After the military fencing master's school in Rome was indefinitely closed at the end of 1914 as part of Italy's military preparations, its absence was deeply felt on all sides of Italy's fencing community, even by those who had been publicly critical of the school for most of its existence. Ferdinando Masiello would have been considered by many to be at the head of this critical faction, at least during the period in which Masaniello Parise was in charge of the school.
By September 1923 the military fencing master's school had been closed for almost nine years and Italy itself had also undergone a radical change in government. As the call to reopen the school continued to grow louder, particularly from its alumni, an aging Masiello also took the opportunity to offer his own two cents on the matter with an article in the recently-founded fencing magazine La Scherma Italiana entitled 'The teaching of fencing in Italy', which has been translated here for the reader.1
The first half of the article summarises the early days of the three military fencing master's schools and their unification (both in the physical and moral sense) into a single school, rehashing much of the introduction to his 1887 treatise, but then goes on to emphasise how wide-reaching and beneficial this national unification was for the art and thus why it is so important for the school to be revived now. giving his own suggestions on how this should be done so as to avoid the schisms and disputes that resulted from the formation of the Rome school in the 1880s. It is worth noting that Masiello's opinion of Pecoraro & Pessina's sabre treatise seems to have softened significantly (here calling it 'worthy of consideration') since it was first published in 1910, given that shortly after its publication Masiello wrote a lengthy and perhaps overly-harsh criticism of it, accusing them of plagiarism and incompetence, among other things.
 |
| Maestro Ferdinando Masiello, on the piste for 56 years. Photo taken in Florence, May 1923. |
Since 1887 I believe to have brought a useful contribution to Italian fencing in the 'historical summary' put forward in my treatise, also with regard to the development of the art in the various periods in which it was explained in the publications of our most celebrated masters.
I will therefore limit myself to recalling the attention of all fencing enthusiasts, and particularly my colleagues from the army, to a matter which I consider absolutely vital for our art and the teaching of it.
THE CONDITIONS OF THE TEACHING OF FENCING IN ITALY IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE LAST CENTURY
Those who have only a basic knowledge of what has been published on the subject of fencing are aware that there has never been true unity of concept in the teaching of fencing, but rather true discord, and this not just between province and province, but also in the same city where two or more masters reside.
The division and discord in the fencing methods in Italy date back, as everyone knows, to the beginning of the last century. The science and good intentions of distinguished masters such as Rosaroll-Scorza and Grisetti, and later Marchionni and Zangheri, were still not enough to impart a true unifying force to the teaching of fencing.
Such discord of methods was naturally more felt in the army, insofar as a change of garrison almost always meant a change of system. It must not be forgotten that until 1868 fencing was taught to the military by civilian masters residing in the city of the regiment's headquarters, sometimes by officers who bore some practical elements in teaching, but outside of any theoretical knowledge, and sometimes the teaching was instead entrusted to the best drummer!!!
From such irregularity and dissimilarity of teaching derived inevitable consequences which all returned to detriment of the art and the army. Everyone knows that not only in exhibitions, but also in duels, the worst was always a military man.
This state of affairs could not last long without someone getting the concrete desire, latent in all lovers of the art, to unify its teaching method.
INTRODUCTION OF METHODICAL TEACHING IN THE ARMY — 1868
Indeed the Minister of War, General Bertolè-Viale, had the happy thought—among the many improvements he introduced—of also establishing the teaching of fencing in the army. But his idea, however happy I said it was, was overly so, since instead of a single school, he decided that three would be opened, located in Parma, Modena, and Milan, with their respective heads being: Captain Gioberti and Mr. Mendietta-Magliocco; Cesare Enrichetti; and Giuseppe Radaelli.
As it is easy to imagine, while the work was in full swing at all three schools, the result from the artistic side—especially in the two at Parma and Modena—was not very satisfactory. Instead in Milan, under the direction of Radaelli, sabre fencing progressed day by day, both due to the undisputed ability of the master and due to the lesser importance that was given to sword fencing. I note here that the required attendance to obtain the master diploma for the two weapons was fixed at a year for the first two schools. The school directed by Radaelli in Milan was almost independent.
The ministerial commission charged with examining which of the first two aforementioned schools had given the best results—in order to award the master diploma to the students and furthermore to get an idea on the preference to be given to the system adopted in the schools—recognised that the one directed by Maestro Enrichetti merited special consideration. Indeed the commission itself granted the diploma to four students of this school and three to the Parma school, reporting to the ministry for the Enrichetti school to be the standard and proposing that the master's course be brought from one to two years.
