The 1891 Bologna Fencing Tournament

Since the first 'international' Italian fencing tournament in 1881, the frequency of fencing tournaments in Italy had grown steadily each year. In addition to the occasional large 'intentional' tournament, there were plenty of local, regional, and national tournaments and exhibitions, sometimes attracting hundreds of competitors, both amateur and fencing master alike.

The 1891 National Fencing Tournament in Bologna, hosted by the Virtus Society from the 3rd to 7th of May, attracted around 200 fencers from across Italy, including stars of the fencing world like Luigi Barbasetti, Grimoaldo Varrone, and Vittorio Tagliapietra.

Today I present to you a translation of the official tournament report, a transcription of the Italian text, and a few articles from the fencing magazine Scherma Italiana which discuss the results of the tournament and offer alternative points of view on events and on the comments of the jury.

For those who do not wish to read the full tournament report, see below for a summary of the tournament's format.

Translation: https://drive.google.com/open?id=19ee5TvwnKjZ8MbXT6Mn49Fis1MUM1R6K
Transcription: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qDZNrllydJLOdLIh7InSy1rO8shvWKqb
Supplementary articles: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1l1NUO3VAMYQQU3BAy4V3QVFFHZCpnKbH

In addition to providing us an excellent example of what Italian fencing tournaments were like towards the end of the 19th century, the tournament report also contains the results of a discussion amongst the jury on the future of Italian fencing, in which they express a number of technical concepts which they believe should form part of a unified 'Italian' fencing method. The desire for a unified Italian fencing method was shared by many in the Italian fencing community at this time, however, the criteria expressed by this jury are, somewhat unsurprisingly, favourable to the Northern Italian school, with one of the criteria for the sabre being particularly Radaellian:

weapon handled with a combination of all the articulations of the arm, however avoiding all movements of flexion of the wrist and only taking advantage of lateral movements. Weapon gripped by supporting the backstrap on the hypothenar eminence of the hand;

With five out of the twelve members of the jury being Radaellians (including the writer of the report), this shows that the opponents of Parise's method had still not given up trying to spread their influence throughout the fencing landscape.

Summary

Foil (known then as just 'sword' in Italy) and sabre were the two weapons categories at this tournament. Each event would take place for both weapons individually.

The first event of the tournament was the classification, in which each fencer would be paired up randomly (maestri paired with maestri, amateurs paired with amateurs) and then bout for 7 to 10 minutes. Touches were counted, but there was no limit to the number each fencer could receive within a bout. Fencers competing in both foil and sabre would have to be classified in both weapons individually.

After each classification bout, each fencer would receive a score out of 10 for 'efficacy', based on 'the prevailing force of one fencer over the other', and a score out of 10 for 'art', the judgement for which being based on:

... the guard positions, variety and rationality of actions, conservation of measure, speed of the attacks and ripostes, good timing, the conduct of the blade, composure, and urbanity of manners.

This would give each fencer a total score out of 20. Fencers who received a score between 15 and 20 points would be placed in the 1st category, between 10 and 15 in the 2nd category, and less than 10 in the 3rd category. Only those who were placed in the 1st and 2nd categories would be permitted to take part in the rest of the tournament's events.

Thus we see the importance the Italians placed on form, even in competitive environments. It was not enough to just score well to be considered an excellent fencer—one also had to show a complete a thorough understanding of the art, right down to its aesthetic ideals.

Following the classification were the 'pools', which were actually just  single-elimination tournaments. There were separate pools for each category and weapon and whether you were a maestro or an amateur. Each 'pool' bout was to the best of 5 touches. The winner of each pool would receive a monetary prize.

The final event was on the final night of the tournament, the Gala evening. This consisted of bouts between the 'best fencers of the tournament', who were the winners and runners-up of the pools and those who received the highest classification scores. These were exhibition-style bouts in which there was no winner, but touches were still awarded.

