Two years ago on this blog we took an in-depth look at the 1902 editions of Masiello's treatises for foil and sabre and compared what changes were made from the first edition, published in 1887. While I remain satisfied with the thoroughness of that comparison, at the time of writing I had unfortunately not yet gained access to a copy of the 2nd edition of Masiello's sabre treatise, published in 1893. Now, thanks to the Museo delle Arti Marziali in Brescia, I am pleased to say that this gap can at last be filled. Below are scans of this 1893 edition as well as a document comparing all the changes between the various foil and sabre editions (noting again that, in contrast with sabre, there were only two editions of the foil treatise, published in 1887 and 1902).
In Masiello's preface to the 1893 edition, instead of justifying the publication of his treatise as being a response to Masaniello Parise's government-approved 1884 treatise (which he did in the 1887 edition), here he has removed all mention of Parise and the events of the previous decade, as well as throughout the rest of the treatise. He instead maintains that in this new edition, in response to the criticism he received from readers of the 1st edition, he wanted to make more explicit the foundational concepts shared by both sabre and foil, as well as provide more expansive discussions of key concepts throughout the book. Thus a significant amount of the added material in the 1893 was originally located in the foil section of the 1887 edition, which has been rearranged in a way that better suits the sabre-only nature of this publication.
The structure and order of material is the same that would be seen later in the 1902 edition, with no long historical summary and the section of mechanical discussion being broken up and distributed throughout the rest of the treatise. In two cases in the introductory discussion there are parts of the 1887 edition which disappear in the 1893, but then reappear in the 1902. In general, however, most of the large additions, such as the discussion on the guard, the lunge, and cutting mechanics were first introduced in this 1893 edition, as I had postulated in my original comparison of the 1st and 3rd editions.
Perhaps the most glaring omission in the 1893 edition is the illustrations of the various fencing positions. In his preface, Masiello states that readers are advised to consult those from the 1st edition. Yet two new illustrations are still included, these being the labelled illustration of the fencing sabre (now the newer 2nd model Masiello sabre with a perforated sheet steel guard) as well as the separate illustration of the gripping method; both of these illustrations appear in the 3rd edition a decade later, along with the new illustrations of the sabre-wielding Adonis. Thus while the 2nd and 3rd editions are very similar, the latter edition was intended for a wider audience of new and younger readers, while the former was for those already familiar with the first edition of his work. It is also worth noting that the first place that these 3rd edition illustrations appeared in print was in fact in the British Army's 1895 Infantry Sword Exercise, which is essentially a condensed version of Masiello's sabre method.
The presence of all the major changes to Masiello's method in the 2nd edition, such as the more exaggerated leaning in the molinelli and the prohibition of wrist flexion in the cuts, demonstrate that it was relatively soon after the publication of the 1st edition that Masiello began re-evaluating his views and teachings. Masiello's willingness to modify and update his method in response to his own reflections and the critique of his readership serve as a good reminder that the fencing methods we find preserved in the treatises are indeed merely a snapshot of a moment in fencing culture. The three editions of Masiello's work also reflect the active engagement of the author with the Italian fencing community, indicative of his significance within the cultural debates of the time.
If the average fencer of today knows anything at all about the Italian foil, they likely also have at least a vague awareness of the leather wrist strap that it was so commonly used with. This wrist strap is, in essence, one path in a long development of fencers seeking to improve their ability to grip the weapon, a development which also led to modern anatomic or 'pistol' grips. The wrist strap can be considered more generally as a type of ligature, known in Italian as the legatura or legaccia/legaccio, terms which in English simply mean 'binding' or 'tie'.
The ligature took many forms throughout its development, originally as a handkerchief used to conveniently bind and protect the hand in a duel or fencing bout in place of a glove in the early 19th century. By the middle of the century the ligature was an item separate from the glove, consisting of only a ribbon or strip of fabric, and was a characteristic feature of the Neapolitan school of fencing. At the dawn of the 20th century, the ligature was a popular aid throughout the whole Italian peninsula, and more and more took the form of the aforementioned leather wrist strap, which was the final development until the decline of the Italian foil in the second half of the century.
Throughout both the 19th and 20th centuries, Italian fencers were described as having a greater reliance on force, athleticism, and explosiveness than their French counterparts, and their use of ligatures formed a key part of this perception. As we will see, fencers of the French school were also not opposed to the use of gripping aids on their weapons, but it is in Italy alone that we find the ligature to be so closely woven with the development of both the weapons and the systems it was used in. Thus in order to gain a fuller understanding of the history of modern Italian fencing and its ideological debates in the 19th century, we must also understand the ligature and what it meant for those who did and did not use it.
A makeshift glove
Like many topics surrounding 19th century Italian fencing, the history of the ligature starts with Rosaroll and Grisetti's seminal 1803 treatise The Science of Fencing.1 The two authors dedicate more than eight pages to ligatures, prefaced by a discussion on the benefits of wearing a glove, which not only protects the hand against the opponent's sword, but also allows the fencer (or soldier) to grip their own sword more firmly. Rosaroll and Grisetti's binding method is able to effectively substitute the glove as they recommend using a regular handkerchief (It. fazzoletto), 'which every man carries in his pocket'.2 The convenience of this everyday object is the main reason why they prefer handkerchiefs to bands or ribbons specifically designed to be sword ligatures. In addition to reducing fatigue and wear on the hand, particularly the middle and index fingers, they also also appreciate the protection ligatures provide against disarmament, whether in battle, a duel or a fencing bout. In this respect the ligature is also a substitute for the sword knot, which was commonly used by soldiers but less likely to be found on duelling and fencing swords. The method they describe for binding the sword with a handkerchief is as follows:
Take the handkerchief by opposite corners, and keeping it almost outstretched, rotate it quickly by winding around its length so that when twisted it merely represents the diagonal of a square that it represented when unfolded. This done, let go of the corner you were holding in the left hand, holding the handkerchief in the right by the opposite corner with the ends of the thumb and middle finger. Then with the left hand wind it twice, to the outside of the fingers, around the index and middle fingers, specifically over the joints that are inserted into the ricasso of the sword. Then pass it between the middle and ring fingers, and through the inside of the latter and the little finger it shall be left hanging from the hand. Then grip the sword in the described manner (§ 40) and wind the handkerchief over the outside of the hand towards the top, so that it covers the joints of the fingers to the hand, except for the thumb, and on meeting the outside arch, pass it through there, and after tightening it strongly, cover the joint of the thumb and hand. Then wind it from inside to outside around the wrist twice, strongly tightening the grip and wrist together, always making sure to leave the pommel free. Finally, passing the handkerchief back over the hand, tie it securely to the part of the crossguard between the middle finger and the inside arch, winding it around there two or three times.3
The typical pocket handkerchiefs of today are nowhere near large enough to follow this method, and based on my own experimentation you need a handkerchief with a diagonal length of at least 100 cm (i.e. a square cloth with sides 70 cm long). For the purpose of demonstration, in the video below I give my own interpretation of Rosaroll and Grisetti's method using two 50 x 50 cm handkerchiefs tied together at the corners.
