If one has done any reading on the history of British sabre fencing, it is almost certain that the name Alfred Hutton and his 1889 treatise Cold Steel would be mentioned at some point, this book being among the most widely read and available sabre books in the historical fencing community.1 His high profile—at least in England—in the late 19th century means that his various writings are often cited in discussions on this period in British fencing, and his constant referencing of older fencing treatises also make him relevant to the historiography of the historical fencing movement.
Despite his prominence at home, the contemporary significance of his works drops off entirely once we look away from the British Isles, and yet Hutton still occasionally comes up in Anglophone discussions today on the subject of modern Italian fencing. This is largely owing to his vocal opposition to the formal adoption by the British army of Ferdinando Masiello's sabre method and the subsequent publication of the 1895 Infantry Sword Exercise.2
We aim to demonstrate that Hutton's critique of this text and Radaellian fencing in general is beset by a superficial understanding of the general European fencing context as well as a flawed understanding of fencing as a practice. The latter aspect will be explored in examination of his own technical works, focusing on the aforementioned Cold Steel as well as The Swordsman from 1891,3 and the former will be made clear in deconstruction of his opposition to the Masiello method. Along the way, we will provide the necessary context for a more accurate understanding of Italian sabre fencing in the 1890s.
In doing this, we may also gain a better understanding of how Italian fencing was viewed abroad; compare how well Hutton's perceptions agreed with reality and those of his countrymen; and, finally, come to a more grounded perspective for future assessments of Hutton's impact on British fencing in both civilian and military contexts.
The Italians according to Hutton
While Hutton's broad adaptation of both contemporary and historical fencing treatises for his own system may seem meritorious, his engagement with Italian authors is decidedly superficial and at times even drifts into the realm of plagiarism. Throughout his 1889 treatise Cold Steel, Hutton attributes several techniques as being characteristically 'Italian', these being:
- Frequent use of the false edge
- The vertical rising cut on the inside
- The parries he names high prime, horizontal quarte, high tierce, high quarte, and high octave (or for those unfamiliar with French terms: 1st, horizontal 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th/yielding 6th)
- The passata sotto.4
There is no evidence of Hutton ever visiting Italy or having personal contact with an Italian fencing master prior to the publication of either Cold Steel or The Swordsman; his only engagement with Italian fencing was likely through his reading. Hutton's characterisation of the above techniques as 'Italian' would seem to be a result of a wide reading of Italian literature, but this notion is proven false when given due scrutiny. Although Hutton cites freely from British and French sources from the period in Cold Steel, he completely avoids mentioning the sources that inspired these 'Italian' techniques of his. Fortunately, however, some of his later writings reveal his awareness of the treatises by Federico Cesarano and Masaniello Parise,5 whom he mentions first in a lecture in February 1893, and then in September 1895, in an article published in the Army and Navy Gazette. The latter states explicitly that Parise's work was the primary inspiration for his 'high octave' parry.6
In reality, no discerning fencer outside of England would characterise these parries as typically Italian. All were commonly used throughout the continent by the 1880s, and nowhere else is it implied that Italians were the inspiration for their use. A very weak case can be made in the case of the outside hanging parry—which Hutton calls 'high octave'—as this was very common in Italian sabre texts throughout the century. However, they were not the only ones to include it (it was very popular among Spanish authors), nor did other authors associate the parry with Italians.7
 |
| Three variations of the outside hanging parry (i.e. 'high octave') by non-Italian authors. From left to right: Vendrell (1878), Merelo (1880), and Silfversvärd (1868). |
Hutton's attribution of these parries to the Italians does not demonstrate his wide reading of Italian sources; it might instead indicate that his reading was almost entirely limited to the aforementioned treatises of Cesarano and Parise. His 'horizontal quarte', for example, is something of a rarity, particularly when used as a distinct variant of a regular low 4th. More than 20 sabre treatises were published in Italy between 1860 and 1889, but only around three of them include such a parry, and mostly as a beat parry against the thrust.8 Cesarano is one of the authors, and it seems likely that he was Hutton's sole inspiration for adding the parry; however, Hutton uses this parry against the vertical rising cut on the inside, also falsely claimed to be 'an Italian cut, which is used as a sort of substitute for the attack at the leg.' This is entirely Hutton's invention. Contemporary authors did not describe a vertical inside rising as stereotypically Italian, and it is very difficult to find an Italian author describing a specifically vertical rising cut.
