Historical Fencing Resources from Cercle des Escrimeurs du Pays Vençois

Haut les MasquesA French fencing website caught my attention recently. The site belongs to Cercle des Escrimeurs du Pays Vençois.  The page that sparked my interest consists of a series of fairly detailed fencing timelines organized by topic.  The topics are numerous and varied. Historical milestones in fencing, biographies, weapons, technical aspects, children’s books, women, humor, and even medical theses  are just a some of the topics laid out chronologically. And there is more. Where possible, the site links to digitized copies of original manuscripts (en français, of course).  Is my history geek-ness showing?

If it sounds interesting (and who among us wouldn’t find something of interest there?), then click-through to Pays Vençois.  Here’s a link via Google Translate.

Posted in History | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Academy of Arms: Paris’s Royal Fencing Institution

Since the 16th century, fencing masters received special treatment in France. In 1567, the French king Charles IX provided letters patent to the Parisian fencing masters, publicly recognizing their fencing association. Subsequent kings extended the same royal privilege to the Parisian masters.

Louis XIV

Louis XIV

But, never to be outdone in anything, Louis XIV went further. As is well known, the Sun King’s reign was marked by his relentlessness in glorifying France and making his country the center of European culture, what one contemporary Italian diplomat called “l’Europe Française.”

To that end, Louis XIV created many academies to advance French learning and culture, such as the French Academy as well as the Academies of Painting, Dance, Science, Music, and Architecture.

Likewise, fencing benefited from this royal favoritism. Louis XIV’s 1643 letters of patent to the Parisian fencing masters emphasized “[h]ow important it is that [fencing] teachers are not only well experienced in feats of arms, but that they are well born, have manners and conversation, and are Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman.” To that end and as part of his French-centralization of European arts, he created the Academy of Fencing in 1656.

Armoiries de l'Académie d'armes de France

Armoiries de l’Académie d’armes de France

Louis XIV’s letters of patent gave the Academy’s twenty members the exclusive right to publicly hold a salle and teach fencing in Paris. This made it illegal for anyone else to publicly offer to teach fencing—as indicated by hanging above his door a sign bearing a hand holding a sword—in France’s capital.
But the Sun King’s special treatment did not end there: he also gave to six of the Academy’s members—all of whom were nominated by their fellow members—letters of nobility for them and their descendants. Moreover, these six masters—who were to examine future candidates for Academy membership—received a stipend to pay for the costs of their salles and equipment. Louis XIV also granted the Academy a coat of arms, further honoring the Academy.

But publicly holding oneself out as a fencing master was not the only acceptable way to teach fencing in Paris. At the time, there were other academies as well: essentially private schools for the aristocracy’s sons. These academies were boarding schools where these privileged young men would learn the three most important subjects they would need as members of the aristocracy: horsemanship, dancing, and fencing. (Other subjects, such as art or geometry were also taught.) Because dancing was considered a military art, the fencing instructor was frequently the dancing master.

Alternatively, a person could privately teach fencing in his home. Indeed, this is apparently what Nicolas B. Texier La Boëssière— the inventor of the first wire-mesh fencing mask —did with the famous Chevalier de Saint-George. In 1752, Saint-George’s father placed the ten-year-old boy in La Boëssière’s Parisian home, where Saint-George boarded and trained for six years (along with La Boëssière’s son, who would go on to write an homage to Saint-George in his 1818 Treatise on the Art of Arms). Yet Boëssière would not be an accepted member of the Academy with the right to hold an open salle for another seven years.

Even with a monopoly on teaching, the Academy’s fencing masters were by no means rich. In the mid-1600s, the yearly income for a typical fencing master with 20 students—providing a salary of around 700 livres—allowed him to live only modestly for the times.

Moreover, a monopoly on teaching was not a monopoly on real estate in Paris, the largest and most cramped city in Europe at the time. Consequently, fencing masters sometimes had to defray the cost of rent by sharing their salle with dance instructors.

