Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Salvator Fabris"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 2,547: Line 2,547:
 
<p>With the sword and dagger this method may be used in some cases, though not in all. For if the adversary's point were in conjunction with the point of his dagger, you could not engage it without danger of losing your own sword. In this case it is convenient to adopt the other method of placing your point against the adversary's ''forte'', where you can keep it free and hit with less subtlety than with the sword alone, since your sword is further from the adversary's sword and safer from his dagger, which cannot engage owing to the distance. You must take care in advancing to adopt a particular manner so that the point of your sword may not penetrate and may be kept always in the same position; as your body advances, so your dagger must approach his sword in such a way that, when you are ready to hit the dagger will be so far forward that it can defend against his sword without further movement. With the sword and dagger also you can attack without stopping, but you cannot use one method only against all positions, as with the sword alone, but you must adopt now one, and now another according to need. In order that this may be better understood, we shall give plates of the positions, showing the manner first of placing the sword, and then of the hit, which may follow, as at present we show the positions with the sword alone.</p>
 
<p>With the sword and dagger this method may be used in some cases, though not in all. For if the adversary's point were in conjunction with the point of his dagger, you could not engage it without danger of losing your own sword. In this case it is convenient to adopt the other method of placing your point against the adversary's ''forte'', where you can keep it free and hit with less subtlety than with the sword alone, since your sword is further from the adversary's sword and safer from his dagger, which cannot engage owing to the distance. You must take care in advancing to adopt a particular manner so that the point of your sword may not penetrate and may be kept always in the same position; as your body advances, so your dagger must approach his sword in such a way that, when you are ready to hit the dagger will be so far forward that it can defend against his sword without further movement. With the sword and dagger also you can attack without stopping, but you cannot use one method only against all positions, as with the sword alone, but you must adopt now one, and now another according to need. In order that this may be better understood, we shall give plates of the positions, showing the manner first of placing the sword, and then of the hit, which may follow, as at present we show the positions with the sword alone.</p>
  
<p>All these methods of attack with resolution are based on the advantage of the feet, body and sword. But if the adversary does not keep his point steady but continually moves it round in a circle, it is not easy to engage it. In that case you could exclude his sword and prevent his moving it, though in truth this remedy involves the danger of your being disordered; therefore it is much better both with the sword alone and with the sword and dagger to advance holding your point in line with the adversary's hand and continue, since he will be forced to stop his movement and to try to drive your point out of line, otherwise you will go on and hit in the ''time'' of his moving his point, and he will be unable to parry with his sword or dagger, if he has a dagger, since your point will be far distant from his and far advanced towards his body; if he tries to carry his dagger to the defence of the other side, he will not be able to parry and will give you a chance to hit because of his slowness due to the great distance. Therefore there is no position in which the adversary can place his body and weapons, to which with these methods there is no reply, since you have an advantage.</p>
+
<p>All these methods of attack with resolution are based on the advantage of the feet, body and sword. But if the adversary does not keep his point steady but continually moves it round in a circle, it is not easy to engage it. In that case you could exclude his sword and prevent his moving it, though in truth this remedy involves the danger of your being disordered; therefore it is much better both with the sword alone and with the sword and dagger to advance holding your point in line with the adversary's hand and continue, since he will be forced to stop his movement and to try to drive your point out of line, otherwise you will go on and hit in the ''time'' of his moving his point, and he will be unable to parry with his sword or dagger, if he has a dagger, since your point will be far distant from his dagger and far advanced towards his body; if he tries to carry his dagger to the defence of the other side, he will not be able to parry and will give you a chance to hit because of his slowness due to the great distance. Therefore there is no position in which the adversary can place his body and weapons, to which with these methods there is no reply, since you have an advantage.</p>
  
 
<p>There are some men, speaking with rashness rather than with knowledge, of this art, who have presumed to say that there are some strokes, to which there is no reply, and which cannot be parried. But we are persuaded by sound reasons that every stroke has its reply, except the stroke made in the exact time and at the exact distance; to such a stroke there is no reply and it cannot be parried; whereas the stroke which is deceived in its ''time'' or its distance, has its reply and can easily be parried; so that you can defend yourself against all strokes of the one kind and none of the other, and he who thinks differently is deceived. So are they deceived who think that the same stroke can be used against every opponent. But we say that you can attack all opponents, but must proceed in different ways according to the opportunities offered by the adversary. Let this suffice for the methods of attacking with resolution and without a pause; you must understand how to advance or check yourself, move swiftly or slowly or retire, and to do everything of your own accord and not under the compulsion of the adversary, for that would be a sign that his replies were stronger and that you were trying to save yourself from danger. When you act of your own accord or for some purpose of deceiving, you can return and advance at will. In this consists true judgment and knowledge of arms, which gives you the assurance of proceeding according to the capacity of your opponent and according to the position in which he is. We have still to give the description of each plate beginning with the advantage acquired and the distance, and continuing with the hits which follow from those advantages and distances.</p>
 
<p>There are some men, speaking with rashness rather than with knowledge, of this art, who have presumed to say that there are some strokes, to which there is no reply, and which cannot be parried. But we are persuaded by sound reasons that every stroke has its reply, except the stroke made in the exact time and at the exact distance; to such a stroke there is no reply and it cannot be parried; whereas the stroke which is deceived in its ''time'' or its distance, has its reply and can easily be parried; so that you can defend yourself against all strokes of the one kind and none of the other, and he who thinks differently is deceived. So are they deceived who think that the same stroke can be used against every opponent. But we say that you can attack all opponents, but must proceed in different ways according to the opportunities offered by the adversary. Let this suffice for the methods of attacking with resolution and without a pause; you must understand how to advance or check yourself, move swiftly or slowly or retire, and to do everything of your own accord and not under the compulsion of the adversary, for that would be a sign that his replies were stronger and that you were trying to save yourself from danger. When you act of your own accord or for some purpose of deceiving, you can return and advance at will. In this consists true judgment and knowledge of arms, which gives you the assurance of proceeding according to the capacity of your opponent and according to the position in which he is. We have still to give the description of each plate beginning with the advantage acquired and the distance, and continuing with the hits which follow from those advantages and distances.</p>

Revision as of 17:44, 8 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.