Despite spending his whole career as a fencing master in Italy, particularly Florence, Ferdinando Masiello had influence that spread well beyond the borders of his homeland. Aside from his colossal fencing treatise of 1887, this influence also took place through his students, perhaps the most decorated of which being Luigi Sestini of Florence.
Sestini left Italy in the 1890s and founded a club in Berlin, quickly establishing himself as the foremost expert on Italian fencing in Germany, and soon he was rubbing elbows with various military officers, eventually leading to Masiello's method (through Sestini) to be adopted by the German army.
Today I present the Luigi Sestini's treatise Das Fechten mit Florett und Säbel ('Fencing with foil and sabre'), probably published in 1903 (no date of publication listed in the book).
Scans: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NVPkaZROGmPCtqFj2RaFRFY_4HdAl1G_/view?usp=sharing
The 247-page treatise is largely a German translation of Masiello's 1887 treatise, with new illustrations and slight changes 'to meet German needs and conceptions'.
In addition to Sestini's influence in Germany, his treatise and teaching method would also come to serve as the basis for the Dutch navy's fencing regulations, which was largely a simplified version of the sabre section of Sestini's treatise, using the same illustrations. A translation courtesy of Reinier van Noort may be viewed here.
I find the illustration of Primdeckung interesting. The hand goes at the same level as the face in both fencers and the point of the parrying sabre is directed to way above the other attacker's face. I'm not well-read, but I've only found this in Kreussler and Mensur fencing. Was this in Masiello or was this one of the things adapted to the German audience?
ReplyDeleteThis is almost certainly a mistake on the part of the editor, with the illustration showing parry of 5th wrongly labelled 'Primdeckung' and the illustration showing parry of 1st as 'Quintdeckung'. Somehow the images must have been swapped.
DeleteIn hindsight, it may have been slightly misleading of me to choose these particular pages as an exemplar!
I wonder if this was indicative of the absolute confusing mess surrounding Prime and Quinte, and how Mezzo-cerchio seems to mean either, both, or neither depending on your area and what treatise you are reading at the time, and probably why seconde, terza/sixte, and quarte are really the only invitations/engagements/parries that any modern club ever bothers ro teach anymore; my own MOF club I started in was very much guilty of this and actively reprimanded anyone who even bothered to use any of the other parries, always declaring "4-6-2! That's IT!!!"
DeleteActually an article about the differences between the numerous variations of Prime, Quinte, and Mezzocerchio seen in the various treatises would be welcomed. As someone who has been delving into the Italian sources, it has not only been confusing to learn, but also has hindered me in teaching others as I dont know WHICH version of the system to teach to my own students.
In this particular case the incorrectly labelled images are in the sabre section, where the party numbering was a bit more consistent (at least within the Italian school), so it is probably just a printing error.
DeleteA large part of the modern confusion between numbering systems today comes from people throughout the last 200 years trying to combine French and Italian terminology, and the and the dominance of French in the FIE certainly obscures some of the disparity today.
The amount of variation in position numbering, particularly prior to the formation of the FIE, makes it impractical to try and unify the terminology across sources from several decades, so you're better off just conforming to your favourite source or picking one and sticking with it. The numbering already makes little sense for students, particularly if they're not really interested in reading the books, so consistency is king when teaching.