Oops!

[Guy Windsor]

Hi

I have recently had the pleasure of training with both Bob Charron and Rob Lovett, who have been working intensively on Fiore’s system.

They both brought to my attention the terms giocco stretto and giocco largo, as used by Fiore, and it appears that I am using them incorrectly in my book (The Swordsmans’s Companion). This is a simple case of mistranslation, and of my using the terminology incorrectly, and I would like to clear it up. It appears that the terms refer to how the incrosada is made, and do not have anything to do with distance at all.

I’d be obliged therefore if all of you who have a copy of my book would take a pencil and strike out the terms as they appear there, and replace giocco stretto with “close quarters” and giocco largo with “long distance”. That is what I took them to mean in English, but I was wrong. Substituting the English terms will correct the mistake. Many thanks for your patience, and particularly to Bob and Rob for setting me straight.

Unfortunately this did not happen in time to make the second print run, but if there be a third, I’ll have it fixed by then.

Yours

Guy Windsor

[parisi carlo]

Wow, that's scholar honesty.
A friend of mine who trained with you told me good things. He was right.
Cap

[Tom Leoni]

I'll tell the silly person who wrote the Spotlight review on Amazon.com.

Tom

[RASpreier]

That's very honest of you. I'm very impressed. I'm glad I chose to buy your book.

[Dwight McLemore]

Guy:

Don't feel alone. Norm Flayderman recently published his Text THE BOWIE KNIFE UNSHEATHING AN AMERICAN LEGEND which more or less 'shot holes' in some of my theories in BOWIE & BIG KNIFE FIGHTING SYSTEM. All that can be said is that it was what we knew at the time. To me, your comments on this forum just reaffirmed what a professional you are. Forie would be happy with you. You know it take courage to publish books .

Best
Dwight

[Christopher Blakey]

Thanks for the update. It is very noble of you. As a novice I have to say that your book is very well appreciated for foundation studies. It's a great piece of work. Thank you so much.

So, Giocco Stretto is on page 157+ right.

Giocco Largo is, Oh, I found it; Page 124.

Anywhere else?

Also;
Are there many differences or revisions between the first and second print runs? We are working off your first edition but it's getting a bit dog-eared from our sweaty hands so if the second edition has corrections then I might consider a new copy.

[Gregory Mele]

Hey Guy,

Big kudos on intellectual honesty, many folk simply wouldn't do that; they'd just quietly change things.

But I don't think you need to beat your breast too hard over this or stop the presses. Your definition may not be that off.

Bob's theory is just that - a theory, and not one universally shared. Indeed, not to mince words, I don't. Or more to the point, I think that the issue is being forced, and is largely an issue of semantics; namely what is meant by "wide" and "close" play?

I don't know Rob's position on this, but I know that Bob's is based on the figures being drawn at the same distance - with the swords crossed mezza spada. Therefore, I believe he interprets this to be based instead on foot-position and which line is therefore presented to the attack. Gioco largo = an attack to the outside (shown in the plays where the scholar is receving a forehand blow with his left leg advanced), and gioco stretto = an attack "inside" (shown in the plays where the same blow is received with the right leg forward). Ie: it is about line and has nothing to do with distance, basically, something like Silver's "wide" and "narrow spaced".

IMO, there are several problems with the theory:

1. The first obvious problem being that would mean that Fiore was at variance with every other Italian master in this regard, including Vadi, who is in his own lineage. The Bolognese masters have some "narrow" guards, but it is not related to line like this (it refers to where your point is), and they use gioco largo and gioco stretto in just the way you do.

2. Mezza spada is the point of transition in Italian sword arts (pre-rapier, I won't speak for the rapier), much as it is with Silver's crossing at the half-sword. From mezza spada you can still uncross and cut, but you can also take grips, strike, etc. You can't do that further out on the sword, which is why the first play of gioco largo, despite having the figures at the same physical distance apart as every other incrossada, can only be done in gioco largo - it is impossible to take a grip because the bind will never last for more than a hundreth of a second. (I also think it is why this is the first incrossada play taught - it's very subtle and really shows just how fast and ephemeral an "incrossada" can be.)

