The 1881 Naples Gymnastics Congress (Part 1)

The annual congresses of the Italian Gymnastics Federation were important events in the rise of Radaellian fencing during the 1870s. It was at these congresses that the first public fencing competitions of modern Italy took place, and where the cream of the first-generation Radaellians like Giuseppe Ronga, Salvatore Pecoraro, Ferdinando Masiello had their first victories on the piste. By defeating fencers of more traditional and established schools, they helped spread the notoriety of Radaelli's school beyond the Italian military and into the public sphere. Additionally, the repeated successes of the military masters at these congresses served as a significant counterpoint to Radaelli's critics, who mainly had to appeal to theoretical arguments and cherry-picked anecdotes to demonstrate the flaws in his fencing system.

But these victories were not enough, at least not by 1881. At the 9th Italian Gymnastics Congress in Naples a graduate of Radaelli's school secured the top prize in the sabre pool, and yet the reputation of the Radaellians emerged from the congress in worse shape than ever. Less than three years later the Milan Fencing Master's School would be closed and the Radaellians left dismayed and leaderless. This short series of articles will explore not only what transpired at the 1881 congress, but also how these events were perceived by the fencing-literate public and how this perception was quickly capitalised on by the supporters of the Neapolitan school of fencing.

***

While the Naples Congress of 1881 is a significant event in Radaellian history, the year also marked the end of Italian fencing's reliance on the gymnastics congresses. Two primary causes for this can be observed. The first is a sudden loss of momentum in the congresses. After the 8th gymnastics congress in 1877, the next had to be delayed several times due in part to poor organisation within the national federation.¹ Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the Milan International Fencing Tournament held in the summer of 1881 was widely considered a rousing success (despite some controversy), proving that competitive fencing could attract enough attention on its own without relying on the much larger and more mature gymnastics scene. Fencing and gymnastics competitions were occasionally featured alongside each other after 1881, but the most anticipated events for the former were, from this point on, dedicated tournaments.

Despite repeated deferrals, the 9th Italian Gymnastics Congress did eventually go ahead in the autumn of 1881, starting on 25 September and concluding on 2 October. In addition to fencing, the Naples congress featured competitions in gymnastics, target shooting, and rowing. While all these were taking place, a 'didactic exhibition' was on display in one of the venue's halls, showing off new gymnastics apparatuses as well as published and unpublished writings on topics relating to gymnastics and physical education. Dozens of prizes donated by the government, sporting clubs and wealthy individuals were allocated for the winners of all the competitions and for the best works of the didactic exhibition. A total of 945 registrations were reported for the congress, with 402 of those for the various competitions, noting that this included some overlap between competitions. The fencing tournament received 75 registrations for foil and 55 for sabre.²

At midday on 25 September the 9th Italian Gymnastics Congress was officially inaugurated in the Palazzo Spinelli di Tarsia, which was then the site of both the Royal Technical Institute (a secondary school) and the Royal Institute of Encouragement, a scientific institute. After several long speeches on the state of physical education in Italy, the congress attendees voted on the composition of the various juries which would be overseeing the competitions. The resulting fencing jury was composed of the following people:

Mario Del Tufo (President)	Luigi Cosenz (Secretary)
Cesare Parrini (Speaker)	Guglielmo De Sauget
Cesare Guarrasci	Giacomo Massei
Gioacchino Granito, Prince of Belmonte	Benedetto Emanuele di San Giuseppe
Ottavio Anzani	Emilio Conti
Domenico Cariolato	Achille Parise
Giuseppe Perez	Achille Angelini
Vittorio Février	Ernesto Dias
Leopoldo Notarbartolo Sciara	Eugenio Michelozzi-Giacomini
Cesare Gaeta	Cesare Enrichetti

Juries had been generator of controversy in previous fencing competitions, and they would continue to be so for many years to come. The Naples Congress was no different in this respect, and the location of the event should give no surprise as to why that is. The composition of this particular jury would have likely been very intimidating for the Radaellian attendees, as it was positively bursting with characters who were known to be particularly hostile towards the Milan Master's School. Achille Angelini and Giuseppe Perez were both very publicly opposed to Radaelli's teachings, while the Prince of Belmonte and Domenico Cariolato had very recently co-authored the report on the 1881 Milan International Tournament, which was similarly disparaging towards the Radaellians and their method. Enrichettian competitors may have take some comfort in the presence of their revered master on the jury, but the Neapolitan camp could be extra confident with the formidable local masters Mario Del Tufo, Giacomo Massei, and Achille Parise on the bench alongside Enrichetti.

