Singlestick Part 2 – Saber, Roosevelt and Canes

A Substitute for the Light Fencing Sabre

By the late 19^th Century singlestick in England was used more as a substitute for saber training. Alfred Hutton, in an entry on singlestick in the 1911 Encyclopedia of Sport and Games, talks about the disappearing practice of singlestick.

“This weapon, as we know it nowadays, is nothing more than a somewhat poor substitute for the light fencing sabre, and there are some among us who are inclined to clamour for its entire abolition; they are not, however, likely to be gratified, as its very cheapness serves as its recommendation to members of many minor schools of arms. Singlestick, or cudgel-play, is, moreover, an honest, manly old English sport, which should rather be encouraged than allowed to sink in to oblivion.”

 First published in 1890, Broad-Sword and Single-Stick by R.G. Allanson-Winn and C. Phillipps-Wolley covered a variety of methods for self-defense. Phillipps-Wolley contributed to the section on singlestick. He encourages the idea that “single-stick is to the sabre what the foil is to the rapier” and considers singlestick to combine styles of both foil and sabre because “the player is taught to use the point whenever he can do so most effectively; but he is also reminded that his sword has an edge, which may on occasion do him good service…It seems to me, then, that single-stick is the most thoroughly practical form of sword-play for use in those ‘tight places’ where men care nothing for rules.”

from Broadsword and Singlestick – Cut and Guard

Phillipps-Wolley also asserts that singlestick is an Englishman’s sport.

 “What the ordinary Englishman wants is…a game in which he may exercise those muscles with which good mother Nature meant him to earn his living, but which custom has condemned to rust, while the brain wears out; a game in which he may hurt someone else, is extremely likely to be hurt himself, and is certain to earn an appetite for dinner…I accept the charge of brutality, merely remarking that it was the national love of hard knocks which made this little island famous, and I for one do not want to be thought any better than the old folk of England’s fighting days.”

He quotes the English/Australian poet Lindsay Gordon:

“No game was ever yet worth a rap,For a rational man to play,Into which no accident, no mishap,Could possibly find its way.”

While brutal, he does emphasize that you are using the weapons of a gentleman and should show courtesy to a “foeman worthy of your steel”.

The Equipment for Singlestick

Phillips-Wolley describes the outfit worn for singlestick players. The helmet is constructed more solidly than that used for foil play, the mesh being wider than that of a fencing mask. The best will have a top of buffalo hide completely covering the head with padded ear pieces.

The jacket is made like a pea jacket, of stout leather with two sleeves.

A leather apron is also worn from the waist to the knee covering both thighs.

He notes that some men wear a cricket pad on the right leg, but he feels this can slow down a person.

The sticks should be ash-plants, about 40 inches in length and as thick as a man’s thumb, without knots and unpeeled. He suggests that you soak them in a trough of water when not being used to keep them supple and from breaking.

The hilt is of wicker or of buffalo hide.

He also recommends a stout elastic ring around the wrist or a good long gauntlet. He prefers the elastic ring as it interferes less with the freedom of the hand and more effectively protects the wrist.

from Broadsword and Singlestick: the Singlestick Outfit

Method of Play

Two guards are used, the hanging guard and the upright guard. He also suggests keeping the left hand through the belt at the back of the waist. The upright guard, or high tierce, has “the right elbow close in to the side, the forearm at right angles to the body, wrist bent, so as to turn the knuckles outward, and the stick pointing upwards.”

In the hanging guard the “point of the stick should be inclined slightly downwards, the knuckles turned upwards, the forearm should be kept slightly bent, the hilt a little outside the right knee, the point of the stick a little low and in the direction of the left front.

The four principal hits according to Phillipps-Wolley are cuts at the left and right cheek, left and right ribs. Cuts 5 & 6 are repetitions of 3 and 4 at a lower level. In addition to the cuts there is the point. Cuts should be executed on the lunge, keeping out of range unless you lunge.

