George Silver

Are there any sites with biographical information re: George Silver? Do we know anything about him, other than the info in "Paradoxes" & "Brief Instructions"? For instance, where did he learn all the stuff he put in those two works, and did he ever put it to use himself?

jimmy o'curry

That's a good question. I have been trying to find out more myself.

From J.D. Aylward's "The English Master of Arms":It has been assumed that, because George Silver wrote learnedly about the English tradition of arms, he must have been a Master of Defence, but this is to overlook his own description of himself. His claim to the degree of 'gentleman', unlike those of the dubious frequenters of Paul's Walk, is beyond question, for he was the head of a family long seated at Ropley, in Hampshire, his pedigree and arms being confirmed by Cooke, Clareneux King-of-Arms, when he made his Visitation of that county in 1622. George Silver could boast of eleven descents from Sir Bartholomew Silver of Hertford, knighted by Edward II; he was the eldest of four brothers, the others being Roger, Toby (his fellow challenger of Jeronimo and Saviolo), and Peter. "I speake not against the Maisters of Defence, indeed, they are to be honoured," says George condescendingly, a remark which, in itself, shows that a man of his lineage never dreamed of being taken for a mere professional teacher of the sword. [Note: Aylward is referring to the fact that in the English tradition, fencing masters were typically from the plebian class, which was not the case in many Continental European countries--TFS]Although he is not traceable as a Wykehamist, as might be expected from his local connection, Silver was a man of education. His "Paradoxes of Defence", although without much of the literary grace of Saviolo's "Practice", to which it was, undoubtedly, a counterblast, shows a familiarity with classical lore, and his English is forcible and direct. The court-hand of his original manuscripts, now in the British Museum, is that of the skilled penman, though, indeed, this may be the work of a scribe.He must have been born about 1555, for on the 24 March, 1579-80, he married Mary Haydon, daughter of George Haydon, of Laugham, Norfolk, at St. Clement Dane's Church in the Strand. The Bishop of London's marriage licence conceded to him the quality of gentleman, and it described both the parties as being "of the City of London". He may have been the George Silver to whom, in conjunction with Sir Arthur Aston, King James granted Letters of Patent on 22 August, 1604, "to dye with woods hitherto forbidden for fortey-one years". This Sir Arthur Aston, of Fulham, was the father of the Sir Arthur Aston, who, according to Anthony a Wood, made himself so unpopular when he governed Oxford for the king during the Civil Wars.But as he certainly could have wished, George Silver's fame rests, not upon any experiments with logwood which he may have helped to finance, but on his "Paradoxes of Defence" which, determined to yield no jot of advantage to the Italians, he had the audacity to dedicate to the late Vincentio Saviolo's noble patron, the Earl of Essex. However, it is clear that his long association with the professional swordsmen had not resulted in any inferiority complex, as witness the opening words of his book:"I George Siluer, hauing the perfect knowledge of all maner of weapons, and being experienced in all maner of fights... admonish the noble ancient, victorious, valiant, and most braue nation of Englishmen to take heed how they submit themselues into the hands of Italian teachers of Defence, or straungers whatsoever."...the "Visitation of Hampshire" proves that he [Silver--TFS]was still alive in 1622, when he must have been about seventy years of age.[continued below]

