Codice del Duello by Conte di Chatauvillard

The scans I present to the reader today are not directly to fencing, but nevertheless pertain to a topic quite relevant to all those practising the use of arms in the 19th century, i.e. the duel.

Scans: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wXh57GmzvlFnB3NSRL6ycflVdGbjMjHp

This book, published as Codice del Duello ('Duelling Code') in 1864 in Naples, is a partial translation of a French text from 1836 entitled Essai sur le Duel by the Count of Chatauvillard. The text was quite popular in the 19th century both within and outside of France, often cited in discussions regarding duelling codes.

This Italian translation is only the duelling code from the original French book. The translation is credited to Eugenio Torelli.

Note that there is an error with the page numbering after page 88, where the next numbered page is labelled 99.

The 1902 Grand International Fencing Tournament in Turin

Jumping slightly ahead of the previous tournaments we have seen, the regulations I present to you today are from a tournament that took place in 1902 in Turin. The regulations are taken from an issue of Rivista Moderna, Politica e Letteraria published on the 15th May 1902 (scans here).

The most notable addition to this and other Italian fencing tournaments in the first decade of the 20th century is the épée de combat. With clear French influence, the duelling sword had not yet fully been accepted by the Italians as a third weapon separate from foil and sabre in the same way as the French, however, in the years following this tournament Italy would see a steady rise of interest in this weapon, with the adoption of special rules and weapons for 'fencing on the ground' in the military and Parise's 1904 publication Scherma da Terreno, detailing his duelling sword and sabre system.

The rest of the regulations still retain the same characteristics of tournaments from the previous decades, with foil and sabre being judged on subjective criteria as well as touches scored and received.

Grand International Fencing Tournament

Here are the conditions which will regulate the grand international fencing tournament, which will take place in Turin at the end of May, under the patronage of the Duke of Aosta.

Conditions of admission

Article 1. On the occasion of the International Exhibition of Modern Decorative Art, an International Fencing Tournament will be held in Turin at the end of May and the beginning of June. Except for the competition with the duelling sword (épée de combat), foreign and national maestri and amateurs will be admitted to the tournament in distinct categories; the examinations will be the same for the two categories.
Art. 2. Those who, despite not teaching the art, have obtained a licence from the Scuola Magistrale in Rome, the National Academy in Naples, or any other private technical Commission, will not be considered as amateurs. The same for those who are known to practise the profession of teaching fencing, even without a licence. The Jury will have full power to decide on the matter. Fencers younger than 17 years old will not be admitted to the tournament.

Proceedings

Art. 3. The tournament will comprise of: a) classification bouts; b) foil and sabre competitions (pools); c) competition with the duelling sword (épée de combat pool); d) due grand exhibitions.

Classification bouts

Art. 4. For both foil and sabre, each competitor must sustain two classification bouts, with two different opponents.
The Jury will classify each fencer with points from 1 to 20, up to one decimal place, and the average of the points obtained in the two examinations will constitute the order of classification.
Art. 5. Those who receive a classification of less than 14/20 in the first examination bout will not be granted a second.
Art. 6. The first eight classified in foil and sabre (maestri and amateurs) will take part in a third classification round (see art. 10).
The merit points received in the bouts of the third round will be averaged with those obtained in the previous bouts and will establish the definitive classification for the allocation of special prizes as per art. 16.
Art. 7. In the classification bouts, the Jury will take into account: a) efficacy; b) the chivalry of the fencer and his spontaneity in declaring the blows; c) composure in guard; d) variety of actions; e) the artistic concept which guides them.
It will be in the Jury’s power to inexorably exclude from the competition those who do not declare aloud the blow they receive to any part of the body with the word: toccato!
In the foil bouts, valid blows will be considered all those given with the point from the clavicle to the iliac crest, including the arm when it covers the chest. Blows to any part of the body will also be considered valid whenever the natural target is otherwise hidden from the opponent’s blade. The double touch will always be judged against the one who provokes it, with the exception of the competition with the duelling sword. The fencer who causes three double touches in a bout will be excluded from the competition. The simple disarm not immediately followed by the thrust or cut will not count as a blow. The Jury’s verdict is final.

Foil and sabre competitions

(Elimination pools)

Art. 8. All competitors who have at least 10 classification points may compete in a competition (pool) in the respective weapon, to two blows with the foil and three with the sabre. These competitions will be subject to the customary rules.

Competition with the duelling sword

(Épée de combat pool)

Art. 9. This competition is reserved to fencers (maestri and amateurs) who achieve a classification of no less than 18 points in the foil bouts. Only foreign competitors may enter this competition without restriction.
In this competition the following rules will be observed: a) The opponents will be placed on guard by one of the field judges such that with their arms extended, the points of the swords are about forty centimetres from each other; b) the competitor who is touched must stop. At the command of halt! given by the director of the combat, the two opponents must stop immediately; c) the competition consists of a single blow; d) blows will be considered valid on any part of the body; however, blows which touch the chest will count for double; e) in the case of a double touch, a blow will be counted for each fencer, two if to the chest. If, according to the field judge, there was a considerable time interval between the two blows, or a considerable difference in length between the two lines where the blows were directed, only one blow will be considered good; f) in cases where corps-a-corps threatens the character of true combat with the sword, the director of the bout will interrupt it. One must always bout with the same hand during the same bout; g) in all phases of the combat, it is prohibited to make use of the non-weapon arm or hand to parry or deviate the opponent’s weapon, or to fight in any other way; h) the blow given to a disarmed opponent will not be valid if, between the disarm and the thrust, there is a long enough time interval that the blow can be withheld. The fencer will be considered touched if he breaks this prohibition; i) the duration of the bout is fixed at a maximum of 15 minutes. After 5 minutes have elapsed, 2 minutes of rest may be allowed. If at the end of 15 minutes no result has been obtained, both fencers will be considered touched; j) lost ground will not be given back, and he who crosses the established limit with both feet will be considered touched. However, the director of the combat will warn the competitor when he is two metres from the limit; k) the gloves must be white, or a very light colour, but not padded. The leather must be strong and very thick. The cuff must be soft, unvarnished, and close-fitting to the arm up to the elbow; l) the marker button should not be considered capable of undoubtedly giving a mathematically correct and decisive result in every circumstance; it is intended to assist the judges in their deliberations, which are all the more delicate because a single thrust attributed wrongly can cause a fencer to lose a ranking he would be legitimately entitled to. The members of the Jury will therefore retain full and complete freedom of deliberation on the blow to be judged; m) depending on the number of competitors, the Jury will decide if this competition will take place by means of elimination bouts or by partial round-robins followed by a final round between the winners.

