Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Salvator Fabris"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 83: Line 83:
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1601</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1601</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1606</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1606</p>
! <p>{{rating|C}}<br/>by [[A. F. Johnson]]</p>
+
! <p>{{rating|C}} (ca. 1900)<br/>by [[A. F. Johnson]] (transcribed by [[Michael Chidester]])</p>
 
! <p>[[Scientia e Prattica dell'Arme (GI.kgl.Saml.1868.4040)|Prototype]] (1601)<br/></p>
 
! <p>[[Scientia e Prattica dell'Arme (GI.kgl.Saml.1868.4040)|Prototype]] (1601)<br/></p>
 
! <p>[[Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris)|Archetype]] (1606){{edit index|Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf}}<br/>Transcribed by [[Michael Chidester]]</p>
 
! <p>[[Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris)|Archetype]] (1606){{edit index|Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf}}<br/>Transcribed by [[Michael Chidester]]</p>
Line 165: Line 165:
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1601</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1601</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1606</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1606</p>
! <p>{{rating|C}}<br/>by [[A. F. Johnson]]</p>
+
! <p>{{rating|C}} (ca. 1900)<br/>by [[A. F. Johnson]] (transcribed by [[Michael Chidester]])</p>
 
! <p>[[Scientia e Prattica dell'Arme (GI.kgl.Saml.1868.4040)|Prototype]] (1601)<br/></p>
 
! <p>[[Scientia e Prattica dell'Arme (GI.kgl.Saml.1868.4040)|Prototype]] (1601)<br/></p>
 
! <p>[[Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris)|Archetype]] (1606){{edit index|Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf}}<br/>Transcribed by [[Michael Chidester]]</p>
 
! <p>[[Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris)|Archetype]] (1606){{edit index|Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf}}<br/>Transcribed by [[Michael Chidester]]</p>
Line 201: Line 201:
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
| <p>[3] '''The divisions of the sword: the ''faible''[!] and the ''forte''.'''</p>
+
| <p>[3] '''The divisions of the sword: the ''faible'' and the ''forte''.'''</p>
  
 
<p>The blade of the sword is divided into four parts; the first is the part nearest the hand, the second quarter extends to the middle of the blade, the other two extend to the point. The first part near the hand is the strongest for parrying, and there is no thrust or cut, delivered by the strongest arm, which, if parried in this part, the sword cannot defend and resist without disorder, if the rule and the time is observed, as will be explained. The second part is somewhat weaker, but still it will defend well enough, if you parry where your adversary's sword has less strength. The third part is not good, especially against cuts, unless strengthened with the adversary's body at the moment of parrying; this will be explained in considering the defence. The fourth part is entirely bad and must not be thought of in the defence, although in the attack it is the strongest and most deadly. It is also true that a cut made with half the third part and half the fourth is a strong attacking stroke, whereas a cut made with the third part only would not be one half so effective as a cut made with the fourth part as well. The first and second parts then are only to be used in the defence, and the third and fourth in the attack; so that the sword is divided, one half into the defensive part, and the other the offensive.</p>
 
