Radaelli Under Fire: Giuseppe Perez

This is the sixth article in the 'Radaelli Under Fire' series. Click here to return to the introduction and view the other entries in the series.

Just as the Radaellian question appeared to fading from the minds of the public press, in comes another commentator. After receiving multiple public requests to provide his opinion on the matter (one of which we saw in the previous article), the highly respected Neapolitan master Giuseppe Perez responds to the call with a detailed critique focused solely on Radaelli's sword method. The booklet, entitled Il sistema di spada Radaelli giudicato dall'arte della scherma ('The Radaelli sword system judged by the art of fencing') was published in 1878, and although it only deals with the Radaellian sword material, it is the longest of the works in this series.¹ A copy of the original can be read here in the Corble Collection at KU Leuven.

***Click here to read the translation***

Similarly to Forte, Perez places Radaelli's method in contrast with the 'classical Italian school', but also takes this comparison a step further by citing the Marchionni's treatise on the mixed school as well as French authors to demonstrate how often Radaelli deviates from both the Italian and French traditions, thus calling into question how 'mixed' his system is, as opposed to being a pure invention of Radaelli himself. Perez shows himself to be well-read in fencing literature, and this knowledge leads to a very rigorous and laudable critique; however, whilst the Radaellian sword method deserved much of this criticism, Perez's many comparisons to Marchionni may be understating the diversity of the mixed school throughout much of the 19th century, and many of his insightful remarks are let down by nit-picking on terminology. The 10-page long quotation of Rosaroll & Grisetti's treatise in the section on the bout is also, in my view, rather excessive.

Giuseppe Perez was born around the year 1830, possibly in Naples, and was brought up in fencing from a young age under his father, Onofrio Perez, who had studied under Massimino Pepe (for some reason Perez gives his name as 'Anassimena Pepe') and Giuseppe Morbilli, two of the most renowned Neapolitan fencers from the first half of the 19th century. In 1860 he left Naples and moved to Cuneo, where he enlisted in the 1st Bersaglieri regiment. Here at the local military garrison Perez continued his fencing education, learning French foil from Colonel Maffi and sabre from a Polish immigrant named Stojoscki, who was said to specialise in false edge cuts. A few months later he joined Garibaldi's campaign in southern Italy as the fencing master of the Hungarian Legion, learning sabre fencing from a Hungarian fencer named Yessenschi.²

From 1864 to 1867 he was an assistant fencing master at the Modena military school alongside the famed Cesare Enrichetti. From here he moved to Verona and opened up his own fencing hall, also teaching fencing to the local military regiments for several years, even after regiments were no longer allowed to hire civilian fencing masters. In 1869 he founded a successful fencing equipment manufacturer, which was still in operation at least until the 1940s. In the last decade of his life Perez was a regular contributor to several sporting and fencing-focused magazines, writing about various topics such as standardising Italian fencing terminology, the declining standard of competitive fencing, and comparisons of the French and Italian schools of foil. He died in Verona in March 1894.

*******

1 Giuseppe Perez, Il sistema di spada Radaelli giudicato dall'arte della scherma (Verona: Gaetano Franchini, 1878).^↩
2 "Giuseppe Perez," Scherma Italiana, 15 February 1891, 19–20; Liberato De Amici, "Biografie di schermitori illustri: Giuseppe Perez," Baiardo: periodico schermistico bimensile, 8 September 1892, 61–2; Jacopo Gelli, Scherma Italiana, 15 March 1894, 22–3.^↩

Radaelli Under Fire: Urciuoli Stokes the Flames

This is the fifth article in the 'Radaelli Under Fire' series. Click here to return to the introduction and view the other entries in the series.