Grand exhibitions

Art. 10. The tournament will end with two grand exhibitions, in which the following will take place: a) the bouts of the third classification round, as per art. 6; b) the deciding bouts of the last pair of the foil competition of each class (maestri and amateurs); c) the deciding bouts of the last pair of the sabre competition of each class (maestri and amateurs); d) the final bouts of the last two pairs of the competition with the duelling sword.
The two exhibitions will be held on different days, and the bouts will be distributed evenly, alternating maestri and amateurs, foil and sabre.

Jury

Art. 11. The competitions will be directed and judged by a Jury composed of select fencers, if possible from the various nations and main regions which give the greatest contribution to the tournament.
The Jury will elect: 1 President; 1 Vice-President; 1 Secretary.
The attributions of field judges will be free of foreign maestri, and they will be nominated by the tournament’s organising Committee.

Prizes

Art. 12. The Committee puts at the disposal of the Jury the following prizes: 50 gold medals and 50 silver, which will be awarded by the Jury more or less equally to both classes (maestri and amateurs).
Art. 13. Each competitor who receives an average of no less than 17 points in their two classification bouts will be given a gold medal certificate.
Similarly, all those who receive a classification less than 17 points and no less 14 points will be given a silver medal certificate. Other certificates will not be granted.
Art. 14. The available gold and silver medals will be awarded along with their corresponding certificates by order of classification ranking.
Those who earned a medal of the same class for foil and sabre will only be given one, along with a special distinguishing mark.
Art. 15. A single certificate for each fencer will contain all the information relative to the classifications and special prizes obtained.
Art. 16. The special prizes are divided as follows:
Maestri — Foil 1st Prize: 1000 lire — Foil 2nd Prize: 500 lire — Foil 3rd Prize: 200 lire — Sabre 1st Prize: 800 lire — Sabre 2nd Prize: 400 lire — Sabre 3rd Prize: 100 lire.
Foil competition (Pool) — 1st Prize 500 lire.
Sabre competition (Pool) — 1st Prize 300 lire.
Amateurs — The prizes for the amateurs, in similar proportion to that followed for the maestri, will consist of artistic objects, the list of which will be published shortly together with the exact date of the tournament and the list of jurors.
Competition with the duelling sword (Épée de combat pool) — In this special competition, as per art. 9, the only prize consists of an artwork and 200 lire.

Weapons and clothing

Art. 17. The weapons admitted to the tournament are: the foil, Italian and French; the sabre; the duelling sword (épée de combat) for special competition.
The length, width, and weight of the weapons cannot exceed a maximum and minimum corresponding to customs.
In case of doubt, the Jury will decide.
The use of the ligature is allowed.
For the foil competitors, a white jacket and a close-meshed mask are prescribed.
For the sabre competitors, a gauntlet, or small glove with an elbow guard, and an appropriate mask are prescribed.
For both weapons, a sailcloth plastron is required.
Only the duelling swords will be provided by the Committee, and they will be equipped with a Basilone marker button. The use of one’s own weapon will be allowed, provided that it conforms to the regulation model, as per art. 17.

Registration

Art. 18. The registration fee is fixed at 10 lire for maestri and 15 lire for amateurs.
Fencers coming from abroad are not exempt.
The registration pass will give the right to a railway discount, as well as all the other facilities that the Committee of the festivities will obtain in order to make the competitors’ stay in Turin more pleasant.
Registration applications must reach the secretary’s office of the Committee for the International Fencing Tournament, via Bellezia 4, Turin, no later than the 20th May, and be accompanied by the registration fee. In the registration application, one must indicate the weapon, or weapons, which one intends to compete with in the competitions.

La Scherma di Spada by Alberto Cougnet

Today I present to my readers a book from my own collection: La Scherma di Spada by the sports journalist and amateur fencer Alberto Cougnet. Published in 1894 in Reggio nell'Emilia, the text is an essay discussing the differences between the Italian and French schools of sword fencing. Below is a link to a PDF of this text.

Scans: https://drive.google.com/open?id=136AERUSSlbq0U_K53Mq53qRYsnm6hLY6

As may be seen on the title page, it seems that Cougnet was awarded a silver medal for this book at the Genoa Sports Competition in 1892.

Cougnet begins by discussing the origins of each school, then moving onto the differences between the weapons, the terminology, technical differences, and so on.

Whilst it does not provide much new insight to the modern reader on fencing of the time, it does present an interesting point of view on foil fencing in the last decade of the 19th century, not long before many of the distinguishing characteristics of each school began to gradually blur or disappear.

The 1886 Varese Fencing and Gymnastics Tournament

The tournament regulations I present to you today are slightly out of the ordinary, due to the fact that they also contain regulations for the gymnastics tournament that was being held on the same occasion in Varese, which was during the 1886 Agricultural and Industrial Exhibition.

