Changed in translation: modifications to the Parise sabre method

The controversial yet highly influential treatise by Masaniello Parise entitled Trattato teorico-pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola, first published in 1884, was considered by many both in and outside of Italy to be the bible of Italian fencing. His work was translated at least twice in his lifetime, the first one being a Spanish translation in 1896 published in Argentina in 1896;¹ the second was an abbreviated German translation of the 1904 version (5th edition) of Parise's treatise, carried out by Arturo Gazzera and Jacob Erckrath de Bary and published in 1905.²

While the Spanish publication was a full and faithful translation of the 1884 edition, including the original illustrations, on close inspection the German translation is seen to deviate in certain areas from the 1904 edition it claims to be translating, most significantly with regard to the sabre instruction. This article is a discussion of the most noteworthy of these modifications and what they mean for the historical practice of the Parise method.

While there are some substantial differences between the 1904 and 1884 editions of Parise's treatise, the most significant of which being the change from wrist-based to full-arm molinelli as a concession to the Radaellians, an analysis of the differences between these two editions is outside the scope of this article. What follows here then is strictly a comparison of select passages in the original 1904 Parise treatise with its German translation by Gazzera and Erckrath de Bary.

Arturo Gazzera, c. 1902

Before we examine the treatise, however, it is important to consider who the translators were so that we may have a greater understanding of where these changes may have originated from in the first place. Unlike the translator of the Spanish version, Arturo Gazzera was a graduate of Parise's military fencing masters school in Rome, where he was a student of the celebrated Radaellian master Carlo Guasti. After graduating at the top of his class, Gazzera taught in the 3rd Alpini regiment as well as spending a short time as a bouting master at the Master's School before eventually leaving the army in 1896. He spent a few months teaching alongside Barbasetti in Vienna, then taught sabre at Károly Fodor's fencing hall in Budapest for three years until moving to Offenbach am Main, Germany. It is here that Gazzera would remain for the rest of his life, quickly becoming one of the most prominent fencing masters in Germany.³

Among Gazzera's earliest students was the prominent sportsman Jacob Erckrath de Bary. Having spent time in Milan in the late 1880s, Erckrath de Bary became enamoured with Italian fencing, and remained an avid promoter of which on his return to Germany. Here Erckrath de Bary served for several years as president of the Offenbach Fencing Club, and was instrumental in the club's decision to hire Gazzera to teach there. Erckrath de Bary later claimed it was his idea to translate Parise's great work into German, with the help of his new master, Gazzera. He was also a talented competitor in his own right, winning a gold medal as captain of the German sabre team at the 1906 Intercalated Olympic Games.⁴ Erckrath de Bary was one of the greatest advocates for the growth of fencing in Germany in the early 20th century, serving as the first president of the Deutscher Fechter-Bund (Germany's national fencing organisation) and representing Germany in the International Fencing Federation (FIE) for over 20 years.⁵

Jacob Erckrath de Bary

In the beginning of Gazzera and Erckrath de Bary's translation, aside from omitting Parise's dedication to his uncle and master Raffaele Parise and greatly shortening the historical summary, the translators also omit the Fambri report for the government's treatise commission; this was a report which largely gave a flawed and biased indictment of the Radaelli sabre method and justified the selection of Parise's treatise as the new regulation fencing text for the Italian army.⁶ Many smaller omissions and abbreviations of the original text can be found throughout the translation (the original is 420 pages long, whilst the translation is only 160), such as most insignificant footnotes and some longer paragraphs, but this report is by far the largest section of the original to not be included. On its own this particular omission may seem of little significance, but as we shall see, the changes later on in the translation give an indication of a deliberate attempt to alter the reader's perception of Parise's system, particularly in comparison to the Radaelli system.

The foil (/sword) section is largely unmodified, although a few differences are worth mentioning. The first minor technical divergence can be seen in the guard position. While the Parise illustrations show the front knee slightly further back towards the heel of the foot, thereby producing a subtly rear-weighted guard, the photos from the German translation depict a typical even-weighted guard, with the front leg more perpendicular to the foot. We also see a slight forward lean in the torso of the Parise illustrations which is not present in the German version. This torso lean is something that Parise only explicitly mentions in the sabre section,⁷ but not in foil, despite being noticeable in the illustrations for both weapons.

