Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Salvator Fabris"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 218: Line 218:
 
<p>If you wish to form a sound counter-position, the position of the body and arms must be such that without touching the adversary's sword you are defended in the straight line from the point of his sword to your body, so that without making any movement of the body or the sword you are sure that your adversary cannot hit you in that line, but that if he wishes to attack he must move his sword elsewhere, with the result that his ''time'' is so long, that there is every opportunity to parry. But in forming this position care must be taken that your sword is held in such a way as to be stronger than your adversary's, so that it may offer resistance in defence. This rule can be observed against all positions and changes of your adversary, whether accompanied by the dagger or any other defensive weapon, or when you use the sword alone. He who can most subtly maintain this guard will have a great advantage over his adversary.</p>
 
<p>If you wish to form a sound counter-position, the position of the body and arms must be such that without touching the adversary's sword you are defended in the straight line from the point of his sword to your body, so that without making any movement of the body or the sword you are sure that your adversary cannot hit you in that line, but that if he wishes to attack he must move his sword elsewhere, with the result that his ''time'' is so long, that there is every opportunity to parry. But in forming this position care must be taken that your sword is held in such a way as to be stronger than your adversary's, so that it may offer resistance in defence. This rule can be observed against all positions and changes of your adversary, whether accompanied by the dagger or any other defensive weapon, or when you use the sword alone. He who can most subtly maintain this guard will have a great advantage over his adversary.</p>
  
<p>But it often happens that when you form this guard, your adversary forms another against it. Often also this guard is formed so far out of distance that your adversary can wait until you begin to move your foot against him, and at the moment of year advance change his line, so that you are disconcerted another counter-position. Therefore you must be full of devices and be able in a moment to take up another position of advantage against that of your adversary and make a fresh guard, unless you are so far within distance that you can hit him daring this change, and if in changing he has not retired, since if he had retired you could not hit him even if you had been within distance. You must then take up another counter-position and approach at the same time, to regain the same distance as before. In forming this counter-position you must bear in mind the rule, that the body must be so far distant that the adversary cannot hit, or, if you have approached within distance so that he could hit by advancing his foot, you must form the counter-position without moving the feet. In this way, if the adversary should attempt to hit during the movement, you could parry and hit him, or break ground;<ref>This seems like a mistranslation of ''rompere di misura'' at first blush, but according to Kevin Murakoshi, this is an archaic piece of fencing jargon that was still current in the early 20th century. It means to withdraw/"break measure". ~Michael Chidester</ref> in the latter case his sword, would not reach. But if in moving your weapons to take up this advantage, you have moved slowly, you could then abandon your object and hit at the very moment in which your adversary advanced to attack, parrying at the same time. So that if the first movement is made without violence, you can abandon your attempt and make another, as opportunity offers. In short, if you wish to get within distance with some safety, you must first form the counter-position, and if disconcerted by your adversary's counter-position, it will be better to break ground than to approach, until there is an opportunity to get an advantage.</p>
+
<p>But it often happens that when you form this guard, your adversary forms another against it. Often also this guard is formed so far out of distance that your adversary can wait until you begin to move your foot against him, and at the moment of year advance change his line, so that you are disconcerted another counter-position. Therefore you must be full of devices and be able in a moment to take up another position of advantage against that of your adversary and make a fresh guard, unless you are so far within distance that you can hit him daring this change, and if in changing he has not retired, since if he had retired you could not hit him even if you had been within distance. You must then take up another counter-position and approach at the same time, to regain the same distance as before. In forming this counter-position you must bear in mind the rule, that the body must be so far distant that the adversary cannot hit, or, if you have approached within distance so that he could hit by advancing his foot, you must form the counter-position without moving the feet. In this way, if the adversary should attempt to hit during the movement, you could parry and hit him, or break ground;<ref>This seems like a mistranslation of ''rompere di misura'' at first blush, but according to Kevin Murakoshi, this is an archaic piece of fencing jargon that was still current in the early 20th century. It means to withdraw/"break measure". ~ Michael Chidester</ref> in the latter case his sword, would not reach. But if in moving your weapons to take up this advantage, you have moved slowly, you could then abandon your object and hit at the very moment in which your adversary advanced to attack, parrying at the same time. So that if the first movement is made without violence, you can abandon your attempt and make another, as opportunity offers. In short, if you wish to get within distance with some safety, you must first form the counter-position, and if disconcerted by your adversary's counter-position, it will be better to break ground than to approach, until there is an opportunity to get an advantage.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| {{section|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf/11|2|lbl=-}}
 
| {{section|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf/11|2|lbl=-}}
Line 2,542: Line 2,542:
 
