Jacopo Monesi

Jacopo Monesi
Born	16th century (?) Florence, Italy (?)
Died	17th century
Occupation	Fencing master
Patron	Medici court
Genres	Fencing manual
Language	Italian
Notable work(s)	Opposizioni et Avvertimenti sopra la Scherma (1640)
First printed english edition	1640

Jacopo Monesi was an Italian fencing master during the first half of the 17th century.

A native of Florence, he appears to have enjoyed enduring patronage and recognition in his own lifetime at the court of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany under Ferdinando II de' Medici.

A court document, dating to 1621, indicates Monesi's role included instructing the adolescent nobility at the grand ducal court (a claim supported by the title page of his own work):

Jacopo of the Armourer, master of fencing, is one of several masters to the pages, together with the priest Albizio Vecchi, the undermaster Frediano Tinolfi, Giovanni Migliorucci master of writing, Leonardo Migliorucci, Giovanni Pieroni the arithmetist and mathematician, Remigio Cantagallina master of drawing, and Pitti Agnolo Ricci master of dance.

In 1640 he published a short tract outlining his fencing philosophy: Opposizioni et Avvertimenti sopra la Scherma.

Monesi's text contain little technical discussion, which he defers to a promised second volume that however is either lost or was never written. Instead, Monesi strongly critiques many theories and methodologies of his peers. Behind a veil of formal language excoriating those practices he views as frivolous, or detrimental to surviving an encounter in earnest. Monesi advocates a straightforward and direct philosophy of fencing. He eschews what he sees as unnecessary embellishments, or artefacts of salle fencing, and privileges what he considers practical for surviving an unpredictable and violent confrontation with sharp weapons.

He strongly affirms the efficacy of cuts, interspersed with thrusts; and favours simple and strong natural movements, stances, and attacks. In terms of pedagogy, he forcefully promotes the primacy of practising assaults, and laments that students in his day no longer assault with the frequency and gusto of earlier times.

Among other elements he criticises: feints, elaborate postures, mathematical concepts, excessive theoretical discussion, and dagger disarms, as unhelpful and impractical for a confrontation with sharps. Without naming names Monesi appears to clearly reference, again critically, the work of Docciolini, Fabris, Marozzo, and Pistofilo.

Alongside such direct critiques, Monesi includes less specifically targeted remonstrations. For example, he objects to the pedagogical method of masters who employ a chestplate, or a cane in place of a sword. Similarly, he leaves space for conventional discussion points of the period, such as where to look when fencing, or how to approach combat at night.

Treatise

Introduction and dedication

Draft Translation by Piermarco Terminiello	Transcription
On the Subject of Fencing By Jacopo Monesi Known as the Armourer Master of Arms to the Most Serene of Tuscany, and Their Gentleman Pages Dedicated to the Most Illustrious Sir Count Francesco Piccolomini of Aragon In Florence, at the New Press M.DC.XXXX With Permission from the Authorities
Most Illustrious and Noble Sir and Patron The shade of your Most Illustrious Lordship's great protection, has generated in me an uncommon yearning to bring to light that which has been hidden in the shadows of my intellect for many years. For some time I have had in mind to make public certain discourses on the most excellent profession of fencing, but the awareness of my scarce ability to articulate them, caused the heat of my enthusiasm to cool. This yearning only then emerges, through confiding in the patronage of your Most Illustrious Lordship, wishing to express these concepts in the best manner possible. Therefore this is entrusted only to you, as has happened in the past with honour, once again I opted for your support in bringing this forth, so that anything that is deemed monstrous will nonetheless (protected by the greatness of your Most Illustrious Lordship) be embraced, and be appraised with a not less than benign eye. Please deign therefore to protect it with benevolence, recognising it as a sign of my dutiful observance to your Most Illustrious Lordship's great merit, to which I reverently bow, praying for your every most coveted happiness. Your devoted and most obligated servant Jacopo Monesi, known as the Armourer.
To the Benevolent Reader It has been for a number of years that despite the weakness of my intellect I have wanted to present my thoughts on the play of fencing, which has been my particular profession. But since the world has seen others elevated, and granted them brilliant ability with which they delight and are delighted, I considered it best to keep my thoughts buried within me. Considering however that in some printed books you find an exorbitance of guards, and other extravagances, and witnessing this noble exercise reduced more to discourse than practice, the desire I have (if successful) to demonstrate the true play, and method of combat, made me resolve first to declare my objections, then to explain the correct method. In conformance therefore with what the Most Illustrious Sir Silvio Piccolomini of Aragon (excellent in this exercise, and more so in military disciplines) taught me, after my first master Cosimo Paradisi, in the chapters that follow I will narrate as openly as I can what is recounted. But since the greatest detriment to this exercise, in my view, comes from neglecting to struggle with the sword in hand, in practising assaults, I will deal with this first, explaining the reasons why I believe this is, as I commence.
Might it please Sir Canon Carlo del Vigna to see if the present work contains anything repugnant to Christian piety, and public morals, and refer back. The 30th January 1639. Vincenzio Rabatta, Vicar of Florence In the present work, having reviewed it in all diligence, I found nothing repugnant to Christian piety, or public morals. 25th February 1639. Carlo del Vigna, Canon of Florence Most Reverend Father Inquisitor, By your order of Most Reverend Father I have reviewed this present discourse on fencing, and I have not found anything repugnant to the Religion, orto public morals, judging it worthy of publication. 26th March 1640. Girolamo Rosati, Protonotary and Consultant of the Holy Office This can be printed. Florence 3rd April 1640. Father Giovanni Angeli, Vicar of the Holy Office, by order of Senator Alessandro Vettori, Auditor of His Most Serene Highness