Left: Parise (1904)
Right: Gazzera & Erckrath de Bary

The descriptions of the lunge, advance, and retreat correspond closely with the 1904 Parise text, but the German version also adds in the balestra:

To be able to perform an advance and lunge together in two movements, a short jump forward is done with both feet at the same time, after which the legs must be found in the guard position and then the lunge immediately follows. Note: The movement must be carried out as quickly as possible without any pause between the jump and the lunge. To achieve this the jump must be short.⁸

The last alteration to the foil section worth mentioning (although insignificant) is in the notes on binding the weapon to the hand. In the original text Parise details three different methods of binding the weapon using a 1.5 m long ribbon or cord, while the German translation omits each of these descriptions and merely says that while the 1.5 m cord methods are still used in Italy, the practice is gradually being replaced with the use of a simple wrist strap which the pommel is inserted into.⁹ It is these wrist straps which soon become ubiquitous in Italian foil fencing until the widespread adoption of anatomic grips later in the 20th century, although they are still popular among some classical fencing traditions today. The wrist strap can be seen in the video at the end of this article.

As we reach the sabre section, it is here that we see the differences becoming more significant and indicative of Radaellian influence. To begin with, let us compare the descriptions of the method of gripping the sabre:

Italian

German

The sabre is gripped in the full hand, but with the thumb based along the knurled part of the grip a centimetre away from the guard, and the four fingers closed around, with the little finger resting against the end of the guard, so that the upper extremity of the grip protrudes somewhat underneath the little finger. To grip the sabre well with minimal use of force, and without it sliding in the hand, it is necessary for the handle to perfectly match the concavities formed by the position of the hand, and that the thumb does not impact the guard, and that the upper part of the grip is slightly curved, so that the little finger can easily lean against the guard. In this manner the grip will not turn in the hand, the fingers will be able to rest, and the rotations which follow the cuts will be facilitated. With the sabre gripped like so, the normal position of the wrist will as a result make a noticeable angle with the outside of the forearm.

The sabre is gripped with the full hand, the thumb lying on the roughened part of the backstrap, and the four fingers enclose the grip in such a way that the little finger lies on the curved part of the grip. The thumb should not collide with the guard.

Demonstration of the sabre grip, added to the German translation

While the text of the German edition resembles a summary of the original, the accompanying photo (which was not included in the original Italian edition) shows a grip more akin to the Radaellian method, with the little finger not resting against the bottom of the guard as Parise describes, although the hand does appear to be slightly further down the grip than what Radaellians such as Masiello and Barbasetti depict. Nevertheless, the grip shown in the photo is more similar to the Radaellian method than the Parise method, as it clearly shows the hypothenar eminence resting on top of the backstrap.

In the guard position, the same difference in body weight positioning noted in the foil section is also apparent here, as well as the German version showing a more extended sword arm, the elbow not resting against the flank.

Top: Parise (1904)
Bottom: Gazzera & Erckrath de Bary

The German version also removes the mention of a slight forward inclination of the torso in the guard position:

Italian	German
Whether in guard of third, or of first, the body will naturally come to be slightly forward, but perfectly balanced, so as to be exactly centred between the two heels.	Whether one is in the first or third guard, the body's centre of gravity must always be in the middle between the two heels.

Yet somewhat unsurprisingly it is in the descriptions for the molinelli that we find the strongest indications of Radaellian influence. Only the first sentence of the definition changes, with a small but significant change of word order (emphasis added):

Italian	German
Molinelli are those rotational movements which are performed with the sabre, and which are based principally on the wrist, with assistance from the elbow, in giving blows with the edge in all directions.	Molinelli are those movements performed with the sabre, which are based principally on the operation of the elbow and the slightest assistance of the wrist. They can be performed in all directions.

Although the subsequent descriptions for the individual molinelli (discussed in some detail here) are the same in the German translation, this small edit on the part of the translators does actually make the definition match more closely with the practical execution of the molinelli than the original Italian does, as the actions involve the full range of motion of the elbow and very little wrist movement. Nor could this be interpreted as a mistake on the part of the translators, as they also add the following to the note at the end of section 21:

Note: The teacher will make sure that when performing these molinelli, the thumb never leaves the back of the grip, the rotation of the blade itself is performed with proper use of the elbow and the least possible assistance of the wrist, completely excluding involvement of the shoulders.¹⁰

While the translated descriptions of the exercise molinelli correspond closely with Parise's text, the descriptions of the practical cuts in the subsequent sections remove the sole defining feature of Parise's cutting mechanics, that being the 'recovery swing'. Let us look at the descriptions for the cut to the head as an example:

Italian

German

The cut to the head is performed with a single movement; that is, from guard of third, by extending the arm forward, the hand in third position at shoulder height and the point of the blade above the opponent's head, so as to form an obtuse angle with the arm, with the edge towards the ground; the sabre is lowered decisively in a vertical direction until at the height of the flank, at the same time extending the left leg, without moving the sole of the foot from the ground, and driving the right foot forward, gliding along the ground for one foot length but without dragging it, so that the knee ends up perpendicular to the heel. After which one returns to guard, describing a circular arc, making the sabre go back up with the point hugging the left shoulder, at the same time the left leg is bent, bringing the weight of the body onto it and immediately placing the right foot in its starting position, accentuating the movement with a light beat of the foot.

