Radaellians Respond to Pecoraro and Pessina (Part 3)

In very early 1911, or possibly December 1910, the long critique of Pecoraro and Pessina's sabre treatise which Ferdinando Masiello had promised back in August was finally published. The length of its title, La Scherma di Sciabola: Osservazioni sul Trattato dei Maestri Pecoraro e Pessina Vice-Direttori della Scuola Magistrale militare di Scherma, portends the length of the booklet itself, totalling 161 pages (well over half the length of the treatise in question).

Click here for the full scans

The introductory sections suggest that Masiello had intended his booklet to reach a slightly wider audience of readers who, understandably, may not already be aware of the debate that had raged in the public press over the course of the previous year, but still wish to remain up-to-date with the latest developments in Italian fencing. Masiello begins by addressing Pecoraro and Pessina directly, saying that although they were all were raised under the same 'father Redaelli', from the day that the Master's School came under a hybrid and defective method, they had been divided. He asserts that he had always fought 'at the breach' for his conscience, and expects that Pecoraro and Pessina will give his opinions due respect and refute them with well-reasoned arguments if they disagree. Masiello comes very close to apologising in advance for the tone of his writing, as he openly admits that the more light-hearted remarks and jokes were to keep any less enthusiastic readers sufficiently engaged and entertained.

Turning then to the reader, Masiello provides a summary of what he considers the most important events that led up to the present debate. He states that Pecoraro and Pessina's initial announcement of their treatise in the first half of 1910 contained an element of truth when they implied that sabre fencing had by then fallen into decline. Where Masiello takes issue with this statement, however, is that the treatise authors themselves should accept much of the blame for that state of affairs. Evidence of this is in all that took place in Italian fencing following the death of Giuseppe Radaelli and the appointment of Masaniello Parise at the Master's School in 1884. This, Masiello believes, is the origin of the steady decline in Italian fencing throughout the past 25 years, as the sabre method Parise then introduced was so regressive and flawed that Giovanni Monti, who had served as Radaelli's replacement at the school's final years in Milan, supposedly 'cried like a child' after seeing a demonstration of the new method he would be forced to teach.

Pecoraro and Pessina had been complicit in teaching this defective sabre method at the Master's School for two and a half decades. Meanwhile, Masiello famously published his own treatise in 1887, which was well received throughout Italy, but Pecoraro and Pessina had consistently refused to engage with Masiello's theories, even when he gave a public demonstration of them in Rome in 1890. Despite the fact that Masiello's method was then adopted by the British army, Pecoraro publicly doubled-down in his support for Parise's method in a letter sent to the magazine Scherma Italiana in 1894, which Masiello reproduces in its entirely in the booklet's introduction.

Masiello asks the new leaders of the Master's School how they can square such a declaration of commitment, and their long career teaching Parise's system, with their own treatise, which is clearly based on Radaellian theory? The timing of this sudden conversion is also conspicuous to Masiello, given how soon after Parise's death the treatise was announced. Masiello imagines that if an afterlife existed and Radaelli and Parise were looking down on the two authors from heaven, both masters would feel betrayed and disappointed in their students. Finishing on this sombre image, Masiello then provides reproductions of the most significant newspaper articles in the debate published over the previous year by himself and Pecoraro and Pessina, all of which have been either translated or summarised in the course of this current series of articles.

The remaining 134 pages consist of Masiello's observations on the treatise itself. The critique is divided into three parts, corresponding to the three parts of Pecoraro and Pessina's treatise, with Masiello providing commentary on almost every individual section or topic found within it. If you have read my summary in Part 1 of the critique Masiello already published in La Nazione on 19 August 1910, then you will be familiar with the main arguments presented throughout this booklet. In this expanded format Masiello's semantic arguments become even more glaringly prominent, but more substantive arguments can be found regarding the preliminary exercises, the molinelli, the lunge (a whopping 12 pages' worth), the cuts, and the inquartata.

Much of the criticism presented against these techniques in particular come from the point of view that since Masiello's own treatise presented long (sometimes overly long) mechanical explanations for why his chosen method of execution is preferable, Pecoraro and Pessina should also have to provide lengthy explanations for their own choices in order for their treatise to be considered an improvement over pre-existing theory, thus justifying its publication. The 2nd and 3rd editions of Masiello's sabre treatise goes to great lengths to explain why his fully-inclined lunge is superior to one with an upright torso, and yet in Masiello's eyes Pecoraro and Pessina have disregard all of this reasoning and advocate the latter version, providing no justification for it.

