Foil fencing equipment from Enrichetti (1871). Source: KU Leuven
When comparing a French and Italian foil as they are commonly made today, it is solely the hilt which differentiates them. Until the turn of the 20th century, however, many considered blade length to be another key differentiating feature for both schools, with the Italians said to prefer the longer variety. How significant an effect these differing preferences alone had on the fencing is an interesting topic in itself, but for this particular study I will be focusing solely on determining exactly what blade lengths were used and recommended in Italy during the 19th century. The majority of this information comes to us now through fencing treatises, which cannot always be assumed to reflect the opinions of most fencers at the time. They are nevertheless often indicative of what experienced practitioners considered ideal in a doctrinal or traditional sense.
Before consulting the treatises, it is worth first providing a reference frame for readers so that any subsequent comparisons can be put into context. Today in Olympic fencing, as regulated by the International Fencing Federation (FIE), blade length from guard to point cannot not exceed 90 cm.1 Foil blades at or near enough to this limit are now ubiquitous among adult fencers in competitions. This largest size blade is known as a size 5 blade; the modern blade size numbering was popularised by the French, and is now based off British imperial inches. A size 5 blade measures around 35.4 inches (89.9 cm), and each smaller size takes off one inch, so a size 4 blade is 34.4 inches (87.6 cm), all the way down to size 0, which is 30.4 inches or 77.5 cm.2 These smaller sizes are mainly reserved for children today.
Foil dimensions for international competitions Source: fie.org
Prior to the 19th century, if we are lucky enough to find an author stating their preferred blade or sword length, it will most often be given relative to the individual's height. A good example is Paolo Bertelli's treatise from 1800, where he states that a proportionate blade length is one that comes up to the height of the belt, i.e. the natural waist.3 Helpfully for us though, from this point onward specific measurements become the norm, starting with Rosaroll and Grisetti in 1803. While they do clarify that the blade should be proportional to the wielder, Neapolitans and Sicilians supposedly prefer the longest blades of all the Italian peoples at 4 palmi or 105.5 cm, which is what they say is customary in duelling; throughout the rest of the peninsula shorter blades of 3 ½ to 3 ⅔ palmi (92.6 to 97 cm) are more common.4 It is possible these measurements include the ricasso, so if we subtract a typical ricasso length of 5 cm that would leave the Neapolitans with roughly 100 cm of blade from guard to point, and 87 to 92 cm for the rest of Italy.
The scarcity of sources in decades following Rosaroll and Grisetti's publication makes it difficult to verify how broadly their preferences may be applied to their own camp, but they were a convenient enough reference point four decades later for Alberto Marchionni to use as an upper limit on the blade lengths used by Italians. In giving advice to the reader on what kind of foil blades to use in both lessons and bouting, he remarks that the length of foil blades at that time can vary anywhere between 28 and 33 pollici. We can get a rough idea of what Marchionni's pollice is equivalent to in centimetres from earlier in the book where he equates 29 pollici to 85 cm and 30 pollici to 90 cm, which reveals that 1 pollice is equivalent to just under 3 cm, making his range of blade lengths in the area of 84 to 99 cm. Marchionni himself recommends a mid-length blade at 31 pollici or ~93 cm.5 Since the type of foil used in Marchionni's system is of the 'mixed school' type—which lacks the ricasso of the Neapolitan foil—it might be assumed that all the provided figures refer to only the length of blade between the guard and point, in which case these figures would line up very well with those given by Rosaroll and Grisetti.
The reason why northerners were more partial to shorter blades was directly related to the prevalence of the mixed school, which incorporated both traditional Italian and French techniques into one method.6 Since some aspects of French fencing, in particular those techniques used at close measure, were less viable with longer blades, especially when using a ligature, proponents of the mixed school shied away from the upper limit of blade lengths purely out of practicality. A mid-range blade did not put one at too much of a disadvantage against a long Neapolitan blade, but gave an advantage against them at close measure as well as a reach advantage over the average French practitioner (who preferred blades on the shorter end of the scale, as discussed later). Southerners, on the other hand, whose long blades made their weapons heavier and more unwieldy, commonly made use of ligatures to mitigate this.7 As always in fencing, the weapon could be both a determiner of and determined by the method its wielder used.
With very few exceptions, Italian sources from this point on favour similar mid-range blade lengths as what Marchionni recommends. Beginning with Paolo De Scalzi's treatise in the early 1850s, we find a simple way for a fencer to determine whether nor a sword or foil is correctly proportional for their height. Standing upright, the fencer collapses their sword arm and places the palm of that hand on the same shoulder, keeping the elbow pointing towards the ground. Resting the point of the sword on the ground underneath that same arm, the pommel of the sword should lightly touch the folded elbow.8 This method of measuring a proportional sword length can also be found in two treatises on duelling written by fencing masters, the first one co-authored by the aforementioned Alberto Marchionni along with Cesare Enrichetti published in 1863, and the other by Pasquale Cicirelli in 1873.9 The first treatise states that this measurement applies to both duelling swords and foils, and in both texts this measuring technique is specifically said to correspond to a proportionate Italian sword. Given that the average height of Italian adult men born in the mid-19th century could be lower than 165 cm, depending on which region one was born in, such a method would probably yield a blade length on the lower end of the range Marchionni gave in his 1847 fencing treatise.10
De Scalzi even provides a quick rule-of-thumb to estimate this correct length, saying that a correctly proportioned sword, using the above method, should end up being 3/5 of one's total height.11 For a 165 cm person De Scalzi's rule-of-thumb means a correctly proportioned sword would be about 99 cm, leaving a blade length from point to guard of around 84 cm if the sword had a ricasso, as they do in De Scalzi's illustrations. This is particularly interesting in Cicirelli's case, since at the time of publishing he was teaching in Reggio Calabria, a city deep within Southern Italy. He also provides a maximum allowable length for a duelling sword, 'not exceeding four palmi (1.06 m) from the pommel to the point.'12 While this 'four palmi' measurement is familiar to use from Rosaroll and Grisetti, and the unit conversion to metric which Cicirelli provides is certainly nice confirmation for my own, it is important to note how it is now being used to refer to the total length of the sword, not just the blade, as Rosaroll and Grisetti did.
Returning to the north of the peninsula, masters Vittorio Lambertini and Cesare Enrichetti, who published their respective treatises within a year of each other at the start of the 1870s, echo the intermediate preferences outlined first by Rosaroll/Grisetti and Marchionni, and this may reflect the early stages of a narrowing range of blade lengths. The former recommends a blade between 90 and 100 cm long from point to incassatura (probably where the blade meets the shell) and states a preference for long blades, while the latter splits the difference and recommends 95 cm, not including the ricasso. In a discussion earlier in his treatise, Enrichetti declares that while in fencing different blade lengths between opponents is permissible, this is not so for a duel, in which a 'correct length' would be an average of the Neapolitan/Sicilian school, who use 'not less than 4 palmi', and the French, whose blades 'do not exceed 3 palmi [79 cm]'.13
Before going any further, this a good opportunity for a brief tangent regarding French foil blades, since they commonly served as a lower-end reference point for Italian authors throughout the 19th century. Compared to the ranges we have seen earlier on in Italy, French treatises generally agreed on a relatively narrow range of 80 to 90 cm, as seen in the table below.14 While this data does support the assertion that the French did prefer shorter blades than Italians in general, Enrichetti was likely exaggerating the reality.
Author
Blade Length
Saint Martin 1804
2.5 French feet [81.2 cm]
Chatelain 1818
30 to 32 pouces [80.6 to 86 cm]
La Boëssière 1818
at least 31 pouces [84 cm]
Gomard 1845
varies from 81 to 89 cm
Brunet 1884
no. 4 [84 cm] and no. 5 [88 cm] blades are most common
In the following decade and a half, the disparity between Italian and French blades would diminish even further, converging towards a relatively narrow range by the end of the century. The first appearance of what would quickly become the new normal in Italy was in the treatise of Masaniello Parise, the young Neapolitan who was placed at the head of the Military Fencing Master's School in Rome when it opened in 1884, the same year his treatise was published. Parise provides no range of typical blade lengths, just a single number: 'The length of this blade, calculated from the shell to the point or button, should be 90 centimetres.'15 Even including the 6 cm long ricasso, we are still about 10 cm off the 4 palmi measurement which Enrichetti gave as a supposed lower limit for Neapolitans just a decade earlier.
