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:
Special thanks to Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze for providing the scans of Nini's tournament report.
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.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.
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
Special thanks to Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze for providing the scans of Nini's tournament report.
No comments:
Post a Comment