Victorian Singlesticks

Singlestick, a popular form of fencing in the 18^th and 19^th century, has a varied background and loose definition. To the English and Americans of the period, just about any form of stick fighting was referred to as singlestick. The history of singlestick has various roots, as well. We’ll first explore the English progress of singlestick through backsword and cudgeling. Part two will cover singlestick of the Victorian era and its relationship to the French La Canne.

Part 1 - Backsword and Cudgeling

From Walker's "Defensive Exercises"

Why is it even called Singlestick?

In some cases stick fighting involved two sticks. The London Year book of Daily Recreation and Information from 1832 gives this definition:

“Single-stick playing is so called to distinguish it from cudgeling, in which two sticks are used: the single-stick player having the left hand tied down, and using only one stick to defend himself and strike his antagonist. In cudgeling, as the name implies, the weapon is a stout cudgel, and the player defends himself with another having a large hemisphere of wicker-work upon it.”

The English Dialect Dictionary of 1898 also describes a type of backswording that included two sticks

“Two sticks were used, one as a guard, the other an offensive weapon, with baskets or without.”

A nice explanation, but of course no one seemed to adhere to this definition when referring to singlestick. Singlestick, backsword, and cudgeling all have different meanings, but were often used interchangeably.

Background of Backswording

The basis of English singlestick comes from the use of the backsword. The backsword was originally a single- edged weapon used in prize-fights, but later came to refer to singlestick and cudgeling.

Definition

A definition of the backsword comes from the Century Dictionary and Encyclopedia of 1897 published in New York:

Back-sword (bak’sord), n 1. A sword with one sharp edge. Used for cutting rather than thrusting, sometimes curved, and frequently straight. It usually has a basket-hilt, and was the common weapon of citizens and country people when the rapier and afterward the small-sword were worn by gentlemen.

2. A cudgel fitted with a basket-hilt, used for a particular kind of single-stick play.

3. A cudgel-play in which the back-sword (in sense 2) is used, peculiar to certain counties of England, and still kept up at festivals and the like in the attempt to preserve old customs. The guard is with the left arm, and the object of each player is to break the skin of his adversary’s forehead so as to draw blood.

This style of singlestick was also present in colonial America. The 1908 reprints of The Youth’s Companion in a multi-volume collection on American History tells us that “The game of cudgeling was something like short-stick fencing, the object being to give resounding raps upon the antagonists head. After a series of cautious movements, the players would warm up to their work and deliver rattling blows with great rapidity, each good hit being rewarded by the vociferous applause of the onlookers gathered in a compact ring about them. A beaver hat of the old-fashioned cocked style is brought forward as the prize of the victorious cudgeler. A good beaver hat was a costly article in those days, worth as much as fifteen dollars.”

American Colonial Youths at Singlestick

Sporting Magazine published an account of a Singlestick match at Trowbridge in1809, with an engraving of two "gamesters". It says of backsword or singlestick that it "is a game of high antiquity, and the most warlike extant. When the fate of nations was principally decided in battle by the sword, it was the policy of our ancestors to render its use familiar to the bulk of the population, hence arose the courtly tournament, and the plebeian exhibitions at wakes and festivals of courage and skill, in sword and dagger, sword and potlid, cudgels, backsword, &c. &c. the prizes for which still remain annually given in many parts." Potlid seems to refer to the guard or "pot" of a singlestick.

Somersetshire Gamesters from the 1809 Sporting Magazine

English National Pride

In 1886 Walter Pollock published an article on the Backsword and Cudgel in the April issue of the Saturday Review. He says that, though waning now, the prowess of Englishmen with the backsword had long been an object of national pride. Broadsword and singlestick were more congenial to the English spirit because of “the qualities it requires of its devotees, strength of hand, hardihood and determination.” This is in contrast to “the nimbleness, elegance, and highly-cultivated cunning of the foreign play.”

James Figg

Pollock presents the most famous backswordsman of the time in James Figg. He blames Figg’s genius for fighting as a cause for the decline of the backsword as a gladiatorial weapon in stage fights and prize-fighting. Figg became famous for his bare-fist boxing, and the backsword was slowly driven out of fashion. It resurfaced in the rural districts of England as cudgeling, using stout sticks rather than blades, and played for prizes at county feasts or fairs.

