Stiletto for comments ... please

batjka · 25th October 2019, 02:57 PM

Pardon my ignorance, but where can I find some documentation that daggers were prohibited in Venice? My understanding is that up until early 18th century, swords and daggers could be openly carried by city state citizens.

For example, Cosimo Medici was described as "wearing a coat of mail under his jerkin, a sword and a dagger hanging from his belt, and with numerous small stiletti, with very sharp points, almost as fine as needles, stuck into the lining of his scabbard as into a needdle-case".

fernando · 25th October 2019, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by batjka

Pardon my ignorance, but where can I find some documentation that daggers were prohibited in Venice? My understanding is that up until early 18th century, swords and daggers could be openly carried by city state citizens...

Maybe trying harder some references may be found ... just kidding

.
For all we know, the prohibition of carrying a determined weapon, for its special specifity, is implicitely excluded from the right to carry weapons in general. We could perhaps take Spanish navajas, crossbows, or (cup hilted) swords with off mark blades, for pertinent examples...

Quote:

Originally Posted by batjka

...For example, Cosimo Medici was described as "wearing a coat of mail under his jerkin, a sword and a dagger hanging from his belt, and with numerous small stiletti, with very sharp points, almost as fine as needles, stuck into the lining of his scabbard as into a needdle-case".

A member from the previledged Medici family is hardly an example

; and the centoventi as such, appeared almost four centuries after he has gone to heaven. Maybe the prohibition of such concealable weapon was result of flourishing Cosimo's imitators; this assuming that, his fixation for wandering around with such arsenal, was a fact.

... And by the way; how is your Italian?
From Guida del raccoglitore e dell'amatore di Armi Antiche - 1900

.

batjka · 25th October 2019, 07:16 PM

Thank you for your reply, Fernando. Cosmo Medici wondered about with such arsenal in early to mid-16th century, right when these "gunners' stiletti" appeared on the scene. I also take sources from early 20th century with a grain of salt, scholarship had moved on since then and many early theories about bearing arms in the early modern period were debunked

I will take your advise and look for references.

Obrigado

M ELEY · 26th October 2019, 02:43 AM

I assumed that not ALL weapons had the ban, just stilettos based on their concealability and assumed use as an 'assassin's weapon', much as switchblade knives were/are illegal in parts of the U.S.

fernando · 26th October 2019, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by batjka

...Cosmo Medici wondered about with such arsenal in early to mid-16th century, right when these "gunners' stiletti" appeared on the scene...

What am i missing, batjka ?
MY COSMO existed 1389-1464, and the gunner's stiletto in a centoventi dress appeared by mid 1700 ... am i wrong ?

batjka · 26th October 2019, 08:27 PM

While gunners' stiletto did appear in the 17th century, stiletto as a weapon form came about much earlier, in the 15th century.

I would love to see actual city statutes that prohibit stiletti as "dangerous weapons". A lot of what we assume today is an invention of 19th century historians. Take Langes Messer, for example. It was long claimed that this weapon form became popular because it was a workaround statutes prohibiting citizens from wearing swords. So people started wearing "long knives" because they were "not a sword". We now know that it is a complete and utter nonsense. Burghers were not prohibited from wearing swords and if they were this technicality would not have helped them. A knife-type hilt construction came about due to guild regulations where knifemakers were able to get into a sword making business.

fernando · 27th October 2019, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by batjka

... While gunners' stiletto did appear in the 17th century, stiletto as a weapon form came about much earlier, in the 15th century...

Yet the focus here would not be on the medieval weapon but on the 17th century gunners species, AKA fusetto/centoventi/regola, involved in pretended 'ilegal' conotations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by batjka

... I would love to see actual city statutes that prohibit stiletti as "dangerous weapons"...

As said, searching hard, here and there, we find some data ... lose or compact.
Expecting that you get hold of a decent translating engine ...

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiletto

... fu considerato, nel corso dei secoli, quasi sempre come arma particolarmente insidiosa e, a fasi alterne, ne fu proibito il porto e, naturalmente, l'uso.
... Ancora oggi è considerato (come il pugnale) dalla legge italiana come "arma propria", la cui naturale designazione è cioè l'offesa alla persona, e il suo acquisto e detenzione richiedono una autorizzazione da parte della Questura di appartenenza e la successiva denuncia, al pari di qualsiasi arma da fuoco consentita.