[continued from above]I personally suspect that Silver must have been well-known as a rather formidable swordsman, as he and his brother Toby challenged Saviolo and Jeronimo to a trial of arms, which the Italian rapier men (who were held in high esteem themselves) turned down. Nothing, however, is known about any actual combat experience that Silver may have had, aside from his own claim of "being experienced in all manner of fights". And for whatever it's worth, Silver's contemporary, the longbow advocate Sir John Smythe, who shared Silver's critical views of the rapier, was a professional soldier who saw service in both the Low Countries (fighting the Spanish), and in the Balkans (fighting the Turks). Since Silver speaks about the lack of military application of the rapier in some detail, one has to wonder if he had some military experience too (and it certainly would not surprise me if he did)--though we still don't know.Another point to consider is that we are not aware of the actual combative experience of many Medieval/Renaissance fight masters--in fact, I cannot personally think of any really famous ones of whom anything really concrete is known, in the "real fight" sense. Silver describes how the Elizabethan master Bartholomew Bramble knocked Saviolo on his ass (a very early example of English pugilism, perhaps?) in a pub. We also know of the rigorous training and testing that English fighting men went through at the time--the Minute Book of the Masters of Defence gives such noteworthy examples as when John Blinkinsopps--otherwise known as "Blinkinsopps the Bold"-- first played for his Free Scholar's prize, where he had to fight a total of some 80 bouts with longsword, backsword, and sword-and-buckler. He did not get admitted at that point due to a breach of the rules committed by him, but he tested again and passed in 1565, gained the rank of Provost in 1573, and reached the coveted posistion of Master ten years later. We also know that the various German fencing guild members regularly engaged in frequent and lively training and competitions.[continued below]

[continued from above]Interestingly, most info we have from men who fought duels or other street combats in Renaissance times deal not with masters, but with lesser provosts and such. There was Austin Bagger (whom Silver said had comparatively little training at the time), who bested Rocco Bonnetti, and the redoubtable Sir Cheese, who killed Saviolo's partner Jeronimo. We also have info on the Frenchman Jarnac (who defeated the supposedly more experienced Lord Chastaigneraie by a hamstringing cut in a judicial combat in 1547), who was given a crash course in Bolognese sword technique by a certain Captain Caizo, who was presumably an Italian soldier of fortune who had trained in the Bolognese tradition, perhaps under Achille Marozzo himself. In the following century, we of course have the story of Richard Peeke's exemplary display of quarterstaff use against those 3 rapier-and-dagger wielding Spaniards before the Duke of Medina Sidonia in 1625 (this was not the same Duke of Medina Sidonia who commanded the ill-fated 1588 Armada--he died in 1615).The above facts should not really surprise us. The likelihood of legitimate masters being challenged was comparatively remote, due no doubt to their greater knowledge. Their greater overall experience also benefitted them since they were probably wiser as to the inherent stupidity of duels (as Silver points out). We should also take care when considering the duels and fights that the London Italian masters were involved in, for, as far as I'm concerned, they were not representative of masters in general, because they appear to have been buisnessmen first and foremost. Unlike their Continental Italian counterparts (Marozzo, Agrippa, di Grassi, etc), they did not teach the use of all weapons (which was standard for the day), but only the use of the new rapier and it's auxiliaries, and this, I feel, is the key to understanding their place in Renaissance European martial arts. J Christoph Amberger compared the London Italian masters to "1950's 'Coca Cola imperialists'", and he is not alone in this assessment--Sir Alfred Hutton, in his Sword and the Centuries, described Bonetti and Saviolo as one or two Italian adventurers, who seem to have been men accustomed to arms, but not in any sense masters of the art they pretended to teach; had they been really great masters, what need could there have been for them to travel so far, when travelling was so slow, so difficult, and so costly, when they ought to have been able to gain a handsome living in their own country? I suspect that Saviolo, Jeronimo, and Bonetti were the 16th century equivilent of "McDojo"-type senseis. The fact that one of them (Bonetti) was beaten by men who were not masters (swordsman Austin Bagger and a waterman who whacked Rocco with an oar) is interesting, and I am also personally curious as to Cheese's ranking in the English martial community. Also, Saviolo's outright refusal bout under controlled rules with Bramble, as well as his avoidance of Silver's more threatening challenge, are both rather telling, IMHO. The man certainly had something to gain (credibility with the London Masters), but everything to lose (his livelihood--perhaps even his life).Things were of course somewhat different in the military context--for example, we know that high-ranking fighting men like the French knight Bayard and the landsknecht leader Frundsberg were formidable fighting men--Bayard, in addition to his impressive war record, had of course also slain the Spanish knight Don Alonzo de Sotomaior in a formal "knightly" duel in 1503, and Frundsberg was typically in the thick of the fighting in his many successful battles (he killed the Swiss captain of Unterwald, Arnold Winkelried, at la Bicocca in 1522, for example). TFS

Great f*&%$#@ post.

