At this point I could well say that Marcelli and Di Mazo have me totally spellbound. It's amazing how every time I read one of their paragraphs I suddendly realize how I have understood something I didn't previously get. It's probably due to the fact that they are both speaking to amateur fencers of their times, who could witness the basics of a living art in any salle, while I struggle with the advanced concepts written down in the manuals, thanking the fact that sometimes they quibbled even on some fundamentals like how to step properly, and accordingly they had to write it down .

In this particular moment, though, I'm rather stumped with something I understand to be pretty basic stuff: taking a tempo while the enemy performs a cavazione after you have gained his sword, and striking him accordingly. Let's say that for once I'm not as slow as a snail (and thus, far better than my average) and can consistently strike with a lunge in the moment my adversary disengages: isn't his/her movement a bit too slight to avoid getting hit by his point while lunging? After all, if the enemy's tip completely leaves my presence it would be a rather faulty cavazione...

I can get the fact that I could always hit his blade to ram it out of the way (a toccata di spada), but Marcelli is pretty specific, and says that the Cavaliere "Mentre il nemico cava, non deve muovere punto la sua spada, ma nell'istesso tempo deve spingerla innanzi a trovare il bersaglio, senza mendicarne la linea retta, perchè già la possiede nel Tempo del Guadagno" (pardon me if I modernized it a bit) which I would translate in English like this: "While the enemy performs the cavazione, he [the Cavaliere] must not move his sword, but at the same time he must push it forward to hit the target, without trying to find a better straight path, because he already has found such in the Tempo in which he gained the enemy's blade". [yes, that "mendicare" is quite weird, I hope I understood it right in this context. BTW, this sentence is in Libro Secondo, Cap. VII, paragraph 130]
From all this I understand that Marcelli is ordering me peremptorily to hit in the tempo of the cavazione, springing forward straight as an arrow, without touching the enemy's blade whatsoever. I can understand that in that brief moment the enemy's sword is unable to parry my blade, but I can't get how I'm supposed to hit him safely if his point is so dangerously close.

Did I get something wrong? Or am I simply too green to "feel" the safe moment in the Tempo of the cavazione? Am I simply not getting the proper position involved in gaining the sword?

Francesco,

Yes, Marcelli and Di Mazo are fantastic resources. I can't help but wonder how much farther along the WMA rapier community would be had these two works been discovered (and translated) rather than Capoferro--not just because of the material, but also the manner of presentation. Plus, I really think that the system(s) described by these two authors are closer to the image people have in their heads when they first think of the rapier.

There are a few things to consider with the cavazione and the attack:
1. When you engage your opponent's sword, you necessarily must move his point out of presence; Marcelli especially is quite explicit about this. Therefore, when the opponent disengages, he will be attempting to disengage from out of presence back into presence (on the other side of your sword). Thus you will start with a geometrical advantage.

2. When Marcelli says that you don't move your sword, I don't believe that that precludes forming opposition. The physical reality is that in removing your opponent's point from presence with the engagement, you will likely remove your point from presence as well (although not as much), as in attempting to keep your point directed at your opponent, you would likely form a weak angle (i.e. your hilt would be wider than your point) and your opponent could easily perform a forced glide. As we know from earlier in Marcelli's treatise, the first motion of the attack is to extend your arm with your point directed on target. When done in the correct tempo, you'll generally find that you will have a mechanical advantage, even in the event that your swords touch (the extension is a faster motion than the cavazione, and you'll be pushing your forte forward). Furthermore, as you "make your final approach", that is, at the time when your throw your left hand back and your lunge becomes ballistic (the point of no return when you are propelling yourself forward) I recommend turning your hand in opposition so that your true-edge closes the line on which you are attacking (this doesn't mean 'seeking out' your opponent's weapon, if he makes a wide cavazione, your swords might never touch). (Yes, this is an OSH interpretation, but I can't believe that Marcelli or Di Mazo wouldn't want you to form opposition--even Fabris describes it in his treatise).

