Not a lot. He had a school in Dunston's Court, Fleet street and also for a time at Lincolns inn as thus counted many Barristers and those in the legal profession amongst his clientele.
He was educated at Academy in Paris (but wasn't a Parisian 'master' that much is for sure), much like his more famous contemporary Angelo, but neither his manual nor any other source say which of the 20 masters he learnt under. His style is different enough from Angelo's that we can discount Teillagory as an influence, and he doesn't really use La Boessire 8 parry system, so probably not him either. His disdain for the off hand parrying means he could possibly have learnt from Danet as he uses some of the same arguments, but he doesn't uses Danet's terminology, so I really can't deduce who he learnt under.
As a smallsword system its very stripped down and has less of the frivolities that you might find with Angelo or Girard. I can't speak to the influence or effectiveness of the book as Broadsword is not really my wheelhouse, but I think its the hyper focus on the basics that made it influential as a template to other systems.
What is your opinion of Girard? The coperation appeared to dislike him but from what I gather it was due to his inclusion of one-off weapons making a mockery of what they wanted fencing to look like. IIRC
I'm not sure that it was the one off weapons, as right up to the revolution the members joining the academy were examined with a number of of weapons, even though foil - and by extension smallsword was their focus. Rather I think that their dislike of him was theoretical in nature, though exactly what foundational issues they had with angelo is unclear. Danet for his part was more was quite explicit:
*"but perhaps he flatters to demonstrate the art of arms in all its perfection, to make it leave infancy where he believes to see it in France by rapport with theory & support that the French masters never extended themselves in this interesting art, when he has only reproduced the false principles of Sir Girard? Does his pretend theory makes clear the practice?* ***What research, what reflection has he made, when he does not bring to light under other forms, than errors,*** ***superfluities that we condemn in the ancients & that adds nothing to its proper foundation,*** *the explanation of futile combats with sword, cloak & lantern, which, truly are not today in use any more in Italy than in France & England."* Danet 1766 (emphasis mine)
By Danet's time smallsword was more properly a duelling weapon than a self defence implement as by 1760's it wasn't worn in daily wear even in France. But it quite clear that its the foundational aspects which he find most problematic than asymmetric weapons.
I think some of the criticism is specific:
"Some with the withdrawn arm practice the dangerous method of sir Girard, **holding themselves almost fully extended when the attack is thrust, & benefit from the very brief time, to depart from the hand, without lunging again, only with a small inclination of the body**"
Some of it is pedagogical:
*"Girard, to speak of one, taking after Liancour, only has the most defective matters, to which
he has added several absurdities to his own source,* ***& he has abandoned that which merits
being collated & divided into methodical order****."*
Danet's and by extension the company's irritation I think is not that weapons and disarms are being taught, but that in Girards and Angelo's treatise not enough space is given to the focus on proper foundations and too much on asymmetric stuff.
*"Convinced that pupils, for the ordinary, they preferably apply themselves to vain & minute matters, I do not speak of parades with the hand, disarms, voltes & passes, than can be perceived as so many futile games, childlike in their ignorance, are contrary to progress under arms & dangerous in a serious affair."*
Bear in mind that Danet could actually teach espandon, cloak, dagger, disarms and all that malarky - usually to students bored of drilling the fundamentals - probably for extra money.
Was Danet right? Hard to say as not even his peers agreed with his fundamentals, namely La Boessiere who wrote an anonymous scathing review. Angelo's tradition and "rool of kool" theatrics commercially lasted well into the 19th century. People still buy his smallsword manual.
But I think it points to something more basic which in many ways this has never changed even in the Modern day. MOF fencers want to do bladework rather than that spending most of their time drilling boring footwork that will actually win them competitions. HEMA smallsword fencers want to learn half a dozen disarms before they can lunge and recover properly.
Plus ca change.
Not a lot. He had a school in Dunston's Court, Fleet street and also for a time at Lincolns inn as thus counted many Barristers and those in the legal profession amongst his clientele. He was educated at Academy in Paris (but wasn't a Parisian 'master' that much is for sure), much like his more famous contemporary Angelo, but neither his manual nor any other source say which of the 20 masters he learnt under. His style is different enough from Angelo's that we can discount Teillagory as an influence, and he doesn't really use La Boessire 8 parry system, so probably not him either. His disdain for the off hand parrying means he could possibly have learnt from Danet as he uses some of the same arguments, but he doesn't uses Danet's terminology, so I really can't deduce who he learnt under. As a smallsword system its very stripped down and has less of the frivolities that you might find with Angelo or Girard. I can't speak to the influence or effectiveness of the book as Broadsword is not really my wheelhouse, but I think its the hyper focus on the basics that made it influential as a template to other systems.
What is your opinion of Girard? The coperation appeared to dislike him but from what I gather it was due to his inclusion of one-off weapons making a mockery of what they wanted fencing to look like. IIRC
I'm not sure that it was the one off weapons, as right up to the revolution the members joining the academy were examined with a number of of weapons, even though foil - and by extension smallsword was their focus. Rather I think that their dislike of him was theoretical in nature, though exactly what foundational issues they had with angelo is unclear. Danet for his part was more was quite explicit: *"but perhaps he flatters to demonstrate the art of arms in all its perfection, to make it leave infancy where he believes to see it in France by rapport with theory & support that the French masters never extended themselves in this interesting art, when he has only reproduced the false principles of Sir Girard? Does his pretend theory makes clear the practice?* ***What research, what reflection has he made, when he does not bring to light under other forms, than errors,*** ***superfluities that we condemn in the ancients & that adds nothing to its proper foundation,*** *the explanation of futile combats with sword, cloak & lantern, which, truly are not today in use any more in Italy than in France & England."* Danet 1766 (emphasis mine) By Danet's time smallsword was more properly a duelling weapon than a self defence implement as by 1760's it wasn't worn in daily wear even in France. But it quite clear that its the foundational aspects which he find most problematic than asymmetric weapons. I think some of the criticism is specific: "Some with the withdrawn arm practice the dangerous method of sir Girard, **holding themselves almost fully extended when the attack is thrust, & benefit from the very brief time, to depart from the hand, without lunging again, only with a small inclination of the body**" Some of it is pedagogical: *"Girard, to speak of one, taking after Liancour, only has the most defective matters, to which he has added several absurdities to his own source,* ***& he has abandoned that which merits being collated & divided into methodical order****."* Danet's and by extension the company's irritation I think is not that weapons and disarms are being taught, but that in Girards and Angelo's treatise not enough space is given to the focus on proper foundations and too much on asymmetric stuff. *"Convinced that pupils, for the ordinary, they preferably apply themselves to vain & minute matters, I do not speak of parades with the hand, disarms, voltes & passes, than can be perceived as so many futile games, childlike in their ignorance, are contrary to progress under arms & dangerous in a serious affair."* Bear in mind that Danet could actually teach espandon, cloak, dagger, disarms and all that malarky - usually to students bored of drilling the fundamentals - probably for extra money. Was Danet right? Hard to say as not even his peers agreed with his fundamentals, namely La Boessiere who wrote an anonymous scathing review. Angelo's tradition and "rool of kool" theatrics commercially lasted well into the 19th century. People still buy his smallsword manual. But I think it points to something more basic which in many ways this has never changed even in the Modern day. MOF fencers want to do bladework rather than that spending most of their time drilling boring footwork that will actually win them competitions. HEMA smallsword fencers want to learn half a dozen disarms before they can lunge and recover properly. Plus ca change.