Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Angelo Viggiani dal Montone"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1,037: Line 1,037:
  
 
<p>CON: According to this profound distinction of yours, it appears to me that this first division of the three types, namely, ''mandritto, rovescio'', and ''punta'', is not convenient; because the ''mandritto'' and ''rovescio'' are two prime types derived from the straight edge; and the thrust, which you have divided, contrasts the cut, so that it appears that there are only two principals: thrust, and cut. </p>
 
<p>CON: According to this profound distinction of yours, it appears to me that this first division of the three types, namely, ''mandritto, rovescio'', and ''punta'', is not convenient; because the ''mandritto'' and ''rovescio'' are two prime types derived from the straight edge; and the thrust, which you have divided, contrasts the cut, so that it appears that there are only two principals: thrust, and cut. </p>
 +
| <p><br/><br/></p>
 +
 +
{{section|Page:Cod.10723 86v.jpg|2|lbl=86v.2}}
 
|  
 
|  
|  
+
{{section|Page:Lo Schermo (Angelo Viggiani) 1575.pdf/140|f1|lbl=-|p=1}}<br/><br/>
 +
 
 +
{{section|Page:Lo Schermo (Angelo Viggiani) 1575.pdf/140|1|lbl=58r.1}}
  
 
|-  
 
|-  
Line 1,045: Line 1,050:
  
 
<p>ROD: This is a most lovely objection, to which I respond, that I made those three types (''mandritto, rovescio'', and ''punta'') the principal ones, making such divisions from putting the hand to the sword (as I told you), and not according to the nature of the blows, or of the sword, or of the location, or dimensions. </p>
 
<p>ROD: This is a most lovely objection, to which I respond, that I made those three types (''mandritto, rovescio'', and ''punta'') the principal ones, making such divisions from putting the hand to the sword (as I told you), and not according to the nature of the blows, or of the sword, or of the location, or dimensions. </p>
 +
| <p><br/></p>
 +
 +
{{section|Page:Cod.10723 86v.jpg|3|lbl=86v.3}}
 +
| {{section|Page:Lo Schermo (Angelo Viggiani) 1575.pdf/140|f2|lbl=-}}
 +
 +
{{section|Page:Lo Schermo (Angelo Viggiani) 1575.pdf/140|2|lbl=58r.2}}
 +
 +
|-
 +
|
 
|  
 
|  
 +
| {{section|Page:Cod.10723 86v.jpg|4|lbl=86v.4}}
 
|  
 
|  
  
 
|-  
 
|-  
 
|  
 
|  
| <p>CON: Tell me a bit, which of these three types of blows of yours holds the first place? </p>
 
 
|  
 
|  
 +
| {{section|Page:Cod.10723 86v.jpg|5|lbl=86v.5}}
 
|  
 
|  
  
 
|-  
 
|-  
 
|  
 
|  
| <p><small>''Ranking of nobility among the types of strikes.''</small></p>
+
| <p>CON: Tell me a bit, which of these three types of blows of yours holds the first place? </p>
 +
|
 +
{{section|Page:Cod.10723 86v.jpg|6|lbl=86v.6|p=1}} {{section|Page:Cod.10723 87v.jpg|1|lbl=87v.1|p=1}}
 +
| {{section|Page:Lo Schermo (Angelo Viggiani) 1575.pdf/140|3|lbl=58r.3}}
 +
 
 +
|-
 +
| rowspan="5" |
 +
| rowspan="5" | <p><small>''Ranking of nobility among the types of strikes.''</small></p>
  
 
<p>ROD: I believe that the first would be the ''punta'', and after that the ''rovescio'', and then the ''mandritto''. </p>
 