3. The tempo of a cavazione is rather small and if you are late, you definitely run the risk of a double hit or being hit with a counterattack. This is not the easiest tempo to take, so practice it diligently. (Incidentally, the cavazione is also a good tempo to feint a straight attack, but beware the counterattack).

This is a fundamental technique that is conceptually very simple but not necessarily easy to execute. There are many subtle aspects to doing this well that only practice can uncover, so don't worry if it doesn't work right away. Just make it a regular part of your practice and as you learn to recognize the tempo more quickly and become more efficient at the motions of the attack, it will become much easier. As always, start practicing it slowly--have your partner perform the cavazione slowly enough that you can perform the attack successfully and safely (speed will come naturally as a result of correct practice).

Hope that helps...

Steve

Ditto that - opposition is one of the foundations of Italian fencing - from Fabris to Gaugler. I really don't think Marcelli is going to be the exception to the rule. Now, if he were French, in the 19th century, I'd say otherwise, but he wasn't.

One of the other things that needs to be said about making an attack in the tempo of the cavazione is that you've got to give it enough time to develop that you've got a good idea as to whether the opponent is making a cavazione from outside to inside, or a half-cavazione from high to low. It doesn't do to close 4th line, and get hit in the flank.

Thank you both, you gave me much to consider. I was completely missing the part about pushing the blade out of my presence while gaining it. As for the rest... Well, nothing is ever easy, I guess. It's a nice thing that I really find very funny practicing .

I also re-read his gaining the sword chapter, and found that while he forcefully states that you have to "just push" your blade forward as soon as it's freed, he also advocates turning your hand in seconda while lunging when the enemy performs a cavazione from the outside... In fact, I reason, you would do such a thing to form opposition against his blade (which, of course, the enemy is bringing in the inside), and avoid getting hit.

I believe I'll have some more questions coming in the near future, either on this ore some other point, so don't hope getting rid of me any time in the near future

Are you sure you're phrasing that correctly?

If I engage the opponent in 3a on the outside - that is his blade is to the right/outside of mine and I'm pushing it outward to my right - his cavazione to the inside should prompt me to turn the hand into 4a to gain opposition to the inside. Turning the hand into 2a would give opposition to the outside, after he makes a cavazione to the outside from my engagement of 4a. If Marcelli is in fact saying to turn the hand to 2a, that is really quite risky, as it leaves you uncovered totally, and relying only on tempo to hopefully avoid a double touch.

Edit:

I'd also point out that there is a difference here in the possible actions the opponent could be doing.

If opponent is making a circular cavazione in an attempt only to free his blade, this is a good tempo for striking, and it doesn't matter a great deal (though I'd still turn the hand to 4a) whether the hand is in 4a or 2a. On the other hand, if the opponent is making a thrust by cavazione, where the cavazione is combined with an extension of the arm, creating a forward spiraling cavazione, followed immediately by a lunge, it becomes more important by far to close the line in 4a.

Francesco,

Great question, and very refreshing to hear someone talk about Marcelli--my second-favorite author after Fabris and his German clones.

Here's my contribution. First, we have to consider that in most cases, a cavazione is an attack, not a motion to just find your sword on the opposite line. Second, the linea retta is the line of offense, not a "straight path" (I know, this can be confusing). The passage of Marcelli is a bit ambiguous, but although it's physically possible (and theoretically plausible) to push an attack quicker than a simpler cavazione to free your blade, I think Marcelli even here is talking of a Cavazione as an attack--just like he did a few paragraphs earlier when he warns you about the dangers of the opponent's cavazione di tempo.

Taking the tempo of the cavazione from engagement is something common to practically all the Italian masters I can remember from Fabris onwards.

So this tempo can be taken regardless of pressure on one's blade. As you know, Fabris and the earlier masters advocate little or no contact between blades during engagement, while the later "Baroque" masters stipulate an amount of pressure.

