The Early Career of Luigi Barbasetti

In the Radaellian tradition, no other fencing master boasts quite the same level of name recognition as Luigi Barbasetti. As a result of his trailblazing work introducing Italian fencing to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, as well as boasting the only Radaellian sabre and foil treatises to be translated in their entirety into English prior to the 21st century, Barbasetti's work was what introduced many Europeans to Radaellian fencing in the late 19th and 20th centuries, and it continues to do so for many fencers around the world today.

Less known to modern readers are the many articles Barbasetti wrote across many periodicals throughout his career, particularly those written in the two-year between him leaving military service in 1892 and his fateful move to Vienna in late 1894. By nature of the period in which these articles were written, they give significant insight into Barbasetti's motivations as well as his perceptions on the development of Italian fencing up to that point.

In the document below I have provided a selection of sixteen articles from the magazines La Rivista Sportiva and Scherma Italiana, ten of which were authored by Luigi Barbasetti himself, signed either with his full name or more commonly merely his initials 'L. B.', and in one instance simply 'B.' The remaining six articles provide the context for those Barbasetti references and responded to.

*** Supplementary articles ***

Other articles of Barbasetti's appeared in these two magazines during this period, but those presented in the provided document are the most pertinent in understanding the frustrations and disillusionment which undoubtedly gave Barbasetti the motive to leave Italy for greener pastures abroad. What follows in the rest of this article is my own attempt to provide a biographical background for Barbasetti's writings and highlight how they were influenced by his prior experiences.

——————

Giuseppe Luigi Barbasetti was born on 21 February 1859 in the city of Udine.¹ As a teenager he joined the military, receiving training as a non-commissioned officer at the 3rd Training Battalion in Verona, where he quickly distinguished himself in fencing under the tutelage of Carlo Guasti. Due to his fencing talents, Barbasetti was selected to become a fencing master, for which he spent an additional year at the Training Battalion with Maestro Guasti and then in 1880 he entered the great Fencing Master's School in Milan, whose acting director at the time was Giovanni Monti, in place of the ailing Giuseppe Radaelli. Barbasetti's personal copy of the fencing textbook used at the school, along with all the meticulous notes he wrote alongside it, is still preserved today at KU Leuven in Belgium.²

Barbasetti's first master, Carlo Guasti.

After graduating in 1881, Barbasetti became the regimental fencing instructor of the 36th infantry.³ Soon after his assignment to this regiment it transferred to Palermo, which proved to be a fruitful experience for Barbasetti. While stationed here he had the opportunity to train with the highly regarded amateur fencer Antonino Palizzolo, who ran a popular fencing club in Palermo. Although Barbasetti's regiment was stationed in Palermo for less than two years, under the guidance of Palizzolo Barbasetti greatly improved his foil fencing and developed an appreciation for the Sicilian fencers, whom he described as being particularly adherent to their traditional methods and equipment.⁴

By the start of 1885 the 36th infantry regiment had moved, as had the Military Fencing Master's School, which had its new seat in the Italian capital under the direction of the young Neapolitan master Masaniello Parise, a significant controversy in the Italian fencing world. Before the Rome school could resume the task of training fencing masters, the new, non-Radaellian, fencing method that formed the curriculum at Parise's school had to be taught to the military's existing masters. In April 1885 Luigi Barbasetti began his 3-month conversion course in Rome, where he made enough of an impression on the new director that he, along with several other Radaellians, was asked to remain at the school as an assistant instructor. This role had the benefit of providing a slight pay increase as well as being a more fulfilling role, as instructors here would be teaching students who were much more interested in learning fencing than the average officer in a regimental fencing hall would be.⁵

Barbasetti first came to the attention of the fencing public in 1887 at the 'international' tournament in Florence, his first such appearance. Although overshadowed by others in the foil elimination competition (he did not compete in sabre), his classification bouts resulted in him receiving the second highest score among 42 fencing masters in foil and fourth out of 61 masters in sabre. In addition to the two gold medals he received for these rankings, Barbasetti was also awarded a yataghan, one of 28 special prizes donated by various clubs, politicians, and nobles.⁶

Barbasetti's reputation continued to rise over the following years, repeating similarly noteworthy performances at no fewer than seven tournaments by 1892 in addition to his first Florentine outing. By 1891 Barbasetti was one of the longest-serving instructors at the Master's School, alongside his old master Carlo Guasti and Carlo Pessina. Despite this apparent loyalty, however, Barbasetti's later writings show that at this point he was growing increasingly frustrated and resentful of the institution he served. Rather than being loyal to Parise and his method, Barbasetti was in fact adamantly opposed to the sabre method he was being forced to teach, and had never abandoned his Radaellian principles. By mid-1891 Barbasetti had been transferred to the Modena Military School. It is unclear why this happened—one journalist later wrote that Barbasetti left voluntarily 'in order to not share moral responsibility deriving from fallacious teaching'—but it is likely that by this point he was greatly disillusioned with his role at the Master's School.⁷ At the Modena Military School Barbasetti found a brief reprieve from this feeling, being able to teach alongside a large cohort of like-minded Radaellians free from the watchful eye of Parise.

What separated him from his colleagues at the military school, however, was the fact that his efforts at the school had not yet been rewarded with a promotion to civil master. 'Civil master' was the designation the Ministry of War gave to fencing masters under their direct employ as civilians, distinct from regular military instructors like Barbasetti, who were first and foremost soldiers and who were for the most part attached to a specific regiment or, in rare cases such as Barbasetti's, temporarily assigned to a military school or college to act as an assistant instructor. The relevance of this particular promotion here is the effect it had on a given fencing instructor's willingness to remain in military service.

Long-term retention of military fencing masters was dismal in the late 19th century. Several commentators, including Barbasetti, asserted that most masters left the military at the end of their five-year mandatory service period. This service period included the time spent training at the Master's School, so given that the course lasted two years until 1890, and thereafter three years, most masters would only be required to serve for a couple of years after graduating.⁸ If the instructor achieved a civil master promotion, however, it is almost certain that they would keep that position for many years, often decades. The position of civil master was greatly coveted as with it came: the benefit of a much higher starting salary which increased further with seniority; a generally more enthusiastic group of students; the consistency of being attached to an institution rather than a regiment which was constantly redeployed; freedom from the menial day-to-day tasks foisted on military instructors (such as delivering mail and acquiring firewood); the ability to also give private fencing lessons outside of regular work hours, among several other factors.

From a purely practical standpoint, military instructors found themselves in a contradictory position in their role as an instructor: every day they had to act as teachers to officers as well as NCOs, but they were unable to discipline students on their own, having to rely on the hall supervisor, who was not always present. While civil masters had no rank, given that they were civilian employees, they were nevertheless free of the military hierarchy and had the ability to engage with officers in more informal social contexts outside of their work. This put them on a much more equal social level than they would be had they remained soldiers, one much more in keeping with the respect they themselves felt they deserved.

To reach the rank of civil master, military instructors had to undergo an examination similar to those the masters would have undergone to graduate from the Master's School, which consisted of giving example lessons, answering questions about the regulation fencing text, and bouting. However, since all the competing candidates had several years of experience by the time they applied for the position, the level of competency required to rise above the crowd was understandably very high. The sum of the scores candidates received for each exam element would create an overall ranking for all candidates, and soon after the highest ranking candidates would be given any civil master positions vacant at the time. Any other positions that became vacant in the following two years would be awarded to the next highest-ranking candidate, provided they were still serving in the military. If a candidate did not end up receiving a promotion at the end of this period, they were considered unsuccessful, and would have to go through the exams again if they still wished to earn a promotion. However, individuals were only permitted to apply for the civil master promotion twice; if they did not receive a promotion after two attempts, they could not apply again and had to either be content as a lowly military instructor or, as most eventually did, leave the military altogether.⁹

This was the position our Barbasetti found himself in when, in October 1892, he returned to the Master's School one last time, this time not as an instructor, but as a candidate for civil master. Given that Barbasetti had been a military instructor for over a decade now, this was probably his second (and final) chance to get the promotion. At the end of the civil master exams, Barbasetti ranked a respectable 5th out of likely several dozen candidates. Unfortunately for Barbasetti though, this ranking was not high enough to secure him one of the two already vacant civil master positions, which instead went to two younger masters, Agesilao Greco and Vincenzo Drosi.¹⁰ To add insult to injury, not only did all the other masters who ranked higher than Barbasetti have less experience than he, as per the regular rules governing who could apply to the civil master role Greco would not have had the requisite seniority, so he would have had to receive special permission from Parise to take part in the exams.¹¹

Despite spending six respectable years as an instructor at the Military Master's School, Parise and the army had implicitly deemed Barbasetti's teaching skills to be lacking in comparison to several of his less experienced peers. This proved to be the last straw for Barbasetti, and a few months later he left the army entirely. Curiously, if Barbasetti had remained in the army for another year, he indeed would have received his promotion. From when the exams took place in October 1892 and until the possible advancement period ended in September 1894, a total of 8 civil master vacancies were filled, a high but not unprecedented number. Since he had already been discharged from the army, however, he was no longer eligible to receive the promotion, and it instead went to one of his Radaellian colleagues.¹² Barbasetti was likely aware of this possibility when he received his discharge papers, thus it cannot be said for certain that the results of the civil master exam were the deciding factor for Barbasetti.