<p>The blade of the sword is divided into four parts; the first is the part nearest the hand, the second quarter extends to the middle of the blade, the other two extend to the point. The first part near the hand is the strongest for parrying, and there is no thrust or cut, delivered by the strongest arm, which, if parried in this part, the sword cannot defend and resist without disorder, if the rule and the time is observed, as will be explained. The second part is somewhat weaker, but still it will defend well enough, if you parry where your adversary's sword has less strength. The third part is not good, especially against cuts, unless strengthened with the adversary's body at the moment of parrying; this will be explained in considering the defence. The fourth part is entirely bad and must not be thought of in the defence, although in the attack it is the strongest and most deadly. It is also true that a cut made with half the third part and half the fourth is a strong attacking stroke, whereas a cut made with the third part only would not be one half so effective as a cut made with the fourth part as well. The first and second parts then are only to be used in the defence, and the third and fourth in the attack; so that the sword is divided, one half into the defensive part, and the other the offensive.</p>
Line 228: Line 228:
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
|  
+
| <p>[5] '''Explanation of the two distances, wide and close, and how to acquire the one or the other with least danger.'''</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>You are within wide distance when by advancing the rear foot to the front you can make a hit. After forming the counter-position a little out of distance, you must begin to advance the foot in order to get within the required distance. But you must be on your guard, lest your adversary, being steady, at the moment when you move your foot to advance it, should advance his too and hit at the same time. Therefore, you must move it very carefully, remembering that your adversary may effect something during the movement. After forming the counter-position you must endeavour to throw him into disorder, or at least make some feint in order to have an opportunity to hit. Thus prepared for what may happen you are more guarded and can better resist attack. When you are within wide distance and your adversary makes some movement of his foot, provided he does not break ground, you can hit him in the nearest exposed part, even if he has not moved his weapons. This could not be done if he moved his weapons and stood firm on his feet, the reason being that a movement of the foot is slower than that of the weapons, and therefore he could parry before your sword arrived, while he remained steady; if there were no other way he could protect himself by breaking ground, so that your sword could not reach. Being thrown into disorder you would then be in danger of being hit before you had recovered. Therefore whenever he gives an opportunity without moving his feet, it would be better to approach within close distance in that time. In that distance you can reach with the sword by merely bending the body, without moving the feet, and the adversary is forced to retire to get out of such danger. If he does not move you could hit him even though he retained the advantage of the counter-position. If your adversary does not move, you can sometimes make a hit by judging the distance from the point of your sword to your adversary's body and the distance from the ''forte'' of his sword. If you consider both how much you must advance the point and how far you must move it from the adversary's ''forte'', and understand that the time required for him to parry is the same as for you to hit, the sword will arrive before he has parried by the advantage of having moved first. If you see that his body is little exposed, as may happen, since one guard covers more than another, you can then attempt to hit in the exposed part, and as he moves to the defence change your line and hit in the second exposed part.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>These rules apply within close distance. If you are within wide distance and wish to advance within close distance, the danger is greater when the adversary stands steady on his guard, because if you raise your foot to advance it, you give him an opportunity to hit and retire, so that at the end of the movement you would be at the same distance, that is wide distance, and would have obtained nothing. All this is due to the fact that you cannot move your foot in less than two ''times'', the one in lifting it and the other in putting it to the ground. For this reason some push the foot forward by scraping it along the ground, which is well enough in the hall, but in the street is likely to lead to a fall because of the many unevennesses. It is better then to lift it to make sure of not stumbling. Therefore in carrying the foot within close distance you must first form a good counter-position, and then lean all the weight of the body on the rear foot as you lift the forward foot, so that if in that moment your adversary should thrust you would be able to parry and to hit by bringing your foot to the ground, or even extend that movement which you had already begun beyond your first design, in order to reach more certainly in case your adversary broke ground in making his hit. If the adversary has not moved the pupil must after raising the foot carry it within close distance in such a way that the weight of the body rests on the rear foot, and is no nearer than when within wide distance. After putting your foot to the ground you could then by merely bending the body hit on the slightest movement if the adversary in the line exposed nearest to your point.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>If you did not wish to wait you could hit in the manner already described. If while you are carrying your foot within close distance, your adversary should retire, you would remain within wide distance, and must bring the weight of the body from the rear foot to the forward and then bring up the rear foot close to the other. In approaching within close distance always take care that the body does not approach with the foot, but remains in the same position as before, and after bringing your foot to the ground carry forward the body. This rule should be observed in every case of requiring close distance, but after hitting you must in recovering your weapons draw back the body as far as possible and draw back the foot in such a way that if your adversary follows you are ready to parry and hit. If you find that your adversary is always breaking ground you must not grow angry and pursue him. Rather you must then proceed more carefully, for many feign a retirement with the object of drawing on their adversary and seeking an opportunity to hit in the moment of his pursuing. If you follow our method you will avoid this danger. It is better not to pursue one who flees, but rather to feign reluctance in order to reassure him and so draw him on, and then to seize an opportunity which he will not have time to avoid.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