Transitioning from “sharps” to “sticks”

In this transition from “sharps” to “sticks”, Pollock notes why the head is target.  “The evolution of the game, extraordinary as it may seem, is easy enough to follow if we start from the fact that a cudgelling match, for love or for stake, was at first mostly conducted on the lines of those glorious contests on the London stage. Now the only decisive sign of defeat in a bout with sharps was the appearance of blood on any part of the body; with cudgels, however, or singlesticks it was found difficult, if not impossible, to draw blood, except for the head. Hence the infliction of a bloody – technically a “broken” – head on the adversary was the main object of the match, and consequently most of the blows were aimed at that part.”

Pollock also explains the use of the arm. “Another point to keep sight of is this; although it would have been very unsound fencing to attempt to stop a sword-cut with hand or arm – after the manner, for instance, practiced in ancient foil play – with cudgels, as the chief care of the player was to guard his head and crack his adversary’s, he very soon realized the advantages of stopping a blow with his arm, in the hope of effecting a successful counter at the same moment.”

From Walker's "Defensive Exercises"

This, however, often turned the fight in to a wrestling match as players would seize their opponent’s stick with the unarmed hand. This was corrected by making a rule that “although the arm might be used for parrying, the position of the hand should be fixed by grasping the belt. Finally, the belt or handkerchief was passed under the thigh and tied in a loop of such length that, when it was firmly grasped with the left hand, the elbow could be raised as high as the crown.” This allowed the left arm to block blows.

Equipment

Not much was written on singlestick during this period, since most of its purveyors were likely uneducated. Probably the most comprehensive was a piece by Donald Walker in his 1840 book Defensive Exercises. This book had a chapter on the method for singlestick, along with fencing, broad sword, wrestling, throwing, guns and rifles and other combat styles.

Walker states that “Basket-sticks, similar to those used in broad-sword exercise, but rather heavier, are used for this exercise. Both parties strip to the shirt. In some parts of the country, paddings are used to save the arms, especially the elbows; but this is never done in London.”

Spalding Fencing Equipment 1915

Thomas Hughes, the author of the 1857 novel Tom Brown’s School Days, recalls the weapon used in backswording of his youthful days.

“The weapon is a good stout ash-stick, with a large basket handle, heavier and somewhat shorter than a common singlestick.

Alfred Hutton, the eminent Victorian fencer and scholar, suggests in the 1911 Encyclopaedia of Sport and Games Volume IV that, though not in general use, a sort of demi-mask was sometimes employed, covering the face up to the eyebrows and leaving the upper part of the head exposed.

Singlestick Demi-Mask as Described by Hutton

Singlestick Play – Method of Play

The match would start with a hand shake and a somewhat perilous pronouncement of “God preserve our eyes!” Pollock notes that a single bout could last an half an hour and more without a blood.

Pollock describes the conditions of a match in his article. “Under such conditions there could be no question of lunging or retiring, and consequently the adepts of this ungraceful art, when intent on winning a stake or a new gold-laced hat by breaking a head, had to stand squarely to each other and within close measure. Starting from a high hanging guard, keeping their hands as high as possible, and covering the left side of their head with their raised elbow, they belaboured each other with their baskethilted cudgels until blood made its appearance, when the seconds would stop the fight to see whether at least an inch of the crimson token of defeat could be measured.”

Strategy

Pollock also gives some of the strategy. “Long practical experience having proved how difficult it is to draw blood out of a man’s head by a heavy round blow, the expert player’s chief aim was to find or create an opportunity for a “nip” at the head or face which would tear the skin. He might be content with trying to overcome his adversary by scientific traversing and superior quickness of eye and hand, or he might attempt to compel him to lower his guard or his elbow by merciless cuts on the ribs or shoulders. In the latter case, however, he risked receiving the fatal flip himself should his opponent have the fortitude to disregard all body-cuts, so as to be ready to profit by the slightest opening.”

