Italian Fencing Visits London

Left to right: Italo Santelli, Agesilao Greco, Masaniello Parise, Vincenzo Drosi, and Angelo Torricelli.

In 1892, at the invitation of the British government, Masaniello Parise and a delegation of four fencing instructors from the military fencing master's school in Rome were sent to England in order to give demonstrations at London's annual military tournament.

Although it was not strictly Radaellian fencing being showcased at the 1892 military tournament, the demonstration did reflect the growing interest in England and most of Europe around Italian fencing, particularly with regard to sabre, which began in the late 1880s as seen with Francis Vere Wright and his 1889 partial translation of Masiello's sabre treatise¹ and culminated with the publication of the 1895 Infantry Sword Exercise, making Masiello's sabre system regulation for the British army.²

The appearance of Italian fencing masters in England was at the request of the English government themselves, who also covered every expense the Italians would incur in their travels (much to the disgust of some commentators, who believed that such an offer should have been refused on the grounds on national pride).³ The delegates chosen by the Italian Ministry of War were considered by many to be among the finest young graduates of fencing master's school: Agesilao Greco, Italo Santelli, Angelo Torricelli, and Vincenzo Drosi.

These fencers may not have (yet) had the international reputation of masters such as Salvatore Pecoraro and Carlo Pessina, who were under the employ of the master's school, but they did represent the new generation of fencers intended to rival the champions of the old Radaelli school (despite their instructors being those very same Radaellians).

The first exhibition took place on 23 May in the Royal Agricultural Hall, Islington:

Whether in honour of the regular soldiers, who for the first time this year made their appearance in mounted combats and competitions at Islington yesterday, or by way of giving cordial welcome to the Cavaliere Parise and to fencing instructors of the Italian army, some thousands of spectators assembled in the Agricultural Hall yesterday afternoon. Among them were Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, Count and Countess Tornielli, accompanied by members of the Italian Embassy, the Turkish Ambassador, Rustem Pacha, the Greek Minister, the Duke of Westminster, General Hamett, and several colonels commanding regiments whose chosen representatives were to take part in the competition. They watched every event with appreciative interest, and the Duke of Westminster—a celebrated horseman in his day—was especially demonstrative in his admiration of the Musical Ride in which the 17th Lancers display more and more smartness every day. When Lieut.-Colonel Parise—who is the Colonel Onslow of the Italian Army—appeared with Sergeant-Majors Greco, of the Government School at Rome, Santelli of the Grenadiers, Drosi of the 6th Infantry, and Torricelli of the Savoy cavalry regiment, they were heartily cheered, and the dexterity of the four swordsmen with foil and sabre justified all the expectations that had been formed. The prolonged fencing bout between Sergeant-Majors Greco and Santelli was marked by many brilliant passages of arms, and it is a pity that some people among the assembled crowd who could not understand the subtle art of such swordsmen gave expression to a desire for something more exciting.⁴

The main event, however, happened a week later on the 30th:

Then the fencing instructors of the Italian Army, directed by Lieutenant Colonel Parise, gave a special display of fencing and swordsmanship, designed chiefly to show the importance of the foil as a commencement of training in swordsmanship, inasmuch as it is by the use of the foil that a thorough knowledge of distance, time, and speed is acquired. Colonel Parise explained in French, at some length, the modes of training in the Italian Fencing Schools, for which, he contended, that it was both simpler and more scientific than the methods usually approved of in other countries. He subsequently, with Sergeant Major Greco and Sergeant Major Torricelli, gave practical illustrations with foil and sabre of the Italian style. It was seen that they use a convex shell for the hilt, as a means of diverting a thrust, as, because of that form, a very slight movement of the hand or arm turned aside an opponent's point. Another detail was that while 'en garde' the weight of the body should be evenly distributed between the two legs, instead of placing too much weight on either, and that the arm should be slightly bent instead of straight. He said that advances were better made by short steps than by a long stride. Comparing the Italian practice with that of the French school, he explained that whereas the Italians only use four 'parades' the French use eight. In his country the movements were made, not so much by wrist action, as by a turn of the arm. Another point of some interest was that instead of parrying a cut they returned in certain cases a thrust depending upon the element of time to render their opponent's attack valueless. Somewhat similar observations were made by Colonel Parise prior to engaging with Sergeant Greco in a bout of sword v. sword. The exhibition of swordsmanship was concluded by showing the Italian system of cavalry sword exercise, which, however, did not seem to have the same merit as the really excellent system of training for the exercises of the infantry.⁵

Ignoring the journalist's apparent slight confusion between the foil and sabre demonstrations, it would no doubt have given any Radaellian observers back home some smug satisfaction at the comments made regarding Parise's cavalry sabre system (also repeated in several other English newspapers), which had only recently been approved by the Italian Ministry of War after years of modification.

The Italians also took a visit to the fencing club in St. James' later that same day, and took a visit to the Aldershot school on the invitation of General Evelyn Wood three days later, followed by lunch at the house of Colonel Fox. On the following day, Colonel Tully presented the Italians with a silver cup on behalf of Prince Edward, as well as commemorative silver cigarette cases to each of the four young masters.⁶

Despite the warm reception they received throughout all their visits and public appearances, the apathy towards the Italian fencers among a certain percentage of the public during the exhibitions did not go unnoticed by journalists. In a rather scathing indictment of the British public, an Italian magazine stated that the Italian masters chose a bad audience to display their talents to, claiming that 'in England, except for Egerton Castle, Captain Hutton, and the two French masters who teach in London, we believe there are fewer than ten other people capable of distinguishing a disengagement from a direct thrust or a coupé from a feint by glide, or even from a traversone'.⁷

The reaction among the Italians was nevertheless largely positive, even from the factions opposing Parise and his supporters, although there was of course some disappointment that the Ministry of War had not sent some renowned representatives of the Radaellian school such as Pecoraro, Arista or Rossi.

Having seen the British perspective on Italian fencing as shown by Parise and his party, the Italian magazine Baiardo soon after received the following letter from a correspondent in London giving an Italian perspective on British fencing:

I hasten to reply to your letter by telling you what you asked for in a few words.

The expectations of seeing four Italian masters fence were immense, so much so that there were no empty seats on that day at the racecourse.

After having done the first demonstrations with the sabre, they received congratulations in abundance, and from what I understood the audience were surprised to see that the Italians acknowledged the blows they received, and surprised to see them fence with only a mask and glove, since the English strike wildly,⁸ being in the habit of covering themselves with huge masks, double-layered protection,⁹ leather jackets, and a cushion fitted to the right leg, since they also strike at the legs.

In bouting, the English take the measure such that the points of the blades touch the guards, then they take a step back and place themselves on guard. To attack, both opponents take a step forward, and without any study they cut at the same time, such that for them a double touch is always the order of the day.

On what basis the jury judges these bouts, embellished with doubles, without ever seeing a clean cut, I just cannot understand; nevertheless, they were quite rightly surprised to see the Italian masters bout without even the slightest double, constantly maintaining measure.

For the sword, I will tell you that what most impressed the English was their fencing in-line,¹⁰ something that the English do not do, using the sword in a similar manner to the sabre.

Greco then also enchanted the audience with his quick and secure parries, his immense attacking speed, and the suddenness in the execution of his actions.

Our fencers also went to test themselves at the Fencing Club and bouted with the amateurs there (partly less incorrect than the fencers seen at the tournament), and even there the English were impressed with the handling of both the sabre and sword through their powerful attacks, the speed of their parries and ripostes, the remises, as well as the continuous inchiodature¹¹ (!), as soon as they moved to attack.

While Santelli of the Grenadiers fenced sabre with one of these amateurs, I heard one of them say a sentence in English which, translated literally into Italian, would be ‘By Jove, I have never seen a fencer of this strength!’ and stated earlier that in 10 minutes Santelli would have dealt about forty cuts over his whole body.