The asserted 'Italianness' of Hutton's parries of high prime, high tierce, and high quarte is also misleading; a simple comparison of non-Italian sabre treatises of this period will demonstrate that the first was ubiquitous in Europe, while the specific slanted position of latter two is perhaps more common in Italy but not entirely absent elsewhere.9 The same can be said of false edge cuts, which appear infrequently in most Italian sabre treatises, and in some not at all.10 The passata sotto action is the only technique in the aforementioned list which can justifiably be associated with the Italians at this period, but the caveat here is that it almost never appears in sabre treatises or accounts of sabre bouts, instead being an Italian favourite in foil fencing. Hutton's reliance on a narrow range of source material is betrayed once again as we discover that Cesarano is the only Italian author from this period to include the passata sotto in their sabre curriculum. All of these instances show that Hutton assumes Cesarano and Parise to be representative of Italian sabre fencing, which particularly before the 1880s was a diverse practice with regional trends and external influences, all of which are lost on Hutton.
 |
| Three Italian authors whose head parries deviate from the typical slanted positions. Top: Parries of 5th and 6th according to Bellini (1880). Bottom left: The same parries according to Mendietta-Magliocco (1868). Bottom right: The head parry which Tambornini (1862) calls parry of 1st. |
While we assert that Hutton's consultation of Italian sabre sources was likely limited almost entirely to Cesarano and Parise, for whom he never gives direct recognition in either Cold Steel or The Swordsman, there is evidence that Hutton was aware of at least one more Italian sabre treatise by the time Cold Steel was published—namely, his uncredited reproduction of an illustration from Arnoldo Ranzatto's 1885 treatise Istruzioni per la scherma di sciabola showing how to grip the sabre.11 This is a stark demonstration that Hutton's use of contemporary Italian material is done entirely out of self-interest; if he truly did consider these works worthy of merit, and not just convenient sources of illustrations, he would have given them the same recognition he afforded other authors, such as Roworth, Miller, and Marozzo. By not acknowledging the authors, Hutton removes any obligation to engage with the works beyond the surface level. To put it simply: taking information from another author's book without citing it—attributing it only to the author's national milieu—is plagiarism. If nothing else, the appropriation of Ranzatto's image may help to clarify that when Hutton recommends the use of a 'light sabre similar to those used on the Continent',12 he probably had in mind those commonly used in Italy specifically. The sabre represented is of the model Parise type.
 |
| Top: Page 22 of Ranzatto's 1885 treatise Bottom: Plate 1 in Hutton's Cold Steel (1889) |
Specifics aside, Hutton's 'Italian' parries betray a deeper failure of understanding. The fact is that there are no Italian parries, because no fencing action belongs to any particular national system. In sabre fencing there is only a limited number of possible parries, and they are available to all systems. Even Hutton's parries of sixte and octave, though they appear in no other works on sabre, are an implicit possibility open to all fencers. The Englishman certainly could not have claimed intellectual priority had another author included them in their system: they would be no more 'English' than the rest of Europe considered parry of 1st to be 'Italian'. What distinguishes one system's parries from those of another is simply their nomenclature, the details of their execution, and the author's preference for some of them over others.
That this fact was lost on Hutton is evidenced by his inclusion of both high tierce and St George's parry in both Cold Steel and The Swordsman. These two actions, though catalogued separately, would to any other master be considered the same head parry in pronation. The features that distinguish them—a small difference in the angle of the blade and the target it is supposed to defend—represent only the differing preferences of individual authors on how this same parry should be performed. Perhaps Hutton was again taken in by the exotic appeal of a foreign technique, not recognising that the two actions fill an identical tactical role: what parries the head will also parry the shoulder. Indeed Hutton himself lists both as defences against the vertical descending cut, without any explanation of the tactical implications.13 This redundancy reveals a poor understanding of the role of specific actions in the structure of a fencing system. Rather than defining each action functionally as a solution to a tactical problem, preferencing some possible solutions and excluding others, Hutton has simply included everything he could get his hands on.
