Chapter II: Defence and Attack

Although one would probably be quite justified in stating that there can be no arbitrary system of attack and defence with the sword, yet the four and a half centuries of accumulated experience that measure the development of modern sword play must have taught certain lessons as to greater, or lesser, desirability of method. The foil, being essentially a weapon of practice, has further been surrounded with certain conventions which carry a direct, or indirect, penalty for doing things that would result in a wound to the offender in actual combat with sharp weapons.

The convention of the “right of way” is probably the most important single convention in foil play and has evolved from certain very logical assumptions regarding conduct in actual combat. It is assumed that there is no attack until there is a threat and that there can be no threat unless the point is directed toward the valid target. It is further assumed that any individual threatened with a sharp weapon would make some movement of defence. In order that the attacker should somewhat more definitely indicate his intention than by the simple direction of his point in order to be able to claim the benefit of the convention, it is further assumed that the first movement of a real attack will consist in the extension of the arm, as the forward precipitation of the body with arm withdrawn might result in impaling oneself upon the extended sword of one’s opponent. Thus, the convention declares that the individual who extends his arm towards his opponent, with his point in line (that is threatening the valid target), shall have the right of way. This convention (right of way) requires that his opponent shall deviate the attacking point from its threatening position by parry, or attack on the sword, or by evasion through bodily movement before initiating any type of counter-offensive. If the effort to deviate, or to evade, the threatening point is unsuccessful and the one threatened precipitates himself upon it in making a counter-attack, the touch counts against him, even though he scores what would otherwise have been a valid touch. The logic of this convention is clear. The defender has taken a chance with practice weapons that would never have been accepted in actual combat and is penalized for the transgression. This convention leads to the rule: The man attacked must parry. Of course, this rule does not mean that every attack, no matter how ill-conceived as to time and distance or how poorly executed, must be honored by a parry. However, it does mean that, in the face of a properly executed attack, the defender has no offensive rights until he has found the attacking sword with his own and carried its point away from his torso.

FIG. 11. Guard of prime; front view, p. 15.

FIG. 12. Guard of high prime, p. 51.

FIG. 13. Seconde, side view, p. 16.

FIG. 14. Seconde, front view.

FIG. 15. Tierce, side view, p. 16.

FIG. 16. Tierce, front view.

for quarte see figs. 1 and 2.]

This discussion of one of the fundamental conventions of foil play and its accompanying rule brings us to a detailed consideration of the guards, parries, and attacks. The general character of the guards has already been mentioned. Experience has shown that the entire target can be covered and the different lines of possible attack closed by four guards. To all intents and purposes, in the French school, there are but four guards, but, as it is sometimes advantageous to take them with the hand in pronation or in supination, each position has been given a separate designation. These positions are designated by number and the first (prime) is the position guarding the low line on the inside with the hand in pronation, to which the sword naturally goes upon being drawn from a scabbard at hip level on the inside, or side opposite the sword hand. If this guard was deceived by the opponent, the hand was carried directly across the body, to meet the deceive and to cover the outside line, the hand still pronated and slightly below breast level, the point still at the level of the knee if the deceive was in the low line, but raised to the level of the eye if the deceive was in the high line. These two positions give us the second and third guards (seconde and tierce). These were the early days of the rapier. The weapon was very long (a sixty inch blade being not unknown and a length from ground to navel being considered the perfection of individual fitting) and relatively heavy, being still suitable for cutting as well as thrusting. There was no light play of the point in attack, or light tapping of the opponent’s blade in defence. The guard, or parry, must carry authority. This was perhaps accomplished best by what today might be called a rolling parry. So, on the deceive of the third guard, the hand was carried across the body, rolling from pronation to supination, developing the first guard of the high line on the inside and the fourth guard of our series (quarte). Although this position proved the handiest for the high inside guard with the heavy rapier, the other guards being with the hand in pronation, it was only natural that a similar guard should be developed for this line--so we have the fifth guard (quinte) which covers the high inside line with the hand in pronation. The development of the rolling guard from quinte to cover the high outside line led naturally to the sixth guard (sixte), with hand in supination. We can readily visualize the duellist, rolling his guard from tierce to quarte to meet his opponent’s blade, suddenly realizing that the threatening point has shifted to the low line. Just as quickly, he drops his point to cover the threatened area, and the seventh guard (septime), is born, with hand in supination to cover the low inside line. The eighth guard (octave), probably had a similar birth during a rolling guard from quinte to sixte, which had to be quickly modified to cover the low line. And so we have the eight guards of the French school--all with the hand at the same level, slightly below the breast; four (prime, seconde, tierce, and quinte) with the hand in pronation; four (quarte, sixte, septime, and octave) with the hand in supination; four (tierce, quarte, quinte, and sixte) with the point at eye level; four (prime, seconde, septime, and octave) with the point at knee level; four (prime, quarte, quinte, and septime) with the hand in the same vertical plane as the front of the inside (rear) shoulder; four (seconde, tierce, sixte, and octave) with the hand in the same vertical plane as the back of the outside (front) shoulder; and all with the elbow carried inside the outer line of the body.

In this discussion, no distinction has been made between guard and parry. However, in modern fencing, there is a definite, though slight, difference. The guards are _positions_ which close certain lines to attack, whereas the parries are _movements_ which are designed to close threatened lines to attack and, at the same time, to carry the threatening point definitely out of line. In the guard position, the point is toward, or at, the center line of the body at the approximate height of the eye in the high line, and of the knee in the low line. In the parry position, the point is in the vertical plane of the shoulder on the side threatened. The defending point is carried to this position by a sharp loosening and contraction of the fingers, as the hand moves from one guard position to another.