With Greco and Drosi then bouting each other, everyone stood with their noses in the air and mouths wide open on seeing them fence, and for every blow they all exchanged glances in approval of what they saw.

On the penultimate day Cav. Parise and Greco, in the presence of 300 spectators (all invited for this demonstration), presented themselves on the piste to demonstrate the Italian method.

Parise explained the actions in French, and with mathematical precision Greco produced them.

In this demonstration there were the usual compliments and felicitations for their manner of giving lessons, for the precision of their movements, for the speed of their actions and also for their manner of advancing on guard—that is, the step forward and lunge, the pattinando.

On the same day Torricelli of the 3rd Cavalry appeared, doing demonstrations of sabre on horseback according to the Parise method, and I will also say that this bold and powerful young man received the most lively and enthusiastic part of the huge applause.

From exercise to exercise Torricelli came to the charge, in which the vehemence of his cuts aroused another salvo of applause, which was repeated resoundingly for his last exercise in which, with the sabre fixed against the target, the sabre was literally bent in two.

I will now end this letter of mine, in which I was not interested in writing what either the Daily Chronicle or the Standard already told the Italian press, since at this point they are things that everyone knows, assuring you that both Greco and Torricelli were eagerly asked to stay in London to teach Italian fencing, an invitation which Greco declined for various reasons which do him the highest honour; as for Torricelli I do not know the answer, but here in London it is hoped that he will accept and we Italians will then have the pride, as we have in past centuries, to see our masters teach the handling of arms to other nations.¹²

For the partisans of the Neapolitan school of fencing, the Italian demonstrations in London would have served as some amount of vindication for the master's school in Rome, whose image had taken a hit as a result of the reforms to Parise's sabre method forced upon it by the Ministry of War over the previous years.

1 Francis Vere Wright, The broadsword as taught by the celebrated Italian masters, signors Masiello and Ciullini of Florence (London: W. H. Allen, 1889).^↩
2 War Office, Infantry sword exercise 1895 (London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1895).^↩
3 L'Italia del Popolo, 22 May 1892.^↩
4 London Daily News, 24 May 1892, 6.^↩
5 London Evening Standard, 31 May 1892, 3.^↩
6 Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News, 11 June 1892, 476.^↩
7 Scherma Italiana, 2 July 1892, 52.^↩
8 'da orbi' — Literally 'like blind men'.^↩
9 'corazze doppie' — For the Italians, a corazza was a tough, generally tightly-woven fabric which served as an extra layer of protection and padding for the fencer's dominant side. It served a similar purpose to what a modern under-plastron is used for in fencing today.^↩
10 i.e. the typical Italian guard position of keeping the arm almost fully extended at all times.^↩
11 Literally 'nailings' or 'nailing-downs', this term is likely referring to the Italian preference for counter-attacking, particularly in foil fencing.^↩
12 "Come tirano gl'inglesi," Baiardo: periodico schermistico quindicinale, 8 July 1892, 25–6.^↩

La scherma di fioretto by Primo Tiboldi

With yet another book from my own collection, this month we are taking a look at Primo Tiboldi's treatise La scherma di fioretto ('Foil fencing'). Originally published in 1905 by Sonzogno as part of their 'Biblioteca del Popolo' series, this booklet was repeatedly published over the next few decades, with my own copy being printed in January 1928.

Scans here

Although a small booklet of only 62 pages, the method it contains is quite detailed for its length. It also bears a very close resemblance to the foil method of Luigi Barbasetti,¹ with the rear-weighted guard and slight bend in the arm, moderate torso lean in the lunge, the inclusion of footwork such as the balestra, as well as various similarities in terminology.

Whether or not there was some amount of plagiarism involved on the part of Tiboldi, it is not unlikely that the fencing method he learnt was quite similar to Barbasetti's, given that Tiboldi learnt fencing under the Radaellian maestro Gaetano Garbagnati at the Circolo Ferruccio in Milan.²

The only mentions I have been able to find about Primo Tiboldi so far are mentions of his noteworthy tournament results in the 1890s and a couple of articles of his published in the fencing magazine Scherma Italiana, with the editor calling him a 'cultured and distinguished young man'.³

1 Luigi Barbasetti, La scherma di spada (Milan: A. Gattinoni, 1902).^↩
2 Accademie, Tornei e Notizie, Scherma Italiana, 1 January 1894, 8.^↩
3 Primo Tiboldi and Roderico Rizzotti, "Campionato di scherma annuale fra dilettanti milanesi," Scherma Italiana 16 July 1896, 26–7.^↩

Risorgimento della vera scherma di sciabola italiana by Nicolò Bruno

The most recent addition to my antique book collection is one that, despite being written by a student of Radaelli, is perhaps one of the least remembered in the Radaellian tradition. Today I am pleased to present Nicolò Bruno's Risorgimento della vera scherma di sciabola italiana ('Revival of true Italian sabre fencing'), published in Novara in 1891.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I_dKQfFpEUag3bHmm2Vl1ElqDrtI3p5w/view?usp=sharing

With the release of these scans, it thus means that every treatise written by a '1st generation' Radaellian (i.e. those who attended Radaelli's school in Milan) is now available to read online (excluding some later editions), these being the treatises of Settimo Del Frate (1868 and 1876), Giordano Rossi (1885), Ferdinando Masiello (1887), Nicolò Bruno (1891), Luigi Barbasetti (1899/1936), Salvatore Pecoraro & Carlo Pessina (1912), and Poggio Vannucchi (1915).

Bruno's illustrations are particularly interesting for the Radaellian practitioner due to the interesting detail shown in several of them. In figure 27, shown above, three dotted lines show the paths for the large, regular, and small molinello to the head from the guard or parry of 2nd or 1st in line. Figure 13 below demonstrates the parry of 1st in line and angled 1st, while at the same time showing the path the sabre follows in a molinello to the head from these parries, as well as the path the sabre follows when performing the parry of counter 1st.

Bruno is a great supporter of Radaelli's sabre mechanics and terminology, however, in his introduction he is quick to assert that he did not agree with Radaelli's teaching method, which was supposedly only successful due to the fact that Radaelli's students were young, well-disciplined military men.

Bruno introduces his own teaching method, one which he claims is better suited for producing talented fencers while still providing an enjoyable and rewarding learning experience. In addition to this, Bruno greatly decreases Radaelli's torso movement, teaching the molinelli with a fully upright body initially, then introducing 'natural' torso movement later on when the student has mastered the actions.

The teaching progression of Bruno's method contains many preparatory flexion and extension exercises in addition to traditional exercise molinelli, motions based on the 'oscillation of a pendulum', a recurring theme in Bruno's writings. These preparatory exercises serve to teach the student to move the sabre correctly and keep the body well-balanced in all these motions before moving on to the 'true lesson', that being the various blows on the lunge, feints, ripostes, etc.

At the start of his introduction, Bruno states that sabre fencing has been in gradual decline, and that he felt compelled to publish his book after waiting in vain for someone else to come forward and publish their own work correcting the flaws of Radaelli's method. When Bruno's treatise was submitted to a competition for sporting publications in 1894, one of the criticisms the jury the made was in reference to these statements, saying that Bruno needed only consult the treatises of Rossi and Masiello to find what he was looking for. In response to this, Bruno states that he originally wrote his method prior to 1885, before any other Radaellian publication had come to light, publishing the unmodified treatise in 1891 only when others insisted he do so.¹

If Bruno truly had not made any modifications to the original text prior to publishing it in 1891 as he claims, the presence of several references to Parise's treatise means that he must have still been writing it after August 1884, when the first edition of Parise's treatise was published.²

1 Nicolò Bruno, "Appunti rilevati alla relazione della Giurìa di scherma sul mio metodo d'insegnamento e le relative risposte," Scherma Italiana, 6 July 1894, 54–5.^↩
2 Cesare Francesco Ricotti-Magnani, "N. 107. - Pubblicazione del trattato di scherma di spada e sciabola compilato dal signor Masaniello Parise. - (Segretariato generale). - 11 agosto," Giornale Militare 1884: parte seconda, no. 33 (16 August 1884): 653–4.^↩

Trattato di scherma teorico-pratico illustrato by Vittorio Lambertini

It is with great pleasure that I can share with you today the 1870 treatise by Vittorio Lambertini, its full title being Trattato di scherma teorico-pratico illustrato della moderna scuola italiana di spada e sciabola ('Theoretical-practical fencing treatise on the modern Italian school of sword and sabre'). This particular book comes from my own collection, so I have been able to take high quality photos of every page; the resulting PDF is thus quite large. I have also provided a transcription to make it easier to search through the text for study purposes.