Given that the government approval of Parise's treatise was seen by many to be a return to tradition, we would expect the Neapolitan Parise to have preferred longer blades, but his prescribed 90 cm is much more akin to the compromise blade lengths seen in the north during the preceding decades. Nor do we find any of his critics, of which there were many, bringing up blade length as a point of contention, even when the state of Italian fencing in the late 1890s was described by one particularly virulent opponent as a 'Frenchified mess' thanks to Parise's efforts to modernise the old Neapolitan school.16 The cultural dominance of the north post-unification may go a long way to explain the shift in Neapolitan preferences in the latter half of the century. Longer blades may also have just become harder to come by, since most fencing blades towards the end of the century were from foreign manufacturers who no longer wishes to cater for a niche market. Whatever the reason for this change, by the 1880s it was evidently not considered important enough for either Parise's supporters or detractors to mention.
Further evidence that Parise was simply reflecting the common preference of the time can be taken from the fact that even two of his fiercest ideological opponents, Radaellians, soon published their own treatises also prescribing 90 cm blades. First was Giordano Rossi in 1885, who also clarified the blade should be 95 cm including the ricasso and the overall sword length 106 cm.17 Second was Ferdinando Masiello in 1887, who himself started out his foil fencing education under Neapolitan masters before later studying under Enrichetti and Radaelli. His excruciatingly detailed foil specifications produce a weapon that is 108 cm long in total and with a centre of gravity only 4 cm from the guard, as opposed to the typical 'four fingers' preferred by Rossi.18
The parts of a foil, from Masiello (1887). Source: KU Leuven
The outlier for the 1880s comes from the only other treatise published in this decade, written by Sicilian master Antonino Guglielmo. He makes suspiciously similar remarks as Enrichetti regarding how Neapolitans and Sicilians do not use blades shorter than 105 cm and the French no longer than 80 cm, both being roughly equivalent to 4 and 3 palmi, respectively.19 Given that Guglielmo was not averse to plagiarising parts of several other Italian authors throughout his book, such as Settimo Del Frate, Giuseppe Cerri and unsurprisingly Giuseppe Rosaroll and Pietro Grisetti (leaning particularly heavily on the latter two in his section on foil), he may have simply been out-of-touch with contemporary practice and relying mostly on his readings.
Also beginning in the 1880s was an increasing amount cooperation and competition between Italian and French fencers, such that by the end of the century it is easy to find commentators comparing both the stylistic and materialistic tendencies of the two countries. The frequent interaction between the schools may be one of the key reasons why we also see the common blade lengths used by the two schools converge to within only a few centimetres by the late 1890s. Italian sports journalist Alberto Cougnet noted in 1894 that Italian blades were 90 cm from point to guard, with a typical ricasso of 5 or 6 cm, whilst the blade on a French foil was 87 cm, 'therefore it has three centimetres less than our Italian blades.'20 Similarly, French military master Émile Coste's analysis of Italian fencing, relying heavily on Masaniello Parise's work, remarked that the 90 cm blade of Italians was 'longer than ours by four to five centimetres', and that Italian blades were also flatter and much more flexible, which gave their masters the advantage of not having to use a plastron when giving a lesson.21 This is a notable change from the 'long heavy blade, broad and perfectly rigid' that Baron de Bazancourt described on Italian foils less than four decades earlier.22
A poster promoting the first Franco-Italian team foil tournament in 1895. Source: Gallica
So while the difference in blade lengths was noteworthy for commentators of both countries by 1890s, it was by no means as considerable as it apparently was in the middle of the century, yet this difference still seems to have been too much for some. At the very first Olympic games in 1896, the questionably-worded rules targeted Italianate fencers with the rule that those who chose to use an Italian foil 'may only use foils measuring less than 0.85 centimetres', which I can only presume meant a maximum blade length of 85 cm rather than mandating 9 cm foils.23 This measure proved unnecessary in the end, as not a single Italian fencer ended up competing.
Subsequent foil competitions were much more accommodating though, with the Paris games in 1900 and Athens in 1906 mandating no. 5 blades, which by that point were likely very close or equivalent to 90 cm, and then at Stockholm 1912 the maximum blade length was explicitly set at 90 cm, with a maximum total weapon length of 110 cm.24 This seems to have been the maximum length that the International Fencing Federation decided on for both foil and épée when it approved its first regulations in 1914, which is still the upper limit to this day.25 This convergence was an inevitable effect of international competition and the agreements which arose to standardise such encounters. Since the French and Italian schools were the two most prominent at the time of the FIE's founding, as well as already using blades that were relatively similar in length, it is natural that they were the one who determined what should be considered acceptable, and it just so happened that by the time a decision had to be made, they were more or less in agreement over most of the general points.
So to summarise the trajectory we can observe in Italian foil fencing across the 19th century, the upper end of Italian blade lengths was set by the traditional fencers of Southern Italy at around 100 or 105 cm long. These were likely in common usage until the second half of the century, where they were slowly replaced by shorter and shorter blades until settling on 90 cm, probably by the late 1870s. In the north of the peninsula, a diversity of blade lengths matched the diversity of opinions and influences, most notably from the French. In the first half of the century, blades anywhere from 80 cm to the Neapolitan 105 cm could be found in use, but as the century wore on, particularly after unification, northerners gravitated towards the middle ground of 90 to 95 cm, and then eventually 90 cm during the 1870s. There are of course significant gaps and uncertainties left in this time, most notably regarding the practices of the Neapolitan school and its interactions with fencers from the north, so the conclusions I have been able to draw together here should only be considered a broad starting point for the evolution of the modern Italian foil blade.
