FENCING, is the proper use of the small-sword or foil· The small-sword is a light court-dress sword, made to taper gradually from the hilt to the point, and of a size regulated by the judgment of the wearer, if he understand the use of the weapon. The foil, with which the art o fencing is practised, is a small quadrangular blade, about the length of a small sword, and mounted in nearly the same manner; but, for the convenience of the exercise, it is made lighter, blunted, and covered with leather a the point, to prevent accidents in practice.

The first weapon in use amongst mankind, whether or offensive or defensive purposes, appears to have been sword, and combat with this weapon is perhaps near y old as the world. The most ancient book extant makes frequent mention of the sword, and the same thing may be [7:9:501]said of Homer, who is full of continual allusions to this wea- ’ pon. The earliest swords were probably made of wood, like those used by the natives of Mexicowhen first visited by the Spaniards; but after the discovery of metals, copper swords were introduced, of which kind many have at different times been found in Ireland. As soon, however, as the art of tempering steel had been discovered, that metal superseded all other substances in the fabrication of arms; nor is it probable that any change in this respect will take place, or that any further improvement is attainable. The form of the sword, however, has varied at different times and in different countries. Those used by the Roman legions were short and strong, with a blade seldom exceeding nineteen inches in length, but two-edged, and calculated both for the cut and the thrust. The British swords, called spathae, were large, long, and heavy; and the Saxon and the Norman partook of the same character. The ancient practice of the weapon was probably carried to its greatest perfection amongst the Romans, whose partiality for gladiatorial exhibitions formed a remarkable feature of their character. The various and complicated methods of combat in which this celebrated people took delight are either alluded to or described by most of'their writers, particularly by Livy, Juvenal, Seneca, and Suetonius.

The history of the modern small-sword or rapier is involved in some obscurity. The latter term, though now considered as synonymous with the former, properly denotes a long, ordinary, old-fashioned, cutting sword. But modern usage has identified the expressions, and by a rapier is now always meant a sword for the thrust, in contradistinction to one constructed for cutting. The smallsword or rapier is undoubtedly very ancient, although there is reason to believe that it was not brought into general use until armour began to wear out of fashion. Since that time the art of fencing has always been considered as a gentlemanly accomplishment, and in many parts of the Jontinent it is cultivated with the greatest zeal and assiduity. Shakspeare, indeed, makes Hamlet, who lived at the court of Florwendillus, a fencer; but as our great dramatist has not been very careful in avoiding anachronisms, it may reasonably be doubted whether the small-sword has any claim to such antiquity. Some have maintained that the weapon was not used in England before the reign of Elizabeth; and Darcie {Annals of Elizabeth) informs us that one Rowland York, who appears to have betrayed Deventer to the Spaniards in the year 1587, was the first who brought into England “that wicked, pernicious fashion to fight in the fields in duels with a rapier called a tucke only for the thrust.” Stowe also mentions that long tucks and long rapiers began about the twelfth or thirteenth year of Elizabeth, and that “he was held the greatest gallant that had the deepest ruffe and largest rapier. The offence,” he adds, “to the eye of the one, and the hurt unto the life of the subject that came by the other, caused her majesty to make proclamation against them both, and to place selected grave citizens at every gate to cut the ruffes and breake the rapier’s points of all passengers that exceeded a yard in length of their rapiers, and a nayle of a yard in depth of their ruffes.”^[1. In The Two Angry Women of Abingdon, a comedy printed in 1599, we find the following pathetic complaint. "Sword and buckler fights begin to grow out of use. I am sorry for it; í shall never see good manhood again. If it be once g'one, this poking fight of rapier and dagger will come up; then a tall man, and a good sword-and-buckler man, will be spitted like a cat or a rabbit." ]