Scans  |  Transcription

The 150-year-old book shows many signs of its age, largely due to it being a paperback, but its 29 fold-out plates are mostly in good condition. I personally find the illustrator's art style to be rather elegant despite is simplicity.

My particular copy appears to have been purchased by the highly decorated war veteran Leopoldo Serra in 1875, as indicated by the signature near the front of the book and by what seems to be part of a receipt for a magazine or newspaper subscription that was found between pages 60 and 61, probably being used as a bookmark.

Nothing is yet known about Lambertini's life or career, and his treatise was, unfortunately, largely overlooked in its time. Nevertheless, Lambertini's treatise is significant for the modern reader as it provides a very detailed look into the sword method of Luigi Zangheri, a fencing master who was highly regarded in the 19th century but never wrote a treatise himself. Clemente Lambertini was a student of Zangheri, and passed the method on to his son, Vittorio.¹

Luigi Zangheri was a fencing master from Cesena who opened a fencing hall in Bologna around the year 1825, where he taught sword, sabre, counterpoint, and bastone. He soon developed an outstanding reputation as a fencer, a teacher, and as a man who was reviving the art of fencing in northern Italy.² His method was not revolutionary in the same sense as Radaelli's, but rather he was largely seen to be preserving the traditional Neapolitan method whilst also making his own modifications, such as using a slightly lighter and shorter Italian foil, abandoning the practice of binding the sword to the hand, and allowing the use of certain 'French' techniques such as the coupé. Zangheri produced several celebrated fencing masters, such as Giuseppe Borelli, Gaetano Simonetti, and Cesare Enrichetti.³

Enrichetti was already quite famous by the time Lambertini published his treatise, having been appointed as the head of the Scuola Magistrale in Parma in 1868 and himself producing a host of talented fencers such as Ferdinando Masiello, Giovanni Pagliuca, Gaetano Baracco, and Giovanni Ciullini.⁴ Enrichetti published his own treatise a year after Lambertini did, and so by being able to compare the two, we can achieve an excellent understanding of Zangheri's method.

Aside from containing more detailed information on the teaching progression and pedagogy of his method than Enrichetti's treatise, Lambertini's book also contains a treatise on the sabre. The exact origins of this sabre method are not stated, but it nevertheless provides an added insight into the sabre fencing methods of northern Italy prior to the rise of the Radaellians. It is also possible that it resembles the kind of sabre fencing that was being taught at Enrichetti's school before it was merged with Radaelli's in 1874.

A full, detailed analysis of Lambertini's method and its differences compared to Enrichetti's is a topic for another day, but one example of this is something which Lambertini himself points out, which is that he only includes five parries in his method, those being 4th, 3rd, half-circle, 2nd, and 1st, compared to Enrichetti who also includes the 'intermediary' parries of low 3rd and low 4th. Lambertini states that it was his father who reduced the number of parries to five.⁵

1 Vittorio Lambertini, Trattato di scherma teorico-pratico illustrato (Bologna, 1870), iii.^↩
2 "Accademia di scherma," Teatri, arti e letteratura, 14 May 1835, 86.^↩
3 Carlo Pilla, Arte e scuole di scherma (Bologna: Società tipografica già compositori, 1886), 34–5.^↩
4 ibid., 36.^↩
5 Lambertini, Trattato di scherma, 39.^↩

Pecoraro defends the Parise method

Despite losing its official status in the Italian army, the Radaellian method had no shortage of public supporters even at the end of the 19th century. The amateur Radaellian Roderico Rizzotti was, like the famous Jacopo Gelli, a man who wrote many articles in support of Radaelli and his theories, particularly in the magazine Scherma Italiana, which he was the editor of from the start of 1893 until mid-1894.

Like those of his colleagues, many of Rizzotti's articles show some of the frustration felt by the Radaellians at the continued silence from the Italian Ministry of War regarding the state of sabre fencing in the army and the Radaellians' calls for Masaniello Parise, the technical director of the Master's School in Rome, to come to the table with them and find a compromise.

This frustration is especially evident in an open letter from Rizzotti, published in Scherma Italiana in 1894, entitled 'To Professor and Colonel Masaniello Parise':

While I followed the proceedings of the sabre bouts between the amateurs who flocked to the recent tournament in Venice, fully absorbed and engrossed, my thoughts went to you, dear professor and colonel.
There before me, seated in a less plebeian stall, but equally absorbed and engrossed, sat Comm. Caracciolo¹—a prefect of the province—for hours and hours, and I sense that within him, an old student of Achille Parise, your father and master of great fame, his now advanced age had not extinguished his passion for our art. Perhaps his mind went back to the good times of his youth, when his companions in his great fencing studies were, among others, the ex-minister Rattazzi, Count Nigra, Colli di Felizzano, and…Agostino Depretis².
Sure, even Depretis—speaking of the period from 1848 to 1859—studied fencing, and perhaps it is to fencing that he later owed, at least in part, his famous ability of manoeuvring through the treacherous waves of power, always staying afloat and valiantly opposing the continuous attacks of his political opponents—fencers less accustomed than he to the tricks of the trade.
The sabre bouts followed one another, and on the piste appeared Baldi, Ceni, Fazi, Fougier, Meyer, Montalto, Galli, Piacenti, Roffeni, Rosso, Sestini, Weysi, and so many other amateurs, one better than the other, a whole pleiad of fencers simultaneously strong and elegant. Sure in the parry, quick in the riposte, and with majestic and light handling of the blade, obtained not just with the wrist, but with coordinated action of all the joints of the arm and with the elbow as the main point of rotation.
They were the students of Rossi, Arista, Corsini, Masiello, Guasti, Foresto Paoli, Pini, Pecoraro, and so on—these all being masters who, with regard to the official system of fencing which revolves around you, professor, have as much faith in it as I have that the sinful mind will one day take flight into the merciful arms of God.
Thinking of you, professor and colonel, I said to myself: Oh, how will you feel, here at the Milan tournament, in your capacity as a juror—provided that you accept the honourable task, as I hope—when you will have to judge these same amateurs and many others?
If you, in homage to your artistic principles, your theories, your method, will give the vestal virgin's pollice verso³ for them all, what will you say when your given sabre rankings are found in clear opposition to those of the other Italian and foreign jurors? Will you not think, professor, perhaps with a shiver, that a decade of the Master's School's life, as well as convincing everyone of the quality of his sabre method, has further cherished the memory of Giuseppe Radaelli, his school, and his devoted, unfailing apostles?
You, professor, are too much of a gentleman not to admit, even tacitly, that your position would have been very embarrassing, all the more considering that among your colleagues of the jury who would have voted in clear contradiction with you, there would be masters who are or were previously instructors at the same Master's School, in which you reign as the absolute—if not inviolable and sacred—sovereign.
And by association of ideas, my mind also went to that great sin of ingratitude which was committed—along with many others—by a young master, recently graduated from the Master's School, when in response to my observation that he did not seem to me to be fencing sabre according to the canons of the official teachings, he said: 'Just between friends, do you know that at the Master's School, when a student has a promising disposition, he is secretly told that when it comes to sabre, there is no use in doing any system other than Radaelli.'
I was thinking about all this because I saw in the Milan newspapers you were appointed to the jury, along with Pecoraro, Guasti, and Captain Moccagatta!
And it was not me, professor, who had the idea of arousing your remorse or making you confess that Fambri's notorious report to the Ministry of War on the fencing treatise which bears your name, the report to which you owe your high position as director of the Master's School and colonel...regardless of whether it is, with regard to form, a masterpiece, with regard to substance—I am speaking of sabre—it is…a tumble.
I thought of this simply because the mind cannot be commanded, nor can its flights be restrained. And I did not predict that you would then not come to Milan, and to me it is a great shame, because instead of writing to you, I would have turned to your proverbial courtesy for a verbal response.
What do you think?
Especially since, as you already know, you do not have time to respond to letters, or you do not want to—not because you are at a loss for good reasons, no, but…so as to not spoil noble blood, perhaps. And so what is the need to write and discuss when you have at your disposal so many means of convincing…forcefully and with so many acolytes to spread your word amongst the faithless rabble, in pills as big as meatballs?
I am, dear professor,

