In the Radaellian tradition, no other fencing master boasts quite the same level of name recognition as Luigi Barbasetti. As a result of his trailblazing work introducing Italian fencing to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, as well as boasting the only Radaellian sabre and foil treatises to be translated in their entirety into English prior to the 21st century, Barbasetti's work was what introduced many Europeans to Radaellian fencing in the late 19th and 20th centuries, and it continues to do so for many fencers around the world today.
Less known to modern readers are the many articles Barbasetti wrote across many periodicals throughout his career, particularly those written in the two-year between him leaving military service in 1892 and his fateful move to Vienna in late 1894. By nature of the period in which these articles were written, they give significant insight into Barbasetti's motivations as well as his perceptions on the development of Italian fencing up to that point.
In the document below I have provided a selection of sixteen articles from the magazines La Rivista Sportiva and Scherma Italiana, ten of which were authored by Luigi Barbasetti himself, signed either with his full name or more commonly merely his initials 'L. B.', and in one instance simply 'B.' The remaining six articles provide the context for those Barbasetti references and responded to.
*** Supplementary articles ***
Other articles of Barbasetti's appeared in these two magazines during this period, but those presented in the provided document are the most pertinent in understanding the frustrations and disillusionment which undoubtedly gave Barbasetti the motive to leave Italy for greener pastures abroad. What follows in the rest of this article is my own attempt to provide a biographical background for Barbasetti's writings and highlight how they were influenced by his prior experiences.
Giuseppe Luigi Barbasetti was born on 21 February 1859 in the city of Udine.1 As a teenager he joined the military, receiving training as a non-commissioned officer at the 3rd Training Battalion in Verona, where he quickly distinguished himself in fencing under the tutelage of Carlo Guasti. Due to his fencing talents, Barbasetti was selected to become a fencing master, for which he spent an additional year at the Training Battalion with Maestro Guasti and then in 1880 he entered the great Fencing Master's School in Milan, whose acting director at the time was Giovanni Monti, in place of the ailing Giuseppe Radaelli. Barbasetti's personal copy of the fencing textbook used at the school, along with all the meticulous notes he wrote alongside it, is still preserved today at KU Leuven in Belgium.2
 |
| Barbasetti's first master, Carlo Guasti. |
After graduating in 1881, Barbasetti became the regimental fencing instructor of the 36th infantry.3 Soon after his assignment to this regiment it transferred to Palermo, which proved to be a fruitful experience for Barbasetti. While stationed here he had the opportunity to train with the highly regarded amateur fencer Antonino Palizzolo, who ran a popular fencing club in Palermo. Although Barbasetti's regiment was stationed in Palermo for less than two years, under the guidance of Palizzolo Barbasetti greatly improved his foil fencing and developed an appreciation for the Sicilian fencers, whom he described as being particularly adherent to their traditional methods and equipment.4
By the start of 1885 the 36th infantry regiment had moved, as had the Military Fencing Master's School, which had its new seat in the Italian capital under the direction of the young Neapolitan master Masaniello Parise, a significant controversy in the Italian fencing world. Before the Rome school could resume the task of training fencing masters, the new, non-Radaellian, fencing method that formed the curriculum at Parise's school had to be taught to the military's existing masters. In April 1885 Luigi Barbasetti began his 3-month conversion course in Rome, where he made enough of an impression on the new director that he, along with several other Radaellians, was asked to remain at the school as an assistant instructor. This role had the benefit of providing a slight pay increase as well as being a more fulfilling role, as instructors here would be teaching students who were much more interested in learning fencing than the average officer in a regimental fencing hall would be.5
Barbasetti first came to the attention of the fencing public in 1887 at the 'international' tournament in Florence, his first such appearance. Although overshadowed by others in the foil elimination competition (he did not compete in sabre), his classification bouts resulted in him receiving the second highest score among 42 fencing masters in foil and fourth out of 61 masters in sabre. In addition to the two gold medals he received for these rankings, Barbasetti was also awarded a yataghan, one of 28 special prizes donated by various clubs, politicians, and nobles.6
Barbasetti's reputation continued to rise over the following years, repeating similarly noteworthy performances at no fewer than seven tournaments by 1892 in addition to his first Florentine outing. By 1891 Barbasetti was one of the longest-serving instructors at the Master's School, alongside his old master Carlo Guasti and Carlo Pessina. Despite this apparent loyalty, however, Barbasetti's later writings show that at this point he was growing increasingly frustrated and resentful of the institution he served. Rather than being loyal to Parise and his method, Barbasetti was in fact adamantly opposed to the sabre method he was being forced to teach, and had never abandoned his Radaellian principles. By mid-1891 Barbasetti had been transferred to the Modena Military School. It is unclear why this happened—one journalist later wrote that Barbasetti left voluntarily 'in order to not share moral responsibility deriving from fallacious teaching'—but it is likely that by this point he was greatly disillusioned with his role at the Master's School.7 At the Modena Military School Barbasetti found a brief reprieve from this feeling, being able to teach alongside a large cohort of like-minded Radaellians free from the watchful eye of Parise.