But at what time soever the small-sword came into use m this country, it is not surprising that, when once introduced, it should have been cultivated as the fairest and most equitable instrument of duelling. Before this period meetings for the purpose of single combat were utterly revolting to human nature. No regard was paid to equality of arms or numbers; advantages, however unfair, were seized whenever an opportunity offered; and the ferocious passions, instead of being curbed, had fuller scope given or their gratification, “The duellist of former times,” says Sir Walter Scott, in a note to The Lady of the Lake, did not always stand upon those punctilios respecting equality o f arms, which are now judged essential to fair combat. It is true that in formal combats in the lists, parties were, by the judges of the field, put as nearly as possible in the same circumstances. But in private duels it was often otherwise.” In the desperate combat which was fought between Quelus, a minion of Henry III. of F i ance, and Antraqnet, with two seconds on each side, and from which only two persons escaped alive, Q,uelus complained that his antagonist had the advantage of a poniard which he used in parrying, whilst his own left hand, which he was obliged to use for the same purpose, had been cruelly mangled. When he charged Antraquet with this odds, “Thou hast done wrong,” answered the latter, “to forget thy dagger at home; we are here to fight, not to settle punctilios of arms.” In another duel of a similar kind, however, a younger brother of the house of Aubange in Angouleme behaved more generously, and at once threw away his dagger when his antagonist challenged it as an undue advantage. Nevertheless, it would be difficult to conceive any thing more brutal and savage than the mode in which private quarrels were at this time conducted in France. Those who were most jealous on the point of honour, and who thence acquired the title of raffines, did not scruple to avail themselves of every advantage of strength, numbers, surprise, and arms, in order to accom plish their revenge.

Brantôme, in his discourse on duels, informs us that the Italian masters of the science of defence made a great mystery of their art and mode of instruction; that they never suffered any person to be present except the scholar who was to betaught, and even examined beds, closets·, and other places of probable concealment. The lessons of these teachers often gave the most treacherous advantages to their pupils; for the challenger having by usage a right to choose his weapons, frequently selected some strange and inconvenient kind of arms, the use of which he had practised under his instructor, and thus killed at his ease an antagonist, to whom, perchance, the weapon was presented for the first time on the field of battle. Nor can we doubt that the same, or even still more treacherous advantages, are taught by some Italian masters of the present day, especially when we learn, from an authentic publication of the life of a late pope, that in Rome upwards of a thousand persons annually fall victims to the stiletto, either by the hands of hired assassins, or in private quarrels. Dr Moore estimates the number of murders perpetrated by the dagger in Naples alone at not less than four hundred annually. Such are the cowardly and ferocious modes in which vengeance usually seeks its gratification amidst an enslaved and degraded people.

The practice of deciding duels with the sword, however, may be considered as now extinct in this country. When the rapier was looked upon as an indispensable part of a gentleman’s dress, the facility of immediate rencounter which it offered gave occasion to frequent and dangerous brawls, by which the public tranquillity was disturbed, and the lives of peaceable citizens sometimes sacrificed. But. still it may reasonably be doubted, whether the comparatively rare occurrence of duels since the introduction of the pistol, [7:9:502]be not fearfully overbalanced by a long list of fatal results, not to mention amputated limbs and distressing mutilations. Be this as it may, however, the discontinuance of sword duels in England has, in a great measure, removed one of the chief objections against fencing; namely, that adroitness in the use of weapons creates a fondness for contention, and a disposition to indulge in violence and insult. Since arms have ceased to be worn, such an objection can no longer be urged against the art of defence; and it may perhaps be questioned whether it had much weight, even when arms formed part of the equipment of every one who called himself a gentleman. All parties were thus placed upon nearly an equal footing; and if turbulent characters went about armed, there was nothing to prevent the peaceably disposed from being as well provided as the brawlers, and also on a par with them in respect of skill in the use of weapons. If the thief makes use of a crowbar, the honest housekeeper has the protection of an iron bolt. The primary intention of fencing is the security of one’s own person; and where the weapons and the art of using them skilfully were equally accessible to all, the evil disposed had no advantage, and therefore small temptation to indidge their turbulent propensities.

