Binding the Sword

If the average fencer of today knows anything at all about the Italian foil, they likely also have at least a vague awareness of the leather wrist strap that it was so commonly used with. This wrist strap is, in essence, one path in a long development of fencers seeking to improve their ability to grip the weapon, a development which also led to modern anatomic or 'pistol' grips. The wrist strap can be considered more generally as a type of ligature, known in Italian as the legatura or legaccia/legaccio, terms which in English simply mean 'binding' or 'tie'.

The ligature took many forms throughout its development, originally as a handkerchief used to conveniently bind and protect the hand in a duel or fencing bout in place of a glove in the early 19th century. By the middle of the century the ligature was an item separate from the glove, consisting of only a ribbon or strip of fabric, and was a characteristic feature of the Neapolitan school of fencing. At the dawn of the 20th century, the ligature was a popular aid throughout the whole Italian peninsula, and more and more took the form of the aforementioned leather wrist strap, which was the final development until the decline of the Italian foil in the second half of the century.

Throughout both the 19th and 20th centuries, Italian fencers were described as having a greater reliance on force, athleticism, and explosiveness than their French counterparts, and their use of ligatures formed a key part of this perception. As we will see, fencers of the French school were also not opposed to the use of gripping aids on their weapons, but it is in Italy alone that we find the ligature to be so closely woven with the development of both the weapons and the systems it was used in. Thus in order to gain a fuller understanding of the history of modern Italian fencing and its ideological debates in the 19th century, we must also understand the ligature and what it meant for those who did and did not use it.

A makeshift glove

Like with many topics surrounding 19th century Italian fencing, the history of the ligature starts with Rosaroll and Grisetti's seminal 1803 treatise The Science of Fencing.¹ The two authors dedicate more than eight pages to ligatures, prefaced by a discussion on the benefits of wearing a glove, which not only protects the hand against the opponent's sword, but also allows the fencer (or soldier) to grip their own sword more firmly. Rosaroll and Grisetti's binding method is able to effectively substitute the glove as they recommend using a regular handkerchief (It. fazzoletto), 'which every man carries in his pocket'.² The convenience of this everyday object is the main reason why they prefer handkerchiefs to bands or ribbons specifically designed to be sword ligatures. In addition to reducing fatigue and wear on the hand, particularly the middle and index fingers, they also appreciate the protection ligatures provide against disarmament, whether in battle, a duel or a fencing bout. In this respect the ligature is also a substitute for the sword knot, which was commonly used by soldiers but less likely to be found on duelling and fencing swords. The method they describe for binding the sword with a handkerchief is as follows:

Take the handkerchief by opposite corners, and keeping it almost outstretched, rotate it quickly by winding around its length so that when twisted it merely represents the diagonal of a square that it represented when unfolded. This done, let go of the corner you were holding in the left hand, holding the handkerchief in the right by the opposite corner with the ends of the thumb and middle finger. Then with the left hand wind it twice, to the outside of the fingers, around the index and middle fingers, specifically over the joints that are inserted into the ricasso of the sword. Then pass it between the middle and ring fingers, and through the inside of the latter and the little finger it shall be left hanging from the hand. Then grip the sword in the described manner (§ 40) and wind the handkerchief over the outside of the hand towards the top, so that it covers the joints of the fingers to the hand, except for the thumb, and on meeting the outside arch, pass it through there, and after tightening it strongly, cover the joint of the thumb and hand. Then wind it from inside to outside around the wrist twice, strongly tightening the grip and wrist together, always making sure to leave the pommel free. Finally, passing the handkerchief back over the hand, tie it securely to the part of the crossguard between the middle finger and the inside arch, winding it around there two or three times.³

The typical pocket handkerchiefs of today are nowhere near large enough to follow this method, and based on my own experimentation you need a handkerchief with a diagonal length of at least 100 cm (i.e. a square cloth with sides 70 cm long). For the purpose of demonstration, in the video below I give my own interpretation of Rosaroll and Grisetti's method using two 50 x 50 cm handkerchiefs tied together at the corners.

The most common feature of this and all subsequent ligatures is how they reduce the strain felt most strongly by the ring and little fingers, which for most people are too short to full enclose the straight handle on a traditional Italian foil. By securing the first two fingers and the pommel, the job of keeping the grip in line with the wrist no longer relies on the two weakest fingers of the hand. Importantly though, the firmness of the ligature should not overly hinder the movement of the sword, thus Rosaroll and Grisetti, as well as most subsequent authors, make sure to note that the handkerchief ligature should not cover or constrain the pommel of the sword. Aside from the detriments to the hand's mobility if the pommel is covered, doing so also reduces the efficacy of pommel strikes in close-measure grappling, which is something Rosaroll and Grisetti spend much time discussing but is generally forbidden in bouting by the mid-19th century (indeed if it ever was typically allowed).⁴

The two authors then go on to describe an additional type of ligature which they call a laccio, related to the English words 'lace' and 'lasso'; this is much less a way of fixing the hand to the sword as it is a way to make a simple sword knot using a silk lace around 8 palmi long (a bit over 200 cm). One end of the lace is fastened to the pommel, and the rest is formed into small rings, probably what is referred to in English as a sinnet knot, as Chris Holzman has suggested.⁵ After enough of the lace has been turned into links, a final noose is formed and tightened around the wrist, and the little finger is inserted into the last sinnet link to prevent the whole laccio from unravelling.⁶

Returning to the handkerchief methods, three decades later Sicilian master Blasco Florio gives his own modified version of Rosaroll and Grisetti's method in an effort to distribute the handkerchief more evenly across the hand and keep it tight for an extended period of time:

The fencer spreads the handkerchief out and holds it by one of its corners between the last two phalanges of the thumb and index finger; passing it from inside to outside over the last joint of the ring finger, leave it hanging there. Then winding it tightly from outside to inside around the middle and index fingers, at the same time separating the thumb so that only said index and middle fingers are in contact and covered, let it drop into the original position, but making sure to fold in the sides so that it ends up like a band. With this done, pass it along the inside of the middle and ring fingers, leaving it hanging all the same. In this manner, grip the sword as described in § 19, and by winding the handkerchief to the outside, pass it over the index and middle fingers, entering the outside arch and passing diagonally over the end of the middle finger, the third phalanx of the ring and little fingers, and bind them such that these parts should be covered and compressed with the handle. Continuing to turn the handkerchief, wind it around the wrist, still from outside to inside, but leaving the pommel free. Still tightening, pass it diagonally over the outside of the hand so that one side touches the outside quillon, so that the hand is fully covered and bound. If the handkerchief is long, then turn it once more around the thumb, index, and middle fingers, and then wind the end of it twice or thrice around the inside quillon, fastening it from outside to inside in such a way that it cannot become loose. Note that the corners of the handkerchief, which at the beginning of the binding were folded, should always remain this way.⁷

Two years after Florio's work, Niccolò Abbondati describes a method very similar to Rosaroll and Grisetti's, but now the handkerchief ligature is in addition to the glove:

This is achieved by means of a handkerchief which, held by opposite corners, is rotated along its length, so that it represents a band on the diagonal of the square that it made when unfolded. With this prepared, one of the ends is used to wrap and tighten the index and middle fingers of the right hand together, winding it twice from inside to outside; insert it between the middle and ring fingers; pass it between the latter and the little finger, and grip the sword as described in no. 1080. After this, the handkerchief is wound around the outside of the hand; insert it into the outside arch, and while freeing the thumb it is made to come diagonally over the end of the middle finger and the last phalanges of the ring and little fingers, which should end up covered and well compressed to the handle. From there it is brought to tighten the wrist, winding around this and the handle twice, leaving the pommel free; return to the back of the hand, which one should try to cover entirely, and wind the end of it around the thumb so that the ligature stays firm and is not subject to loosening.⁸

Despite the close association that ligatures would have with Italian fencing later on in the century, the custom of binding the hand with a handkerchief was also familiar to the French, as evidenced by the popular French duelling code by the Comte de Chatauvillard:

9. The handkerchief with which the combattant wraps their hand must not hang down; the opponent’s seconds, after making them aware, may enjoin them to remove it and make use of only a cord.

