The 1891 Fencing Exhibition in Trieste

I present to you here a translation of an article published on the 6th January 1891 in the Trieste newspaper L'Indipendente, reporting on a grand fencing exhibition in the city. The Radaellian maestro Poggio Vannucchi prominently featured at the event, but perhaps more interestingly was an exhibition bout between two fencers equipped with an Arista model sword. Arista first wrote about this unique weapon of his in the year prior, and the author of this article states that there had been a lot of talk about it ever since. The author correctly predicts, however, that it will not catch on in Italy.

The fencing exhibition at the Music Society. It is a peculiarity of Trieste. This tireless and strong worker, who amasses in its immense warehouses loads of hundreds of ships, who rings out its powerful arsenals of thousands of workers, who from morning to night witnesses the spectacle of the largest and most obstinate activity, Trieste always finds in its inexhaustible energy an impulse towards all that is the finest manifestation of social life.
Thus, for example, that complex of exercises which require strength and skill and are wreathed with a halo of elegance, all this, in a word, belongs to sport, which finds numerous and passionate enthusiasts in our city. First in line we have our strong Gymnastics, which spreads its activity in every field there is to increase strength and courage in the youth; we have numerous nautical clubs, two very active velocipedist associations, an elegant equestrian society, and a flourishing hunting circle; we have one of the most sophisticated societies in the country, in which the most noble art of fencing finds intelligent and tireless adoration.
The fencing society frequently opens its halls for shows, pools, and exhibitions; this time, with great thought, the diligent management requested and obtained by the courtesy of the Music Society the vast and beautiful hall of this association and offers to members of the two societies a perfectly successful show.
The honours of hosting had been done with exquisite kindness by the two managements; the audience, very numerous, presented the note of beauty and elegance with a splendid gathering of gentlemen and ladies, the note of intelligence in the matter with the people of the best of our fencing amateurs. We have also had the pleasure last night of shaking the hand of that formidable champion of the Neapolitan school that is Enrico Casella. The smarra was held with the grace and courtesy of a perfect gentleman by the vice-president of the fencing society, Mr. Emanuele Coen.
First to present themselves on the wide platform erected in the middle of the hall were maestro Garagnani and his young student M. Ascoli.
Greeted by lively applause, the maestro presented the young man in a sword lesson, which did justice to displaying both the excellent teaching method of one and the rare aptitudes of the other.
A sabre bout followed between the gentlemen Giuseppe Comas and Giuseppe Janesich. The former of a fully southern mobility, fast and lively in the attack, the latter firmly planted on guard, prompt and strong in the riposte.
A young fencer, full of promise, from his elegant and correct pose, Mr. Umberto Posar, was pitted in the sword against Mr. I. Salom, who also did his best. So much so that the bout received much applause.
We come now to one of the most important points of the program: the sword bout between the maestri Mari and Garagnani.
Mari is a fencer equipped with beautiful movements; tall, well planted on guard, he displayed beautiful straight thrusts on the opponent’s invitations. Maestro Garagnani asserted his profound knowledge of the art which, together with rapid and strong execution, emerged particularly in the parries and ripostes. The audience followed the beautiful bout with the most vivid interest and saluted the two maestri with prolonged applause.
After a musical piece, performed as an interlude, the second part commenced with a sword bout between Mr. N. Cozzi, equipped with extraordinary aptitudes and particularly a powerful leap, and Mr. Giuseppe Rovis, an elegant and correct fencer.
There was great applause. There was also great applause for the bout between Count. F. Sordina, a strong sabre fencer who has remarkable physical advantages, and Mr. Giuseppe Ianesich whom we spoke of earlier.
Welcomed with thunderous applause, the maestri Vannucchi and Angelini appeared on the piste.
Vannucchi is a fencer of marvellous speed, lively in the attack, sure in the riposte; in a word: a strong blade. Our Angelini fully confirmed his reputation as a skilful fencer, equipped with uncommon flexibility which allows him to lunge an absolutely surprising distance. The bout, performed by both with valour equal to the cavalry, was a great success.
Another musical interlude and then a bout by the gentlemen Ventura and Garavini with a unique weapon, the Arista model.
The unique weapon is a fencing application of the Verdian motto: Let’s turn to the past! It is a return to the past for technique and also for the form of the weapon, which resembles one of those powerful rapiers that Dante da Castiglione boldly wielded.
Much has been said in fencing circles, much was written in newspapers interested in this game regarding this unique weapon.
We are too great admirers of Salvatore Arista’s fencing ability to be able to declare ourselves absolutely adverse to a weapon that he finds good. However on the other hand we are too great friends of the truth to admit that with the unique weapon one can always do everything that one can do with the sword. It is also very natural, for physical reasons; in fact a flat blade will never offer that contact which the edges of a rectangular blade present, nor with this can one do the legamenti and changes as with a foil blade. Arista’s exceptionally powerful hand will certainly be able to overcome many of these difficulties; but will we find many who don’t know how to and cannot do the same?
That is the question; and since we do not hesitate to answer it in the negative sense, it seems to us that for this reason alone the unique weapon will not be able to become a weapon in general use.
In any case the audience’s interest was excited and the bout between the gentlemen Ventura and Garavini was met very favourably. Mainly they did sabre play, and both showed to be remarkably strong fencers. Ventura possesses firm fencing knowledge which manifests itself in a great variety of play and which makes a formidable fencer; he parries well and ripostes better. Garavini has a plastic and correct guard, a sudden energy and a powerful hand and arm which render his attacks difficult to mend.
The bout was greatly applauded. Mr. N. Cozzi was then introduced again onto the piste, measuring himself with the sword against the young student Mr. Minas, a fencer of magnificent disposition, agile and powerful, who promises to become an excellent blade.
The last two numbers of the program were of great interest.
Greeted by a standing ovation, our two distinguished and pleasant maestri Angelini and Garagnani were introduced and they performed a sabre bout displaying such energy and speed to truly arouse admiration. The blows were fast, sure, pressing, the parries solid and robust, the ripostes rapid.
We noted a stupendous traversone in tempo and a powerful arrest given by maestro Angelini; we admired a traversone thrown by maestro Garagnani with great speed, also carrying the sabre in a marvellous manner; also a beautiful thrust over.
At the conclusion of this bout the audience prolonged their applause in such a way that the two talented maestri had to present themselves again onto the piste and exchange a final blow.
To conclude the show was a beautiful and applaudable sabre bout between the maestri Vannucchi and Mari, who once again deployed all their beautiful fencing talents.
Mari, sturdy and plastic in his guard, struck with beautiful rising blows; Vannucchi, who carries the sabre in an astonishing way, performed the most difficult blows, passing, for example, from parry second, after having quickly signalled a feint to the face, to strike a traversone.
The two talented maestri may be certain of having left their best impression on the audience; and at the friendly banquet that followed the exhibition the bond of affection which united them with our fencers was tightened even more.
The banquet took place in a hall on the first floor of Restaurant Centrale; the champagne was raised in a warm toast to the three distinguished guests, Casella, Mari, and Vannucchi, to the Management of the Fencing Society, and to the prosperous future of the Society.
It was a truly friendly convention, full of life and vivacity; a pleasant and grateful memory for those who attended.