He concludes on the courtesy of sword-play. “Don’t make any remarks either in a competition (this, of course, worst of all) or in an ordinary bout. Don’t argue, except with the sticks. Remember that the beau-ideal swordsman is one who fights hard, with “silent lips and striking hand.””

Bouts are played in a fourteen foot ring. Phillipps-Wolley says that at the Military tournaments the matches are played for the best of three hits. At the German Gymnasium it is the competitor who first scores five hits. Sticks are chalked to ensure a mark on the jacket for each hit, although he cautions athat a pliant stick can whip over and leave a mark that should not be scored. Judges should watch out for this.

The competitors enter the ring and face each other in the hanging guard. The sticks must be fairly crossed and the judge gives the command to begin.

from Broadsword and Singlestick: the Hanging Guard

Hutton and Singlestick

Alfred Hutton in the Cavalry Swordsman from 1867 suggests that the swordsman first learn foil then advance his training with the singlestick.

"We will now suppose that we have taught our pupil all we can, according to our lights, of the use of the foil; so we must advance a step further in the training which is to make him a "sabreur." We place in his hand the singlestick; this weapon represents the sword fairly in most points, excepting in weight and shape. Its cuts, guards, points and feints are precisely the same, and the stick, being a light weapon, is not likely to tire or disgust a beginner, and is from its lightness well adapted to the pupil who has but just passed through his course of fencing-drill. When our pupil has received sufficient lessons and independent practice with the stick, we ought to arm him with the practice-sword; this weapon he should then be encouraged to use as much as possible; fortunately men who are really fond if the fencing-room require but little encouragement to keep to this weapon, for I have generally noticed, that after once or twice playing with it, they never seem to care for the singlestick again."

Hutton describes the cuts as “six in number—two diagonally downwards at the head or shoulders, two diagonally upwards at the legs, and two horizontals at the belly and ribs; but in all well-regulated schools of arms the blow at the inside of the leg is strictly forbidden, on account of its serious consequences; the thrusts are usually delivered with the hand in "pronation."

Captain Alfred Hutton, one of the premiere fencers and historians of fencing in the Victorian Age, wrote about other stick fighting methods in his treatise on Saber called Cold Steel that included articles on the Great Stick and Officer’s Truncheon. The Great Stick is distinguished from the singlestick because it is wielded with two hands instead of one. It is analogous to the English quarter-staff, though he prefers the Italian style that resembles the methods used for the two-handed sword as taught by Achille Marozzo in 1536.

Hutton demonstrating the Great Stick

Singlestick from the Badminton Library

The 1890 Badminton Library volume on fencing by Pollock, Grove and Prevost also has a short chapter on singlestick. They disagree that the singlestick should be a practice weapon for the saber.

“There is, however, a curious fallacy which must now be pointed out. It has been thought not unnaturally that the singlestick may be considered the foil of the sabre, just as the foil may be considered the small sword of practice, and it is very commonly believed that work with the stick enables a man to use the sabre; but unfortunately the analogy is far, very far, from perfect, for, though the fencer who has never handled the practice epee may at first find some difficulty when he exchanges the foil for it, this will be nothing like the difficulty experienced by the singlestick player who first uses a practice saber.”

They explain that the singlestick player cannot distinguish between blows with the flat and the edge of the blade, and that because of this his opponent would “carve him about as he pleased.” For they point out “Nothing more excites the derisive condemnation of a real French swordsman that blows with the flat of the blade by a combatant too clumsy to give the edge.”

Finally, they conclude “with a hint to fencers who may oppose epee to sabre, of foil to stick. And this hint is very brief. Take, if you know it well, the guard, recommended by Captain Hutton, draw, whenever you think you can parry and riposte, your adversary's dropping cut on the forearm ; and never forget that, to extend Captain Godfrey's dictum, it is more easy to make sure of a cut than it is of a thrust in the heat of an encounter. In other words, beware of failing to credit your adversary with this advantage over and above his individual skill.”

