FABRIS’ RAPIER POSTURE

Analysis of key stance components and their advantages

ZHIVANA IGOREVNA CRESCENT ARTISAN, A.S. LII

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Kirsten Lanham Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 2018 alvator Fabris (1544-1618) is one of the best-known masters of Renaissance swordplay. In both the SCA and in the wider historical martial arts community, his techniques are studied and applied by S modern rapier students. Fabris, though born in Bologna, Italy, traveled widely in Europe before entering the service of King Christian IV of Denmark in 1590. Under Christian’s patronage he published his treatise Lo Schermo, overo Scienza d’Arme (“On Defense, or the Science of Arms”) in 1606, consisting of instructive text and 190 illustrative plates. This manual provided extensive instruction in the art of single rapier, rapier and dagger, and rapier and cloak, drawing upon Fabris’ personal experience as well as knowledge gained from his travels in Spain, France, and Germany. His fencing style shares many characteristics with other Italian masters of the time, but also reflects his experiences abroad. Writing in 1885, Egerton Castle remarked that although it is unknown exactly where Fabris traveled and who he met, “…one may feel sure that in Spain he found means of meeting the great Carranza and studying his method,”1 due to similarities found between their styles. Fig. 1: Portrait of Salvator Fabris Though he is considered one of the major Italian fencing masters, Fabris’ treatise differs considerably from those written by his two best-known contemporaries, Ridolfo Capo Ferro and Nicoletto Giganti. Most notable is his unique posture, which differs from Capo Ferro’s and Giganti’s postures in three significant ways: The forward lean of the body, the extended position of the sword, and the closeness of the feet. These three postural components form an integrated and interdependent system of movement that constitutes the basis of his fencing system. This paper will explore the advantage each component gives the fencer, compare Fabris’ posture to those of Giganti and Capo Ferro, and analyze the interaction of these components as a system of Fig. 2: Stance described by Fabris movement that allows the fencer to successfully execute the fundamental techniques described in Fabris’ works.

The Forward Lean

The most notoriously distinctive aspect of the stance Fabris describes in Scienza is the forward lean of the body. Fabris states that the body should form a “good and comfortable angle” by leaning forward at the waist2 to achieve the most protected posture possible. He further states that “If a person could make

1 Egerton Castle, Schools and Masters of Fence: From the Middle Ages to the Eighteenth Century (London: Bell & Sons, 1885), 96. 2 Tommaso Leoni, Art of Dueling: Salvator Fabris’ Rapier Fencing Treatise of 1606 (Chivalry Bookshelf, 2005), 28. 1 himself so small as to be able to cover his entire body with the forte (strong) of the sword, it would be ideal.”3 In order to accomplish this without overbalancing forward, the fencer must also allow the hips to extend over the back foot so that the center of mass lowers and the forward position of the head and shoulders is balanced by the backward position of the hips and buttocks. Bending the body forward at the waist offers three chief advantages. First, as shown in figure 34, it restricts the targets available to the opponent. The head and back shoulder are easily defended with small and fast sword motions and therefore not a realistic target, while the lower torso and legs are so far removed that the Fig. 3: Second guard from two angles Fabris’ Plate 4 demonstrates the restriction of targets offered by placing opponent would have to the upper body behind the sword in such a dramatic fashion. considerably endanger themselves to attack there. This leaves the head and shoulder on the sword side the only viable target for a safe attack, leading to the second advantage of the forward-leaning posture: The opponent’s fastest and most obvious attacks are extremely predictable because of the restricted targets. The fencer need only concern themselves with defending the upper quadrant on the sword side because any attack to another target will take long enough to allow the fencer to react before the opponent’s blow can land. The third advantage of the forward lean is that it enables a faster lunge. In Italian rapier, the lunge is executed by first extending the sword to its fullest, then leaning the body forward, and finally shifting the weight forward until the front foot naturally takes a small step forward to allow the body to elongate while remaining stable.5 Fabris’ posture has the body leaned forward even at rest, shortening the amount of time needed to complete the lunge because only the weight shift and the motion of the foot are required. Fig. 4: Comparison of waist angle in postures of Capo Ferro (1), Giganti (2), and Fabris (3) This forward lean contrasts sharply Capo Ferro’s Plate 3 shows his nearly upright posture. with the postures described in Capo Ferro’s Giganti’s Plate 3 shows his slightly less severe angle, and Gran Simulacro dell’arte e dell’uso della Fabris’ Plate 4 illustrates his bent forward posture. Scherma and Giganti’s Scola, overo teatro. As shown in figure 4, both Capo Ferro6 and Giganti7 advocate a more upright stance. Fabris, however,