*******
1 The most recent equipment rules from the FIE can be found here.↩ 2 Ben Paul, "Choosing the Right Size of Blade: A Simplified Guide," Leon Paul, 19 December 2023, https://www.leonpaul.com/blog/choosing-the-right-size-of-blade-a-simplified-guide/.↩ 3 Paolo Bertelli, Trattato di scherma ossia modo di maneggiare la spada e sciabla (Bologna: Ulisse Ramponi, 1800), 53.↩ 4 Giuseppe Rosaroll and Pietro Grisetti, La scienza della scherma (Milan: Giornale Italico, 1803), 4. For the conversion of palmi to centimetres, I have referenced Tavole dei pesi e delle misure già in uso nelle varie proncie del regno col peso metrico decimale (Rome: Stamperia Reale, 1877), 447. I have assumed that the authors were using Neapolitan palmi.↩ 5 Alberto Marchionni, Trattato di scherma sopra un nuovo sistema di giuoco misto di scuola italiana e francese (Florence: Tipi di Federigo Bencini, 1847), 143; 187.↩ 6 Marchionni, Trattato di scherma, 62.↩ 7 For a discussion on the use of ligatures, see Sebastian Seager, "Binding the Sword," Radaellian Scholar (blog), 18 August 2024, https://radaellianscholar.blogspot.com/2024/08/binding-sword.html.↩ 8 Paolo De Scalzi, La scuola della spada, 2nd ed. (Genoa: Tipografia e Litografia di L. Pellas, 1853), 26.↩ 9 Alberto Marchionni and Cesare Errichetti, Norme sui duelli e attribuzioni dei padrini (Florence: Tipografia di P. Fioretti, 1863), 18; Pasquale Cicirelli, Riflessioni sul duello seguite dalle norme per l'esecuzione pratica dello stesso e doveri del giurì d'onore (Reggio Calabria: Lipari e Barile, 1873), 52.↩ 10 Maria Enrica Danubio, Elisa Amicone, and Rita Vargiu, "Height and BMI of Italian immigrants to the USA, 1908–1970," Economics & Human Biology 3, no. 1 (March 2005): 33–43, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehb.2004.11.001; Brian A'Hearn, Franco Peracchi, and Giovanni Vecchi, "Height and the Normal Distribution: Evidence from Italian Military Data," Demography 46, no. 1 (February 2009): 1–25, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25476004.↩ 11 De Scalzi, La scuola della spada, 26.↩ 12 Cicirelli, Riflessioni sul duello, 52n.↩ 13 Vittorio Lambertini, Trattato di scherma teorico-pratico illustrato della moderna scuola italiana di spada e sciabola (Bologna: self-pub.,1870), 28; Cesare Enrichetti, Trattato elementare teorico-pratico di scherma (Parma: Pietro Grazioli, 1871), 29–30; 62.↩ 14 J. de St. Martin, L'art de faire des armes réduit a ses vrais principes, (Vienna: Janne Schrämble, 1804), 4; Chatelain, Traité d'escrime a pied et a cheval (Paris: Magimel, Anselin et Pochard, 1818), 13; La Boëssière, Traité de l'art des armes, a l'usage des professeurs et des amateurs (Paris: Imprimerie de Didot, 1818), 13; Gomard [A. J. J. Possellier], La théorie de l'escrime enseignée par une méthode simple basée sur l'observation de la nature (Paris: J. Dumaine, 1845), 302–3; Romuald Brunet, Traité d'escrime: pointe et contre-pointe (Paris: Rouveyre et G. Blond, 1884, 21.↩ 15 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), 34.↩ 16 Luigi Barbasetti, "La miglior parata è la botta," La Gazzetta dello Sport, 20 August 1897.↩ 17 Giordano Rossi, Manuale teorico-pratico per la scherma di spada e sciabola con cenni storici sulle armi e sulla scherma e principali norme pel duello (Milan: Fratelli Dumolard Editori, 1885), 24.↩ 18 Ferdinando Masiello, La scherma italiana di spada e di sciabola (Florence: Stabilimento Tipografico G. Civelli, 1887), 174–6. The preference of a 'four fingers' centre of gravity on foils was shared by the aforecited Lambertini, Enrichetti, Parise, and Rossi.↩ 19 Antonino Guglielmo, Sunto ed innovazioni sulla scherma di spada e di sciabola (Messina: Tipi Caporal Fracassa, 1888), 7–9.↩ 20 Alberto Cougnet, La scherma di spada (nel metodo italiano e francese) (Reggio Nell'Emilia: G. Degani, 1894), 38–41.↩ 21 Émile Coste, Fleurets rompus... ([Paris]: R. Chapelot, 1899), 260–2.↩ 22 Baron de Bazancourt, Secrets of the Sword, trans. C. F. Clay (London: George Bell, 1900), 168.↩ 23 Jeux olympiques Athènes 5-15 avril 1896: sous la présidence de monseigneur le prince royal de Grece: Règlement du championnat international d'escrime (n.p.: [1896?]), 8.↩ 24 D. Mérillon, Exposition universelle internationale de 1900 à Paris: Concours internationaux d'exercices physiques et de sports, vol. 1 (Parisç Imprimerie Nationale, 1901), 144; Jeux olympiques internationaux a Athènes (22 Avril - 2 Mai 1906): Réglements: Première partie: Sports athlètiques, gymnastique, escrime, foot-ball, lawn-tennis (Athens: 1905), 35; Erik Bergvall, ed., The Official Report of the Olympic Games of Stockholm 1912, trans. Edward Adams-Ray (Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand, 1913), 1017.↩ 25 The earliest full set of FIE regulations I have found so far was published across several issues of the magazine L'Escrime et le Tir, from February to July 1923.↩
If the average fencer of today knows anything at all about the Italian foil, they likely also have at least a vague awareness of the leather wrist strap that it was so commonly used with. This wrist strap is, in essence, one path in a long development of fencers seeking to improve their ability to grip the weapon, a development which also led to modern anatomic or 'pistol' grips. The wrist strap can be considered more generally as a type of ligature, known in Italian as the legatura or legaccia/legaccio, terms which in English simply mean 'binding' or 'tie'.
The ligature took many forms throughout its development, originally as a handkerchief used to conveniently bind and protect the hand in a duel or fencing bout in place of a glove in the early 19th century. By the middle of the century the ligature was an item separate from the glove, consisting of only a ribbon or strip of fabric, and was a characteristic feature of the Neapolitan school of fencing. At the dawn of the 20th century, the ligature was a popular aid throughout the whole Italian peninsula, and more and more took the form of the aforementioned leather wrist strap, which was the final development until the decline of the Italian foil in the second half of the century.
Throughout both the 19th and 20th centuries, Italian fencers were described as having a greater reliance on force, athleticism, and explosiveness than their French counterparts, and their use of ligatures formed a key part of this perception. As we will see, fencers of the French school were also not opposed to the use of gripping aids on their weapons, but it is in Italy alone that we find the ligature to be so closely woven with the development of both the weapons and the systems it was used in. Thus in order to gain a fuller understanding of the history of modern Italian fencing and its ideological debates in the 19th century, we must also understand the ligature and what it meant for those who did and did not use it.
A makeshift glove
Like with many topics surrounding 19th century Italian fencing, the history of the ligature starts with Rosaroll and Grisetti's seminal 1803 treatise The Science of Fencing.1 The two authors dedicate more than eight pages to ligatures, prefaced by a discussion on the benefits of wearing a glove, which not only protects the hand against the opponent's sword, but also allows the fencer (or soldier) to grip their own sword more firmly. Rosaroll and Grisetti's binding method is able to effectively substitute the glove as they recommend using a regular handkerchief (It. fazzoletto), 'which every man carries in his pocket'.2 The convenience of this everyday object is the main reason why they prefer handkerchiefs to bands or ribbons specifically designed to be sword ligatures. In addition to reducing fatigue and wear on the hand, particularly the middle and index fingers, they also appreciate the protection ligatures provide against disarmament, whether in battle, a duel or a fencing bout. In this respect the ligature is also a substitute for the sword knot, which was commonly used by soldiers but less likely to be found on duelling and fencing swords. The method they describe for binding the sword with a handkerchief is as follows:
Take the handkerchief by opposite corners, and keeping it almost outstretched, rotate it quickly by winding around its length so that when twisted it merely represents the diagonal of a square that it represented when unfolded. This done, let go of the corner you were holding in the left hand, holding the handkerchief in the right by the opposite corner with the ends of the thumb and middle finger. Then with the left hand wind it twice, to the outside of the fingers, around the index and middle fingers, specifically over the joints that are inserted into the ricasso of the sword. Then pass it between the middle and ring fingers, and through the inside of the latter and the little finger it shall be left hanging from the hand. Then grip the sword in the described manner (§ 40) and wind the handkerchief over the outside of the hand towards the top, so that it covers the joints of the fingers to the hand, except for the thumb, and on meeting the outside arch, pass it through there, and after tightening it strongly, cover the joint of the thumb and hand. Then wind it from inside to outside around the wrist twice, strongly tightening the grip and wrist together, always making sure to leave the pommel free. Finally, passing the handkerchief back over the hand, tie it securely to the part of the crossguard between the middle finger and the inside arch, winding it around there two or three times.3
The typical pocket handkerchiefs of today are nowhere near large enough to follow this method, and based on my own experimentation you need a handkerchief with a diagonal length of at least 100 cm (i.e. a square cloth with sides 70 cm long). For the purpose of demonstration, in the video below I give my own interpretation of Rosaroll and Grisetti's method using two 50 x 50 cm handkerchiefs tied together at the corners.
