is more useful with the sword alone than with the sword and dagger, but the defence partly with the body and partly with the weapons may be observed in all cases.</p>
 
<p>In defence of the thrust you must understand that its effect is swifter and more deadily[!]. In defending against it more subtlely[!] and ingenuity are required but less strength. To parry is more dangerous and deceptive owing to the rapid changes which it renders possible. It often happens that although you use the subtle combination of the parry and thrust at the same time, you are still deceived because your adversary, seeing your plan, removes his body out of the line, allows the point to pass and then hits in the part uncovered by the movement; so that avoiding is more subtle in defence and attack against one who makes a ''time''-thrust, if its use is well understood. You must then understand both this and the parry and know how to avail yourself of the one or other as occasion offers. It is even more effective to use both methods together, making half a motion to defend with the sword and half a motion with the body. This defence is quicker, disorders the sword less, and deprives the adversary of the advantage of changing his line. Such avoiding is more useful with the sword alone than with the sword and dagger, but the defence partly with the body and partly with the weapons may be observed in all cases.</p>
  
<p>As there are many, who, although they have the sword alone in their hands, base their defence rather on the bare hand than on the sword, we must say something of these. We say then that such a method of fencing should rather be called the sword and glove, than the sword alone, because they not only parry with the hand, but seize the weapon and hold it. We do not think this would succeed with the naked edge of a sword. To protect yourself with a naked hand is a mis-erable defence. Still we will show how to proceed against such men, and how best to use the method in order to save the body and the hand itself, and how to deceive the adversary. It is true that those who use the hand in this way can make larger movements with the sword, since the hand defends in any case of the adversary's making a hit, and successfully when he makes his hit simply in the straight line without disengagement or feint. Still it will not succeed if you hold your sword pointing slightly upwards, just so far that you are certain that your adversary cannot pass or hit before you have directed your point against him. In this position the adversary can neither engage nor reach your sword when on guard; you must take care to attack in an oblique line when you hit, for this is very deceptive to one parrying with the hand, since in the very act of hitting the sword swerves aside. After engaging the adversary's sword, being within distance, taking the ''time'' and the opening, you may proceed to hit by making sure that your point reaches the part aimed at as soon as it takes that direction. You will certainly make a hit before your adversary can find the sword with his hand, if he has not had time to break ground. Moreover you can use various feints according to the position in which you find his hand. Finally it is often easier to hit those who use the hand rather than defend with the sword, because they trust to the hand and take no account of the ''forte'' of their own sword, merely endeavouring to prevent it being engaged by the adversary; therefore they keep the ''forte'' withdrawn, so that they are more exposed. Therefore it is easier to hit them and re-cover before they have brought the ''forte'' forward to the proper distance.</p>
+
<p>As there are many, who, although they have the sword alone in their hands, base their defence rather on the bare hand than on the sword, we must say something of these. We say then that such a method of fencing should rather be called the sword and glove, than the sword alone, because they not only parry with the hand, but seize the weapon and hold it. We do not think this would succeed with the naked edge of a sword. To protect yourself with a naked hand is a miserable defence. Still we will show how to proceed against such men, and how best to use the method in order to save the body and the hand itself, and how to deceive the adversary. It is true that those who use the hand in this way can make larger movements with the sword, since the hand defends in any case of the adversary's making a hit, and successfully when he makes his hit simply in the straight line without disengagement or feint. Still it will not succeed if you hold your sword pointing slightly upwards, just so far that you are certain that your adversary cannot pass or hit before you have directed your point against him. In this position the adversary can neither engage nor reach your sword when on guard; you must take care to attack in an oblique line when you hit, for this is very deceptive to one parrying with the hand, since in the very act of hitting the sword swerves aside. After engaging the adversary's sword, being within distance, taking the ''time'' and the opening, you may proceed to hit by making sure that your point reaches the part aimed at as soon as it takes that direction. You will certainly make a hit before your adversary can find the sword with his hand, if he has not had time to break ground. Moreover you can use various feints according to the position in which you find his hand. Finally it is often easier to hit those who use the hand rather than defend with the sword, because they trust to the hand and take no account of the ''forte'' of their own sword, merely endeavouring to prevent it being engaged by the adversary; therefore they keep the ''forte'' withdrawn, so that they are more exposed. Therefore it is easier to hit them and recover before they have brought the ''forte'' forward to the proper distance.</p>
  
 
<p>It is still easier to succeed against those who first parry with the hand and then rush, which is done by most of those who follow this principle of defence. Nevertheless he who is well trained although he makes use of his hand, controls his sword and observes the ''time''. It is well to know how to do this in case of need, but not as a fundamental principle, as we have said above. He who understands what can be done with the hand, knows the converse even better. As a general rule the hand should never be used except when you can reach the hilt and come to grips, a matter which does not concern us, who wish to treat only of the defence, the methods of making a hit and the advantage of arms, and not of scuffling. However this arises sometimes from accident, so that at the end of the book we shall say something of it. But when such a point is reached, the greatest danger is already passed, of which it is more necessary to treat, in order to show how to avoid it with safety and with damage to the adversary.</p>
 
<p>It is still easier to succeed against those who first parry with the hand and then rush, which is done by most of those who follow this principle of defence. Nevertheless he who is well trained although he makes use of his hand, controls his sword and observes the ''time''. It is well to know how to do this in case of need, but not as a fundamental principle, as we have said above. He who understands what can be done with the hand, knows the converse even better. As a general rule the hand should never be used except when you can reach the hilt and come to grips, a matter which does not concern us, who wish to treat only of the defence, the methods of making a hit and the advantage of arms, and not of scuffling. However this arises sometimes from accident, so that at the end of the book we shall say something of it. But when such a point is reached, the greatest danger is already passed, of which it is more necessary to treat, in order to show how to avoid it with safety and with damage to the adversary.</p>
Line 316: Line 316:
 