3 Leoni, 28. 4 Salvator Fabris, Sienza E Pratica d’Arme (Copenhagen: Henrico Waltkirch, 1606), 31. 5 How To - Italian Renaissance Lunge, YouTube, 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcWN1FE-CXA&t=2s. 6 Ridolfo Capo Ferro, Gran Simulacro dell’arte e dell’uso della Scherma, 1610. 7 Nicoletto Giganti, Scola, overo teatro, nelquale sono rappresentate diverse maniere, e modi di parare, e di ferire di spada sola, e di spada, e pugnala (Frankfurt: Jacques de Zeter, 1619). 2 considers this foolish and says that “standing straight is more dangerous and less apt to the offense. This is because just as defending a straight body requires larger motions, you cannot perform a deep lunge without bending the body forward.”8 For all three masters, the ending position of the lunge is approximately the same; the salient difference in their lunges is that Fabris’ does not require bending at the waist to initiate the attack while Capo Ferro’s and Giganti’s do. Plate 279 (fig. 5) of Scienza provides an excellent demonstration of how the advantages of the forward lean manifest in motion. In this example, as well as all future examples, “the fencer” will refer to the person who is ultimately successful in the demonstration, while “the opponent” will refer to the person who is defeated. Guards and attacks are generally described as being toward the inside or the outside. If one imagines shaking hands, the “inside” refers to the palm side and the “outside” refers to the backhand side. In Plate 27, both the fencer and the opponent begin in third guard to the inside (the sword is situated in a natural position with the palm facing the inside), and the fencer goes to find the opponent’s sword. “Finding the sword,” in the context used by Fabris, means to gain advantage over it.10 This is generally accomplished by placing the sword over top of the Fig. 5: Lean of the upper body in motion Plate 27 of Fabris’ treatise demonstrates the advantages of leaning the body opponent’s sword forward in a lunge in second. The silhouette shows the initial position of the fencer without touching it standing in third, as shown in Plate 10. and at such an angle that the opponent cannot execute a straight-line attack without encountering the fencer’s sword. The opponent uses the time of the fencer’s attempt to find the sword to begin a fendente riverso cut, which is a downward blow coming from the outside, intended to strike the fencer on the outside shoulder or head. During the time of this cut, the fencer turns their sword to second (the palm faces down) and lunges across the opponent’s line of attack, wounding them in the sword-side shoulder. All the advantages given by the forward lean are present in this example. The fencer’s back shoulder is well defended by the sword and the torso and legs are too far removed to be reached in a single attack, making the sword-side shoulder and head the only reasonable target for the opponent. The fencer, knowing this, sets out to find the opponent’s sword aware that they only need to worry about a high attack to the outside and well prepared to counter such an action with a small movement of the sword. The opponent complies, throwing the obvious cut to the high outside quadrant, and the fencer is able to make a

8 Leoni, 28. 9 Fabris, Sienza. 10 William E. Wilson, Arte of Defence: An Introduction to the Use of the Rapier (Union City, CA: Chivalry Bookshelf, 2002), 102. 3 very fast lunge to counter this attack because the first parts of the lunge are already completed; the sword is extended and the body is bent forward, so all that remains is to shift the weight and move the front foot. The fencer’s success in this example is directly attributable to their forward-leaning posture, which allows them to easily anticipate their opponent’s actions and react swiftly and offensively.