10. If it was agreed to wear fencing gloves, either one of the fencers can use it in the case the other refuses. But if only one was brought, neither should have this advantage.⁹

There is also something to be said for the martingale or leather loop that is attached between the guard and grip of a French foil. In essence a simplified ligature, it may have been used by some French fencers since at least the 18th century (see below). Alberto Marchionni was quite familiar with French fencing, having spent some time in France around the year 1830, and yet, according to his 1847 treatise, while '[i]n the Neapolitan school the way in which the foil is bound to the hand is considered essential', the French, on the other hand, 'do not make use of a band'. As a middle ground between Marchionni's perceptions of these two schools, he advocated for his own type of laccio, which he describes as follows:

To avoid both extremes, I thought it better to put into practice in my school a simple tape 80 cm long. The two ends sewn together represent the sword-knot. To put it into practice one only has to insert the middle finger into it, then pass it over the index finger—this is of course once one has gripped the sword or foil, whatever one wishes to call it—and then over the grip, leaving the thumb free, and then one continues to pass it always doubled between the middle and ring fingers, repeating the same turn around the aforementioned fingers and the grip, and finishing by fixing the other end to the middle finger that one started from. (See plate A, fig. 5).¹⁰

Marchionni's enlightening depiction of the laccio

The stated benefit of this type of ligature is that it provides some support to the wielder while still allowing them to easily play in close measure, something which the Neapolitan style of ligature makes very difficult.¹¹ This ideology behind Marchionni's ligature is perfectly in keeping with the fencing system he was advocating, the 'mixed school', which argued that the most effective fencing method can be found by appropriately adopting various aspects of both the French and traditional Italian methods.¹²

In the following few decades detailed descriptions of Italian sword ligatures are difficult to find, with little more than passing mentions. By the time ligatures are again being discussed in a fencing context, the handkerchief is almost never mentioned, having ceded its place to specialised ribbons and straps. The reasons why the traditional handkerchief ligature fell out of favour are yet unclear. The transition to other materials may have coincided with other developments in fencing equipment, such as specialised fencing gloves, which would render the protection provided by the handkerchief superfluous. The shift may also have simply coincided with a change in men's fashion, in that it became less common to carry around a large handkerchief. As this lies well outside my expertise and the scope of this article, I shall say only that more research on this area is needed.

Specialisation of the ligature

Although specialised ligatures were known to Rosaroll and Grisetti right at the beginning of the 19th century (see above), handkerchiefs were more easily able to protect the weapon hand in lieu of a glove. Handkerchiefs saw continued use in duels throughout the 19th century, and they were still mentioned in duelling codes well into the 20th century.¹³ The duelling codes of Alberto Marchionni and Cesare Enrichetti, published in 1863 and Luigi De Rosis, published 1868, allow duellists to make use of a fencing glove and to additionally bind the sword with a handkerchief, whether they are using swords or sabres.¹⁴ While the latter author mentions the ligature as an alternative to the handkerchief, Achille Angelini considered the former as an addition to a fencing glove or handkerchief wrapped around the wrist, and only permissible 'in exceptional circumstances' and when both parties agree.¹⁵

Within a pure fencing context, however, the protection afforded by a handkerchief was likely not as valuable when a proper fencing glove was easily at hand, resulting in a rise in the popularity of ligatures using ribbon, fabric tape or string. An early and unambiguous reference to a specialised ligature for use in fencing is given by the French amateur the Baron de Bazancourt. This author describes his experience fencing the Neapolitan master Luigi Parise, who when fencing would typically use a dagger in his left hand or the hand itself to parry his opponent's sword. As a response to French fencers who argued they should be able to parry with the left hand (as it was customary among fencers of 'the old Italian school' such as Parise), Bazancourt responds with the challenge that 'you should admit all the precepts of that school, and then you will at least be logical.' According to him, the typical Italian fencer equips themselves like so:

Your sword will have a long heavy blade, broad and perfectly rigid; the hilt will be surmounted by a little cross-bar of steel on which you will place your fingers, and to which you will attach them with a long ribbon; incidentally you will do away with the freedom of the hand, the supple action of the wrist and the niceties of finger play.¹⁶

Given that Luigi Parise was imprisoned following the revolutions of 1848, where he subsequently died, Bazancourt's account shows that specialised ligatures were considered typical (at least for Neapolitans) since at least the 1840s.¹⁷ It is not until the 1880s, however, that we find the only detailed descriptions of making the ligature with a ribbon or cloth band. By far the most useful descriptions coincidentally come from Luigi Parise's more famous nephew, Masaniello, who provides us with three variations:

They once used the silk handkerchief which was worn on the collar like a cravat. Later they introduced the use of narrow bands of fabric, a metre and a half long, folded at one end to make a ring, into which the one may insert the index finger, or as others do, the middle finger.
Having done this, and gripped the sword in the manner described in § 4, the ligature is passed between the ring and middle fingers, and continuing over the handle, one winds it in a spiral direction around the back of the hand and wraps it around the wrist once, passing under the pommel, and above for the other times; after this, one returns to the handle on the inside of the hand and inserts it into the right arch, going back into there a second time by passing between the middle and ring fingers, so as to render the sword secure in the hand.
What is left of the end of the ligature is wound around the little finger, passing to the outside of the four fingers.
Many fencers use the ligature in this manner in order to not waste a lot of time freeing the sword; but others prefer to do the inverse: that is, after inserting the index or middle finger into the ring of the ligature, they grip the sword and start binding it by passing it into the right arch twice, and then over the back of the hand, the wrist, etc.
There is a third method which is also good. The pommel of the sword is inserted into the ring of the ligature; this is then passed around the wrist several times to keep the pommel fixed; then it is passed twice into the right arch, and the rest is wound around the little finger.
Whichever of the three methods one binds the sword with, the result will be the same.¹⁸

Aside from protecting against disarmament, Parise states that the ligature reduces hand fatigue, allows for more strength to be employed in attacks and parries, gives more suppleness to the muscles of the hand and arm, and also provides slightly more protection to the hand and wrist. Just four years after Parise we find another description of a ligature, here from Sicilian master Antonino Guglielmo:

First of all, you must equip yourself with a [ribbon?] two metres long, wind it twice around the index finger, and turn it around the hand until the fingers are covered with seven parts of it, the rest is tied to the outside arch. Secondly, you should note that this ligature should leave all the muscles of the hand free such that, in tightening it, movement is not impeded, and the hand does not go numb. Thirdly, take care not to bind and cover the pommel of the sword, otherwise it will not be possible to articulate the feints.¹⁹

It appears that the intention behind Guglielmo's method is to more or less cover the hand with the ligature, thus a wider and thinner ribbon would likely achieve a better result than what my video demonstrates. Given that both Parise and Guglielmo only mention the required length of the ligature, the material, its thickness, and its width were likely a matter of personal preference and were dependent on what was easily available.