Translation: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1HTiM5PjMhE7-8vnF17NxiEWLcTqY0sGc
Transcription: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Cqeg9pPV9hGCkH-EOPmK0TPLXHgHWIpZ

The regulations for the fencing tournament will look very familiar if you have read any of the previous regulations I have translated, but the gymnastics regulations provide a fascinating insight into competitions for an often-neglected part of 19th century physical training which was very commonly done alongside fencing.

I have done my best at translating the technical terms in the gymnastics section into their modern equivalents, but I am by no means an expert on this topic, so take it all with a grain of salt.

Point-in-line and Priority in 1901

Around the turn of the 20th century, as fencing competitions became more and more common, we start seeing a lot more discussion on bouting rules and the increased codification of what modern fencing calls priority, or right-of-way.

The magazine Rivista Politica e Letteraria from February 1901 contains an article discussing the author's (Neapolitan journalist Vittorio Argento) view of how point-in-line should be defined, as opposed to what he currently observes in the fencing hall, showing many parallels to discussions on point-in-line in the modern day.

Although I have already posted this to the r/fencing subreddit a few weeks ago, I thought I may as well post it here too due to the difference in readership demographics:

It often happens when observing two fencers bout, after both being touched, they are seen to be standing there, each expecting the other to confess to having caused the double touch through their own error. 

'I attacked', one of them finally says. 

'I derobed', the other responds. 

'I wasn't taking the blade.' 

'Wrong! I was standing with the point in line.' 

'What point in line? You were inviting.' 

Each one is obstinate in their opinion. The amazing thing is that the spectators almost always also divide themselves into two sides—those who swear they saw the invitation, and those who swear they saw the point in line. It almost always ends up with each sticking to their own opinion. 

For now, without thinking about anything else, we will limit ourselves to ascertaining where the error originates from, it being indisputable that there must be an error on one side or the other. 

For some time now, many fencers who have or believe they have an authority in the artistic field are allowed licences in fencing and attempt to introduce innovations into the treatises which, imitated and followed by others, and not always well, have given rise to such confusion in the theoretical and practical ideas that it is very difficult to make any sense of it. 

Every day we see fencers on guard with the right arm bent, the elbow and hand to the left as in the invitation in fourth, and who claim to have the point in line, only through having the point directed towards the opponent's chest. They claim the same for the other invitations when the point is directed towards the opponent's body. 

They interpret the words 'point in line' in a very broad sense, and for them, provided that the point is in some way directed towards the opponent's body, the latter has the duty—if he wants to keep to the conventions dictated by the art—to remove the blade from the line of offence before executing any attacking action. 

In order to judge if these gentlemen are truly right, one must first remember why it was established by the treatise writers that one cannot attack those who have the point in line without first having performed an action on the blade. 

A fencer who stands well on guard—with the sword on the line of offence, the arm completely extended, the hand and blade at the height of the shoulder and parallel to the ground—is certain that the opponent cannot touch him without being touched himself by the point which is directed at his chest. It is therefore obvious why it is reasonable to believe that those who do not care about removing the blade from the line before attacking are lacking in artistic precepts, especially when one considers that the main purpose of fencing is defence more than offence. 

Now try to perform a blow with the point also directed towards the opponent's chest, but without having the arm, hand, and point perfectly at the height of the shoulder, either by the arm not being perfectly extended or having it form an angle. The opponent's sword will strike you without him being touched by yours unless you extend your arm and take that position with the sword in line as it has been described by the treatise writers. 

Now, if the convention of not being able to attack those who have the sword on the line of offence without first having to execute an action on the blade was motivated by the experience that by doing otherwise, the attacker would in turn find himself hit, it is natural that the sword should not be considered on the line of offence when, although the point is directed at the opponent's body, it does not form a straight line parallel to the ground, leaving the opponent's blade able to arrive and touch without him being touched in turn. 

Therefore from this, it is quite easy to deduce the consequence that when an opponent does not have the sword perfectly in line, one can—and it is better to—attack by first securing the blade, but it is not one's absolute duty to do so. 

V. Argento

Breve trattato di scherma alla sciabola by Carlo Tambornini

Despite being all but forgotten about in the decades following its publication, the 1862 Genoan sabre treatise Breve trattato di scherma alla sciabola by Carlo Tambornini is a valuable insight into pre-Radaelli sabre fencing in Italy. Thanks to the Biblioteca comunale Planettiana, Jesi, I am pleased to be able to share this treatise with you today.

Scans: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1AssbH3bKMfe-U9LRoRbypIiH1kLkAmQw

All that is known about Tambornini is that which he states himself, which is that at the time of publication he was a retired lieutenant of the Royal Navy and fencing master at the Royal Naval College in Genoa.

The only notable mention of Tambornini's treatise outside of bibliographic summaries comes from Alberto Marchionni, in an addendum to his 1847 treatise Trattato di Scherma, republished some time in the mid-to-late 1860s. Marchionni is full of praise for the treatise, calling it one of the best works on sabre published to date:

Various Fencing Treatises, both for sword and sabre, have been published in recent times, and among these I have been able to acquire that of Mr. Carlo Tambornini, retired Lieutenant and professor of Fencing at the Royal Naval College in Genoa, published in said City by Tipografia Ponthonier e Compagni in 1862. Having read on page two his desire to hear the judgement of his Colleagues, I speak for myself impartially in saying that it seems to me one of the best Sabre Treatises to be published, and it can truly be said to be elementary where its very correct precepts are indicated, both in offensive and defensive actions, on attacking in the tempo of the Opponent's feints and blows, and on the appuntate and remises with the hand. Attentively studying this treatise can be very useful for those who dedicate themselves to this type of fencing.

In addition to the appreciable amount of tactical advice he gives for sabre fencing, Tambornini also gives some advice on sabre vs. sword and sabre vs. bayonet.