your most obedient servant,

RODERICO RIZZOTTI⁴

A month later, a response from Salvatore Pecoraro, one of the two vice-directors of the Master's School, appeared in Scherma Italiana. Despite being one of the most celebrated Radaellian fencers of the time, Pecoraro is quick to defend to Parise and his sabre method despite the universal opposition shown to it by the other Radaellians.

      DEAR MR. RIZZOTTI, 

I read your letter directed to Cav. Parise and published 11 May in the newspaper Scherma Italiana.
For the part which concerns me, I feel a duty as both a fencer and the vice-director of the Master's School to address this to you with the request that it be accepted into the columns of Scherma Italiana.
You, Mr. Rizzotti, assert that Guasti, Pecoraro, and many others believe in the quality of the Parise method like the sinful mind will one day take flight into the merciful arms of God.
I will tell you that loyalty is the uniform of the fencer, because if I am converted (as we might say) to the Parise method, it is because I recognise its superiority over all others. And I would have openly fought the Parise sabre system, within the limits of my power, if I were not convinced of what I said above.
Now to the other subject matter, that being what was said by a young master who recently graduated from the Master's School, who told you:
'Just between friends, do you know that at the Master's School, when a student has a promising disposition, he is secretly told that when it comes to sabre, there is no use in doing any system other than Radaelli.'
The NCO in question has certainly forgotten all his duties. It is entirely made up, and at this moment I will reclaim the honour of my colleagues, those who were and who are now employed at the Master's School, in telling you that what he claimed is not true.
My colleagues and I are not dominated by the spirit of servility, and you, Mr. Rizzotti, should have quarantined the words of an individual who, having spent three years at the Master's School and attaining an honourable position, in order to now be accepted by the opponents in art, not only does he seek to renounce the past, but also throw a shadow of distrust on masters who all have an artistic life to prove their loyalty.
I declare myself a partisan of the Parise method; I firmly believe in it. And on behalf of my dear colleagues I reject the words spoken to you by the young master.
Thank you, Mr. Rizzotti. 

        Rome, 27 May 1894

yours truly,

SALVATORE PECORARO⁵

This is not the first time Pecoraro has publicly defended Parise's method in Scherma Italiana. The first time he did so was when Parise's cavalry sabre method was being reformed so that it would at last be accepted by the Ministry of War (see here and here). As would be expected, Rizzotti did not pass up the opportunity to include his own response underneath Pecoraro's letter, with even more emotive and somewhat poetic language than his first open letter:

À tout seigneur, tout honneur,⁶ esteemed Professor, and as you see, not only do I hasten to give you your requested hospitality, but, certain that I echo the thoughts of our whole editorial staff, I have respectfully given you the front page.
My goodness! It is not every day one is lucky enough to publish something of yours, even if it is a letter in which you inform us that you serve in a camp which is not ours.
Having said that, I take note of your ample and loyal declaration of your conversion to the Parise sabre method—a conversion which may pain me, but does not surprise me. What would surprise me would be a declaration to the contrary, given your position as vice-director of the Master's School. But if you, as you write, 'would have openly fought the Parise sabre system, within the limits of your power, if you were not convinced of its superiority over all others', you would understand, Professor, how I too do the same in the opposite sense, taking advantage of the means which are at my disposal, with this difference: that in the work of our respective propaganda—presumption aside—there is a consideration of a moral order which I feel must be put in a position favourable to the eyes of those who love the art of fencing, and it is that by making yourself a champion of an idea, you, Professor, are also implicitly fighting for yourself and your eminent position. I, on the other hand, have no other hope than in the triumph of the idea because of the idea. Sic vos non vobis⁷ could apply to me, and you would not wish for it, albeit unjustly, to apply to you.
I wrote that you, Arista, Rossi, Masiello, Guasti, Paoli, and Pini do not have faith in the official sabre system, and I was wrong; but mine is a slight error, because I only needed to bring the verb into imperfect past tense and say 'did not have faith, etc.', not because everything went smoothly like oil, but because aside from those mentioned previously, I could cite countless other names, such as Pessina, Monti, Sartori, etc., who, like you, Guasti, and Pini, I cannot cite in 'present tense' for the simple reason that they are not free teachers, as all fencing masters should be, but even if they are civil masters, they instead depend on the Master's School and the Ministry of War, such that it would be certain that if they were officially consulted one by one, they would out of necessity make the same declaration that you made of your own free will.
And this, Professor, only because the spirit of discipline, so high and noble in those who wear or have worn the uniform of the Italian soldier, seals the lips to truth when it may be unwelcome to one's superiors.
But try, Professor, to remove the appointment of military and civilian masters from the Master's School; try to raise them to the dignity of free and independent professionals in their artistic criteria, and you will see the debacle that is caused by the Parise sabre method.
If Parise can now be proud of the statement of faith which you give for his method, you nevertheless cannot change face to sacrosanct truth: that with regard to sabre, Parise is to Radaelli, Masiello, and Rossi as the flea is to the cyclops.
With all due respect to your opinion, this is as true for me, esteemed Cav. Pecoraro, as it is true that you achieved your greatest triumphs and brought the greatest prestige to your name when you served in our ranks. This is as true as the fact that even now, despite your new faith, and certainly without knowing it, through force of inertia or habit, you wield the sabre just like when you were at the perihelion of your fame. At least so it seemed to the whole audience who applauded you recently at the La Scala theatre, and so it seemed to me that in this same newspaper I gave you, as best as I know how, the modest tribute of my admiration, even though I had already received your letter, which was not possible for me to publish until now. Unless, however, Giordano Rossi has also changed; he who had a sabre bout with you at the La Scala which was altogether marvellous, but especially due to the simultaneously majestic and light handling of the blade which used to be the most beautiful quality of Papa Radaelli's students.
I will not repeat what was said by many, many great masters, even those joined to you by the bonds of old friendship, which is that at the Master's School, one is now taught the Parise system theoretically and the Radaelli sabre system practically, with clear, patent artistic plagiarism. But I will limit myself to vowing, for the good of our cause, that you, like Emperor Julian of the East—who went from paganism to Christianity then back to paganism—may return to us who will gladly open our compassionate arms...that if this does not come true, we will have one less soldier—or rather—one less skilled captain in our ranks, but we will continue on all the same, even knowing we will leave victims along the way.
And now we come to the second part of your letter, Professor.
The quotation written by me and cited by you was said by a young master, sure; but why call him an NCO, thus running the risk of turning an artistic matter into a matter of military discipline?
The quote was said to me—and so I wrote it—but how, esteemed Professor, were you able to read that it related to teachers past or present of the Master's School? I am with you in rejecting it, but for it to be known, is it necessary for this great discovery of the superiority of the Radaelli sabre method compared to the Parise method to 'descend through the branches' ⁸ in the minds of those who are barely intelligent and slightly out of their minds? No, by the Gods, no! If it is sacrosanct truth (and I have a whole pyramid of fellow believers, masters who cannot confess for reasons of discipline and employment), it will penetrate, like the light, from every direction, from a fellow student or colleague in the art, from this or any other newspaper that deals with the subject. If it is true, it will sing itself in the air or arise clearly in the brain of anyone through love of study or a comparative reading of Parise's treatise and those of Radaelli, Masiello or Rossi.
Unless it is forbidden to read any bible other than that of the meek silk-fisted Parise—as one of his admirers said—or put the intelligence and common sense of our good students of the Master's School at daggers drawn for the rest of their lives.
And it would perhaps be the only means for the sure triumph of the good cause.
In this case, we will content ourselves with finding us all together, in forty years, in the glory of heaven to gather around Giuseppe Radaelli, who will perhaps apostrophise us again with his fatherly: vioroni⁹.
And when they are close in fraternal embrace, Colonel Del Frate (now an incessant hunter), the quick-witted and unswerving Arista, the volcanic and nebulous Monti, the profound Masiello, the candid and virtuous Varrone, the untiring Pessina, the diabolical Pini, the slender Barbasetti, the agile Gallanzi, the powerful Sartori, the cautious Morini, the elegant Foresto Paoli, Roggia, Arzani, Verzani, Rognini, Cardellini, and hundreds of others—when they are close in fraternal embrace, without the fear of superiors and glad to be guaranteed golden bread for all of eternity, you can be certain, Professor, that they will let fly those jests and witty remarks concerning the Parise sabre method, disturbing even the cautious and cold sap of the Great Priest of the Master's School...until then, even if it will not be as I suppose and hope, there is a lot of time before it all goes to ruin.
And even the ghosts of many intelligent women, who have learned to make their own refined judgement through marrying a fencer, will have companions in their jests. And as full as they are of that fantasy which always portrays and considers things from new artistic and scientific points of view, they have already ruled that, for them, handling the sabre according to Parise method is a desolately feeble method.
I am, dear Professor,