From Walker's "Defensive Exercises"

The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica also describes the action of singlestick play: “Under the first and second Georges back-sword play with sticks was immensely popular under the names “cudgel-play” and “singlesticking.” Not only in the cities but in the country districts as well, wrestling being its only rival. Towards the end of the 18^th century the play became very restricted. The players were placed near together, the feet remaining immovable and all strokes being delivered with a whip-like action of the wrist from a high hanging guard, the hand being held above the head. Blows on any part of the body above the waist were allowed, but all except those aimed at the head were employed only to gain openings, as each bout was decided only by a “broken head,” i.e. a cut on the head that drew blood. At first the left hand and arm were used to ward off blows not parried with the stick, but near the close of the 18^th century the left hand grasped a scarf tied loosely round the left thigh, the elbow being raised to protect the face.”

The Old Guard

And in Tom Brown’s School Days, Thomas Hughes gives a more appreciative description of the action. “The players are called “old gamsters,” – why, I can’t tell you, - and their object is to break one another’s heads. If good men are playing, the quickness of the return is marvellous; you hear the rattle like that a boy makes drawing his stick along pailings, only heavier, and the closeness of the men in action to one another gives it a strange interest, and makes a spell at backswording a very noble sight.”

From the December 1809 article in Sporting Magazine is a description of the rules.

1. That the stage should not be less than sixteen feet square – the ring of ropes from forty to fifty feet diameter.
2. The basket sticks to be three feet two inches in length
3. The winner of most heads to carry the prize
4. Should a stick break, or fall out of the hand, and the adversary, not observing, strike, and the blow so given draw, blood, the head, nevertheless, is not to be allowed.
5. No head to be allowed, except the blood runs an inch above the chin.
6. The umpire to decide all the disputes.

The article continues on to outline the order of the matches, and concludes that the furnished prizes should consist of those usually given, such as a hat with gold or silver lace of from fifteen to thirty shillings value, or a purse of from twenty to fifty shillings. 

Walker’s 1840 book Defensive Exercises describes the method used for singlestick fighters.

“Most players prefer to stand with the right foot forward; but some prefer the left. The body is held upright; the head, backward; the leg, straight; the right arm, advanced and nearly straight; the hand, opposite the forehead, but rather higher; the stick, slanting towards the left shoulder. The left hand grasps a handkerchief, which is tied loosely round the left thigh; and the left elbow is elevated and thrown forward, so as to protect the head. The principal point of attack is the head; first blood from it, or from the face or neck, above the level of the lower jaw, being decisive. In the position already described, the head is thoroughly protected. It is, therefore, necessary to get the adversary out of that position before attacking his head. This may be attempted by attacking him under the arm, at the point of the elbow, or on the ribs; or you may wait until he attacks you, and then try to strike at his head before he can get back to guard. All the blows are to be made from the wrist, the great art being to strike them as quickly as possible, and return to the primary position, in which the head is thoroughly protected, before the adversary can get at it.

The Guard from Walker's "Defensive Exercises"

Singlestick would evolve during the Victorian era to more of a saber fencing style, and continue to refer to other styles such as the French la canne, which shall be further investigated in part 2.

The Grand Salute

The Grand Salute was a complicated and elaborate form of the salute, a spectacle that preceded displays and demonstrations of fencing. Eugene Van Schaick of the Knickerbocker Fencing Club wrote in 1887 that the grand salute is “what the overture is to the opera”.

Ricardo Enrique Manrique described the Grand Salute in his Fencing Foil Class Work published in 1920. “The Grand Salute, prelude of the assault, consists of several attacks and parries with conventional execution; and it is for three important reasons, a courteous salutation to the audience; to demonstrate the classical beauty of the movements, and to prepare the arms and legs for the strain of the bout.”

And in Regis and Louis Senac’s 1915 The Art of Fencing: “The assault and the grand salute may well be said to go hand in hand on many occasions during exhibitions. The salute consists of a series of maneuvers performed without a mask, and which are given preparatory to an assault. The salute includes practically all the major movements of attack and defense and its purpose is undoubtedly to show the onlookers the various features of the display about to be put before them in the actual bout. In the salute every action should show perfect balance and control. At no other time is a fencer in a more exposed situation. He is on show, and like the blue ribbon winners at the horse exhibits, he should "step" his prettiest. The salute is subject to variations, and complex maneuvers may be introduced. Every instructor should take pains to teach his pupils the salute and make certain that in it they attain advanced proficiency.”