Despite these no doubt demoralising circumstances, it was as a free agent that Barbasetti would finally receive the recognition and remuneration he felt was owed to him, in all likelihood surpassing anything he might have achieved by staying in the military. The opportunity to employ this highly experienced and reputable young master was quickly seized by the the popular and well-funded Trieste Fencing Society, and in December that same year Barbasetti arrived in Trieste to a rapturous welcome. Although still part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at this time, Trieste had a significant and growing Italian minority who was well up-to-date on the latest fencing trends in Italy. Even before Barbasetti's arrival, the fencers of Trieste were by no means ignorant of Radaellian fencing, indeed the city was somewhat of a Radaellian outpost in the late 19th century. The famous master Salvatore Arista had spent a couple of years in Trieste in the same role a decade earlier, and by the time Barbasetti arrived in 1892 two other ex-military Radaellian masters, G. T. Angelini and Augusto Garagnani, were teaching in the city. Barbasetti's reputation naturally overshadowed the two incumbents; a banquet was held to celebrate his arrival, which was billed as the beginning of a revival of fencing activity in the city.¹³

As well as marking a new era in his teaching career, Barbasetti's move to Trieste resulted in the emergence of his public persona through the Italian sporting press. His first forays into writing appeared in mid-1893 in the pro-Radaellian fencing magazine Scherma Italiana, responding to comments made about a recent exhibition of his with Eugenio Pini and discussions on duelling codes and ongoing efforts at their standardisation in Italy.¹⁴ But it was at the end of the year when he truly came to the attention of the literate fencing public by becoming an editor of Trieste's La Rivista Sportiva. This magazine had been in circulation since the beginning of 1893, featuring only a modest and intermittent fencing column, but in December the Rivista began an ambitious shift and published a 6-page special edition fencing supplement to inaugurate the addition of Luigi Barbasetti to the magazine's editorial staff.¹⁵

For the last five months of La Rivista Sportiva's existence, fencing became the largest single section of the magazine, often comprising half of an individual issue's total material. The magazine boasted of having received commitments for the collaboration of many other prominent Radaellians, but very few of them (at least in name) would actually contribute an article in the magazine's short lifetime. While the magazine did not manage to serve as the collaborative and enduring platform that some Radaellians had hoped for, it did at least provide an effective soapbox for its newest editor, Barbasetti, who immediately took to expounding his views on the current state of fencing in Italy, declaring that it is 'on the path of regression, perhaps primarily because of the teaching method introduced in the army, which we cannot declare to be in agreement with.'¹⁶

Barbasetti was highly critical of his old boss, Masaniello Parise, and the oppressive institution he ruled over. Although Barbasetti had spent 6 years teaching at the Master's School, this had not made him more amenable to Parise's teachings, at least not with respect to sabre fencing. He makes explicit his regret at having attempted to make change from within the system:

Parise's collaborators, or rather the executors, all pure Radaellians, wanted to repaint something…decayed and covered in patches, so as to make a ramshackle thing pass off as new. It was junkyard business and for my part I now deplore having lent a hand.¹⁷

Barbasetti depicts Parise and the school as oppressive and detrimental to the development of fencing in Italy; adherence to the defective official method stifles the artistic freedom of fencing masters in the army, whom Barbasetti asserts are all of a lower quality than those who emerged from the schools of Radaelli and Enrichetti. His first example of this oppression was the fact that the famed Ferdinando Masiello had in late 1893 resigned from his respected teaching position at the Florence military college. This followed only a few months after another master, Barbasetti's dear master Carlo Guasti, left the halls of the Rome Master's School and was transferred to a military academy in Turin.¹⁸ Barbasetti believes both events to be proof that more and more masters were becoming disillusioned with the curriculum and being subordinate to Parise.

Today it is Masiello who renounces government teaching. Tomorrow, who knows? But if we go on at this trot we can hope for at least one thing: which is that soon nobody will receive a master's licence from the state without proving that they have hung Masaniello Parise's treatise at the foot of their bed and that every morning they recite this prayer: 'I believe in the impeccable, infallible official fencing treatise and I renounce all other authors and common sense if by chance I find it.'¹⁹

Barbasetti asserted that in the past eight years 'not one truly strong sabre fencer has emerged from the Master's School', which immediately caught the ire of at least one of Parise's disciples, Antonio Conte, whose response to Barbasetti's diatribes appeared on the front page of Scherma Italiana.²⁰ Conte points to the recent competitive successes of himself and his fellow graduates as proof of the school's accomplishments, a point which the Radaellians themselves made in defence of the Milan school in previous years. In his response, Barbasetti shows himself to be fiercely protective of his reputation as a competitor, downplaying Conte's victories by asserting that most of his victories took place when he did not have to face someone like Barbasetti. When he is willing to concede that a graduate of Parise's school is worthy of praise, it is mostly because their instructor at the school deviated from the regulation method (as was supposedly the case with Carlo Guasti) or because of their own extraordinary physical attributes (e.g. Agesilao Greco).²¹

Regular readers of this blog may also appreciate the additional details Barbasetti provides on the Parise-Pecoraro reforms from a few years prior. While the actual substance of Parise's reformed sabre method is well known to us through later sources, Barbasetti directly credits General Giovanni Corvetto, then Undersecretary of State at the Ministry of War, for initiating this process. Barbasetti claims that Corvetto was 'a bitter enemy of the Parise system' and attempted to replace Parise with Pecoraro as head of the Master's School, but he was overruled by others in the government. As a compromise, Pecoraro was permitted to make changes to the cavalry's sabre instruction, the result of which was the Parise-Pecoraro method that was taught to the cavalry and students at the Master's School from 1891 onwards.²² Yet these changes were evidently insufficient for Barbasetti, as they did not address the underlying problems with how the Italian military trained its fencing masters.

In expounding on how to improve what Barbasetti perceives to be a decline in the quality of sabre fencing and fencing masters in Italy, he draws inspiration partly from his personal experience of over 12 years of military service. He has positive memories of the 'training unit' model that he experienced in his youth, where the Master's School acted more as a finishing school rather than one which takes up the burden of providing a comprehensive training programme.²³ Yet there is one new perspective that Barbasetti has recently gained greater access to with his move to Trieste, and that is the fencing programme of the Austro-Hungarian army's school in Wiener Neustadt.

Several articles in the Rivista Sportiva strongly suggest that Barbasetti was interacting with Austro-Hungarian military personnel and those who had close knowledge of the kind of fencing carried out in both military and civilian circles.²⁴ These contacts gave him the strong impression that life for a fencing master in the Austro-Hungarian military was far better than in Italy, for several reasons. The first was due to the fact that Austrian military fencing masters are officers, and they can continue receiving promotions while acting as fencing masters. The second factor was that the fencing course at Wiener Neustadt lasted only a year, which meant the empire was able to produce fencing masters quickly, albeit with less training than an Italian master. Barbasetti's imagined emulation of the Wiener Neustadt system would have seen the Modena Military School turned into a training unit of 'fencing specialists', with this location most likely being selected as a result of his personal experience there two years earlier.²⁵

The most fruitful aspect of Barbasetti's interaction with Austrian military personnel, however, turned out not to be the importing of new ideas into Italy, but rather the beginning of the exporting of Italian fencing to the rest of Europe. In the penultimate issue of La Rivista Sportiva in April 1894 Barbasetti mentions a visit from Eugen Bothmer and Amon Gregurich, both fencing masters in the Austrian army. These masters had given Barbasetti an invitation to hold a course on Italian fencing at the cavalry school at Mährisch Weißkirchen (Hranice na Moravě, today part of Czechia), where they had already begun teaching in accordance with the Italian method, likely learnt through their contact with Gustav Ristow and Pietro Arnoldo.²⁶ He was then taken to the Wiener Neustadt school where he gave another demonstration of the Radaellian method, which was so well received that already in August 1894 some were claiming that Barbasetti's method was to be adopted by all military schools in Austria-Hungary.²⁷

By the end of the year, Barbasetti had packed his bags and moved to Vienna, and thus began a new and remarkable period in European fencing which saw the Radaellian spread rapidly across the continent. The last issue of the Rivista Sportiva was published on 10 May 1894, but this was by no means the end of Barbasetti's writing career. Aside from his books—namely his duelling code (1898), sabre treatise (1899), and foil treatise (1900)—Barbasetti continued to contribute the occasional article to various newspapers and magazines both in Austria and Italy, but he never again assumed such a direct role in affecting the public discourse like he did with the Rivista.