Hutton's vials of wrath
When news began circulating in 1893 concerning the trials taking place at the national gymnasium school in Aldershot, Hutton may have felt that his continual lamentations about the state of fencing in the British army were finally being addressed. The head of army gymnasia in England at the time, Colonel Malcolm Fox, had recently spent two months in Florence, during which time he studied fencing under the renowned master Ferdinando Masiello. Fox's experience in Florence had such a great impression on him that upon returning to Aldershot he immediately set about introducing Masiello's method to the British army, which led to the hiring of one of the master's most decorated students, Giuseppe Magrini, who arrived in the country in April 1893.14 New students at the Aldershot school were now being trained in Masiello's system, but it was not until 1895 that the new system came to the attention of those outside the school through the publication of the official Infantry Sword Exercise.
 |
| The Penny Illustrated Paper, 23 September 1893 |
Ferdinando Masiello was by this point a very prominent figure in Italian fencing. He had been a military fencing instructor since 1871, receiving his first qualification under Cesare Enrichetti in Parma and renewing it at Giuseppe Radaelli's school in 1876. A year later he was promoted to civil fencing master. This means that he was no longer simply a soldier who also taught fencing, but a civilian employed by the army to teach in its academies and colleges solely as a fencing master. In this new, highly coveted role, Masiello taught at various institutions until ending up at the Florence Military College in 1887. That same year he was promoted to 1st class civil master, which was the highest qualification a fencing master could achieve outside of being director or vice director of the national Fencing Master's School.15
Despite the transportation of the Fencing Master's School from Milan to Rome and the installation of Parise's method in 1884, Masiello remained a fervent supporter of Radaelli's method. In August 1887 he published his own 593-page fencing treatise; aside from giving a detailed and modernised exposition of the Radaellian method, it was full of scathing indictments of Parise's method. The book was met with widespread praise from Masiello's contemporaries, and it firmly cemented him as the spiritual leader of Parise's opponents for the next two decades.16
In spite of this, or perhaps in response to it, Masiello was offered the role of vice director at the Fencing Master's School in Rome, but he and Parise were unable to reach an agreement: the differences in their methods were too great.17 Masiello remained at the Florence military college until he retired from military teaching at the end of 1893.18 The sabre portion of Masiello's treatise was revised and republished that same year and again in 1902, in the latter instance also being published alongside a revised volume on the foil.19
In contrast with the Italian reception of Masiello's work, the 1895 Infantry Sword Exercise had a much more mixed response from the British public. Articles both for and against the new method appeared in periodicals such as the Army and Navy Gazette, including several letters from our Alfred Hutton, who would later expand these arguments into a 10-page article published in March the following year in the United Service Magazine.20
From the very beginning of the article, it becomes apparent that the context around Masiello's system was totally unknown to Hutton, who in the second paragraph of his critique remarks smugly, but quite wrongly, that Masiello was not 'one of those who have been selected by the Italian Government for the instruction of either their Army or their Navy'.21 This sets the mood for the rest of the text, where the English fencer reads the Masiello system in a similarly superficial and ungenerous way.
Hutton's superficiality with regard to source material has been demonstrated in the previous section, but we see it again in the following paragraph, when he wrongly states that '[t]he main object of the Italian fencing-master is to prepare his pupil for the duel … while an English Sword Exercise has to be compiled for military men … who have to fight for their country against all sorts and conditions of enemies, armed in all sorts of ways'.22 Hutton was not the only one to make such a claim in this period, but it is simply not borne out from the evidence. Let us use an example from an author with whom Hutton was familiar, Masaniello Parise, who states that: 'If historically it is true that fencing took place in direct correlation to the frequency of duels, today the matter is quite different.' Fencing to Parise should rather be directed towards the 'more noble aim' of physical education, and through its adversarial nature it was also perceived to give other behavioural and intellectual benefits that gymnastics did not provide.23 Italy's duelling culture certainly made fencing more relevant to certain members of society, but as in the rest of Europe fencing masters in Italy taught fencing for the sake of fencing, with the duel being just one application.
His pigeonholing of Masiello's system leads Hutton, in a few instances, to misattribute certain aspects of the system as resulting from Italian duelling conventions, such as the reason why the legs are not included in the valid target area or why the Italians preferred lighter and more protective fencing sabres than the British. Despite Hutton's implication, no Italian duelling code of the period forbade attacks to the leg; the convention to not hit the legs in sabre fencing was, however, extremely common in fencing halls and tournaments. The light fencing sabres favoured by the Italians were also not weapons designed specifically for the duel, nor were they ever referred to as 'duelling sabres' in Italy, but they were favoured by fencers due to the higher complexity of play and lighter blows they allowed.26 Italian fencing culture in the 1890s was not merely derivative of its duelling culture—each influenced the other and saw their own developments.
Hutton takes it for granted that, because it was being taught at an army institution, Masiello's system must satisfy Hutton's own conceptions of what is necessary for an infantry officer to know. Contrast his view with the fencing curriculum of any other military school in Europe, even those of France where colonial confrontations were also a concern, and it is clear that the goal of this kind of training was to teach fencing as an end to itself, first and foremost. Fencing treatises containing grapples, off-hand techniques, advice for facing multiple opponents, improvised weapons and so on were the absolute exception in the 19th century, regardless of whether a treatise was written as a regulation military text or by a civilian.
