Sportfechten by E. von Ciriacy-Wantrup

With 2022 drawing to a close, I thought I would end the year by sharing one last text from my collection. This curious 78-page book entitled Sportfechten ('Sport fencing') was published in Leipzig and Zürich, likely during the 1920s.

*** Scans ***

Very little is known about the author of this book, E. von Ciriacy-Wantrup, and so far I have been unable to even determine his first name. What is known, however, is that he was an Oberleutnant (first lieutenant) serving in the 99th infantry regiment of the German army in 1909 and that he taught fencing at the Dresdner Fecht-Club and the Officer's Fencing Club.

Ciriacy-Wantrup (left) posing for the camera at the 1909 officer's tournament in Dresden.

Ciriacy-Wantrup's system is clearly Italian-derived, as exemplified by terminology such as 'Kavation ins Tempo'. The book is less a treatise and more a collection of general fencing advice about the various techniques. The advice is generally weapon-agnostic, although he dedicates about 10 pages to specific advice on the épée, which he says is 'undoubtedly the most difficult [kind of] fencing' and should only be taken up after mastering foil and sabre. Two of the six photos in the book feature the famous amateur champion and Olympian Erwin Casmir, with the captions stating that he was a student of Ciriacy-Wantrup at the time.

Throughout the text, the author emphasises that he values precision of execution over speed, especially in the early stages, which is reflected in his recommendation that students should have 'complete confidence' in their footwork before they are allowed to grip a weapon. These somewhat rigid views appear to be in response to what he observes as a general decline in interest for fencing in Germany at the time of publication.

Ciriacy-Wantrup (seated), 1914

Review - Luigi Barbasetti: Il più celebre maestro di scherma del mondo by Fabrizio Orsini

Readers of this blog are likely well aware that Luigi Barbasetti is often considered one of the most influential figures in both Radaellian fencing and modern fencing in general. Fabrizio Orsini begins with a similar premise in his recent book Luigi Barbasetti: Il più celebre maestro di scherma del mondo, published by the Accademia Nazionale di Scherma in Naples. This is Orsini's second contribution in what is hoped to be a series of biographical books on significant Italian fencing figures, his first being a biography on the Neapolitan Masaniello Parise published last year.

After giving a brief cultural and architectural tour of late 19th-century Vienna, the site of Barbasetti's most prominent achievements, the book then follows a typical chronological structure, beginning with a discussion of Barbasetti's likely birthplace (Udine or Cividale?) and providing some insight into his younger years, for which Orsini has made good use of state archives. Orsini's talent of setting a visual scene and providing socio-political context for the locales of Barbasetti's career continue throughout the book. Unfortunately, its usefulness as a work of history is limited because these commendable writing gifts are often overshadowed by sparse use of citations and unnecessary speculation.

A particularly unfortunate and glaring instance of such speculation is the frankly absurd theory that there were Savoyard plots to both manipulate the Italian populace through state-funded sporting education and to use Italian fencing masters as diplomatic and intelligence agents deployed throughout the rest of Europe. It is on this theory that Orsini centres his hypothesis as to why Barbasetti and many other Italian masters eventually left Italy and established themselves in prominent positions abroad (pp. 29–30, 39, 89). No proof is provided for these claims—Orsini himself admits that he has none—and the far more obvious and likely cause for this phenomenon of poor pay and job satisfaction is not brought up at all.

It was no secret at the time that most military fencing masters were dissatisfied with their working conditions, being underpaid and underappreciated compared to others with similar roles and levels of training in the army.¹ The military master's rank of non-commissioned officer meant that they had little authority over their students in the regiment, many of whom were officers, and their salary quickly stagnated unless they were able to obtain one of the few and highly-coveted 'civil master' positions, which came with better working conditions and, perhaps most importantly, better pay.² In 1889 a regular military master teaching at the Rome Master's School such as Barbasetti would have a total annual income of around 1,400 lire, while a civil master at said school such as Carlo Pessina (who graduated from Radaelli's school around the same time as Barbasetti) was earning around 3,200 lire per year.³

What made it so difficult to obtain such a promotion was that a military master could only apply for it twice, and if they were unsuccessful in both instances they were unable to ever apply again. Barbasetti is known to have applied for this promotion in October 1892, but ended up in 5th place overall, with three of the four available promotions going to younger and less experienced masters than Barbasetti.⁴ Given that Barbasetti had been teaching in the military since 1881, it is likely that this was his second and final chance to achieve such a promotion. Two months later, he had left the army and accepted an offer to direct the Trieste Fencing Society. This phenomenon of military fencing masters leaving Italy was already known about at this point, with an article from August 1892 putting the matter much more succinctly: 'One asks, why do they go? and the answer is simple [sic]. Because the position of non-commissioned officer is incompatible with that of a fencing master. And soon who knows how many more will leave.'⁵ Of the 69 people promoted to civil master between the years 1876 and 1910, only two of these masters would leave Italy to teach abroad.⁶

Although the specific facts and figures provided here require some original research, the basic facts surrounding military fencing masters and the logical conclusions which emerge (although far less dramatic than a secret government plot) are plain to see when consulting primary sources for this period. This is particularly evident from Italian sporting magazines, several of which Barbasetti submitted articles to. Perhaps the most notable of all these was the short-lived Rivista Sportiva of Trieste, which at the end of 1893 began including a large section on fencing for which Barbasetti was the editor until the magazine's final issue in May 1894. Perhaps Orsini was not aware of any of these articles by Barbasetti, as none are cited in the book; in any case, this instance appears to be the product of over-reliance on secondary sources for understanding the sporting context of Barbasetti's most formative and outspoken years in Italy.

The absence of discussion on these other writings of Barbasetti also highlights the lack of critical discussion regarding Barbasetti's own motivations. Orsini quickly takes for granted that once Barbasetti left the Master's School and the army he became a firm opponent of said school and its leadership—but why was this the case? After over ten years of military service, six of those (in theory) spent teaching Parise's method at Parise's school, why had he seemingly all of a sudden become so disillusioned with his employer and his role? Why did he not remain in Italy and teach in somewhere like Palermo, a place he speaks so fondly about in subsequent years? Such questions would give real insight into the personal development of Luigi Barbasetti, but unfortunately this book does not ask them.

Even when Orsini does engage with primary sources, in many cases it is in a frustratingly superficial manner, showing a lack of understanding of both the specific context of Radaelli's system and the sporting environment it existed in. His multiple assertions that Radaelli's sabre method had the duel as its primary intended application (pp. 39–42) fly in the face of all the primary evidence from this period, particularly the explicit cavalry-focused aims laid out in Settimo Del Frate's 1868 book on Radaelli's system.⁷ Orsini also claims that, unlike Parise and Barbasetti, the original Radaellian method gave little importance to footwork and instead emphasised body leaning as the primary means of distance management, thus avoiding the need for footwork 'especially because they lived in an era in which rubber had not yet been invented' (p. 41), again with no supporting evidence. This presumptiveness continues with his analyses of works by the book's main subject, where he mistakenly identifies the positions Barbasetti depicts in his foil treatise for performing a parry-riposte in the lunge as instead being a 'totally innovative' method of parrying in the act of lunging (pp. 89, 105, 161).

As for general sporting context, Orsini states that they supposedly practised 'spada da terreno' at Radaelli's school, and that Radaellian sabre fencing 'did not take convention into account like for the foil' (p. 84), despite rules for assigning fault in the case of double touches being found in almost every Radaellian sabre treatise as well as tournament regulations starting in the 1870s.⁸ While at other times Orsini is willing to admit that little is known (at least by him personally) about certain persons of interest or events, these aforementioned false assertions are simply unnecessary, and merely serve to undermine any attempt at providing a solid context for Barbasetti's career.