What separated him from his colleagues at the military school, however, was the fact that his efforts at the school had not yet been rewarded with a promotion to civil master. 'Civil master' was the designation the Ministry of War gave to fencing masters under their direct employ as civilians, distinct from regular military instructors like Barbasetti, who were first and foremost soldiers and who were for the most part attached to a specific regiment or, in rare cases such as Barbasetti's, temporarily assigned to a military school or college to act as an assistant instructor. The relevance of this particular promotion here is the effect it had on a given fencing instructor's willingness to remain in military service.
Long-term retention of military fencing masters was dismal in the late 19th century. Several commentators, including Barbasetti, asserted that most masters left the military at the end of their five-year mandatory service period. This service period included the time spent training at the Master's School, so given that the course lasted two years until 1890, and thereafter three years, most masters would only be required to serve for a couple of years after graduating.8 If the instructor achieved a civil master promotion, however, it is almost certain that they would keep that position for many years, often decades. The position of civil master was greatly coveted as with it came: the benefit of a much higher starting salary which increased further with seniority; a generally more enthusiastic group of students; the consistency of being attached to an institution rather than a regiment which was constantly redeployed; freedom from the menial day-to-day tasks foisted on military instructors (such as delivering mail and acquiring firewood); the ability to also give private fencing lessons outside of regular work hours, among several other factors.
From a purely practical standpoint, military instructors found themselves in a contradictory position in their role as an instructor: every day they had to act as teachers to officers as well as NCOs, but they were unable to discipline students on their own, having to rely on the hall supervisor, who was not always present. While civil masters had no rank, given that they were civilian employees, they were nevertheless free of the military hierarchy and had the ability to engage with officers in more informal social contexts outside of their work. This put them on a much more equal social level than they would be had they remained soldiers, one much more in keeping with the respect they themselves felt they deserved.
