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
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.
