Ask Another Laurel - Italian Inception.

Shakespeare and the Italian Connection.

I have always been interested in knowing the how's and why's of weird things. I don't think I can ever remember a time where I accepted "Because it just is" as an answer. Since the last article was a tad lengthy, I will keep this one short. Ish. Come back with me to the long lost land of the 1980's, where a young Caleb was sitting in High School, Freshman English reading the Texas approved, expurgated version of "Romeo and Juliet". [1] We had reached a certain scene in the text book where Mercutio warns Romeo that Tybalt fights in the Italian style, and I raised my hand. "Mrs. Defenbaugh? What are the odds that I'm going to remember your name in 40 years? Follow up question: Why is one Italian telling a 2nd Italian that a 3rd Italian fights in the Italian style when all of them live in an Italian city in Italy?" Mrs. Defenbaugh didn't have an answer, and gave me a look that I recognized as "I don't get paid enough to deal with your stupid questions." Well, to keep this article short (ish), the answer is that's what Shakespeare wrote. Thanks for read.... Okay. There is an actual answer.  

Promo picture from the 1968 "Romeo and Juliet"

England had a love/hate relationship with Italy. While most people, i.e.: the commoners, had little to no interaction with Italians and Italian products, the upper classes were agog over everything Italian. The average person on the street viewed the Italians as a source of mockery; they talked funny, they walked differently, they ate different food, and they didn't dress like good old fashion Englishmen. But, those at the top wanted everything the Italians could provide; cheese, spices, silks, the latest in fashion, and the latest in fashionable swords, all financed by Italian bankers.

But first, we need to talk about people. More specifically, servants. We have to understand that many of the household servants were not commoners, but actually members of the upper classes. One might wonder why the upper crust would stoop to acting as servants; even the fourth son of a Lord would have some amount of social rank. First of all, we have to not think in Victorian or Edwardian terms. In Tudor times, there were servants and then there were servants. "Trusted employees" I think would be a better term. If the Lady of the manor needed someone to go out and buy 20 Shillings of spices, whom should she send? A lower-class, household servant who is paid 10 pennies a week and might take the spices, or the cash, and run off, never to be seen again? Or a trusted employee, who might be a blood relation, who would not be tempted to steal the money or spices, and would be of higher rank than the spice merchant and would be less likely to be cheated? If the Lord of the manor needed people to watch his back as he went to meet a competitor, who would be better in a fight? The stable boys or gentry trained in the use of a sword? In addition, if you were hosting a fancy-schmancy dinner party and needed servers, whom would you prefer to hob-nob with the nobs? The kitchen servants, who wouldn't know a Duke from an Earl if they were smacked upside the head with a chain of office, or people who grew up in a well-off household and were taught, from an early age, all of the modes of address for nobility and how to comport one's self. One would have to know the rank and station of all of the guests to ensure that this person is served before that person. The regular house-hold servants can wait at the tables of the people "below the salt" but if one wanted to impress the upper classes, the tables "above the salt" would need a higher class of servant. Better dressed and better educated.

In exchange for running the occasional errand or waiting on the tables of the elite, these trusted employees had a job that paid considerably more than a common servant. Lodging was often included so that the Lords and Ladies would have their employees on hand if needed, any time day of night. They also had a private army, loyal to them, to act as body guards and armed companions for their own children. We are told that part of the process of becoming a knight, in the middle ages, was first becoming a page and then a squire, often in the house of a knight trusted by the parents of the child. First son would inherit the land and title: second son would join the Church: third, fourth, and fifth sons would be placed in other households to find them employment and keep them busy learning the art of fighting and of diplomacy. This method of fostering just evolved into a more transactional program. One house would align themselves with another, more wealthy, house. That house would take the children, teens and young men, and young women, as well, although not for all of the same reasons, [2] put them in livery and boom: the wealthy household now has a cadre of well educated, physically fit people that can show off the station of the household. And who would be loyal to them; perhaps more loyal than blood cousins. While most were employed as potential muscle, those with cerebral talent might be sent off to a university that their own parents would not have been able to afford. Once educated in business and accounting, the sponsor would have a loyal man looking over the books for the household. But, Shakespeare didn't write any plays about accountants. [3] 