Also, you need to consider what is meant by dominating the line of offense. It doesn't necessarily mean (although it can, depending on context) having your sword perfectly straight along a line or even along the line of offense. It means precluding your opponent from using that line after an engagement (with or without contact) or a parry--i.e. without a cavazione.

According to Italian rapier theory, you dominate the line when:

1 - Your sword is placed on the line of offense while his is off-line, e.g. during an opponent's invitation or a failed parry, or after your beat.

2 - You have engaged or parried his blade--because you have essentially precluded the opponent from using the line of offense on that side.

3 - You are performing opposition.

Note that only in the first instance is your sword perfectly straight on the line of offense, although at the time of the lunge after the initial extension, opposition will have to be formed.

So, what the masters including Marcelli are saying is this:

~ When you, by virtue of an engagement, have precluded the opponent from using the line of offense on the line to which you are currently engaged, the opponent will have to perform a cavazione.

~ As I said, a cavazione is in most cases an attack, not merely a motion to free one's blade and engage the opposing sword. Actually the latter action is such an exception in the Italian rapier literature, I can't think of one off-hand (especially when done in measure).

~ The offensive full-extension of a cavazione can only take place after his blade has completely cleared yours on the opposite line.

~ His tempo for doing this is necessarily longer than yours to just straighten your point to his body and forming opposition. Fabris says it like this almost verbatim, while Giganti speaks of two tempi in the opponent's cavazione (one for clearing your blade, one for pushing his attack home)--so, depending on how you define tempo, this is perfectly consistent.

~ Your forte, by virtue of the engagement, is already placed ideally for the defense on either line. Going straight in rapier parlance means primarily not changing lines. Opposition was a given, although many times it is spelled out rather clearly.

~ Even if Marcelli means that the opponent's motion is just one to free his sword without pushing an attack on the opposite line, all this holds--although it's more reliant on a lightning-quick lunges (which Marcelli also advocates)... I know, quicker than any of us will ever be, but that's the quality of fencers we are dealing with, who wrote the treatises.

I hope this helps

Tom

Let me see if I've got this straight.

"While the opponent performs a cavazione, he shouldn't move the sword at all, but in the same tempo he should push it forward to find the target, without fishing for the line, because he already has it in the tempo of the gaining."

So, the range of meaning of "move" in "he shouldn't move the sword at all" is constrained by "without fishing for the line". In other words, "moving the sword" means moving the sword to fish for the line, not just any old kind of motion. So we can rewrite this sentence as: "Since you have already gained the line by gaining his sword, just push your sword forward to find the target in that line when the opponent performs a cavazione to free his sword."

The wager is that I can find the target in the line I've established before the opponent's cavazione can have any effect, because of the tempi involved.

Is this correct as far as it goes? (I realize it only goes so far, but that's intentional on my part.)

Charles--yes, that's pretty much the sense of it, although it still needs to be "translated" into actual motions.

Tom

Ok, it seems that as always every question brings up more questions. And, obviously, it paints out just how I'm still not used at wrapping my head around rapier fencing . I really lack paired practice.
Forgive me if I may seem rather dense, but I'll try to summarize what I've gleaned from you answers. I'm sorry if it will be a repetition, but the whole discussion is necessarily far reaching, and it strayed a bit from my original question . After all, I can't understand hitting an enemy in the tempo of his cavazione if I have wrong ideas about both the cavazione and gaining the sword. This is some sort of compund of what I'm trying to understand from Marcelli's Regole and all of your suggestions:

Gaining the Sword (Marcelli style)
- You start gaining the sword from just outside of the enemy's measure.
- You straighten a bit your arm and lightly make contact with his blade in a way that gets his point nearer to your forte than yours is to his (forgive me if this is a bad way to state it, but the technical language of rapier fencing sometimes still defies me in Italian, in English I'm afraid it's even worse). Since yesterday I thought that this was all was needed to gain a sword, but I missed another relevant element:
- Now, you have to enter slowly in measure, and (as Steven pointed out) you physically push his point out of your presence (and most probably, your point from his as well), until you either attack, or he realizes that you have gained his sword.