Significant portions of Hutton's argumentation lie in strategic appeals to authority to assert that Masiello's system was not only ineffective and unsuitable, but in opposition with the majority views in both Italy and the rest of continental Europe. A perfect example of this is Hutton's condemnation of Masiello's lunge, in which the upper body leans forward to its fullest extent, from which he claims 'a prompt recovery is practically impossible'.27 This is in contrast to what he considers 'the correct form recognised by the great French School'. This particular topic has been dealt with in a previous article, but here it will suffice to observe the fencers in the images below, taken from a French sporting magazine in 1904. Not only do all fencers except one demonstrate some degree of lean, several on par with Masiello, but the fencer with the most upright lunge, seen in the centre of the first image, is the only Italian among those photographed.28
 |
| La Vie au Grand Air, 22 December 1904 |
His appeal to the 'French School' is little more than a shallow excuse to justify his opposition to Masiello. Another ineffective appeal to authority can be seen when he maligns the techniques described in the Infantry Sword Exercise as 'circling cuts' (known in Italian as molinelli), claiming that the type 'recommended by most Italian teachers' primarily used the wrist, unlike Masiello's elbow-focused motions.29 In his casual rejection of elbow molinelli, Hutton demonstrates his ignorance of a hugely significant debate over fencing mechanics that had divided the Italian scene for decades. Moreover, by 1896 the claim that most masters favoured the wrist was categorically false. As demonstrated earlier, Hutton openly admitted to consulting the wrist-centric treatises of Cesarano and Parise when compiling his own works, and he was aware that the latter treatise was the regulation fencing text for the Italian army at the time. What he was clearly not aware of, however, was that since at least 1892 the wrist-centric molinelli had ceased being taught at Parise's school and in army fencing halls generally. After repeated rejections of his sabre method by the cavalry, Parise employed the assistance of the renowned Radaellian master Salvatore Pecoraro to make the necessary changes.30
The resulting reforms, referred to by some as the 'Parise-Pecoraro method', at last received the approval of the cavalry in late 1890, and although it would take until 1904 for Parise's treatise to be updated with the new exercise molinelli, the changes would be reflected in the 1891 and 1896 cavalry regulations. These molinelli were no longer the extended-arm, wrist-centric type advocated by Hutton, but instead bore more resemblance to the kind described in Masiello's treatise, with the arm being fully withdrawn prior to giving the cut. Parise's students were still told to continue the cut through the target with a drawing motion before returning to guard, as opposed to the Radaellian preference for ending the cut at full extension, but the overall motion is characterised more by its use of the elbow than the wrist.31
Setting aside the fact that the 200+ fencing masters employed by the Italian military32 were no longer teaching wrist-centric molinelli, from the first publication of Parise's book in 1884 to the appearance of the 1895 Infantry Sword Exercise there had been a total of four sabre treatises published in Italy, and the three most widely read of those were by Radaellians (one of course being Masiello). Even in civilian circles, the Radaellian domination of sabre fencing at this time would be very apparent for anyone paying attention to the scene. Yet again, Hutton feigned knowledge of contemporary Italian fencing but showed no awareness of its most significant developments.
A final example of Hutton's questionable appeals to authority is his citing of several medical professionals who testify to the supposed biomechanical defects of Masiello's fencing system. A letter from doctors I. D. Chepmell and G. H. Savage was published in the Lancet in mid-1895, and it was followed by two articles from surgeon C. T. Dent, one being in response to an article in defence of the method by E. D. Ritchie.33 The content of these critiques presents views almost identical to Hutton's. They employ all the anatomical terms expected of medical professionals, but they lack any empirical evidence while maintaining a particular fixation on muscular exertion in an activity that is, fundamentally, physical exercise. Dent in particular relies on familiar comparisons to the much-touted 'French system', giving the impression of someone putting an academic veneer on their preconceptions. As with Hutton, the opinions of these men seem to be based solely on their readings of the Infantry Sword Exercise, not practical observation. A very similar debate had in fact taken place in Italy during the 1870s, when Radaelli's system was becoming more prominent. One critic asserted that the 'excessive bending' of the body and limbs demanded by Radaelli's system are 'harmful to one's health' and that they could 'easily cause hernias or distention', among other complications.34 Needless to say, these concerns were not founded in reality or practical observation of the system, and such arguments were irrelevant by the 1890s.