This relationship between households, and between cousins and relations, became part and parcel of the times. Larger households had access to well trained young men to act as trusted servants, bodyguards, and companions, and the smaller households had a way to improve the lot of extra children and gained important allies from larger, more prosperous households which would protect them if attacked by business or social rivals. This created an elite army, loyal to the grand house that employed them, and while common servants could be no better than street thugs, these noble servants were better trained and armed, and a force to be reckoned with. In "Romeo and Juliet", in the opening scene, we find Sampson and Gregory, common servants, antagonizing Abram, a social superior and a Montague (*gasp*). Shakespeare would have decked out Sampson and Gregory with the standard kit of the time, bucklers and broadswords, which would have told the audience the social rank of the two characters. Particularly when the Bard has Sampson say, "Draw if you be men. Gregory, remember thy washing blow." Shakespeare is telling the audience that these two men had at least some training in the "old fashioned" method of swordplay. But, when Tybalt and Benvolio show up, they would have been outfitted differently. 

By the time "Romeo and Juliet" was first performed, some when around 1594, a revolution in sword technology was already steaming along a full blast. The long, slender rapier was well established and new fencing styles were available, for the right price, that took advantage of the longer blades. England, up to the mid 16th century, was dominated by the German buckler style we now call I.33; after close to 300 years, the "buckler style" was so entrenched in English sword fighting that the caricature of the swashbuckling soldier, with the particular gait causing his buckler knocking against his sword, made an actor instantly recognizable upon the stage before any words are spoken. George Silver's book, "Paradoxes of Defense" [4] was, in part, an updated version of the I.33 manuscript. England had a school of sword play called The Masters of Defense, where people would go to learn and make public trials of their skills. After a decade of training and trials, one was allowed to call themselves a master and be allowed to open up their own school of sword play.

Cover of the 1599 edition of Silver's work.

I.33, Fol. 01r, describing the first 4 wards.

 In 1570 Giacomo di Grassi, an Italian, published his fight book "Ragione di adoprar sicuramente l'Arme" ("Discourse on Wielding Arms with Safety") which took a different approach to sword and buckler fighting. In I.33, the buckler is used primarily for defense: either to protect the hand wielding the sword or as the book calls it, a "castle wall" which must be avoided or laid under siege. di Grassi proposed using the buckler more actively and in a more offensive fashion. While Italian copies of "Discourse" were available in England, courtesy of Italian teachers, the book was fully translated into English and published in 1594 under the title of "His True Arte of Defence". di Grassi, like Silver, geared his teaching towards the common soldier. While DiGrassi did mention rapiers, he was adamant that they had no place on the battle field. 

Cover of the 1570 edition of di Grassi's work

di Grassi, plate 16

While dueling did occur in London, both in formal and impromptu settings, they generally weren't lethal. At least according to coroner's reports. People did die, but looking at court reports, most of the deaths and serious injuries occurred due to large scale fights rather than individual duels. This was partly to do with how society was structured. This was, in part, to the public training and testing of these Masters of Defense. For the most part, everyone was taught the same fencing style and trained to follow the same rules. The trials, which again were public, were places where trainees would show that they knew their lessons and the rules. Actually killing your opponent, during these trials, wasn't the point. While people were seriously injured and killed in street brawls, getting into a formal duel, on the street, was generally "safe" as it was very likely that the two duelists were trained to the same standards and the constant, public trials under strict rules made it less likely for one or both parties to break with tradition. A duel could be settled with "first blood" or similar. The appearance of being a well trained gentleman was, usually, more important than being seen as an out of control monster. This, of course, only applied to people who were allowed to carry a sword. 

What does this have to do with Italy? Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up. In English Law, and in London Law in particular, the only people who were allowed to openly carry a sword were soldiers or city guard while on official business, gentlemen with coats of arms (the nobility), and the personal guards of the nobility while wearing the livery of their boss. If you were the 3rd or 4th son of some minor noble, one with a modest title but not much wealth, you might go work for a higher ranking family. One with more money and the need for a... well.... private army. These nobles for hire had the education and training to be companions of higher ranking peers; not social equals, but high enough to accompany the elite as they walked around London. Walking around armed, to be sure. Personal body guards or a posse to discourage any thieves or kidnappers. Technically, these lower ranking men were household servants, but their actual household duties were minimal at best. They were there for public show and for the occasional muscle.

The wealthy, with money to burn, wanted the best of everything. And at the time Shakespeare was writing, the best came from Italy. Clothes, cheeses, hats, and swords. Not the broadsword, arming swords, or hangers that were the standard of England, but the new rapiers that were all the rage in Italy. Since the new swords required new fencing styles, Italian sword masters packed up and moved to London to open up elite schools catering to the elite households. The nobs would gladly pay for personalized and private training in the new styles, and would also pay for their cousins to also learn. After all, if you wanted to walk about with the latest sword, it wouldn't look good for your besties to be wearing last decade's swords. And since private instructors were already being paid to teach one person, they could also provide lessons for a small group. This created a problem. Several problems, actually.