Line 239: Line 245:
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
|  
+
| <p>[6] '''Discourse on rushing in with the sword extended and the principles of the two times, showing that it is better to control the sword and observe the correct time.'''</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>There are some who, in endeavouring to hit with the point, hurl the arm violently forward so as to give it greater force. This method is not good for the reasons which we shall bring forward. In the first place when you rush in with the sword, should your adversary anticipate you and defend the part where you intended to hit, you cannot change your line, as would be necessary, so that the adversary is sure of his defence. If he has also realised the weakest part of your thrust and pushed your sword in the direction in which it is being naturally carried, he will drive it out of line all the more quickly. His defence will be very simple without using any force, because if he pushes the sword in the direction in which it is naturally falling, it will fall the quicker without any resistance. In this manner his ''faible'' is stronger than the ''forte'' of the hitter. Moreover in completing the rush the point of the sword drops so that it cannot hit exactly the point aimed at, and <sup>also</sup> at the end of the extension it is impossible to prevent the arm and sword from dropping to the great advantage of your adversary. Further after one rush it is impossible to make another without withdrawing the arm again, which takes so long that, if the adversary has not hit at the first fall of your sword he could hit while you are withdrawing your arm, and recover before the second rush, with excellent opportunity of parrying and hitting even if he did it in two ''times'', that is parrying first and then hitting. The rule of the two ''times'' then would be good enough against such a method, and all the more successful as those who rush cannot make any good feint; for in feinting they move the foot or the body without advancing the sword, or if they advance it often withdraw it even further than before in order to hit with greater force, a very slow and dangerous ''time''.
 +
In treating of the rule of the two ''time'', we say that, although it may succeed against some, it is not to be compared with the rule of parrying and hitting at the same time, be-cause the true and safe method is to meet the body as it advances, before it has had time to withdraw and recover. If you then pursue you give an opportunity for parrying and hitting again. It has been our experience, that most of those who observe this rule of two ''times'', if they can engage the adversary's sword, generally beat it in order then to proceed with the stroke. This would be successful but for the danger of being deceived. He whose sword has been beaten on the ''faible'' certainly cannot hit at the same time, as he is thrown into disorder by the beat. But if he happens to disengage he causes the sword which has beaten and missed to drop still further, and has an excellent chance of hitting. Even if he made a feint of beating, so that when the adversary disengaged he might beat in another part, he would still be in danger of being hit, because the adversary might make a feint of disengaging and return, and in this way the one who had meant to beat would not be able to parry. Finally it may be taken as established that it is impossible to beat your adversary's sword without putting your own out of line. Moreover sometimes if you attempt to beat the ''faible'', according to rule, you meet the adversary's ''forte'', which he has pushed forward, so that the beat fails and your adversary proceeds to hit without your being able to prevent him. In dealing with one who does not rush, but controls his sword, even though you beat his ''faible'', his ''forte'' does not move, so that he can parry. Therefore, we conclude for these reasons and for many others which might be adduced, that it is better to parry and hit at the same time, though with the sword alone great judgment is required to effect the two at one moment. As to controlling the sword or thrusting with violence, controlling it is beyond comparison better, first because he who controls his sword, when it is beaten by the adversary, who means to hit in another line, can let it yield in the direction of the beat, and the ''forte'' will still defend, if the sword is held well advanced. Further it is certain that when your sword is beaten, it is immediately freed. Similarly it is more useful to know how to be master of your sword, to engage the adversary's faible and make a hit as opportunity offers, always holding his sword in subjection. If he cannot free his sword he cannot hit. Therefore this rule can be followed only by one who moves his sword without violence, works in such a way as to be always master of it, and if he is prevented by his adversary in any plan can abandon it and adopt another. He will hit at the very moment when his adversary has meant to prevent him, and without deviating his point or withdrawing it he will be able to carry it on to the adversary's body. The principle to be observed is this, that in proceeding to make a hit either by a feint of disengaging or any other change, when once you have begun to approach, the point toward the adversary, you must continue until you reach the body; for if you check the sword in order to disengage or change your line you will not arrive in time. This principle cannot be observed by one who rushes, so that the difference is easily understood. Moreover the sword which is held firm and accompanied by the foot and the body has greater force and exactness. He who so hold[!] it always controls it and does not let it drop after a hit. He has only to withdraw his foot in order to bring his body to safety, unless he has passed, and to engage the adversary's sword again. If your adversary as you withdraw, pursues or advances, you can hit again, defending at the same time. All this is because of the union between the sword, the feet and the body. If this rule is observed in the manner we have described, your parrying will be safe, whereas with the rule of the two ''times'' it is false; this will be better understood in its place.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
Line 250: Line 259:
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
|  
+