3. There *is* still an issue of distance. Or more to the point, the managment of distance. Try it out, stand left leg forward and have a student cut at your with a mandritta. Now switch feet. Your target area - the left side of your body is now more refused. Not by much, but what it changes is what you can do if the blades cross at the half-sword.

Look at the grips used in gioco largo - a grip to the end of the sword, an elbow push, a kick and a grab at hand level. Within the realm of grappling, those are long range attacks, made without footwork or by passing the rear foot in to the center. And throughout you always maintain the physical distance to use your sword's edge and point.

Contrast this with the plays of gioco stretto. The pass in of the rear foot brings you in deep on the outside of the attacker's sword hand, so that you can make actions such as pommel strikes and throws. That pass covers more distance because of how you crossed swords, and brings you into wrestling range. That's "close play". It brings you to the outside of his sword for the same tactical reason any grappling art does - safety. It is patently stupid to close in on someone's center when it is going to come to wrestling, unless you are absolutely certain you can shut them down. If you wanna see why, Guy, think of yourself closing in on Rob...

So, all of the plays are taught from mezza spada, but the two sets differ in how you manage distance from that point. In the gioco largo plays your response can be on either side of his sword hand, but you can't close in to wrestling, as the pass straight forward with the rear leg brings you right up his center - which is why Fiore saves it for a long-range attack - a kick. The plays primarily focus on using the point and edge of the sword. The gioco stretto plays pass in with the opposite foot, and close in to wrestling range, and primarily revolve around passing the rear foot to the outside of his weapon hand. They cover more distance and come to the close.

The division of these two sections is really no different then what's in other pre-rapier literature of whatever tradition; indeed, gioco stretto really is probably where the two traditions look the most alike.

I want to be clear that I think Bob's theory is worth exploring, whether I agree with it or not. He's teaching it at WMAW and I'm the programming chair, so I must think so, eh? Certainly, when he first proposed it to me, we exchange a number of long emails on the idea and it forced me to go back to all of those plays and analyze them yet again, which is a very good thing.

But I think we are perhaps bogging down in theory, to the point of semantics, not martial theory. I personally think that which leg is forward is simply a tactical consideration that determines what *distance* the technique that comes out of the cross at the half-sword can be executed in; the half-sword being the place at which you have either possibility. It is still about the managment of distance, and thus is the "largo" and "stretto" still refer to distance - the distance at which the technique plays, and that is why the the plays of gioco largo and gioco stretto in Fiore can neatly match with the way other Italian masters divide them - they are both refering to an issue of distance. I realize that I can be a little too fond of Occam's Razor as a test for interpretation, but I think it holds here.

Respectfully,

Greg

[Rob Lovett]

Hi Guy,

Thanks for crediting myself there.

Greg,

Just scanned through all of your post.

My position is close to Bob's from what I have read of your understanding, I believe that Largo and Stretto is referring to lines of approach as dictated by the foot position, and the clue to this is with the first pictures of the two 2-handed sword sections - as you have said, but also it is a management of distance

Largo - wide, loose - so you maintain a wider angle of approach to your attacks - so if I had the right foot forward a la the first image of Stretto, I could choose to step wide and maintain that distance.
Stretto - tight, narrow, so you move towards your opponent, usually to the outside of his blade, so if I had the left foot forward a la the first image of Largo I could step in close, however this time I would be wanting to pass to my right.

I do not see how this is really at variance with Vadi.

Sorry have not done this post justice - shall we talk about this in September?

Regards
Rob

[Guy Windsor]

The danger with publishing a book is that it can be taken as the unalterable truth, as opposed to one person's considered but ultimately fallible opinion.

One thing is clear from the above posts (for which many thanks all): the exact meaning of the terms under discussion is by no means settled. That being the case, I think the sensible course is for all you chaps with pencils poised undecided as to whether you should go ahead and scribble or not to take the plunge and make the change. My book divides techniques by distance, not by line; so however Fiore is using the terms, it is clearly at least subtly different to the way I am.

One of the goals of writing the book in the first place was to encourage beginners to get to grips with each other, and with the treatises. I hope this discussion will further encourage them to go to the sources and see what they find for themselves.

[Jörg B.]