<p>A movement made by the adversary within distance is called a ''time''. For whatever is done out of distance can only be called either a movement or a change of front. ''Time'' then means an opportunity to hit or win some advantage over the adversary. This movement is given the name of ''time'' among the movements of fencing in order to convey the idea that at a given point of time it is the only possible movement. When the adversary moves, if you perceive an exposed part and are ready to hit in that part, the adversary will certainly be hit if within distance. For there cannot be two changes in one ''time'', and therefore you must take care that the ''time'' in which you wish to hit is not longer than the ''time'' offered by the adversary. In such a case he would have a chance to parry before your point arrived, and you would be in danger; whereas, if you understand the movement, you would succeed. This is called a ''time''-thrust. Besides understanding the movement you must consider the distance, because if you were within wide distance, even though your adversary moved his weapons or body, provided he did not move his foot there would be no certainty of being able to hit him, even if he were uncovered, for, if his foot were firm, he could break ground, so that your sword would not reach, and you would be in danger. Therefore it would be better to take advantage of his movement to approach within close distance so as to hit with certainty at his first movement with weapons, foot or body, or with both foot and weapons. All these are ''times'' favourable for a hit in an uncovered part. The success would be even greater, when the adversary offers the ''time'' unawares, provided he is not retreating. To be certain of success you must be in counter-position, since, if your adversary has moved first, it is clear that he will not be able to parry and hit except in two ''times'', so that the stroke will be finished before he has parried, and you will be able to break ground before he hits. It is also clear that he will be unable to break ground, as he might have done if he had remained steady. It is sometimes good to beat the adversary's sword within this distance, even if he does not move his foot, for the reason that, if he offers a ''time'' unawares, he will not expect it, as he has not realised that he has given an opportunity of being hit, and therefore he has had time neither to parry nor to break ground.</p>
 
<p>A movement made by the adversary within distance is called a ''time''. For whatever is done out of distance can only be called either a movement or a change of front. ''Time'' then means an opportunity to hit or win some advantage over the adversary. This movement is given the name of ''time'' among the movements of fencing in order to convey the idea that at a given point of time it is the only possible movement. When the adversary moves, if you perceive an exposed part and are ready to hit in that part, the adversary will certainly be hit if within distance. For there cannot be two changes in one ''time'', and therefore you must take care that the ''time'' in which you wish to hit is not longer than the ''time'' offered by the adversary. In such a case he would have a chance to parry before your point arrived, and you would be in danger; whereas, if you understand the movement, you would succeed. This is called a ''time''-thrust. Besides understanding the movement you must consider the distance, because if you were within wide distance, even though your adversary moved his weapons or body, provided he did not move his foot there would be no certainty of being able to hit him, even if he were uncovered, for, if his foot were firm, he could break ground, so that your sword would not reach, and you would be in danger. Therefore it would be better to take advantage of his movement to approach within close distance so as to hit with certainty at his first movement with weapons, foot or body, or with both foot and weapons. All these are ''times'' favourable for a hit in an uncovered part. The success would be even greater, when the adversary offers the ''time'' unawares, provided he is not retreating. To be certain of success you must be in counter-position, since, if your adversary has moved first, it is clear that he will not be able to parry and hit except in two ''times'', so that the stroke will be finished before he has parried, and you will be able to break ground before he hits. It is also clear that he will be unable to break ground, as he might have done if he had remained steady. It is sometimes good to beat the adversary's sword within this distance, even if he does not move his foot, for the reason that, if he offers a ''time'' unawares, he will not expect it, as he has not realised that he has given an opportunity of being hit, and therefore he has had time neither to parry nor to break ground.</p>
  
<p>But you must bear in mind that there are some men who cunningly offer a ''time'', that you may attempt a hit, and at the same time they parry and hit. This is called a ''counter-time''. Whenever you are hit or make a hit at the moment when your adversary is extended to hit, it is called a hit in ''counter-time''. Similarly it sometimes happens that both are hit at the same moment; this is because one of them has not timed the ''counter-time'' well, or that in offering the ''time'' he was too close, or that he has made too large a movement. To avoid the danger of this ''counter-time'', you must realise before you make your movement, whether it is so great, that you could approach nearer, and also whether your adversary has moved with the intention of enticing you to hit. In that case you should either not proceed, or you should carry your sword towards the line uncovered by the adversary, and when he moves to make the ''counter-time'', you should then change your line to the part uncovered by his movement, avoiding his point with your body. In this way the deception planned by him will be turned against himself. In truth this science of arms is merely the science of deceiving your adversary with subtlety.</p>
+
<p>But you must bear in mind that there are some men who cunningly offer a ''time'', that you may attempt a hit, and at the same time they parry and hit. This is called a ''counter-time''. Whenever you are hit or make a hit at the moment when your adversary is extended to hit, it is called a hit in ''counter-time''. Similarly it sometimes happens that both are hit at the same moment; this is because one of them has not timed the ''counter-time'' well, or that in offering the ''time'' he was too close, or that he has made too large a movement. To avoid the danger of this ''counter-time'', you must realise before you make your movement, whether it is so great, that you could approach nearer, and also whether your adversary has moved with the intention of enticing you to hit. In that case you should either not proceed, or you should carry your sword towards the line uncovered by the adversary, and when he moves to make the ''counter-time'', you should then change your line to the part uncovered by his movement, avoiding his point with your body. In this way the deception planned by him will be turned against himself. In truth this science of arms is merely the science of deceiving your adversary with subtlety.</p>
  
