-
Title
-
The Development of Fencing
-
Description
-
The article explores the paradox that the development of fencing as an art was driven by the introduction of gunpowder, which simultaneously led to the decline of swordsmanship in practical combat. Fencing, revived during the Renaissance after being nearly lost in the Middle Ages, reached its height in the 18th century before evolving into more of a sport than a battlefield skill. Early fencing focused on offensive skills, as survival in combat depended on quickly incapacitating one’s opponent rather than defending against attacks. However, the perfection of firearms eventually relegated fencing to a secondary role in warfare.
The article also traces the rise of fencing schools across Europe, such as the Brotherhood of St. Mark in Germany and similar guilds in Italy and Spain. These schools formalized the teaching of swordsmanship and monopolized its practice, with rigorous training and examinations for students aspiring to become masters. Italy became a central hub for fencing, influencing the development of fencing techniques across Europe, although Spain also had a lasting impact.
By the 16th century, the use of the sword for both offense and defense was formalized, and printed fencing manuals helped disseminate knowledge across borders. Italian masters were particularly influential, but the French school eventually rose to prominence in the 17th century, refining techniques such as parrying, riposting, and the use of lighter weapons. The evolution of fencing continued into the 18th century, with further innovations in style and technique, as fencing became more of an art form and sport rather than a practical means of combat.
-
Creator
-
Monté (Author)
-
Date
-
February 1887
-
volume
-
15
-
page start
-
55
-
page end
-
61
-
Rights
-
Public Domain
-
content
-
The Development of Fencing
It is an admitted paradox that the development of fencing was due to the discovery of gunpowder. The rise of swordsmanship in Europe was an outcome of the introduction of firearms, its decadence the result of their perfection. The “science of defence,” all but lost sight of during the Middle Ages, sprung up again from its half-buried stock during that wonderful revival we know as the Renaissance. Attaining its highest practical exposition during the last century, it has since sank almost to the level of a mere exercise. The breechloader and the revolver have for ever relegated the “white weapon” to a secondary position either in line of battle or chance medley encounter. Theoretically we are better fencers than ever, but the foil-play of to-day, varied, graceful, and dazzling, is essentially that of the school and not of the fighting-ground. As a training it is admirable, but when it has to be put into actual practice with the sword its exponent finds it imperative to ignore at least one half of what he has learnt.
That skilled sword-play was not so wholly ignored in knightly combat during the Middle Ages as has been represented, even by Mr. Castle, becomes apparent on a little investigation. As a rule no doubt the successful champion was he who could bear the stoutest armour and deal the starkest strokes. But in the most perfect specimens of the armourer’s art which have come down to us we see a provision against the assaults of skill as well as those of strength. The hand trained to direct the lance to a hair’s breadth at the quintain was surely capable of guiding the point of a sword with equal accuracy. In proof of this, mark the system of overlapping joints and the especial care taken to protect the armpit by fanlike projections and kindred devices. The thrust through the eye which laid John Chandos low at the bridge of Leusac was from an estoc, a stabbing sword. Still there can be no doubt but that downright shearing blows that would dismount or fell a man if they failed to pierce his armour were in most favour. The sword, too, was, theoretically, at any rate, a weapon of offence only. Theoretically, because the same natural impulse which leads a man to raise his hand to protect his head from a coming stroke, must have instinctively taught him in actual combat to fend it with his blade when he could not otherwise escape it. We can clearly trace the “cross” in the sense of a parry to a fairly remote date. At the same time it is evident that the wearers of armour relied almost wholly upon it for protection, and with good reason. A knightly combat was a matter of endurance as well as of infliction of punishment. There are plenty of instances of champions succumbing from sheer fatigue whilst yet unscathed.