The head cut is performed in one movement and from guard of third. One cuts out to the right side and strikes with a quick movement, extending the arm, edge down towards the opponent's head, lunging at the same time. One then takes the shortest path to guard of third.

Unlike Parise's original text, the cuts in the German translation do not prescribe any angle between the sabre and forearm, and the recovery to guard is not accompanied by the follow-through swing as practised in the exercise molinelli, but instead it advises to take 'the shortest path' back to the guard position. These same changes are reflected in the other cuts aside from the cuts to the chest and abdomen, where the reader is told to make a slicing motion back to guard, as per the molinello to the inside face.

This is the last significant change apparent in the German translation, with the rest of the sabre material corresponding more or less closely, if abbreviated, to the original text. The sabre method detailed in the book is still clearly Parise's despite the modifications to the cutting mechanics, but the fact that said deliberate changes exist at all (in what one would expect to be a simple translation from the Italian version) is likely indicative of a difference between the theory of Parise's method versus its practical application among the students of the Military Master's School. Indeed the renowned Radaellian masters Pecoraro, Pessina, Guasti, and Barbasetti were all teachers at the school during Gazzera's time there, with not all being as equally devoted to teaching the official method.¹¹

It is unclear if the changes seen in this translation reflect what was actually being taught at the Master's School in Rome or rather Gazzera's own personal method, but regardless of their origin they are nevertheless part of a noticeable trend among the graduates of the military school, which many contemporary commentators attributed to the influence of the aforementioned Radaellian masters. A discussion of these divergences on a broader scale will be the topic for a future article.

I will leave readers with a wonderful video of Arturo Gazzera's most famous student, Helene Mayer, giving a demonstration of Italian foil fencing. Things to note are the nails-up parries of 3rd and 2nd (given as 6th and 8th), the addition of the French parry of 7th, and her use of coupés, all of which show how Gazzera's system naturally continued to diverge from Parise's as time progressed and as the needs of modern fencing required.

Post last updated: 10 August 2024

1 Masaniello Parise, Tratado de esgrima teórico-praticó, trans. Sócrates Pelanda Ponce (Buenos Aires: Julio Ghio, 1896).^↩
2 Masaniello Parise, Das Fechten mit Degen und Säbel, trans. Arturo Gazzera and Jacob Erckrath-de Bary (Offenbach am Main: self-pub., [1905]). The original does not give a year of publication, but the news of its publication in the Austrian magazine Allgemeine Sport-Zeitung, 9 April 1905, p. 363, gives a likely candidate of 1905. For clarity, further citations of this work will use only the translators' names.^↩
3 "Tre Campioni della Scherma Italiana," Stampa Sportiva, 2 November 1902, 11.^↩
4 "La Confession d'un Escrimeur," Le Rappel, 22 July 1908, 3.^↩
5 Max Schröder, Deutsche Fechtkunst (Berlin: Georg Koenig, 1938).^↩
6 Radaellian commentary on this report may be found here and here.^↩
7 Masaniello Parise, Trattato teorico pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola: preceduto da un cenno storico sulla scherma e sul duello, 5th ed. (Turin: Casa Editrice Nazionale Roux e Viarengo, 1904), 270.^↩
8 Gazzera and Erckrath-de Bary, Fechten mit Degen und Säbel, 12.^↩
9 Gazzera and Erckrath-de Bary, 98–99.^↩
10 Gazzera and Erckrath-de Bary, 111.^↩
11 Barbasetti left the school in 1892, Guasti in 1893.^↩

Das Stossfechten italienischer Schule by Rudolf Brosch

As an early student of Luigi Barbasetti after his move to Vienna in 1894, Rudolf Brosch quickly established himself as one of Barbasetti's most avid supporters and soon became an assistant instructor at the Wiener Neustadt school, bringing the new Italian method with him. Along with Heinrich Tenner, another star pupil of Barbasetti, Brosch would assist in translating Barbasetti's manuscript of what would be published in 1899 in Vienna as Das Säbelfechten ('Sabre fencing'), which would serve as the military's new sabre textbook.

