The Radaelli-Enrichetti alliance and the 1882 Modena tournament

Following the closure of the Parma Fencing Master's School under Cesare Enrichetti, the graduates of this school were obliged to attend a 9-month course at the Milan school to learn Radaelli's method. Later reflections on this period from those who witnessed it remark that this formal meeting of the two schools was the beginning of a period of great collaboration and improvement for both parties.

The majority of Enrichettians could clearly see the results that experimentation among the Radaellians had produced with regard to sabre fencing, while the Radaellians were able to benefit from the established tradition inherited by Enrichetti and his students. It should also be noted that this exchange of knowledge was not purely confined to each school's respective specialisation, and while the Radaellians were in general not highly regarded for their sword fencing,¹ both Arista and Masiello (products of the Radaelli and Enrichetti schools, respectively) noted that Enrichettians recognised the value in relying less strictly on wrist movement in sword fencing, as was typical in traditional and Southern Italian schools.²

Neapolitan commentators and their supporters, on the other hand, made sure to differentiate between the Radaellians and the Enrichettians, as they generally respected the latter camp as an offshoot of the Neapolitan school while the former were an insult to their great fencing traditions. While northerners championed the military fencers on the whole as a shining example of the Italian military's educational achievements, Neapolitan partisans considered Radaelli's sword method 'seriously harmful' to the young men of the military.³ Because of this, they had to frame the competitive successes of the Radaellians, particularly in sword fencing, to factors unrelated to the merits of the Radaelli school. Take for example the very pro-Neapolitan official report of the 1881 Milan tournament:

We then saw Arista, who, despite the statement he made of belonging to the Radaelli school, fenced with an Italian foil, and except for a few things he showed us how, with good will and by fencing with fencers of a pure school, as well as by seeing them fence among themselves, he who has natural dispositions and love for the art can make serious progress. [...] In Giordano Rossi, strong in the Radaelli system, beautiful and composed in guard, we found a tight game, due to his frequent fencing with members of the Italian school. Pecoraro owes the speed of his parries and ripostes to his special talents more than to the Radaelli school.⁴

While the growing opposition towards the Milan Fencing Master's School—exemplified in this report, the report on the Naples Gymnastics Congress⁵ later that same year, and various publications of the late 1870s—was an issue for the Radaellians, in February 1882 they suffered their greatest blow when the very founder of their school, Giuseppe Radaelli, died tragically after a protracted illness. Although Radaelli had not been able to teach for some time beforehand, his death provided a golden opportunity for change. Proposals of this nature can be found in the aforementioned reports, made while Radaelli was still alive, and they naturally favoured putting a champion of the Neapolitan or 'Italian' school in power:

And given Radaelli's illness, the post of directing master of the Master's School in Milan is open, and since the directing master must start clearing the way, one must start by appointing to that post a master who is not only a good fencer, but also a good master, and shown to have made good students. This master must also not be driven by partisan spirit and must have the character of a perfect gentleman. Having appointed such a master to direct the Master's School, his first task should be to make use of all the good members that are in it, putting them on the good path, unifying the system with a single sword form (the Italian).⁶

Those who supported the current generation of Enrichettians and Radaellians, however, likely saw this more as chance to formalise the union of these two groups and create a new curriculum more representative of their collective experience and experiments.

And so it was in this tense climate that the Modena tournament took place, in July 1882. Although billed as a 'national' tournament, the competitors appear to have all come from Northern Italy and Tuscany. 67 masters and 40 amateurs competed, which was a reasonable turnout, but nevertheless overshadowed by the famous Milan tournament of the previous year, which saw competitors not just from Southern Italy, but also Austria and France.

Similar to the 1881 Milan tournament, well over a dozen special prizes were donated to the organisers by fencing societies and government ministries, to be awarded not just for those who won the sword and sabre pools, but also for the pairs deemed to have done the best bouts and for the 'best fencer' of the tournament. With the lack of competition from Southern Italians, however, most of the special prizes awarded to fencing masters went to Radaellians, with Salvatore Pecoraro alone receiving five by winning both pools, taking part in the best bouts, and winning the prize for best fencer.

The jury contained two amateurs and seven masters, the latter group consisting specifically of Paolo Cornaglia, Giovanni Ciullini, Giuseppe Perez, Cesare Enrichetti, Alessandro Pavia, Giovanni Domenico Reverso, and Antonio Tinti.⁷ Perez was the only master out of the jury not teaching in the military at the time, although he had in fact spent around 5 years in the 1860s teaching at the Modena school, where Enrichetti, Pavia, Reverso, and Tinti were teaching in 1882.⁸

The reason this tournament intersects with the topic at hand is not just that it was held in a very divided period of Italian fencing and only five months after the death of Giuseppe Radaelli, but because of a short report on the tournament that appeared first in the Milanese newspaper Il Secolo on 18 June, then again the following month in a slightly expanded form in Turin's Gazzetta Piemontese on 4 July. The anonymous journalist clearly favours the Radaellians, ignoring the many prizes awarded to non-Radaellian amateurs, but the second half of the article (the part republished from Il Secolo) demonstrates the author's main agenda. To this writer, the army already had all the resources it needed to establish a more solid theoretical foundation for its fencing instruction, through the combined knowledge of the champions of both the Enrichetti and Radaelli schools.