This happened in 1868–69.
In approving the commission's various proposals, the minister considered it useful to merge the two schools in Parma and Modena into a single one residing in Parma, under the direction of Enrichetti.
From this fusion, masters and students immediately sensed all the benefit which they could have obtained, and in the period 1869–75 there was true emulation on the basis of reciprocal enthusiasm so as to achieve the most remarkable progress: the Milan school prevailed in sabre; the Parma school in sword.
The factual evidence clearly confirmed the quality of the teaching. At the various congresses and tournaments these two schools found themselves together with the most talented civilian fencers from private schools, and as predicted, those from the Milan school (Radaellians) won in sabre, and those from the Parma school (Enrichettians) in sword.
These results could not pass unnoticed by the ministry, also because it highlighted well the superiority of the military school compared to civilian ones.
On the other hand, the coexistence of the two schools, however excellent they both were, had perpetuated a dualism which had to be removed in order to achieve the desired unification. And since for obvious reasons the ministry had to give its preference to the sabre, as the weapon of the army, the Parma school was merged with the Milan school, at the same time decreeing that all military masters attend a course there for about a year. From this provident order was born that true reconciliation of minds that was to bring the most glorious results and a friendly and honest exchange of ideas, both in theoretical research as in practical development. In short, from the rational and intense work done by the students of the two combined schools, the results were such as to be able to say—without fear of being proven wrong—that the art of fencing had never achieved similar progress. As proof of this it will suffice to take a glance at the results achieved in the congresses and tournaments which took place in the decade from 1874 to 1884.
Bologna Congress 1874
Siena Congress 1875
Rome Congress 1876
Turin Congress 1877
Milan International Tournament 1881
Naples Congress 1881
Turin International Tournament 1884
But not only from the above results must the progress achieved by fencing be deduced, but also from the phalanx of masters who—for various reasons—could not take part in the congresses. The names are many and known to all, and I will abstain from mentioning them.
I do believe, however, to not do wrong to any young people if I also proclaim here that in them the art of fencing had—and still does in the survivors—its most pure expression.
That the unification of the two systems was a fait accompli we can deduce furthermore deduce by a characteristic circumstance verified at the Rome congress (1876) in which Salvatore Arista (Radaellian) won the sword competition, while Gaetano Barraco (Enrichettian) won the sabre competition. At the following congress (1877) a Radaellian, Salvatore Pecoraro, won the sword competition, at the tournament in 1881 the same Arista (Radaellian) again won the sword competition. At the 1884 international tournament in Turin an Enrichettian, Foresto Paoli, (the only civilian champion) won the sabre tournament.
This is abundant proof that the fusion of the two schools had fully achieved the aim which the minister of war had set: i.e. obtaining true unification in teaching methods.
—————
So, what was missing to make this unique method official? Nothing more than a treatise, since this term cannot apply to the schematic manual compiled in 1870 by the then-Captain Del Frate on the basis of Radaelli's principles, and in any case preceding the future merging of the two schools by over seven years.
But if a written treatise was missing, the masters and students (who then in turn became masters) were lively and ready to fully contribute to their theoretical-practical science for the formation of said treatise.
However, the champions of the Southern School, ever attached to their now outdated traditions, being unable to ignore the facts after being repeatedly and clearly beaten by the school of the army, tried by any means to demolish an edifice constructed with so many sacrifices and such consciousness, attacking that poor little treatise which had no fault in what we had all achieved with intense work and tireless study.
And it is useless to recall here what everybody knows: the licit and illicit means deployed by fencers and influential people, by members of parliament and senators to put the unified system in a bad light, and to compare it with another. And so much was done and schemed as to bring about the notorious competition and the even more notorious results, forming a commission with the vast majority of which being against the system in power in the army.
None of the masters and students of the unified Enrichetti-Radaelli school could ever forget, nor ever forgive an artistic assassination which morally wounded the champions of the army in the most atrocious way, among whom it was elementary justice to choose those who should have received the inheritance of the two deceased grand masters, Enrichetti and Radaelli.
The adoption of the official method was not only an affront to the military masters, but the greatest calamity that could happen to the art, inflicting a decline of about half a century. And what should be pointed out most is that while the author of the approved treatise had never wielded the sabre, the commission gave more merit points to that part than it did for the sword treatise!!!
