Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Salvator Fabris"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 2,883: Line 2,883:
 
<p>This is the fourth method, in which we explain the manner of proceeding[!] against those who never hold their sword still, but continually move the point in a circle and hold the dagger, now advanced, now withdrawn, at one moment close to the sword, at another separated from it. We must proceed in a manner different from the other three methods. If the adversary moves his sword in a circle, as long as his sword hand is at a distance from his dagger hand, you should begin to approach your points and advance as far as possible towards his sword hand, in order to force him to one of two course[!], either to stop moving his point and meet your advancing point, or to move his dagger, both opportune moments to hit in the part he uncovers. You should continue to hold the point of your dagger directed towards the adversary, so that it may be ready to parry on every occasion of his attempting to hit; when he must pass the line of your dagger. You must also keep your body low and in union with your weapons. If the adversary makes no move, you must advance so far that you can take the ''time'' of the circular movement of his point, and hit, excluding his point at the same time, assured that, while your point is directed towards his hand, you will easily parry, whenever he tries to hit during your advance and will hit without being disordered. But the correct principles must be observed.</p>
 
<p>This is the fourth method, in which we explain the manner of proceeding[!] against those who never hold their sword still, but continually move the point in a circle and hold the dagger, now advanced, now withdrawn, at one moment close to the sword, at another separated from it. We must proceed in a manner different from the other three methods. If the adversary moves his sword in a circle, as long as his sword hand is at a distance from his dagger hand, you should begin to approach your points and advance as far as possible towards his sword hand, in order to force him to one of two course[!], either to stop moving his point and meet your advancing point, or to move his dagger, both opportune moments to hit in the part he uncovers. You should continue to hold the point of your dagger directed towards the adversary, so that it may be ready to parry on every occasion of his attempting to hit; when he must pass the line of your dagger. You must also keep your body low and in union with your weapons. If the adversary makes no move, you must advance so far that you can take the ''time'' of the circular movement of his point, and hit, excluding his point at the same time, assured that, while your point is directed towards his hand, you will easily parry, whenever he tries to hit during your advance and will hit without being disordered. But the correct principles must be observed.</p>
  
<p>In case the adversary while moving his point in a circle has his dagger close to his sword hand, you must be careful not, to advance your sword so far that it would be engaged. The true method is to keep the point of your sword directed towards the first part of the adversary's blade, that is towards the hilt, and to follow on by bringing up the body to the first position of the hands, with the hands now a little in advance of the body, bending the arms at the elbow, as you advance; for if you work from the shoulders only as you advance your body, your hands will go too low and you will be exposed. Your hand should be in ''quarte'', with the points still directed towards the first part of his blade. As you come forward in union, you must lower the body, but never let the point of your sword penetrate so far that it is inside the adversary's dagger, that is, when his dagger is close to his sword hand. You should approach towards the blade or point of his dagger, and if he hits in the ''time'' of your advancing, you will parry more easily than if your points were directed towards his hands, since the ''fortes'' will be further from the adversary, so that the point of his sword cannot so easily penetrate them, and the ''fortes'' will be all the stronger, since they are gathered in close to the body. There is one point to be considered, that is that when his point moved in a circle, the first part of his blade also moved, and changes its position so much, that you cannot keep your points exactly against it. If you follow our rule and keep the points of your sword and dagger directed towards that part with your dagger hand somewhat divided from the sword hand, but with the point of the dagger close to the blade of the sword, that wavering of the adversary's sword will not matter, since it will never be so great that he can hit in any line, disorder you, or obtain any advantage.</p>
+
<p>In case the adversary while moving his point in a circle has his dagger close to his sword hand, you must be careful not to advance your sword so far that it would be engaged. The true method is to keep the point of your sword directed towards the first part of the adversary's blade, that is towards the hilt, and to follow on by bringing up the body to the first position of the hands, with the hands now a little in advance of the body, bending the arms at the elbow, as you advance; for if you work from the shoulders only as you advance your body, your hands will go too low and you will be exposed. Your hand should be in ''quarte'', with the points still directed towards the first part of his blade. As you come forward in union, you must lower the body, but never let the point of your sword penetrate so far that it is inside the adversary's dagger, that is, when his dagger is close to his sword hand. You should approach towards the blade or point of his dagger, and if he hits in the ''time'' of your advancing, you will parry more easily than if your points were directed towards his hands, since the ''fortes'' will be further from the adversary, so that the point of his sword cannot so easily penetrate them, and the ''fortes'' will be all the stronger, since they are gathered in close to the body. There is one point to be considered, that is that when his point moved in a circle, the first part of his blade also moved, and changes its position so much, that you cannot keep your points exactly against it. If you follow our rule and keep the points of your sword and dagger directed towards that part with your dagger hand somewhat divided from the sword hand, but with the point of the dagger close to the blade of the sword, that wavering of the adversary's sword will not matter, since it will never be so great that he can hit in any line, disorder you, or obtain any advantage.</p>
  