To reach the rank of civil master, military instructors had to undergo an examination similar to those the masters would have undergone to graduate from the Master's School, which consisted of giving example lessons, answering questions about the regulation fencing text, and bouting. However, since all the competing candidates had several years of experience by the time they applied for the position, the level of competency required to rise above the crowd was understandably very high. The sum of the scores candidates received for each exam element would create an overall ranking for all candidates, and soon after the highest ranking candidates would be given any civil master positions vacant at the time. Any other positions that became vacant in the following two years would be awarded to the next highest-ranking candidate, provided they were still serving in the military. If a candidate did not end up receiving a promotion at the end of this period, they were considered unsuccessful, and would have to go through the exams again if they still wished to earn a promotion. However, individuals were only permitted to apply for the civil master promotion twice; if they did not receive a promotion after two attempts, they could not apply again and had to either be content as a lowly military instructor or, as most eventually did, leave the military altogether.9
This was the position our Barbasetti found himself in when, in October 1892, he returned to the Master's School one last time, this time not as an instructor, but as a candidate for civil master. Given that Barbasetti had been a military instructor for over a decade now, this was probably his second (and final) chance to get the promotion. At the end of the civil master exams, Barbasetti ranked a respectable 5th out of likely several dozen candidates. Unfortunately for Barbasetti though, this ranking was not high enough to secure him one of the two already vacant civil master positions, which instead went to two younger masters, Agesilao Greco and Vincenzo Drosi.10 To add insult to injury, not only did all the other masters who ranked higher than Barbasetti have less experience than he, as per the regular rules governing who could apply to the civil master role Greco would not have had the requisite seniority, so he would have had to receive special permission from Parise to take part in the exams.11
Despite spending six respectable years as an instructor at the Military Master's School, Parise and the army had implicitly deemed Barbasetti's teaching skills to be lacking in comparison to several of his less experienced peers. This proved to be the last straw for Barbasetti, and a few months later he left the army entirely. Curiously, if Barbasetti had remained in the army for another year, he indeed would have received his promotion. From when the exams took place in October 1892 and until the possible advancement period ended in September 1894, a total of 8 civil master vacancies were filled, a high but not unprecedented number. Since he had already been discharged from the army, however, he was no longer eligible to receive the promotion, and it instead went to one of his Radaellian colleagues.12 Barbasetti was likely aware of this possibility when he received his discharge papers, thus it cannot be said for certain that the results of the civil master exam were the deciding factor for Barbasetti.
Despite these no doubt demoralising circumstances, it was as a free agent that Barbasetti would finally receive the recognition and remuneration he felt was owed to him, in all likelihood surpassing anything he might have achieved by staying in the military. The opportunity to employ this highly experienced and reputable young master was quickly seized by the the popular and well-funded Trieste Fencing Society, and in December that same year Barbasetti arrived in Trieste to a rapturous welcome. Although still part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at this time, Trieste had a significant and growing Italian minority who was well up-to-date on the latest fencing trends in Italy. Even before Barbasetti's arrival, the fencers of Trieste were by no means ignorant of Radaellian fencing, indeed the city was somewhat of a Radaellian outpost in the late 19th century. The famous master Salvatore Arista had spent a couple of years in Trieste in the same role a decade earlier, and by the time Barbasetti arrived in 1892 two other ex-military Radaellian masters, G. T. Angelini and Augusto Garagnani, were teaching in the city. Barbasetti's reputation naturally overshadowed the two incumbents; a banquet was held to celebrate his arrival, which was billed as the beginning of a revival of fencing activity in the city.13
As well as marking a new era in his teaching career, Barbasetti's move to Trieste resulted in the emergence of his public persona through the Italian sporting press. His first forays into writing appeared in mid-1893 in the pro-Radaellian fencing magazine Scherma Italiana, responding to comments made about a recent exhibition of his with Eugenio Pini and discussions on duelling codes and ongoing efforts at their standardisation in Italy.14 But it was at the end of the year when he truly came to the attention of the literate fencing public by becoming an editor of Trieste's La Rivista Sportiva. This magazine had been in circulation since the beginning of 1893, featuring only a modest and intermittent fencing column, but in December the Rivista began an ambitious shift and published a 6-page special edition fencing supplement to inaugurate the addition of Luigi Barbasetti to the magazine's editorial staff.15
For the last five months of La Rivista Sportiva's existence, fencing became the largest single section of the magazine, often comprising half of an individual issue's total material. The magazine boasted of having received commitments for the collaboration of many other prominent Radaellians, but very few of them (at least in name) would actually contribute an article in the magazine's short lifetime. While the magazine did not manage to serve as the collaborative and enduring platform that some Radaellians had hoped for, it did at least provide an effective soapbox for its newest editor, Barbasetti, who immediately took to expounding his views on the current state of fencing in Italy, declaring that it is 'on the path of regression, perhaps primarily because of the teaching method introduced in the army, which we cannot declare to be in agreement with.'16
Barbasetti was highly critical of his old boss, Masaniello Parise, and the oppressive institution he ruled over. Although Barbasetti had spent 6 years teaching at the Master's School, this had not made him more amenable to Parise's teachings, at least not with respect to sabre fencing. He makes explicit his regret at having attempted to make change from within the system:
Parise's collaborators, or rather the executors, all pure Radaellians, wanted to repaint something…decayed and covered in patches, so as to make a ramshackle thing pass off as new. It was junkyard business and for my part I now deplore having lent a hand.17
Barbasetti depicts Parise and the school as oppressive and detrimental to the development of fencing in Italy; adherence to the defective official method stifles the artistic freedom of fencing masters in the army, whom Barbasetti asserts are all of a lower quality than those who emerged from the schools of Radaelli and Enrichetti. His first example of this oppression was the fact that the famed Ferdinando Masiello had in late 1893 resigned from his respected teaching position at the Florence military college. This followed only a few months after another master, Barbasetti's dear master Carlo Guasti, left the halls of the Rome Master's School and was transferred to a military academy in Turin.18 Barbasetti believes both events to be proof that more and more masters were becoming disillusioned with the curriculum and being subordinate to Parise.