 
<p>When therefore you are within close distance you can hit at every movement or change of your adversary, however small, provided he does not break ground; for if in giving a ''time'' he carries hit foot back he so lengthens the ''time'' in which you may hit, that he has a good chance of parrying and hitting; for he being the first to move is also the first to finish the movement. This advantage he would not have if he stood firm, and tried to break ground, while you were making a hit; for your point would arrive before he was out of distance, nor could he parry. Therefore it is not good to be the first to save when within close distance, except to retreat. You must also know that within this distance you may often hit without waiting for a ''time'' by the simple advantage of the counter- position, and by understanding how to move in making a hit and how your adversary moves in parrying; also owing to the fact that there are many exposed parts in such a position. Therefore you must contrive to have your point so near the adversary's body, that the time required for your hit is less than the time he needs to defend himself. You must also contrive that your adversary's sword is so far distant from yours, that it is clear when you advance that he can engage only with the ''forte'' for then your sword cannot be thrust aside but will continue on its path to complete the stroke.</p>
 
<p>When therefore you are within close distance you can hit at every movement or change of your adversary, however small, provided he does not break ground; for if in giving a ''time'' he carries hit foot back he so lengthens the ''time'' in which you may hit, that he has a good chance of parrying and hitting; for he being the first to move is also the first to finish the movement. This advantage he would not have if he stood firm, and tried to break ground, while you were making a hit; for your point would arrive before he was out of distance, nor could he parry. Therefore it is not good to be the first to save when within close distance, except to retreat. You must also know that within this distance you may often hit without waiting for a ''time'' by the simple advantage of the counter- position, and by understanding how to move in making a hit and how your adversary moves in parrying; also owing to the fact that there are many exposed parts in such a position. Therefore you must contrive to have your point so near the adversary's body, that the time required for your hit is less than the time he needs to defend himself. You must also contrive that your adversary's sword is so far distant from yours, that it is clear when you advance that he can engage only with the ''forte'' for then your sword cannot be thrust aside but will continue on its path to complete the stroke.</p>
Line 331: Line 331:
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
| <p>[11] ''What is "disengagement, counter-disengagement,'' double disengagement, half disengagement, re-engagement, and how and when they should be used.</p>
+
| <p>[11] '''What is "disengagement, counter-disengagement,''' double disengagement, half disengagement, re-engagement, and how and when they should be used.</p>
  
 
<p>When your adversary attempts to engage your sword or to beat it, and you change from one line to another, before he can beat or engage, you are said to make a disengagement in ''time''. If, while your adversary is disengaging, you follow his movement, which he has begun in order to get the superiority, and let your sword go after his, so that you engage him in the same line as before, that is called a counter-disengagement. If you have disengaged and your adversary has also disengaged and you then deceive his engagement, that is a double disengagement. If, without completing the change from one line to another, you leave your sword under the adversary's, you make a half disengagement. If you disengage and, when your adversary moves to engage or to make a hit, you engage again where you were before, you are said to re-engage - - -.To make a successful disengagement you must bend forward — so that, when the disengagement is completed, the lunge is completed, if you wish to hit, otherwise you will not be in time. If you follow this principle, your adversary will not be able to parry, if you have taken the ''time'', though he may counter-disengage, if that was his intention in seeking to engage. If he had meant simply to get the superiority or to beat he would certainly be hit. If in seeking to engage your sword, the adversary remains steady, then you must disengage in order to free your sword. This gives him an opportunity for a counter-disengagement, for he has moved at the same time as you disengaged. Then to protect yourself you must make a double disengagement and thrust in the same ''time'', in which he has meant to hit you with a counter-disengagement. Some remain steady in seeking to engage in order to make the adversary disengage and so hit him in the straight line, before he has completed the disengagement. In such a case if the adversary, who has begun to disengage, returns to the same line as before, carrying his ''forte'' to your ''faible'' and thrusting on to the body, he will save himself and certainly hit at the moment you meant to hit. The half disengagement is used when you are in doubt that the adversary may pass to your body, before you have completed,[!] the disengagement, since your point would be out of presence and could not hit. Therefore you make a half disengagement to save time, and remain below the adversary's sword in order to hit, removing your body out of presence, as we shall explain in its place. Such a half disengagement is not always used in the first passes, but more often in the second and third movements, as the distance is shortened. The effects produced by these disengagements will be seen in the plates.</p>
 
<p>When your adversary attempts to engage your sword or to beat it, and you change from one line to another, before he can beat or engage, you are said to make a disengagement in ''time''. If, while your adversary is disengaging, you follow his movement, which he has begun in order to get the superiority, and let your sword go after his, so that you engage him in the same line as before, that is called a counter-disengagement. If you have disengaged and your adversary has also disengaged and you then deceive his engagement, that is a double disengagement. If, without completing the change from one line to another, you leave your sword under the adversary's, you make a half disengagement. If you disengage and, when your adversary moves to engage or to make a hit, you engage again where you were before, you are said to re-engage - - -.To make a successful disengagement you must bend forward — so that, when the disengagement is completed, the lunge is completed, if you wish to hit, otherwise you will not be in time. If you follow this principle, your adversary will not be able to parry, if you have taken the ''time'', though he may counter-disengage, if that was his intention in seeking to engage. If he had meant simply to get the superiority or to beat he would certainly be hit. If in seeking to engage your sword, the adversary remains steady, then you must disengage in order to free your sword. This gives him an opportunity for a counter-disengagement, for he has moved at the same time as you disengaged. Then to protect yourself you must make a double disengagement and thrust in the same ''time'', in which he has meant to hit you with a counter-disengagement. Some remain steady in seeking to engage in order to make the adversary disengage and so hit him in the straight line, before he has completed the disengagement. In such a case if the adversary, who has begun to disengage, returns to the same line as before, carrying his ''forte'' to your ''faible'' and thrusting on to the body, he will save himself and certainly hit at the moment you meant to hit. The half disengagement is used when you are in doubt that the adversary may pass to your body, before you have completed,[!] the disengagement, since your point would be out of presence and could not hit. Therefore you make a half disengagement to save time, and remain below the adversary's sword in order to hit, removing your body out of presence, as we shall explain in its place. Such a half disengagement is not always used in the first passes, but more often in the second and third movements, as the distance is shortened. The effects produced by these disengagements will be seen in the plates.</p>
Line 356: Line 356:
 