The needle swings even further in favour of the Neapolitans when the other, less recognisable members of the jury are scrutinised. Ernesto Dias and Vittorio Février (/Févrié) are notable for having escalated the main controversy at the 1881 Milan Tournament. Dias and Février were the first members of the jury to resign in protest after the vote to decide who would receive the prize for 'best fencer of the tournament' came out in favour of the Radaellian master Salvatore Arista, rather than the Neapolitan favourite Ottavio Anzani. Fellow jurors Cariolato, Belmonte, and Emilio Conti then resigned in solidarity with Dias and Février, forcing the Radaellian camp to make a compromise and award a 'best fencer' prize to both Arista and Anzani.³

Emilio Conti of Milan had once been a fencer of the mixed school, but in the late-1870s he became a fervent advocate for the Neapolitan school and a valuable northern ally in the anti-Radaellian camp.⁴ Ottavio Anzani, Luigi Cosenz, and Benedetto di San Giuseppe were all well-known amateur fencers of the Neapolitan school, and had studied under the likes of Massei, Del Tufo, and the Parises.⁵ As secretary of the entire congress, Cosenz was also responsible for compiling the official report, which will be referenced liberally throughout this series of articles. He was hardly an impartial observer of everything that took place here, and we will see him taking full advantage of his position to advance the views of the Neapolitan camp in the report's concluding remarks.

Finally, Eugenio Michelozzi-Giacomini had authored an article, published in the prominent Florentine newspaper Gazzetta d'Italia, on the 1881 Milan Tournament which took a similar position as Cariolato and Belmonte's report. He took no issue with the jury giving equal praise to Arista and Anzani, but was dismayed to see that 'the majority of masters who swarm like mushrooms from regimental schools are very far from resembling them' in elegance and correctness. Michelozzi felt that the tournament reflected poorly on the state of fencing in Italy, where 'the art of good fencing still exists ... but unfortunately in few masters.' The mixed school of foil, such as the system taught by Radaelli, with all its ill-suited French importations, had to be totally abandoned in favour of the traditional Italian school so as to preserve Italy's fencing primacy.⁶

Returning now to Naples, I shall leave the topic of the 1881 congress' fencing competitions to the second part of this series. Here I will instead focus on another of the events which took place during the congress: the general assembly. As is typical of congresses, the Naples Gymnastics Congress was also an opportunity for attendees to witness formal discussions on various topics relating to physical education in Italy. Most of these discussions were concerned with gymnastics and the organisation of the National Gymnastics Federation, but at the second general assembly of the congress, held on 27 September, the discussion was immediately dominated by the anti-Radaellian elements of the presiding bench, with predictable results.

The assembly was opened at 9 pm by the mayor of Naples and the congress' president, Girolamo Giusso, joined at the bench by Mario Del Tufo, Eugenio Michelozzi-Giacomini, Antonio Paternostro, Giuseppe Perez, Benedetto di San Giuseppe, Cesare Parrini, Achille Angelini, and Luigi Cosenz. The secretary began by reading several letters of blessing and encouragement for the congress, one of which was from Ferdinando Masiello, who was

Very sad to be unable to attend the fencing-gymnastics congress in person, like always, since I am gravely ill, my thoughts will be with you. I send my heartfelt greetings to the presidency and all attendees, rising from the end of my bed, crying long live the King, long live Italy, house of Savoy!⁷

After the letter readings, the evening's discussion at last commenced with a proposal from the fencing jury. Below is the full translation of the official minutes for the discussion, which lasted for two hours.

President: Takes his leave, asking Cav. Parrini to assume the presidency.

Parrini: Assumes the presidency. He then reads a formulation by the jury regarding fencing methods, which he submits for the appreciation of the congress attendees, to adopt a national method, asking them to declare a method which they consider the best and to also make a decision as to if changes should be made to it, and that they above all adhere to what is truly Italian.

He adds: from this 9th congress, which is based in a city which has truly Italian traditions, it is desired that nothing be imported from other methods, and that the government take to heart and give encouragement to this Italian art of defence.