This hopeful vision for a formalised union of the two schools, to be brought about through a collaboration of military fencing masters alone, lies in stark contrast to what would result from the Ministry of War's treatise competition, announced in September that same year, the submissions for which to be judged by a commission made up entirely of amateurs, both military and civilian.

Below is the Gazzetta Piemontese's version of this article, translated in full.

---

On the day of 18 June the national fencing tournament initiated by the La Fratellanza Society of Modena ended.

The royal and ministerial prizes placed at the disposal of the tournament jury surpassed in number and value those of all other tournaments and fencing congresses, and well-deserved praise for this is owed to the honourable deputies Corvetto and Triani, who left no stone unturned for the success of the tournament.

The two distinguished deputies, urged by Maestro Cav. Cornaglia, promised to make every effort at the Ministry of War to improve the conditions of military fencing masters.

Worthy of special commendation are the Marquis Carandini, president of the La Fratellanza Society, promotor of the tournament, vice-president Avv. Martinelli, responsible for receiving the jury, and the engineer Cialdini, secretary of said jury—who with their untiring activity contributed so much to the good progress of the tournament.

The champions of the tournament were the masters Pecoraro, Corsini, Rossi, Pessina, Scarani, and Varrone, all students of Maestro Radaelli, graduates of the Milan Master’s School.

There were 67 masters and 40 amateurs who took part in the competitions, and they declared themselves to be of various schools, that is: Radaelli, Enrichetti, Italian, mixed, and several: Enrichetti sword, Radaelli sabre.

The competitions always proceeded regularly and the fencers all competed with skill and chivalry.

In this tournament everyone admired the indisputable quality of the Radaelli sabre school, and these facts are worth far more than any contrary judgement given by people who, if not incompetent, are certainly very biased.

Until now a true fencing system has not existed in the army; in order to have one single system the Ministry of War should form a Commission of masters of the two schools, Radaelli-Enrichetti, and adopt a uniform Italian school, which is suited to our military needs.

Then if the Ministry of War wants a sabre fencing treatise which serves as the basis of training in the army, it could entrust the task to any of the current masters in the military institutes who have been teaching in the army for several years.

The basis of this system should be Radaelli’s, because it is too rational to be changed; so true is this that almost all the old sabre fencing masters practise the Radaelli system even though they criticise it, because they recognise its utility.

Proof of the quality of the Radaelli sabre system is seen in the fact that in all the congresses, national and international tournaments, including the last one in Naples and the recent one in Modena, the first prize in sabre was always won by the students of Radaelli.

And as evidence, even in the recent tournament the prizes from His Majesty the King, Prince Amedeo, the Ministers of War, the Navy, the Interior, Public Education, and from Modenese gentlemen, were all won by the students of Radaelli, and the prize from the Foreign Minister was won by Maestro Provenzale, a student of Enrichetti for the sword and Radaelli for the sabre.

* * *

1 The best example can be seen in the first hand impressions in Giovanni Pagliuca, Cenni di critica sul sistema di scherma Redaelli (Turin: Tipografia Letteraria-Forense-Statistica, [1880?]).^↩
2 Salvatore Arista, Del progresso della scherma in Italia (Bologna: Società Tipografica già Compositori, 1884), 8–9; Ferdinando Masiello, La scherma italiana di spada e di sciabola (Florence: G. Civelli, 1887), 129.^↩
3 Domenico Cariolato and Gioacchino Granito, Relazione del torneo internazionale di scherma tenuto in Milano nel giugno 1881 (Naples: Tipi Ferrante, 1881), 37.^↩
4 Ibid., 139–40.^↩
5 Luigi Cosenz, Il XI congresso ginnastico italiano in Napoli (Naples: Francesco Giannini, 1881).^↩
6 Cariolato and Granito, Relazione del torneo, 149.^↩
7 "Torneo nazionale di scherma," Corriere della Sera, 15 June 1882.^↩
8 A list of civil fencing masters employed by the Italian army can be found in the yearly releases of Annuario militare del Regno d'Italia, published in Rome by Carlo Voghera.^↩

The 1892 Genoa Fencing Tournament

In this first post of 2020, I bring a translation of another detailed fencing tournament report, this time from 1892 Genoa. Published with the title Torneo Internazionale di Scherma, Genova 16-24 Giugno 1892, this report was written by the tournament jury's speaker, Giuseppe Nini, a well-regarded lawyer and amateur fencer from Rome. Below you will find links to my full translation of this text and a transcription of the original Italian. In addition, I have also provided a translation of a second report on the same tournament from the magazine Baiardo (more on that below).

Translation: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PRi61LwjNpUlzzi-4cGekS8MrmOwMbPF

Transcription: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dZa0KbzaqH-rX-s-TsV3S5bQUpmS8Ntc

Baiardo Report: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1yDNSmoifwbifal9jrE9dZdzdo0AJwBTG

The rules and format of the Genoa Tournament are very similar to previous tournaments discussed on this blog (see Milan 1881 and Bologna 1891), with the variation here that the classification of the fencers was conducted at the same times as the 'pool' competition, the intent of which being to both prevent the artistic degradation generally observed in the pools and to prevent the overly 'conventional' fencing associated with classification bouts.

The most interesting aspects of the report are contained in the jury's observations of the fencing, which show many parallels to lamentations within the historical fencing community today, such as recklessness, frequent double touches, and lack of control of the weapon.