<p>You should know too that feints should be made against the nearest exposed parts, for the sword cannot reach the distant ones, nor hit those which are unexposed. You must not fruitlessly put yourself in danger, but if you realise the distance and what part is exposed you will obtain good results. If you work in this manner the feint cannot so easily be recognised by the adversary, so that, if he does not parry, he will be hit; while, if he parries, you can change line and hit. It is still better to wait for the adversary to offer some ''time'' or uncover some part, since he would be sure to conclude that you had taken the ''time'' from his movement and would rush to the defence more precipitately, and you could hit him the more easily; nor could he himself hit in that ''time'', so that your security is greater.</p>
 
<p>You should know too that feints should be made against the nearest exposed parts, for the sword cannot reach the distant ones, nor hit those which are unexposed. You must not fruitlessly put yourself in danger, but if you realise the distance and what part is exposed you will obtain good results. If you work in this manner the feint cannot so easily be recognised by the adversary, so that, if he does not parry, he will be hit; while, if he parries, you can change line and hit. It is still better to wait for the adversary to offer some ''time'' or uncover some part, since he would be sure to conclude that you had taken the ''time'' from his movement and would rush to the defence more precipitately, and you could hit him the more easily; nor could he himself hit in that ''time'', so that your security is greater.</p>
  
<p>If when within distance you uncover some part in order to give your adversary a chance to hit, you are said to make an ''appel''. You must consider the distance and be careful that his sword is not so near that it might arrive before you had finished the movement of the ''appel''. You must decide whether it is better to advance while he is moving, or to retire in order to have time to parry and hit. Therefore in making the ''appel'' it is not good to move the feet, because you could bring them neither forward nor backword[!] in time; besides the danger of being hit through the slowness of the movement. But the ''appel'' can very well be made in withdrawing or approaching the body according to the nature of the distance, because the movement of the body is very quick, and if properly made does not prevent your raising the feet in time. An ''appel'' should be made when you see that your adversary is about to lunge in order to encourage him to stick to his purpose. Such an ''ap-pel'' is made to deceive him; but if he perceived it he might deceive you, as we noted in treating of the deception of ''time'' and ''counter-time''. An ''appel'' is simply giving time in order to invite the adversary to hit, with the object of hitting him. When your adversary desires to do something, it is better to encourage his desire rather than prevent it, so that his action will be more hurried. It is much better to know what he means to do and to let him do it, than to wait for him to do something unforeseen. It often happens that you are hit without knowing how or why. Therefore you must know your adversary's intentions in order to resist him better. Attack him in ''time'' and protect yourself.</p>
+
<p>If when within distance you uncover some part in order to give your adversary a chance to hit, you are said to make an ''appel''. You must consider the distance and be careful that his sword is not so near that it might arrive before you had finished the movement of the ''appel''. You must decide whether it is better to advance while he is moving, or to retire in order to have time to parry and hit. Therefore in making the ''appel'' it is not good to move the feet, because you could bring them neither forward nor backword[!] in time; besides the danger of being hit through the slowness of the movement. But the ''appel'' can very well be made in withdrawing or approaching the body according to the nature of the distance, because the movement of the body is very quick, and if properly made does not prevent your raising the feet in time. An ''appel'' should be made when you see that your adversary is about to lunge in order to encourage him to stick to his purpose. Such an ''appel'' is made to deceive him; but if he perceived it he might deceive you, as we noted in treating of the deception of ''time'' and ''counter-time''. An ''appel'' is simply giving time in order to invite the adversary to hit, with the object of hitting him. When your adversary desires to do something, it is better to encourage his desire rather than prevent it, so that his action will be more hurried. It is much better to know what he means to do and to let him do it, than to wait for him to do something unforeseen. It often happens that you are hit without knowing how or why. Therefore you must know your adversary's intentions in order to resist him better. Attack him in ''time'' and protect yourself.</p>
  
 
|  
 
|  
Line 370: Line 370:
 
| <p>[13] '''On lunging and passing'''.</p>
 
| <p>[13] '''On lunging and passing'''.</p>
  
<p>To lunge is to hit by carrying the right foot forward towards the adversary and withdrawing it immediately after hitting, or to hit by a movement of the body, keeping the foot firm. To pass is to carry both the feet on right to the adversary's body. It is necessary to understand the lunge, as it is in the most common use, and therefore must be the first thing to practise, in order that you may learn how to advance the point accurately and to the full extent. The hand is fallible and may hit in a spot different from the one intended, according to the amount of the distance. This depends on the changed position of the wrist as it is extended more or less, causing the sword to fall short or go too far, in accordance with the angle of its direction, in order to learn how to drive the sword sufficiently far you must accompany it by bending the body forward and recovering it quickly after hitting, in order to save yourself from danger. Practice is required to learn how to carry yourself, and when you can do this well you will find it very profitable, for it will make the body agile, the feet quick, and give you judgment of dis-tances. You will then certainly make a lunge longer than before practice.</p>
+
<p>To lunge is to hit by carrying the right foot forward towards the adversary and withdrawing it immediately after hitting, or to hit by a movement of the body, keeping the foot firm. To pass is to carry both the feet on right to the adversary's body. It is necessary to understand the lunge, as it is in the most common use, and therefore must be the first thing to practise, in order that you may learn how to advance the point accurately and to the full extent. The hand is fallible and may hit in a spot different from the one intended, according to the amount of the distance. This depends on the changed position of the wrist as it is extended more or less, causing the sword to fall short or go too far, in accordance with the angle of its direction, in order to learn how to drive the sword sufficiently far you must accompany it by bending the body forward and recovering it quickly after hitting, in order to save yourself from danger. Practice is required to learn how to carry yourself, and when you can do this well you will find it very profitable, for it will make the body agile, the feet quick, and give you judgment of distances. You will then certainly make a lunge longer than before practice.</p>
  