When it comes to Pecoraro and Pessina's cuts, Masiello is frequently annoyed and confused at the authors' repeated use of the term 'strettissimo' to describe how the molinello movement is refined to create a smaller, faster arc which is used to give practical cuts. Masiello asserts that since the length of the wielder's sabre and forearm never change, the arc of the molinello cannot be reduced. Those familiar with Masiello's work should find such a criticism particularly confusing, as Masiello himself uses the word 'ristrettissimo' several times when describing how to apply cuts by molinello in his own treatise.¹

Another point Masiello makes in this section and which reoccurs elsewhere throughout his critique is that the method of gripping the sabre as described by the authors does not permit many of the positions shown in the photographs. In Masiello's reading, the grip is described as static and unchangeable, unlike how Masiello allows the thumb to slide up and down the grip to put the blade more or less in line with the wielder's arm. This line of argumentation is somewhat reminiscent of Achille Angelini's reading of Del Frate's treatise back in the 1870s, in which Angelini disregards the illustrations and asserts that Radaelli wished the sabre to be always held fully perpendicular to the forearm.

If throughout his critique Masiello is constantly exasperated at how Pecoraro and Pessina have ignored the practical improvements of their predecessors, elsewhere he is suspicious that the authors have knowingly indulged in plagiarism. When Pecoraro and Pessina describe how to gain distance in an attack by bringing the rear foot up against the front foot before lunging, Masiello sees so much similarity with his own work that he places the two relevant sections side-by-side for the reader to compare. Elsewhere Masiello claims the authors plagiarised his terminology and phrasing in their descriptions of the cuts, and recalls that at a tournament in 1906 he gave a demonstration of what Pecoraro and Pessina call the tocchi di sciabola di passaggio to some fencing masters, Pecoraro among them, and that this must have been where the authors first found out about the technique, despite Masiello receiving no credit. Furthermore, their preliminary exercises were clearly stolen from the treatise of Nicolò Bruno, whose versions are superior anyway.² Despite these tenuous, or even spurious, claims, the most credible accusation is in relation to the authors' section entitled 'preparatory lesson for the bout', where Masiello rightly points out the close similarities between the first three paragraphs of their work and the 1876 treatise by Settimo Del Frate.³

Skipping to Masiello's conclusion, he lists 17 items which he considers notably absent in the treatise. Directly translated, these are:

1. Definition of fencing in general;
2. Benefits of fencing;
3. Harms of a false system;
4. Force in fencing;
5. Method of wielding the sabre;
6. The sabre considered as a lever;
7. Laws which govern the guard;
8. Laws which govern the lunge;
9. The (very important) division of the target, without which an inexperienced fencer could confuse one target with another, as happened to the authors themselves (see p. 18 of their treatise);
10. How to perform the passage from one parry to another;
11. Lunge by launching the left foot back;
12. Absence of scientific proofs to contrast certain principles of theirs with those of other authors;
13. Absence of scientific proofs to absolutely and definitively establish the pivot from which one generates the very important action (both for the sword and for the sabre) of the disengagement, which the authors prescribe sometimes to the radiocarpal joint, sometimes to the scapulohumeral joint;
14. Absence of indications regarding how the cuts should be given, i.e. whether as hammer blows or by slicing;
15. Absence of a psychological proof on the advantage the attacker has over the defender;
16. Lacking the copertini;
17. Lacking a chapter to explain some expressions used in fencing language.

If any of these seem overly specific, that is because they are all topics which Masiello himself deals with in his own treatises; clearly, he considered his own work to be far superior. He ends by noting that he had received credible reports that a commission of senior officers, appointed by the Ministry of War, had recently given a favourable verdict of Pecoraro and Pessina's treatise, and that it would likely be approved to replace Parise's sabre curriculum at the Master's School. It is this factor which Masiello asserts was the main motivating factor in writing such a detailed rebuttal of Pecoraro and Pessina's work, since whatever they write will effectively become gospel for the next generation of Italian fencers, thus they owe it to everyone to make their textbook as perfect as possible. He repeats that he considers both authors to be good friends, and hopes that his critique will be read in this light.

