Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Salvator Fabris"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 253: Line 253:
 
| <p>[8] In ''good and false Parrying'', and on some who, with the sword alone, parry with the left arm.</p>
 
| <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>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 hit, 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>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>

Revision as of 02:37, 3 June 2022

Salvator Fabris
Born 1544
Padua, Italy
Died 11 Nov 1618 (aged 74)
Padua, Italy
Occupation
Nationality Italian
Alma mater University of Padua (?)
Patron
  • Christianus Ⅳ of Denmark
  • Johan Frederik of Schleswig-
    Holstein-Gottorp
Influenced
Genres Fencing manual
Language Italian
Notable work(s) Scienza d’Arme (1601-06)
Manuscript(s)
Translations

Salvator Fabris (Salvador Fabbri, Salvator Fabriz, Fabrice; 1544-1618) was a 16th – 17th century Italian knight and fencing master. He was born in or around Padua, Italy in 1544, and although little is known about his early years, he seems to have studied fencing from a young age and possibly attended the prestigious University of Padua.[citation needed] The French master Henry de Sainct Didier recounts a meeting with an Italian fencer named "Fabrice" during the course of preparing his treatise (completed in 1573) in which they debated fencing theory, potentially placing Fabris in France in the early 1570s.[1] In the 1580s, Fabris corresponded with Christian Barnekow, a Danish nobleman with ties to the royal court as well as an alumnus of the university.[2] It seems likely that Fabris traveled a great deal during the 1570s and 80s, spending time in France, Germany, Spain, and possibly other regions before returning to teach at his alma mater.[citation needed]

It is unclear if Fabris himself was of noble birth, but at some point he seems to have earned a knighthood. In fact, he is described in his treatise as Supremus Eques ("Supreme Knight") of the Order of the Seven Hearts. In Johann Joachim Hynitzsch's introduction to the 1676 edition, he identifies Fabris as a Colonel of the Order.[3] It seems therefore that he was not only a knight of the Order of the Seven Hearts, but rose to a high rank and perhaps even overall leadership.

Fabris' whereabouts in the 1590s are uncertain, but there are rumors. In 1594, he may have been hired by King Sigismund of Poland to assassinate his uncle Karl, a Swedish duke and competitor for the Swedish crown. According to the story, Fabris participated in a sword dance (or possibly a dramatic play) with a sharp sword and was to slay Karl during the performance when the audience was distracted. (The duke was warned and avoided the event, saving his life.)[4] In ca. 1599, Fabris may have been invited to England by noted playwright William Shakespeare to choreograph the fight scenes in his premier of Hamlet.[5][2] He also presumably spent considerable time in the 1590s developing the fencing manual that would guarantee his lasting fame.

What is certain is that by 1598, Fabris had left his position at the University of Padua and was attached to the court of Johan Frederik, the young duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp. He continued in the duke's service until 1601, and as a parting gift prepared a lavishly-illustrated, three-volume manuscript of his treatise entitled Scientia e Prattica dell'Arme (GI.kgl.Saml.1868 4040).[2]

In 1601, Fabris was hired as chief rapier instructor to the court of Christianus Ⅳ, King of Denmark and Duke Johan Frederik's cousin. He ultimately served in the royal court for five years; toward the end of his tenure and at the king's insistence, he published his opus under the title Sienza e Pratica d’Arme ("Science and Practice of Arms") or De lo Schermo, overo Scienza d’Arme ("On Defense, or the Science of Arms"). Christianus funded this first edition and placed his court artist, Jan van Halbeeck, at Fabris' disposal to illustrate it; it was ultimately published in Copenhagen on 25 September 1606.[2]

Soon after the text was published, and perhaps feeling his 62 years, Fabris asked to be released from his six-year contract with the king so that he might return home. He traveled through northern Germany and was in Paris, France, in 1608. Ultimately, he received a position at the University of Padua and there passed his final years. He died of a fever on 11 November 1618 at the age of 74, and the town of Padua declared an official day of mourning in his honor. In 1676, the town of Padua erected a statue of the master in the Chiesa del Santo.

