Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Salvator Fabris"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 287: Line 287:
 
<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>

Revision as of 04:08, 3 June 2022

Salvator Fabris
Born 1544
Padua, Italy
Died 11 Nov 1618 (aged 74)
Padua, Italy
Occupation
Nationality Italian
Alma mater University of Padua (?)
Patron
  • Christianus Ⅳ of Denmark
  • Johan Frederik of Schleswig-
    Holstein-Gottorp
Influenced
Genres Fencing manual
Language Italian
Notable work(s) Scienza d’Arme (1601-06)
Manuscript(s)
Translations

Salvator Fabris (Salvador Fabbri, Salvator Fabriz, Fabrice; 1544-1618) was a 16th – 17th century Italian knight and fencing master. He was born in or around Padua, Italy in 1544, and although little is known about his early years, he seems to have studied fencing from a young age and possibly attended the prestigious University of Padua.[citation needed] The French master Henry de Sainct Didier recounts a meeting with an Italian fencer named "Fabrice" during the course of preparing his treatise (completed in 1573) in which they debated fencing theory, potentially placing Fabris in France in the early 1570s.[1] In the 1580s, Fabris corresponded with Christian Barnekow, a Danish nobleman with ties to the royal court as well as an alumnus of the university.[2] It seems likely that Fabris traveled a great deal during the 1570s and 80s, spending time in France, Germany, Spain, and possibly other regions before returning to teach at his alma mater.[citation needed]

It is unclear if Fabris himself was of noble birth, but at some point he seems to have earned a knighthood. In fact, he is described in his treatise as Supremus Eques ("Supreme Knight") of the Order of the Seven Hearts. In Johann Joachim Hynitzsch's introduction to the 1676 edition, he identifies Fabris as a Colonel of the Order.[3] It seems therefore that he was not only a knight of the Order of the Seven Hearts, but rose to a high rank and perhaps even overall leadership.

Fabris' whereabouts in the 1590s are uncertain, but there are rumors. In 1594, he may have been hired by King Sigismund of Poland to assassinate his uncle Karl, a Swedish duke and competitor for the Swedish crown. According to the story, Fabris participated in a sword dance (or possibly a dramatic play) with a sharp sword and was to slay Karl during the performance when the audience was distracted. (The duke was warned and avoided the event, saving his life.)[4] In ca. 1599, Fabris may have been invited to England by noted playwright William Shakespeare to choreograph the fight scenes in his premier of Hamlet.[5][2] He also presumably spent considerable time in the 1590s developing the fencing manual that would guarantee his lasting fame.

What is certain is that by 1598, Fabris had left his position at the University of Padua and was attached to the court of Johan Frederik, the young duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp. He continued in the duke's service until 1601, and as a parting gift prepared a lavishly-illustrated, three-volume manuscript of his treatise entitled Scientia e Prattica dell'Arme (GI.kgl.Saml.1868 4040).[2]

In 1601, Fabris was hired as chief rapier instructor to the court of Christianus Ⅳ, King of Denmark and Duke Johan Frederik's cousin. He ultimately served in the royal court for five years; toward the end of his tenure and at the king's insistence, he published his opus under the title Sienza e Pratica d’Arme ("Science and Practice of Arms") or De lo Schermo, overo Scienza d’Arme ("On Defense, or the Science of Arms"). Christianus funded this first edition and placed his court artist, Jan van Halbeeck, at Fabris' disposal to illustrate it; it was ultimately published in Copenhagen on 25 September 1606.[2]

Soon after the text was published, and perhaps feeling his 62 years, Fabris asked to be released from his six-year contract with the king so that he might return home. He traveled through northern Germany and was in Paris, France, in 1608. Ultimately, he received a position at the University of Padua and there passed his final years. He died of a fever on 11 November 1618 at the age of 74, and the town of Padua declared an official day of mourning in his honor. In 1676, the town of Padua erected a statue of the master in the Chiesa del Santo.

