Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Salvator Fabris"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1,100: Line 1,100:
 
| <p>[52] <br/><br/></p>
 
| <p>[52] <br/><br/></p>
  
<p>This hit under the sword on the outside may be made in ''tierce'' or in ''quarte'' against a ''quarte'', according as the arm is carried outwards more or less, and may arise in this way: your adversary has tried to engage your sword on the inside. You have disengaged and he has tried to hit in ''quarte'' under the sword. After disengaging you have withdrawn the body, in order to have time to return your sword to the lower lines before he could reach. You have succeeded, and dropping the hand and figure at the same moment have again found his ''faible'' with your ''forte'', and hit him in the right side as he turned. Or you may suppose the position has arisen, when you tried to engage your adversary's sword on the outside, he being in ''seconde'' .[!] In that ''time'' he has changed from ''seconde'' to ''quarte'', turning his left foot, in order to hit under the sword and let your sword pass. At the same moment you have carried your body on to the left foot, returned your sword to the lower lines on the outside, and thus made the hit shown.</p>
+
<p>This ''seconde'' against a ''quarte'' has arisen as follows: your adversary being in ''quarte'' has tried to engage your sword in ''tierce'' on the outside and you have disengaged on the inside, still in ''tierce''. The adversary, taking the ''time'' of the disengage, has tried to hit in ''quarte'' in the line uncovered, turning his body. You have changed from ''tierce'' to ''seconde'', dropping your body and sword under his sword and letting it pass in the air above. Or it might happen that you have moved and tried to engage his sword on the outside, with the hand in ''quarte'', in order to have greater strength in the line where his sword was, and in order to be more covered on the inside. Your adversary has disengaged on the inside and made a ''quarte'' in order to hit above the hilt in the line seen to be uncovered. Then you have changed from ''quarte'' to ''seconde'', and, lowering your whole body below the position where the hilt was, have carried forward the right foot in such a manner, that his sword has passed in the air and you have made the hit shown.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| <p><br/><br/></p>
 
| <p><br/><br/></p>
Line 1,116: Line 1,116:
 
| <p>[53] <br/><br/></p>
 
| <p>[53] <br/><br/></p>
  
<p>This ''seconde'' against a ''quarte'' has arisen as follows: your adversary being in ''quarte'' has tried to engage your sword in ''tierce'' on the outside and you have disengaged on the inside, still in ''tierce''. The adversary, taking the ''time'' of the disengage, has tried to hit in ''quarte'' in the line uncovered, turning his body. You have changed from ''tierce'' to ''seconde'', dropping your body and sword under his sword and letting it pass in the air above. Or it might happen that you have moved and tried to engage his sword on the outside, with the hand in ''quarte'', in order to have greater strength in the line where his sword was, and in order to be more covered on the inside. Your adversary has disengaged on the inside and made a ''quarte'' in order to hit above the hilt in the line seen to be uncovered. Then you have changed from ''quarte'' to ''seconde'', and, lowering your whole body below the position where the hilt was, have carried forward the right foot in such a manner, that his sword has passed in the air and you have made the hit shown.</p>
+
<p>Now follows a hit in ''prime'' against a ''seconde''. Both being in ''tierce'' on the inside, you have tried to engage your adversary's sword; he has taken the ''time'' when you were trying to subject his sword, and has disengaged on the outside, changing his hand to ''seconde'' and advancing to hit over the sword in the line you have uncovered in trying to subject his sword. But you, seeing the disengage and the blow intended, have taken that ''time'', changed from ''tierce'' to ''prime'', lowering the whole body, so that the head is entirely covered and defended by the hilt and right arm, and have pushed out the ''seconde'', for in the change to ''prime'' your hilt has gone so high as to cover the point aimed at by the adversary with his ''seconde''; with the result that his point, which was to hit ''above'', has remained ''below'' and excluded by your ''forte''. Or you may have tried to engage the adversary's sword, and he has tried cut of ''riverso'' at the arm in the part seen uncovered; you by a change from ''tierce'' to ''prime'' have defended yourself and covered your arm with the ''forte''. Therefore the adversary has failed to effect[!] anything and has been hit in the same ''time''.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| <p><br/><br/></p>
 
