The 1881 Naples Gymnastics Congress (Part 1)

The annual congresses of the Italian Gymnastics Federation were important events in the rise of Radaellian fencing during the 1870s. It was at these congresses that the first public fencing competitions of modern Italy took place, and where the cream of the first-generation Radaellians like Giuseppe Ronga, Salvatore Pecoraro, Ferdinando Masiello had their first victories on the piste. By defeating fencers of more traditional and established schools, they helped spread the notoriety of Radaelli's school beyond the Italian military and into the public sphere. Additionally, the repeated successes of the military masters at these congresses served as a significant counterpoint to Radaelli's critics, who mainly had to appeal to theoretical arguments and cherry-picked anecdotes to demonstrate the flaws in his fencing system.

But these victories were not enough, at least not by 1881. At the 9th Italian Gymnastics Congress in Naples a graduate of Radaelli's school secured the top prize in the sabre pool, and yet the reputation of the Radaellians emerged from the congress in worse shape than ever. Less than three years later the Milan Fencing Master's School would be closed and the Radaellians left dismayed and leaderless. This short series of articles will explore not only what transpired at the 1881 congress, but also how these events were perceived by the fencing-literate public and how this perception was quickly capitalised on by the supporters of the Neapolitan school of fencing.

***

While the Naples Congress of 1881 is a significant event in Radaellian history, the year also marked the end of Italian fencing's reliance on the gymnastics congresses. Two primary causes for this can be observed. The first is a sudden loss of momentum in the congresses. After the 8th gymnastics congress in 1877, the next had to be delayed several times due in part to poor organisation within the national federation.¹ Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the Milan International Fencing Tournament held in the summer of 1881 was widely considered a rousing success (despite some controversy), proving that competitive fencing could attract enough attention on its own without relying on the much larger and more mature gymnastics scene. Fencing and gymnastics competitions were occasionally featured alongside each other after 1881, but the most anticipated events for the former were, from this point on, dedicated tournaments.

Despite repeated deferrals, the 9th Italian Gymnastics Congress did eventually go ahead in the autumn of 1881, starting on 25 September and concluding on 2 October. In addition to fencing, the Naples congress featured competitions in gymnastics, target shooting, and rowing. While all these were taking place, a 'didactic exhibition' was on display in one of the venue's halls, showing off new gymnastics apparatuses as well as published and unpublished writings on topics relating to gymnastics and physical education. Dozens of prizes donated by the government, sporting clubs and wealthy individuals were allocated for the winners of all the competitions and for the best works of the didactic exhibition. A total of 945 registrations were reported for the congress, with 402 of those for the various competitions, noting that this included some overlap between competitions. The fencing tournament received 75 registrations for foil and 55 for sabre.²

At midday on 25 September the 9th Italian Gymnastics Congress was officially inaugurated in the Palazzo Spinelli di Tarsia, which was then the site of both the Royal Technical Institute (a secondary school) and the Royal Institute of Encouragement, a scientific institute. After several long speeches on the state of physical education in Italy, the congress attendees voted on the composition of the various juries which would be overseeing the competitions. The resulting fencing jury was composed of the following people:

Mario Del Tufo (President)	Luigi Cosenz (Secretary)
Cesare Parrini (Speaker)	Guglielmo De Sauget
Cesare Guarrasci	Giacomo Massei
Gioacchino Granito, Prince of Belmonte	Benedetto Emanuele di San Giuseppe
Ottavio Anzani	Emilio Conti
Domenico Cariolato	Achille Parise
Giuseppe Perez	Achille Angelini
Vittorio Février	Ernesto Dias
Leopoldo Notarbartolo Sciara	Eugenio Michelozzi-Giacomini
Cesare Gaeta	Cesare Enrichetti

Juries had been generator of controversy in previous fencing competitions, and they would continue to be so for many years to come. The Naples Congress was no different in this respect, and the location of the event should give no surprise as to why that is. The composition of this particular jury would have likely been very intimidating for the Radaellian attendees, as it was positively bursting with characters who were known to be particularly hostile towards the Milan Master's School. Achille Angelini and Giuseppe Perez were both very publicly opposed to Radaelli's teachings, while the Prince of Belmonte and Domenico Cariolato had very recently co-authored the report on the 1881 Milan International Tournament, which was similarly disparaging towards the Radaellians and their method. Enrichettian competitors may have take some comfort in the presence of their revered master on the jury, but the Neapolitan camp could be extra confident with the formidable local masters Mario Del Tufo, Giacomo Massei, and Achille Parise on the bench alongside Enrichetti.

The needle swings even further in favour of the Neapolitans when the other, less recognisable members of the jury are scrutinised. Ernesto Dias and Vittorio Février (/Févrié) are notable for having escalated the main controversy at the 1881 Milan Tournament. Dias and Février were the first members of the jury to resign in protest after the vote to decide who would receive the prize for 'best fencer of the tournament' came out in favour of the Radaellian master Salvatore Arista, rather than the Neapolitan favourite Ottavio Anzani. Fellow jurors Cariolato, Belmonte, and Emilio Conti then resigned in solidarity with Dias and Février, forcing the Radaellian camp to make a compromise and award a 'best fencer' prize to both Arista and Anzani.³

Emilio Conti of Milan had once been a fencer of the mixed school, but in the late-1870s he became a fervent advocate for the Neapolitan school and a valuable northern ally in the anti-Radaellian camp.⁴ Ottavio Anzani, Luigi Cosenz, and Benedetto di San Giuseppe were all well-known amateur fencers of the Neapolitan school, and had studied under the likes of Massei, Del Tufo, and the Parises.⁵ As secretary of the entire congress, Cosenz was also responsible for compiling the official report, which will be referenced liberally throughout this series of articles. He was hardly an impartial observer of everything that took place here, and we will see him taking full advantage of his position to advance the views of the Neapolitan camp in the report's concluding remarks.