The most common feature of this and all subsequent ligatures is how they reduce the strain felt most strongly by the ring and little fingers, which for most people are too short to full enclose the straight handle on a traditional Italian foil. By securing the first two fingers and the pommel, the job of keeping the grip in line with the wrist no longer relies on the two weakest fingers of the hand. Importantly though, the firmness of the ligature should not overly hinder the movement of the sword, thus Rosaroll and Grisetti, as well as most subsequent authors, make sure to note that the handkerchief ligature should not cover or constrain the pommel of the sword. Aside from the detriments to the hand's mobility if the pommel is covered, doing so also reduces the efficacy of pommel strikes in close-measure grappling, which is something Rosaroll and Grisetti spend much time discussing but is generally forbidden in bouting by the mid-19th century (indeed if it ever was typically allowed).4
The two authors then go on to describe an additional type of ligature which they call a laccio, related to the English words 'lace' and 'lasso'; this is much less a way of fixing the hand to the sword as it is a way to make a simple sword knot using a silk lace around 8 palmi long (a bit over 200 cm). One end of the lace is fastened to the pommel, and the rest is formed into small rings, probably what is referred to in English as a sinnet knot, as Chris Holzman has suggested.5 After enough of the lace has been turned into links, a final noose is formed and tightened around the wrist, and the little finger is inserted into the last sinnet link to prevent the whole laccio from unravelling.6
Returning to the handkerchief methods, three decades later Sicilian master Blasco Florio gives his own modified version of Rosaroll and Grisetti's method in an effort to distribute the handkerchief more evenly across the hand and keep it tight for an extended period of time:
The fencer spreads the handkerchief out and holds it by one of its corners between the last two phalanges of the thumb and index finger; passing it from inside to outside over the last joint of the ring finger, leave it hanging there. Then winding it tightly from outside to inside around the middle and index fingers, at the same time separating the thumb so that only said index and middle fingers are in contact and covered, let it drop into the original position, but making sure to fold in the sides so that it ends up like a band. With this done, pass it along the inside of the middle and ring fingers, leaving it hanging all the same. In this manner, grip the sword as described in § 19, and by winding the handkerchief to the outside, pass it over the index and middle fingers, entering the outside arch and passing diagonally over the end of the middle finger, the third phalanx of the ring and little fingers, and bind them such that these parts should be covered and compressed with the handle. Continuing to turn the handkerchief, wind it around the wrist, still from outside to inside, but leaving the pommel free. Still tightening, pass it diagonally over the outside of the hand so that one side touches the outside quillon, so that the hand is fully covered and bound. If the handkerchief is long, then turn it once more around the thumb, index, and middle fingers, and then wind the end of it twice or thrice around the inside quillon, fastening it from outside to inside in such a way that it cannot become loose. Note that the corners of the handkerchief, which at the beginning of the binding were folded, should always remain this way.7
Two years after Florio's work, Niccolò Abbondati describes a method very similar to Rosaroll and Grisetti's, but now the handkerchief ligature is in addition to the glove:
This is achieved by means of a handkerchief which, held by opposite corners, is rotated along its length, so that it represents a band on the diagonal of the square that it made when unfolded. With this prepared, one of the ends is used to wrap and tighten the index and middle fingers of the right hand together, winding it twice from inside to outside; insert it between the middle and ring fingers; pass it between the latter and the little finger, and grip the sword as described in no. 1080. After this, the handkerchief is wound around the outside of the hand; insert it into the outside arch, and while freeing the thumb it is made to come diagonally over the end of the middle finger and the last phalanges of the ring and little fingers, which should end up covered and well compressed to the handle. From there it is brought to tighten the wrist, winding around this and the handle twice, leaving the pommel free; return to the back of the hand, which one should try to cover entirely, and wind the end of it around the thumb so that the ligature stays firm and is not subject to loosening.8
Despite the close association that ligatures would have with Italian fencing later on in the century, the custom of binding the hand with a handkerchief was also familiar to the French, as evidenced by the popular French duelling code by the Comte de Chatauvillard:
9. The handkerchief with which the combattant wraps their hand must not hang down; the opponent’s seconds, after making them aware, may enjoin them to remove it and make use of only a cord.
10. If it was agreed to wear fencing gloves, either one of the fencers can use it in the case the other refuses. But if only one was brought, neither should have this advantage.9
There is also something to be said for the martingale or leather loop that is attached between the guard and grip of a French foil. In essence a simplified ligature, it may have been used by some French fencers since at least the 18th century (see below). Alberto Marchionni was quite familiar with French fencing, having spent some time in France around the year 1830, and yet, according to his 1847 treatise, while '[i]n the Neapolitan school the way in which the foil is bound to the hand is considered essential', the French, on the other hand, 'do not make use of a band'. As a middle ground between Marchionni's perceptions of these two schools, he advocated for his own type of laccio, which he describes as follows:
To avoid both extremes, I thought it better to put into practice in my school a simple tape 80 cm long. The two ends sewn together represent the sword-knot. To put it into practice one only has to insert the middle finger into it, then pass it over the index finger—this is of course once one has gripped the sword or foil, whatever one wishes to call it—and then over the grip, leaving the thumb free, and then one continues to pass it always doubled between the middle and ring fingers, repeating the same turn around the aforementioned fingers and the grip, and finishing by fixing the other end to the middle finger that one started from. (See plate A, fig. 5).10
Marchionni's enlightening depiction of the laccio
The stated benefit of this type of ligature is that it provides some support to the wielder while still allowing them to easily play in close measure, something which the Neapolitan style of ligature makes very difficult.11 This ideology behind Marchionni's ligature is perfectly in keeping with the fencing system he was advocating, the 'mixed school', which argued that the most effective fencing method can be found by appropriately adopting various aspects of both the French and traditional Italian methods.12
In the following few decades detailed descriptions of Italian sword ligatures are difficult to find, with little more than passing mentions. By the time ligatures are again being discussed in a fencing context, the handkerchief is almost never mentioned, having ceded its place to specialised ribbons and straps. The reasons why the traditional handkerchief ligature fell out of favour are yet unclear. The transition to other materials may have coincided with other developments in fencing equipment, such as specialised fencing gloves, which would render the protection provided by the handkerchief superfluous. The shift may also have simply coincided with a change in men's fashion, in that it became less common to carry around a large handkerchief. As this lies well outside my expertise and the scope of this article, I shall say only that more research on this area is needed.
Specialisation of the ligature
Although specialised ligatures were known to Rosaroll and Grisetti right at the beginning of the 19th century (see above), handkerchiefs were more easily able to protect the weapon hand in lieu of a glove. Handkerchiefs saw continued use in duels throughout the 19th century, and they were still mentioned in duelling codes well into the 20th century.13 The duelling codes of Alberto Marchionni and Cesare Enrichetti, published in 1863 and Luigi De Rosis, published 1868, allow duellists to make use of a fencing glove and to additionally bind the sword with a handkerchief, whether they are using swords or sabres.14 While the latter author mentions the ligature as an alternative to the handkerchief, Achille Angelini considered the former as an addition to a fencing glove or handkerchief wrapped around the wrist, and only permissible 'in exceptional circumstances' and when both parties agree.15
Within a pure fencing context, however, the protection afforded by a handkerchief was likely not as valuable when a proper fencing glove was easily at hand, resulting in a rise in the popularity of ligatures using ribbon, fabric tape or string. An early and unambiguous reference to a specialised ligature for use in fencing is given by the French amateur the Baron de Bazancourt. Bazancourt describes his experience fencing the Neapolitan master Luigi Parise, who when fencing would typically use a dagger in his left hand or the hand itself to parry his opponent's sword. As a response to French fencers who argued they should be able to parry with the left hand (as it was customary among fencers of 'the old Italian school' such as Parise), Bazancourt responds with the challenge that 'you should admit all the precepts of that school, and then you will at least be logical.' According to him, the typical Italian fencer equips themselves like so:
Your sword will have a long heavy blade, broad and perfectly rigid; the hilt will be surmounted by a little cross-bar of steel on which you will place your fingers, and to which you will attach them with a long ribbon; incidentally you will do away with the freedom of the hand, the supple action of the wrist and the niceties of finger play.16
Given that Luigi Parise was imprisoned following the revolutions of 1848, where he subsequently died, Bazancourt's account shows that specialised ligatures were considered typical (at least for Neapolitans) since at least the 1840s.17 It is not until the 1880s, however, that we find the only detailed descriptions of making the ligature with a ribbon or cloth band. By far the most useful descriptions coincidentally come from Luigi Parise's more famous nephew, Masaniello, who provides us with three variations:
They once used the silk handkerchief which was worn on the collar like a cravat. Later they introduced the use of narrow bands of fabric, a metre and a half long, folded at one end to make a ring, into which the one may insert the index finger, or as others do, the middle finger. Having done this, and gripped the sword in the manner described in § 4, the ligature is passed between the ring and middle fingers, and continuing over the handle, one winds it in a spiral direction around the back of the hand and wraps it around the wrist once, passing under the pommel, and above for the other times; after this, one returns to the handle on the inside of the hand and inserts it into the right arch, going back into there a second time by passing between the middle and ring fingers, so as to render the sword secure in the hand. What is left of the end of the ligature is wound around the little finger, passing to the outside of the four fingers. Many fencers use the ligature in this manner in order to not waste a lot of time freeing the sword; but others prefer to do the inverse: that is, after inserting the index or middle finger into the ring of the ligature, they grip the sword and start binding it by passing it into the right arch twice, and then over the back of the hand, the wrist, etc. There is a third method which is also good. The pommel of the sword is inserted into the ring of the ligature; this is then passed around the wrist several times to keep the pommel fixed; then it is passed twice into the right arch, and the rest is wound around the little finger. Whichever of the three methods one binds the sword with, the result will be the same.18
Aside from protecting against disarmament, Parise states that the ligature reduces hand fatigue, allows for more strength to be employed in attacks and parries, gives more suppleness to the muscles of the hand and arm, and also provides slightly more protection to the hand and wrist. Just four years after Parise we find another description of a ligature, here from Sicilian master Antonino Guglielmo:
First of all, you must equip yourself with a [ribbon?] two metres long, wind it twice around the index finger, and turn it around the hand until the fingers are covered with seven parts of it, the rest is tied to the outside arch. Secondly, you should note that this ligature should leave all the muscles of the hand free such that, in tightening it, movement is not impeded, and the hand does not go numb. Thirdly, take care not to bind and cover the pommel of the sword, otherwise it will not be possible to articulate the feints.19
It appears that the intention behind Guglielmo's method is to more or less cover the hand with the ligature, thus a wider and thinner ribbon would likely achieve a better result than what my video demonstrates. Given that both Parise and Guglielmo only mention the required length of the ligature, the material, its thickness, and its width were likely a matter of personal preference and were dependent on what was easily available.