It is precisely practical observation which may have caused Dent to later reconsider his strong opposition. Following the publication of these articles, there appeared a report in the Lancet on a demonstration of Masiello's system at the Aldershot academy organised by Colonel Fox for the benefit of several medical professionals, among them Dent. The report gives a largely positive summary of the advantages of the system, concluding with the following:
At the conclusion of the display Sir William MacCormac cordially thanked Colonel Fox for the opportunity he had afforded him and his colleagues of examining into the new system of swordsmanship—a system that appeared to be thoroughly sound, both practically and theoretically.35
Much has been said about how Hutton's ignorance of Italian fencing affected his judgement of Masiello's system, but this is not the only flaw in his critique. Throughout the article he seems to almost go out of his way to deliberately read passages of the Infantry Sword Exercise in the most dishonest and uncharitable way possible. The text's description of various movements being 'simultaneous' is a particular sticking point for Hutton, who is unable to conceive of how both legs are supposed to move backwards while jumping.36 Following the publication of Hutton's critique in the United Service Magazine, a scathing reply was published anonymously in the same magazine, giving the following remark about Hutton's reading:
Any one, for instance, who has seen 'the jump' on which Captain Hutton has expended the vials of his wrath, will admit that it is a perfectly simple, easy, and effective movement, though by no means one the nature of which it is easy to define accurately in words.37
Thus it would be tenuous to make the claim that Hutton's interpretation of these passages was the average reader's experience. We again see this several pages later when Hutton is astonished by the seeming impossibility to follow the text's advice to 'raise both feet at the same instant from the ground' when performing the rear lunge, exclaiming 'I should like to see some one do this; raising anything from the ground is a more or less deliberate action'.38
One final example of Hutton's pearl-clutching is his imagined horror at the harm that Masiello's forward leaning lunge could have on the cavalrymen, who when 'trained on foot to throw his body forward and out of balance will, by force of habit, do so when mounted, and he will be liable to overbalance himself so much that the slightest mistake on the part of his horse will topple him out of his saddle, and he will fall flat on his face on the ground.'39 Hutton would have been comforted to know that not only was this leaning used to great effect on horseback by the Italian cavalry throughout the 19th century, but its utility was even recognised by the British cavalry itself.
The disingenuous manner in which Hutton approaches his critique often ventures into hypocrisy. He seems unable to decide whether to criticise it as a system to be adapted for his battlefield scenarios or as one which serves well in a fencing hall. Hutton bemoans the exclusion of the legs as a valid target in bouting or the lively footwork, elements making Masiello's method only suitable for salle play, yet when it comes to the force, speed, and accuracy it is said to promote through practice of the exercise molinelli, then suddenly the method is unsuitable even for this context:
This makes it clear that the basis of the system is not swordsmanlike skill but mere muscular violence. The man who has been specially trained to strike only with his 'utmost force' will be found, I am afraid, incapable of playing a light game40
Hutton then goes on to express his sympathies for the 'poor sergeants who are compelled to learn this brutal work' as well as the young students who will fall victim to their teachings when they later seek employment at schools. Only one page earlier he expressed his confusion at why the Infantry Sword Exercise would bother teaching the disarm expulsion when the bouting rules state that it is not permissible to hit someone once they are disarmed.41 Hutton is able to quickly forget about bouting etiquette when it suits his argument.
An argument on the grounds of inconsistency in application for the fencing hall or battlefield would have served Hutton no better here, as he is by far more guilty of this in his own writings. Several examples can be found in Cold Steel, such as his 'cut 8' or vertical rising cut aimed at the groin, which he clarifies 'should never be used in school play', or the similar qualification in his description of hitting with the hilt and grappling, while allowing for 'exceptional circumstances'.42 Contrary to what he says in his attack on the Infantry Sword Exercise, a jumping retreat is a perfectly admissible technique here, particularly useful 'in a room where the floor is level, but might be attended with considerable risk in the open'.43 Hutton provides sabre bouting rules which allow for the legs to be an invalid target when they are unprotected and his general rules forbid the use of the left hand for grappling.44 Despite his own inconsistency in what he considers acceptable in bouting, Hutton expresses great resentment for those who 'ignore the rules and customs of gentlemanly fencing'.45
Throughout his whole critique, Hutton's arguments remain solely in the hypothetical realm. Considering that Aldershot had been teaching Masiello's method since at least the beginning of 1893, there is a distinct lack of engagement with how the army's instructors were reacting to the change and the results among their students. Remember, Hutton was not just criticising the British army's implementation of Masiello's method but the foundations of the method itself. He completely ignores the past and continuing success of Radaellian fencing in Italy as well as in Austria, where (by 1896) Luigi Barbasetti had received a rapturous welcome that quickly led to the adoption of his method—very similar to Masiello's—by the Austrian military.46 In due time this would be replicated by other Italian masters in Hungary, Germany, the Netherlands, Argentina, Chile, and elsewhere. Inspector of the Aldershot school, Colonel Fox, himself identified Hutton's confinement to the theoretical realm already in 1893:
To conclude, I cannot but think it is a pity that Captain Hutton has not taken the trouble to find out for himself, or to come and see what is actually going on in the headquarter fencing establishment at Aldershot, before condemning it, as he is evidently in entire ignorance of the system that is carried out there.47
Three years later, Hutton's response to the 1895 Infantry Sword Exercise again demonstrates this pattern of behaviour. Today, we are only able to engage with fencing from this time through books, but for a wealthy, well-connected ex-soldier such as Hutton, such ignorance is less forgivable. Instances such as this might well prompt us to consider how reliable Hutton was even within his own British context.
