Mangiarotti on the Italian épée

If you have any preconceptions of what an Italian épée looks like, the first picture that probably comes to mind is the type with a crossguard, which was invented by Agesilao and Aurelio Greco at the beginning of the 20th century and subsequently came to be known either as the Greco or 'Italian' model épée.¹ Despite what this national designation would suggest, by the time Italy developed a mature and competitive épée fencing scene, the Greco model was not the go-to grip for the majority of Italian fencers.

The top example is the original Greco épée design, while the bottom is a later model with a canted grip and rotated quillons to allow a more comfortable grip.

While it would be difficult to argue that the Greco brothers did not play a significant role in popularising épée in Italy at the start of the 20th century, the same cannot be said in the period following the First World War, when the national scene became thoroughly dominated by a younger cohort of masters from northern Italy, chiefly Luigi Colombetti, Francesco Visconti, and Giuseppe Mangiarotti. As Greco became more and more detached from the international scene and lost relevance even within his own country, he nevertheless remained a vocal critic of the Italian competitive scene, with a constant point of contention being the popularity among his compatriots of the French grip instead of his beloved 'Italian' model épée.

The article translated below was published on 24 April 1941 in the Italian Fencing Federation's official magazine, then bearing the uninspiring title of Bollettino di Informazioni della Federazione Italiana di Scherma, and was written by the foremost member of the new guard of Italian épée fencing, Giuseppe Mangiarotti. Although he never mentions his opponents, the so-called 'theoreticians by profession', by name, it would have been clear to most readers at the time who Mangiarotti had in mind. He emphasises the results that he and his likeminded colleagues have achieved in spite of their aversion to the 'Italian épée', while Greco and his supporters have nothing to show for their efforts in the competitive sphere.

Giuseppe Mangiarotti (right) pommels his French épée grip against Filippo Fürst (left), while Luigi Colombetti (centre) acts as referee.

This should of course not mean that modern readers ought to completely discard the theories and inventions of Agesilao Greco, but given the larger-than-life image that is often painted of him, we would do well to put his writings into their proper context and understand what criticisms were offered by his contemporaries; and indeed there are few contemporaries more qualified to offer a rebuttal of Greco's complaints than Giuseppe Mangiarotti. After the master's death in 1970, an obituary for him published in the same magazine as his 1941 article asserted that 'it is more simple to say that the story of Italian épée, save for a few names, is the story, the fruit of [Mangiarotti's] work'.² The following year saw the publication of the Italian Fencing Federation's new official épée textbook, whose material was written by none other than Giuseppe Mangiarotti, then edited and prepared for publication posthumously by his son, Edoardo.³

---

The épée and its champions

In the field of sports in general and fencing in particular there exist two forms of activity. On the one hand are those who work, perhaps in silence, on the other are those who limit themselves only to prattling and fencing with words and theories.

To the first group belong only the sportsmen worthy of this name: the champions who stand out and give prestige to the sport, and the good masters who have the will and ability to teach—in a word, the masters capable of forging champions. To the other group belong the theoreticians by profession who invent methods and waste paper and ink and time in meaningless empty talk.

The latest rare find of the season is the ridiculous question of the so-called 'French épée'. It is time this outcry against the supposed anti-Italianness of épéeists and Italian épée came to an end. It is time to stop accusing the greatest champions that Italian épée has ever had and the Italian masters who forged these champions of being anti-Italian. It is time that Italian sportsmen and fencers in particular learn to distinguish that which is a petty and empty business matter from a clear, incontrovertible, indisputable reality. In sport as in life, the only reality that counts is the result. It is not my intention to gossip or to get lost in disquisitions suitable only for laypeople.

The ridiculous matter of a presumed sporting anti-patriotism in regard to those who use the so-called 'French épée' has no reason to exist; the weapon that is commonly known by this name, while it should instead be called the 'sword without a crossguard', was not invented by the French, but is the derivation of the old Italian fiorettone,⁴ as it had been conceived—twenty years before épée competitions began in France—by the very famous Italian Maestro Enrichetti, founder, along with the great Radaelli, of the Milan Master's School.

However, the absence of the metallic cross on the weapon's hilt, the so-called 'crossguard', characteristic of the Italian foil and épée, cannot give a stamp of exoticism to a weapon which is used by the overwhelming majority of Italian épéeists, with a method and a school that is completely Italian.