Armed with these and likely many other methods, Italian fencers soon began travelling the Western World, dazzling crowds from Chicago to St. Petersburg. The Italian foil and of course the ligature were common points of fascination for many, as seen in one New York Times article from 1886 describing a newly arrived Neapolitan fencer:

Signor Enrico Casella, a distinguished Italian swordsman, has arrived in New-York. He fences in very handsome style according to the fashion of Naples, of which city he is a native. The Neapolitan fencers have retained certain old methods, which have gone out in France and elsewhere in Italy, of binding the hand securely to the handle of the foil, using for that purpose a long tape or a handkerchief. Signor Casella uses a foil no longer in the blade than the French masters, differing in that from the old Neapolitan school, but his weapon has a bell-shaped guard and a transverse bar underneath it, upon which the first two fingers close. The foil and the arm become one piece, and it becomes impossible to perform on him the tricks of disarming which some fencers enjoy.²⁰

The clearest image of a ligature I have found so far is a photo on Gallica of Aurelio Greco in 1913, seen below, in which a dark, slightly glossy ribbon roughly 15 to 20 mm wide can be seen running from crossguard of the foil and over Aurelio's wrist. Mimiague on the right also has a martingale mounted on his French foil.

One other (less clear) photo from 1901 shows Athos di San Malato holding an early Italian épée with what looks to be a simple string binding his hand to the weapon. The ligature is less commonly seen on épées during the 20th century, partly because for this weapon in particular many Italians preferred the French grip over the Italian.

While ribbon and string ligatures continue to appear occasionally throughout the first half of the 20th century, the last somewhat useful description comes in 1929 from the Argentinian master Horacio Levene, who characterised it more as an outdated method belonging to previous generations of fencers:

Gradually, the custom of strongly tying the weapon to the hand has been lost, with long strips of cloth which, after gripping the crossguard, secured the fingers, passing over the hand and finished by being wound a few times around the wrist or going back to the hand, causing the rest to disappear between the fingers, etc.
With the ligature it is possible to grip the sword with more force, to better secure the weapon to the hand, and to consequently give greater control and resistance to the parries.
Among the usual ligatures, there was one which, taking the pommel with the long strip, was wrapped around the wrist, and passing over the hand and taking one side of the crossguard, the excess is lost by wrapping the index finger in the hollow of the hand.²¹

Levene then goes on to describe the type of ligature that had become more popular by that point and remained so for the rest of the Italian foil's reign on the international stage: the leather wrist strap. Before we examine this final development, however, it is worth taking a closer look at how ligatures were perceived in Italy and the divisive debates around when, if at all, they should be used.

An object of scorn

Even before the particularly heated ideological debates which characterise the last few decades of the 19th century, the question of to bind or not to bind was divisive. For some the ligature symbolised the preservation of pure Italian fencing in the face of foreign, predominantly French, influence; for others, binding the sword was at best unnecessary and at worst a pernicious vice.

The sword method of Genoese master Paolo De Scalzi, writing in the middle of the 19th century, shows much in common with the traditional southern Italian masters; his comments regarding the ligature, on the other hand, are more in line with the views of Alberto Marchionni and the mixed school, which we touched on earlier. De Scalzi explicitly calls out Rosaroll and Grisetti for their preoccupation with the ligature, remarking that 'even the most renowned men can sometimes stumble!'. In his view, students should not become accustomed to using a ligature in case they find themselves in a situation where using it is impracticable, such as in combat. He does however advocate the use of sword knots, as they allow the wielder to quickly release the weapon from the hand.²² Aside from what we have seen so far, most Italian authors outside the southern provinces are remarkably silent on the ligature until later in the century, which could be an indication of its rarity in day-to-day practice there.

Luigi Zangheri, a fencing master who taught in Bologna, also advocated using an Italian foil without a ligature. Mounted with a blade shorter than that advocated by the Neapolitans, this allowed him and his students to execute certain 'French' techniques that a ligature renders difficult or impossible, such as an angulated parry of 1st or the coupé in close measure. The fencing method he taught was otherwise relatively traditional, identifiable with what most Neapolitans were teaching, and yet his opposition to using ligatures would eventually, after his death, lead his pedagogical descendants to sympathise more at times with the mixed school, although never quite identifying themselves as members of it. Zangheri's most famous student, Cesare Enrichetti, ensured that this tradition continued to flourish for the rest of the century.²³ With these two traditions predominating in Northern Italy—Zangheri's school and the mixed school proper—the ligature retained its Neapolitan association and the scepticism of Northern Italians.

Following Italian unification, the government began a programme of training its own fencing masters for the army as part of a greater military reform process. One unintended consequence of this was that the ideological grievances between the various fencing systems that existed in Italy took on a more national importance, as the system that the Ministry of War selected to be propagated among the soldiers of Italy would earn the right to truly be called 'Italian'. From 1874 the sole method officially sanctioned by the Italian military was the method of Giuseppe Radaelli, who taught foil fencing according to the 'half-Italian' or mixed school.²⁴

Two mixed-school foils from the Agorà della Scherma in Busto Arsizio.

As the young military fencing masters graduating from Radaelli's school became more numerous and prominent in the national fencing scene, advocates of the Neapolitan school became increasingly vocal in their disapproval of Radaelli's system, which they characterised as neither French nor Italian.²⁵ With the death of Radaelli in 1882, the opportunity presented itself for the Ministry of War to look for a new, more 'Italian' method; as chance would have it, the fencing treatise that was eventually selected by the commission to be the new official textbook for Italian fencing was that of Neapolitan master Masaniello Parise.²⁶

When this treatise was published in 1884, a report on the commission's deliberations was included in the book, in which we read that there had been a particularly 'lively disagreement' around the topic of the ligature. Since the form of the weapon was by now, in the minds of many, inextricably linked to the fencing method itself, very early in the commission's deliberations (indeed before even looking at any of the treatises submitted to the competition) the members all came to the agreement that only the Neapolitan foil had the right to be considered a 'real sword', and thus since the Neapolitan foil had been selected, it was only logical that a Neapolitan method also be chosen.²⁷

In their fervent effort to maximise the apparent Italianness of the official fencing method, the members of the commission made the Neapolitan foil inviolable; thus when some of the other submissions provide possible modifications to the grip, such as that offered by Giordano Rossi's curved handle, they are all strongly rejected.²⁸ By removing the possibility of modifying the weapon, many in the commission then felt it was necessary that use of the ligature be made a foundational aspect to the instruction of foil fencing, with some even going so far as to claim that 'without the ligature, a Neapolitan fencer suffers to the point of no longer being themselves at all.'²⁹

A comparison of the traditional Italian grip (left) with Rossi's curved grip (right). Note the ability for the last two fingers to obtain a better purchase on the handle.

