The Saviolo-Shakespeare Connection

Greetings,

Frequent readers of my blogs will know of my interest in both Vincentio Saviolo and William Shakespeare. This article brings both of these two together to bring an interesting point of history to light. It is likely that this article will be of interest to both fencers and those interested in Shakespeare and English Literature.

Cheers,

Henry.

Introduction

The purpose of this investigation is to establish a firm connection between the relatively unknown fencing master, Vincentio Saviolo and the famous and influential playwright William Shakespeare. The reason for this is to demonstrate the impact of Saviolo upon the works of Shakespeare and thus English literature in general, and in a broader sense, the impact of other fencing masters not only on literature but also on society in general. For the purpose to be achieved the evidence for the connection needs to be substantial, and not meter pickings of words which may be confused with some other influence at the same time.

            What needs to be clear here is that it is not the purpose of this investigation to present a Saviolo bibliography, though there will be some elements present. The focus of this investigation is the connection between Saviolo and Shakespeare and the evidence for this present in Shakespeare’s works and other documentary evidence. The main reason for the moving away from the biography angle is that this has already been suitably covered by other authors.

            A timeframe is obviously necessary in order to establish the connection in an historical sense. For the purposes of this investigation, the timeframe which was chosen was the period of 1590 to 1599. This covers the approximate time of Saviolo’s arrival in London to the approximate time of his death. Obviously after this is difficult to establish as Saviolo is deceased, and beforehand loses out on the location element which is also essential.

            With regard to location, London and its greater areas were chosen as a general location. More specifically Blackfriars on the south bank of the Thames in London was chosen. This is because both Saviolo and Shakespeare were both present in these locations and therefore it enhances the chances of a meeting, or at least knowing about one another.

            There is a question of timing which goes along with the timeframe. Shakespeare’s play Love’s Labour’s Lost presents the first location of evidence of fencing jargon, however the timing of Romeo and Juliet and the close previous publication of Saviolo’s manual is more significant. The plays which follow increase in fencing jargon. In general, also Romeo and Juliet, As You Like It, and Hamlet are more well-known plays and all have evidence of the influence of Saviolo within them. Hence the timing of the publication of several of Shakespeare’s plays is significant.

            The second part of the process is to establish a connection between Saviolo and Shakespeare, somewhat based on the timing of the publication of the plays and the presence of the increase in fencing language present. There is an indirect connection between Saviolo and Shakespeare in the form of John Florio, who happened to be a friend of them both and also a friend of Ben Johnson. There is also the somewhat far-fetched suggestion that Saviolo taught Shakespeare to fence which will be examined at least a little.

            Evidence is what holds the argument together and there needs to be evidence presented for a connection between Saviolo and Shakespeare. This is primarily found in the presence of the ideas and concepts of Saviolo present in the works of Shakespeare. The three plays which will be the primary focus of this discussion have already been indicated above: Romeo and Juliet, known by some as the “fencer’s play”; Hamlet, which presents a famous duel in its last parts; and As You Like It which presents the important punctilios of duelling along with other evidence from Saviolo’s instructions on honourable quarrels. Common elements will be presented which are found both in the plays and in Saviolo’s manual.

            The fencing manuals of the medieval and Renaissance period, for the most part, are seen as mere instruction on the art of dispatching an opponent efficiently using the weapons described. If a deeper examination of these manuals is made, much more will be found in them, and a greater impact of them upon their societies will be realised. These manuals are often disregarded with regard to literary content however the influence of these manuals and their writers upon the wider community is greater than previously realised. This examination hopes to present this idea for at least one author.

Timing

“I suggest that the fencing manual of Saviolo, Vincentio Saviolo his Practice, dedicated to the Earl of Essex and published in 1595, provides evidence that Shakespeare probably responded to this manual’s specific diction and general theory in writing his play [Romeo and Juliet].” (Ozark Holmer, 1994:163)

            The timing of the publication of Saviolo’s manual in 1595 and the later publication of several of Shakespeare’s plays with fencing jargon in them presents a connection, at least in text form, between Saviolo and Shakespeare. There is little doubt that Shakespeare would have known about Saviolo, as will be presented later on in this investigation. Romeo and Juliet, while one of the most filled with fencing jargon is not the only one which was influenced by Saviolo’s work.