 
<p>If the adversary holds his dagger so far forward as to cover the whole of the first part of his blade, and moreover close to his sword in a guard of ''quarte'', you cannot then approach the hilt or the first part of his blade. If you tried to approach the second part of his blade, you would not be safe, since that part makes a large movement, when the point is moved, and the adversary would be too far away to be hit. In this case you should hold the point of your sword against his dagger hand, and your dagger not much advanced and directed towards the centre of his blade; you should advance with your feet and body towards his dagger side, with your hand in quarte and as you advance gather your hand in towards your left side, still keeping the point in the same line; when you have brought the hand as close to your body as possible, you would then be in the required position and could hit in the line uncovered nor would the adversary be able to parry in any way. If your dagger is directed towards the centre of his blade, it will easily parry if he tries to hit in that ''time''; if he hits before you reach your position, it will be still  better for your defence, since both your weapons will be free and steady, so that when once within distance you could take any ''time'' offered by the adversary. In following this method you must continue with the feet, keeping your points and hands steady, until you find a ''time'' or reach your position.</p>
 
<p>If the adversary holds his dagger so far forward as to cover the whole of the first part of his blade, and moreover close to his sword in a guard of ''quarte'', you cannot then approach the hilt or the first part of his blade. If you tried to approach the second part of his blade, you would not be safe, since that part makes a large movement, when the point is moved, and the adversary would be too far away to be hit. In this case you should hold the point of your sword against his dagger hand, and your dagger not much advanced and directed towards the centre of his blade; you should advance with your feet and body towards his dagger side, with your hand in quarte and as you advance gather your hand in towards your left side, still keeping the point in the same line; when you have brought the hand as close to your body as possible, you would then be in the required position and could hit in the line uncovered nor would the adversary be able to parry in any way. If your dagger is directed towards the centre of his blade, it will easily parry if he tries to hit in that ''time''; if he hits before you reach your position, it will be still  better for your defence, since both your weapons will be free and steady, so that when once within distance you could take any ''time'' offered by the adversary. In following this method you must continue with the feet, keeping your points and hands steady, until you find a ''time'' or reach your position.</p>
Line 2,978: Line 2,978:
 
|  
 
|  
 
| [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) 178.jpg|400px|center]]
 