In all three of the events, competitors were obliged to acknowledge and indicate each touch they received. The field judge would then decide if the blow were valid or not. The valid target areas for both foil and sabre were essentially the same as their modern Olympic fencing counterparts.

There also seems to have been an implicit form of priority in awarding the touches in the case of a double:

Doubles will be calculated against the fencer who caused them contrary to the good rules of the art. The fencer who repeatedly doubles may also be declared out of the competition by the Jury. The common tempo [simultaneous attacks] repeated three times by the two fencers may place them immediately out of the competition.

Many treatises of this period discuss how to assign blame in the case of a double touch, and the judges would most certainly have been aware of the conventions used at the time, therefore more explicit rules on how to award the touch in a double would not have been necessary.

At the end of the Gala evening, the prizes were awarded. Aside from monetary prizes, there were also many items such as pocket watches and ornaments donated to the tournament organisers which were given as prizes to the best fencers.

The 1891 Fencing Exhibition in Trieste

I present to you here a translation of an article published on the 6th January 1891 in the Trieste newspaper L'Indipendente, reporting on a grand fencing exhibition in the city. The Radaellian maestro Poggio Vannucchi prominently featured at the event, but perhaps more interestingly was an exhibition bout between two fencers equipped with an Arista model sword. Arista first wrote about this unique weapon of his in the year prior, and the author of this article states that there had been a lot of talk about it ever since. The author correctly predicts, however, that it will not catch on in Italy.