All possible discussions aside, Guy, my already high esteem of you as a person and teacher has again grown by leaps and bounds after reading this.

This thread shows me why I prefer this community to all others.

'We happy few...'


I look forward to train with you in September.

HUSSA!

Jörg

[Rob Lovett]

Hi Guy,

Absolutely - hell lots of people are happy with the concept of different distance, as opposed to line, that's fine, and a concept that you cannot throw away, in my opinion.

It is only when you get people prepared to crawl up their own backside exploring these texts that we get all testy about definitions and come up with some wierd doodah!

I hope that people go and look at these texts for themselves, it is a useful thing to do, after all none of us live 500 years ago, so none of us really know what these guys are really getting at, all we are doing is guessing.

Regards
ROb

[Matt Easton]

This is one of those discussions that is better shown in person than written in words - at least for me!
But, if there is a divide between the a) distance camp and b) line camp, I'm afraid I fall into both, and am therefore maybe 'camp c' (no camp jokes please Rob )???

For me Gioco Largo and Gioco Stretto are divided by both line and distance, though for me I can't separate the two - as the placement of the feet gives you the ability to close or not close the distance after the cross, as Greg mentioned - I think? So to a certain degree I define the distance as what you are able to reasonably do after that cross, rather than purely your distance in the cross... I hope that makes sense.

Nice to see academic honesty though - hopefully you'll be able to pay us a visit as well some time Guy. And one day we should surely have a seminar for all the Fiore people.

Ciao,

Matt

[David M. Cvet]

Great thread, gentlemen. Guy, an honorable gesture.

Often times, I disagree with Matt's opinions in these forums, but in this case, I agree with his comment. I think that being too narrow in the interpretation of Liberi can result in missing the forest for the trees. The combination of his multi-dimensional illustrations accompanied with text continually illustrates the genius of Liberi, and therefore, to become narrowly hung up on specific semantics of Friuli, marginalizes his message.

/d

[Matt Easton]

Originally posted by David M. Cvet
Often times, I disagree with Matt's opinions in these forums

LOL.. It must be my dialect, because when I go to events I don't get people telling me I'm doing anything very different to most other people . The Germans always try to convince me I'm teaching Liechtenauer.. Last time I saw Rob teaching there were only tiny things that were physically different to what we do - yet we explain ourselves in very different ways online...
As I said - these things are better shown than written - I bet we're all actually doing basically very similar things.

Matt

[Gregory Mele]

Hi all,

Originally posted by Matt Easton
[B]For me Gioco Largo and Gioco Stretto are divided by both line and distance, though for me I can't separate the two - as the placement of the feet gives you the ability to close or not close the distance after the cross, as Greg mentioned - I think? So to a certain degree I define the distance as what you are able to reasonably do after that cross, rather than purely your distance in the cross... I hope that makes sense.

Yes! This was exactly my point. The foot orientation and how it affects line is correct, but it remains directly tied to issues of measure. The reason for all of this being taught at the half-sword is that it is the place from which you can play both narrow and wide. Any closer in and the play becomes narrow, any further out and it always become wide.

Rob - as you, Bob, Guy, Brian, Sean and I will all be in one place in September, and besides Matt that is most of the Fiore folks, I think we'd be horribly amiss not to work on this, eh? Perhaps over a little wine...

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Kudos to Guy for stepping up,

My take,

Line, distance and engagment are so intertwined as to be difficult to define.

I think the terms Long Play and Close Play imply the intermingling of these concepts into a single term, expressed as an Idea, a concept rather than a rule.

A long play engagment can quicly become close play with a passing of the foot, So an action can begin at Long and become short, begin short and become long .. or start long and stay long or start short and stay short.

and to me this idea is encompassed in the terms Long *play* and Short *play*

but as always .. this is a moving target.. and this idea with further experimentation and "fermentation" may mature to something else. or at least some thing clearer.

Good conversation, and I suspect we are more on the same page than we expect.

We are at least in the same book..That much is certain

[Sean Hayes]

Originally posted by Gregory Mele
Rob - as you, Bob, Guy, Brian, Sean and I will all be in one place in September, and besides Matt that is most of the Fiore folks, I think we'd be horribly amiss not to work on this, eh? Perhaps over a little wine...