Metodo per la scherma di sciabola by Pietro Duelli

In this third instalment of non-Radaellian treatises I present Metodo per la scherma di sciabola ("Method for sabre fencing") by Pietro Duelli, published in Pavia in 1875.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mDPBFo8gOQbCyMhdrOyn2Xsl2_MHZGZr

I have not yet been able to find much information about Duelli other than the fact that by 1881 he had moved from Pavia to Milan.

His system seems to reflect the trend in Northern Italian fencing at the time of using guard of 2nd, perhaps due to Radaelli's influence.

The treatise is 38 pages long with just 4 (mediocre) illustrations.

Special thanks to Michigan State University Library for providing the scans.

Breve trattato sul maneggio della sciabola by Giovanni Battista Ferrero

Continuing on from last month's non-Radaellian treatise, this week I present a short work published in Turin in 1868 by Giovanni Battista Ferrero entitled Breve trattato sul maneggio della sciabola ("Brief treatise on the handling of the sabre").

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1TkI0Vi_4ldH8wBVjhYcSD4uaKPev1HCd?usp=sharing

UPDATE: High resolution scans of this treatise are now also available here via the Corble collection.

Unfortunately I have yet to find any information on Ferrero aside from what he says about himself in his introduction:

"Being disposed towards fencing as a child, I applied myself to it with a zeal and attachment that I myself never could explain; I did my first exercises under talented maestri, like Galletti, Torriani, Speirani Snr, Merlino, and Raffin, and I was breveted from 1858, and as much as was possible I immediately gave myself to the teaching of this art."

Ferrero's stated purpose for this treatise is succinctness and comprehensibility, as opposed to the large, verbose treatises that were common up until then. Despite the treatise being only 30 pages long, it has 19 beautiful illustrations.

Fig. XIX. Rising blow to the external arm

Ferrero gives two guard positions: the "common or Italian guard", which is a semi-extended guard of 3rd, and the "high or French guard", which is a high hanging guard.

Left: Fig. IV. High or French Guard
Right: Fig. V. Common or Italian Guard

This treatise is also somewhat special in that it includes blows to the leg, which is quite rare for Italian sabre treatises from this time.

Special thanks to Biblioteca civica centrale di Torino for providing the photos.