Armed with these and likely many other methods, Italian fencers soon began travelling the Western World, dazzling crowds from Chicago to St. Petersburg. The Italian foil and of course the ligature were common points of fascination for many, as seen in one article from 1886 New York Times describing a newly arrived Neapolitan fencer:
Signor Enrico Casella, a distinguished Italian swordsman, has arrived in New-York. He fences in very handsome style according to the fashion of Naples, of which city he is a native. The Neapolitan fencers have retained certain old methods, which have gone out in France and elsewhere in Italy, of binding the hand securely to the handle of the foil, using for that purpose a long tape or a handkerchief. Signor Casella uses a foil no longer in the blade than the French masters, differing in that from the old Neapolitan school, but his weapon has a bell-shaped guard and a transverse bar underneath it, upon which the first two fingers close. The foil and the arm become one piece, and it becomes impossible to perform on him the tricks of disarming which some fencers enjoy.20
The clearest image of a ligature I have found so far is a photo on Gallica of Aurelio Greco in 1913, seen below, in which a dark, slightly glossy ribbon roughly 15 to 20 mm wide can be seen running from crossguard of the foil and over Aurelio's wrist. Mimiague on the right also has a martingale mounted on his French foil.
One other (less clear) photo from 1901 shows Athos di San Malato holding an early Italian épée with what looks to be a simple string binding his hand to the weapon. The ligature is less commonly seen on épées during the 20th century, partly because for this weapon in particular many Italians preferred the French grip over the Italian.
While ribbon and string ligatures continue to appear occasionally throughout the first half of the 20th century, the last somewhat useful description comes in 1929 from the Argentinian master Horacio Levene, who characterised it more as an outdated method belonging to previous generations of fencers:
Gradually, the custom of strongly tying the weapon to the hand has been lost, with long strips of cloth which, after gripping the crossguard, secured the fingers, passing over the hand and finished by being wound a few times around the wrist or going back to the hand, causing the rest to disappear between the fingers, etc. With the ligature it is possible to grip the sword with more force, to better secure the weapon to the hand, and to consequently give greater control and resistance to the parries. Among the usual ligatures, there was one which, taking the pommel with the long strip, was wrapped around the wrist, and passing over the hand and taking one side of the crossguard, the excess is lost by wrapping the index finger in the hollow of the hand.21
Levene then goes on to describe the type of ligature that had become more popular by that point and remained so for the rest of the Italian foil's reign on the international stage: the leather wrist strap. Before we examine this final development, however, it is worth taking a closer look at how ligatures were perceived in Italy and the divisive debates around when, if at all, they should be used.
An object of scorn
Even before the particularly heated ideological debates which characterise the last few decades of the 19th century, the question of to bind or not to bind was divisive. For some the ligature symbolised the preservation of pure Italian fencing in the face of foreign, predominantly French, influence; for others, binding the sword was at best unnecessary and at worst a pernicious vice.
The sword method of Genoese master Paolo De Scalzi, writing in the middle of the 19th century, shows much in common with the traditional southern Italian masters; his comments regarding the ligature, on the other hand, are more in line with the views of Alberto Marchionni and the mixed school, which we touched on earlier. De Scalzi explicitly calls out Rosaroll and Grisetti for their preoccupation with the ligature, remarking that 'even the most renowned men can sometimes stumble!'. In his view, students should not become accustomed to using a ligature in case they find themselves in a situation where using it is impracticable, such as in combat. He does however advocate the use of sword knots, as they allow the wielder to quickly release the weapon from the hand.22 Aside from what we have seen so far, most Italian authors outside the southern provinces are remarkably silent on the ligature until later in the century, which could be an indication of its rarity in day-to-day practice there.
Luigi Zangheri, a fencing master who taught in Bologna, also advocated using an Italian foil without a ligature. Mounted with a blade shorter than that advocated by the Neapolitans, this allowed him and his students to execute certain 'French' techniques that a ligature renders difficult or impossible, such as an angulated parry of 1st or the coupé in close measure. The fencing method he taught was otherwise relatively traditional, identifiable with what most Neapolitans were teaching, and yet his opposition to using ligatures would eventually, after his death, lead his pedagogical descendants to sympathise more at times with the mixed school, although never quite identifying themselves as members of it. Zangheri's most famous student, Cesare Enrichetti, ensured that this tradition continued to flourish for the rest of the century.23 With these two traditions predominating in Northern Italy—Zangheri's school and the mixed school proper—the ligature retained its Neapolitan association and the scepticism of Northern Italians.
Following Italian unification, the government began a programme of training its own fencing masters for the army as part of a greater military reform process. One unintended consequence of this was that the ideological grievances between the various fencing systems that existed in Italy took on a more national importance, as the system that the Ministry of War selected to be propagated among the soldiers of Italy would earn the right to truly be called 'Italian'. From 1874 the sole method officially sanctioned by the Italian military was the method of Giuseppe Radaelli, who taught foil fencing according to the 'half-Italian' or mixed school.24
Two mixed-school foils from the Agorà della Scherma in Busto Arsizio.
As the young military fencing masters graduating from Radaelli's school became more numerous and prominent in the national fencing scene, advocates of the Neapolitan school became increasingly vocal in their disapproval of Radaelli's system, which they characterised as neither French nor Italian.25 With the death of Radaelli in 1882, the opportunity presented itself for the Ministry of War to look for a new, more 'Italian' method; as chance would have it, the fencing treatise that was eventually selected by the commission to be the new official textbook for Italian fencing was that of Neapolitan master Masaniello Parise.26
When this treatise was published in 1884, a report on the commission's deliberations was included in the book, in which we read that there had been a particularly 'lively disagreement' around the topic of the ligature. Since the form of the weapon was by now, in the minds of many, inextricably linked to the fencing method itself, very early in the commission's deliberations (indeed before even looking at any of the treatises submitted to the competition) the members all came to the agreement that only the Neapolitan foil had the right to be considered a 'real sword', and thus since the Neapolitan foil had been selected, it was only logical that a Neapolitan method also be chosen.27
In their fervent effort to maximise the apparent Italianness of the official fencing method, the members of the commission made the Neapolitan foil inviolable; thus when some of the other submissions provide possible modifications to the grip, such as that offered by Giordano Rossi's curved handle, they are all strongly rejected.28 By removing the possibility of modifying the weapon, many in the commission then felt it was necessary that use of the ligature be made a foundational aspect to the instruction of foil fencing, with some even going so far as to claim that 'without the ligature, a Neapolitan fencer suffers to the point of no longer being themselves at all.'29
A comparison of the traditional Italian grip (left) with Rossi's curved grip (right). Note the ability for the last two fingers to obtain a better purchase on the handle.