your most obedient servant,

RODERICO RIZZOTTI

The question of 'military discipline' has arisen on several other occasions in the various writings in defence of Radaelli (see Gelli's Resurrectio, for example) in reference to the relative silence of the Radaellians post-1884, supposedly due to the fact that their loyalty to the army took precedence over publicly denouncing the new regulation sabre method. With the benefit of our modern hindsight, it is curious to see Pecoraro so publicly defending Parise's sabre method, considering he would revert back to a largely Radaellian sabre method after Parise's death in 1910.¹⁰

---

1 Emilio Caracciolo di Sarno^↩
2 These men being Urbano Rattazzi, Costantino Nigra, and Major general Giuseppe Colli di Felizzano, all prominent political or military figures of the Risorgimento.^↩
3 A reference to the famous 'turn of the thumb', which the vestal virgins of Rome would supposedly signal to a gladiator to indicate whether they wished them to kill or spare their fallen opponent.^↩
4 Roderico Rizzotti, "Al prof. e colonnello Masaniello Parise," Scherma Italiana, 11 May 1894, 37–8.^↩
5 Salvatore Pecoraro, Scherma Italiana, 15 June 1894, 49.^↩
6 'Credit where credit is due'.^↩
7 'For you, but not yours': a phrase attributed to Virgil in response to seeing his work plagiarised.^↩
8 A quote from Dante's Divine Comedy (Purgatorio, VII:121).^↩
9 I have absolutely no idea what he means here. The word is perhaps a variant of fioroni, which are large, artistic flowers. Perhaps it was an endearing nickname Radaelli gave to his students?^↩
10 S Pecoraro & C Pessina, La scherma di sciabola, G. Agnesotti, Viterbo, 1912. Chris Holzman's translation is available here.^↩

Alfred Hutton, Masiello, and the 'Italian' lunge

When consulting historical fencing sources, one should give extra scrutiny to any broad claims made regarding fencing outside the author's cultural context or geographic region. Although often treated as an authority in 19th century British fencing, Alfred Hutton is one author who made many such claims in his day, particularly during the 1890s where he was at the forefront of the opposition against Masiello's method being made regulation in the British army.

It is a matter for a future article to pick apart Hutton's criticisms of Masiello's method (some valid, others not so much), but today I wish to touch on a matter which concerns the 19th century Englishman's perception of both French and Italian fencing, specifically with regard to the position of the upper body in the lunge.

Hutton and his fellow opponents of Masiello's system were very vocal in their criticism of Masiello's preference for leaning the upper body in the lunge position so as to obtain more reach without having to lunge further with the front leg. Despite such a lunge being very common among Radaellian and northern Italian methods, this was certainly not unique to northern Italy; indeed it may also be found in German, English, and French methods both in and around the late 19th century.

In general, Hutton and the critics claim to prefer the principles of the 'French School'¹, which they say only advocates an upright torso. This incorrect generalisation was highlighted in an article in The Irish Times, where the author points out that some of the most prominent French fencing masters teach and advocate leaning the torso in the lunge, albeit claiming that the French masters were directly inspired to do so from the Italians.²

Hutton saw this article and forwarded it along with some questions to André Pouget, director of the French fencing magazine L'Escrime Française. Here is Hutton's letter:³

London, 1st October 1896

          Dear Sir, 

An article, of which I send you a copy, has appeared in the newspaper The Irish Times, as well as other newspapers. Some assertions regarding French fencing masters seem to me so difficult to believe that I have taken the liberty to ask if you will inform me on this subject.
1. Is it true that the best French fencing masters were inspired by the Italian Masiello?
2. Is it true that the lunge with the upper body pushed forward as much as possible is taught and made compulsory, so to speak, at the school of Joinville?
3. Is it true that Mr. Rue, the best fencer in Paris, teaches and practices this forward inclination in the lunge?
4. Is it true that this lunge is taught in most of the fencing halls in Paris?
5. What do Louis and Lucien Mérignac think of this manner of lunging?
6. Did representatives of the Masiello school take part in the International Tournament last summer?⁴

L'Escrime Française then provided the relevant excerpt from the article in the Irish Times, here taken from the original English:

... But in addition to the wonderful way in which this Italian system has proved its merits in the United Kingdom, it is encouraging to find that the French themselves have begun to recognise its superiority by the adoption of some of its leading principles. The forward inclination of the body in the 'lunge,' which is one of the great features of Masiello's system, and which has hitherto been strenuously opposed by the French masters of fence, is now actually taught and insisted upon in the great French Military School of Fencing at Joinville-le-Pont. Monsieur Rue, the best fencer in Paris, now practices and teaches this forward inclination of the body when lunging, and it is also taught in most of the Salles d'Armes in Paris. It is not only that some of Masiello's principles are now being adopted by the French fencers, but the great French fencing master, the celebrated Merignac, who for years has been looked upon as one of the best fencers that France has ever produced, has recently sent his son to Vienna to study fencing there under a pupil of Masiello. That Merignac, formerly the bitterest opponent of the Italian system, should send his son to study fencing on Masiello's principles, speaks volumes in favour of the Italian system.⁵

Pouget forwarded these questions and the article to the masters in question, Edouard Rue and Louis Mérignac, who were two of the most renowned French fencing masters of the time.⁶ Here is Rue's reply:

          Dear Mr. Pouget,
You asked me what I think of the questions asked of you in Captain Hutton’s letter, which you kindly passed on to me.
I will only talk about those concerning fencing and those involving myself personally.
1. Is it true, your distinguished correspondent asks, that the best French fencing masters were inspired by the teachings of the Italian Masiello?
— I will not answer for my colleagues, and I will limit myself to declaring to you that I could not personally have been inspired by this Italian professor, as I have never heard of him and do not even know if he has published a fencing treatise.
2. Is it true that Mr. Rue teaches and practices this forward inclination in the lunge?
Without claiming to have invented anything on this subject, I have always taught and practised the inclination of the body at the end of the lunge. This inclination enables a reach to be obtained in the development which is impossible to achieve if the body is kept upright.
Allow me to make a small final observation: the author of the article which accompanies Captain Hutton’s letter appears to unfortunately be confusing the sword and the sabre, and it should be understood that what I just said about the lunge only applies to sword fencing.
Yours truly, etc.

