Capitolo 186: Challenging to Duels (and to Read)

Well folks, I've completed a faithfully literal translation for the first capitolo of Book 5, and boy howdy is it a wall of text.  Marozzo had a lot to say about The Manner of Challenging to Combat, and he basically combined a bunch of disparate thoughts in one section.

I thought it might be a kindness to start with a Cliffs notes summary for those of y'all playing the home game--one bullet point per topic for ease of reading.  Under that, I'll include the longform translation, for posterity and so that you can check my work.

After I have completed a first pass in this format, or once I'm painfully stuck on another capitolo and tearing my hair out, I will take an editing pass for brevity.  Listen, if they'd had red pens they would have used them. ;)

For folks in a hurry, here's the broad strokes summary of Chapter 186, "Of the manner of challenge to combat":
 

• Clause 1: If an Armiger A, who Bella arbitrarily will call Angry Bro, wants to throw down and publicly declare an enemy of Armiger B, who Bella will arbitrarily call Jerkface Bro, and Angry Bro isn't in the same spot as Jerkface Bro, by military precept Angry Bro better send something over as a pledge of the fight--a letter, or some other form of token or collateral, and if all else fails there's always armor.
  
  
• Clause 2: Don't 👏 send 👏 your 👏 glove 👏 as 👏 a pledge.  It is 👏 armor 👏 you 👏 need 👏 to 👏 fight well.  Seriously, a naked sword hand will mess up your head game.  (The period form of the clapping emoji, in case anyone was curious, is to use the words "gaunto" ("glove") and "armatura" ("armor") no fewer than six times in one clause.  It was like watching Kronk summarize dueling law.)
  
  
• Clause 3: If Jerkface Bro accepts the pledge, Jerkface Bro better be prepared to fight.  It's up to Jerkface Bro to pick the place, the weapons, and the judge.
  
  
• Clause 4: If Jerkface Bro refuses the pledge, the bearer of the pledge will have to leave it in the presence of Angry Bro and Jerkface Bro will have no legal excuse to throw down with Angry Bro in an Official Fight
  
  
• Clause 5: If Jerkface Bro refused, and Angry Bro isn't angry anymore, they can both chill without ever having to fight each other, no harm no foul
  
  
• Clause 6: If Jerkface Bro refused, and Angry Bro is still angry, then Jerkface Bro has the heavy burden to show that the charges against him were made up in the first place and he was justified to refuse to fight, or he will have to live in shame forever because he refused a valid challenge.  Shaaaaaaame.
  

Okay, having given that summary, for those folks who dig on original text and translation work, here are my receipts:

Chapter 186. Of the manner of challenge to combat. In the first we see in what way if one armiger will want to give challenge to another, as a sign of fighting conforming to differences; hence I say that they find themselves*, by the distance of the place**, the armiger and the other separated, wanting to give the challenge through which one wants the other as enemy pronounced, to challenge, I say by military precept whether the challenger has to send their pledge as an officer of arms, that is herald or trumpet, a missive, as a token of pledge of the fight, or else other armor; but commonly if one used to send a glove, to be very dignified armor placed in defense and guard of the right hand, without which glove [the two] could not aptly use the exercise of the sword & they find themselves the hand bare and stripped of the glove that is one’s armor, therefore without fail, one suspects, one will not be able to fight securely without fear of incurring detriment and harm; for which thing the one who will take such a token as a pledge of battle, or missive, will be fully obligated to fight with the complainant and required to elect the place, the weapons, and the judge; & in the case that [the respondent] refuses to accept the missive or other, the official bearer will have to leave it in that place where they find themselves needing to make the demand, in the presence of the provoked, from which they have denied from themselves excuses, or else pretenses, to accept the fight; then the one who had demanded will have occasion to regret & remain in their liberty if they do not want to pursue the demand, when they find the challenge was refused and the fight hasn’t been accepted; however the challenge could be done, without contracting of military institution, in such case of regret, it will not be therefore honored, rather a great burden, showing their demand to be to have been more slanderous than just, but the requisitor wanting to stay to his purposes and to pursue deliberately, can proceed, against the demand, what, without legitimate occasion and without just cause*** to refuse the undertaking, will not have to accept the challenge, for which by style of cavalry, when without just cause to refuse to accept and defend his honor and fame, will have incurred great infamy and deserves to be portrayed with various infamous means against him, to proceed if he can, as it is the custom for those who have been so challenged to justify the suitability of such an armiger who refused to defend his honor, as we shall see widely.

Cap. 186. Del modo della disfidancia del combattere. In prima vederemo in quale modo se vorrà dare la disfida da uno armigero a l’altro, per segno de combattere conforme alla difirentia; onde dico che retrovandose, per distantia de loco, l’armigero dall’altro separato, volendo dare la disfida per volerlo per nemico pronontiare, disfidare, dico che per precetto militare se ha da mandare el pegno dal requisitore per officiale de armi, cioè araldo o trombetta, una littera, per signale de pegno di battaglia, overo altra armatura; però comunamente se soleva mandare uno guanto, per essere armatura dignissima posta in defensione e guardia de la mano destra, senza lo quale guanto non poteano habilmente adoperare lo esercitio della spada & retrovandosi la mano nuda & despogliata dal guanto ch’è la sua armatura, senza fallo però, suspetta, non potrà securamente combattere senza timore de incorrere detrimento & danno; per la quale cosa quello el quale pigliarà tale segno per pegno de battaglia, o lettera, totalmente serà obbligato de combattere con lo richiedente & tenuto elegere el luoco, le armi e ‘l giudice; & in caso che recusasse accettare la lettera o altro, doverà lo officiale portator de quella lassarla in quello luoco dove se trova havere fatta la richiesta, in presenza del provocato, dal quale si fosse dinegato per scuse, overo fintioni, d’accettare il combattere; allhora quello il quale havesse rechiesto haveria luoco de pentirse & restaria in sua libertade se non volesse seguire la rechiesta, quando per lo desfidato se trovasse essere stata recusata & non havere accettata la battaglia; quantunque lo disfidatore si potesse, senza astringimento de institutione militare, in tale caso pentire, non li saria però honore, anzi gran carico, mostrando la sua richiesta essere stata più calunniosa che iusta, ma volendo el requisitore stare ai suoi propositi & deliberandose seguire, potrà procedere, contra al rechiesto, quella, senza ocagione legitima & senza iusta causa recusando la impresa, non havere accettata la disfida, per la quale per stillo de cavalleria, quando senza iusta causa recusasse accettare & defendere il suo honore & fama, haverà incorsa la infamia grande & meritaria iustamente essere portato dipinto & con altri modi infamatori contra de lui procedere se potrà, come se costuma per quelli che disfida, iusta la convenientia, da tale armigero recusata ad defendere lo honore, sì come apresso difusamente vedremo.

1. Nota prima: I did find one reference to the term in a Latin text, but I suspect my esteemed colleague Kate Sokol is correct that this is an alternate spelling of “ritrovandosi”

2. Nota seconda: This phrase comes up a few times in other roughly contemporary Italian contexts, and appears to be an idiomatic phrase.  It also pops up in an 1852 Letter to the Venetian Senate and a 1561 letter from m. Bernando Tasso.  Obviously, the Tasso letter was roughly contemporary with Achille Marozzo, so I’m particularly interested in that context.  TLIO and Florio are both silent on whether this is an idiomatic phrase, so I will need to do some more digging. 

3. Nota terza: "Iusta causa" is another Latin term of art, and one we still use today