The importance of Fabris' work can hardly be overstated. Versions of his treatise were reprinted for over a hundred years, and translated into German at least four times as well as French and Latin. He is almost universally praised by later masters and fencing historians, and through the influence of his students and their students (most notably Hans Wilhelm Schöffer), he became the dominant figure in German fencing throughout the 17th century and into the 18th.

Treatise

Additional Resources

References

  1. Didier, Henry de Sainct. Les secrets du premier livre sur l'espée seule. Paris, 1573. pp 5-8.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Fabris, Salvator and Leoni, Tom. Art of Dueling: Salvator Fabris' Rapier Fencing Treatise of 1606. Highland Village, TX: Chivalry Bookshelf, 2005. pp XVIII-XIX.
  3. Fabris, Salvator and Leoni, Tom. Art of Dueling: Salvator Fabris' Rapier Fencing Treatise of 1606. Highland Village, TX: Chivalry Bookshelf, 2005. p XXIX.
  4. Andersson, Henrik. Salvator Fabris as a Hired Assassin in Sweden. Association for Renaissance Martial Arts. Retrieved 2011-12-18.
  5. Barbasetti, Luigi. Fencing Through the Ages.[Full citation needed]
  6. Originally "asseruatore", but corrected in the errata.
  7. This seems like a mistranslation of rompere di misura at first blush, but according to Kevin Murakoshi, this is an archaic piece of fencing jargon that was still current in the early 20th century. It means to "break measure" or withdraw. ~ Michael Chidester
  8. Originally "richeide", but corrected in the errata.
  9. Originally "dirarsi", but corrected in the errata.
  10. Originally "longuezza", but corrected in the errata.
  11. Originally "mettre", but corrected in the errata.
  12. Originally "volto", but corrected in the errata.
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 There's no conclusion of this word on the next page, just a new sentence.
  14. Originally "occcsione", but corrected in the errata.
  15. Originally "albassare", but corrected in the errata.
  16. Originally "& migliore", but corrected in the errata.
  17. Originally "temerariemente", but corrected in the errata.
  18. Originally "bisogna", but corrected in the errata.
  19. The letter 'F' was omitted in the print and hand-corrected in all copies.
  20. Originally "guardia", but corrected in the errata.
  21. Originally "equali", but corrected in the errata.
  22. Originally "poco", but corrected in the errata.
  23. Originally "poco", but corrected in the errata.
  24. Originally "non buoni", but corrected in the errata.
  25. Originally "queui", but corrected in the errata.
  26. Originally "che spada", but corrected in the errata.
  27. Originally "accorgendosi", but corrected in the errata.
  28. Originally "con pugnale", but corrected in the errata.
  29. Originally "mouendolo", but corrected in the errata.
  30. Originally "diuersi", but corrected in the errata.
  31. Originally "dentro la spada", but corrected in the errata.
  32. Originally "andere", but corrected in the errata.
  33. Originally "richede", but corrected in the errata.
  34. Originally "in suoi", but corrected in the errata.
  35. This word can't be read on the photos I have. It's a 6-letter word that seems to end in "s?ed". The Italian word means to move or advance, and Tom Leoni translates it as "fling".
  36. Originally "della", but corrected in the errata.
  37. Originally "la dette", but corrected in the errata.
  38. Originally "è passare", but corrected in the errata.
  39. The errata adds "l’".
  40. Originally "farmarsi", but corrected in the errata. The errata says it should be on page 232, but this is the only instance of the word in the book.
  41. This large blank space was probably meant to be filled in later with a suitable translation for brezza, which means "breeze" though that's obviously not the intended meaning here. It might be a spelling of brecca, meaning "breach". Tom Leoni translates it "rampart". ~ Michael Chidester
  42. Originally "sforza", but corrected in the errata. The errata says it should be on page 241, but this is the only instance of the word on the correct line.
  43. Should be 183.
  44. Originally "ineguale", but corrected in the errata.