<p>The first method which we discussed on this subject of attacking with resolution is good, because you begin to acquire the advantage so far out of distance, that the adversary cannot hit. Yet it appears that the danger is revealed to the adversary too soon, so that he has good opportunity to change his line in order to disorder you, and ample time in which to employ various devices for his protection. The second method also is good, since it forms a secure guard with only one exposed part and that part so near the sword hand that it cannot be reached without passing your ''forte''. With this guard also your sword, as we have shown, is kept so free, that few disengagements are needed. If it were not in other respects so restricted, and you were not under the constraint of keeping your own steady it would be better than the first. Nevertheless considering the imperfections of these two methods, and particularly that defending oneself when the adversary cannot attack is a loss of time and a disadvantage, since it reveals your intentions to him and gives him a chance of finding a remedy, we have sought for another way of proceeding, a third method, which reveals nothing to the adversary until his body is in danger. This method when properly executed, will hit with such swiftness that the adversary not only has no time for so many changes, but can barely parry the first onslaught.</p>
 
<p>The first method which we discussed on this subject of attacking with resolution is good, because you begin to acquire the advantage so far out of distance, that the adversary cannot hit. Yet it appears that the danger is revealed to the adversary too soon, so that he has good opportunity to change his line in order to disorder you, and ample time in which to employ various devices for his protection. The second method also is good, since it forms a secure guard with only one exposed part and that part so near the sword hand that it cannot be reached without passing your ''forte''. With this guard also your sword, as we have shown, is kept so free, that few disengagements are needed. If it were not in other respects so restricted, and you were not under the constraint of keeping your own steady it would be better than the first. Nevertheless considering the imperfections of these two methods, and particularly that defending oneself when the adversary cannot attack is a loss of time and a disadvantage, since it reveals your intentions to him and gives him a chance of finding a remedy, we have sought for another way of proceeding, a third method, which reveals nothing to the adversary until his body is in danger. This method when properly executed, will hit with such swiftness that the adversary not only has no time for so many changes, but can barely parry the first onslaught.</p>
  
<p>The foundation of this method is the certainty that the adversary cannot hit before you are within distance; therefore there is no necessity to defend or to hold your sword steady in any position. You should advance towards the outside, until your feet are within distance; it is of no importance which foot is first. The time to carry the forte to the adversary's ''faible'' is when lifting the foot to bring it within distance, in order to exclude his sword without stopping; you should run along his blade in order to hit with your sword, feet and body in union and without rushing; for if he should then break ground he would have time not only to parry but to hit also. By advancing in union you can change in time, as you should do if on the  inside when he parries; you should in that case change from ''tierce'' to ''seconde'', lower the body and continue your advance when you will hit at the moment of his attempted parry; but in turning from ''tierce'' to ''seconde'' you must drop your point under his arm, keeping the hand in the same place and bend the body so as to hit in the right side. If your adversary has succeeded in parrying by breaking ground after you have engaged his sword and advanced to hit, he can no longer bring his point into line as for example he could have done, if you had stopped and made an interval between engaging his sword and advancing, for your plan would have been too slow. Similarly if you had [rushed]<ref>This word can't be read on the photos I have. It's a 6-letter word that seems to end in "s?ed". The Italian word means to move or advance, and Tom Leoni translates it as "fling".</ref> your body or sword forward or hurried your steps, you would have been at a disadvantage, since you could not have turned a second plan, but rather would have been in danger of being hit.</p>
+
<p>The foundation of this method is the certainty that the adversary cannot hit before you are within distance; therefore there is no necessity to defend or to hold your sword steady in any position. You should advance towards the outside, until your feet are within distance; it is of no importance which foot is first. The time to carry the forte to the adversary's ''faible'' is when lifting the foot to bring it within distance, in order to exclude his sword without stopping; you should run along his blade in order to hit with your sword, feet and body in union and without rushing; for if he should then break ground he would have time not only to parry but to hit also. By advancing in union you can change in time, as you should do if on the  inside when he parries; you should in that case change from ''tierce'' to ''seconde'', lower the body and continue your advance when you will hit at the moment of his attempted parry; but in turning from ''tierce'' to ''seconde'' you must drop your point under his arm, keeping the hand in the same place and bend the body so as to hit in the right side. If your adversary has succeeded in parrying by breaking ground after you have engaged his sword and advanced to hit, he can no longer bring his point into line as for example he could have done, if you had stopped and made an interval between engaging his sword and advancing, for your plan would have been too slow. Similarly if you had [rushed]<ref>This word can't be read on the photos I have. It's a 6-letter word that seems to end in "s?ed". The Italian word means to move or advance, and Tom Leoni translates it as "fling".</ref> your body or sword forward or hurried your steps, you would have been at a disadvantage, since you could not have turned a second plan, but rather would have been in danger of being hit. ~ Michael Chidester</p>
  