| <p>[7] '''Discourse on cutting'''. How many cuts there are and how they are made, their nature, and whether it is better to use the point or the edge.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The principal cuts are four; they are delivered in different ways and in different directions, as will be seen in the plate which follows (pl. 1.) with their names. The names are derived from the four principal cuts, that is ''mandiritto'', ''riverso'', ''sottomano'' and ''montante''. They are delivered in various ways, for some deliver them from the shoulder, some from the elbow, some from the wrist, and some again from the shoulder but with the arm extended and stiff, keeping the point always directed towards the adversary. In making the first cut from the shoulder, the arm is raised and makes a circle with the sword in order to strike with greater force. This is the worst of all because of its excessive slowness and because you may easily be hit as you raise the arm, as you let it fall, or after it has fallen; for as the sword is not supported by the adversary's weapon or body, there is nothing to prevent it from passing on behind his back; or if the hit is made downwards, the sword is in danger of being broken on the ground. In either case so much time is lost that your adversary may easily hit. The second method from the elbow also carries the hand out of line, both when it is raised and when it falls after missing, so that in this case too you may be hit, but not so easily, as the sword does not make such a large circle, nor does the raising of the arm uncover so much, nor the sword fall so far. Therefore as the movement is quicker and you remain better covered, this method is better than the first. The third method, made from the wrist downwards with the arm straight, although the sword makes a circle is beyond comparison better than the two first described, since the body is more covered. Nor can you be so easily hit, since it is quicker, and the point in falling remains in such a position that you can parry with the ''forte'' either thrust or cut, and can cut again. Similarly the fourth method with the arm stiff and extended is far better than the two first, since you hit without making a circle with the sword, raising it little or nothing. The sword is allowed to fall on an exposed point, and when your adversary makes a circle with his sword in order to hit, with this fourth method you can continue your stroke, as you will certainly hit before his falls. You will be all the more secure if you have worked with the feet and the body, as you should, because if you remained upright when your sword fell, you could not recover in time, especially if your adversary's cut had been made from the elbow. But if you lower your body the sword is more quickly recovered and has less distance to move in returning to the defence, for as you hit with the arm stiff and extended without bending the wrist, the sword still remains in front and can easily return to the straight line. For this reason the fourth method is better than the two first and in defence better than the third, although it appears to us that the third is much freer or less restricted, and without requiring so much strength has more variety and can more easily deceive the adversary.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>He who wishes to make a cut with safety, must wait a fitting opportunity, since he cannot make the stroke in a moment, and the ''time'' might have passed before the sword arrived. You can make a feint in order to put the adversary in subjection, and whilst he is parrying the cut, thrust at him, or make a feint of a thrust, and cut. The latter method would be necessary if you wish to move without waiting, for, if your adversary remained steady, it would not be good to make a feint of a cut in order to thrust, owing to the length of the movement, during which you might be hit. You can, as has been said, make a feint of a thrust in order to cut, and even if he parries the cut, still make a thrust. Further the feint of a cut, when your adversary stands firm, is not good because of the two ''times'' involved in raising and dropping the arm. All the cuts are very long, and he who cuts cannot do so in the ''time'' of a parry (we speak of the sword alone), whilst the adversary has always time to protect himself and even to make a hit when you are trying to parry. It is true that in parrying you can put your adversary in subjection and deprive him of the power to do anything, and even hit him be-fore he can save himself; but of this we shall speak when we treat of the defence and the attack.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Since cutting is not very useful we shall not dilate on it more than is necessary to show the respective merits of the thrust and the cut. Still it is well to be acquainted with both. In cutting greater strength is required, which is a disadvantage. The sword, if it misses, is thrown into disorder, and the body too. Recovery is not so easy, so that you are in more danger than with the thrust. Further it is less deadly; so that in all respects thrusting is more advantageous. With the point you reach further, more quickly and can more easily recover. In brief thrusting is more noble and excellent, for it includes all the subtlety of arms, whereas in cutting there is neither the ''counter-time'' nor the ''time'', since for the most part two ''times'' are involved. We do not intend to discuss this further than we have done in the preceding chapter in relation to the two ''times'', but to consider the more subtle, difficult and profitable points. If for example two men were opposed, one who excelled at the cut and the other at the thrust, without a doubt the latter would prevail for the reasons we have given, though his opponent were the stronger man. We conclude that it is better to use the point only, especially in engagements ''corps à corps'' without armour. With armour we should deem it good to use both; so too against a number of opponents, for the cut causes greater confusion and may parry several thrusts.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
Line 261: Line 276:
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
|  
+
| <p>[8] In ''good and false Parrying'', and on some who, with the sword alone, parry with the left arm.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The parry partakes of the nature of fear, for he who did not fear some disadvantage, would not put himself on the defence which we may call obedience and subjection, all the more so when it is forced. ''He who does'' not wish to be hit is forced to parry. When we can put our adversary under this obligation, we consider it a great advantage, for while he is under the necessity of parrying he may be hit in the line he uncovers by his movement, so that his defence proves vain. Therefore some say that parrying is false, which we admit, when it is done alone, for when you make a feint in one part and hit in another, your adversary moves to the parry, and, thinking to defend himself, is deceived by the feint, when he might, instead of parrying, have allowed the thrust to pass. To avoid thrusts is always better - that is with the sword alone, for with the sword and the dagger you can parry with one weapon and hit at the same time with the other, so that the defence is easier. But with the sword alone you must be more judicious, as it has to perform the two functions of defence and attack at the same time, in order that the parry may be safe. If you are forced to parry