Bolognese swordsmanship videos

[I. Hartikainen]

Hi Stacy!

Dall'Agocchie was published in 1572, and as far as I know the man himself was just 25 years old at that time, though I'm not certain of the age.

The nature of the feints, at least, will change towards the 17th century as the weapons change to more thrust oriented. For what we now think of as a rapier generally, the Bolognese style is not suited in its entirety.

There is still a lot of work to do for me, after getting all the Bolognese texts down I will look into the context, and work through the other 16th century masters in more detail, including di Grassi, and others such as Fallopia, Altoni, Agrippa and Ghisliero. It is going to take a few years though...

Please let us know if you get any more ideas reading di Grassi, I find interesting that he makes the same remark about feints as Capoferro does. Perhaps he as well is distinguishing between the art and the actual fight (where the feints work best).

I agree with you that in play the feints may be difficult because invoking the natural urge to parry is harder - that is why I think in training great care must be placed in making the students prioritize defense over offense, or prioritize safe attacks. A problem I sometimes witness with the Liechtenauer students in longsword: they emphasize their offensiveness to a degree I don't think they would if they actually faced a sharp weapon. But that is another topic!

Yours,
Ilkka

[Steven Reich]

Something I see different between the two however is the overall style of play. Di Grassi is very thrust-heavy and works great with long, slender blades which don't turn around so quickly, making cuts and feints slower and riskier. What I see in your videos is a lot of cutting with what looks to be a more agile and broader cutting blade (from a few decades earlier) than Di Grassi is using, so more cuts and feints might make sense in that context. Di Grassi's brusque and aggressive true play makes excellent sense when used in its proper context from what we've seen so far. Of course I also think he's one of those "don't take unnecessary risks" guys, so that plays a part too.

Dall'Agocchie was published in 1572 and is also rather thrust-heavy (although really, all of the Bolognese are). I actually find Dall'Agocchie and Di Grassi to be very similar, except that the latter covers more weapon combinations, while the former gives far, far more examples of actual techniques. However, there is nothing radically different between the two and the weapon used for one would work just as well for the other.

I do think though that one reason Di Grassi distinguishes between real fights and school play is because although feints may work well even in a real fight, we tend to have a problem with the suicidal counterattack. You throw a feint that by all rights should set off the opponent's emergency defense, but instead he reacts by attacking you instead of defending, so you wind up losing or getting a double kill because he didn't react the way you intended. Happens all the time in freeplay, especially with newer people. I like Di Grassi so far because his true play seems to significantly reduce the odds of that happening.

While feinting is always a risk (although it is also a risk when making an earnest attack), it isn't so bad provided it is used at the right time and place (after all, your opponent can counter-attack into an earnest attack, too). The Bolognese too, differentiate between sport and earnest fencing: the material for Spada da Gioco uses many guards, audacious techniques, and starts many techniques with bold cuts; in contrast, the material for Spada da Filo uses far fewer guards, more conservative techniques (albeit, still with feints), and many actions start with thrusts.

Steve

[Stacy Clifford]

OK, so Marozzo was a few decades earlier, but Dall'Agocchie was a contemporary of Di Grassi. Thanks for pointing that out about earnest and school play, Steve, that sounds more in line with what Di Grassi is advocating. Really I would be surprised if he was that far different from the other Italian masters, but based on what you're describing I think I would place Di Grassi near the most conservative end of the spectrum. He is a bit of a minimalist on technique, but he illustrates principle really well in a way that allows you to extrapolate to a broader context. I agree with Ilkka though that it will take a few years to get through several manuals in detail to get a true feel for cross-comparison.

Here are a couple of important quotes from the English version of Di Grassi regarding true vs. false play:

The division of the Art.

Before I come to a more perticuler declaration of this Art, it is requisite I use some generall division. Wherefore it is to be understood, that as in all other arts, so likewise in this (men forsaking the true science thereof, in hope peradventure to overcome rather by disceit then true manhood) have found out a new maner of skirmishing ful of falses and slips. The which because it some what and some times prevaileth against those who are either fearfull or ignorant of their groundes and principals, I am constrayned to divide this Art into two Arts or Sciences, calling thone the True, the other, The False art: But withall giving everie man to understand, that falsehood hath no advauntage against true Art, but rather is most hurtfull and deadlie to him that useth it.

...Resolving themselves for a truth, that when they are to deal with anie enemie, & when it is upon danger of their lives, they must then suppose the enemie to be equall to themselves aswel in knowledge as in strength, & accustome themselves to strik in as litle time as is possible, and that alwaies being well warded. And as for these Falses or Slips, they must use them for their exercise & pastimes sake onelie, and not presume upon them, except it bee against such persons, who are either much more slow, either know not the true principels of this Art. For Disceit or Falsing is no other thing, then a blow or thrust devered, not to the intent to hurt or hitt home, but to cause the enemie to discover himselfe in some parte, by meanes whereof a man maie safely hurt him in the same parte.

[Steven Reich]

OK, so Marozzo was a few decades earlier, but Dall'Agocchie was a contemporary of Di Grassi. Thanks for pointing that out about earnest and school play, Steve, that sounds more in line with what Di Grassi is advocating. Really I would be surprised if he was that far different from the other Italian masters, but based on what you're describing I think I would place Di Grassi near the most conservative end of the spectrum. He is a bit of a minimalist on technique, but he illustrates principle really well in a way that allows you to extrapolate to a broader context. I agree with Ilkka though that it will take a few years to get through several manuals in detail to get a true feel for cross-comparison.