The report from Baiardo (scans available through Europeana.eu here) was published over three issues (1892/06/20, 1892/07/08, and 1892/07/20) and written by Giovanni Battista Marazzo. This report gives more of an outsider's perspective as opposed to Nini's report, which was compiled by the members of the Jury.

As is fairly usual for this period, commentators didn't shy at the opportunity to bring fencing politics into the discussion of the tournament. Most notably here, in both the Nini and Baiardo reports, were feelings of dissatisfaction with the quality of many of the fencers. The following short article entitled 'Impressions on the Genoa Tournament' published in Baiardo on the 20th August 1892 places the blame squarely on the Scuola Magistrale and Masaniello Parise, its director:

From the progress of the aforementioned tournament, I have once again brought back the conviction that our youth show a high aptitude for the noble art of fencing, and it is with true regret that I came to realise that a sufficient benefit cannot be drawn from these aptitudes, the official system being the main cause.
This is not the first time that I am obliged to note how this system satisfies neither the reasons of the art, nor its traditions, nor even the nature of Italian youth, of which the Army is the prime champion.
It is a strong conviction, as I have already stated a thousand times, that the talents of agility and strength which nature has endowed the Italian people with cannot be usefully cultivated with the regulation method.
This opinion of mine, which, even if it is wrong—which I do not believe to be the case—certainly comes only from artistic and scientific considerations.
Let us hope that Parise, the one in charge of directing the Army’s fencing, may one day change his mind and bring our art back to its ancient splendour.

Bruto II

Bias against fencers from the Scuola Magistrale had been predicted by some when it was revealed who was elected to the tournament's jury, with an article from Baiardo published on the 8th June 1892 (prior to the tournament taking place) stating '... just as the Turin Tournament was said to be Enrichettian, that of Bologna Radaellian, that of Rome Neapolitan, that of Palermo Cipollian, thus the formation of the Jury for the Genoa Tournament was called anti-Parise.' The same article also claims some fencers from the Scuola Magistrale intended to boycott the tournament for this reason, but did not expect many to actually do so.

Special thanks to Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze for providing the scans of Nini's tournament report.

The 1902 Grand International Fencing Tournament in Turin

Jumping slightly ahead of the previous tournaments we have seen, the regulations I present to you today are from a tournament that took place in 1902 in Turin. The regulations are taken from an issue of Rivista Moderna, Politica e Letteraria published on the 15th May 1902 (scans here).

The most notable addition to this and other Italian fencing tournaments in the first decade of the 20th century is the épée de combat. With clear French influence, the duelling sword had not yet fully been accepted by the Italians as a third weapon separate from foil and sabre in the same way as the French, however, in the years following this tournament Italy would see a steady rise of interest in this weapon, with the adoption of special rules and weapons for 'fencing on the ground' in the military and Parise's 1904 publication Scherma da Terreno, detailing his duelling sword and sabre system.

The rest of the regulations still retain the same characteristics of tournaments from the previous decades, with foil and sabre being judged on subjective criteria as well as touches scored and received.

Grand International Fencing Tournament

Here are the conditions which will regulate the grand international fencing tournament, which will take place in Turin at the end of May, under the patronage of the Duke of Aosta.

Conditions of admission

Article 1. On the occasion of the International Exhibition of Modern Decorative Art, an International Fencing Tournament will be held in Turin at the end of May and the beginning of June. Except for the competition with the duelling sword (épée de combat), foreign and national maestri and amateurs will be admitted to the tournament in distinct categories; the examinations will be the same for the two categories.
Art. 2. Those who, despite not teaching the art, have obtained a licence from the Scuola Magistrale in Rome, the National Academy in Naples, or any other private technical Commission, will not be considered as amateurs. The same for those who are known to practise the profession of teaching fencing, even without a licence. The Jury will have full power to decide on the matter. Fencers younger than 17 years old will not be admitted to the tournament.

Proceedings

Art. 3. The tournament will comprise of: a) classification bouts; b) foil and sabre competitions (pools); c) competition with the duelling sword (épée de combat pool); d) due grand exhibitions.

Classification bouts

Art. 4. For both foil and sabre, each competitor must sustain two classification bouts, with two different opponents.
The Jury will classify each fencer with points from 1 to 20, up to one decimal place, and the average of the points obtained in the two examinations will constitute the order of classification.
Art. 5. Those who receive a classification of less than 14/20 in the first examination bout will not be granted a second.
Art. 6. The first eight classified in foil and sabre (maestri and amateurs) will take part in a third classification round (see art. 10).
The merit points received in the bouts of the third round will be averaged with those obtained in the previous bouts and will establish the definitive classification for the allocation of special prizes as per art. 16.
Art. 7. In the classification bouts, the Jury will take into account: a) efficacy; b) the chivalry of the fencer and his spontaneity in declaring the blows; c) composure in guard; d) variety of actions; e) the artistic concept which guides them.
It will be in the Jury’s power to inexorably exclude from the competition those who do not declare aloud the blow they receive to any part of the body with the word: toccato!
In the foil bouts, valid blows will be considered all those given with the point from the clavicle to the iliac crest, including the arm when it covers the chest. Blows to any part of the body will also be considered valid whenever the natural target is otherwise hidden from the opponent’s blade. The double touch will always be judged against the one who provokes it, with the exception of the competition with the duelling sword. The fencer who causes three double touches in a bout will be excluded from the competition. The simple disarm not immediately followed by the thrust or cut will not count as a blow. The Jury’s verdict is final.