 
<p>You should adopt the same method of advancing with resolution if your adversary on your first approach to engage his sword parries without breaking ground, since before he forced your sword you could hit and pass. But if when making this parry he breaks ground, it is then better to disengage, before he touches your sword; here is the difficulty, because if you move your sword on first seeking his, you cannot disengage in time. Therefore you must advance in such a way that the movement of disengaging shall not be opposite to your other movement; if by accident your hand fell, you could not lift it again in time, if your adversary advanced to meet your sword. But if your point is carried with such ease that you can abandon your first plan and adopt another according to the occasion and with the necessary skill the method will be very deceptive, since, when within distance, you engage your adversary's sword and while he expects to meet and resist your sword you disengage and advance the other foot, so that he can no longer return into line nor do anything but hit below by a half-disengagement; in that case you have only a small movement of the point to make and to lower the body to the line in which his sword is directed; you will continue on your course, exclude his sword and certainly hit. But if the adversary, while you are attacking his sword disengages or advances, rather than breaks ground, he will be hit before he has finished the disengage. If he disengages and breaks ground in order to find your ''faible'' again, then you should counter-disengage and advance, when you will hit at the same time; this will be easier and shorter than seeking his sword and disengaging, before he touches your sword. If the adversary changes his guard, when he breaks ground, raising or lowering his point or withdrawing it, in every case you should continue your advance and again seek his sword as soon as you are within distance, but in such a manner that in whatever way he tries to hit, you can keep on your course, parrying and hitting together. From the position and the distance between your adversary and yourself you will understand what he can do in defence and attack, how he can disturn and impede your sword and how to guard against it. For if you do not foresee what may heppen[!], the opportunity passes so quickly that there is no time to form a plan.</p>
 
<p>You should adopt the same method of advancing with resolution if your adversary on your first approach to engage his sword parries without breaking ground, since before he forced your sword you could hit and pass. But if when making this parry he breaks ground, it is then better to disengage, before he touches your sword; here is the difficulty, because if you move your sword on first seeking his, you cannot disengage in time. Therefore you must advance in such a way that the movement of disengaging shall not be opposite to your other movement; if by accident your hand fell, you could not lift it again in time, if your adversary advanced to meet your sword. But if your point is carried with such ease that you can abandon your first plan and adopt another according to the occasion and with the necessary skill the method will be very deceptive, since, when within distance, you engage your adversary's sword and while he expects to meet and resist your sword you disengage and advance the other foot, so that he can no longer return into line nor do anything but hit below by a half-disengagement; in that case you have only a small movement of the point to make and to lower the body to the line in which his sword is directed; you will continue on your course, exclude his sword and certainly hit. But if the adversary, while you are attacking his sword disengages or advances, rather than breaks ground, he will be hit before he has finished the disengage. If he disengages and breaks ground in order to find your ''faible'' again, then you should counter-disengage and advance, when you will hit at the same time; this will be easier and shorter than seeking his sword and disengaging, before he touches your sword. If the adversary changes his guard, when he breaks ground, raising or lowering his point or withdrawing it, in every case you should continue your advance and again seek his sword as soon as you are within distance, but in such a manner that in whatever way he tries to hit, you can keep on your course, parrying and hitting together. From the position and the distance between your adversary and yourself you will understand what he can do in defence and attack, how he can disturn and impede your sword and how to guard against it. For if you do not foresee what may heppen[!], the opportunity passes so quickly that there is no time to form a plan.</p>
Line 3,441: Line 3,441:
 
|  
 
|  
 
| [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) 178.jpg|400px|center]]
 