| <p><br/><br/></p>
Line 1,132: Line 1,132:
 
| <p>[54] <br/><br/></p>
 
| <p>[54] <br/><br/></p>
  
<p></p>
+
<p>This hit in ''quarte'' against ''seconde'' has arisen in this manner. Both being in ''tierce'' on the inside, you have tried to engage your adversary's sword, and he has meant to change from ''tierce'' to ''seconde'' and drop under your sword in the time, when your point was out of line. Therefore you, seeing his plan, have not completed the engagement, but have directed your point to his body, carrying the hilt where you had planned to put the point; you have turned the body and the right foot, carrying it forward and leaving your hand against the adversary's ''faible''. In this manner you are defended and have reached him whilst he was lowering his body and advancing. Equally it might occur that he was in ''seconde'' on the inside, and that you have tried to engage his sword. He has intended to disengage in ''seconde'' in order to hit on the outside above the sword. You have disengaged, carried the hilt where you meant to put the point, and by the turn of the body, foot and hand, have hit at the moment your adversary thought to hit.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| <p><br/><br/></p>
 
| <p><br/><br/></p>
Line 1,149: Line 1,149:
 
| <p>[55] <br/><br/></p>
 
| <p>[55] <br/><br/></p>
  
<p>Now follows a hit in ''prime'' against a ''seconde''. Both being in ''tierce'' on the inside, you have tried to engage your adversary's sword; he has taken the ''time'' when you were trying to subject his sword, and has disengaged on the outside, changing his hand to ''seconde'' and advancing to hit over the sword in the line you have uncovered in trying to subject his sword. But you, seeing the disengage and the blow intended, have taken that ''time'', changed from ''tierce'' to ''prime'', lowering the whole body, so that the head is entirely covered and defended by the hilt and right arm, and have pushed out the ''seconde'', for in the change to ''prime'' your hilt has gone so high as to cover the point aimed at by the adversary with his ''seconde''; with the result that his point, which was to hit ''above'', has remained ''below'' and excluded by your ''forte''. Or you may have tried to engage the adversary's sword, and he has tried cut of ''riverso'' at the arm in the part seen uncovered; you by a change from ''tierce'' to ''prime'' have defended yourself and covered your arm with the ''forte''. Therefore the adversary has failed to effect[!] anything and has been hit in the same ''time''.</p>
+
<p>This hit in ''quarte'' against a ''seconde'' may arise in two ways: in the first place both combatants might be in ''tierce'' on the inside; you have tried to engage, and your adversary has disengaged in ''seconde'' over your sword, passing on with his left foot. You, lowering your point without disengaging and letting your arm make an angle to the inside, as is seen, with the hand in a guard of ''quarte'', have turned the body with the left foot, met the adversary as he advanced and hit him in the side under the right arm. Thus his sword has passed idly in the air. In the second place it may be that you have disengaged on the outside, and your adversary has sought to take the ''time'' in order to hit above in ''seconde''. Then you have simply lowered your point, which had gone to the outside, under his sword, leaving the hand in the same place, but turning it into ''quarte''; without extending the arm you have turned the body and brought all the part which was uncovered when on guard, out of presence.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| <p><br/><br/></p>
 
| <p><br/><br/></p>
Line 1,167: Line 1,167:
 