<p>ROD: I believe that the first would be the ''punta'', and after that the ''rovescio'', and then the ''mandritto''. </p>
 +
| <p><br/></p>
 +
 +
{{section|Page:Cod.10723 87v.jpg|2|lbl=87v.2}}
 +
| class="noline" | {{section|Page:Lo Schermo (Angelo Viggiani) 1575.pdf/140|f3|lbl=-}}
 +
 +
{{section|Page:Lo Schermo (Angelo Viggiani) 1575.pdf/140|4|lbl=58r.4}}
 +
 +
|-
 +
| {{section|Page:Cod.10723 87v.jpg|3|lbl=87v.3}}
 +
| class="noline" | {{section|Page:Lo Schermo (Angelo Viggiani) 1575.pdf/140|5|lbl=58r.5}}
 +
 +
|-
 +
| {{section|Page:Cod.10723 87v.jpg|4|lbl=87v.4}}
 +
| class="noline" | {{section|Page:Lo Schermo (Angelo Viggiani) 1575.pdf/140|6|lbl=58r.6}}
 +
 +
|-
 +
| {{section|Page:Cod.10723 87v.jpg|5|lbl=87v.5}}
 +
| class="noline" | {{section|Page:Lo Schermo (Angelo Viggiani) 1575.pdf/140|7|lbl=58r.7}}
 +
 +
|-
 +
| {{section|Page:Cod.10723 87v.jpg|6|lbl=87v.6}}
 
|  
 
|  
|
 
  
 
|-  
 
|-  
|  
+
| rowspan="3" |  
| <p>CON: And I maintain the exact opposite. Because it seems to me that the ''mandritto'' is more noble, more natural, and more proper, and after that its opposite, the ''rovescio'', and finally the ''punta''; and for what reason do you assign your order? </p>
+
| rowspan="3" | <p>CON: And I maintain the exact opposite. Because it seems to me that the ''mandritto'' is more noble, more natural, and more proper, and after that its opposite, the ''rovescio'', and finally the ''punta''; and for what reason do you assign your order? </p>
|  
+
| {{section|Page:Cod.10723 87v.jpg|7|lbl=87v.7}}
|  
+
| class="noline" | {{section|Page:Lo Schermo (Angelo Viggiani) 1575.pdf/140|8|lbl=58r.8}}
 +
 
 +
|-
 +
| {{section|Page:Cod.10723 87v.jpg|8|lbl=87v.8}}
 +
| class="noline" |
 +
 
 +
|-
 +
| {{section|Page:Cod.10723 87v.jpg|9|lbl=87v.9}}
 +
| {{section|Page:Lo Schermo (Angelo Viggiani) 1575.pdf/140|9|lbl=58r.7}}
  
 
|-  
 
|-  
Line 1,073: Line 1,123:
  
 
<p>ROD: I will tell you; we must say without fail that among the offensive blows, those which have more offense are of greater perfection, and to them must be the first place. And because the thrust is of the greatest offense, and more fatal, doing damage and detriment in the depth of the body (a place more perilous, and less apt to be healed or tended) because of this we say that the ''punta'' deserves the first place; of which relates Vegetius that the Romans, when training their youths in arms, wanted them to strike more with the point than the edge, and thus doing, were more times victorious; but throwing with the edge, they remained cheated of victory on many occasions; the point therefore offers to the enemy greater terror, since that stroke is more fatal, and also offends more easily, and requires less force to drive it forward, than to throw a blow with the edge.</p>
 
<p>ROD: I will tell you; we must say without fail that among the offensive blows, those which have more offense are of greater perfection, and to them must be the first place. And because the thrust is of the greatest offense, and more fatal, doing damage and detriment in the depth of the body (a place more perilous, and less apt to be healed or tended) because of this we say that the ''punta'' deserves the first place; of which relates Vegetius that the Romans, when training their youths in arms, wanted them to strike more with the point than the edge, and thus doing, were more times victorious; but throwing with the edge, they remained cheated of victory on many occasions; the point therefore offers to the enemy greater terror, since that stroke is more fatal, and also offends more easily, and requires less force to drive it forward, than to throw a blow with the edge.</p>
|  
+
| <p><br/></p>
|  
+
 
 +
{{section|Page:Cod.10723 87v.jpg|10|lbl=87v.10}}
 +
| {{section|Page:Lo Schermo (Angelo Viggiani) 1575.pdf/140|f4|lbl=-}}
 +
 
 +
{{section|Page:Lo Schermo (Angelo Viggiani) 1575.pdf/140|10|lbl=58r.10|p=1}} {{section|Page:Lo Schermo (Angelo Viggiani) 1575.pdf/141|1|lbl=58v.1|p=1}}
  
 
|-  
 
|-  

Revision as of 22:54, 21 November 2023

Angelo Viggiani dal Montone
Died 1552
Bologna (?)
Relative(s) Battista Viggiani (brother)
Occupation Fencing master
Genres Fencing manual
Language Italian
Notable work(s) Lo Schermo (1575)
Manuscript(s) Cod. 10723 (1567)
Translations Traduction française