Further, like today, a 17th century fencing master’s revenues fluctuated with his erratic clientele. But, thankfully, that’s where the similarity stops: many students need the master’s services only long enough to hold their own in a duel should the need arise. Few took it up as an avocation. Still, a master could earn more by being assigned to teach fencing at the royal court, up to 2,000 to 3,000 livres. Or, with a good location, a master’s salle could be convenient to neighborhoods featuring high-paying nobility.

Perhaps because of this scarcity, the Academy’s masters were jealous of their exclusive right to teach. If a non-Academy member publicly advertised his fencing instruction, the Academy’s monopoly gave it an oft-used right to appeal to the king’s ministers to punish the violator. Such a person risked his salle being closed and his equipment being confiscated.

For instance, a frequently-quoted 1685 royal decree stated it was “prohibiting the named Bary, swashbuckler, contemnor, from meddling in the exercise of the fencing masters and ordering the closure of the salle where he teaches said art.” A 1765 decree ordered two ferailleurs—i.e., a pejorative for an uncouth fencer—to have the place where they “practiced to be closed and walled up for six months.”
The Academy’s exclusivity of teaching narrowed the diversity of fencing techniques and instruction offered in Paris. Undoubtedly, this helped unify the overall practice of fencing in France for some time.

The Academy was ended by the French Revolution and its republican, antinobility fervor. Specifically, in 1791, the National Assembly promulgated the Le Chapelier, a law that banned all corporations and guilds in Revolutionary France. This law effectively ended the Academy and its dominance over fencing instruction in Paris.

Posted in History | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Web Site Revisions

Madame Collie Fencing at Angelo's <br>T. Rowlandson, 1816.

Madame Collie Fencing at Angelo’s, by T. Rowlandson, 1816.

The Columbia Classical Fencing web site has changed in the last few weeks.  The necessary club info for prospective members is still available, but the site is now fully integrated into a blog.  Prior posts were categorized and tagged.  Patrick will still make his informative posts about theory or history when his schedule permits (although I may post his articles on his behalf) and there will be the occasional announcement or link to interesting/related topics.  The nice thing about a blog is it is a dynamic medium so we hope you will participate!

You can keep apprised of the latest club announcement or informative fencing post by subscribing to the blog via email, RSS feed, or follow Patrick’s CCF page on Facebook (links for each are in the footer).  Better yet, I hope you will consider creating a WordPress account if you do not already have one and participating in the classical fencing discussion. Ask questions or share your knowledge with lesser experienced members.

Recent posts include Patrick’s history of the fencing mask,  The Fencing Mask: Trading Fencing Purity for Safety as well as a link to  Tom Rockwell’s new smallsword offerings.

Take a look at the reinvented www.columbiaclassicalfencing.com and join the conversation.

 

Posted in Announcement | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Fencing Mask: Trading Fencing Purity for Safety

Detail showing early fencing masks (Rowlandson, 1787)

Early fencing masks are depicted by Rowlandson (1787) as two fencers prepare to bout. The kneeling figure’s mask lies nearby while the standing figure has his mask tied on by the figure over his shoulder. Detail from “I Shall Conquer This” by Thomas Rowlandson, 1787, a view of a bout at H. Angelo’s salle in London. Click to view entire image on flickr.

The fencing mask that modern fencers would recognize as such was not invented until the latter half of the 18th century.  However, that’s not to say that there were no fencing masks before this time.  Before that time, a fencing masks would have looked like a theatrical mask with a full-face covering and eyeholes; it would have been affixed to the fencer’s head by tying the connected ribbon behind the fencer’s head.  Still, such masks were not widely used and, obviously, did not protect a fencer’s eyes.

But, in the late 1700s, a change was motivated after several unskilled students reportedly wounded their fencing masters in the eye.  Due to these successive injuries, the French fencing master Nicolas B. Texier La Boëssière invented the first wire-mesh fencing mask. (This La Boëssière should be distinguished from his son—Antoine Texier La Boëssière—who would go on to become a fencing master in his own right and author the 1818 fencing treatise titled Treatise on the Art of Weapons.)