The sabre book would be followed a year later by Barbasetti's Das Stossfechten ('Thrust fencing'), an equally impressive although less influential treatise on foil fencing, but this text was not be translated by Brosch. In fact just one year later Brosch would publish his own foil treatise entitled Das Stossfechten italienischer Schule ('Thrust fencing of the Italian school'). Although no publication date is listed in the book itself, a review in the Austrian sporting magazine Allgemeine Sport-Zeitung from 21 July 1901 provides a reliable year of publication.

Click here to view the PDF

Although an in-depth comparison of the differences between Barbasetti and Brosch's treatises deserves its own article, it can be noted how Brosch prefers a slightly forward-weighted guard position (as opposed to Barbasetti's suggestion to be slightly rear-weighted), performs parry of 3rd with the nails up, and that his teaching progression on pages 118-9 differs from the structure of Barbasetti's treatise by introducing the parries earlier and blade actions later.

'Causerie' by Enrico Casella

Towards the end of the 1880s, the new developments in Italian sabre fencing were beginning to gain notoriety outside of Italy, in part due to the increased amount of formal interaction between fencers of other countries, but also due to Italian fencers leaving their homeland and settling elsewhere.

This month I present a translation of parts 1-6 of a series of articles by one such emigrant, Enrico Casella (here going by the French version of his name, 'Henri Casella'), entitled 'Causerie', published in the French fencing magazine L'Escrime Française from 20 September to 5 December 1889. Continue reading for more background on Enrico Casella and the articles in question.

Click here to read the translation

---

By the mid-1880s, journalist Enrico Casella had achieved great fame in his native Italy as a champion Neapolitan amateur fencer, having learnt under the Neapolitan masters Felice Stellati-Dumarteau and the great Giacomo Massei.¹

After many successful appearances in fencing circles throughout Italy and France, Casella's fame would soon spread to South America, where he resided for a couple of years, founding the Cosmopolita newspaper in Rio de Janeiro, spreading his tradition of Italian fencing among Brazilian aristocrats at the same time. He received more international attention in 1885 due to a dispute with the eternally-offended duellist Athos di San Malato, eventuating in one of the several duels that Casella would have in his lifetime.²

Following a fencing tour through various countries in Europe, as well as residing for a short time in the USA, Casella settled in Paris, where he worked as a correspondent for various French and Italian newspapers, even getting himself mixed-up in the infamous Dreyfus affair at one point.

Although Casella would quickly come to consider France as his home, he nevertheless remained a staunch advocate of Italian fencing, particularly of his own Neapolitan school. Despite this, early on in his 'Causerie' articles he firmly establishes himself in opposition to the 'modern Neapolitan school' as represented by Masaniello Parise at the Military Fencing Masters School in Rome and Almerico Melina at the National Academy of Fencing in Naples. With his typical colourful language, Casella gives a damning appreciation of Parise's ability as a fencer and master:

Mr. Masaniello Parise belongs to a family of fencers who all had greater or lesser merit, a few even had a lot, but who all indistinctly never had a natural gift for teaching. Masaniello could therefore not escape this fatal law of inheritance. He has just the right amount of physical means to provide a correct fencer; no more than that. His artistic intelligence is more limited. He has always had rather questionable bouts, and wrote a treatise on Fencing of the future which posterity will surely appreciate, but which we humble mortals have not understood a word of.

But perhaps more interestingly for those who concern themselves with Radaellian fencing, he also speaks very favourably of the modern Radaelli school, saying that compared to the Neapolitan sabre school, '...it must be admitted that the Radaellians hold the high ground'.

He also gives a brief and rather humbling account of Giuseppe Radaelli himself admitting that his ability as a foilist was limited:

When Radaelli was alive, I went to Milan to meet him. He was a 'good fellow', not the least bit pompous, but he knew nothing at all about foil lessons. Moreover, he did not hide this, and his only concern was the sabre. I remember one day very well when I was fencing in his salle with Marquis Fossati, he 'begged' me not to watch what he was doing, foil in hand, with one of his students.

This account gives yet more proof that Radaelli's main concern was the reform of sabre fencing, with the teaching of foil most likely being something that he felt obliged to do by the 'classical' faction of Italy's fencing community.

Aside from these valuable insights into the world of Italian fencing in the late 1880s, Casella's articles are made even richer due to the fact he was writing for an audience that was largely ignorant of Italian fencing at the time, and so despite the various pop-culture references Casella makes, the articles can still be informative for those who have little to no appreciation of Western European fencing in the late 19th century.

I must give my sincere thanks to François Perreault for his proof-reading and for helping me to decode some of the more colourful turns of phrase employed by Casella. Scans of the original copies of L'Escrime Française may be found here, courtesy of the archives of the Fédération Française d'Escrime.