Thanks, bro!

Thanks, TFS.

jimmy o'curry

Hi TFS.

Interesting post.

I think some of your conjecture in that later paragraphs wrt the quality of the Italian masters in England rests on shaky ground however.

When comparing Saviolo to continental masters you must take into account that Marozzo's manual was written about 59 years before Saviolo, Agrippa was written
42 years before Saviolo and Di Grassi written 25 years before Saviolo. During this period there was a definite move towards the civilian duelling weapon of the rapier and away from the weapons of the battlefield. Thus it is no suprise that Saviolo concentrates on this new fangled weapon the rapier - as it was the weapon of choice for young nobles at the time. I don't think concentrating on rapier makes Saviolo any less of a master than earlier masters who showed the use of battlefield weapons if that is your suggestion. It merely represents the changing face of swordplay.

Burton's claim that the only reason the Italian masters travelled was because they couldn't cut it in their homeland seems pretty baseless. People were traveling throughout Europe at that time for many reasons - it seems hopeful to use the fact they traveled as proof that were not legitimate.

You ignore issues of class that were part of the ongoing disputes between the Italian masters and the English locals. The Italians were teaching the children of nobles whilst the English Masters of Defence were more like a trade guild. Sword and Buckler was the weapon of the working class whilst the rapier was the weapon of the young nobles. Why should the patron of nobles lower himself to squabling with the unwashed masses who refuse to use the weapon of a gentlemen? Saviolo certainly had no desire to gain 'credibility with the London Masters', he already had credibility among the audience that mattered to him.

I am also sceptical of using the examples that Silver uses to prove the superiority of the English over the continental interlopers. Silver's main point in writing the manuals was in opposition to Italians and their method, so I am hesitant to rely on the stories he tells or the selectivity he may of utilized when picking what duels & fights to discuss...

As good as they are, Silvers manuals were more propaganda than historical record at the time.

Cheers,
Mike

oneonone,"When comparing Saviolo to continental masters you must take into account that Marozzo's manual was written about 59 years before Saviolo, Agrippa was written 42 years before Saviolo and Di Grassi written 25 years before Saviolo. During this period there was a definite move towards the civilian duelling weapon of the rapier and away from the weapons of the battlefield."Marozzo's curriculum and selection of weaponry was still considered valid enough to warrant another edition as late as 1615 (published in Verona). Agrippa's work was likewise offered again in 1604. We of course also have the English translation of di Grassi from 1594, only a year before Saviolo's treatise. Palladini's treatise also shows the use of many of the military weapons, though it's exact date is unknown (since he mentions Agrippa it had to be after 1553--Egerton Castle gives the date as "1590(?)". Alfieri was still teaching two-handed sword use in the 1640's."Sword and Buckler was the weapon of the working class whilst the rapier was the weapon of the young nobles."That didn't prevent Capo Ferro from teaching the use of the rapier and target in his famous 1610 manual. Like many other masters, Capo Ferro did not ignore the fact that targetiers were still used well into the 17th century. Also, many "young nobles" throughout Europe still carried more robust, basket-hilted cut-and-thrust swords into battle on a regular basis, and no one thought them ruffians because of it. In fact, one writer commenting on nobles who initially brought rapiers to battle during the English Civil War mentioned how these rapiers were quickly "laid aside" for more suitable swords.It's also probably worth noting that derivatives of the falchion, like the longer, more saber-like storta, were popular in Italy from the late 15th century onwards. This was hardly a "courtly" weapon, and yet Marcelli clearly saw the value of including that obvious relative of the storta, the sciabla (saber), in his 1686 treatise.Then there are the non-Italian masters--The Germans were of a like mind with the London Masters and the more sound-minded Italian teachers, in that they retained the military and "non-courtly" weapons--Meyer's work was reprinted in 1610, and Sutor was still teaching this curriculum in 1612. We are also of course familiar with all the weapons mentioned by Silver, and even 17th century Spanish masters of the cup-hilt rapier still taught the use of the shorter variety of the 2-hander, known as the montante."Burton's claim that the only reason the Italian masters travelled was because they couldn't cut it in their homeland seems pretty baseless. People were traveling throughout Europe at that time for many reasons - it seems hopeful to use the fact they traveled as proof that were not legitimate."It was Hutton, not Burton :-)Yes, there certainly were people travelling throughout Europe at that time--we have Captain Caizo in France in the 1540's, but again, he was from the Bolognese tradition that taught all weapons, as opposed to the London Italian masters, who were only teaching their imported method of civilian rapier-play. [continued below]

