Secrets of the Sword. César Lecat de Bazancourt
in a duel, but in sword-play it is considered a foul blow; the code does not allow it, therefore the hit is bad.’
VIII
“This sort of thing is mistaken prejudice. The assault ought to be a sham fight.
“It follows that everyone should have liberty of action. Do not attempt to force A. to be graceful and elegant, if he is not built that way. Permit B. to develope his own style in his own fashion, and do not try to make him a servile copy of yourself, merely for the sake of emphasising your superiority. If he makes mistakes, take advantage of them, that is the most convincing kind of correction. If his play is dangerous but incorrect, show him that you can be at once correct and dangerous.
“In short we ask for a fair field and no favour for every sort of style and theory that is based on a study of the weapon. Science you know is the result of intelligent application. Do you seriously believe that these fencers are devoid of science, because they refuse to be judged by your standard, or because they try to obtain new results, where you persist in seeing nothing but annoying tricks?
“You must allow one of two things. Either the methods which these fencers employ, their plans of attack and defence, are based on policy and their knowledge of the weapon, and their source of inspiration is the same as yours; in that case they are justified by results, they have teeth and can bite, and are not the easy prey, which you expected to find them. Or on the contrary, they go to work without judgment, they let fly at random, and advance or retire without any notion of time or distance, their parries are wide and weak, without any sense of touch, their attacks uncertain, wild and incoherent. In that case they are not dangerous. Chance may perhaps protect them once, but you with your experience and skill of course will easily defeat them, and their slap-dash play will lead them promptly into every trap which you choose to set for them.
IX
“Such is the controversy, the great quarrel between the two schools, the feud between the white rose and the red. I have attempted to explain it to you in its general outlines as clearly as I possibly could. You will find it easier to understand the details, which we shall consider when we continue this discussion.”
“What will your subject be to-morrow?” asked my host.
“I really cannot say,” I replied. “It would be difficult to lay down a regular plan. No doubt something will turn up to talk about. And, by the way, this morning I noticed in the library one or two old books about sword-play, and I shall try to find time to turn them over.”
The Second Evening
I
It began to dawn upon me that my undertaking was more serious than I had anticipated, and that I had let myself in for some uncommonly hard work; for I should have to advance solid reasons in support of the theories that I had so rashly propounded. I had committed myself to nothing less than the exposition of a system to men who, for the most part, knew nothing at all about sword-play, and could not be expected to understand the meaning of the technical terms. I should have to be clear and precise and ready to answer any questions that might be put to me.
I was particularly anxious to carry my little audience with me, because I venture to think that no gentleman’s education is complete without some knowledge of fencing, and I consider that parents and guardians are much to blame if they fail to recognise the two-fold importance of this indispensable exercise, which not only strengthens and developes the learner’s body, but also insures his life.
“Ah,” I exclaimed, as I joined the company in the smoking-room, where we met every evening, “my audience I see is before me.”
“You have kept your audience waiting,” said my host, “and we have kept an armchair waiting for you. Sit down, and begin as soon as you please.”
“Thank you,” I replied sitting down, – “I will begin at once.”
II
“I remarked, yesterday, that the art of fencing would greatly benefit by simplification, and that it does not require such formidable and protracted study as some of the text-books by their elaborate display of intricate and interminable combinations would lead you to suppose.
“The elementary principles of sword-play are four in number. They are these: —
Simple Attacks.
Composite Attacks.
Simple Parries.
Composite Parries.
“Here is a table of the attacks and parries: —
The Straight Thrust.
The Disengagement.
One, two.
Beat straight thrust.
Beat disengage.
Feint disengage.
Feint cut over.
Cut over and disengage in tierce or quarte.
Quarte.
Tierce.
Seconde.
Low Quarte, or Quinte.
Counter-Quarte.
Counter-Tierce.
Circle.
III
“My classification, you see, is not very complicated.”
“But,” some one objected, “you are surely forgetting to name an immense number of strokes and parries; for it is impossible that the long lists of names, which are given in the books, and the directions for the various passes, which have the air of cabalistic formulae and are about equally intelligible, can be reduced to such simple terms.”
“I am willing to forget them,” I replied, “in fact more than willing, for I am convinced that they only serve to distract the learner’s mind. The simpler the principles, the simpler the practice. Give him fewer things to do, and he will do them more easily, and he will certainly learn to do them in a shorter time.
“I have always said that a text-book of fencing, which contained nothing that was superfluous, would not fill a volume but might be written out on a sheet of notepaper, and besides, I would have you notice that several of the attacks, parries, and ripostes included in my list might logically have been omitted, because they are simply different ways of executing the same movement.
“For instance, what I have called “One, two” is the combination of two disengagements, one delivered in quarte, the other in tierce. The beat straight thrust is the combination of a beat on the sword with a straight thrust. The beat disengage is simply a beat followed by a disengagement. Feint cut-over, feint disengage are in like manner the different methods, which are most commonly used, of executing the straight thrust or the disengagement, the two fundamental strokes of sword-play.
“Even the cut-over is really a sort of disengagement, since it starts from the same position, is aimed at the same point, and may be met by the same parries. The only difference is that the disengagement passes under the blade, while the cut-over passes over the point. The cut-over and disengage in quarte is the same movement as counter-quarte, conceived and executed in the one case as an attack, in the other as a parry. Cut-over and disengage in tierce is related in precisely the same way to counter-tierce.
“You see, then, that the multiplication of strokes, far from extending to infinity, may be reduced to very narrow limits. And I am firmly convinced, that if you transgress these limits you are at once involved in endless confusion, which you ought to be very careful to avoid. – You will, I am sure, admit the force of my argument.
“The attacks and parries which I have described traverse all the lines which are open to the passage of the sword, that is to say the high and low lines,