Much has been said about Barbasetti's fascinating career over the past 130 years, and surely much more remains to be said, particularly regarding the years following his departure from Vienna at the outbreak of the Great War. What I hope to have provided here at least is a deeper insight into the events which shaped Barbasetti's decisions in the early 1890s, events which eventually led to him becoming one of the most recognised names in the history of both Italian and Austrian fencing.

*******

1 Unless stated otherwise, biographical details regarding Barbasetti are drawn from the following sources: Fleuret, "Luigi Barbasetti," Allgemeine Sport-Zeitung, 5 January 1896, 19; Roderico Rizzotti, "Luigi Barbasetti," Scherma Italiana, 1 October 1896, 47–9; Camillo Müller, "Barbasetti," Allgemeine Sport-Zeitung, 1 March 1903, 220–1.^↩
2 KU Leuven Libraries Special Collections, R4A552b.^↩
3 Cesare Francesco Ricotti-Magnani, "CIRCOLARE N. 47. — Corsi eventuali presso la scuola magistrale militare di scherma. — (Segretariato generale). — 11 aprile," Giornale Militare 1885: Parte Seconda, no. 17 (15 April 1885): 196–7.^↩
4 Luigi Barbasetti, "La miglior parata è la botta," Gazzetta dello Sport, 20 August 1897; Barbasetti, La Scherma di Spada (Milan: Tipografia Alessandro Gattinoni, 1902), 24.^↩
5 On the salary of military instructors at the Master's School, see Jacopo Gelli, Brevi note sulla scherma di sciabola per la cavalleria (Florence: Tipografia di Luigi Niccolai, 1889), 9^↩
6 Daily reports on the tournament can be found in the Florentine newspaper La Nazione between 5 and 18 May 1887.^↩
7 "Accademie, tornei e notizie," Scherma Italiana, 17 December 1894, 91–2.^↩
8 For some examples of contemporary discussion regarding the poor morale of military fencing masters, see Giuseppe Perez, "I Maestri di Scherma nell'Esercito," Baiardo: periodico schermistico bimensile, 16 May 1891, 4; D'Artagnan, "I Maestri di Scherma nell'Esercito," Baiardo: periodico schermistico bimensile, 1 June 1891, 4; Ricasso, "Il grado ai maestri di scherma militari," Lo Sport Illustrato, 20 August 1891, 406; Luigi Barbasetti, "La Scuola Magistrale Militare di Scherma in Italia," La Rivista Sportiva, 25 March 1894, 63. On the mandatory service period of military fencing instructors, see Raccolta ufficiale delle leggi e dei decreti del regno d'Italia, vol. 97 (Rome: Stamperia Reale, 1890), 2366.^↩
9 Giovanni Corvetto, "CIRCOLARE N. 129. — Norme per l'esame di concorso alla nomina a maestro civile di scherma. — (Segretariato generale). — 22 agosto," Giornale Militare 1888: Parte Seconda, no. 40 (25 August 1888): 496–8; Ministero della Guerra, Regolamento per la scuola magistrale militare di scherma (Rome: Voghera Enrico, 1897), 23–4.^↩
10 Results on these exams are mentioned in "Accademie, tornei e notizie," Scherma Italiana, 27 October 1892, 70. The promotions of Greco and Drosi are announced in Ministero della Guerra, Bollettino ufficiale delle nomine, promozioni e destinazioni negli uffiziali dell'esercito italiano e nel personale dell'amministrazione militare, no. 48 (24 December 1892): 612.^↩
11 Candidates had to have a seniority dating prior to 1 January 1882. See Luigi Pelloux, "CIRCOLARE N. 96. — Concorso per la nomina a maestro aggiunto di 1a classe nel personale dei maestri civili di scherma. — (Segretariato generale). — 19 agosto," Giornale Militare 1892: Parte Seconda, no. 28 (20 August 1892): 250–1.^↩
12 The civil master promotions that were awarded between 1892 and 1894 are announced in the Bollettino ufficiale delle nomine, promozioni e destinazioni negli uffiziali dell'esercito italiano e nel personale dell'amministrazione militare.^↩
13 "Luigi Barbasetti," Il Piccolo, 1 December 1892, 1.^↩
14 "Sfida Barbasetti-Pini," Scherma Italiana, 8 May 1893, 31; "Il codice unico," Scherma Italiana 20 July 1893, 50–1; "Ancora sul codice unico," Scherma Italiana, 1 November 1893, 78.^↩
15 The copy of this first fencing supplement for the Rivista Sportiva I consulted bears no date, but given that it cites letters from the end of November 1893, a publication date in December seems likely.^↩
16 Luigi Barbasetti, "Ai miei lettori!," La Rivista Sportiva, [December 1893], 1.^↩
17 Luigi Barbasetti, "Commenti e.... Commenti," Scherma, La Rivista Sportiva, 10 January 1894, 3–4.^↩
18 Fieravespa, "E due!....," Scherma Italiana, 19 June 1893, 41.^↩
19 Luigi Barbasetti, "Ancora uno che se ne và," La Rivista Sportiva, [December 1893], 1–2.^↩
20 Luigi Barbasetti, "La decadenza della sciabola," La Rivista Sportiva, [December 1893], 4–5; Antonio Conte, Scherma Italiana, 15 February 1894, 17.^↩
21 Luigi Barbasetti, Scherma Italiana, 15 March 1894, 21–2.^↩
22 "Comunicati," Scherma Italiana, 5 August 1894, 65–6.^↩
23 Luigi Barbasetti, "La Scuola Magistrale Militare di Scherma in Italia," Scherma, La Rivista Sportiva, 25 March 1894, 63.^↩
24 In addition to the above-cited article, see Cap. Otto, "La scherma di sciabola in Austria," La Rivista Sportiva, [December 1893], 4; Cornelio Agrippa, "I maestri di scherma nell'esercito austro-ungarico," Scherma, La Rivista Sportiva, 25 January 1894, 13; Burlone, "La Scherma in Austria," Scherma, La Rivista Sportiva, 10 February 1894, 33–4.^↩
25 Luigi Barbasetti, "La Scuola Magistrale Militare di Scherma in Italia," Scherma, La Rivista Sportiva, 25 March 1894, 63.^↩
26 Luigi Barbasetti, "La Scherma Italiana in Austria," La Rivista Sportiva, 25 April 1894, 87–8. On Pietro Arnoldo's work in Austria, see this article.^↩
27 "Comunicati," Scherma Italiana, 5 August 1894, 65–6.^↩

Glimpses inside the Master's School: Giovanni Franceschinis

Continuing on from last week's article from Ottorino Scognamiglio, today is part two of our glimpse into the Mecca of pre-war Italian fencing, the Military Fencing Master's School in Rome.

This second account comes from Giovanni Franceschinis, who after graduating from the school had a long and successful career teaching in Vienna, following in the footsteps of Luigi Barbasetti, whom he spent some time training under during his time at the Master's School. This article was originally published in the July 1956 issue of the Italian Fencing Fedaration's magazine Scherma. It is the first of three articles by Franceschinis that the magazine published, with the other two dedicated to his career in Austria. While these are also interesting in their own right, only the first article will be translated here due to its relevance to the Rome Fencing Master's School.

Contrary to what Franceschinis claims, his course at the school took place from 1890 to 1893, so any of the dates he gives regarding his time there should be shifted a year earlier. Compared to Scognamiglio's account, Franceschinis pays a little more attention to the individuals involved in the training as well as their and his own achievements during the early stages of his career. These details partly set the stage for Franceschinis' subsequent articles in which he describes the glories and successes of Italian fencing throughout Europe at the turn of the 20th century, in addition to simply allowing Franceschinis to associate himself with the more famous figures at the centre of these events.

---

Biographies of great masters: Maestro Giovanni Franceschinis

On the occasion of the dispute at the Gaudini Cup in Milan last March, we had the pleasure of meeting Maestro Giovanni Franceschinis in person (we already knew him by reputation), and since we knew that he had had a rather interesting life, we asked him to dictate something for the readers of Scherma, a request which he immediately granted with pleasure.

Perhaps few fencers, even among the masters, will remember him; most do not know who he is. This is not very surprising, since, aside from belonging to that privileged and, unfortunately, now quite...rarefied category of fencers and masters who are well into their 80s, Franceschinis lived abroad for many years; and as we know, 'out of sight, out of mind'. But not so for us, having imposed on ourselves the dutiful task (not always easy, to tell the truth, and least of all supported by the interested parties themselves) of pulling from oblivion those who have given to our sport their best energies and—whether as amateurs or as professionals—brought prestige and honour to Italian fencing. As Franceschinis occupies a very worthy place among these people, we are glad to take advantage of the occasion which put us in contact with him in order to introduce him to readers.

We intended to make this introduction immediately after the interview; unfortunately we were forced to postpone month after month because the competitive activity was such that it completely absorbed the available space. However, as we are not dealing with topical matters, the postponement does not harm either the story or its presentation.