Finally, Eugenio Michelozzi-Giacomini had authored an article, published in the prominent Florentine newspaper Gazzetta d'Italia, on the 1881 Milan Tournament which took a similar position as Cariolato and Belmonte's report. He took no issue with the jury giving equal praise to Arista and Anzani, but was dismayed to see that 'the majority of masters who swarm like mushrooms from regimental schools are very far from resembling them' in elegance and correctness. Michelozzi felt that the tournament reflected poorly on the state of fencing in Italy, where 'the art of good fencing still exists ... but unfortunately in few masters.' The mixed school of foil, such as the system taught by Radaelli, with all its ill-suited French importations, had to be totally abandoned in favour of the traditional Italian school so as to preserve Italy's fencing primacy.⁶

Returning now to Naples, I shall leave the topic of the 1881 congress' fencing competitions to the second part of this series. Here I will instead focus on another of the events which took place during the congress: the general assembly. As is typical of congresses, the Naples Gymnastics Congress was also an opportunity for attendees to witness formal discussions on various topics relating to physical education in Italy. Most of these discussions were concerned with gymnastics and the organisation of the National Gymnastics Federation, but at the second general assembly of the congress, held on 27 September, the discussion was immediately dominated by the anti-Radaellian elements of the presiding bench, with predictable results.

The assembly was opened at 9 pm by the mayor of Naples and the congress' president, Girolamo Giusso, joined at the bench by Mario Del Tufo, Eugenio Michelozzi-Giacomini, Antonio Paternostro, Giuseppe Perez, Benedetto di San Giuseppe, Cesare Parrini, Achille Angelini, and Luigi Cosenz. The secretary began by reading several letters of blessing and encouragement for the congress, one of which was from Ferdinando Masiello, who was

Very sad to be unable to attend the fencing-gymnastics congress in person, like always, since I am gravely ill, my thoughts will be with you. I send my heartfelt greetings to the presidency and all attendees, rising from the end of my bed, crying long live the King, long live Italy, house of Savoy!⁷

After the letter readings, the evening's discussion at last commenced with a proposal from the fencing jury. Below is the full translation of the official minutes for the discussion, which lasted for two hours.

President: Takes his leave, asking Cav. Parrini to assume the presidency.

Parrini: Assumes the presidency. He then reads a formulation by the jury regarding fencing methods, which he submits for the appreciation of the congress attendees, to adopt a national method, asking them to declare a method which they consider the best and to also make a decision as to if changes should be made to it, and that they above all adhere to what is truly Italian.

He adds: from this 9th congress, which is based in a city which has truly Italian traditions, it is desired that nothing be imported from other methods, and that the government take to heart and give encouragement to this Italian art of defence.

He talks about a booklet by General Angelini, on the handling of the sabre, in opposition to the Radaelli method.⁸

Angelini: Regarding the booklet which I took the liberty of submitting to the consideration of the congress, it is certainly painful for me to recall having seen our Minister of War, without plausible or justifiable reasons, substitute the glorious Italian School with a system which I know was not adopted in any civilian or military school of other nations, and which we here have condemned by public opinion, as shown by the booklets and many newspapers which I am ready to place on the bench of the presidency.

The orator also mentions the criticisms made of the same system by the colonels Gnecco and Doux, as well as by Professor Perez; these distinguished gentlemen renounced the efficacy of the Radaelli school with irrefutable arguments.

He concludes by voting that the system in question be abolished and the classical Italian school be adopted; that the Fencing Master's School be organised differently, it being impossible to provide the army—from men who have already been trained and who lack time—with good sword fencers and much less so masters in the instruction which requires, aside from natural dispositions, years and not months.

Draghicchio: Makes a point of order, while noting that the matter at hand is interesting for connoisseurs of fencing, he wishes for the discussion to only be had by qualified people, so that unqualified individuals are not counted in the vote.

President: Points out that separate assemblies cannot be formed. He believes that, by establishing principles, everyone can vote. He asks Prof. Draghicchio to desist from his point of order and let the discussion continue. He adds, for greater clarity, that the discussion could not be limited to fencers, because it would make a tournament with parties, which would certainly be missing in a general vote.

Draghicchio: Notes that by limiting the discussion to experts the votes would be genuine.

President: We are not looking for a vote, but a broad discussion which may inform government leaders, so that this forgotten art may grow.

Draghicchio: Withdraws his motion.

President: Thanks Prof. Draghicchio, also on behalf of the assembly. He then reads out a few chapters of General Angelini's booklet.

Perez: Talks broadly about the sabre, percussive blows, the various movements of the hand, and elasticity of the body.

Campanella (captain): Does not oppose what Perez said, but points out that the Radaelli system, with regard to the sabre, does indeed avoid percussive blows. Regarding Angelini’s booklet, he would like to read it in order to discuss it.

He adds: since it is a very important vote, he does not want it to be done by surprise, but that all congress attendees have an understanding.