And Mérignac's reply:

          My dear student and friend,
I hasten to respond to the questions contained in the letter sent to you by Captain Hutton and which you kindly passed on to me.
For the first question regarding the influence of Maestro Masiello on the teachings of French masters, I will answer, for my part, that he is completely unknown to me.
I teach my students the lunge which seems to me the only rational one, in accordance with the principles of fencing and combat—that is to say, with forward inclination of the body. This principle belongs exclusively to the French school, because all Italians only attack on the march and completely ignore the lunge, which is one of the distinctive traits of our school.
If my son went to professor Luigi Barbasetti in Vienna, it was not to follow the teachings of the Italian school, but to practise sabre fencing, which the article in the Irish Times naively confuses with the sword and which, I admit, is still neglected in France.
The French school has always maintained its superiority and my son Lucien has just affirmed this once more with his victory at the international tournament in Budapest.
Yours truly, etc.

A few issues later this magazine reproduced a letter on the matter from Colonel Fox, the director of the British school at Aldershot:

         Dear Mr. Pouget,
I saw an article in your interesting newspaper 'The position of the body in the lunge', and I saw in the response to Captain A. Hutton's questions that the great masters Rue and Mérignac practise the forward inclination of the body in the lunge! I hope that you also answer in the affirmative for the military school of Joinville (the one in question); I myself noticed it at the time during my last two visits to this school.
Would you be so kind as to tell me whether Captain Hutton sent you the full article published in the Irish Times, because I conclude from your observations and also those of Mr. Rue and Mr. Mérignac that they were under the impression that the author was speaking of the foil and épée de combat. The sabre is what was being discussed, which in England we call the sword.
The article was entitled: Sabre fencing on the continent.
I should explain that, in England, we only have two weapons in fencing, the fleuret (foil) and the sabre (sword). We do not have the épée de combat.
Barbasetti, from Florence, is either a faithful disciple of Masiello's school, or his student. I think he is both. And I know Sestini, from Berlin, who recently had a victory over a student of Mérignac.
Masiello wrote the most complete treatise in existence, both on the sabre (sword) and the fleuret (foil), and if you wish, I would be pleased to send a copy to you immediately.
He has since written a very complete book on the sabre (sword) which I used to form the basis of our military system.
I must declare that in our military schools, fencing is limited to the handling of the sabre (sword). 

Yours sincerely,
Fox⁷

The next issue contained a letter from Garibaldi Burba, a decorated Italian amateur fencer and L'Escrime Française's correspondent in Rome:

Rome, 26 November 1896

          Dear Director,
I have been waiting to write a few words to you regarding the letters of Rue and Mérignac published in a previous issue of l'Escrime Française in the hope that some fencer or Italian master with more authority than me would do so.
I do not wish to discuss the merits of citing Mr. Masiello on the manner of performing a fencing action, as Captain Hutton wishes to do. But it is not random and without reason that the name of Mr. Masiello appears in this correspondence addressed to l'Escrime Française from England.
The translation into English and adoption of Masiello's fencing treatise in the British army is today a fait accompli and has official sanction. Mr. Masiello was even called to London to explain through a series of short but precious lessons the method through which, despite his modesty, he has made himself famous.
It must also not be forgotten that in Italy Mr. Masiello represents, with the constancy which comes from an enlightened and rational conviction, the splendid traditions of the Radaelli school, whose flag Mr. Masiello has always held high, and which has given Italian fencing Pecoraro, Guasti, Pessina, Barbasetti, Sartori, Rossi, and many others.
If I were to write to an Italian newspaper, I would be careful not to praise Mr. Masiello—he is too well-known for that and too esteemed in the world of fencing, even among laymen. He is a truly remarkable personality, both for his intelligence and for his intellectual culture, unusual among fencing masters, among whom he is distinguished above all by his special qualities of logical, precise, and original teaching.
This is why I allowed myself to ask you for a small place in your newspaper, in the hope that it would not be disagreeable for you to print these few lines which would do justice to one of the kindest figures in the world of fencing, unfortunately largely unknown by strong and courteous French fencing masters. 

Garibaldi Burba⁸

A month later, L'Escrime Française published a letter it received from Luigi Barbasetti, who also wished to correct some comments made by the article in The Irish Times and Colonel Fox:

          Dear Mr. Pouget, 

I am grateful you were kind enough to point out an inaccuracy overlooked by Colonel Fox concerning me, and which it may be good to clarify.
Masiello is a dear friend of mine, but he was never my master.
Indeed, I am of the pure Radaellian school (for the sabre), and I had as my first master Carlo Guasti, to whom Masiello also owes his knowledge of the sabre, as Masiello belongs to the old Enrichetti school, which completely ignored the handling of this weapon in which we Radaellians have exclusivity, and it seems to me that Masiello could well be a disciple of our great St. Paul on this subject.⁹
The difference is certainly not slight; however, I would feel very honoured to be from Masiello, and I would accept this title with all the more enthusiasm, since it would give me a few less years on my shoulders!
I spoke here with regard to the sabre.
As for the sword, Masiello’s method is even more different than mine, to the point that we are exact opposites. It is not for me to say which of the two is right. This is a question which I leave to be discussed by the students whom I have everywhere.
Finally, there is one thing especially which I would like to avoid, which is that I must not be confused with Sestini of Berlin, who is a genuinely good student of Masiello, but, in the Italian art, only amounts to a good amateur, and nothing more. 

Yours sincerely,
Barbasetti¹⁰

Thus we see that Hutton was not alone in having a limited understanding of contemporary fencing outside his own country. The same incorrect assumptions can be found in all discussions of fencing throughout the ages—we are all only human, after all. These letters also demonstrate that the French were not necessarily much better in their knowledge of the Italian fencing scene. This should hopefully serve as a good demonstration that we must be ever sceptical in what we read, even from contemporary sources, and to be careful when assuming the reliability of certain authors.

The full translations of these articles, including a transcription of the article from the Irish Times, I have collated together here.

I shall leave you with two videos showing French fencers who demonstrate a torso lean in their lunge. The first is a video of the younger Mérignac giving a lesson to the great Lucien Gaudin, who, like his master, shows some amount of lean in the lunge. The second is a video compiled from a flip-book showing two French fencers giving a demonstration of sabre fencing, both showing considerable torso inclination (despite Rue's statement about said torso inclination only applying to foil).

1 Alfred Hutton, "The infantry sword exercise of 1895," The United Service Magazine, March 1896, 631–40; "Military Matters," The Globe, 7 December 1895, 3; I. D. Chepmell and G. H. Savage, "Infantry sword exercise and the recent handbook from the war office," The Lancet 146, no. 3752 (27 July 1895): 234; C. T. Dent, "Infantry sword exercise and the recent handbook from the war office," The Lancet 146, no. 3770 (30 November 1895): 1391–2.^↩
2 "Sword fencing on the continent," The Irish Times, 3 August 1896, 6.^↩
3 Note that this letter was translated into French for publication in L'Escrime Française, which I have then translated back into English.^↩
4 "La position du corps dans l'allonge," L'Escrime Française, 1 November 1896, 4.^↩
5 Emphasis added by the editors of L'Escrime Française.^↩
6 "La position du corps dans l'allonge," L'Escrime Française, 1 November 1896, 4.^↩
7 "L'escrime en Angleterre," L'Escrime Française, 29 November 1896, 1.^↩
8 "L'escrime en Angleterre," L'Escrime Française, 6 December 1896, 3.^↩
9 Here Barbasetti is likening Masiello to Paul the Apostle, most likely in the sense that he was not originally a Radaellian, but 'converted' and became Radaelli's most devoted follower.^↩
10 Luigi Barbasetti, "Une lettre de Barbasetti," L'Escrime Française, 13 December 1896, 4. For Barbasetti's short letter correcting errors in the translation of his previous letter, see "Masiello et Radaelli," L'Escrime Française, 3 January 1897, 3.^↩

The Right Tool for the Job

We interrupt your regular broadcast to announce that an article of mine has just been published here on the Melbourne Fencing Society's website. The article takes a look at what various authors of sabre treatises said with regard to what kind of sabres should be used for fencing, collating all the preferences, specifications, and opinions I have been able to find so far.