[continued from above] "You ignore issues of class that were part of the ongoing disputes between the Italian masters and the English locals. The Italians were teaching the children of nobles whilst the English Masters of Defence were more like a trade guild." On the contrary, Mike, I am doing everything BUT ignoring the "class issues". Shrewd business ideas that took advantage of these "class issues" were used to "eradicate an entire substratum of a millenia-old native combat culture," as Amberger put it. Amberger also mentioned how the situation with the London Italian masters would never have been tolerated by the fencing guilds in Germany--had Saviolo tried to open his school there, he would indeed have had to test himself against members of the Marxbruder and/or Federfechter. And yet, the Germans themselves had no problem with Italian sword ideas, as evidenced by Meyer's and Sutor's works--but a man still had to prove himself. Amberger explained the situation with the Italian masters in London best--"(His [Rocco's--TFS] setting up shop in London could be compared to a foriegn doctor opening up a medical clinic in New York City without approval of the medical board, simply because of his connections to local politicians.)" I also wouldn't describe the plebian English masters as "the unwashed masses"--these were literate men (note their Minute Book), and gentlemen like Silver were obviously not above associating with them, so, I'm sorry, but I don't see that argument as holding much weight."I am also sceptical of using the examples that Silver uses to prove the superiority of the English over the continental interlopers. Silver's main point in writing the manuals was in opposition to Italians and their method, so I am hesitant to rely on the stories he tells or the selectivity he may of utilized when picking what duels & fights to discuss... As good as they are, Silvers manuals were more propaganda than historical record at the time."I disagree. Silver's claims were never disputed, as far as I know, by Saviolo's buddy John Florio (though I admittedly don't know when Florio died). In addition, the death of Jeronimo may very well exist in the London Coroner's records, and it would be interesting if someone could dig that up. Also, if Silver's claims about the various incidents involving Saviolo and Jeronimo were outright lies, or even just distortions of the truth, one would think that Saviolo's former students--influential noblemen--would have contested Silver's words. Do you know of any who did? If you do, please tell me."Saviolo certainly had no desire to gain 'credibility with the London Masters', he already had credibility among the audience that mattered to him." No. He simply had good connections--the patronage of the Earl of Essex.Had Saviolo lived in a region like Friuli (which he even described in His Practice), he very likely would have been forced to put his skill to the test in a duel, as duels and streetfights were very common in Friuli. He was, if anything, fortunate that he taught in a rather less hostile place like England (though it still proved a dangerous place for his loyal acolyte Jeronimo).[continued below]

[continued from above]

I doubt that I will convince you as to all of the above, being that you train with the Stoccata School, and Saviolo's work is very big there--so be it. I stand by what I say, and I don't feel that you have offered much that is really concrete to counter my argument. Please know, however, that I do not mean for that statement to sound arrogant--we obviously just don't agree on the matter.

Respectfully,

David/TFS

It was probably a good business move on Saviolo's part to concentrate his teachng on the new craze - the rapier. Dueling was getting out of hand, and judging by Elizabeth I's edict of outlawing the carrying of any rapier with a blade longer than 1 yard - so were rapier styles. Considering the evidence that Englishmen were dying in these numerous rapier duels (I believe Saviolo even tells of the proper way to conduct a duel) I think I see why Silver was so pissed. The carrying of thin-bladed rapiers into battle was something else that Silver may have attributed to the craze, and to Saviolo as well.

Concerning the Austin Bagger-Rocco Bonetti tussle:

Silver's description seems to favor Bagger as the victor, while Aylward goes the opposite route, saying that "Silver beclouds the issue; on the whole, it looks as if Rocco had the best of it."