Although the commission eventually settled on a compromise of omitting ligatures in the early stages of training, leaving it to individual choice once students begin bouting, the association of the ligature with the Neapolitan-cum-Italian foil remained a contentious issue, particularly for the recently defeated Radaellian camp. The Radaellians were able to recognise that continued use of the mixed foil had become untenable in the nationalist fervour of 1880s fencing discourse, and thus its most prominent representatives also by-and-large switched to using the traditional Italian foil. What they would not concede, however, was that use of a ligature was at all necessary. Instead of focusing on the 'half-Italian' school of their master, Radaellians often chose to amplify the Zangheri tradition, which through Enrichetti's students had become interwoven with the development of Radaellian fencing.30 The most famous representative of his Radaelli-Enrichetti merger was Ferdinando Masiello, who openly acknowledged the flaws of his colleagues in the early years, but maintained that it was they who bore the torch of progress in Italy, and not the traditionalist Neapolitans:
Please forgive us, classicists of the ligature and of weakness, enemies of the coupé and precision—our flaws are mere blemishes; and our system was already greatly superior technically and practically to [the Neapolitan].31
Radaellian master Salvatore Arista echoed Masiello's associating the ligature with weakness, and also tapped into this renovated Radaelli-Enrichetti brand. In 1888 he observed how the Neapolitans insisted on adhering to tradition for the sake of tradition, thereby 'sacrificing efficacy for custom and elegance' predominately through their use of the ligature, which he considered 'a convenient but also effeminate habit'.32 Despite continued Radaellian backlash and the desire of some in the community to ban ligatures altogether from tournaments, their use was spreading.33 The influence of Neapolitan master Masaniello Parise at the Rome Fencing Master's School likely played a large part in increasing general acceptance for the ligature in Italy, and eventually the act of binding the sword ceased to be seen as a purely Neapolitan custom, becoming simply Italian.
By the start of the 20th century the ligature was no longer an object which prompted heated debate, even if the stance of the Radaelli-Enrichetti faction had not wavered. In 1907 one member of this camp was still repeating the line taken by his colleagues 20 years ago in calling the ligature 'a manifest effeminacy' which permanently inhibits a student's progression in fencing.34 Nevertheless, this was now the minority position. Around the same time as these remarks, a Milanese author expressed their disappointment that Rossi's modified grip was not better appreciated by their fellow fencers, and was compelled to acknowledge that 'most fencers, even famous ones, secure the foil to the wrist with a leather strap or ligature'.35
The shift to straps and gradual decline
Much as the handkerchief made way for the ligature with a ribbon or cord, this in turn diminished in popularity in favour of the leather wrist strap or 'belt' (It. cinturino or cinghietto). Again it is difficult to say when it appeared on the scene, as few sources make a clear distinction in terminology between it and the regular ribbon ligature. In the aforementioned commission report contained in Masaniello Parise's 1884 treatise, there is mention of a 'ring for threading to the wrist' as a less involved ligature method, which may be referring to an early type of wrist strap.36 There are several more hints such as these from the 1890s, especially as foreign commentators begin taking more notice of Italian fencing.
In 1894 the public of New York had the rare opportunity to witness a masterclass of Italian fencing as represented by masters Carlo Pessina, Agesilao Greco, and Eugenio Pini. Among the many comparisons the reporter makes between these 'flamboyant' Italians and the classical French school, which Americans were more accustomed to, he makes a note of the peculiar way they used their foils and the various ways they were bound:
Observe the foils of the Italians. Although they have given up almost everywhere the very long foil, direct descendant of the old long rapier, they still cling to the bell-shaped guard and crossbar underneath. Over this bar they hook the index finger. Not content with the solidity of grasp thus gained, they still resort to the ribbon or strap to fasten the hilt to the hand. In Naples some fencers bandage the hand to the sword grasp before a bout with as much care and ceremony as a Hindoo binds his turban round his head. The roving masters did not always use the strap or ribbon in New York; but sometimes, if about to fence with a muscular man, they passed a strap round the wrist and the lower part of the handle.37
Even if this 'strap' here is not the same as the specialised item that was so prevalent in subsequent decades, it is easy to see how the more elaborate binding methods could be simplified for the sake of expediency and be limited to only fastening the lower end of the grip to the wrist.38 A clearer example is found in the treatise of Austrian master Gustav Ristow, who differentiates the traditional ligature methods and wrist straps and touches on the debates we saw in the previous section:
Binding the foil is an antiquated practice that is still prevalent in Southern Italy especially; it is done by means of a strap (Riemen) or band in various ways, more or less simple, but always with the aim of maintaining lightness in gripping the foil and preventing cramping like fatigue in the fingers. Opinions with regard to binding the foil are divided; we declare ourselves opposed to it, since it causes considerable disadvantages as a mechanical aid in place of the spontaneous and natural gripping method, but we would recommend the use of a simple strap around the wrist and the upper end of the grip for the purpose of avoiding an excessive displacement of the point from the line in certain exchanges in the bout.39
A reduced focus on the more involved ribbon ligatures may also be reflected in a German translation of Masaniello Parise's treatise, carried out by Jacob Erkrath-De Bary and Arturo Gazzera. The latter was a graduate of Parise's Military Fencing Master's School, but instead of accurately translating Parise's detailed methods of using a ligature, this section is condensed to barely more than a footnote, stating that there are 'a number of ways to bind the foil', and that while the method using a metre and a half of ribbon is common in Italy, 'more and more they are being replaced by a small strap (Riemchen), which is fastened around the wrist and over the pommel of the foil.'40
Maestro Francesco Tagliabò assists Helene Mayer with her wrist strap. Observing on the right is Erwin Casmir.
As with the move from handkerchiefs to ribbons, it is difficult to pinpoint why the wrist strap gained more favour among Italian fencers when it did. Intuitively, the wrist strap is much less hassle to deal with in between bouts: the strap only needs to be put on at the start of training and removed at the end, whereas the ligature has to be tied and untied after each bout. A simple strap also requires little explanation for a beginner to use immediately, while the ribbon methods can look quite daunting to the uninitiated. Particularly for those who had only recently been introduced to the Italian foil, such as those outside Italy, the wrist strap may have helped reduce the barrier to entry for newcomers (not to mention children). A change in general training habits and the increasing frequency of competitions may have also played a part here; again, more research is needed.
Nevertheless, a focus on binding only at the wrist seems to have been enough for many, as the strap gradually emerged as the more popular option early in the 20th century. Although I consider the wrist strap as merely a subtype of the ligature, it must be noted that sources generally differentiate between the two, with 'ligature' referring only to a loose ribbon that is wrapped around the hand and/or pommel, while the wrist strap served to secure the pommel alone. So in contrast to the earliest handkerchief bindings (and even some later ligature methods which allow the pommel to remain free, to varying degrees), depending on its exact form the wrist strap can cover and restrict much of the pommel's movement. The uptake of straps can therefore be seen as the third evolution in the function Italian and Italianate fencers expected from their ligatures.