President: Had not wanted to read the booklet so as to not distract the assembly; he now asks to attentively follow the reading of it which the secretary will give.

Cosenz: (Reads a few pages from Angelini's booklet)

Michelozzi: Supports Angelini’s opinion regarding the Master's School to be founded in Italy, having a single method and abolishing the many which exist.

He adds: the Italian school is the first to have had supremacy everywhere; I have seen with pain that the old Italian art has been abandoned, something which does not allow many, who do not know its rules, to imagine it.

He proposes that the art of fencing abandons the new systems and that a single fencing school be established.

In this regard, he talks about the old fencing and its fundamental movements, the stability of the guard, the hand, etc.

The old traditions are now abandoned and the new systems make masters in a few months; this is impossible, no matter how much aptitude they may have. He adds that they are taught with false methods, and urges the assembly to heed this, voting so that the government leaders take action.

Belmonte: Presents the following order of the day:

'Given the advantages which can come to the Italian youth from the union of all gymnastics societies;

'Given the harm which the Radaelli system causes to fencing:

'The assembly fully rejects the Radaelli system and votes so that, together with all the Italian gymnastic forces united, they are united and combined with all fencing societies in which the old system of Italian fencing is kept pure, in order to form a grand federation which unites all the willing Italian youth into a single group.'

President: Notes that Belmonte's order of the day, although it differs in form from the present discussion, also adheres in substance to the matter at hand. He puts it to a vote.

Cariolato: Presents the following order of the day:

'Having considered the conditions in which the teaching of fencing in the army finds itself;

'Considering that Maestro Radaelli's system does not correspond to the true needs of the army and arms enthusiasts;

'Considering that the distinct personal qualities of the army's masters would have been such foundations as to make the most formidable fencers out of them, if they had been given scientific and not empirical instruction:

'The assembly votes, for the good of the art and the fatherland, that the government substitute the empirical teaching of the Master's School with scientific teaching, and proceeds to the order of the day.'

Ettari: Asks for clarification about the seat of the Fencing Federation.

President: Notes that with the order of the day not having been voted on, the seat of the Federation cannot be defined.

Ettari: Wants this to be discussed after the order the day, if it is approved.

President: Adds that everything will be done.

Ettari: Wishes fencing and gymnastics to be united in the federation.

President: For his part, it is hoped that, in time, this proposal be accepted by the assembly.

Campanella: Wishes that the methods for the army be indicated in Cariolato's order of the day.

President: Notes that ministers do not pay attention to the votes of the congress; that they know how to evaluate everything; that any subjectivity must be removed; that the rest will come by itself.

Having then engaged in the discussion regarding the Prince of Belmonte's order of the day, he wished to declare that he, by attacking the Radaelli system, intends to allude to the written system, and not to those distinguished fencers who, although they call themselves Radaellians—because they came from the Master's School—do not put into practice the precepts of that system.

Campanella: Is convinced that the Radaelli sabre system has been good for the army, because today all soldiers and non-commissioned officers fence, unlike several years ago. He wishes that, in the same way in which the Radaelli system has been opposed, the sabre method intended to replace it is indicated, because he knows the existence of a sword method, i.e. the Italian, but he has not yet heard sabre being spoken about.

President: Does not wish for methods to be either mentioned or proposed.

Michelozzi: Demonstrates, with various arguments, that when the sword method is established, the sabre method will easily emerge.

Cariolato: Talks at length about the Radaelli school and the Cavalli school and gives the history of their foundation; demonstrates that before Radaelli there existed a sabre system with excellent masters and that there is no need to create one, because it already exists. Talks about the foundation of the Master's School, the direction of which was entrusted to Radaelli. He commends him for having brought development to fencing.

President: Shares, with the whole presidency, the praise bestowed on Radaelli, who has sought to throw greater light on an existing method; and that if he was wrong, he meant well and not to cause harm to the art. However, with this in mind, it is necessary to see if the light comes with a better method.

Perez: Wishes that fencing teachers be provided with licences, like all masters.

Belmonte: Asks that Cariolato's order of the day be put to a vote, because he withdraws his, saving it for another session.

President: Strongly recommends the Prince of Belmonte to not abandon the idea expressed in his order of the day.

Then Cariolato's order of the day is put to a vote, voting that this be combined with the federative concept expressed by Belmonte.

The Assembly approves by a majority vote.

The session is adjourned at 11 pm.

President                                    Secretary

  C. PARRINI                              L. COSENZ⁹

Just as they did in their report for the 1881 Milan tournament, Belmonte and Cariolato seize upon the opportunity to condemn the Radaelli school and declare the indisputable superiority of 'Italian' fencing. Many similarities are emerge when comparing the orders of the day they put forward in the Naples congress with their opinions regarding the Milan tournament, which can be summarised as follows:

1. The Milan tournament proved that the Neapolitan school and the Italian foil are indisputably superior to other methods;
2. The Radaelli sabre school can be considered acceptable after some minor changes;
3. The talents of young students at the Milan Fencing Master's School are being wasted on a flawed (foil) method;
4. Many leave the army soon after graduating and spread this flawed method throughout Italy;
5. The fencing societies of Milan and Turin call for the unification of Italian fencing;
6. Civilians are also besmirching the title of fencing master by claiming to be one without having had the proper training.¹⁰

Now in Naples, Cariolato and Belmonte are again claiming to speak on behalf of the collective, and indeed with such a friendly crowd they do seem to be in the majority. The term 'Italian' is once again weaponised to cast the Radaelli school as an un-Italian, corrupting influence on the nation's fencers. The Radaelli method is 'empirical', while the true, classical Italian school is 'scientific'. When Campanella rightly points out their equivocating around fencing methods, he objects that appealing to the 'Italian school' ignores sabre fencing and that no alternative sabre method had been proposed. Cariolato's vague reference to a pre-existing sabre school associated with Neapolitan master Licurgo Cavalli seems to have been enough to quell any further discussion on this point.

