Friday, April 17, 2020

0.2.1.a. The Hand Position in French Guards and Parries Prior to World War I

Over the years since the classical period there have been a number of descriptions of how a French Foil is held and a number of doctrinaire statements about what is and is not the correct orientation of the fingers in classical French Fencing.  For example, when I learned to fence in the 1960s, I was taught that the hand was always held in full supination for parries 4, 6, 7, and 8, and that was what French fencing was all about.  In reality, if you examine the classical hand positions in contemporary texts, there is considerable variation over the period, not as clearly defined as the Italian system but there nonetheless.  In this post, we will look at the French School up to World War I (and follow it in a second blog post).

First, an opening comment on the hand position.  The variants of a description that suggests the thumb is turned partly to the right could describe a turn to the right from virtually anywhere.  A partial turn to the right from supination twists rotates the arm to a position possibly 60-70 degrees from the vertical, is very uncomfortable, and does not appear to make technical sense.  A turn of the thumb to the right from pronation results in a hand position roughly equivalent to the Italian hand position of second in third - it works, but it is not consistent with the illustrations in any of the three texts consulted for this post.  The interpretation that makes the most sense is that the turn of the thumb to the right occurs from the middle (thumb up) position.

The quest for the actual French technique starts with the 1877 fencing manual published by the French Ministry of War (Slee's translation).  This document's descriptions of the parries were supplemented by diagrams that make interpretation easier.
  • Prime - the hand position was not described but the diagram showed what appears to be a grip with the fingers nails down and oriented toward the opponent, essentially pronation.
  • Seconde - the fingers were turned downward into pronation.
  • Tierce - the fingers were below in pronation.
  • Quarte - the thumb was turned slightly to the right.  
  • Quinte- the hand was turned so that the fingers are upward; the diagram quality is such that it is difficult to tell, but when used this appears to be most efficient in partial supination.  
  • Sixte - the thumb was to the outside with the fingers turned slightly upward.
  • Half-circle - the fingers were upward in supination.
  • Octave - the fingers were turned slightly upward.
There are issues of interpretation in the use of this manual, specifically what is slightly?  It appears that this criteria was partway between supination and the middle position with the thumb up, a position very similar to the Italian hand position Third in Fourth.  If that is the case, this system consisted of:
  • 3 positions in pronation - Prime, Seconde, and Tierce.
  • 4 positions in partial supination with the thumb rotated partially to the right  - Quarte, Quinte, Sixte, and Octave.
  • 1 position in supination - Half-Circle.
Camile Prevost, a noted French Maitre d'Armes wrote a section in a British sports encyclopedia published in 1889.  His descriptions of the hand positions were similar to those of the 1877 manual with several important deviations. 
  • Prime is clearly classified as a pronated parry.
  • Quarte is described as in neither supination nor pronation, but with the thumb uppermost (likely the middle position).
  • Quinte - the hand in pronation.
  • Sixte - the hand in supination.
  • Septime or Half-Circle - the hand in supination.
  • Octave - the hand in supination.
This results in:
  • 4 positions in pronation - Prime, Seconde, Tierce, Quinte - forming a complete pronated system for the first time..
  • 1 position thumb uppermost (middle guard) - Quarte. 
  • 3 positions in supination - Sixte, Septime, Octave.
Prevost also suggests paring down the French hand positions to four in number, discarding 
  • 1 as being large, slow, and easily avoided - Prime.
  • 1 as leaving the point well outside the line with a difficult riposte - Quinte.
  • 2 as being weak - Sixte and Octave.
This leaves a defensive box of Seconde -> Tierce -> Quarte -> Septime, with two hand positions in pronation, one in middle position, and one in supination.

