George Silver possessing extensive knowledge of various weapons and a wealth of experience in diverse combat scenarios. This understanding allowed him to recognize the significant flaws propagated by Italian fencing instructors, leading to misguided approaches, drawbacks, and flawed solutions.[1] Out of compassion for the grievous injuries and fatalities resulting from these misguided practices, and driven by a profound sense of duty, I feel compelled to earnestly advise individuals to exercise caution when entrusting themselves to Italian fencing masters or any foreign instructors.[2] They should also be wary of abandoning their innate fighting methods, casting aside these weakened, fanciful, diabolical, and incomplete techniques. By reverting to their own traditional weaponry and diligently practicing their authentic combat techniques, they can rediscover or attain the natural, robust, and triumphant fighting style that many courageous nations have both witnessed and respected.[3] Our farmers have remarkably overcome these techniques, prevailing against both fencing masters in academic settings and practitioners in various regions, who rely on elaborate tricks and deceptive maneuvers.[4] Consequently, a common saying has arisen among the populace: "Lead me to a fencer, and I will dislodge him from his evasive maneuvers using straightforward strikes. I will compel him to forsake his cunning techniques, that I guarantee."
It is important to note that my remarks are not a criticism of fencing masters, who indeed deserve reverence, nor is this a condemnation of the art itself, which holds an elevated status. In my estimation, it ranks just below theology, for just as theology safeguards the soul from damnation and malevolent forces, this noble discipline shields the body from harm and fatality. Moreover, the practice of weapon-craft alleviates aches, sorrows, and ailments, fostering physical strength and sharpening intellectual faculties. It cultivates astute judgment, dispels melancholy, irritable moods, and negative thoughts, maintains physical fitness, and promotes longevity. To those who have attained mastery, it serves as a dependable, heartening companion during solitary moments, with only their weapon as company. This expertise eradicates fear; even amidst warfare and perilous circumstances, it fosters courage, resilience, and valor.
Considering the admirable and robust nature of the English people, who are inherently kind-hearted, trusting, and prone to nurturing and safeguarding strangers, it remains crucial to prevent them from falling prey to deception by outsiders or dishonest instructors. Thus, I respectfully reiterate my counsel to those who possess a disposition or eagerness to acquire combat skills from foreign teachers.[5] I implore them that when foreigners take it upon themselves to instruct this noble, valiant, and victorious nation in the art of combat, a prudent and sensible course of action is adopted. In a manner that I myself would accept if I were to venture to their homeland to teach their populace the art of combat, a fair trial must precede any form of instruction.
This trial shall consist of the following conditions: The newcomers should engage in three rounds of combat each, using the weapons they profess to teach. First, they shall face three rounds against three accomplished English masters of defense. Subsequently, they shall endure three rounds against three unskilled yet courageous individuals. Lastly, they shall confront three rounds against three determined individuals who are mildly intoxicated. If they can effectively defend themselves against the skilled masters of defense, emerge unscathed from the second group, and successfully navigate the third challenge, they shall then be accorded honor, respect, and recognition as competent instructors—regardless of their country of origin. However, should any of these trial segments prove unsuccessful for the newcomers, it indicates a flaw in their proficiency, a fallacy in their combat technique, and a betrayal of their role as honest instructors. In such instances, they must be considered as fraudulent educators, deceivers, and even potentially harmful individuals, thus deserving appropriate consequences. However, my hope is that their punishment would not exceed the hardships they experience during their own trial.[6]
_______________________
[1] George Silver opens his Admonition utilizing an Illeism, which is to speak in the third person and is used as a stylistic device in literature. [2] "Italian fencing masters or any foreign instructors." In George Silver's time, the presence and influence of Italian fencing instructors began to take root in England. Spearheaded by Rocco Bonetti and later joined by Jeronimo and Vincentio Saviolo, these Italian practitioners started to eclipse the traditional hierarchy of the English Masters of the Noble Science of Defense. This distinguished assembly of swordsmanship scholars, primarily from the middle class, had obtained royal letters of patent from King Henry XIII in 1540. These letters of patent expired upon Henry's passing and were left unextended by his successors. Bonetti directed his efforts of instruction towards the aristocracy, actively seeking the sponsorship of nobles. This class of English society was particularly equipped to purchase the expensive rapier, and their affinity for Italian culture extended to fashion and dance. Setting up a studio at Blackfriars, Bonetti introduced amenities that were then perceived as essential comforts for the refined students of his institution. Consequently, this prompted the English masters to likewise pursue the patronage of the nobility. This is the likely reason why George Silver, while not being a member of the lower-class Masters of Defense, sent this treatise to Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex. [3] The English masters gained distinction for their expertise with the sword & buckler, with their combat techniques rooted in battlefield strategies that place significant importance on slashing attacks. These approaches heavily leaned on the prowess of the fighter. In contrast, the Italian fencers imparted swordplay with a mathematical precision, margining intricate physical maneuvers with mental control. Giacomo De Grassi's 'True Art of Defense' serves as an illustration of this approach, as he imparts that the concept of the thrust is swifter and more superior than a cut due to a line's brevity compared to an arc. Similarly, their perspective extends to the concept that greater force resides at the outer edge of a circle than at its center, thus making a strike more potent when closer to the point rather than the hilt. Silver contends the opposite; and argues that a thrust isn't necessarily faster than a cut and that there are often advantages of a cut over a thrust. However, Silver never dismisses the thrust as part of a fencer's arsenal rather instructs that a fencer should have a variety of ready attacks and defenses within his purview. He also noted that a cut is most effective and powerful closer to the hilt of the sword rather than at the swords point. [4] Learning and carrying arms in England was common of all men regardless of their status or economic background. Ralph Holinshed remarks in his work Chronicles: "Seldom will you see one of my countrymen above eighteen or twenty years old to go out without a dagger at the least at his back or by his side… No man travels by the way without his sword or some such weapon" (pp. 227). [5] Fencing was a considerably popular endeavor in George Silver's lifetime and afterwards, so much so that Phillip Gawdy (1597) suggests that during a fencing duel the "entire city" would turn up in attendance. Among the styles of fencing in England there was the dominant and traditional English style, the Italian styles, and to a lesser extent the Spanish schools of fence all operating in England. Apparently, there was a recognizable difference between these styles and the English style was unique and discernable from the others. A visiting Frenchman named, De Richefort, noted that not only were the fencing matches in England so well-attended as to fill up amphitheaters but that the fencers most often competed "according to the English style of fence" (The Life & Times of Edward Alleyn Actor 131-2). If a Frenchman could recognize the distinctives of the English style, then this indicates that there was a difference. [6] This trial of legitimacy is quite detailed and may seem harsh against would-be foreign instructors, but this test was far less rigorous than what was required of English fencers to prove their worth as a provost as outlined in the Sloan MS.
Comments