Stepping out into the public sphere, we see that press coverage on the gymnastics congress further illustrates how factional Italian fencing had become by this point, with several journalists voicing their outright approval for drastic fencing reform in the military. As we will see in part two of this series, in the days following this assembly the performance of the Radaellian contingent at the congress was often quite poorly perceived, which further reinforced the negative opinion of Radaelli's school expressed by the assembly.

The correspondents of the French newspaper L'Événement had no hesitation in displaying their anti-Radaellian bias before the congress had even begun. Writing on the evening before the congress' inauguration, the correspondent 'Fioretto' told readers that they had met Radaelli twice when visiting his hall in Milan, and that the master 'has never fenced'.¹¹ In this colourful diatribe, Radaelli is painted as some kind of charlatan who 'pretends to have invented a new system of fencing' and does not teach his students how to parry, so their only defence is to retreat. This particular criticism suggests the journalist's awareness of Achille Angelini's 1877 booklet, in which the author makes a very similar claim which was later repeated by others, such as the members of the 1883 fencing treatise commission.¹²

Even Radaelli's treatise is dismissed as a 'revolt against common sense', being composed by Del Frate due to the fact that Radaelli 'can neither speak nor write'. The journalist hoped that the new Minister of War, Emilio Ferrero, would heed the cries of Neapolitan fencers and strip Radaelli of his authority. In L'Événement's subsequent coverage of the congress, the correspondent 'Frantz' rejoiced at the assembly's order of the day, which they hoped would finally push the Minister of War into action. The Radaellian competitors, however, should not be criticised too harshly for their poor performance, as the current two-year fencing master's course was far too short and '[i]t is not their fault if the government forces them to study with Redaelli, who knows fencing as well as I do the Qur'an.'¹³

In stark contrast to this coverage, the (evidently bored) correspondent of Rome's Fanfulla was quite dismissive of the debate at the assembly on 27 September despite their apparent sympathy for the Neapolitan school:

Utility of congresses. Assembly. Order of the day: the best Italian fencing school. General Angelini favours Neapolitan; congress attendees idem. Me too. A member asks that it clearly state in the order of the day which sabre system the congress prefers. Is there an Italian system? So many masters, so many systems. The Radaelli system is discussed. What standard should the ministry of war have for military schools? Memorable response from the federal secretary Parrini: 'The ministry will pay not attention to our order of the day'. They should hold a congress of congresses to deliberate the utility of congresses.¹⁴

Nicola Lazzaro in Milan's Illustrazione Italiana is also sympathetic towards the Neapolitan school while simultaneously dismissive about the usefulness of the congresses. Indeed he even goes so far as calling the Naples congress harmful, as the orders of the day expressed by the assemblies 'create dualism and antagonism which was necessary to avoid in the interest of everyone', even if the substance of their conclusions were worthy of consideration. This was typified for Lazzaro by the discussion regarding the Radaelli school. While this school's flaws could not be ignored, the 'so-called Italian or more truly the southern' school also cannot not be passed off as infallible, even if it were superior to the former.

So there are flaws in our school and there are flaws in the Radaelli school; instead of pointing the finger at them, wouldn't it have been better to try and take what little good they have?¹⁵

Yet not all reporting on the congress shared the jury's anti-Radaellian inclination. In its short remark on the assembly discussion, L'Indipendente of Trieste observed that the Radaelli system was 'fiercely contested and bravely supported by two parties'.¹⁶ The typically pro-Radaellian newspaper Il Secolo of Milan was much more explicit, quoting the assembly's order of the day in full and then dismissing it outright:

To this vote we must add two observations. It was issued by a congress being held in the central city of the school opposing Redaelli's; and the Redaellians did not want to go to this congress because they already know that matters were predisposed to issue a vote opposed to the Milanese school.
As for changing the army's teachings, we must recall that it is not at all likely, because the Redaelli school was chosen after long experience and debate.
The consequence is obvious: the Neapolitans and the Milanese will continue to teach fencing according to their respective systems and to have champions in both.¹⁷

Antagonism between the two camps remained strong over the next decade and a half, showing much truth behind this prediction. What the journalist in Il Secolo may not have predicted, however, is the reversal of fortunes between the two camps that would take place in the coming years.

In part two we will see how the results of the fencing competitions bolstered the Neapolitan narrative of a rogue school in Milan harming the reputation of true Italian fencing through its lax standards and defective teachings. Yet even amongst this sea of damning judgements, the Radaellians still managed to emerge with at least one victory.