“more topical and up-to-date might have been Vincentio Saviolo’s textbook, written in English and published in two volumes, of which the first was devoted to fencing with rapier and dagger and the second to honour and honorary quarrels. Saviolo’s book appeared in 1595, two years before the first performance of Hamlet, and was, at that time, very modern.” (Czajkowski)

            The presence of fencing talk in the plays of Shakespeare with regard to the timing of this in comparison to the publication of Saviolo’s manual clearly presents timing, which with the increasing presence in following works, manifests itself as much more than coincidence. More to the point, Shakespeare’s Italian fencing jargon does not appear until after Saviolo’s publication (Ozark Holmer, 1994:165). Through the investigation, especially in the later parts, evidence will be presented where it is demonstrated that there was a distinct increase in fencing jargon present in Shakespeare’s work post-publication of Saviolo’s manual, and a distinct lack of it beforehand.

The timing of several of Shakespeare’s plays, and the presence of fencing jargon within them, is one piece of evidence which cannot be ignored. This timing presents the beginnings of the evidence for a relationship between Shakespeare and Saviolo, which will be established throughout the following investigation. The foundation which is present here is one which is based upon evidence which is presented in the following sections, however it does demonstrate one of the foundations of the argument for the relationship, whether actual or purely textual which is presented in the following investigation.

Location

            In order to demonstrate a firm connection between Shakespeare and Saviolo, it is necessary that they not merely be in the same sort of timeframe and have significant timings between them, it is also important that they can be seen to be moving in similar circles and also in similar locations. The following is designed to provide this evidence and demonstrate that there is a significant amount of locational commonality between the two to suggest that they would have known about one another and feasibly been in contact. What is important is that while this places them in the same location this is only the beginning.

            Some background is required in order to place both of the figures in the correct locations where they would have met. This means going back slightly in time and also examining people who were associated with them. In the case of Saviolo this means looking at Rocco Bonetti with whom he had an association. “Bonetti continued his travels, but in 1584 he took up residence in part of the Blackfriars after acquiring the lease from John Lyly.” (Kirby, 2013:16). This is evidence of Bonetti, planting his roots, so to speak, in Blackfriars. Bonetti had plans for remodelling the building to make it more suitable for his school but he never managed to finish the project. This he left to Jeronimo. What is significant for this research is that Saviolo joined the little band in order to ply his trade at the school, thus placing Saviolo in Blackfriars.

“He [Bonetti] left a partially remodelled college of fence to his ‘boy’, Jeronimo. Never using a last name, George Silver describes Jeronimo as ‘Signior Rocko his boy, that taught Gentlemen in the Blacke-Fryers, as Usher for his maister in steed of a man’. When Saviolo came to England Jeronimo started to teach with him. They did this for approximately seven to eight years, according to Silver.” (Kirby, 2013:16)

            What is significant is the timing with the location. The previous evidence presented demonstrates some interesting timing and some of it needs to be noted with regard to the location also.

“It would have been difficult for Shakespeare not to have known about Vincentio Saviolo, the Paduan master who arrived in London in 1590 to teach in the fencing “colledge” of the Italian master, Rocco Bonetti;” (Ozark Holmer, 1994:164)

Saviolo arrived in London in 1590 to teach at Bonetti’s school. This places him firmly in Blackfriars. So it can be safely said that Saviolo was in and around Blackfriars at least from 1590 until his death sometime in approximately 1599. Further to his location in Blackfriars, it should also be noted that he was not considered as some back-alley operator, indeed Saviolo was seen as a man of respect and reputation. “Saviolo’s school, activities, opinions, and methods of teaching fencing gained great recognition and respect in England.” (Czajkowski). Indeed one of Silver’s great complaints is that Saviolo was so popular with gentlemen and also the court circles due to his popular Italianate fencing style.

With Saviolo’s location and social strata established Shakespeare’s needs to be established and demonstrated to be in such a form that the two individuals could have come into contact in some form or another. While the arrival of a Gentleman from Padua would have been a significant event and thus recorded, the same could not be said for the arrival of Shakespeare in London.