The famous Aldo Nadi demonstrates in his writings how reliance on the wrist strap could make it as much a part of how the Italian foil was wielded as its rings and crossguard were. In his 1948 treatise On Fencing he writes for an American audience who, if they had any knowledge about foil fencing, would have been far more familiar with the French school. Thus he not only provides the most detailed advice of any author so far on how to wear a wrist strap, but refers to the strap several times throughout the book in a way that makes it an almost integral part of his fencing method. He notes at various points how the wrist strap plays a prominent role in multiplying the strength of the hand, as utilised most often in beats and parries:
The handle is bound to the wrist by a leather strap about one inch wide which insures a strength and firmness of grip that simply cannot exist in the French foil. More important, it lightens the burden of the fingers, thus permitting most of their effort to be employed in directing the point (offense). Furthermore, the strap increases effectively the power of the parry (defense).41
Aldo Nadi (left) with his wrist strap poses with Philippe Cattiau (right)
Nadi provides the helpful suggestion that the wrist should be wrapped 'with a strip of thin linen about one yard long and three inches wide', tight enough to be snug but not cutting off blood circulation, which mitigates the abrasion caused by the pressure of the strap. For the same purpose Giorgio Rastelli recommends moistened gauze and William Gaugler an elastic bandage.42 Nadi continues to say that the strap should be tightened snugly over the glove, as close to the hand as possible, but without impeding any movement. Once the pommel is inserted through the strap, it should protrude by 'no less than three-quarters of an inch, and no more than one inch.' Despite the point of contact being localised to the pommel, Nadi considered the wrist strap method to be far superior to some ligature methods in terms of allowing pommel movement:
Some of our fencers prefer to bandage the wrist, the whole handle and pommel tightly together, outside the glove, as a substitute for the strap. Thus, they almost completely prevent the free movement of the pommel. As this freedom is essential in practically all fencing actions, I forbid this way of securing the weapon to the hand.43
I must thank Christopher Holzman for his assistance in explaining how to use this strap in the intended manner. The style of strap used in the above video is still sold through Uhlmann Fencing, but photos and catalogues show simpler versions being used throughout the 20th century where the pommel is merely placed under the strap rather than through a loop. After the invention of velcro in the 50s, this material was also used by some manufacturers to make wrist straps.
From the 1975 Santelli Fencing Equipment catalogue. Velcro wrist straps of various colours are shown on the left page, in the photograph labelled 80V. (Source: Fencing Arms & Artifacts)
Despite the strong preference for straps voiced by some authors, the traditional ribbon ligature remained in use for most of the century, at least as long as the Italian foil was still used competitively. In the footage below, Olympic medalist Aldo Aureggi can be seen untying a ligature after his bout with Renzo Nostini (from the 5:00 timestamp). The latter was also known to use a cloth ligature in competitions, being described as being a metre long, 1.5 cm wide, and which he 'passed between index finger and the palm of the hand, tying it around the pommel'.44
Nostini (left) with his foil ligature still attached after a bout with Edoardo Mangiarotti (centre).
Maestro Giancarlo Toràn of Busto Arsizio recalls the twilight period of the Italian foil as he experienced it in the 1970s:
As for me, I used the leather strap, as many did, during the period I was competing as an amateur, from 1969 to 1975, and after. Later (after about 10 years, more or less) it was banned. In the same period the Italian foil (with the crossguard) was dying out. But there were still fencers who utilised it: some with a strap, others with a long ribbon which they wound around the wrist in various ways.45
Toràn believes that it is possible some high-level fencers were still using ligatures in the 80s, but by then it was certainly extremely rare. Over the several decades of overlap between the invention of anatomic grips and the use of wrist straps, it is even possible to spot instances where both an anatomic grip and a wrist strap are used. This seems to have been more common in épée than foil, simply because anatomic grips were more commonly accepted for the former weapon, at least in Italy, than for the latter.46
Today the wrist strap lives on in some niches of classical fencing, but the ultimate aim of ligatures is largely fulfilled in the design of modern anatomic grips. While this marks the end of the Italian sword ligature, before concluding I will give an appendix of sorts for another aspect to sword bindings that is often overlooked, which is their application for French foils.
French ligatures
Given the various methods of sword binding we have seen used on the Italian peninsula, it should not be surprising that similar expedients were not confined by political boundaries. Although not typically referred to as ligatures, the use by French foilists of martingales and thongs should be considered in the same category. As we saw earlier, using a handkerchief to wrap the hand was likely customary among some French duellists in the first half of the 19th century. A 'cord' is given as the alternative to a handkerchief binding in the Comte de Chatauvillard's duelling code (see quote above), suggesting that other methods of securing the sword to the fencer's body were widely known.
The martingale is the most common type of ligature associated with French foils today. Fencing master Gomard in his 1845 foil treatise traces the origins of martingale use in fencing halls to the late 18th century, specifically due to the talents of one Comte de Bondy, a talented fencer who in the 1790s was considered in the same class as the famous Chevalier de Saint-Georges. De Bondy was able to parry with such force that his opponents had to begin using martingales when fencing him to prevent their foil colliding with spectators when disarmed. The martingale which Gomard describes, 'a small silk or cord strap' attached to the guard of the foil, would still be familiar to many fencers today, although leather is more commonly seen in the 20th century.47
Two roughly mid-19th century French foils equipped with leather guards and martingales. From the Agorà della Scherma in Busto Arsizio.
The popularity of the martingale received an artificial boost in the Olympic era after the foundation of the International Fencing Federation, who since at least the 1930s mandated the use of a martingale when the foil was not otherwise attached to the hand.48 Italian ligatures and wrist straps would already satisfy this requirement, so the Federation's rule may have in fact further entrenched the traditional Italian binding methods as well as the French.
While not providing much protection against the grip coming loose from the hand, by preventing disarms the martingale is closer to the sword knot in its utility, but some additional leverage can still be produced in forceful blade actions. The martingale may be long enough to only permit the first two fingers to be inserted, or it may even allow all four fingers to be wrapped, as in the example below.49
One alternative that some fencers made use of to satisfy the FIE's requirements is what Albert Manley called the 'thong'. This is a simple loop of cord separate from the foil that is placed over the grip in the palm of the hand, thus achieving a similar purpose to the martingale.50
When foil scoring was electrified in the 1950s, the body wire which attaches to the guard was considered a sufficient alternative to the martingale or thong, and this would no doubt have reduced their popularity. The French grip eventually suffered a similar fate as the Italian grip, at least at the top competitive levels, and declined in use in the second half of the century; yet unlike the Italian grip it is still found in many, if not most, clubs around the world today due to its versatility and ease of use, at least in the early stages of training. While martingales and thongs of the French foil did not have the distinctive influence on the weapon's progression that we have seen with the Italian foil, their basic functionality rightly places them in the category of ligatures.
Conclusion
Among the many distinguishing features of Italian foil fencing, the widespread use of ligatures is one of its more curious and unique developments. From its somewhat humble origin as an ersatz glove in the first half of the 19th century, the ligature soon differentiated itself to become an essential piece of the Neapolitan arsenal by the 1840s. Those who used the ligature lauded its ability to amplify the virtues of the Neapolitan sword and the fencer themselves, while its opponents saw it as a marker of weakness, as a tacit acknowledgement of the weapon's flaws, and the result of stubborn traditionalism. By the time the ligature reached its final and most popular form in the wrist strap at the turn of the 20th century, the practice of binding the foil was closely linked with Italian fencing as a whole.
So ingrained and clearly beneficial was the ligature to its users that it saw the Italian foil be preferred even above anatomic grips for many decades, only seeing clear decline after the weapon's electrification in the 1950s. Throughout this whole time in which Italian ligatures were in use, French fencers also found it convenient to secure the foil to the hand; when attachments were mandated for foil in the 20th century, ligatures became an everyday object even for French foilists. It is then somewhat remarkable how quickly this simple tool disappeared from fencing halls. If anything, this demonstrates that the practicality of anatomic grips, at least with respect to the foil, addresses the same aim that was sought after in the ligature. Perhaps it could be said that the final, true successor to the foil ligature is in fact the anatomic grip.