The 1891 Bologna Fencing Tournament

Since the first 'international' Italian fencing tournament in 1881, the frequency of fencing tournaments in Italy had grown steadily each year. In addition to the occasional large 'intentional' tournament, there were plenty of local, regional, and national tournaments and exhibitions, sometimes attracting hundreds of competitors, both amateur and fencing master alike.

The 1891 National Fencing Tournament in Bologna, hosted by the Virtus Society from the 3rd to 7th of May, attracted around 200 fencers from across Italy, including stars of the fencing world like Luigi Barbasetti, Grimoaldo Varrone, and Vittorio Tagliapietra.

Today I present to you a translation of the official tournament report, a transcription of the Italian text, and a few articles from the fencing magazine Scherma Italiana which discuss the results of the tournament and offer alternative points of view on events and on the comments of the jury.

For those who do not wish to read the full tournament report, see below for a summary of the tournament's format.

Translation: https://drive.google.com/open?id=19ee5TvwnKjZ8MbXT6Mn49Fis1MUM1R6K
Transcription: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qDZNrllydJLOdLIh7InSy1rO8shvWKqb
Supplementary articles: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1l1NUO3VAMYQQU3BAy4V3QVFFHZCpnKbH

In addition to providing us an excellent example of what Italian fencing tournaments were like towards the end of the 19th century, the tournament report also contains the results of a discussion amongst the jury on the future of Italian fencing, in which they express a number of technical concepts which they believe should form part of a unified 'Italian' fencing method. The desire for a unified Italian fencing method was shared by many in the Italian fencing community at this time, however, the criteria expressed by this jury are, somewhat unsurprisingly, favourable to the Northern Italian school, with one of the criteria for the sabre being particularly Radaellian:

weapon handled with a combination of all the articulations of the arm, however avoiding all movements of flexion of the wrist and only taking advantage of lateral movements. Weapon gripped by supporting the backstrap on the hypothenar eminence of the hand;

With five out of the twelve members of the jury being Radaellians (including the writer of the report), this shows that the opponents of Parise's method had still not given up trying to spread their influence throughout the fencing landscape.

Summary

Foil (known then as just 'sword' in Italy) and sabre were the two weapons categories at this tournament. Each event would take place for both weapons individually.

The first event of the tournament was the classification, in which each fencer would be paired up randomly (maestri paired with maestri, amateurs paired with amateurs) and then bout for 7 to 10 minutes. Touches were counted, but there was no limit to the number each fencer could receive within a bout. Fencers competing in both foil and sabre would have to be classified in both weapons individually.

After each classification bout, each fencer would receive a score out of 10 for 'efficacy', based on 'the prevailing force of one fencer over the other', and a score out of 10 for 'art', the judgement for which being based on:

... the guard positions, variety and rationality of actions, conservation of measure, speed of the attacks and ripostes, good timing, the conduct of the blade, composure, and urbanity of manners.

This would give each fencer a total score out of 20. Fencers who received a score between 15 and 20 points would be placed in the 1st category, between 10 and 15 in the 2nd category, and less than 10 in the 3rd category. Only those who were placed in the 1st and 2nd categories would be permitted to take part in the rest of the tournament's events.

Thus we see the importance the Italians placed on form, even in competitive environments. It was not enough to just score well to be considered an excellent fencer—one also had to show a complete a thorough understanding of the art, right down to its aesthetic ideals.

Following the classification were the 'pools', which were actually just  single-elimination tournaments. There were separate pools for each category and weapon and whether you were a maestro or an amateur. Each 'pool' bout was to the best of 5 touches. The winner of each pool would receive a monetary prize.

The final event was on the final night of the tournament, the Gala evening. This consisted of bouts between the 'best fencers of the tournament', who were the winners and runners-up of the pools and those who received the highest classification scores. These were exhibition-style bouts in which there was no winner, but touches were still awarded.

In all three of the events, competitors were obliged to acknowledge and indicate each touch they received. The field judge would then decide if the blow were valid or not. The valid target areas for both foil and sabre were essentially the same as their modern Olympic fencing counterparts.

There also seems to have been an implicit form of priority in awarding the touches in the case of a double:

Doubles will be calculated against the fencer who caused them contrary to the good rules of the art. The fencer who repeatedly doubles may also be declared out of the competition by the Jury. The common tempo [simultaneous attacks] repeated three times by the two fencers may place them immediately out of the competition.

Many treatises of this period discuss how to assign blame in the case of a double touch, and the judges would most certainly have been aware of the conventions used at the time, therefore more explicit rules on how to award the touch in a double would not have been necessary.

At the end of the Gala evening, the prizes were awarded. Aside from monetary prizes, there were also many items such as pocket watches and ornaments donated to the tournament organisers which were given as prizes to the best fencers.

1891 Fencing Exhibition - School of War

As promised in last month's post, here is my translation of the second of the two pamphlets I received. Once again, I provide the scans of the original alongside my translation.

Scans: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kvuLowVTl7l3LG-lOvQ-8OYZF8Ztlata
Translation: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hBOa5gHLe4RTbglRkCzJfmj5bD90p4CO

This exhibition took place on the 2nd June 1891, between officers of the Scuola di Guerra ("School of War") in Turin.

The programme consisted of two sword lessons followed by 18 bouts, alternating between sword and sabre.

1889 Fencing Competition - Artillery and Engineers School of Application

I recently received two pamphlets detailing fencing tournaments in 1889, both containing a list of the fencers taking part, the jury, and a short summary of the rules. Below I have provided scans of the first of these and my translation of it.

Scans: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NNMAUDKr3YOfDvlUa03jCknLWZXSSfnc
Translation: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GB_7WLotSXNXeirCfM4HFk5QSEmq138S

The competition took place in February 1889 between the officers of the Scuola di applicazione di artiglieria e genio ("Artillery and Engineers School of Application") in Turin.