The most common feature of this and all subsequent ligatures is how they reduce the strain felt most strongly by the ring and little fingers, which for most people are too short to full enclose the straight handle on a traditional Italian foil. By securing the first two fingers and the pommel, the job of keeping the grip in line with the wrist no longer relies on the two weakest fingers of the hand. Importantly though, the firmness of the ligature should not overly hinder the movement of the sword, thus Rosaroll and Grisetti, as well as most subsequent authors, make sure to note that the handkerchief ligature should not cover or constrain the pommel of the sword. Aside from the detriments to the hand's mobility if the pommel is covered, doing so also reduces the efficacy of pommel strikes in close-measure grappling, which is something Rosaroll and Grisetti spend much time discussing but is generally forbidden in bouting by the mid-19th century (indeed if it ever was typically allowed).4
The two authors then go on to describe an additional type of ligature which they call a laccio, related to the English words 'lace' and 'lasso'; this is much less a way of fixing the hand to the sword as it is a way to make a simple sword knot using a silk lace around 8 palmi long (a bit over 200 cm). One end of the lace is fastened to the pommel, and the rest is formed into small rings, probably what is referred to in English as a sinnet knot, as Chris Holzman has suggested.5 After enough of the lace has been turned into links, a final noose is formed and tightened around the wrist, and the little finger is inserted into the last sinnet link to prevent the whole laccio from unravelling.6
Returning to the handkerchief methods, three decades later Sicilian master Blasco Florio gives his own modified version of Rosaroll and Grisetti's method in an effort to distribute the handkerchief more evenly across the hand and keep it tight for an extended period of time:
The fencer spreads the handkerchief out and holds it by one of its corners between the last two phalanges of the thumb and index finger; passing it from inside to outside over the last joint of the ring finger, leave it hanging there. Then winding it tightly from outside to inside around the middle and index fingers, at the same time separating the thumb so that only said index and middle fingers are in contact and covered, let it drop into the original position, but making sure to fold in the sides so that it ends up like a band. With this done, pass it along the inside of the middle and ring fingers, leaving it hanging all the same. In this manner, grip the sword as described in § 19, and by winding the handkerchief to the outside, pass it over the index and middle fingers, entering the outside arch and passing diagonally over the end of the middle finger, the third phalanx of the ring and little fingers, and bind them such that these parts should be covered and compressed with the handle. Continuing to turn the handkerchief, wind it around the wrist, still from outside to inside, but leaving the pommel free. Still tightening, pass it diagonally over the outside of the hand so that one side touches the outside quillon, so that the hand is fully covered and bound. If the handkerchief is long, then turn it once more around the thumb, index, and middle fingers, and then wind the end of it twice or thrice around the inside quillon, fastening it from outside to inside in such a way that it cannot become loose. Note that the corners of the handkerchief, which at the beginning of the binding were folded, should always remain this way.7
Two years after Florio's work, Niccolò Abbondati describes a method very similar to Rosaroll and Grisetti's, but now the handkerchief ligature is in addition to the glove:
This is achieved by means of a handkerchief which, held by opposite corners, is rotated along its length, so that it represents a band on the diagonal of the square that it made when unfolded. With this prepared, one of the ends is used to wrap and tighten the index and middle fingers of the right hand together, winding it twice from inside to outside; insert it between the middle and ring fingers; pass it between the latter and the little finger, and grip the sword as described in no. 1080. After this, the handkerchief is wound around the outside of the hand; insert it into the outside arch, and while freeing the thumb it is made to come diagonally over the end of the middle finger and the last phalanges of the ring and little fingers, which should end up covered and well compressed to the handle. From there it is brought to tighten the wrist, winding around this and the handle twice, leaving the pommel free; return to the back of the hand, which one should try to cover entirely, and wind the end of it around the thumb so that the ligature stays firm and is not subject to loosening.8
Despite the close association that ligatures would have with Italian fencing later on in the century, the custom of binding the hand with a handkerchief was also familiar to the French, as evidenced by the popular French duelling code by the Comte de Chatauvillard:
9. The handkerchief with which the combattant wraps their hand must not hang down; the opponent’s seconds, after making them aware, may enjoin them to remove it and make use of only a cord.
10. If it was agreed to wear fencing gloves, either one of the fencers can use it in the case the other refuses. But if only one was brought, neither should have this advantage.9
There is also something to be said for the martingale or leather loop that is attached between the guard and grip of a French foil. In essence a simplified ligature, it may have been used by some French fencers since at least the 18th century (see below). Alberto Marchionni was quite familiar with French fencing, having spent some time in France around the year 1830, and yet, according to his 1847 treatise, while '[i]n the Neapolitan school the way in which the foil is bound to the hand is considered essential', the French, on the other hand, 'do not make use of a band'. As a middle ground between Marchionni's perceptions of these two schools, he advocated for his own type of laccio, which he describes as follows:
To avoid both extremes, I thought it better to put into practice in my school a simple tape 80 cm long. The two ends sewn together represent the sword-knot. To put it into practice one only has to insert the middle finger into it, then pass it over the index finger—this is of course once one has gripped the sword or foil, whatever one wishes to call it—and then over the grip, leaving the thumb free, and then one continues to pass it always doubled between the middle and ring fingers, repeating the same turn around the aforementioned fingers and the grip, and finishing by fixing the other end to the middle finger that one started from. (See plate A, fig. 5).10
Marchionni's enlightening depiction of the laccio
The stated benefit of this type of ligature is that it provides some support to the wielder while still allowing them to easily play in close measure, something which the Neapolitan style of ligature makes very difficult.11 This ideology behind Marchionni's ligature is perfectly in keeping with the fencing system he was advocating, the 'mixed school', which argued that the most effective fencing method can be found by appropriately adopting various aspects of both the French and traditional Italian methods.12
In the following few decades detailed descriptions of Italian sword ligatures are difficult to find, with little more than passing mentions. By the time ligatures are again being discussed in a fencing context, the handkerchief is almost never mentioned, having ceded its place to specialised ribbons and straps. The reasons why the traditional handkerchief ligature fell out of favour are yet unclear. The transition to other materials may have coincided with other developments in fencing equipment, such as specialised fencing gloves, which would render the protection provided by the handkerchief superfluous. The shift may also have simply coincided with a change in men's fashion, in that it became less common to carry around a large handkerchief. As this lies well outside my expertise and the scope of this article, I shall say only that more research on this area is needed.
Specialisation of the ligature
Although specialised ligatures were known to Rosaroll and Grisetti right at the beginning of the 19th century (see above), handkerchiefs were more easily able to protect the weapon hand in lieu of a glove. Handkerchiefs saw continued use in duels throughout the 19th century, and they were still mentioned in duelling codes well into the 20th century.13 The duelling codes of Alberto Marchionni and Cesare Enrichetti, published in 1863 and Luigi De Rosis, published 1868, allow duellists to make use of a fencing glove and to additionally bind the sword with a handkerchief, whether they are using swords or sabres.14 While the latter author mentions the ligature as an alternative to the handkerchief, Achille Angelini considered the former as an addition to a fencing glove or handkerchief wrapped around the wrist, and only permissible 'in exceptional circumstances' and when both parties agree.15
Within a pure fencing context, however, the protection afforded by a handkerchief was likely not as valuable when a proper fencing glove was easily at hand, resulting in a rise in the popularity of ligatures using ribbon, fabric tape or string. An early and unambiguous reference to a specialised ligature for use in fencing is given by the French amateur the Baron de Bazancourt. This author describes his experience fencing the Neapolitan master Luigi Parise, who when fencing would typically use a dagger in his left hand or the hand itself to parry his opponent's sword. As a response to French fencers who argued they should be able to parry with the left hand (as it was customary among fencers of 'the old Italian school' such as Parise), Bazancourt responds with the challenge that 'you should admit all the precepts of that school, and then you will at least be logical.' According to him, the typical Italian fencer equips themselves like so:
Your sword will have a long heavy blade, broad and perfectly rigid; the hilt will be surmounted by a little cross-bar of steel on which you will place your fingers, and to which you will attach them with a long ribbon; incidentally you will do away with the freedom of the hand, the supple action of the wrist and the niceties of finger play.16
Given that Luigi Parise was imprisoned following the revolutions of 1848, where he subsequently died, Bazancourt's account shows that specialised ligatures were considered typical (at least for Neapolitans) since at least the 1840s.17 It is not until the 1880s, however, that we find the only detailed descriptions of making the ligature with a ribbon or cloth band. By far the most useful descriptions coincidentally come from Luigi Parise's more famous nephew, Masaniello, who provides us with three variations:
They once used the silk handkerchief which was worn on the collar like a cravat. Later they introduced the use of narrow bands of fabric, a metre and a half long, folded at one end to make a ring, into which the one may insert the index finger, or as others do, the middle finger. Having done this, and gripped the sword in the manner described in § 4, the ligature is passed between the ring and middle fingers, and continuing over the handle, one winds it in a spiral direction around the back of the hand and wraps it around the wrist once, passing under the pommel, and above for the other times; after this, one returns to the handle on the inside of the hand and inserts it into the right arch, going back into there a second time by passing between the middle and ring fingers, so as to render the sword secure in the hand. What is left of the end of the ligature is wound around the little finger, passing to the outside of the four fingers. Many fencers use the ligature in this manner in order to not waste a lot of time freeing the sword; but others prefer to do the inverse: that is, after inserting the index or middle finger into the ring of the ligature, they grip the sword and start binding it by passing it into the right arch twice, and then over the back of the hand, the wrist, etc. There is a third method which is also good. The pommel of the sword is inserted into the ring of the ligature; this is then passed around the wrist several times to keep the pommel fixed; then it is passed twice into the right arch, and the rest is wound around the little finger. Whichever of the three methods one binds the sword with, the result will be the same.18
Aside from protecting against disarmament, Parise states that the ligature reduces hand fatigue, allows for more strength to be employed in attacks and parries, gives more suppleness to the muscles of the hand and arm, and also provides slightly more protection to the hand and wrist. Just four years after Parise we find another description of a ligature, here from Sicilian master Antonino Guglielmo:
First of all, you must equip yourself with a [ribbon?] two metres long, wind it twice around the index finger, and turn it around the hand until the fingers are covered with seven parts of it, the rest is tied to the outside arch. Secondly, you should note that this ligature should leave all the muscles of the hand free such that, in tightening it, movement is not impeded, and the hand does not go numb. Thirdly, take care not to bind and cover the pommel of the sword, otherwise it will not be possible to articulate the feints.19
It appears that the intention behind Guglielmo's method is to more or less cover the hand with the ligature, thus a wider and thinner ribbon would likely achieve a better result than what my video demonstrates. Given that both Parise and Guglielmo only mention the required length of the ligature, the material, its thickness, and its width were likely a matter of personal preference and were dependent on what was easily available.