Yes, I would say that *generally* Di Grassi is more conservative than the Bolognese, although when you look at the Bolognese material, you see particular patterns depending on the situation. In addition, they give various rules and pieces of advice which are clearly for the swordsman's "safety". For example, in The Anonymous, the author tells the reader that in sword-alone, never initiate any offensive action in which you move the point of your sword out of the opponent's presence. While he does seem to violate this rule in some of the 390 (that number is not an exaggeration) sword-alone techniques that follow, a careful look at those techniques shows that he "knows what he's doing" in that nearly every time he "violates" his rule, it is an invitation of some sort to induce his opponent to attack or counterattack.

Di Grassi is one of those works that I come back to every so often because he has little gems of information that help in my understanding of Bolognese (sometimes in rather indirect or off-hand ways).

Steve

[Stacy Clifford]

Yeah, it's funny how many masters will give you certain rules and then proceed to violate them. I noticed the same thing when researching Swetnam's staff work (also in the section on falsing and slips, notably). So far Di Grassi seems better about not doing this, though in the sword & dagger section I think one rule gets bent a bit if not broken. Then again, we have much of the manual to go... I think the common thread on these exceptions is likely to be the clear perception of an inferior opponent, as Di Grassi stated.

390 single-sword techniques? That's pretty far out there. Where can I look at a copy of this manuscript?

[Steven Reich]

390 single-sword techniques? That's pretty far out there. Where can I look at a copy of this manuscript?

You can buy a copy of the transcription here: http://www.ilcerchio.it/ilcerchio/scherma_antica.htm (from Italy) but be warned that it is all in Italian (and not elementary Italian) and there are no plates. The other important work here is Altoni (also a transcription of an unpublished manuscript, but from Florence).

I would go so far as to say that The Anonymous Bolognese is one of the top two or three most important treatises as far as understanding 16th century Italian swordsmanship.

Steve

[Stacy Clifford]

Well I figured I wouldn't be able to read it, although I know just enough about Romance languages to get the gist of things, but I was hoping there was a copy posted online somewhere to look at. Thanks for the link though, I'll bookmark that. I don't doubt that a manual with that much detail is important, but the sheer volume makes me wonder if the author lost the forest in the trees somewhere. With such an encyclopedia of technique it sounds like the details would overwhelm the principles, with nothing really left to Art. I tend to be attracted to succinctness, though.

[Steven Reich]

Well I figured I wouldn't be able to read it, although I know just enough about Romance languages to get the gist of things, but I was hoping there was a copy posted online somewhere to look at. Thanks for the link though, I'll bookmark that. I don't doubt that a manual with that much detail is important, but the sheer volume makes me wonder if the author lost the forest in the trees somewhere. With such an encyclopedia of technique it sounds like the details would overwhelm the principles, with nothing really left to Art. I tend to be attracted to succinctness, though.

Trust me, there is no forest lost in the trees; however, it is an earlier teaching paradigm than Di Grassi and both approaches have their positives and negatives. Done the way of The Anonymous, you'll know the technical aspects before you understand the theory--which you'll slowly gain implicitly by practicing the various actions as given by your instructor. Done Di Grassi's way, you'll understand the theory before you have a full repertoire with which it can be manifested. Of course, from our point of view (i.e. not having either to teach us), having both is preferable or even necessary. The good thing about The Anonymous (and the other Bolognese authors), is the complete repertoire it gives you. For example, if a given weapon combination is covered in The Anonymous, there is nothing that Di Grassi covers that isn't in The Anonymous (although it doesn't cover sword and cape, sword and dagger, two swords, polearms, or much of the Spadone), while The Anonymous has whole classes of techniques that Di Grassi doesn't really cover.

I think that the contrast between the two books illustrates two methods of learning swordsmanship which approach the problem from exactly the opposite direction. The method followed by The Anonymous mirrors that used by the earlier treatises (Manciolino and Marozzo)--implicit theory taught by exhaustive example--whereas Dall'Agocchie has shifted to be closer to that followed by Di Grassi (which will become the dominant method in the 17th century)--explicit theory illustrated by targeted proto-typical examples.

Steve

[Stacy Clifford]

I'll take your word for it, and I agree there's merit in coming at it from either side, but personally I'm a fan of the theory first approach. Fighting can be subject to information overload and I think having confidence in your ability to improvise effectively based on a few theories is more mentally efficient than choosing from a massive list of memorized techniques. That's what I like about this subject though, the variety of manuals is large enough to cater to different learning styles. Someone else may love the massive catalogue style as much as its anonymous author clearly did, while theorists like me can pick up Di Grassi and feel comfortable extrapolating. Even Di Grassi (like Fiore annd others) admits though that he had to study under many masters before he boiled what he knew down to the theories he espoused, so realistically the catalogue of stuff that works had to come first in order to find patterns that point to a theory. It's all about statistics and sample size, and it's so much easier to learn when somebody like Di Grassi did the hard work of data collection for you.