Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Salvator Fabris"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 3,419: Line 3,419:
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
| <p>[8] </p>
+
| <p>[8] '''Principles of defence against a dagger with the bare hands.'''</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>It sometimes happens that an unarmed man is attacked by an enemy with a dagger, who rushes at him with intent to murder him, when the assaulted man has no refuge to fly to and is in certain danger of being hit and killed. Since we desire to show how in such a case it is possible to defend and attack the enemy, we shall explain some methods, leaving others to be explained by others at other times. In order that you may be better persuaded and convinced by our instruction, you must consider two principles; first that the man who seizes his dagger to attack another man, seeing that his opponent has nothing with which to defend himself, at once runs forward to hit in the first place that occurs to him, only fearing least his opponent should escape, before he can hit him; therefore he uses no skill, so that the man who is attacked can more easily defend. The second point is, that the dagger is not long enough to reach your body, while you are bending forward and extending your arms towards the adversary's hands and hilt, whether his stroke is high or low. Nor can his arm be so strong of itself as to force your two extended arms to yield; your two hands are almost always united, except when you have brought your body out of line, or twisted the adversary's arm, which takes away his strength, as will be shown in the first encounter, where we explain how one hand alone can defend and dash the dagger from the adversary's hand. If the man with the dagger tries to use his left hand, you should then seize that arm and turn it with the elbow over your shoulders; by giving it a wrench downwards you will not merely dislocate the arm, but even break it; or you can close with the adversary in order to throw him to the ground, or seize his dagger arm behind the elbow with your left hand and make him turn his back; in either case you will prevent his attacking with the dagger. In order to avoid undue length and the multiplication of examples, we shell include only the case of the adversary's attacking you, when he sees you have no defence at all.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| {{section|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf/260|1|lbl=250}}
 
| {{section|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf/260|1|lbl=250}}
Line 3,430: Line 3,432:
 
|  
 
|  
 
| [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) 185.jpg|400px|center]]
 
| [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) 185.jpg|400px|center]]
| <p>[9] </p>
+
| <p>[9] This plate shows the adversary with his dagger drawn from the scabbard and his arm raised to strike, while you are waiting for him to attack. It is included to show the manner in which he has moved and holds his dagger; in the next plate the result will be shown; but afterwards we shall show the hit only, while the text will explain the position from which it has followed.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| {{section|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf/260|2|lbl=-}}
 
| {{section|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf/260|2|lbl=-}}
Line 3,441: Line 3,443:
 
|  
 
|  
 
| [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) 186.jpg|400px|center]]
 
| [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) 186.jpg|400px|center]]
| <p>[10] </p>
+
| <p>[10] This disarm has arisen after the adversary has raised his dagger to strike, while you were waiting. He has aimed a blow downwards in continuation of his movement. You have raised your left arm, with your hand reversed and seized his arm as it fell close to the hilt of his dagger, giving the dagger a twist, as shown. Thus he could not prevent the dagger falling from his hand owing to the twist and the pain to his arm. He has bent his back in order to save his dagger; but as a result his position on his feet has been weakened, so that he is more likely to fall to the ground under the blow of your right arm, when you will finally wrest the dagger from his hand.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| {{pagetb|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf|261|lbl=251}}
 
| {{pagetb|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf|261|lbl=251}}
Line 3,452: Line 3,454:
 
|  
 
|  
 
| [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) 187.jpg|400px|center]]
 
| [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) 187.jpg|400px|center]]
| <p>[11] </p>
+
| <p>[11] The next disarm, causing the dagger to fall from the adversary's hand, has happened in this way: he has driven the point of his dagger at your body from below; you were standing with your hands raised; you have placed your right hand on his blade, and your left hand under his dagger hand, lifting it up and pressing down the blade with your right hand, so that you have weakened his hand and easily forced the dagger out of his hand.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| {{pagetb|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf|262|lbl=252}}
 
| {{pagetb|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf|262|lbl=252}}
Line 3,463: Line 3,465:
 
|  
 
|  
 
| [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) 188.jpg|400px|center]]
 
| [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) 188.jpg|400px|center]]
| <p>[12] </p>
+
| <p>[12] Here again the adversary has lost his dagger. He has driven the point of his dagger straight forward with his hand in ''tierce''; with your hands close together, you have seized his hand and hilt of his dagger, with your body bent low; pressing downwards with your body and right hand on his hilt and lifting his arm with your left hand, you have torn the dagger from his hand with ease. The plate shows the position after it has left his hand.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| {{pagetb|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf|263|lbl=253}}
 
| {{pagetb|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf|263|lbl=253}}
Line 3,474: Line 3,476:
 
|  
 
|  
 
| [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) 189.jpg|400px|center]]
 
| [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) 189.jpg|400px|center]]
| <p>[13] </p>
+
| <p>[13] Here is another disarm and hit. The adversary with the dagger has tried to hit you who are unarmed, thrusting the point at your body from below upwards, you have placed your right hand under the blade of the dagger, and your left hand over his dagger hand; by drawing his hand towards you, and pushing your right hand forward, you have turned the point against him. By resting your chest against the pommel of the dagger and throwing the whole of your weight on to it, you have driven the point into the chest of the man who was holding it. His only chance of safety was to drop the dagger to the ground, but he should have done that when you began to turn his hand, for after it was turned, the point would have reached his body.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Let this suffice on the subject of the bare hands against the dagger.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| {{pagetb|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf|264|lbl=254}}
 