He talks about a booklet by General Angelini, on the handling of the sabre, in opposition to the Radaelli method.⁸

Angelini: Regarding the booklet which I took the liberty of submitting to the consideration of the congress, it is certainly painful for me to recall having seen our Minister of War, without plausible or justifiable reasons, substitute the glorious Italian School with a system which I know was not adopted in any civilian or military school of other nations, and which we here have condemned by public opinion, as shown by the booklets and many newspapers which I am ready to place on the bench of the presidency.

The orator also mentions the criticisms made of the same system by the colonels Gnecco and Doux, as well as by Professor Perez; these distinguished gentlemen renounced the efficacy of the Radaelli school with irrefutable arguments.

He concludes by voting that the system in question be abolished and the classical Italian school be adopted; that the Fencing Master's School be organised differently, it being impossible to provide the army—from men who have already been trained and who lack time—with good sword fencers and much less so masters in the instruction which requires, aside from natural dispositions, years and not months.

Draghicchio: Makes a point of order, while noting that the matter at hand is interesting for connoisseurs of fencing, he wishes for the discussion to only be had by qualified people, so that unqualified individuals are not counted in the vote.

President: Points out that separate assemblies cannot be formed. He believes that, by establishing principles, everyone can vote. He asks Prof. Draghicchio to desist from his point of order and let the discussion continue. He adds, for greater clarity, that the discussion could not be limited to fencers, because it would make a tournament with parties, which would certainly be missing in a general vote.

Draghicchio: Notes that by limiting the discussion to experts the votes would be genuine.

President: We are not looking for a vote, but a broad discussion which may inform government leaders, so that this forgotten art may grow.

Draghicchio: Withdraws his motion.

President: Thanks Prof. Draghicchio, also on behalf of the assembly. He then reads out a few chapters of General Angelini's booklet.

Perez: Talks broadly about the sabre, percussive blows, the various movements of the hand, and elasticity of the body.

Campanella (captain): Does not oppose what Perez said, but points out that the Radaelli system, with regard to the sabre, does indeed avoid percussive blows. Regarding Angelini’s booklet, he would like to read it in order to discuss it.

He adds: since it is a very important vote, he does not want it to be done by surprise, but that all congress attendees have an understanding.

President: Had not wanted to read the booklet so as to not distract the assembly; he now asks to attentively follow the reading of it which the secretary will give.

Cosenz: (Reads a few pages from Angelini's booklet)

Michelozzi: Supports Angelini’s opinion regarding the Master's School to be founded in Italy, having a single method and abolishing the many which exist.

He adds: the Italian school is the first to have had supremacy everywhere; I have seen with pain that the old Italian art has been abandoned, something which does not allow many, who do not know its rules, to imagine it.

He proposes that the art of fencing abandons the new systems and that a single fencing school be established.

In this regard, he talks about the old fencing and its fundamental movements, the stability of the guard, the hand, etc.

The old traditions are now abandoned and the new systems make masters in a few months; this is impossible, no matter how much aptitude they may have. He adds that they are taught with false methods, and urges the assembly to heed this, voting so that the government leaders take action.

Belmonte: Presents the following order of the day:

'Given the advantages which can come to the Italian youth from the union of all gymnastics societies;

'Given the harm which the Radaelli system causes to fencing:

'The assembly fully rejects the Radaelli system and votes so that, together with all the Italian gymnastic forces united, they are united and combined with all fencing societies in which the old system of Italian fencing is kept pure, in order to form a grand federation which unites all the willing Italian youth into a single group.'

President: Notes that Belmonte's order of the day, although it differs in form from the present discussion, also adheres in substance to the matter at hand. He puts it to a vote.

Cariolato: Presents the following order of the day:

'Having considered the conditions in which the teaching of fencing in the army finds itself;

'Considering that Maestro Radaelli's system does not correspond to the true needs of the army and arms enthusiasts;

'Considering that the distinct personal qualities of the army's masters would have been such foundations as to make the most formidable fencers out of them, if they had been given scientific and not empirical instruction:

'The assembly votes, for the good of the art and the fatherland, that the government substitute the empirical teaching of the Master's School with scientific teaching, and proceeds to the order of the day.'

Ettari: Asks for clarification about the seat of the Fencing Federation.

President: Notes that with the order of the day not having been voted on, the seat of the Federation cannot be defined.

Ettari: Wants this to be discussed after the order the day, if it is approved.

President: Adds that everything will be done.

Ettari: Wishes fencing and gymnastics to be united in the federation.

President: For his part, it is hoped that, in time, this proposal be accepted by the assembly.