Trattato teorico-pratico di scherma della sciabola by Federico Cesarano

In the past few months I have had an increasing interest in non-Radaellian sabre treatises published around Radaelli's time. The main reason for this is in order to get a better contextual idea of what sabre fencing looked like in Italy before Radaelli and Parise's methods became so dominant. The book that I am sharing today is of one such treatise from 1874, entitled Trattato teorico-pratico di scherma della sciabola ('Theoretical-practical treatise of sabre fencing').

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zOUplLliWTzhnvi1XlQvJxM0GCGSUVzl

Although this text was published in Milan, it details the method of the Neapolitan maestro Federico Cesarano, who ran a fencing hall in Padua. He makes no effort to hide his Neapolitan pride, following in the footsteps of Rosaroll-Scorza and Grisetti by quoting Tasso every now and then, and stating that:

Some peoples are favoured by nature through particular skill and agility in the useful art of defending oneself: the Italians are certainly among them, and of these the Neapolitans are recognised as more skilful in fencing both for their more natural disposition, and because in this part of Italy the noble art of fencing was always kept pure without ever hampering it with practices of foreign schools.

It is not unlikely that Cesarano studied under one of the Parises at the Accademia Nazionale di Scherma in Naples, as he specifically recommends the Parise model mask for sabre fencing:

Various models of this mask are made: without hesitation I prefer the model of Maestro Parise of Naples, which is all leather except for the mesh, which is always iron.

Cesarano prefers a (familiar) raised, extended guard of 3rd, which he says is 'the most commonly used'.

He also gives this interesting insight into measurements for typical fencing sabres of the time:

The length of the blade varies from 86.8 to 89 cm and is calculated from the point to the heel; the width varies from 13 to 25 millimetres. The total weight of a fencing sabre is about 640 to 890 g.

The book also contains an appendix detailing some rules to be observed in the fencing hall, and a brief discussion of rules to be observed in a duel.

Lastly, here is Gelli's brief entry on Cesarano from his Bibliografia General della Scherma:

Federico Cesarano, born in Naples on the 18th June 1846, was a volunteer in the Garibaldini Hussars for the 1860 campaign; he then moved into the Lucca Light Cavalry, with which he made the campaign against Austria in 1866.
In 1868 he founded a Fencing and Gymnastics Club in Padua, which he is still the director of.
As a fencer he has appeared in all the tournaments held in Italy, always bringing back the best prizes in works of art and gold medals.
Currently he also presides over the teaching of gymnastics in the municipal schools of Padua.

Thanks to Biblioteca comunale centrale di Milano for providing the scans.

Parries of 1st and 7th - "A little forward"

In his 1876 manual Del Frate describes the parries of 1st and 7th as being the same as the second movements of the molinelli to the head from the left and right, respectively, except with an additional note saying:

“In both of these parries, however, the sabre is held a little forward of the prescribed position for the 2nd movement of the molinello.”

What exactly is “a little forward”? First let us look at how Del Frate describes the second movements of the molinelli to the head.

To the head from the left:

Two — bending the arm the blade is lowered with the point towards the ground, and the sabre is brought alongside the left flank, the edge turned to the left, the grip to the left and at the height of the head, about 20 centimetres ahead; the arm at the height and in the direction of the forehead; the body balanced as in the guard position (fig. 16).

To the head from the right:

Two — raising and bending the arm the blade is lowered with the point towards the ground, and the sabre is brought alongside the right flank with the edge turned to the right, the grip about a palm away from the right temple, such that one's gaze passes between the forearm and the blade, the weight of the body equally distributed on the legs (fig. 19).

And here are the plates showing both parries and their respective second movements of the molinelli:

Although it is unfortunate that the plates for the parries of 1st and 7th show a different perspective to that of their respective second movements of the molinelli, there does not seem to be much of an obvious difference between the two. In the plate showing the parry of 1st it almost appears that the sabre is slightly shorter than in the other plates. This could either be an error on the part of the illustrator, or that the tip of the sabre is pointing slightly more forward (or back), which would not entirely disagree with what Del Frate says.

These plates indicate that Del Frate’s idea of “a little forward” is perhaps no more than a couple of centimetres. Similarly we see the same depiction of parry of 1st in his 1868 manual:

"Position of Parry of 1st"

"Position of the second movement for the molinello to the head from the left"

Despite the fact that the plates are virtually identical in their depictions (albeit with Fig. 19 incorrectly showing the fencer to be forward-weighted), the description in the 1868 text is slightly different:

“The hand a little higher than the head and about one palm [20 - 25 cm] away, the tip pointing to the ground ahead one palm from the hand, and the edge to the left.”