Louis Rondelle, a French Master trained at Jonville-le-Pont, conformed to some degree with the descriptions of the 1877 Manual in his 1892 text..  The exceptions were:
  • Quinte - the fingers were nails downward in pronation.
  • Sixte - the thumb was upward.  Because Rondelle described the motion of the wrist and forearm was pronounced, this may indicate that this was a thumb vertical position.  There is a picture of the execution of sixte in Rondelle's text, and that appears to confirm a vertical thumb and hand in the middle position.
  • Septime - the thumb was turned a little toward the right.
  • Octave - the thumb was turned slightly to the right.
The result is:
  • 4 positions in pronation - Prime, Seconde, Tierce, Quinte
  • 3 positions in partial supination with the thumb rotated partially to the right - Quarte,  Septime, Octave
  • 1 position with the thumb upright (probably middle position) - Sixte
The 1908 French Ministry of War manual (Amateur Fencers League of America) introduced for the first time a clear classification of hand positions.  Two extreme positions (what we now call pronation and supination) were supplemented by a number of other positions.  This resulted in:
  • Prime - the hand position with the nails turned toward the right and thumb below.
  • Seconde - nails down.
  • Tierce - nails down.
  • Quarte - nails slightly turned up.
  • Quinte - nails slightly turned up. 
  • Sixte - nails slightly turned up.
  • Septime - nails up
  • Octave - nails up
So what the four texts tell us is that the French School at the start of World War One appears to have consisted of various combinations of hand positions in pronation, supination, middle, and a partly supinated position with the position with the thumb raised bringing the hand up perhaps as much as 45% above supination.  There is  variation between the four sources, and that variation reflects that Fencing Master were experimenting with a system of hand positions that was not rigid in its execution.

In our next post on this topic we will examine the French School hand positions in the 1930s to the end of the period.

Sources:

France.  Ministry of War; Fencing Manual; translation by Chris Slee; [fencing manual]; reprint by Long Edge Press, no place; 1877 reprinted 2017.

France.  Ministry of War; Fencing: Foil, Epee, Sabre, Theory, Method, Regulations; translation by the Amateur Fencers League of America; [fencing manual]; Alex Taylor and Company, New York, New York, reprinted by Rose City Books, Portland Oregon, United States of America; 1908 reprinted 1908, Rose City Book reprint no date.

Pollock, Walter H., F. C. Grove, and Camille Prevost; Fencing; 2nd edition; in the Badminton Library of Sports and Pastimes; [fencing manual]; Longman’s, Green, and Company, London, United Kingdom; 1890.

Rondelle, Louis; Foil and Sabre: A Grammar of Fencing in Detailed Lessons for Professor and Pupil; [fencing manual]; Estes and Lauriat, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America; 1892.

Copyright 2020 by Walter G. Green III 
   
Creative Commons License
Hand Position in French Guards and Parries Prior to World War I by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Monday, March 16, 2020

21.1.3. The Half Lunge

The Half-Lunge appears in a small number of sources during the classical period. The name suggests that it is half of a lunge … but which half?  Is it half the distance of a normal lunge, does it only use half of the parts of the normal lunge, or does it use most of the parts but only to half of their normal range of motion?  And what is the purpose?

A convenience sample of available English language texts or texts translated into English reveals three examples and one interesting parallel.

The first example is found in Sergeant Fencing Master Christiaan Siebenhaar's Hollandsche Methode, perhaps as early as 1858, but certainly by 1861.  The Dutch Method was an attempt to create a different and nationalistic school of fencing.  To modern eyes the Dutch Methode is a strange, even bizarre, approach to fencing.  However, it is an interesting example in the European nationalistic development of fencing and of a branch of the evolution of modern fencing.  The Method did not long survive Siebenhaar's death in 1885.  Siebenhaar described a half-lunge as bringing the body forward with:

(1)  an extension of the rear leg,

(2)  a full extension of the weapon arm with the point of the foil lowered a little, and

(3)  the rear arm dropped with the palm facing outward.

In Siebenhaar's syllabus (assuming that the succession of sections represents the relative order in which the techniques are to be taught) the half-lunge preceded the lunge.

The second is provided by T. Griffiths, Professor of Fencing and Gymnastics.  Professor Griffiths appears to have taught in the manner of the French School of his day. Writing in 1868 he described the "Half-Longe" as occurring with three specific movements:

(1) a full extension of the foil and weapon arm, the hand as high as the face, point aimed at the opponent's chest, all without any movement of the body.

(2) the rear arm thrown backward ending with the palm of the hand to the front approximately 4 inches from the thigh; the rear shoulder pressed well back.