The existence of schools and masters of fence is also patent, although unfortunately there is but little evidence to show what was taught. The probability is that the complete course comprised the handling of all weapons used on foot, more attention being paid to offence than defence. Men fought in earnest in those days, and it must have been self evident that to kill or maim a foe was to put a satisfactory end to a fight at once, to ward his blows merely to prolong its risks, Hence the former was the preferable knowledge to acquire. Mr. Castle has pointed out that such schools were founded throughout the Middle Ages whenever towns managed to obtain a certain amount of independence, and holds that the training given in them to the villain or burgess was much more practical than that acquired by the knight, since the former learned to rely to a certain point on his weapons as well as on general activity for defence instead of on the artificial resource of armour. An important feature in the duties of the medieval weapon-master was the training of men for the ordeal by battle. The prolonged shrifts and purgations which intending combatants had to go through were accompanied by a course of lessons in the arm they were to wield, and their instructors usually took a prominent part in the ceremonial of the encounter (see Archeologia, vol. xxix., in which this point is treated at length). The reputation of these schools in England was not of the highest, if we are to judge by the edicts levelled against them and their frequenters by the civic authorities of the metropolis in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Henry VIII., however, instead of seeking, like some of his predecessors, to suppress them altogether, incorporated all the most celebrated teachers of his day in a company by letters patent, in which their art is styled “the Noble Science of Defence,” and forbade anyone to teach the said art in any part of England if he did not belong to this corporation. The employment of the term “Defence” suggests a verbal sop to Cerberus, It had probably already been put forward as an excuse to palliate the practice of giving instruction. For the earliest books extant on swordsmanship show very little defensive play.
On the Continent a number of fighting guilds also arose, in which traditionary skill was handed down through generations. The Brotherhood of St. Mark in Germany, dating back to the fourteenth century, is, on Mr. Castle’s showing, the oldest of these. It seems to have sprung out of the action of some enterprising swordsmen, who clubbed together in order to monopolize the teaching of their art. Anyone attempting to teach fencing in Germany found himself confronted by the heads of the guild, and was offered the choice of fighting half a dozen of them in turn, or of entering the association under their rule. As a result the headquarters of the Marxbrüder at Frankfort-on-the-Main became a kind of gladiatorial university, to which aspiring swordsmen flocked to take their degree in arms. The captain and several more members of the guild were encountered in turn by the candidate on a scaffold reared in the market-place. If the aspirant sustained the test creditably the captain formally struck him across the hips with the sword of ceremony, and the new member, after placing two golden florins on the blade of that weapon as an initiation fee, was privileged to learn the secrets of the brotherhood in the handling of arms, to bear the heraldic golden lion of the Marxbriider, and to teach throughout Germany—privileges recognised by letters patent of the Emperor Frederick in 1480, Traces also exist of a rival corporation, the Brotherhood of St. Luke, but these are not found later than the fifteenth century.
Similar societies existed in Italy and Spain. In the latter country there is evidence that the ancient Roman schools of fence founded in connection with the gladiatorial arena survived successive barbarian invasions, including that of the Moors. Records preserved in the Hétel de Ville at Perpignan, and dating from the days when that town was a Spanish possession, show in all its details the ordeal which had to be undergone before the “lusor” or “scholar,” passing through the degree of “licentiatus” or provost, attained the full blown dignity of ‘“ Lanista seu Magister in usu Palestrinae” (Revue Archéologique, tome vi. Paris, 1849-53 vol. XV). He had to show his theoretical and practical knowledge by fighting the whole board of examiners, first separately, and then together, with such varied weapons as spear and shield, sword and buckler, axe, dagger, short sword, and falchion. The schools of arms of Leon and Toledo were in high repute, and the names of the first writers on swordplay handed down to us are those of Jayme Pons of Majorca, and Pedro de la Torre, though their works, said to have appeared in 1474, have unfortunately perished. The superiority of the Spanish bands over all other infantry, so conclusively demonstrated in Italy and the Low Countries during the sixteenth century, was due to the perfect training each man received in the use of his weapons. That such training was in direct filiation from the Roman practice in which the point was preferred to the edge, is by no means improbable. The encounter between the Spanish infantry, armed with short sword and buckler, and the pike-bearing Lanzknechts at Ravenna, revived the struggle between the legion and the phalanx.