I had a lot of difficulty reading the list of names due to the cursive handwriting, so I am sure there are errors in my transcription. Please let me know of any errors you might find and I shall correct the document.

I will post the second pamphlet in the coming weeks.

Translation - Considerazioni e proposte per l'unificazione dei vari sistemi di scherma in Italia by Giordano Rossi

As promised in the previous short biographical post about Giordano Rossi, today I bring you a translation of his only other publication aside from his well-known fencing treatise. The title of this work is Considerazioni e proposte per l'unificazione dei vari sistemi di scherma in Italia ("Considerations and proposals for the unification of the various fencing systems in Italy") and was originally published as a booklet in 1890, however it was also republished across several issues of the magazine Scherma Italiana in 1891, from which I obtained the text for my translation (all scans of the magazine may be found here).

Translation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WLiYsw292K4EG7pthhyZ_HOva-qs8rMwDAtUdLZkQ0o/edit?usp=sharing

Much of this text comes across as a reasoned stream of thought about Rossi's opinions on how fencing should be taught, however there are a few very interesting insights into the benefits of the Radaellian molinelli and Rossi's pedagogical method for turning the wide practice molinelli into faster, "restricted" molinelli:

The molinelli with wide rotation are very useful because, in addition to the aforementioned benefits, with them one obtains the actions that are performed in the bout; for example: if we from guard of second parry third and riposte to the opponent’s inside flank, we perform the traversone with the exercise molinello. So too if we from guard of second parry first and riposte, we have performed the molinello with wide rotation.
The molinello that serves to touch the opponent is certainly not that which one does in the beginning of teaching, when the maestro sees the ease in executing the molinello with wide rotation he must, with graduated lessons, oblige the student to quickly move the blade away by means of a sforzo, and he must use a few blows in tempo to the arm in order to make him increase the promptness in the final part of the molinello such that a little bit from the sforzo, a little bit from the blow in tempo to the arm, the student will be obliged to restrict his molinello in order to avoid the possibility of the blow to the arm in the execution of the molinello.

In addition to the technical aspects, Rossi also spends a decent amount of time talking about the role of the instructor in shaping the fencer's instincts and morale:

Now there is no doubt that he who will be morally stronger, and yet more confident in the outcome is the one who, being worried about the consequences of the clash, will know how to keep his cold blood unperturbed in every moment of the action.
Now, if the one who succeeded in putting his opponent in a parry is perfected in the mechanical part, at equal speeds he is certain to touch.
Otherwise his advantages will pass to his opponent, because in order to have parried, he is found in an advantageous position and a contrast of parries and ripostes will occur, with equal mechanical strength victory will be with the one with greater intellect. As shown in this bout I would be able to cite a hundred other combinations in which the fencer’s morale and intellect are due to the mechanical part studied in the instinctive effects of man.

This, I feel, is an excellent illustration of Italian fencing, with all its fiery yet calculated fervour.

Who is Giordano Rossi?

In making a list of the great champions produced by Radaelli, it would be almost unthinkable to omit the name Giordano Rossi. Although he did not have the international influence that other Radaellians such as Ferdinando Masiello and Luigi Barbasetti had, he was nevertheless highly respected throughout Italy not just for his fencing, but also for his contributions to the art such as through teaching and publications.

Regarding Rossi's fantastic 1885 fencing treatise (link in the sidebar), Gelli had this to say in his Bibliografia General della Scherma:

Rossi’s work is an illustration of the Radaelli system. Rossi has attempted to modify the grip of the sword in order to better have the blade in hand; a modification which a technical Commission appointed by the Ministry of War thought appropriate to not accept. Aside from this, Rossi is a faithful interpreter of the Radaellian theories he supports and widens, and in various exhibitions and fencing tournaments he has always achieved excellent results in the application of his own system.

Below is a picture from Rossi's treatise of this modified foil grip. It appears to have been rather popular in Italy, as it was still being listed in fencing catalogues into the 20th century.

Aside from his 1885 fencing treatise, Rossi also published a short booklet entitled Considerazioni e proposte per l’unificazione dei varî sistemi di scherma in Italia, a translation of which I shall be releasing in the next post. About the man himself, I will again refer to us Gelli's short biography:

Born in Bassanello, Padua, in 1851, he had his first fencing lessons from Lieutenant Montefredini, from the training battalion, who first placed him on guard in 1872. He then passed on to Milan with Radaelli, who was very fond of him. There he was a master and assistant in Radaelli’s teaching.
The latter having died, Rossi left the army and was appointed director and professor of the Milanese Fencing and Gymnastics Society, known as the Società del Giardino, one of the most important in Italy, where he is to this day.

A very strong and correct fencer, all over he has made the goodness and efficacy of the Radaelli system shine above the others, which are oftentimes supported with bad arts.

The Parise-Pecoraro Method (Part 2)

(Other articles in this series: Part 1 | Part 3)

In part 1 of this article we read that Parise had collaborated with Radaellians Salvatore Pecoraro and Carlo Guasti on refining his sabre method such that it was accepted by the Ministry of War for use in the cavalry and artillery. We read of the glowing praise showered upon Parise and Pecoraro, with them both receiving knighthoods for their labours. And finally we read claims about how the Master's School's supposed attempts at reconciliation with the Italian fencing community were rather superficial, with the editors of Scherma Italiana claiming that their magazine was forbidden among the school's staff.

However in that very same issue of Scherma Italiana in February 1891, they also published a letter from none other than the Vice-director of the Master's School, Salvatore Pecoraro:

MOST ILLUSTRIOUS MR. EDITOR.