A Self Defense Manual

Lt. Col. Baron de Berenger’s 1835 book Helps and Hints How to Protect Life and Property was published in London and treats the stick as a weapon of self-defense. He considers the stick an excellent weapon in the hands of a good spadroon swordsman. He describes the spadroon as a cut and thrust straight sword, lighter than the Highland broadsword. “the mode of fencing with a spadroon is a combination of Highland broadsword practice with that of the small sword, so its application to the defence with the stick is particularly suitable.” He also recommends the stick for the inexperienced broad-swordsman, since the person does not have to rely on making sure the cutting edge makes contact. Berenger does recommend that the cut of a stick should be made similarly to that of a sword as if it had an edge, and suggests, like Phillipps-Wolley, that the stick be chalked with a narrow line in place of the edge of a sword.

"Nevertheless, the cut of a stick should be made similarly to that of a sword; that is, as if it had an edge, wherefore the line of cut or imaginary edge, should always be as if in continuation of the line of the middle joints of your fingers: by using your stick thus, you will hit rather harder, preserve your sword-play free from foul cuts, and you will also promote the action or suppleness of your wrist." 

And echoing Pollock’s criticism of singlestick, he says “but likewise the superiority of this stick practice over the more vulgar practice of single-stick play, and which latter decides in favor of him who gives the greatest number of " broken heads," although inflicted less skilfully, because with any part of the stick.”

Berenger recommends that the best sticks are oak, ash, and hazel saplings, blackthorns and sound ratans. He favors the blackthorn because the many knobs save the knuckles more than a smooth stick. He adds a leather thong to the stick so that it is better secured to the hand.

De Berenger Defense with a Stick

Naval Practice

Pollock says that there are currently several schools of singlestick, the English navy having a school of its own. The singlestick was a popular substitute for the naval cutlass in seaman drills.

Naval Cutlass Drill with Singlesticks

In the Ordnance Instructions of the United States Navy of 1860 article 265 states that the men, and especially the Baorders and Pikemen, should be exercised and encouraged to practice with the single stick and sword as far as circumstances will allow.

In the early career of Admiral David Farragut he served aboard the USS Essex in the War of 1812. He said of the crew

"Every day the crew were exercised at the great guns, small-arms, and single-stick. And I may here mention the fact that I found them to be the best swordsmen on board. They had been so thoroughly trained as boarders that every man was prepared for such an emergency, with his cutlass as sharp as a razor, a dirk made by the ship's armorer out of a file, and a pistol." 

This photo from 1898 depicts sword practice on the USS Maine. The caption reads:

SINGLE-STICK EXERCISE ON THE MAINE-One of the most unexpected happenings in modern naval warfare would be a hand to hand encounter. Battleships are not now captured by boarding as in days gone by, and it is not even found necessary to arm the up-to-date sailor with cutlasses and other small arms. Nevertheless, the healthy and skillful exercise to be gotten out of calisthenics of the above character are not only fostered by the authorities, but thoroughly enjoyed by the ships' crew.

And another picture from the royal Naval Exhibition shows the room of a Naval Lieutenant’s aboard ship complete with tennis-bats, cricket-bats, dumb-bells, boxing gloves, fencing foils and singlesticks.

Other Notes:

Singlestick was featured in public Assault at Arms at the Royal Military Tournament at Islington. Begun in the early 1880’s to display soldierly skill, the events included sword, lance, bayonet, foil and mounted and dismounted singlestick. Baily’s Monthly Magazine of Sports and Pastimes described the tournament in 1887 as “a formidable rival to Buffalo Bill’s exhibition at Earl’s Court.” It was complete with a popular display of cavalry skill called the “Musical Ride”.

In 1904 Albertson Van Zo Post, against two other American competitors (Van Zo Post is often incorrectly identified as Cuban), won the gold medal for singlestick at the Olympic Games held in St. Louis, MO. The style of singlestick, as we’ll discuss further in the article, was probably more akin to the French la canne than the english singlestick.

Dr. Watson notes that Sherlock Holmes is an expert singlestick player, boxer and swordsman in “A Study in Scarlet” their first adventure by Arthur Conan Doyle published in 1887.