| [[file:Scienza d’Arme (Fabris) 178.jpg|400px|center]]
| <p>[27] From the preceeding[!] ''tierce'' with the point of the sword against the first part of the adversary's blade has followed this hit. When within close distance you have taken the ''time'' offered by the adversary in carrying the point of his sword away from his dagger in its circular movement and have disengaged between his weapons in ''quarte''; he has been unable either to parry with his dagger or to turn his hand to ''seconde'' because of the advance of your sword, which had already hit when he tried to parry; for this purpose he bent his body thinking to escape the imminent danger, but when he turned his hand to ''seconde'', your body had already passed. You have hit with the dagger also at the same time, while he was occupied in the effort of defending himself from your sword, and because he was so impeded, that even if he had tried to hit with his dagger, he could not have done so, because his arm would have been imprisoned by your arm, which had passed so far forward, that he could hardly have seen anything. This hit with the dagger has been introduced to show that you can also hit with the dagger; if we have not spoken of it before, although there has often been an opportunity, it is because we have deemed it better to confine our attention to use of the sword. Moreover those who pass with resolution have no need to hit with the dagger or to fear the adversary's dagger, because when you pass and hit the sword penetrates entirely and removes all danger. Therefore you can pass without fear of his dagger, assuming that no one is so foolish as to let your sword pass through his body in order to hit you with his dagger; even if an opponent did that, he would generally be thrown to the ground before he could hit. Moreover since he is forced to parry with his dagger, he cannot hit in ''time'', whilst on the other hand by advancing with resolution , when the adversary's point is passed, you can leave it without hesitation, and carry your dagger to his body. Therefore it is clear that he who passes can hit with the dagger better than he who waits, whose lack of resolution is increased by seeing his opponent close upon him and his sword engaged, so that he can parry with the dagger only; his dagger being engaged on one task cannot perform the other. Therefore he who passes has always the advantage, and if he does not hit with the sword, can hit with the dagger, but if he hits with the sword, he will not need the other. We might already have treated of this manner of hitting, but our intention has been to consider the point of the sword, which attacks from a greater distance, takes and offers the times of hitting, and also is the first to strike terror and attack. For these reasons we have desired to consider a subject, which is more subtle and profitable. We have added this short discourse to show the error of those who reject the pass from fear of being hit by the adversary's dagger. We have also omitted for the sake of brevity the consideration of the broad-sword and many other kinds of weapons, of which there would have been much to say. Moreover such arms are not used among gentlemen nor in chance meetings, though they are excellent when campaigning or &emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;<ref>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</ref> but such matters are far from our subject, since we intend to treat only of the arms of gentlemen and of cases which may arise in the association of noblemen. Of these things we believe we have treated at sufficient length; it remains only to throw light on some extraordinary accidents, which may arise, although rarely. For this purpose we shall add another short discourse showing the method of defence on such occasions.</p>
+
| <p>[27] From the preceeding[!] ''tierce'' with the point of the sword against the first part of the adversary's blade has followed this hit. When within close distance you have taken the ''time'' offered by the adversary in carrying the point of his sword away from his dagger in its circular movement and have disengaged between his weapons in ''quarte''; he has been unable either to parry with his dagger or to turn his hand to ''seconde'' because of the advance of your sword, which had already hit when he tried to parry; for this purpose he bent his body thinking to escape the imminent danger, but when he turned his hand to ''seconde'', your body had already passed. You have hit with the dagger also at the same time, while he was occupied in the effort of defending himself from your sword, and because he was so impeded, that even if he had tried to hit with his dagger, he could not have done so, because his arm would have been imprisoned by your arm, which had passed so far forward, that he could hardly have seen anything. This hit with the dagger has been introduced to show that you can also hit with the dagger; if we have not spoken of it before, although there has often been an opportunity, it is because we have deemed it better to confine our attention to the use of the sword. Moreover those who pass with resolution have no need to hit with the dagger or to fear the adversary's dagger, because when you pass and hit the sword penetrates entirely and removes all danger. Therefore you can pass without fear of his dagger, assuming that no one is so foolish as to let your sword pass through his body in order to hit you with his dagger; even if an opponent did that, he would generally be thrown to the ground before he could hit. Moreover since he is forced to parry with his dagger, he cannot hit in ''time'', whilst on the other hand by advancing with resolution , when the adversary's point is passed, you can leave it without hesitation, and carry your dagger to his body. Therefore it is clear that he who passes can hit with the dagger better than he who waits, whose lack of resolution is increased by seeing his opponent close upon him and his sword engaged, so that he can parry with the dagger only; his dagger being engaged on one task cannot perform the other. Therefore he who passes has always the advantage, and if he does not hit with the sword, can hit with the dagger, but if he hits with the sword, he will not need the other. We might already have treated of this manner of hitting, but our intention has been to consider the point of the sword, which attacks from a greater distance, takes and offers the times of hitting, and also is the first to strike terror and attack. For these reasons we have desired to consider a subject, which is more subtle and profitable. We have added this short discourse to show the error of those who reject the pass from fear of being hit by the adversary's dagger. We have also omitted for the sake of brevity the consideration of the broad-sword and many other kinds of weapons, of which there would have been much to say. Moreover such arms are not used among gentlemen nor in chance meetings, though they are excellent when campaigning or &emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;<ref>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</ref> but such matters are far from our subject, since we intend to treat only of the arms of gentlemen and of cases which may arise in the association of noblemen. Of these things we believe we have treated at sufficient length; it remains only to throw light on some extraordinary accidents, which may arise, although rarely. For this purpose we shall add another short discourse showing the method of defence on such occasions.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| {{pagetb|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf|251|lbl=241|p=1}} {{pagetb|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf|252|lbl=242|p=1}}
 
| {{pagetb|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf|251|lbl=241|p=1}} {{pagetb|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf|252|lbl=242|p=1}}

Revision as of 23:03, 8 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". ~ Michael Chidester
  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.