Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Salvator Fabris"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 358: Line 358:
 
| <p>[14] '''On holding the sword extended, straight, at an angle and withdrawn.'''</p>
 
| <p>[14] '''On holding the sword extended, straight, at an angle and withdrawn.'''</p>
  
<p>There are various ways of holding the sword and the arm, as will be seen in the following plates, which will illustrate the variety of the guards. Since one method is better than another we shall treat of the principal ones, reserving a fuller discussion until we treat of the nature of the guards. They will be illustrated separately on the plates. Some hold the sword at an angle and the arm a little advanced towards the knee with the hand in ''tierce'', or slightly outwards towards the guard in ''seconde''. Others hold the arm withdrawn and the sword in such a manner as to make a straight line from the elbow to the point. Others extend the arm as far as possible and hold the sword straight, making a straight line from the shoulder to the point of the sword. This method is very cautious, because it keeps the adversary at a distance, but is very fatiguing, and the sword is weaker than with the other guards because of the distance of the hand from the body. In this position your sword is more easily engaged by the adversary and great pains are needed to keep it free. When you can do this, the position is a great impediment to your adversary, because he cannot approach so as to hit, seeing the point so near, and cannot advance owing to the same danger, unless he can engage the point and drive it out of presence. Even though he places the ''forte'' of his sword against your ''faible'' and tries to hit, it would hardly succeed, since there is little uncovered and he cannot hit unless his ''faible'' passes your ''forte'', which you could easily prevent. If he tries to hit below, he will easily be hit above, for your sword being nearer and already extended must arrive first. Therefore in order to hit more safely he must remove your sword, and seizing the chance carry his body out of line on the one side or the other and pass on to the body. For he cannot hit until he has passed the point nor save himself or his recovery; therefore it is better for him to follow on. This method is the more likely to succeed, as it is difficult for one who holds his sword thus extended and high to maintain his point in line since with but a small movement his adversary could pass out of line. He could easily pass underneath by lowering his body. It is however true that one who forms this guard properly holds his sword extended and keeps his feet close together, so that the lower parts are kept withdrawn, as they are more exposed and difficult to protect. Also he can then advance further in hitting and similarly retreat, if his adversary approaches too near. For with this guard the adversary must be kept at a distance, otherwise he would find it easy to pass. For the same reasons the guard is a good defense against cuts, since the ''forte'' of the sword is already pushed forward, to that the adversary's sword cannot fall without meeting it. If ht tries to hit below, he cannot reach before one, who holds his sword extended, has arrived with the fourth part of his blade. If he keeps his feet close together, he can reach all the further, although the extended arm is in greater danger. Still it is easy to defend by a slight motion towards the part threatened by the sword, lowering the point more or less, as the cut is high or low, and keeping the point in line. Certainly you should often practise this guard in order to learn how to hit without hurling the arm forward. You must hit, but you must keep the arm steady, and let the motion of the foot and the body suffice. This guard will teach you to hold your sword close to the adversary, where you can more easily hit him, and similarly to keep it free. Some hesitate to advance the sword, lest it should be engaged and subjected by the adversary.</p>
+
<p>There are various ways of holding the sword and the arm, as will be seen in the following plates, which will illustrate the variety of the guards. Since one method is better than another we shall treat of the principal ones, reserving a fuller discussion until we treat of the nature of the guards. They will be illustrated separately on the plates. Some hold the sword at an angle and the arm a little advanced towards the knee with the hand in ''tierce'', or slightly outwards towards the guard in ''seconde''. Others hold the arm withdrawn and the sword in such a manner as to make a straight line from the elbow to the point. Others extend the arm as far as possible and hold the sword straight, making a straight line from the shoulder to the point of the sword. This method is very cautious, because it keeps the adversary at a distance, but is very fatiguing, and the sword is weaker than with the other guards because of the distance of the hand from the body. In this position your sword is more easily engaged by the adversary and great pains are needed to keep it free. When you can do this, the position is a great impediment to your adversary, because he cannot approach so as to hit, seeing the point so near, and cannot advance owing to the same danger, unless he can engage the point and drive it out of presence. Even though he places the ''forte'' of his sword against your ''faible'' and tries to hit, it would hardly succeed, since there is little uncovered and he cannot hit unless his ''faible'' passes your ''forte'', which you could easily prevent. If he tries to hit below, he will easily be hit above, for your sword being nearer and already extended must arrive first. Therefore in order to hit more safely he must remove your sword, and seizing the chance carry his body out of line on the one side or the other and pass on to the body. For he cannot hit until he has passed the point nor save himself or his recovery; therefore it is better for him to follow on. This method is the more likely to succeed, as it is difficult for one who holds his sword thus extended and high to maintain his point in line since with but a small movement his adversary could pass out of line. He could easily pass underneath by lowering his body. It is however true that one who forms this guard properly holds his sword extended and keeps his feet close together, so that the lower parts are kept withdrawn, as they are more exposed and difficult to protect. Also he can then advance further in hitting and similarly retreat, if his adversary approaches too near. For with this guard the adversary must be kept at a distance, otherwise he would find it easy to pass. For the same reasons the guard is a good defense against cuts, since the ''forte'' of the sword is already pushed forward, to that the adversary's sword cannot fall without meeting it. If ht tries to hit below, he cannot reach before one, who holds his sword extended, has arrived with the fourth part of his blade. If he keeps his feet close together, he can reach all the further, although the extended arm is in greater danger. Still it is easy to defend by a slight motion towards the part threatened by the sword, lowering the point more or less, as the cut is high or low, and keeping the point in line. Certainly you should often practise this guard in order to learn how to hit without hurling the arm forward. You must hit, but you must keep the arm steady, and let the motion of the foot and the body suffice. This guard will teach you to hold your sword close to the adversary, where you can more easily hit him, and similarly to keep it free. Some hesitate to advance the sword, lest it should be engaged and subjected by the adversary. You will learn also to hold the arm correctly, and after such practice, when the opportunity comes, you will act more promptly and correctly. One who is unpractised often makes a mistake of too much or too little, and is not sure in his defence; moreover he does not extend so far as if he had practised.</p>
  