Foil and sabre competitions

(Elimination pools)

Art. 8. All competitors who have at least 10 classification points may compete in a competition (pool) in the respective weapon, to two blows with the foil and three with the sabre. These competitions will be subject to the customary rules.

Competition with the duelling sword

(Épée de combat pool)

Art. 9. This competition is reserved to fencers (maestri and amateurs) who achieve a classification of no less than 18 points in the foil bouts. Only foreign competitors may enter this competition without restriction.
In this competition the following rules will be observed: a) The opponents will be placed on guard by one of the field judges such that with their arms extended, the points of the swords are about forty centimetres from each other; b) the competitor who is touched must stop. At the command of halt! given by the director of the combat, the two opponents must stop immediately; c) the competition consists of a single blow; d) blows will be considered valid on any part of the body; however, blows which touch the chest will count for double; e) in the case of a double touch, a blow will be counted for each fencer, two if to the chest. If, according to the field judge, there was a considerable time interval between the two blows, or a considerable difference in length between the two lines where the blows were directed, only one blow will be considered good; f) in cases where corps-a-corps threatens the character of true combat with the sword, the director of the bout will interrupt it. One must always bout with the same hand during the same bout; g) in all phases of the combat, it is prohibited to make use of the non-weapon arm or hand to parry or deviate the opponent’s weapon, or to fight in any other way; h) the blow given to a disarmed opponent will not be valid if, between the disarm and the thrust, there is a long enough time interval that the blow can be withheld. The fencer will be considered touched if he breaks this prohibition; i) the duration of the bout is fixed at a maximum of 15 minutes. After 5 minutes have elapsed, 2 minutes of rest may be allowed. If at the end of 15 minutes no result has been obtained, both fencers will be considered touched; j) lost ground will not be given back, and he who crosses the established limit with both feet will be considered touched. However, the director of the combat will warn the competitor when he is two metres from the limit; k) the gloves must be white, or a very light colour, but not padded. The leather must be strong and very thick. The cuff must be soft, unvarnished, and close-fitting to the arm up to the elbow; l) the marker button should not be considered capable of undoubtedly giving a mathematically correct and decisive result in every circumstance; it is intended to assist the judges in their deliberations, which are all the more delicate because a single thrust attributed wrongly can cause a fencer to lose a ranking he would be legitimately entitled to. The members of the Jury will therefore retain full and complete freedom of deliberation on the blow to be judged; m) depending on the number of competitors, the Jury will decide if this competition will take place by means of elimination bouts or by partial round-robins followed by a final round between the winners.

Grand exhibitions

Art. 10. The tournament will end with two grand exhibitions, in which the following will take place: a) the bouts of the third classification round, as per art. 6; b) the deciding bouts of the last pair of the foil competition of each class (maestri and amateurs); c) the deciding bouts of the last pair of the sabre competition of each class (maestri and amateurs); d) the final bouts of the last two pairs of the competition with the duelling sword.
The two exhibitions will be held on different days, and the bouts will be distributed evenly, alternating maestri and amateurs, foil and sabre.

Jury

Art. 11. The competitions will be directed and judged by a Jury composed of select fencers, if possible from the various nations and main regions which give the greatest contribution to the tournament.
The Jury will elect: 1 President; 1 Vice-President; 1 Secretary.
The attributions of field judges will be free of foreign maestri, and they will be nominated by the tournament’s organising Committee.

Prizes

Art. 12. The Committee puts at the disposal of the Jury the following prizes: 50 gold medals and 50 silver, which will be awarded by the Jury more or less equally to both classes (maestri and amateurs).
Art. 13. Each competitor who receives an average of no less than 17 points in their two classification bouts will be given a gold medal certificate.
Similarly, all those who receive a classification less than 17 points and no less 14 points will be given a silver medal certificate. Other certificates will not be granted.
Art. 14. The available gold and silver medals will be awarded along with their corresponding certificates by order of classification ranking.
Those who earned a medal of the same class for foil and sabre will only be given one, along with a special distinguishing mark.
Art. 15. A single certificate for each fencer will contain all the information relative to the classifications and special prizes obtained.
Art. 16. The special prizes are divided as follows:
Maestri — Foil 1st Prize: 1000 lire — Foil 2nd Prize: 500 lire — Foil 3rd Prize: 200 lire — Sabre 1st Prize: 800 lire — Sabre 2nd Prize: 400 lire — Sabre 3rd Prize: 100 lire.
Foil competition (Pool) — 1st Prize 500 lire.
Sabre competition (Pool) — 1st Prize 300 lire.
Amateurs — The prizes for the amateurs, in similar proportion to that followed for the maestri, will consist of artistic objects, the list of which will be published shortly together with the exact date of the tournament and the list of jurors.
Competition with the duelling sword (Épée de combat pool) — In this special competition, as per art. 9, the only prize consists of an artwork and 200 lire.

Weapons and clothing

Art. 17. The weapons admitted to the tournament are: the foil, Italian and French; the sabre; the duelling sword (épée de combat) for special competition.
The length, width, and weight of the weapons cannot exceed a maximum and minimum corresponding to customs.
In case of doubt, the Jury will decide.
The use of the ligature is allowed.
For the foil competitors, a white jacket and a close-meshed mask are prescribed.
For the sabre competitors, a gauntlet, or small glove with an elbow guard, and an appropriate mask are prescribed.
For both weapons, a sailcloth plastron is required.
Only the duelling swords will be provided by the Committee, and they will be equipped with a Basilone marker button. The use of one’s own weapon will be allowed, provided that it conforms to the regulation model, as per art. 17.