Today it is Masiello who renounces government teaching. Tomorrow, who knows? But if we go on at this trot we can hope for at least one thing: which is that soon nobody will receive a master's licence from the state without proving that they have hung Masaniello Parise's treatise at the foot of their bed and that every morning they recite this prayer: 'I believe in the impeccable, infallible official fencing treatise and I renounce all other authors and common sense if by chance I find it.'19
Barbasetti asserted that in the past eight years 'not one truly strong sabre fencer has emerged from the Master's School', which immediately caught the ire of at least one of Parise's disciples, Antonio Conte, whose response to Barbasetti's diatribes appeared on the front page of Scherma Italiana.20 Conte points to the recent competitive successes of himself and his fellow graduates as proof of the school's accomplishments, a point which the Radaellians themselves made in defence of the Milan school in previous years. In his response, Barbasetti shows himself to be fiercely protective of his reputation as a competitor, downplaying Conte's victories by asserting that most of his victories took place when he did not have to face someone like Barbasetti. When he is willing to concede that a graduate of Parise's school is worthy of praise, it is mostly because their instructor at the school deviated from the regulation method (as was supposedly the case with Carlo Guasti) or because of their own extraordinary physical attributes (e.g. Agesilao Greco).21
Regular readers of this blog may also appreciate the additional details Barbasetti provides on the Parise-Pecoraro reforms from a few years prior. While the actual substance of Parise's reformed sabre method is well known to us through later sources, Barbasetti directly credits General Giovanni Corvetto, then Undersecretary of State at the Ministry of War, for initiating this process. Barbasetti claims that Corvetto was 'a bitter enemy of the Parise system' and attempted to replace Parise with Pecoraro as head of the Master's School, but he was overruled by others in the government. As a compromise, Pecoraro was permitted to make changes to the cavalry's sabre instruction, the result of which was the Parise-Pecoraro method that was taught to the cavalry and students at the Master's School from 1891 onwards.22 Yet these changes were evidently insufficient for Barbasetti, as they did not address the underlying problems with how the Italian military trained its fencing masters.
In expounding on how to improve what Barbasetti perceives to be a decline in the quality of sabre fencing and fencing masters in Italy, he draws inspiration partly from his personal experience over his 12 years of military service. He has positive memories of the 'training unit' model that he experienced in his youth, where the Master's School acted more as a finishing school rather than one which takes up the burden of providing a comprehensive training programme.23 Yet there is one new perspective that Barbasetti has recently gained greater access to through his move to Trieste, and that is the fencing programme of the Austro-Hungarian army's school in Wiener Neustadt.