Now that sounds like more fun should be legally allowed...count me in!

More later, when I recover from giving this afternoon's presentation on the artwork of I.33.

Sean

[Rob Lovett]

I agree with everything.....

Matt, I don't do camp jokes - I am far too much into cottaging cheese - has any one got an original recipe

Yes, there are different concepts given in those mezza spada positions and do not necessarily mean that one is right or not, but I think can all exist comfortably together.

Yeah, I think that chatting and doing in September will be great - but I am worried that the wine may spill ;0

Regards
Rob

[Adam Velez]

OK, so how can I get in on this, too.

Although I've only been seriously working with Liberi since November, I have been following, reading, and working, with many of your collected ideas (most recently with Bob in May), along with my own, and will have my first two opportunities to teach on the subject in June & July. I feel confident that I could contribute to the cause.

I may be mostly an independent, and a rapierist at heart, but Fiore has taken over my life of late, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Originally posted by Gregory Mele
Rob - as you, Bob, Guy, Brian, Sean and I will all be in one place in September, and besides Matt that is most of the Fiore folks, I think we'd be horribly amiss not to work on this, eh? Perhaps over a little wine...

Either way, I look forward to seeing y'all at WMAW, and yeah: Guy, you rock.


Adam

PS. Afterall, Matt won't be there, so I can take his place.
--and Matt, the offer still stands, if things change and you could make it, Chris & I can put you up, so you wouldn't need a hotel.

[Gregory Mele]

Originally posted by Adam Velez
[B]

I may be mostly an independent, and a rapierist at heart, but Fiore has taken over my life of late, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Bwah-ha-ha, at last you succomb to the medieval side.....

oops, wrong thread.

[Matt Easton]

Originally posted by Adam Velez
PS. Afterall, Matt won't be there, so I can take his place.
--and Matt, the offer still stands, if things change and you could make it, Chris & I can put you up, so you wouldn't need a hotel.

I really appreciate the offer Adam, and Heather kindly offered as well! Sadly I just don't think I can stretch to it, partly thanks to the mortgage etc, but also because I've got a bunch of weddings and stuff I have to go to abroad this year and there's only so much holiday time available...

But if you're in London again then come and visit!

Oh, and another way I may be able to contribute from afar, is at some stage we actually plan to put up 'teaching' or explanation vids of our interpretations on the site.

Matt

[Colin Hatcher]

Guy I recently acquired and read your book and thoroughly enjoyed it. That doesn't mean I agree with everything you say about Fiore. But nor does my disagreement or anyone's mean you should change your opinion. The jury is still out on a lot of Fiore. Bob is certainly out there at the frontier. But he is not the only one exploring.

I am aware of Bob's theory on largo and stretto (communicated and shown to me second hand I might add by my fellow instructors Robert and Scott who attended Bob's recent seminar on the West coast.) Certainly if you choose to translate it as wide and narrow and look at leg positions you can present more than one theory on lines of attack. And Bob clearly has.

Well I am looking forward to attending Bob's upcoming seminar in San Jose, CA - which will be all about giocco largo and stretto - I agree that doing it is easier than talking it.

But at present I have a problem calling Fiore's giocco largo "wide" because in my experience the longer range giocco largo lines are in practice narrower, and it is the shorter range giocco stretto lines that are wider, due to changes in footwork and body position.

If I take a left lead and you take a right lead we are farther apart than if we both take the same lead. Left lead versus right lead also closes lines of attack but it is difficult to close to grapple at the body. Normally what happens is one person makes a passing step to close from largo to stretto. Now the leg position has changed and so has the range. But now so have the lines of attack. In other words in my experience the target options have become wider, not narrower when moving from largo to stretto.

Thus my understanding is that if I translate largo as "wide" I am referring to the "wide" or "long" distance to the target's body rather than a wider line of attack. LIkewise when I use "stretto" as "narrow" I mean the narrow distance (or short distance) to the target's body. At largo range one can only reach the limbs of the opponent (wrist to elbow and also the knees. At stretto one can reach the shoulder body and head.