What is there to be reproached in Italian épée? Perhaps for managing in a decade or so to emerge from absolute mediocrity and having by now been established as the best in the world? Do we perhaps reproach the Italian épéeists, the weapons, and the methods they adopted to successfully win the Olympiads in Antwerp, in Amsterdam, and in Los Angeles, and repeating this success in the most resounding manner at the greatest Olympiad in history, the Berlin Olympics?

A method and a means can be criticised only if it does not give tangible results and only if methods and means are devised which practice—and not theories—proves superior. Should we negate, disregard—or worse, accuse of being anti-Italian—the resounding and unequalled victories of the greatest fencer Italy has ever had: NEDO NADI, solely because the Livornese ace wielded a weapon which the famous theoreticians rushed to dub as French? We want facts, not words.

To the master of a series of methods and systems without results, and who today attacks our method and our system, we ask him as a teacher:

1. Who were and who are the students of yours who have even modestly distinguished themselves—speaking not of international competitions, but in simple national or even zonal competitions?
2. What are the names of your students who should logically appear at least in the lowest category established by the Italian Fencing Federation?
3. How many Italian épéeists wield the so-called Italian épée which bears your name?
4. How many Italian masters teach épée according to such methods and models?
5. What are the international results achieved in the past by épéeists with this épée?
6. Which fencing nations have adopted this épée model?

To all these questions which we know will be left unanswered, I answer: NONE.

To the great inventor I also ask how in the space of a few years he felt the need to substitute his famous and unused épée model equipped with hooks and wheels with a new and more perfect type passed off as his exclusive model and which is nothing other than the old Italian sword, an enlarged copy of the fiorettone abandoned and obsolete for many decades. But that is not all: the mania of criticism and deskbound victories mostly around the coffee table have brought this teacher to criticise all the real technical progress achieved by modern épée and, first and foremost, by the electric registering of thrusts, which has for once allowed the abolition of partisanship, incompetency and blind juries, and which has made the épée the most widespread and most popular weapon.

Even the new international regulations—studied through years of experience and imposed above all by Italians, and foremost by Nedo Nadi—are not resistant to the innovator's criticism, as if our successes did not also confirm the quality of our point of view.

I said it before, and I know I am right in asserting that the only facts that count in sport are results. If one had to follow the reasoning of the supposed anti-Italianness of a weapon's grip, it would be all the more necessary I say not to reform but actually abolish a series of foreign-imported inventions. At this rate, through a foolish concession to patriotism the whole world should abandon the use of the radio and the telephone invented by Italians and Italians in turn should walk and abandon railways because the locomotive was invented by George Stephenson, or cease shaving with a safety razor because Gillette invented it.

Precisely to explain the quality of a means and a system which have proven to be the best, I feel it necessary to trace, for those who ignored it or in case they forgot it, a brief summary of the history of Italian épée.

No one has ever dreamed of forcing our épéeists not to use the épée with a crossguard. It was the fencers themselves who, feeling ill at ease with this weapon when facing foreigners, gradually and voluntarily abandoned it, preferring the sword without a crossguard, the Visconti, and the San Malato. In fact, many years ago when our best épée champions of the time were participating in the championships at Nice, Montecarlo, and the London Olympics while wielding the weapon with a crossguard against the French and Belgians, they never managed to succeed (see the official results of the individual and team competitions that were played out in the distance years of 1900 to 1916).

Having personally participated in all these competitions, I unfortunately had to convince myself that the sole cause of our disappointments and continuous defeats was precisely the inferiority of the weapon furnished with a crossguard, using which one could not carry out a varied and profitable game against a weapon which lends itself magnificently to exploiting all the technical and anatomical possibilities.

Bearing in mind the observations deriving from personal experience and being firmly convinced that the weapon without a crossguard allows a more varied, less rigid, and more complete game (a conviction which was then confirmed by the brilliant successes achieved by my students), I forged my method by adapting this weapon to the needs and the mentality of Italian épéeists.

It is immediately apparent that this is not a case of an imported exotic method, but a very Italian method which only makes use of a weapon more practical than the one with a crossguard, with which we did not manage to achieve tangible success. The most flattering results did not take long to yield rightful satisfaction, indeed my students began to distinguish themselves even in the most famous international encounters. Immediately after the war a long series of uninterrupted, resounding victories began.

In 1919 at the extremely important International Championships in Ostend, in which the strongest French and Belgian fencers took part, I won the individual competition and, together with my excellent students Basletta and Pracchi, also the team competition. The following year at Antwerp Nedo Nadi, after having triumphed in the individuals at the Olympics, led the Italian team to victory, while in 1923 in Ostend Basletta won the very important international tournament in which over 350 fencers took part.