Hence, though Mr. Castle is inclined to doubt the fact, there is a fair reason to suppose that if the germ of modern fencing sprouted in Italy, the seed originally came from Spain. But whilst Spanish sword-play, after attaining a certain pitch, seems to have fossilized until it became wholly obsolete, that of Italy rapidly progressed, spreading ultimately into France, Germany, England, and the Northern States of Europe. Each of these countries adopted its principles to a greater or lesser extent for the time being. At a far subsequent date the internal development of the French school of play brought it in turn to the foremost position, and led to its adoption throughout Europe with the exception of Spain and Italy.
The systematic use of the sword as a defensive as well as an offensive weapon dates, as far as can be ascertained, from the sixteenth century, the relinquishment of armour due to the introduction of firearms being, as noted, the mainspring of the change. The extant literature of fencing commences in the same century, the bulk of it being Italian. Italy was at this epoch the fount of civilization and culture. Every kind of art and science was trained to flourish within its bounds. In the universal advance swordsmanship, whether of purely native origin or primarily derived from Spanish invaders, was not likely to be neglected. Men’s brains were keenly on the alert to acquire and disseminate knowledge, and the matchless presses of Venice and Rome multiplied a thousandfold the influence of successive masters. All things coming from Italy, even its vices, were welcome in courtly circles abroad. The Italians themselves, natives of different petty States engaged in continual squabbles, and devoid of any very strong national prejudices, were to be met with as painters, musicians, poisoners and panders, in every court in Europe. To these professions that of fencing-master was soon added. Pompee and Silvie in Paris, Rocko and Saviolo in London, and Fabris at Copenhagen, are familiar instances. So wide a range tended in every way to extend the influence of the Italian schools of swordsmanship, and at the same time to enlarge the experience of its professors, and to lead them on to progressive improvements. It was otherwise with the Spaniard. Detested by the Huguenot, and dreaded by the Catholic in France, hated by England, despite the hollow alliance of Philip and Mary, shunned by the German, once his fellow-subject under Charles V., he strove rather to retain than to disseminate his knowledge. It was beneath his dignity to impart it to a foreigner, contrary to his faith to teach it to a heretic save in actual fight. The printing-press was but scantily patronized in the Peninsula, and the work of Carranza, overloaded to excess with maddeningly complicated theories and abstruse philosophical disquisitions, appears to be the only production issued from it in the sixteenth century which has survived. The ultimate effect of this book was undoubtedly the extinction of the Spanish school of sword-play. Its absurd but plausibly expounded theories were eagerly harped upon by successive writers as the only true basis of the science, and Spanish fencing cramped within these limits became wholly stationary, and finally died out altogether. Yet, up to almost the close of the sixteenth century, the Spaniard was still reckoned the most formidable opponent with the rapier of any nation in Europe (G. Silver’s Paradoxe of Defence, 1599. The rapier appears, indeed, to have been of Spanish origin). Incessant practice in camp and school gave him a perfect command over his weapon within certain limits. It was not until the swordsmen of other countries had advanced towards perfection in their own systems that they found themselves his superior.
Fencing, like every other science, owed much to the invention of printing. Of course aman could not learn it wholly from books, but if possessed of even a rudimentary knowledge, he could correct his deficiencies, and adopt such novelties as seemed to him feasible from the superbly illustrated volumes produced. The early fencing-masters merely imparted a number of tricks of sword-play, which they had picked up and practised, and which were mainly dictated by their own physical ability and predilection. Closing and wrestling were looked upon as the natural result of an encounter, and one of the crudest, though not in point of date earliest, works known, whilst professing to deal with the sword, frequently winds up a description of a bout by an instruction to get the adversary on his back and deal with him at will (La noble Science des Joueurs d’Espée. Anvers, 1535). Progress was necessarily tentative. It was only very gradually that first principles were admitted, and writers frequently show a tendency to discountenance that which modern experience has shown to have been a step in the right direction on the part of their predecessors.