1 Charles Maurice De Vaux, Le sport en France et à l'étranger (Paris: J. Rothschild, 1899), 283.^↩
2 "The Prince of Fencers," Baltimore Sun, 28 March 1886, 9.^↩

Das Fechten mit Florett und Säbel by Luigi Sestini

Despite spending his whole career as a fencing master in Italy, particularly Florence, Ferdinando Masiello had influence that spread well beyond the borders of his homeland. Aside from his colossal fencing treatise of 1887, this influence also took place through his students, perhaps the most decorated of which being Luigi Sestini of Florence.

Sestini left Italy in the 1890s and founded a club in Berlin, quickly establishing himself as the foremost expert on Italian fencing in Germany, and soon he was rubbing elbows with various military officers, eventually leading to Masiello's method (through Sestini) to be adopted by the German army.

Today I present the Luigi Sestini's treatise Das Fechten mit Florett und Säbel ('Fencing with foil and sabre'), probably published in 1903 (no date of publication listed in the book).

Scans: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NVPkaZROGmPCtqFj2RaFRFY_4HdAl1G_/view?usp=sharing

The 247-page treatise is largely a German translation of Masiello's 1887 treatise, with new illustrations and slight changes 'to meet German needs and conceptions'.

In addition to Sestini's influence in Germany, his treatise and teaching method would also come to serve as the basis for the Dutch navy's fencing regulations, which was largely a simplified version of the sabre section of Sestini's treatise, using the same illustrations. A translation courtesy of Reinier van Noort may be viewed here.

Direct cuts in Radaellian sabre

Depending on your definition of a direct cut, your view on how prevalent such cuts are in Radaellian sabre fencing may lie anywhere on a spectrum between 'common' and 'non-existent'.

Although the characteristic cuts in Radaelli sabre are generally considered to be molinelli and coupés, in addition to these the Radaellian authors Masiello, Barbasetti, and Pecoraro and Pessina all describe a another kind of cut they call 'direct cuts'. Masiello defines them thus:

A direct cut is said to be that which is given by making one's own weapon travel the shortest path while it is clear of the opponent's blade.¹

Barbasetti:

When the sabre follows the shortest way—the straight line—to strike your adversary, the blow is called "direct cut."²

Pecoraro and Pessina:

A direct cut is that which, without a circular movement of the point, arrives at the target through the shortest path, when it is not precluded by the opponent's blade.³

These similar definitions on their own would not be at odds with most modern fencing texts; where the differences arise from, however, is in the practical application from some Radaellians. For example, take Masiello's direct cut to the head from the invitation or parry of 3rd:

The hand is turned into third without lowering the elbow, the arm is bent slightly to give greater violence to the blow, and by forcefully extending it again the cut is given in a vertical direction to the opponent's head, and the arm and sabre take the position of the second tempo of the molinello to the head.⁴

The slight bend which precedes the actual cut is also described in Barbasetti's treatise, including in the direct ripostes. In the eyes of some modern readers, this preparatory movement precludes it from being a true direct cut, requiring a continuous forward movement of the hand from the start to the end of the action. Pecoraro and Pessina, on the other hand, do not mention this kind of preparatory movement:

The direct cut to the head is done in a vertical direction, performing it from the guard of second or third, or from one's own invitation, in a single movement, turning the hand into third position and with speed and elasticity extending the arm, which together with the sabre should end up in the same position as the second tempo of the molinello to the head from the left.⁵

While this movement is closer to the modern idea of a direct cut, not all agreed that this action alone was satisfactory as a cut. Masiello in particular decried this type of direct cut, saying that since the arm was already extended in the guard, the prescription to extend the arm in the cut was meaningless, and that the arm should be bent first as is commonly done in order to increase the 'useful effect' of the cut.⁶

One might conclude from all this that direct cuts are a later addition to Radaellian sabre, but on close examination of other treatises in the tradition, we find significant evidence of direct cuts being done since the beginning, even if not explicitly called as such.

One example of this can be seen in the riposte to the flank from parry of 5th. This riposte is included in all the Radaellian treatises, with Masiello, Barbasetti, and Pecoraro/Pessina all listing it as a direct cut, but neither Del Frate nor Bruno specifying what type of cut it is.⁷ Rossi calls it a riposte by coupé, however, his definition of a coupé merely involving the sabre being brought back before the cut (not necessarily changing lines relative to the opponent's blade) would largely agree with how Masiello and Barbasetti describe direct cuts.⁸

Similar examples are also found for the riposte to the outside face from parry of 2nd, riposte to the flank from parry of 1st, riposte to the chest from parry of 6th, and the riposte to the head from parry of low 3rd or low 4th, although the Radaellians do not all always agree on what ripostes can be done from each parry.