 
<p>To make this kind of hit well you must stand with your feet not too far apart, so that you can advance further in hitting, or according to circumstances withdraw by bringing back the foot, leaning the weight of the body on the foot which is to remain steady, so that the other may be more agile and easy to lift, for these reasons it is not good to be on guard with the left foot forward, because you cannot make a long lunge without passing; whilst if you tried to pass with the rear foot and to return you would find the movement too long; besides you would go too far to be able to return in time. For these reasons and many others which we omit it is not good to be on guard with the left foot forward, unless you are waiting for your adversary to try a hit, so that you may at that moment withdraw your left foot, parry, and hit him at the same instant. This method may succeed, because the body changes its front and withdraws, the right side remaining in front for the attack. But if your adversary does not come on, you should not attack him, since it is better to have the right side in front; you can hit in shorter time and save yourself more promptly, as the foot and the body make smaller movements. After hitting it is good to carry the right foot behind the left and to continue with the left behind the right in order to rest on the right foot, for in this way you will withdraw so far that your adversary cannot hit, unless he has hit in ''counter-time''. This guard of the left foot will be more useful with the sword and dagger than with the sword alone. But it is better to stand with the right foot forward, and immediately after hitting draw it back close to the left, for in this case if your adversary follows you can advance it again, and also you can step backwards with the left, as you see an opportunity, hitting at the same time as the adversary follows.</p>
 