Of course, this is how gaining the sword would work against some sort of zombie. The normal reaction of a trained individual who witnesses the gaining of his sword is a cavazione.

Cavazione (Marcelli style)
Marcelli says that "there are two Tempi of cavazione":
- From outside measure: which is just withdrawing your sword from a side and carrying it to the other side. You offer the enemy a Tempo, but he cannot wound you with it, because you are just too far from him. As Marcelli says, this is the correct way to avoid having your sword gained in the relatively slow, deceitful manner above.
-From inside measure: that is the cavazione-as-an-attack, as Tom explained. You withdraw your blade and attack in a single motion, but still you take a tempo to withdraw your blade and one tempo to push your attack home. You hope you are faster than the opponent, and that he is not Francesco Antonio Marcelli .

While attacking an enemy that performs a cavazione-as-an-attack, extending your arm is faster than his disengaging and seeking a new line, and you can force his point further from your person turning your hand during your lunge (in the second part, while straightening your back leg and flinging the left hand behind you) and presenting him with your true edge (on the new line he is seeking on the other side of your sword)

...I just hope I understood it right.

I'll get to the original question at the end of what I have to say
now. This is because I'm trying (partly to reinforce it for myself) to
get to the essence of what Marcelli is saying, and something Tom said
inspired me to do a close reading of just the one passage cited
above. In looking at the larger context, I find my deductions
supported, because for me Marcelli reads like a hologram: one piece of
it contains the whole picture (though the smaller the piece the
fuzzier the picture); he is that internally consistent.

For Marcelli, finding the sword is part of a two-tempi attack. In
tempo one I gain the sword and in so doing, I establish the line of
attack. In tempo two, I use that line to press the attack. Yes, the
devil is in the details (the how-to's of the action, and Marcelli
provides some of those), but this is the big picture. It's essential
to keep this picture in mind, I think, because in fencing it's all too
common to lose this picture and not think of finding the sword as the
first step of an attack. I think it's common to find the sword, switch
off, see the opponent's reaction, then switch back on. In other words,
you lose tempo. But the savvy opponent sees your first tempo and uses
it to launch their two-tempo attack via cavazione (extract the sword;
push it forward). So, the only way to press your advantage is to think
of the whole action as one attack, and to keep your motions, hence
your tempi, small, so that they remain smaller than his. That is your
only advantage.

This analysis is borne out by the rest of the chapter, for example,
where he tells you to find with a very small motion, not wild, crazy
ones.

Now, to address the original question, I'll cross over to the other
hemisphere for a moment. In the very first kendo kata, both Agent and
Patient are facing each other with their swords held directly
overhead. Agent approaches Patient, and when in measure, launches a
fendente cut. The target is the leading forearm: no forearm; no
sword. Patient responds by stepping back slightly and raising his
hands higher over his head. This accomplishes two things: it removes
the forearm as a target; it removes the head (and the rest of the
body) as a target. The downward momentum of the fendente cut causes
Agent to expose his own head as a target, which Patient promptly
takes.

We learn several things from this kata. One: this is a game of
centimeters. Two: Japanese swordsmen had cast-iron stomachs in order
to apply the K.I.S.S. (q.v.) principle to fencing, or as my
instructor, John O'Meara of the Chicago Swordplay Guild, likes to put
it, do as much as necessary, but as little as possible. Three:
Japanese swordsmen were crazy. Four: kenjutsu, whence the kendo kata
are derived, is a martial art.

Crossing back to the other side of the world, we learn several things
from this passage in Marcelli. One: this is game of centimeters. Two:
Italian swordsmen had cast-iron stomachs, for the same reason their
Japanese counterparts did. Three: Italian swordsmen were crazy. Four:
Italian rapier is a martial art.