Louis Rondelle’s 1892 treatise explains “The Grand Salute is a prelude to the assault, and has the effect of exercising the arms and legs, rendering the joints and muscles supple, preparatory to the strain of the contest. At the same time it serves as a courteous salutation to the audience.”

There appears to be several versions, though all were similar. Prevost has a description of the salute which I will present here. He begins by giving a little background.
"The Salute, or prelude to the Assault, was, towards the end of 1888, put into definite and
official form by the Academie d'Armes of Paris, founded in 1886. Until then it had been practised in various schools, with various differences of detail. The rules laid down by the Academy are here embodied.
The purpose of the Salute is to give both fencers an opportunity of showing courtesy to each other and to the spectators, and, it may be added, of exhibiting their own proficiency in correctness and elegance, it is thus conducted:-

Each fencer, having put his mask on the floor about a yard to his left, assumes the First Position opposite his adversary at the proper distance, letting his arms fall naturally, the point of the foil nearly touching the ground in front of him, and to the left of the right foot.

Then both execute simultaneously the first movement of coming on guard.

The first movement consists in making a step forward, raising and extending the right arm, with the nails of the right hand turned upwards on a level with the top of the head, and a little to the 

right, and the blade extended with the arm. Then the hand is quickly brought close to the chin, the nails towards the face, and the sword upright, so that the fencer can go on to salute his adversary by dropping the sword to the right at the full extension of the arm, with the palm of the hand turned to the ground.

The second movement consists of bringing back the right arm towards the left hand, which seizes, without grasping it, the shoulder of the blade, imitating the gesture necessary to sheathe the unsheathe a sword.

The third movement consists in elevating both hands together above the head with a graceful curve.

The fourth consists in letting go the blade from the left hand, which takes its place behind, and at the level of the top of the head, the left arm still being bent, while the right hand drops to the level of the right breast, the arm half extended, the elbow in front of, and close to, the body, the point of the sword on a level with the face.

In the fifth movement you advance the right foot about two steps in front of the left heel, sinking down on the legs and keeping the body upright.

[These movements, here separated for cleanness of demonstration, must in practice glide into each other.]

Manrique’s Fencing Foil from 1920 has a nice sequence of the movement for the first part of the grand salute.

In coming on guard for the Salute, each fencer must take care to touch his adversary's point in tierce at the moment when the right hand drops, so as to give the signal for the movement of the legs. At the moment when the right feet are firm on the ground, the right hands must keep the position of tierce, with the blades joined.

Once on guard, both fencers recover to the position of the first movement.

One of the fencers invites the other, with the words 'A vous Monsieur', to take distance first. It is customary to give precedence in this matter to the elder fencer or to an invited guest.

The one who does take distance first becomes the attacker. To take distance: direct the point, with arm full stretched and nails up, the hand on the level of the chin, at the adversary's body, without touching him.

To execute this movement, advance the right about three steps and a half in front of the left heel, just shaving the ground, and keeping the left leg stretched out. When the foot touches the ground, bend the right leg, so that the knee is exactly above the instep. The bust remains upright, the loins arched, the left hand separated from the thigh.

Having made his lunge, the attacker recovers himself with one movement, resuming the first position, but bringing the right hand to a slight distance from the chin, and holding the sword nearly upright. This last movement of hand and sword must be done simultaneously by both fencers, who then execute the first of the salutes to the public. This is done by saluting to the left, with the hand in pronation, a little advanced, and at the level of the left breast, the sword almost horizontal, and half-way to the left. Then bring the hand back near to the face again, as above, and, with the hand in supination, reverse the process just described.

[In public assaults, the salutes should be addressed directly to the President and Vice-President, if there is one. On no account must both fencers make them in the same direction. The President, without rising from his seat, acknowledges each salute with a motion of his foil; the Vice-President, sitting opposite to him, answers with an inclination of his head.]

Now the adversaries fall on guard as above described (without, however, raising the hand), making an engagement in quarte.

The attacker disengages, with the nails up, in line of sixte-tierce, without touching his adversary, and taking care that the movement of the arm precedes that of the legs. The adversary parries tierce or sixte lightly and then drops his point with the nails down as if thretening a riposte in the low line. The attacker on this parry thros his point upwards and backwards past his own left ear with a quick movement of the thumb and forefinger. The nails are downward, the middle, ring and little finger leave the hilt and remain open. The arm is extended, the hand on the level of the head and held to the right, so that the attacker looks at his adversary between the arm and the blade.