| [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) 178.jpg|400px|center]]
| <p>[27] From the preceeding[!] ''tierce'' with the point of the sword against the first part of the adversary's blade has followed this hit. When within close distance you have taken the ''time'' offered by the adversary in carrying the point of his sword away from his dagger in its circular movement and have disengaged between his weapons in ''quarte''; he has been unable either to parry with his dagger or to turn his hand to ''seconde'' because of the advance of your sword, which had already hit when he tried to parry; for this purpose he bent his body thinking to escape the imminent danger, but when he turned his hand to ''seconde'', your body had already passed. You have hit with the dagger also at the same time, while he was occupied in the effort of defending himself from your sword, and because he was so impeded, that even if he had tried to hit with his dagger, he could not have done so, because his arm would have been imprisoned by your arm, which had passed so far forward, that he could hardly have seen anything. This hit with the dagger has been introduced to show that you can also hit with the dagger; if we have not spoken of it before, although there has often been an opportunity, it is because we have deemed it better to confine our attention to use of the sword. Moreover those who pass with resolution have no need to hit with the dagger or to fear the adversary's dagger, because when you pass and hit the sword penetrates entirely and removes all danger. Therefore you can pass without fear of his dagger, assuming that no one is so foolish as to let your sword pass through his body in order to hit you with his dagger; even if an opponent did that, he would generally be thrown to the ground before he could hit. Moreover since he is forced to parry with his dagger, he cannot hit in ''time'', whilst on the other hand by advancing with resolution , when the adversary's point is passed, you can leave it without hesitation, and carry your dagger to his body. Therefore it is clear that he who passes can hit with the dagger better than he who waits, whose lack of resolution is increased by seeing his opponent close upon him and his sword engaged, so that he can parry with the dagger only; his dagger being engaged on one task cannot perform the other. Therefore he who passes has always the advantage, and if he does not hit with the sword, can hit with the dagger, but if he hits with the sword, he will not need the other. We might already have treated of this manner of hitting, but our intention has been to consider the point of the sword, which attacks from a greater distance, takes and offers the times of hitting, and also is the first to strike terror and attack. For these reasons we have desired to consider a subject, which is more subtle and profitable. We have added this short discourse to show the error of those who reject the pass from fear of being hit by the adversary's dagger. We have also omitted for the sake of brevity the consideration of the broad-sword and many other kinds of weapons, of which there would have been much to say. Moreover such arms are not used among gentlemen nor in chance meetings, though they are excellent when campaigning or &emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;<ref>This large blank space was probably meant to be filled in later with a suitable translation for ''brezza'', which means "breeze" though that's obviously not the intended meaning here. It might be a spelling of ''brecca'', meaning "breach". Tom Leoni translates it "rampart".</ref> but such matters are far from our subject, since we intend to treat only of the arms of gentlemen and of cases which may arise in the association of noblemen. Of these things we believe we have treated at sufficient length; it remains only to throw light on some extraordinary accidents, which may arise, although rarely. For this purpose we shall add another short discourse showing the method of defence on such occasions.</p>
+
| <p>[27] From the preceeding[!] ''tierce'' with the point of the sword against the first part of the adversary's blade has followed this hit. When within close distance you have taken the ''time'' offered by the adversary in carrying the point of his sword away from his dagger in its circular movement and have disengaged between his weapons in ''quarte''; he has been unable either to parry with his dagger or to turn his hand to ''seconde'' because of the advance of your sword, which had already hit when he tried to parry; for this purpose he bent his body thinking to escape the imminent danger, but when he turned his hand to ''seconde'', your body had already passed. You have hit with the dagger also at the same time, while he was occupied in the effort of defending himself from your sword, and because he was so impeded, that even if he had tried to hit with his dagger, he could not have done so, because his arm would have been imprisoned by your arm, which had passed so far forward, that he could hardly have seen anything. This hit with the dagger has been introduced to show that you can also hit with the dagger; if we have not spoken of it before, although there has often been an opportunity, it is because we have deemed it better to confine our attention to use of the sword. Moreover those who pass with resolution have no need to hit with the dagger or to fear the adversary's dagger, because when you pass and hit the sword penetrates entirely and removes all danger. Therefore you can pass without fear of his dagger, assuming that no one is so foolish as to let your sword pass through his body in order to hit you with his dagger; even if an opponent did that, he would generally be thrown to the ground before he could hit. Moreover since he is forced to parry with his dagger, he cannot hit in ''time'', whilst on the other hand by advancing with resolution , when the adversary's point is passed, you can leave it without hesitation, and carry your dagger to his body. Therefore it is clear that he who passes can hit with the dagger better than he who waits, whose lack of resolution is increased by seeing his opponent close upon him and his sword engaged, so that he can parry with the dagger only; his dagger being engaged on one task cannot perform the other. Therefore he who passes has always the advantage, and if he does not hit with the sword, can hit with the dagger, but if he hits with the sword, he will not need the other. We might already have treated of this manner of hitting, but our intention has been to consider the point of the sword, which attacks from a greater distance, takes and offers the times of hitting, and also is the first to strike terror and attack. For these reasons we have desired to consider a subject, which is more subtle and profitable. We have added this short discourse to show the error of those who reject the pass from fear of being hit by the adversary's dagger. We have also omitted for the sake of brevity the consideration of the broad-sword and many other kinds of weapons, of which there would have been much to say. Moreover such arms are not used among gentlemen nor in chance meetings, though they are excellent when campaigning or &emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;<ref>This large blank space was probably meant to be filled in later with a suitable translation for ''brezza'', which means "breeze" though that's obviously not the intended meaning here. It might be a spelling of ''brecca'', meaning "breach". Tom Leoni translates it "rampart". ~ Michael Chidester</ref> but such matters are far from our subject, since we intend to treat only of the arms of gentlemen and of cases which may arise in the association of noblemen. Of these things we believe we have treated at sufficient length; it remains only to throw light on some extraordinary accidents, which may arise, although rarely. For this purpose we shall add another short discourse showing the method of defence on such occasions.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| {{pagetb|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf|251|lbl=241|p=1}} {{pagetb|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf|252|lbl=242|p=1}}
 