Campanella: Wishes that the methods for the army be indicated in Cariolato's order of the day.

President: Notes that ministers do not pay attention to the votes of the congress; that they know how to evaluate everything; that any subjectivity must be removed; that the rest will come by itself.

Having then engaged in the discussion regarding the Prince of Belmonte's order of the day, he wished to declare that he, by attacking the Radaelli system, intends to allude to the written system, and not to those distinguished fencers who, although they call themselves Radaellians—because they came from the Master's School—do not put into practice the precepts of that system.

Campanella: Is convinced that the Radaelli sabre system has been good for the army, because today all soldiers and non-commissioned officers fence, unlike several years ago. He wishes that, in the same way in which the Radaelli system has been opposed, the sabre method intended to replace it is indicated, because he knows the existence of a sword method, i.e. the Italian, but he has not yet heard sabre being spoken about.

President: Does not wish for methods to be either mentioned or proposed.

Michelozzi: Demonstrates, with various arguments, that when the sword method is established, the sabre method will easily emerge.

Cariolato: Talks at length about the Radaelli school and the Cavalli school and gives the history of their foundation; demonstrates that before Radaelli there existed a sabre system with excellent masters and that there is no need to create one, because it already exists. Talks about the foundation of the Master's School, the direction of which was entrusted to Radaelli. He commends him for having brought development to fencing.

President: Shares, with the whole presidency, the praise bestowed on Radaelli, who has sought to throw greater light on an existing method; and that if he was wrong, he meant well and not to cause harm to the art. However, with this in mind, it is necessary to see if the light comes with a better method.

Perez: Wishes that fencing teachers be provided with licences, like all masters.

Belmonte: Asks that Cariolato's order of the day be put to a vote, because he withdraws his, saving it for another session.

President: Strongly recommends the Prince of Belmonte to not abandon the idea expressed in his order of the day.

Then Cariolato's order of the day is put to a vote, voting that this be combined with the federative concept expressed by Belmonte.

The Assembly approves by a majority vote.

The session is adjourned at 11 pm.

President                                    Secretary

  C. PARRINI                              L. COSENZ⁹

Just as they did in their report for the 1881 Milan tournament, Belmonte and Cariolato seize upon the opportunity to condemn the Radaelli school and declare the indisputable superiority of 'Italian' fencing. Many similarities are emerge when comparing the orders of the day they put forward in the Naples congress with their opinions regarding the Milan tournament, which can be summarised as follows:

1. The Milan tournament proved that the Neapolitan school and the Italian foil are indisputably superior to other methods;
2. The Radaelli sabre school can be considered acceptable after some minor changes;
3. The talents of young students at the Milan Fencing Master's School are being wasted on a flawed (foil) method;
4. Many leave the army soon after graduating and spread this flawed method throughout Italy;
5. The fencing societies of Milan and Turin call for the unification of Italian fencing;
6. Civilians are also besmirching the title of fencing master by claiming to be one without having had the proper training.¹⁰

Now in Naples, Cariolato and Belmonte are again claiming to speak on behalf of the collective, and indeed with such a friendly crowd they do seem to be in the majority. The term 'Italian' is once again weaponised to cast the Radaelli school as an un-Italian, corrupting influence on the nation's fencers. The Radaelli method is 'empirical', while the true, classical Italian school is 'scientific'. When Campanella rightly points out their equivocating around fencing methods, he objects that appealing to the 'Italian school' ignores sabre fencing and that no alternative sabre method had been proposed. Cariolato's vague reference to a pre-existing sabre school associated with Neapolitan master Licurgo Cavalli seems to have been enough to quell any further discussion on this point.

Stepping out into the public sphere, we see that press coverage on the gymnastics congress further illustrates how factional Italian fencing had become by this point, with several journalists voicing their outright approval for drastic fencing reform in the military. As we will see in part two of this series, in the days following this assembly the performance of the Radaellian contingent at the congress was often quite poorly perceived, which further reinforced the negative opinion of Radaelli's school expressed by the assembly.