“No definite date can be given for Shakespeare’s arrival in London; but by 1594 he had a body of work to his credit that must have occupied a considerable number of years. Naturally no details survive of his London connections when he was still unknown to the world,” (Ackroyd, 2010:xxxiv)

            Of course it is clear that in order to be recognised, there had to be some previous history. No owner of a group of players would have taken on a completely unknown writer, thus Shakespeare must have been doing work of some kind for the years before his “recognition.”

“Shakespeare must have been working as a dramatist for some years before 1590. This period of successful work explains how by 1594 he could take a leading place in the first company of the age.” (Ackroyd, 2010:xxxiv)

            The company which Shakespeare was to join was the Lord Chamberlain’s Men which Richard Burbage was the lead player. The company obviously needed a place in which to rehearse, store props and also to perform their plays. It was Burbage who acquired the lease of the building in Blackfriars.

“in 1596, James Burbage acquired the lease on the fencing school and used it as part of the Blackfriars Theatre. His partners at that time were John Hemmings, Henry Condell, William Sly, and William Shakespeare,” (Turner and Soper, 1990:19)

            Clearly Bonetti and Burbage had some sort of arrangement to either share the building or some such. The fact that Burbage leases the fencing school places Shakespeare in a location where he can become familiar with Italian fencing masters and indeed Saviolo himself. There are claims even that there was a close relationship between Saviolo and Shakespeare by some writers.

           

“Also, as the great connoisseur of fencing, J.P. Aylward, noticed, Vincentio Saviolo was Shakespeare’s neighbour in Blackfriars, so it quite probable that Shakespeare consulted with Saviolo about the fencing scenes in his famous drama. Anyway, there seems to be no doubt that Shakespeare, when describing the duel, meant fencing with the rapier and dagger of his time, probably based on the fencing school described by Vincentio Saviolo.” (Czajkowski)

            While this cannot be confirmed or denied, the timings which have been presented previously seem to tip the scale in favour of this. The timing of Romeo and Juliet which has been discussed previously, along with the presence of fencing terminology within this work would tend to tip the scales in favour of some sort of association between Saviolo and Shakespeare. At the least the presence of such fencing terminology in Shakespeare’s works after the printing of Saviolo’s manual would indicate some sort of influence. Further evidence for the association between these two significant individuals will be presented in their personal connections.

Personal Connections

            Once the two individuals, Shakespeare and Saviolo have been placed in the same place at the same time, it is then possible to look deeper into the connections between them. Personal connections provide more evidence between the individuals and thus firms up the evidence that there was a significant connection between them. The first place to find this is influence of one on the other in this case it is most definitely Saviolo on Shakespeare. There is also evidence for Saviolo affecting other writers as well, thus presenting Saviolo as a more significant character.

            Returning to personal connections there is one main individual who will be mentioned, John Florio, who was at least acquainted with both individuals. This provides a clear personal connection and also places both of them in a similar social circle. Ben Jonson can also be mentioned in the same sort of context, but without such a significant connection. It is through this connection that evidence can be presented that they at least knew of one another even if they did not meet. Of course there are theories that they did meet and that this is where a firm connection can be established, however some of the evidence for this a little far-fetched at least.

“The English writers began a common mimicking or mocking of Italian terms, points of honour and duelling, all of which are the direct focus of Saviolo’s notable work – His Practise in Two Books. Thomas Lodge, John Marston, Ben Jonson, Thomas Kyd and especially William Shakespeare were all affected by this publication to some extent. No other fencing master had such a tremendous influence on the art and literature of the Elizabethan era.” (Kirby, 2013:3)

            The list of influential writers named demonstrates the influence that a single book can, and did, have upon many different writers. Saviolo’s book came out at just the right time when the English were interested in all things Italian, and especially the concept of duelling which had picked up pace in England. This idea of mimicking can be seen in the way that the Elizabethans dressed, their manner of speaking, their manners, and of course their use of the sword, especially in the upper echelons of society. Thus it is with little surprise that the writers of the age also mimicked what the Italians were writing, and even less surprising that they would also mock it. This influence demonstrates that Shakespeare would have known about Saviolo at the least, having taken so much from his work, evidence for this influence will be presented further on in the discussion.