Just curious as to which account is correct?


No, we might not agree on this matter. :)

You seem to think that because Saviolo's manual deals with Rapier & Dagger alone he must be a lesser master. I disagree with this statement. It was the new fasion of the time so little wonder it was what he concentrated on. I am not arguing that rapier completely superceded other weapons, simply that rapier was the fashion of the time thus I don't think concentrating on this weapon in a treatise is proof of a lack of quality on Saviolo's part.

Are the techniques Saviolo taught for the rapier valid and effective? I think that is the question that determines whether he was a true master or not. You can decide for yourself on that matter ;)

Did Saviolo avoid Germany because he would have had to prove his craft there? Does Amberger offer anything other than conjecture for this argument?

"Also, if Silver's claims about the various incidents involving Saviolo and Jeronimo were outright lies, or even just distortions of the truth, one would think that Saviolo's former students--influential noblemen--would have contested Silver's words. Do you know of any who did? If you do, please tell me. "

No I don't. But the historical record is less than complete...

I don't think I can really counter your argument because to me it is based on conjecture and assumptions (writing a treatise on Rapier & Dagger alone makes you less of a master, Saviolo avoided Germany because he didn't want to fight a duel) and historical evidence that to me is openly biased against the Italians (Silver).

Don't think I'm biased towards Saviolo because I have gotten training with Stoccata. I am miles better at single sword a la Silver than I am at rapier in the style of Saviolo.

Cheers,
Mike

oneonone,

I feel that there is still much to say on this issue. You have either misunderstood parts of my argument, or I have presented my stance inadequately [most likely the latter :-)], and so I would like to continue this debate with another post in the next day or two.

BTW, I'm glad to hear that Silver has served you well, as far as the use of the single sword goes! :-)

PoundforPound,

I will address the Bagger/Bonnetti issue soon as well.

TFS

Hi TFS.

I look forward to your post.

I was being facetious when I talked about 'unwashed masses' etc, but I was simply trying to illustrate the descrimination that would have abounded between the nobility (and it's patrons) and 'lower class' people/organisations like the LMOD.

There are a few swordsmanship events in the US in June/July which Steve Hand from Stoccata (among many other knowledgeable people) will be at. You should go if u can. I will find out where they are at....


Cheers,
Mike



TTT

I'd thought I'd pop this almost related post on the social status of fencing masters by Greg Mele on Swordforum here.

----------------------------------------------------

Yes. We know that the LMoD derived its members from the lowest guilds of London society - tanners, leatherworkers, fishmongers, etc. It was one of the reasons fist Bonneti, and then Saviolo's salle appealed to the gentry - it was exclusive, and untainted by such rabble.

There was a famous late 14th century fencing master in England by the name of Traherne, who prepared at least three different people for Judicial Combat. He was a fishmonger.

As Steve mentioned, the Marbruder came from the furriers and I believe also the silversmiths (or that was one of the rival guilds). Now those are wealthy guilds, but not from fencing. The fencing master Paulus Kal had a day job as a toll keeper, as I recall.

We have the payment rolls of French fencing masters, and the amounts are not impressive.

Basically, the goal w as to get a noble patron, so you could enjoy a comfy life (as Fiore boasts quite proudly he has).

---------------------------------------------------

oneonone,I'm aware of the social standing of the members of the English and German fencing guilds. However, that is still not an excuse for Saviolo and his cronies, as far as playing a prize was concerned. English yeomen were not exactly high on the social scale, and yet they were highly valued by the nobility for their great skill in archery (this was noted by their French enemies). Even in Italy, where weapons masters were usually from the richer classes, there were at least some areas, like Venice, where all classes were allowed to bear arms, and, as David Nicolle pointed out, the rich and the poor "trained and fought together" [The Venetian Empire 1200-1670]. This is especially interesting, when we consider that Bonetti himself had apparently served for some time as a captain in the Venetian Repubic.There is certainly nothing wrong with the desire to make a decent living, but the fact that masters like Bonnetti and Saviolo weren't willing to play their masters' prizes forces me to still question their competence on some level--but more on this later...TFS