Several articles in the Rivista Sportiva strongly suggest that Barbasetti was interacting with Austro-Hungarian military personnel and those who had close knowledge of the kind of fencing carried out in both military and civilian circles.24 These contacts gave him the strong impression that life for a fencing master in the Austro-Hungarian military was far better than in Italy, for several reasons. The first was due to the fact that Austrian military fencing masters are officers, and they can continue receiving promotions while acting as fencing masters. The second factor was that the fencing course at Wiener Neustadt lasted only a year, which meant the empire was able to produce fencing masters quickly, albeit with less training than an Italian master. Barbasetti's emulation of the Wiener Neustadt system imagined turning the Modena Military School into a training unit of 'fencing specialists', this location most likely being selected as a result of his personal experience there two years earlier.25
The most fruitful aspect of Barbasetti's interaction with Austrian military personnel, however, turned out not to be the importing of new ideas into Italy, but rather the beginning of the exporting of Italian fencing to the rest of Europe. In the penultimate issue of La Rivista Sportiva in April 1894 Barbasetti mentions a visit from Eugen Bothmer and Amon Gregurich, both fencing masters in the Austrian army. These masters had given Barbasetti an invitation to hold a course on Italian fencing at the cavalry school at Mährisch Weißkirchen (Hranice na Moravě, today part of Czechia), where they had already begun teaching in accordance with the Italian method, likely learnt through their contact with Gustav Ristow and Pietro Arnoldo.26 He was then taken to the Wiener Neustadt school where he gave another demonstration of the Radaellian method, which was so well received that already in August 1894 some were claiming that Barbasetti's method was to be adopted by all military schools in Austria-Hungary.27
By the end of the year, Barbasetti had packed his bags and moved to Vienna, and thus began a new and remarkable period in European fencing which saw the Radaellian spread rapidly across the continent. The Rivista Sportiva saw its last issue published on 10 May 1894, but this was by no means the end of Barbasetti's writing career. Aside from his books—namely his duelling code (1898), sabre treatise (1899), and foil treatise (1900)—Barbasetti continued to contribute the occasional article to various newspapers and magazines both in Austria and Italy, but he never again assumed such a direct role in affecting the public discourse like he did with the Rivista.
Much has been said about Barbasetti's fascinating career over the past 130 years, and surely much more remains to be said, particularly regarding the years following his eventual departure from Vienna at the outbreak of the Great War. What I hope to have provided here at least is a deeper insight into the events which shaped Barbasetti's decisions in the early 1890s, events which eventually led to him becoming one of the most recognised names in the history of both Italian and Austrian fencing.
*******
1 Unless stated otherwise, biographical details regarding Barbasetti are drawn from the following sources: Fleuret, "Luigi Barbasetti," Allgemeine Sport-Zeitung, 5 January 1896, 19; Roderico Rizzotti, "Luigi Barbasetti," Scherma Italiana, 1 October 1896, 47–9; Camillo Müller, "Barbasetti," Allgemeine Sport-Zeitung, 1 March 1903, 220–1.↩2 KU Leuven Libraries Special Collections, R4A552b.↩
3 Cesare Francesco Ricotti-Magnani, "CIRCOLARE N. 47. — Corsi eventuali presso la scuola magistrale militare di scherma. — (Segretariato generale). — 11 aprile," Giornale Militare 1885: Parte Seconda, no. 17 (15 April 1885): 196–7.↩
4 Luigi Barbasetti, "La miglior parata è la botta," Gazzetta dello Sport, 20 August 1897.↩
5 On the salary of military instructors at the Master's School, see Jacopo Gelli, Brevi note sulla scherma di sciabola per la cavalleria (Florence: Tipografia di Luigi Niccolai, 1889), 9↩