The first was that the elites could afford private training for themselves and their close retainers, bypassing the public training and testing that ordinary people were getting. Without the formalized training of the MoD, and the strict rules on conduct and "fair play", these elites were taught to kill quickly rather than to show off one's skill and control. The second was that the Italian masters brought with them Italian concepts of personal honor. Teaching that any slight was an unforgivable insult that could only be settled by blood and death. For ordinary people, being called a liar or a coward could result in someone swinging a fist. For sword wielders, the insult could be dismissed due to drink, or through unequal social ranks. Or, a formal duel could be arraigned through normal channels. But the new method, the Italian method, required that the insult be instantly challenged and fought over right then and there. Using a weapon and training that was designed to quick thrusts that led to death more often than not. 

Thrusting was dis-encouraged with the "buckler style" and within in the structure of the MoD because it was dangerous. If you wanted to remain in the company of other swashbucklers, you played by the rules: the fraternity of the MoD would not allow "cheaters" to use thrusts, kicks, or other underhanded techniques. In fact, in England, thrusts were actually outlawed to reduce the likelihood of death during duels, self defense, and trial fights. In a proclamation of 1538:

"His majesty [Henry VIII, 1509-47], being credibly informed that divers and sundry his subjects have lately been murdered and slain in sundry frays happening by chance by reason of sudden foins [thrusts or stabs] with swords and other weapons, minding to take away the occasion of such slaying and murdering, doth straightly charge and command that no person or persons in any fray or fight that shall happen or chance between them shall use in his fight any foin or foins with his sword or other his weapon; and if any such person or persons from henceforth slay or murder any by occasion of such foin or foins, that then the offender contrary to this proclamation shall suffer death without remission or pardon, and shall lose his clergy and privilege of sanctuary." [5]

But the elites had access to cash. As much as was needed to buy pardons, or silence. Or, worse yet, the threat of killing witnesses. And this led to young, wealthy bravos roaming the streets with their loyal cousins/retainers, all carrying rapiers and intimidating anyone who might challenge them or look at them funny. You had to assume that if someone was wearing an expensive rapier, they would have paid for the training to use it. It wasn't just the threat of dueling someone skilled in the new style, it was the knowledge that that person could kill you and then walk away scot-free. 

"And since it was the rapier that hung about their hips it would be the rapier that they turned to for self-defense, for defense if their reputations and to indulge their more antisocial desires. As a result, dueling quickly became a rewarding and effective method of bullying. Or perhaps we should say that the threat of dueling facilitated upper-class bad behavior, as much as the actual dueling itself. Naturally, the swords assisted a young man in his attempts to exploit and intimidate the lower classes most satisfactorily. If your tailor started making too much noise about the need to settle your bill before he embarked upon making your next outfit, or the innkeeper was reluctant to rent you his best chamber once he had repaired the damage from last week, you had merely to allow your hand to drift towards the hilt of your sword to lend a certain immediacy to your claims for preferential treatment. It either of these tradesmen needed a little more persuasion, it was an easy matter to manufacture a supposed slight to your honor ('Do you doubt my word?!') and perhaps draw your sword a little, demanding an apology. A reputation helped, of course. The trick was to have a few very public quarrels with people who you were sure would quickly back down. Of course, you needed to look like you know what you were doing." [6]

So, London become home to gangs of wealthy, young men wandering around in Italian clothes, wearing Italian swords at their hips, swaggering around looking for something to do to fill their endless and empty free time. Seeking "entertainment". Perhaps speaking whatever Italian they learned from their sword masters. And if they "found" trouble they could buy their way out of any real trouble. They were a menace. And the average Londoner was getting sick of it. If a normal group of young men got into a fight, the city watch could break it up and drag everyone involved in front of a judge for trial and punishment. These gangs of nobility played by their own rules. The late Terry Pratchett wrote that privilege meant private law: if the penalty for starting a fight was 3 shillings, and your weekly allowance was 50 shillings, than the fine wasn't a deterrent. If your title, or daddy's title, protected you from being thrown in jail, then there was no fear of being sent up the river. Feral dogs that no one was allowed to reign in. 