Despite a growing sense of apathy towards the Radaelli debate among military circles (as seen in the remark from Italia Militare's editor in the previous article in this series) to see an end to the Radaellian question, it seems that there were still those who wished to ensure that Radaelli's school received its full due of criticism. This sentiment is fully visible in the letter translated below, published in the Florentine newspaper La Nazione on the 16 April 1878, and was written by Alfonso Urciuoli.¹ At the time of this letter's publication, Urciuoli was an infantry lieutenant stationed at the Brescia recruiting office, and although his signoff states that he was a fencing master, nothing is yet known of his career or involvement within this profession.²

In his short letter, Urciuoli summarises the Radaelli debate so far (although being very dismissive of the pro-Radaelli camp), citing the articles we have already seen and heard mention of such as those by Angelini, Masiello, and Forte, but also mentioning articles by the famous Neapolitan master Giacomo Massei, one Count A. G., and 'several others', which are yet to be uncovered.

Urciuoli's rallying cry for the anti-Radaellian movement culminates in directly calling on the renowned fencing master Giuseppe Perez to give a critique of Radaelli's sword method, a topic which was only briefly touched on in Luigi Forte's articles. As we will see in the next chapter of this series, Urciuoli was not the only person to request Perez's contribution in the debate, nor would his call for aid go unanswered.

---

Dear Mr. Editor,

Among enthusiasts of the art of fencing an event of some importance has recently occurred, onto which for my part I, thanks to courteous hospitality in the columns of your trustworthy newspaper, would like to draw the public's attention.

The well-known booklet by General Angelini on sabre fencing in refutation of the Radaelli system was welcomed with enthusiasm by all lovers of fencing as a work dictated with rare clarity and supported with very convincing mathematical and physiological arguments. There was a moment when it was hoped that such a valuable work would be worth giving rise to a healthy debate, which would have made way for the intelligent people of fencing to make themselves known; at the same time indicating progress of the noble art which for a long time has been stationary in Southern Italy and degenerated in some northern regions, as General Angelini makes clear in his aforementioned booklet.

As soon as the authoritative work appeared, a great number of letters were sent to this author and many articles were published, all in support of the irrefutable arguments contained in this booklet. Energetic works were compiled by very competent and authoritative people such as Prof. Cav. Massei, Captain Forte, Count A. G. and several others. Unfortunately, however, the accountable opposing side has not shown up. A single article in defence of the Radaelli system appeared written by Mr. Ferdinando Masiello, in issue 9 of the journal Italia Militare,³ but the writer limited himself to speaking at length about himself and to assure the public that the Radaelli system was, in his view, the best among those known so far. With that columnist and master having been invited to support in writing—but with indisputable scientific rules—the veracity of his assertion, as well as to refute just some of the very many criticisms expressed by the distinguished General, he sincerely confessed that he was not able to, with a second article appearing in Italia Militare on the 9 March.⁴

Therefore in this state of affairs, the long-awaited debate died as soon as it was born. But if in the end this means a complete triumph for General Angelini, it is no less true that it does immense harm to the progress of the noble art, which has among us passionate and zealous enthusiasts. This is why I am urged to make a final attempt by asking scientists in the matter of fencing to resume the charge, but on different terrain, since the first one was fatally exhausted. With the intention of restarting a fight which could promise effective artistic and scientific results, I will mention the opportunity to bring the discussion to the sword fencing invented by Mr. Radaelli.

In order to better achieve the aim I propose, such that it will be necessary to find supporters in those who love the art which I am fond of, I ask my colleague, the eminent Prof. Giuseppe Perez, to take the lead in the critique I briefly mentioned. The reason why I turn to Perez over many other distinguished people is because, aside from being highly reputed among reputable fencing masters, it is he who is designated by the public opinion of our colleagues as the one who could best lead a reasoned debate, strengthened by the excellence of his pen and the factual demonstrations of his skilful sword.

As a good gentleman, Mr. Perez, you who are perhaps the only one in your sphere who has not given your opinion on the matter of the sabre, unfortunately too exhausted, at least this time make your authoritative voice heard, and you will have the approval of all those who sincerely love the true progress of fencing.

