So, just what is a 'stringere'?
SUPER, SUPER swordplay nerd alert!
Back during the COVID pandemic lockdowns and general people avoidance, Joshua Wiest of the Art of Arms Substack and The Art of Arms podcasts asked me to look into how the term ‘stringere’ was used or applied in the Bolognese Anonymous manual from the early 16th century. This, and the lack of getting out much, gave me a great excuse to do a deep dive into how the Bolognese school (e.g. the Dardi school) used the term, and to try to see if it had altered by the time the 17th century rolled around and Capoferro used it in his own manual.
I’ve referenced this research in my previous discussion on the find, the gain, and the stringer and in another couple places, and finally here I’ll put down a somewhat abridged version of my research and conclusions.
What you read below is actually adapted from an email back-and-forth I had on the subject with Guy Windsor and Kajetan Sadowski where we were discussing whether the phrase “to press” or “to constrain” worked better as a modern substitute for stringere. Yes - we’re all sword nerds here.
NOTE: In this article I’ll be referencing four manuals we have not previously dug into:
Manciolino = Antonio Manciolino, authored Opera Nova (1531)
Marozzo = Achille Marozzo (1484-1553), authored Opera Nova (1536)1
The Bolognese Anonymous = MSS Ravenna M-345 and 346 - an anonymous Italian fencing manual of the Bolognese tradition, which some attribute to Guido Antonio di Luca, the master who taught both Antonio Manciolino and Achille Marozzo.
d’allAgocchie = Giovanni dall’Agocchie di Bologna (dalle Agocchie, Agucchi, Agocchia; b. March 9, 1547), authored Dell’Arte di Scrima Libri Tre (1572)
NOTE #2: If you just want the summary, scroll down to the Conclusion section at the bottom.
The Actions
My goal with this research was to see if instead of applying an accepted/predetermined definition of stringere (and its variants) to the Bolognese manuals (so-called), I could figure out what elements existed each time it was used, thereby determining what action or series of actions it was actually applied to. And thus come up with a working definition.
In that, I believe I was reasonably successful.
Across four Bolognese (or Dardi school) swordplay manuals (The Bolognese Anonymous, Manciolino, d’allAgocchie, and Marozzo), we have a total of 27 uses of some stringere variation. A version of stringere was used 21 times in swordplay actions and 6 times describing something other than swordplay actions.
In 17 of the 21, two things are always happening, almost always clearly described - a (1) closing or narrowing, which creates a (2) coerced or forced action.
In 1 additional usage in d’allAgocchie’s manual, Lev (the student being taught) is asking a question about the action Gio (the instructor) has just described, so the use of stringere is still assuming the elements Gio imparts.
In the remaining 3 uses (all from Marozzo) stringere is used to describe one definition (squeezing two swords together with your hand) or another (forcing/compelling one foot forward), but not both.
For the remaining 6 uses (also all in Marozzo), we have Restrengere/Astringere and Constrengere in use, but only using the “to compel or force” meaning of the word. Note that Marozzo was the odd one out in his use of the word, using it in much broader circumstances. The other three are pretty unified in their applications.
To do all this I couldn’t rely on anyone else’s translations, since the point was to get to the bottom of what was actually happening, and since some translators aren’t as reliable about relaying specific details of the actions as described by the authors, I had to assume none are as specific as I needed. So I muscled through with my own translations, trying to stay as objective and unbiased as I could.
‘To Press’
I concur with Guy that academically speaking, ‘constrain’ is a better modern word to substitute for ‘stringere’. And look! It’s right there in Florio’s 1598 and 1611 definitions of stringere (see below)! In modern use here in America, however, if you use ‘constrain’ without clearly defining the nuances, your students will almost certainly only understand it to mean “to take away freedoms/options.”
Few if any of my American friends use ‘constrain’ to include the meaning “to compel or force (someone) to follow a particular course of action”, even though it clearly is defined that way in our dictionaries. While I recognize that the definition of ‘constrain’ includes “to compel or force (someone) to follow a particular course of action”, that is never how I think to use or apply the word, myself when speaking off the cuff or in front of people.
I suspect the VAST majority of Americans are similar. ‘Constrain’ here in the U.S. is used (almost exclusively?) to convey the meaning “to severely restrict.” When you say ‘constrain’ to most Americans, the idea of constraints (like a straight jacket, or being strapped to a chair) is what comes to mind.
So when I use ‘constrain’ in place of stringere while teaching, if I don’t further explain the nuances of the definition, I likely am not getting across that nuance of compelling my opponent to do something. My students here likely hear that word and generally associate it only with controlling the opponent’s line or limiting their options. It ALSO doesn’t easily get across the meaning that seems vital to its use in sword actions in the Bolognese sidesword manuals - “to push forward” or “to close, to compress or squeeze.”
So what I’m arguing here is that (possibly mainly for North Americans), ‘press’ is a perfectly usable substitute as well. ‘Press’ is certainly used to convey the two elements that I believe make up stringere in the Bolognese tradition:
to push forward or to close distance between two things;
to compel/force someone to do something.
I might even go so far as to say when teaching the Bolognese manuals to the average person here in America, ‘press’ may be a BETTER term to use than ‘constrain’. When I’m thinking about the act of moving toward my opponent, the word ‘press’ (“to press on”, or “to press forward” - these even come with some element of difficulty or danger in doing so) comes more easily to me than ‘constrain’. The same goes for the element of forcing your opponent’s action (to “press them to act” vs. “constrain them to act”). And as I lay out, these are the primary two elements that exist when the Bolognese authors use variations of ‘stringere’ to describe fencing actions.
