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.
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.
Two Steps to Guard by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
No comments:
Post a Comment