14.2.4. Froissement, Sforzo, Expulsion, Etc.

The Froissement (French), Sforzo (Italian), Graze (British), Scrape (British), Expulsion (American), Traverse (American), etc. is an attack on the blade that maintains contact with the opponent's blade throughout its execution in all three weapons.  By the end of the classical period it is still mentioned in texts, but with the caveat that it was a crude, wide, and dangerous (and even unethical in foil) movement that lead to rough play (Grave 1934, Deladrier 1948, Lidstone 1952).  However, in the modern period it became virtually extinct until recently.  There appears to be a current revival of the froissement as a glide with a great deal of force against the opponent's blade in a high line guard, ending in a flick.  While anyone can call any fencing action anything, this does not seem to be a froissement.

Because this is a classical period technique, it is worth spending some effort to try to identify the actual blade movement involved (question 1), and against what configuration of the opponent's blade it was used (question 2).

Question 1 - Descriptions of the actual blade movement are generally consistent:

• First, there is general agreement that this is an attack on the blade in the same family as the Beat and Press (Parise 1884, Provost 1890, Rondelle 1892, French Ministry of War 1908, Manrique 1920, Grave 1934, Castello 1937, Lidstone 1952).  Deladrier (1948) considers it as a preparation striking the blade in the same category as the Beat; this is in distinction from preparations that maintain the blade such as the Press and Glide.
• The middle portion of the fencer's blade is used (Deladrier 1948).  Castello (1937) describes the use as the middle part and finally the forte.  Provost (1890) indicates the forte should be used.  
• The action is a slightly diagonal pressure down the opponent's blade from the foible to the forte, ending with the fencer's arm fully extended and expelling the opponent's blade from the line of engagement followed by the lunge (Manrique 1920, Deladrier 1948).  Hutton (1891) describes this pressure as lateral and downward.  Lidstone (1952) indicates it may be delivered as a beat or press, and is directed generally downward.
• Manrique (1920) implies that the wrist should be rotated during the action (in his description of the Press to which he relates the Froissement).  Lidstone (1952) advocates that in the action to the outside line, the hand should turn into pronation for the initial part of the action and then turn into supination during the Graze. In contrast Parise (1884) emphasizes that hand position should be the same as for the Beat and should not change during the Sforzo:
• In fourth - the hand in third in fourth.
• In third - the hand in second in third.
• In cartoccio (second) - the hand in second.
• In mezzocerchio - the hand in third in fourth.
• The execution is sharp and prolonged with continually increasing pressure as the fencer's arm extends (Deladrier 1948).  Provost (1890) notes that the pressure should not be heavy due to delivery by clenching the muscles.  Castello (1937) notes that the forearm is used to increase the pressure.
• The end is a straight thrust with the fencer's blade still in contact with the opponent's (Deladrier 1948).

In general the action is described as similar to the Press (French Ministry of War 1877, Manrique 1920, Castello 1937, Lidstone 1952) or the Beat (Parise 1884, Lidstone 1952).

Rarely mentioned is the use of the Counter-Expulsion, the Froissement executed with an initial change of line (Deladrier 1948). 

Question 2 - When the technique is used is generally considered to be against the opponent's extended arm (Deladrier 1948).  Provost (1890) describes its use as only in Tierce and when the opponent's arm is extended.  The Amateur Fencers League of America translation of the French Ministry of War fencing manual (1908) suggests that it is generally employed against an extended arm.  Lidstone (1952) states that it is most effective against an extended blade or if the opponent is holding the blade horizontal, but with a bent arm.  Alternately, the action may be executed against an extended blade or from engagement (Parise 1884).  Parise indicates that the Sforzo can be executed in all four lines.  Rondelle (1892) does not indicate which opponent blade position is preferred.

