Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Salvator Fabris"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1,298: Line 1,298:
 
<p>You must know that the principle of using the dagger alone in engaging the adversary's sword applies more against the guards in ''tierce'' and ''quarte'', than against those of ''prime'' and ''seconde'', where it is not so strong. For if when you move with the dagger against your adversary, he should make a feint in the upper lines, which are the feints most to be feared, he would force you to parry and then would hit by a rush in the parts uncovered by your movement of parrying. Besides the fact that they are more successful with the sword and dagger than with the sword alone, the guards in ''prime'' and ''seconde'' naturally lend themselves to the rush. For being in ''tierce'' or ''quarte'', in order that the rush may have force, you must change the hand to ''seconde''. Therefore when your adversary is already in a position to rush without further change of the hand, he is much more to be feared.</p>
 
<p>You must know that the principle of using the dagger alone in engaging the adversary's sword applies more against the guards in ''tierce'' and ''quarte'', than against those of ''prime'' and ''seconde'', where it is not so strong. For if when you move with the dagger against your adversary, he should make a feint in the upper lines, which are the feints most to be feared, he would force you to parry and then would hit by a rush in the parts uncovered by your movement of parrying. Besides the fact that they are more successful with the sword and dagger than with the sword alone, the guards in ''prime'' and ''seconde'' naturally lend themselves to the rush. For being in ''tierce'' or ''quarte'', in order that the rush may have force, you must change the hand to ''seconde''. Therefore when your adversary is already in a position to rush without further change of the hand, he is much more to be feared.</p>
  
<p>If then you wish to guard against your adversary's attack, it is better on his advance to use the sword and dagger together and for greater precaution to exclude his point on the outside, if possible. This method is good against a guard of ''prime'' or ''seconde'', though you must take care if you wish to advance with safety, that you have excluded his point entirely in such a way, that you are certain he cannot hit there, but without touching his sword. If you have done this, you may close the distance as much as you wish. You must also be careful not to approach the point of your sword so near to his dagger, that he can engage it and hit before you have freed it. You must always keep your point at such distance and position that are assured of its freedom to hit in ''time''. Nor by freedom do we mean keeping it far out of line for in that case it would be pushed away before you could return it. But holding it in the proper manner you will keep it in line or very little out of it, and always free, so that your adversary cannot prevent your returning.</p>
+
<p>If then you wish to guard against your adversary's attack, it is better on his advance to use the sword and dagger together and for greater precaution to exclude his point on the outside, if possible. This method is good against a guard of ''prime'' or ''seconde'', though you must take care if you wish to advance with safety, that you have excluded his point entirely in such a way, that you are certain he cannot hit there, but without touching his sword. If you have done this, you may close the distance as much as you wish. You must also be careful not to approach the point of your sword so near to his dagger, that he can engage it and hit before you have freed it. You must always keep your point at such distance and position that you are assured of its freedom to hit in ''time''. Nor by freedom do we mean keeping it far out of line for in that case it would be pushed away before you could return it. But holding it in the proper manner you will keep it in line or very little out of it, and always free, so that your adversary cannot prevent your returning.</p>
  
 
<p>We must add that you can engage your adversary's point in any position with the sword alone, provided that you hold the dagger in such a manner that it has little movement to make in order to defend the part where the adversary might hit. This is an excellent method though some deny it. They will not allow that you should ever engage with both the weapons at one time, but they say that one at least should be free, in order to be able to parry and hit if the need arises, that one weapon should be reserved for defence, and one for attack and that there being two pieces they should serve two purposes, whereas if both are used for the defence they are serving one only. We admit this, but say that this united defence is not only stronger, but also better protects the other line, where the adversary might approach. He finds little exposed there, it is harder for him to hit and easier for you to parry. Further if you defend with one weapon only, there is more danger not only of being disordered, but also of being overcome. Thus it often happens, that where you are defending with one weapon and your adversary changes his line in hitting, you are so disunited and weak that both your weapons are forced into subjection, so that what you would not do willingly, you are forced to do, when your adversary has moved. Thus you are so disordered and confused that you have been unable to hit because of the trouble you were in in the defence. On the other hand when you defend with both weapons and your adversary changes his line in order to hit or do anything else, you can on that change separate the two weapons, the one to parry and the other to hit because they were in union. Sometimes also you can defend with both weapons and hit in the same ''time'' because of the strength of your first defence due to the union of the weapons. You have more completely covered the body and work of your own accord and not driven by necessity. Therefore you may well understand, that he who engages with both his weapons will dispose of them with greater judgment and security and in such a manner that he will not be prevented from hitting in ''time'', when the occasion offers; but he who is compelled to engage will usually be prevented from making anything but the simple defence, and however good that is it can easily be deceived.</p>
 
<p>We must add that you can engage your adversary's point in any position with the sword alone, provided that you hold the dagger in such a manner that it has little movement to make in order to defend the part where the adversary might hit. This is an excellent method though some deny it. They will not allow that you should ever engage with both the weapons at one time, but they say that one at least should be free, in order to be able to parry and hit if the need arises, that one weapon should be reserved for defence, and one for attack and that there being two pieces they should serve two purposes, whereas if both are used for the defence they are serving one only. We admit this, but say that this united defence is not only stronger, but also better protects the other line, where the adversary might approach. He finds little exposed there, it is harder for him to hit and easier for you to parry. Further if you defend with one weapon only, there is more danger not only of being disordered, but also of being overcome. Thus it often happens, that where you are defending with one weapon and your adversary changes his line in hitting, you are so disunited and weak that both your weapons are forced into subjection, so that what you would not do willingly, you are forced to do, when your adversary has moved. Thus you are so disordered and confused that you have been unable to hit because of the trouble you were in in the defence. On the other hand when you defend with both weapons and your adversary changes his line in order to hit or do anything else, you can on that change separate the two weapons, the one to parry and the other to hit because they were in union. Sometimes also you can defend with both weapons and hit in the same ''time'' because of the strength of your first defence due to the union of the weapons. You have more completely covered the body and work of your own accord and not driven by necessity. Therefore you may well understand, that he who engages with both his weapons will dispose of them with greater judgment and security and in such a manner that he will not be prevented from hitting in ''time'', when the occasion offers; but he who is compelled to engage will usually be prevented from making anything but the simple defence, and however good that is it can easily be deceived.</p>

Revision as of 02:51, 4 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.