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:
- 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;
- 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
- 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.
*******
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.↩