The parries accomplished by this movement of hand _and_ point from one line to another are called simple parries and are indeed the simplest and most natural method of meeting a threat in any of the unclosed lines.

FIG. 17. Guard of quinte from front (low quinte not shown), p. 16.

FIG. 18. Guard sixte from front, p. 16. For side view see Fig. 1.

FIG. 19. Guard septime from front, p. 17.

FIG. 20. Side view both octave and septime, p. 17.

FIG. 21. Guard octave from front, p. 17.]

_Distance._ As usually employed in fencing, the word “distance” applies to the extreme limit from which an attack can be successfully launched. In other words, it is the additional distance added to an attack by the extension of the arm and the lunge, without moving the rear foot closer to your opponent. This automatically creates the conception of a double distance, one for each fencer, as physical conformation, position, and correctness of performance are seldom identical in any two opponents. This is a matter of major importance in competition, as what is out of distance for one fencer may be well within for another.

_The engagement._ When two opponents face each other _within distance_, they have the choice of fencing either in, or out of, engagement. The engagement consists in the holding of the faibles of the two swords in light contact, the line in which the contact occurs usually being closed by both opponents. Of course, either of the guards closing a particular line may be employed by either fencer. Thus, one may be engaged in tierce and the other in sixte--both closing the high line to the outside of the arm.

Where one fencer is left-handed, they engage in opposite guards--quarte, or quinte, opposing tierce, or sixte. When fencing out of engagement, there is no contact of swords and no prescribed line is closed. Fencing out of engagement is usually not employed within distance.

_Counter parries._ Each position of guard, in addition to its simply parry, also has what is called a counter parry of the same name. In contrast to the natural, or instinctive, character of the simple parries, the counter parries are definitely planned parries. Instead of meeting the threatening point in the line attacked and deviating it from the target in that line, the counter parry picks up the attacking blade by a somewhat encircling movement, carries it back to the original line and deviates the point in that line. On account of this encircling movement, the counter parries are often called circular parries. Literally, this is inaccurate, but it has been widely accepted by both teachers and authors on account of the difficulty of either describing or illustrating what should occur. If one can visualize the simplest threatening movement by the opponent in the open line, it will consist of simply passing the point under (in the high line) the defending sword and extending the arm, with the point threatening the target. Of course, as a terminal movement, this extension will be followed by a lunge. But, at the completion of the thrust, it places the attacking sword relatively close to the defending one, in a horizontal line at the height of the shoulder, with the point in approximately the same transverse vertical plane with and about six inches above the defending guard (or point of intersection of guard and blade). However, the defending blade is sloping upward from slightly below breast level to about eye level and toward the mid-line from the shoulder line. This places the defending hand about six inches below and the defending point about eight inches above the attacking sword. Also, if the attacking sword is very close to the defending, the defending point may occupy a position further in the open line than does the attacking point. This means that, before the start of the encircling movement, the defending point must assume a position below and to the closed side of the attacking blade. It must then pass back _under_ to the open side and, as a third movement, strike the opposing blade and deviate its point while carrying the defending point past its original position of guard to that of parry. In theory, this would form a triangle with its sides continued beyond the apex. Figure 1 (page 21) roughly illustrates this theory, A being the starting position of the defending point and ABCD its line of travel about the attacking blade O. However, in practice, this is a continuous movement, so that the base angles are rounded and the enclosed area becomes more a raindrop than a triangle. Figure 2 illustrates the rounding of the base angles. These figures illustrate the movement of the point from the guards of quarte, or quinte, as you face the attacker. The movement is counter-clockwise to the observer. From the guards of tierce, or sixte, the movement by the defender would be clockwise. In the low lines, the loop would be inverted, as the defending point passes over, instead of under, the attacking blade. These analyses and figures only apply to the counter as an initial parry; i.e., when taken from the position of guard. When it is a later parry against a compound attack, i.e. taken from the position of parry instead of guard, the movement of the point is somewhat different. Being already in the position of parry, the point need only be lowered vertically to be in position for its encircling sweep and need only return to its starting point, so that the theoretical figure becomes a right-angle triangle with apex uncrossed, and the practical figure becomes only one-half of our raindrop.

FIG. 1

FIG. 2]

_The attack._ As the object of all sword play is to touch without being touched, an efficient attack must be of the very greatest importance. Any detailed reference to the technique of the attack has been delayed in the present work on account of the obvious fact that the character is almost wholly dependent upon the system of defence employed and the efficiency of its execution. As this makes it true that no adequate appreciation of the objectives, logic, and technique of certain attacks can be attained without a thorough understanding of the various parries, the endeavor has been made to impart this understanding before proceeding to a detailed consideration of the attack.

When considered according to motive, attacks may be divided into frank, false, and concealed attacks. The present discussion is concerned with frank attacks, which are just what the name implies--frank efforts to gain a valid touch by the offensive penetration of the opponent’s guard. According to the complexity of the manoeuvers with the sword in their execution, frank attacks are classified as simple attacks and compound attacks.

The simple attacks are called:

1. The straight lunge.
2. The disengage and lunge.
3. The cut-over (coupé) and lunge.

The compound attacks are composed of any series, or combination, of the simple attacks used as feints, with the thrust accompanying the first and the lunge the final movement.