While the previous examples of deficiencies in this book might be brushed off as honest mistakes or the result of a desire to give only a general overview of Barbasetti's life as opposed to a rigorous, scholarly one, Orsini's continuous attempts to paint Masaniello Parise in the most positive light possible seem more calculated. In addition to Orsini's biography on Parise released last year,⁹ in which he lauds Parise heavily, throughout his biography of Barbasetti, Orsini appears to almost compulsively give Parise credit for the majority of Italian fencing's achievements post-1884, parroting period propaganda about Parise's system being the true 'Italian school'; ascribing Barbasetti's advocacy of the second intention as being 'obviously' something he had learnt at the Rome Master's School (p. 64); accusing Barbasetti's foil treatise of being largely derivative of Parise's by posing the not-so-subtle question 'was it perhaps plagiarism, although not totally?' (p. 89); or believing the main reason why Parise's sabre system was so heavily criticised (and then replaced at the Master's School after his death) was due to a personal vendetta by people such as Salvatore Pecoraro and Carlo Pessina (p. 160).

Throughout the biography, Orsini shows a determination to find hidden (and often speculative) narratives within each story he comes across rather than engage critically with the evidence at hand. Orsini's knowledge of the political contexts in which Luigi Barbasetti's career took place is strong, and his passion for the material very evident. However, while the book provides a good overview of Barbasetti's career and a few original archival findings, the end result is let down by questionable speculation and a general lack of rigour, leaving the reader without much insight into Barbasetti as a human being. It is nevertheless encouraging to see growing scholarly engagement with the figures of this period, and I hope that Orsini's works will prove to be the first contributions to a wider conversation on the history of Italian fencing.

—————

1 To cite just a few articles from the period: Giuseppe Perez, 'I Maestri di Scherma nell'Esercito', Baiardo: periodico schermistico bimensile, 16 May 1891, 4; Ricasso, 'Il grado ai maestri di scherma militari', Rivista Illustrata Settimanale, 30 August 1891, 3–4; 'I maestri di scherma', Scherma Italiana, 15 December 1891, 181–2.^↩
2 Note that despite the word 'civil' being used, the fencing master with this title was still employed by the military.^↩
3 Jacopo Gelli, Brevi note sulla scherma di sciabola per la cavalleria (Florence: Tipografia di Luigi Niccolai, 1889), 9.^↩
4 The examination rankings are mentioned in: Scherma Italiana, 27 October 1892, 70. The record of the four promotions may be found in the 1892 and 1893 volumes of the Ministry of War's Bollettino ufficiale delle Nnomine, promozioni e destinazioni negli ufficiali del R. Esercito Italiano e nel personale dell'amministrazione militare (Rome: Voghera Enrico).^↩
5 Veritas, 'Istruttori di scherma militari', Baiardo: periodico schermistico bimensile, 20 August 1892, 51.^↩
6 These being Edoardo Lupi-Bonora, who became the head fencing master at the cavalry school in St. Petersburg, and Agesilao Greco, who was sent to Argentina by the Italian Ministry of Foreign affairs to teach at their military fencing school before returning to Italy a few years later.^↩
7 Settimo Del Frate, Istruzione per maneggio e scherma della sciabola (Florence: La Venezia, 1868), vii–xix.^↩
8 Rules for assigning fault in doubles: Giordano Rossi, Manuale teorico-pratico per la scherma di spada e sciabola (Milan: Fratelli Dumolard, 1885), 134–6; Ferdinando Masiello, La scherma italiana di spada e di sciabola (Florence: G. Civelli, 1887), 577–8; Nicolò Bruno, Risorgimento della vera scherma di sciabola italiana basata sull'oscillazione del Pendolo (Novara: Tipografia Novarese, 1891), 231–3. Simplified conventions can be found in the regulations for the national fencing tournament in Turin, 1877: VII congresso ginnastico italiano: regolamenti e programmi (Turin: Stefano Marino, 1877), 20.^↩
9 Fabrizio Orsini, Masaniello Parise: La vita e l'opera del più importante maestro di scherma del mondo (Naples: Accademia Nazionale di Scherma, 2021).^↩

The expanded Radaellian reading list

The ability to compare techniques and views in the many treatises published by those I would call first-generation Radaellians is extremely valuable not only for those looking to recreate Radaelli's sabre system, but also for those wishing to understand how the system evolved (or didn't) in the decades after the death of its founder. These 'first-generation' treatises, written by Giordano Rossi, Ferdinando Masiello, Luigi Barbasetti, and others (see sidebar) all share the common heritage of being written by people who studied the original Radaellian method at Radaelli's school. In contrast, the texts that are listed below, despite having clearly identifiable Radaellian elements to a greater or lesser extent, were instead the products of secondary transmission of Radaelli's method.

These are texts written by students of the Radaellians and students of their students, the Radaellian principles being adapted for different contexts and customs and sometimes syncretised with other systems the authors had learnt throughout their careers. Although the transmission of the system to these authors is generally less direct than for the early Radaellians, that does not mean that these texts are necessarily less significant; on the contrary, many of these texts represent major milestones in the propagation of Radaellian fencing throughout Europe and were sometimes used as curricula for national fencing courses, something which cannot be said for all the first-generation Radaellian treatises.

Each text in this list contains a sabre method which I personally consider to display considerable Radaellian influence, generally due to the presence of Radaelli's exercise molinelli or other elbow-based cutting exercises of clear Italian influence. It does not claim to be an exhaustive list, as exploration and acquisition of books is always in progress, and the list will be updated as I or others become aware of other relevant works. Readers are welcome to provide suggestions for further additions.

---

Italian cavalry regulations

Publications: Regolamento di esercizi e di evoluzioni per la cavalleria, 1° Tomo (1873) [Translation] & Regolamento di esercizi per la cavalleria, Volume I (1912)

Language: Italian

The 1873 version is a simplified adaptation of Radaelli's sabre method (as seen in Del Frate's 1868 book) for the use of the Italian cavalry. This method continued to be regulation until 1891, until the heavily modified method by Masaniello Parise was finally approved. After the Salvatore Pecoraro and Carlo Pessina reintroduced the Radaellian method to the Italian fencing master's school, a new version of the cavalry regulations were published in 1912 which reintroduced exercise molinelli similar to those seen in the 1873 version.

Francis Vere Wright

Publication: The Broadsword (1889)

Language: English

A partial translation of the sabre section of Ferdinando Masiello's 1887 treatise and the first foreign translation of Radaellian material. Vere Wright became enamoured with Masiello's method after visiting his club in 1888, and played a key role in getting the method to be adopted by the British army.

British Infantry Sword Exercise

Publication: Infantry Sword Exercise (1895)

Language: English

The British army's regulation fencing text based on the method of Ferdinando Masiello, which had been taught at the Aldershot physical education course since 1893. The text was likely prepared with the assistance of Masiello's amateur student Giuseppe Magrini, who moved to England in order to teach at the Aldershot college. A revised edition was also released the following year.

Gustav Ristow

Publication: Die moderne Fechtkunst (1896)

Language: German

Published in Prague, this was the first German-language book containing Radaellian sabre fencing, with much of the material being heavily derived from Masiello's 1887 treatise. The author was a student of Italian expat Pietro Arnoldo, an Enrichettian fencing master teaching in Graz. Two years later Ristow would also translate Luigi Barbasetti's duelling code into German.