*******

1 Luigi Cosenz, Il IX congresso ginnastico italiano in Napoli (Naples: Francesco Giannini, 1881), 3–16.^↩
2 Cosenz, Il IX congresso ginnastico, 17–8.^↩
3 Domenico Cariolato and Gioacchino Granito, Relazione del torneo internazionale di scherma tenuto in Milano nel giugno 1881 (Naples: Tipi Ferrante, 1881), 133–5.^↩
4 "Emilio Conti," Lo Sport Italico, 13 May 1894.^↩
5 "Il barone Ottavio Anzani," Lo Sport Italico, 13 May 1894; "Maestri e dilettanti," Lo Sport Italico, 12 July 1894; "Benedetto Emanuele Barone di San Giuseppe," Lo Sport Italico, 6 May 1894.^↩
6 Eugenio Michelozzi Giacomini, "Sport," Gazzetta d'Italia, 11 June 1881, 3.^↩
7 Cosenz, Il IX congresso ginnastico, 44.^↩
8 Translator's Note: The booklet in question is Achille Angelini, Osservazioni sul maneggio della sciabola secondo il metodo Redaelli (Florence: Tipi dell'Arte della Stampa, 1877). A full translation of this booklet can be found here.^↩
9 Cosenz, Il IX congresso ginnastico, 46–51.^↩
10 Cariolato & Granito, Relazione del torneo internazionale di scherma, 147–8.^↩
11 Fioretto, "Lettres de Naples," L'Événement, 27 September 1881, 2.^↩
12 Angelini, Osservazioni sul maneggio, 35–7; Paulo Fambri, "Relazione" in 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), xxiii.^↩
13 Frantz, "Le grand congrès d'escrime de Naples," L'Événement, 6 October 1881, 2.^↩
14 Picche, "Il congresso ginnastico," Fanfulla, 2 October 18881, 1–2.^↩
15 Nicola Lazzaro, "Il congresso ginnastico," L'Illustrazione Italiana, 23 October 1881, 263–4.^↩
16 "IX congresso ginnastico," L'Indipendente, 2 October 1881, 3.^↩
17 "La scuola milanese di scherma," Il Secolo, 1 October 1881, 3.^↩

In Defence of a Dead Man by Jacopo Gelli

It has been quite some time since this blog has consulted the opinions of the prolific Radaellian crusader Jacopo Gelli. As someone with fierce convictions in several topics, it is natural that many would in turn also have strong opinions of him, both positive and negative; regardless of how one may feel about him, however, it is hard to deny that he commanded a large audience in the period, and his writings are at least entertaining to read. Nowhere else is this latter fact more true than for the booklet featured here today, his 1894 work In difesa di un morto; ovvero agonia del metodo ufficiale ('In defence of a dead man; or agony of the official method').

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

The 'dead man' in question is, of course, none other than Giuseppe Radaelli, whom Gelli has once again stood up to defend in the face of what he feels are false and unfair personal insults towards the late master. Gelli's primary accusation is that Parise and the Rome Master's School of appropriating Radaelli's method by teaching it at the school but passing it off as Parise's work. In addition, he maintains that despite the recent reforms to the cavalry regulations, many high-ranking military personnel are in full support of Gelli's condemnations of Parise's method and reforms.

Very little of what Gelli touches on in this booklet will be new to readers, as many of his talking points appear in his previous publications; however, what does make this particular booklet interesting is that he makes ample use of personal testimonies from third parties. Although most of the names are withheld (unsurprising given the damning accusations being made), Gelli quotes current and former instructors of the Master's School to prove that sabre fencing is not being taught there as per Parise's treatise, and quotes several letters he had received from various amateurs, fencing masters, and military officers voicing their support for Gelli's arguments.

But perhaps the most damning testimony of all is one of the few that is not anonymous. Following the publication of Resurrectio, Gelli received a letter from Achille Angelini complaining that he was being unfairly targeted by Gelli and other Radaellians for approving Parise's treatise through the famous government Commission from 1883, over which Angelini presided. In his defence he maintains that while he was very favourable towards the section on the sword, he did not approve of the sabre material, going so far to call it a 'negation of God'. Although subsequently pressured by the rest of the Commission to give a positive score to both the sword and sabre sections, Angelini claims to have sent a separate report of his own, along with the official Commission report by Fambri, in which he gave his true thoughts on Parise's sabre method. This letter was apparently ignored, and was supposedly not even read by anyone at the Ministry.

To further support all this damning evidence, Gelli quotes liberally from another colourful writer we have encountered previously: the Neapolitan journalist Enrico Casella. Gelli sees in Casella a valuable ally with an 'impartial' voice of criticism for Parise, being a Neapolitan and an old associate of the Parise family. No doubt his favourable opinions of the Radaellians are also very welcome on Gelli's part.

After briefly going over the large amount of money spent in maintaining the Rome Master's School in comparison to its previous iterations, Gelli finishes his work with an ultimatum addressed squarely at Masaniello Parise: either admit that Radaelli's method is taught at the Master's School and cease appropriating his teachings, or prepare to be sued in court by Gelli himself for unlawful use of Radaelli's intellectual property. It should not be too surprising to know that Parise never did respond to Gelli, nor am I aware of any court case involving the two.

Gelli's campaign in support of Radaellian fencing did not end with this booklet, but it was certainly the last publication of any kind by him that focused solely on attacking Parise and his school in the name of Radaellian fencing. His efforts to reframe the evolution of fencing centred on Bologna and northern Italy (opposing the ideas of Neapolitan fencing being a continuation of Italy's oldest traditions) continued to appear in his magazine articles on fencing and his 1906 book L'Arte dell'Armi in Italia, but In defence of a dead man would end up being Gelli's final pitched battle in the war for Radaellian redemption, a fight which was still carried on in many ways by his companions for decades to come.