Registration

Art. 18. The registration fee is fixed at 10 lire for maestri and 15 lire for amateurs.
Fencers coming from abroad are not exempt.
The registration pass will give the right to a railway discount, as well as all the other facilities that the Committee of the festivities will obtain in order to make the competitors’ stay in Turin more pleasant.
Registration applications must reach the secretary’s office of the Committee for the International Fencing Tournament, via Bellezia 4, Turin, no later than the 20th May, and be accompanied by the registration fee. In the registration application, one must indicate the weapon, or weapons, which one intends to compete with in the competitions.

The 1886 Varese Fencing and Gymnastics Tournament

The tournament regulations I present to you today are slightly out of the ordinary, due to the fact that they also contain regulations for the gymnastics tournament that was being held on the same occasion in Varese, which was during the 1886 Agricultural and Industrial Exhibition.

Translation: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1HTiM5PjMhE7-8vnF17NxiEWLcTqY0sGc
Transcription: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Cqeg9pPV9hGCkH-EOPmK0TPLXHgHWIpZ

The regulations for the fencing tournament will look very familiar if you have read any of the previous regulations I have translated, but the gymnastics regulations provide a fascinating insight into competitions for an often-neglected part of 19th century physical training which was very commonly done alongside fencing.

I have done my best at translating the technical terms in the gymnastics section into their modern equivalents, but I am by no means an expert on this topic, so take it all with a grain of salt.

The 1891 Bologna Fencing Tournament

Since the first 'international' Italian fencing tournament in 1881, the frequency of fencing tournaments in Italy had grown steadily each year. In addition to the occasional large 'intentional' tournament, there were plenty of local, regional, and national tournaments and exhibitions, sometimes attracting hundreds of competitors, both amateur and fencing master alike.

The 1891 National Fencing Tournament in Bologna, hosted by the Virtus Society from the 3rd to 7th of May, attracted around 200 fencers from across Italy, including stars of the fencing world like Luigi Barbasetti, Grimoaldo Varrone, and Vittorio Tagliapietra.

Today I present to you a translation of the official tournament report, a transcription of the Italian text, and a few articles from the fencing magazine Scherma Italiana which discuss the results of the tournament and offer alternative points of view on events and on the comments of the jury.

For those who do not wish to read the full tournament report, see below for a summary of the tournament's format.

Translation: https://drive.google.com/open?id=19ee5TvwnKjZ8MbXT6Mn49Fis1MUM1R6K
Transcription: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qDZNrllydJLOdLIh7InSy1rO8shvWKqb
Supplementary articles: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1l1NUO3VAMYQQU3BAy4V3QVFFHZCpnKbH

In addition to providing us an excellent example of what Italian fencing tournaments were like towards the end of the 19th century, the tournament report also contains the results of a discussion amongst the jury on the future of Italian fencing, in which they express a number of technical concepts which they believe should form part of a unified 'Italian' fencing method. The desire for a unified Italian fencing method was shared by many in the Italian fencing community at this time, however, the criteria expressed by this jury are, somewhat unsurprisingly, favourable to the Northern Italian school, with one of the criteria for the sabre being particularly Radaellian:

weapon handled with a combination of all the articulations of the arm, however avoiding all movements of flexion of the wrist and only taking advantage of lateral movements. Weapon gripped by supporting the backstrap on the hypothenar eminence of the hand;

With five out of the twelve members of the jury being Radaellians (including the writer of the report), this shows that the opponents of Parise's method had still not given up trying to spread their influence throughout the fencing landscape.

Summary

Foil (known then as just 'sword' in Italy) and sabre were the two weapons categories at this tournament. Each event would take place for both weapons individually.

The first event of the tournament was the classification, in which each fencer would be paired up randomly (maestri paired with maestri, amateurs paired with amateurs) and then bout for 7 to 10 minutes. Touches were counted, but there was no limit to the number each fencer could receive within a bout. Fencers competing in both foil and sabre would have to be classified in both weapons individually.

After each classification bout, each fencer would receive a score out of 10 for 'efficacy', based on 'the prevailing force of one fencer over the other', and a score out of 10 for 'art', the judgement for which being based on:

... the guard positions, variety and rationality of actions, conservation of measure, speed of the attacks and ripostes, good timing, the conduct of the blade, composure, and urbanity of manners.

This would give each fencer a total score out of 20. Fencers who received a score between 15 and 20 points would be placed in the 1st category, between 10 and 15 in the 2nd category, and less than 10 in the 3rd category. Only those who were placed in the 1st and 2nd categories would be permitted to take part in the rest of the tournament's events.

Thus we see the importance the Italians placed on form, even in competitive environments. It was not enough to just score well to be considered an excellent fencer—one also had to show a complete a thorough understanding of the art, right down to its aesthetic ideals.

Following the classification were the 'pools', which were actually just  single-elimination tournaments. There were separate pools for each category and weapon and whether you were a maestro or an amateur. Each 'pool' bout was to the best of 5 touches. The winner of each pool would receive a monetary prize.