Following the booklet's publication, I have been unable to find any published response from Pecoraro and Pessina, but in all likelihood they did read it. Whether or not they gave due consideration Masiello's critique is certainly up for debate, but if we compare some of his remarks to the revised edition of Pecoraro and Pessina's treatise, published in 1912, we can indeed find several specific instances which strongly suggest awareness and consideration of Masiello's observations. Some are changes to particular wordings which Masiello considered confusing or misleading, such as their use of the phrase 'a piena mano' when describing the grip of the sabre. In the 1912 edition this phrase was removed and another paragraph and a half is added describing how the sabre is to be wielded in the various movements, using which parts of the upper limb.

When describing the fourth preliminary exercise in the 1910 edition, the authors make a reference to the 'cappuccio', or backstrap, of the grip. As Masiello points out, this term had not been defined anywhere in the treatise, and so it is removed in the 1912 edition, also making other improvements to the descriptions of these exercises. As for the molinelli, Pecoraro and Pessina do not do away entirely with the 'strettissimo' descriptor so despised by Masiello, but they do at least provide a better explanation of how the molinello motion can be made smaller, through a 'simple turn of the hand accompanied by a slight bending and subsequent sudden extension of the elbow.'⁴

With many of the more substantial changes found in the 1912 edition, such as the comprehensively rewritten preface, it is harder to attribute Masiello's influence with any certainty; nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to adduce that, despite all the semantic and sarcastic nit-picking, Pecoraro and Pessina's work was improved from the public hazing it received from Masiello.

Given all the negative impressions of Pecoraro and Pessina's treatise we have looked at so far, we ought not assume that this was the universal impression amongst all Italian fencers. It is impossible to determine how well the method was received by most in the community, but as Masiello himself notes, the system was deemed good enough to receive at least provisional approval from the Ministry of War by early 1911. Furthermore, we can find at least one supportive voice from this time who spoke up in defence of the authors and to push back against Masiello's self-righteousness.

Colonel Alberto Cavaciocchi, the commanding officer of the 60th infantry regiment, had been an avid fencer for many decades, originally learning the old Radaellian method as part of his military training before being fortunate enough to train under Masaniello Parise himself. From this point on Cavaciocchi became convinced of the superiority of Parise's method, finding the improvements brought to the Radaellian method by Masiello and his colleagues to be insufficient. This conviction was carried over to Parise's successors, Pecoraro and Pessina, when they published their own treatise which built upon not only Radaelli's foundation, but Parise's too. Feeling that Masiello's critical articles in La Nazione could not remain unanswered, Cavaciocchi took it upon himself to respond if only in his capacity as an amateur, which he did in the form of a substantial 8000-word article published in the March issue of the Rivista Militare Italiana.⁵

While asserting that the Neapolitan foil method had always been superior to others, Cavaciocchi does recognise the merit and achievements of Radaelli's method, particularly in its later, more refined forms. His primary critique of Radaelli's system, however, is its body carriage, specifically in the guard and the lunge. He finds the slightly rear-weight guard position and upright lunge advocated by Parise to be much more logical and effective than those prescribed by Radaelli. This naturally gives Cavaciocchi a rather favourable opinion of the new system detailed by Pecoraro and Pessina, as a clear goal of their treatise was to combine the best aspects of Radaelli and Parise's theory. Masiello, on the other hand, instead managed to amplify many of the original Radaellian flaws, with his untypically wide stance in the guard and accentuated lean in the lunge.

Instead of explicitly defending Pecoraro and Pessina's system, well over half of Cavaciocchi's article is dedicated to comparing Masiello and Parise's systems, partially to redeem the latter, but also to show the continuity of the sound theoretical foundations inherited by Pecoraro and Pessina in their own work. Cavaciocchi reveals that he himself was one of the members of the commission eluded to by Masiello which had the task of assessing and approving the new treatise for use in the army, so it stands to reason why he would feel the necessity to now defend both the authors as well as his own reputation. He ends with the hope that the teaching of fencing at the Master's School continues 'holding firm to the excellent fundamental bases established by Masaniello Parise, but without renouncing that constant and progressive perfection which human nature unceasingly aims for.'

In the final part of this series, we will hear two more Radaellian judgements on the new direction being taken by Italian sabre fencing: one decidedly negative and the other refreshingly positive and hopeful.