Although the commission eventually settled on a compromise of omitting ligatures in the early stages of training, leaving it to individual choice once students begin bouting, the association of the ligature with the Neapolitan-cum-Italian foil remained a contentious issue, particularly for the recently defeated Radaellian camp. The Radaellians were able to recognise that continued use of the mixed foil had become untenable in the nationalist fervour of 1880s fencing discourse, and thus its most prominent representatives also by-and-large switched to using the traditional Italian foil. What they would not concede, however, was that use of a ligature was at all necessary. Instead of focusing on the 'half-Italian' school of their master, Radaellians often chose to amplify the Zangheri tradition, which through Enrichetti's students had become interwoven with the development of Radaellian fencing.³⁰ The most famous representative of his Radaelli-Enrichetti merger was Ferdinando Masiello, who openly acknowledged the flaws of his colleagues in the early years, but maintained that it was they who bore the torch of progress in Italy, and not the traditionalist Neapolitans:

Please forgive us, classicists of the ligature and of weakness, enemies of the coupé and precision—our flaws are mere blemishes; and our system was already greatly superior technically and practically to [the Neapolitan].³¹

Radaellian master Salvatore Arista echoed Masiello's associating the ligature with weakness, and also tapped into this renovated Radaelli-Enrichetti brand. In 1888 he observed how the Neapolitans insisted on adhering to tradition for the sake of tradition, thereby 'sacrificing efficacy for custom and elegance' predominately through their use of the ligature, which he considered 'a convenient but also effeminate habit'.³² Despite continued Radaellian backlash and the desire of some in the community to ban ligatures altogether from tournaments, their use was spreading.³³ The influence of Neapolitan master Masaniello Parise at the Rome Fencing Master's School likely played a large part in increasing general acceptance for the ligature in Italy, and eventually the act of binding the sword ceased to be seen as a purely Neapolitan custom, becoming simply Italian.

By the start of the 20th century the ligature was no longer an object which prompted heated debate, even if the stance of the Radaelli-Enrichetti faction had not wavered. In 1907 one member of this camp was still repeating the line taken by his colleagues 20 years ago in calling the ligature 'a manifest effeminacy' which permanently inhibits a student's progression in fencing.³⁴ Nevertheless, this was now the minority position. Around the same time as these remarks, a Milanese author expressed their disappointment that Rossi's modified grip was not better appreciated by their fellow fencers, and was compelled to acknowledge that 'most fencers, even famous ones, secure the foil to the wrist with a leather strap or ligature'.³⁵

The shift to straps and gradual decline

Much as the handkerchief made way for the ligature with a ribbon or cord, this in turn diminished in popularity in favour of the leather wrist strap or 'belt' (It. cinturino or cinghietto). Again it is difficult to say when it appeared on the scene, as few sources make a clear distinction in terminology between it and the regular ribbon ligature. In the aforementioned commission report contained in Masaniello Parise's 1884 treatise, there is mention of a 'ring for threading to the wrist' as a less involved ligature method, which may be referring to an early type of wrist strap.³⁶ There are several more hints such as these from the 1890s, especially as foreign commentators begin taking more notice of Italian fencing.

In 1894 the public of New York had the rare opportunity to witness a masterclass of Italian fencing as represented by masters Carlo Pessina, Agesilao Greco, and Eugenio Pini. Among the many comparisons the reporter makes between these 'flamboyant' Italians and the classical French school, which Americans were more accustomed to, he makes a note of the peculiar way they used their foils and the various ways they were bound:

Observe the foils of the Italians. Although they have given up almost everywhere the very long foil, direct descendant of the old long rapier, they still cling to the bell-shaped guard and crossbar underneath. Over this bar they hook the index finger. Not content with the solidity of grasp thus gained, they still resort to the ribbon or strap to fasten the hilt to the hand. In Naples some fencers bandage the hand to the sword grasp before a bout with as much care and ceremony as a Hindoo binds his turban round his head. The roving masters did not always use the strap or ribbon in New York; but sometimes, if about to fence with a muscular man, they passed a strap round the wrist and the lower part of the handle.³⁷

Even if this 'strap' here is not the same as the specialised item that was so prevalent in subsequent decades, it is easy to see how the more elaborate binding methods could be simplified for the sake of expediency and be limited to only fastening the lower end of the grip to the wrist.³⁸ A clearer example is found in the treatise of Austrian master Gustav Ristow, who differentiates the traditional ligature methods and wrist straps and touches on the debates we saw in the previous section:

Binding the foil is an antiquated practice that is still prevalent in Southern Italy especially; it is done by means of a strap (Riemen) or band in various ways, more or less simple, but always with the aim of maintaining lightness in gripping the foil and preventing cramping like fatigue in the fingers.
Opinions with regard to binding the foil are divided; we declare ourselves opposed to it, since it causes considerable disadvantages as a mechanical aid in place of the spontaneous and natural gripping method, but we would recommend the use of a simple strap around the wrist and the upper end of the grip for the purpose of avoiding an excessive displacement of the point from the line in certain exchanges in the bout.³⁹

A reduced focus on the more involved ribbon ligatures may also be reflected in a German translation of Masaniello Parise's treatise, carried out by Jacob Erkrath-De Bary and Arturo Gazzera. The latter was a graduate of Parise's Military Fencing Master's School, but instead of accurately translating Parise's detailed methods of using a ligature, this section is condensed to barely more than a footnote, stating that there are 'a number of ways to bind the foil', and that while the method using a metre and a half of ribbon is common in Italy, 'more and more they are being replaced by a small strap (Riemchen), which is fastened around the wrist and over the pommel of the foil.'⁴⁰

Maestro Francesco Tagliabò assists Helene Mayer with her wrist strap. Observing on the right is Erwin Casmir.

As with the move from handkerchiefs to ribbons, it is difficult to pinpoint why the wrist strap gained more favour among Italian fencers when it did. Intuitively, the wrist strap is much less hassle to deal with in between bouts: the strap only needs to be put on at the start of training and removed at the end, whereas the ligature has to be tied and untied after each bout. A simple strap also requires little explanation for a beginner to use immediately, while the ribbon methods can look quite daunting to the uninitiated. Particularly for those who had only recently been introduced to the Italian foil, such as those outside Italy, the wrist strap may have helped reduce the barrier to entry for newcomers (not to mention children). A change in general training habits and the increasing frequency of competitions may have also played a part here; again, more research is needed.

Nevertheless, a focus on binding only at the wrist seems to have been enough for many, as the strap gradually emerged as the more popular option early in the 20th century. Although I consider the wrist strap as merely a subtype of the ligature, it must be noted that sources generally differentiate between the two, with 'ligature' referring only to a loose ribbon that is wrapped around the hand and/or pommel, while the wrist strap served to secure the pommel alone. So in contrast to the earliest handkerchief bindings (and even some later ligature methods which allow the pommel to remain free, to varying degrees), depending on its exact form the wrist strap can cover and restrict much of the pommel's movement. The uptake of straps can therefore be seen as the third evolution in the function Italian and Italianate fencers expected from their ligatures.