At the Paris Olympics, my students Mantegazza and Cuccia and Maestro Colombetti's students Canova and Bertinetti distinguished themselves, among others, all wielding the weapon without a crossguard. At the Amsterdam Olympics came confirmation of the quality of my method, of my school, with the resounding success achieved in the team competition by my four very young students Cornaggia, Riccardi, Agostoni, and Minoli, who, along with Basletta and Bertinetti, were proclaimed Olympic champions before the strongest fencers in the world.

Nor did the continuous achievements of my students stop there: indeed at the Los Angeles Olympics Cornaggia won the individual Olympic title, and Agostoni placed third. Meanwhile the Italian team, after an uninterrupted series of victories abroad, won the international Gautier-Vignal Cup for the first time in 1931 and confirmed their own superiority in all other successive trials; thus the international tournament in Nice, until then undisputedly dominated by foreign épéeists, was won twice by Nedo Nadi, and once by my student Battaglia followed in the ranking by Edoardo Mangiarotti. And then more individual and team victories in innumerable other smaller trials.

At the last Olympics came the apotheosis: after winning the team tournament with Cornaggia, Ragno, Riccardi, E. Mangiarotti, Brusati, and Pezzana, the three Italians participating in the individual competition—Riccardi, Ragno, and Cornaggia—were classified in the top three places overall with a success that has no precedent in the history of fencing.

All these successes, to which one may add other very import international victories on the world's pistes, were achieved exclusively by fencers who used either the weapon without a crossguard or a Visconti model Italian épée, also lacking a crossguard, but with a grip moulded to the shape of the hand. Indeed it was not for nothing that, out of sixteen épéeists classified in the first category, a good twelve people fence with the sword without a crossguard, four with the Visconti, and none uses or dreams of using another type of épée. But no one can doubt that all their victories bring the glorious seal of the unmistakable style of Italian épée fencing.

M° Giuseppe Mangiarotti

*******

1 For the earliest mention of it I have found so far, see "Aurelio Greco a Milano," La Gazzetta dello Sport, 11 December 1903, 2. Many subsequent articles attribute the sword to Aurelio alone, but he himself makes it clear that the design involved the contributions of both brothers. See Aurelio Greco, "Tra due spade," La Gazzetta dello Sport, 9 May 1904, 2.^↩
2 Giorgio Rastelli, "Sempre all'attacco: in pedana e nella vita," Scherma: mensile della FIS, December 1970.^↩
3 Giuseppe Mangiarotti, La spada ([Rome]: Scuola Centrale dello Sport, [1971]).^↩
4 Translator's note: A pseudo-historical term meaning 'large foil'.^↩

Italian Fencing Visits London

Left to right: Italo Santelli, Agesilao Greco, Masaniello Parise, Vincenzo Drosi, and Angelo Torricelli.

In 1892, at the invitation of the British government, Masaniello Parise and a delegation of four fencing instructors from the Military Fencing Master's School in Rome were sent to England in order to give demonstrations at London's annual military tournament.

Although it was not strictly Radaellian fencing being showcased at the 1892 military tournament, the demonstration did reflect the growing interest in England and most of Europe around Italian fencing, particularly with regard to sabre. This had begun in the late 1880s as seen with Francis Vere Wright and his 1889 partial translation of Masiello's sabre treatise¹ and culminated with the publication of the 1895 Infantry Sword Exercise, which made Masiello's sabre system regulation for the British army.²

The appearance of Italian fencing masters in England was at the request of the English government themselves, who also covered every expense the Italians would incur in their travels (much to the disgust of some commentators, who believed that such an offer should have been refused on the grounds on national pride).³ The delegates chosen by the Italian Ministry of War were considered by many to be among the finest young graduates of the Fencing Master's School: Agesilao Greco, Italo Santelli, Angelo Torricelli, and Vincenzo Drosi.

These fencers may not have (yet) had the international reputation of masters such as Salvatore Pecoraro and Carlo Pessina, who were under the employ of the master's school, but they did represent the new generation of fencers intended to rival the champions of the old Radaelli school (despite their instructors being those very same Radaellians).