The practice of the foil in England, however, is now confined to the most laudable purposes, namely, the enjoyment of salutary recreation, and the acquisition of a graceful and unconstrained deportment. The beneficial effects of moderate fencing to persons of weak constitutions, or of studious and sedentary habits, have been attested by medical practitioners of the first eminence. On this subject the suffrages of the most distinguished members of the British schools of medicine and of surgery, which Mr Angelo has annexed to his engravings, illustrative of the fencing attitudes, seem completely decisive.^[2. "Perhaps there is no exercise whatever,” says Mr Roland, “more calculated for these purposes (developing and cultivating bodily strength and activity) than fencing. Riding, walking, sparring, wrestling, running, and pitching the bar, are all of them cer-ι nly highly beneficial; but, beyond all question, there is no single exercise which combines so many advantages as fencing-Bythe muscles of every part of the body are brought into play; it expands the chest, and occasions an equal distribution of the bl°o(and other circulating fluids, through the whole system. More than one case has fallen under the author’s own observation, in whic a ections of the lungs, and a tendency to consumption, have been entirely removed by occasional practice with the foil; and he can state, upon very high medical authority, that since the institution of a Salle d’Armes at Geneva, scrofula, which was long lamentably prevalent there, has been gradually disappearing.” (Theory and Practice of Fencing, p. 163.) ] To the public speaker, also, the practice of the fencing-room has been found to impart an ease and freedom of gesture attainable perhaps by no other exercise, not excepting even the discipline of the ballet-master. A modern writer on the subject of delivery or elocution, gives it as his opinion that the use of the foil and the broadsword diffuses ease, elegance, and grace all over the body, and imparts to the look and gesture an appearance of intellectual vigour. It does more; it teaches invaluable lessons of patience and self-command, and contributes to discipline the temper, whilst it serves to develope the corporeal powers, and to strengthen them by unconstrained and salutary exercise. We may add here, that several works of merit have appeared on this subject; but the most valuable and complete one yet published is Roland’s Treatise on the Theory and Practice of the Art of Fencing, Edinburgh, 1823; nearly all the others we have met with being deficient either in explanation or in practical utility.

Having already described the weapons used in fencing, we shall now proceed to give such definitions as appear to be requisite for conveying a general idea of the subject, referring the reader for the necessary details to the excellent work of Mr Roland, which will be found equally clear in its explanations, and comprehensive in its views of every branch of the art.

After the first positions have been acquired, the different modes of attack come to be considered. Attacks are made in three ways: first, by a quick thrust proceeding merely from the wrist, the arm at the same time being elevated and advanced, with the point directed towards the adversary’s breast; secondly, by what is technically called an extension; and, lastly, by longeing and recovering. The parades, in which consists the defensive part of the art, naturally follow the attack. A parade is a defence of the body, made by an opposition of one’s blade to that of an adversary, in such a situation as, upon his attack, to prevent the point of his sword hitting. The parades are eight in number, viz. six simple, and two round or counter parades, and they are called quarte, tierce, circle, octave, prime, quinte, and round or counter in quarte and tierce. When and how these parades are made in fencing may be learned by consulting Mr Roland’s work (p. 32 et seqq.).

The next division of the subject includes straight thrusts, simple disengagements, and bindings of the blade. A straight thrust is used as an attack, when an antagonist, from his position on guard, leaves sufficient opening to enable him to be touched upon that side of the body on which blades are joined. When such an opportunity offers, the wrist must be suddenly raised, so as to bring the forte of one’s sword to the foible of the adversary’s; after which longe immediately on the same line to his breast, observing, however, to preserve a correct opposition. In fencing, opposition signifies the art of covering the body at the time of delivering a thrust, on that side where the foils happen to cross, in order to prevent an antagonist exchanging hits. The disengagement is made either as an attack, or as a return after defending one’s-self from a thrust, and is executed both under and over the wrist or foils. A disengagement over the arm may be parried with tierce or prime, and, if made low, by the parade of circle; from the position of octave, by quarte, or, if the thrust be delivered low, by circle; from the position of quinte, by prime as the readiest defence, but quarte and tierce are also correct parades against this thrust. There are three different ways of binding the blade. Of these, βanconnade is the principal, as it is sometimes a safe attack when any other mode would be attended with considerable danger; it is also made as a riposte. The attack of flanconnade is commenced when the bladeá are joined in quarte, and it is parried either by octave or quinte, or by the parade of quarte. The return over the arm, after the parade of circle, is parried by prime or tierce, or by changing quickly to the counter in quarte. The return over the arm, after the parade of prime, is parried by prime or tierce, or, if made at a considerable distance, by the counter in quarte.