| <p>[56] <br/><br/></p>
 
| <p>[56] <br/><br/></p>
  
<p>This hit in ''quarte'' against ''seconde'' has arisen in this manner. Both being in ''tierce'' on the inside, you have tried to engage your adversary's sword, and he has meant to change from ''tierce'' to ''seconde'' and drop under your sword in the time, when your point was out of line. Therefore you, seeing his plan, have not completed the engagement, but have directed your point to his body, carrying the hilt where you had planned to put the point; you have turned the body and the right foot, carrying it forward and leaving your hand against the adversary's ''faible''. In this manner you are defended and have reached him whilst he was lowering his body and advancing. Equally it might occur that he was in ''seconde'' on the inside, and that you have tried to engage his sword. He has intended to disengage in ''seconde'' in order to hit on the outside above the sword. You have disengaged, carried the hilt where you meant to put the point, and by the turn of the body, foot and hand, have hit at the moment your adversary thought to hit.</p>
+
<p>Now follows another hit in ''quarte'', this time against a ''quarte'', arising in this manner: you have tried to engage your adversary, who was in ''tierce'' on the outside. He has planned a cut of ''mandiritto in sgalembro'' at the face, keeping his arm in line and working from the wrist only. You have suddenly brought the left foot forward with the point of the foot turned outwards; at the same time you have turned your hand into ''quarte''; extending the arm and bending the body as far as possible, you have met your adversary's sword in its descent, before it was in line, excluded it and hit him in the throat. This is the true method of parrying a cut of ''mandiritto'' at the head, when you are forced to parry, for by bringing forward the left foot in this manner, not only does the sword reach further, but it is stronger and can better resist the shock of the cut; with the right foot it is weaker.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| <p><br/><br/></p>
 
| <p><br/><br/></p>
Line 1,184: Line 1,184:
 
| <p>[57] <br/><br/></p>
 
| <p>[57] <br/><br/></p>
  
<p></p>
+
<p>In this case both were in a guard of ''tierce'', on the outside. You have tried to engage by turning the hand into ''seconde''. The adversary has disengaged, turning his body and his hand into ''quarte'', in order to hit in that ''time'' on the inside under your hilt. But you have turned at the same moment from ''seconde'' to ''quarte'' and have brought the left foot forward putting the point of your sword under his hilt, carrying the arm inwards, and the ''forte'' towards his ''faible'', in such a way that your side is completely defended. It is safer in this case to follow with the right foot, rather than to retire. Such a hit cannot be prevented, even though the swords are of equal strength, because the position of the one who is turning is much weaker than that of the one who is advancing in the manner described; the latter's sword with equal skill will always overcome the sword of the one who is turning.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| <p><br/><br/></p>
 
| <p><br/><br/></p>
Line 1,206: Line 1,206:
 
| <p>[58] <br/><br/></p>
 
| <p>[58] <br/><br/></p>
  
<p></p>
+
<p>This hit in ''seconde'' against an opponent in ''quarte'' who has advanced the left foot may easily arise in the following manner: the adversary, being in ''quarte'', has tried to engage your sword, which is in ''tierce'', on the outside. You have disengaged, still in ''tierce''. He has attempted a hit in ''quarte'' through your ''faible'', advancing the left foot. But in the same ''time'' as you disengaged you have dropped your point under his hilt, also advancing the left foot. By bringing the whole weight of the body on to the left foot and turning the hand into ''seconde'', you have got far out of the line of you adversary's point and made the hit. It might arise in another manner: both being in ''tierce'' on the inside, you have moved your point, making a slight turn of the hand towards ''quarte''. The adversary, seeing the opening, has tried to engage your ''faible'' and hit in the same ''time'' by advancing the left foot. But before he has reached your ''faible'' you have dropped your point under his hilt, so that he has failed to find your point, and in the same ''time'' carried your body out of line, bringing the weight on to the left foot, which has advanced. In this low position you have been able to penetrate to his body, as you were already advanced. Or again, both being in ''tierce'' on the outside, the adversary has tried to engage your sword; in the same ''time'' you have threatened a cut of ''mandiritto'' at the head, using the wrist and keeping the arm steady. He has changed from ''tierce'' to ''quarte'' in order to defend the head, and advanced the left foot in order to hit in the same ''time''. At that moment you have checked your sword near the adversary's, without touching it, and immediately changed your hand to ''seconde'', lowering the point under his hilt, advancing the left foot, with the body so bent, that his point, which would have hit in the chest, has passed over. Therefore you may see how dangerous it is to parry, even with a thrust in the same ''time''. Therefore, unless forced, it is always best not to parry.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| <p><br/><br/></p>
 