I read in the first number of the newspaper Scherma Italiana that the new sabre handling [method] for the cavalry was completed by Cav. Parise in union with the Radaellian masters Pecoraro and Guasti, and that Mr. Parise 'by changing his mind about the many defects found in his method, has sacrificed self-esteem and self-interest for the art'. This is not correct, as this new fencing method was the sole work of Cav. Parise, who had been writing it since 1885, save for a few slight modifications made by him on the advice of the Turin Commission, but not in the sense that the newspaper Scherma Italiana suggests.
The masters Cesare Cavalli, teacher at the NCO School, and Ettore Dabbene, a teacher at the Cavalry School, can testify to what I write.
So much for the truth of facts.
In asking you to publish this, Mr. Director, accept the kind regards of

Yours truly
SALVATORE PECORARO.¹

This letter is in response to the first extract from Scherma Italiana shown in part 1. By responding to this article Pecoraro obviously puts extreme doubt on the claim that staff were forbidden from reading the newspaper. His response is also rather humble regarding is own contribution into the new sabre method, such that it almost seems to contradict the previous articles with respect to his involvement.

All this excitement around rumours from Rome meant that the editors of Scherma Italiana seem to have got their hopes up for a sort of fencing redemption, as seen in this notice from an October 1891 issue:

A very dear friend of ours writes to us from Rome that in the Ministry of War there exists a special Commission charged with compiling a new official fencing treatise, drawing from the various methods now in existence.
In a word, it would be a matter of taking the good of the various schools now in existence and merging that into a new and unique system that satisfies everyone and gets rid of the fencing friction that now troubles our amateurs and professionals.
This project, which seems to be becoming a reality, was advocated by us in the first issues of Scherma Italiana.²

Unfortunately this does not seem to have occurred, as just three months later Scherma Italiana then republished the following excerpt from another newspaper:

On the first of February the NCO fencing instructors from the regiments in which the new system of fencing for the mounted forces has not yet been adopted will be called to the Master's School in Rome. With this measure the total suppression of the application of the Radaelli system will begin.³

This put a definite stop to many of the Radaellians' hopes for reconciliation in Italian fencing, Scherma Italiana included. In their comments below this excerpt they claim to have been told previously that the sabre system now being taught at the Master's School was 'pure-blood Radaellian', so the announcement of the 'total suppression of the Radaelli system' must have been particularly shocking to them.

This supposed suppression seems to have occurred quite quickly, as can be seen just one month later when Scherma Italiana republished the following three excerpts from Corriere Italiano, Sport Illustrato, and Esercito Italiano, respectively:

The NCO fencing instructors of the regiments in which the new system of fencing for the mounted forces has not been adopted will be called to the Master's School on the 1st February. This will establish the unique system of fencing for all mounted forces.
It is desired to know if the Parise-Pecoraro system, subject of lively and fair criticism, should be taught to the new fencing masters for the mounted forces after the unattractive trial was done.

——————

In Rome is the first group of NCO fencing masters in the artillery regiments, called for the instruction of sabre fencing on horseback, according to the method presented by Cav. Masaniello Parise and approved by the Commission appointed in the last year by the Ministry of War.
The lessons will be imparted by the Vice-director of the Master's School, Cav. Pecoraro, and will last five hours per day.
We have sought to obtain a copy of this method, but everywhere we looked we were told that it was not been given to the presses. It pains us, not only because in this way we can only have very vague notions about it, but also because the means of the tradition does not seem the most appropriate to us, and it can encounter danger when the masters, after having learnt it in Rome one way, having arrived at their regiment, teach it in another way.
The printing of a few pages costs so little!

——————

At the 13th artillery regiment the special course of instruction for the handling of the sabre on horseback has closed, to which all the fencing instructors of the artillery regiments were called.
Taking part in this course, aside from the NCO troops, were also the one-year volunteers and officer cadets of the same regiment.
Tomorrow the fencing instructors will depart for their respective regiments.
The course was done under the personal direction of the director of the Master's School of fencing Cav. Parise and Vice-director Cav. Pecoraro.⁴

So it seems that by February 1892 all military fencing instructors had received their training in the new Parise-Pecoraro cavalry sabre method, however it was still not accepted as satisfactory by all. There was also still some confusion as to what exactly the new method looked like, and whether this could be considered as a partial success for Radaellian principles. In April of that same year Scherma Italiana writes:

We are grateful to Sport Illustrato, who kindly inform us that the new sabre instruction — as was reported to us by a person deemed trustworthy — is not pure Radaelli; but a cross with what the previous molinello tried to amalgamate, to perform the cut (Radaelli system) with the slicing molinello⁵ (Parise system) which follows the same cut. In short: with a hybrid combination, the effectiveness and power of the cut achieved by Radaelli with his molinello was sacrificed to the idea of slicing.⁶

These conflicting ideas of what the Parise-Pecoraro system entailed continued to circulate among Italian fencing enthusiasts. An article published by Scherma Italiana over two years later states that there had still been no publication of the Parise-Pecoraro method, and that there were still many conflicting reports as to who was actually involved in its formulation and how Radaellian it truly was.⁷

In part 3 we will take a look at the military regulations and determine what exactly the Parise-Pecoraro method looked like and how it compared to the old Radaellian method.

---

1 Salvatore Pecoraro, "Tra '1 si e '1 no... di parer contrario," Scherma Italiana, 28 February 1891, 30.^↩
2 "Un nuovo metodo ufficiale?," Scherma Italiana, 1 October 1891, 143.^↩
3 "Chiamata," Scherma Italiana, 25 January 1892, 8.^↩
4 "Maneggio di sciabola a cavallo," Scherma Italiana, 27 February 1892, 12.^↩
5 'molinello di trinciamento'^↩
6 "Maneggio di sciabola a cavallo," Scherma Italiana, 8 April 1892, 28.^↩
7 Jacopo Gelli, "La scherma in tribunale?," Scherma Italiana, 26 November 1894, 85.^↩

The Parise-Pecoraro Method (Part 1)

(Other articles in this series: Part 2 | Part 3)

By the time Jacopo Gelli published his booklet Resurrectio in 1888, he claimed that the cavalry application of Masaniello Parise's sabre method had already been rejected twice by the Ministry of War, and that he was asked to rewrite it for the third time.¹ One year later a commission led by Prince Amadeo I, Inspector General of the Cavalry, again rejected Parise's method.² However, contrary to what I have theorised previously, this was not the end for his sabre system. With the help of Salvatore Pecoraro, a star Radaellian master, Parise was able to modify his method such that the Ministry of War finally accepted it and rolled it out to all cavalry and artillery regiments.