The famous Aldo Nadi demonstrates in his writings how reliance on the wrist strap could make it as much a part of how the Italian foil was wielded as its rings and crossguard were. In his 1948 treatise On Fencing he writes for an American audience who, if they had any knowledge about foil fencing, would have been far more familiar with the French school. Thus he not only provides the most detailed advice of any author so far on how to wear a wrist strap, but refers to the strap several times throughout the book in a way that makes it an almost integral part of his fencing method. He notes at various points how the wrist strap plays a prominent role in multiplying the strength of the hand, as utilised most often in beats and parries:

The handle is bound to the wrist by a leather strap about one inch wide which insures a strength and firmness of grip that simply cannot exist in the French foil. More important, it lightens the burden of the fingers, thus permitting most of their effort to be employed in directing the point (offense). Furthermore, the strap increases effectively the power of the parry (defense).⁴¹

Aldo Nadi (left) with his wrist strap poses with Philippe Cattiau (right)

Nadi provides the helpful suggestion that the wrist should be wrapped 'with a strip of thin linen about one yard long and three inches wide', tight enough to be snug but not cutting off blood circulation, which mitigates the abrasion caused by the pressure of the strap. For the same purpose Giorgio Rastelli recommends moistened gauze and William Gaugler an elastic bandage.⁴² Nadi continues to say that the strap should be tightened snugly over the glove, as close to the hand as possible, but without impeding any movement. Once the pommel is inserted through the strap, it should protrude by 'no less than three-quarters of an inch, and no more than one inch.' Despite the point of contact being localised to the pommel, Nadi considered the wrist strap method to be far superior to some ligature methods in terms of allowing pommel movement:

Some of our fencers prefer to bandage the wrist, the whole handle and pommel tightly together, outside the glove, as a substitute for the strap. Thus, they almost completely prevent the free movement of the pommel. As this freedom is essential in practically all fencing actions, I forbid this way of securing the weapon to the hand.⁴³

I must thank Christopher Holzman for his assistance in explaining how to use this strap in the intended manner. The style of strap used in the above video is still sold through Uhlmann Fencing, but photos and catalogues show simpler versions being used throughout the 20th century where the pommel is merely placed under the strap rather than through a loop. After the invention of velcro in the 50s, this material was also used by some manufacturers to make wrist straps.

From the 1975 Santelli Fencing Equipment catalogue. Velcro wrist straps of various colours are shown on the left page, in the photograph labelled 80V. (Source: Fencing Arms & Artifacts)

Despite the strong preference for straps voiced by some authors, the traditional ribbon ligature remained in use for most of the century, at least as long as the Italian foil was still used competitively. In the footage below, Olympic medalist Aldo Aureggi can be seen untying a ligature after his bout with Renzo Nostini (from the 5:00 timestamp). The latter was also known to use a cloth ligature in competitions, being described as being a metre long, 1.5 cm wide, and which he 'passed between index finger and the palm of the hand, tying it around the pommel'.⁴⁴

Nostini (left) with his foil ligature still attached after a bout with Edoardo Mangiarotti (centre).

Maestro Giancarlo Toràn of Busto Arsizio recalls the twilight period of the Italian foil as he experienced it in the 1970s:

As for me, I used the leather strap, as many did, during the period I was competing as an amateur, from 1969 to 1975, and after. Later (after about 10 years, more or less) it was banned. In the same period the Italian foil (with the crossguard) was dying out. But there were still fencers who utilised it: some with a strap, others with a long ribbon which they wound around the wrist in various ways.⁴⁵

Toràn believes that it is possible some high-level fencers were still using ligatures in the 80s, but by then it was certainly extremely rare. Over the several decades of overlap between the invention of anatomic grips and the use of wrist straps, it is even possible to spot instances where both an anatomic grip and a wrist strap are used. This seems to have been more common in épée than foil, simply because anatomic grips were more commonly accepted for the former weapon, at least in Italy, than for the latter.⁴⁶

Today the wrist strap lives on in some niches of classical fencing, but the ultimate aim of ligatures is largely fulfilled in the design of modern anatomic grips. While this marks the end of the Italian sword ligature, before concluding I will give an appendix of sorts for another aspect to sword bindings that is often overlooked, which is their application for French foils.

French ligatures

Given the various methods of sword binding we have seen used on the Italian peninsula, it should not be surprising that similar expedients were not confined by political boundaries. Although not typically referred to as ligatures, the use by French foilists of martingales and thongs should be considered in the same category. As we saw earlier, using a handkerchief to wrap the hand was likely customary among some French duellists in the first half of the 19th century. A 'cord' is given as the alternative to a handkerchief binding in the Comte de Chatauvillard's duelling code (see quote above), suggesting that other methods of securing the sword to the fencer's body were widely known.

The martingale is the most common type of ligature associated with French foils today. Fencing master Gomard in his 1845 foil treatise traces the origins of martingale use in fencing halls to the late 18th century, specifically due to the talents of one Comte de Bondy, a talented fencer who in the 1790s was considered in the same class as the famous Chevalier de Saint-Georges. De Bondy was able to parry with such force that his opponents had to begin using martingales when fencing him to prevent their foil colliding with spectators when disarmed. The martingale which Gomard describes, 'a small silk or cord strap' attached to the guard of the foil, would still be familiar to many fencers today, although leather is more commonly seen in the 20th century.⁴⁷

Two roughly mid-19th century French foils equipped with leather guards and martingales. From the Agorà della Scherma in Busto Arsizio.

The popularity of the martingale received an artificial boost in the Olympic era after the foundation of the International Fencing Federation, who since at least the 1930s mandated the use of a martingale when the foil was not otherwise attached to the hand.⁴⁸ Italian ligatures and wrist straps would already satisfy this requirement, so the Federation's rule may have in fact further entrenched the traditional Italian binding methods as well as the French.

While not providing much protection against the grip coming loose from the hand, by preventing disarms the martingale is closer to the sword knot in its utility, but some additional leverage can still be produced in forceful blade actions. The martingale may be long enough to only permit the first two fingers to be inserted, or it may even allow all four fingers to be wrapped, as in the example below.⁴⁹

One alternative that some fencers made use of to satisfy the FIE's requirements is what Albert Manley called the 'thong'. This is a simple loop of cord separate from the foil that is placed over the grip in the palm of the hand, thus achieving a similar purpose to the martingale.⁵⁰

When foil scoring was electrified in the 1950s, the body wire which attaches to the guard was considered a sufficient alternative to the martingale or thong, and this would no doubt have reduced their popularity. The French grip eventually suffered a similar fate as the Italian grip, at least at the top competitive levels, and declined in use in the second half of the century; yet unlike the Italian grip it is still found in many, if not most, clubs around the world today due to its versatility and ease of use, at least in the early stages of training. While martingales and thongs of the French foil did not have the distinctive influence on the weapon's progression that we have seen with the Italian foil, their basic functionality rightly places them in the category of ligatures.

Conclusion

Among the many distinguishing features of Italian foil fencing, the widespread use of ligatures is one of its more curious and unique developments. From its somewhat humble origin as an ersatz glove in the first half of the 19th century, the ligature soon differentiated itself to become an essential piece of the Neapolitan arsenal by the 1840s. Those who used the ligature lauded its ability to amplify the virtues of the Neapolitan sword and the fencer themselves, while its opponents saw it as a marker of weakness, as a tacit acknowledgement of the weapon's flaws, and the result of stubborn traditionalism. By the time the ligature reached its final and most popular form in the wrist strap at the turn of the 20th century, the practice of binding the foil was closely linked with Italian fencing as a whole.

So ingrained and clearly beneficial was the ligature to its users that it saw the Italian foil be preferred even above anatomic grips for many decades, only seeing clear decline after the weapon's electrification in the 1950s. Throughout this whole time in which Italian ligatures were in use, French fencers also found it convenient to secure the foil to the hand; when attachments were mandated for foil in the 20th century, ligatures became an everyday object even for French foilists. It is then somewhat remarkable how quickly this simple tool disappeared from fencing halls. If anything, this demonstrates that the practicality of anatomic grips, at least with respect to the foil, addresses the same aim that was sought after in the ligature. Perhaps it could be said that the final, true successor to the foil ligature is in fact the anatomic grip.