| <p><br/><br/></p>
Line 1,228: Line 1,228:
 
| <p>[59] <br/><br/><br/></p>
 
| <p>[59] <br/><br/><br/></p>
  
<p></p>
+
<p>Here is another hit in ''seconde'' also against a ''quarte''. Both were in ''tierce'' on the inside. You were in a stronger position than your adversary and have made a feint of hitting in ''quarte'' through his ''faible''. He, thinking the thrust was coming, has made a turn of his body with his right foot and a thrust in ''quarte'' through your ''faible'', in order to meet you in the ''time'' of your approach. Seeing his plan, you have suddenly changed to ''seconde''. lowering your point and body and bringing the left foot forward; thus you have made the hit by continuing on to his body, before he could recover, for he has not passed, but turned, and his left foot has remained steady. Or it may be that you have tried to engage your adversary's sword on the outside. He has disengaged in ''tierce'' on the inside, but in that ''time'' you have made a feint in ''quarte''. He has tried a counter ''quarte'' through your ''faible'' turning his body out of line, in order to meet your approach. Seeing the danger you have changed from ''quarte'' to ''seconde'' and made the hit shown, while his sword has passed over in vain.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| <p><br/><br/><br/></p>
 
| <p><br/><br/><br/></p>
Line 1,248: Line 1,248:
 
| <p>[60] <br/><br/></p>
 
| <p>[60] <br/><br/></p>
  
<p></p>
+
<p>Another hit in ''quarte'' against a ''tierce''. You were in ''tierce'' on the outside, as was your adversary. You have made a feint of hitting in this tierce on the outside, and he has moved to parry and hit by pushing on his right foot, enticed by seeing you move without a ''time''. Seeing your adversary moving to parry and hit, you have placed your left hand on the inside of his sword, disengaged in ''quarte'', advanced the left foot and so hit him at the base of the right side. Or you may have been on the inside and may have disengaged with a feint of hitting on the outside. Your adversary has tried to parry and you have placed your left hand on his sword and made the hit. These defences with the left hand are here shown in order to demonstrate how in case of necessity only, they may sometimes be used. The effect is seen, and you may realise how easily such defences may be deceived. Towards the end of the book we shall describe a method against which the left hand will not prevail nor parry.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| <p><br/><br/></p>
 
| <p><br/><br/></p>

Revision as of 23:28, 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. 12.0 12.1 12.2 There's no conclusion of this word on the next page, just a new sentence.
  13. Originally "occcsione", but corrected in the errata.
  14. Originally "albassare", but corrected in the errata.
  15. Originally "& migliore", but corrected in the errata.
  16. Originally "temerariemente", but corrected in the errata.
  17. Originally "bisogna", but corrected in the errata.
  18. The letter 'F' was omitted in the print and hand-corrected in all copies.
  19. Originally "guardia", but corrected in the errata.
  20. Originally "equali", but corrected in the errata.
  21. Originally "poco", but corrected in the errata.
  22. Originally "poco", but corrected in the errata.
  23. Originally "non buoni", but corrected in the errata.
  24. Originally "queui", but corrected in the errata.
  25. Originally "che spada", but corrected in the errata.
  26. Originally "accorgendosi", but corrected in the errata.
  27. Originally "con pugnale", but corrected in the errata.
  28. Originally "mouendolo", but corrected in the errata.
  29. Originally "diuersi", but corrected in the errata.
  30. Originally "dentro la spada", but corrected in the errata.
  31. Originally "andere", but corrected in the errata.
  32. Originally "richede", but corrected in the errata.
  33. Originally "in suoi", but corrected in the errata.
  34. Originally "della", but corrected in the errata.
  35. Originally "la dette", but corrected in the errata.
  36. Originally "è passare", but corrected in the errata.
  37. The errata adds "l’".
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. Should be 183.
  41. Originally "ineguale", but corrected in the errata.