<p>To make this kind of hit well you must stand with your feet not too far apart, so that you can advance further in hitting, or according to circumstances withdraw by bringing back the foot, leaning the weight of the body on the foot which is to remain steady, so that the other may be more agile and easy to lift, for these reasons it is not good to be on guard with the left foot forward, because you cannot make a long lunge without passing; whilst if you tried to pass with the rear foot and to return you would find the movement too long; besides you would go too far to be able to return in time. For these reasons and many others which we omit it is not good to be on guard with the left foot forward, unless you are waiting for your adversary to try a hit, so that you may at that moment withdraw your left foot, parry, and hit him at the same instant. This method may succeed, because the body changes its front and withdraws, the right side remaining in front for the attack. But if your adversary does not come on, you should not attack him, since it is better to have the right side in front; you can hit in shorter time and save yourself more promptly, as the foot and the body make smaller movements. After hitting it is good to carry the right foot behind the left and to continue with the left behind the right in order to rest on the right foot, for in this way you will withdraw so far that your adversary cannot hit, unless he has hit in ''counter-time''. This guard of the left foot will be more useful with the sword and dagger than with the sword alone. But it is better to stand with the right foot forward, and immediately after hitting draw it back close to the left, for in this case if your adversary follows you can advance it again, and also you can step backwards with the left, as you see an opportunity, hitting at the same time as the adversary follows.</p>
Line 394: Line 394:
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
|  
+
| <p>[14] '''On holding the sword extended, straight, at an angle and withdrawn.'''</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>There are various ways of holding the sword and the arm, as will be seen in the following plates, which will illustrate the variety of the guards. Since one method is better than another we shall treat of the principal ones, reserving a fuller discussion until we treat of the nature of the guards. They will be illustrated separately on the plates. Some hold the sword at an angle and the arm a little advanced towards the knee with the hand in ''tierce'', or slightly outwards towards the guard in ''seconde''. Others hold the arm withdrawn and the sword in such a manner as to make a straight line from the elbow to the point. Others extend the arm as far as possible and hold the sword straight, making a straight line from the shoulder to the point of the sword. This method is very cautious, because it keeps the adversary at a distance, but is very fatiguing, and the sword is weaker than with the other guards because of the distance of the hand from the body. In this position your sword is more easily engaged by the adversary and great pains are needed to keep it free. When you can do this, the position is a great impediment to your adversary, because he cannot approach so as to hit, seeing the point so near, and cannot advance owing to the same danger, unless he can engage the point and drive it out of presence. Even though he places the ''forte'' of his sword against your ''faible'' and tries to hit, it would hardly succeed, since there is little uncovered and he cannot hit unless his ''faible'' passes your ''forte'', which you could easily prevent, if he tries to hit below, he will easily be hit above, for your sword being nearer and already extended must arrive first. Therefore in order to hit more safely he must remove your sword, and seizing the chance carry his body out of line on the one side or the other and pass on to the body. For he cannot hit until he has passed the point nor save himself or his recovery; therefore it is better for him to follow on. This method is the more likely to succeed, as it is difficult for one who holds his sword thus extended and high to maintain his point in line since with but a small movement his adversary could pass out of line. He could easily pass underneath by lowering his body. It is however true that one who forms this guard properly holds his sword extended and keeps his feet close together, so that the lower parts are kept withdrawn, as they are more exposed and difficult to protect. Also he can then advance further in hitting and similarly retreat, if his adversary approaches too near. For with this guard the adversary must be kept at a distance, otherwise he would find it easy to pass. For the same reasons the guard is a good defense against cuts, since the ''forte'' of the sword is already pushed forward, to that the adversary's sword cannot fall without meeting it. If ht tries to hit below, he cannot reach before one, who holds his sword extended, has arrived with the fourth part of his blade. If he keeps his feet close together, he can reach all the further, although the extended arm is in greater danger. Still it is easy to defend by a slight motion towards the part threatened by the sword, lowering the point more or less, as the cut is high or low, and keeping the point in line. Certainly you should often practise this guard in order to learn how to hit without hurling the arm forward. You must hit, but you must keep the arm steady, and let the motion of the foot and the body suffice. This guard will teach you to hold your sword close to the adversary, where you can more easily hit him, and similarly to keep it free. Some hesitate to advance the sword, lest it should be engaged and subjected by the adversary.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>You will learn also to hold the arm correctly, and after such practice, when the opportunity comes, you will act more promptly and correctly. One who is unpractised often makes a mistake of too much or too little, and is not sure in his defence; moreover he does not extend so far as if he had practised. Those who hold the sword at an angle in ''tierce'' with the hand before the knee, or in ''seconde'' with the arm outside, have a stronger hold of the sword, but the body is too much expos-<ref>There's no conclusion of this word on the next page, just a new sentence.</ref> Your adversary can approach further, and with this ''tierce'' you cannot disengage, as with your sword at such an angle it would take too long. In the ''seconde'' although the sword is at angle you can easily disengage; but both of them are bad in defence against an opponent who can thrust in the straight line, because such thrusts come to the body without approaching the ''forte'' of the sword held at an angle, so that in the effort to parry you would have to make a large movement and often would be too late. Even if you are in time the movement is so slow, that your adversary may easily change either into another straight line, or into an angle, as opportunity offers. For a thrust at an angle is most likely to pass, but thrusts in the straight line cannot pass one another; if of equal force they will nullify each other. If you hit it will be because your thrust was stronger by having engaged his ''faible'' better. The weaker will always be driven out of the line, and the other will pass on and hit. But the thrust at an angle passes on and hits without a junction of the blades; such thrusts rather yield to one another, and therefore are very likely to pass and hit the part aimed at. Further one who fences with his sword at an angle can change only by a large movement. It is impossible that his point and hand should not make a large circle in the direction in which he has moved, all the larger if he changes from one angle to another, and incomparably larger if he disengages. The movement, however, would be smaller, if the change is from an angle to a straight line, but would still be so large that, if within distance, he would be hit. To hold the sword at an angle is well enough for thrusting, but not for the defence. To proceed against such a guard with security it is necessary to be able to use the advantage not only of the sword, but of the body and the foot, and to realise well the strength of the angle, otherwise while hitting you will also be hit.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>To hold the arm withdrawn and the sword straight, forming a straight line from the elbow to the point, is a better rule. In this manner you can better acquire the superiority, hit and parry, and on occasion disengage more swiftly, since your body is more defended by the ''forte'' and the point is more easily maintained in line. Still you should know how to use any method at need, for you cannot understand the nature of what you have not practised, nor to what it may lead. You must remember that one rule will not serve for all cases, but each has its appropriate end, and what is good in one case will not serve in another. Therefore, as we have already said, you must be rich in devices and understand the time when they may be used.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>To adopt the safest position for the body and the best for the sword you must hold the arm not quite extended, but still rather extended than withdrawn, and the sword in a straight line, or inclined slightly outwards according to the position of your adversary. In this manner your guard will be the best and your body safe with respect to the ''forte'' of the sword, which can defend with little movement, as it is already advanced. Your sword will be stronger than with the arm fully extended, and in every case you are more master of it and can use it with more variety. It is less restricted and less fatiguing, nor is it so easy to pass under the guard as with the arm extended. You can change your position according to the occasion, and keeping the ''forte'' always in its place you will defend with ease, if you use it in the proper manner. This guard is better than the other when remaining steady against your adversary, though our opinion is that you should remain steady in no position for long. Though you may be more secure than your adversary, yet all have defects. Therefore the judicious man, seeing his adversary steady in any position, will not only realise the fact, but know how to proceed against him and hit him. Also he will understand what such an adversary can do in attack and defence. But if he finds his adversary is not steady, he cannot so easily estimate the position, although from the first putting of hands to the sword and the manner in which the sword is carried, he will come to understand where to take advantage. Of this we shall treat in the second book, when we shall explain whether it is better to remain steady in presence and await a ''time''.[!] or to attack without a pause.</p>
 +
 