by a cut you must give the opposition with your ''forte'' where the adversary's sword is about to fall, and at the same time drive the point in with great swiftness, in order that it may arrive before your adversary's falls, so that he may neither avoid it nor be able to hit. This is an excellent rule, because the cut is shorter than the thrust. If you see that you cannot arrive with a ''time'' thrust, there is no need to parry, for it follows that your adversary cannot reach. If you are in doubt, you can withdraw the body a little and let his sword fall, and hit at the end of its fall. If you wish to parry knowing that you cannot hit, you must still carry your point as if you meant to hit, as this prevents the adversary from changing his line. Thus you free yourself from subjection and force your adversary to take the defensive, since he is threatened with a ''time'' thrust, and his subjection gives an opportunity for a hit. Hence it is never necessary to parry without hitting, or making a feint of hitting in order to force your adversary to parry, so that you free yourself from danger and at the same time place him in danger. It often happens that one who attempts a cut makes a large circle, so that you may hit him and recover before his sword falls. For in addition to the fact that the cut is slower, as we have said, it is also shorter. This you may do by understanding your adversary's movements and his distances. When the distance is so great that you cannot reach, you must make a feint of hitting while the adversary is making his circle in order to make it fall all the more precipitately and then sieze[!] the opportunity to hit in the part uncovered by its fall. This is instead of parrying at a great distance. But within close distance you may hit before your adversary's sword descends, since the thrust is finished before the cut, so that by withdrawing the left foot and recovering the body you may get into safety and your adversary fail to reach. It is true that this stroke would not be so deadly, since with the parry you can advance further and hit with more vigour and can pass right to the adversary's body. If you do not desire to pass it is necessary to understand how to maintain close distance and to control the feet in such a manner as to break ground in order to avoid a hit. This method is very successful owing to the slowness of the cut and because your thrust reaches further and you move with greater swiftness, so that you can always recover. If these rules are observed he who attempts to cut will always be hit, as we have already said. If in this place we must mention those who first cut at their adversary's sword in order to throw it into disorder, and then we shall not treat of them at greater length, because he who understands ''time'' and disengaging can easily save his sword against a beat.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>In defence of the thrust you must understand that its effect is swifter and more deadily[!]. In defending against it more subtlely[!] and ingenuity are required but less strength. To parry is more dangerous and deceptive owing to the rapid changes which it renders possible. It often happens that although you use the subtle combination of the parry and thrust at the same time, you are still deceived because your adversary, seeing your plan, removes his body out of the line, allows the point to pass and then hits in the part uncovered by the movement; so that avoiding is more subtle in defence and attack against one who makes a ''time''-thrust, if its use is well understood. You must then understand both this and the parry and know how to avail yourself of the one or other as occasion offers. It is even more effective to use both methods together, making half a motion to defend with the sword and half a motion with the body. This defence is quicker, disorders the sword less, and deprives the adversary of the advantage of changing his line. Such avoiding is more useful with the sword alone than with the sword and dagger, but the defence partly with the body and partly with the weapons may be observed in all cases.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>As there are many, who, although they have the sword alone in their hands, base their defence rather on the bare hand than on the sword, we must say something of these. We say then that such a method of fencing should rather be called the sword and glove, than the sword alone, because they not only parry with the hand, but seize the weapon and hold it. We do not think this would succeed with the naked edge of a sword. To protect yourself with a naked hand is a mis-erable defence. Still we will show how to proceed against such men, and how best to use the method in order to save the body and the hand itself, and how to deceive the adversary. It is true that those who use the hand in this way can make larger movements with the sword, since the hand defends in any case of the adversary's making a hit, and successfully when he makes his hit simply in the straight line without disengagement or feint. Still it will not succeed if you hold your sword pointing slightly upwards, just so far that you are certain that your adversary cannot pass or hit before you have directed your point against him. In this position the adversary can neither engage nor reach your sword when on guard; you must take care to attack in an oblique line when you hit, for this is very deceptive to one parrying with the hand, since in the very act of hitting the sword swerves aside. After engaging the adversary's sword, being within distance, taking the ''time'' and the opening, you may proceed to hit by making sure that your point reaches the part aimed at as soon as it takes that direction. You will certainly make a hit before your adversary can find the sword with his hand, if he has not had time to break ground. Moreover you can use various feints according to the position in which you find his hand. Finally it is often easier to hit those who use the hand rather than defend with the sword, because they trust to the hand and take no account of the ''forte'' of their own sword, merely endeavouring to prevent it being engaged by the adversary; therefore they keep the ''forte'' withdrawn, so that they are more exposed. Therefore it is easier to hit them and re-cover before they have brought the ''forte'' forward to the proper distance.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>It is still easier to succeed against those who first parry with the hand and then rush, which is done by most of those who follow this principle of defence. Nevertheless he who is well trained although he makes use of his hand, controls his sword and observes the ''time''. It is well to know how to do this in case of need, but not as a fundamental principle, as we have said above. He who understands what can be done with the hand, knows the converse even better. As a general rule the hand should never be used except when you can reach the hilt and come to grips, a matter which does not concern us, who wish to treat only of the defence, the methods of making a hit and the advantage of arms, and not of scuffling. However this arises sometimes from accident, so that at the end of the book we shall say something of it. But when such a point is reached, the greatest danger is already passed, of which it is more necessary to treat, in order to show how to avoid it with safety and with damage to the adversary.