_The straight lunge._ The straight lunge is executed by extending the sword arm toward the target and lunging without any effort to evade the defending sword. Its efficacy must depend entirely upon speed and timing. Therefore, it is almost never used against an opponent who fences in engagement, with the line of engagement properly closed.

_The disengage and lunge._ The disengage and lunge is executed by passing the point under the defending sword, as the arm is extended, and lunging upon the completion of the thrust. This is our first practical example of the delicacy of the French finger play. In the position of guard, in engagement, the hand is already on the open side of the defending blade, and the point is on the closed side. To make this disengage, the guard grip of the fingers is relaxed sufficiently to permit the point to drop below the level of the defending sword; the fingers are tightened in the attack grip as the thrust is executed; and the lunge follows immediately. All of this is accomplished without any conscious lateral movement of the attacking point, the mere shifting of the finger grip accomplishing this first disengage.

To avoid confusion, it is probably well to mention at this point that the guards of pronation do not lend themselves readily to finger play in offensive work, although some of them are particularly strong for defensive purposes. For this reason, the guards of quarte and sixte in the high line and septime and octave in the low line are frequently favored by fencers of the French school.

The disengage from one low line to the other must pass over, instead of under, the defending blade and, consequently, requires more wrist play, but in other ways is essentially as described.

_The cut-over_ (coupé) _and lunge_.

The cut-over is executed with the fingers by elevating the point just enough to clear the point of the defending sword and dropping it into line on the other side as the arm is extended. The lunge follows the thrust immediately.

Although there is little difficulty, or danger, in executing the coupé from the position of guard, as an original simple attack, there may be both difficulty and danger in its use from the conventional position as a second, or later movement in a compound attack. With the arm extended in a full feint, there is some difficulty in clearing the defending point without bending the elbow. As the cut-over withdraws the point from its threat of the opposing target, the accompanying bending of the elbow would result in a complete surrender of the conventional right of way obtained by the extension of the arm with the point threatening the target. For this reason, the cut-over carries an inherent danger, or weakness, to the attacker, in any case. Therefore, it is advised that a slight departure from the conventional position of the hand be employed with the coupé. This would consist of a slight turning of the hand toward a mid-position, with the thumb up. This permits a much greater withdrawal of the point by finger action alone, without any bending of the elbow.

As already stated, the compound attacks may consist of any series, or combinations, of simple attacks. They are all based upon the successive execution of one or more parries by the defence and are planned so that the second, third, or later movement will, through superiority of execution in speed or timing penetrate the defensive guard. They must be adapted in both character and timing to the defence, as failure in either will result in contact of the swords and a breaking of the rhythm of the attack. Indeed, this accidental contact of the swords may be considered a technical parry and deprive the attacker of any further rights. In other words, more than one disengage will not deceive a counter parry and the type of attack that will deceive a counter parry will not deceive simple parries.

_The Feint._ In any attack, a movement that is designed to draw a defending parry but not, by its direct continuation, to reach the defending target is called a feint. In a frank attack, this would carry with it the further intention of evading this parry and completing the attack on a subsequent movement in a different line. One of the simplest examples of this would be to execute a disengage, without a lunge, and, as the defending sword makes a simple parry to deviate the point from the threatened line, to make a second disengage, with lunge, back into the line of original engagement. All _threatening_ movements in a compound attack, prior to the final one which is accompanied by a lunge, are feints. Thus, a compound attack consists of one or more feints followed by the actual attack. To be _legal_, that is to retain the conventional right of way, the arm must be extended and the point threatening the target at all times. To be _effective_, a feint must so closely simulate a real attack as to draw a defending parry. Thus, it will be seen that a feint may be legal without being effective--the slowness of the execution failing to convince the adversary that he is being attacked. On the other hand, a feint may be effective without being legal, as almost any sudden movement may draw a parry from a nervous, or shaken, opponent.

One of the simplest and most widely used of the compound attacks has already been mentioned as an example in the above definition of feint. This is the feint disengage and deceive of the simple parry. This is called

_The One-Two._ The One-Two is frequently, and erroneously, described as a lateral movement of the attacking point under the defending blade into the open line, followed, when that line is closed by a defending simple parry, by a second lateral movement under the defending blade back into the original line, with a terminal lunge. This is the natural, unconsidered technique, and is the way not to do it. We have already described how the first disengage is executed, without conscious effort at lateral movement of the point, how the finger relaxation in the grip of guard permits the point to fall below the defending blade, and how the tightening of the fingers in the grip of attack brings the point in line on the other side of the defending sword. If this movement, with its accompanying thrust, is executed smartly, it will be an effective feint and will draw a parry. If this is a simple parry, the attacking point is already in the line which it wishes to hold, threatening the opposing target, and _should not_ be deviated in a lateral direction. How evade the parry? Drop the point, by a simple relaxation of the fingers, and allow the parry to pass above it. Tighten the finger grip to bring the point back to its original level, as you lunge. More doigté. The lateral movement is all made by the defending parry. The down-and-up movement of the attacking point is the sole evasion. Whether one, or seven, simple parries are taken, the evasion is a repetition of the same relaxation and tightening of the fingers, down-and-up of the point until the psychological moment for the launching of the lunge. Exactly the same technique is employed that would be necessary to avoid the successive swings of a pendulum.