Armed with these and likely many other methods, Italian fencers soon began travelling the Western World, dazzling crowds from Chicago to St. Petersburg. The Italian foil and of course the ligature were common points of fascination for many, as seen in one New York Times article from 1886 describing a newly arrived Neapolitan fencer:
Signor Enrico Casella, a distinguished Italian swordsman, has arrived in New-York. He fences in very handsome style according to the fashion of Naples, of which city he is a native. The Neapolitan fencers have retained certain old methods, which have gone out in France and elsewhere in Italy, of binding the hand securely to the handle of the foil, using for that purpose a long tape or a handkerchief. Signor Casella uses a foil no longer in the blade than the French masters, differing in that from the old Neapolitan school, but his weapon has a bell-shaped guard and a transverse bar underneath it, upon which the first two fingers close. The foil and the arm become one piece, and it becomes impossible to perform on him the tricks of disarming which some fencers enjoy.20
The clearest image of a ligature I have found so far is a photo on Gallica of Aurelio Greco in 1913, seen below, in which a dark, slightly glossy ribbon roughly 15 to 20 mm wide can be seen running from crossguard of the foil and over Aurelio's wrist. Mimiague on the right also has a martingale mounted on his French foil.
One other (less clear) photo from 1901 shows Athos di San Malato holding an early Italian épée with what looks to be a simple string binding his hand to the weapon. The ligature is less commonly seen on épées during the 20th century, partly because for this weapon in particular many Italians preferred the French grip over the Italian.
While ribbon and string ligatures continue to appear occasionally throughout the first half of the 20th century, the last somewhat useful description comes in 1929 from the Argentinian master Horacio Levene, who characterised it more as an outdated method belonging to previous generations of fencers:
Gradually, the custom of strongly tying the weapon to the hand has been lost, with long strips of cloth which, after gripping the crossguard, secured the fingers, passing over the hand and finished by being wound a few times around the wrist or going back to the hand, causing the rest to disappear between the fingers, etc. With the ligature it is possible to grip the sword with more force, to better secure the weapon to the hand, and to consequently give greater control and resistance to the parries. Among the usual ligatures, there was one which, taking the pommel with the long strip, was wrapped around the wrist, and passing over the hand and taking one side of the crossguard, the excess is lost by wrapping the index finger in the hollow of the hand.21
Levene then goes on to describe the type of ligature that had become more popular by that point and remained so for the rest of the Italian foil's reign on the international stage: the leather wrist strap. Before we examine this final development, however, it is worth taking a closer look at how ligatures were perceived in Italy and the divisive debates around when, if at all, they should be used.
An object of scorn
Even before the particularly heated ideological debates which characterise the last few decades of the 19th century, the question of to bind or not to bind was divisive. For some the ligature symbolised the preservation of pure Italian fencing in the face of foreign, predominantly French, influence; for others, binding the sword was at best unnecessary and at worst a pernicious vice.
The sword method of Genoese master Paolo De Scalzi, writing in the middle of the 19th century, shows much in common with the traditional southern Italian masters; his comments regarding the ligature, on the other hand, are more in line with the views of Alberto Marchionni and the mixed school, which we touched on earlier. De Scalzi explicitly calls out Rosaroll and Grisetti for their preoccupation with the ligature, remarking that 'even the most renowned men can sometimes stumble!'. In his view, students should not become accustomed to using a ligature in case they find themselves in a situation where using it is impracticable, such as in combat. He does however advocate the use of sword knots, as they allow the wielder to quickly release the weapon from the hand.22 Aside from what we have seen so far, most Italian authors outside the southern provinces are remarkably silent on the ligature until later in the century, which could be an indication of its rarity in day-to-day practice there.
Luigi Zangheri, a fencing master who taught in Bologna, also advocated using an Italian foil without a ligature. Mounted with a blade shorter than that advocated by the Neapolitans, this allowed him and his students to execute certain 'French' techniques that a ligature renders difficult or impossible, such as an angulated parry of 1st or the coupé in close measure. The fencing method he taught was otherwise relatively traditional, identifiable with what most Neapolitans were teaching, and yet his opposition to using ligatures would eventually, after his death, lead his pedagogical descendants to sympathise more at times with the mixed school, although never quite identifying themselves as members of it. Zangheri's most famous student, Cesare Enrichetti, ensured that this tradition continued to flourish for the rest of the century.23 With these two traditions predominating in Northern Italy—Zangheri's school and the mixed school proper—the ligature retained its Neapolitan association and the scepticism of Northern Italians.
Following Italian unification, the government began a programme of training its own fencing masters for the army as part of a greater military reform process. One unintended consequence of this was that the ideological grievances between the various fencing systems that existed in Italy took on a more national importance, as the system that the Ministry of War selected to be propagated among the soldiers of Italy would earn the right to truly be called 'Italian'. From 1874 the sole method officially sanctioned by the Italian military was the method of Giuseppe Radaelli, who taught foil fencing according to the 'half-Italian' or mixed school.24
Two mixed-school foils from the Agorà della Scherma in Busto Arsizio.
As the young military fencing masters graduating from Radaelli's school became more numerous and prominent in the national fencing scene, advocates of the Neapolitan school became increasingly vocal in their disapproval of Radaelli's system, which they characterised as neither French nor Italian.25 With the death of Radaelli in 1882, the opportunity presented itself for the Ministry of War to look for a new, more 'Italian' method; as chance would have it, the fencing treatise that was eventually selected by the commission to be the new official textbook for Italian fencing was that of Neapolitan master Masaniello Parise.26
When this treatise was published in 1884, a report on the commission's deliberations was included in the book, in which we read that there had been a particularly 'lively disagreement' around the topic of the ligature. Since the form of the weapon was by now, in the minds of many, inextricably linked to the fencing method itself, very early in the commission's deliberations (indeed before even looking at any of the treatises submitted to the competition) the members all came to the agreement that only the Neapolitan foil had the right to be considered a 'real sword', and thus since the Neapolitan foil had been selected, it was only logical that a Neapolitan method also be chosen.27
In their fervent effort to maximise the apparent Italianness of the official fencing method, the members of the commission made the Neapolitan foil inviolable; thus when some of the other submissions provide possible modifications to the grip, such as that offered by Giordano Rossi's curved handle, they are all strongly rejected.28 By removing the possibility of modifying the weapon, many in the commission then felt it was necessary that use of the ligature be made a foundational aspect to the instruction of foil fencing, with some even going so far as to claim that 'without the ligature, a Neapolitan fencer suffers to the point of no longer being themselves at all.'29
A comparison of the traditional Italian grip (left) with Rossi's curved grip (right). Note the ability for the last two fingers to obtain a better purchase on the handle.