(3)  the knee of the rear leg is straightend and the body inclined forward on the forward leg, all with both feet remaining in place.

Griffith's syllabus is similar to Siebenhaar's with the half-lunge preceding the lunge.

The interesting example is not a half-lunge, but rather a description of the sequence of the development of the lunge taught by the Portugese Mestre d'armas Antonio Domingos Pinto Martins.  Martins described his work as based on the French School but described in greater detail to meet the need for complete instructions in his country.  His 1895 text described the lunge as a four step sequential process.  In this process:

(1)  in the first step the torso the weapon arm is extended.

(2)  in the second step the fencer's torso is leaned forward and towards the outside line.

(3)  in the third step the fencer extends the rear leg fully moving the torso forward over the front foot.  The rear arm remains raised, as in the guard position.

The fourth step is to complete the lunge.  The important point is that Martins's steps (1) through (3) are virtually the same as the steps described by Siebenhaar and Griffiths in their half-lunges.  Did Martins use the half-lunge as the basis for his full lunge?  Today, absent other sources, it is probably impossible to answer this question.  It is important to note that the 1877 French Ministry of War fencing manual described the mechanics of the lunge in a way significantly different from Martins.  

The final example is found at the end of the classical period in R. A. Lidstone's 1952 study.  At this point the half-lunge was no longer a unique technique, but rather a method of shortening the lunge.  When the distance no longer admitted of shortening the lunge by holding the torso upright (as opposed to leaning forward) the fencer could half-lunge using the regular technique of the lunge but only moving forward by half the length of the front foot.  

DISCUSSION

Neither Siebenharr nor Griffiths provided a rationale for the tactical employment of the rear leg driven half-lunge in their texts.  The drills described in detail by Siebenhaar were command based drills, ending in approximately half the cases with the command "Lunge."  The command "Half-Lunge" does not appear.  A modern interpretation of the intent of the technique becomes that it could have been employed to either (1) hit targets slightly outside short distance or to (2) increase the speed of the attack at short distance.

Martins did not describe a half-lunge, but his lunge technique appears to incorporate the same sequence of steps as Siebenhaar or Griffiths (except for when the rear arm was lowered).  At the least this is an interesting coincidence and may suggest that his description of the lunge was based on the half-lunge. 

This leads to the interesting question; from whence did the half-lunge come and why was it so infrequently described?  We do not know, but we can surmise.  It is interesting that all of the Masters who describe the half lunge or employ it as part of the lunge had a French connection.  Based on his illustrations, Griffiths clearly taught in the tradition of the French School.  Siebenhaar was probably trained in the French School (and fencing in the Netherlands returned to the French School after his death).  Martins incorporates the movement pattern in the lunge suggesting that he may have learned it at some point in the period 1870 to 1890.  This suggests that this is an early French School technique which survived into the early years of the classical period. 

The obvious problem with the half-lunge is the weight shift to the front foot.  As long as the opponent stays in place this is not an issue.  However as fencing became more mobile, weight on the front foot resulted in a slower conversion to a full lunge if the opponent started to retreat.  This may be why it was effectively abandoned or converted to a shortened lunge executed mechanically in the same way as the regular lunge.       

Sources:

France.  Ministry of War; Fencing Manual; translation by Chris Slee; [fencing manual]; reprint by Long Edge Press, no place; 1877 reprinted 2017.

Griffiths, T.; The Modern Fencer with the Most Recent Means of Attack and Defence when Engaged with an Adversary; [fencing manual]; Frederick Warne and Company, London United Kingdom; 1868.

Lidstone, R. A.; Fencing: A Practical Treatise on Foil, Epee, Sabre; [fencing manual]; H. F. and G. Witherby, Ltd., London, United Kingdom; 1952.

Martins, Antonio Domingos Pinto Martins; Manual of Fencing for Use of the Army; translation by Rui Carlos Pinto Ferreira; [fencing manual]; Livraria de Antonio Maria Pereira, Lisbon, Portugal; 1895.

Siebenhaar, Christiaan; Manual for the Instruction in the Art of Fencing; Third Improved Printing; translation by Reinier van Nort; [fencing manual]; The Heirs Doorman, The Hague, Netherlands; translated and reprinted by Reiner van Nort, Hagan, Norway; 1861 reprinted 2017. 