Mr. Castle has traced the development of the science, and further indicated these temporary retrogressions with a care, skill, and patience no writer has heretofore dreamed of devoting to the subject. Dealing with the early Italian masters from the commencement to the close of the sixteenth century, it may be broadly stated that the first start made was the accentuation of the use of the point. The rapier, now replacing the sword, had still two cutting edges, both of which were freely used ; but gradually, and in spite of the prejudice engendered by long habit, the truth forced itself upon reflective minds that the point offered a more deadly means of attack, a more effective because threatening defence. It must be remembered that the main idea of defence was not to fend off the adversary’s attack, but to devise a position from which to strike him on his advance. At the outset another relic of old manners survived in the all-but universal employment of buckler, cloak or dagger, or even the left hand, for parrying. Mr. Castle holds strongly to the opinion that the use of the sword in parrying, save by a counter-hit, or even thrust, exactly corresponding to that of the assailant, was wholly ignored. Reading between the lines of some of the earlier treatises, it would rather seem that whilst teachers expressly discouraged simple parries, they were still made use of intentionally or instinctively by swordsmen. But in actual fight with long, heavy, and unwieldy rapiers, a blow delivered well within measure and simply parried, would most likely result in one of those closes in which skill in swordsmanship was no longer of any avail against superior physical strength. This impulse to grapple the teacher would strive to check, though he taught disarming as one of its outcomes, The main idea was to get into such a position as regarded an antagonist that an effective attack could be at once delivered with point or edge so as to anticipate a like step on his part. Such advance was made by alternate steps or “ passes,” and similar passes or slips to the right or left, with “cavings” of the body, got the assailed out of difficulty. By the commencement of the second half of the century, a marked advance was shown in the still greater attention paid to the thrust, the inculcation of the advisability of keeping the right foot foremost, and the first foreshadowing of the lunge in the “ punta sopramano” of the Bolognese Angelo Viggiani. Still the main feature of swordplay consisted in dodging about an adversary, a direct advance being deprecated as too dangerous, Time-thrusts were held to be the most effective attacks, and crossing counters the best parries. Salvator Fabris, in the last quarter of the century, stands a head and shoulders above his contemporaries. After visiting France, Spain, and Germany, he settled at the court of Christian IV. of Denmark, and under his protection brought out the most perfect treatise that had as yet appeared (De lo Schermo, overo scienza d’arme. Copenhagen, 1606. He had been actively teaching before the appearance of this work). He all but discards the use of the edge, gives the first indication of what we should call a guard, and defines engagements, opposition, and circular parries, though still emphasizing the inadvisability of parrying and riposting in two movements, and urging that no parry is good which does not strike at the same time. The very emphasis laid on this point by successive writers argues that the practice they deprecated existed. It was during the last thirty years of the century that rapier-play began to take root in France, Germany, and England. In the first-named country the Académie d’Armes had been founded by Charles IX., and fostered by Henry III., and Sainct Didier had embodied the teachings of some of the earlier Italian masters in his book (Traicté contenant les secrets du premier livre sur l’epée seule. Paris, 1573). The French nobility, already bitten with that extraordinary mania for duelling which Richelieu afterwards sought to check, not content with such instruction as could be found in their own country, eagerly crossed the Alps and sought further knowledge at Milan, Venice, Rome, and Bologna. In Germany the Marxbriider now found themselves confronted by the rival society of “Federfechter,” whose distinctive weapon was the rapier, (feder was a slang term for the rapier. The favourite German sword was two-handed) and who were first formally incorporated by a charter from the Duke of Mecklenburg, though their headquarters were afterwards transferred to Prague. The superiority of the new weapon was made so manifest in encounters between representatives of the old and new schools of swordsmen that the Marxbriider themselves adopted it. Thenceforward the two societies flourished side by side in honourable rivalry, whilst the writings of Joachim Meyer of Strasburg reproduced in print in 1570 the systems of Viggiani and Grassi. The works of the last-named author were further “ Englished” by “J. G., gentleman,” and with the teachings and writings of Vincentio Saviolo, helped to familiarize the Elizabethan gallants with the weapon Rowland Yorke is said to have first introduced into England—greatly to the disgust of the Corporation of Masters of Defence, who shortly found their occupation gone so far as regarded fashionable tuition, and seem to have sunk to the level of prize- fighters. Spain continued to follow its own method, the lustre shed by the great Carranza, “inventor of the science of arms,” who wrote in 1569, being fostered by the labours of his illustrious disciple, Louis Pacheco de Narvaez, the ‘ Don Lewis” of Ben Jonson.