The first exhibition took place on 23 May in the Royal Agricultural Hall, Islington, as the London Daily News reported:

Whether in honour of the regular soldiers, who for the first time this year made their appearance in mounted combats and competitions at Islington yesterday, or by way of giving cordial welcome to the Cavaliere Parise and to fencing instructors of the Italian army, some thousands of spectators assembled in the Agricultural Hall yesterday afternoon. Among them were Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, Count and Countess Tornielli, accompanied by members of the Italian Embassy, the Turkish Ambassador, Rustem Pacha, the Greek Minister, the Duke of Westminster, General Hamett, and several colonels commanding regiments whose chosen representatives were to take part in the competition. They watched every event with appreciative interest, and the Duke of Westminster—a celebrated horseman in his day—was especially demonstrative in his admiration of the Musical Ride in which the 17th Lancers display more and more smartness every day. When Lieut.-Colonel Parise—who is the Colonel Onslow of the Italian Army—appeared with Sergeant-Majors Greco, of the Government School at Rome, Santelli of the Grenadiers, Drosi of the 6th Infantry, and Torricelli of the Savoy cavalry regiment, they were heartily cheered, and the dexterity of the four swordsmen with foil and sabre justified all the expectations that had been formed. The prolonged fencing bout between Sergeant-Majors Greco and Santelli was marked by many brilliant passages of arms, and it is a pity that some people among the assembled crowd who could not understand the subtle art of such swordsmen gave expression to a desire for something more exciting.⁴

The main event, however, happened a week later on the 30th:

Then the fencing instructors of the Italian Army, directed by Lieutenant Colonel Parise, gave a special display of fencing and swordsmanship, designed chiefly to show the importance of the foil as a commencement of training in swordsmanship, inasmuch as it is by the use of the foil that a thorough knowledge of distance, time, and speed is acquired. Colonel Parise explained in French, at some length, the modes of training in the Italian Fencing Schools, for which, he contended, that it was both simpler and more scientific than the methods usually approved of in other countries. He subsequently, with Sergeant Major Greco and Sergeant Major Torricelli, gave practical illustrations with foil and sabre of the Italian style. It was seen that they use a convex shell for the hilt, as a means of diverting a thrust, as, because of that form, a very slight movement of the hand or arm turned aside an opponent's point. Another detail was that while 'en garde' the weight of the body should be evenly distributed between the two legs, instead of placing too much weight on either, and that the arm should be slightly bent instead of straight. He said that advances were better made by short steps than by a long stride. Comparing the Italian practice with that of the French school, he explained that whereas the Italians only use four 'parades' the French use eight. In his country the movements were made, not so much by wrist action, as by a turn of the arm. Another point of some interest was that instead of parrying a cut they returned in certain cases a thrust depending upon the element of time to render their opponent's attack valueless. Somewhat similar observations were made by Colonel Parise prior to engaging with Sergeant Greco in a bout of sword v. sword. The exhibition of swordsmanship was concluded by showing the Italian system of cavalry sword exercise, which, however, did not seem to have the same merit as the really excellent system of training for the exercises of the infantry.⁵

Ignoring the journalist's apparent slight confusion between the foil and sabre demonstrations, it would no doubt have given any Radaellian observers back home some smug satisfaction at the comments made regarding Parise's cavalry sabre system (also repeated in several other English newspapers), which had only recently been approved by the Italian Ministry of War after years of modification.

The Italians also took a visit to the fencing club in St. James' later that same day, then the Aldershot school on the invitation of General Evelyn Wood three days later, with a formal lunch at the house of Colonel Fox. On the following day, Colonel Tully presented the Italians with a silver cup on behalf of Prince Edward, as well as commemorative silver cigarette cases to each of the four young masters.⁶

Despite the warm reception they received throughout all their visits and public appearances, the apathy towards the Italian fencers among a certain percentage of the public during the exhibitions did not go unnoticed by journalists. In a rather scathing indictment of the British public, an Italian magazine stated that the Italian masters chose a bad audience to display their talents to, claiming that 'in England, except for Egerton Castle, Captain Hutton, and the two French masters who teach in London, we believe there are fewer than ten other people capable of distinguishing a disengagement from a direct thrust or a coupé from a feint by glide, or even from a traversone'.⁷

The reaction among the Italians was nevertheless largely positive, even from the factions opposing Parise and his supporters, although there was of course some disappointment that the Ministry of War had not sent some renowned representatives of the Radaellian school such as Pecoraro, Arista or Rossi.

Having seen the British perspective on Italian fencing as shown by Parise and his party, the Italian magazine Baiardo soon after received the following letter from a correspondent in London giving an Italian perspective on British fencing:

I hasten to reply to your letter by telling you what you asked for in a few words.

The expectations of seeing four Italian masters fence were immense, so much so that there were no empty seats on that day at the racecourse.