Angelo Viggiani dal Montone (Viziani, Angelus Viggianus; d. 1552) was a 16th century Italian fencing master. Little is known about this master's life, but he was Bolognese by birth and might also have been connected to the court of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor.[1]

In 1551, Viggiani completed a treatise on warfare, including fencing with the side sword, but died shortly thereafter. His brother Battista preserved the treatise and recorded in his introduction that Viggiani had asked him not to release it for at least fifteen years.[1] Accordingly, a presentation manuscript of the treatise was completed in 1567 as a gift for Maximilian II (1527-1576), Holy Roman Emperor. It was ultimately published in 1575 under the title Lo Schermo d'Angelo Viggiani.

Treatise

Note: This article includes a very early (2002) draft of Jherek Swanger's translation. An extensively-revised version of the translation was released in print in 2017 as The Fencing Method of Angelo Viggiani: Lo Schermo, Part III. It can be purchased at the following link in softcover.

Additional Resources

The following is a list of publications containing scans, transcriptions, and translations relevant to this article, as well as published peer-reviewed research.

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Unspecified service to Charles is mentioned in his brother's dedication on page 3.
  2. Literally, “Braggart”.
  3. Literally, “Iron Mouth”.
  4. It is conspicuous that in every other instance in the present text, (at least, in the sections translated here) Viggiani uses the term “da giuoco” (of play/practice) to refer to practice arms. Sydney Anglo (The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe p.324, footnote 102) refers to evidence showing that in late 16th century Spain the spada da marra was considered to be an Italian equivalent of the spada negra, a blunted weapon with a button, and discusses the significance of the different terms. “Marra” in modern Italian is “hoe, fluke of an anchor”, and is given by Florio (A Worlde of Wordes, 1598) to mean “a mattock, a spade, a shovell, a rake to mingle sand and lome together, a pickaxe, or such rusticke instrument.” Thus “spade da marra” may simply mean “swords of blunt metal”, and represent a standard type of practice weapon. Of possible relevance, “smarra” is used to refer to the practice rapier by Marcelli (Regole della scherma, 1686) and others, presumably as a linguistic descendent of “spade da marra” (Gaugler, The History of Fencing, 1998, p. 92); turning again to Florio, “smarrare” is given as “to pare or shave down” and so “smarra” may simply derive from the meaning of “a sword whose point has been pared down”, rather than a contraction of “spada da marra”. It is intriguing to speculate that the term was originally pejorative, suggesting something akin to “swords like shovels”.
  5. Psalm 45:3.
  6. The word for which I substitute the phrase “dull edge” is, in the original, “costa”; the relevant meaning given in Florio is “the back of a knife”. Viggiani uses it to refer, first, to a dull false edge (as in a backsword); and second, to a dull portion of either the false, or, more likely, both edges (as an extended ricasso). I am unaware of a discrete word in English that could stand in adequate stead.
  7. Psalm 149:6-7.
  8. This is almost certainly an error in the original. The text reads “se nascerà la punta dalle parti dritte, chiamerassi punta rovescia”. This is, of course, the complete opposite of what is meant by “punta rovescia”, and Viggiani immediately contradicts this statement on pg. 56V, endnote immediately following.
  9. Here the correct definition (contrary to the preceding endnote) is given: “Se si ferirà con la punta, o nascerà dalle parti diritte, & chiamerassi punta diritta, o dalle parti stanche, & chiamerassi punta rovescia…
  10. "C" is upside down.
  11. Interpreting this maneuver is problematic. It may refer to the practice of arresting a fendente by meeting it at the agent’s hand, hilt, or at worst, forte; yet no mention is made of the patient closing distance to do so, creating the impression of simply putting a hand or forearm in harm’s way rather than take the blow in the head. The relevant passage in the original is “…il suo braccio stanco tien cura, & custodia della testa in pigliare il colpo con la mano, o in ritener co’l braccio la forza sua…
  12. A braccio is a unit of length of approximately 60 centimeters. The specified distance is therefore about 30 cm, or one foot.
  13. This is, of course, in full, “guardia larga, offensiva, imperfetta”.