The importance of Fabris' work can hardly be overstated. Versions of his treatise were reprinted for over a hundred years, and translated into German at least four times as well as French and Latin. He is almost universally praised by later masters and fencing historians, and through the influence of his students and their students (most notably Hans Wilhelm Schöffer), he became the dominant figure in German fencing throughout the 17th century and into the 18th.

Treatise

Additional Resources

References

  1. Didier, Henry de Sainct. Les secrets du premier livre sur l'espée seule. Paris, 1573. pp 5-8.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Fabris, Salvator and Leoni, Tom. Art of Dueling: Salvator Fabris' Rapier Fencing Treatise of 1606. Highland Village, TX: Chivalry Bookshelf, 2005. pp XVIII-XIX.
  3. Fabris, Salvator and Leoni, Tom. Art of Dueling: Salvator Fabris' Rapier Fencing Treatise of 1606. Highland Village, TX: Chivalry Bookshelf, 2005. p XXIX.
  4. Andersson, Henrik. Salvator Fabris as a Hired Assassin in Sweden. Association for Renaissance Martial Arts. Retrieved 2011-12-18.
  5. Barbasetti, Luigi. Fencing Through the Ages.[Full citation needed]
  6. Originally "asseruatore", but corrected in the errata.
  7. This seems like a mistranslation of rompere di misura at first blush, but according to Kevin Murakoshi, this is an archaic piece of fencing jargon that was still current in the early 20th century. It means to "break measure" or withdraw. ~ Michael Chidester
  8. Originally "richeide", but corrected in the errata.
  9. Originally "dirarsi", but corrected in the errata.
  10. Originally "longuezza", but corrected in the errata.
  11. Originally "mettre", but corrected in the errata.
  12. Originally "volto", but corrected in the errata.
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 There's no conclusion of this word on the next page, just a new sentence.
  14. Originally "occcsione", but corrected in the errata.
  15. Originally "albassare", but corrected in the errata.
  16. Originally "& migliore", but corrected in the errata.
  17. Originally "temerariemente", but corrected in the errata.
  18. Originally "bisogna", but corrected in the errata.
  19. The letter 'F' was omitted in the print and hand-corrected in all copies.
  20. Originally "guardia", but corrected in the errata.
  21. Originally "equali", but corrected in the errata.
  22. Originally "poco", but corrected in the errata.
  23. Originally "poco", but corrected in the errata.
  24. Originally "non buoni", but corrected in the errata.
  25. Originally "queui", but corrected in the errata.
  26. Originally "che spada", but corrected in the errata.
  27. Originally "accorgendosi", but corrected in the errata.
  28. Originally "con pugnale", but corrected in the errata.
  29. Originally "mouendolo", but corrected in the errata.
  30. Originally "diuersi", but corrected in the errata.
  31. Originally "dentro la spada", but corrected in the errata.
  32. Originally "andere", but corrected in the errata.
  33. Originally "richede", but corrected in the errata.
  34. Originally "in suoi", but corrected in the errata.
  35. This word can't be read on the photos I have. It's a 6-letter word that seems to end in "s?ed". The Italian word means to move or advance, and Tom Leoni translates it as "fling".
  36. Originally "della", but corrected in the errata.
  37. Originally "la dette", but corrected in the errata.
  38. Originally "è passare", but corrected in the errata.
  39. The errata adds "l’".
  40. Originally "farmarsi", but corrected in the errata. The errata says it should be on page 232, but this is the only instance of the word in the book.
  41. This large blank space was probably meant to be filled in later with a suitable translation for brezza, which means "breeze" though that's obviously not the intended meaning here. It might be a spelling of brecca, meaning "breach". Tom Leoni translates it "rampart". ~ Michael Chidester
  42. Originally "sforza", but corrected in the errata. The errata says it should be on page 241, but this is the only instance of the word on the correct line.
  43. Should be 183.
  44. Originally "ineguale", but corrected in the errata.