Extracted from CATALOGO DELA ARMERIA REALE

... H. 110. — Fusétto (1) con lama triangolare lunga 0,450, larga 0,015, numerata da 1 a 120. Fornimento a croce di ferro forbito e manico affusolato di legno nero, con punte di ottone e di- schetti di avorio. (Arni. 15).
(1) Fusétto, arma insidiosa del genere dei pugnali, e della specie degli stiletti con i quali ha comuni le forme e le dimensioni. — Pugnali e fusetti senza foderi — 91 — . lnvent. Sale Monit. di X (1548), c. 10. — Dichiarando niuno possa tenervi ne Arcobugietti curti, ne Balestrini, ne fusetti, ne spade o pugnali fusellati, sotto la pena sopradetta della vita, ecc. — . Vincenzo Gonzaga, Grida (1592),
Ardi. 0 Gonz ., Raccol. Bastia , iv, 89. Questi fusetti degli esempj sono gli ordinar j usati a quel tempo, ossia il vocabolo era sinonimo di stiletto. 11 nostro fusetto invece, numerato da 1 a 120, è quello dei Bombardieri veneti presso i quali ne incominciò Fuso nel secolo xvii e forse non prima del 1661, come si può giudicare dal seguente documento. — Noi Proueditori airArteglieria. Facciamo saper a tutti che il Strenuo Antonio Spadon q. ra Lorenzo, s'attroua descritto per Caporale di Scolari Bombardieri di questa Città è stato da noi...., eletto per Caporale della Compagnia di Bombardieri di questa città Per tale dunque sarà d’ogni Scolaro Bombardiere riconosciuto et obbedito; Commettemo però a tutti et cadauno pubblico Ministro che debba lasciargli liberamente portare in questa città il Stillo Sagomato giusta alla Parte dell’Eccelso Conseglio di Xci : 15 Lug.° 1661; ecc. Dato daH’Ecc. mo Magistrato all’Arteglierie li 10 settembre 1798 . Originale nel Museo Correr , Raccol. Cicogna , Ms. di n° 861. A Venezia, il popolo lo chiamava — Centoventi — dall’ultimo numero segnato sull’arma. Nel mio libro Doc. ined ., ecc., alla nota 377 (p. 421 e seg.), e in un opuscoletto dal titolo— Stiletti o fusetti , ecc. — Torino 1865, Tip. Cassone e Comp ., cercai escludere

Jim McDougall · 27th October 2019, 05:43 PM

As has been noted, it would take considerable research and probably some serious linguistic skills and resources to find 'hard copy' details on these presumed restrictions on weapons. It does seem that zealous writers on arms and armor in the 19th century created a labyrinth of lore and 'chestnuts' that have prevailed as accepted fact with weapons.

It is however, for me at least, a kind of driving force in looking further into these commonly held notions to learn more on the actual history of the weapons.

It seems that in the case of the 'gunners stiletto's' the case of the strange arcane graduations on the blades did come about in the 17th century, and that the distinct character of the extremely narrow blade defied any notable utility purpose. As such a blade was ideal and pragmatically pretty much restricted to one purpose obviously, and fear of assassins was understandably prevalent in these Italian states.

It does not seem that proscription of specific weapons would be issued in any sort of legal decree necessarily, and perhaps not formally. As with the case where the blade lengths on rapiers were restricted to specific length, or the wearing of swords entirely was restricted to persons of station, I cannot place actual worded decree …….but would find same interesting. While references allude to these restrictions, I have not seen cited material supporting any formal prohibition.

It may be that with the 'gunners stiletto' it was more a case of young men parading around with these purporting to be the highly regarded men who indeed manned the guns, therefore perhaps a matter of hubris rather than legal issue. The often indecipherable graduations on the blade 'looked' impressive, and would be impressive in such ploy.

Strictly a subjective suggestion pending others discovering documentation of ordinances outlawing these weapons, except of course, to the bonified gunners in the military service.

fernando · 27th October 2019, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... While references allude to these restrictions, I have not seen cited material supporting any formal prohibition...