However, not everyone immediately adopted the fencing mask.  For instance, in 1778, Maître d’Armes Nicolas Demeuse noted that the mask’s advantage was “not only ignored but unknown in many [French fencing] academies.”  He advocated for using mask, noting that, because it is essential to keep one’s face “intact,” you cannot take too many precautions against preventing any “deformities.” But his concern was more than vanity:  Maître Demeuse went on to provide an example of a young prevôt who, without wearing a mask, was giving a lesson to one of his friends in the salle.  During the lesson, the friend’s foil broke, the end of the foil entered the prevôt’s skull through eye socket, and, horrifyingly, the prevôt instantly collapsed dead on the salle floor.

Despite such gruesome cautionary tales, masks still seemed to have been disfavored for quite some time.  Even by 1845, the mask was not always used for drills:  in his Theory of Fencing, Gomard published rules for particular fencing drills and flatly says that such drills should be done “sans masque”—that is, without a mask.

Mask Detail, Cruickshanks

A fencer in a bout with a mask, 1821. Detail from “Jerry’s admiration of Tom in an ‘Assault’ with Mr O’Shaunessy at the rooms in St James St.” by Robert and George Cruikshank. Click to view entire image on Flickr.

To understand why 19thcentury fencers would have run such an unnecessary risk given potentially catastrophic consequences, we have to understand the culture at the time.  Due to its history, French fencing was historically one way that a person established his social standing by demonstrating his grace and self-control.  Putting on a fencing mask showed you questioned your opponent’s ability to keep his blade away from your face, implicitly challenging your opponent’s grace and self-control.  Given French fencing’s obsession with politesse, this was simply too much for the sensibilities of the better fencing establishments.   Thus, the mask was not always used.

Beside the implied insult to one’s fencing partner, some traditionalists disfavored La Boëssière’s mask.  Not without reason, they argued that, due to its protection, the mask would induce fencers to take risks that they otherwise would not.  For them, the danger of an unmasked face in the fencing hall properly mimicked the danger of the dueling ground, keeping fencers’ actions appropriately conservative.  Thus, the fencing mask objectionably divorced a bout in the salle from the realities of an actual duel.

Of course, even when fencers did use masks, accidents continued to happen, leading to injuries.  An 1818 French medical treatise described the clinical aspects of such an injury.  In this case, the two fencers were masked and equipped with “buttoned foils.”   The attacker (a fencing master) thrust at his opponent.  Whether by design or through a bad parry, the master’s thrust hit the mask at the defender’s right eye.  Although the mask was sufficiently durable to stop the thrust, the strength of the master’s attack snapped his blade.  And, with such momentum, the broken blade continued, penetrating the mask’s grill, puncturing the defender’s forehead, and—as is sadly predictable by now—entering his skull’s interior.  Although given quick medical treatment, the poor fellow died several days later due to complications.

By 1904, French physicians were making safety recommendations for fencing equipment.  In order to prevent wounds to the face, for instance, one physician recommended that, rather than being frontally rounded, fencing masks should be shaped like a boat’s hull, as they are now.  “In this circumstance, there is a much greater chance that a foil’s tip will never hit perpendicularly on the mask, such that it can divert tangentially.”  The doctor went on to suggest that, for safety’s sake, the grillage should cross at right angles and be welded at each junction, while the foil tip should be at least five millimeters wide.

-Patrick Morgan
Illustrations identified by Scott Wright

Posted in Equipment, History | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Rockwell Smallswords

Rockwell Classical Fencing Equipment now has two smallswords available. Although I have not purchased from him, Tom Rockwell has been very helpful answering questions I had about fabricating coquilles. Check out Tom’s smallswords here.

Posted in Weapons | Tagged , | Leave a comment