The Extended Sword

The second defining feature of Fabris’ posture is the extension of the sword. In Scienza he writes that the fencer should “keep the arm extended as much as possible, and hold the sword straight so as to form a direct line between the shoulder and the point.”11 He acknowledges that this can be tiring, and also references the need to maintain a slight bend in the arm rather than hyperextending the elbow joint, saying “In order to be safest of all, you should hold your sword arm not quite extended, but more extended than not.”12 Regarding where the sword should point, Fabris asks the fencer to direct it “straight toward the opponent or just out of line as the opponent’s posture calls for.”13 He explains the nuances of determining where exactly to point the sword more explicitly in Chapter 4, “How To Form The Counter-Postures,” and in Chapter 9, “What Is Finding The Sword,” though for the purposes of this analysis it will suffice to say that Fabris advocates pointing the sword in such a way that the opponent cannot perform a straight-line attack without crossing the fencer’s blade, and that the exact position of the sword therefore varies based on the posture assumed by the opponent. Holding the sword in such an extended fashion builds upon the advantages of the forward lean to further strengthen the defensive and offensive position of the fencer. Together with the lean of the body, the extended sword constitutes the first stages of the lunge; the fencer only needs to shift their weight and move their foot slightly in order to make a very fast lunge. Note in figure 6 that the position of the sword is almost unchanged from the static guard to the completed lunge; closing the distance in the attack is accomplished entirely by moving the foot and allowing the body to elongate. In modern biomechanical terms, the entirety of the fencer’s arm and sword, from shoulder to sword tip, can be considered a quasi-rigid body, defined as a non-rigid body that Fig. 6: Straight sword position allows for quick lunge behaves as though it is rigid for a Fabris’ Plate 10 shows the sword fully extended while in third brief period of time.14 This means guard. Note that the sword remains in the same position while lunging, as shown in the silhouette (Plate 12).

11 Leoni, Art of Dueling: Salvator Fabris’ Rapier Fencing Treatise of 1606, 25. 12 Leoni, 27. 13 Leoni, 27. 14 Roger Bartlett, Introduction to Sports Biomechanics: Analysing Human Movement Patterns, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2007), 89. 4 that the individual segments of the arm – the forearm and upper arm – and the sword perform no angular motion during the lunge; the joints of the elbow and wrist remain in a largely fixed position throughout the motion while the sword is propelled linearly toward the opponent by the motion of the lower body. Treating the sword and arm as a quasi-rigid body simplifies the lunge because the fencer has to move fewer body segments than if the sword began in an angled position. The extended sword position also allows the fencer room to maneuver safely by keeping the opponent at a considerable distance. As stated in the previous section, the further extended the sword is from the body the sooner the opponent will have to address it before initiating an attack. By restricting the opponent’s options in such a way, the fencer can be more assured of their safety and thus freer to approach the fight as they wish; because of the distance and immediate threat they have placed between their body and the opponent’s sword, they can be confident that any attack made by the opponent would take enough time that they would be able to respond appropriately. Crucially, the freedom of movement imparted by this extended posture allows the fencer to find the opponent’s sword at a great distance, establishing their dominance of the fight early and forcing the opponent to respond. Capo Ferro and Giganti take a different view of the proper position of the sword. Both indicate that the sword should be held at an angle, sloping upward to meet the opponent’s blade. Capo Ferro writes “The sword is regarded entirely as one limb with the arm, and it has to form a straight line with the forearm, which is properly aligned with the fold of the right flank, and has to divide the height and width of the body into two equal parts.”15 Fabris disagrees with this, stating that “those who fence with their sword at an angle cannot perform any mutations without taking considerable time, because the hand and the point of the sword must describe a rather wide arc.”16 This can be seen clearly in figure 7, which compares the sword angles of Capo Ferro, Giganti, and Fabris. Assuming a fendente cut to the head, the distance the fencer’s hand must travel in order to intercept the blow is significantly greater for Capo Ferro and Giganti than it is for

Fig. 7: Comparing sword positions of Capo Ferro (1), Giganti (2), and Fabris (3) This comparison shows the advantage of Fabris’ straight sword position in defending against a cut to the head on the outside. In each plate A shows the point of impact for the opponent’s sword, B marks the starting position of the hand, and C indicates the position the fencer’s hand would need to move to in order to intercept the opponent’s cut.

Fabris. By angling the sword the fencer ensures they will have to take a longer time to defend themselves from the most likely attacks, allows their opponent to engage at a closer range, and disrupts the quasi-rigid body that allows for a fast and linear lunge. Fabris’ instruction regarding the sword position hews much