Yet it seems as not only a loose reference but an actual prohibition; a paragraph transcribed from a serious source and reporting to an early date, much before whatever mumbo jumbo may be written by dudes thirsty of fantasy.
If one cares to rehearse a rough translation (read interpretation) of this above pasted part, for one.

Dichiarando niuno possa tenervi ne Arcobugietti curti, ne Balestrini, ne fusetti, ne spade o pugnali fusellati, sotto la pena sopradetta della vita, ecc. — . Vincenzo Gonzaga, Grida (1592),

declaring that no one can keep neither short haquebuts, nor small crossbows, or fusetti, or swords or daggers with a fusetto form, under the aforementioned penalty of life, etc. -. Vincenzo Gonzaga, Grida (1592),

In this particular the 'legislator' contemplates not only the fusetti but those weapons easy to conceal and of lethal & incidious capacity.
Good enough for me

.

25th October 2019, 02:57 PM	#1
batjka Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 39	Pardon my ignorance, but where can I find some documentation that daggers were prohibited in Venice? My understanding is that up until early 18th century, swords and daggers could be openly carried by city state citizens. For example, Cosimo Medici was described as "wearing a coat of mail under his jerkin, a sword and a dagger hanging from his belt, and with numerous small stiletti, with very sharp points, almost as fine as needles, stuck into the lining of his scabbard as into a needdle-case". Last edited by batjka; 25th October 2019 at 03:13 PM.

25th October 2019, 07:16 PM	#3
batjka Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 39	Thank you for your reply, Fernando. Cosmo Medici wondered about with such arsenal in early to mid-16th century, right when these "gunners' stiletti" appeared on the scene. I also take sources from early 20th century with a grain of salt, scholarship had moved on since then and many early theories about bearing arms in the early modern period were debunked I will take your advise and look for references. Obrigado Last edited by batjka; 25th October 2019 at 11:06 PM.

26th October 2019, 02:43 AM	#4
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,141	I assumed that not ALL weapons had the ban, just stilettos based on their concealability and assumed use as an 'assassin's weapon', much as switchblade knives were/are illegal in parts of the U.S.

26th October 2019, 08:27 PM	#6
batjka Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 39	While gunners' stiletto did appear in the 17th century, stiletto as a weapon form came about much earlier, in the 15th century. I would love to see actual city statutes that prohibit stiletti as "dangerous weapons". A lot of what we assume today is an invention of 19th century historians. Take Langes Messer, for example. It was long claimed that this weapon form became popular because it was a workaround statutes prohibiting citizens from wearing swords. So people started wearing "long knives" because they were "not a sword". We now know that it is a complete and utter nonsense. Burghers were not prohibited from wearing swords and if they were this technicality would not have helped them. A knife-type hilt construction came about due to guild regulations where knifemakers were able to get into a sword making business.

27th October 2019, 05:43 PM	#8
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	As has been noted, it would take considerable research and probably some serious linguistic skills and resources to find 'hard copy' details on these presumed restrictions on weapons. It does seem that zealous writers on arms and armor in the 19th century created a labyrinth of lore and 'chestnuts' that have prevailed as accepted fact with weapons. It is however, for me at least, a kind of driving force in looking further into these commonly held notions to learn more on the actual history of the weapons. It seems that in the case of the 'gunners stiletto's' the case of the strange arcane graduations on the blades did come about in the 17th century, and that the distinct character of the extremely narrow blade defied any notable utility purpose. As such a blade was ideal and pragmatically pretty much restricted to one purpose obviously, and fear of assassins was understandably prevalent in these Italian states. It does not seem that proscription of specific weapons would be issued in any sort of legal decree necessarily, and perhaps not formally. As with the case where the blade lengths on rapiers were restricted to specific length, or the wearing of swords entirely was restricted to persons of station, I cannot place actual worded decree …….but would find same interesting. While references allude to these restrictions, I have not seen cited material supporting any formal prohibition. It may be that with the 'gunners stiletto' it was more a case of young men parading around with these purporting to be the highly regarded men who indeed manned the guns, therefore perhaps a matter of hubris rather than legal issue. The often indecipherable graduations on the blade 'looked' impressive, and would be impressive in such ploy. Strictly a subjective suggestion pending others discovering documentation of ordinances outlawing these weapons, except of course, to the bonified gunners in the military service.