In thanking the editor for wanting to give authority to these lines of mine by welcoming it in your rightly directed newspaper, I am grateful of the honour to declare myself

Your humble servant

Lieutenant ALFONSO URCIUOLI

Fencing Master

*******

1 Alfonso Urciuoli, 'Comunicazioni del Pubblico', La Nazione, 16 April 1878, 3.^↩
2 Annuario Militare del Regno d'Italia 1878 (Rome: Carlo Voghera, 1878), 414, 473.^↩
3 Translated here in part 2, 'Masiello on Defence'.^↩
4 Translated here in part 4, 'Masiello's Final Word'.^↩

Radaelli Under Fire: Masiello's Final Word

This is the fourth article in the 'Radaelli Under Fire' series. Click here to return to the introduction and view the other entries in the series.

In previous years criticism of the Radaelli method had received some public responses in the military press, but as 1878 dragged on it seemed that nobody else would come to the aid of Masiello. Forte's articles added pressure in this regard with criticism of Radaelli's sword method alongside comments on sabre, drawing on a storied tradition which Masiello himself had been a proud practitioner of early in his career: the Neapolitan school of fencing. On the 9 March 1878, for one last time Masiello takes up his pen to provide some closing remarks to the Radaellian question.¹ The full translation can be found below.

The fact that this debate had been dragging on for some time now is demonstrated by the editor's preface to Masiello's letter, published again in Italia Militare, which expressed a 'desire for this debate to end by now, since we think the arguments for and against have been dealt with widely enough.' Masiello notes at the beginning that Angelini had written an article in early February inviting Masiello to respond directly to the arguments put forward against the Radaellian method; however, with a similar attitude to that shown by Italia Militare's editor, Masiello sees nothing new in Angelini's arguments. He asserts that Angelini's supposed 'scientific' arguments were in fact personal opinions of a practical nature, and that scientific arguments had already been provided by others with greater authority than he, including those who had represented commissions from the Ministry of War.

Despite his reluctance to engage with Angelini's booklet, Masiello does point out how Angelini constantly referred to Del Frate's 1868 text on Radaelli's method rather than the newer, corrected 1876 version, as the earlier version provided a more convenient punching bag for criticism. Additionally, Angelini's anecdote about a friend of his who is able to break a sabre by swinging it in the air is mocked as being solely a demonstration of a flat, useless cutting action. The letter ends with Masiello confessing his 'ineptitude' to provide a competent and comprehensive rebuttal to the critics, mentioning the recent remarks of Luigi Forte. It is perhaps this incident which, almost a decade later, would prompt Masiello to spend so much time on mathematical proofs for the method detailed in his own treatise, thus pre-empting those who might wish to question its merits.

---

Mister director,

I interest Your Lordship's exquisite courtesy in wishing to make room, in your esteemed journal, for the following few observations which I deem appropriate to publish in response to the article by General Achille Angelini, inserted in no. 17 of this journal with the title: Observations on the handling of the sabre, Radaelli system.

General Angelini, in his work on the topic in question, says in the preface, on page 6,² these exact words: 'The field was already largely harvested; since the question, on the scientific and mathematical side, was discussed with greater ability and clarity by others, all that is left for me is to deal with the practical side in precise detail. I will establish comparisons and cite theoretical-practical examples.'

In accordance with these words, throughout his dissertation he kept himself, in my view, in the purely practical field, citing examples and making comparisons, and I, in my reply, also mentioning that others had discussed the matter scientifically, refuted the criticism with practical reasoning and by citing well-known facts as proof of my proposition. Now the General invites me again to discuss the matter scientifically, almost meaning to say that he has discussed it from this point of view.

I am very sorry that I cannot satisfy my opponent's wishes, for the following reasons:

1. Because in my view I do not consider that the principles and the ideas expressed by him on the topic are to be considered scientific, but rather his own opinions which I can respect only as such and not otherwise;
2. Because he has already touched on the truth by judging my pen incapable of saying how strong I feel to express and prove otherwise.³
3. Because by dealing with the matter scientifically, I could only repeat, and poorly, what was already said at length and very well by various others who had to discuss the matter from this point of view, both as members of commissions from the Ministry of War, appointed precisely to judge the Radaelli fencing system scientifically before adopting it for our army, as well as to support disputes in our military journals on the subject in discussion.