15 Ridolfo Capo Ferro, Great Representation of the Art and Use of Fencing, ed. Roger Kay, trans. Jerek Swanger and William E. Wilson, n.d., 18. 16 Leoni, Art of Dueling: Salvator Fabris’ Rapier Fencing Treatise of 1606, 26. 5 closer to the Spanish school of thought, which says that the sword should be held straight out from the shoulder at a right angle to the torso.17 Figure 8 shows renowned Spanish sword master Geronimo de Carranza’s depiction of how the sword should be held. The similarity to Fabris’ sword position lends credence to Egerton Castle’s theory that Fabris met Carranza during his travels and adopted some of his teachings into his own fencing style. Fabris provides a thorough Fig. 8: Position of the sword described by Carranza demonstration of the advantages of the extended sword in Plate 2218 (fig. 9). The fencer and the opponent start in third to the inside, and the fencer goes to find the opponent’s sword. The opponent performs a cavazione by moving their sword in a semicircular motion to the other side of the fencer’s sword19 and moves their right foot forward. The fencer uses the duration of the cavazione to lunge, preventing the opponent from arriving in an advantageous position and wounding them in the upper Fig. 9: Extension of sword in motion chest. The fencer is able to do Fabris’ Plate 22 shows the efficient lunge enabled by keeping the sword this because the extended straight. The silhouette shows the fencer’s starting position in third, as illustrated in Plate 10. position of the sword allows them the find the sword while still at a safe distance, and the quasi-rigid body of the sword and arm as a unit enable a fast, linear lunge, making Fabris’ prescribed sword position essential to successfully executing this play.

Closeness of the Feet

The final component of Fabris’ stance is the close positioning of the feet. Fabris has little to say about how the feet should be positioned, stating chiefly that “In order to form this extended stance properly, you should restrict your step in order to keep the lower parts of your body out of danger.”20 “Step,” in this context, refers to the distance between the feet while in guard, rather than the distance traveled when

17 Francisco Antonio de Ettenhard, “Chapter 1: Angles and the Swordsman,” in Compendio de Los Fundamentos de La Verdadera Destreza y Filosofía de Las Armas, trans. Mary Dill Curtis (Madrid, 1675). 18 Fabris, Sienza. 19 Wilson, Arte of Defence, 103. 20 Leoni, Art of Dueling: Salvator Fabris’ Rapier Fencing Treatise of 1606, 25. 6 moving.21 Most of Fabris’ instruction on how to keep the feet must therefore be gleaned from looking at the plates. Though there is considerable variation in foot placement when looking at the entire collection of plates, his four main guards (first, second, third and fourth guard “properly formed” or “extended”22) consistently show the feet one to two foot lengths apart when measured from heel to heel. Importantly, the plates demonstrating guards with the feet farther apart also deviate the position of the body and/or sword from Fabris’ instruction to keep the body leaned forward and the sword extended straight out. This indicates that the role of the foot position is to support the actions of the upper body, and that the wider stance in these plates is made out of necessity in order to allow the body and sword to move in novel ways rather than out of arbitrary choice. Fabris’ Plate 10 shows the feet in the “third guard properly formed.” The distance between the heels of the feet appears to be equal to approximately one and a half foot lengths, making for a fairly restricted step (see fig. 10) as Fabris instructs earlier in the text. The closeness of the feet offers two main advantages. First, it bolsters the advantages of the forward lean by helping to keep the lower body out of reach of the opponent. With the front foot, in particular, withdrawn so far back there is no practical target for the opponent to attack below the waist. As shown previously, this forces the opponent into more predictable actions and allows the fencer to prepare for a smaller range of responses, which can then be deployed with great speed as necessary. The second advantage of the close feet is that they support both small, careful paces when Fig. 10: Position of the feet finding the sword and large, dramatic lunges when attacking. The distance between the heels of the When the feet are placed so close together it requires minimal feet in Fabris’ Plate 10. effort to shift weight between them, allowing the fencer to easily maneuver back and forth as the situation requires. Capo Ferro and Giganti both favor a much wider stance than Fabris, as shown in Figure 11. Plate 1523 from Capo Ferro’s treatise show the feet at least three foot lengths apart, and earlier in the text he states that “In resting in guard and in seeking the narrow measure, the right calf with the thigh and its foot point directly forward, and

lean back in an oblique Fig. 11: Comparison of positions for Capo Ferro (1), Giganti (2), and Fabris (3)

21 Leoni, 287. 22 Leoni, 35–47. 23 Capo Ferro, Gran Simulacro. 7 line, in the manner of a slope.”24 Giganti demonstrates a similarly wide and sloping stance. Plate 2825 from Scienza shows how the close position of the feet allows the fencer to shift their weight easily and therefore move quickly and stably. Both the fencer and the opponent start in third guard