Franceschinis, for those who do not know, is a vigorous and venerable old man who wears his 86 years of age with ease, and his upright body still maintains some of that proud bearing acquired in the Nizza Cavalry, which he was a part of in his distant youth. He now lives, almost in solitude, in Milanino, living on nostalgic memories and a very poor pension, something which these days happens often to many survivors of the previous century. But even if life for him now is somewhat sad and difficult, he has not lost the spiritual serenity that was his faithful companion and solid support in the fight for existence, carefree and beautiful while the years were carefree and beautiful, but tough and sad when it should have been easy and peaceful.

May he be comforted by the thought that those who knew him remember him with affection and respect, and we at the columns of Scherma wish him all the best. Having made this introduction, here is what the good Franceschinis told us:

How I became a fencing master

I was born in Udine on 15 August 1869, and I am the son of an Italian patriot, one of the brave defenders of Osoppo Fortress (1848) who was deported in 1861 to Olmutz, in Moravia, for having participated in the revolutionary revolts for Italian independence in that year, then he was a captain commissioner in the Italian army. Like most old fencing masters, I too come from the famous Military Master's School, which was founded in Rome in 1884 and in which I attended the 4th course (1891–1894), under the direction of the great Maestro Masaniello Parise.¹

To tell the truth, my career was not supposed to be that of a fencing master. My father wanted to make me a brilliant officer, and to that aim he made sure to send me through the strict classrooms of the Milan Military College, where I lived for four years, from 1884 to 1888. In 4th year, however, while I was getting by quite well in other subjects, I stumbled in mathematics, and since I would have to repeat the year, no longer with half-board (until then I had been able, as the son of an officer, to enjoy this benefit), but full board, and my father was unable to support me, I thus volunteered in the army, enlisting as a student sergeant in the 1st Nizza Cavalry regiment in Milan. Two years after promotion to sergeant, I applied and was accepted into the Fencing Master's School.

When I entered the school I was not ignorant of fencing, because both at the college—under the guidance of the civil masters Guarisco and Cavallo—as well as in the Nizza Regiment, I was successfully frequenting the fencing hall, falling in love with this most noble art.² At the Master's School I passionately applied myself under the guidance of Maestro Guasti.

The school was then, as is known, at the Santa Caterina barracks (Salita Magnanapoli), with modest facilities, but a now rich tradition of seriousness and intention: a true school of character and art. The school was subordinate to the Ministry of War. Militarily it was commanded by an army captain, and—for its technical aspect—it was under the direction of Maestro Masaniello Parise, winner of the competition for a unified text on sabre and foil fencing, announced by the Ministry. The courses at the school, to achieve the Military Master diploma with an army or navy regiment, lasted two years, later increased to three years in 1892.

The school had a first-rate teaching body, selected from among the best and most capable masters in all of Italy. Aside from the director Parise, there were two vice-directors (civil masters Pecoraro and Pessina); the teaching masters: Guasti and Laudati (civil), Drosi, Nappi, and others.

There were six hours of lessons per day: three in the morning, two in the afternoon, plus one for theory. An hour of gymnastics early in the morning. In addition to the lessons with one's master, there were set exercises in pairs—always, however, under the supervision of the master. Even the vice-directors gave lessons, occasionally, taking turns. For the first year of the course there was no sabre, only foil. There were competitions, to touch with a lunge, by direct thrust or parry-riposte, but never in close measure. Exercises which developed the fencer greatly.

In the second year Maestro Agesilao Greco joined the school, employed as a bouting master, without a student group.³ He was already a very strong fencer, with exceptional physical strength and endurance, more enamoured with and passionate about his art than any other. To give an idea of this passion of his, I will tell you an anecdote. We were both in the guardhouse in the barracks, he for eight days and I for fifteen, through common military shortcomings. One day I see him arrive at the guardhouse with foils, masks, and Indian clubs. For us the days of confinement in the guardhouse were...days of rest. Anything but rest! Agesilao made me work like a dog.⁴

During the year various military masters, already in the service and blessed with special talents, were called to the school for supplementary courses of two or three months, such as Santelli, Tagliapietra, Conte, Tagliaferri, and Schiavoni. These masters were, for us students, of great benefit in every respect. During the 2nd year of the course (1892) the director, on behalf of the Ministry of War and at the invitation of the English ministry, went on a mission to London with a group of the best masters and fencers for a demonstration of Italian fencing. Taking part were the masters: A. Greco, I. Santelli, E. Torricelli, and Schiavoni.⁵ Their exhibitions enraptured the cold and formal English public.

The school's students often participated in national and even international tournaments. For example, at the Grand Palermo Tournament during the 1893 National Exposition the school—by order of the Ministry—sent seven students from the 3rd year as amateurs (registration was free for masters), in particular: Alesiano, Berti, Gazzera, Miserocchi, Morellini, Olimpico, and this author. All were among the best classified with a gold medal. In addition to my two medals in foil and sabre, I received an English Colt carbine, which was a special gift from the Commanding General of the Army Corps. There were around 300 participants, and the unforgettable tournament lasted 14 days. Agesilao Greco was first among the masters, in foil and sabre. They were the best and strongest blades in Italy.

During my last year at the school the director Parise often entrusted me with special assignments, and on one such occasion I had the fortune of witnessing the civil master exams (students at the school were excluded). The committee was composed of General Manacorda, president, and masters Parise, Pecoraro, Pagliuca, Masiello, Pessina, and others. In such circumstances, performances were made. It was in one of them that I saw the most thrilling bout of my life. The protagonists were masters A. Greco and Vittorio Sartori (the dynamite Bersaglieri, as he was called). It was a masterpiece of fencing and art. The bout lasted 35 minutes. Greco won 4 hits to 1.

In July 1894 I was appointed master, with 24 other colleagues, one of whom from the navy. 63 people were admitted to my course.⁶ As you can see, it was a real sifting. I was assigned to the 7th Milan Cavalry, stationed at Nola.

Partly due to the uninviting headquarters, largely due to the fascination that young masters had for the international fame that surrounded our fencing masters—who at that time were in demand everywhere—the fact was that I too was looking for an escape and an adventure beyond the borders of the fatherland, and for this purpose I turned to Maestro Barbasetti, who was then teaching in Vienna and whom I, for a few months, had had as a teacher at the Rome Master's School.

Having left the army not long before in order to fill the more remunerative instructor position at the Trieste Fencing Society, whose president was the great fencer Count Sordina (a position subsequently occupied by Maestro Tagliapietra, who held it until his death in 1948), Barbasetti moved to Vienna for a few months at the military school in Wiener Neustadt and the Union Fechtclub. While waiting for the anticipated call, I put my attention to perfecting myself, going to the National Academy in Naples, where I worked with the masters Russomando, Macrì, and others.

But Barbasetti did not get in touch, and then, without thinking about it too much, I requested and obtained overseas leave—I had relatives in Trieste and it was not difficult for me to get; I left, bag over my shoulder, first for Triste, then for Vienna, where I was welcomed with justified astonishment but also delight by Barbasetti, who immediately put me to the test. It was August 1895.⁷ The lasting impression on the Viennese fencing scene was excellent. Three months later, I was called by telegraph to be professor of fencing at the Wiener Athletiksport Club, in the process of being founded. I obtained my discharge in advance. I hurried to my family in Udine, then, with two scraps of civilian clothing, my trusty bag over my shoulder, I arrived in Vienna with a metre and a half of snow, but with my heart boiling over, happy.

I began by helping Barbasetti with private lessons, waiting for my club to settle in, as I will discuss later. Incidentally, I will mention that, almost at the same time as Barbasetti, our great Italo Santelli was called to Budapest, being already very famous, and who immediately gave a remarkable boost and a very personal imprint on fencing in Hungary, the results of which we can see!

At that time, fencing was at its height everywhere. Imagine that at the time I was in Vienna, in Budapest alone there were no less than 1,000 fencing connoisseurs, among whom distinguished personalities in politics, science, and the arts. I had the honour of having as my student in Vienna the then captain Gömbös, who was later Prime Minister of Hungary and whose manuscripts I hold dear.

Giovanni Franceschinis

*******

1 Many of the dates Franceschinis gives, particularly those early in his career, are off by a year, as in this instance. He in fact attended the school from 1890 to 1893, and his was the 5th full-length course at the Rome school.^↩
2 If Antonio Guarisco was teaching at the Milan Military College during this time, he would have been a regular military master, not a civil master. The fencing master of the Nizza cavalry at this time was most likely Ercole Baldi.^↩
3 As the name suggests, bouting masters were employed by the school purely to serve as bouting partners for the students.^↩
4 Here Franceschinis uses the racial slur negro.^↩
5 Almost correct. The masters who went were Agesilao Greco, Italo Santelli, Angelo Torricelli, and Vincenzo Drosi.^↩
6 Franceschinis graduated in July 1893. Sources differ on how many students were initially admitted to the course, but the actual figure is probably closer to 44. The number he states as graduating after third year, however, is likely correct.^↩
7 These events in fact took place in 1896, not 1895.^↩

Glimpses inside the Master's School: Ottorino Scognamiglio

Much time has been spent on this blog over the years discussing the various controversies surrounding the Military Fencing Master's School in Rome as well as the technical details of its curriculum, but very rarely do the sources provide much insight into how those who trained at the school themselves experienced it. Decades after the closure of the school, its graduates were still among the most revered figures in Italian fencing, and thankfully a very small number of these graduates did eventually share some memories from their time at the school.