Radaelli Under Fire: Masiello's Final Word

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

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

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

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

---

Mister director,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FERDINANDO MASIELLO

Fencing master at the Turin military academy

*******

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

Radaelli Under Fire: Masiello on Defence

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

Although Angelini's critique did not manage to foment radical reform of the army's fencing instruction, it did not go unnoticed within the fencing community. After many months had passed since its publication, one Radaellian at last decided that Angelini's affront could not remain completely unanswered. On the 19th of January 1878 in the military newspaper L'Italia Militare, it was Ferdinando Masiello who first stepped up to the plate to defend Radaelli's school.¹

Masiello was not yet the vocal and fervent critic of the modern Neapolitan school that he would be known as starting in the late 1880s, but by 1878 he was already a well-regarded competitor and teacher as well as someone who had only learnt and been won over by the Radaellian method less than two years prior. His broad experience and professional achievements thus made him the ideal public spokesman for Radaelli's school.

In the article below, Masiello gives an overview of his professional background and how he came to be eventually convinced of the superiority of Radaelli's sabre method. He gives little in the way of refutation for Angelini's assertions, deeming them blatantly flawed and biased, but instead focuses on verifiable facts, with the genuine conviction of someone who had both witnessed and played a part in the school's achievements.

---

The Radaelli sabre fencing system

Mr. Achille Angelini (a retired general) has just published a work entitled Observations on the handling of the sabre according to the Radaelli method, where he censures said method and the relative regulation instruction.

Overall, General Angelini's work includes many of the observations on the subject which were published in 1876 in the newspaper l'Esercito by Lieutenant colonel Doux of the Piacenza cavalry regiment, which Captain Del Frate responded to with as many articles published in the newspaper l'Italia Militare, as well as part of the observations also published on the same topic in 1877 by Colonel Gnecco, and to which responded Colonel Costa-Reghini of the Novara cavalry, Colonel Rodriguez of the Monferrato cavalry regiment, and fencing master Paolo Cornaglia.

So, I will not abuse the kindness of those who are interested in the matter in question by refuting the cited work again and directly, because I would only be repeating arguments and facts already explained in a clearer and more convincing manner by other talented experts and partisans of the Radaelli fencing method.

However, since I have the fortune of deeply understanding the aforementioned school of fencing and thus have a profound conviction that it marks true progress in fencing, in general and mainly for sabre, in homage to the truth I feel obliged to seize the favourable opportunity of the publication of the work in question in order to express my appreciations in favour of the Radaelli school.

So that my convictions and my remarks may be more suitably appreciated, it is necessary that I start by saying that I was born in the southern provinces and I have attended the best schools of Neapolitan fencing; I have formed my own particular fencing system suggested to me, so to speak, by the instinct which directed me to the study of this favourite art of mine; I am a non-commissioned officer in our army, having done a regulation fencing course at the Parma school, graduating first in my course and then staying there for a year as a master teacher;² I have done a year-long course at the Milan fencing master's school (Radaelli method) when the ministerial order was made that every fencing master who wished to continue in the same position had to learn the new Radaelli system; I had the fortune a few months ago to achieve a promotion by selection to civil fencing master in the army; I have competed in the fencing competitions in almost all the gymnastic congresses held in our country with the good luck of always achieving first prizes; finally, I too was an opponent of the fencing method in question when I did not understand it or had an inexact and incomplete idea of it.

Therefore my convictions on the excellence of the Radaelli fencing system were born from the theoretical and practical study I did of the system and from the full agreement which I found between my ideas on fencing with the fundamental principles of the above-mentioned school, and primarily on the method of using the articulations of the arm and hand to be able to move the blade and direct it with greater force, precision, and flexibility. It was during the year of my course at the Milan school that I realised that I have always instinctively followed the same fencing principles as the Radaelli school; it was there that I found said principles ordered into a perfect system. Proof of this is the fact that as I myself saw that Radaelli's students were instructed according to my principles, so too Radaelli himself had to ask me who had taught me his system, because I fenced exactly like his best students.

My convictions were again born from the fact of having seen for myself the brilliant results which the new fencing system yielded with the students of the aforementioned master's school, in which excellent instructors and strong and brilliant fencers were and still are produced.

I could also be mistaken, but I consider that all those who strive to fight the Radaelli fencing system cannot help but fall into erroneous remarks and judgements, both because they wish to fight a school and a teaching method which they do not know or know too imperfectly both theoretically and practically, and because—perhaps even with the intention of making a conscientious opposition—they do not realise that their spirit is overwhelmed by preconceived ideas which do not allow them to see the truth and primarily by a certain feeling of pride, offended by the fact that a new school is replacing the old and with this also the merit of its followers.

In fact, General Angelini expresses the above-mentioned sentiments without reticence, openly stating that he and his friends of the old school are worried and disturbed by the idea that the Radaelli school may shortly have prevalence over all others.

In this regard it seems obvious to me to note: if the lively opposition from the opponents of said school was made solely with the good of the country in mind and not through individual interest and pride, how can the idea of its growth worry them? Or the school I support is based on false and irrational principles, as Angelini's work claims, and then there is no doubt that it will fall on its own, because nothing can resist without solid foundations; or, on the contrary, the school is based on wise principles and fruitful with excellent results, and so then why should its growth be worrying if this fact can only be considered an advantage and a new glory for our country?