            To expand on the connection between Saviolo and Shakespeare, personal connections need to be examined a little closer than the simple influence of one book on some writers of the period. It is important to look at who both of the individuals associated with. In the case of Saviolo and Shakespeare the key or linking individual is John Florio.

“That Shakespeare was familiar with “…[H]is Practise” there can be little doubt. There may be a personal connection; Saviolo’s likely co-author was John Florio: Florio was tutor and secretary to Henry Wriothelsey, Earl of Southampton to whom Shakespeare dedicated the poems “Venus and Adonis” (1593) and “The Rape of Lucrece” (1594).” (Chatfield, 2010)

            The connection which is present above could be seen as a little tenuous, being that the link is through other individuals however the fact that there is a link there which can be traced is more significant. The fact that it is likely that Florio assisted Saviolo in the production of his fencing and duelling treatise, and also was tutor to one of Shakespeare’s patrons places the two individuals closer and closer together. Further to this, it was not only in Saviolo’s own work where Shakespeare could have learnt about Saviolo.

“Shakespeare could have encountered Saviolo by reputation in print as early as 1591, because John Florio, who knew Saviolo, provides the first extant description of him in Second Frutes,” (Ozark Holmer, 1994:165)

            This provides a four-year gap where knowledge of Saviolo would have been present. John Florio cannot be mistaken for being “yet another writer” but one of influence and the fact that he would write about Saviolo with such praise in his work would have been noticed by Shakespeare. It could almost be said that Florio’s work sets itself up as a primer for Saviolo’s work to come out a couple of years later. Indeed it could have been the mention of Saviolo by Florio which made Saviolo’s work so popular in the first place.

            The connection between Saviolo, Florio and Shakespeare cannot be doubted by the evidence which is presented, however it was not only Florio who was acquainted with both, “Ben Jonson knew him [Saviolo], and Shakespeare cannot have failed to have been acquainted with him.” (Tuner and Soper, 1990:52). Once again this places both Saviolo and Shakespeare within close proximity, or at least the same social circles. The fact that Ben Jonson was acquainted with both individuals means that at some point in time it is likely that they would have met, at least in a casual social setting.

            There is some suggestion that Saviolo may have taught Shakespeare how to fence, as given in the documentary “Riddle of Steel” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9NRZyh4MZg), however this connection seems to be lacking in some evidence. However it would explain how Shakespeare was so intimately familiar with Saviolo’s method of fencing, enough that he could present it in a reasonably comprehensive way in his writing. Needless to say, without the documentary evidence, such a personal connection is hard to present as fact.

            Personal connections are important in placing individuals in the same social contexts as one another. Merely placing them in the same place at the same time does not necessarily mean that they would have been acquainted with one another or even run into one another by accident. Having personal connections, even through intermediary parties demonstrates a much firmer connection between the two individuals than mere time and place. The presence of Saviolo in Shakespeare’s writings has been hinted at here and in other places and will be presented in more detail in the following.

Saviolo in Shakespeare

            While there is evidence for fencing material and indeed fencing material which can be connected to Saviolo and his treatise in several plays and other pieces penned by Shakespeare, three plays will be used as a focus for this investigation. The three plays which will be used are Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet and As You Like It. These could be termed the “fencing plays”, as they all have evidence of swordplay or elements linked to swordplay in them. In this particular case the former two are more so than the latter one.
            As You Like It does not have a dominance of swordplay taking place in it like Romeo and Juliet, but much like, Hamlet it does go into some of the intricacies of the duel and how a duel may come about. This information demonstrates a connection between the authors as much as the presentation of the method of swordplay.

“Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost, Romeo and Juliet and As You Like It are perfect examples. Shakespeare illustrates his knowledge of the code duello with characters like Touchstone in As You Like It, who pontificates about the manner and diversity of lies, and how a gentleman is or is not compelled to respond to the various degrees of lies.” (Kirby, 2013:33)

            There is a long discussion between two characters in As You Like It, Touchstone and Jacques about the causes of a duel. In Act V, Scene v of the play, this starts with a simple question and statement and then goes on to enumerate more and more detail about how a duel may be caused (As You Like It, V, v 48-97, see Appendix 1 for the full text). This list of lies, and thus causes of a duel is very similar to the list which Saviolo presents in his second “book” Of Honour and Honourable Quarrels, in fact it could be seen as a parody of the list given. Further evidence in the play from Saviolo’s treatise can also be found, this is in the form of one of Saviolo’s anecdotes, in which Shakespeare changes some of the names, but the result in the play is the same.

“References to Saviolo and his treatise are to be found among the works of some of the literary figures of the day. Shakespeare uses one of Saviolo’s anecdotes and reshapes it in “As You Like It” (1599). Saviolo’s tale concerns Luigi Gonzaga, (nicknamed “Rodomont‟ on account of his “courageous character and athleticism‟) brother to the Duke of Mantua, who accidently kills the Emperor Charles V‟s champion wrestler in a match.” (Chatfield, 2010)

            In Shakespeare’s case, in Act I, Scene ii, the wrestler’s name is Charles, who wrestles with Orlando and is killed. The wrestler is the champion of Duke Frederick, Duke of Mantua. Orlando, the winner of the wrestle is banished. In the case of Saviolo’s story the victor of the wrestling match leaves in order to avoid the consequences. Many parallels can be seen in this story between the two writers. This demonstrates a rather deep reading of Saviolo’s treatise in order to reproduce such an incident in his play.

“Romeo and Juliet includes more Italian fencing terms than any other play in Shakespeare’s canon – among them are the passado, punto reverse and stoccata. He also includes references to the Italian duelling code and the style of fencing at the time – all of which were included in Saviolo’s treatise.” (Kirby, 2013:33)

            With regard to the subject of swordplay and elements associated with it, much more can be found in both Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet. Continuing with the theme of the duel, which is directly associated with swordplay, especially in the Elizabethan period, the concept of the causes of the duel are also addressed in Romeo and Juliet. The classic demonstration with regard to this is in Act III, Scene i, in Mercutio’s discussion with Benvolio with regard to his willingness to enter into a quarrel with someone.

Romeo and Juliet, III, i, 15-29

MERCUTIO: Nay, and there were two such, we

should have none shortly, for one would kill the

other. Thou! why, thou wilt quarrel with a man

that hath a hair more or a hair less in his beard

than thou hast. Thou wilt quarrel with a man for

cracking nuts, having no other reason but

because thou hast hazel eyes. What eye but such

an eye would spy out such a quarrel? Thy head

is as full of quarrels as an egg is full of meat; and

yet thy head hath been beaten as addle as an egg

for quarrelling. Thou hast quarrell’d with a man

for coughing in the street, because he hath

wakened thy dog that hath lain asleep in the

sun. Didst thou not fall out with a tailor for

wearing his new doublet before Easter? With

another for tying his new shoes with old riband?

And yet thou wilt tutor me from quarrelling!

(Ackroyd, 2010)

            This demonstrates the willingness of the character to enter into an armed conflict with another person. While this is presented in a play, there is evidence that the same could be said of members of the same classes in society at the time. What is most interesting is it is exactly this sort of thing that Saviolo is arguing against in his treatise, and the presentation of such ease of entering into a duel, pokes its finger at the subject. More directly related to Saviolo’s manual, he states that a man should only enter into an armed affray where there really is a cause, and the striking of one by another is sufficient provocation. Shakespeare uses this idea in his confrontation between Mercutio and Tybalt.

Romeo and Juliet, III, i, 38-41

MERCUTIO: And but one word with one of us?

Couple it with something; make it a word and a

blow.

TYBALT: You shall find me apt enough to that, sir,

an you give me occasion. (Ackroyd, 2010)

            Thus Tybalt is deliberately looking for “cause” before entering into a combat with Mercutio. The causes and reasons for the duel were of great importance and Saviolo’s treatise reflects this as he spends quite some time upon it. This is reflected by the same subject appearing repeatedly in Shakespeare’s plays.

Where the similarities between Shakespeare and Saviolo really shine is in Shakespeare’s depiction of fencing techniques used by his characters. The most commonly presented evidence of fencing in Shakespeare is in Romeo and Juliet and it is the comments made by Mercutio in Act II, Scene iv, about Tybalt.