Over two posts we will be reading two first-hand accounts from graduates of the Master's School, who give their rose-tinted retrospectives on one of the most exciting and formative periods of their lives. Naturally, the fact that these were both written more than half a century after the events they recount, they should not be considered fully reliable from a factual perspective; their greatest value lies in the humanising effect of their genuine emotional insights. Nevertheless, many of the details they share can be corroborated by contemporary sources.

Both articles were published in the official magazine of the Italian Fencing Federation, then bearing the title Scherma: bollettino della F.I.S.¹ This first account, appearing in the December 1955 issue, comes from Ottorino Scognamiglio, who trained at the Master's School from 1901 to 1904. Scognamiglio's account is certainly the most sentimental of the two we will be reading, perfectly capturing the youthful exuberance of the students as well as the sense of prestige that accompanied all those who successfully emerged from the school's halls.

---

Memories of an old master

With his 'recollections', Maestro Ottorino Scognamiglio brings us back to a distant and glorious past which cannot help but arouse deep emotion in those who saw it. How many survivors are there of those bygone courses? Of those whom Scognamiglio recalls, it seems, only two in Italy: Scognamiglio himself and Cesare De Leonibus, the founder and technical director of the most glorious Circolo della Spada in Venice, which was located in the halls of La Fenice, and from whose training emerged champions of great fame.
Both are now close to eighty years old, they are...watching the new generations, perhaps shaking their heads and thinking wistfully of the old days.
Dear old masters, it is with true pleasure that we publish your recollections, hoping that others follow you, glad to help you emerge from oblivion and remind us of you so that—and this is consolation for your venerable grey hair—we, young and not so young, despite the transience of time, remember you with sincere affection and commemorate your deeds and your work with admiration. And may God long preserve you in our affection.

Nine o' clock on the 15th of September 1901. The barracks at Santa Caterina a Magnanapoli, Rome. In the interior corridor of the Military Fencing Master's School, lined up in full dress, the 25 candidates for the master's course (and I among them) were introduced to the commanding captain of the student company. The famous Captain Sinopoli, the terror of the school. A 50-year-old Calabrian, moustached and stocky, with the typical complexion of his native region, his penetrating gaze and thundering voice which, after a single intense 'inspection!', began with a lyrical greeting. Changing tone, he then took great care to point out to us that we had not given him a good impression. Some of us—in his opinion—did not keep the perfect position of attention. He continued by saying that he would expect from us the utmost irreproachability—on penalty of going back to our original regiment—and finally that, where necessary—as was his system—he would be liberal in giving out punishments. The comments on this reception were rather spicy. Someone whispered: 'We get the point. How will we be able to survive three years with this Cerberus?'

The medical examination which we were subjected to later was long and meticulous. I remember that the first phalanx of my right little finger—naturally bent to the inside—caused a lively discussion between the medical officer and the school's technical director. The first considered this 'anomaly' in conflict with the perfect physical harmony required. The other maintained that that hand, with that finger, was ideal for holding the sword firmly. The director's argument prevailed and I, like all the others, were declared fit. And then appeared F. M. Berardi, our paymaster, always fatherly and sympathetic, who promptly provided each of us with the fencing equipment issued to the school's students.

The hour we had anxiously awaited finally arrived. The bell rang in the distance. Here we were in the Great Hall of the University of Fencing. The spacious fencing hall appeared festive and welcoming to our eyes. That hall where, for three long years and for a good six hours a day, we gave our entire being with almost insane enthusiasm. Our deities appeared. Here were the two vice-directors, civil masters Pecoraro and Pessina, both of average stature, stocky and moustached, open countenances, eyes gleaming. Nothing at all suggested that these two fencers were unbeatable. They were the champions of the age. Then the masters Laudati, Drosi, and Nappi with their modest and friendly appearance. Next was the group of military masters: the Mephistophelian goatee of mean Maestro Ori stood out, as well as the hairy mole of Maestro Cavalli; we noted the austere demeanour of Maestro Zane and the friendly smile of Maestro Gaudini.

The great star, the autocrat of fencing, the technical director of the school appeared. He is the honorary fencing master of the King, the author of the army's official fencing treatise, the great Masaniello Parise. He was the typical figure of an old-fashioned aristocrat. A long face with fine features and a well-groomed blond beard. Very elegant. D'Annunzio called him the King of the Sword.

The course began. The exhausting and meticulous lessons follow each other day after day. Enduring that exertion, tolerating those continual corrections, the fastidiousness of the teachers, and the rigorous observance of the rules inherent to the school's environment seriously put our nervous systems to the test. Our youthful exuberance was stifled. Humiliation, bitterness, and disappointment was our daily bread. Endure was our motto. The students of the course above urged us to not give up. The suffocating strictness of the school finally ended. The dread captain retired. Called to replace him—for a short time—was a great man, a Sardinian, Captain Alagna, who then in turn was replaced by the late Captain Alessandrini, who was able to win the affection and respect of everyone.

The 2nd year of the course began with new teachers. Civil master De Simone replaced Drosi and military masters Prampolini, Selmi, Genovesi, and Angelillo took over from masters Cavalli, Ori, Zane, and Gaudini. The fruits of the work accomplished in the previous school year were truly admirable. Compared to us, D'Artagnan, a fond delusion for us all, was a total dud.

We experienced the full glamour of Rome. The sympathy that the Romans felt towards the students of the Master's School was clear. We were welcome everywhere. In military inspections our school always aroused a special sense of admiration. To tell you the truth, the choreographic spectacle it presented was exceptional. It was a mixture of uniforms, colours, weapons, plumes, glittering helms, black bearskins, kepis, and most of all a sample of bold and daring youth that paraded impeccably. The parades in honour of the shah of Persia, the emperor of Germany, the king of England, the president of the French Republic at the time followed one another, and the ever-applauded Master's School continuously excited the public's lively curiosity. There were frequent visits by military attachés of foreign ambassadors, high-ranking personages, and foreign and Italian missions. The usual noisy spectacle of a dozen pairs of fencers fighting always aroused a sense of amazement, and then our director offered plenty of information and explanations to the attentive listeners.

We are now in the 3rd year, the finishing course, with another change of masters. The group of soldiers was substituted by the masters Abita, Bonioli, and Gandini, all three coming from the previous intake at the Master's School and previously our companions in the course above. We began to breathe more air. By now we were wiser, and in the art of coping we were peerless. Our group, unfortunately, had thinned. There were fourteen of us left.

A visit from our King was memorable. At 10 o' clock in the evening a telegram from the Quirinale announced that His Majesty would come to visit at 9 o' clock the following day. Good heavens! We all had long hair... Without delay the two barbers at the school were mobilised and...'point blank' we were shaved like prisoners. Our protests were to no avail. Someone earned themselves a few days in the guardroom for trying to escape that affront. Looking like this, and perhaps also because we were excited, His Majesty noticed that our faces were emaciated—owing, in his view, to excessive work. The following day, a medical commission captained by His Excellency Inspector General of the Army Medical Corps came to visit us. We were presented almost in birthday suits and examined individually. Conclusion: the fencing schedule was changed but not reduced, and the food was improved slightly...

What made our school exceptionally fun and pleasant on the whole was the psychological diversity that one noticed among the students of the three courses. There was no lack of amusing characters, as well as dangerous hotheads. There was a considerable number of lady-killers and also players of various instruments, renowned singers, circus gymnasts, ballet dancers, painters, impromptu poets, photographers, conjurors, jokers, and even a seller of wine by the glass. A regionalistic spirit often peeped out, but always within the appropriate limits. A gentlemanly humour predominated, and making merry was the agreement. Excursions and clandestine nocturnal outings were the order of the day, but all with happy endings. Unforgettable times!...

Mak P 100 was now approaching.² Perfect fencing technique had been acquired. The most perfect aesthetics—not separated from powerful efficacy—were in our possession. The long-awaited and long-desired day was approaching: the day of our final exams. The day of our ordination as fencing masters. On 7 July 1904 in the fencing hall, in full regalia, the director wished to personally give us our master's diploma. Deeply moved, we listened to the customary exhortation, closed with a powerful handshake. We knew to suppress our cry of farewell, but deep in our hearts that cry was beating strong.