*******

1 Examples can be found on pages 78, 79, 90, 118, 120 of Ferdinando Masiello, La scherma di sciabola (Florence: R. Bemporad, 1902).^↩
2 Cf. Nicolò Bruno, Risorgimento della vera scherma di sciabola italiana basata sull'oscillazione del pendolo (Novaraç Tipografia Novarese, 1891), 63–8.^↩
3 Cf. Settimo Del Frate, Istruzione per la scherma di sciabola e di spada del Prof. Giuseppe Radaelli scritta d'ordine del ministero della guerra (Milan: Gaetano Baroffio, 1876), 26.^↩
4 Salvatore Pecoraro and Carlo Pessina, La Scherma di Sciabola: Trattato Teorico-Pratico (Viterbo: G. Agnesotti, 1912), 53.^↩
5 Alberto Cavaciocchi, "Sui metodi di scherma per l'esercito," Rivista Militare Italiana 56, no. 3 (16 March 1911): 611–34.^↩

Radaellians Respond to Pecoraro and Pessina (Part 2)

In the immediate aftermath of Masiello's last article, in which Pecoraro and Pessina received an occasionally warranted harsh assessment of their sabre treatise, no response from the authors was forthcoming. In the meantime, another grizzled Radaellian veteran, Giovanni Pagliuca, took up the pen to provide their own nit-picky and often sarcastic impressions of Pecoraro and Pessina's method. Pagliuca's first appearance in the public press was in 1880, when he published a booklet criticising Radaelli's foil curriculum, which he had learnt at the Milan Master's School in 1876. Aside from that single publication, Pagliuca had shied away from the partisan debates of the 1880s and 90s, being best known as a stellar representative of the Enrichetti school of foil, but occasionally also considered among the old-school Radaellians.¹ In the twilight of his career, Pagliuca resoundingly removes any doubt over his allegiance to Radaelli's theories in his unforgiving review of Pecoraro and Pessina's treatise, which appear in La Nazione of Florence on 7 October 1910.

After my renowned friend and colleague Ferdinando Masiello reviewed the pages of the sabre pseudo-treatise by the gentlemen Pecoraro and Pessina so well, it would seem that nothing else could be said regarding this treatise, so many and innumerable indeed were the flaws found within.
Yet from a less salient but perhaps more practical point of view than that of my friend Masiello, I will try to lay bare all the harm that the theories of the two aforementioned authors would do to the art of fencing if, unfortunately, they found some followers among the innocent beginners of the practice.

First of all, a declaration: when the publication of the treatise in question—the work of Pecoraro and Pessina—was announced, I immediately thought that the theories discussed in it would have neither scientific basis nor proof.