Jerzy Żytny

Publication: Krótki zarys szermierki na szable podług metody włoskiej (1900)

Language: Polish

A short book based on Barbasetti's method, republished in 1908.

Escipión Ferretto

Publications: Esgrima italiana, primer tratado completo sobre esgrima de sable publicado en castellano (1901) & Esgrima del sable (1928)

Language: Spanish

The 1901 book is the first Radaellian sabre treatise published in Spanish, and is greatly influenced by Masiello's material, often merely translating the Italian text. The 1928 book is an updated version of the same treatise. Escipión Ferretto (Scipione Ferretto in Italian) was a student of Radaellian master Federico Giroldini and moved to Buenos Aires in the 1890s, later teaching at the Argentinian fencing master's school in Buenos Aires.

Gusztáv Arlow

Publication: A kardvívás (1902) [Translation]

Language: Hungarian

The first treatise in the prolific Italo-Hungarian sabre tradition. Having previously published a treatise on the 'high tierce' system, in A kardvívás Gusztáv Arlow combines Barbasetti-esque Radaellian sabre fencing with some Hungarian elements such as expanded use of the false edge. Arlow had trained at Italo Santelli's hall in Budapest and likely also with Barbasetti or his students.

Luigi Sestini

Publication: Das Fechten mit Florett und Säbel (1903?)

Language: German

Largely a German translation of Masiello's material, partly adapted for the foreign audience. Sestini was a student of Masiello and a prominent amateur competitor before moving to Berlin in 1895. His method would soon be taught in German military schools and regiments.

Orlando Cristini

Publication: Esgrima italiana de florete y sable (1905)

Language: Spanish

The sabre text of this treatise is mostly plagiarised from Ferretto's work from four years earlier, while the illustrations are taken from the 1904 version of Masaniello Parise's treatise. Orlando Cristini was a graduate of the Rome military fencing master's school who moved to Argentina in 1895, and then later taught at the Chilean military fencing master's school in Santiago (where this book was published) alongside Giuseppe 'José' Scansi.

José Scansi

Publication: Teoría de la esgrima (1905)

Language: Spanish

Published in the same year and city as Cristini's treatise, José Scansi (his first name being the Spanish version of Giuseppe) also plagiarises his sabre material largely from Ferretto. Scansi was a decorated amateur fencer for many years and a student of the Radaellian master Carlo Guasti, later perfecting his fencing under Eugenio Pini and becoming a fencing master in 1897. Soon after he moved to Argentina to teach fencing in the military before joining Cristini in Chile.

Leopold van Humbeek

Publication: Handleiding voor het Sabelschermen (1905) [Translation]

Language: Dutch

Details a sabre system that shows some influence from Barbasetti's treatise. Despite initially being trained in the French school in his native Belgium, Leopold Van Humbeek was one of if not the earliest proponents of Italian sabre in the Netherlands, leading to his method being adopted in the Dutch navy.

Károly Leszák

Publication: Kardvívás (1906) [Translation]

Language: Hungarian

Taking some inspiration from Arlow's 1902 treatise, Károly Leszák's work is also key contribution to the Italo-Hungarian school. Leszák was a graduate of the Wiener Neustadt military fencing school, and would have been trained in Barbasetti's method. He spent most of his career teaching at the Ludovica military academy in Budapest.

James Betts

Publication: The Sword and How to Use It (1908)

Language: English

An adaptation of Masiello's sabre method for a British audience, more complete and well-written than the 1895 Infantry Sword Exercise. James Betts learnt Masiello's system under Giuseppe Magrini, himself a student of Masiello, and later replaced Magrini as fencing instructor at the army's physical education school in Aldershot.

Gustav Casmir

Publication: Fechten (1908?)

Language: German

Published as part of a large sporting encyclopedia, Gustav Casmir's short treatise details a Radaellian sabre method with likely influence from the method of Masaniello Parise. Casmir was a student of Ettore Schiavoni, a graduate of Parise's fencing master's school who moved to Berlin in the late 1890s.

Dutch navy fencing regulations

Publication: Voorschrift Schermoefeningen bij de Koninklijke Marine (1910) [Translation]

Language: Dutch

An adaptation of Luigi Sestini's treatise (on the Masiello method) compiled by Leopold Van Humbeek for the Dutch navy.

Robert Tvarůžek

Publication: Šerm šavlí (1910)

Language: Czech

An adaptation of Barbasetti's sabre method, written by a Czech graduate of the Wiener Neustadt military fencing school.

German fencing regulations

Publication: Vorschrift für das Fechten auf Hieb und Stoß (1912)

Language: German

The first edition of these regulations to depart from Germanic styles and adopt Radaellian fencing.

Leopold Targler

Publication: Das Fechten mit der Stoss- und Hiebwaffe in sportlicher und moderner Auffassung (1913?)

Language: German

A treatise on both foil and sabre, written by a graduate of the Wiener Neustadt school who subsequently studied under Barbasetti.

Walter Meienreis

Publication: Das Säbelfechten mit dem leichten Säbel auf Hieb und Stich (1914)

Language: German

A short treatise detailing a system that resembles Barbasetti's, written by an officer of the German Landwehr.

Władysław Sobolewski

Publication: Szermierka na szable (1920?)

Language: Polish

Another Barbasetti-like adaptation, written by an amateur Polish fencer.

W. P. Hubert van Blijenburgh

Publication: Handleiding voor het schermonderwijs (1922)

Language: Dutch

The brief sabre section of this three-weapon treatise details a clearly Radaellian-derived sabre method. At the time of publication, van Blijenburgh was the director of the Dutch military's physical education school, and had previously been a student of Leopold van Humbeek.

Hans Murero

Publication: Fechten im Bild (1922)

Language: German

Although more of a visual overview of fencing positions and not a treatise like the other texts in this list, the lesson progression and 12 images relating to sabre still give useful insight to how the Barbasetti method was being taught by Wiener Neustadt graduates like Hans Murero. The Austrian-born master studied fencing at Wiener Neustadt under Milan Neralić, who was in turn a student of Luigi Barbasetti.

Carl Böhlke

Publication: Fechten mit dem leichten Säbel (1924?)

Language: German

A sabre treatise possibly derived from Barbasetti, written by a fencing and gymnastics master from Hamburg.

Léon Bertrand

Publications: Cut and thrust: The Subtlety of the Sabre (1927) & The Fencer's Companion (1935)

Language: English

Although not quite as adherent to the Radaellian method as others on the list, the evident Radaellian influences in Bertrand's work reflect the general development of sabre in Italy at the time. As the son of a London fencing master, Léon Bertrand learnt the French method from a young age, but during the 1920s he would spend his summers studying sabre fencing with Beppe Nadi in Livorno.

Soviet cavalry regulations

Publications: Рубка и прикладное фехтование в коннице (1927), Pуководство по владению шашкой в войсках конвойной стражи СССР (1928), Строевой устав конницы ркка 1938 г. (1939)

Language: Russian

The first of these books was authored by Н. Домнин [N. Domnin], the second by К. Бриммер [K. Brimmer], and third is attributed to the People's Commissariat of Defence of the USSR. All three were published by the Soviet government (although the first book is not quite a military manual like the other two) and detail the use of the sabre in the cavalry. The positions demonstrated in the latter book especially show great resemblance to Barbasetti's treatise.