*******

1 Giuseppe Rosaroll-Scorza and Pietro Grisetti, La scienza della scherma (Milan: Stamperia Del Giornale Italico, 1803).^↩
2 Ibid., 34. It is possible that these authors also had in mind the silk cravat commonly worn around the neck at the time.^↩
3 Ibid., 34–5.^↩
4 See Blasco Florio, La scienza della scherma (Catania: Tipografia del R. Ospizio di Beneficienza, 1844), 129–32; Benedetto Sernicoli, Breve e succinta istruzione intorno alla scherma per uso della guardia civica (Rome: Tipografia Monaldi, 1847), 25.^↩
5 Christopher Holzman, introduction to The Science of Fencing, by Giuseppe Rosaroll-Scorza and Pietro Grisetti, trans. Christopher Holzman (Wichita, KS: self-pub., 2018), xxvii–xxxviii.^↩
6 Rosaroll-Scorza and Grisetti, Scienza della scherma, 36–8.^↩
7 Florio, Scienza della scherma, 82–3.^↩
8 Niccolò Abbondati, Istituzione di arte ginnastica per le truppe di fanteria di S. M. Siciliana (Naples: Reale Tipografia Militare, 1846), 227–8.^↩
9 Comte de Chatauvillard, Essai sur le duel (Paris: Bohaire, 1836), 29. This duelling code also saw use in Italy, receiving an Italian translation in 1864. See Conte di Chatauvillard, Codice del duello, trans. Eugenio Torelli (Naples: Stabilimento Tipografico del Plebiscito, 1864).^↩
10 Alberto Marchionni, Trattato di scherma sopra un nuovo sistema di giuoco misto di scuola italiana e francese (Florence: Tipi di Federigo Bencini, 1847), 186.^↩
11 Ibid., 231–2.^↩
12 Ibid., 62.^↩
13 See Jacopo Gelli, Codie cavalleresco italiano, 15th ed. (Milan: Ulrico Hoepli, 1926), 74–5.^↩
14 Alberto Marchionni and Cesare Errichetti, Norme sui duelli e attribuzioni dei padrini (Florence: Tipografia di P. Fioretti, 1863), 13–4; Luigi de Rosis, Codice italiano sul duello (Naples: Fratelli de Angelis, 1868), 35–6; 43–4.^↩
15 Achille Angelini, Codice cavalleresco italiano (Florence: Tipografia di G. Barbèra, 1883), 105–6.^↩
16 Baron de Bazancourt, Secrets of the Sword, trans. C. F. Clay (London: George Bell, 1900), 165–8.^↩
17 Masaniello Parise, dedication in Trattato teorico-pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola (Rome: Tipografia Nazionale, 1884).^↩
18 Parise, Trattato teorico-pratico, 219–20.^↩
19 Antonino Guglielmo, Sunto ed innovazioni sulla scherma di spada e di sciabola (Messina: Tipi Caporal Fracassa, 1888), 13–4.^↩
20 "A Neapolitan fencer," New York Times, 14 March 1886, 14.^↩
21 Horacio Levene, Teoria de la esgrima (Buenos Aires: Talleres Gráficos G. Garbo, 1929), 9–10.^↩
22 Paolo De Scalzi, La scuola della spada, 2nd ed. (Genoa: Tipografia e Litografia di L. Pellas, 1853), 29–30.^↩
23 Salvatore M. Arista, 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), 6–7.^↩
24 Settimo Del Frate, Istruzione per la scherma di punta di Giuseppe Radaelli professore di scherma e ginnastica scritta d'ordine del Ministero della Guerra (Milan: Litografia Gaetano Baroffio, 1872), 1.^↩
25 See Achille Angelini, Osservazioni sul maneggio della sciabola secondo il metodo Redaelli (Florence: Tipi dell'Arte della Stampa, 1877); Luigi Forte, Sul metodo di scherma Redaelli: lettera critica diretta al signor Ferdinando Masiello maestro di scherma all'Accademia di Torino (Catania: Tipografia C. Galàtola, 1878); Giuseppe Perez, Il sistema di spada Radaelli giudicato dall'arte della scherma (Verona: Prem. Stab. Tip. di Gaetano Franchini, 1878).^↩
26 Masaniello Parise, Trattato teorico pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola: preceduto da un cenno storico sulla scherma e sul duello (Rome: Tipografia Nazionale, 1884).^↩
27 Paulo Fambri, "Relazione" in Masaniello Parise, Trattato teorico pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola: preceduto da un cenno storico sulla scherma e sul duello (Rome: Tipografia Nazionale, 1884), ix–x.^↩
28 Ibid., xii–xiii. While commission's report does not refer to Giordano Rossi or any other submission by name aside from Parise, it is clear that the grip with 'curvature towards the left that the axis of the pommel' is referring to Rossi's design. For more detail on his modified grip, see Rossi, Manuale teorico-pratico per la scherma di spada e sciabola con cenni storici sulle armi e sulla scherma e principali norme pel duello (Milan: Fratelli Dumolard Editori, 1885), 17–9.^↩
29 Fambri, "Relazione" in Parise, Trattato teorico pratico della scherma, xxi.^↩
30 Arista, Del progresso della scherma in Italia, 6–7; Carlo Pilla, Arte e scuole di scherma: conferenza tenuta alla Società bolognese di scherma nel febbraio 1886 (Bologna: Società Tipografica già Compositori, 1886), 34–6; Ferdinando Masiello, La scherma italiana di spada e di sciabola (Florence: Stabilimento Tipografico G. Civelli, 1887), 126–30.^↩
31 Masiello, La scherma italiana, 135.^↩
32 Salvatore Arista, "Quattro parole sulla scherma," Don Giovanni, 23 February 1888, 59.^↩
33 See VIII congresso ginnastico italiano: regolamenti e programmi (Turin: Tipografia Subalpina di Stefano Marino), 19; Giuseppe Nini, Torneo internazionale di scherma Genova 16-24 Giugno 1892: Relazione della giuria (Genoa, Tipografia del R. Istituto Sordo-Muti, 1892), 37–8.^↩
34 Saverio Cerchione, "Metodo Nazionale di Scherma con arma unica," Gazzetta dello Sport, 15 April 1907, 5.^↩
35 Primo Tiboldi, La scherma di fioretto (Milan: Casa Editrice Sonzogno, 1905), 5.^↩
36 Fambri, "Relazione" in Parise, Trattato teorico pratico della scherma, xxii.^↩
37 Charles de Kay, "French and Italian Swordsmen: School of Parries and School of Touches," Harper's Weekly, 24 March 1894, 287.^↩
38 Note the focus on the wrist in Arthur Lynch, "French and Italian Schools of Fence: The Vogue Among Amateurs in Paris," Outing, March 1902, 677; Tiboldi, Scherma di fioretto, 5.^↩
39 Gustav Ristow, Die moderne Fechtkunst: Methodisce Anleitung zum Unterrichte im Fleuret- und Säbelfechten nebst einem Anhange, enthaltend die wichtigsten Duellregeln (Prague: Josef Koch, 1896), 43.^↩
40 Masaniello Parise, Das Fechten mit Degen und Säbel, trans. Arturo Gazzera and Jacob Erckrath-de Bary (Offenbach am Main: self-pub., [1905]), 98–9.^↩
41 Aldo Nadi, On Fencing (Sunrise, FL: Laureate Press, 1994), 44–5.^↩
42 Giorgio Rastelli, Scherma, 3rd ed. (Milan: Sperling & Kupfer, 1950), 159; William M. Gaugler, The Science of Fencing: A Comprehensive Training Manual for Master and Student; Including Lesson Plans for Foil, Sabre and Épée Instruction (Bangor, Maine: Laureate Press, 1999), 5.^↩
43 Nadi, On Fencing, 42.^↩
44 Renzo Nostini, Scherma di fioretto (Rome: Edizioni Mediterranee, 1979), 20.^↩
45 Giancarlo Toràn, email message to author, 21 July 2024.^↩
46 One example can be found in Enciclopedia Italiana di scienze, lettere ed arti (1936), vol. 31, s.v. "scherma," plate VI, fig. 13.^↩
47 Gomard [A. J. J. Possellier], L'Escrime enseignée par une méthode simple basée sur l'observation de la nature [...], (Paris: Librairie Militaire de J. Dumaine, 1845), 14–5. See also Eugène Desmedt, La science de l'escrime (Brussels: Imprimerie Veuve Monnom, 1888), 39; Émile André, Manuel théorique et pratique d'escrime (fleuret, épée, sabre) (Paris: Garnier Frères, 1896), 451.^↩
48 Fédération Internationale d'Escrime, Procès-Verbal extrait du Compte Rendu Sténographique du Congrès tenu les 9 et 10 février 1934 (Brussels: Imprimerie F. Van Buggenhoudt), 1934, 21–2; "Fédération Internationale d'Escrime," L'Escrime et le Tir, November 1937, 13–9.^↩
49 Henry de Silva, Fencing: The Skills of the Game (Ramsbury, UK: Crowood Press, 2002), 10–11.^↩
50 Albert Manley, Complete Fencing (London: Robert Hale, 1979), 64–5.^↩