Another aspect with the rapier style of fencing was that the method of fighting was different than what Silver was teaching. While the "buckler style" of dueling was done almost nose to nose, the Italian styles relied far more on the length of the blade and the ballet-like movements to move in and out of "measure"; fighting at the extreme range of the fencer and striking like a viper and then withdrawing out of reach of a counter attack. The old school fencers viewed this as cowardly: not man enough to stand toe to toe with your enemy. The Italophiles viewed this as "proper" training to give them more time to parry an incoming shot. A modern writer compared the perception of the new rapier styles to the Saxon attitude towards the mounted combat of the Normans: if you ride in to battle on a horse you are half way to running away from battle on that horse. That is, if you fight from way, way, way over there, you are giving yourself a head start on running away. 

So, London was plagued in both houses with gangs of young, wealthy, armed men who were looking for excuses to show of their fighting skills. Shakespeare wasn't describing Verona, in "Romeo and Juliet", he was describing what was going on in his home town; perhaps a touch over the top to show that as bad as it was in London, Italy was worse. "Hey", you can hear the subtext, "if you think that it's bad here, why way over there it's worse 'cause they have no English common sense. No, the English would never start a street riot over someone biting their own thumb. No, only the Italians would be so thin skinned to start a fight over biting a thumb. The English had far more control over their emotions and it would take at least a rude hand gesture to start a brawl." [7]

So, to answer the question that I had asked 40 some odd years ago in Mrs. Defenbaugh English class, Mercutio wasn't warning Romeo about Tybalt, he was telling the audience what type of person Tybalt was. But, because we're talking about William F'in Shakespeare, he told two different stories. To the nobs paying for the box seats, Tybalt was one of them; cloaked in personal honor, wore the latest in fashion, carried a rapier, and was well trained in the latest of swordplay. And to the groundings who paid a penny to stand and watch, Billy-boy told them that Tybalt was a vain, arrogant, cowardly peacock, wearing funny clothes, and carrying a sword that was obviously overcompensating for something. 

Michael York, as Tybalt, in the 1968 "Romeo and Juliet"

[1] Written about 1594 and first published in an unauthorized quarto in 1597. 

[2] Young, noble women were trained to help manage the household, act as companions to the Ladies of the house, and generally train them up to be good wives. Can you say misogyny?

[3] Okay, he did, but he didn't spend much time talking about interest rates and re-payment schedules. Okay, he did write about those things, but those are not the parts that people quote. “I am not bound to please thee with my answers.”

[4] While Silver's book was published after Romeo and Juliet's debut, Silver had been teaching swordplay for years.

[5] "Modernising the Law of Murder and Manslaughter: Part 1", Graham McBain

[6] "How to Behave Badly in Elizabethan England", Ruth Goodman

[7] Not the two-fingered salute, though. This has nothing to do with Romeo and Juliet but it was a fun rabbit hole to go down. The iconic, British two-fingered hand gesture only dates back to around 1900. It was something that was only found in the North of England, somewhere around Tyneside or Newcastle. No one can figure out how it started or what it actually meant, but it was very local and might have had something to do with the iron and steel works. Fast forward to the late 1960s and writers and producers working for the BBC were looking for a rude hand gesture for all of the new comedy shows, but the BBC had strict guidelines as to what could be said or implied on TV. They had a detailed book on all of the known rude hand gestures from all over Europe. Legend has it that some director or producer was in the North Countries scouting for outdoor locations and saw this gesture in action. When he (it was most likely a he, just based on the culture of the BBC at the time) got back to London and started showing it off, he discovered that no one had ever seen it before and, more importantly, was not in the big book of rude hand gestures. It started showing up in comedy shows as the only rude hand gesture shown on screen. When the higher-ups of the BBC cracked down on it, the story about how it dated back to Henry V and Agincourt was created. You know the one. The French threatened the English archers that if they did not surrender, they, the French, would chop off the first two fingers of each of the archer's right hands. Then after they, the English, gave the French what-for, they flashed the still attached two fingers at the defeated French. So, the legend goes, it's not a "rude" hand gesture, it's a sign of defiance towards a bully. As English as the "V for Victory" salute Churchill gave. Today, it is THE English rude hand gesture that is used above all other rude hand gestures. On an related note, we do have court records, from London, that fights, and deaths, were caused by rude hand gestures. One, "the fig", or "the fig of Spain". was so rude that one could get arrested for doing it in public. Shakespeare got into some trouble when one character, in one play, said that he will give another character the fig and then walked off stage. Just mentioning the gesture got the company in trouble.