Juan Bay

Publication: Contribución al estudio del arte de la esgrima (1928)

Language: Spanish

In contrast to the other South American treatises in this list, Juan Bay's 'Contribution to the study of the art of fencing' does not derive its content from Masiello or Ferretto's works, but is instead entirely original. Having first learnt fencing from his father, an Italian expat, Bay continued his studies under various Italian masters in Buenos Aires and Milan. After becoming a master he would teach at the Argentinian fencing master's school alongside Ferretto, Scansi, and Cristini and later succeeded Eugenio Pini as its director.

Stefan von Kerec (Stjepan Kerec)

Publication: Fechtlehrbuch für Florett und leichten Säbel (1928)

Language: German

The unique structure of Kerec's book makes it particularly useful for those looking to design a complete fencing course for sabre fencing, with the material being divided into 153 individual lessons. The method has a clear Radaellian foundation and also shows some Italo-Hungarian characteristics. The author was a graduate of the Wiener Neustadt school and taught in various clubs throughout Germany and his native Croatia.

Czech military regulations

Publication: Šerm Šavlí (1929)

Language: Czech

The official military fencing regulations of Czechoslovakia, likely Barbasetti-derived through Robert Tvarůžek.

Włodzimierz Mańkowski

Publication: Szermierka na szable (1929)

Language: Polish

A much more comprehensive Polish-language treatise than Żytny or Sobolewski, complete with synoptic tables. He states in the introduction that his treatise mainly follows the 'Tuscan method', whose proponents supposedly include Eugenio Pini, the Nadi brothers, and Italo Santelli, and that he previous studied under Orazio Santelli (brother of Italo) in Lviv and G. T. Angelini in Trieste.

G. L. Walpot

Publication: Een flinke hollandsche jongen wil wat weten van schermen (1930)

Language: Dutch

Although he does not give his full name in the book, the author was likely Guillaume Leopold Walpot, a teacher of physical education in Amsterdam. At the beginning of the sabre section, he states that the method detailed in the treatise is Barbasetti's, which he learnt while attending the Amersfoort riding school.

Carl Stritesky

Publications: Degenfechtbuch und Säbelfechtbuch (1937), Säbelfechten: Schule und Kampf (1938), Fechtkunst. 70 Stundenlektionen für Säbelfechten (1953)

Language: German

Multiple manuals and textbooks on Radaellian sabre with Hungarian influence. Stritesky was a graduate of the Wiener Neustadt school and appears to have spent most of his career teaching in Munich.

Dušan J. Gložanski

Publication: Борење сабљом и рапиром [Borenje sabljom i rapirom] (1939)

Language: Serbian

Shows strong influence from Barbasetti's treatise.

Đ. Ubsir

Publication: Упут за борење сабљом и рапиром [Konjicko strojevo pravilo] (1940)

Language: Serbian

A word-for-word copy of Gložanski's book but of a higher print quality.

Giorgio Rastelli

Publication: Scherma (1942)

Language: Italian

Instead of dividing the book into separate foil, sabre, and épée as in most fencing treatises, all three weapons are dealt with simultaneously in an attempt to unify their instruction. While the sabre method is not as strictly Radaellian as others in this list, Rastelli does advocate daily practice of elbow molinelli (although he does not describe their execution). This treatise is a valuable data point on Italian sabre fencing during a period when very little technical material was being published in the country. The fact that it was republished in 1943 and 1950 and received endorsement from the Italian Fencing Federation shows that it was generally well-received at the time. Rastelli was a student of Romolo Davoli, a graduate of the Rome military fencing master's school.

László Gerentsér

Publication: A modern kardvívás (1944)

Language: Hungarian

Coming it at a mammoth 354 pages, this is arguably the most definitive work on Italo-Hungarian sabre from the first half of the 20th century. Gerentsér was an early adopter of Italian sabre when it first spread to Hungary, with one of his several masters being Angelo Torricelli, a graduate of the Rome fencing master's school. This book was published posthumously by Gerentsér's students.

Federico Ynglés Sellés

Publication: Tratado teórico-prático de esgrima. Secunda parte. Sable (1944)

Language: Spanish

The second of three fencing volumes published by Federico Ynglés Sellés details a sabre method that is heavily based on Salvatore Pecoraro and Carlo Pessina's sabre treatise from 1912. Sellés was a graduate of the national fencing academy run by the Italian Fascist Party in Rome, and lists as reference material for his treatise the aforementioned book by Pecoraro and Pessina, the treatise of Masaniello Parise, and notes from two of the instructors at the Rome fencing academy, Antonino Pomponio and Ugo Pignotti.

Yugoslav cavalry regulations

Publication: Konjičko strojevo pravilo (1946)

Language: Serbian

A cavalry adaptation of Barbasetti's method.

Giulio Rusconi

Publication: Elementi di scherma (1948?)

Language: Italian

A short 61-page book which includes for the three simplified exercise molinelli and a few molinello ripostes using the elbow as the main pivot. Rusconi was an amateur student of the Radaellian master Giuseppe Sanesi.

John Kardoss

Publication: Sabre Fencing (1955)

Language: English

An exposition of the Italo-Hungarian method that shows some resemblance to the treatise of László Gerentsér. John Kardoss was an amateur fencer who moved to Sydney, Australia, in the late 1940s, where he worked as a journalist and writer with a passion for theatre.

Zoltán Ozoray Schenker

Publication: A modern magyar kardvívás (1958), Das Säbelfechten (1961), Szermierka na szable (1962)

Languages: Hungarian, German, Polish

A continuation of the Italo-Hungarian school, but with elbow molinelli still considered a fundamental exercise. This book seems to have been popular at the time, as it was soon translated into German and Polish. Among Schenker's many masters was Eduardo Armentani, who studied at the Rome fencing master's school under Ettore Schiavoni.

Giorgio Pessina & Ugo Pignotti

Publication: La sciabola (1972)

Language: Italian

Commissioned by the Italian Fencing Federation, for decades this was the national sabre textbook for certifying fencing masters. Although many traditional Radaellian characteristics made way for the requirements of the modern game, the treatise retains the molinelli and preparatory exercises seen in Pecoraro and Pessina's method. Giorgio Pessina was the son and student of Carlo Pessina, and Ugo Pignotti was a student of Roberto Raggetti.

William Gaugler

Publication: Fechten für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene (1983), La scienza della scherma secondo la "Scuola italiana" (1992), The Science of Fencing (1997)

Languages: German, Italian, English

One of the most comprehensive resources for fencing instructors of the classical Italian school. The technical sabre material is based on the work of Pessina and Pignotti, but the book also contains some useful sample lessons and pedagogical notes. The book was originally published in German in 1983, then expanded and published in Italian in 1992 and English in 1997. Gaugler trained with many Italian masters in his career and earned his fencing master certificate under Umberto di Paola and Giorgio Pessina.

Radaellian resistance at the Pinerolo cavalry school

In early 1891, the Italian cavalry was a hot topic among the nation's fencing commentators. The finishing touches had just been made to the new cavalry regulations which included Masaniello Parise's thrice-modified sabre method—referred to by some as the Parise-Pecoraro method. Although this new sabre instruction retained some features of the old Radaellian method, these reforms were mostly seen as a defeat by pro-Radaelli commentators and an example of Parise's tightening grip on fencing instruction in the Italian military.

Meanwhile a seemingly unrelated debate had been going on with regard to a proposal to move the army's cavalry school from the Piedmont town of Pinerolo to Albano, just outside Rome. While this debate would continue for a few more years and end with the school remaining in Pinerolo, at least one commentator thought that this existential threat to the school had rather insidious origins: in the director of the military fencing master's school Masaniello Parise. Below is a translation of this anonymous commentator's article, taken from the 22 January 1891 issue of Lo Sport Illustrato.

