Engagement is an important
concept in classical fencing. When
fencing was conducted primarily at medium distance, engagement could be used as
a safe and standard place from which to initiate actions. This initial
engagement became a defining feature of foil and sabre, and a cultural value of
the sport. Its importance is reflected
in De Bazancourt’s (1862, Clay’s 1900 translation) story of the fencer who
would not engage at the start of fencing and the consternation that caused.
In 1877 the French Fencing
Ministry of War published its instruction manual Fencing Manual (Chris Slee’s translation). This early source stated that engagement is taken
to cover oneself by transferring the contact from the side of the blade on
which contact was first made to the opposite side of the blade. It is thus a lateral contact, followed by a
disengage of the blade and laterally closing the line in the opposite
line. Rondelle (1892) repeated this same
sequence, in modern terminology a lateral engagement followed by a change of
engagement. Senac (1904) also repeated
the description. This was the last
description of this complicated procedure in readily available sources
(although the last reprinting of Senac in 1924 repeats this).
This was not the only approach
to engagement. Pollock, Grove, and
Prevost (1890) described the engagement as contact of the blades done in any of
the four lines, although they noted that French fencers rarely engaged in the
low lines. George Heintz (1890) also defined
the engagement as the touching of the blades and notes that these may be taken
in the inside and outside lines.
Colmore-Dunn (1891) provided what
may be the most detailed discussion of the engagement. Key points he made included:
When fencers came on guard, they should do so
with the engagement.
- Choosing the engagement was based on (first) the engagement must cover the fencer adequately, (second) the position must not hinder execution of any other defensive action, and (third) the engagement must facilitate the delivery of attacks.
- The French School did not engage in the low lines because high line engagement protected more area, and because it was faster to move from high to low than from low to high lines.
- Tierce was eliminated for the engagement because pronation does not position the hand for as many subsequent actions as does supination.
- Sixte was eliminated because the forward shoulder and chest was exposed, requiring that the cover provided by the engagement be well executed.
- The primary engagement was in the high inside line (quarte). Engagement in that line closed the line without the necessity to parry, and the natural slant of the body better protected the target area. In addition the hand was stronger in quarte, and was positioned to make the highly regarded circular parry of quarte.
- After initial engagement, engagements were determined by the line of the opponent’s blade.
The 1908 publication Fencing, a translation of the French
Ministry of War 1908 manual issued by the Amateur Fencers League of America,
described the engagement as both the act of joining the blades and the position
of the blades being in contact. The text
noted that engagements may be taken in all of the standard guard positions.
Manrique (1920) introduced the
idea that the engagement should be more than just contact. He specified that the contact should carry the
opponent’s point away from the fencer’s target. This was a step toward the concept in some
modern texts that engagement should dominate the contact.
Castello (1933) depicted the
engagement and described the action as a contact without pressure. He noted that, although engagement can be
taken in all lines, the most common engagements were in 2nd, 4th,
6th, and 7th.
To summarize, if you are going
to engage in the French School, the first model in the period 1870s to 1900 was
blade contact followed by a disengage and lateral closing of a new line. This was replaced starting at least by 1890 by
a simple lateral contact with the blade.
By the 1920s at least one Master was thinking about engagement in the
context not of contact with the blade, but with positive deviation of the blade
from the target by opposition. Theoretically,
engagement was possible in all lines, the French School tended to engage in
high line. In the high line, engagement
in quarte was preferable.
Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III
No comments:
Post a Comment