Tactically, there is general agreement that the Froissement is used to clear a line for the straight attack (Parise 1884, Lidstone 1952).  Provost (1890) describes it as being used to paralyze the opponent's hand and arm momentarily as well as to clear the line for the attack.  Both Provost and Lidstone note that it may result in a disarm.  Lidstone notes that the Froissement can be used to cause annoyance to the opponent and upset his or her equilibrium.  Castello (1937) indicates three potential uses:

• To clear a line for the attack.
• As a feint.  Note that Parise (1884) specifically describes a Sforzo and Feint Direct (the Sforzo followed by feint of the straight thrust with a disengage to deceive the attempt to parry). 
• As an invitation to an attack by the opponent (most probably by disengage in tempo).

It is worth noting that Heintz's (1895) Chassey (see blog post 14.2.5 Heintz's Chassey) may be a description of a Froissement.  Heintz precedes the graze on the blade with a strong beat, but otherwise his description is similar to that above.  He also describes a Counter-Chassey similar to Deladrier's (1948) Counter-Expulsion. 

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III

Froissement, Sforzo, Expulsion, Etc. by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

0.3.1. Evolution of the Salute

From the earliest days of the classical period, the salute in one form or another, was a fixture in fencing manuals.  An examination of the various descriptions of the salute in a convenience sample of the instructional literature of classical fencing suggests that there are three separate approaches to rendering a salute:

• (1) Coming on guard:  A number of texts do not address a salute at all.  However, the process of coming on guard, taught as a series of movements, includes a raised extension toward the opponent that could have been considered as filling the function of a salute.  Grave (1934) describes coming on guard sequences of from 3 to 7 steps. Siebenhaar (van Nort translation) has a unique version of this process involving the unarmed weapon hand. 
• (2) The Salute as a step in coming on guard: A salute is followed by a multiple step assumption of the on guard position as one complete sequence of actions.  
• (3) The Salute as a distinct and separate entity: The salute is not described as linked to the sequence of coming on guard.
• (4) The Flourish Salute: This is a complex series of 20 or more parts with sequenced or simultaneous movements to the left and right sides of both fencers and simulations of attacks.  These appear to be unique to Sabre, and to serve the same purpose of a courtesy to both the fencers and the spectators as found in the Grand Salute.  For an example, see post 0.3.2. "Rondelle's Sabre Salute" (March 2019) in this blog.

When we look at the following texts, we see a significant amount of variability in the approach selected for a salute:

• Siebenhaar (van Noort translation) (1861) - Foil: (1) coming on guard.
• French Ministry of War (Slee Translation) (1877) - Foil: (1) coming on guard 
• Waite (1880) - Sabre: (4) a complex flourish salute.
• Parise (Holzman translation) 1884 - Foil: (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (salute delivered front, left, and right).  
• Phillipps-Wolley (1890) - Single-Stick: (4) a complex flourish salute.
• Hutton (1891) - Foil:  (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (salute delivered front). 
• Senac and Senac (1904) - Foil: (1) coming on guard.
• Pavese (1905) - Foil: (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (salute delivered front, left, and right). 
• Van Humbeek (van Noort translation) (1905) - Sabre: (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (salute delivered front, left, and right). 
• Grandiere (1906) - Foil: (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (salute delivered front with appel).
• French Ministry of War (Amateur Fencers League of America translation) (1908) - Foil: (1) coming on guard.
• Manrique (1920) - Foil: provides two versions of the salute - Public Salute (2) a salute as a step in coming on guard; Final Salute (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (salute delivered front).
• Cass (1930) - Foil: (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (from guard with 3 appels and recovery to first position.
• Barbasetti (1932) - Foil: (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (salute delivered front, left, and right).
• Grave (1934) - Foil: (1) coming on guard.
• Castello (1937) - Foil: (2) a salute as a step in coming on guard.
• Vince (1937) - Foil, Sabre: (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (salute delivered front, left, and right).
• Breckenridge and Breckenridge (1941) - Foil: (2) a salute as a step in coming on guard.
• Deladrier (1948) - Foil, Epee, Sabre: (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (salute delivered front, left, and right).
• Lidstone (1952) - Foil: (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (salute delivered front)

Interpreting the chronology has mixed results.  It is difficult to determine whether some of the sources have omitted the salute simply because it was considered such a part of the landscape as to not require notice.  The complex flourish salutes do not appear to have survived past 1900.  The coming on guard appears to have survived as late as the early 1930s.  And the salute as a distinct and separate entity, although appearing as early as 1891, seems to become more popular as the period progresses.