Romeo and Juliet, II, iv, 19-26

MERCUTIO: More than Prince of Cats. O, he’s the

courageous captain of compliments. He fights as

you sing prick-song: keeps time, distance, and

proportion; he rests his minim rests, one, two,

and the third in your bosom; the very butcher of

a silk button, a duellist, a duellist; a gentleman

of the very first house, of the first and second

cause. Ah, the immortal passado! the punto

reverso! the hay! – (Ackroyd, 2010)

The fencing evidence is clear in the author’s knowledge of the importance of the concept of time, distance and proportion however he goes further and uses some fencing jargon. The passado and punto reverso are two techniques which Saviolo uses repeatedly in his demonstrations of fencing technique in his treatise. There is also the mention of “causes” as indicated above these are to do with the causes of the duel. There are other incidences however there is one which is significant and points directly toward Saviolo’s treatise.

Romeo and Juliet, III, i, 156-161

BENVOLIO: With piercing steel at bold Mercutio’s breast;

Who, all as hot, turns deadly point to point,

And, with a martial scorn, with one hand beats

Cold death aside, and with the other sends

It back to Tybalt, whose dexterity

Retorts it. ... (Ackroyd, 2010)

            Benvolio is reporting to the Prince about the duel between Mercutio and Tybalt which carries a lot of the fencing terms being a pivotal conflict in the play. For the focus of this particular investigation there is a technique present which is directly from Saviolo. Tybalt thrusts at Mercutio who beats the sword away with his off-hand and thrusts at Tybalt in reply. This is a technique which is found in Saviolo’s manual in is the foundation of his method.

            Moving on to Hamlet, clearly the greatest amount of evidence of a connection will be found in the duel between Hamlet and Laertes, and in the various elements leading up to this conflict however there are more points which need to be made. Saviolo gives clear advice about what sort of man a gentleman should be in his second book. He makes clear statements about how he should act and what sort of manner he should adopt in his relationships with others. The significance of this is that in Act I, scene iii, Polonius gives Laertes a long list of things he should and should not do while he is away. The full text of this can be found in Appendix 2. What is most interesting for this investigation is that the same advice which Polonius gives Laertes is the same which Saviolo gives his reader in his treatise, another clear link between the two authors.

            The final duel between Hamlet and Laertes has caused a lot of debate between both those interested in literature and also those interested in swordplay. There some areas of contention which must be examined and which reveal further evidence for the connection between Saviolo and Shakespeare. For the most part the argument is about what weapons are used in the final duel between Hamlet and Laertes. The first time weapons are mention is when Osric approaches Hamlet with regard to the duel and Hamlet asks Osric what weapons Laertes will use.

Hamlet, V, ii, 141- 143

HAMLET: What’s his weapon?

OSRIC: Rapier and dagger.

HAMLET: That’s two of his weapons. But well. (Jenkins, 1982)

            So, according to the rules of the duel, with the acceptance of these weapons, the duel between Laertes and Hamlet should be fought with rapier and dagger. For the most part, the duel at the end of Hamlet has been depicted by directors as fought with a single sword, the type being up to the director at the time. Interestingly, this would seem to be against the scene directions given.

Hamlet, V, ii, 221

A table prepared. Trumpets, Drums, and Officers with cushions.

Enter King, Queen, Laertes, [Osric,] and all the State,

and Attendants with foils and daggers. (Jenkins, 1982)

            Clearly, the dagger is mentioned in the stage directions by Jenkins (1982). What is interesting is that he then makes notes with regard to the stage directions comparing the various versions of the stage directions found in the different versions of the play found. The two noted giving options for rapier and dagger or rapier and gauntlet, both of which appear in Saviolo’s manual.