After having done the first demonstrations with the sabre, they received congratulations in abundance, and from what I understood the audience were surprised to see that the Italians acknowledged the blows they received, and surprised to see them fence with only a mask and glove, since the English strike wildly,⁸ being in the habit of covering themselves with huge masks, double-layered protection,⁹ leather jackets, and a cushion fitted to the right leg, since they also strike at the legs.

In bouting, the English take the measure such that the points of the blades touch the guards, then they take a step back and place themselves on guard. To attack, both opponents take a step forward, and without any study they cut at the same time, such that for them a double touch is always the order of the day.

On what basis the jury judges these bouts, embellished with doubles, without ever seeing a clean cut, I just cannot understand; nevertheless, they were quite rightly surprised to see the Italian masters bout without even the slightest double, constantly maintaining measure.

For the sword, I will tell you that what most impressed the English was their fencing in-line,¹⁰ something that the English do not do, using the sword in a similar manner to the sabre.

Greco then also enchanted the audience with his quick and secure parries, his immense attacking speed, and the suddenness in the execution of his actions.

Our fencers also went to test themselves at the Fencing Club and bouted with the amateurs there (partly less incorrect than the fencers seen at the tournament), and even there the English were impressed with the handling of both the sabre and sword through their powerful attacks, the speed of their parries and ripostes, the remises, as well as the continuous inchiodature¹¹ (!), as soon as they moved to attack.

While Santelli of the Grenadiers fenced sabre with one of these amateurs, I heard one of them say a sentence in English which, translated literally into Italian, would be ‘By Jove, I have never seen a fencer of this strength!’ and stated earlier that in 10 minutes Santelli would have dealt about forty cuts over his whole body.

With Greco and Drosi then bouting each other, everyone stood with their noses in the air and mouths wide open on seeing them fence, and for every blow they all exchanged glances in approval of what they saw.

On the penultimate day Cav. Parise and Greco, in the presence of 300 spectators (all invited for this demonstration), presented themselves on the piste to demonstrate the Italian method.

Parise explained the actions in French, and with mathematical precision Greco produced them.

In this demonstration there were the usual compliments and felicitations for their manner of giving lessons, for the precision of their movements, for the speed of their actions and also for their manner of advancing on guard—that is, the step forward and lunge, the pattinando.

On the same day Torricelli of the 3rd Cavalry appeared, doing demonstrations of sabre on horseback according to the Parise method, and I will also say that this bold and powerful young man received the most lively and enthusiastic part of the huge applause.

From exercise to exercise Torricelli came to the charge, in which the vehemence of his cuts aroused another salvo of applause, which was repeated resoundingly for his last exercise in which, with the sabre fixed against the target, the sabre was literally bent in two.

I will now end this letter of mine, in which I was not interested in writing what either the Daily Chronicle or the Standard already told the Italian press, since at this point they are things that everyone knows, assuring you that both Greco and Torricelli were eagerly asked to stay in London to teach Italian fencing, an invitation which Greco declined for various reasons which do him the highest honour; as for Torricelli I do not know the answer, but here in London it is hoped that he will accept and we Italians will then have the pride, as we have in past centuries, to see our masters teach the handling of arms to other nations.¹²

For the partisans of the Neapolitan school of fencing, the Italian demonstrations in London would have served as some amount of vindication for the master's school in Rome, whose image had taken a hit as a result of the reforms to Parise's sabre method forced upon it by the Ministry of War over the previous years.

1 Francis Vere Wright, The broadsword as taught by the celebrated Italian masters, signors Masiello and Ciullini of Florence (London: W. H. Allen, 1889).^↩
2 War Office, Infantry sword exercise 1895 (London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1895).^↩
3 L'Italia del Popolo, 22 May 1892.^↩
4 London Daily News, 24 May 1892, 6.^↩
5 London Evening Standard, 31 May 1892, 3.^↩
6 Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News, 11 June 1892, 476.^↩
7 Scherma Italiana, 2 July 1892, 52.^↩
8 'da orbi' — Literally 'like blind men'.^↩
9 'corazze doppie' — For the Italians, a corazza was a tough, generally tightly-woven fabric which served as an extra layer of protection and padding for the fencer's dominant side. It served a similar purpose to what a modern under-plastron is used for in fencing today.^↩
10 i.e. the typical Italian guard position of keeping the arm almost fully extended at all times.^↩
11 Literally 'nailings' or 'nailing-downs', this term is likely referring to the Italian preference for counter-attacking, particularly in foil fencing.^↩
12 "Come tirano gl'inglesi," Baiardo: periodico schermistico quindicinale, 8 July 1892, 25–6.^↩