One reason for direct cuts not being defined in explicit terms may be due to whether the individual author preferred the arm to be bent or extended in the parries.

As previously stated, neither Del Frate, Rossi nor Bruno define direct cuts, yet all three authors prefer bent-arm parries, whilst the other authors who explicitly define direct cuts all prefer more extended parries. If Masiello's aim with bending the arm slightly before giving the direct cut was to 'give greater violence to the blow', such a prescription would perhaps seem unnecessary if the original parry position was sufficiently bent already.

Both illustrations are depicting the same parry, that being parry of 1st, with Rossi's illustration on the left having a fully bent arm, and Masiello's on the right with the arm fully extended.

This does not explain why some did not describe direct cuts from the guard positions, and so it remains a good reminder that although the Radaellians agreed on a greater number of fundamental principles, they nevertheless all had their own preferences and divergences.

To see an example of what these forearm-driven direct cuts may have looked like, one need look no further than Italo Santelli's star pupil, Attila Petschauer, seen here at the start of the video giving a direct cut to the head from guard of 3rd at 0:20, followed by a direct cut to the outside face at 0:24. Many direct cuts as ripostes may be found throughout the video.

---

1 Ferdinando Masiello, La scherma italiana di spada e di sciabola (Florence: Stabilimento Tipografico G. Civelli, 1887), 408.^↩
2 Luigi Barbasetti, The art of the sabre and the épée (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1936), 29.^↩
3 Salvatore Pecoraro & Carlo Pessina, La Scherma di Sciabola: Trattato Teorico-Pratico (Viterbo: Tipografia G. Agnesotti, 1912), 61.^↩
4 Masiello, Scherma italiana, 409. The 'second tempo of the molinello to the head' is merely saying that the arm is fully extended forward, edge down, hand at head height.^↩
5 Pecoraro and Pessina, Scherma di Sciabola, 64.^↩
6 Ferdinando Masiello, La Scherma di Sciabola: Osservazioni sul Trattato dei Maestri Pecoraro e Pessina, Vice-Direttori della Scuola Magistrale militare di Scherma (Florence: G. Ramella, 1910), 75.^↩
7 See the synoptic tables in Settimo Del Frate, Istruzione per maneggio e scherma della sciabola (Florence: Tipografia, lit. e calc. la Venezia, 1868), 58; Nicolò Bruno, Risorgimento della vera scherma di sciabola italiana basata sull'oscillazione del Pendolo (Novara: Tipografia Novarese, 1891), 238.^↩
8 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), 168.^↩

A modern kardvívás by László Gerentsér

As a change from the usual Italian treatises that are shared here, today I wish to share my own copy of the Hungarian master László Gerentsér's 1944 sabre treatise, entitled A modern kardvívás ('Modern sabre fencing').

Scans

Transcription (sans illustrations)

Although it is a Hungarian treatise, the system it details is largely Radaellian. As he explains his introduction, Gerentsér spent some time studying under Angelo Torricelli, a graduate of the military fencing masters school and a student of Barbasetti. Gerentsér also makes many references to the treatises of Barbasetti, Salvatore Pecoraro and Carlo Pessina, and Gusztáv Arlow (an early Hungarian adopter and adapter of Barbasetti's method).

In 1967, Julius Palffy-Alpar would state in his own book, Sword and Masque, that Gerentsér's treatise was 'one of the best about the rapidly developing Hungarian saber technique of the time'. Although the Radaellian influences are clear, there are nonetheless many aspects of the treatise that would have been seen as characteristically Hungarian, such as his treatment of the fleche, the preference for guard of 3rd, and the obtuse angle between the arm and sabre when cutting.

Gerentsér's book is an invaluable look into the development of the mighty Italo-Hungarian school, which dominated competitive sabre fencing for a large part of the 20th century. Despite the prominence of the Hungarians in the annals of modern fencing, their treatises are unfortunately rather neglected outside their own country due to the language. It is my hope that by making these sources publicly available, they may eventually be better understood by the community at large thanks to the diligent efforts of a select few.

1884 Regulations for the Italian Military Fencing Masters School

After a government commission organised by the Italian Ministry of War declared that Masaniello Parise's fencing treatise would become the new regulation fencing text for the Italian army (thus supplanting the Radaellian method), a new national school for training military fencing masters was founded in Rome in 1884, with Parise appointed as its head of instruction.

This school, known as the Scuola magistrale militare di scherma in Italian, replaced the one in Milan which was directed by Giuseppe Radaelli until a few years before his death, with his number one assistant Giovanni Monti taking over the role until the school's closure some time between 1882 and 1884.