The fencing exhibition at the Music Society. It is a peculiarity of Trieste. This tireless and strong worker, who amasses in its immense warehouses loads of hundreds of ships, who rings out its powerful arsenals of thousands of workers, who from morning to night witnesses the spectacle of the largest and most obstinate activity, Trieste always finds in its inexhaustible energy an impulse towards all that is the finest manifestation of social life.
Thus, for example, that complex of exercises which require strength and skill and are wreathed with a halo of elegance, all this, in a word, belongs to sport, which finds numerous and passionate enthusiasts in our city. First in line we have our strong Gymnastics, which spreads its activity in every field there is to increase strength and courage in the youth; we have numerous nautical clubs, two very active velocipedist associations, an elegant equestrian society, and a flourishing hunting circle; we have one of the most sophisticated societies in the country, in which the most noble art of fencing finds intelligent and tireless adoration.
The fencing society frequently opens its halls for shows, pools, and exhibitions; this time, with great thought, the diligent management requested and obtained by the courtesy of the Music Society the vast and beautiful hall of this association and offers to members of the two societies a perfectly successful show.
The honours of hosting had been done with exquisite kindness by the two managements; the audience, very numerous, presented the note of beauty and elegance with a splendid gathering of gentlemen and ladies, the note of intelligence in the matter with the people of the best of our fencing amateurs. We have also had the pleasure last night of shaking the hand of that formidable champion of the Neapolitan school that is Enrico Casella. The smarra was held with the grace and courtesy of a perfect gentleman by the vice-president of the fencing society, Mr. Emanuele Coen.
First to present themselves on the wide platform erected in the middle of the hall were maestro Garagnani and his young student M. Ascoli.
Greeted by lively applause, the maestro presented the young man in a sword lesson, which did justice to displaying both the excellent teaching method of one and the rare aptitudes of the other.
A sabre bout followed between the gentlemen Giuseppe Comas and Giuseppe Janesich. The former of a fully southern mobility, fast and lively in the attack, the latter firmly planted on guard, prompt and strong in the riposte.
A young fencer, full of promise, from his elegant and correct pose, Mr. Umberto Posar, was pitted in the sword against Mr. I. Salom, who also did his best. So much so that the bout received much applause.
We come now to one of the most important points of the program: the sword bout between the maestri Mari and Garagnani.
Mari is a fencer equipped with beautiful movements; tall, well planted on guard, he displayed beautiful straight thrusts on the opponent’s invitations. Maestro Garagnani asserted his profound knowledge of the art which, together with rapid and strong execution, emerged particularly in the parries and ripostes. The audience followed the beautiful bout with the most vivid interest and saluted the two maestri with prolonged applause.
After a musical piece, performed as an interlude, the second part commenced with a sword bout between Mr. N. Cozzi, equipped with extraordinary aptitudes and particularly a powerful leap, and Mr. Giuseppe Rovis, an elegant and correct fencer.
There was great applause. There was also great applause for the bout between Count. F. Sordina, a strong sabre fencer who has remarkable physical advantages, and Mr. Giuseppe Ianesich whom we spoke of earlier.
Welcomed with thunderous applause, the maestri Vannucchi and Angelini appeared on the piste.
Vannucchi is a fencer of marvellous speed, lively in the attack, sure in the riposte; in a word: a strong blade. Our Angelini fully confirmed his reputation as a skilful fencer, equipped with uncommon flexibility which allows him to lunge an absolutely surprising distance. The bout, performed by both with valour equal to the cavalry, was a great success.
Another musical interlude and then a bout by the gentlemen Ventura and Garavini with a unique weapon, the Arista model.
The unique weapon is a fencing application of the Verdian motto: Let’s turn to the past! It is a return to the past for technique and also for the form of the weapon, which resembles one of those powerful rapiers that Dante da Castiglione boldly wielded.
Much has been said in fencing circles, much was written in newspapers interested in this game regarding this unique weapon.
We are too great admirers of Salvatore Arista’s fencing ability to be able to declare ourselves absolutely adverse to a weapon that he finds good. However on the other hand we are too great friends of the truth to admit that with the unique weapon one can always do everything that one can do with the sword. It is also very natural, for physical reasons; in fact a flat blade will never offer that contact which the edges of a rectangular blade present, nor with this can one do the legamenti and changes as with a foil blade. Arista’s exceptionally powerful hand will certainly be able to overcome many of these difficulties; but will we find many who don’t know how to and cannot do the same?
That is the question; and since we do not hesitate to answer it in the negative sense, it seems to us that for this reason alone the unique weapon will not be able to become a weapon in general use.
In any case the audience’s interest was excited and the bout between the gentlemen Ventura and Garavini was met very favourably. Mainly they did sabre play, and both showed to be remarkably strong fencers. Ventura possesses firm fencing knowledge which manifests itself in a great variety of play and which makes a formidable fencer; he parries well and ripostes better. Garavini has a plastic and correct guard, a sudden energy and a powerful hand and arm which render his attacks difficult to mend.
The bout was greatly applauded. Mr. N. Cozzi was then introduced again onto the piste, measuring himself with the sword against the young student Mr. Minas, a fencer of magnificent disposition, agile and powerful, who promises to become an excellent blade.
The last two numbers of the program were of great interest.
Greeted by a standing ovation, our two distinguished and pleasant maestri Angelini and Garagnani were introduced and they performed a sabre bout displaying such energy and speed to truly arouse admiration. The blows were fast, sure, pressing, the parries solid and robust, the ripostes rapid.
We noted a stupendous traversone in tempo and a powerful arrest given by maestro Angelini; we admired a traversone thrown by maestro Garagnani with great speed, also carrying the sabre in a marvellous manner; also a beautiful thrust over.
At the conclusion of this bout the audience prolonged their applause in such a way that the two talented maestri had to present themselves again onto the piste and exchange a final blow.
To conclude the show was a beautiful and applaudable sabre bout between the maestri Vannucchi and Mari, who once again deployed all their beautiful fencing talents.
Mari, sturdy and plastic in his guard, struck with beautiful rising blows; Vannucchi, who carries the sabre in an astonishing way, performed the most difficult blows, passing, for example, from parry second, after having quickly signalled a feint to the face, to strike a traversone.
The two talented maestri may be certain of having left their best impression on the audience; and at the friendly banquet that followed the exhibition the bond of affection which united them with our fencers was tightened even more.
The banquet took place in a hall on the first floor of Restaurant Centrale; the champagne was raised in a warm toast to the three distinguished guests, Casella, Mari, and Vannucchi, to the Management of the Fencing Society, and to the prosperous future of the Society.
It was a truly friendly convention, full of life and vivacity; a pleasant and grateful memory for those who attended.