-----------------

After six years have passed without any more talk of it, this matter is back in the picture, which will certainly be under consideration, but on which we believe we are able to assert that no decision has been made, as one of the most important considerations is also that—which it is not clear how to provide for—of compensating Pinerolo in some way for the serious loss which it is going to suffer economically with the departure of the Cavalry School.

The reasons, aside from being less eccentric and closer to the capital, by transporting it to Albano there would be the better pastures and the better climate, since in winter everything in Pinerolo is under snow, while in Albano—save for the truly exceptional case of this icy cold year—there is never snow. But as for pastures, rather than better, they would perhaps be more abundant, but of poorer quality. And if it is true that the climate around Rome is milder in the winter, vice versa in summer—it is perhaps too hot.

It is true, however, that in Albano there would be very nice establishments, already offered by that municipality, and beautiful surroundings, offered by the nature of the place, among which the Campo di Annibale, excellent for drills.

There are the obvious reasons, but we believe there are also some hidden reasons to draw the Pinerolo School into the vicinity of the capital, and that is that, if we are not mistaken, to us Pinerolo seems to have always been the home of opponents of the Parise cavalry sabre method. Parise prevails at the Ministry, and with the school no longer being in Pinerolo but under the immediate gaze of he who can say with Dante:

Thus is it willed there where

what is willed can be done…

it would end with there being no more opposition.

But will it be so easy to succeed in this?

Besides, these are our ideas, and it is also possible that they are not exact. But they seem to us so likely and acceptable as to even add that, in order to settle things and not kick the hornet's nest, the school will perhaps end up being moved not to Albano, nor to Palestrina, nor to Pisa, but…to Florence, and specifically to the barracks and riding school in front of the Fortezza da Basso.

Only time will tell!

Gustav Casmir's foil and sabre fencing

An advantage of studying the Radaellian lineage that I often emphasise is the number of treatises published by the graduates of Radaelli's fencing master's school and their students. In contrast, the comparatively few treatises penned by those who graduated from Parise's school (speaking here only of those who had not previously attended the Radaelli's Milan school) has resulted in some confusion and mystery surrounding the fencing those graduates would go on to teach during their careers. Choosing to deal with this broader topic at a later date, today I will instead share a 'mini-treatise' written not by one such graduate, but by his star pupil Gustav Casmir. The work in question is a well-illustrated 55-page article of his, simply entitled 'Fechten', which formed one chapter of the German sporting encyclopedia Das grosse illustrierte Sportbuch, likely published in 1908 or the latter half of 1907.¹

Scans  |  Transcription

Due to Casmir's association with a graduate of the Rome master's school, in this case Ettore Schiavoni, his short treatise is a critical data point in understanding what fencing methods the Italian military masters were propagating once they left the army and thus how closely they adhered to the officially-sanctioned method they had been taught.

The Work

As insinuated earlier, although I have called this work an article, its structure is much more similar to an average treatise of the time, despite its short length. Casmir begins with a historical summary of German fencing and a discussion of the health benefits of fencing, particularly for German youths. He then starts the technical material with foil, which appears to be largely based on Masaniello Parise's method.²

Some notable deviations from Parise's method, however, are first evident in the body carriage. Parise's slight rear-weightedness is not present here (perhaps even being slightly forward-weighted), and he advocates full torso lean when lunging.

Casmir describes the same four traditional parries as Parise, but calls the half-circle parry Quint (5th), which was another common name for it among northern Italians,³ and although he prescribes parry of 3rd to be performed with the nails down like Parise, for the thrust by glide in 3rd he advises to supinate the hand during the arm extension. Further northern Italian influence is also apparent in his inclusion of the coupé and the counteraction, actions typically excluded in Neapolitan fencing. He finishes this section with 10 conventional exercises, which he recommends even advanced fencers to do every lesson.

Although the influence of Parise's method is clearly apparent in the foil section, Casmir's sabre section is instead predominantly Radaellian. He starts by describing the typical Radaellian grip (albeit with the photo showing the hand slightly further down than usual) and then immediately moves on to the six exercise molinelli, which are to be done standing upright and with the blade moved 'not from the wrist, but mainly from the elbow'. When speaking about the cuts a few pages later, he states that in order to ‘master the weapon completely’, the wrist must not be used at all, as the muscles used in wrist actions are weaker than those which move the forearm.

The two guards he describes as the most common are 2nd and 3rd, with the former being the usual Radaellian 2nd and the latter being a lower and more retracted 3rd, closer to Parise's. As a result of this retracted 3rd (and also retracted 4th), Casmir does not include separate low 3rd and low 4th parries/invitations, but still includes the other usual parries of 1st, 5th, 6th, and 7th.

An interesting deviation from the other Radaellian authors can be seen in Casmir's section on cuts, where for the cut by molinello to the head he advises to add a slicing motion to the cut, either by drawing the arm slightly after making impact or doing the cut with a slightly bent arm and then extending it. Similarly, the cut to the abdomen is done with a drawing motion across the body before returning to guard.

Like for foil, Casmir also gives 10 example conventional exercises for sabre, which should be done with students divided into groups according to their skill level. After describing all the other actions such as glides, beats, counterattacks etc., the work is concluded with advice on bouting and rules for assigning blame in double touches.

Gustav Casmir

Born in Mikołajki, Poland, on 5 November 1872, Gustav Casmir began his adult life as a primary school teacher, first teaching in north-eastern Poland before later moving to Berlin. It was here in 1898, at the Berliner Fechtclub, that Casmir had his first exposure to fencing, learning under the recently immigrated Italian master Ettore Schiavoni. His late start to fencing appeared to matter little for his skill development, with his first competitive success taking place at a large international épée tournament in Ostend in 1904, finishing in 2nd place. Later that year he would be the only European to compete in the fencing event at the Olympic Games in St. Louis. Although he did not win any medals there, two years later he would take home two gold and two silver medals at the 1906 Athens Olympics.⁴

After his triumphant return to Germany Casmir became a fencing master, first acting as Schiavoni's assistant at the Berliner Fecht-Club then moving to Dresden the following year to teach at the Dresdner Fechtclub. Despite all this promise, however, Casmir tragically died of a 'serious brain disease' in late 1910 at the age of 38.

Ettore Schiavoni

With so many notable figures throughout the history of Italian fencing, it can often be tempting to make light of their physical appearances. Whether it be their immaculately moustache or their distinctive dress, for us these features can help to not just differentiate the many faces, but also humanise them. To his contemporaries, Ettore Schiavoni's most striking feature was without doubt his height. Standing at 190 cm tall, as he began gaining the attention of the Italian sporting press he would earn himself the affectionate nickname Sua Lunghezza (literally 'His Length' or 'His Longness'), a play on the typical royal honorific Sua Altezza ('His Highness').⁵ With the average male height in Italy at the time being less than 165 cm, it is easy to see how Schiavoni would have stood out from the crowd even before he started fencing.

But it was not just his physical appearance that made him worthy of note; at a tournament in city of Bergamo in 1897, Schiavoni's display of skill and courtesy made a great impression on journalist Roderico Rizzotti, who in his report on the tournament gave the following light-hearted and rather endearing praise for Schiavoni:

Exceptionally tall in person, a young man with handsome eyes and black moustache, affable and always courteous, Schiavoni immediately wins the sympathies of the spectators when he steps onto the piste. But what really endears him, aside from his indisputable merits as a fencer, are some of his brilliant and inimitable exclamations of apology which he bursts into when he thinks the thrust did not hit the target well. In these exclamations, in his 'low, sorry, or rather, passé, outside' or in his 'no no no no, not at all', said with dizzying speed and following all the tones of the musical scale, one senses such an instinct of generosity and chivalry and such an air of childishness to make one want to climb onto a chair to...shake his hand.