The final event was on the final night of the tournament, the Gala evening. This consisted of bouts between the 'best fencers of the tournament', who were the winners and runners-up of the pools and those who received the highest classification scores. These were exhibition-style bouts in which there was no winner, but touches were still awarded.

In all three of the events, competitors were obliged to acknowledge and indicate each touch they received. The field judge would then decide if the blow were valid or not. The valid target areas for both foil and sabre were essentially the same as their modern Olympic fencing counterparts.

There also seems to have been an implicit form of priority in awarding the touches in the case of a double:

Doubles will be calculated against the fencer who caused them contrary to the good rules of the art. The fencer who repeatedly doubles may also be declared out of the competition by the Jury. The common tempo [simultaneous attacks] repeated three times by the two fencers may place them immediately out of the competition.

Many treatises of this period discuss how to assign blame in the case of a double touch, and the judges would most certainly have been aware of the conventions used at the time, therefore more explicit rules on how to award the touch in a double would not have been necessary.

At the end of the Gala evening, the prizes were awarded. Aside from monetary prizes, there were also many items such as pocket watches and ornaments donated to the tournament organisers which were given as prizes to the best fencers.

The 1889 Rome Fencing Tournament

Beginning with the 1881 fencing tournament in Milan, fencing tournaments were being held in Italy with ever growing frequency throughout the 1880s. Fencers saw it as a way to prove their abilities and the merits of their particular fencing school, the best example of this being the rivalry between Radaellians and proponents of the Neapolitan school.

In a similar fashion to the aforementioned 1881 tournament, the 1889 International Fencing Tournament in Rome was not short of drama relating to this fierce rivalry. In an 1889 article from the magazine Caccia e Corse (1889/12/05), the pseudonymous writer "Cartoccio" gives their account of this tournament, with all its ups and downs. Below you may find my translation of this article and regulations for the tournament, which were found in the 1889/10/19 and 1889/11/16 issues of the magazine Tiro a Segno. The illustration of the tournament below is by Dante Paolocci, taken from an issue of L'Illustrazione Italiana from 1889/12/08.

Translation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16YMO7SgjWUErpT9-SVuP36BxyUxoMxX5/view?usp=sharing

The scandal at this tournament was due to the fact that the Radaellian faction in the tournament's jury felt that several of the other jurors were giving unjust scores to famous Radaellian fencers such as Salvatore Pecoraro and Carlo Guasti. The dispute boiled over until the Radaellian faction resigned from their positions in the jury, almost causing the end of the tournament. Nonetheless the remaining jurors continued on with the tournament, but certainly not with smooth sailing.

A year later in his article Italian Fencing in the Army, Jacopo Gelli opens with his judgement of 1889 tournament:

"The national fencing tournament of November 1889, in Rome, has proven once more that the teaching of fencing is far from being uniform in Italy. In fact, that tournament has clearly proven that a powerful trend opposes and rejects the official method imparted at the Scuola Magistrale in Rome. It confirms the cry viva Radaelli uttered by the audience during a solemn exhibition at the aforementioned tournament, in front of a jury nominated more to prop up the staggering Scuola Magistrale (with its method), than to judge the skill of the fencers."

It is important to note here that Jacopo Gelli was in the jury for this tournament, and was one of the 10 members that resigned in protest.

The 1881 Milan Fencing Tournament

By the late 19th century Northern Italy was experiencing somewhat of a resurgence of interest in the art of fencing, with Giuseppe Radaelli and his school in Milan playing a large part in this. With the city of Milan set to host an International Exhibition (basically a world's fair) in 1881, the Milan Fencing Society took the opportunity to promote Italian fencing on the world stage by holding an international fencing tournament, the first such tournament to be held in post-unification Italy. The tournament attracted the biggest names in Italian fencing at the time such as Salvatore Pecoraro, Masaniello and Eduardo Parise, Salvatore Arista, Giordano Rossi, Ottavio Anzani, Tommaso Cavallo, Gaetano Barraco, and many other distinguished gentlemen as competitors, judges, and spectators.

128 fencers took part in the tournament, yet only 12 of them were from outside of Italy. Of those international fencers, 8 were from France and 4 from Austria-Hungary. Due to it taking place in Milan (the location of Radaelli's fencing school), a large proportion of the fencers present were Radaellians. The tournament was held at the Castelli Theatre from the 6th-8th of June.

The tournament regulations, administrative proceedings, and discussions were published in Relazione del torneo internazionale di scherma tenuto in Milano nel giugno 1881 ("Report on the international fencing tournament held in Milan in June 1881") by Domenico Cariolato and Gioacchino Granito, who were both members of the tournament's jury. The scans of this book and my translation of it may be found below.

Translation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_9iviKiK9SnsZAhJTUSyvTUEY5hYH9IV/view?usp=sharing
Scans: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k3184008

Yellow highlighting indicates uncertainty in the translation, red highlighting shows where I am sure that the translation does not convey the proper meaning. Special thanks to Bibliothèque nationale de France for providing the scans.

Tournament Format

The tournament's judging and proceedings were run by a jury of between 13 and 18 members depending on the day. Half the members of the jury consisted of gentlemen elected by the tournament's organising committee, whilst the other half were gentlemen elected by the tournament's competitors.

Prior to the tournament, all competitors were required to undergo an examination, in which they would bout in front of the jury with another randomly assigned competitor in order to determine if they were skilled enough to attend the tournament and to place them into a category based on their fencing skill, with 1st Category fencers being the most skilled, and 3rd the least. Competitors were further divided into "Maestro" and "Amateur" categories, that is, whether they were professional fencing masters or amateur fencers.