The 1881 Milan Fencing Tournament

By the late 19th century Northern Italy was experiencing somewhat of a resurgence of interest in the art of fencing, with Giuseppe Radaelli and his school in Milan playing a large part in this. With the city of Milan set to host an International Exhibition (basically a world's fair) in 1881, the Milan Fencing Society took the opportunity to promote Italian fencing on the world stage by holding an international fencing tournament, the first such tournament to be held in post-unification Italy. The tournament attracted the biggest names in Italian fencing at the time such as Salvatore Pecoraro, Masaniello and Eduardo Parise, Salvatore Arista, Giordano Rossi, Ottavio Anzani, Tommaso Cavallo, Gaetano Barraco, and many other distinguished gentlemen as competitors, judges, and spectators.

128 fencers took part in the tournament, yet only 12 of them were from outside of Italy. Of those international fencers, 8 were from France and 4 from Austria-Hungary. Due to it taking place in Milan (the location of Radaelli's fencing school), a large proportion of the fencers present were Radaellians. The tournament was held at the Castelli Theatre from the 6th-8th of June.

The tournament regulations, administrative proceedings, and discussions were published in Relazione del torneo internazionale di scherma tenuto in Milano nel giugno 1881 ("Report on the international fencing tournament held in Milan in June 1881") by Domenico Cariolato and Gioacchino Granito, who were both members of the tournament's jury. The scans of this book and my translation of it may be found below.

Translation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_9iviKiK9SnsZAhJTUSyvTUEY5hYH9IV/view?usp=sharing
Scans: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k3184008

Yellow highlighting indicates uncertainty in the translation, red highlighting shows where I am sure that the translation does not convey the proper meaning. Special thanks to Bibliothèque nationale de France for providing the scans.

Tournament Format

The tournament's judging and proceedings were run by a jury of between 13 and 18 members depending on the day. Half the members of the jury consisted of gentlemen elected by the tournament's organising committee, whilst the other half were gentlemen elected by the tournament's competitors.

Prior to the tournament, all competitors were required to undergo an examination, in which they would bout in front of the jury with another randomly assigned competitor in order to determine if they were skilled enough to attend the tournament and to place them into a category based on their fencing skill, with 1st Category fencers being the most skilled, and 3rd the least. Competitors were further divided into "Maestro" and "Amateur" categories, that is, whether they were professional fencing masters or amateur fencers.

The criteria by which competitors were judged were:

• Perfection of the guard
• Variation of invitations and attacks
• Speed of the riposte
• Preservation of measure
• Parrying with the weapon and with measure
• Knowledge of tempo
• Precision of all movements and courtesy of manners

It is interesting to note that only one of these criteria (that being "Speed of the riposte") could be said to be a somewhat athletic criterion. The other 6 seem to correspond more to artistic and aesthetic sensibilities.

The two weapons used at the tournament were the sabre and the sword (here referring to thrust-only fencing with various foils), with two different events for each weapon. The first event was the Exhibition (or Academy), which were exhibition bouts between fencers of the same category (using the same weapon). These bouts were a display of artistic skill, and points were not tallied for touches, therefore they had no singular winner.

The second event was what was called the Pool, however this was more in line with what a modern tournament would refer to as an Elimination event. Fencers of the same category (only 1st Category fencers were allowed to take part in the pool) would bout to a single touch, and the last remaining (untouched) fencer was the winner. The regulations state that the Pool was not intended to be a measure of objective skill, but rather luck. Nevertheless, a prize was awarded to the winners of the maestro sword pool and the maestro sabre pool.