| {{pagetb|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf|264|lbl=254}}
Line 3,485: Line 3,489:
 
|  
 
|  
 
| [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) 190.jpg|400px|center]]
 
| [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) 190.jpg|400px|center]]
| <p>[14] </p>
+
| <p>[14] '''''Defending with the sword alone against a pike.'''''</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The last plate illustrates a position not treated of by other writers. The point of the sword is held at right angles and directed to the ground in order to show the position of the body and sword in attacking a spontoon or half pike or other weapons, whether slightly longer or shorter matters not; it is equally unimportant whether the blade is longer or shorter, provided there are no barbs or other impediment. The left hand is in the greatest danger, but by proceeding in the correct manner you may easily protect it, that is by raising or lowering it more or less according to the line of the attack. You can also defend yourself against feints, disengagements, withdrawal or advancing of the pike, as well as against the simple thrust. You can defend very well against the cut too. You must advance without stopping for any reason, and although the arms are so unequal, by proceeding is[!] the correct manner you will force the adversary to retire, or you will reach him more quickly and easily. We have omitted further details in order not to expose the whole secret, and in order to offer a subject to those who study this art or investigating the principles suited to this defence; by diligent practise you may with no great difficulty  discover what is needed. The plate shows the position of the sword and body, and by no very long practise a keen intelligence will understand the advantage of the position and will learn how to use it. It is sufficient for us to have given the hint and shown that with the sword alone you can attack and defend at a pike, perhaps more easily than another sword, as we have seen in actual practice many times and on different occasions in the presence of gentlemen and great princes.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
Line 3,497: Line 3,503:
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
| <p>[15] </p>
+
| <p>[15] Among the plates of the guards, movements and hits in this work there are some which are defective in the grasp of the weapons, the position of the hilts, the turning of the hands, and the posture of the feet and body. In reality these positions are free and unstrained, otherwise the movements would be too slow. Still we hope that the discourses will supply the defects and explain what is to be inferred from the plates. The author began to divide the work into chapters, but being prevented by various difficulties he has allowed it to be printed and to remain as it is, divided into two books and each book into three parts.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| {{section|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf/266|2|lbl=-}}
 
| {{section|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf/266|2|lbl=-}}
Line 3,509: Line 3,515:
 
|  
 
|  
 
| <p>[16] </p>
 
| <p>[16] </p>
 +
 +
<p>The printing of these discourses was completed on September the 25th, 1606, in the City of Copenhagen, the metropolis of the Kingdom of Denmark, in the house of Hendrich Walchirchen.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| {{section|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf/266|3|lbl=-}}
 
| {{section|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf/266|3|lbl=-}}

Revision as of 01:22, 6 May 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. 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 withdraw/"break measure". ~Michael Chidester
  8. Originally "richeide", but corrected in the errata.
  9. Originally "dirarsi", but corrected in the errata.
  10. Originally "longuezza", but corrected in the errata.
  11. Originally "mettre", but corrected in the errata.
  12. Originally "volto", but corrected in the errata.
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 There's no conclusion of this word on the next page, just a new sentence.
  14. Originally "occcsione", but corrected in the errata.
  15. Originally "albassare", but corrected in the errata.
  16. Originally "& migliore", but corrected in the errata.
  17. Originally "temerariemente", but corrected in the errata.
  18. Originally "bisogna", but corrected in the errata.
  19. The letter 'F' was omitted in the print and hand-corrected in all copies.
  20. Originally "guardia", but corrected in the errata.
  21. Originally "equali", but corrected in the errata.
  22. Originally "poco", but corrected in the errata.
  23. Originally "poco", but corrected in the errata.
  24. Originally "non buoni", but corrected in the errata.
  25. Originally "queui", but corrected in the errata.
  26. Originally "che spada", but corrected in the errata.
  27. Originally "accorgendosi", but corrected in the errata.
  28. Originally "con pugnale", but corrected in the errata.
  29. Originally "mouendolo", but corrected in the errata.
  30. Originally "diuersi", but corrected in the errata.
  31. Originally "dentro la spada", but corrected in the errata.
  32. Originally "andere", but corrected in the errata.
  33. Originally "richede", but corrected in the errata.
  34. Originally "in suoi", but corrected in the errata.
  35. This word can't be read on the photos I have. It's a 6-letter word that seems to end in "s?ed". The Italian word means to move or advance, and Tom Leoni translates it as "fling".
  36. Originally "della", but corrected in the errata.
  37. Originally "la dette", but corrected in the errata.
  38. Originally "è passare", but corrected in the errata.
  39. The errata adds "l’".
  40. Originally "farmarsi", but corrected in the errata. The errata says it should be on page 232, but this is the only instance of the word in the book.
  41. This large blank space was probably meant to be filled in later with a suitable translation for brezza, which means "breeze" though that's obviously not the intended meaning here. It might be a spelling of brecca, meaning "breach". Tom Leoni translates it "rampart".
  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.