| {{pagetb|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf|251|lbl=241|p=1}} {{pagetb|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf|252|lbl=242|p=1}}

Revision as of 00:20, 7 May 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. This seems like a mistranslation of rompere di misura at first blush, but according to Kevin Murakoshi, this is an archaic piece of fencing jargon that was still current in the early 20th century. It means to withdraw/"break measure". ~ Michael Chidester
  8. Originally "richeide", but corrected in the errata.
  9. Originally "dirarsi", but corrected in the errata.
  10. Originally "longuezza", but corrected in the errata.
  11. Originally "mettre", but corrected in the errata.
  12. Originally "volto", but corrected in the errata.
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 There's no conclusion of this word on the next page, just a new sentence.
  14. Originally "occcsione", but corrected in the errata.
  15. Originally "albassare", but corrected in the errata.
  16. Originally "& migliore", but corrected in the errata.
  17. Originally "temerariemente", but corrected in the errata.
  18. Originally "bisogna", but corrected in the errata.
  19. The letter 'F' was omitted in the print and hand-corrected in all copies.
  20. Originally "guardia", but corrected in the errata.
  21. Originally "equali", but corrected in the errata.
  22. Originally "poco", but corrected in the errata.
  23. Originally "poco", but corrected in the errata.
  24. Originally "non buoni", but corrected in the errata.
  25. Originally "queui", but corrected in the errata.
  26. Originally "che spada", but corrected in the errata.
  27. Originally "accorgendosi", but corrected in the errata.
  28. Originally "con pugnale", but corrected in the errata.
  29. Originally "mouendolo", but corrected in the errata.
  30. Originally "diuersi", but corrected in the errata.
  31. Originally "dentro la spada", but corrected in the errata.
  32. Originally "andere", but corrected in the errata.
  33. Originally "richede", but corrected in the errata.
  34. Originally "in suoi", but corrected in the errata.
  35. This word can't be read on the photos I have. It's a 6-letter word that seems to end in "s?ed". The Italian word means to move or advance, and Tom Leoni translates it as "fling".
  36. Originally "della", but corrected in the errata.
  37. Originally "la dette", but corrected in the errata.
  38. Originally "è passare", but corrected in the errata.
  39. The errata adds "l’".
  40. Originally "farmarsi", but corrected in the errata. The errata says it should be on page 232, but this is the only instance of the word in the book.
  41. This large blank space was probably meant to be filled in later with a suitable translation for brezza, which means "breeze" though that's obviously not the intended meaning here. It might be a spelling of brecca, meaning "breach". Tom Leoni translates it "rampart". ~ Michael Chidester
  42. Originally "sforza", but corrected in the errata. The errata says it should be on page 241, but this is the only instance of the word on the correct line.
  43. Should be 183.
  44. Originally "ineguale", but corrected in the errata.