Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Salvator Fabris"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1,347: Line 1,347:
 
| <p>[7] '''''General discourse on the use of the dagger.'''''</p>
 
| <p>[7] '''''General discourse on the use of the dagger.'''''</p>
  
<p>In practising we say that it is good to hold the dagger with the arm extended with little help from the sword, so that you may become secure in the defence and may make little movement in parrying in order not to uncover one side while covering the other; for when the dagger is held well forward and you are disordered by large movements, you become confused and are defeated. Therefore it is necessary to use it judiciously and with practice to acquire such exactness that the dagger is not disturbed by the movements of the sword and you are more secure in its use. When then you have acquired that familiarity and security, you can hold it withdrawn and push it forward to the defence as required. Then you will be certain that it will perform its function with more exactness and security in engaging the adversary's sword. Similarly after such exercise you will be able to hold it more in union with the sword, which will render the defence easier and stronger, nor will your dagger be so much harassed. But you should not hold it fixed in any position. The reason is that in some cases it is good to have it advanced, and in other cases not according to the position of your adversary's weapons, whether advanced or withdrawn, and according to the position of your own guard. For having fixed the body and pushed the sword forward, it may be better to have the dagger while in other cases it may be better to have it advanced. But to discuss all the positions in which it may be held against the various counter-positions would make this discourse too long, for the subject is very large, almost endless. We shall merely say that as a general rule the point of the dagger should be held always opposed to the point of the adversary's sword, until that point is turned against the body. To hold the dagger out of line would not be advantageous, nor to keep it turned towards the feet, unless you were careful to hold the body so low that you could defend the upper part with little movement, and were ready to hit in the same ''time''. As we have said it is better to cover the dagger with the sword in such a manner that your adversary's only resource is to disengage. This method is safer and less subtle, and may also be used against a sword held high. Also you should hold the dagger so close to the sword that there is no path for the adversary's sword between the two hands; his sword will either meet the dagger or pass on to the ''forte'' of your sword. We must also remind you that in using the dagger the defences are all to be made with the edge, whether on the inside or the outside, whether high or low, and with the strongest part of the dagger especially against cuts, and against thrusts too, when you wish to glide along the blade. It is true that if you wish to beat a practice which we do not recommend, it is better to do so, the point of the dagger on the ''faible'' of the adversary's sword, since the point describes a larger circle.</p>
+
<p>In practising we say that it is good to hold the dagger with the arm extended with little help from the sword, so that you may become secure in the defence and may make little movement in parrying in order not to uncover one side while covering the other; for when the dagger is held well forward and you are disordered by large movements, you become confused and are defeated. Therefore it is necessary to use it judiciously and with practice to acquire such exactness that the dagger is not disturbed by the movements of the sword and you are more secure in its use. When then you have acquired that familiarity and security, you can hold it withdrawn and push it forward to the defence as required. Then you will be certain that it will perform its function with more exactness and security in engaging the adversary's sword. Similarly after such exercise you will be able to hold it more in union with the sword, which will render the defence easier and stronger, nor will your dagger be so much harassed. But you should not hold it fixed in any position. The reason is that in some cases it is good to have it advanced, and in other cases not according to the position of your adversary's weapons, whether advanced or withdrawn, and according to the position of your own guard. For having fixed the body and pushed the sword forward, it may be better to have the dagger withdrawn while in other cases it may be better to have it advanced. But to discuss all the positions in which it may be held against the various counter-positions would make this discourse too long, for the subject is very large, almost endless. We shall merely say that as a general rule the point of the dagger should be held always opposed to the point of the adversary's sword, until that point is turned against the body. To hold the dagger out of line would not be advantageous, nor to keep it turned towards the feet, unless you were careful to hold the body so low that you could defend the upper part with little movement, and were ready to hit in the same ''time''. As we have said it is better to cover the dagger with the sword in such a manner that your adversary's only resource is to disengage. This method is safer and less subtle, and may also be used against a sword held high. Also you should hold the dagger so close to the sword that there is no path for the adversary's sword between the two hands; his sword will either meet the dagger or pass on to the ''forte'' of your sword. We must also remind you that in using the dagger the defences are all to be made with the edge, whether on the inside or the outside, whether high or low, and with the strongest part of the dagger especially against cuts, and against thrusts too, when you wish to glide along the blade. It is true that if you wish to beat a practice which we do not recommend, it is better to do so, the point of the dagger on the ''faible'' of the adversary's sword, since the point describes a larger circle.</p>
 
|  
 
|  
 
| {{pagetb|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf|94|lbl=84}}
 
| {{pagetb|Page:Scienza d’Arme (Salvator Fabris) 1606.pdf|94|lbl=84}}

Revision as of 19:07, 4 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.