But, suppose a One-Two has already proved successful or that for other reasons the defender does not respond with a simple parry. Instead, to the feint of disengage, he responds with the counter parry--that somewhat asymmetrical raindrop that has already been described. Does one, as so often taught, try to deceive this parry by following it around the circle? He does not! Again, we avoid the natural, unconsidered course and follow the efficient, considered course. As the defending blade describes its encompassing arc, the attacking blade is carried obliquely downward in the same direction as the concluding sweep of the parry and, as this passes, is brought back along the same line to its original position as the lunge is executed. This deceive of the counter parry is called

_The Double._ The Double is sometimes described as two disengages into the same line. While this definition describes the intention, it gives an erroneous impression of the technique, as the vertical down-and-up of the successive disengages is quite different from the oblique down and back of the successive doubles.

Although an infinite number of compound attacks might easily be imagined to deceive an equal number of mixed parries, in practice the compound attack seldom tries, or needs, to deceive more than two or three parries. During instruction, more complicated series may be practised for their value as exercises in control and coordination.

It is important to realize that attack and defence are interdependent. No attack can be more intricate than the defence that it seeks to penetrate. Similarly, although to a lesser degree, the defence may be restricted in its versatility by an attack that depends primarily upon speed and timing combined with the simplest movements.

In another section of this work certain exercises, or lessons, are given, by which two fencers may practise the interplay of the various attacks and parries. The performance of these, or similar exercises, is vital to the development of the accuracy and coordination that go to make the finished swordsman.

So far, the subject of attack and defence has been treated as though one fencer attacked and the other defended and then started over. However, nothing is farther from the actual method of procedure. It is true that, when one fencer seizes the initiative by extending the arm with point threatening the target, the right of way remains with him until he surrenders it by bending the arm or removing the threat of his point from the opposing target or until his opponent deprives him of it by forcibly deviating his point from the target. With this surrender or destruction of the right of way, the initiative passes to the other fencer. If this termination of the right of way is by means of a successful parry, not only does the initiative pass to the defender but also the right of way for an immediate counter-stroke, even though the arm is not extended and the point is not in line at the moment of completion of the successful parry. This is the only condition under which the right of way exists without the extension of the arm with the point threatening the target, and this is only momentary. The right of way ceases automatically, if not immediately used for delivering a counter-stroke. This counter-stroke is called a _riposte_. It may be a direct thrust in the line of the original attack, which has been opened by the force of the parry, or may be a compound movement with one or more feints or deceives. As in all thrusts, the grip shifts from that of guard to that of attack. In spite of the dependence of the right of way upon the immediacy of the return, it is at times of definite advantage to delay the riposte until the attacker starts to resume the guard. If this delay should occur, without a resumption of the guard, all right of way ceases and any subsequent touch by either must be judged upon the basis of priority alone.

When an attack has been successfully parried and the defendant delays his riposte, but does not keep the original line of attack closed, the attacker may renew the attack in the original line without returning to the position of guard. This attack is called a _remise_. The remise is only valid when the defender delays or misses his riposte.

Under similar conditions of a delayed riposte, with the defender keeping the original line of attack closed, the attacker may immediately renew the attack in another line, usually by a partial return to the position of guard. This is called a redoublement d’attaque.

When, upon the completion of an attack, or an attack, parry, riposte, and counter-parry, or any other sequence originating in an attack but not terminating in a touch, the attacker resumes the position of guard and immediately launches another attack; this is termed a reprise d’attaque.

It will be gathered from the preceding remarks that the original attack may lead into a quite complicated series of movements by both fencers. The rule is that such a series of attacks and counter-attacks terminates only with the command of the Director of the Jury to halt. The Director should halt the action (1) upon the indication of a fair or foul touch by one of the judges; (2) upon the loss or breaking of his weapon by one of the contestants; and (3) upon the transgression of the rules by a competitor. Such a series of attacks and ripostes, finally terminating in a touch or a halt by the Director for other reason, is called a _phrase d’armes_. Neither contestant has the privilege of discontinuing the phrase of his own volition and his action in doing so leaves him open to a fair touch by his opponent.

_Counter-Attacks._ In general, there are two types of aggressive action employed to interfere with the formulation and execution of attacks. These are designated counter-attacks and, according to the time of occurrence, are classified as attacks on the preparation and attacks on the execution. If the proper moment, during the making of preliminary movements but before the establishment of the right of way, is seized, the attack on the preparation may take the form of any of the frank attacks, its only difference lying in the fact that it seizes for its execution the exact moment when the opponent is _mentally_ committed to the attack rather than prepared for defence. One of the best examples of this is where one fencer advances, making a simultaneous attack on the sword, with the idea of closing distance and shaking his opponent’s defence preparatory to launching his attack within distance. If his opponent evades the attack on his sword, he can extend his arm and lunge, having seized the right of way on the preparation of his adversary, or may even touch by a simple extension if the attacker precipitates himself upon the point. Possibly, a more usual example would be found in a quick extension against the “short arm” fighter, who rushes to close quarters with multiple feints with the sword, but no proper extension of the arm.