One of the original 14 "Badges of Merit" for the Boy Scouts in 1910 was a Master-at-Arms badge that included singlestick, along with boxing, fencing, quarterstaff, ju jitsu and wrestling. It was discontinued in 1911.

And Some Rules for Singlestick Matches:

Spalding's Handbook of Sporting Rules and Training 1886 Stick Fencing
1. The stick shall be made of ash or hickory, five-eigths of an inch at the grip, and tapering at the end, 36 inches long
2. Blows only count on the mask and arms
3. A successful blow must be followed by a pause.
4. If both contestants are hit simultaneously, the count belongs to the competitor who is extended; if both are extended, neither count.
5. A disarm counts one point. If the stick is lost while making an attack and hitting the opponent, the count is not lost.
6. Neither of the competitors must, in any case, allow his hands to come in violent contact with his opponent's body.
7. If a competitor seize his opponent's stick with his hand (his own weapon being free), it shall count one point against him.
8. The number of points shall not be less than five nor more than ten, to be decided by the judges or referee, the competitor first making the full number of points to be declared the winner.

Bayonet-Fencing and Sword Practice by Alfred Hutton Rules for Independent Practice with Sabre or Stick 1882
1. No one to play, on any pretence whatever, without wearing a helmet.
2. Cuts and thrusts are not to be given too strongly: should men appear to be losing their temper, their play is to be stopped at once.
3. No two cuts or thrusts are to be made on the same lunge.
4. The opponents should not both strike at once; should this happen the cut or thrust given in the third position to be considered effective. But should both parties lunge, the hit to count to neither.
5. The act of crossing (and touching) the blades is a guarantee that both parties are ready. Any hit given before this is done, is not to be considered effective. The opponents should always engage out of distance.
6. A disarm to count as a hit to the party effecting it.
7. A hit is only considered effective when given with that part of the stick which represents the edge, or with the point.
8. In stick-play, no hit is to be made at the inside of the leg unless the players wear leg padding, a blow in that part being highly dangerous.
9. When playing with the practice-sword it is necessary to wear full padding, that is, helmet, double-jacket, gauntlet, body-pad, and leg-pad.
10. Players are strongly recommended to fence for a fixed number of hits, say 3,5, or 7, this increases the interest in play, and tends to make men more careful in their fencing.

Teddy Roosevelt & Singlesticks

Roosevelt in the White House

Roosevelt was an avid sportsman, practicing boxing, horseback riding and other athletics while in the White House. Several letters and newspaper articles have accounts of Roosevelt bruised and bloodied from practicing singlesticks in the White House.

One article headline read “Whacked the President with a Singlestick. General Wood raised a lump on Mr. Roosevelt’s forehead” New York Times December 30, 1902

And from the Pittsburgh Press Jan 24, 1903:

“Roosevelt’s Hand Healing Received Hard Thump from General Leonard Wood’s Single-Stick”

Washington, Jan 24 – President Roosevelt’s right wrist is slowly mending from the thump given it by General Leonard Wood’s singlestick. If nothing happens to aggravate the injury, Dr. Lung, who is the attending physician, believes it will get well without any operations. If the inflammation should grow worse, however, it will be necessary to lance through the flesh to the bone.

 “We had broken our lighter sticks,” said the President in describing the accident, “and General Wood called for some heavier ones. He got them, and I got this.”

The President is still able to use his right hand with due caution, shaking hands gingerly with a few of his daily visitors. He can also use his pen.

From the 1904 Reader Magazine is an article called The Human Side: An Estimate of Theodore Roosevelt by George Horton. The article talks about how Roosevelt overcame the infirmities of his youth.

"His love for outdoor sports and rude exercise is but a continuance of habits formed in boyhood. If he is sturdy enough now, he owes that fact to horseback riding, singlesticks, ranching, and bouts with the gloves."

It continues to describe his fencing exercise at the White House.