The amateur Francesco Galli, who is not only talented, but also a very witty young man, said that Schiavoni seemed to him like an elongated child. And indeed he is, in the flattering sense of the phrase.

Schiavoni is one of the few masters who does not make the jurors sweat blood when a pool is in progress; he is one of the few who can submit himself serenely and philosophically to the jury's verdicts, whatever they may be.

Although it may not seem like it, this is great praise we give to Schiavoni, and with it the hope that other masters will have to imitate his example.⁶

Born in the southern Italian city of Taranto, Schiavoni's towering height and build made him an obvious top choice for the grenadiers. Having achieved the rank of sergeant, he was accepted into the Military Fencing Master's School in September 1888, where he was a student of the great master-of-masters Carlo Pessina. After graduating in 1890, he served as the fencing master of the 1st grenadiers regiment for several years before being called back to the Master's School, this time as an instructor.⁷

Schiavoni with his young students, 1910

It would not be long, however, before he followed in the footsteps of many of his colleagues to find fame and fortune abroad. In late 1897 he left for Vienna, then a popular crossroads for Italian fencing masters thanks largely to the pioneering work of Luigi Barbasetti, before eventually making his way further north and settling in Berlin, finding employment at the Berliner Fechtclub from September 1898. Here Schiavoni would spend the rest of his career, taking under his wing many of the top German fencers of the time, including a young Erwin Casmir, future Olympic medallist and nephew of Gustav Casmir. Schiavoni died of a heart attack in Berlin on 30 July 1930, aged 62.⁸

---

1 Das grosse illustrierte Sportbuch (Leipzig: J. J. Arnd, [1908?]). The proposed publication date is based on the fact that throughout several of the articles containing various sporting statistics and results, the last year to be included is 1907.^↩
2 Masaniello Parise, Trattato teorico-pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola (Rome: Tipografia Nazionale, 1884).^↩
3 cf. Settimo Del Frate, Istruzione per la scherma di punta (Milan: Gaetano Baroffio, 1872); Giordano Rossi, Manuale Teorico-Pratico per la Scherma di Spada e Sciabola (Milan: Fratelli Dumolard, 1885); Luigi Barbasetti, Das Stossfechten (Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1900).^↩
4 Manlio, 'Il Torneo d'Ostenda', Gazzetta dello Sport, 12 August 1904; 'Casimir', Nemzeti Sport, 12 November 1910, 13; 'Allerlei', Sport im Bild, 18 November 1910, 1289-90.^↩
5 Some early examples of this nickname being used: La Gazzetta dello Sport, 9 December 1898, 2; Gaetano, 'Da Napoli: Accademia Nazionale', La Gazzetta dello Sport, 18 April 1900, 2. Regarding his height, see 'Sport: Santelli vivóakadémiája', Magyar Ujság, 25 December 1897, 8.^↩
6 Roderico Rizzotti, 'Ancora del Torneo di Bergamo', La Gazzetta dello Sport, 6 September 1897.^↩
7 Giovanni Corvetto, "Circolare N. 124. - Corso normale d'istruzione presso la scuola magistrale militare di scherma. - (Segretariato generale). - 16 agosto," Giornale Militare 1888: parte seconda, no. 38 (18 August 1888): 461; 'Tre Campioni della Scherma italiana', La Stampa Sportiva, 2 November 1902, 11; 'La scherma a Berlino', Il Littoriale, 13 October 1928, 3; 'La morte di un celebre schermitore della nostra Provincia', Voce del Popolo, 9 August 1930, 5.^↩
8 'Nécrologie', L'Escrime et le Tir, August 1930, 21.^↩

Comparing editions: Masiello 1887 vs. 1902

Having released scans of the 1902 edition of Masiello's foil treatise a few years ago and the 1902 sabre edition earlier this month, I thought it would be appropriate to provide a detailed comparison of these with the first edition, published in 1887. As opposed to being simple reprints, the 1902 editions contain significant changes to the earlier material, partly due to Masiello providing more detailed explanations for some concepts, but also due to the different context within the Italian fencing scene by this time.

A comprehensive side-by-side comparison of the different editions can be read here, in which each change is listed and highlighted according to whether it is a deletion, modification or addition. For those less interested in the specifics of each individual change, what follows below is a summary of the most significant changes in both the foil and sabre treatises. It must also be noted that while the 1902 edition is the second edition of Masiello's foil treatise, his sabre treatise saw its second edition published in 1893, thus making the 1902 sabre book the third edition. One must therefore keep in mind that many of the changes seen in the 1902 edition may have already been present in this 1893 edition. How exactly the second edition differs from the third is a topic that will have to wait until I acquire a copy of it myself.

Generalities

The first difference one encounters is in the physical form of the books. While Masiello's 1887 treatise is a single 593-page volume, in 1902 the foil and sabre material were published separately, the former coming in at 232 pages and the latter 278 pages. The reduction in the total number of pages between these two 1902 volumes is largely due to the removal of the 141-page historical summary at the beginning of the 1887 edition.

Gone too is Masiello's 6-page preface, where he summarises the competitive achievements of the military's fencing masters, declares himself to be an opponent of Parise's method, and describes the purpose for his treatise and the artistic influences that contributed to the conclusions it makes. In the 1902 volumes this is replaced by a short preface from the editors, who state that they chose to publish Masiello's work for the benefit of the Italian youth due to the 'unanimously favourable opinions' expressed for the previous editions (citing the adoption of his method in the British army), and explain that with Masiello's consent they chose to 'remove everything which could have hampered elementary teaching'. The illustrations were also updated, both in art style and in that they are now all in line with the text, no longer take up entire pages.

Thus it is apparent that the 1902 editions were intended to be more relevant and accessible to the new generation of Italian fencers, those who were unburdened by the ideological debates of the 1870s and 1880s and who may have been less familiar with French and Italian fencing material of previous centuries. This improved accessibility in part derived from the foil and sabre material being published separately, which would likely have reduced the purchase price for those who were more interested in only one or the other.

A significant part of how the 1902 editions were made more relevant to younger readers is the removal of all the criticism directed towards Parise's 1884 treatise. The first edition of Masiello's 1887 book was clearly written as a response to Parise's work, with the first half containing a chapter almost entirely dedicated to refuting Parise's discussion of fencing mechanics as well as over 20 footnotes citing Parise. By 1902 the Neapolitan-Radaellian debate was well and truly tired, and while the rebuttals may be interesting for today's fencing historian, they were clearly a product of Radaellian sentiments in the 1880s. In the 1902 editions the critical footnotes were removed and the refutations of Parise's mechanics were revised to remove all references to Parise's work, with each topic being distributed throughout the rest of the book as opposed to being in one dedicated chapter.

In fact all references to other fencing treatises were removed in the 1902 editions, such as Masiello's many citations of Rosaroll-Scorza and Grisetti's 1803 treatise. Unlike the first edition, Masiello's work is now intended to be appreciated entirely on its own merits, not as an improvement over the military's regulation method or as a part of a specific tradition. The only citations that are retained are those referencing works on physiology and biomechanics, a topic which Masiello devotes much more time to in the 1902 editions, adding many quotations from Fernand Lagrange's 1888 book Physiologie des exercices du corps.