Although the commission eventually settled on a compromise of omitting ligatures in the early stages of training, leaving it to individual choice once students begin bouting, the association of the ligature with the Neapolitan-cum-Italian foil remained a contentious issue, particularly for the recently defeated Radaellian camp. The Radaellians were able to recognise that continued use of the mixed foil had become untenable in the nationalist fervour of 1880s fencing discourse, and thus its most prominent representatives also by-and-large switched to using the traditional Italian foil. What they would not concede, however, was that use of a ligature was at all necessary. Instead of focusing on the 'half-Italian' school of their master, Radaellians often chose to amplify the Zangheri tradition, which through Enrichetti's students had become interwoven with the development of Radaellian fencing.30 The most famous representative of his Radaelli-Enrichetti merger was Ferdinando Masiello, who openly acknowledged the flaws of his colleagues in the early years, but maintained that it was they who bore the torch of progress in Italy, and not the traditionalist Neapolitans:
Please forgive us, classicists of the ligature and of weakness, enemies of the coupé and precision—our flaws are mere blemishes; and our system was already greatly superior technically and practically to [the Neapolitan].31
Radaellian master Salvatore Arista echoed Masiello's associating the ligature with weakness, and also tapped into this renovated Radaelli-Enrichetti brand. In 1888 he observed how the Neapolitans insisted on adhering to tradition for the sake of tradition, thereby 'sacrificing efficacy for custom and elegance' predominately through their use of the ligature, which he considered 'a convenient but also effeminate habit'.32 Despite continued Radaellian backlash and the desire of some in the community to ban ligatures altogether from tournaments, their use was spreading.33 The influence of Neapolitan master Masaniello Parise at the Rome Fencing Master's School likely played a large part in increasing general acceptance for the ligature in Italy, and eventually the act of binding the sword ceased to be seen as a purely Neapolitan custom, becoming simply Italian.
By the start of the 20th century the ligature was no longer an object which prompted heated debate, even if the stance of the Radaelli-Enrichetti faction had not wavered. In 1907 one member of this camp was still repeating the line taken by his colleagues 20 years ago in calling the ligature 'a manifest effeminacy' which permanently inhibits a student's progression in fencing.34 Nevertheless, this was now the minority position. Around the same time as these remarks, a Milanese author expressed their disappointment that Rossi's modified grip was not better appreciated by their fellow fencers, and was compelled to acknowledge that 'most fencers, even famous ones, secure the foil to the wrist with a leather strap or ligature'.35
The shift to straps and gradual decline
Much as the handkerchief made way for the ligature with a ribbon or cord, this in turn diminished in popularity in favour of the leather wrist strap or 'belt' (It. cinturino or cinghietto). Again it is difficult to say when it appeared on the scene, as few sources make a clear distinction in terminology between it and the regular ribbon ligature. In the aforementioned commission report contained in Masaniello Parise's 1884 treatise, there is mention of a 'ring for threading to the wrist' as a less involved ligature method, which may be referring to an early type of wrist strap.36 There are several more hints such as these from the 1890s, especially as foreign commentators begin taking more notice of Italian fencing.
In 1894 the public of New York had the rare opportunity to witness a masterclass of Italian fencing as represented by masters Carlo Pessina, Agesilao Greco, and Eugenio Pini. Among the many comparisons the reporter makes between these 'flamboyant' Italians and the classical French school, which Americans were more accustomed to, he makes a note of the peculiar way they used their foils and the various ways they were bound:
Observe the foils of the Italians. Although they have given up almost everywhere the very long foil, direct descendant of the old long rapier, they still cling to the bell-shaped guard and crossbar underneath. Over this bar they hook the index finger. Not content with the solidity of grasp thus gained, they still resort to the ribbon or strap to fasten the hilt to the hand. In Naples some fencers bandage the hand to the sword grasp before a bout with as much care and ceremony as a Hindoo binds his turban round his head. The roving masters did not always use the strap or ribbon in New York; but sometimes, if about to fence with a muscular man, they passed a strap round the wrist and the lower part of the handle.37
Even if this 'strap' here is not the same as the specialised item that was so prevalent in subsequent decades, it is easy to see how the more elaborate binding methods could be simplified for the sake of expediency and be limited to only fastening the lower end of the grip to the wrist.38 A clearer example is found in the treatise of Austrian master Gustav Ristow, who differentiates the traditional ligature methods and wrist straps and touches on the debates we saw in the previous section:
Binding the foil is an antiquated practice that is still prevalent in Southern Italy especially; it is done by means of a strap (Riemen) or band in various ways, more or less simple, but always with the aim of maintaining lightness in gripping the foil and preventing cramping like fatigue in the fingers. Opinions with regard to binding the foil are divided; we declare ourselves opposed to it, since it causes considerable disadvantages as a mechanical aid in place of the spontaneous and natural gripping method, but we would recommend the use of a simple strap around the wrist and the upper end of the grip for the purpose of avoiding an excessive displacement of the point from the line in certain exchanges in the bout.39
A reduced focus on the more involved ribbon ligatures may also be reflected in a German translation of Masaniello Parise's treatise, carried out by Jacob Erkrath-De Bary and Arturo Gazzera. The latter was a graduate of Parise's Military Fencing Master's School, but instead of accurately translating Parise's detailed methods of using a ligature, this section is condensed to barely more than a footnote, stating that there are 'a number of ways to bind the foil', and that while the method using a metre and a half of ribbon is common in Italy, 'more and more they are being replaced by a small strap (Riemchen), which is fastened around the wrist and over the pommel of the foil.'40
Maestro Francesco Tagliabò assists Helene Mayer with her wrist strap. Observing on the right is Erwin Casmir.
As with the move from handkerchiefs to ribbons, it is difficult to pinpoint why the wrist strap gained more favour among Italian fencers when it did. Intuitively, the wrist strap is much less hassle to deal with in between bouts: the strap only needs to be put on at the start of training and removed at the end, whereas the ligature has to be tied and untied after each bout. A simple strap also requires little explanation for a beginner to use immediately, while the ribbon methods can look quite daunting to the uninitiated. Particularly for those who had only recently been introduced to the Italian foil, such as those outside Italy, the wrist strap may have helped reduce the barrier to entry for newcomers (not to mention children). A change in general training habits and the increasing frequency of competitions may have also played a part here; again, more research is needed.
Nevertheless, a focus on binding only at the wrist seems to have been enough for many, as the strap gradually emerged as the more popular option early in the 20th century. Although I consider the wrist strap as merely a subtype of the ligature, it must be noted that sources generally differentiate between the two, with 'ligature' referring only to a loose ribbon that is wrapped around the hand and/or pommel, while the wrist strap served to secure the pommel alone. So in contrast to the earliest handkerchief bindings (and even some later ligature methods which allow the pommel to remain free, to varying degrees), depending on its exact form the wrist strap can cover and restrict much of the pommel's movement. The uptake of straps can therefore be seen as the third evolution in the function Italian and Italianate fencers expected from their ligatures.