By the beginning of the seventeenth century, rapier-fighting was rapidly attaining practical perfection. The right foot was kept in front, the lunge, perfected by Giganti the Venetian and Capo Ferro the Siennese, was recognised as the most effective attack, and the body was covered by an engaged blade. Cuts were almost abandoned save when special opportunities occurred for their delivery, guards were defined and developed, and the sword was admittedly sufficient for defence, though passes and voltes were still made use of to avoid attacks, and the dagger and cloak employed in parrying. Throughout the first half of the century, the superiority of the Italian instructors remained unquestioned. Towards the sixth decade, however, the French, who had mainly adopted the principles of the Bolognese school as inculcated by the Cavalcaboes, began to develop one of their own. The munificent patronage and especial privileges bestowed upon the Académie Royale d’Armes by Louis XIV, favoured this movement, and at the same time regularized it, since no one save a graduate of this Academy could teach in France. Their great departure from the Italian school consisted in parrying and riposting in two movements, a feat now feasible with the lighter swords in vogue. The use of the edge was wholly ignored, leading to the introduction of light triangular blades, and the employment of the left hand in parrying discouraged by the best masters, though retained in certain cases. Circular parries were also discouraged, and this holds good until well on into the eighteenth century. The value of the riposte was, however, emphasized, as was the feasibility of the reprise ; guards and feints were systematized, and the cut over the point introduced. The introduction of buttoned foils and of plastrons about the middle of the century certainly lessened the sufferings of pupils, who prior to this innovation had to take their lessons and keep up their practice with rebated blades of formidable weight and stiffness, though in the absence of masks the eyes were still in danger. The English courtiers of the court of Charles II. followed the practice taught at that of the Roi Soleil, and the Italian school died out in this country. It is, however, noteworthy that Sir William Hope, writing at the close of the century, endeavoured to establish what he styled the “Scots play” in opposition to the French, laying especial stress on circular parries. In Germany Italian influence continued paramount. The works of the leading Italian masters were translated and reproduced, and their cut and thrust play practised by all save a few courtly admirers of French fashions. It is scarcely right to conclude the notice of this century without a reference to the magnificent work of Girard Thibaust of Antwerp, (Académie de l'Espée. Leyden, 1628) in which the principles of the Spanish system of fence are delineated with a matchless luxury of typography and engraving, accompanied by a maddening farrago of pséudo-mathematical demonstration.
In the eighteenth century the French school maintained its supremacy. Closeness, and accuracy of play, simplification of movement, and the gradual elimination of tricks of agility became its leading characteristics, though voltes, passes and evasions were still recognised as of value in chance medley encounters against unequal weapons, and as serviceable in disarming an antagonist whom it was not desired to wound. By 1730 the principle of the circular parry, so important a feature in modern French fencing, had been adopted, being favoured by the diminishing weight of the blade, which also favoured the introduction of triple feints. Some twenty years later La Boéssitre is credited with the introduction of masks, though it would appear that they were received with disfavour as tending to encourage irregular and unacademic play. According to tradition, it was not until three leading masters had lost an eye apiece that they consented to adopt these protections (Les Secrets de l’Epee. De Bazancourt. Paris, 1862). From this time forward the development of the art becomes more interesting to the close student of swordsmanship than to the general reader. The abandonment of the practice of leaning forward on the lunge, the struggle between the classic and romantic school in the third decade of the present century, and the freer scope for individuality now recognised in the Parisian sal/les d’armes, would scarcely interest the latter. England during the eighteenth century was worthily represented with foil and pen by the Angelos, whilst the national backsword was not only taught but demonstrated to the effusion of blood by Fig and his fellows. The Germans maintained their high repute for cut and thrust play, and when using the edgeless small sword still inclined rather to the Italian practice than the French. The Italians fell away somewhat in repute, though still reckoned formidable opponents ; time-thrusts and body-movements holding a prominent place in their system, and the straight arm, which is still characteristic of the Neapolitan school, being an essential feature. The Spaniards appear towards the close of the century to have sought to engraft some extraneous principles upon their national practice, but without much success, and their school is now extinct. The dagger seems to have been abandoned by both Spaniards and Italians at the commencement of the eighteenth century.
MONTÉ