(This unusual move seems to be partly due to safety, and perhaps to show the dexterity of the finger-play, or doigte', that is a feature of the French style of fencing. - Jonathan)

He keeps this position for a moment or two and then falls back on guard, taking the engagement of tierce or sixte, which the adversary also takes with opposition. The attacker disengages, the adversary parries quarte, and as before drops his point as if threatening a riposte in the low line, but this time with the nails upwards. As before he remains thus a moment or two and falls back on guard. The parryer engages again in quarte.

The attacker repeats these disengagements in sixte-tierce and quarte to the number of four or six. The number must be even, so that the last disengagement is in quarte. In the last engagement the attacker may ornament his style by a slight pause on the lunge, contrasting it with the swift recovery after the others. The adversary parries exactly as before. He must take his time from the attacker, so as not to make him wait either on the engagement or on the parry.

The attacker now makes the motion of one-two, beginning in quarte, without lunge or extension, placing the hand in tierce on the second movement, and after this he recovers to the First Position, while the parryer remains on guard, with his hand in postition for parrying tierce. As the the attacker recovers, the parryer, in his turn, takes distance and recovers in one movement, as the attacker has done before.

Then the two fall on guard, and now the parts are interchanged, the former parryer becoming the attacker after taking distance, and vice versa.

After this both come on guard with a step of the left foot backwards, the hand in tierce, make three beats on the floor with the right foot, the first slowly, the other two quickly, and then recover forwards and salute to left and right.

When the final one-two has been executed, the adversaries recover at the same moement, and almost immediately fall back on guard, moving the left foot two steps behind the right, and taking care that the movement of the arms precedes that of the legs.

Immediately on this they recover forwards, bringing the left foot up to the right, and repeat a second time the two salutes already described.

Then they come quickly on guard, joining blades in quarte. Once more they recover forwards, and salute each other, with the hand brought close to the chin, the nails turned to the face, the sword perpendicular. Then the palm of the hand is turned to the ground, and the sword lowered to the right at the full extent of the arm.

It must be again noted that the Academie d'Armes discountenances the old-fashioned appels with the foot, allowing, however, a 'slight beat with the right foot to mark la finale des mises en garde et des developpements'.

When two left-handed fencers go through the Salute together, they have only to read right for left throughout the directions. A left-handed man engaged in the Salute with a right-handed man must-

1. Lay his mask on his right.

2. Take the right-handed man's engage in tierce for the first coming on guard.

3. Take distance with the nails down.

4. The final one-two is done in sixte-tierce, and to this end the left-handed man, after taking distance, gives the engagement of quarte to his adversary, who parries quarte on the one-two,

5. The Salute takes place together, first in quarte, then in tierce. The left-handed man must so place himself that the President is on his right.

For some illuminating video of the Grand Salute, visit the youtube page of schlager7 and look at:

"1897 Fencing: The Grand Salute" and

"1930 Demonstration by Lucien Gaudin & Mlle. Gaudin." 

schlager7 has a bounty of old period videos of fencing and dueling, well worth taking the time to watch.

An introduction to two late 19th century Fencing Manuals

Prevost and Rondelle

The Victorian Fencing Society uses two manuals published in the 19^th century, focusing on the French method of fencing, as guidebooks for study.

The first is Fencing by Walter H. Pollock, F.C. Grove, and Camille Prevost, Maitre d’Armes with a complete bibliography of the art by Egerton Castle, M.A., F.S.A., published in London in 1889 as part of the Badminton Library.

The other book is Foil and Sabre a Grammar of Fencing in detailed lessons for professor and pupil by Louis Rondelle, published in 1892 in Boston. Rondelle at the time was the Maitre d’Armes at the Boston Athletic Association and the Harvard University Fencing Club.

An introduction to the Volume on Fencing in the Badminton Library

This text was issued in 1889 as part of the Badminton Library of Sports and Pastimes under the volume for Fencing, Boxing and Wrestling. As the editor of The Badminton Library explains, the series was meant to offer a modern encyclopedia for the inexperienced man in the “Sports and Pastimes indulged in by Englishmen-and women”, and included everything from Big Game Shooting to Dancing. The series was dedicated to the Prince of Wales, who was an experienced sportsman and happened to be a member of the London Fencing Club.