Conclusion
Having reached this point, readers may be wondering: why bother refuting Hutton at all if his opinions are irrelevant to Italian fencing? What we hope to have demonstrated with this article is that the way Hutton engaged with source material, both contemporary and historical, did not only lead to incorrect assumptions about European fencing, but also serves as a poor example for modern readers. Emulating Hutton's approach to reading fencing treatises inevitably encourages superficial engagement with the systems described within them, to treat the individual techniques as nifty tools to appropriate without having a deeper understanding of the context behind them.
When reading primary fencing sources, we should ask ourselves questions such as these: Why did the author publish their book, and who was the intended audience? How did the author's contemporaries view the work, both at home and abroad? Is this work representative of that country or region's fencing as a whole? On the surface it would appear Hutton did attempt to approach his readings in this way, but time and time again he was only able to develop conclusions which validated his preconceptions and are contradicted by the historical record.
One would then do well to ask the same questions of Hutton's works, but this is beyond the scope of this article. Only one question will be posed here: what can we speculate about Hutton's motivations? It is undeniable that he was greatly invested in improving the apparent stagnation of British fencing in the latter half of the 19th century, as evidenced by his writings going back to the 1860s, but how can these efforts be reconciled with his near hostility towards Fox's efforts at reform in the 1890s?
Beginning with the publication of Cold Steel in 1889, Hutton coupled his fencing promotion with self-promotion, placing the reinterpreted techniques of old treatises alongside his own unremarkable observations and peddling them as a novelty, or rather a renovation. Any specific choice of inclusion in the material could be justified by his insistence on drawing upon the established works of other masters; thus through their expertise, Hutton was able to derive his own authority. Hutton hosted grand displays of old fencing styles—with the rapier and dagger, sword and buckler, and longsword—while simultaneously inserting himself into debates on fencing and physical education within the British military, despite showing little effort to engage directly with the most influential institution within that field.
When it became apparent that the British military, along with many other European states, was beginning to look to Italy for inspiration in revitalising its own fencing culture, Hutton had no option but to place himself in opposition. Hutton had to reject Masiello's system not because of its lack of merit, but because he had absolutely no involvement in its adoption. As Hutton said himself in 1893: 'What is really needed as a text-book is a judicious blend of the time-honoured English broadsword play with certain details, and not so very many of them, derived from the modern Italians (and this I claim to have already provided in "Cold Steel" and "The Swordsman")'.48
It is understandable that Alfred Hutton's works were and are useful for those beginning their dive into the history of modern fencing. For a person living in 19th-century England he was particularly well-read on the topic of fencing and a tireless advocate for the practice within civil and military society; where he fell short was in the analysis and application of those fencing systems. As modern researchers bring more of the world of fencing to light, as we write the history of British fencing in the 19th century, the community ought to begin looking beyond people such as Hutton.