In fencing there are a great variety of feints, which it is not easy to describe intelligibly without figures, Å. feint is an intentional movement made to deceive an adversary. All thrusts, therefore, may, strictly speaking, come under the definition of feints, as the fencer’s object, in all his attacks, is to deceive his antagonist. For the sake of convenience, however, straight thrusts and simple disengagements have been arranged under a separate head. In executing the feint called one, two, inside of the arm, supposing the adversary’s body to be covered in quarte, the parade oı tierce is deceived; commencing from the outside, that of quarte is deceived; from the position of the circle the octave, and from that of the octave the circle is deceived-This[7:9:503] feint, if made inside the arm, is parried by the parade of quarte, or by the counter in tierce, made upon an opponent’s second disengagement; upon the outside of the arm, by tierce, prime, or the counter in quarte; and from the position of the octave, by octave or quinte. The feint one, two, is likewise made as a return after the parade of quarte or tierce, or sometimes after that of circle or octave. The cut and disengage is a species of one, two, in making which from the position of quarte, an adversary’s parade of tierce is deceived, and from the position of tierce his parade of parte. Cat and disengage, if made inside of the arm, is parried by quarte, or the counter in tierce; if outside, by tierce or counter in quarte. Feint seconde is another feint very nearly resembling one, two, and is generally made as a return after the parades of tierce, prime, or quinte. In this feint the octave or quinte is deceived; and it is parried by tierce, prime, or quarte, the two former being the readiest where quinte is the parade deceived, but if the feint has been answered with octave, the thrust must then be parried with quarte. The feint one, two, three, is made on either side of the blade, upon precisely the same principles as one, two ; the only difference between them consisting in making one disengagement more in the latter than in the former movement. The cut and one two is a species of one, two, three. These feints, if made over the arm, are parried with the simple parade of tierce; if on the inside, with simple quarte. The other feints are, doubling, which, mutatis mutandis, is executed upon precisely the same principles; one two and deceive the circle, executed from the inside position of quarto; one two and deceive the coτιnter, which may be made from either side of the blade, but is most frequently used commencing from the position of tierce; feint flan-connade, which can be commenced only from the engagement of quarte; feint one two and deceive octave, which is commenced either from the outside or inside engagement; feint seconde and deceive quarte, which is always commenced from the outside engagement, whether made as an attack or a return; feint seconde and deceive tierce, which differs from the preceding only in the last disengagement; one tipο and deceive quarte from the position of the circle, when the first disengagement is made over the adversary’s wrist towards the body under the arm, and the second over the wrist towards the inside of the body; and doubling on both sides of the arm, which is too complicated a feint to be frequently used in actual fencing, because it is difficult to fol-ow the adversary’s sword with certainty through many different parades, and there is much danger of time thrusts upon feints which consist of so many disengagements.

Time thrusts are so called because the success of these movements depends entirely upon their being executed at the exact moment of time employed by the adversary in planning or in executing his attack; and, when made correctly, they are by far the most scientific movements in fencing. There are two sorts of time thrusts, in the execution of one of which it is necessary that the blades should cross each other, but for the completion of the other it is not absolutely necessary that the blades should even meet. Those time thrusts in the execution of which the blades cross are more scientific, and expose the fencer less to exchanged hits. There are two time thrusts in opposition; one the time over the αrm i and the other the time in octave. he former is applicable to all thrusts, however simple or mmplex the feint may be, provided the longe is made upon the outside; whereas all longes directed to the inside of the body, or under the arm, are exposed to the time in oc- lve ; and thus almost every thrust made in fencing affords ŋ‘opportunity for one or other of these two movements, hose time thrusts in which the opposition is not essential ≡re made upon incorrect movements of the adversary, when exposes himself by the wideness of his attacks, or by quitting the blade in a dangerous position, or by making too many disengagements in his feints, or by giving a variety of openings which the judgment of the fencer must determine how he is to take advantage of. This thrust is practised almost entirely upon irregular attacks, and requires gι eat caution to be observed. It has been already stated, that time thrusts in opposition, when correctly made upon good attacks, are, perhaps, the finest movements in fencing; but young fencers should nevertheless attempt them very seldom, from the danger of misjudging the attack, and thus exposing themselves to the certainty of being hit. And the time out of opposition is attended with still greater hazard, as its success depends rather upon the wideness and irrcgularity of an adversary’s movements, than on the security of one’s own situation afforded by the opposition in the former species of time thrust.