The criteria by which competitors were judged were:

• Perfection of the guard
• Variation of invitations and attacks
• Speed of the riposte
• Preservation of measure
• Parrying with the weapon and with measure
• Knowledge of tempo
• Precision of all movements and courtesy of manners

It is interesting to note that only one of these criteria (that being "Speed of the riposte") could be said to be a somewhat athletic criterion. The other 6 seem to correspond more to artistic and aesthetic sensibilities.

The two weapons used at the tournament were the sabre and the sword (here referring to thrust-only fencing with various foils), with two different events for each weapon. The first event was the Exhibition (or Academy), which were exhibition bouts between fencers of the same category (using the same weapon). These bouts were a display of artistic skill, and points were not tallied for touches, therefore they had no singular winner.

The second event was what was called the Pool, however this was more in line with what a modern tournament would refer to as an Elimination event. Fencers of the same category (only 1st Category fencers were allowed to take part in the pool) would bout to a single touch, and the last remaining (untouched) fencer was the winner. The regulations state that the Pool was not intended to be a measure of objective skill, but rather luck. Nevertheless, a prize was awarded to the winners of the maestro sword pool and the maestro sabre pool.

As an interlude during the tournament's second day, the audience was also treated to a Mensur-style demonstration bout by two of the Austrian competitors, Johann Hartll and Felice Scheibler, the former being Maestro d'Armi at the Royal Court in Vienna.

Prizes

The top prize that was to be awarded at the tournament was "Best Fencer of the Tournament", who was the fencer that the jury felt best embodied the aforementioned criteria. Two medals were donated to the tournament, with the instructions that both be awarded to the "Best Fencer of the Tournament", yet the jury decided that it would be better to award them to two individuals. After a heated debate (see the following section "Controversy"), one medal was awarded to Salvatore Arista, champion of the Radaelli school, and the other to Baron Ottavio Anzani, an amateur Neapolitan fencing champion.

The fencers who took part in what the jury deemed to be the "best bouts" for each weapon were also awarded prizes. Winners could choose either 200 Lire or "a work of art of equal value". Prizes were awarded for the three best 1st Category sword bouts, the two best 1st Category sabre bouts, the best 2nd Category sword bout, and the best 2nd Category sabre bout.

Best 1st Category sword bouts: Ottavio Anzani and Masaniello Parise, Salvatore Arista and Giovanni Pagliuca, Paul Ruzé and Ottavio Anzani
Best 2nd Category sword bout: Salvatore Sirigatti and Carlo Guasti
Best 1st Category sabre bouts: Salvatore Arista and Gaetano Barraco, Giordano Rossi and Salvatore Pecoraro
Best 2nd Category sabre bout: Cristofaro Locascio and Giovanni Cavanna

The winners of the sword pool (Salvatore Arista) and sabre pool (Luigi Scarrani) were awarded 500 Lire each, and the runner-up (Federico Belusso) of the sword pool was awarded 200 Lire. The four fencers who took part in the best 1st Category sabre bouts then took part in their own mini sabre pool in order to determine the winner of two sabres donated by Johann Hartll on behalf of the Viennese Fencing Society. The winner was Salvatore Pecoraro.

In addition to these prizes, every fencer admitted to the tournament received a commemorative medal according to the category they were placed in. Those placed in the 1st Category received a gold medal, those in 2nd a silver medal, and those in 3rd received bronze, such as that shown below.

Controversy

When it came to determining the winner of the medal (donated by the Ministry of Education) for the "Best Fencer of the Tournament", a heated debate arose between those who believed it should be given to Salvatore Arista (a Radaellian), and those who thought it should go to Ottavio Anzani (a Neapolitan fencer). The main contention was that although Anzani was an objectively superb fencer, he only participated in the sword tournament, whereas Arista performed excellently in both sword and sabre. Those in favour of Anzani maintained that the conditions for this prize did not stipulate that the winner had to have participated in both weapons, yet the supporters of Arista felt that his performance in both events showed him to be more of an all-round distinguished fencer.

Eventually the jury decided to take it to a vote, which yielded 8 in favour of Anzani and 10 in favour of Arista, thus the medal was awarded to the Radaellian. Unhappy with this result, several of Anzani's supporters resigned from the jury. After much pleading and discussion, all members of the jury returned after agreeing to the compromise that the second medal donated to the tournament (by the Milan Town Hall) would be awarded to Anzani, with the same merit as that awarded to Arista. Thus there were two "best fencers" of the tournament. When writing about this event in 1884, Arista would claim that the whole affair was motivated by a bias in many members of the jury towards Neapolitan fencing and against the Radaellians. This included the two men who wrote and published the tournament's report, with Arista saying:

... read the report of the Tournament of Milan, written by two gentlemen whose constant and sole flaw consists in an obvious bias in spite of the truth.

Several members of the jury (including one of the authors of the tournament report) who voted for Anzani would later be put on the Commission that would replace Radaelli's method as the regulation sabre method with that of Masaniello Parise, the Neapolitan maestro, in 1884. One of the members of the Commission would be none other than Ottavio Anzani himself.

