Fencing in the Treccani Encyclopedia

In the Italian-speaking world, Treccani's Enciclopedia Italiana is what the Encyclopedia Britannica is, or rather was, to the English speaking world before the Internet Age. Published in 35 volumes between 1929 and 1937, the Treccani Encyclopedia brought together some of the most renowned minds that Italy had to offer. Importantly for this blog, the two authors that were invited to write on the topic of fencing, contained in volume 31, were two people that should be very familiar to readers: Jacopo Gelli and Nedo Nadi.

*** Scans ***

Jacopo Gelli (who died the year before this volume's publication) gives his customary historical summary, somewhat glossing over the Neapolitan tradition and curiously ending at Marchionni. Nedo Nadi, on the other hand, describes the sport as it was in the 1930s, giving an overview of technique, terminology, conventions, and Italy's global competitive achievements. Of course Nadi does not miss the opportunity to include some of his own views on the most recent developments in the sport; for example, he states that modern developments in épée fencing, such as the disappearance of single-touch bouts, mean that épée 'as it is practised in sporting competitions betrays the end for which it was created.' He then alludes to a proposal that was apparently being discussed at the time to introduce some form of convention to épée fencing, but this obviously did not come to fruition.

In the discipline of sabre, Nadi admits that the Hungarians had 'sometimes' surpassed the Italians, but asserts the sabre still remains a 'typically Italian weapon', and that around the world it is Italian fencing masters who are most highly prized. As for technique, he shares the Hungarian view that neither the 1st-2nd or the 3rd-4th parrying system is better than the other, and that the best fencers do not rigidly adhere to only one set of parries.

Then as now, Nadi considered sabre fencing to be the most impressive discipline to watch from a layman's perspective, despite the gradual changes in its technique:

The wide and spectacular sabre play which delighted enthusiasts of the past century is by now condemned by modern methods, more adherent to the competitive aim; nevertheless sabre remains the preferred weapon of the layman who, in its wide play and materiality of the blow, has a way to more easily able to follow the happenings of a bout.

This could be read as a somewhat romanticised view of the Radaellian era in Nedo's early youth, with its larger sabres and wide cuts.

The text is complemented with photos demonstrating how all three weapons are gripped as well as the typical parrying positions in foil and sabre. Most of the photos, to my knowledge, are not found outside of this Encyclopedia. The entry on fencing ends with a short, uncredited overview of the history of stick fencing.

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.

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.

Translation - Brevi note sulla scherma di sciabola per la cavalleria by Jacopo Gelli

Only a month before the report from the 1889 commission that rejected Masaniello Parise's sabre method for the cavalry headed by Prince Amedeo I, Duke of Aosta, Jacopo Gelli published a booklet addressed to the same man in the hope of having Radaelli's method officially reinstated in the cavalry.

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

Many of Gelli's arguments here we have already seen in his article La scherma italiana nell'esercito which was published a year later, but with less fluff in between the good points. The booklet discusses the current state of fencing in the Italian army in which the Parise method is that officially adopted by the army, yet the Radaelli method is still being taught to all cavalry regiments "unofficially".

Gelli calls on the Duke of Aosta, also Inspector General of the Cavalry, to reinstate the Radaelli method officially and even dissolve the current Scuola Magistrale in Rome, which Gelli argues is too expensive for its own good, comparing its costs to the two schools that preceded it, the schools of Milan and Parma. Gelli proposes that the Rome school be split into two separate schools, a school for the sword and a school for the sabre, which he nominates Ferdinando Masiello to run, presumably leaving Parise to run the sword school.

Whether or not the Duke of Aosta ever read this essay I cannot be sure, however it was only one month later that the aforementioned commission he presided over voted to maintain the teaching of Radaelli's method in the cavalry.

Translation - Italian Fencing in the Army by Jacopo Gelli

One of Radaelli's most ardent defenders, Jacopo Gelli, wrote many articles throughout his career in defence of Radaellian principles. Here is one such article from 1890 entitled La scherma italiana nell'esercito ('Italian fencing in the army'), first published in the Florentine newspaper Esercito e Armata. The article was published over 6 issues, the first being on the 30th March, and the last on the 28th April.

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

Unlike Resurrectio, this article is not in response to anyone in particular, but more his attempt to take a critical stance against Parise's method being taught to those who may have to use their sabre in combat, namely the cavalry. He deems it flawed in almost every way, and not conducive to making cavalrymen 'masters of their weapon', as the Radaelli method supposedly does. He takes particular issue with a (paraphrased) quote from Parise's treatise saying that 'force is the prime enemy of fencing', which he believes to be a detrimental attitude for the cavalryman.

In classic Gelli fashion, he reaches a fervent climax towards the end where he describes the spectacle of the 1889 national fencing tournament in Rome, commenting on the ridiculousness of seeing all the promising young fencers having to bind the weapon to their hand in the Neapolitan style just to be able to use it:

Do you not think that in war or on the ground in a fight (there are many cases in life!), if you do not have the hand ready to grip the weapon—to control it, to guide it powerfully in offence and in defence—you will succumb?!…
Do you not think?…Do you not feel your cheeks flush with embarrassment when, in the presence of an…indulgent audience, you ask the opponent for time to secure the sabre to your hand?!…Do you not blush?!…I feel sorry for you poor young men, but I do not condemn you!

Another point of interest is Gelli mentioning an article from an 1889 issue of the magazine Lo Sport Illustrato which talks of an official commission repudiating Parise's sabre method and endorsing Radaelli's. I hope to acquire this article and present it to you in the near future.

Thanks to Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze for providing me with the scans of the article.

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.