“Attempts to show that the fencing must be with single rapier go against the text. ... F’s substitution of Gauntlets for daggers represents a change in fencing style, but the significance of this in updating the action has perhaps been overstressed .... Rapier and dagger and single rapier seem to have been current simultaneously,” (Jenkins, 1982: 407 footnote)

            As stated above, the two options for weapons given by Jenkins (1982) in his note are the rapier and dagger and the rapier and gauntlet, which happen to be the only two weapon forms which Saviolo deals with. Saviolo’s manual deals with the use of the rapier alone, but primarily with the gauntlet in concert with it, and the rapier and dagger. Shakespeare’s choice of weapons for the final duel in Hamlet demonstrates that there is evidence for a clear connection between his work and Saviolo’s, as has also been demonstrated above.

Conclusion

            The purpose of this investigation has been to establish a firm connection between two historical figures, the well-known and celebrated William Shakespeare and the relatively unknown out of fencing circles Vincentio Saviolo. More to the point of the investigation, it has been designed to demonstrate the impact of Saviolo upon Shakespeare’s works and thus the impact of one individual on the most influential body of work found in English literature and indeed the history of the English language. Such an impact as a result demonstrates the impact that such a relatively unknown individual can have upon such a work.

            For the end for which this investigation was designed to be achieved the evidence for the connection between the two individuals present needed to be substantial. These needed to be more than mere pickings of text which could be attributed to another reason or the influence of some other individual. What this investigation was not designed to do was to present a biography of Saviolo. There will be elements present of his personal history, but the focus of this is on his connection with Shakespeare and evidence of this present in his works, and other documentation. The biography of Saviolo has been sufficiently covered in other works by other authors.

            There are four sections which were used to present the evidence of the connection between Saviolo and Shakespeare, timing, location, personal connection and Saviolo in Shakespeare. Each one of the four presents evidence from a different point of view that is connected in some way to the previous and following elements. These four together, uniting the evidence presented, demonstrate a clear connection between Saviolo and Shakespeare.

            The first section is based on the timing of several of the works of Shakespeare as compared to that of Saviolo. There is evidence presented here that some of Shakespeare’s significant works, such as Romeo and Juliet, were presented in public form after Saviolo’s work and containing significant elements which are presented in both. Further this section places both Saviolo and Shakespeare in a chronologically significant and mutual position. This gives a foundation of dates and some relatively circumstantial evidence, which is reinforced by the following elements.
            The section on location places both individuals in the same locations in general and at least one specific location also. This gives the individuals a chance of actually meeting face-to-face, but also mixing in the same groups of people. In this particular case, the location which stands out the most is Blackfriars. This is a location which is significant for both individuals. The south bank of the Thames in London in general is also significant for such chance meetings also.

            For a closer connection between two individuals it is useful to look at their personal connections. This search attempts to make a link between them either directly or through mutual connections. Further this link proves that they moved in similar circles and thus could have had a chance meeting. In this particular case it is John Florio who is the main connection as he knew both Shakespeare and Saviolo. A further connection can be found through Ben Jonson, who also knew both Shakespeare and Saviolo.

            The final and most interesting section discusses the presence of elements of Saviolo’s His Practice in Two Books in the works of Shakespeare. This is more documentary evidence of a connection, literary at least between Saviolo and Shakespeare. For this part of the study, three plays were chosen, As You Like It, Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet. All of these plays contain at least one significant, if not more, parts in them in which the writings of Saviolo can be said to be present. In the case of As You Like It, it is the discussion of Touchstone about the causes of the duel which is most significant but there is also the wrestling match in an earlier part of the play. Hamlet has discussions on the duel and a famous duel in the end of it which has been debated for many years, and finally Romeo and Juliet could almost be termed as the “fencer’s play” as it contains several expressions of fencing jargon and other elements significant to duelling, all of which are present in Saviolo’s work.

            A vast amount of evidence has been presented, and further may be discovered through research. The three plays and their evidence are only a mere glossing of that which can be found in the works of Shakespeare, not only in plays but also in his poetry. If the works of Shakespeare are examined, it will be found that such fencing jargon only started to appear after the presence of Saviolo’s work in print. While it cannot be proven that Saviolo and Shakespeare met face-to-face, their personal connections would suggest that they may have. Regardless, the documentary evidence which is present for both of them demonstrates that there is an undeniable connection between the two individuals and that Vincentio Saviolo undoubtedly had an impact upon the works of William Shakespeare.