The attacks on the execution are neither so simple nor so safe as the attacks on the preparation. There are three such attacks and all are executed against an adversary who has established the conventional right of way. They are designated the _tension_, the _stop thrust_ (coup d’arrêt), and the _time thrust_ (coup de temps). The _tension_ is the simple, frequently instinctive, extension of arm and point toward the attacker in the hope that the point may strike the attacker and that the unexpected counter-attack may cause his blow to miss. It is frequently devoid of planned objective and always without any conventional rights. It can only score if the attacker completely misses the target. It is bad form, poor fencing, and the recourse of excited or inadequately trained fencers. The _stop thrust_, although frequently confused with the tension, is quite different. Although employed against an opponent who has established the conventional right of way, it is used only when that right of way has been technically (even though only momentarily) abandoned. An example of this would be an attack initiated by a feint of disengage, which gains the right of way, and followed by a cut-over, which technically abandons it by removing the point from a position of threat and, possibly, slightly bending the elbow. If, upon the first elevation of the point from the target, the defender extends his arm with point in line and touches either with the thrust or an accompanying lunge, he has executed a valid stop thrust. The sole condition controlling the validity of a properly executed stop thrust is that it must precede by an appreciable measure of fencing time any touch made by the original attacker in the continuation of his attack. Another common example of a properly executed stop thrust is found when the attacker, after having properly taken the conventional right of way with his initial feint, proceeds in a compound attack with subsequent feints wide of the target and the defender takes advantage of the first of these withdrawals of the point to extend and score. These examples and distinctions are given in detail and emphasized on account of the confusion that seems to exist among both fencers and judges regarding the difference between the tension and the stop thrust. Instead of the existing tendency to penalize a properly executed stop thrust, on account of its superficial resemblance to the tension, there should rather exist a reluctance to concede any rights to a fencer who deliberately, or through carelessness or ineptitude, abandons his right of way and then tries to recover it on a technicality that should not exist.

However, there is one form of stop thrust against which technicalities should exist and be enforced. This is the stop thrust by evasion. Here, an endeavor is made to “side step” or dodge under a properly executed attack and make a point from the side, or below, after evading the attacking point. The rules have an added penalty by awarding a fair touch for a touch made on any part of the person that may be substituted for the valid target in such an evasion.

The _time thrust_, when properly executed, is the perfection of analysis of your opponent’s offensive play. It consists in closing the line of the final movement of your opponent’s attack with a simple opposition parry, at the same time extending arm and point toward his target. To be valid, this manoeuver must fully deviate the attacking point from the target. Therefore, its proper performance requires perfect analysis, perfect coordination and perfect timing. As there can be no more exacting requirement, so there can be no higher attainment.

While the preceding paragraphs cover the theory of the counter attack, it is well to give warning as to the practical application in a number of these cases. The Rules Committee of The Amateur Fencer’s League of America, in order to avoid hair-splitting definitions, has covered the subject of the stop thrust in one broad statement which reads as follows:

The stop thrust is a simple counter attack, against the opponent’s
attack. It is successful against a faulty attack, simple or
composite; or against attacks advancing (“on the march”) and delayed
attacks, when the attacker exposes an open line and enables the
defender to obtain the advantage of a sufficient interval of fencing
time.

It will be seen from this definition that the final decision in most of these instances will rest with the director, who alone decides the validity of touches. If the director happens to be ill informed, or unsympathetic regarding this type of counter attack, a perfectly timed attack on the preparation or stop thrust may be declared a stop thrust without sufficient interval of fencing time. Unfortunately, in this, as in many other instances, knowing your officials or their prejudices is almost more important than knowing your fencing.

_Attacks on the sword._ Sometimes there comes to an aggressive fencer the feeling that his opponent is a little too sure of himself; that his position of guard is too assured; that his confidence in his defence is too unshaken; that his response to feints is too deliberate, too unhurried. There is no reaction to the preliminary movements of a compound attack, and the response to the final movement is so delayed and so sure as to carry with it exceptional danger of a successful riposte. Something must be done to shake this confidence, to make the defender a little less sure of his position, a little less certain of the line in which the developing attack is to come. What shall it be? One possibility is an attack on the defending sword, as a preliminary to the actual attack. Such an attack on the sword may be suggested, or real. Also, it may be single, or multiple. The suggested attacks are: (1) the _press_--a light, sharp pressure, faible to faible, in the position of guard; (2) the _glide_ (coulé)--a light, prolonged pressure from the position of guard as the arm is extended to a feint in line; and (3) the light _beat_--a light tap, faible to faible, in the position of guard. None of these suggested attacks on the defending blade forces it from the position of guard. In fact, its intention is quite the opposite, being to suggest a forcible entry in the closed line so as to delay response to an actual attack in the open line. All of these attacks should be performed by mere finger play. The real attacks on the sword are executed with much more force and authority than the suggested attacks and are planned to actually force the defending blade aside so that an opening will exist in the closed line, whether or not penetration is intended. The real attacks on the sword are: (1) the heavy beat--performed much more strongly but in the same way as the light beat in the suggested attack; (2) the force (froisé)--performed in much the same way as the glide in the suggested attacks, but with a force that almost throws the defending blade out of line and not infrequently results in a disarmament against a lightly held blade; (3) the cross (croisé); (4) the bind (liement); and (5) the envelopment. The last three of these have no corresponding movements in the suggested attacks and will have to be treated separately.

As mentioned above, the heavy beat is much heavier than in the suggested attack. However, it is executed entirely with the fingers in the lines of seconde, tierce, quarte, and septime and with minimum wrist play in quinte, sixte, and octave. The beat from prime is not mentioned because of the very infrequent use of the guard of prime in modern fencing and because of the extreme difficulty of executing a successful beat from that guard.