Dear unforgettable companions in arms, I remember you all. I still see you like I did then. I will always love you greatly, more than fraternally, like 50 years ago. Zanni, Schiavo, Galli, Canzano, Giovannelli, Coltro, Anzillotti, Altea, Tattoli—well known names in fencing—why did you leave us so soon? Voltolini, Rossi, Macrì—where are you? Dearest De Leonibus, it is to you that I dedicate these recollections of mine. You who, for 54 years, I have been bound to in sincere mutual affection. I have finished.

I put down my pen with a mindful and thankful thought for my dear late master. For Salvatore Angelillo, who in heart, science, and knowledge was 'second to none'.

Ottorino Scognamiglio

*******

1 Past issues of this magazine can be viewed for free here on the FIS's website.^↩
2 Translator's Note: 'Mak P 100' is the term, deriving from the Piedmontese dialect, given to the celebrations that take place at Italian military schools 100 days before graduation.^↩

A new doctrine for the Rome Fencing Master's School

The official establishment of the single, national Military Fencing Master's School for the Italian army in December 1874 was the culmination of six years of trials initiated by the Ministry of War. What started as three individual schools all in northern Italy quickly became consolidated into two, and beginning in 1873 it became evident that one school, or perhaps just its technical director, had risen to the top of the Ministry's favour when it declared that Giuseppe Radaelli would take on the role of inspector general of all military fencing halls.¹

Marking the official establishment of the unified school was the War Minister Cesare Ricotti-Magnani's short circular summarising the nature of the school, which opens:

1. At the Milan military recruiting office a fencing master's school has been instituted to train NCO fencing instructors and sub-instructors for the army.
2. The direction of this school will be entrusted to a brigade commander of the Milan garrison, and instruction will be imparted by the professor of fencing Mr. Giuseppe Radaelli.²

Although far from a list of governing regulations, we see that the stated primary goal of this institution was simply to train fencing instructors for the army. Consulting the other circulars and acts published around this time, the only other purpose given to the school was to conduct the necessary assessments to award promotions to the newly-created civil master role.³ The method taught at the Master's School is stated as that created by Giuseppe Radaelli, and it is clear that all active military masters would have to receive training in it; however, there are no comments on the method's qualitative superiority or any of its ideological associations. The authority of the school, its aims, and its means are assumed, not explained or justified. The duties of military fencing masters are clearly laid out, but very little structure is given to the Fencing Master's School itself, suggesting that the school enjoyed considerable independence in its day-to-day operation.⁴

So if the Milan school is notable for its apparent lack of framework and ministerial oversight, the complete opposite can be said for its Rome counterpart when it was instituted in 1884. In addition to the functions which the school served in Milan, it now takes on a larger responsibility for the Italianisation of fencing in the army. This is made clear at the very beginning of the Ministry's official announcement for the school's institution (emphasis added):

To the end of spreading within the army, with uniformity of method, the instruction of sword and sabre fencing according to the Italian school, this Ministry has come to the decision to institute in Rome a military fencing master's school.⁵

This new fencing school was national not only because its graduates would be dispersed throughout the whole army or because of its location in the Italian capital (only incorporated into the Italian state after the Milan school first became operational), but also because its curriculum would be proudly Italian—based on the 'Italian school', which until then had been a theoretical ideal, a tradition preserved in a select number of fencing halls throughout the peninsula, but now becoming a physical, official institution.

This nationalist language echoes that seen in the original announcement for the Ministry's fencing treatise competition in 1882, which stated that submitted works must be 'informed by the sound and glorious traditions of the Italian school'.⁶ What the Italian school consists of exactly was never defined, and Radaellian critics saw this as merely a dog whistle for Southern or Neapolitan fencing. The treatise commission's interpretation of this passage the following year only strengthened this suspicion when it concluded early on in its deliberation: 'Neapolitan sword, therefore Neapolitan school.'⁷ The Neapolitan school, the report argued, preserved the old tradition of Italian fencing during the Napoleonic era when Northern Italy came under the influence of French culture and adopted defective French fencing customs. Adopting the Neapolitan method was therefore not only patriotic, but logical.

In the weeks after the Master's School began operations the Ministry of War published the 'Internal service regulations for the military fencing master's school', which contained 75 articles outlining the school's purpose, course structure, and the roles and responsibilities of the people employed by the school.⁸ The regulations opened by repeating the previously quoted mission statement of teaching in accordance with the 'Italian school', but adding that this would be 'in compliance with the treatise approved by the Ministry of War', subsequently explained as that written by Masaniello Parise, which had been 'examined and selected by a special commission'. The treatise is referred to seven times throughout the regulations, repeatedly emphasising that all instruction is beholden to this text. Even the technical director is obliged to conform to it, removing the possibility for another master to take Parise's place and make sweeping changes to the curriculum. Any threat to the sanctity of the approved method is a threat to the school, thus there must be no alterations to it 'so that the necessary and perfect unity of direction is maintained at the school.'

Within just the first few items we can see a marked contrast with the language used around the school's previous iteration in Milan. The primary purpose of the school is no longer to train fencing masters for the army, but to propagate Italian fencing, as detailed in its authoritatively selected treatise. As it later stated even more explicitly (again, emphasis added):

All discussions of the various fencing methods which have existed in Italy until now are absolutely prohibited, as are all comparisons. Everyone must therefore keep in mind that the school was instituted with the sole aim of propagating throughout the army knowledge of the method chosen by the Ministry.

Graduates of the school were now to be cultural agents of the Italian state within the army, or as it wished to be seen, 'the school of the nation'.⁹ This made it necessary to insist on the essential Italianness of the school's fencing method, because Italian had to become synonymous with the typical Risorgimento ideals of cultural superiority and progress. The years of campaigning by partisans of Neapolitan fencing ensured that it was their method that became synonymous not just with 'Italian fencing', but also 'scientific fencing'. This was achieved partly by insisting on the continuity of the modern Neapolitan school, as professed at the National Academy of Fencing in Naples, with the Neapolitan school depicted in the seminal Italian fencing treatise of the early 19th century, Giuseppe Rosaroll and Pietro Grisetti's The Science of Fencing.¹⁰

The old Radaellian regime could claim no such traditional foundation, indeed it was decidedly empirical. As the famous Radaellian Salvatore Arista later put it: '... in its own favour the Neapolitan school cites traditions, while the Radaellians are instead supported by experience; something which could theoretically resemble the conservatives and the progressives in politics.'¹¹ When it came to the foil, Radaelli's self-proclaimed 'half-Italian school' stood little chance of surviving under the Ministry of War's new direction, especially after the string of critical publications against Radaelli's method that had been released by 1884.¹²

A near endless amount of discussion can be had about nationalism and political discourse with Italy's modern fencing scene, beyond the more blatant expressions seen in the later fascist period of the 20th century. There is likely much to be uncovered in the archives of the Ministry of War about the government's involvement in these controversies, but I hope that this short article was able to present the existing information in a new light, keeping a yet more hopeful eye towards deeper analysis in the future.

*******

1 Giuseppe Radaelli was known by the Italian press as having this role from as early as February 1873. See "Banchetto Sociale," Cronaca, Il Secolo, 6 February 1873, 2.^↩
2 Cesare Ricotti-Magnani, "N. 251. — SCUOLE MILITARI (Nota N. 5). — Scuola magistrale di scherma — 6 dicembre," Giornale Militare 1874: Parte Seconda, no. 44 (11 December 1874): 492.^↩
3 Cesare Ricotti-Magnani, "N. 249. — ORDINAMENTO DELL'ESERCITO (Nota N. 29). — Istruttori e maestri di scherma per l'Esercito — 4 dicembre," Giornale Militare 1874: Parte Seconda, no. 44 (11 December 1874): 489–92.^↩
4 A view also shared by Ferdinando Masiello, who prior to 1864 had attended the Master's School at Parma. Ferdinando Masiello, "L'insegnamento della Scherma in Italia," La scherma italiana, 2 September 1923, 2.^↩
5 Emilio Ferrero, "N. 107. — SCUOLE MILTARI. — Istituzione di una scuola magistrale militare di scherma in Roma. — 9 giugno," Giornale Militare 1884: Parte Prima, no. 25 (13 June 1884): 323–4.^↩
6 Masaniello Parise, Trattato teorico-pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola (Rome: Tipografia Nazionale, 1884).^↩
7 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), x.^↩
8 Emilio Ferrero, "Atto N. 123. — SCUOLE MILTARI. — Regolamento di servizio interno della scuola magistrale militare di scherma. — 27 giugno," Giornale Militare 1884: Parte Prima, no. 29 (4 July 1884): 453–61.^↩
9 Ministero della Guerra, Regolamento di disciplina militare (Rome: Carlo Voghera, 1872), 21.^↩
10 Giuseppe Rosaroll Scorza and Pietro Grisetti, La scienza della scherma (Milan: Stamperia del Giornale Italico, 1803).^↩
11 S. M. Arista, "Quattro parole sulla scherma," Don Giovanni, 23 February 1888, 60.^↩
12 See this series for my own translations of said works.^↩

In Defence of a Dead Man by Jacopo Gelli

It has been quite some time since this blog has consulted the opinions of the prolific Radaellian crusader Jacopo Gelli. As someone with fierce convictions in several topics, it is natural that many would in turn also have strong opinions of him, both positive and negative; regardless of how one may feel about him, however, it is hard to deny that he commanded a large audience in the period, and his writings are at least entertaining to read. Nowhere else is this latter fact more true than for the booklet featured here today, his 1894 work In difesa di un morto; ovvero agonia del metodo ufficiale ('In defence of a dead man; or agony of the official method').