So, in my opinion, as long as the opponents of the Radaelli school are improperly informed both practically and theoretically about the system which they try to fight, and as long as they do not shed those prejudices which are the prime enemies of progress, not only must they be considered incompetent judges, but indeed in my opinion they will always be, I repeat, powerless to achieve their desired goal.

Angelini's work tries to prove primarily that the sabre fencing principles of the Radaelli system are erroneous both for sabre fencing properly speaking and for the handling of the sabre on horseback, and additionally also the rules written in the fencing text for the relative teaching. Nevertheless, with these principles and with these rules, sabre fencers emerge from the Milan master's school who are so powerful that they do not fear opponents of any school and who always voluntarily accept any noble fencing competition; who achieve first prizes in gymnastic congresses; who are very talented instructors; who earn the public's favour not only through their skill, but through the pleasant and brilliant manner in which they fence; who are praised unreservedly even by the same best masters of the old school; who wield the sabre on horseback in an admirable manner and who, in short, give all the most convincing factual evidence that the Radaelli school of fencing and its written rules are fruitful with the best possible results; finally, the Radaelli school of fencing, so criticised by General Angelini, was awarded with a 1st grade gold medal at the 8th gymnastics congress precisely due to the number and talent of its students taking part in the fencing competition at the congress, where the two first prizes both in sword and sabre were awarded to two students of the school in question.

Nor will I dwell longer on a subject which I believe has already been talked about enough and perhaps even too much; I will permit myself only to add that today, to fight the school in question, it seems to me that the sole suitable weapon can only be that of presenting another fencing school that is better than that which one is trying to demolish, both in its principles and in its teaching method, as well as its results. This alone would be in my opinion the best, the most noble, and the most beneficial opposition, without fear of being accused as an enemy of progress and its benefits.

In principle the Radaelli school of fencing marks a true progression in the field of fencing, and Radaellian sabre fencing is in my judgement not only the best I know of, but it is unique in its merits and in its results, and there is no other that compares to it.

The teaching method of Maestro Radaelli has an essential quality of not only making talented fencers, but also very skilled instructors. The instructional text for the system in question written by Captain Del Frate fits so well into the spirit of teaching and the ideas are so well-developed and ordered that it is to be considered an excellent guide for those who wish to educate themselves in the fencing system it propagates, and it was quite rightly awarded with the highest-honour gold medal at the 7th gymnastics congress in Rome.

This explicit declaration of mine in favour of the Radaelli fencing school can be accepted by all as a homage to the truth, and I am very fortunate to be able to enter into ranks of those who, with their common sense, their work and noble constancy, are powerfully influencing the development of this school which, I repeat, is a true progression in the noble art of fencing.

FERDINANDO MASIELLO

Fencing master at the Turin military academy

*******

1 Ferdinando Masiello, "La scherma di sciabola sistema Redaelli," l'Italia militare: giornale delle armi di terra e di mare, 19 January 1878, 3.^↩
2 TN: 'maestro insegnante', i.e. a master who trains other masters.^↩

Radaelli Under Fire: Achille Angelini

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

The Radaellian method had several high-profile opponents in its heyday, and even among them General Achille Angelini was a particularly tenacious one. Veteran of all three Italian Wars of Independence, friend and aide-de-camp of King Vittorio Emanuele II, and notable duellist, by the 1870s Angelini had lived remarkable life. Known for his temerity and unshakeable patriotism, the 'cavalier without fear' made many friends and enemies throughout his long career, with the use of arms in all contexts being being a recurring topic in his work.¹ The first booklet in this series we will be looking at was written by Angelini, published in 1877 under the title Observations on the handling of the sabre according to the Radaelli method [Osservazioni sul maneggio della sciabola secondo il metodo Redaelli].

***Click here to read***

The scans of the original book can be found here through the Corble Collection at KU Leuven, along with hundreds of other rare fencing-related texts.

Focusing solely on sabre, Angelini’s booklet would quickly become the most widely cited critique on Radaelli's system, and was the only one cited in the 1884 report on the notorious anti-Radaellian fencing treatise commission, which was also chaired by Angelini himself. Comparing said report with this booklet, it is clear how much the views of the rest of the commission were influenced by Angelini's writing, as seen in their statement that Radaelli's system teaches to grip the sabre 'with great an incessant force', a prescription entirely fabricated by Angelini.²

Although Angelini states at the beginning that he had read Del Frate's 1876 book on Radaelli's system, Istruzione per la scherma di sciabola e di spada, he makes it clear that he did not consider the differences between this book and the 1868 version to be significant, and as such most of his quotes are taken from the earlier edition. In addition to citing Del Frate's book, Angelini also directs criticism at material taken from the 1873 cavalry regulations, which contain a cavalry-focused adaptation of Radaelli's method. It is unclear whether or not Radaelli was involved in writing these regulations (although Angelini takes it for granted that he was), but that did not prevent Angelini from giving him the blame for all the faults he finds in them, including criticisms for techniques and advice—such as the sweeping semi-circular parries and the maxim to focus on attacking rather than defending—which can be found in much earlier (pre-Radaellian) versions of the regulations, such as the 1853 Piedmontese cavalry instructions.

