Antonio Buja's unpublished illustrations

Normally when I share a source on this blog it is to make a source freely accessible online for the first time; today, however, I wish to bring attention to a unique source that has been publicly available for some time already, but has only recently come to my attention, and is no doubt unknown to most readers. The source in question is this manuscript compiled by the fencing master Antonio Buja, which now resides in the Biblioteca provinciale Nicola Bernardini, Lecce. Its full title is Tavole illustrative della ginnastica per le armi bianche spada e sciabola, ossia scienza teorico-pratica della scherma ('Illustrative plates of gymnastics for the white [i.e. bladed] weapons sword and sabre, or theoretical-pratical science of fencing').

Antonio Buja was born on 12 March 1825 in Lecce, Apulia. Nothing is known about the first half of his life, but in the early 1860s he joined the National Guard, becoming a captain in 1866. Subsequently he became an employee of the town council of Lecce, seemingly remaining in this role the rest of his career. Since at least the 1870s he also worked as a fencing master in Lecce, having taught at the Real Collegio di San Giuseppe, and likely taught at a private hall in the city in his later years. Newspaper articles from 1874 to 1890 show Buja organising and participating in exhibitions as a respected member of the fencing community. Buja died in Lecce on 11 October 1906, aged 81.¹ The only known published work of his was published in 1875, and consists of a collection of discussions around fencing, primarily its benefits as a physical and moral exercise in comparison to other pursuits such as gymnastics.² [Edit 2024/12/14: It appears Buja also published a short discussion on duelling in 1894, which can be viewed here through KU Leuven's Corble Collection].

Aside from a short preface, his unpublished manuscript consists entirely of illustrations: more than 100 of them spread across 57 plates on both foil and sabre fencing (although the numbering stops at 56, there are actually two plates labelled 'Tav. 5'). The preface explains that the illustrations depict the end of a movement, the beginning of a movement or the movement which most defines a given action. Buja explains that the illustrations are his own, 'drawn and copied from real life'. The word 'copied' here may be alluding to the fact that although Buja is a talented illustrator, many of them do bear great resemblance to illustrations in other, mostly Italian, fencing treatises. In only one instance does Buja give a source for the illustrations being copied, that being on plate 5 (that is, the first plate 5) where he reproduces several plates from the works of Achille Marozzo and Giuseppe Morsicato Pallavicini.³ There are other indications of Buja referencing images from Pallavicini throughout the manuscript, but no citations are given in such instances (e.g. fig. 13 and fig. X, plate 4).

There is a benefit that Buja's plagiarism provides, however, which is what they can tell us about when the manuscript was compiled. Of all Buja's derivative illustrations, the latest I was able to identify was fig. Y on plate 6, which bears close resemblance to one from Masiello's 1887 treatise, as shown below.⁴ Not only are the postures identical, but Buja even made sure to reproduce the particular style of fencing jacket, which is different to the rest of Buja's illustrations. This would therefore suggest the manuscript was composed no earlier than 1887, when Buja was at least in early 60s. In addition to the aforementioned examples, others show Buja being familiar with the illustrations from the treatises of Parise (figs. V, X, and Y, on the second plate 5), Domenico Angelo (the grapples on plate 34), and Ferrero.⁵

Left: Masiello (1887)
Right: Buja manuscript

Left: Ferrero (1868)
Right: Buja manuscript

Left: Angelo (1763)
Right: Buja manuscript

It would be tempting to give Buja a pass for the repeated plagiarism in this manuscript, as it was never published (to my knowledge); yet given the fact that the illustrations are individually labelled and that many of them, particularly the diagrams, show a level of detail that makes their purpose nearly impossible to determine by the image alone, it is very likely that pictures were originally to be accompanied by explanatory notes to enable dissemination, if not publicly, then perhaps locally. Regardless, Buja had already proven to be willing to publish plagiarised material under his name. In the final chapter of his 1875 publication, Buja provides a comparison of the various fencing schools of Europe which borrows heavily from a chapter first published in Blasco Florio's book Discorso sulla utilità della scherma and later reproduced in his 1844 treatise, La Scienza della Scherma.⁶

Despite Buja's reliance on other books, overall the manuscript gives a strong impression that Buja's intent was to demonstrate his own ideas on fencing, founded on both texts and personal experience. The guard position on the second plate 5 labelled fig. 18 resembles a typical Neapolitan guard position, but the rear arm is held in a manner similar to Marchionni.⁷ This guard is not copied from any Italian text (to my knowledge), and likely depicts Buja's personal preference, given that subsequent illustrations show this same arm position.