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

The 'dead man' in question is, of course, none other than Giuseppe Radaelli, whom Gelli has once again stood up to defend in the face of what he feels are false and unfair personal insults towards the late master. Gelli's primary accusation is that Parise and the Rome Master's School of appropriating Radaelli's method by teaching it at the school but passing it off as Parise's work. In addition, he maintains that despite the recent reforms to the cavalry regulations, many high-ranking military personnel are in full support of Gelli's condemnations of Parise's method and reforms.

Very little of what Gelli touches on in this booklet will be new to readers, as many of his talking points appear in his previous publications; however, what does make this particular booklet interesting is that he makes ample use of personal testimonies from third parties. Although most of the names are withheld (unsurprising given the damning accusations being made), Gelli quotes current and former instructors of the Master's School to prove that sabre fencing is not being taught there as per Parise's treatise, and quotes several letters he had received from various amateurs, fencing masters, and military officers voicing their support for Gelli's arguments.

But perhaps the most damning testimony of all is one of the few that is not anonymous. Following the publication of Resurrectio, Gelli received a letter from Achille Angelini complaining that he was being unfairly targeted by Gelli and other Radaellians for approving Parise's treatise through the famous government Commission from 1883, over which Angelini presided. In his defence he maintains that while he was very favourable towards the section on the sword, he did not approve of the sabre material, going so far to call it a 'negation of God'. Although subsequently pressured by the rest of the Commission to give a positive score to both the sword and sabre sections, Angelini claims to have sent a separate report of his own, along with the official Commission report by Fambri, in which he gave his true thoughts on Parise's sabre method. This letter was apparently ignored, and was supposedly not even read by anyone at the Ministry.

To further support all this damning evidence, Gelli quotes liberally from another colourful writer we have encountered previously: the Neapolitan journalist Enrico Casella. Gelli sees in Casella a valuable ally with an 'impartial' voice of criticism for Parise, being a Neapolitan and an old associate of the Parise family. No doubt his favourable opinions of the Radaellians are also very welcome on Gelli's part.

After briefly going over the large amount of money spent in maintaining the Rome Master's School in comparison to its previous iterations, Gelli finishes his work with an ultimatum addressed squarely at Masaniello Parise: either admit that Radaelli's method is taught at the Master's School and cease appropriating his teachings, or prepare to be sued in court by Gelli himself for unlawful use of Radaelli's intellectual property. It should not be too surprising to know that Parise never did respond to Gelli, nor am I aware of any court case involving the two.

Gelli's campaign in support of Radaellian fencing did not end with this booklet, but it was certainly the last publication of any kind by him that focused solely on attacking Parise and his school in the name of Radaellian fencing. His efforts to reframe the evolution of fencing centred on Bologna and northern Italy (opposing the ideas of Neapolitan fencing being a continuation of Italy's oldest traditions) continued to appear in his magazine articles on fencing and his 1906 book L'Arte dell'Armi in Italia, but In defence of a dead man would end up being Gelli's final pitched battle in the war for Radaellian redemption, a fight which was still carried on in many ways by his companions for decades to come.

Masiello's retrospective on the Master's School

After the military fencing master's school in Rome was indefinitely closed at the end of 1914 as part of Italy's military preparations, its absence was deeply felt on all sides of Italy's fencing community, even by those who had been publicly critical of the school for most of its existence. Ferdinando Masiello would have been considered by many to be at the head of this critical faction, at least during the period in which Masaniello Parise was in charge of the school.

By September 1923 the military fencing master's school had been closed for almost nine years and Italy itself had also undergone a radical change in government. As the call to reopen the school continued to grow louder, particularly from its alumni, an aging Masiello also took the opportunity to offer his own two cents on the matter with an article in the recently-founded fencing magazine La Scherma Italiana entitled 'The teaching of fencing in Italy', which has been translated here for the reader.¹

The first half of the article summarises the early days of the three military fencing master's schools and their unification (both in the physical and moral sense) into a single school, rehashing much of the introduction to his 1887 treatise, but then goes on to emphasise how wide-reaching and beneficial this national unification was for the art and thus why it is so important for the school to be revived now. giving his own suggestions on how this should be done so as to avoid the schisms and disputes that resulted from the formation of the Rome school in the 1880s. It is worth noting that Masiello's opinion of Pecoraro & Pessina's sabre treatise seems to have softened significantly (here calling it 'worthy of consideration') since it was first published in 1910, given that shortly after its publication Masiello wrote a lengthy and perhaps overly-harsh criticism of it, accusing them of plagiarism and incompetence, among other things.

So without further ado, here is the article itself translated in full.

---

Maestro Ferdinando Masiello, on the piste for 56 years.
Photo taken in Florence, May 1923.

Since 1887 I believe to have brought a useful contribution to Italian fencing in the 'historical summary' put forward in my treatise, also with regard to the development of the art in the various periods in which it was explained in the publications of our most celebrated masters.

I will therefore limit myself to recalling the attention of all fencing enthusiasts, and particularly my colleagues from the army, to a matter which I consider absolutely vital for our art and the teaching of it.

THE CONDITIONS OF THE TEACHING OF FENCING IN ITALY IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE LAST CENTURY

Those who have only a basic knowledge of what has been published on the subject of fencing are aware that there has never been true unity of concept in the teaching of fencing, but rather true discord, and this not just between province and province, but also in the same city where two or more masters reside.

The division and discord in the fencing methods in Italy date back, as everyone knows, to the beginning of the last century. The science and good intentions of distinguished masters such as Rosaroll-Scorza and Grisetti, and later Marchionni and Zangheri, were still not enough to impart a true unifying force to the teaching of fencing.

Such discord of methods was naturally more felt in the army, insofar as a change of garrison almost always meant a change of system. It must not be forgotten that until 1868 fencing was taught to the military by civilian masters residing in the city of the regiment's headquarters, sometimes by officers who bore some practical elements in teaching, but outside of any theoretical knowledge, and sometimes the teaching was instead entrusted to the best drummer!!!

From such irregularity and dissimilarity of teaching derived inevitable consequences which all returned to detriment of the art and the army. Everyone knows that not only in exhibitions, but also in duels, the worst was always a military man.

This state of affairs could not last long without someone getting the concrete desire, latent in all lovers of the art, to unify its teaching method.

INTRODUCTION OF METHODICAL TEACHING IN THE ARMY — 1868

Indeed the Minister of War, General Bertolè-Viale, had the happy thought—among the many improvements he introduced—of also establishing the teaching of fencing in the army. But his idea, however happy I said it was, was overly so, since instead of a single school, he decided that three would be opened, located in Parma, Modena, and Milan, with their respective heads being: Captain Gioberti and Mr. Mendietta-Magliocco; Cesare Enrichetti; and Giuseppe Radaelli.

As it is easy to imagine, while the work was in full swing at all three schools, the result from the artistic side—especially in the two at Parma and Modena—was not very satisfactory. Instead in Milan, under the direction of Radaelli, sabre fencing progressed day by day, both due to the undisputed ability of the master and due to the lesser importance that was given to sword fencing. I note here that the required attendance to obtain the master diploma for the two weapons was fixed at a year for the first two schools. The school directed by Radaelli in Milan was almost independent.

The ministerial commission charged with examining which of the first two aforementioned schools had given the best results—in order to award the master diploma to the students and furthermore to get an idea on the preference to be given to the system adopted in the schools—recognised that the one directed by Maestro Enrichetti merited special consideration. Indeed the commission itself granted the diploma to four students of this school and three to the Parma school, reporting to the ministry for the Enrichetti school to be the standard and proposing that the master's course be brought from one to two years.

This happened in 1868–69.

In approving the commission's various proposals, the minister considered it useful to merge the two schools in Parma and Modena into a single one residing in Parma, under the direction of Enrichetti.

From this fusion, masters and students immediately sensed all the benefit which they could have obtained, and in the period 1869–75 there was true emulation on the basis of reciprocal enthusiasm so as to achieve the most remarkable progress: the Milan school prevailed in sabre; the Parma school in sword.

The factual evidence clearly confirmed the quality of the teaching. At the various congresses and tournaments these two schools found themselves together with the most talented civilian fencers from private schools, and as predicted, those from the Milan school (Radaellians) won in sabre, and those from the Parma school (Enrichettians) in sword.