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Finally to show the true method of using the left hand we say that, when your adversary is about to hit, you must parry with the sword and hit, but it is good at the time of doing this to carry the hand to that part, where his sword might hit, so that the hand will defend the body and exclude the adversary's sword without a beat. This is a good principle on every occasion when there is time. This is a better method, because, the hand is not in such great danger and the body is better defended, nor can the adversary so easily be aware of it, as his sword is not molested. If he proceeds to hit he finds the path closed; if he refrains, you can hit him without being disordered. This then is the safest method of using the hand. He who considers its principles will find in it great advantages and subtleties of defence. Many things we omit for the sake of brevity, as our purpose is to deal with fundamental principles only, from which can be deduced countless rules, some better than others; for this subject is so large that it is difficult to find an end.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
Line 272: Line 297:
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
|  
+
| <p>[9] '''Engaging the sword'''. How it is done and when completed.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>To engage the sword is to gain an advantage over it; it is a kind of counter-position with some difference, because often you have engaged, the adversary's sword without completely closing the line from his, point to your body. But it has this advantage, that your adversary cannot hit without passing your ''forte'', which is so near his point, that you can find the point while he is moving to make the lunge. The counter-position is not considered well formed except when the line from his point to your body is fully defended. But the same advantage may be obtained by relative strength, so that you are considered to have engaged, when you are sure that your sword is stronger than the adversary's and cannot be pushed aside, but can push his aside. When on guard and wishing to engage the adversary's sword, you must carry your point towards his, with the fourth part of the blade against his fourth, but rather more of your fourth part than of his, for that little more, though little, will be enough to give you the advantage, when you have engaged his sword at the weaker part. You must bear in mind that the sword is always stronger in the line in which the point is directed, and in order to advance in that line ---------- you must know how to carry your body and sword in such a way that their strength is in the same direc-<ref>There's no conclusion of this word on the next page, just a new sentence.</ref> This depends to a great extent on the wrist, as will be seen in the plate illustrating the guard on the inside, which is the most difficult. You must also take care, in trying to engage the fourth part, to keep your point at such a distance from the adversary's sword, that he will not have time to push forward the third or even the second part, with the result that while meaning to engage his ''faible'' you would have engaged his ''forte''. This might happen owing to the distance between the two swords, for the amount you can push your sword forward before engaging is the same as the distance. You must move at the same time as he moves, otherwise you might be hit. Moreover, although the space between the two points were small, while you were advancing to engage, the adversary might perceive this and make an angle, which would strengthen him and bring him away from your advance. If you should push on in order to hit when within distance, his ''forte'' would have penetrated so far, that if you had moved in order to engage his sword, you would be unable to defend yourself, and would be hit. Further, if while you are trying to engage, he moved his body away from your point, he could pass right on to your body, before your sword had returned into line. To prevent your adversary's doing this you must first consider the distance between your bodies, and then move forward to engage his sword, carrying your sword without constraint so as to be free to abandon your first plan, when your adversary seizes the opportunity, and drives the point on to his body, bringing the ''forte'' where you intended to put the point. In this way you will hit the adversary at the moment when he is pushing forward. You must remember that this rule applies to the guard on the inside, for, if on the outside, you must abandon your first movement and drop the point under the adversary's sword to the right side, carrying the ''forte'' where you meant to put the point. On this line too the present method is very successful if you similarly do not touch the sword in seeking to engage. The nearer the adversary is, the better and safer the method is. The advantage is in having brought your ''forte'' against his ''faible''.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>It often happens that the adversary, finding his sword is not molested is not aware that you have already gained the advantage, whereas if you touch his sword he more easily realises the fact, and can disengage or retreat or change his guard, in order to free himself, so that you lose your first advantage. Moreover if you touch the sword, you impede and disconcert yourself, so that if a ''time'' comes to hit, you cannot take it because of the resistance of your adversary's sword. Even when there is no resistance and the adversary disengages, you cannot prevent your point dropping a little, so that the ''time'' is lost. But if you keep your sword suspended, it is the more ready for every opportunity, there is more use made of ''time'', and there is no necessity to force his sword, which often leads to scuffling. If you do not touch swords, that cannot happen. When then you advance to engage your adversary's sword and he moves to meet you at the same time, the one who first yields with the sword and drives on to the body, can hit before the other touches swords, or in the same instant. If you do not wish to try a hit, you can lower your point towards the ground to prevent the adversary's engaging, and if he follows it you can thrust while his sword is falling. There are many other ways of preventing your adversary from engaging your sword, except when the point hits, especially if you have won the advantage of the ''forte'' against the ''faible'' and the swords are in position. In endeavouring to acquire the advantage over the adversary's sword you must take care not to advance the point so far in your desire to be the stronger, that he can pass in one line or another, before you can direct your point. If you observe these rules you will without doubt gain the control of your adversary's sword, which is the first part of victory. Though your adversary takes advantage of the ''time'' he will still be hit. To prevent your getting this advantage he will have to retreat, changing the position of his body and sword and to adopt new devices, which are countless. The one who is more subtle in his movements will maintain his sword the freer.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