Fig. 12: Position of feet in motion Fabris’ Plate 281 demonstrates the advantages of keeping the feet close together. The blue silhouette represents the fencer’s starting position in third (Plate 10), and the red silhouette represents the withdrawal of the body (Plate 111) in order to avoid the opponent’s cut. to the outside. The fencer goes to find the opponent’s sword, and the opponent turns a mandritto, or a cut descending from the opponent’s right side, to the fencer’s head. The fencer, rather than opposing the cut, shifts their weight over the back foot in order to withdraw the body out of danger. As the cut’s momentum carries it downward, the fencer shifts their weight forward and lunges in third to strike the opponent in the chest before the opponent can bring their sword back to a threatening position. The fencer is able to complete this response rapidly because the close position of the feet keeps the lower body parts out of danger and allows for rapid shifting of weight. In the beginning of the play, the fencer’s legs are withdrawn; together with the forward lean and the extended sword, this limits the opponent’s viable targets to the upper body on the sword side, allowing the fencer to anticipate attacks to that quadrant and respond quickly. When the opponent begins the cut, the close feet enable the fencer to quickly shift their weight to the back foot, withdrawing the head out of danger. The red silhouette in figure 11 shows the approximate position of the body in the withdrawal, taken from Plate 1126, though Fabris does not advocate lowering the sword arm in Plate 28 as shown in the figure. Once the opponent’s sword passes and the fencer is no longer in danger, they shift their weight quickly forward to lunge. Again, because the feet are kept close together the sudden lengthening of the step in the lunge provides a fast and dramatic closing of distance that allows the fencer to complete the lunge during the time the opponent is still trying to combat the momentum of their failed cut in order to return the sword to a defensive guard. This easy shift in weight constitutes most of the force behind the linear motion of the lunge.

24 Capo Ferro, Great Representation, 16. 25 Fabris, Sienza. 26 Fabris. 8

A Cohesive System of Movement

The three defining components of Fabris’ posture – the forward lean, the extended position of the sword, and the closeness of the feet – work interdependently to create a cohesive system of movement that forms the necessary foundation for successfully performing the techniques Fabris describes throughout his text. Each component relies on the support of the other two to maximize its advantages. The forward lean would put the head in danger if not for the extended position of the sword, the quasi-rigid body created by the extended sword arm relies on the close and nimble feet to support fast and linear lunges, and the close position of the feet relies on the forward lean to lower the center of mass in order to remain stable. Scienza’s Plate 2927 demonstrates the interconnected nature of these components very effectively.

Fig. 13: Integrating posture components in motion Fabris’ Plate 29 demonstrates the three major components of his posture integrated into one sequence. The top image, Plate 10, shows the starting position with both fencers in third. The silhouette in the bottom image, Plate 29, shows the approximate position taken by the fencer when withdrawing to avoid the opponent’s cut.

Both the fencer and the opponent begin in third to the outside and the fencer moves to find the opponent’s sword. The opponent uses this time to turn a riverso to the outside of the head, but fails to reach their target. The fencer allows the cut to pass while lowering their point to avoid contacting the opponent’s blade, then

27 Fabris. 9 lunges in fourth (the palm faces up) to strike the opponent in the sword-side chest before the opponent can recover from the failed attack. The forward lean contributes to the fencer’s success by restricting the targets readily available to the opponent; as in previous examples, the only reasonable target for the opponent’s attack is the head and shoulders on the outside and therefore the fencer can focus their efforts on defending that quadrant. The lean also puts considerable distance between the opponent’s sword and their target, forcing them to risk their safety long before they can reach the fencer. This is one reason that the opponent’s cut fails to find its target in this scenario; the opponent throws the cut as soon as the fencer seeks to find their sword, but fails to close enough distance to reach the fencer. The opponent then finds themselves stuck in a position where the fencer can easily reach them, but unable to defend themselves because the momentum of their sword is difficult to reverse. The extended sword position also aids in restricting the targets available to the opponent by following Fabris’ entreaty to attempt to fit the entire body behind the sword in order to maximize protection. The extension also allows the fencer to find the opponent’s sword at a very safe distance, prompting the opponent to throw the cut in an attempt to thwart the fencer’s advantageous position. After the opponent throws their failed cut, the extended sword and the forward lean allow the fencer to make a very fast lunge, necessitating only a turn of the sword to fourth and the extension of the front foot. The close position of the feet supports the fencer’s aims throughout the play. While the fencer is seeking the opponent’s sword, the close feet allow them to shift their weight easily and take small, easily variable steps. This means they can close distance slowly and carefully, but also reverse course quickly if the opponent makes an unexpected move or initiates a legitimate attack. When the opponent initiates the cut, the fencer can then easily shift their weight backward to avoid it. Fabris does not specify a backwards shift, but in some scenarios it may be desirable depending on exactly how and when the opponent begins the cut. Once the cut has passed, the fencer can then shift their weight over the front foot and complete the lunge quickly and smoothly. This pattern continues throughout Fabris’ text. Again and again, the success of the fencer is dependent upon assuming a guard with the body leaned forward, maintaining the sword in an extended position, and keeping the feet close together to support the motions of the upper body. This is true when lunging, when cutting, when seeking measure, when avoiding attacks, and when provoking desirable responses from the opponent. There are many examples that appear to deviate from this, but they generally fall into one of two categories: The play is meant to be used against a skilled opponent who is not easily manipulated by the basic techniques illustrated earlier in the text, or the initial guard taken is intended to provoke a very specific response from the opponent that the fencer can then take advantage of. Even so, the principles outlined in this paper remain critical to executing these techniques. A large portion of Fabris’ plates begin with both fencers in third guard, and a large portion also end with the fencer in an extended lunge with the sword straight. A person who attempts to perform any of Fabris’ techniques, whether basic or advanced, without a thorough understanding of the three key components of the posture will meet with little success.

