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