Copyright 2020 by Walter G. Green III

Creative Commons License
The Half-Lunge by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Monday, March 02, 2020

0.5.e./E0.b/S0.2.b. Two Steps to Guard


Coming to the on guard position could be a complex process in the classical period. Maitre d'Armes Felix Grave, for example, included seven, five, and three movement ways to come on guard in Foil. Sabre was never so complicated; Maestro di Scherma Luigi Barbasetti, as an example, described coming to guard in two movements. And Epee, as often as not, was described as either "the same way as foil" or simply not described at all.

Regardless of how many steps were described, the final step almost always included that the fencer steps forward a certain distance in one movement to settle into the guard position. Admittedly some texts allowed for the fencer to either step forward into the guard with the front foot or step back with the rear foot to reduce the opponent's chance of a very fast attack scoring on the command to fence. But there is an oddity in this general agreement on one step.

That oddity is Italian, and apparently fairly early Italian, possibly directly connected to the Military Fencing Master's School of Rome. It is described by Maestri di Scherma Masaniello Parise (faculty member of the School - 1884), Generoso Pavese (a graduate of the School - 1905), and Leonardo Terrone (also a graduate of the school - book published after his death, with the text probably dating from the 1920s or 1930s). Other than these three sources, we have not located any other English language description of Italian technique that is similar.

This was a two part process. In the first part the fencer steps forward one foot length, ending with a tap (Parise) or slight stamp (Pavese) - this is the appello or appel (in English). Immediately following the appel, the foot was again moved forward one foot length followed by a second appel. Terrone further described the technique as having the foot advance four (foil) or six (sabre) inches with the front part of the foot landing first each time. Terrone did not mention the appel, although it is possible the front part of the foot with period fencing shoes may have included the slap.

Other Italian based texts did not describe that technique. Cavalieri Settimo del Frate's description of Radaellian sabre practice (1876) did not include the two movement technique. Neither did Luigi Barbasetti's foil (1932) and sabre and epee (1937) volumes.

This leads to the obvious question - why two steps forward? None of the sources explained why two parts to the movement, although Terrone noted that it had anatomical, physiological, and psychological value. Anything else is speculation if other sources do not appear. However, it seems to leave the fencer in the air for a shorter period of time than a longer, single part step and to allow a fast response to an attack into the preparation by advance or a counterattack. This may well be a technique optimized for the duel.

Sources:

Barbasetti, Luigi; The Art of the Foil; [fencing manual]; E. P. Dutton and Company, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America; 1932.

Barbasetti, Luigi; The Art of the Sabre and the Epee; [fencing manual]; E. P. Dutton and Company, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America; 1937.

Grave, Felix; Fencing Comprehensive; [fencing manual]; Hutchinson and Company, London, United Kingdom; 1934.

Holzman, Christopher A.; The Art of the Dueling Sabre: A Reintroduction of Italian-School Fencing with the Dueling Sabre based on a Translation of Capt. Settimo del Frate’s Award-winning 1876 Treatise for Maestro Guiseppe Radaelli’s Military Fencing Master’s School in Milano; [fencing manual]; SKA Swordplay Books, Staten Island, New York, United States of America; 2011.

Parise, Masaniello; Treatise on the Fencing of the Sword and Sabre; in The Roman-Neapolitan School of Fencing: The Collected Works of Masaniello Parise, Maestro di Scherma; translation by Christopher A. Holzman; [collected works]; Christopher A. Holzman, Wichita, Kansas, United States of America; 1884 reprinted as a collected work 2015.

Pavese, Generoso; Foil and Sabre Fencing (Scherma di Spada e Sciabola); [fencing manual]; Press of King Brothers, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America; 1905.


Copyright 2020 by Walter G. Green III
   
Creative Commons License
Two Steps to Guard by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Sunday, March 01, 2020

0.5.d./E0.a./S0.2.a. How Far Apart Are My Feet?

"How far apart are my feet supposed to be" is a question that every fencing trainer has heard if they have ever taught a beginner to fence.  We get to the point where the fencing student understands feet at an approximately right angle, we ask them to step forward into the guard, and then comes the question.