Speaking as a Westcountryman from England with more than a passing interest in grappling, I understand Fiore's largo and stretto to be articulating the same concepts as the "In-play" and "Out-play" techniques from English west-country wrestling. Out play focuses on tripping and limb manipulation from wrist to elbow. In-play focusses on manipulation of the shoulder head and body.

See for example Sir Thomas Parkyns wrestling treatise from 1727: "The Inn-Play or Cornish-Hugg Wrestler"

Here you see references to "inn-play" and "out-play" as well as the terms "narrow" and "loose". Consider these comments for example:

"The out-players and such would throw their adversary at trip, must observe that when they put themselves out of the line of direction, either by moving at arm's end, crossing of legs, or counterpoising as they design the bearing, or draught by the arms, or trippping and drawing past their line of direction; then's the perfect crisis to catch their loose leg and trip, or strike at their standing leg."

and

"But if you intend to shift, and play the loose leg, don't (stand wide as in). but narrow and loose, and let your leg which he designeth to trip inmost, (which you easily may know by the hold he taketh on you stand fast on that leg which you set backwards, and so soon as he toucheth your leg with his foot to draw you over, throw your heel backwards, as if you would kneel upon his leg; then may you, if quick, catch the outside of his leg, or down quick with yours to the ground, and recover your stand."

The Cornish school tended to prefer the "in-play" also called "hugg wrestling", while the Devon school tended to go for the "out-play", also referred to as the "loose leg" style. Now for me that's an English way of saying Devonians liked "giocco largo" and Cornishmen liked "giocco stretto". I am from Somerset by the way

One could also look at this largo/stretto issue using language from the asian systems. In Aikido, in which I have some knowledge, one has the concepts of "gyaku hanmi" (reverse guard) and "ai hanmi" (matched guard) which describes whether you approach with matched leads (eg both in right lead) which is "ai hanmi" or unmatched leads (left against right) which is "gyaku" or "reverse/opposite". Now ai and gyaku do not refer to distance, but to lines of attack - gyaku closes more lines (narrows), while in ai you have more lines (wider), but an attack in gyaku hanmi is also necessarily longer range than an attack in ai hanmi, simply because of body mechanics. Are ai-hanmi and gyaku-hanmi Japanese concepts for giocco largo and stretto? In my opinion yes, one could look at them like that

Once again the connection for me is long range/narrower options, close range/wider options. This does not square for me with the idea that "giocco largo" refers to long (range) and wide (lines) while "giocco stretto" refers to close (range) and narrow (lines).

As to the idea of largo referring to "outside" and stretto "inside", that also just does not square with my practice of Fiore. In my opinion Fiore shows giocco stretto plays occurring both inside the line and outside the line. LIkewise largo - both inside and outside. In the Novati giocco largo section for example, the second, fourth, fifth, sixth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth largo plays are all inside the line of the opponent, not outside.

Anyway, that's my tuppence ha'penny worth.

regards
Colin

*************************
Colin Hatcher
Instructor
Schola Saint George - California
www.scholasaintgeorge.org
*************************

[Gregory Mele]

Colin,

A really brilliant post! Thanks for sharing.

Your comments about "In" and "Out Play" I think concord with what I was trying to articulate above in my rather garbled fashion.

Originally posted by Colin Hatcher
One could also look at this largo/stretto issue using language from the asian systems. In Aikido, in which I have some knowledge, one has the concepts of "gyaku hanmi" (reverse guard) and "ai hanmi" (matched guard) which describes whether you approach with matched leads (eg both in right lead) which is "ai hanmi" or unmatched leads (left against right) which is "gyaku" or "reverse/opposite". Now ai and gyaku do not refer to distance, but to lines of attack - gyaku closes more lines (narrows), while in ai you have more lines (wider), but an attack in gyaku hanmi is also necessarily longer range than an attack in ai hanmi, simply because of body mechanics.

And yes, again, this was my other point - there is a simple physical reality that affects distance in how you play, depending on which leg leads, which is why I think the managment of distance - specifically understanding which options are available -remains the central point of largo and stretto.

Will we see you at WMAW this year?

[Sean Hayes]

Now this is the kind of meat-and-potatoes discussion that keeps me crawling the often dull fora and e-mail lists.

