Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Salvator Fabris"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 343: Line 343:
 
<p>We might add that, although you pass, you should still follow your adversary's sword gliding along his blade, wherever it is, so as to be continually defended. If he withdraws his sword, so much the better, as he uncovers more parts, and his ''forte'' is drawn back and cannot resist. There are some men, who, although you have passed, do withdraw and make a hit; this is easier with short swords than with long. As to this we say that, whether the sword be long or short, if in passing you go close up to the adversary's body, you will be safe. For in passing you can do various things, throw the adversary into disorder by jostling him, seize the hilt of his sword, and pass so far beyond his flank that he cannot bring his sword, however short, so far back without himself withdrawing, which he cannot do in time. In passing you can grapple with your adversary and throw him to the ground, which would be good when your sword has not hit; for it may be held for certain, that if in passing you hit, your sword would penetrate to the hilt, which would shake and disorder your adversary, and the wound would be inflicted in a part of such importance that he would be at least prevented from withdrawing his sword. Moreover the one who passes is in all cases the readier to seize a chance, than the other who is occupied with the defence and confused by the danger in which he is.</p>
 
<p>We might add that, although you pass, you should still follow your adversary's sword gliding along his blade, wherever it is, so as to be continually defended. If he withdraws his sword, so much the better, as he uncovers more parts, and his ''forte'' is drawn back and cannot resist. There are some men, who, although you have passed, do withdraw and make a hit; this is easier with short swords than with long. As to this we say that, whether the sword be long or short, if in passing you go close up to the adversary's body, you will be safe. For in passing you can do various things, throw the adversary into disorder by jostling him, seize the hilt of his sword, and pass so far beyond his flank that he cannot bring his sword, however short, so far back without himself withdrawing, which he cannot do in time. In passing you can grapple with your adversary and throw him to the ground, which would be good when your sword has not hit; for it may be held for certain, that if in passing you hit, your sword would penetrate to the hilt, which would shake and disorder your adversary, and the wound would be inflicted in a part of such importance that he would be at least prevented from withdrawing his sword. Moreover the one who passes is in all cases the readier to seize a chance, than the other who is occupied with the defence and confused by the danger in which he is.</p>
  
<p>In addition to these advantages there are many other things to be done after a pass, which cannot be done when you remain steady. You can often in passing use the method of avoiding and turning the body; whereas if you do not pass or your adversary does not pass, you cannot do this so well. For if you wish to move your body out of the line of hit point, either on the one side or the other, you can only do so by advancing; for two reasons, the first, that you may be able to hit at the same time, the second, in order that his point may pass before he can change its line again. When he has penetrated so far, it is better to pass right on than to turn back and be hit by a second thrust before you are in safety. It is true that with the sword and the dagger it is more difficult to pass, and you must be more careful, since after passing the point of the sword there is the point of the dagger, and thus the danger lasts longer. Nevertheless there are rules for passing with safety, as will be shown when we deal with those strokes.</p>
+
<p>In addition to these advantages there are many other things to be done after a pass, which cannot be done when you remain steady. You can often in passing use the method of avoiding and turning the body; whereas if you do not pass or your adversary does not pass, you cannot do this so well. For if you wish to move your body out of the line of his point, either on the one side or the other, you can only do so by advancing; for two reasons, the first, that you may be able to hit at the same time, the second, in order that his point may pass before he can change its line again. When he has penetrated so far, it is better to pass right on than to turn back and be hit by a second thrust before you are in safety. It is true that with the sword and the dagger it is more difficult to pass, and you must be more careful, since after passing the point of the sword there is the point of the dagger, and thus the danger lasts longer. Nevertheless there are rules for passing with safety, as will be shown when we deal with those strokes.</p>
  
 
<p>He who can pass well, is more sure with his sword, restricts his adversary more and is more certain of himself. Much judgment is needed in carrying the body and the feet correctly, so that the sword may perform its office. You must take care in passing with the left foot forward not to carry the left side forward, especially with the sword alone, as in that case you could not use the ''forte'' of the sword, which would be too far back. Therefore even though the left foot goes first, the right side must accompany it. In this way you will be able to carry the body out of line, your sword will be stronger, and the point be as far extended as if the right foot had advanced, for the body can bend further forward.</p>
 
<p>He who can pass well, is more sure with his sword, restricts his adversary more and is more certain of himself. Much judgment is needed in carrying the body and the feet correctly, so that the sword may perform its office. You must take care in passing with the left foot forward not to carry the left side forward, especially with the sword alone, as in that case you could not use the ''forte'' of the sword, which would be too far back. Therefore even though the left foot goes first, the right side must accompany it. In this way you will be able to carry the body out of line, your sword will be stronger, and the point be as far extended as if the right foot had advanced, for the body can bend further forward.</p>

Revision as of 04:42, 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.