* * *
1 Alfred Hutton, Cold Steel: A practical treatise on the sabre (London: William Clowes, 1889).↩2 Infantry Sword Exercise 1895 (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1895).↩
3 Alfred Hutton, The Swordsman: A Manual of Fence for the Foil, Sabre, and Bayonet (London: H. Grevel, 1891).↩
4 Hutton, Cold Steel, pp. 3, 31, 34, 73, 97, 98. See also Hutton, Our Swordsmanship (London: Harrison and Sons, 1893), 9.↩
5 Federico Cesarano, Trattato teorico-pratico di scherma della sciabola (Milan: Natale Battezzati, 1874); Masaniello Parise, Trattato teorico-pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola preceduto da un cenno storico sulla scherma e sul duello (Rome: Tipografia Nazionale, 1884).↩
6 Hutton, Our Swordsmanship, 9; Hutton, "To the editor of the 'Army and Navy Gazette'," Army and Navy Gazette, 7 September 1895, 749.↩
7 Some examples: Jaime Merelo y Casademunt, Tratado completo de la esgrima del sable español (Toledo: Severiano Lopez Fando, 1862), 54; Reinhold Silfversvärd, Handbok för undervisning i sabelfäktning till fot (Stockholm: Iwar Hæggström, 1868); Léon Galley, Traité d'escrime pratique au sabre, à la baïonnette et au bâton (Fribourg: Imprimerie Galley 1877) 22; Liborio Vendrell y Eduart, Arte de esgrimir el sable (Vitoria: Elias Sarasquela, 1879), 40–1; Alfredo Merelo y Fornés, Manual de esgrima de sable y lanza para toda el arma de caballería y sable de infantería (Madrid: M. Minuesa, 1880), 38; Luis Cenzano y Zamora, Manual de esgrima de sable: recopilación de las principales tretas puestas por lecciones al alcance de todos los aficionados (Burgos: Viuda de Villanueva, 1882) 26.↩
8 The three that demonstrate a similar position as Hutton are: Carlo Tambornini, Breve trattato di scherma alla sciabola (Genoa: Tipografia Ponthenier, 1862); Salvatore Mendietta-Magliocco, Manuale della scherma di sciabola (Parma: Sarzi Erminio, 1868); Cesarano, Trattato teorico-pratico di scherma della sciabola. One might wish to be generous and include the point-forward variations seen in two authors: Giuseppe Cerri, Trattato teorico pratico della scherma per sciabola (Milan: self-pub., 1861); Giovanni Battista Ferrero, Breve trattato sul maneggio della sciabola (Turin: Tipografia Subalpina di Marino e Gantin, 1868).↩
9 In the case of slanted head parries, see Bluth, Praktische Anleitung zum Unterricht im Hiebfechten (Berlin: Siegfried Mittler, 1883), 30–31; Antonio Álvarez García, Tratado de esgrima de sable y florete (Jerez: Imp. de El Cronista, 1886), 9. For examples of horizontal head parries by Italian authors, see Tambornini, Breve trattato di scherma alla sciabola; Mendietta-Magliocco, Manuale della scherma di sciabola; Alberto Falciani, La scherma della sciabola e del bastone a due mani brevemente insegnata nella lingua del popolo (Pisa: Fratelli Nistri, 1870).↩
10 Even Hutton's favourite contemporary Italian author, Parise, only mentions them four times throughout his entire treatise. Cuts with the false edge are mentioned rarely or not at all in Radaellian works. See Giordano Rossi, Manuale teorico-pratico per la scherma di spada e sciabola (Milan: Fratelli Dumolard Editori, 1885); Ferdinando Masiello, La scherma italiana di spada e di sciabola (Florence: Stabilimento Tipografico G. Civelli, 1887).↩
11 Arnoldo Ranzatto, Istruzioni per la scherma di sciabola illustrate da dieciotto figure con aggiunte alcune norme per il duello (Venice: Stabilimento Tipografico Fratelli Visentini, 1885), 22.↩
12 Hutton, Cold Steel, 2.↩
13 Ibid., 38.↩
14 "Col. Sir Malcolm Fox: An Appreciation," The Sportsman, 5 August 1915; Mutio, "La nuova scuola di scherma a Londra," Scherma Italiana, 20 April 1893, 27.↩
15 "Ferdinando Masiello," Cappa e Spada, 15 January 1888; Ministero della Guerra, Bollettino ufficiale delle nomine, promozioni e destinazioni negli ufficiali del R. Esercito Italiano e nel personale dell'amministrazione militare, (Rome: Tipografia C. Voghera, 1887), 499.↩
16 One commentator in 1891 likened Masiello's importance in Italian fencing as equivalent to Mérignac for French fencing, and that 'the majority of Italians consider [Masiello] as the head of our Italian school'. Liberato De Amici, "La scherma italiana: Pini e Mérignac," Baiardo: periodico schermistico bimensile, 16 May 1891, 2.↩