I hope you enjoy.

The republication of Marchionni's 1847 treatise

Alberto Marchionni's Trattato di scherma was the first work to be published explicitly discussing the 'mixed' school of fencing, and was highly regarded by many of those in the north of Italy who were themselves also considered proponents of the mixed school. Although it is of great significance within the context of Radaelli and his contemporaries, I will not be discussing the technical matter contained in the treatise here today. Instead, I wish to provide a clarification for the publication of this important work which may not be immediately obvious upon first reading it.

The title page of this book gives a publication date of 1847, however, I wish to point out a few parts of the book which indicate that the majority of copies which can now be found online (and presumably those found in libraries) were published almost 20 years later.

Our first clue of this is contained at the end of part 1, where one finds the following note to the reader from the publisher:

In 1847 the author undertook the printing of this treatise, but due to the political events that took place in 1848, he had to suspend its publication in order to take part in the war of independence as a volunteer, and then due to various circumstances having to continue his military career, where he still finds himself with the rank of major on leave of absence.
Encouraged by several of his old associates, and urged on again by various masters of this art who would like to see this treatise completed, he took to continuing it.
Hence we are more than certain that this book will receive universal approval, due to the useful considerations demonstrated by the author, and due to it truly being a complete treatise on this most noble art.¹

Thus we already see that this edition must have been published some time after the First Italian War of Independence. At the end of the book, Marchionni includes various acknowledgements to his friends and colleagues for their support in continuing the publication of his treatise. Among others, he lists Enrichetti at the Royal Military College in Florence as having bought one copy of the book, Maestro Pini in Livorno as buying 4, a Maestro Radaelli in Milan buying 5, and Maestro Lambertini buying 2.²

Further on he gives praise to Carlo Tambornini and Cesare Alberto Blengini for their treatises, calling the former the best sabre treatise written to-date, and commending the latter for his methodology for group fencing instruction.³ Given that Blengini's treatise was published in 1864, the republication of Marchionni's treatise cannot have occurred earlier than this.

By searching outside Marchionni's text, we find an issue of a short-lived newspaper from 8 August 1864 by the name of l'Esercito Illustrato. In this issue, we find an article by an unnamed writer giving a review of Marchionni's treatise, which he says was in fact republished twice in that year:

The first instalment of this important work was published in 1847, the second and the third date from 1864.⁴

So with a republication date of 1864 (or better yet, two republication dates), we can fairly safely assume that the masters cited by Marchionni would have been Giuseppe Pini (father of the famous Eugenio Pini), Bonaventura Radaelli (older brother of Giuseppe Radaelli, who at this time was following Avogadro and the Monferrato cavalry in their various postings in Italy⁵), and Clemente Lambertini (father of Vittorio Lambertini).


1 Alberto Marchionni, Trattato di scherma sopra un nuovo sistema di giuoco misto di scuola italiana e francese, [2nd ed.] (Florence: Federigo Bendici, 1847 [1864]), 206.^↩
2 ibid., 373.^↩
3 ibid., 373–4.^↩
4 Bibliografia, L'esercito illustrato: giornale militare, 6 August 1864, 445.^↩
5 Jacopo Gelli, Bibliografia generale della scherma con note critiche, biografiche, e storiche (Florence: Tipografia Editrice di Luigi Niccolai, 1890), 167.^↩

Translation - Sinossi della scherma di sciabola by Antonio Tinti

In the period of history focused on in this blog, it is not often that one encounters a text without a named author or date of publication. The curious text Sinossi della scherma di sciabola is rather unique in this sense, if not for its content. The text and illustrations (aside from a few small additions) are largely identical to Del Frate's 1868 treatise on Radaelli's sabre method Istruzione per maneggio e scherma della sciabola¹, albeit shorter and more concise. Despite this, the small differences in the text may prove interesting for those interested in the Radaellian method at a deeper level. The Biblioteca Fondazione Collegio San Carlo has kindly allowed me to share the excellent quality scans of this text.

Translation (without illustrations)

Transcription

Scans (includes illustrations)

Although this copy does not list an author, in Gelli's 1890 fencing bibliography he states that some copies bear the name 'A. Tinti' in the top right-hand corner of the title page. As Gelli suggests, this is most likely Antonio Tinti, a fencing master at the Military School of Modena. He also gives an estimated date of publication of around 1880, which I would also agree with.²

One piece of evidence that gives a strong indication of it being published before 1884 is the presence in this copy of the following hand-written note at the end of the book, most likely written by the original owner of this copy:

The modifications recently introduced in the Fencing system included in the treatise adopted as the Text for the Army and approved by the Ministers of the Navy and Public Education are based specifically on the teaching of the Sword (Foil).
The sabre fencing is therefore only the continuation of the same artistic principles announced in the sword text, namely: tempo, speed, and measure.
The difference between the sabre method now adopted and that of this booklet is in the method of performing the blows, which are struck with the pivot point in the articulation of the wrist instead of the elbow.
The modifications introduced in the form of the sabres can be seen from the new sabre models; and the theories, pictures, and prints of the swords and sabres for the aforementioned new method are fully explained and highlighted in other sword and sabre synopses.

It is clear that they are referring to Parise's treatise, which became the regulation fencing treatise for the army in 1884³, thus indicating that Tinti's book was published earlier than this.

The book includes 21 illustrations, which mostly appear to have been copied from Del Frate's aforementioned 1868 book, but with a few additions such as the diagram labelling the parts of the sabre, plus a close-up illustration showing how to grip the sabre.

As for the method described, the main notable differences to Del Frate is Tinti's explicit recommendation that in the student's later lessons, the half cross-step back in the parries of low 3rd and low 4th may be omitted. He is also the only Radaellian author to state that the change sforzi (sforzi di cambiamento) are only intended as exercises:

With the exception of the sforzo of half-circle and various other simple sforzi done with the edge, the sforzi are only done as exercises in the lesson, while the first ones are also performed in the bout.

There are other minor differences here-and-there, which I leave to the reader to discover for themselves.

Thanks to Biblioteca Fondazione Collegio San Carlo for providing these scans and for allowing me to share them with you all.

1 Settimo Del Frate, Istruzione per maneggio e scherma della sciabola (Florence: Tipografia, lit. e calc. la Venezia, 1868).

2 Jacopo Gelli, Bibliografia generale della scherma con note critiche, biografiche, e storiche (Florence: Tipografia Editrice di Luigi Niccolai, 1890).

3 Cesare Francesco Ricotti-Magnani, "N. 107. - Pubblicazione del trattato di scherma di spada e sciabola compilato dal signor Masaniello Parise. - (Segretariato generale). - 11 agosto," Giornale Militare 1884: parte seconda, no. 33 (16 August 1884): 653–4.

La Scherma di Fioretto by Ferdinando Masiello

Considered by many to be the leader of the Radaellian school of fencing in the decades following the death of its founder, Ferdinando Masiello was without doubt a giant in the Italian fencing scene of the late 19th century. He first published his method of fencing in 1887 under the title La scherma italiana di spada e di sciabola ('Italian sword and sabre fencing'). His sword method was a combination of all the principles he considered best among those systems he studied, the main influence being Cesare Enrichetti, along with dozens of footnotes criticising and refuting Masaniello Parise's method. Masiello's sabre method, however, was based only on Radaelli's method, with a few of his own modifications.