The correspondents of the French newspaper L'Événement had no hesitation in displaying their anti-Radaellian bias before the congress had even begun. Writing on the evening before the congress' inauguration, the correspondent 'Fioretto' told readers that they had met Radaelli twice when visiting his hall in Milan, and that the master 'has never fenced'.¹¹ In this colourful diatribe, Radaelli is painted as some kind of charlatan who 'pretends to have invented a new system of fencing' and does not teach his students how to parry, so their only defence is to retreat. This particular criticism suggests the journalist's awareness of Achille Angelini's 1877 booklet, in which the author makes a very similar claim which was later repeated by others, such as the members of the 1883 fencing treatise commission.¹²

Even Radaelli's treatise is dismissed as a 'revolt against common sense', being composed by Del Frate due to the fact that Radaelli 'can neither speak nor write'. The journalist hoped that the new Minister of War, Emilio Ferrero, would heed the cries of Neapolitan fencers and strip Radaelli of his authority. In L'Événement's subsequent coverage of the congress, the correspondent 'Frantz' rejoiced at the assembly's order of the day, which they hoped would finally push the Minister of War into action. The Radaellian competitors, however, should not be criticised too harshly for their poor performance, as the current two-year fencing master's course was far too short and '[i]t is not their fault if the government forces them to study with Redaelli, who knows fencing as well as I do the Qur'an.'¹³

In stark contrast to this coverage, the (evidently bored) correspondent of Rome's Fanfulla was quite dismissive of the debate at the assembly on 27 September despite their apparent sympathy for the Neapolitan school:

Utility of congresses. Assembly. Order of the day: the best Italian fencing school. General Angelini favours Neapolitan; congress attendees idem. Me too. A member asks that it clearly state in the order of the day which sabre system the congress prefers. Is there an Italian system? So many masters, so many systems. The Radaelli system is discussed. What standard should the ministry of war have for military schools? Memorable response from the federal secretary Parrini: 'The ministry will pay not attention to our order of the day'. They should hold a congress of congresses to deliberate the utility of congresses.¹⁴

Nicola Lazzaro in Milan's Illustrazione Italiana is also sympathetic towards the Neapolitan school while simultaneously dismissive about the usefulness of the congresses. Indeed he even goes so far as calling the Naples congress harmful, as the orders of the day expressed by the assemblies 'create dualism and antagonism which was necessary to avoid in the interest of everyone', even if the substance of their conclusions were worthy of consideration. This was typified for Lazzaro by the discussion regarding the Radaelli school. While this school's flaws could not be ignored, the 'so-called Italian or more truly the southern' school also cannot not be passed off as infallible, even if it were superior to the former.

So there are flaws in our school and there are flaws in the Radaelli school; instead of pointing the finger at them, wouldn't it have been better to try and take what little good they have?¹⁵

Yet not all reporting on the congress shared the jury's anti-Radaellian inclination. In its short remark on the assembly discussion, L'Indipendente of Trieste observed that the Radaelli system was 'fiercely contested and bravely supported by two parties'.¹⁶ The typically pro-Radaellian newspaper Il Secolo of Milan was much more explicit, quoting the assembly's order of the day in full and then dismissing it outright:

To this vote we must add two observations. It was issued by a congress being held in the central city of the school opposing Redaelli's; and the Redaellians did not want to go to this congress because they already know that matters were predisposed to issue a vote opposed to the Milanese school.
As for changing the army's teachings, we must recall that it is not at all likely, because the Redaelli school was chosen after long experience and debate.
The consequence is obvious: the Neapolitans and the Milanese will continue to teach fencing according to their respective systems and to have champions in both.¹⁷

Antagonism between the two camps remained strong over the next decade and a half, showing much truth behind this prediction. What the journalist in Il Secolo may not have predicted, however, is the reversal of fortunes between the two camps that would take place in the coming years.

In part two we will see how the results of the fencing competitions bolstered the Neapolitan narrative of a rogue school in Milan harming the reputation of true Italian fencing through its lax standards and defective teachings. Yet even amongst this sea of damning judgements, the Radaellians still managed to emerge with at least one victory.