Bob acquainted me with his theory on the crossing at the outside line (zogho largo) and the crossing at the inside line (zogho stretto) some months back. I didn't have a chance to see it taught at 4W, since I was also teaching most of that weekend, and I filled my free time with electives (Kristie Charron's excellent presentation on medieval horsemanship among them) and work with some other colleagues on thorny problems in I.33.

But since then I have been meditating on it and thinking it over. I think it's an interesting idea and a worthy theory to explore, but I'm not yet convinced that it's what Fiore is speaking to when he speaks of zogho largo and zogho stretto.

As I understand the theory:

Zogho largo is the set of plays that follow after the crossing at the outside line, where "outside" is defined as being outside the lead foot: if you cross in the outside line you are wide-spaced (largo) and have the space to the opponent's inside line (where he has only your outside line) to effect thrusts and counter-cuts, and also those zogho largo plays that do have a grappling element.

Zogho stretto is the set of plays that follow from the crossing at the inside line, where "inside" is defined as being inside the lead foot: if you cross in the inside line you are narrow-spaced and both of you have the inside line; you must either come to the other side of his sword or grapple, the narrow (stretto) spacing between the two of you allowing for the use of the prese.

If this is a correct summation of Bob's theory, then it's a little simplistic say that "largo is outside" and "stretto is inside". If I understand him correctly, it is specific to the play that follows the crossing, (and not the distance at which that crossing is made): it's more accurate to say that "largo crosses outside of the scholar and plays inside to the inside of the player", and "stretto crosses inside of the scholar and plays either side of the player". I've used "scholar" and "player" (instead of agent and patient, etc) as most readily fitting the manner in which Fiore lays out his plays.

However, I have some unanswered questions about the application of the theory to Fiore's text. Some presented themselves to me right away, and some have developed over time. The first question arises from the fact that Fiore shows plays to either side (eg line) from the crossing of the first remedy master of zogho largo at the sword in two hands, and also the colpo di villano and punta curta (stemming from the cover of the second remedy master)specifically play to the other side after the crossing.

Further, the first play of zogho largo makes clear that you can either thrust directly or cut to the other side (Getty MS):

Qui cominza zogho di spada a doy man zogho largo. Questo magistro ch’è qui incrosado cum questo zugadore in punta de spada dise: quando io son incrosado in punta de spada / subito io dò volta ala mia spada e sì lo fiero da l’altra parte cum lo fendente zò per la testa e per gli brazi / overo che gli metto una punta in lo volto / come vederi qui dredo depinto.

Here commences the play of the sword in two hands [at] wide play. This master that is crossed with this player at [the] point of the sword says: when I am crossed at the point of the sword / I quickly give a turn of my sword and wound [strike] him on the other side with a fendente on the head or arms / or else place a thrust in the face / as seen here now shown.

Io t’ò posta una punta in lo volto come lo magistro ch’è denanzi dise. Anchora porìa aver fatto zò ch’ello dise zoè aver tratto de mia spada subito quando io era appresso lo incrosare della parte dritta: de l’altra parte zoè d’la stancha io debeva voltare la mia spada in lo fendente per la testa e per gli brazzi / como à ditto lo mio magistro ch’è denanzi.

I here place a thrust in your face as the master that was before said. Still I am able to make that of which he spoke to quickly [and] immediately when I am pressed [by] the crossing of the right side: to the other side to the left [zoè d'la stancha?] I must turn a fendente to the face or the arms / as was said [by] the master who came before.

If the player closes the scholar to his (the player's) right, the scholar will turn a fendente to the left side. If zogho largo plays only to the inside of the player, then how is this play - the first play, at the end of the sword - reconciled? There are two options, one to either side, from the crossing to the outside: one plays inside, one plays outside. The time is afforded because it happens at the end of the sword, where the distance is longer than at the middle of the sword and it is possible to wheel that fendente around the point of the other sword.