As an interlude during the tournament's second day, the audience was also treated to a Mensur-style demonstration bout by two of the Austrian competitors, Johann Hartll and Felice Scheibler, the former being Maestro d'Armi at the Royal Court in Vienna.

Prizes

The top prize that was to be awarded at the tournament was "Best Fencer of the Tournament", who was the fencer that the jury felt best embodied the aforementioned criteria. Two medals were donated to the tournament, with the instructions that both be awarded to the "Best Fencer of the Tournament", yet the jury decided that it would be better to award them to two individuals. After a heated debate (see the following section "Controversy"), one medal was awarded to Salvatore Arista, champion of the Radaelli school, and the other to Baron Ottavio Anzani, an amateur Neapolitan fencing champion.

The fencers who took part in what the jury deemed to be the "best bouts" for each weapon were also awarded prizes. Winners could choose either 200 Lire or "a work of art of equal value". Prizes were awarded for the three best 1st Category sword bouts, the two best 1st Category sabre bouts, the best 2nd Category sword bout, and the best 2nd Category sabre bout.

Best 1st Category sword bouts: Ottavio Anzani and Masaniello Parise, Salvatore Arista and Giovanni Pagliuca, Paul Ruzé and Ottavio Anzani
Best 2nd Category sword bout: Salvatore Sirigatti and Carlo Guasti
Best 1st Category sabre bouts: Salvatore Arista and Gaetano Barraco, Giordano Rossi and Salvatore Pecoraro
Best 2nd Category sabre bout: Cristofaro Locascio and Giovanni Cavanna

The winners of the sword pool (Salvatore Arista) and sabre pool (Luigi Scarrani) were awarded 500 Lire each, and the runner-up (Federico Belusso) of the sword pool was awarded 200 Lire. The four fencers who took part in the best 1st Category sabre bouts then took part in their own mini sabre pool in order to determine the winner of two sabres donated by Johann Hartll on behalf of the Viennese Fencing Society. The winner was Salvatore Pecoraro.

In addition to these prizes, every fencer admitted to the tournament received a commemorative medal according to the category they were placed in. Those placed in the 1st Category received a gold medal, those in 2nd a silver medal, and those in 3rd received bronze, such as that shown below.

Controversy

When it came to determining the winner of the medal (donated by the Ministry of Education) for the "Best Fencer of the Tournament", a heated debate arose between those who believed it should be given to Salvatore Arista (a Radaellian), and those who thought it should go to Ottavio Anzani (a Neapolitan fencer). The main contention was that although Anzani was an objectively superb fencer, he only participated in the sword tournament, whereas Arista performed excellently in both sword and sabre. Those in favour of Anzani maintained that the conditions for this prize did not stipulate that the winner had to have participated in both weapons, yet the supporters of Arista felt that his performance in both events showed him to be more of an all-round distinguished fencer.

Eventually the jury decided to take it to a vote, which yielded 8 in favour of Anzani and 10 in favour of Arista, thus the medal was awarded to the Radaellian. Unhappy with this result, several of Anzani's supporters resigned from the jury. After much pleading and discussion, all members of the jury returned after agreeing to the compromise that the second medal donated to the tournament (by the Milan Town Hall) would be awarded to Anzani, with the same merit as that awarded to Arista. Thus there were two "best fencers" of the tournament. When writing about this event in 1884, Arista would claim that the whole affair was motivated by a bias in many members of the jury towards Neapolitan fencing and against the Radaellians. This included the two men who wrote and published the tournament's report, with Arista saying:

... read the report of the Tournament of Milan, written by two gentlemen whose constant and sole flaw consists in an obvious bias in spite of the truth.