The _cross_ is executed by closing distance enough to permit engaging the faible of the defending sword with either the forte or middle section of the attacking blade. This closing of distance may be accomplished by a short advance, or may be unnecessary against an adversary who extends the arm with point in line. In the latter case, great care must be exercised in the execution of the movement, as the defender’s extension is a recognized invitation to an attack on the sword, and it must be assumed that he is especially prepared for such a manoeuver. As such preparation probably means that he plans to evade the attacking blade and permit the attacker to precipitate himself upon an extended point, which has taken the conventional right of way, care must be taken that his blade is found and his point deviated before the attack is pursued. When the adversary’s arm is not extended, it is necessary to raise the hand slightly in order to obtain the necessary control of the defending sword. Control of the opposing blade having been established, the faible is forced laterally toward the open line and depressed, while the attacking sword crosses over to the open line--the extension and lunge following immediately. In this movement, great care must be exercised to maintain contact of the blades until the thrust is completed. When made upon a blade with right of way, additional care must be exercised to sufficiently deviate the threatening point to effectually and obviously destroy the right of way.

The _bind_ is executed under the same conditions and in the same manner as the cross, except that it retains control of the opposing faible and carries it through an encircling movement to the low line of the high line in which the original engagement occurred. The converse is true from low to high. The same restrictions and precautions must be observed as with the cross.

The _envelopment_ is the third of this series of attacks on the sword and is merely a further development of the bind, as the bind was of the cross. In this instance, the defending sword is carried through a complete circle, ending in the guard in which it started. The thrust and lunge of the attack follow immediately upon the completion of the envelopment. It is probably unnecessary to point out the need of increasing caution and exactness as these movements become more extensive and complicated. The addition of each succeeding quadrant to the encircling movement detracts from the element of surprise, adds to the chance of evasion, and increases the probability of wide play.

With the exception of the beat in the inside high line, greater authority in the execution of the various attacks on the sword is obtained from the guards with the hand in pronation. However, as all of these manoeuvers are in preparation for the final lunge of the attack, it is well to remember that what is gained in force is ordinarily sacrificed in control and accuracy. Therefore, the cross, the bind, and the envelopment will usually be used most effectively from the guards with the hand in supination.

Reference has already been made to the progressive development of the cross, the bind, and the envelopment. This same comparison could quite properly include the simpler attacks on the sword which use force and are designed to create an opening for the attacking point. In other words, we have a progressive series of forceful attacks on the sword, which have as their objective the opening of a line of attack by the deviation of the defending blade. These are, in their progressive intricacy or extent: (1) the strong beat, or strong press; (2) the force (froisé); (3) the cross (croisé); (4) the bind (liement); and (5) the envelopment. Where these attacks are to be employed, the fencer should carefully master the details of each one and accustom himself to its use. When the adversary can anticipate a fairly definite and dependable reaction under given circumstances, the advantages attendant upon initiative and surprise are largely lost. It is of utmost importance that the play should be very close and controlled, as the temptation to put elbow and even shoulder movement into these attacks is great. There are few occasions more disconcerting than the termination of a powerful and uncontrolled attack on the sword--which has been evaded. At this moment, the attacker, has widely opened his own target and, instead of an attack on the sword, may have executed a precipitation on the point.

_Defence against attacks on the sword._ The first step in preparing an adequate defence against attacks on the sword is the inclusion of these manoeuvers in all practice and lesson work. This will permit one to school himself against response by instinctive movements. In other words, there must be no instinctive response to such attacks. The tendency to hold the guard in which a light beat or press has been made just a moment too long may result in a successful disengage to the open line. But, on the other hand, the careful training of oneself to always make a simple parry in the open line upon such an attack will be just as fatal with an observant adversary, as he will make the attack on the sword and lunge in line as the parry is executed. Therefore, so accustom yourself to the attacks that you neither allow them to hold you in the original guard position nor draw you into an habitual parry. This advice applies not only to suggested but also to real attacks on the sword. But, in the latter group, something more is necessary. The forceful attack on the sword is bound to shake the position of guard and to derange the plan of defence. Also, it opens a line of attack and must be met by some form of defence.