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
Line 405: Line 414:
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
|  
+
| <p>[15] '''Whether it is better to carry the body high or low.'''</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>To defend the body with ease you must know whether it is better to keep it upright or to bend it. You must consider that a body is very large compared to the blade of a sword, which though moderately long is still very narrow and insufficient to cover the body. The larger the body the greater the difficulty the sword has in defending it owing to the large movements required in defending the uncovered parts of the body.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>In this matter some put forward certain reasons saying that the upright position is more natural, not so dangerous for the head, quicker for movement, less fatiguing and less restricted than the position when the body is bent. We say that some of these reasons are true, and some not. First because in the upright position you are in more danger, and cannot so readily attack, since you must make a great movement in defending the body and cannot make an extension without bending; in bending your movement is so great that you cannot recover in time. Being upright there is lack of union in your movements and less strength. Similarly your weapons are weaker.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>When you understand how to control the figure and stand without strain, to stand low is more useful. But if you cannot do this it is better to stand upright, for if you are in a strained posture you cannot be quick to move. Whereas a body bent at a suitable angle and well balanced on the feet is much securer being less exposed, and can be defended with little movement of the weapons. The forces are more united, and this union generates vivacity and swiftness of movement in one who is well used to this position. To take up this position in the required manner needs practise and entails fatigue. But afterwards it will be found more quickly and easily; you will be readier and safer in every case, will defend yourself without getting into disorder, hit more swiftly and reach further. The reason is that being already bent the body goes forward without a great movement. Still in this position you must take care to rest the body on one foot only, so that the foot which has to move will be free and go quickly, otherwise it would be late. You cannot lift the foot without lifting the weight, and though it may appear that you can do both at the same time, nevertheless such a movement is slower. Further if you can work in union with both weapons and body you will be in less danger as to the head, since it will be nearer the ''forte'', and you will be more ready to pass on the one side or the other, and better able to retire than when upright.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>If a man could make himself so small that his weapons would cover him entirely, it would be well; but since this is not possible, you must at least cover as much as possible, and protect yourself, which will be equally good, taking care to do so without constraint, so that you may work with agility in all cases. Thus the fatigue which you undergo in practising will be less than the benefit you derive from it. It is a matter of defending both life and honour. He who can conduct himself against his adversary with greater circumspection and security, will deserve greater praise and acquire greater honour. It is clear that sometimes a great victory depends on a small advantage.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
Line 416: Line 433:
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
|  
+
| <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>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>A strong man also has a great advantages[!] over a weak man.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The basis of his procedure should be gaining the superiority over his adversary's sword, when he can easily drive it into disorder and hit while it is moving. For when a weaker sword tries to resist a stronger by changing from one position to another, it is driven out of line, so that the stronger man may easily hit. If he has lunged, he can recover, and repeat the effort. If the stronger man desires to pass, that too would be good, for when he came to grips he would likewise have a great advantage. On the other hand a weak man against a strong man must always avoid his sword, lest he engage. Nor should he parry, when the strong man hits, for it is often seen that the ''faible'' of one man is stronger than the ''forte'' of another; thus the weaker man would be deceived thinking to defend with his ''forte''. Even where there were no great difference between the swords, when for example the one sword found not so much of the ''faible'', and the other not so much of the ''forte'', since in certain cases a single hand has more power than two hands, it would still be better not to parry, if possible. For even if the defence were sound, the sword would receive such a shock that it would be very difficult to hit at the same time, unless the subtle method of reaching the body before the other touches your sword were followed. For in this ease the adversary's body strengthens his sword. The alternative for the weaker man is to avoid and free his sword, not to attempt to advance on his adversary. Also it is always good for the weaker man to defend by withdrawing his body a little so as to feel the shock of the thrust less in parrying; though it is better to parry cuts by advancing, as the cut has not the power of the lunge. He must keep his adversary at the point of his sword, so that he cannot pass, remembering that to let him come to grips, would be the worse for him, the weaker. If the heavier man passes and jostles him, he would disconcert him so that he could do nothing, and before he recovered the heavier man would have done many things. Thus it is not good for a weak man to try to acquire distance, but to contrive to keep out of distance, not to let his sword be engaged, but on different occasions to incite his adversary to hit by offering a ''time''; or to make a feint of offering his sword, so that the adversary may believe he can engage, and whilst he is moving, break ground a little, and thrust at the part uncovered by the heavier man, so that he may be hit as he comes on, and, thinking he has passed, find the weaker man is away by having broken ground, so that he cannot reach him. The stronger man will thus be disordered and may be hit before he recovers, if the weaker man has not already hit and brought himself immediately back into safety, with the intention of letting his adversary's sword pass in vain, saving himself with his body and feet. Therefore for these reasons it seems clear that it is ill for a weaker man to attack a stronger man; it is better for him to stand on the watch with the idea of defending himself by the advantage of distance.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Again in dealing with a choleric or violent opponent you should endeavour to provoke him to attack, so as to hit him when he comes. It would be ill to seek to approach him and come to grips without the advantage of the point; but rather you should encourage his fury, giving him opportunities in order to cause his downfall more easily; while he is approaching you can advance, or retreat according to circumstances, in order to defend your self[!] and hit at the same time, and before he passes. On the other hand, if you have to deal with a phlegmatic opponent who waits, then you can attack; but take care you are not deceived, for often in the desire to hit and the belief that you have merely to frighten your adversary to the defensive, you are yourself hit; whereas if you wait and are restrained, you may easily defend and hit. Therefore you must always consider the danger, with whomsoever you are matched; you must never rashly despise your adversary, but always be on the watch for whatever may happen and ready for all accidents.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Our discourse so far has been to show the principles on which the science and practise of the sword are founded. We have omitted many things which we might have said, and have had regard only for what seemed to us more useful and necessary, and more in accordance with the use of the present time. Now we shall treat of the nature of the guards and movements, illustrated by the plates. In each guard the illustration will be double to show the position of the right and the left side of the body.</p>
 +
 