The modern American use of ‘press’ further includes a third element that I believe exists in the early 17th century rapier manuals: to harass, or to put into a difficult position, as by depriving of something (i.e. a choice). So even there, it’s a decent substitute.
I welcome any counter-arguments.
OK - here are comparative definitions:
Some fairly common definitions/uses of press:
to push forward.
to act upon with steadily applied weight or force.
to move by weight or force in a certain direction or into a certain position.
to compress or squeeze, as to alter in shape or size.
to urge or entreat strongly or insistently.
to beset or harass; afflict.
to trouble or oppress; put into a difficult position, as by depriving.
A modern definition of Stringere, Stringerai even includes ‘to press’:
Verb - Tighten, Make, Squeeze, Clench, Pinch, Grip, Press
So ‘stringere la mano’ = shake hands.
But also ‘dobbiamo muoverci, il tempo stringe.’ = “We have to move, time is pressing/running out.”
Historical definitions of stringere:
Looking at Florio’s 16th and 17th century dictionaries, we have:
1611:
Stringere, stringo, strinsi, stretto - To bind, to wrinch, to guird in, to claspe, to clinch, to pinch, to straighten, to wring in. ALSO to urge, to force or constraine unto
Astringere, stringo, strinsi, stretto - to constrain, to bind and enforce
1598:
Stringere, stringo, strinsi, stretto - To binde, to claspe, to gripe, to clinche, to pinch, to guird. Also to straine, to wring, to binde or truss. Also to urge, to force, to constraine, to provoke or entice.
Astringere - to constraine, to force, to binde, to inforce, to compell
An overview of usage in the Bolognese system:
The word stringerai, at least in the Bolognese texts, almost always is used when two things are present - a closing or narrowing (or a pushing forward), and a coercion or forced action. You can argue that there is also an element of taking an option away, or depriving, but that’s not as clear in the Bolognese as it is in Capoferro’s stringere of the sword where you’re clearly taking away the opponent’s line of attack. So I think describing it as a coercion or forced action covers it well enough.
I haven’t done as deep a dive into all the 17th century manuals yet, but my current take on Capoferro’s use of stringere contains three elements - (1) the closing of distance or pushing forward (of your body or your sword); (2) the deprivation of an opponent’s option (in stringere of the sword); and (3) coercing the opponent to act (in both the stringere of the body and of the sword).
TANGENT:
Note what CF says, though - when you stringer the sword, you are seeking measure AND tempo. But when you are stringering the body you are only seeking measure. What does that mean? In the Italian, the word being translated as ‘seeking’ is cercare.
DUE sono le cause (pare a me) per le quali è necessario stringere l’aversario, prima di stringere la spada per cercare la misura e il tempo, l’altra di stringere la vita dell’Aversario per cercar solo la misura;
Let’s revisit Florio’s 1598 dictionary:
Cercare - to seek, to require, to enquire. ALSO to fight, to strive, to contend.
So I may be overthinking it, but here also it feels to me like we’re not only seeking the right tempo and measure, but we’re contending for it. We’re fighting for it - meaning we’re trying to take the right tempo and measure from them, or before they do. So when we stringer their sword, we are constraining their sword with ours and forcing them to be in the wrong tempo. Both because stringer has the meanings of to close and to compel, AND because cercare has a hint of contending or requiring as well.
TO BE CLEAR - when I teach I tend to use ‘stringere’ anyway. I just make sure that I define the nuances of what that term means related to the fencing lesson. But ‘press’ and ‘constrain’ do make appearances sometimes. I will unconsciously use ‘press’ usually when I’m talking about closing distance and forcing your opponent to act, and ‘constrain’ when I’m talking about constraining the blade and limiting their options.
Conclusion
To sum up, in the Bolognese manuals (e.g. the sidesword manuals), almost every time that some close variant of the word stringere is used in a sword action, two things are evident and described:
(1) a closing or narrowing, which creates a…
(2) coerced or forced action.
This means that judging by the actions and descriptions from these 16th century sources, stringere, stringerai, etc implies that fencer A is closing the distance on fencer B, forcing B to have to react or back out.
It seems that by the time Capoferro was using the term, they had adapted it to actions on the sword as well as the body. So you could stringere with the body, as they did in the earlier manuals, but you could also bring your sword closer to constrain their sword, forcing an action (like, say, a cavatione!) or forcing them to back out. So because of the adapted use of the sword, Capoferro’s actions add a third intermediate element:
(3) the taking away of their immediate best option.
So my definition for stringere as used in the Bolognese school would be:
Stringere: A closing or narrowing of the distance between your body and your opponent’s, which forces your opponent to have to act to defend themselves, or break distance.
And when it got to Capoferro, I believe swordplay technique had adapted to more point-forward usage, resulting in a slight change to the definition when applied to the sword:
Stringere: A closing or narrowing of the distance between your sword and your opponent’s, which takes away their immediate best option/line of attack and forces your opponent to have to act to defend themselves, or break distance.
In two weeks I’ll share some of the details of my deep dive, for any who didn’t get enough here!
Yes, same title!
I'm puzzled by your assertion that the word "constrain" would be misunderstood by most people, since my instinctive read of the word "constrain" is exactly opposite of what you describe. I guess constrain can mean to limit one's rights, as you say, but I'd never read it that way unless someone told me to--to me, constrain usually means to force someone to do something, or I guess, to restrict their options until they have no choice but to do the thing you want them to do (which maybe combines both alternatives that you describe?). Am I the outlier or are you? I don't know.