The fencing portion of this volume includes an introduction by Englishmen C.F. Grove and Walter Pollock, and an additional Bibliotheca Artis Dimicatoriae (Library of the art of fencing)  by Egerton Castle. Prevost is responsible for the practical material for the instructional portion of the text, excerpted from the treatise he wrote in France in 1886.

Camille Prevost

Camille Prevost was the son of Pierre Prevost, who was himself a student of Baptiste Bertrand, considered one of the most influential French fencing masters of his time. Bertrand left nothing in writing of his methods, and Camille Prevost’s father would write only a small pamphlet. Camille Prevost took on the task of creating a more comprehensive manual of foil instruction according to the method of his father and Bertrand.

Pierre Prevost came to London in 1848, and Camille Prevost was born in London in 1853. He returned to Paris in 1869 after his father’s death where he was appointed a professor in the leading French School of Arms. In 1886 he published in France his Theorie pratique de l’Escrime, presenting the principles of the French classical school. This fencing volume was the foundation for the text for the Badminton Library, probably through an association with Sir Frederick Pollock when, according to Aylwards English Masters, they would have met in his youth at Waite’s School of Arms in London.

The Badminton treatise itself covers only the foil, with a short chapter on the singlestick (since it is a guide for Englishmen).

Of the Introduction to Fencing in the Badminton Library

Grove and Pollock were part of that society of fencing in England championed by Alfred Hutton and Egerton Castle. The introduction by F.C. Grove provides an interesting view of the English Victorian bias that fencing was at its pinnacle in their era after a long history of incorrect practices.

He refers to early fencers as “primitive” and noting that fencing had “remained in a terribly imperfect state, hindered and encumbered by infinite pedantry and nonsense, and taught by pragmatical and very foolish Masters of Fence to pupils who were content to follow egregiously wrong systems.”

And he adds that “the pressing need for the sword did not lead to anything like effective use of it, and though the early Italian fencers may have been formidable from constant practice, and may have mastered some dangerous tricks, their method remained, even after there had been ample time for developing it, a singularly bad one, altogether opposed in many respects to the true art of swordsmanship as now understood.”

Grove then exults in the current state of fencing as produced by Bertrand, called the Napoleon of fencing, and his protégé’s the Prevosts. Grove says of Bertrand that “he absolutely refused to be bound—in practice at least—by what was pedantic and artificial, or to consider anything as forbidden merely because the fencing-masters chose to forbid it.”

He finishes by stating that the following treatise uses the methods of fencing of the best French schools, from the system that is essentially that of Bertrand.

Finally, I will note that William Gaugler’s book on the History of fencing gives a good account of Prevost’s methods, and he considers Prevost’s treatise to be the most significant written in France toward the end of the 19^th century.

 

And an overview of Foil and Sabre a Grammar of Fencing

The book is dedicated to the Amateur Fencers League of America, founded in 1891 and which eventually transitions in to the United States Fencing Association in 1981.

Louis Rondelle

Louis Rondelle was born in France in 1854. He studied at the fencing academy at Joinville-le Pont, from which fencing masters of the French Army must graduate. He came to New York in 1881 and was the instructor at the Knickerbocker Fencing Club, and then became fencing master of the Boston Athletic Association in 1889.

Rondelle’s book is extensive as a lesson book, meaning to cover all subjects pertaining to fencing. It includes chapters on assaults and professorships, and is meant as a textbook for American Fencers.

Rondelle explains the reasons for his book. “A life-long study of the art of fencing, and a passionate love of its practice; a careful observance of what seems to me the unfortunate methods of the self-entitled " Maîtres" and "Professors " who assume to teach the art; a full appreciation of the certain and deep interest so rapidly growing up in America, together with the sincere wish I have that in my adopted country this splendid art may reach the same high excellence which it has attained in my native land, — have beguiled me into this effort to transcribe in the English language a concise and exhaustive treatise on the science of fencing as taught in France.”

As Grove and his fellow Englishman did, Rondelle offers the opinion that the teaching of fencing has become mired in pedantry. "I have attempted in the following pages to show that there are, in this science, principles far deeper than mechanical movements, and to give those principles the intelligent expression to which they are entitled."