What I present here today is a translation of the official regulations which laid out the structure of the training at the new fencing masters school in Rome as well as the roles and responsibilities of the various personnel assigned to it. This Act no. 123 was issued on the 27 June 1884, and was published in the official Italian military journal Giornale Militare on the 4 July.¹ At the beginning of the following October the first 'conversion' courses began at the school, in which all fencing masters employed by the military would be taught the new official method.²

---

Internal service regulations for the military fencing masters school

Generalities

1. The military fencing masters school was instituted with the aim of propagating the instruction of Italian sword and sabre fencing in the army, with uniformity of method and in conformity with the official treatise approved by the Ministry of War.
2. The treatise, according to which the teaching must be conducted, is that compiled by Mr. Masaniello Parise and which has already been examined and selected by a special commission delegated for this purpose by the Ministry itself.
3. Under the high dependence of the command of the IX army corps (Rome), the direction of the military fencing masters school is entrusted to the commander of the 6th cavalry brigade.
4. Called to the military fencing masters school are the non-commissioned officers who were put forward to hold, after passing the required exams, the post of fencing instructor.
5. As an exception, civilian masters and non-commissioned officers already appointed as fencing instructors may be called to the school to acquire practical knowledge of the method developed in the prescribed official text.

School structure

6. The military fencing masters school is composed of:

1. A senior director, whose functions are carried out, as said in no. 3, by the commander of the 6th cavalry brigade;
2. A deputy director;
3. A technical director;
4. Three assistant masters to the technical director;
5. A junior supervising officer of military personnel and secretary of the Directorate-General;
6. A number of candidates attending the courses at the school, determined on a case-by-case basis by the Ministry;
7. Three official orderly soldiers.

The senior director

7. The responsibility of the senior director is the supervision of discipline, instruction, and administration of equipment in the school's charge.
8. On consultation with the technical director, he compiles the timetables and invigilates their continuous adherence.
9. Leaving the full responsibility of the results of the teaching to the aforementioned technical director, he maintains high supervision of it and makes sure that said teaching is successfully imparted and in accordance with the chosen treatise.
10. With regard to the personnel permanently or temporarily assigned to the school, all the duties prescribed in Chapter VI of the regulations of military discipline will be honoured.
11. If the conduct or behaviour of any of the civilian personnel assigned to the school leaves something to be desired, after a warning the senior director will refer him in writing to the Ministry of War, formulating concrete proposals regarding the punishments to be applied.
12. If any of the military personnel commanded to attend the courses at the school do not meet the requirements of good behaviour, discipline, and attitude towards the art professed in the school, after hearing the technical director's opinion regarding this person's attitude, [the superior director] will immediately send that person back to their own corps, giving notice of the measure taken to the Ministry of War through the command of the IX armed corps (Rome).
13. The position of deputy director is held by the commander of the cavalry regiment, which has its headquarters in Rome.
He assists the senior director in carrying out the functions assigned to him by these regulations and according to the orders which will be given by him.
14. In the absence of the senior director, the deputy director will take over in the supervision of discipline, instruction, and administration of the school without, however, as far as possible, bringing substantial change to the rules established by the senior director whose place he is taking.

The technical director

15. The direct responsibility for the teaching and the direction of the same teaching, for the artistic side, will be assigned to the technical director, except always with the high supervision of the senior director.
16. He will be obliged by the aforesaid director to scrupulously conform the teaching to the rules of the Italian school of fencing, given in the above-mentioned treatise, and to the highest standards of perfect chivalry.
17. He proposes to the senior director the allotment of instruction hours and the division of the candidates attending the courses at the school into sections.
18. He resolves any technical doubt which arises in the candidates in conformance with the principles established by the treatise.
19. He directs the lessons given by his assistants, giving lessons himself where he sees fit.
20. He indicates to the supervising officer the required equipment or repairs, to submit the requests for approval by the senior director.
21. He keeps a current register of the individuals admitted to the school and fortnightly he assigns, to each of those on the register, a numerical classification score between 0 and 20.
22. He proposes to the senior director the expulsion or dismissal from the school of those candidates who prove deserving of such due to bad behaviour, indiscipline or ineptitude in fencing.

The technical director's assistants

23. The technical director's assistant masters have the task of giving the lessons to the school's candidates, according to the rules established by the treatise and according to the other prescriptions which said technical director believes best to issue.
24. The highest ranked or oldest of the assistants substitutes the technical director in case of absence and assumes all his obligations and responsibilities.
25. During the time he holds this position, the assistant master who temporarily replaces the technical director cannot make any changes to the method followed by the director. It will instead be his constant care that said method undergoes no alteration of any kind so that the necessary and perfect unity of direction is maintained at the school.
26. The assistant masters are entitled to a month of annual leave to be enjoyed in the months of August or September at their choice, provided one of them is always present at the school headquarters. This leave will be granted by the senior director.
27. When special needs require their absence from the school for a few days, they will ask the senior director, through the technical director, and comply with the decisions he makes.
28. All reprimands and criticisms on the behaviour and conduct of individual candidates at the school by the assistant masters must be made to the technical director, who will in turn refer them to the senior director.