*******

1 Luigi Cosenz, Il IX congresso ginnastico italiano in Napoli (Naples: Francesco Giannini, 1881), 3–16.^↩
2 Cosenz, Il IX congresso ginnastico, 17–8.^↩
3 Domenico Cariolato and Gioacchino Granito, Relazione del torneo internazionale di scherma tenuto in Milano nel giugno 1881 (Naples: Tipi Ferrante, 1881), 133–5.^↩
4 "Emilio Conti," Lo Sport Italico, 13 May 1894.^↩
5 "Il barone Ottavio Anzani," Lo Sport Italico, 13 May 1894; "Maestri e dilettanti," Lo Sport Italico, 12 July 1894; "Benedetto Emanuele Barone di San Giuseppe," Lo Sport Italico, 6 May 1894.^↩
6 Eugenio Michelozzi Giacomini, "Sport," Gazzetta d'Italia, 11 June 1881, 3.^↩
7 Cosenz, Il IX congresso ginnastico, 44.^↩
8 Translator's Note: The booklet in question is Achille Angelini, Osservazioni sul maneggio della sciabola secondo il metodo Redaelli (Florence: Tipi dell'Arte della Stampa, 1877). A full translation of this booklet can be found here.^↩
9 Cosenz, Il IX congresso ginnastico, 46–51.^↩
10 Cariolato & Granito, Relazione del torneo internazionale di scherma, 147–8.^↩
11 Fioretto, "Lettres de Naples," L'Événement, 27 September 1881, 2.^↩
12 Angelini, Osservazioni sul maneggio, 35–7; 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), xxiii.^↩
13 Frantz, "Le grand congrès d'escrime de Naples," L'Événement, 6 October 1881, 2.^↩
14 Picche, "Il congresso ginnastico," Fanfulla, 2 October 18881, 1–2.^↩
15 Nicola Lazzaro, "Il congresso ginnastico," L'Illustrazione Italiana, 23 October 1881, 263–4.^↩
16 "IX congresso ginnastico," L'Indipendente, 2 October 1881, 3.^↩
17 "La scuola milanese di scherma," Il Secolo, 1 October 1881, 3.^↩

Fencing at the 1875 Siena Gymnastics Congress

In 1870s Italy, competitive fencing was very much still in its infancy. The dominant fencing events of the time were exhibitions: non-competitive public displays designed to entertain and to show off the skills of the fencers and the master's ability to train well-rounded students. These exhibitions were generally organised as a local club's yearly celebration or by a visiting fencing master seeking to build their reputation. Starting in 1873, however, the Italian Gymnastics Federation began holding a fencing competition as one of the events at their annual congress.

Following the success of this new addition at the 1873 and 1874 congresses, in preparation for the 1875 Siena congress the organising committee sent a request to the Italian government to send a group of fencers to represent the Milan military fencing master's school, which had formally become the sole military institution of its kind in December of 1874. The ministry of war accepted this request and sent six young sotto-maestri or 'assistant masters': Luigi Scarani, Giordano Rossi, Giordano Moccagatta, Benedetto Toziani, Salvatore Pecoraro, and Giuseppe Alciatti.

By the beginning of the congress a total of 42 fencers had enrolled in the event, all of them from northern and central Italy and the majority being military fencing masters. Compared to the grand tournaments that would later be seen in the 1890s and beyond, the Siena congress was relatively modest, and with no fencers from the southern provinces it was certainly not a 'national' competition in the truest sense. Nevertheless, like the other congresses of the 1870s, the results of this competition contributed to the growing reputation of the military fencing masters and the schools that created them.

As alluded to above, at the end of 1874 the Parma military fencing master's school, directed by Cesare Enrichetti, was absorbed by the Milan school, thus marking the total unification of the military's fencing instruction under Giuseppe Radaelli. In May 1875 the first conversion course took place at the Milan school for military fencing masters that had not yet been taught Radaelli's method, which was the beginning of a period of great collaboration between the Radaellians and the champions of the Enrichetti school, resulting in further refinement for both sabre and sword (foil) fencing. In August 1875, however, this fusion of the two schools was still very much in its early stages, with the first conversion course at the Milan school still underway.

The fencing competition in Siena took place on 16 August 1875, with the jury's speaker Giovanni Boffi noting in his report that despite observing several disappointing double touches, the quality of the fencing on the whole had improved substantially since the previous congress, where he had noted that 'the fencers did not fully observe the laws which the art of fencing teaches, both due to the lack of composure during the bouts, the positions of the fencers, and the implementation of the actions.' Boffi also expressed his views on how to avoid these lamented double touches in future competitions:

Any amateur of fencing knows very well that in fencing the first things that should be observed are the elegance of one's position, the invitation to the actions, parries, and ripostes, anticipating the opponent's intentions, and by adhering to these rules, in my opinion, I believe that discussions during the bout and double touches would vanish—these double touches being most deplorable during a bout. And with these words of mine I do not pretend to maintain that during a bout there can be no double touches, and that is why I have allowed perfect and imperfect tempi, i.e. the intentions of the two fencers lunging at the same time. We know very well that the tempo cannot be taken on simple actions, but rather on compound actions and on the opponent’s faulty attack; and he who makes the action in tempo should not be touched, and if he is touched, the fault should fall on the one who did the action in tempo.

