Paradoxes of Defense
This text establishes that the genuine basis for combat lies in using traditional short weapons. It argues that the short sword holds an edge over the long sword or rapier. It also highlights the vulnerabilities and shortcomings of rapier-based fighting. Alongside this, it advises the brave English nation to be cautious of misleading defense instructors and to stick to their inherent fighting methods. The text concludes with a brief praise for the noble art of weapon training.
by George Silver, Gentleman.
London, Printed for Edward Blount 1599.
To the esteemed Robert, Earl of Essex and Ewe, a prominent figure with numerous honors and responsibilities,[1]
In this modern era, fencing undergoes frequent changes, much like our shifting fashions.[2] It resembles the adaptable chameleon, taking on various colors except white. Similarly, fencing adopts numerous stances except the correct one. This observation arises from experience, and I am confident your wisdom comprehends the reason behind it. Anything lasting must be truthful, but can uncertainty be truthful? How can certainty stand on shaky foundations? The human mind ardently pursues truth, recognizing that apparent truth is inconstant, not consistently one but perpetually varied. Thus, it abandons conjecture for secure certainty, seeking everywhere except where it should, encountering everything except what it seeks. Whoever searches and doesn't find seeks in vain. Fruitless pursuit necessitates renewed endeavor, yet even these efforts prove futile. Failing to seek what one desires, as one should and where one should, applies not only to other matters but also to fencing.[3] The truth-seeking mind strives after reality, recoiling from falsehood, and when unable to grasp truth initially, it makes a second attempt. If progress remains elusive, an alternative route is explored.
After encountering failure, he proceeds to the third attempt. Even if these endeavors prove unsuccessful, he consistently alters his weapon, technique, and stance in pursuit of his desired outcome. The driving force is the desire to uncover a genuine means of defense in combat. Nature instructs us to protect ourselves, while art teaches us how to do so. Due to our inability to discover a satisfactory approach, we shift from one method to another. Despite our constant shifting from stance to stance, strategy to strategy, in our unending quest, we find no respite in any single approach. This stems from our inability to locate the truth, as we never seek it within the realm where it truly resides. Seeking a genuine defense within an ill-suited weapon is akin to fishing on land for aquatic creatures or hunting for hares in the sea. Despite appearing recent, truth is an age-old concept. Our ancestors displayed wisdom, even if our era perceives them as foolish, and they exhibited bravery, despite our considering them cowardly.[4] Through their sagacity, they uncovered authentic methods of self-defense using short weapons, successfully protecting themselves and vanquishing adversaries with their valor. Thus, if we are to possess this legitimate form of defense, we must search in the proper domain, such as short swords, short staffs, half pikes, partisans, glaives, and similar perfectly sized arms—not in lengthy swords, elongated rapiers, or ornamental daggers. If there is no definite foundation for defense, why is it being taught? If there is one, why has it not been discovered? It's not because the truth doesn't exist. To claim otherwise would be to contradict reality.
However, it's uncertain within the confines of the weapons they teach. To validate this assertion, I have presented my Paradoxes, admittedly deviating from the predominant views of foreign instructors, yet I am firmly convinced that they align with the truth and contribute, as I hope, to the prestige of our English nation. The motivation behind undertaking such a substantial endeavor is my yearning to expose the concealed truth, which has languished in the depths of disregard for far too long. Regrettably, like wayward descendants, we have abandoned our forefathers' virtues along with their weaponry. We've pursued foreign vices and tactics like individuals afflicted with a foreign illness, craving the devices and styles of Italian, French, and Spanish fencers. We often forget that these imitative diversions couldn't shield Rome from Brennius's invasion, nor France from King Henry the Fifth's conquest.
