M.1. Siebenhaar's Masters

Sergeant-Fencing Master Christian Siebenhaar of the Guard Grenadier and Rifle Regiment of the Dutch Army developed a unique School of fencing in the Netherlands that gained a significant number of adherents starting in 1858.  Because its rules diverged significantly from the development  of fencing in France and Italy, Siebenhaar's Hollandsche Methode did not long survive his death in 1885, apparently starting to disappear by 1887-1888.

Any School requires people to teach its technique.  In fact, the Academy believes a body of Masters who teach the School to be one of the criteria that defines a School.  So where did Siebenhaar find enough people to teach the Hollandsche Methode to make it a School?

The answer to some extent lies in Siebenhaar's objectives in developing this new method of fencing.  Van Noort (2017 - the only English language translation of information on the Hollandsche Methode)  highlights the importance of developing fencing terminology in the Dutch language as one of Siebenhaar's reasons for undertaking the effort.  The very unique target, rules, and technique all mark this School as a very deliberate departure from the developing French School.

The context is that this is a period in which national identity becomes more important in a number of countries.  We see in France the resurgence of interest in fencing and dueling as a sign of national prowess in the aftermath of the country's dismal defeat in the Franco-Prussian War.  In Italy, the unification of the country leads to a mandated Italian School taught at the military Fencing Masters School at Rome.  Siebenhaar can be viewed as a contemporary manifestation of nationalism in the Netherlands.

As a result it is not surprising that a meeting of Dutch Masters to define the rules for fencing contests would draw 80 Masters from the five provinces in December 1864 at the Hague.  This seems to be a fairly significant number of Masters in a relatively small nation and also a body quite large enough to consider the Hollandsche Methode to be a national School.

The other potential source of Masters was the training of new Masters in the Hollandsche Methode.  Thanks to Van Nort's translation of Siebenhaar's Manual for the Instruction in the Art of Fencing we have a window into the requirements for becoming a Master.  First, some context:

• Siebenhaar describes an integrated system of combat that includes the Sword, Sabre, Long Stick, Short Stick, and the Rifle (with bayonet).
• The first three weapons (Sword, Sabre, and Long Stick) are divided into three sections of multiple lessons.  The Short Stick is a package of 18 lessons.
• Credentialling in two ranks (Provost and Master) is envisioned for both military and civilian trainers.
• Credentialling could be by individual weapon or as in the complete system.

Provosts were required to meet the following requirements:

• In the Sword, Sabre, or Long Stick - be able to perform the tasks of all lessons in all sections for the weapon and be able to teach the first section of the material.
• In the Short Stick - be able to perform the tasks of all 18 lessons and be able to teach the first 12 lessons.
• In the Rifle - be able to perform all tasks and teach the principles.
• For all weapons, be able to prove their ability to use their weapon in combat.

Masters were required to meet the following requirements:

• In the Sword, Sabre, or Long Stick - be able to perform all tasks and teach all lessons.
• In the Short Stick - be able to perform all tasks and teach all lessons.
• In the Rifle - be able to perform all tasks and teach all lessons.
• For all weapons, be able to show effective mastery of the weapon in combat.

Masters of all weapons were required to have thorough knowledge of all five weapons and have taught the weapons for a considerable period of time.  Siebenhaar does not define a minimum length of time, but four or five years does not seem unreasonable if this was the individual's sole responsibility.

Appointments to a rank in a weapon was by Masters in the weapon.  However, the Sword was considered the primary weapon, and Masters of the Sword could therefore sign the brevet (certificate) of a candidate in any weapon.  This seems consistent with Medieval practice in which the longsword was considered to core weapon upon which the practice of other weapons was based.

Military candidates for rank were required to be of excellent behavior and attention to duty and to be of a character that they could be expected to bring honor to the rank to which they were promoted.  This is  a military requirement that has a long history in appointments to instructor positions in most armies.  Civilian appointments to Provost required that the candidate be at least 14 years of age, and to Master that they be at least 16 years of age.  Siebenhaar gave no explanation for the apparent difference between the requirements for military and civilian candidates.

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III

Siebenhaar's Masters by Walter Green is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.