Not dead; just bucklering!

Good evening, folks! It has been a bit since I've provided any updates on my Quinto Libro project, which is still ongoing but has taken a backseat to other research pursuits over the spring and summer. The good news, however, is that I will also happily fill pages about those research pursuits! Let me tell you a bit more about what I've been up to.

My pal Marozzo and I have still been spending a good deal of quality time together, because I took an interest in contrasting his sections about sword and buckler with the famous early sword-and-buckler manuscript formerly known as Royal Armouries Manuscript I.33. The resulting paper will likely be a larger ongoing project--why stop at Marozzo when you can review the entire Bolognese system, amirite? If there's interest, I may provide updates here as that research progresses as well.

This paper, incidentally, was submitted for the spring Laurels Challenge, which was a really great collection of projects this year. I also did some research on reconstructing the syllabub, because apple cider is delicious and because nobody stopped me. You are of course welcome to read about those experiments as well, which they are not particularly related to Bolognese sword fighting. Although I would probably stab someone for a good syllabub. 

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

Let's get this festa started

In a likely vein attempt to keep my work on this enterprise slow and steady, I'm going to aim to work on one capitolo per week--the planned schedule is enterprising, but so am I, and we'll see who cracks first!

But the introductory paragraph to Book 5 is gloriously short, so I can offer it up now and resist the urge to keep tweaking my notes on it forever.

I've decided to use the side-by-side translation style favored on wiktenauer, simply because I really like the style and it encourages people to compare notes.  We'll see if that remains practicable for the longer capitoli.

Also, because nobody can stop me, I'm adding some footnotes post-translation for your amusement.  It's better to get it out of my system now. :)

BOOK 5 The following is the fifth book of the occurring cases in single battle, which the armiger knights will do, whether from examples of antiquity & authority of consulting our great law* or our most serene Emperors** or our other predecessors if they will govern as well as the constitution of arms, consulted with deliberation by very experienced combatants, with approval of ancient martial fighters, if they will guide us, not discounting the faithful history by truthful and approved authors.

LIBRO QUINTO Seguita il quinto libro de gli occorrenti casi nelle singulari battaglie, che gli armigeri cavalieri faranno, se da antiqui exempli & autorità de eximii juris consulti o serenissimi Imperatori o altri predecessori nostri se governaranno e se per constitutione d’armi, consultata deliberatione de espertissimi combattenti, con aprobatione de’ vetusti martiali, se reggeranno, non postergando le fideli historie di veridichi & approbati autori.

*Nota bene prima: Eximii juris can be roughly translated as “our great law” in Latin, and it is definitely Latin rather than Italian--the only place in the paragraph where Marozzo obviously changes languages. It likely references rules of law under the historical contexts of the Holy Roman Empire. The habit of using Latin as a legal language goes back much further than Marozzo's time, but we still do this in American contexts today.  (See, e.g., parens patriae doctrine, res ipsa loquitur, juris doctor.)

**Nota bene seconda: “Serenissimi Imperatori,” or “Most Serene Emperors,” is an epithet used for Holy Roman Emperors that can be seen in several other places as well.  In 1522, Martin Luther used the same epithet to address Marozzo’s contemporary emperor, Charles V, at the Diet of Worms.  (Technically, when Luther used this title for Charles V the latter hadn’t yet been recognized by the Pope, only by Luther’s home country of Germany--but the papal coronation occurred right in Bologna only a few years before Marozzo was writing.)  Its use can be found in several other eras before and after, as well as a few contexts other than the HRE:  As an early example, a 922 Leonese charter begins with the phrase “Ego serenissimus imperator Ordonius” (“I am the Most Serene Emperor Ordoño” in Latin), though this was not the general fashion for Spanish kings at the time.  A much later example can be seen in the 1633 title “Enchiridion Leonis Papae Serenissimo Imperatori Carolo Magno: In Munus Pretiosum Datum”, which uses it for Charlemagne to reference Pope Leonis gifting Charlemagne with a prayer book in the 800s.

Buona serata e benvenuto!

Hello, kind reader!  I have been persuaded to document my attempts to tackle a new translation project, which will be very ambitious but I am excited about it.  Before I launch into some pretty technical stuff, let me tell you a bit more about the background of the project, my specific focus, and why I am attempting to scale this particular literary mountain.

In 1536, Italian fencing master Achille Marozzo wrote a comprehensive five-book treatise he simply titled "Opera Nova" ("A New Work").  It covers a great deal of ground regarding contemporary Italian fighting technique, and most of its sections have been credibly translated several times by fellow students of historical fighting.  There is, however, a section in Book 5, the final book, that covers dueling rules and points of honor as they pertained to local law.  To my knowledge, this section has not been translated by a modern reviewer, largely because it is qualitatively different from the other sections of the book--the book largely covers individual plays and questions of what and how to fight, rather than when and why.

A friend of mine, upon picking up a translated compilation containing Marozzo's "Opera Nova," promptly sent me the translator's "In My Defense..." preface about the missing section of Book 5.  I'm sharing it here, without naming any particular names, because it amused me so much:

"The reader should also be informed that this translation omits almost the entirety of the Fifth Book of the text, which is to say the material dealing with laws and points of honor regarding the duel. I have however translated and included the introduction and the final portion of the Fifth Book (the latter of which deals with defense against attacks with a dagger). This translation does encompass the remainder of Marozzo's work, and thus the entirety of the material dealing with practical aspects of combat.  I freely admit that this omission is due solely to my own limitations; I lack the necessary background to properly contextualize the omitted content, and moreover, the time necessary to complete it would have been prohibitive.  I derive some small sense of expiation from the words of Marozzo's contemporary, Antonio Manciolino, who so eloquently argued against the typological validity of treating fencing law and fencing technique in the same book.  Whether one agrees with Manciolino on this point or not, I ask for forgiveness for this omission born of my shortcomings, and trust that the material herein will suffice for the purposes of most readers."

In other words:  "Look, I'm not a lawyer, and the dang thing is almost one hundred capitoli long, and why is this section here in a fencing manual in the first place?"

So what makes me competent to take this on, when more experienced fighters have flat-out refused?  Well, for one thing, I am a lawyer, though I don't practice during the decline of the Holy Roman Empire in Bologna.  I like to think I'm a student of history, and I do passably read Latin and Italian.  (And for those gaps in my knowledge, I know where John Florio's dictionaries and the Tesoro della Lingua Italiana delle Origini can be found online.)  But more to the point, I'm intrigued by the same question that seems to turn my fellow translator away:  Why did Marozzo include this very different section in Book V of a fencing treatise?

I believe that studying this section will give us a better understanding of what Marozzo was thinking that can inform study of the other sections. To use a simple example: Marozzo wrote about God at least seventeen times in his other four sections, almost in passing. This makes contextual sense, given the time and place from which he was writing--and we have a section of the book that is literally about that time and place.  I think we can gain a deeper understanding of the plays by looking at the cultural context of his school, and a primary source of that information is his writing about to use his other sections with honor.