Notes on fencing

Draft Translation by Piermarco Terminiello	Transcription
Chapter One Ambition, which without fail is the cause of every ill, especially in virtuous exercises, I know to be the true basis and root of a rather notable vice. Every day we see youths of such ambition, that under the cloak of letting their virtue be known, out of all proportion, neglect the importance of possessing such virtue, and as soon as they arrive in schools to learn, having imbibed just a few lessons, allow themselves to be inflated by excessive pretension, and judge themselves to be masters. Therefore it happens (and I speak in particular of this exercise) that in public schools, and especially in private houses, with youths of equal quality gathered to practice assaults, you find some who do not grasp the sword if not to teach, nor to learn in any other way. This outlook is so pernicious, that for this reason you no longer hear of people gathering for common benefit and practice, and to pass the time in the virtue of fencing. Those who have distinguished themselves up until now, demonstrating their valour and knowledge, in my view did not take this route. Indeed anxious to prove their worth as gallant men at every occasion, in any place, and against any person, I believe they sought to learn. Because to understand a discipline well, you have to practise it, you cannot learn with theory alone. It is not a good way to master a skill, to think you can attain it without effort and sacrifice. Those who think to proceed like this, infallibly discover through experience how much they have deluded themselves. Another active and real problem I bring up, just as damaging as the first although stemming from the same ambition, is the disparity between people. You cannot deny that an artisan (who delights in virtue as is understandable), can through his diligence and vivacity arrive at the goal of fencing well with the sword. Indeed because this exercise is extremely capable of elevating the most lowly individual, it often happens that by applying their spirit, those of base condition become more distinguished. The damage therefore that ambition brings, is to be ashamed to practice assaults with someone of lowly hand. To not consider you could extract some fruit even from these people, throwing yourself into the profession. This thought is erroneous, because it is essential to know that virtue levels all people; and that a virtuoso can be considered the equal not just of a simple gentleman, but of any prince or great lord. These are the reasons I give, demonstrating why today assaults are dismissed, neglecting the chance to benefit from the luxury of living, before the waning of youthful years deprives you of every worthwhile activity.
Chapter Two – On the same subject You can clearly tell from my previous discourse how much damage ambition brings, and how it is a reason for not mastering this beautiful virtue of fencing. But I will now demonstrate furthermore how discussion of this profession, which today's students engage in more than practice, causes notable harm. The truth is that lessons taken in any subject in the day are of no use if their operations are not exercised. That which pertains to bodies of reason: such as logic, philosophy, and so forth, must be put in practice with words alone, as they are necessary to expound such virtues. However in the profession of fencing words have no place to execute well what the students have learned from the master. Actions are needed when it comes to training your body for defence and attack. This is not applied by today's youth, which is a further reason why assaults no longer take place, and students neglect to learn wielding a sword in hand well. It then follows that masters are judged and branded as inept in their craft, since they no longer produce students as they did in the past. When youngsters come together, sometimes from the schools of different masters in this profession, instead of putting their studies to the test, with the cloak across their shoulders, as well as with the simple sword in hand, they begin to discuss among themselves: “If I delivered this thrust how would you parry it?”. The other replies “I would do it in this way, or like this” to which the first responds “But if it were a cut, how would you defend yourself” again its counter is added, and they carry on ad infinitum in this manner, disregarding gainful practice. See if this is the best way to safeguard yourself, and benefit through the profession. Then test with a sharp sword (which could happen), whether these people would have time for such a parliament. Action is required for exercises which engage the body, words cannot grant a student resolution to confront his opponent, or courage and practice to defend himself. This is as much as I thought to say on this matter.