It is a good question, and the answer has to consider a number of factors.  With the feet too close together the tendency is for the fencer to stand up, raising the center of gravity and negatively impacting balance.  With the feet far apart, the actual distance the blade travels forward in the lunge from its starting point is reduced.  With too much or too little bend in the legs the ability of the fencer to generate power through muscular action is reduced.  And then there is the impact of the doctrine of the School which you are studying.  If the feet are supposed to be three feet apart, then that is what you should do even if you have to figure out ways to manage the effects the stance has on performance.

So what did Fencing Masters of the period actually teach as a proper distance for the separation between the forward foot and the rear foot when on guard?  The following data is grouped by weapon, distance, School, date, and author.

Distances are typically defined based on the distance the front foot should step forward from a position with the heels together.  Most frequently, authors do not distinguish as to whether the end point of the step forward is measured from the rear of the front foot or the toe of the front foot.  Photographs and drawings general show distances between the feet that conform to the use of the heel of the foot as the measurement point so that the final distance is measured from the heel of the rear foot to the heel of the front foot.  Based on that it appears to be a safe course of action to assume that the distance is between the heels unless otherwise noted.

Note that distances should be considered with caution as there may be differences in measurements between countries and even cities (the metric system being the one exception) and a measurement such as two feet may refer to two foot lengths or to 24 inches or its metric equivalent, with what the author intended determined by the translator for those texts not originally published in English.  By the 1880s there was increased standardization of measurements in Europe; thus the differences should be minor.

Attribution to a School is based on author statements, on their training, or as a last choice on attempts to match the performance of techniques with other authors who identify their school.  The School as a measurement becomes more problematic as the classical period draws to a close and a mixed International School emerges.

Dates are not absolutes.  A fencing manual typically represents the doctrine a Master has taught and is often written later in a career rather than earlier.  In this sense during the classical period it may be retrospective.  In some cases the manual may be written to establish a new form of fencing - Siebenhaar's and La Marche's texts clearly fall into this category.  In others it may have been written to provide a text for a current training course, the case with Barbasetti's manuals.  In extreme cases, such as Terrone's, a manual may be published with some considerable delay after the original text was written and then put aside and after the death of the author.  And then there is the delay from original language version into English - Pavese's text in English appears 21 years after Parise's in Italian on which it was based.

FOIL

35 inches to 60 inches based on stature - Dutch Method - 1861 through approximately 1887 - Christiaan Siebenhaar - the sword (appears to be a foil).

Approximately 22 inches depending on height of the fencer - French - 1868 - Thomas Griffiths.

Approximately twice the length of the front foot - French - 1895 - George Heintz, Sr.


Two foot lengths - Italian - 1884 - Masaniello Parise.


Two foot lengths - Italian - 1905 - Generoso Pavese.


Two foot lengths - French - 1920 - Ricardo Enrique Manrique.


About two feet - Italian - 1932 - Luigi Barbasetti.


Two foot lengths - French - 1937 - Julio Martinez Castello.


Twice the length of the foot - International - 1937 - Joseph Vince.


Approximately two shoe lengths - French - 1948 - Clovis Deladrier.


Approximately 1 1/2 to 2 feet - Kressslerian Thrust Fencing - 1849 - Friedrich August Wilhelm Ludwig Roux - the Rappier (foil) or Degen.


About 20 inches - French - 1906 - Maurice Grandiere.


About 18 inches apart - International - 1939 - Geoffrey V. Hett.


Approximately a sole and a half, depending on the stature of the fencer - French - 1890 -  Camile Prevost.


A step one and one half times the length of the shoe - International - 1943 - Aldo Nadi.


14 to 16 inches depending on the fencer's height - French - 1863 - "Stonehenge" and J. G. Wood.


A foot length between the two feet - Italian Right and Left Handed - 1959 - Leonardo F. Terrone.


Advance the foot to a convenient distance - French - 1892 - Louis Rondelle.


A comfortable distance - French - 1883 - George H. Benedict.


Distance varying according to the size of the fencer - French - 1908 - Ministry of War.