Bonaventura, the other Radaelli

In the history of modern fencing, the name Radaelli is inextricably linked to Giuseppe Radaelli, inventor of the famous method of sabre fencing, which naturally leaves his older brother and master, Bonaventura, largely forgotten. In an effort to remedy this neglect, this article shall summarise all the available information on the latter. In addition to shining a light on Bonaventura for his own sake, we can also deepen our understanding of his most famous student.

Bonaventura Radaelli was born around 1822, and he first appears in the public press as a teenager in September 1838, singled out for the skill he demonstrated at a fencing exhibition at the Teatro alla Canobbiana (now the Teatro Lirico) in Milan alongside various amateurs and the local fencing masters Giovanni Villalonga, Fortunato Citterio, and Antonio De Andrea.¹ He does not reappear in the press for several years after this event, but it is clear that his talent for fencing was nurtured during this time, as by 1846 it had become his profession, running his own fencing hall at Via Ciovasso 1651.²

Our best guess as to who Bonaventura's master was up to this point is provided in the memoirs of Manfredo Camperio, who in the mid-1840s started taking lessons from Milanese master Giovanni Battista Rossi only a month before the latter's death. Camperio continued his training under Rossi's successor, the young Bonaventura Radaelli, taking one or two foil lessons every day and spending most of his evenings at the fencing hall.³ Bonaventura being chosen as Rossi's successor suggests that he was a student of the late master, or at the very least trained in a similar method.

While it is difficult to say for sure what that method looked like, there is some evidence that links Bonaventura to the renowned master Alberto Marchionni. When Marchionni republished his landmark treatise on the mixed school in 1864, a Maestro Radaelli of Milan (most likely Bonaventura) is listed as having supported its republication by purchasing five copies of the book, a strong indication that he was an advocate of the mixed school.⁴ Thus one can trace a connection with Giuseppe Radaelli's 'half-Italian' foil method which would appear in Del Frate's publications of the 1870s, a method likely inherited from Bonaventura and the northern Italian fencing scene of the 1840s.

Looking beyond the world of fencing, given the turbulent political situation in Lombardy in the late 1840s and Manfredo Camperio's engagement with other Italian patriots, the Radaelli brothers were likely exposed to a fair amount of revolutionary sentiment due to the oppressive Austrian rule. The political unrest reached a boiling point in early 1848 and resulted in (among many other revolts throughout Italy) the Five Days of Milan, which saw Milanese revolutionaries temporarily drive Austrian authorities out of the city. Bonaventura is mentioned by Camperio as being present with him on 21 March, and he likely took part in the siege of the Palazzo del Genio on that day.⁵ Thus when Giuseppe took up arms in the Monferrato cavalry in 1859, the patriotic example had already been set by his brother a decade prior.

Following the revolt, Bonaventura continued to find steady employment as a fencing and gymnastics master, teaching at his own hall as well as local secondary schools such as the Collegio Longone and the Collegio Calchi-Taeggi. His private hall moved between various places around Milan, but by 1866 he had settled at Monte di Pietà 9, where he would remain for the rest of his career and where his brother Giuseppe would return to in 1868.⁶

The friction between the brothers that had caused Giuseppe's departure from Milan twelve years earlier seems to have no longer been present, and the success of their renewed partnership allowed the Radaelli hall to take on a new level of popularity in Milanese society. The Radaelli hall became almost a cultural phenomenon, hosting yearly banquets which were attended by various members of Milan's high society. After one such banquet, Il Secolo described the hall in particularly glowing terms:

Bringing together noblemen, artists, professionals, and merchants, it is a school which, aside from the other beneficial results, offers an excellent means of union and camaraderie between the different social classes.⁷

While it was Giuseppe who received veneration from the Radaellians in the subsequent decades, in Settimo Del Frate's 1868 and 1872 publications they both receive credit for the method which bore their name, although Giuseppe receives a special mention for his role in spreading it to the military.⁸ We are given no clues as to why Bonaventura's part within the development of the Radaelli method was later downplayed; perhaps his lack of presence in military circles meant he was unknown to the students of the Fencing Master's School who espoused Radaellian fencing in subsequent decades, or perhaps this downplaying was a deliberate measure to bolster Giuseppe's image.

In 1873 the Radaelli hall achieved a marked rise in popularity after it absorbed the members of Ezio Galli's hall which closed earlier that same year.⁹ Giuseppe's reputation within the Ministry of War had similarly continued to climb, having recently been appointed inspector general of the fencing schools for the entire army. Giuseppe was now at the peak of his career, while Bonaventura's was at its end. From 1870 on the annual directory Guida di Milano stops listing Bonaventura among the city's fencing masters and is replaced by his brother, and references in the press to the 'Radaelli brothers' steadily become rarer. By the end of the 1870s Bonaventura has disappeared from the scene, likely a signal of his retirement.

It is not until 1886 that we find any indication of Bonaventura's existence, where he is mentioned as one of several people injured in a gas explosion at the Café Martini, of which was a daily patron.¹⁰ It was also here in September 1889 that his health took a sudden turn for the worse, as Corriere della Sera reported:

In a corner of the Café Martini, sitting, almost huddled, one could see for at least the last fifteen years, for many hours of the day and night, a fine Milanese character, with a short white beard, face always flushed bright red, lively little eyes, his lip expressing a smile sometimes observant and sometimes mocking.

The old guest of the Café Martini was the founder of a fencing school, Bonaventura Redaelli, who could boast of having given Italian fencing a special direction and many of its best students.

Twenty years ago Bonaventura lived together with his brother Giuseppe, also a fencing master and famous for having founded a new system, the mixed system which took his name.

All the students of Bonaventura remember with gratitude the dignity, the serenity of their master, and these students belong to the most noble of Milanese society.

Retiring from this career in 1866, he left his fencing hall to his brother Giuseppe, who died in 1879.¹¹

Redaelli, like so many artists who perhaps received more thorns than laurels in their careers, lived as a misanthrope; he spoke only if provoked, and did not wish to discuss fencing. If somebody started on that topic, he grabbed his hat and left the café.