Several members of the jury (including one of the authors of the tournament report) who voted for Anzani would later be put on the Commission that would replace Radaelli's method as the regulation sabre method with that of Masaniello Parise, the Neapolitan maestro, in 1884. One of the members of the Commission would be none other than Ottavio Anzani himself.

The Report

The report begins with "Considerations on the History of Fencing", where the agenda and biases of the writers become almost immediately apparent. They maintain fencing is that which is done with swords, while for sabres it is specifically sabre fencing, that is, an almost secondary form of fencing. They then go on to establish what they believe "Italian fencing" to be, which is the Southern or Neapolitan method, such as that detailed in the treatise "The Science of Fencing", published in 1803 by Giuseppe Rosaroll-Scorza and Pietro Grisetti, clarifying that:

... we will only note that although the Spaniards were the ones who brought to us and spread this most perfect school, we Italians have developed and brought it to such a degree of perfection to allow Rosaroll in the last century and at the start of this century to dictate, with help of Grisetti, a fencing treatise which is the most perfect and precise work that is known in the art of the sword.

This is in comparison to the sword fencing practised in Northern Italy at the time, where it was quite common to fence in a "mixed" style, incorporating both French and Italian techniques while using a foil that had features from both the traditional Italian foil and the French foil. This mixed style was offensive to many of the purists from Southern Italy who believed Neapolitan fencing to be the true "Italian fencing", as it was "uncorrupted" by French influence (despite, to their own admission, their method being originally brought to Italy by the Spanish). This lamentation continues throughout the introduction, with the authors giving little care to discussing the widely-acknowledged merit of Radaelli's sabre fencing system being taught in Milan.

Following this section, all 32 regulations of the tournament are listed, which detail the tournament's format and how the jury would run the event. Next come the minutes of each session, which list the members of the jury at the time and a brief summary of the day's proceedings. It should be noted that much of the detail (such as the bouts and results) is left out of these minutes and is instead placed in "attachments", which appear in the proceeding section in a somewhat confusing order. At the end of the minutes and attachments, there is an almost-comprehensive list of the names of men who attended the tournament, including both participants and some special spectators such as the celebrated fencing master Cesare Enrichetti.

After a brief explanation of the ordeal surrounding the awarding of the "Best Fencer of the Tournament" (see above), the authors then give their own observations and conclusions following the tournament. Much of it is in line with their biases seen in the introduction, with a large amount of praise given to the Neapolitan fencers such as Anzani and Parise (not undeserved, I should add). When acknowledging the excellent performance of a Radaellian, the authors always seem to find a way to clarify that their performance is due to something other than the merits of the Radaelli school, for example:

In Giordano Rossi, strong in the Radaelli system, beautiful and composed in guard, we found a tight play, due to his frequent fencing with fencers of the Italian school. Pecoraro owes the speed of his parries and ripostes to his special talents more than to the Radaelli school. If he, accompanying his natural dispositions, decides to study the true art, which in addition to improving his play, would allow him to vary it more, and he would undoubtedly become one of the best fencers in Italy.

In the last few pages, the authors' agenda becomes even clearer as they summarise their thoughts with the following points:

Now that the reader has the possibility of knowing as much as us, we think it appropriate to summarise what has already been said, and to do so we will start by declaring frankly:

1. That the Tournament has responded perfectly to the informative idea that promoted it, showing the incontestable artistic superiority of fencing with the Italian Sword, normally called the Neapolitan School, and the merit of its representatives.
2. That for the sabre, with slight modifications and some improvements in part mentioned by us, the method used by the best sabre fencers of the Radaelli school — who with practice have modified and perfected the written regulations of their school — is acceptable.
3. That among the young men who frequent the Scuola Magistrale there are splendid members who are unfortunately wasted with a bad trend.
4. That the Scuola Magistrale’s incorrect trend is all the more deplorable since, having finished their military service, a large number of young men leave there and spread throughout Italy with the name of maestri and teach with serious harm to the art.
5. That an urge for the unification of fencing in Italy has been given by the Milan Fencing Society, followed by the Turin Society; and we hope to see it gradually imitated in the rest of Italy.
6. That we deplore the fact of seeing that anyone can make themselves a fencing master, and as such deceive the public by peddling education that he does not possess.