Further on we see that many of the plates depicting fencing actions have extra details such as the labelling of various points in space and on the fencers' bodies, lines showing the path of the point or the hand, before and after positions of the blade, etc. Buja was clearly using his illustrations to convey additional information beyond the superficial, static positions of the two fencers, providing a more comprehensive idea of the technical requirements of a given action. What he considered these intricacies to be exactly is unfortunately lost to us, given the absence of any explanatory text, but I have no doubt that experienced fencers today could surmise the meaning of many of Buja's lines and labels.

Buja's attempts to push beyond static depictions of fencing is further seen in his inclusion of many techniques that would at the time be considered unusual or unconventional, such as the leaning void on plate 22, the reverse passato sotto on plate 28, the grapples on plates 31 to 34 (very much forbidden in Italy by this point), the spinning inquartata on plate 43, and the ducking parry of 5th on plate 44. In addition to Buja's inclusion of parry of 1st, these positions suggest that Buja was not a strict adherent to the traditionalist and aesthetic ideals of many Southern foil fencers his age.

This unconventionality continues in the sabre section, where, in addition to the the standard depictions of parries and cuts, Buja has also illustrated ways for a soldier to hold their scabbard after drawing the sabre (plate 49), ways to perhaps cut at the leg (plate 54), two left-foot-forward guard positions (plate 55), and a demonstration of how to shield one's eyes from the light of the sun with the left hand (plate 56). When it comes to technique, however, Buja's sabre fencing shows much in common with the other non-Radaellian methods of the time, and shows no evidence of Radaellian influence.

Buja's wonderful illustrations shine a little bit of a light on a region that rarely gets a mention in Italian fencing literature. Even though Buja's motivations with the manuscript are unknown to us today, his work demonstrates that he was a keen observer of the development of Italian fencing throughout his long life and was relatively forward-thinking in his own approach to the practice. There are no doubt countless more interesting details to be found in the illustrations of this unique manuscript, and I look forward to hearing about what readers discover and any possible theories on what the various diagrams and labels are depicting.

*******

1 Jacopo Gelli, Bibliografia generale della scherma con note critiche, biografiche e storiche (Florence: Tipografia Editrice di L. Niccolai, 1890), 41; "Antonio Buja," Gazzetta delle Puglie, 13 October 1906; Corriere Meridionale, 18 October 1906. The earliest appearance of Buja I have been able to find is in Il Cittadino Leccese, 17 April 1874, 203.^↩
2 Antonio Buja, La scherma considerata sotto tutti i rapporti sociali, fisici e morali (Lecce: Tipografia Editrice Salentina, 1875).^↩
3 Achille Marozzo, Opera Nova de Achille Marozzo, Mastro Generali de l'Arte de l'Armi (Modena: D. Antonio Bergolae, 1536); Pallavicini, La seconda parte della Scherma Illustrata, ove si dimostra il vero maneggio della spada, e Pugnale, & anco il modo come si adopera la Cappa, il Borchiero, e la Rotella di notte, le quali regole non sono state intese da nessuno Autore (Palermo: Domenico d'Anselmo, 1673). ^↩
4 Ferdinando Masiello, La scherma italiana di spada e di sciabola (Florence: Stabilimento Tipografico G. Civelli, 1887).^↩
5 Masaniello Parise, Trattato teorico-pratico della scherma di spada e di sciabola (Turin: Tipografia Nazionale, 1884); Giuseppe Rosaroll-Scorza and Pietro Grisetti, La scienza della scherma (Milan: Stamperia Del Giornale Italico, 1803); Domenico Angelo, L'École des armes, avec l'explication générale des principales attitudes et positions concernant l'escrime (London: R. & J. Dodsley, 1763); Giovanni Battista Ferrero, Breve trattato sul maneggio della sciabola (Turin: Tipografia Subalpina di Marino e Gantin, 1868).^↩
6 Buja, La scherma, 138–144. Cf. Blasco Florio, Discorso sulla utilità della scherma (Messina: Giuseppe Fiumara, 1825), 32–8; Florio, La scienza della scherma (Catania: Tipografia del R. Ospizio di Beneficienza, 1844), 69–74.^↩
7 Alberto Marchionni, Trattato di scherma sopra un nuovo sistema di giuoco misto di scuola italiana e francese (Florence: Tipi di Federigo Bencini, 1847), fig. 8.^↩

A third book of Radaellian student notes

Two years ago I published transcriptions of two interesting copies of Del Frate's 1876 treatise Istruzione per la scherma di sciabola e di spada containing notes written the owners of the books when they studied at the Milan Fencing Master's School. I stated at the end of the article that it is highly likely that additional copies of this kind still survive, and after sending out some enquiries I did indeed located one more. This copy originally belonged to Antonio Maragliano, and it now resides in the Biblioteca Polo Umanistico-Bioscienze at the University of Teramo. Below you may find a standalone transcription of the manuscript as well as a side-by-side comparison with the two previously-discussed manuscripts by Lombardi and Barbasetti.