In pursuit of truth, the offspring of time conceived by Bellona, I am also motivated to rectify the significant losses suffered by our English champions due to these flawed combative practices. Presently, none engage in combat, regardless of the justness of their cause, their skillfulness, or their strength and agility, without their destiny being tied to fortune's whim. The outcome of these diabolically imperfect fights is either killing or being killed.[5] If the individual who chastised the teachers for the students' failings were alive today, these Italian fencers would not escape his reproach. They teach us how to attack, not how to defend. They instruct us to fight as Diogenes' pupils were taught to dance, guiding us to our demise through artifice.[6] Was Ajax deemed cowardly because he fought with a seven-folded shield? Are we acting recklessly by venturing onto the battlefield without protective armor, putting our fortunes before our virtues? Was Achilles a deserter for donning well-crafted armor? Are we behaving recklessly by valuing fighting above all else, learning combat skills akin to pygmies wielding bodkins or similar inadequate weapons? Can we truly consider it an act of valor for a man to confront his adversary unprotected? So, why did the Lacedemonians deem him desperate, while simultaneously honoring his valor with a laurel crown? Yet, the most disgraceful aspect is that they teach people to slaughter one another within the confines of their homeland during peacetime, which does not harm their enemies during wartime. As Your Honor is aware, once the battle ensues, there is no space for them to wield their diminutive weapons. And even if they manage to draw them, what purpose can they serve? Can they breach a foe's armor with their sharp points? Can they unfasten a helmet, undo armor straps, or sunder pikes with a Stocata, Reversa, Dritta, Stramason, or other such grandiloquent terms? Certainly not. These trifles are suitable for children, not for men; for young soldiers in training, to slaughter fowl, not for honorable individuals to face adversaries in battle.[7]
Hence, I have, with the intent of unveiling the truth, engaged in a comparison between the short sword[8] and the long rapier. This endeavor aims to save the lives of our valiant English champions, who are condemned to certain death due to their uncertain combat methods. Moreover, it strives to eliminate the use of that hazardous and deficient weapon, which leads to harming our allies in times of peace and remains inadequate for causing substantial damage to our enemies in times of war. It's for these reasons that I now present these Paradoxes to the world. Recognizing that such unconventional viewpoints require robust defense, I humbly seek Your Honorable protection, as you personify the genuine nobility of our triumphant forebears. It would be fitting, as part of Your Honor's distinguished responsibilities, to uphold the defense of the weaponry whose virtues you espouse.
It perfectly aligns with your Honorable nature to warmly receive offerings presented with affection. Your Lordship's considerable authority harmonizes well with your aptitude for logically assessing what suits seasoned warriors. An exceptional aspect of your Honor, one that has garnered you admiration within your land, lies in your willingness to champion the truth, regardless of the source. Moreover, this gesture supplements the commendable initiative your Lordship has recently undertaken, adding immeasurable honor and incomparable advantage. Specifically, you've initiated the shift away from swords with hilts positioned above the hands, reverting to the Roman custom, where swords were worn only so long as they could be drawn beneath the arms or over the shoulders.
In light of all these considerations, I am confident that your Lordship will be gracious in accepting and dignifying these Paradoxes of mine. If these ideas remain protected beneath your esteemed guidance, I have no doubt that I can defend them logically among the learned and validate them through practical demonstration to the uninitiated. I intend to prove that there is no definitive defense in the use of the rapier and that the short sword holds a significant advantage over the long rapier or any type of rapier, regardless of length. Furthermore, I maintain that the short staff gains the upper hand against a long staff measuring twelve, fourteen, sixteen, or eighteen feet, or any other length. Similarly, I contend that the short staff prevails against two opponents wielding swords and daggers, or two rapiers, poniards, and gauntlets, or even a case of rapiers. Whether I can achieve these feats or not, I willingly subject them to your Honors' martial judgment. I stand prepared to substantiate my claims against anyone and in any manner your Lordship may deem fitting.