Bibliography

Ackroyd, P. (et. al.) (2010) The Alexander Text of the Complete Works of Shakespeare, Harper Collins Publishers, London UK

Chatfield, Chris (2010) Stranger 929: A Brief Biography of Vincentio Saviolo, The 1595, http://www.the1595.co.uk/

Czajkowski, Z. (unknown) The Fencing Duel in Hamlet, escrime.ca

Harding, Giulia (?) “Saviolo – His Practice”

Jenkins, H. (ed) (1982) The Arden Edition of the Works of William Shakespeare: Hamlet, Routledge, New York, USA

Kirby, J. (2013) A Gentleman’s Guide to Duelling: Vincentio Saviolo’s Of Honour & Honourable Quarrels, Frontline Books, London

Ozark Holmer, J. (1994) “Draw if you be Men”: Saviolo’s Significance for Romeo and Juliet in Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Summer, 1994), pp. 163-189

Turner, C. and Soper, T. (1990) Methods and Practice of Elizabethan Swordplay, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, USA

Appendix 1: Touchstone and Jaques in As You Like It

As You Like It, V, v, 48-49 (Ackroyd, 2010)

TOUCHSTONE: Faith, we met, and found the

quarrel was upon the seventh cause.”

As You Like It, V, v, 63-97 (Ackroyd, 2010)

JAQUES: But for the seventh cause: how did you

find the quarrel on the seventh cause?

TOUCHSTONE: Upon a lie seven times removed –

bear your body more seeming, Audrey – as thus,

sir. I did dislike the cut of a certain courtier’s

beard; he sent me word, if I said his beard was

not cut well, he was in the mind it was. This is

call’d the Retort Courteous. If I sent him word

again it was not well cut, he would send me

word he cut it to please himself. This is call’d

the Quip Modest: If again it was not well cut, he

disabled my judgement. This is call’d the Reply

Churlish. If again it was not well cut, he would

answer I spake not true. This is call’d the

Reproof Valiant. If again it was not well cut, he

would say I lie. This is call’d the Countercheck

Quarrelsome. And so to the Lie Circumstantial and

the Lie Direct.

JAQUES: And how oft did you say his beard was

not well cut?

TOUCHSTONE: I durst go no further than the Lie

Circumstantial, nor he durst not give me the Lie

Direct; and so we measur’d swords and parted.

JAQUES: Can you nominate in order now the

degrees of the lie?

TOUCHSTONE: O, sir, we quarrel in print by the

book, as you have books for good manners. I

will name you the degrees. The first, the Retort

Courteous; the second, the Quip Modest; the

third, the Reply Churlish; the fourth, the

Reproof Valiant; the fifth, the Countercheck

Quarrelsome; the sixth, the Lie with

Circumstance; the seventh, the Lie Direct; and you

may avoid that too with an If. I knew when

seven justices count not take up a quarrel; but

when the parties were met themselves, one of

them thought but of an If, as: ‘If you said so,

then I said so’. And they shook hands, and

swore brothers. Your If is the only peace-maker;

much virtue in If.”

Appendix 2: Polonius’ Advice in Hamlet

Hamlet, I, iii, 55ff (Jenkins, 1982)

Polonius: Yet here, Laertes? Aboard, aboard for shame.

            The wind sits in the shoulder of your sail,

            And you are stay’d for. There, my blessing with thee.

            And these few precepts in thy memory

            Look thou character. Give thy thoughts no tongue,

            Nor any unproportion’d thought his act.

            Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar;

            Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,

            Grapple then unto thy soul with hoops of steel,

            But do not dull thy palm with entertainment

            Of each new-hatch’d, unfledg’d courage. Beware

            Of entrance to a quarrel, but being in,

            Bear’t that th’opposed may beware of thee.

            Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice;

            Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgement.

            Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,

            But not express’d in fancy; rich, not gaudy;

            For the apparel oft proclaims the man,

            And they in France of the best rank and station

            Are of a most select and generous chief in that.

            Neither a borrower nor lender be,

            For loan oft loses both itself and friend,

            And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.

            This above all: to thine own self be true,

            And it must follow as the night the day

            Thou canst not then be false to any man.

            Farewell, my blessing season this in thee.