All of these attacks are best met with some form of evasion. The simplest form of this consists in a quick retreat, executed as soon as the heavy blow or pressure characteristic of such attacks is felt on the blade. However, the simplest is not always the best, and the retreat should be the defence of desperation rather than of routine. As soon as the retreat becomes a regular part of every defence, allowance is made for it in every attack. The better form of evasion is with the blade. This requires the maximum of readiness, almost to the extent of anticipation. Of course, where the arm has been extended with point in line, this constitutes an invitation to the attack on the sword and readiness for any eventuality may be assumed. In such case, the relative success of attack or evasion is governed by the superior timing, coordination, and speed of attacker or defender. The evasion consists of the simple, finger-controlled disengage, one-two, or double required by the form of attack made--always treating and considering the attack on the sword as a parry to be deceived. However, when the contact of swords is established and control of the blade gained, and resistance is of no value, as the attacker has an advantage of leverage that cannot be counteracted by any amount of force, the defence must consist of some form of parry of either a releasing or a yielding character. Even the releasing parries in these cases are partly yielding in character. For instance, with engagement in the line of sixte, a strong press or beat, or a froisé, is executed by one fencer. The defender allows his hand to follow his point into the guard of quarte, executing a counter of quarte as he does so. In doing this, he has been forced to yield with the point; has voluntarily yielded with the hand; and has released his point and covered both high lines with the counter of quarte. Against the more controlled attacks on the sword (the cross, the bind, and the envelopment), a more pronounced yielding and following of the attacking sword is required. Both point and hand yield, but there is little hope of release against a properly executed attack, so the hand must be allowed to slip into a defending parry while appearing to yield continuously. The bind is the simplest and the cross the most difficult of these “slipping” oppositions to execute. Taking the bind from quarte as an example, it would start by taking control of the defending faible in the guard of quarte and delivering its touch in the line of septime. However, as the carrying of the defending blade into septime is completed, and the attacking point is advanced, the defender is able to oppose forte to faible. This is accomplished by allowing the deviation of the point from quarte to septime and at the same time carrying the hand across the target from quarte to octave (or seconde) and, as the point is released from opposing control, carrying it by a strong movement of the fingers to the parry occupied by the hand. If taken too much by surprise, the movement of hand and point must be synchronous. A less usual, but very effective, reply to the bind is accomplished by yielding to the pressure of the attacking sword, turning the hand into pronation, dropping it to hip level with point high, and offering strong opposition in the attacked line. If the attack is the envelopment, again from quarte, the point again travels freely to the end of the movement, but the hand has travelled to the outside line and, with the final finger play of the parry, sixte (or tierce) is opposed to the attacking point. Also, it is possible to allow this attack to proceed to its completion and to execute a counter of quarte parry at that time, which is a return to the yielding and releasing manoeuver. While the reply to the cross may offer no greater intrinsic difficulties than these attacks, it does require a radical departure from fundamental positions. Here, the blade is forced downward as well as in a lateral direction, and the proper defence of the high line must be by a high line parry. To assume that point and hand can be returned to the attacked line in time for its closure is to assume too great a margin of superiority in speed and technique on the part of the defence. Here, the yielding “slip” parry must use a low line parry in irregular position to cover a high line. So, the point is allowed to remain in the slightly low position to which it has been forced, and the hand is raised to chin level, the parry of septime (or prime) being taken from this position, if the attack was made from sixte. Probably the only time that the parry of prime will be recommended in this work will be where the cross is employed from sixte with sufficient force to thoroughly shake the guard and to make it more natural to roll this hand into the parry of prime than to carry it across into septime. When the attack is made from quarte, the high octave is the parry of choice.

It may be well, at this time, to emphasize a mental attitude toward all parries. In making a parry, unless _very_ sure of the analysis of the opponent’s play, it should never be considered as a terminal movement. In other words, a fencer never says to himself, “Upon such and such an attack, I shall take the parry of so and so.” He says, “Upon such and such an attack, I shall take the parry of so and so--and--.” The “and” may be left open, as merely indicating a state of mind. In other words, if the attacker deceives the planned parry, the defender is mentally prepared to take another parry and awaits the contact of the blades before closing his mind on that particular defence. This is especially true of the encircling attacks on the sword, which are very hard to analyze until the style of play of a particular opponent is known.

_The Attacks Advancing._ Although there is no fundamental difference between the execution of the _attacks from position_ (de pied ferme), which already have been described, and the _attacks advancing_ (en marchant), there are certain points that are worthy of special attention. Where the fencing is out of engagement and out of distance, or where one of the fencers accompanies every parry with a retreat, or a pronounced backward swaying of the body, the attacker must take cognizance of these circumstances each time he prepares to attack. How is he to so adjust the distance at which his lunge is executed as to be sure that he is within distance? The first requirement is a knowledge of his adversary’s reaction under given conditions. If the defender is a “pendulum” fencer, swaying back with each parry and forward immediately afterward, the distance is fixed. When he sways backward, his weight is carried to his rear foot and further retreat is awkward, slow, or impossible. Therefore, having once determined the limit of rearward travel that this sway permits, it is only necessary to add the gain of that distance to any other that may have to be covered in reaching the target. If the fencing is in engagement and within distance, the sway is the total amount to be gained. If possible, this should be done without warning. Generally, this is best accomplished by the employment of a movement designated “the gain” (gagnant). This is simply a contraction of the foot position of the guard to the front. In other words, without moving the front foot and without attracting the attention of the defender, the rear foot is brought forward either the needed distance or all of the way to the front foot. In order to distract the attention of the defender, it is well to execute some feint with the sword at the same time that this movement is executed. With the completion of the “gain” and the return of the hand to the position of guard from the accompanying feint, the previously planned attack is immediately executed, before the defender has time to appreciate the change in foot position. This simple movement will diminish the distance to be covered by more than eighteen inches with the average position of guard. Where the fencing is out of distance and the defender employs the sway, but knows that a single advance will not close both the extra distance and his sway, the single advance, with gain, may be employed. Here, the advance which is inadequate to close the total distance is completed by bringing the rear foot up to the front foot, and the attack is completed immediately. In this instance, it is well to accompany the advance with an attack on the sword to cover the changed foot-work. Either the simple advance, or the gain, will cover similar distance made by the adversary and any combination of the two will match him move for move. However, trying to follow a retreating opponent is likely to disturb the accuracy of any accompanying attack. In order to avoid this, it is well to time the consecutive movements of the attack to the successive gains in distance, so far as this is possible. For instance, assuming that the distance to be gained requires two advances and that the parries to be deceived are a counter of quarte and sixte, the first advance is made with the feint of disengage, the second advance with the deceive of the counter parry, and the deceive of the simple parry and lunge are made from this position. As this method establishes a certain coordination and rhythm between foot and hand, it offers a minimum likelihood of deranging the attack and should be employed whenever possible. Against the consistent multiple retreater, the rabbit of sword play who has come into his own with the extension of the fencing limits, there is no recourse but to gain all of the distance possible and hold what is gained. After all, with a forty-foot strip, each fencer has only about fifteen feet behind him in the original position of guard. If he uses this distance for running exercises, and his adversary takes and holds the distance surrendered, the time soon arrives when there is no further room for retreating within the limits of the strip. He must then stand and take the attack or run off the strip. If he does the latter with both feet, a touch is scored against him, and it is just as good a touch as any other. In fact, psychologically, it is better. If a fencer who depends upon the retreat for his defence is once driven off the strip for a declared touch, subsequent to that time his mind will be divided between what he is trying to do and how much distance he has behind him. However, it is well to give warning against the following of such a fencer with over-confidence. There is always the possibility that this exaggerated retreating is planned to lure the attacker into an ill-considered, rushing attack which will be met with a parry and riposte from position. Never assume that you are a better or a smarter fencer than your adversary, until the final decision of the jury justifies that conclusion--and, then, don’t assume that the condition is more than temporary. Who knows what will happen tomorrow, particularly if you presume on the basis of what happened today.