The authors of the report remind the reader that due to Radaelli's illness at the time he would be unable to continue running the Scuola Magistrale in Milan (in fact he would die the following year), therefore it should be closed, and a new, more Italian school should be opened, headed by someone who gives as much attention to the sword as Radaelli gave to the sabre. In the year following the publication of this report, this very change will be put in motion, thus closing the school that Radaelli founded in 1868 and opening a new school in Rome, headed by one Masaniello Parise.

Bibliography

Arista, Salvatore. Del progresso della scherma in Italia: considerazioni sull'impianto della nuova scuola magistrale per l'esercito fondata in Roma nel 1884. Bologna:Società Tipografica già Compositori, 1884.

Cariolato, Domenico, and Gioacchino Granito. Relazione del torneo internazionale di scherma tenuta in Milano nel giugno 1881. Naples: Tipi Ferrante, 1881.

Fondazione Adolfo Pini. "The Expositions in Milan (1881 and 1906)." Storie Milanesi. Accessed 25 March 2018. https://www.storiemilanesi.org/en/insight/esposizioni-milano-1881-1906/.

Gelli, Jacopo. Resurrectio: critica alle osservazioni sul maneggio della sciabola secondo il metodo Radaelli del Generale Achille Angelini. Florence: Tipografia Editrice di Luigi Niccolai, 1888.

⸻. Bibliografia generale della scherma con note critiche, biografiche, e storiche. Florence: Tipografia Editrice di Luigi Niccolai, 1890.

Parise, Masaniello. Trattato teorico pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola: preceduto da un cenno storico sulla scherma e sul duello. Rome: Tipografia Nazionale, 1884.

"Il Torneo di Scherma." Rivista Illustrata Settimanale, 12 June 1881, 3.

Translation - Quattro Parole sulla Scherma by Salvatore Arista

A few years after Salvatore Arista published his highly critical and reactionary Del progresso della scherma in Italia, an article written by him entitled Quattro Parole sulla Scherma ('A few words on fencing', or more literally 'Four words on fencing') was published in the short-lived weekly magazine Don Giovanni. Here is both the full translation and a transcription of the article:

Translation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XaFopirnuW-Ejwb2l3NtnsngErEytvCK/view?usp=sharing

Transcription: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eRU1pmsec0jUQtnC0rMU_BHlcAdgIiZX/view?usp=sharing

In this article, Arista gives a much more introspective and reasoned look at the history of Italian fencing, focusing mainly on the 19th century and highlighting the achievements and innovations of the northern Italian school in comparison to the southern school. He then moves on to the story of the Radaellian school, proving himself to still be one of its staunchest defenders and praising Masiello's recent fencing treatise as being an excellent propagation of Radaelli's theories. At the very end, Arista announces to the world that he has designed his own type of sword which is supposedly inspired by the cut-and-thrust types seen in the 18th and earlier 19th century.

The main interesting parts I take away from this article are:

1. Where he describes Radaelli's pasteggio, that is, how Radaelli told his students to grip the sabre, his description of which closely resembling that of Masiello, Barbasetti, and Pecoraro/Pessina (a discussion on this topic is forthcoming).
2. His mention of there being some form of compromise by the Ministry of War in which the master's school would still officially adopt Parise's method as the regulation sabre system, but the cavalry regiments would continue to teach Radaelli's method. This seems to strengthen my theory that the cavalry never adopted Parise's method in the first place, or at least it was only for a brief period of less than a year.
3. Arista announces a new, revolutionary sword of his design and that he intends to take it out and trial it in private fencing halls, however I have yet to find any mention of it elsewhere, so it probably wasn't that great.