The other expanded explanations we see in both the foil and sabre volumes were partly prompted by the questions and criticism he received following the publication of the first edition, most notably the remarks made by the jury of 1891 Bologna fencing tournament, who as part of a competition for fencing and duelling publications awarded his 1887 treatise and 1891 cavalry sabre manual with a gold medal, with their thoughts on these works being published in a report. Masiello's response to these remarks was published as a booklet and also printed in several magazines in subsequent years.

Foil

Stepping back from the book's content, the title of the 1902 volume dedicated to the thrusting sword is perfectly emblematic of how Italian fencing had changed in the 15 years since the treatise's original publication. When the first edition was published in 1887, Italians were by-and-large of the opinion that Italian sword fencing had lost none of its duelling application to artistic convention—unlike French foil, which made use of a weapon that beared little resemblance to its duelling counterpart, the épée du combat. By 1902, however, fuelled by increasing contact with the French in the growing international competitive fencing scene, there was a significant number of Italians who no longer held this view, and the term 'sword fencing' was no longer synonymous with foil, but rather with the duelling sword or épée. Thus we see that while Masiello's 1887 treatise bears the title Italian sword and sabre fencing, the 1902 volume for the former weapon is instead called Foil fencing to more accurately describe its content.

As mentioned above, the most significant edits made in the 1902 foil volume are the lack of comparisons to other authors, namely Parise and Rosaroll/Grisetti; but this is not to say that there were no new additions. The introduction was expanded from 3 pages in the 1887 edition to 14 pages in the 1902, although some of this material was already contained in the mechanics discussion in the 1887 edition. Further in the book, there are an additional 3 pages in the section on the lunge discussing the advantages of inclining the torso, both with regard to the extra reach and target minimisation it provides as well as how the torso can aid a swift recovery, and the section on disengagements now has more discussion of biomechanics, with Masiello drawing from the aforementioned Lagrange as well as other authors to justify his advocacy for using the shoulder joint to perform the action as opposed to the wrist.

While the separate publication of the foil and sabre treatises resulted in various chapters and passages being repeated in both volumes, the 1902 foil volume does lack the glossary of fencing terms found at the end of the 1887 edition (although the sabre volume retains it).

Sabre

If the most notable parts of the 1902 foil volume are what was removed, it is the opposite case for the sabre. Not only does the sabre volume contain all the aforementioned additions to the foil volume (i.e. the lengthier introduction and additional discussion in the sections on the lunge and disengagement) and repetition of the foil mechanics discussion seen in the 1887 edition, but it also has several other valuable expansions and clarifications.

The first of these can be found in the 'method of gripping the sabre', where he gives further mechanical explanation for the advantages of the Radaellian grip and describes how the point can be better brought in line with the arm by sliding the thumb down the grip (keeping the other fingers in place). We also find a lengthy physiological discussion added to the section on the guard position, some of which also appearing in the 1887 and 1902 foil material; justification for preferring parries with an extended arm in the section on parries; several mechanical justifications for prescribing percussive cuts over drawing cuts in the section on cuts in general; and lastly an explanation added to the end of the section on the various cuts and thrusts as to why the attacker has such an advantage over the defender, and how if they perform their action with all the necessary requirements (e.g. measure, speed, timing), the opponent will be hit. The last major additions to the text are descriptions of the simple remise and the remise with feints—although this text has been copied from the foil volume.

Buried among all this additional content is a slightly more subtle and somewhat unexpected modification, and that is the addition of rearward weight shifting in the exercise molinelli. After a brief addition at the start of the section to explain the difference between exercise molinelli and cuts by molinello, the note at the end now begins with:

The first tempo of each molinello must be accompanied by the greatest rearward inclination of the torso (in a fencing sense) and accompanied by a slight extension of the right leg; and the second tempo, by the opposite inclination and partial extension of the left leg.

Although this back-and-forth weight shifting is present in Del Frate's 1868 text and both the 1873 and 1885 Italian cavalry regulations, Del Frate's 1876 treatise retains only the forward lean, and the only other Radaellian to include backwards leaning in their treatise is Poggio Vannucchi in 1915. The amplified weight shifting actually first reappears in Masiello's 1891 book Sabre fencing on horseback, so it does not seem that very long had passed after the publication of his 1887 treatise before he thought to alter the molinelli.

Molinello to the head from the left

In the 1902 sabre text Masiello implies that this weight shifting serves to compensate for the asymmetrical muscular development of the right side of the body (as a consequence of lunging), thus preventing 'the vice of scoliosis'. The illustrations for the molinelli, now a single picture per molinello, show a more exaggerated forward lean, but they do not seem to reflect the prescribed rearward lean as accurately.

As for textual material from the 1887 edition that was removed, the only thing of note is the lack of fencing sabre specifications. While the 1887 sabre text began with a detailed description of each part of the fencing sabre, including its dimensions and weight, the 1902 edition leaves only a general description of each component. The design of the sabre is now different too, having a completely straight blade and a guard of perforated sheet steel instead of the carved branches seen in the 1887 edition, and Masiello no longer prescribes a 4 cm point-of-balance for the sabre, but expands the section on the 'balance of the sabre' and states that the it should constructed in such a way that its centre of gravity lies at the grip.

*** Update 2023/05/04

One additional change between the two editions that was subtle enough for me to miss when originally writing this post is Masiello's reversal regarding wrist extension when moving the sabre. In the section 'Method of wielding the sabre' in the 1887 edition he states that the hand 'must never perform movements of flexion, but only lateral movements [ulnar and radial deviation] towards the forearm and movements of extension', while in the same section of the 1902 edition only the 'lateral movements' are allowed, with flexion and extension explicitly forbidden. This curious change sees Masiello's mechanics become slightly more dogmatic, and may have been a reaction against attempts to 'soften' Radaellian mechanics by the addition of wrist movement.***

Conclusion

Through his increased reliance on contemporary science and mathematics to explain his precepts and innovations, it is easy to see why Masiello was widely considered among Italians to be the torchbearer of the Radaellians since the mid-1880s. Not content with merely publishing a treatise as large and comprehensive as his 1887 book Italian sword and sabre fencing, he was determined to make sure his theories were properly understood and still taken seriously 15 years later, updating his material to address possible criticism and make it more accessible to younger generations.

While lacking the fiery and reactionary jabs towards Parise and the fateful government treatise competition that make the first edition of Masiello's treatise so distinctive, the 1902 volumes are, in my view, much better expositions of Masiello's keen intelligence and ambition and are a credit to his lifelong advocacy for the Radaellian method.

La Scherma di Sciabola by Ferdinando Masiello (3rd edition)

After releasing the scans of the 1902 edition of Masiello's foil treatise two years ago, it was only a matter of time before I would acquire a copy of the 1902 sabre book to share with you all. That time has now arrived, so here it is at last!

***Scans***

Attentive readers will note that while the 1902 foil book is labelled as the second edition, the 1902 sabre is actually the third edition, with the previous one having been published in 1893.

A detailed comparison of the 1887 and 1902 editions will be published later this month (both for foil and sabre), so for now I will limit myself to pointing out how Masiello's detailed fencing sabre specifications have been removed entirely, keeping only the general description of each part, and that the 3rd edition contains many significant additions, such as the interesting discussion of Radaellian cutting mechanics in the section 'Delle sciabolate'.

Radaellian sabre in Argentina

Among the many corners of the Western world which felt the influence of Italian fencing at the turn of the 20th century, South America is arguably one that deserves much greater attention in the Anglophone sphere of historical fencing. In my own modest attempt to contribute, today I will be sharing two sabre treatises from Argentina, both published in 1928 and both detailing distinctly Radaellian methods.