Masiello wrongly reproaches this deficiency, because he himself and everyone knows that the aforementioned authors were unable to do so. I rather expected, along strict, simple, and perhaps primitive lines, a theoretical exposition of what they have carried out very well, indeed excellently, for about forty years: beautiful practice. But unfortunately even this they were unable to do. Overcome by the obsession of wanting to be authors at any cost, to appear original, even at the risk of bordering on ridicule, they have even forgotten essential principles which do not change, but mould to the evolution of the art, principles which they repeated—and here it must be said by ear—millions of times to their pupils at the Master's School. Thus they have defined speed as a movement, measure as an intuition, tempo (keeping in mind that tempo is almost everything in fencing) as 'the moment the fencer chooses', without reflecting that the moment chosen by the fencer cannot be the tempo: this in the 'artistic sense', as the authors say, 'is the propitious moment for the execution of an action', which is something totally different.
But in the fencing treatise the word tempo has become a myth at the complete discretion of the authors. They toss it around like a toy, to the point of writing on page 60, note 1: 'Since the direct thrust is one of the simple actions, it is necessary, in its execution, for a rapid and coordinated combination of the individual movements and such timing as to overcome, with its simplicity, the opponent's potential defence.'
Timing that overcomes with its simplicity...?! Well, I do not understand that at all. How impressed I was, indeed I was alarmed to discover on page 190 that there is 'GREAT timing'. I hope that the authors also wish to publish something else which announces and explains to the fencing world what medium and small timing are.
And now to the most interesting subject, which demonstrates how the treatise in question can actually bring the art to ruin rather than facilitate its progress.
Since a book which deals with fencing can make itself useful even in small proportions, it is necessary that in such proportions there is an advantage over preceding authors to assist the practice all the more so, facilitating it with suitable simplification. Pecoraro and Pessina's book instead aims at precisely the opposite goal, that is to get even the few connoisseurs of fencing that still exist to avoid those possible complications, those incomprehensible and, even worse, absolutely impracticable prolixities which they wish to introduce 'for artistic finesse' (sic) to the practice of sabre fencing.
Can you imagine a sabre fencer who attempts a circular feint by forced glide with a feint? Or a fencer who amuses himself by melting the air with parries in the opposite direction while his opponent dispenses a powerful descending cut to the head and a strong traversone?
Moreover, the first and indispensable quality of a fencing book which aspires to call itself a treatise is that of presenting the definitions in the clearest and simplest form and at the same time the most synthetic, the most exact, and the most rational form.
Do you want some examples of the precise definitions contained within the book in question?
'The jump back serves to gain a lot of ground' (page 24). Since when one takes a step forward, one loses ground—understood?
'When, in order to defend oneself from the opponents blows, one performs with the sabre a rapid movement aimed at avoiding them, (!) one is said in a fencing sense to have completed a parry' (page 32).
So, the parry avoids a blow; it does not oppose the blow, as every fencer in the world has repeated until now and as the same authors of the ever under-appreciated book have always performed in practice. Yes, a blow can be avoided, but not 'with a rapid movement of the sabre', but with a rapid movement of the body.
Continuing: 'Half-counter parries are those through which it is necessary for the sabre to cover half the path' (page 74). They could at least have added 'of our life'.²
Consequently, dear readers, throw a sabre into the air: when it has reached the halfway point of what it can travel, it will have performed a half-counter parry.
But interrupting ourselves on the topic of definitions—an enormous amount of space would be needed, and we would bore readers too much—I must confess with full sincerity that I did learn something new from Pecoraro and Pessina's book, and with my 63 years of age I will nevertheless try to put it into practice, as it seems to be the most practical thing in fencing and within reach of any person young or old, like me, to immediately finish off any opponent.
I learnt that one imprisons the opposing sabre (pages 105 and following).
So from today onwards I will come on guard with good custody, into which I will immediately introduce my opponent's sabre, locking it up. Except then launching at that poor wretch, who has let their sabre be imprisoned, a good number of flat hits on the meatiest parts of their body.
Finally, irony aside, it can safely be asserted that the book by the aforementioned gentlemen, more than a work of fencing, has resulted in a work of comedy, capable of giving an hour of good humour to anyone who wishes to enjoy looking through it, and nothing more.
As Giuseppe Radaelli, the creator of sabre fencing in Italy, was unable to write the treatise of his theories himself, he was obliged to turn to Captain Del Frate; but he had the frankness to declare it, explicitly publishing in the title:
'The sabre fencing of Giuseppe Radaelli written by Captain Del Frate'.
While the same frankness did not guide the two renowned masters Pecoraro and Pessina, in their defence we should not convince ourselves that everything contained in the book was developed independently of their ability to understand it.
I end with a new declaration: as an old master and old artist of arms I could not help but protest against a book which is the negation of the art of fencing.
If, in pointing out the enormous faults of this book, I was forced to implicate the authors' responsibility, I will not cease harbouring for them, as artists and executors, the greatest respect. And it is through this respect, through the sincere esteem that I have always had in their fencing ability, that I regret the vain ambition that induced them to write a treatise, an ambition which certainly throws them—in their quality as vice-directors of the Military Fencing Master's School—from the lofty pedestal which they had created for themselves with their undisputed practical ability.

Maestro GIOVANNI PAGLIUCA
Via della Croce, 34 — Rome

If we peel away Pagliuca's witty and casual writing style, it becomes apparent that many of his issues with Pecoraro and Pessina's treatise stem from their poor choice of words and unrefined definitions, something which we have seen Masiello point out already. Any criticism of the technical material itself and the overarching method is certainly lacking in Pagliuca's case, but slightly better in Masiello's. Pecoraro and Pessina seem to have had a similar reading of both Masiello and Pagliuca's articles, as is evidenced in their eventual response to their critics on 23 October in Rome's Giornale d'Italia.