Of the Content in Foil and Sabre

Rondelle begins by giving a historical outline of fencing in France that includes information on the School of Joinville-le-Pont. "In 1872, the French Government, perceiving the need of uniformity in the instruction of fencing, founded a school for the benefit of the army. The military school of Joinville-le-Pont was established for this purpose, and placed under the direction of a captain and four adjutants. A staff of instructors and assistants was organized, and the department of fencing comprised six hundred strong."

Part I of the treatise contains definitions of fencing terms. Part II follows with lesson instructions for pupil and master. In Part III Rondelle gives more interesting observations about fencing and suggestions for its development in America, including a Normal School of Fencing (school to train teachers).

For the fencer, he says “To become expert in the art of fencing it is necessary to possess five essential faculties; namely, the judgment, the glance, the feel of the blade, quickness, and precision. Some are furnished by Nature, others are acquired.”

Part IV is the sabre instruction, including recommendations on the design and use of the cavalry saber for the military.

Much of the actions are recognizable in these treatises to the modern fencer, although it is Interesting to note that tierce and seconde are preferred as the primary parries to defend the outside lines. It was felt to be stronger for defense, when the idea was to touch and to not be touched.

Both theses treatise give a good foundation of the French method of fencing used by the British and Americans in the later period of the Victorian Era, and form the guide for learning fencing for the Victorian Fencing Society. Future articles will give a more detailed analysis and comparison of the two.

The Study of Fencing in the 19th Century by the Victorian Fencing Society

This blog is a place to muse and comment on the research and activity of the Victorian Fencing Society. The Society’s purpose is to promote the research, training and demonstration of the fashion of fencing in the Victorian Age. We’ll be looking at sources from the period that exhibit the era of English fencing, both in Victorian England and America, and to review the demonstrations performed by the Society. 



 

A Definition of Fencing in the 19^th Century    

The term fencing itself offers various meanings, both today and in the 19^th century.

The practice and study of fencing in the 19^th century was primarily the foil and the saber. Most manuals of the period cover these disciplines, the English occasionally substituting the singlestick for the saber. Epee developed later in the 19^th century as a reaction to the academic forms of the foil. However, 19^th century proponents of the sword such as Alfred Hutton and Egerton castle wanted to expand that universe through a revival of “historical” fencing.

 

Egerton Castle – A Definition of Fencing

“As it is logically impossible so to restrict the meaning of the word fencing as to apply it only to the more handy weapons, rapier, small-sword, or saber, especially when keeping historical considerations in view, it is here accepted in its broadest etymological sense – namely, the art of fighting with weapons retained in hand. This meaning is equally applicable to the German Fechtkunst, the Italian Scherma, the French Escrime, and the Spanish Destreza as to the English Art of Fence (or defence).” Egerton Castle from his “Bibliotheca Artis Dimicatoriae (Library of the art of fencing)”  in the Fencing treatise from the badminton library.

 

Sport Fencing

For an example of the traditionally accepted forms of sport fencing in the 19^th century, one can look at events offered in the 1896 Olympic Games held in Athens. Events were scheduled for Foil, Saber and Foil for Masters (according to Bill Mallon in his book of the 1896 Olympic Games, the Masters event was approved because Fencing Masters were very popular athletes in France at the time). Apparently an Epee event was also scheduled, but did not take place. Epee will make its debut four years later. No Englishmen or Americans took part in the fencing events at the first Olympics, but both were represented in the 1900 Paris Games.

 

Military Fencing

Meanwhile, military minded fencers wrote many texts on the use of the broadsword or saber, and often added treatise on such things as bayonet fencing. Even though the sword was diminishing in use as a weapon of warfare in the 19^th century, Great Britain was involved in conflicts across the Middle East, Africa and Asia during this time. Many of these battles were fought against people who still carried hand to hand combat weapons, and so the bayonet and sword remained vital weapons.

 

 

The practice and study of the Victorian Fencing Society will focus on foil, saber and dueling sword, but will not exclude those other martial arts still in use in the 19^th century.

The Victorian Fencing Society was formed to promote the research, training and demonstration of the culture of fencing in the Victorian Age.

 

 

Welcome to the Victorian Fencing Society