*******
1 Giuseppe Rosaroll-Scorza and Pietro Grisetti, La scienza della scherma (Milan: Stamperia Del Giornale Italico, 1803).↩ 2 Ibid., 34. It is possible that these authors also had in mind the silk cravat commonly worn around the neck at the time.↩ 3 Ibid., 34–5.↩ 4 See Blasco Florio, La scienza della scherma (Catania: Tipografia del R. Ospizio di Beneficienza, 1844), 129–32; Benedetto Sernicoli, Breve e succinta istruzione intorno alla scherma per uso della guardia civica (Rome: Tipografia Monaldi, 1847), 25.↩ 5 Christopher Holzman, introduction to The Science of Fencing, by Giuseppe Rosaroll-Scorza and Pietro Grisetti, trans. Christopher Holzman (Wichita, KS: self-pub., 2018), xxvii–xxxviii.↩ 6 Rosaroll-Scorza and Grisetti, Scienza della scherma, 36–8.↩ 7 Florio, Scienza della scherma, 82–3.↩ 8 Niccolò Abbondati, Istituzione di arte ginnastica per le truppe di fanteria di S. M. Siciliana (Naples: Reale Tipografia Militare, 1846), 227–8.↩ 9 Comte de Chatauvillard, Essai sur le duel (Paris: Bohaire, 1836), 29. This duelling code also saw use in Italy, receiving an Italian translation in 1864. See Conte di Chatauvillard, Codice del duello, trans. Eugenio Torelli (Naples: Stabilimento Tipografico del Plebiscito, 1864).↩ 10 Alberto Marchionni, Trattato di scherma sopra un nuovo sistema di giuoco misto di scuola italiana e francese (Florence: Tipi di Federigo Bencini, 1847), 186.↩ 11 Ibid., 231–2.↩ 12 Ibid., 62.↩ 13 See Jacopo Gelli, Codie cavalleresco italiano, 15th ed. (Milan: Ulrico Hoepli, 1926), 74–5.↩ 14 Alberto Marchionni and Cesare Errichetti, Norme sui duelli e attribuzioni dei padrini (Florence: Tipografia di P. Fioretti, 1863), 13–4; Luigi de Rosis, Codice italiano sul duello (Naples: Fratelli de Angelis, 1868), 35–6; 43–4.↩ 15 Achille Angelini, Codice cavalleresco italiano (Florence: Tipografia di G. Barbèra, 1883), 105–6.↩ 16 Baron de Bazancourt, Secrets of the Sword, trans. C. F. Clay (London: George Bell, 1900), 165–8.↩ 17 Masaniello Parise, dedication in Trattato teorico-pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola (Rome: Tipografia Nazionale, 1884).↩ 18 Parise, Trattato teorico-pratico, 219–20.↩ 19 Antonino Guglielmo, Sunto ed innovazioni sulla scherma di spada e di sciabola (Messina: Tipi Caporal Fracassa, 1888), 13–4.↩ 20 "A Neapolitan fencer," New York Times, 14 March 1886, 14.↩ 21 Horacio Levene, Teoria de la esgrima (Buenos Aires: Talleres Gráficos G. Garbo, 1929), 9–10.↩ 22 Paolo De Scalzi, La scuola della spada, 2nd ed. (Genoa: Tipografia e Litografia di L. Pellas, 1853), 29–30.↩ 23 Salvatore M. Arista, Del progresso della scherma in Italia: considerazioni sull'impianto della nuova scuola magistrale per l'esercito fondata in Roma nel 1884 (Bologna: Società Tipografica già Compositori, 1884), 6–7.↩ 24 Settimo Del Frate, Istruzione per la scherma di punta di Giuseppe Radaelli professore di scherma e ginnastica scritta d'ordine del Ministero della Guerra (Milan: Litografia Gaetano Baroffio, 1872), 1.↩ 25 See Achille Angelini, Osservazioni sul maneggio della sciabola secondo il metodo Redaelli (Florence: Tipi dell'Arte della Stampa, 1877); Luigi Forte, Sul metodo di scherma Redaelli: lettera critica diretta al signor Ferdinando Masiello maestro di scherma all'Accademia di Torino (Catania: Tipografia C. Galàtola, 1878); Giuseppe Perez, Il sistema di spada Radaelli giudicato dall'arte della scherma (Verona: Prem. Stab. Tip. di Gaetano Franchini, 1878).↩ 26 Masaniello Parise, Trattato teorico pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola: preceduto da un cenno storico sulla scherma e sul duello (Rome: Tipografia Nazionale, 1884).↩ 27 Paulo Fambri, "Relazione" in Masaniello Parise, Trattato teorico pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola: preceduto da un cenno storico sulla scherma e sul duello (Rome: Tipografia Nazionale, 1884), ix–x.↩ 28 Ibid., xii–xiii. While commission's report does not refer to Giordano Rossi or any other submission by name aside from Parise, it is clear that the grip with 'curvature towards the left that the axis of the pommel' is referring to Rossi's design. For more detail on his modified grip, see Rossi, Manuale teorico-pratico per la scherma di spada e sciabola con cenni storici sulle armi e sulla scherma e principali norme pel duello (Milan: Fratelli Dumolard Editori, 1885), 17–9.↩ 29 Fambri, "Relazione" in Parise, Trattato teorico pratico della scherma, xxi.↩ 30 Arista, Del progresso della scherma in Italia, 6–7; Carlo Pilla, Arte e scuole di scherma: conferenza tenuta alla Società bolognese di scherma nel febbraio 1886 (Bologna: Società Tipografica già Compositori, 1886), 34–6; Ferdinando Masiello, La scherma italiana di spada e di sciabola (Florence: Stabilimento Tipografico G. Civelli, 1887), 126–30.↩ 31 Masiello, La scherma italiana, 135.↩ 32 Salvatore Arista, "Quattro parole sulla scherma," Don Giovanni, 23 February 1888, 59.↩ 33 See VIII congresso ginnastico italiano: regolamenti e programmi (Turin: Tipografia Subalpina di Stefano Marino), 19; Giuseppe Nini, Torneo internazionale di scherma Genova 16-24 Giugno 1892: Relazione della giuria (Genoa, Tipografia del R. Istituto Sordo-Muti, 1892), 37–8.↩ 34 Saverio Cerchione, "Metodo Nazionale di Scherma con arma unica," Gazzetta dello Sport, 15 April 1907, 5.↩ 35 Primo Tiboldi, La scherma di fioretto (Milan: Casa Editrice Sonzogno, 1905), 5.↩ 36 Fambri, "Relazione" in Parise, Trattato teorico pratico della scherma, xxii.↩ 37 Charles de Kay, "French and Italian Swordsmen: School of Parries and School of Touches," Harper's Weekly, 24 March 1894, 287.↩ 38 Note the focus on the wrist in Arthur Lynch, "French and Italian Schools of Fence: The Vogue Among Amateurs in Paris," Outing, March 1902, 677; Tiboldi, Scherma di fioretto, 5.↩ 39 Gustav Ristow, Die moderne Fechtkunst: Methodisce Anleitung zum Unterrichte im Fleuret- und Säbelfechten nebst einem Anhange, enthaltend die wichtigsten Duellregeln (Prague: Josef Koch, 1896), 43.↩ 40 Masaniello Parise, Das Fechten mit Degen und Säbel, trans. Arturo Gazzera and Jacob Erckrath-de Bary (Offenbach am Main: self-pub., [1905]), 98–9.↩ 41 Aldo Nadi, On Fencing (Sunrise, FL: Laureate Press, 1994), 44–5.↩ 42 Giorgio Rastelli, Scherma, 3rd ed. (Milan: Sperling & Kupfer, 1950), 159; William M. Gaugler, The Science of Fencing: A Comprehensive Training Manual for Master and Student; Including Lesson Plans for Foil, Sabre and Épée Instruction (Bangor, Maine: Laureate Press, 1999), 5.↩ 43 Nadi, On Fencing, 42.↩ 44 Renzo Nostini, Scherma di fioretto (Rome: Edizioni Mediterranee, 1979), 20.↩ 45 Giancarlo Toràn, email message to author, 21 July 2024.↩ 46 One example can be found in Enciclopedia Italiana di scienze, lettere ed arti (1936), vol. 31, s.v. "scherma," plate VI, fig. 13.↩ 47 Gomard [A. J. J. Possellier], L'Escrime enseignée par une méthode simple basée sur l'observation de la nature [...], (Paris: Librairie Militaire de J. Dumaine, 1845), 14–5. See also Eugène Desmedt, La science de l'escrime (Brussels: Imprimerie Veuve Monnom, 1888), 39; Émile André, Manuel théorique et pratique d'escrime (fleuret, épée, sabre) (Paris: Garnier Frères, 1896), 451.↩ 48 Fédération Internationale d'Escrime, Procès-Verbal extrait du Compte Rendu Sténographique du Congrès tenu les 9 et 10 février 1934 (Brussels: Imprimerie F. Van Buggenhoudt), 1934, 21–2; "Fédération Internationale d'Escrime," L'Escrime et le Tir, November 1937, 13–9.↩ 49 Henry de Silva, Fencing: The Skills of the Game (Ramsbury, UK: Crowood Press, 2002), 10–11.↩ 50 Albert Manley, Complete Fencing (London: Robert Hale, 1979), 64–5.↩
In the Italian-speaking world, Treccani's Enciclopedia Italiana is what the Encyclopedia Britannica is, or rather was, to the English speaking world before the Internet Age. Published in 35 volumes between 1929 and 1937, the Treccani Encyclopedia brought together some of the most renowned minds that Italy had to offer. Importantly for this blog, the two authors that were invited to write on the topic of fencing, contained in volume 31, were two people that should be very familiar to readers: Jacopo Gelli and Nedo Nadi.