The famous Aldo Nadi demonstrates in his writings how reliance on the wrist strap could make it as much a part of how the Italian foil was wielded as its rings and crossguard were. In his 1948 treatise On Fencing he writes for an American audience who, if they had any knowledge about foil fencing, would have been far more familiar with the French school. Thus he not only provides the most detailed advice of any author so far on how to wear a wrist strap, but refers to the strap several times throughout the book in a way that makes it an almost integral part of his fencing method. He notes at various points how the wrist strap plays a prominent role in multiplying the strength of the hand, as utilised most often in beats and parries:
The handle is bound to the wrist by a leather strap about one inch wide which insures a strength and firmness of grip that simply cannot exist in the French foil. More important, it lightens the burden of the fingers, thus permitting most of their effort to be employed in directing the point (offense). Furthermore, the strap increases effectively the power of the parry (defense).41
Aldo Nadi (left) with his wrist strap poses with Philippe Cattiau (right)
Nadi provides the helpful suggestion that the wrist should be wrapped 'with a strip of thin linen about one yard long and three inches wide', tight enough to be snug but not cutting off blood circulation, which mitigates the abrasion caused by the pressure of the strap. For the same purpose Giorgio Rastelli recommends moistened gauze and William Gaugler an elastic bandage.42 Nadi continues to say that the strap should be tightened snugly over the glove, as close to the hand as possible, but without impeding any movement. Once the pommel is inserted through the strap, it should protrude by 'no less than three-quarters of an inch, and no more than one inch.' Despite the point of contact being localised to the pommel, Nadi considered the wrist strap method to be far superior to some ligature methods in terms of allowing pommel movement:
Some of our fencers prefer to bandage the wrist, the whole handle and pommel tightly together, outside the glove, as a substitute for the strap. Thus, they almost completely prevent the free movement of the pommel. As this freedom is essential in practically all fencing actions, I forbid this way of securing the weapon to the hand.43
I must thank Christopher Holzman for his assistance in explaining how to use this strap in the intended manner. The style of strap used in the above video is still sold through Uhlmann Fencing, but photos and catalogues show simpler versions being used throughout the 20th century where the pommel is merely placed under the strap rather than through a loop. After the invention of velcro in the 50s, this material was also used by some manufacturers to make wrist straps.
From the 1975 Santelli Fencing Equipment catalogue. Velcro wrist straps of various colours are shown on the left page, in the photograph labelled 80V. (Source: Fencing Arms & Artifacts)
Despite the strong preference for straps voiced by some authors, the traditional ribbon ligature remained in use for most of the century, at least as long as the Italian foil was still used competitively. In the footage below, Olympic medalist Aldo Aureggi can be seen untying a ligature after his bout with Renzo Nostini (from the 5:00 timestamp). The latter was also known to use a cloth ligature in competitions, being described as being a metre long, 1.5 cm wide, and which he 'passed between index finger and the palm of the hand, tying it around the pommel'.44
Nostini (left) with his foil ligature still attached after a bout with Edoardo Mangiarotti (centre).
Maestro Giancarlo Toràn of Busto Arsizio recalls the twilight period of the Italian foil as he experienced it in the 1970s:
As for me, I used the leather strap, as many did, during the period I was competing as an amateur, from 1969 to 1975, and after. Later (after about 10 years, more or less) it was banned. In the same period the Italian foil (with the crossguard) was dying out. But there were still fencers who utilised it: some with a strap, others with a long ribbon which they wound around the wrist in various ways.45
Toràn believes that it is possible some high-level fencers were still using ligatures in the 80s, but by then it was certainly extremely rare. Over the several decades of overlap between the invention of anatomic grips and the use of wrist straps, it is even possible to spot instances where both an anatomic grip and a wrist strap are used. This seems to have been more common in épée than foil, simply because anatomic grips were more commonly accepted for the former weapon, at least in Italy, than for the latter.46
Today the wrist strap lives on in some niches of classical fencing, but the ultimate aim of ligatures is largely fulfilled in the design of modern anatomic grips. While this marks the end of the Italian sword ligature, before concluding I will give an appendix of sorts for another aspect to sword bindings that is often overlooked, which is their application for French foils.
French ligatures
Given the various methods of sword binding we have seen used on the Italian peninsula, it should not be surprising that similar expedients were not confined by political boundaries. Although not typically referred to as ligatures, the use by French foilists of martingales and thongs should be considered in the same category. As we saw earlier, using a handkerchief to wrap the hand was likely customary among some French duellists in the first half of the 19th century. A 'cord' is given as the alternative to a handkerchief binding in the Comte de Chatauvillard's duelling code (see quote above), suggesting that other methods of securing the sword to the fencer's body were widely known.
The martingale is the most common type of ligature associated with French foils today. Fencing master Gomard in his 1845 foil treatise traces the origins of martingale use in fencing halls to the late 18th century, specifically due to the talents of one Comte de Bondy, a talented fencer who in the 1790s was considered in the same class as the famous Chevalier de Saint-Georges. De Bondy was able to parry with such force that his opponents had to begin using martingales when fencing him to prevent their foil colliding with spectators when disarmed. The martingale which Gomard describes, 'a small silk or cord strap' attached to the guard of the foil, would still be familiar to many fencers today, although leather is more commonly seen in the 20th century.47
Two roughly mid-19th century French foils equipped with leather guards and martingales. From the Agorà della Scherma in Busto Arsizio.
The popularity of the martingale received an artificial boost in the Olympic era after the foundation of the International Fencing Federation, who since at least the 1930s mandated the use of a martingale when the foil was not otherwise attached to the hand.48 Italian ligatures and wrist straps would already satisfy this requirement, so the Federation's rule may have in fact further entrenched the traditional Italian binding methods as well as the French.
While not providing much protection against the grip coming loose from the hand, by preventing disarms the martingale is closer to the sword knot in its utility, but some additional leverage can still be produced in forceful blade actions. The martingale may be long enough to only permit the first two fingers to be inserted, or it may even allow all four fingers to be wrapped, as in the example below.49
One alternative that some fencers made use of to satisfy the FIE's requirements is what Albert Manley called the 'thong'. This is a simple loop of cord separate from the foil that is placed over the grip in the palm of the hand, thus achieving a similar purpose to the martingale.50
When foil scoring was electrified in the 1950s, the body wire which attaches to the guard was considered a sufficient alternative to the martingale or thong, and this would no doubt have reduced their popularity. The French grip eventually suffered a similar fate as the Italian grip, at least at the top competitive levels, and declined in use in the second half of the century; yet unlike the Italian grip it is still found in many, if not most, clubs around the world today due to its versatility and ease of use, at least in the early stages of training. While martingales and thongs of the French foil did not have the distinctive influence on the weapon's progression that we have seen with the Italian foil, their basic functionality rightly places them in the category of ligatures.
Conclusion
Among the many distinguishing features of Italian foil fencing, the widespread use of ligatures is one of its more curious and unique developments. From its somewhat humble origin as an ersatz glove in the first half of the 19th century, the ligature soon differentiated itself to become an essential piece of the Neapolitan arsenal by the 1840s. Those who used the ligature lauded its ability to amplify the virtues of the Neapolitan sword and the fencer themselves, while its opponents saw it as a marker of weakness, as a tacit acknowledgement of the weapon's flaws, and the result of stubborn traditionalism. By the time the ligature reached its final and most popular form in the wrist strap at the turn of the 20th century, the practice of binding the foil was closely linked with Italian fencing as a whole.
So ingrained and clearly beneficial was the ligature to its users that it saw the Italian foil be preferred even above anatomic grips for many decades, only seeing clear decline after the weapon's electrification in the 1950s. Throughout this whole time in which Italian ligatures were in use, French fencers also found it convenient to secure the foil to the hand; when attachments were mandated for foil in the 20th century, ligatures became an everyday object even for French foilists. It is then somewhat remarkable how quickly this simple tool disappeared from fencing halls. If anything, this demonstrates that the practicality of anatomic grips, at least with respect to the foil, addresses the same aim that was sought after in the ligature. Perhaps it could be said that the final, true successor to the foil ligature is in fact the anatomic grip.