Maragliano manuscript transcription

Side-by-side comparison

Maragliano's notes are incomplete and the shortest of the three, coming in at around a third the length of Lombardi's notes, and all the content contained in his notes can also be found in both Lombardi and Barbasetti's. As indicated on the first manuscript page, Maragliano was a student of the 1883-84 course at the Master's School, which was the last course intake at the school before its closure in March 1884.¹ Given that this course would have only been around four months in when the school closed, the incomplete nature of Maragliano's manuscript reflect this interruption, indicating the point in the theory curriculum the students had reached in March 1884. Maragliano and his fellow students were able to resume their training the following year in a condensed course at the new Master's School in Rome under Masaniello Parise.² While Maragliano's name can be found in this subsequent intake, it is unclear if he did end up graduating.

Despite their brevity, Maragliano's notes provide a valuable third point of comparison in determining which of the minor variations across the three manuscripts are more likely to be representative of the reference material they were transcribing. In general it is Barbasetti who appears to deviate more often from the original wording through paraphrasing and the occasional omission. Given how minor these variations are, Maragliano's notes provide significant proof that, at least with regard to the content all three manuscripts have in common, the reference material remained very consistent between the years 1876 and 1884.

My sincere thanks to the library staff at the University of Teramo for providing the scans of this manuscript.

*******

1 "Da Milano a Roma," Corriere della Sera, 11 March 1884, 3.^↩
2 Cesare Ricotti-Magnani, "N. 90. - Corso speciale presso la scuola magistrale di scherma," Giornale Militare 1885: parte seconda, no. 31 (30 July 1885): 340–1.^↩

Student notes in two copies of Del Frate's treatise

*** Update: A third set of student notes has been found, as detailed here. ***

The period of study which this blog predominantly concerns itself with, i.e. the 19th and 20th centuries, is one which is so abundant in high-quality printed material that manuscripts are a relatively rare occurrence, unless one finds oneself rummaging through private collections, of which there exist several that are relevant to researchers of fencing. We inhabitants of the 21st century are extremely lucky to have the majority of one of these collections being digitised, free to access, and of high quality: the Archibald Corble collection, courtesy of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium.

It was by browsing through this truly amazing collection that I came across this unique copy of Del Frate's 1876 treatise Istruzione per la scherma di sciabola e di spada del Prof. Radaelli. What makes this version special is that blank folios were inserted in between each printed page. With this particular copy in the Corble collection, most of these blank pages contain the handwritten notes of none other than Luigi Barbasetti, made during the time he was at the Milan Fencing Master's School from 1880 to 1881 (aside from one page at the beginning written by Archibald Corble after he acquired the book in 1929).¹

Due in large part to Barbasetti's sometimes less-than-neat writing, my initial attempts at transcribing left several gaps and uncertainties, and so the transcription was shelved until I felt more confident in deciphering the scribbles or until I found someone more competent to assist. As it turns out, neither of these two events have yet occurred, but I was nevertheless able to improve the transcription significantly thanks to the help of Maestro Giancarlo Toràn, who was kind enough to supply me with scans of another copy of the Del Frate treatise with handwritten notes, this one being housed at the Silvio Longhi Museum at the Agorà della Scherma in Busto Arsizio. This second book of handwritten notes was owned by Giovanni Lombardi, fencing master of the 7th artillery regiment, who likely attended the Milan Master's School from November 1876 to October 1877.²

Lombardi's handwriting is much neater than Barbasetti's and therefore presented no issues at all in transcribing it. Minor odd discrepancies between the two manuscripts such as one author using an 'e' instead of an 'a' or confusing 'noi' and 'non' are good indicators that the students were copying this text from somewhere else, i.e. from a blackboard or another exemplar, as opposed to it being orally dictated to them.

The most significant difference, however, can be seen in the additional material found in the Barbasettti manuscript. Barbasetti's copy contains a set of question and answers at the end of the sabre and sword material, similar to those which would be seen in later editions of Masaniello Parise's treatise,³ as well as section on 'tempo' in the sword material, while Lombardi's contains neither. Therefore most of the transcription uncertainties are contained in these sections, as it was not possible to cross-reference with Lombardi's manuscript.