Jacopo Gelli (who died the year before this volume's publication) gives his customary historical summary, somewhat glossing over the Neapolitan tradition and curiously ending at Marchionni. Nedo Nadi, on the other hand, describes the sport as it was in the 1930s, giving an overview of technique, terminology, conventions, and Italy's global competitive achievements. Of course Nadi does not miss the opportunity to include some of his own views on the most recent developments in the sport; for example, he states that modern developments in épée fencing, such as the disappearance of single-touch bouts, mean that épée 'as it is practised in sporting competitions betrays the end for which it was created.' He then alludes to a proposal that was apparently being discussed at the time to introduce some form of convention to épée fencing, but this obviously did not come to fruition.
In the discipline of sabre, Nadi admits that the Hungarians had 'sometimes' surpassed the Italians, but asserts the sabre still remains a 'typically Italian weapon', and that around the world it is Italian fencing masters who are most highly prized. As for technique, he shares the Hungarian view that neither the 1st-2nd or the 3rd-4th parrying system is better than the other, and that the best fencers do not rigidly adhere to only one set of parries.
Then as now, Nadi considered sabre fencing to be the most impressive discipline to watch from a layman's perspective, despite the gradual changes in its technique:
The wide and spectacular sabre play which delighted enthusiasts of the past century is by now condemned by modern methods, more adherent to the competitive aim; nevertheless sabre remains the preferred weapon of the layman who, in its wide play and materiality of the blow, has a way to more easily able to follow the happenings of a bout.
This could be read as a somewhat romanticised view of the Radaellian era in Nedo's early youth, with its larger sabres and wide cuts.
The text is complemented with photos demonstrating how all three weapons are gripped as well as the typical parrying positions in foil and sabre. Most of the photos, to my knowledge, are not found outside of this Encyclopedia. The entry on fencing ends with a short, uncredited overview of the history of stick fencing.
Unlike most of the fencing texts I have shared on this blog, the two texts in discussion today were not written by authors who aligned themselves with Radaellian or even Italian fencing. While these authors were writing at a time when Italian fencing was taking over the German competitive scene, both were staunchly opposed to this trend. The texts in question are a 1904 booklet by J. Frank entitled Das Deutsche Fechten im Konkurrenzkampfe mit dem italienischen ('German fencing in competition with Italian') and Adolf Meyer's 1912 treatise Deutsche Hiebstich-Fechtschule für leichten Säbel, Hiebstichdegen, Offiziersdegen und Offizierssäbel ('German school of cut fencing for light sabre, cut-and-thrust sword, officer's sword, and officer's sabre').
Frank's 35-page booklet is the more 'in-the-moment' reaction out of the two, as he begins by explaining that in 1901 Italian fencing had been officially introduced at the Militär Turnanstalt in Berlin by order of Kaiser Wilhelm II. The Militär Turnanstalt was where gymnastics instructors were trained for the Prussian military, and thus the institution of Italian fencing there was seen as a huge defeat by Frank. Frank alludes to 'an Italian master' who ran a fencing club in Berlin as the prime mover behind this influence, and given what we know from other sources, this person was almost certainly Luigi Sestini.1
Frank then goes on to compare Italian and German fencing rules, considering the former unsuitable for German culture, particularly in relation to academic fencing and duelling. The booklet also criticises German masters for aiding in the spread of Italian fencing and not doing enough to preserve native practices.
Likewise, Meyer places himself in opposition to Italian influence, describing the differences between Italian fencing with its light weapons and elbow cuts, and German fencing with its heavy weapons and wrist-based actions. Meyer concludes that wrist-based fencing is the most natural and innate of the two methods, thus declaring 'back to naturalness, to the German school!'. This is not to say that Italian fencing had nothing to offer Meyer, however. While Meyer believes that Italian sabres are too light, he also concedes that German fencing swords were too heavy. With this in mind, Meyer introduces his own model of 'cut-and-thrust sword' and 'light sabre' which combine German grips and hilts with lighter blades, between 11 and 12 mm in width and with only a slight curve for the sabre. The 'military weapons' for training officers should have blades between 20 and 22 mm wide. The fencing method detailed throughout the rest of the book appears, to my uneducated eye, as typically German.
Meyer's distinction between 'light sabre' and 'heavy' or 'German' sabre dates back to at least 1896, where we find the first tournament held in Germany with separate events for each weapon. 'Light sabre' was to be performed with 'free measure', i.e. fencers were able to advance and retreat as desired, while the German sabre event was with fixed measure: competitors standing firmly in place as is typical for German academic fencing.2 Despite these efforts, large events with both German/heavy sabre and light sabre appear to have ceased after 1910, with light sabre being the only kind offered from then on.3
While German academic fencing was not able to find a place for itself in competitive fencing, it has nonetheless managed to survive the Olympic age, with many clubs throughout central and eastern Europe preserving the practice today. Frank and Meyer demonstrate the tension within the German scene that followed the arrival of Italian fencing at the turn of the 20th century, a tension commonly experienced throughout European fencing culture at the time.
*******
1 "Une enquête," L'Escrime Française, 9 August 1902.↩ 2 "Assauts à venir," Assauts, L'Escrime Française, 23 August 1896, 2. See also the regulations for the 'Zweites Turnier des Deutschen und Oesterreichischen Fechter-Bundes' in Allgemeine Sport-Zeitung, 15 October 1898, 1259.↩ 3 See event listings in Max Schroeder, Deutsche Fechtkunst: Handbuch des Deutschen Fechtsports (Berlin: Wilhelm Bleib, 1938).↩
Normally when I share a source on this blog it is to make a source freely accessible online for the first time; today, however, I wish to bring attention to a unique source that has been publicly available for some time already, but has only recently come to my attention, and is no doubt unknown to most readers. The source in question is this manuscript compiled by the fencing master Antonio Buja, which now resides in the Biblioteca provinciale Nicola Bernardini, Lecce. Its full title is Tavole illustrative della ginnastica per le armi bianche spada e sciabola, ossia scienza teorico-pratica della scherma ('Illustrative plates of gymnastics for the white [i.e. bladed] weapons sword and sabre, or theoretical-pratical science of fencing').