Line 283: Line 312:
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
|  
+
| <p>[10] '''On time and counter-time''', which are good and which false. How to deceive the feint of a ''time'', offered by the adversary so that he may make a ''counter-time''.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>A movement made by the adversary within distance is called a ''time''. For whatever is done out of distance can only be called either a movement or a change of front. ''Time'' then means an opportunity to hit or win some advantage over the adversary. This movement is given the name of ''time'' among the movements of fencing in order to convey the idea that at a given point of time it is the only possible movement. When the adversary moves, if you perceive an exposed part and are ready to hit in that part, the adversary will certainly be hit if within distance. For there cannot be two changes in one ''time'', and therefore you must take care that the ''time'' in which you wish to hit is not longer than the ''time'' offered by the adversary. In such a case he would have a chance to parry before your point arrived, and you would be in danger; whereas, if you understand the movement, you would succeed. This is called a ''time''-thrust. Besides understanding the movement you must consider the distance, because if you were within wide distance, even though your adversary moved his weapons or body, provided he did not move his foot there would be no certainty of being able to hit him, even if he were uncovered, for, if his foot were firm, he could break ground, so that your sword would not reach, and you would be in danger. Therefore it would be better to take advantage of his movement to approach within close distance so as to hit with certainty at his first movement with weapons, foot or body, or with both foot and weapons. All these are ''times'' favourable for a hit in an uncovered part. The success would be even greater, when the adversary offers the ''time'' unawares, provided he is not retreating. To be certain of success you must be in counter-position, since, if your adversary has moved first, it is clear that he will not be able to parry and hit except in two ''times'', so that the stroke will be finished before he has parried, and you will be able to break ground before he hits. It is also clear that he will be unable to break ground, as he might have done if he had remained steady. It is sometimes good to beat the adversary's sword within this distance, even if he does not move his foot, for the reason that, if he offers a ''time'' unawares, he will not expect it, as he has not realised that he has given an opportunity of being hit, and therefore he has had time neither to parry nor to break ground.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>But you must bear in mind that there are some men who cunningly offer a ''time'', that you may attempt a hit, and at the same time they parry and hit. This is called a ''counter-time''. Whenever you are hit or make a hit at the moment when your adversary is extended to hit, it is called a hit in ''counter-time''. Similarly it sometimes happens that both are hit  at the same moment; this is because one of them has not timed the ''counter-time'' well, or that in offering the ''time'' he was too close, or that he has made too large a movement. To avoid the danger of this ''counter-time'', you must realise before you make your movement, whether it is so great, that you could approach nearer, and also whether your adversary has moved with the intention of enticing you to hit. In that case you should either not proceed, or you should carry your sword towards the line uncovered by the adversary, and when he moves to make the ''counter-time'', you should then change your line to the part uncovered by his movement, avoiding his point with your body. In this way the deception planned by him will be turned against himself. In truth this science of arms is merely the science of deceiving your adversary with subtlety.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>When therefore you are within close distance you can hit at every movement or change of your adversary, however small, provided he does not break ground; for if in giving a ''time'' he carries hit foot back he so lengthens the ''time'' in which you may hit, that he has a good chance of parrying and hitting; for he being the first to move is also the first to finish the movement. This advantage he would not have if he stood firm, and tried to break ground, while you were making a hit; for your point would arrive before he was out of distance, nor could he parry. Therefore it is not good to be the first to save when within close distance, except to retreat. You must also know that within this distance you may often hit without waiting for a ''time'' by the simple advantage of the counter- position, and by understanding how to move in making a hit and how your adversary moves in parrying; also owing to the fact that there are many exposed parts in such a position. Therefore you must contrive to have your point so near the adversary's body, that the time required for your hit is less than the time he needs to defend himself. You must also contrive that your adversary's sword is so far distant from yours, that it is clear when you advance that he can engage only with the ''forte'' for then your sword cannot be thrust aside but will continue on its path to complete the stroke.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>All these rules may be observed equally with the sword and dagger, because the weapons are kept more withdrawn and there are more exposed parts in which a hit may be made, so that they will be most effective. You may easily understand then, how dangerous it is to approach within distance unless your weapons are in conjunction or without some advantage especially within close distance. You have seen too how ''times'' and ''counter-times'' are made, how they may be deceived, and which cannot be deceived.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
Line 1,197: Line 1,234:
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1601</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1601</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1606</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1606</p>
! <p>{{rating|C}}<br/>by [[A. F. Johnson]]</p>
+
! <p>{{rating|C}} (ca. 1900)<br/>by [[A. F. Johnson]] (transcribed by [[Michael Chidester]])</p>
 