Thus, I humbly entrust this book to your Lordship's wisdom for examination and to your Honor's guidance from the Highest for protection. May health and happiness accompany you now and forever. With all due respect and duty, I remain,
Your Honorable Lordship's humble servant,
George Silver
[1] Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex (10 November 1565[1] – 25 February 1601) was the first cousin-twice removed from Queen Elizabeth I. He was a well-respected member of the Queen's Court for a time with a prominent military career. However, he was charged with treason and executed on 25 February 1601, being the last person to be beheaded in the Tower of London. There were two fencing treatises dedicated to Robert Devereaux, the first being 'His Practice' (1595) by Vincentio Saviolo and the second being 'Paradoxes of Defense' (1599) by George Silver. George Silver likely dedicated his book to Robert Devereux in response to Vincentio Saviolo's dedicated work. It is apparent that Saviolo's teachings were the target of Silver's treatise and Silver challenged Saviolo personally to a duel with 10 weapons and in his Introduction to his Paradoxes he tells Robert Devereux: " I stand prepared to substantiate my claims against anyone and in any manner your Lordship may deem fitting." [2] "… shifting fashions." George Silver wrote his treatise during the early part of the English Renaissance, a time a significant societal and cultural change which is dated from the early 16th century to the early 17th century. It was part of a pan-European Renaissance having its origin in 14th century Italy. The English Renaissance was unlike the Italian Renaissance in that the English changes were emphasizes in literature and music whereas the Italian saw significant progress in the visual arts. The English utilized the printing press and produced massive amounts of literature and unlike their Italian counterparts who were Roman Catholic, the English Protestant ideal emphasizes personal liberty in Biblical interpretation and in 1526 William Tyndale printed the first English Bible available to the masses. The English reformation destroyed much of the religious iconography and visual arts in England. However, clothing fashions and in the case of weaponry, fencing traditions were being imported from Italy. It was the imported fighting traditions that George Silver bemoaned in his treatise. [3] Elizabethan England saw great achievements in the field of science. This period of English history is known as the Scientific Revolution. Galileo during this time invented the telescope and defined the laws of the pendulum which gave rise to precise timekeeping and of dynamics. Medicine was able to accurately describe the human body due to the Protestant Reformations allowances for human dissection. Copernicus discovered that the Earth rotated on an axis and defined the geocentric model of our solar system. In tis era of scientific rationalism, George Silver believed that there was an objective scientific reality behind everything including fencing. Silver states that the apprehension of truth in all matters equally applies to the science and art of fencing and that there can only be one truth to all things including fencing. [4] George Silver expounds that the objective truth of fencing and martial arts can be found in the effectiveness of the time proven and practicalities of our ancestors. By ancestors, George doesn't only mean his ancestral Englishman but goes on to provide the ancient Greco-Roman martial traditions as the standard whereby truth should be measured. In other words, if truth has been truth for a thousand years or more then it should be self-evident. [5] Silver laments that dueling in accordance with new fighting styles was leading to the deaths of fellow countrymen by their abandonment of true scientific martial laws and this was causing unnecessary or inadvertent deaths in duel by both fencers doubling or killing one another. We will see this explained by Silver in depth, however, we also see this concern echoed by Silver's contemporary George Hale. [6] There were three styles of fencing in England during Silver's lifetime. The Spanish art which was known for its circular dancing movements, the Bolognese or Italian tradition known for its finesse and artistic flair, and the English tradition known for its more abrupt fly-in and fly-out methodology. [7] Herein is an important distinction between George Silver and some of his contemporaries- Silver advocates for a martially valid fencing tradition that can be utilized on the battlefield in war as well as a means of personal self defense for the Englishman. Silver criticizes these other continental styles for not being applicable on the battlefield and this criticism isn't unique to George Silver rather many English soldiers lamented this same sentiment regarding the rapier being unusable in battle. [8] George Silver gives preference to the short sword (in this case the backsword with an average blade length of 38") above the lengthier rapier. In 1600 the length of the rapier reached 48" and in 1610 the Spanish rapier reached a length of 50". The length of rapier blades became a nuisance in the Court of Queen Elizabeth I as the fashion of noblemen was in part determined by the length of their rapier. Resultantly these noblemen were tripping others and knocking over furniture with their lengthy rapiers, therefore, Elizabeth I banned rapiers over the length of 40". The movement toward blades of increasingly greater length dies out in favor of shorter blades in 1630 and the trend spreads across Europe.
Comentarios