Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Salvator Fabris"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 2,041: Line 2,041:
 
|  
 
|  
 
| [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) 111.jpg|400px|center]]
 
| [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) 111.jpg|400px|center]]
| <p>[8] The next hit has also arisen from the same initial advantage, and in this manner: in advancing you were running along your adversary's blade, having already brought the left foot in front; he has tried to parry by forcing your sword and drawing back his body; feeling the pressure, you have changed your hand to ''seconde'' and given way to his sword, which has gone to the outside through meeting no resistance, and all the further out of line because you have lowered your body. You have kept the hilt of your sword at the same height against his ''faible''. The angle formed by the ''seconde'' has carried your point to a hit. If you had attacked on the outside in ''tierce'' the result would have been the same. After bringing the left foot forward, if the adversary had tried to parry, you would have again changed your hand to ''seconde'', put the point under his right arm, keeping the hilt at the same height, lowered your body, followed on with the right foot and thus made the same hit. But if you had begun on the inside and the adversary had begun to parry by breaking ground, as he could you should then have disengaged with the wrist on the outside in ''tierce'', and gone on until you reached his body. If again he had proceeded to parry, as he might, without breaking ground, you should hit in ''seconde'' below. But if he parried at the point of your sword, if you had begun on the outside, you should disengage in ''quarte'' on the inside, and if he again parried and drew back, you should turn the hand again and hit in ''seconde''. If at the beginning the adversary disengaged in order to hit, you should simply go on in the straight line in ''tierce'' or in ''quarte'', according to whether you were on the outside or the inside, and you would hit in the ''time'' of his disengage. When the adversary disengaged, if he had not advanced but defended himself by breaking ground whether on the inside or the outside, you would have been sure of hitting in that second ''time''. It might happen that at the beginning of the movement he disengaged and broke ground with the idea of engaging your ''faible''; in that case you should counter-disengage, before he touched your point, and follow on in the straight line, so that if he makes a double disengagement, as he might, you could defend with little movement without disorder. If after his first disengagement he returns to the parry, you should hit above, as we have explained since all he could do would be to use his left hand, which would cause only slight disturbance or might even give you an advantage. All these rules apply against a ''tierce'' or a low ''quarte'', whether straight or at an angle. Afterwards we shall treat of the ''prime'' and ''seconde'', but we have put these first, as being more usual.</p>
+
| <p>[8] The next hit has also arisen from the same initial advantage, and in this manner: in advancing you were running along your adversary's blade, having already brought the left foot in front; he has tried to parry by forcing your sword and drawing back his body; feeling the pressure, you have changed your hand to ''seconde'' and given way to his sword, which has gone to the outside through meeting no resistance, and all the further out of line because you have lowered your body. You have kept the hilt of your sword at the same height against his ''faible''. The angle formed by the ''seconde'' has carried your point to a hit. If you had attacked on the outside in ''tierce'' the result would have been the same. After bringing the left foot forward, if the adversary had tried to parry, you would have again changed your hand to ''seconde'', put the point under his right arm, keeping the hilt at the same height, lowered your body, followed on with the right foot and thus made the same hit. But if you had begun on the inside and the adversary had begun to parry by breaking ground, as he could you should then have disengaged with the wrist on the outside in ''tierce'', and gone on until you reached his body. If again he had proceeded to parry, as he might, without breaking ground, you should hit in ''seconde'' below. But if he parried at the point of your sword, if you had begun on the outside, you should disengage in ''quarte'' on the inside, and if he again parried and drew back, you should turn the hand again and hit in ''seconde''. If at the beginning the adversary disengaged in order to hit, you should simply go on in the straight line in ''tierce'' or in ''quarte'', according to whether you were on the outside or the inside, and you would hit in the ''time'' of his disengage. When the adversary disengaged, if he had not advanced but defended himself by breaking ground whether on the inside or the outside, you would have been sure of hitting in that second ''time''. It might happen that at the beginning of the movement he disengaged and broke ground with the idea of engaging your ''faible''; in that case you should counter-disengage, before he touched your point, and follow on in the straight line, so that if he makes a double disengagement, as he might, you could defend with little movement and without disorder. If after his first disengagement he returns to the parry, you should hit above, as we have explained since all he could do would be to use his left hand, which would cause only slight disturbance or might even give you an advantage. All these rules apply against a ''tierce'' or a low ''quarte'', whether straight or at an angle. Afterwards we shall treat of the ''prime'' and ''seconde'', but we have put these first, as being more usual.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  

Revision as of 04:07, 5 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.