! <p>[[Scientia e Prattica dell'Arme (GI.kgl.Saml.1868.4040)|Prototype]] (1601)<br/></p>
 
! <p>[[Scientia e Prattica dell'Arme (GI.kgl.Saml.1868.4040)|Prototype]] (1601)<br/></p>
 
! <p>[[Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris)|Archetype]] (1606){{edit index|Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf}}<br/>Transcribed by [[Michael Chidester]]</p>
 
! <p>[[Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris)|Archetype]] (1606){{edit index|Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf}}<br/>Transcribed by [[Michael Chidester]]</p>
Line 1,799: Line 1,836:
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1601</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1601</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1606</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1606</p>
! <p>{{rating|C}}<br/>by [[A. F. Johnson]]</p>
+
! <p>{{rating|C}} (ca. 1900)<br/>by [[A. F. Johnson]] (transcribed by [[Michael Chidester]])</p>
 
! <p>[[Scientia e Prattica dell'Arme (GI.kgl.Saml.1868.4040)|Prototype]] (1601)<br/></p>
 
! <p>[[Scientia e Prattica dell'Arme (GI.kgl.Saml.1868.4040)|Prototype]] (1601)<br/></p>
 
! <p>[[Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris)|Archetype]] (1606){{edit index|Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf}}<br/>Transcribed by [[Michael Chidester]]</p>
 
! <p>[[Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris)|Archetype]] (1606){{edit index|Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf}}<br/>Transcribed by [[Michael Chidester]]</p>
Line 1,963: Line 2,000:
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1601</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1601</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1606</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1606</p>
! <p>{{rating|C}}<br/>by [[A. F. Johnson]]</p>
+
! <p>{{rating|C}} (ca. 1900)<br/>by [[A. F. Johnson]] (transcribed by [[Michael Chidester]])</p>
 
! <p>[[Scientia e Prattica dell'Arme (GI.kgl.Saml.1868.4040)|Prototype]] (1601)<br/></p>
 
! <p>[[Scientia e Prattica dell'Arme (GI.kgl.Saml.1868.4040)|Prototype]] (1601)<br/></p>
 
! <p>[[Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris)|Archetype]] (1606){{edit index|Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf}}<br/>Transcribed by [[Michael Chidester]]</p>
 
! <p>[[Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris)|Archetype]] (1606){{edit index|Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf}}<br/>Transcribed by [[Michael Chidester]]</p>
Line 2,651: Line 2,688:
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1601</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1601</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1606</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1606</p>
! <p>{{rating|C}}<br/>by [[A. F. Johnson]]</p>
+
! <p>{{rating|C}} (ca. 1900)<br/>by [[A. F. Johnson]] (transcribed by [[Michael Chidester]])</p>
 
! <p>[[Scientia e Prattica dell'Arme (GI.kgl.Saml.1868.4040)|Prototype]] (1601)<br/></p>
 
! <p>[[Scientia e Prattica dell'Arme (GI.kgl.Saml.1868.4040)|Prototype]] (1601)<br/></p>
 
! <p>[[Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris)|Archetype]] (1606){{edit index|Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf}}<br/>Transcribed by [[Michael Chidester]]</p>
 
! <p>[[Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris)|Archetype]] (1606){{edit index|Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf}}<br/>Transcribed by [[Michael Chidester]]</p>
Line 2,970: Line 3,007:
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1601</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1601</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1606</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the 1606</p>
! <p>{{rating|C}}<br/>by [[A. F. Johnson]]</p>
+
! <p>{{rating|C}} (ca. 1900)<br/>by [[A. F. Johnson]] (transcribed by [[Michael Chidester]])</p>
 
! <p>[[Scientia e Prattica dell'Arme (GI.kgl.Saml.1868.4040)|Prototype]] (1601)<br/></p>
 
! <p>[[Scientia e Prattica dell'Arme (GI.kgl.Saml.1868.4040)|Prototype]] (1601)<br/></p>
 
! <p>[[Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris)|Archetype]] (1606){{edit index|Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf}}<br/>Transcribed by [[Michael Chidester]]</p>
 
! <p>[[Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris)|Archetype]] (1606){{edit index|Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf}}<br/>Transcribed by [[Michael Chidester]]</p>

Revision as of 21:37, 29 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. 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.