(I do know how Bob does this play on the same side, with the excellent theory of the "single imperfect time" derived from Aristotle's Physics, but that's not how I read the play. In this instance I think Bob's practice is correct, but the theory doesn't reconcile with the play: I see the blow Bob makes as being a variant of the thrust mentioned by Fiore - and a perfectly viable and martially correct choice - but I don't think it's the second play discussed but not shown by Fiore. Apologies if I'm not up-to-date on interpretations, by the way: the last time I saw the blow was at 2:37 pm on Friday February 25, when Bob skillfully placed it upside my head. )

There follows a second remedy master who is the exemplar for the remaining zogho largo plays. The critical difference between the two masters is is that the second crosses at the mid-point of the sword (meza spada). At this measure the play to the opposite side will not work as it does for the first remedy master, which is why the colpo di villano plays to the other side but in a different fashion, by slipping the blow and deflecting the energy of that blow down to the ground. (Greg has already spoken to the nature of the grips taken from this remedy master.)

Finally, at the end of the zogho largo section of the sword in two hands, where the plays are based on the crossing at the middle of the sword, Fiore says (Getty MS):

Qui finisse zogho largo de la spada a doy mani / che sono zoghi uniti gli quali àno zoghi / zoè rimedi e contrari da parte dritta e de parte riversa / e contrapunte e contratagli de zaschuna rasone cum roture coverte / ferire e ligadure che tutte queste chose lizerissimamente se ponno intendere.

Here finishes [the] wide play of the sword in two hands / there are twenty plays that can be played / has [that have? zoè] remedies and counters of the right side and the reverse side / and counterpoints and countercuts of every [? de zaschune] reason with turns [roture] covers / strikes and bindings [ligadure] that all these things learned [? lizerissima mente] may [be] carefully understood.

Qui cominza zogho de spada a doy man zogo stretto / in lo quale sarà d’ogni rasone coverte / e ferire e ligadure e dislogadure e prese e tore de spade / e sbatter in terra per diversi modi. E sarano gli rimedi e gli contrari de zaschuna rasone che bisogna a offender e a defender.

Here commences [the] play of the sword in two hands [at] close play / in which will be covers of every reason / and wounds and binds and dislocations (or "unbindings" - ? - dislogadure) and grapplings (prese) and turns of the sword / and to slam[s] to the ground in various ways. And there will be the remedies and the contraries of every [? zaschuna] reason desired for offense and defense.

(Translations mine, but with acknowledgements to Bob Charron and Greg Mele; transcription of the original by Marco Rubolli)

So this is a bridging statement that links the two sections, and also makes a distinction between them. (Note that Fiore bridges elsewhere in the text, as between sections on abrazare and daga by using the bastoncello, etc.) Fiore says that the plays of the first section can be used on both sides, and against cuts and thrusts of every type. He doesn't say they can be done from all poste (as I said in another thread; sorry for the error ), but he is clear that in this statement that zogho largo can work to either side. He may mean that the crossing has to be to the outside line: either to the left if the left foot is forward, or to the right if the right foot is forward (and this is the part of the theory I find easiest to accept), but given that his examplary twenty plays have several that play to both sides/lines of the player, I am not convinced that the plays follow only to the inside.

Now, right above those two statements (which have no illustrations of their own) Fiore shows the play of the "short point" (punta curta), where the scholar throws a mezzani man dritta, drawing a cover from the player. The cover is interesting: the player who makes it is shown right foot forward, making the same cover of the master of zogho stretto on the following page. The scholar of the master of zogho largo defeats this cover by immediately playing to the other side of the player's sword - to the outside of the player's lead foot. He does so from the cover of his master: left foot leading, and since he originally threw a mezzani man dritta, he must have done so either without moving his feet or from a volta stabile. He remains left foot forward (as his master is also left foot forward) but he has now taken the play to his own inside/the player's outside - to what would be zogho stretto using the above theory, since he took his sword to the other side. But the key element is that he brings his point around to the other line/side of the player's sword.