Fifteen years later, he separately released a second edition of his sword treatise (third edition for sabre). His treatise on the sword (now using the name fioretto to differentiate it from the recently popularised épée du combat) entitled La scherma di fioretto is what I wish to share with readers today.

Scans: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1y2cb5sUZqx_mFQPsRQVNgCFtn43uDIiY

The second edition removes much of the fluff in the introduction of the 1887 edition, and is far less scathing of Parise, having none of the footnotes picking apart his method. Short of doing a detailed side-by-side comparison, the method itself is much the same, still retaining his unique preference of wielding the sword predominantly through the shoulder, both for disengagements and parries. The most obvious change is the illustrations, which replace the clothed clones of the 1887 edition with ripped Adonises in budgie smugglers.

Translation - Lezioni collettive di spada e sciabola by Eugenio Pini

Eugenio Pini is one of the most famous names in modern Italian fencing history, perhaps second only to Aldo Nadi. He was undoubtedly the first modern Italian fencing celebrity, with his name being known across Europe thanks to his high-profile fencing exhibitions, duels, feuds, and not least his renowned fencing club in Livorno, which produced many champions, the most prominent of whom being Giuseppe 'Beppe' Nadi, father of Aldo and Nedo Nadi.

Before he was quite so famous, while employed at the Royal Naval Academy in Livorno, Pini wrote a short book detailing his method of group instruction for fencing, according to the regulation method of the time (see Parise's 1884 treatise Trattato teorico-pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola). It is this valuable and interesting work which I wish to share with you all today, which is entitled Lezioni collettive di spada e sciabola ('Group sword and sabre lessons'), published in 1891 in Milan.

Translation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L6-9_mY_VO_hCKblZWCgaPsBRuCSDfsf
Transcription: https://drive.google.com/open?id=15NGzanx-XT2MsegfZywFw98kljxxp9ZA
Scans: https://teca.bncf.firenze.sbn.it/ImageViewer/servlet/ImageViewer?idr=BNCF00003880056

With very little in the way of technical notes, this booklet is more of a pedagogical guide for trained fencing instructors. Although individual lessons were the more popular method at the time for imparting technical skills (at least in the initial phases of learning), Pini's text provides a valuable insight into how skilled fencing masters would impart lessons to groups without compromising the quality of their teaching in doing so.

With reference to Parise's regulation treatise, Pini divides his curriculum into 5 years (the same length as an officer's course at the Royal Naval Academy), with the first four years of which being devoted almost entirely to sword fencing. Here is a summary of each year of the curriculum:

1st year

Instruction begins with sword fencing only. Students learn basic footwork, simple attacks, simple parries, circular parries, disengagements and counter-disengagements, and feints.

2nd year

The instructor transitions to doing individual lessons with the students, who practise among themselves when not taking a lesson.

3rd year

The instructor continues in the same manner as in the second year, but also begins slowly transitioning only the most capable students into bouting, which they will be allowed to do in the last months of the year.

4th year

The instructor will continue perfecting the students' fencing individually, still only allowing the best students to bout between themselves and with the instructor. In the last months of the year, students will begin learning the fundamentals of sabre fencing through group exercises

5th year

Students will receive individual sabre lessons, whilst the rest practise among themselves through exercises and bouting. All the while, the instructor will keep a watchful eye on the students, correcting and guiding them to becoming skilled and courteous fencers.

La Scherma della Sciabola e del Bastone a Due Mani by Alberto Falciani

Seeing as it has been a while since I have made public any original fencing treatises, I thought I should get around to completing a transcription of Alberto Falciani's La scherma della sciabola e del bastone a due mani ('Fencing with the sabre and two-handed stick'), published in Pisa in 1870.

Transcription: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1okZkYb02Xpuky_KnIUfZ6BbATDv_Bx9L

As the name implies, this treatise is devoted to both sabre and bastone, the latter being the practice of fencing with two-handed sticks, which was quite popular in the middle of the 19th century, before going out of fashion around the time this treatise was published.

Although it contains no illustrations, the language is clear and simple enough for them to not be required, such as the description for the typical northern Italian lunge ('... the right breast is almost directly above the right knee').

In an article from Corriere dell'Arno, published 31 October 1886, the writer states that Falciani was a volunteer in the 2nd and 3rd Italian Wars of Independence, and he is now a 'master of fencing, gymnastics, and military exercises' in Pisa.

Thanks to Biblioteca Universitaria di Pisa for providing the scans for this transcription.

The 1892 Genoa Fencing Tournament

In this first post of 2020, I bring a translation of another detailed fencing tournament report, this time from 1892 Genoa. Published with the title Torneo Internazionale di Scherma, Genova 16-24 Giugno 1892, this report was written by the tournament jury's speaker, Giuseppe Nini, a well-regarded lawyer and amateur fencer from Rome. Below you will find links to my full translation of this text and a transcription of the original Italian. In addition, I have also provided a translation of a second report on the same tournament from the magazine Baiardo (more on that below).

Translation: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PRi61LwjNpUlzzi-4cGekS8MrmOwMbPF

Transcription: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dZa0KbzaqH-rX-s-TsV3S5bQUpmS8Ntc

Baiardo Report: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1yDNSmoifwbifal9jrE9dZdzdo0AJwBTG

The rules and format of the Genoa Tournament are very similar to previous tournaments discussed on this blog (see Milan 1881 and Bologna 1891), with the variation here that the classification of the fencers was conducted at the same times as the 'pool' competition, the intent of which being to both prevent the artistic degradation generally observed in the pools and to prevent the overly 'conventional' fencing associated with classification bouts.

The most interesting aspects of the report are contained in the jury's observations of the fencing, which show many parallels to lamentations within the historical fencing community today, such as recklessness, frequent double touches, and lack of control of the weapon.

The report from Baiardo (scans available through Europeana.eu here) was published over three issues (1892/06/20, 1892/07/08, and 1892/07/20) and written by Giovanni Battista Marazzo. This report gives more of an outsider's perspective as opposed to Nini's report, which was compiled by the members of the Jury.

As is fairly usual for this period, commentators didn't shy at the opportunity to bring fencing politics into the discussion of the tournament. Most notably here, in both the Nini and Baiardo reports, were feelings of dissatisfaction with the quality of many of the fencers. The following short article entitled 'Impressions on the Genoa Tournament' published in Baiardo on the 20th August 1892 places the blame squarely on the Scuola Magistrale and Masaniello Parise, its director:

From the progress of the aforementioned tournament, I have once again brought back the conviction that our youth show a high aptitude for the noble art of fencing, and it is with true regret that I came to realise that a sufficient benefit cannot be drawn from these aptitudes, the official system being the main cause.
This is not the first time that I am obliged to note how this system satisfies neither the reasons of the art, nor its traditions, nor even the nature of Italian youth, of which the Army is the prime champion.
It is a strong conviction, as I have already stated a thousand times, that the talents of agility and strength which nature has endowed the Italian people with cannot be usefully cultivated with the regulation method.
This opinion of mine, which, even if it is wrong—which I do not believe to be the case—certainly comes only from artistic and scientific considerations.
Let us hope that Parise, the one in charge of directing the Army’s fencing, may one day change his mind and bring our art back to its ancient splendour.

Bruto II

Bias against fencers from the Scuola Magistrale had been predicted by some when it was revealed who was elected to the tournament's jury, with an article from Baiardo published on the 8th June 1892 (prior to the tournament taking place) stating '... just as the Turin Tournament was said to be Enrichettian, that of Bologna Radaellian, that of Rome Neapolitan, that of Palermo Cipollian, thus the formation of the Jury for the Genoa Tournament was called anti-Parise.' The same article also claims some fencers from the Scuola Magistrale intended to boycott the tournament for this reason, but did not expect many to actually do so.

Special thanks to Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze for providing the scans of Nini's tournament report.