Chapter Three – On putting mathematics into this virtue I have never presumed to malign anyone who professes to teach this noble exercise, nor do I intend to now, recognising myself as the inferior to many gallant men who have practised this virtue. But we are permitted to debate upon the lessons of some, who have taught and teach through mathematics, with the addition of lines, circles, traverses and extravagant voids of the body. For me, these are commendable for fencing in a clean salle, furnished with even tiles. Likewise it is impossible for two people not to put on a good display, when they politely retreat, then void, or advance with a neat step, putting into practice what they have learned from their masters. But if I imagine them outside the tiled hall, that is in the streets, where confrontations most often arise, then I can't help but criticise and malign them, since it is impossible (for reasons I will explain) to put these actions into practice. Someone who is confronted or deliberately summoned to combat, cannot I believe, as happens in large armies, bring with them people to dig; to resurface the street so they can put themselves in the right posture, and use their lines, and advances of ground, and binds of the sword in conformance with their lessons. Instead, being confronted, they are obliged to think how to stand firmly on their feet, to be vigorous in defence and attack, ready of hand, without such fine distinctions of footwork. Furthermore those who employ the sword in this manner, can be called good and beautiful fencers, but in an open space, or street where stones, holes, and cracks can cause you to stumble, they are always in danger of defending themselves poorly from their enemy. In such cases most of the time the artifices of traverses, voids and lines are left aside, and they throw themselves into natural attacks, as is so often seen. This itself is sufficient demonstration, although I can elaborate for greater clarity, that play founded upon natural reason is with no comparison much better than artificious play. The latter was invented for no motive other than satisfying the curiosity of youth. If it were otherwise, it would not be the case, not only in public schools but also in the presence of nobility with the intervention of great princes, that professors of play founded upon such twists of the body had been touched assault after assault, with cuts and thrusts, as is clear and manifest to a great many people.
Chapter Four – On a defined punto to attack This seems to me an important subject, in order to be accomplished in assaults. I will merely state my thoughts on those who, as a principal maxim, hold and practise the opinion that it is better to attack only a single part of the body, namely the right shoulder, being the said punto. Firstly, you must consider the reason why they observe this doctrine. I believe it is for no reason other than to strike either the nearest, or the most vulnerable part of the body. If we suppose they hold this view, because they want to strike the nearest target, I completely refute their opinion. Hands and arms notwithstanding, I know how those who lean most stand, even their knees are closer and more likely to be attacked by the enemy. If they wish to propose the other reason, that it is the most vulnerable part of the body, I can only oppose them entirely. It seems to me that the hands and arms are subjected to danger: both of being wounded, and of the intermediate outcome of losing the ability to attack. Furthermore experience, which instructs in all things, shows us that in a good portion of combats you see wounds to the hands and arms. This is because these can more easily encounter the enemy's weapons. If they deem the area called the punto so vulnerable, I do not know which hands and arms are not in the same danger. In them you find veins, arteries and other very vulnerable areas which evidently have shown to cause the death of those wounded there. This is as much as I can say on this particular. I urge everyone to take the whole of the enemy's body as the fixed punto to attack, and specifically the part that presents itself as most uncovered and furthest forward. There is much more that could be said, for example if your opponent is left-handed, or in other situations, but to avoid tedium I will omit it. Additional Resources References