EPEE

Guard is a bit longer than foil - French - 1898 - Claude La Marche.


Two foot lengths - eclectic - 1937 - Julio Martinez Castello.

Approximately two shoe lengths - French - 1948 - Clovis Deladrier.


Not to exceed 1 1/2 feet - International - 1937 - Joseph Vince.


SABRE


35 inches to 60 inches based on stature of the fencer - Dutch Method - 1861 through approximately 1887 - Christiaan Siebenhaar.

4/10 of the individual's height or approximately 2 1/2 sole lengths - Italian - 1895 - United Kingdom War Office (based on Ferdinando Masiello)


Approximately 2 feet - Italian Radaelli School - 1905 - Leopold J. M. P. van Humbeek.


Approximately two feet - French - 1948 - Clovis Deladrier.


Approximately twice the length of the foreward foot - modified British sabre - 1880 - J. M. Waite.


Two foot lengths - Italian - 1884 - Masaniello Parise.


Two feet away from the rear foot - Italian - 1905 - Generoso Pavese.


Two feet adjusted for the height of the fencer - Italian - 1927 - Leon Bertrand.


Two foot lengths - Italian - 1936 - Luigi Barbasetti.


Twice the length of the foot - Hungarian - 1937 - Joseph Vince.

Two foot lengths - Italian - 1937 - Julio Martinez Castello.


About 20 inches - French - 1892 - Louis Rondelle


Half a step (illustration suggests this is perhaps half a marching step, possibly 1 1/2 foot length) - Swiss sabre - 1887 - Fredrich Schneider


Half a meter - Spanish sabre - 1877 - Frederico Gerona y Ensenat.

A foot length between the two feet - Italian Right and Left Handed - 1959 - Leonardo F. Terrone.


Moved forward a foot more or less - Spanish sabre - 1879 - Liborio Vendrell y Eduart.


Distance varying according to the size of the fencer - French - 1908 - Ministry of War

CONCLUSION

The data above suggests that three general practices should govern your practice as a classical fencer. First, our standard rule applies: follow the specific guidance of the School which or Master whom you are studying. Second, a two foot distance (using the fencer's feet, not the measurement of a ruler) between the heels when the guard position is assumed is a reasonable practice. Although there are wider and narrower stances this value seems to be common one. Third , the distance between the feet can be adjusted based on the fencer's stature.

Sources:
The sources list is necessarily not a complete list of all period sources, but an effort has been made to include a variety of types of sources from a selection of Schools.

Barbasetti, Luigi; The Art of the Foil; [fencing manual]; E. P. Dutton and Company, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America; 1932.

Barbasetti, Luigi; The Art of the Sabre and the Epee; [fencing manual]; E. P. Dutton and Company, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America; 1937.

Benedict, Geo. H.; Manual of Boxing, Club Swinging and Manly Sports; [sports book]; A. G. Spaulding and Brothers, Chicago, Illinois, reprint by Read Books Ltd., no place; 1883, reprint 2013.

Bertrand, Leon; Cut and Thrust: The Subtlety of the Sabre; [fencing manual]; Athletic Publications, Ltd., London, United Kingdom; 1927.

Castello, Julio Martinez; The Theory and Practice of Fencing; [fencing manual]; Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, New York, United States of America; 1937.

Deladrier, Clovis; Modern Fencing; [fencing manual]; United States Naval Institute, Annapolis, Maryland, United States of America; 1948.

France. Ministry of War; Fencing: Foil, Epee, Sabre, Theory, Method, Regulations; translation by the Amateur Fencers League of America; [fencing manual]; Alex Taylor and Company, New York, New York, reprinted by Rose City Books, Portland Oregon, United States of America; 1908 reprinted 1908, Rose City Book reprint no date.

Gerona y Ensenat, Frederico; Fencing of the Sabre; translation by John Jakelsky; [fencing manual]; Printing Press of T. Fortanet, Madrid, Spain; translated and reprinted by John Jakelsky, Xativa, Valencia, Spain; 1877, reprinted 2019.

Grandiere, Maurice; How To Fence; [fencing manual]; The Walter Scott Publishing Company, New York, New York, United States of America; 1906.