Below are the links to the individual transcriptions, as well as a side-by-side comparison of the two in which I have highlighted in blue the parts of Lombardi's text which show noteworthy difference to Barbasetti's.

Barbasetti manuscript transcription

Lombardi manuscript transcription

Side-by-side comparison

The content of these handwritten notes do not introduce any techniques that are not already in Del Frate's textbook, but they do expand on them in mainly a tactical and pedagogical sense. Both the sabre and sword sections begin with the pedagogical progression for the master to follow with their students, followed by commentary on each technique.

An example of the elaboration provided by the notes is seen in the following useful remarks on Radaelli's guard of 2nd, remarks which are very similar to those seen in Del Frate's 1868 book, but which were curiously omitted in the 1876:

In general the guard most used by other methods for the bout is the guard of 3rd, but this presents some weak aspects and is dangerous due to coupés and manchettes. Among all the guards, the one which presents the greatest ease to rush to all the parries and which is the most rich in ripostes is the guard of 2nd, somewhat high and correct.

In this guard the hand must be at the height and in the direction of the chin, the point 20 cm lower than the hand and in line with the left flank, the sabre across the body, edge diagonally up.

In this position we will have the advantage of having the forearm sufficiently covered and the ability to rush to the parries of 1st, 2nd, and 5th, which are the most rich in ripostes and allows a quick riposte by thrust.

In this guard position it will be necessary to practice forearm rotations, moving the sabre from front to back, with the body advancing and withdrawing; in this movement the edge must never be turned. This movement is useful to not tire oneself, always staying firm in the same position and always leaving the opponent unsure of our action and our attack.

It will therefore be necessary in the last exercises for the student to be taught to attack in this position, which presents great difficulty because he is not yet accustomed to it, but in little time he will discover that the arm and the eye will become accustomed and he will appreciate its advantages.

The 'forearm rotation' described here may likely be referring to the exercise described by Rossi as 'Exercise for keeping to the parries of 2nd, 5th, and 1st' and by Pecoraro & Pessina as 'Exercise for the parries of first, second, and fifth'.⁴

As with this particular example, much of elaboration seen in the notes may be taken for granted by modern readers due to more comprehensive nature of later Radaellian treatises, but for the young student-masters at the Milan school these notes would have been hugely valuable, expanding on the relatively short Del Frate treatise and solidifying the oral advice they would be receiving during their studies.

I do hope to complete a translation of the manuscripts at some point in the future, preferably when the number of uncertainties have been reduced as much as possible, so if readers have any comments or suggestions to improve the Barbasetti transcription, I encourage you to do so here.

The fact that two copies of the Del Frate treatise exist containing additional unprinted folios inserted throughout indicates that these were special editions of the book given to students of the Milan Master's School. Given that well over 100 (even perhaps over 200) students attended the school in its 15 years of activity, there are likely many more copies of this nature waiting to be discovered and shared with the community. If you know of any, please do get in touch!

Special thanks again to the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven for their wonderful digitisation efforts and to Giancarlo Toràn for graciously taking the time to scan and share the Lombardi manuscript with me.

---

1 Barbasetti was likely in the course that graduated in October 1881, the exams for which are mentioned in Corriere della Sera, 27 October 1881, 2. If this course started at the same time of year as others (see note 2), then it likely began in November 1880. On the length of the course at the master's school, see Cesare Francesco Ricotti-Magnani, "N. 249. — ORDINAMENTO DELL'ESERCITO (Nota N. 29).— Istruttori e maestri di scherma per l'Esercito. — 4 dicembre", Giornale Militare 1874: Parte Prima, no. 44 (11 December 1874): 490.^↩

2 Lombardi's signature on the first two pages are both alongside a date, written as '16/12 - 76', which I have taken to mean 16 December 1876. This date would line up nicely with the course of 26 students which started at the Master's School in November 1876, announced in Corriere della Sera, 4 November 1876, 3. With a course length of one year (see note 1), it was likely Lombardi's course which was undergoing final exams in October 1877 as announced in Corriere della Sera, 9 October 1877, 3.^↩

3 Masaniello Parise, Trattato teorico pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola: preceduto da un cenno storico sulla scherma e sul duello (Turin: Casa Editrice Nazionale Roux e Viarengo, 1904), 343–52.^↩

4 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), 198–9; Salvatore Pecoraro & Carlo Pessina, La Scherma di Sciabola: Trattato Teorico-Pratico (Viterbo: Tipografia G. Agnesotti, 1912), 75–6.^↩