Without treating the matter scientifically, however, in my rebuttal I could touch on a few points so as to make the weakness of the argumentations in the aforementioned booklet stand out even more clearly. I could first of all note why General Angelini, in undertaking to criticise a system which is represented by an instruction, has taken the old 1868 edition instead of the one published in 1876, notably corrected and enriched with further clarifications, primarily in those points which were the subject of his main criticisms. I could note that the citations he made about our instructions under consideration are partly erroneous and partly incomplete, and therefore devoid of a basis for logical and rational arguments. I could note that, in the examples he offers us in support of his ideas on how to wield and rotate the sabre, there is one so contrary to every principle of good handling of the sabre itself that this alone is enough for people knowledgeable on the topic to judge how erroneous his ideas are on the application of force and the articulations of the arm and hand in wielding the sabre in fencing. The example which I allude to is the one cited on page 13 of his booklet,⁴ where he says that when one of his friends grips the sabre and puts it in motion as he wishes, he rotates it with such force and violence as to make the blade bend into a hook towards the point. Allow me to exclaim: good heavens, no! Can these movements even be called cuts? These movements are what are commonly called flat hits, harmless movements which happen by gripping and rotating the sabre just as General Angelini wishes, never with the Radaelli system.

In fencing, cuts are performed with the edge and not the flat, and then they are powerful; then they can be directed well, and it is this purpose which the system I advocate achieves. But even if I had broadened the scope of my rebuttals, what purpose would we have achieved with our discussion? In my opinion none. In fencing, words can only apply to those who are highly intelligent in the subject being discussed, and even in this case the ideas must be explained with the greatest simplicity without trying to find in the complication of the ideas themselves that darkness or flexibility which is appropriate in all matters that are difficult to resolve.

Therefore I, not at all offended by the doubt expressed by Gen. Angelini in the last part of his article, i.e. that I could purely be a strong fencer and not a good master and skilled writer, and by frankly confessing my ineptitude to properly express in writing those ideas on fencing which I hear clearly and precisely in my mind, I nevertheless always present myself ready to debate verbally and practically on the matter in question, in order to thus demonstrate to the judges who will be called to give their verdict that the masters of the school I advocate are not only strong fencers, but that they also know how to give a well-reasoned and profitable lesson, and that it is precisely by virtue of the rationalism of the school that there are real results which everyone, partisan of said school or not, acknowledges and respects.

So in concluding these final notes on the dispute discussed here, I will take the liberty to recall that if I was not able to properly explain my ideas, I never failed to support them with factual proofs; that I have always declared that every noble competition proposed to them with other schools will be welcomed with celebration by the proponents of the Radaelli system—both to debate the quality of the system, as well as to give fencing lessons and to bout; and that it helps me to hope that such a declaration cannot fail to be welcomed by anyone as a very favourable conclusion for the fencing system advocated by me. It is a consequence of the ideas explained so far that I ask the exquisite kindness of Captain Cav. Luigi Forte, director of the Catania stallion horse depot, to also accept what I said so far about Radaellian fencing, also as a reply, where applicable, to the articles on the same subject he published in issues 24 and 25 of Italia Militare.

I have faith that he too will judge the proposal I made to be the most suitable and appropriate for resolving the questions in respect to which, as I said, words and written reasoning too easily deviate from that path which leads directly to knowledge of the truth, without the encumbrance of those excessive theoretical principles and those flexible phrases which do not always conform to true reality.

FERDINANDO MASIELLO

Fencing master at the Turin military academy

*******

1 Ferdinando Masiello, "Corrispondenze," l'Italia militare: giornale delle armi di terra e di mare, 9 March 1878, 2.^↩
2 TN: See pages 3 and 4 of this translation.^↩
3 See the last part of his aforementioned article.^↩
4 TN: See pages 10 and 11 of this translation.^↩