In considering the four approaches to the Salute, they are often presented in period manuals as being  a technique to be executed, without attention to why that technique is of value.  When the reasons for the salute are discussed, they can be described as a:

• Reminder to the participants that this is a knightly game based on courtesy:  Phillipps-Wolley (1890).
• Courtesy for the opponent: Waite (1880), Pavese (1905), Breckenridge and Breckenridge (1941)
• Greeting the judges and audience: Parise (1994), Pavese (1905), Vince (1937), Breckenridge and Breckenridge (1941)
• Respect and exhibition of skill for the spectators: Waite (1880), Phillips-Wolley (1890).

Grandiere gives no specific reason for the salute but provides clear direction as to when it should be performed:

"This salute must always be made at the termination of every lesson, as well as by both fencers after the assault, and at one and the same moment. (How to Fence, 1906, p. 13)."

Notably, there is no discussion of the salute as psychological or mechanical preparation for combat except in the context of reminding the fencers that they should conduct themselves as gentlemen or of mechanically coming to the guard position, preparatory to the command to fence.  This is an interesting omission when we consider that the salute is executed immediately before the initiation of the bout. 

If we consider that the core purpose of the bout is to win through superior technical and tactical skill, it seems appropriate to evaluate the possible benefit of the salute as a focusing mechanism to assist the fencer in achieving maximum readiness prior to the initial command to "Fence."  The flourish salute (4) used in sabre and singlestick would seem ideal for this purpose, involving the execution of a variety of fencing actions. 

However, all is not as it seems.  Because this type of salute requires considerable practice to achieve the required steps in a smooth and graceful manner, the focus of the exercise becomes executing the sequence without making a muck of it in front of the spectators.  Those of our readers who have ever tried to perform a 50+ step Grand Salute in foil with another fencer understand that considerable memorization and practice with a partner is required to make a reasonable presentation. The salute becomes its own experience, divorced from the bout.  Psychologically the focus becomes cooperative, sequenced movement drill with the opponent, only partly related to the bout.  In addition, the actions are not executed to hit, making the last practice the fencer gets practice in missing the target.

Categories (1) coming on guard and (2) the salute as a step in coming on guard seem to offer an opportunity for the fencer to use the series of steps to enhance focus and increase readiness to fence.  The 7 to 10 movements involved are easily learned and may be executed with a rhythmic flow that allows the fencer to both relax and focus on the task at hand while using a familiar series of body movements.  If used in this manner, personal experience suggests that the fencer has not only come to a mechanically correct guard position, but has also achieved mental readiness for the assault.

There is another advantage to these two methods.  When fencing on the planche or short strip where fencers take distance from the center line (as opposed to coming on guard at marked on guard lines), the last step of the sequence allows the fencer to control the distance.  Typically the two fencers come to a position of attention with their weapon arms extended and tips touching to establish the correct distance for coming on guard.  If the fencer comes on guard by moving the front foot forward, the distance is closed some amount facilitating a rapid initial attack.  However, if by moving the rear foot backwards, the fencer has opened the distance to protect against such an attack.

Category (3) the salute as a distinct and separate entity can allow focusing, especially if the movements are executed with precision.  However, in modern fencing, this has become a very relaxed, even sloppy, act, often executed as a hand wave with as little effort as possible, that simply delays putting the mask on and getting down to fencing.  And, because it is physically a smaller number of movements, it provides less time for relaxation and focus.

What this all suggests is that it is worth experimenting with each approach (if consistent with the master you are studying) to determine its value as a tool for mental preparation for the command "fence."

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III

Evolution of the Salute by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.