"A Frenchman, who has taught him fencing, tells me that the President is a poor though enthusiastic fencer. I will not say who it was that added, "His natural weapon is a club." He seemingly takes as much joy in receiving blows as in giving them. When he used to play at singlesticks with General Wood, the latter, remembering that his opponent was President, refrained from hitting him at first, but at last, warming up to the work, would crack him without mercy, for Wood is the President's superior in this exercise. As soon as the blows began to rain upon his body, Mr. Roosevelt would leap about, I am credibly informed, "fairly shrieking with delight...A good crack with a singlestick hurts, but it is probable that the President gets so much sheer physical joy out of a contest of this kind that he is unconscious of the pain."

The Frenchman in question is undoubtedly Maitre Francois Darrieult, who continued his career after instructing President Roosevelt as coach of the United States Olympic Team in 1920 and 1924, and coach at the Naval Academy as well as several schools. Maitre Darrieult was a graduate of the French military academy. It has been argued that Roosevelt probably studied French cane fencing rather than English singlestick, a common confusion in the nineteenth century, where singlestick was a term used for any use of the stick a s a weapon. We'll take a short look at French stick fighting in the next segment.

French Stick Fighting - La Canne de Combat

A well-conceived article by Maxime Chouinard (I Don’t Do Longsword – a Blog for HEMA misfits) called “Single-stick, or is it?” talks about the various forms singlestick took in this period. The blogger and martial artist makes a good case for the confusion of singlestick styles and methods, probably evolving out of two different styles – one based off the English backsword and saber, the other from the French la canne. As is pointed out, English and Americans tended to refer to any martial art using a stick as singlestick, from la canne to Japanese kendo. He also notes that many of the fencing masters in America were French, and they would have studied canne de combat rather than English singlestick. He asserts that this was likely the style of singlestick that Teddy Roosevelt fenced in the White House and that was fenced at the 1904 Olympics in St. Louis.

An article from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica describes Cane Fencing.

Cane Fencing (the Fr. canne) is the art of defending oneself with a walking stick. It may be considered single-stick fencing without a guard for the hand., with the important difference that in cane fencing the thrust is as important as the cut, and thus canne approaches nearer to sabre-play. The cuts are practically identical with those of the single-stick (q.v.), but they are generally given after one or more rapid preliminary flourishes (moulinets, circles) which the lightness of the stick facilitates, and which serve to perplex and disconcert an assailant. The thrusts are similar to those in foil-play, but are often carried out with both hands grasping the stick., giving greater force and enabling it to be used at very close quarters. The canes used in French fencing schools are made of several kinds of tough wood and are about 3 ft. long, tapering towards the point. As very severe blows are exchanged, masks, gloves, padded vests and shin-guards, similar to those used in football, are worn.

Two other methods of stick fighting taught by the French were the Grand Baton, which was a three quarter staff, and the Petite Baton, originally the belaying pins of a sailing ship.

During the eighteenth and nineteenth century la canne and the baton were usually coupled with the French martial art of savate. By the middle of the nineteenth century savate began to get a bad reputation, being associated with the street fighters in the seedy side of Paris. It regained some stature by 1871 as an exercise for soldiers at the fencing academy at the French Military School of Joinville le Pont. A treatise was published by the French Naval Minister in 1875 called the Manuel pour l'enseignement de la gymnastique et de l'escrime. The lessons are for the grand baton, but the chapter finishes by observing that the same lessons are applicable to la canne except that you would use only one hand, the left hand being free and placed behind the back, and switching hands to change the pace.

Baton from Manuel pour l’enseignement de la gymnastique et de l’escrime

Pierre Vigny, a French Master of Arms, adapted stick fighting to his method of self-defense for use with canes and umbrellas. He taught in England at the turn of the nineteenth century. A 1901 article in Sketch Magazine features him as part of Edward Barton-Wright's Bartitsu club in London, teaching stick and savate alongside Japanese champions in jujitsu. He later opened his own school and trained recruits at the Aldershot Military School.

Pierre Vigny

Singlestick of the Victorian Era took many forms and evolved from different sources and for different purposes. As a substitute for fencing swords or a weapon of self-defense, it remained part of the nineteenth century culture of fencing.

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.