These results could not pass unnoticed by the ministry, also because it highlighted well the superiority of the military school compared to civilian ones.

On the other hand, the coexistence of the two schools, however excellent they both were, had perpetuated a dualism which had to be removed in order to achieve the desired unification. And since for obvious reasons the ministry had to give its preference to the sabre, as the weapon of the army, the Parma school was merged with the Milan school, at the same time decreeing that all military masters attend a course there for about a year. From this provident order was born that true reconciliation of minds that was to bring the most glorious results and a friendly and honest exchange of ideas, both in theoretical research as in practical development. In short, from the rational and intense work done by the students of the two combined schools, the results were such as to be able to say—without fear of being proven wrong—that the art of fencing had never achieved similar progress. As proof of this it will suffice to take a glance at the results achieved in the congresses and tournaments which took place in the decade from 1874 to 1884.

Bologna Congress 1874

Sword: 1. Ferdinando Masiello, military.

Sabre: 1. Giuseppe Ronga, military.

Siena Congress 1875

Sword: 1. Ferdinando Masiello, military.

Sabre. 1. Giuseppe Ronga, military.

Rome Congress 1876

Sword: 1. Salvatore Arista, military.

Sabre. 1. Gaetano Barraco, military.

Turin Congress 1877

Sword: 1. Salvatore Pecoraro, military.

Sabre: 1. Giordano Rossi, military.

Milan International Tournament 1881

Sword: 1. Salvatore Arista, military.

Sabre: 1. Luigi Scarani, military.

Naples Congress 1881

Sword: no competition held.

Sabre: 1. Carlo Pessina, military.

Turin International Tournament 1884

Sword: 1. Carlo Pessina, military.

Sabre: 1. Foresto Paoli, civilian.

But not only from the above results must the progress achieved by fencing be deduced, but also from the phalanx of masters who—for various reasons—could not take part in the congresses. The names are many and known to all, and I will abstain from mentioning them.

I do believe, however, to not do wrong to any young people if I also proclaim here that in them the art of fencing had—and still does in the survivors—its most pure expression.

That the unification of the two systems was a fait accompli we can deduce furthermore deduce by a characteristic circumstance verified at the Rome congress (1876) in which Salvatore Arista (Radaellian) won the sword competition, while Gaetano Barraco (Enrichettian) won the sabre competition. At the following congress (1877) a Radaellian, Salvatore Pecoraro, won the sword competition, at the tournament in 1881 the same Arista (Radaellian) again won the sword competition. At the 1884 international tournament in Turin an Enrichettian, Foresto Paoli, (the only civilian champion) won the sabre tournament.

This is abundant proof that the fusion of the two schools had fully achieved the aim which the minister of war had set: i.e. obtaining true unification in teaching methods.

—————

So, what was missing to make this unique method official? Nothing more than a treatise, since this term cannot apply to the schematic manual compiled in 1870 by the then-Captain Del Frate on the basis of Radaelli's principles, and in any case preceding the future merging of the two schools by over seven years.

But if a written treatise was missing, the masters and students (who then in turn became masters) were lively and ready to fully contribute to their theoretical-practical science for the formation of said treatise.

However, the champions of the Southern School, ever attached to their now outdated traditions, being unable to ignore the facts after being repeatedly and clearly beaten by the school of the army, tried by any means to demolish an edifice constructed with so many sacrifices and such consciousness, attacking that poor little treatise which had no fault in what we had all achieved with intense work and tireless study.

And it is useless to recall here what everybody knows: the licit and illicit means deployed by fencers and influential people, by members of parliament and senators to put the unified system in a bad light, and to compare it with another. And so much was done and schemed as to bring about the notorious competition and the even more notorious results, forming a commission with the vast majority of which being against the system in power in the army.

None of the masters and students of the unified Enrichetti-Radaelli school could ever forget,  nor ever forgive an artistic assassination which morally wounded the champions of the army in the most atrocious way, among whom it was elementary justice to choose those who should have received the inheritance of the two deceased grand masters, Enrichetti and Radaelli.

The adoption of the official method was not only an affront to the military masters, but the greatest calamity that could happen to the art, inflicting a decline of about half a century. And what should be pointed out most is that while the author of the approved treatise had never wielded the sabre, the commission gave more merit points to that part than it did for the sword treatise!!!

This shows that they were not looking for a competent person who knew how to impart true development to the art and to fencing in the army, but they wanted a (southern) school, the director of which already in pectore² even before the competition was announced.

If I also mention such facts here, it is because the teaching of the official treatise's hybrid principles has continued for over a quarter of a century, with who knows how much damage to the art.

Proof of this lies in the fact that when the director of the Master's School was alive, the teaching of fencing was never done with scrupulous orthodoxy; and with him dead, the vice-directors, the illustrious colleagues Commendatore³ Pecoraro and Pessina (originating, like the author, from the two glorious unified schools) felt the need to return to our first principles, publishing a sabre treatise which, especially in the second edition, I will not hesitate to declare in many respects to be coherent and worthy of consideration.

And for the sword?

Do we again have to turn to the treatise which proclaimed force as the enemy of fencing?

Everyone sees, therefore, the necessity of returning to the old; not in the sense of restoring errors already condemned, but reconnecting the theoretical-practical results of the two united schools with what has been done rationally in the progress of time.

How can this aim be achieved?

Here is what I think must be done:

1. Re-establishment of a single Fencing Master's School;
2. Adoption of a single textbook for the two weapons;
3. Choose a director.

Many will marvel that I, a fierce opponent of the late Master's School, begin with proposing its re-establishment. This shows once again that I never fought the institution, but solely the doctrine which was imparted there. As a lover of the art I indeed feel the necessity for this re-establishment to happen as soon as possible.

—————

We Italians are often reproached for mimicking foreigners, and unfortunately the examples of this bad habit abound.

But if we imitate them in frivolous and harmful things, why should we not imitate them in what is good?

One of the main causes of disagreements (speaking always of our art) was precisely, as I said, the plurality and variety of teaching methods.

Instead in other nations, and especially in France, such artistic disputes do not occur, because the ministry of war, among its numerous regulations for the army, always had a single text for sabre and sword fencing which is the gospel of the Master's School. This text did not bear the signature of any master, and by being so impersonal it is scrupulously followed like all the other regulations.

It is therefore necessary that we too think of unifying what exists in our art that is rational and practical for the two weapons into a single text.

And in order to arrive at the compilation of this unique text it is necessary to assemble a commission composed of masters known for their publications on the subject (treatises or other important publications), including among them three professors: a mathematician, a physiologist, and a scholar, with goal of using the authority of science to put an end to the controversies between the various authors and give the best form to the book, with regard to both conciseness and clarity.

The choice of director should by right fall to fencing masters on active service employed by the ministry of war, and naturally with the exclusion of those in retirement and civilians.

All the masters (I repeat) on active service summoned to an assembly will proceed to appoint the director in the manners considered best so that the election falls on the master most suitable due to his intellectual and artistic qualities without regard for seniority.

Before closing this brief summary, I feel I have to direct an urgent call to the central committee of the meritorious Italian Fencing Federation so that they fully realise the necessity of bringing about, when appropriate, the actuation of what I have proposed and what the enlightened experience of others may suggest is best and most profitable. Since 1887 I hoped that with the end of disputes—existing mostly in the theoretical field—the true Italian school would achieve its well-deserved triumph.

In this terrible historic moment, through a tumult of passions the generations are setting off towards their destinations in which we can, we must give an example of harmony, sacrificing every susceptibility and every ambition to the love of the art. The new Master's School that will rise over the ruins of the old must be the forge in which minds are educated and dispositions tempered, so that—it is good not to forget it—the practice of fencing, understood with national criteria, not only has indisputable health benefits, but must have a great moral effect on customs and intellectual faculties.

Although I have by now descended 'into the vale of years' I cannot yet break the old promises which I have always scrupulously kept up to now; and I will remain at the breach as long as I live, for our art which has always been and must be a credit to our country.

Free from any concern of self-interest, and faithful to my motto Non mihi, sed arti—nothing for me and everything for the art—I place at your disposal the knowledge acquired with long study and incessant practice, hoping with all my heart for this revived and glorious Italy of ours to have a Fencing Master's School which is truly a meaningful expression of its glorious army.

FERDINANDO MASIELLO

---

1 Ferdinando Masiello, "L'insegnamento della Scherma in Italia," La Scherma Italiana: Giornale degli schermidori 1, no. 2 (2 September 1923): 2. See also the previous issue from 18 August for appeals from Fausto Salvatori and Vincenzo Drosi to reopen the school.^↩
2 TN: Lit. 'in the breast', a Latin phrase originating from the Catholic church when the pope appoints a cardinal in secret, without publicly revealing their name.^↩
3 TN: A chivalric title, lit. 'commander'.^↩