Conclusion

All the elements of Fabris’ prescribed posture work in harmony to allow the fencer to fight from the most advantageous position possible. The forward lean keeps the body reserved, but requires the extended sword in order to protect the otherwise exposed head. The extended sword allows finding the 10 sword at a great distance, but is assisted by the close position of the feet to complete the lunge quickly and dramatically; and the close feet allow small and careful footsteps, but depend on the forward lean of the body to create stability. In both the most rudimentary techniques and the most advanced plates, the integration of these three postural components forms the foundation for success. There is a tendency among some practitioners of historical fencing to pick and choose techniques from various sources, treating them as tricks to be used at will rather than as the culmination of the mastery of a given author’s fundamental teachings. Fabris, with his unique posture and some inspiringly creative plates, is a frequent victim of such cut-and-paste styles. These fencers inevitably meet with limited and uneven success, hampered by their zeal for novelty and their boredom with the minutiae of the basics. This examination of Fabris’ posture refutes their urge to pick and choose and demonstrates the consistent achievement that can result from learning a fencing system as a whole rather than as a sum of its parts. Just as a single plate from a fencing text is not meant to be slotted into a fencer’s existing fencing system, the components of Fabris’ posture are not meant to be used independently of each other. A fencer who chooses to use only the lean or only the extended sword, or uses the posture only when it suits them, will find themselves greatly challenged by the actions Fabris teaches. One who uses them together as a cohesive system of movement, however, will find they possess the fundamentals necessary to successfully execute the techniques contained in Fabris’ seminal work.

11

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to: Jeff Jacobson (Lot Ramirez) for his guidance and support Guy Windsor and William E. Wilson for providing free high-quality scans of historical fencing manuals online

Bibliography

Bartlett, Roger. Introduction to Sports Biomechanics: Analysing Human Movement Patterns. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2007. Capo Ferro, Ridolfo. Gran Simulacro dell’arte e dell’uso della Scherma, 1610. ———. Great Representation of the Art and Use of Fencing. Edited by Roger Kay. Translated by Jerek Swanger and William E. Wilson, n.d. Castle, Egerton. Schools and Masters of Fence: From the Middle Ages to the Eighteenth Century. London: Bell & Sons, 1885. Ettenhard, Francisco Antonio de. “Chapter 1: Angles and the Swordsman.” In Compendio de Los Fundamentos de La Verdadera Destreza y Filosofía de Las Armas, translated by Mary Dill Curtis. Madrid, 1675. Fabris, Salvator. Sienza E Pratica d’Arme. Copenhagen: Henrico Waltkirch, 1606. Giganti, Nicoletto. Scola, overo teatro, nelquale sono rappresentate diverse maniere, e modi di parare, e di ferire di spada sola, e di spada, e pugnala. Frankfurt: Jacques de Zeter, 1619. How To - Italian Renaissance Lunge. YouTube, 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcWN1FE- CXA&t=2s. Leoni, Tommaso. Art of Dueling: Salvator Fabris’ Rapier Fencing Treatise of 1606. Chivalry Bookshelf, 2005. Wilson, William E. Arte of Defence: An Introduction to the Use of the Rapier. Union City, CA: Chivalry Bookshelf, 2002.

12