17 "Scherma," Notizie del giorno, Il Piccolo della Sera, 17 October 1887.↩
18 Ministero della Guerra, Bollettino ufficiale delle nomine, promozioni e destinazioni negli ufficiali del R. Esercito Italiano e nel personale dell'amministrazione militare, (Rome: Tipografia E. Voghera, 1893), 592.↩
19 Ferdinando Masiello, La scherma di sciabola, 2nd ed. (Florence: Tipografia di Egisto Bruscoli, 1893); Masiello, La scherma di sciabola, 3rd ed. (Florence: R. Bemporad, 1902); Masiello, La scherma di fioretto, 2nd ed. (Florence: R. Bemporad, 1902).↩
20 Alfred Hutton, "The Infantry Sword Exercise of 1895," United Service Magazine, March 1896, 631–40.↩
21 Hutton, "Infantry Sword Exercise of 1895," 631.↩
22 Ibid.↩
23 Parise, Trattato teorico-pratico, 24.↩
24 Ferdinando Masiello, La scherma di sciabola a cavallo (Florence: Stabilimento G. Civelli, 1891).↩
25 Masiello, La scherma di sciabola, 2nd ed. (Florence: Tipografia di Egisto Bruscoli, 1893), 11.↩
26 See Saverio Cerchione, "Il peso dell'arma nello schermire," La Gazzetta dello Sport, 24 October 1898, 2.↩
27 Hutton, "Infantry Sword Exercise of 1895," 636.↩
28 Louis Perrée, "Quelques mesures prises chez les Maîtres d'armes," La Vie au Grand Air, 22 December 1904, 1038–9.↩
29 Hutton, "Infantry Sword Exercise of 1895," 634.↩
30 Sebastian Seager, "The Parise-Pecoraro Method (Part 1)," Radaellian Scholar (blog), 21 January 2019, https://radaellianscholar.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-parise-pecoraro-method-part-1.html; Seager, "The Parise-Pecoraro Method (Part 2)," Radaellian Scholar (blog), 16 February 2019, https://radaellianscholar.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-parise-pecoraro-method-part-2.html; Seager, "The Parise-Pecoraro Method (Part 3)," Radaellian Scholar (blog), 23 January 2021, https://radaellianscholar.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-parise-pecoraro-method-part-3.html.↩
31 Ministero della Guerra, Regolamento di esercizi per la cavalleria, vol. 1, Istruzione individuale (Rome: Voghera Enrico, 1896), 30–2; Masaniello Parise, Trattato teorico-pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola preceduto da un cenno storico sulla scherma e sul duello, 5th ed. (Turin: Casa Editrice Nazionale, 1904), 285–6.↩
32 A study conducted in 1893 counted a total of 225. See Luigi Moschetti, "La scherma nell'esercito," Scherma Italiana, 1 September 1896, 38–9.↩
33 I. D. Chepmell and G. H. Savage, "Infantry Sword Exercise and the Recent Handbook from the War Office," The Lancet 146, no. 3752, (27 July 1895): 234, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)05337-0; C. T. Dent, "Infantry Sword Exercise and the Recent Handbook from the War Office," The Lancet 146, no. 3770 (30 November 1895): 1391–2, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)31601-4; E. D. Ritchie, "The New Infantry Sword Exercise," The Lancet 147, no. 3787 (28 March 1896): 888–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)01770-1; C. T. Dent, "The New Infantry Sword Exercise," The Lancet 147, no. 3789 (11 April 1896): 1021, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)39514-4.↩
34 Achille Angelini, Osservazioni sul maneggio della sciabola secondo il metodo Redaelli (Florence: Tipi dell'Arte della Stampa, 1877), 21.↩
35 "The New Infantry Sword Exercise," The Lancet 147, no. 3800 (27 June 1896): 1814, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)39112-2.↩
36 Hutton, "Infantry Sword Exercise of 1895," 633–4, 637.↩
37 Onlooker, "The New Sword Exercise: A Rejoinder by an Onlooker," United Service Magazine, April 1896, 99.↩
38 Hutton, "Infantry Sword Exercise of 1895," 637.↩
39 Ibid., 636–7.↩
40 Ibid., 639.↩
41 Ibid., 638.↩
42 Hutton, Cold Steel, 31, 33, 89.↩
43 Ibid., 87.↩
44 Ibid., 120, 236.↩
45 Ibid., 121.↩
46 Victor Silberer, foreword to Das Säbelfechten by Luigi Barbasetti, trans. Rudolf Brosch and Heinrich Tenner (Vienna: Verlag der Allgemeinen Sport-Zeitung, 1899), 5–6.↩
47 Malcolm Fox in Alfred Hutton, Our Swordsmanship (London: Harrison and Sons, 1893), 13.↩
48 Hutton, Our Swordsmanship, 9.↩