<p>You will learn also to hold the arm correctly, and after such practice, when the opportunity comes, you will act more promptly and correctly. One who is unpractised often makes a mistake of too much or too little, and is not sure in his defence; moreover he does not extend so far as if he had practised. Those who hold the sword at an angle in ''tierce'' with the hand before the knee, or in ''seconde'' with the arm outside, have a stronger hold of the sword, but the body is too much expos-<ref name="hyphen"/> Your adversary can approach further, and with this ''tierce'' you cannot disengage, as with your sword at such an angle it would take too long. In the ''seconde'' although the sword is at angle you can easily disengage; but both of them are bad in defence against an opponent who can thrust in the straight line, because such thrusts come to the body without approaching the ''forte'' of the sword held at an angle, so that in the effort to parry you would have to make a large movement and often would be too late. Even if you are in time the movement is so slow, that your adversary may easily change either into another straight line, or into an angle, as opportunity offers. For a thrust at an angle is most likely to pass, but thrusts in the straight line cannot pass one another; if of equal force they will nullify each other. If you hit it will be because your thrust was stronger by having engaged his ''faible'' better. The weaker will always be driven out of the line, and the other will pass on and hit. But the thrust at an angle passes on and hits without a junction of the blades; such thrusts rather yield to one another, and therefore are very likely to pass and hit the part aimed at. Further one who fences with his sword at an angle can change only by a large movement. It is impossible that his point and hand should not make a large circle in the direction in which he has moved, all the larger if he changes from one angle to another, and incomparably larger if he disengages. The movement, however, would be smaller, if the change is from an angle to a straight line, but would still be so large that, if within distance, he would be hit. To hold the sword at an angle is well enough for thrusting, but not for the defence. To proceed against such a guard with security it is necessary to be able to use the advantage not only of the sword, but of the body and the foot, and to realise well the strength of the angle, otherwise while hitting you will also be hit.</p>
+
<p>Those who hold the sword at an angle in ''tierce'' with the hand before the knee, or in ''seconde'' with the arm outside, have a stronger hold of the sword, but the body is too much expos-<ref name="hyphen"/> Your adversary can approach further, and with this ''tierce'' you cannot disengage, as with your sword at such an angle it would take too long. In the ''seconde'' although the sword is at angle you can easily disengage; but both of them are bad in defence against an opponent who can thrust in the straight line, because such thrusts come to the body without approaching the ''forte'' of the sword held at an angle, so that in the effort to parry you would have to make a large movement and often would be too late. Even if you are in time the movement is so slow, that your adversary may easily change either into another straight line, or into an angle, as opportunity offers. For a thrust at an angle is most likely to pass, but thrusts in the straight line cannot pass one another; if of equal force they will nullify each other. If you hit it will be because your thrust was stronger by having engaged his ''faible'' better. The weaker will always be driven out of the line, and the other will pass on and hit. But the thrust at an angle passes on and hits without a junction of the blades; such thrusts rather yield to one another, and therefore are very likely to pass and hit the part aimed at. Further one who fences with his sword at an angle can change only by a large movement. It is impossible that his point and hand should not make a large circle in the direction in which he has moved, all the larger if he changes from one angle to another, and incomparably larger if he disengages. The movement, however, would be smaller, if the change is from an angle to a straight line, but would still be so large that, if within distance, he would be hit. To hold the sword at an angle is well enough for thrusting, but not for the defence. To proceed against such a guard with security it is necessary to be able to use the advantage not only of the sword, but of the body and the foot, and to realise well the strength of the angle, otherwise while hitting you will also be hit.</p>
  
 
<p>To hold the arm withdrawn and the sword straight, forming a straight line from the elbow to the point, is a better rule. In this manner you can better acquire the superiority, hit and parry, and on occasion disengage more swiftly, since your body is more defended by the ''forte'' and the point is more easily maintained in line. Still you should know how to use any method at need, for you cannot understand the nature of what you have not practised, nor to what it may lead. You must remember that one rule will not serve for all cases, but each has its appropriate end, and what is good in one case will not serve in another. Therefore, as we have already said, you must be rich in devices and understand the time when they may be used.</p>
 
<p>To hold the arm withdrawn and the sword straight, forming a straight line from the elbow to the point, is a better rule. In this manner you can better acquire the superiority, hit and parry, and on occasion disengage more swiftly, since your body is more defended by the ''forte'' and the point is more easily maintained in line. Still you should know how to use any method at need, for you cannot understand the nature of what you have not practised, nor to what it may lead. You must remember that one rule will not serve for all cases, but each has its appropriate end, and what is good in one case will not serve in another. Therefore, as we have already said, you must be rich in devices and understand the time when they may be used.</p>

Revision as of 22:06, 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.