In addition to writing a very popular duelling code in 1883, Angelini would later resume the offensive against Radaellian fencing after reading Masiello's 1887 treatise, in which the author vehemently denounces the treatise competition and the modern Neapolitan school as represented in Masaniello Parise. When Angelini states at the end of his 1877 booklet that the only thing that would convince him to change his mind is arguments from Radaellians based on 'defined mathematical rules', as he professes to have given (a desire echoed by other critics of Radaelli), this may have influenced the way Masiello would later write his own treatise, which contains numerous mathematical discussions to justify his particular brand of Radaellian fencing. Judging by the statements in Angelini's second booklet, however, he did not find Masiello's proofs sufficiently convincing. In this second critical work, entitled Final word on the revived Angelini-Masiello matter and published in 1888, Angelini felt compelled to respond to the denunciation of the commission he presided over by largely restating the points he made in his 1877 booklet, also adding a summary of Masiello's 'contradictions' of what is written in Del Frate's Radaellian texts.

That same year, prolific author Jacopo Gelli responded to this in turn with his own booklet, a point-by-point response to Angelini's critique written in a tone that could at times be described as exasperated, but is overall a good demonstration of how the issues Angelini described in Radaelli's sabre method were often based more off bad readings of outdated material rather than what was actually being taught at the time.

*****

1 A. M. Adamoli-Castiglioni Branda, Cenni biografici del generale Achille Angelini (Florence: Bernardo Seber Successore Loescher, 1900).^↩
2 Paulo Fambri, "Relazione," in 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), i–xxxv.^↩

Translation - Ultima Parola sulla Risorta Questione Angelini-Masiello by Achille Angelini

This latest translation is an essay by General Achille Angelini entitled Ultima Parole sulla Risorta Questione Angelini-Masiello intorno alla Scherma della Sciabola del Defunto Maestro Redaelli ('Final word on the revived Angelini-Masiello matter regarding the sabre fencing system of the late Maestro Radaelli'), which was published in 1888.

Click here to read it

Angelini claims he was spurred into writing this after reading Masiello's divisive introduction to his 1887 fencing treatise. In this introduction, Masiello heavily criticises the commission which replaced Radaelli's sabre method with that of Parise, and also justifies his undying support for the Radaelli's principles in spite of all this. Angelini himself states that a large number of arguments contained in this essay of his were taken straight from his 1877 booklet Osservazioni sul maneggio della sciabola secondo il metodo Radaelli ('Observations of the handling of the sabre according to the Radaelli method'), with some additions dealing with quotes from Masiello's 1887 treatise.

It is predominately this article that Jacopo Gelli is responding to in his booklet Resurrectio, where he takes apart all of Angelini's obtuse logic.

An interesting thing to note is that Angelini mentions various articles written in defence of Radaelli's system by Del Frate, Arista, Masiello and others in the journals l'Esercito italiano and l'Italia militare between 1876 and 1878.

Special thanks to Chris Holzman for providing me with the scans of this document.

Translation - Resurrectio by Jacopo Gelli

In the link below you will find my first draft of the translation of Jacopo Gelli's 1888 short book Resurrectio: Critica alle osservazioni sul maneggio della sciabola secondo il metodo Radaelli del Generale Achille Angelini, or in English, 'Critique of the observations on the handling of the sabre according to the Radaelli method by General Achille Angelini'.

Click here to read

This book by Gelli is a response to General Achille Angelini's 1877 book Osservazioni sul maneggio della sciabola secondo il metodo Radaelli ("Observations of the handling of the sabre according to the Radaelli method"). It also contains a response to another article of Angelini's, Ultima parola sulla risorta questione Angelini-masiello intorno alla scherma della sciabola del defunto Maestro Radaelli ('Final word on the revived Angelini-Masiello matter regarding the sabre fencing system of the late Maestro Radaelli'), written in 1888. For those of you who may find some of Gelli's references in this book confusing, I will now provide some context to this text, so that it may be better understood.

In 1884, after over a decade of Radaelli's sabre system being taught at the Scuola Magistrale in Milan, a commission was formed with the purpose of adopting a new fencing system for the spada and the sabre (both infantry and cavalry). At the head of this commission was Achille Angelini, a decorated general of the Royal Army and a keen fencer. Greater detail on this commission can be found in the report published in Parise's 1884 manual (see Holzman's The Roman-Neapolitan School of Fencing, 2015), but suffice it to say that Masaniello Parise's system replaced that of Radaelli in 1884, and the Scuola Magistrale was moved to Rome. Radaelli had died by that point, so the only people that were left to get outraged over this decision were Radaelli's loyal students and admirers, Jacopo Gelli being one of them.

Rewinding back to the year 1877, General Angelini studied Del Frate's 1868 manual (translation here) and wrote a book entitled Osservazioni sul maneggio della sciabola secondo il metodo Radaelli, which consisted of 47 pages of poor interpretations of Radaelli's system. It seems this text may have been referred to by the 1884 commission to help form their opinion on Radaelli's system (which, as you may have guessed, was less than favourable), no doubt through the strong influence of Angelini, who presided over said commission.

Returning to the year 1888, we find that many shots had been fired back and forth between Radaelli's supporters and his opponents in the meantime, most notably between Ferdinando Masiello and General Angelini. In an attempt to do be done with the debate, General Angelini published Ultima parola sulla risorta questione Angelini-masiello intorno alla scherma della sciabola del defunto Maestro Radaelli, which showed that Angelini had not changed his views on Radaelli's system, and that he still believed that which he wrote in his 1877 book to be true. Masiello published a short response to this, which Gelli included in a footnote in this text.