This brings the point ahead of the grip such that the sabre does not point directly down as it may appear on the plates. Regardless of the reason as to why this was not mentioned in the 1876 text, Del Frate makes no mention in this text to the parry being any further forward than is previously suggested, as the description of the parry does not refer to the second movement of the molinello to the head in this case.

The same can be found in both the 1873 and 1885 editions of the Ministry of War’s cavalry manual Regolamento di esercizi e di evoluzioni per la cavalleria, which contains a distilled version of Radaelli’s system for use in the cavalry. Here we see that the illustration is nearly identical to that seen in Del Frate’s 1868 text, and the description is not far off either:

“To execute parry of first the cavalryman is placed in the position of second or point in line, and then at the command:
FIRST:
Raising the arm and bringing the hand to the left at the height of the forehead, one takes the following position:
The hand a little higher than the head and about one palm away, the point of the sabre turned towards the ground, one palm ahead of the hand, edge to the left (fig. 22).”

As for parry of 7th, in the 1868 text Del Frate does still relate it to the second movement of the molinello to the head from the right:

“... raising the right hand one will take the position very similar to the second movement of the molinello to the head from the right, with the difference that the grip stops about four fingers in front of the head, with the blade nearly parallel to the flank."

Compared to his description of the second movement of the molinello to the head from the right in the same text:

“The point of the sabre is dropped perpendicularly towards the ground raising the hand, bringing it a little higher than the head, and four fingers from the right temple so that the sabre comes to be behind the right shoulder with the edge turned to the right, and the point distant as little as possible from the body, at the same time looking between the forearm and the sabre.”

Parry of 7th as described in this text only ends up being 4 fingers in front of the head as opposed to 4 fingers from the temple in the second movement of the molinello, amounting to merely a few centimetres of difference between the two. Nowhere else in his 1868 text does Del Frate state that a parry is held any further forward than one would assume by reading the text, and even in the cases previously mentioned.

Giordano Rossi (a Radaellian) shows the parries in the same manner as in Del Frate’s 1876 text, except he also shows the distance between the head and the hand in parry of 1st from the side:

Left: "Fig. 38. Parry of 1st."
Right: "Fig. 39. Parry of 7th."

Rossi also states that for the parries of 1st and 7th the grip and the sabre are “a little forward” of the prescribed position for the 2nd movement of the molinelli, yet just like Del Frate, this is not referring to the above illustrations of the parries.

In his 1915 treatise Poggio Vannucchi (another Radaellian) gives two forms of parry of first:

"Parry of angled 1st: blade perpendicular to the ground and to the left of the body, looking under the forearm with the hand in 1st above the head and about 20 centimetres in front of the forehead, forearm bent to form a right angle with the sabre, edge to the left.
Parry of 1st in line: arm extended at the height of the shoulder, edge obliquely to the left, the point a little lower than the hand."

His hand positions are unique to his system, as he gives one for each of the 9 parries, including also separate versions for "angled 1st" and "1st in line":

"The position of 1st in line, back of the hand to the left, edge diagonally up to the left. Position of angled 1st, back of the hand turned to the rear, the point of the sabre perpendicular to the ground, edge to the left."

Thus we see that while his parry of "1st in line" seems closer to Masiello's parry of 1st, his "angled 1st" seems identical to what is described by Del Frate in 1876 and Rossi in 1885.

So what is "a little forward" then? Due to the consistency shown in all the images, particularly those for parry of 1st, it seems one can only conclude that the parries are no more than a few centimetres forward from the 2nd movements of the molinelli to the head. The likeliest explanation in my view is that Del Frate wanted to make sure that fencers were not placing the sabre too close to their bodies when performing the parries, such that they place themselves at risk of having their parry collapse on the opponent's blow and getting hit in the process. When performing the molinelli it is easier for this mistake to occur as the sabre is drawn further back after the 2nd movement, thus a fencer may end up with their sabre closer than is ideal for a parry when performing the 2nd movement of either molinello.

Translation - I fondamenti della scherma italiana by Poggio Vannucchi

Below you may find my translation of Poggio Vannucchi's 1915 treatise I fondamenti della scherma italiana, or, in English, The fundamentals of Italian fencing.

Translation

Scans

This treatise is interesting not purely for its Radaellian sabre content, but because of the fact that it so closely resembles the original Radaellian sabre system, showing not much variation from that seen in the 1880s by the other Radaellians. Together with his colourful introduction, Vannucchi appears to try to hearken back to the good ol' days of fencing, before the adoption of the recently officially-sanctioned compromise Neapolitan-Radaellian system.

Vannucchi constantly reminds the reader to ensure that the student shows good 'precedence of the blade' instead of 'precedence of the body'; that is, presenting a threat with the blade before moving the body forward to attack.

If nothing else it is worth reading the introduction, as it gives a great insight into the development of fencing as a sport from the perspective of an ageing, devout Radaellian.

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.