There is one method of closing, or extending, distance in large measure and quickly that we mention with trepidation. Before the discovery of the lunge, which was an advanced development of fencing, there was need of some method of quickly arriving within striking distance of one’s adversary. An ingenious movement was evolved which was based upon the “gain” and was called the “passado.” This movement was executed by bringing the rear foot not only up to, but past, the front foot and planting it, and, then, bringing the front foot forward to the position of guard. By this movement, three feet or more could be swiftly covered in one forward movement. Although long omitted from the formal instruction in the classical French school of the foil, it was retained in the school of the bayonet under the designation of “front pass” and “rear pass.” The principal objections to the “passes” are: (1) that they commit one almost irrevocably to an extensive, sometimes excessive, gain or surrender of distance; (2) that, at the mid-point of the “pass,” they have a tendency to do away with the effacement of the rear shoulder and broaden the visible target; and (3) that in both attack and defence, they have a tendency to disturb the steadiness of the hand. However, there are very rare occasions when they may be advisable. The most definite of these is to supplement a “parry of desperation.” Another, but more questionable, use would be when pursuing a badly shaken and rapidly retreating opponent. It will occasionally, though rarely, happen that such a pursuit will carry the opponent to the limit of his available space and that a following lunge may drive him off the strip.

_Opposition in Attacks._ The giving of opposition in attacks is that deviation of the hand slightly away from the direct line of attack and toward the defending sword that endeavors to keep that line closed against a stop or time thrust, or succeeding simple riposte. Against the stop thrust (really “tension” under these circumstances), it is unnecessary, as the attack has the right of way. Against the time thrust, it is inadequate as that manoeuver will force it aside. Against the anticipated riposte, it is foolish because the parry has not yet been made and may prove unsuccessful. However, immediately following a successful parry of your attack, it is an excellent procedure and should always be employed, unless you have something better planned.

The group of attacks and counter-attacks described prior to this have all been in the class of _frank attacks_. As will be recalled, two other classes of attacks were mentioned at the beginning of this section--_false attacks_ and _concealed attacks_. The false attacks are just what the name would indicate, movements simulating the characteristics of attacks but lacking the intent of gaining a touch by their execution. They are usually employed with one of three purposes--to gain distance, to gain information, or to discompose the adversary. Their employment to gain distance is against the running defence already described. Here, there is neither hope nor intention of touching. The false attack is delivered with the usual precautions against a parry and riposte, but is used with the idea of closing _forward_ to the guard position upon its completion and making a permanent gain of distance of any ground gained by both the lunge and any advance that may have preceded it. Its use for gaining information is in the process of feeling out an opponent’s defence, in order to discover whether he has favorite parries, or sequences of parries. Against some fencers, a quick feint, or series of feints, will serve this purpose. Against a stronger and more confident fencer, the actual lunge may be needed to draw the parry. The feint does not differ from that of the frank attack, but the lunge is usually a little “tied-in,” being delivered with the same initial impetus to give the impression of a real attack, but only going to one-half or two-thirds the distance of a full lunge. Its use to discompose the adversary is most useful against the fencer who is constantly edging in rather than making a frank attack advancing. This edging-in process is frequently accompanied with attacks on the sword, or with multiple feints, but usually does not lead to a frank attack until the desired distance is attained or a moment of unreadiness seized. If not prepared to deliver an attack on the preparation but still unwilling to permit the persistent gain of ground, an unexpected deceive of the attack on the sword and false attack will frequently cause a hurried withdrawal that will surrender any ground gained.

A _concealed attack_ is one which originates in a false attack but is immediately followed by a true attack which was part of the original plan. A good example of this is the planned remise against a fencer who slightly delays his riposte, with the idea of delivering it during the resumption of the guard. A false attack is delivered with two-thirds lunge and the remise follows immediately, without attempting to regain the guard. However, a more generally useful employment of the concealed attacks is in a group of secondary attacks that are called _counter-ripostes_. The _counter-ripostes_ are most useful against a strong defence, where the parries are held to the last possible moment, are both authoritative and carefully controlled, and are followed by immediate ripostes. Such a defence is extremely hard to penetrate. By making quick, apparently hard false attacks which will draw the parry and riposte, the riposte may be parried and an opening found for the counter-riposte. Few fencers, no matter how strong their defences, are as well prepared against a counter-riposte as against an original attack. This play should be practised assiduously in all lines and mastered by every fencer who hopes to attain a rank that will expose him to difficult and versatile competition.

The original attack of the planned counter-riposte generally employs only a two-thirds lunge and the parries preceding the counter-ripostes are frequently made in an almost fully extended position of the arm.