Students of the Argentinian military fencing master's school, with its director Eugenio Pini on the far left (1899)

The first of these is entitled Esgrima del sable, written by Italian expat Escipión Ferretto (a Spanishified version of his Italian name, Scipione Ferretto).

Click here to view Ferretto's book.

This book is an updated version of his 1901 treatise Esgrima italiana: primer tratado completo sobre esgrima de sable publicado en castellano ('Italian fencing: first complete treatise on sabre fencing published in Castilian'), referenced in the glowing reviews in the introduction. Despite the title of the 1901 version, it was certainly not the first sabre treatise published in Castilian Spanish, nor was it even the first Italian sabre treatise published in Argentina—a Spanish translation of Masaniello Parise's Trattato teorico-pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola having been published in 1896.¹ It does seem to have been the first Radaellian sabre treatise to be published in Spanish, however.

Parries of 5th, 6th, and 7th

Ferretto reveals his Radaellian influence immediately in the dedication, saying that his material is 'the fruit of a wide and serious evolution of the magnificent works of the unforgettable founder of sabre fencing, Prof. Radaelli, and of the famous master Masiello.' The work of the latter master is very much apparent throughout Ferretto's text in both structure and content, with several sections being merely abbreviated Spanish translations of those in Masiello's book.

Cut to the flank

The earliest mention of Scipione Ferretto I have found so far is his participation at an exhibition in Verona in 1888, then an amateur student of Radaellian master Federico Giroldini in Vicenza. Three years later he is still living in Vicenza, but with Giroldini having since moved to Mantua Ferretto appears to have taken over the role of teaching at the local fencing club, but as an amateur.² 

By 1896 he had moved to Argentina and found employment there as a fencing master, joining the ranks of other Italian masters that had been immigrating there in the late 19th century. Recognising the need for fencing masters in the army, Ferretto submitted a request to the Argentinian army chief of staff, eventually leading to a fencing and gymnastics master's school being founded in late 1897 under the leadership of Eugenio Pini. Little wonder then that Ferretto was among those Pini chose to be assistant instructors at the school.³ He seems to have continued being employed by the military for several decades, teaching at Argentina's military college and naval school as late as 1932.⁴

~~~~

The second treatise featured today is Contribución al estudio del arte de la esgrima: el sable ('Contribution to the study of the art of fencing: the sabre') by Juan Bay.

Click here to view Bay's book.

Juan Bay, Jr.

Juan Bay was the son of an Italian veteran of the Risorgimento and fencing master of the same name who immigrated to Argentina in 1870.⁵ Born in 1876, from an early age Juan Jr. was taught fencing by his father and as a young adult he was sent to Italy to continue his fencing education under the renowned Radaellians Tito Corsini and Giordano Rossi (or possibly Gaetano Garbagnati) in Milan. On returning to Argentina he continued his training under the various Italian masters then in Bueno Aires such as Ernesto De Marinis and Luigi Scarani. Like Ferretto, the talented young Juan Bay was also hired as an assistant instructor at the new Argentinian military fencing master's school (the only Argentinian-born instructor to be hired initially) when it began its first course at the Buenos Aires Jockey Club in 1898, which also gave him ample opportunity to train with its director, Eugenio Pini.⁶

Exhibition in Buenos Aires, October 1895, organised by Ernesto De Marinis (centre, white clothing). Juan Bay is second from the left and Ferretto is third from the right, front row.

In 1902, Bay accompanied Pini on one of his many fencing tours of Europe. Being a natural showman and already well-known by much of Europe's fencing scene, Pini actively sought to prove the skill of his protégé, which included issuing an open challenge on behalf of Bay to all French fencers in anticipation for their visit to Paris.⁷ Bay fenced foil with several amateurs and masters in public exhibitions throughout the city and was admired by the French press for his skill and effective adaptation of some aspects of the French method, thus clearly emulating his master Pini.⁸ He met a similar reception in Vienna, this time being matched against other proponents of the Italian school in both foil and sabre.⁹

Bay (left) fencing Prof. Masselin in Paris, January 1902.

Bay remained at the Jockey Club throughout his career, also teaching at other clubs in the city and eventually succeeding Pini as head fencing master there after the latter retired in the 1920s. At the 1928 Amsterdam Olympics Bay accompanied Argentina's fencing team as a coach and saw them achieve an admirable 3rd place in the team foil event.¹⁰

Thrust to the chest or cut to the outside face — Position of the invitation, engagement or parry of third.

Although distinctly Radaellian in his cutting mechanics, Bay does not include all six of the traditional Radaellian molinelli, choosing to omit the molinello to the head from the right and the rising molinello to the abdomen, but adding in two exercises equivalent to the first and second preparatory exercises seen in Pecoraro and Pessina's sabre treatise.¹¹ He names these six exercises 'passages over the opposing weapon' and all together they constitute the 'exercise of conduction and domination of the sabre'.

Horizontal passage to the inside face or chest

Both Ferretto and Bay's lives and writings deserve a more in-depth treatment than anything I can currently provide, and I hope in future to be able to provide some more context around the publication of these books, such as determining whether one was published in response to the other or if them being published in the same year was merely a coincidence. As always, readers with more knowledge on this subject are highly encouraged to leave a comment or reach out to me.

---

1 Masaniello Parise, Tratado de esgrima teórico-praticó, trans. Sócrates Pelanda Ponce (Buenos Aires: Julio Ghio, 1896).^↩
2 John Sportsman, "Accademia a Verona," Lo Sport Illustrato, 11 February 1888, 71; "Notiziario," Baiardo: periodico schermistico bimensile, 8 August 1891, 8.^↩
3 Alejo Levoratti and Diego Roldán, "Los batallones escolares de la patria. Estudio comparado de las representaciones sobre el cuerpo y el entrenamiento de los maestros de esgrima del centenario en la República Argentina," Revista História da Educação 23, no. 1 (2019): 9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2236-3459/88977.^↩
4 "Répertoire des Maîtres et Professeurs abonnés," L'Escrime et le Tir, December 1932, 4.^↩
5 "Los "gironi" del Club de Esgrima," Caras y Caretas, 2 November 1902, 26; "La morte del maestro Bay a Buenos Ayres," La Gazzetta dello Sport, 9 February 1903, 2; Juan José de Soiza Reilly, "Cien años de esgrima en la República Argentina: A través de los maestros y de los alumnos," Caras y Caretas, 29 October 1932.^↩
6 D'Artagnan, "Torneo di maestri a Buenos-Ayres," La Gazzetta dello Sport, 22 November 1901, 2; Jean Joseph-Renaud, "Chronique: Les Grandes Semaines. Les Escrimeurs Argentins à Amsterdam avec Juan Bay," L'Escrime et le Tir, July 1928, 9.^↩
7 Eugenio Pini, "Un défi a sensation," L'Auto-Vélo, 18 January 1902, 1.^↩
8 "Les assauts du Journal," L'Escrime Française, 1 February 1902, 7.^↩
9 "Pini-Barbasetti," Allgemeine Sport-Zeitung, 2 March 1902, 214.^↩
10 Pablo Javier Junco, "Los Camet: una historia olimpica," Fotos Viejas de Mar del Plata (blog), 1 December 2018, http://fotosviejasdemardelplata.blogspot.com/2018/12/los-camet-una-historia-olimpica.html.^↩
11 cf. Salvatore Pecoraro and Carlo Pessina, La Scherma di Sciabola (Tipografia G. Agnesotti: Viterbo, 1912), 31–2.^↩