Antonio Buja was born on 12 March 1825 in Lecce, Apulia. Nothing is known about the first half of his life, but in the early 1860s he joined the National Guard, becoming a captain in 1866. Subsequently he became an employee of the town council of Lecce, seemingly remaining in this role the rest of his career. Since at least the 1870s he also worked as a fencing master in Lecce, having taught at the Real Collegio di San Giuseppe, and likely taught at a private hall in the city in his later years. Newspaper articles from 1874 to 1890 show Buja organising and participating in exhibitions as a respected member of the fencing community. Buja died in Lecce on 11 October 1906, aged 81.1 The only known published work of his was published in 1875, and consists of a collection of discussions around fencing, primarily its benefits as a physical and moral exercise in comparison to other pursuits such as gymnastics.2
Aside from a short preface, his unpublished manuscript consists entirely of illustrations: more than 100 of them spread across 57 plates on both foil and sabre fencing (although the numbering stops at 56, there are actually two plates labelled 'Tav. 5'). The preface explains that the illustrations depict the end of a movement, the beginning of a movement or the movement which most defines a given action. Buja explains that the illustrations are his own, 'drawn and copied from real life'. The word 'copied' here may be alluding to the fact that although Buja is a talented illustrator, many of them do bear great resemblance to illustrations in other, mostly Italian, fencing treatises. In only one instance does Buja give a source for the illustrations being copied, that being on plate 5 (that is, the first plate 5) where he reproduces several plates from the works of Achille Marozzo and Giuseppe Morsicato Pallavicini.3 There are other indications of Buja referencing images from Pallavicini throughout the manuscript, but no citations are given in such instances (e.g. fig. 13 and fig. X, plate 4).
There is a benefit that Buja's plagiarism provides, however, which is what they can tell us about when the manuscript was compiled. Of all Buja's derivative illustrations, the latest I was able to identify was fig. Y on plate 6, which bears close resemblance to one from Masiello's 1887 treatise, as shown below.4 Not only are the postures identical, but Buja even made sure to reproduce the particular style of fencing jacket, which is different to the rest of Buja's illustrations. This would therefore suggest the manuscript was composed no earlier than 1887, when Buja was at least in early 60s. In addition to the aforementioned examples, others show Buja being familiar with the illustrations from the treatises of Parise (figs. V, X, and Y, on the second plate 5), Domenico Angelo (the grapples on plate 34), and Ferrero.5
Left: Masiello (1887) Right: Buja manuscript
Left: Ferrero (1868) Right: Buja manuscript
Left: Angelo (1763) Right: Buja manuscript
It would be tempting to give Buja a pass for the repeated plagiarism in this manuscript, as it was never published (to my knowledge); yet given the fact that the illustrations are individually labelled and that many of them, particularly the diagrams, show a level of detail that makes their purpose nearly impossible to determine by the image alone, it is very likely that pictures were originally to be accompanied by explanatory notes to enable dissemination, if not publicly, then perhaps locally. Regardless, Buja had already proven to be willing to publish plagiarised material under his name. In the final chapter of his 1875 publication, Buja provides a comparison of the various fencing schools of Europe which borrows heavily from a chapter first published in Blasco Florio's book Discorso sulla utilità della scherma and later reproduced in his 1844 treatise, La Scienza della Scherma.6
Despite Buja's reliance on other books, overall the manuscript gives a strong impression that Buja's intent was to demonstrate his own ideas on fencing, founded on both texts and personal experience. The guard position on the second plate 5 labelled fig. 18 resembles a typical Neapolitan guard position, but the rear arm is held in a manner similar to Marchionni.7 This guard is not copied from any Italian text (to my knowledge), and likely depicts Buja's personal preference, given that subsequent illustrations show this same arm position.
Further on we see that many of the plates depicting fencing actions have extra details such as the labelling of various points in space and on the fencers' bodies, lines showing the path of the point or the hand, before and after positions of the blade, etc. Buja was clearly using his illustrations to convey additional information beyond the superficial, static positions of the two fencers, providing a more comprehensive idea of the technical requirements of a given action. What he considered these intricacies to be exactly is unfortunately lost to us, given the absence of any explanatory text, but I have no doubt that experienced fencers today could surmise the meaning of many of Buja's lines and labels.
Buja's attempts to push beyond static depictions of fencing is further seen in his inclusion of many techniques that would at the time be considered unusual or unconventional, such as the leaning void on plate 22, the reverse passato sotto on plate 28, the grapples on plates 31 to 34 (very much forbidden in Italy by this point), the spinning inquartata on plate 43, and the ducking parry of 5th on plate 44. In addition to Buja's inclusion of parry of 1st, these positions suggest that Buja was not a strict adherent to the traditionalist and aesthetic ideals of many Southern foil fencers his age.
This unconventionality continues in the sabre section, where, in addition to the the standard depictions of parries and cuts, Buja has also illustrated ways for a soldier to hold their scabbard after drawing the sabre (plate 49), ways to perhaps cut at the leg (plate 54), two left-foot-forward guard positions (plate 55), and a demonstration of how to shield one's eyes from the light of the sun with the left hand (plate 56). When it comes to technique, however, Buja's sabre fencing shows much in common with the other non-Radaellian methods of the time, and shows no evidence of Radaellian influence.
Buja's wonderful illustrations shine a little bit of a light on a region that rarely gets a mention in Italian fencing literature. Even though Buja's motivations with the manuscript are unknown to us today, his work demonstrates that he was a keen observer of the development of Italian fencing throughout his long life and was relatively forward-thinking in his own approach to the practice. There are no doubt countless more interesting details to be found in the illustrations of this unique manuscript, and I look forward to hearing about what readers discover and any possible theories on what the various diagrams and labels are depicting.
*******
1 Jacopo Gelli, Bibliografia generale della scherma con note critiche, biografiche e storiche (Florence: Tipografia Editrice di L. Niccolai, 1890), 41; "Antonio Buja," Gazzetta delle Puglie, 13 October 1906; Corriere Meridionale, 18 October 1906. The earliest appearance of Buja I have been able to find is in Il Cittadino Leccese, 17 April 1874, 203.↩ 2 Antonio Buja, La scherma considerata sotto tutti i rapporti sociali, fisici e morali (Lecce: Tipografia Editrice Salentina, 1875).↩ 3 Marozzo, Opera Nova de Achille Marozzo, Mastro Generali de l'Arte de l'Armi (Modena: D. Antonio Bergolae, 1536); Pallavicini, La seconda parte della Scherma Illustrata, ove si dimostra il vero maneggio della spada, e Pugnale, & anco il modo come si adopera la Cappa, il Borchiero, e la Rotella di notte, le quali regole non sono state intese da nessuno Autore (Palermo: Domenico d'Anselmo, 1673). ↩ 4 Ferdinando Masiello, La scherma italiana di spada e di sciabola (Florence: Stabilimento Tipografico G. Civelli, 1887).↩ 5 Masaniello Parise, Trattato teorico-pratico della scherma di spada e di sciabola (Turin: Tipografia Nazionale, 1884); Giuseppe Rosaroll-Scorza and Pietro Grisetti, La scienza della scherma (Milan: Stamperia Del Giornale Italico, 1803); Domenico Angelo, L'École des armes, avec l'explication générale des principales attitudes et positions concernant l'escrime (London: R. & J. Dodsley, 1763); Giovanni Battista Ferrero, Breve trattato sul maneggio della sciabola (Turin: Tipografia Subalpina di Marino e Gantin, 1868).↩ 6 Buja, La scherma, 138–144. Cf. Blasco Florio, Discorso sulla utilità della scherma (Messina: Giuseppe Fiumara, 1825), 32–8; Florio, La scienza della scherma (Catania: Tipografia del R. Ospizio di Beneficienza, 1844), 69–74.↩ 7 Alberto Marchionni, Trattato di scherma sopra un nuovo sistema di giuoco misto di scuola italiana e francese (Florence: Tipi di Federigo Bencini, 1847), fig. 8.↩