When fencing was comparatively little known, it was thought necessary that there should be some intermediate practice for the pupil between the lesson of the master and his making the assault; for which purpose, it appears, he was taught to longe, at a proper distance, at the wall. This was called by the French tirer au mur, and was considered as useful for planting the learner well upon his legs, accustoming him to measure distance correctly, and causing his motions, in making his extension and longe, to follow one another in the proper succession. But as the art became better understood, observation induced masters to place pupils together for their mutual advantage, the one to attack by simple disengagements, the other to parry by quarte and tierce alternately; and this practice, from its origin, was for a considerable time called tirer au mur, a denomination which it still retains amongst fencers of the old school. It is now, however, generally known by the denomination of quarte and tierce, and, in its improved state, is not merely intended as an exercise for the scholar, but also as a graceful display of the principal motions of fencing; for which reason it should be invariably practised before commencing the assault, and in fencing before company it is never dispensed with. Quarte and tierce appears very simple in its execution, yet it is exceedingly useful to fencers in all stages of their progress, and difficult to acquire with such correctness that all its movements shall take place in their proper succession, and be made with the grace and precision characteristic of a good fencer. For a description of the method of thrusting quarte and tierce, we must refer the reader to the fifth chapter of Mr Roland’s work, section first. The counters is also a practice of importance to young fencers, and should consequently be attended to by them.

In the language of the fencing-room, making the assault and playing loose are synonymous, signifying the practice of attackand defence, or, in otherwords,.a just application of the lessons received, which, in fact, ought to be done as correctly as if with sword in hand. In the assault, the mere movements should be almost mechanical; for the mind being wholly employed in discovering and counteracting the designs of the adversary, as well as in concealing its own, the hand should, on the proper opportunity being given, instantly execute that which the mind conceives, without any consideration of the manner in which the particular motion is to be made, as loss of time would most probably prove fatal to its success. The rules to be observed are few and distinct. The first thing which the attention of a young fencer should naturally be directed to is, the most secure manner in which he can come into the position of the guard, when opposed to an adversary ready to take every advantage of his inexperience. Whilst advancing into distance, it is also an object of importance to have one side of the body secured by the position, particularly that side to which the antagonist’s blade is opposed; so that, if he commence an attack during this movement, he must quit the blade in order[7:9:504] to direct his thrust or feint at any opening afforded him by the position of his opponent; and the opportunities of attack being few, his designs will thus be the more easily discovered. In short, the commanding an opponent’s blade almost obliges him to effect some change in the relative situations of the contending parties, before he advances into distance; and as the necessity of such previous movement must be foreseen, any attempt of this kind is favourable for making an attack on him. And, generally, whilst standing in the position of the guard, it is an advantage to have one side of the body covered, and to command the foible of the adversary’s blade. Straight thrusts and simple disengagements, executed with quickness and vigour, should frequently be attempted, even though they do not succeed in hitting; and this counsel should be particularly attended to in fencing with a stranger. Quick simple thrusts are almost the only certain way of ascertaining his favourite parades, and consequently of knowing by what feints to attack him with a probability of success. The suddenness and rapidity of the attack will inevitably extort from him the secret of his favourite defence.

Many masters of the old school, and some, too, of the present day, have treated disarming as a matter of importance in the art; but, from its inutility, not to mention danger, in the field, it is now considered by the highest authorities on the subject as incompatible with good fencing. Mr Roland, in the work already referred to, shows by what methods this may be accomplished, and at the same time demonstrates the utter uselessness of the trick, for it is no better. The only advantage of disarming indeed is that of annoying the person disarmed; for, sword in hand, it is rendered nugatory by the use of a sword-knot, with which, it may be presumed, every person at all acquainted with the weapon will take especial care to fasten it to his wrist in a serious affair. As the manoeuvre of disarming may therefore be defeated by the most ordinary precaution, attempting it can serve no other purpose than to make one play heavily and unpleasantly; whilst, from the strength it requires for the execution of its movements, it takes from the necessary quickness, and affords an adversary favourable moments of attack during the time an attempt is being made to bind his blade. In short, disarming is considered as characteristic of unskilful fencing; since perfection in the trick can only tend to render fencing disagreeable with the foil and ineffectual with the sword. We may add, that volting, demi-volting, pirouetting, parrying with and opposing the left hand, are manoeuvres now totally disused in fencing.

As far back as 1692 a very curious book on the subject of fencing was published by Sir William Hope; it is now very scarce. In 1780 a Lieutenant M‘Arthur published a work on fencing, which he dedicated to the Duke of Argyll, and which, we believe, is considered as a respectable performance. But since the latter period nothing worth noticing appears to have been written on the subject, with the exception of Angelo’s book, illustrated by engravings, and the works of the two Rolands; of these, the most complete and satisfactory is Mr George Roland’s Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Fencing above referred to. The only standard French works on the subject are, a Treatise by Μ. Danet, director of the royal academy of privileged fencing-masters; and one by Μ. Laboissier; both works of great merit, and highly esteemed in France.