The Report

The report begins with "Considerations on the History of Fencing", where the agenda and biases of the writers become almost immediately apparent. They maintain fencing is that which is done with swords, while for sabres it is specifically sabre fencing, that is, an almost secondary form of fencing. They then go on to establish what they believe "Italian fencing" to be, which is the Southern or Neapolitan method, such as that detailed in the treatise "The Science of Fencing", published in 1803 by Giuseppe Rosaroll-Scorza and Pietro Grisetti, clarifying that:

... we will only note that although the Spaniards were the ones who brought to us and spread this most perfect school, we Italians have developed and brought it to such a degree of perfection to allow Rosaroll in the last century and at the start of this century to dictate, with help of Grisetti, a fencing treatise which is the most perfect and precise work that is known in the art of the sword.

This is in comparison to the sword fencing practised in Northern Italy at the time, where it was quite common to fence in a "mixed" style, incorporating both French and Italian techniques while using a foil that had features from both the traditional Italian foil and the French foil. This mixed style was offensive to many of the purists from Southern Italy who believed Neapolitan fencing to be the true "Italian fencing", as it was "uncorrupted" by French influence (despite, to their own admission, their method being originally brought to Italy by the Spanish). This lamentation continues throughout the introduction, with the authors giving little care to discussing the widely-acknowledged merit of Radaelli's sabre fencing system being taught in Milan.

Following this section, all 32 regulations of the tournament are listed, which detail the tournament's format and how the jury would run the event. Next come the minutes of each session, which list the members of the jury at the time and a brief summary of the day's proceedings. It should be noted that much of the detail (such as the bouts and results) is left out of these minutes and is instead placed in "attachments", which appear in the proceeding section in a somewhat confusing order. At the end of the minutes and attachments, there is an almost-comprehensive list of the names of men who attended the tournament, including both participants and some special spectators such as the celebrated fencing master Cesare Enrichetti.

After a brief explanation of the ordeal surrounding the awarding of the "Best Fencer of the Tournament" (see above), the authors then give their own observations and conclusions following the tournament. Much of it is in line with their biases seen in the introduction, with a large amount of praise given to the Neapolitan fencers such as Anzani and Parise (not undeserved, I should add). When acknowledging the excellent performance of a Radaellian, the authors always seem to find a way to clarify that their performance is due to something other than the merits of the Radaelli school, for example:

In Giordano Rossi, strong in the Radaelli system, beautiful and composed in guard, we found a tight play, due to his frequent fencing with fencers of the Italian school. Pecoraro owes the speed of his parries and ripostes to his special talents more than to the Radaelli school. If he, accompanying his natural dispositions, decides to study the true art, which in addition to improving his play, would allow him to vary it more, and he would undoubtedly become one of the best fencers in Italy.

In the last few pages, the authors' agenda becomes even clearer as they summarise their thoughts with the following points:

Now that the reader has the possibility of knowing as much as us, we think it appropriate to summarise what has already been said, and to do so we will start by declaring frankly:

1. That the Tournament has responded perfectly to the informative idea that promoted it, showing the incontestable artistic superiority of fencing with the Italian Sword, normally called the Neapolitan School, and the merit of its representatives.
2. That for the sabre, with slight modifications and some improvements in part mentioned by us, the method used by the best sabre fencers of the Radaelli school — who with practice have modified and perfected the written regulations of their school — is acceptable.
3. That among the young men who frequent the Scuola Magistrale there are splendid members who are unfortunately wasted with a bad trend.
4. That the Scuola Magistrale’s incorrect trend is all the more deplorable since, having finished their military service, a large number of young men leave there and spread throughout Italy with the name of maestri and teach with serious harm to the art.
5. That an urge for the unification of fencing in Italy has been given by the Milan Fencing Society, followed by the Turin Society; and we hope to see it gradually imitated in the rest of Italy.
6. That we deplore the fact of seeing that anyone can make themselves a fencing master, and as such deceive the public by peddling education that he does not possess.

The authors of the report remind the reader that due to Radaelli's illness at the time he would be unable to continue running the Scuola Magistrale in Milan (in fact he would die the following year), therefore it should be closed, and a new, more Italian school should be opened, headed by someone who gives as much attention to the sword as Radaelli gave to the sabre. In the year following the publication of this report, this very change will be put in motion, thus closing the school that Radaelli founded in 1868 and opening a new school in Rome, headed by one Masaniello Parise.

Bibliography

Arista, Salvatore. 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.

Cariolato, Domenico, and Gioacchino Granito. Relazione del torneo internazionale di scherma tenuta in Milano nel giugno 1881. Naples: Tipi Ferrante, 1881.

Fondazione Adolfo Pini. "The Expositions in Milan (1881 and 1906)." Storie Milanesi. Accessed 25 March 2018. https://www.storiemilanesi.org/en/insight/esposizioni-milano-1881-1906/.

Gelli, Jacopo. Resurrectio: critica alle osservazioni sul maneggio della sciabola secondo il metodo Radaelli del Generale Achille Angelini. Florence: Tipografia Editrice di Luigi Niccolai, 1888.

⸻. Bibliografia generale della scherma con note critiche, biografiche, e storiche. Florence: Tipografia Editrice di Luigi Niccolai, 1890.

Parise, Masaniello. Trattato teorico pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola: preceduto da un cenno storico sulla scherma e sul duello. Rome: Tipografia Nazionale, 1884.

"Il Torneo di Scherma." Rivista Illustrata Settimanale, 12 June 1881, 3.