*******
1 Giuseppe Rosaroll-Scorza and Pietro Grisetti, La scienza della scherma (Milan: Stamperia Del Giornale Italico, 1803).↩ 2 Ibid., 34. It is possible that these authors also had in mind the silk cravat commonly worn around the neck at the time.↩ 3 Ibid., 34–5.↩ 4 See Blasco Florio, La scienza della scherma (Catania: Tipografia del R. Ospizio di Beneficienza, 1844), 129–32; Benedetto Sernicoli, Breve e succinta istruzione intorno alla scherma per uso della guardia civica (Rome: Tipografia Monaldi, 1847), 25.↩ 5 Christopher Holzman, introduction to The Science of Fencing, by Giuseppe Rosaroll-Scorza and Pietro Grisetti, trans. Christopher Holzman (Wichita, KS: self-pub., 2018), xxvii–xxxviii.↩ 6 Rosaroll-Scorza and Grisetti, Scienza della scherma, 36–8.↩ 7 Florio, Scienza della scherma, 82–3.↩ 8 Niccolò Abbondati, Istituzione di arte ginnastica per le truppe di fanteria di S. M. Siciliana (Naples: Reale Tipografia Militare, 1846), 227–8.↩ 9 Comte de Chatauvillard, Essai sur le duel (Paris: Bohaire, 1836), 29. This duelling code also saw use in Italy, receiving an Italian translation in 1864. See Conte di Chatauvillard, Codice del duello, trans. Eugenio Torelli (Naples: Stabilimento Tipografico del Plebiscito, 1864).↩ 10 Alberto Marchionni, Trattato di scherma sopra un nuovo sistema di giuoco misto di scuola italiana e francese (Florence: Tipi di Federigo Bencini, 1847), 186.↩ 11 Ibid., 231–2.↩ 12 Ibid., 62.↩ 13 See Jacopo Gelli, Codie cavalleresco italiano, 15th ed. (Milan: Ulrico Hoepli, 1926), 74–5.↩ 14 Alberto Marchionni and Cesare Errichetti, Norme sui duelli e attribuzioni dei padrini (Florence: Tipografia di P. Fioretti, 1863), 13–4; Luigi de Rosis, Codice italiano sul duello (Naples: Fratelli de Angelis, 1868), 35–6; 43–4.↩ 15 Achille Angelini, Codice cavalleresco italiano (Florence: Tipografia di G. Barbèra, 1883), 105–6.↩ 16 Baron de Bazancourt, Secrets of the Sword, trans. C. F. Clay (London: George Bell, 1900), 165–8.↩ 17 Masaniello Parise, dedication in Trattato teorico-pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola (Rome: Tipografia Nazionale, 1884).↩ 18 Parise, Trattato teorico-pratico, 219–20.↩ 19 Antonino Guglielmo, Sunto ed innovazioni sulla scherma di spada e di sciabola (Messina: Tipi Caporal Fracassa, 1888), 13–4.↩ 20 "A Neapolitan fencer," New York Times, 14 March 1886, 14.↩ 21 Horacio Levene, Teoria de la esgrima (Buenos Aires: Talleres Gráficos G. Garbo, 1929), 9–10.↩ 22 Paolo De Scalzi, La scuola della spada, 2nd ed. (Genoa: Tipografia e Litografia di L. Pellas, 1853), 29–30.↩ 23 Salvatore M. Arista, Del progresso della scherma in Italia: considerazioni sull'impianto della nuova scuola magistrale per l'esercito fondata in Roma nel 1884 (Bologna: Società Tipografica già Compositori, 1884), 6–7.↩ 24 Settimo Del Frate, Istruzione per la scherma di punta di Giuseppe Radaelli professore di scherma e ginnastica scritta d'ordine del Ministero della Guerra (Milan: Litografia Gaetano Baroffio, 1872), 1.↩ 25 See Achille Angelini, Osservazioni sul maneggio della sciabola secondo il metodo Redaelli (Florence: Tipi dell'Arte della Stampa, 1877); Luigi Forte, Sul metodo di scherma Redaelli: lettera critica diretta al signor Ferdinando Masiello maestro di scherma all'Accademia di Torino (Catania: Tipografia C. Galàtola, 1878); Giuseppe Perez, Il sistema di spada Radaelli giudicato dall'arte della scherma (Verona: Prem. Stab. Tip. di Gaetano Franchini, 1878).↩ 26 Masaniello Parise, Trattato teorico pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola: preceduto da un cenno storico sulla scherma e sul duello (Rome: Tipografia Nazionale, 1884).↩ 27 Paulo Fambri, "Relazione" in Masaniello Parise, Trattato teorico pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola: preceduto da un cenno storico sulla scherma e sul duello (Rome: Tipografia Nazionale, 1884), ix–x.↩ 28 Ibid., xii–xiii. While commission's report does not refer to Giordano Rossi or any other submission by name aside from Parise, it is clear that the grip with 'curvature towards the left that the axis of the pommel' is referring to Rossi's design. For more detail on his modified grip, see Rossi, Manuale teorico-pratico per la scherma di spada e sciabola con cenni storici sulle armi e sulla scherma e principali norme pel duello (Milan: Fratelli Dumolard Editori, 1885), 17–9.↩ 29 Fambri, "Relazione" in Parise, Trattato teorico pratico della scherma, xxi.↩ 30 Arista, Del progresso della scherma in Italia, 6–7; Carlo Pilla, Arte e scuole di scherma: conferenza tenuta alla Società bolognese di scherma nel febbraio 1886 (Bologna: Società Tipografica già Compositori, 1886), 34–6; Ferdinando Masiello, La scherma italiana di spada e di sciabola (Florence: Stabilimento Tipografico G. Civelli, 1887), 126–30.↩ 31 Masiello, La scherma italiana, 135.↩ 32 Salvatore Arista, "Quattro parole sulla scherma," Don Giovanni, 23 February 1888, 59.↩ 33 See VIII congresso ginnastico italiano: regolamenti e programmi (Turin: Tipografia Subalpina di Stefano Marino), 19; Giuseppe Nini, Torneo internazionale di scherma Genova 16-24 Giugno 1892: Relazione della giuria (Genoa, Tipografia del R. Istituto Sordo-Muti, 1892), 37–8.↩ 34 Saverio Cerchione, "Metodo Nazionale di Scherma con arma unica," Gazzetta dello Sport, 15 April 1907, 5.↩ 35 Primo Tiboldi, La scherma di fioretto (Milan: Casa Editrice Sonzogno, 1905), 5.↩ 36 Fambri, "Relazione" in Parise, Trattato teorico pratico della scherma, xxii.↩ 37 Charles de Kay, "French and Italian Swordsmen: School of Parries and School of Touches," Harper's Weekly, 24 March 1894, 287.↩ 38 Note the focus on the wrist in Arthur Lynch, "French and Italian Schools of Fence: The Vogue Among Amateurs in Paris," Outing, March 1902, 677; Tiboldi, Scherma di fioretto, 5.↩ 39 Gustav Ristow, Die moderne Fechtkunst: Methodisce Anleitung zum Unterrichte im Fleuret- und Säbelfechten nebst einem Anhange, enthaltend die wichtigsten Duellregeln (Prague: Josef Koch, 1896), 43.↩ 40 Masaniello Parise, Das Fechten mit Degen und Säbel, trans. Arturo Gazzera and Jacob Erckrath-de Bary (Offenbach am Main: self-pub., [1905]), 98–9.↩ 41 Aldo Nadi, On Fencing (Sunrise, FL: Laureate Press, 1994), 44–5.↩ 42 Giorgio Rastelli, Scherma, 3rd ed. (Milan: Sperling & Kupfer, 1950), 159; William M. Gaugler, The Science of Fencing: A Comprehensive Training Manual for Master and Student; Including Lesson Plans for Foil, Sabre and Épée Instruction (Bangor, Maine: Laureate Press, 1999), 5.↩ 43 Nadi, On Fencing, 42.↩ 44 Renzo Nostini, Scherma di fioretto (Rome: Edizioni Mediterranee, 1979), 20.↩ 45 Giancarlo Toràn, email message to author, 21 July 2024.↩ 46 One example can be found in Enciclopedia Italiana di scienze, lettere ed arti (1936), vol. 31, s.v. "scherma," plate VI, fig. 13.↩ 47 Gomard [A. J. J. Possellier], L'Escrime enseignée par une méthode simple basée sur l'observation de la nature [...], (Paris: Librairie Militaire de J. Dumaine, 1845), 14–5. See also Eugène Desmedt, La science de l'escrime (Brussels: Imprimerie Veuve Monnom, 1888), 39; Émile André, Manuel théorique et pratique d'escrime (fleuret, épée, sabre) (Paris: Garnier Frères, 1896), 451.↩ 48 Fédération Internationale d'Escrime, Procès-Verbal extrait du Compte Rendu Sténographique du Congrès tenu les 9 et 10 février 1934 (Brussels: Imprimerie F. Van Buggenhoudt), 1934, 21–2; "Fédération Internationale d'Escrime," L'Escrime et le Tir, November 1937, 13–9.↩ 49 Henry de Silva, Fencing: The Skills of the Game (Ramsbury, UK: Crowood Press, 2002), 10–11.↩ 50 Albert Manley, Complete Fencing (London: Robert Hale, 1979), 64–5.↩