Ferdinando Masiello came in first place for the sword competition, and Giuseppe Ronga (a Radaellian) for sabre, with both having achieved these same results at the Bologna congress the year prior. Although Masiello would eventually become the most vocal proponent of Radaelli's method, at this stage he was still the star pupil of Enrichetti, having not yet attended the Milan school, but still came in 4th place overall in the sabre competition. The Enrichettians as a whole were given great praise, with their solid collective performance backed up by elegant and composed form throughout. Of the 6 students from the Milan master's school: in the sword competition Rossi came in 5th and received a silver medal and Pecoraro earned an honourable mention; in sabre, only Alciatti received a bronze medal, being in 10th place overall. Also of historical note was the winner of the amateur sword pool—a 15-year-old Eugenio Pini, who would eventually become famous both in Italy and throughout the western fencing world.

Three days later came the grand fencing exhibition, scheduled as one of the final events of the Siena gymnastics congress. The congress report does not give its own account of the exhibition, but instead reproduces the following article published in Gazzetta d'Italia on 22 August, which is once again full of praise for the Enrichettians but with some critical remarks for the Radaellians:

This morning at 11:30 in the Lizza Theatre the fencing exhibition took place. The audience is estimated to have risen to as many as 2000 people, among whom many ladies. There were 28 bouts from 46 fencers, of whom 38 masters, and what masters they were! In the intermissions the town band let us enjoy good musical pieces.

Colonel Corrado Colli opened the exhibition with the fencing master of our military recruiting headquarters,¹ Arlunno Carlo. In this demonstration we saw how, even at a rather advanced age, exercise can maintain that virile strength which usually disappears as the years pass; in fact Colli made a great impression, even with a fencer as correct as Arlunno. The latter dealt marked and distinct coupés, and the colonel, among other blows, showed us a magnificent blow in controtempo. Those present greatly applauded the two opponents.

The second sword bout which interested us most was from the other cavalry colonel Giuseppe Colli, together with the distinguished master Bellincioni. Mr. Colli showed himself to be an expert connoisseur of fencing. He has a tall, slender figure, truly a handsome soldier. His guard is very elegant, an uncommon subsidence of struggles. His competitor Mr. Bellincioni is a precise and skilled player, very quick in his actions. His short stature confines him to a somewhat low game, but his blows never miss.

The sabre clash between the masters Giuseppe Ronga and Massimiliano Roggia was also very satisfactory. However, it must be noted how in general the students of the Radaelli school are not devoid of certain flaws. Their guard lacks composure because they keep their left foot out of line and they raise it when they lunge, this with a serious continuous loss of balance; moreover, since their bouts look like raids, it sometimes happens that when marching down the piste their out-of-line feet meet and the fencer falls, as happened here in Siena and six times last year in Bologna.

To us the Radaelli method seems to be based on a rising rotation from the left side; a continuous rotation which imposes a posture of preparation to these rotary movements, which, by bringing the weapon arm to the left side, leaves the fencer's body almost completely exposed, since the sabre is then positioned out of line. Nor can we understand how this method is suited to a cavalry soldier, when the lance and the horse's head prevent this precise rotation which seems to be the basis of the system. This is without taking into account that with the descending cuts being thrown a bit too violently, they do not help to keep the cavalryman in his saddle, nor do they give the impression of fencers who are masters of a weapon that they must know how to dominate.

With this sincere critique we do not intend to condemn the ability and goodwill of the students, who, with their seemingly lovely dispositions and slender figures, could outdo themselves if the teaching they imparted were free of these defects. Everyone knows that it is not possible to be an eminent sabre master without knowing well enough about the sword, and it is equally well-known by everyone that before today it was customary to take at least a year of sword lessons before moving on to handling the heavier weapon. That the students of the Radaelli school had very little knowledge of the foil was seen in the competitions where, in the course of a bout, we did not see one clean blow, nor a varied action or an attempt in tempo.

The master from Ancona, Mr. Italiano Enrici, who had not received the full sympathy of the spectators during the competition due to his slightly strange and advantageous guard, showed us in the exhibition that he also knows how to hold an elegant guard, and conduct a bout in the manner of a true and talented master.