Heintz, George, Sr.; Theory of Fencing With the Foil, in Form of a Catechism; [fencing manual]; Freidenker Publishing Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States of America; reprint by Forgotten Books, London, United Kingdom; 1895, reprint no date.

Hett, Geoffrey V.; Fencing; [fencing manual]; Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, Ltd., London, United Kingdom; 1939.

La Marche, Claude; The Dueling Sword; translation by Brian House; [fencing manual]; Ernest Flammarion; Paris, France; reprinted by Paladin Press, Boulder, Colorado, United States of America; 1898 reprinted 2009.

Manrique, Ricardo Enrique; Fencing Foil Class Work Illustrated; [fencing manual]; American Sports Publishing Company, New York, New York, United States of America, 1920.

Nadi, Aldo; On Fencing; [fencing manual]; G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, New York, United States of America; 1943.

Parise, Masaniello; Treatise on the Fencing of the Sword and Sabre; in The Roman-Neapolitan School of Fencing: The Collected Works of Masaniello Parise, Maestro di Scherma; translation by Christopher A. Holzman; [collected works]; Christopher A. Holzman, Wichita, Kansas, United States of America; 1884 reprinted as a collected work 2015.

Pavese, Generoso; Foil and Sabre Fencing (Scherma di Spada e Sciabola); [fencing manual]; Press of King Brothers, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America; 1905.

Pollock, Walter H., F. C. Grove, and Camille Prevost; Fencing; 2nd edition; in the Badminton Library of Sports and Pastimes; [fencing manual]; Longman’s, Green, and Company, London, United Kingdom; 1890.

Roux, Friedrich August Wilhelm Ludwig; Die Kreussler'sche Stossfechtschule for Use by Academies and Military Schools Based on a Mathematical Basis; translation by Christopher Treichel; [fencing manual]; Druck and Verlag von Friedrich Mauke, Jena, Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, Germany; translated and reprinted by Christopher Treichel; 1849, reprinted 2016.

Schneider, Friedrich; Friedrich Schneider's Infantry Saber; translation by Jeremy Steflik; [fencing manual]; Nydegger and Baimgart, Berne, Switzerland; reprint by Jeremy Steflik, East Haddam, Connecticut, United States of America; 1887, reprint 2018.


Siebenhaar, Christiaan; Manual for the Instruction in the Art of Fencing; Third Improved Printing; translation by Reinier van Nort; [fencing manual]; The Heirs Doorman, The Hague, Netherlands; translated and reprinted by Reiner van Nort, Hagan, Norway; 1861 reprinted 2017.

“Stonehenge” (reputed to be John Henry Walsh) and J. G. Wood; Archery, Fencing, and Broadsword; [sports manual]; Routledge, Warne, and Routledge, London, United Kingdom; 1863.

Terrone, Leonardo; Right and Left Handed Fencing; [fencing manual]; Dodd, Mead and Company, New York, New York, United States of America; 1959.

van Humbeek, Leopold J. M. P.; Manual for Fencing with the Sabre; translation by Reinier van Nort; [fencing manual]; Amsterdam, Netherlands; translated and reprinted by Reiner van Nort, Hagan, Norway; 1905 reprinted 2017.

Vendrell y Eduart, Liborio; Art of Fencing the Sabre; translation by John Jakelsky; [fencing manual]; Imprenta y Libreria de Elias Sarasqueta, Vitoria, Spain; translated and reprinted by John Jakelsky, Xativa, Valencia, Spain; 1879 reprinted 2019.

Vince, Joseph; Fencing; [fencing manual]; A. S. Barnes and Company, New York, New York, United States of America; 1937.

Waite, J. M.; Lessons in Sabre, Singlestick, Sabre and Bayonet, and Sword Feats; [fencing manual]; Weldon and Company, London, United Kingdom; 1880.

United Kingdom. War Office; Infantry Sword Exercise; [fencing manual]; War Office, London, United Kingdom, reprinted by The Military and Naval Press, Uckfield, East Sussex, United Kingdom; 1905 reprinted no date.

Copyright 2020 by Walter G. Green III

Creative Commons License
How Far Apart Are My Feet? by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.