This shows that they were not looking for a competent person who knew how to impart true development to the art and to fencing in the army, but they wanted a (southern) school, the director of which already in pectore2 even before the competition was announced.
If I also mention such facts here, it is because the teaching of the official treatise's hybrid principles has continued for over a quarter of a century, with who knows how much damage to the art.
Proof of this lies in the fact that when the director of the Master's School was alive, the teaching of fencing was never done with scrupulous orthodoxy; and with him dead, the vice-directors, the illustrious colleagues Commendatore3 Pecoraro and Pessina (originating, like the author, from the two glorious unified schools) felt the need to return to our first principles, publishing a sabre treatise which, especially in the second edition, I will not hesitate to declare in many respects to be coherent and worthy of consideration.
And for the sword?
Do we again have to turn to the treatise which proclaimed force as the enemy of fencing?
Everyone sees, therefore, the necessity of returning to the old; not in the sense of restoring errors already condemned, but reconnecting the theoretical-practical results of the two united schools with what has been done rationally in the progress of time.
How can this aim be achieved?
Here is what I think must be done:
- Re-establishment of a single Fencing Master's School;
- Adoption of a single textbook for the two weapons;
- Choose a director.
Many will marvel that I, a fierce opponent of the late Master's School, begin with proposing its re-establishment. This shows once again that I never fought the institution, but solely the doctrine which was imparted there. As a lover of the art I indeed feel the necessity for this re-establishment to happen as soon as possible.
—————
We Italians are often reproached for mimicking foreigners, and unfortunately the examples of this bad habit abound.
But if we imitate them in frivolous and harmful things, why should we not imitate them in what is good?
One of the main causes of disagreements (speaking always of our art) was precisely, as I said, the plurality and variety of teaching methods.
Instead in other nations, and especially in France, such artistic disputes do not occur, because the ministry of war, among its numerous regulations for the army, always had a single text for sabre and sword fencing which is the gospel of the Master's School. This text did not bear the signature of any master, and by being so impersonal it is scrupulously followed like all the other regulations.
It is therefore necessary that we too think of unifying what exists in our art that is rational and practical for the two weapons into a single text.
And in order to arrive at the compilation of this unique text it is necessary to assemble a commission composed of masters known for their publications on the subject (treatises or other important publications), including among them three professors: a mathematician, a physiologist, and a scholar, with goal of using the authority of science to put an end to the controversies between the various authors and give the best form to the book, with regard to both conciseness and clarity.
The choice of director should by right fall to fencing masters on active service employed by the ministry of war, and naturally with the exclusion of those in retirement and civilians.
All the masters (I repeat) on active service summoned to an assembly will proceed to appoint the director in the manners considered best so that the election falls on the master most suitable due to his intellectual and artistic qualities without regard for seniority.
Before closing this brief summary, I feel I have to direct an urgent call to the central committee of the meritorious Italian Fencing Federation so that they fully realise the necessity of bringing about, when appropriate, the actuation of what I have proposed and what the enlightened experience of others may suggest is best and most profitable. Since 1887 I hoped that with the end of disputes—existing mostly in the theoretical field—the true Italian school would achieve its well-deserved triumph.
In this terrible historic moment, through a tumult of passions the generations are setting off towards their destinations in which we can, we must give an example of harmony, sacrificing every susceptibility and every ambition to the love of the art. The new Master's School that will rise over the ruins of the old must be the forge in which minds are educated and dispositions tempered, so that—it is good not to forget it—the practice of fencing, understood with national criteria, not only has indisputable health benefits, but must have a great moral effect on customs and intellectual faculties.
Although I have by now descended 'into the vale of years' I cannot yet break the old promises which I have always scrupulously kept up to now; and I will remain at the breach as long as I live, for our art which has always been and must be a credit to our country.
Free from any concern of self-interest, and faithful to my motto Non mihi, sed arti—nothing for me and everything for the art—I place at your disposal the knowledge acquired with long study and incessant practice, hoping with all my heart for this revived and glorious Italy of ours to have a Fencing Master's School which is truly a meaningful expression of its glorious army.
FERDINANDO MASIELLO
2 TN: Lit. 'in the breast', a Latin phrase originating from the Catholic church when the pope appoints a cardinal in secret, without publicly revealing their name.↩
3 TN: A chivalric title, lit. 'commander'.↩