The only differences between the East Asian and Southern European are
cultural and stylistic: the first prefers to cleave his opponent's
body parts; the second prefers to skewer them.

Very well stated; far too many rapier fencers forget this (or don't realize it). This really leads to a few 'precepts' that we can see in the rapier when we look closely enough:

First, don't move into measure unless you know what you're going to do once you get there. That is, don't wander in while sort of finding the sword and then figure you'll wait for an opportunity. By coming into measure, you should be making the opportunity (and understand that you're also creating one for your opponent).

Second, if you have entered measure and things aren't going as planned, don't hang around and wait for another opportunity by doing so, you give the opportunity to your opponent. Especially, don't sit in measure and play the 'cavazione game', of performing near-endless cavazioni and ricavazioni only with the goal of freeing your sword and/or engaging your opponent's sword so that you can have some sort of 'advantage'. A good opponent needs only the motion of your first cavazione to hit you.

The key to success or failure of an action should be considered as starting before you or your opponent come into measure rather than after you or your opponent have stepped into measure. If you are not doing anything to gain a tactical advantage as you step into measure, or as your opponent steps into measure, then you are always at a disadvantage; if you don't immediately take advantage of the tactical advantage, then you are giving it to your opponent.

BTW, I really like your analogy and comparison of Japanese and Italian swordsmanship it is very well-stated (and brings back pleasant memories).

Steve

From what I can tell, this is an issue a lot of fencers don't grasp - that there is a difference between careful, tactically sound fencing, and over-cautious behaviour that is actually tactically detrimental, providing tempo after tempo for the opponent. On the otherhand, some fencers willfully disregard any sense of caution and risk management, through throwing themselves at their opponents.

I've seen a lot of WMA video with wasted tempo after wasted tempo, and people justifying it by saying they're looking for some perfect chance to attack, utterly not understanding that if they had competent opponents rather than opponents just like themselves, they'd be getting hit almost immediately because they're trying to slowly creep into distance, then engage, and then, eventually (after the opponent has had time for coffee and a croissant) attack. The same is true with fencers stepping into distance, making a beat, and failing to follow it instantly with an attack...then repeating the action when the opponent returns to line. A good opponent on the second time will take advantage of it and make a cavazione in tempo.

This is all very Italian, which is entirely appropriate given the subject matter, but would a French theorist necessarily see it this same way? Is this a matter intrinsic to the rapier and somehow different for a smallsword, or a general principle preferred by one school and not another? Would a Spanish fencer see it this way? In general, I get the impression that finding the sword with a view to 'seeing what the opponent does' is more acceptable in these traditions. Mind you, I am in no way saying that these other approaches are necessarily as good - I personally quite like the logic of the Italian's understanding of time, and agree that rapier fencing would have advanced further if people weren't so convinced of the irrelevance of material latter than the period they are most interested in.

Cheers,

Joseph Gora

Luckily, I had Charles' post in an open tab, so for sake of completeness and because it was a damn good post I will paste it here, because I think it's a shame to lose. At the moment I am too tired to think of an answer or indeed another question, so I will keep my doubts for tomorrow (I bet you are REALLY excited to hear about them, heheh:P)

[Posted by Steven Reich: See my post, below]

Okay, anyone who has been following this thread may have noticed that some strange editing has been happening. Let me briefly explain so that no one think that the OSH forum has become an Orwellian annex of the WMA community.

Charles Blair wrote an post excellent post to which I meant to quote and reply. Instead, I ended up inadvertently hitting the edit button and thus deleted most the text of his original post. However, Francesco Lanza had the text of the original post open in a tab in his browser and so quoted it in a message. I took that text and restored Charles' original post and removed it from Mr. Lanza's post. Now, after an object lesson in paying attention to what I'm doing, here we are.

Steve