The honour of closing the first part of the exhibition was given to our master Mr. Cesare Picconi along with Bellincioni. We had never had the fortune of seeing our talented fellow citizen fence, but his bout showed him worthy of his great fame, which confirms yet again the excellence of the methods he learnt from his poor father. He directed the exhibition himself, and honourably exhibited his students Rinieri de' Rocchi and Sergardi.

The masters Arlunno and Masiello, students of Prof. Enrichetti, inaugurated the second part. I spoke about both of them in my past correspondence, and if I wanted to fully describe the beautiful things of their bout, I could not, because it is impossible to repeat the delicacy, the taste, and the perfection of their play. At the moment they appeared in the limelight there was frenetic applause, which was repeated a good three times. The blows which I managed to observe distinctly were two coupés masterfully given by Masiello; then Arlunno dealt a thrust of inquartata in second intention, and after him Masiello gave an arrest and the sword curved on the opponent's chest. The bout closed with a sbasso² of the rarest precision. Needless to say, thunderous applause broke out and the fencers were called to the stage multiple times with their master, who wished to kiss them as a reward for the height at which these two excellent students held the Enrichetti school even within the walls of Siena.

The latter master met with Colonel Corrado Colli, and they carried out an exemplary fight. Enrichetti sculpted magnificent coupés and a surprising sbasso. The match between these fine contenders was confirmation of the professor's skill, and convinced us how such a master could create students like Masiello, Arlunno, Vergiati, and others. There is no doubt: Enrichetti's method will always give the most remarkable impression in any fencing gathering. It is a school which for the good of the army we would like to see imitated by many, and which would be eminently useful if it were studied and applied in fencing halls.

Also distinguishing themselves were the masters Paolo Cornaglia, Paolo Bianchi, Lorenzo Del Vivo, Ettore Marchi, and all those who eventually took part in the marvellous exhibition.

Closing the day were Masiello and Count Giuseppe Colli with a bout brilliant for its variations of attack, parrying changes, and many blows of tempo, controtempo, and proposal. With the exhibition finished—which, in the words of the masters themselves, was unlike any other so far—prolonged and unanimous applause saluted all the fencers and brought an end to such an impressive day.

1 TN: Recruiting centres in Italy were in charge of both the recruitment and training of soldiers.^↩
2 TN: Otherwise known as passata sotto.^↩

The remarks regarding the Radaellians' less aesthetic form is a criticism that would continue to follow them for many years after this competition, often being a point of contention in how it should affect their classification scores at the tournaments which took aesthetics into account, such as in the 1881 Milan tournament. The observation on their twisted body position is particularly interesting, seemingly indicating that the Radaellians at this time put an emphasis on rising cuts from the left. The described out-of-line position with the feet may be similar that seen in several of the fencers in the following footage of the 1928 Amsterdam Olympics, with the rear foot further to the outside than the traditional position:

Despite the various critical remarks, both the competition and the exhibition were evidently popular with the public, and the overall impressions of the above Gazzetta d'Italia article and Giovanni Boffi showed positivity in this event marking significant progress in Italian fencing and demonstrating the art's recent resurgence in popularity. Given the number of military masters present at the tournament, it is therefore understandable why many commentators would later attribute this great resurgence to the institution of the military fencing master's schools.

Bibliography

"Congresso ginnastico." Il Secolo, 4 August 1875, 2.

Federazione Ginnastica Italiana. Sesto congresso-concorso ginnastico italiano tenuto in Siena dal 15 al 20 Agosto 1875. Relazione fatta a cura del comitato esecutivo. Siena: Stab. tip. di A. Mucci, 1876.

Ricotti-Magnani, Cesare Francesco. "N. 251. — SCUOLE MILITARI (Nota N. 5). — Scuola magistrale di scherma. — 6 dicembre." Giornale Militare 1874: parte prima, no. 44 (11 December 1874): 492.

⸺. "N. 57. — Istruttori e sott'istruttori di scherma chiamati alla scuola magistrale di scherma in Milano. — 4 aprile", Giornale Militare 1875: parte seconda, no. 12 (15 April 1875): 105–6.

Masiello, Ferdinando. La scherma italiana di spada e di sciabola. Florence: G. Civelli, 1887.

Valletti, Felice. Relazione sull'operato del VI congresso ginnastico tenutosi in Siena - Agosto 1875. Turin: Tipografia Subalpina di Marino e Gantin, 1875.