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
Line 427: Line 459:
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
|  
+
| <p>[17] '''General discourse on the guards.'''</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We have now reached the point when we must treat of the formation of the principal guards, and movements and the results obtained in arms. We must first warn the reader not to wonder if he sees two figures illustrating one result. This is done to represent the right and the left side of the body. On the other hand we have thought it unimportant and idle to treat of many other guards of which some authors have written; for instance a guard with the dagger extended and the sword thrown behind, now on one foot and now on the other, now high, now low, which seems to us to defend the rear rather than the front. Others with the sword alone have kept it so far back and low, that the point was near the point of their feet, and also they held the sword across the legs and with the point almost on the ground, and all this that the sword might not be engaged. Sometimes on guard they take the blade in the left hand to give it strength, in order to beat the adversary's sword and hit. All these things we have omitted as inappropriate and, more often harmful than useful, and in any case tedious to the reader. Perhaps it had been better to have passed them in silence, but some might have thought we had not seen or considered such things; - therefore we have made some mention of them, as of the practice of throwing the sword at the adversary, when fighting with the sword alone; some think this an essential movement, but we deem it of little value; it may succeed against those who leave the sword free or hold their own too stiff, but against those who engage their adversary's sword and can disengage, it effects nothing, rather he who adopts this method will always be beaten. Therefore we shall not treat of it further in the present work, but shall try to give such discourses, as when well considered can bring you such counsel and judgment, that, when you see your adversary approaching sword in hand in whatever manner, you will recognise the principles he is following as well as he himself. These results are illustrated by plates, from which you may expect great benefit. To these are added the discourses not only as an explanation of the results, but also in order that you may discover the intention of one who uses them and so anticipate your adversary's thoughts and prepare yourself before the result follows.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Similarly the reader must not wonder seeing these extensions of the sword, feet and body; they are merely to show how you must proceed, when on guard, when passing, parrying, and hitting. Some swords will be long and some short; tall and short bodies will be seen, according as they are held more or less low, or as they are held upright or bent. These things will explain the guards formed both in the defence and the attack, the position of the body and the movements to be made, the one differing from the other according to the occasion. After these simple illustrations will follow others, in which will be revealed the parries and the hits which may arise from them, and their causes will be considered; you will understand that all movements of attack and defence must be made in ''time'', when you have the sword alone in your hand. Other plates will then follow with short discourses; where necessary we shall discuss them at sufficient length, but where it is not necessary we shall leave them to the consideration of the reader. In these cases we shall explain merely the position from which the hit followed, how it is defended, and what was the guard formed before this result. In short we shall try to give such instruction, that you may easily learn what to do in any position, when you encounter an adversary, both what your adversary can do in attacking and how to defend, and similarly the changes of line which may be made, and in what distances, wide or close, of these distances we shall treat in different places, now of the one, now of the other, in order that you may understand within which distance a stroke is made.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
Line 444: Line 480:
  
 
|-  
 
|-  
| rowspan="2" | [[file:GKS 1868 1 detail 00.jpg|400px|center]]
+
| [[file:GKS 1868 1 detail 00.jpg|400px|center]]
| rowspan="2" | [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) Segno.jpg|400px|center]]
+
| [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) Segno.jpg|400px|center]]
|  
+
| <p>[18] '''Discourse of the plate showing the nature of the cuts and where they hit.'''</p>
|
+
 
| {{section|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf/35|1|lbl=27}}
+
<p>This plate shows the nature of all the cuts, which a hand can make. The names are placed against them so that you may see where each of them naturally hits, although they may hit higher or lower according to whether they are made with the hand or the arm. At least their path is seen, and from a knowledge of that follows a knowledge of the second point, what sort of defence can he made in order to parry them and hit at the same time. Therefore the names on the plate are placed not in the part from which the cuts are delivered, but where they hit; for the cut of ''mandiritto'' is delivered from the right and hits the adversary's left shoulder, and the cut of ''riverso'' is delivered from the left and hits somewhere on the right side, as may be seen. Whoever examines and ponders on these cuts, will easily discover the principles of proceed¬ing against each one of them, bearing in mind that even if all the cuts are made by the same arm they may not have the same strength, and therefore against the stronger it is necessary to find a stronger defence in order to resist and hit. Although it might appear that we should here treat of the differences in the cuts, still we think we have treated of them sufficiently in speaking of the defence and the attack, and of thrusting and cutting. It is our intention to base our instruction, not on these, but on more subtle and profitable principles.</p>
|
 
|
 
 
|  
 
|  
 +
| {{section|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf/34|2|lbl=27}}
  
|-
+
{{section|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf/35|1|lbl=-}}
|
 
|
 
| {{section|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf/34|2|lbl=-}}
 
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
Line 467: Line 499:
 
| [[file:GKS 1868 1 detail 01.jpg|400px|center]]
 
| [[file:GKS 1868 1 detail 01.jpg|400px|center]]
 
| [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) 001.jpg|400px|center]]
 
| [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) 001.jpg|400px|center]]
|  
+
| <p>[19] '''Discourse on the guard in prime formed in drawing the sword from the scabbard.'''</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>This plate (the second in order) shows the position into which the hand goes in drawing the sword from the scabbard, wherefore its name of the guard in ''prime''. It cannot be held to be very secure, since the sword is too much withdrawn and the body entirely exposed owing to the height of the sword, which brings the ''forte'' very far from the body, so that it cannot defend the exposed part below in time. In this case you would have to defend with the hand, unless you broke ground, otherwise you would be hit before parrying. If you wished to hit after the parry you could lower the point a little, abandoning his sword, and make a cut, or a rush, but as this would be a hit in two ''times'' it would not be very successful. As to the head it is sufficiently defended by the guard, and more on the outside than the inside. But we shall form another guard which is safer, with which you can await your adversary or advance. With the present one an advance would be very dangerous; therefore this position of the body and the sword should be used on breaking ground rather than at any other time.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| {{section|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf/35|2|lbl=-}}
 
| {{section|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf/35|2|lbl=-}}

Revision as of 02:54, 30 April 2022

Salvator Fabris
200px
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 (1606)
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. Originally "richeide", but corrected in the errata.
  8. Originally "dirarsi", but corrected in the errata.
  9. Originally "longuezza", but corrected in the errata.
  10. Originally "mettre", but corrected in the errata.
  11. Originally "volto", but corrected in the errata.
  12. There's no conclusion of this word on the next page, just a new sentence.
  13. Originally "occcsione", but corrected in the errata.
  14. There's no conclusion of this word on the next page, just a new sentence.
  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. Originally "della", but corrected in the errata.
  36. Originally "la dette", but corrected in the errata.
  37. Originally "è passare", but corrected in the errata.
  38. The errata adds "l’".
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. Should be 183.
  42. Originally "ineguale", but corrected in the errata.