It seems to me the scholar of the master of zogho largo can only take his sword's point to the other side if the measure is sufficiently large to allow it - otherwise he must take the pommel to the other side, as the 2nd and 3rd scholars of the master of zogho stretto in the very next section do. (This is a mnemonic echo of the set-up of the very first play of the first remedy master of zogho largo, and the plays that follow, as described above.) Those scholars also step left (rear) foot forward, thus closing the range even further for the play at zogho stretto. By contrast, the scholar of the master of zogho largo does not do so: first, he is already left foot forward, and second, he plays further out with the point of the weapon (grasped in the left hand) than the scholars of zogho stretto do with the pommel. The change of measure is not huge, but it is present. However, both scholars close: that of zogho largo closes less and from further away; those of zogho stretto close more and from closer to begin with. Thus the defining element, the distinction that Fiore seems to make in this bridging page between the two sections is the distinction of measure: I believe that in this bridging section Fiore speaks to and demonstrates the difference of measure between the plays of zogho largo and those of zogho stretto.

Measure, and not line. Line is critical (all the plays demonstrate that in one respect or another), but measure defines the type of play into which you can enter. I also think that Fiore doesn't leave this to chance: he is telling, albeit less explicitly to our (or at least my) 20th century ears, that it is in your control. You choose the distance at which to play, so that you can choose the plays that follow. Of course, this is basic to any martial art.

I am not dismissing the importance of the lines in any of these plays or what Fiore tells us about it - the two masters of largo and stretto are clearly shown crossing to different lines: outside the lead foot (largo) and inside the lead foot (stretto). And I think that this definition of "inside/outside" is a perfectly useful one for weapons in two hands; it's echoed in later play at two weapons, where one is outside the rapier hand or outside the dagger hand, for example.

So, in sum:

The first play of zogho largo plays to either side, depending on who controls the crossing of the blades. This is both time and measure dependent: it happens at the crossing at the end of the sword, which is why Fiore gives us only one scholar (who tells us of two plays) following the first remedy master. The scholar's plays don't play exclusively to the player's inside, as it should if the theory is correct: there is one for inside and one for outside, reflecting the tactical considerations of the crossing at wide measure (eg at the points of the swords). This is also true for the scholars of the second remedy master. Grappling occurs at zogho largo, and as Greg has shown, it is long-range grappling.

The last play of zogho largo (before the counter master) explictly changes lines and finishes to the player's outside line (based on foot position). It doesn't play exclusively to the player's inside line (as it should based on the theory): it starts on his inside and deliberately finishes on his outside. (The counter to the above play is also interesting, in that it is countered to the inside of the counter master's lead foot, by means of the counter master moving his rear (left) foot obliquely forward to the left.)

I would add that I have some of these same concerns about the dagger plays, but won't enumerate them here.

Umberto Eco once wrote that a novel is a machine for generating interpretations, and I would extend that to ancient fencing texts. I find Bob's interpretation interesting and appealing, but at present I'm not convinced it fits Fiore.

Since nuances sometimes get lost in postings and people sometimes wonder, I'll just say that this isn't a flame, Bob's a friend, that I'm open to argument and reason, and that I really look forward to discussion on the topic (it's really got me thinking about Fiore in a new way) and I am really looking forward to Bob's class on it at WMAW.


Best,

Sean

[Matt Easton]

Originally posted by Sean Hayes
Here finishes [the] wide play of the sword in two hands / there are twenty plays that can be played / has [that have? zoè] remedies and counters of the right side and the reverse side / and counterpoints and countercuts of every [? de zaschune] reason with turns [roture] covers / strikes and bindings [ligadure] that all these things learned [? lizerissima mente] may [be] carefully understood.

Hi Sean - a couple of points; first, I think he says 'united plays' rather twenty plays ( http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/florio/621small.html ), but I may be wrong - if so, I'll correct my translation!
Second, I don't read the above paragraph as meaning all plays can be done on left and right - to me that's not what he says; to me he simply states that generally he has shown a bunch of things that can be done on the right and left. And to that I append my previous arguments regarding Exchanging Thrusts - and I'd add that I believe certain other techniques should only be done on one side or another, as shown in the treatise, because a man with one swordarm and one (left) grappling hand is not symmetrical. Even with both hands on the weapon he is not symmetrical - but we've done that argument to death .
Lastly, the issue of the volta and cut or thrust in the first play of gioco largo is simply a question of strong or weak for me. Added to this, if you thrust and the opponent defends then he is now strong, so you cut to the other side.

Interesting discussion though - different opinions are a strength to our studies, not a weakness IMO,

Matt