Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Salvator Fabris"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 2,207: Line 2,207:
 
<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. ~ Michael Chidester</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". ~ Michael Chidester</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>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>

Revision as of 04:23, 5 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". ~ Michael Chidester
  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.