Dear Mr. Director,

Since publishing the sabre fencing treatise of which we, Salvatore Pecoraro and Carlo Pessina, are the authors, if there has been no lack of praise from many quarters, especially in private and authoritative letters, from some individuals we were not spared censure. And we would not lament this if the censures had always been proportionate and had not revealed, in the fury of critique, something other than a pure love of the art. In any case, we will not let this distract us from serenely following our path; but we will limit ourselves to a few words in legitimate defence. 
It was our precise intention to collect in our treatise what the experience of a not inglorious artistic career had taught us. To this end, we freely jotted down our thoughts as they flowed from the pen, without any literary pretence and with the conviction that, above all, true fencers would have considered the substance. We were instead deceived, since our detractors—particularly Ferdinando Masiello and Giovanni Pagliuca—met to attack us primarily for literary form, stating with regard to substance only criticisms which, if they express an individual judgement of theirs, have a very relative value that is based on poor familiarity with the special weapon, to which we instead have given and will give all our activity as people and as fencers.
This being the case, while it will not be difficult for us to eliminate in a second edition of our treatise those flaws of a literary nature which our opposers have been pleased to highlight in a noble sentiment of fencing fraternity, we will have the opportunity to better illuminate the quality of our method's substance, which we are not at all disposed to compromise on, and which we are always ready to give a practical demonstration of.
We will declare, however, that any cross-examination of an artistic nature will be accepted by us with those connoisseurs who have deeply studied and taught the noble art of the sabre, achieving practical, and not just theoretical, results.
Because among those who have always studied and sought the progress of sabre fencing, dedicating to it all their physical and intellectual energy, because they considered this art truly sovereign, and those who instead, even setting themselves up as the god almighty of fencing, have defined it as the art of butchering, and, naturally, cannot boast of a single product worthy of remembering, they will serenely judge the true fencers.

SALVATORE PECORARO

CARLO PESSINA³

It is noteworthy that in this brief defence the authors are already talking of a revised second edition to correct the errors of the work's 'literary form', thus accepting at least in part the criticism that Masiello and Pagliuca have directed at them. However, their dismissal of other aspects of the criticism as well as their reference to some self-proclaimed 'god almighty of fencing', aside from being unsatisfying as a response, may have also struck Masiello as a veiled personal attack on him. Therefore on 27 October yet another letter bearing his name appeared in the pages La Nazione.⁴

In this reply Masiello is quick to assert that his own well-reasoned observations were unfairly lumped together with all the other critics, and in doing so they had overlooked all his observations of substance in order to focus on those relating to form. He admits that he did repeatedly highlight their substandard grammar, but he considers the problems with their definitions to be far more important than they are willing to acknowledge. Pecoraro and Pessina's accusation that Masiello possessed 'poor familiarity' with the sabre is one which Masiello was unable to go unanswered, as he asserts that his tireless advocacy for sabre fencing was by then indisputable. Aside from his 1887 treatise as proof of the quality of his studies, he refers to a well-received public demonstration of his sabre method that he gave in Rome in 1890, which Pecoraro and Pessina curiously did not attend, as well as the fact that he personally went to London to organise the British army's fencing programme at Aldershot in the 1890s.

As to their own practical results from their teaching at the Master's School, Masiello does not consider this enough to make somebody a good author, nor are one's competitive accomplishments sufficient to demonstrate the quality of a fencing system. Masiello is slightly comforted, however, that the two authors are already proposing a revised and corrected second edition of the treatise, for which he hopes his own observations might serve some use to them. Just as Pecoraro and Pessina had asked their detractors to withhold judgement on their treatise before reading it, Masiello now asks them to wait for his imminent publication, in which he will expand upon all his gripes and grievances regarding their method. Through this more detailed response, Masiello hopes that they might reconsider their view of him as being simply a 'detractor' and take his observations to heart for the benefit of their method, and not simply in a literary sense.

In the next post we will be focusing on this long-awaited, expansive critique from Masiello.

*******

1 For more biographical information on Pagliuca, see Sebastian Seager, "Radaelli Under Fire: Giovanni Pagliuca," Radaellian Scholar (blog), 18 April 2023, https://radaellianscholar.blogspot.com/2023/04/radaelli-under-fire-giovanni-pagliuca.html.^↩
2 Translator's Note: This tongue-in-cheek remark is a reference to the opening line of Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy: 'Midway upon the journey of our life ...'.^↩
3 Reproduced in Ferdinando Masiello, La Scherma di Sciabola: osservazioni sul Trattato dei Maestri Pecoraro e Pessina Vice-Direttori della Scuola Magistrale militare di Scherma (Florence: G. Ramella, 1910), 23–4^↩
4 Ferdinando Masiello, "Polemiche schermistiche: Una lettera del M.° Masiello," La Nazione, 27 October 1910, 2.^↩