He was obsessively against newspapers. He said that if he could rule with an iron fist, for at least ten years there would have been no newspapers, no musical theatres, no pianos.

Oh, the pianos, how they got on his nerves!

He complained that there was a tax on dogs and not on pianos, which he honestly believed were one of the causes of today's rising nervousness.

He was nervous, but healthy, very robust. At 68, when it came to speed, agility, walking endurance, and good appetite, he was leagues ahead of a young man.

Four nights ago he came, as usual, to the Café Martini, sat down and picked up a maligned newspaper.

A few moments later he was seen rubbing his eyes with his hands, then gazing at the newspaper and finally throwing it away saying in a discouraged tone: 'God, God, I can't see!'

His friends gathered around trying to console him, and then they accompanied him to his house.

The next morning Redaelli went to see Doctor Lainati, who found no lesions or other local material causes for his dimmed vision; however, he immediately understood that this was an incipient congestion which was going to complete its fatal process, and advised the poor Mr Bonaventura to go to bed.

From that moment Redaelli was a dead man. The darkness before his eyes became ever thicker, he was taken by dejection, desperation, delirium, and before the congestion took him, he died of despair.

Poor Redaelli.¹²

Bonaventura Radaelli died on 16 September 1889, disillusioned with the modern world and seemingly wanting nothing to do with the profession he dedicated his life to. Was this detachment a result of receiving too little recognition for his hard work? Had his love for the art been soured in a dispute with his brother, or rather was it the untimely death of Giuseppe that made fencing too painful to think about? It is understandably entertaining to imagine an old man sitting a café ranting about how pianos are the main cause of societal decay, but one cannot help but wonder what lay behind this tragic social withdrawal.

The last comparison to be made here between the Radaelli brothers lies in how they were finally put to rest. The remains of both are found at almost opposite ends of Milan's grand Cimitero Monumentale, with Giuseppe's remains placed in a simple ossuary and Bonaventura in a more elaborate funerary urn. Was this because Bonaventura had greater financial success in his career, despite the authority attained by his younger brother? Was perhaps Giuseppe's family more humble in the use of their money, while Bonaventura's family wished that he be given a more prominent resting place to show his social standing in life? The answers to the many questions posed here are well beyond our reach today, and unlike the engraved stone of the Cimitero Monumentale, our vague impressions of who these brothers were outside the walls of their famous fencing hall are granted no such solidity.

* * *

1 M. P., "Accademia di spada e sciabola all'I. R. Teatro della Canobbiana," Termometro mercantile e d'industria, 22 September 1838, 304.^↩
2 Utile giornale ossia guida di Milano per l'anno 1846 (Milan: Giuseppe Bernardoni di Gio, 1846), 609.^↩
3 Manfredo Camperio, Autobiografia di Manfredo Camperio, 1826-1899 (Milan: Riccardo Quintieri, 1917), 12.^↩
4 On the republication of Marchionni's treatise, see this article.^↩
5 Camperio, 37.^↩
6 Bonaventura's employment can be tracked through the annual issues of Guida di Milano, available here. On Giuseppe's departure from and eventual return to Milan, see Jacopo Gelli, Bibliografia generale della scherma con note critiche, biografiche e storiche (Florence: L. Niccolai, 1890), 168.^↩
7 "Banchetto," Cronaca, Il Secolo, 20 January 1870, 2.^↩
8 Settimo Del Frate, Istruzione per maneggio e scherma della sciabola (Florence: Tipografia, lit. e calc. La Venezia, 1868), xiii; Settimo Del Frate, Istruzione per la scherma di punta (Milan: Gaetano Baroffio, 1872), 1.^↩
9 "Banchetto Sociale," Cronaca, Il Secolo, 6 February 1873, 2.^↩
10 "Lo scoppio nel caffè Martini: Un morto - un ferito," Il Secolo, 17 March 1886, 3.^↩
11 Giuseppe actually died in 1882, and as mentioned above Bonaventura probably did not fully retire until after 1870.^↩
12 "Bonaventura Redaelli: Un altro tipo milanese scomparso," Corriere della Sera, 21 September 1891, 3.^↩

The republication of Marchionni's 1847 treatise

Alberto Marchionni's Trattato di scherma was the first work to be published explicitly discussing the 'mixed' school of fencing, and was highly regarded by many of those in the north of Italy who were themselves also considered proponents of the mixed school. Although it is of great significance within the context of Radaelli and his contemporaries, I will not be discussing the technical matter contained in the treatise here today. Instead, I wish to provide a clarification for the publication of this important work which may not be immediately obvious upon first reading it.

The title page of this book gives a publication date of 1847, however, I wish to point out a few parts of the book which indicate that the majority of copies which can now be found online (and presumably those found in libraries) were published almost 20 years later.

Our first clue of this is contained at the end of part 1, where one finds the following note to the reader from the publisher:

In 1847 the author undertook the printing of this treatise, but due to the political events that took place in 1848, he had to suspend its publication in order to take part in the war of independence as a volunteer, and then due to various circumstances having to continue his military career, where he still finds himself with the rank of major on leave of absence.
Encouraged by several of his old associates, and urged on again by various masters of this art who would like to see this treatise completed, he took to continuing it.
Hence we are more than certain that this book will receive universal approval, due to the useful considerations demonstrated by the author, and due to it truly being a complete treatise on this most noble art.¹

Thus we already see that this edition must have been published some time after the First Italian War of Independence. At the end of the book, Marchionni includes various acknowledgements to his friends and colleagues for their support in continuing the publication of his treatise. Among others, he lists Enrichetti at the Royal Military College in Florence as having bought one copy of the book, Maestro Pini in Livorno as buying 4, a Maestro Radaelli in Milan buying 5, and Maestro Lambertini buying 2.²

Further on he gives praise to Carlo Tambornini and Cesare Alberto Blengini for their treatises, calling the former the best sabre treatise written to-date, and commending the latter for his methodology for group fencing instruction.³ Given that Blengini's treatise was published in 1864, the republication of Marchionni's treatise cannot have occurred earlier than this.

By searching outside Marchionni's text, we find an issue of a short-lived newspaper from 8 August 1864 by the name of l'Esercito Illustrato. In this issue, we find an article by an unnamed writer giving a review of Marchionni's treatise, which he says was in fact republished twice in that year:

The first instalment of this important work was published in 1847, the second and the third date from 1864.⁴

So with a republication date of 1864 (or better yet, two republication dates), we can fairly safely assume that the masters cited by Marchionni would have been Giuseppe Pini (father of the famous Eugenio Pini), Bonaventura Radaelli (older brother of Giuseppe Radaelli, who at this time was following Avogadro and the Monferrato cavalry in their various postings in Italy⁵), and Clemente Lambertini (father of Vittorio Lambertini).


1 Alberto Marchionni, Trattato di scherma sopra un nuovo sistema di giuoco misto di scuola italiana e francese, [2nd ed.] (Florence: Federigo Bendici, 1847 [1864]), 206.^↩
2 ibid., 373.^↩
3 ibid., 373–4.^↩
4 Bibliografia, L'esercito illustrato: giornale militare, 6 August 1864, 445.^↩
5 Jacopo Gelli, Bibliografia generale della scherma con note critiche, biografiche, e storiche (Florence: Tipografia Editrice di Luigi Niccolai, 1890), 167.^↩