Through various articles published in the fencing magazine Scherma Italiana (scans available here thanks to Biblioteca Centrale Nazionale di Firenze) we are able to catch a glimpse of when this new method was adopted and how it was received by the editor of the magazine, who was none other than the fervent Radaellian devotee Jacopo Gelli.

The very first issue of Scherma Italiana (published 15th January 1891) contains the following report that Parise has revised his system with the help of Salvatore Pecoraro and Carlo Guasti:

The Ministry of War has called all the fencing masters of mounted regiments to the Master's School ad audiendum verbum³.
It has to do with the approval and implementation of a new fencing method for the mounted units carried out by Cav. Parise in union with the Radaellian masters Pecoraro and Guasti.
We are very pleased by this event, because it is more proof that our (often harsh) criticisms of the method taught at the Master's School were more than justified.
For this act we praise the Ministry of War and Mr. Parise, who by changing their minds about many defects found in its method have sacrificed self-esteem and self-interest for the good of the art.
That is good; bravo Mr. Parise! We will read the new work, and if it so deserves we will be as equally giving of praise as we were full of disapproval towards your method which we considered too imperfect.⁴

This new method seems to be the end result of two years of experimentation on the part of both the Master's School and the Ministry of War. Five months after Parise's method was rejected by the commission, the Ministry of War began publishing an experimental version of the Italian cavalry regulations volume 1, which contains the cavalry sabre exercise.⁵ In January 1891, these experimental regulations were replaced with the new version of the cavalry regulations, this time presumably with Parise's updated and now officially-approved cavalry sabre method.⁶ Scherma Italiana was closely following the roll-out of this method via other publications. In the next issue at the end of the January they republished the following excerpt from the newspaper Esercito e Armata:

Among the honours of the Order of the Crown of Italy granted recently on the occasion of the new year, on proposal by the Ministry of War, were two who, according to us, deserve to be specially noted for their significance.
They are the appointment to Officer of Cav. Masaniello Parise, director of the Master's School, and the appointment to Cavaliere of Maestro Salvatore Pecoraro, also assigned, as vice-director, to the same school.
These two names certainly need no special introduction; they are well-known as two talented champions of Italian fencing.
But as we were saying, the two honours just granted to them deserve to be specially noted, and indeed, as far as we know they would be the well-deserved reward for a new important work completed by Cav. Masaniello Parise, with the assistance of Maestro Pecoraro.
It is well-known how for a long time new regulations for the handling of the sabre in the mounted arms were in discussion, regulations that had never been able to be brought fully to their positive conclusion due to difficulties for reasons of a varied nature and which are unnecessary to note here.
These difficulties would now finally be resolved, accepting some important and very useful proposals made by Cav. Parise, and therefore said regulations can be said to be of imminent publication.
Moreover, the new proposals were supported by a long, detailed, and practical experiment performed in Rome, in the Macao barracks, with men of the Foggia cavalry regiment and under the personal direction of the appointed gentlemen.
The results obtained were excellent in every respect, and the proposals were fully accepted with applause by the competent Commission that had to examine them and today can now be said to be an accomplished fact.
At the final demonstration, in addition to the aforementioned Commission, His Excellency General Corvetto, Under-Secretary of State for the Ministry of War, also attended; the general appeared very satisfied with the new method of sabre handling and directed lively and deserving praise towards the masters Parise and Pecoraro, who now, in their honours just obtained, have confirmed the importance that the Ministry of War has rightly given to the their work, and from which a great benefit will be derived for the instruction of sabre handling in the mounted forces.⁷

Thus we see that another commission has now approved Parise's modified sabre method, after a supposedly lengthy practical trial with the Foggia cavalry. In an issue from the following month, Scherma Italiana republishes an article from the newspaper Esercito Italiano which confirms many of these details and even speaks very favourably of the new method:

As we have announced, the Ministry of War has recently published the 1st volume of the Regulations of exercises for the cavalry, Regulations which must be considered definitive and which will therefore replace what was adopted last year by way of experimentation.
Meanwhile, with the publication of the 1st volume, the matter of sabre handling on horseback especially has remained resolute, for which there has been adopted a more practical and more rational system, not to mention more in harmony with the true purposes that that important exercise must be directed to.
In the past, it is well-known that sabre handling on horseback was based on a system that, if it had its merits, it nevertheless had a serious defect, which is that the soldier was taught sabre play almost completely the same as that which was taught in the fencing hall, therefore play which could not then respond completely to the various requirements of sabre handling on horseback.
Nor should it then be overlooked that the old system required a longer teaching method, the execution from the mounted position having to be preceded by numerous instructions with the soldiers on foot, intended almost exclusively to teach those famous molinelli accompanied by large back and forth movements of the body, which could be better described as gymnastics rather than fencing.
The new system of sabre handling instead teaches the soldier, up until the last moment, movements that could and should then be executed from horseback, accustoming him to actions which, while they cannot but greatly develop the muscular force of his arm, are then immensely effective from the point of view of the potential of the blows, which are not stopped during the action, but this is carried out entirely and in a complete manner.
And the practical results that were had during a long experiment carried out in Rome by the Foggia (11th) Cavalry Regiment, under the personal direction of Cav. Parise, director of the military Master's School of fencing, and Cav. Pecoraro, a master teaching at the same school, as well as the technical Commission delegated by the Ministry of War to the examination of the new system of sabre handling on horseback, clearly proved all the merits of the system and how this is perfectly in harmony with its mission.
Following this experiment was a good course of instruction which the fencing NCOs of the cavalry regiments were called to, a course which was also carried out under the direction of Cav. Parise and Maestro Pecoraro and which will lead to the consequence of having in practice uniformity and regularity in the application of the new system.
We firmly believe that the new sabre handling will quickly bring excellent results in the instruction of our cavalry trooper, who, thus ceasing to cut the air, as General Boselli so appropriately expressed in his recent study on the cavalry arm, can be trained a fencing exercise that is very rational and therefore more suited to everyone’s intelligence.
And since we find ourselves on the topic, we want to add a few considerations which are especially recommended by all the comments contained in a letter by Mr. A. B., a letter that we published in a previous number of our newspaper through that spirit of impartiality which we did not want and never want to avoid, but nevertheless could, especially for a few assertions, lending themselves to a less exact interpretation of what we believe on the subject and moreover what would be in contradiction to what we have written and cited on other occasions.
And first of all we should stop at the remarks that Mr. A. B. intended to direct to the military Master's School of fencing and to the system that is currently taught there. However apart from the fact that a similar discussion does not seem to be able to lead to some result, given that the current method of teaching fencing in the army was approved by the Ministry of War, which proves with facts of giving more importance and greater consideration to it every day, after having been supported by a unanimous and favourable opinion of a Commission composed of people very competent in the art; we believe that it is precisely the desire to persist in discussions of such a nature that will take us further and further away from the result that Mr. A. B. shows to desire so much, from the day in which 'the intellectual forces of Italian fencers no longer intent on fighting, are more usefully used in the progress of fencing'.
And it is precisely because this fact, which we desire no less, may soon come true when we promised ourselves to never bring the discussion of such a matter into the field of personalities, convinced that a similar discussion can only greatly harm the prestige and worth of Italian fencing.
They therefore set aside comparisons of facts and names, which, whilst not appropriate, could not then hold up in the practical field, and before judging the results of a method of teaching which certainly never failed the test, whatever it was, one at least begins by saying that these results are mature and that with time the champions of that method can develop and fortify themselves, as did those people belonging to other methods and whose names are now put forward whenever one lowers oneself to those comparisons which we will never deplore enough.
And if the authors of these comparisons then questioned their conscience again, they would be convinced of a fact that we have been convinced of for a long time now, and that is that all the names that are currently referred to as fruits of an excellent teaching method were in practice so attached and persuaded of such excellence that from person to person they ended up moving away from it, some more, some less, and today it may well be said that each of those names is considered the head of a system and school, and who in practice have ended up fighting each other because of their different dogmas, which has made tireless proponents.
Oh! what would not be gained by that strong and noble art, which all the talent champions, which today Italy has the fortune of counting, continually fight for, if this conflict, rather than being intended to come down on each other to the detriment of everyone and the art, was instead the result of all the forces united together with the supreme intention of giving to Italian fencing that position of honour that it is well entitled to!
And this truly favourable and important result can only be obtained when it can be said to be an accomplished fact that reconciliation which some time ago was attempted here in Rome, a reconciliation which, we are certain, will be full and complete if all those who must give their contribution can and will sacrifice even some of those concessions, which will honour those who do and without whom we can never even talk to each other about this desired and much necessary reconciliation.
This is the field upon which all the forces of Italian fencers, and especially those who merit and fortune gave a very honoured and triumphant journey, must today be brought together.
And on this field Esercito Italiano will certainly never deny its approval for all those who can and will effectively strive to achieve the goal they mean to achieve. And it is in this consideration that we are pleased when the Ministry of War, with the honours recently granted to Cav. Parise and Maestro Pecoraro, has shown once again that it knows how to suitably appreciate the large contribution that they have always given and give to the development of fencing in the royal army.⁸

The writer of this article is anonymous, however the comments from Scherma Italiana, written under this article by one 'M. O.', state the belief that the author belongs to the Master's School. In spite of this author's calls for 'reconciliation' between Italy's fencing factions, M. O. claims that Scherma Italiana has received letters from master at the Master's School stating that there was 'unofficial order' that its staff are not allowed to read Scherma Italiana due to Jacopo Gelli being its editor.⁹

In part two we will read the rest of Scherma Italiana's articles on this subject, including a letter from Salvatore Pecoraro himself.

---

1 Jacopo Gelli, Resurrectio: critica alle osservazioni sul maneggio della sciabola secondo il metodo Radaelli del Generale Achille Angelini (Florence: Tipografia Editrice di Luigi Niccolai, 1888), 48.^↩
2 "Scherma." Lo Sport Illustrato, 11 July 1889, 334.^↩
3 'to hear the word'^↩
4 Notiziario, Scherma Italiana, 15 January 1891, 6.^↩
5 Ettore Bertolè-Viale, "N. 264. - PUBBLICAZIONI MILITARI. Regolamento di esercizi per la cavalleria. - 1° dicembre," Giornale Militare 1889: Parte Prima, no. 50 (7 December 1889): 698.^↩
6 Ettore Bertolè-Viale, "Atto N. 1. - PUBBLICAZIONI MILITARI. - Regolamento di esercizi per la cavalleria. - 3 gennaio," Giornale Militare 1891: Parte Prima, no. 1 (10 January 1891): 1.^↩
7 "La scherma nell'esercito," Notiziario, Scherma Italiana, 31 January 1891, 14–5.^↩
8 M.O., "La scherma nell'esercito," Scherma Italiana, 28 February 1891, 28–30.^↩
9 ibid.^↩