6 Daily reports on the tournament can be found in the Florentine newspaper La Nazione between 5 and 18 May 1887.↩
7 "Accademie, tornei e notizie," Scherma Italiana, 17 December 1894, 91–2.↩
8 For some examples of contemporary discussion regarding the poor morale of military fencing masters, see Giuseppe Perez, "I Maestri di Scherma nell'Esercito," Baiardo: periodico schermistico bimensile, 16 May 1891, 4; D'Artagnan, "I Maestri di Scherma nell'Esercito," Baiardo: periodico schermistico bimensile, 1 June 1891, 4; Ricasso, "Il grado ai maestri di scherma militari," Lo Sport Illustrato, 20 August 1891, 406; Luigi Barbasetti, "La Scuola Magistrale Militare di Scherma in Italia," La Rivista Sportiva, 25 March 1894, 63. On the mandatory service period of military fencing instructors, see Raccolta ufficiale delle leggi e dei decreti del regno d'Italia, vol. 97 (Rome: Stamperia Reale, 1890), 2366.↩
9 Giovanni Corvetto, "CIRCOLARE N. 129. — Norme per l'esame di concorso alla nomina a maestro civile di scherma. — (Segretariato generale). — 22 agosto," Giornale Militare 1888: Parte Seconda, no. 40 (25 August 1888): 496–8; Ministero della Guerra, Regolamento per la scuola magistrale militare di scherma (Rome: Voghera Enrico, 1897), 23–4.↩
10 Results on these exams are mentioned in "Accademie, tornei e notizie," Scherma Italiana, 27 October 1892, 70. The promotions of Greco and Drosi are announced in Ministero della Guerra, Bollettino ufficiale delle nomine, promozioni e destinazioni negli uffiziali dell'esercito italiano e nel personale dell'amministrazione militare, no. 48 (24 December 1892): 612.↩
11 Candidates had to have a seniority dating prior to 1 January 1882. See Luigi Pelloux, "CIRCOLARE N. 96. — Concorso per la nomina a maestro aggiunto di 1a classe nel personale dei maestri civili di scherma. — (Segretariato generale). — 19 agosto," Giornale Militare 1892: Parte Seconda, no. 28 (20 August 1892): 250–1.↩
12 The civil master promotions that were awarded between 1892 and 1894 are announced in the Bollettino ufficiale delle nomine, promozioni e destinazioni negli uffiziali dell'esercito italiano e nel personale dell'amministrazione militare.↩
13 "Luigi Barbasetti," Il Piccolo, 1 December 1892, 1.↩
14 "Sfida Barbasetti-Pini," Scherma Italiana, 8 May 1893, 31; "Il codice unico," Scherma Italiana 20 July 1893, 50–1; "Ancora sul codice unico," Scherma Italiana, 1 November 1893, 78.↩
15 The copy of this first fencing supplement for the Rivista Sportiva I consulted bears no date, but given that it cites letters from the end of November 1893, a publication date in December seems likely.↩
16 Luigi Barbasetti, "Ai miei lettori!," La Rivista Sportiva, [December 1893], 1.↩
17 Luigi Barbasetti, "Commenti e.... Commenti," Scherma, La Rivista Sportiva, 10 January 1894, 3–4.↩
18 Fieravespa, "E due!....," Scherma Italiana, 19 June 1893, 41.↩
19 Luigi Barbasetti, "Ancora uno che se ne và," La Rivista Sportiva, [December 1893], 1–2.↩
20 Luigi Barbasetti, "La decadenza della sciabola," La Rivista Sportiva, [December 1893], 4–5; Antonio Conte, Scherma Italiana, 15 February 1894, 17.↩
21 Luigi Barbasetti, Scherma Italiana, 15 March 1894, 21–2.↩
22 "Comunicati," Scherma Italiana, 5 August 1894, 65–6.↩
23 Luigi Barbasetti, "La Scuola Magistrale Militare di Scherma in Italia," Scherma, La Rivista Sportiva, 25 March 1894, 63.↩
24 In addition to the above-cited article, see Cap. Otto, "La scherma di sciabola in Austria," La Rivista Sportiva, [December 1893], 4; Cornelio Agrippa, "I maestri di scherma nell'esercito austro-ungarico," Scherma, La Rivista Sportiva, 25 January 1894, 13; Burlone, "La Scherma in Austria," Scherma, La Rivista Sportiva, 10 February 1894, 33–4.↩
25 Luigi Barbasetti, "La Scuola Magistrale Militare di Scherma in Italia," Scherma, La Rivista Sportiva, 25 March 1894, 63.↩
26 Luigi Barbasetti, "La Scherma Italiana in Austria," La Rivista Sportiva, 25 April 1894, 87–8. On Pietro Arnoldo's work in Austria, see this article.↩
27 "Comunicati," Scherma Italiana, 5 August 1894, 65–6.↩