The article was divided across three issues of Don Giovanni, the first part being published on the 7th of January 1888, the second on the 26th of January, and the last on the 23rd of February. The magazine itself only had 11 issues in total, the last of which being published on the 31st of March 1888.

Special thanks to the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze for locating and providing this article.

Translation - Del progresso della scherma in Italia by Salvatore Arista

After the 1884 Commission which replaced Radaelli's fencing masters school in Milan with that of Parise in Rome, there was naturally a lot of outrage from the Radaellians. The translated work I present to you today is a good example of that outrage. This booklet by Salvatore Arista was released in that same year, and its full title is Del progresso della scherma in Italia: Considerazioni sull'impianto della nuova scuola magistrale per l'esercito fondata in Roma nel 1884, or in English, "On the progress of fencing in Italy: Considerations on the establishment of the new masters school for the army founded in Rome in 1884".

*** Click here to view ***

Arista being one of the most prominent Radaellians of the time, this booklet is a good reflection of the Radaellians' outrage following the 1884 Commission. It is filled with emotion, accusations, and the occasional snide remark levelled at Radaelli's opponents. The booklet is divided into three sections; the first is a brief history of Radaelli’s school and its achievements, the second a damning critique of the 1884 Commission's report, and the third is Arista's comments on Parise's treatise itself.

***EDIT 2025/03/14: Scans of the can now be viewed here thanks to KU Leuven.***

Who is Salvatore Arista?

Since I will soon be releasing translations of a couple of this man's articles, I thought it prudent to explain who Salvatore Maria Arista is and his significance in relation to the Radaellian lineage. To do this, we will turn once again to what Gelli had to say about him in Bibliografia Generale della Scherma:

[Translation updated 2022/05/20]

 

As long as Arista, Masiello, Pecoraro, and Rossi do not abandon their theories, Radaellianism will continue to ascend its parable of victory.

Arista was born in Palermo in 1856. At the age of 17 he enlisted into the Asti training battalion, and in 1873 he dedicated himself to fencing, driven by Roggia and Milanesi, both excellent Radaellians, who had discovered in Arista the favourable aptitudes of mind and body to become an extraordinary fencer. In Sinigaglia he passed under the direction of Cavalli, who taught him the play of the sword, making him study all day, only allowing him few and short rests.

Towards the end of 1875 Arista was sent to Radaelli in Milan, whom he was very dear to, confident of having found in the young disciple a worthy and loyal continuer of his theories.

Arista was sent to Rome in 1876 by the Ministry of War to represent the Master's School of the army at the fencing congress and tournament, and in the final competition he defeated Baron Miceli, grand champion of the Neapolitan school, which was hurriedly trying to establish superiority over the Radaelli system.

The Neapolitan school was overcome by Masiello, Pecoraro, Rossi, Pagliuca, Scarani, Cerchione, Barraco, and Ciullini. Arista, the main victor, was appointed master for the Turin Military Academy.

At the 1881 international tournament in Milan, held on the occasion of the National Exhibition, along with Pecoraro and other Radaellians, not only did they and Arista defeat the Neapolitan school again, which had convened there in large numbers, but they also affirmed the superiority of the new Italian fencing system over the French system, represented by Paul Ruzé and Ayat, and the German system represented by Hartl.

Arista was awarded the prize to best fencer of the tournament.

While the Radaellians won 15 of the 21 prizes, only 5 touched the School of Naples and one, well deserved, to the French.

At the end of 1881 Arista moved to Trieste, where he and Reich reorganised the training of the local fencing society, abolishing the Slavic method which had dominated there for about 30 years.

Since 1886 Arista has lived in Bologna, where he applies the Radaellian theories with ever increasing success.

As for his publications on fencing, my translations of the only two that I am aware of (so far) will be posted here in the coming weeks.

As an added bonus, I leave you with an additional photo of this dashing maestro.