The supervising officer

29. The direct disciplinary supervision of military personnel assigned to the school is fully devolved to the junior officer assigned to the school.
30. He therefore exercises the aforementioned powers according to the Regulations of discipline and subordinate to the senior director.
31. He has free access to the fencing halls in which, even during instruction, he exercises disciplinary supervision without, of course, hindering the progress of said instruction in the slightest.
32. He ensures the delivery of all equipment entrusted to the school and keeps the register up to date.
33. On direction from the technical director, he compiles the requests for new equipment or repairs to existing equipment in order to then submit them for approval and signing by the senior director.
34. He must be present at the beginning of every instruction in order to verify the participation of those admitted to the school, make note of absences, and the reason for the absences, which will in turn be reported to the technical director.
35. The dress standards, order in the chambers and fencing halls, and general behaviour of the soldiers assigned to the school will be the particular subject of his care and his responsibility.

The candidates attending the courses at the school

36. In each year some non-commissioned officers who aspire to become fencing instructors are admitted to the school, the number of which being determined each time by the minister.
37. These non-commissioned officers will be drawn from bodies of troops proportionately to the need of each arm.
38. The proposals for admission to the masters school will be made by the corps commanders, taking into account, for those coming from educational departments, the note of the student's special aptitude for fencing made by the commanders of said educational departments.
The proposals will be directed to the Ministry of War (Directorate-General of conscripts and troops), and the number of requests must be greater than the number of admissions in order to be able to choose, through examination, the people most suitable for the purpose.
39. The non-commissioned officers who are called to attend the courses at the masters school in order to then obtain the appointment of fencing instructor, as soon as they have arrived at the school, will be subjected to a practical examination in the presence of the senior director, deputy director, and technical director in order to verify their fencing aptitude. Those who are sent back in this examination will be made to return immediately to their corps by the senior director.
40. As an exception, non-commissioned officers already provided with a military fencing instructor's licence may be called to attend the school's courses, with the aim of verifying if they know and profess perfectly the instruction method established by the Ministry.
41. With the same intention, civil fencing masters dependent on military administrations may also be called to the school.
42. Those admitted to the school are divided into sections in accordance with the rules which will be given by the senior director, on the advice of the technical director.
43. The highest-ranking or the most senior of each section will be its leader with respect to discipline and internal services.
44. In the fencing halls, those admitted to the school must maintain the behaviour, courtesy, and deference to the directors and teachers which is dictated by the feeling of duty and by the profession of an essentially courteous and knightly art.
45. Those who, through their conduct, character or incompetence, prove to be less suitable for the role of fencing instructor will be immediately expelled or discharged from the school.
46. With respect to discipline, the military personnel assigned to the school are directly under the junior supervising officer, to whom should be directed all questions and complaints which the individual wishes to be addressed to the senior supervisor.

The official orderly soldiers

47. The official orderly soldiers attend to the cleaning and care of the premises and, if necessary, the preparation of the canteen for the non-commissioned officers assigned to the school.
48. Through daily shifts, one of these soldiers will be assigned to the care of all the premises belonging to the school and may not leave or be distracted for any reason.
49. Another of the aforementioned soldiers must remain in the vicinity of the fencing halls throughout the whole period of instruction, at the disposal of the technical director and supervising officer.
Said soldier must ensure that the fencing halls are opened in a timely manner and arrange for their closure according to the orders given by the technical director and supervising officer.
50. The third of these soldiers may, if necessary, be assigned to the preparation of the canteen for the non-commissioned officers assigned to the school. If he is not assigned to this service, he will join the other two in carrying out their duties.

The courses and lessons

51. The course of instruction at the military fencing masters school normally lasts two years for those aspiring to become military fencing instructors.
Possible courses for civil fencing masters and non-commissioned officers who have already obtained a military fencing instructor licence will have a duration determined by the Ministry on a case-by-case basis.
52. Lessons will begin on the 1st October of each year and will finish on the 31st July the following year.
53. On each working day, the instruction will last for a total of six hours, three of which being before midday and three after.

Disciplinary rules for the fencing halls

54. The weapons, masks, and gloves required in the fencing halls may not be used without the presence of the director or teachers.
55. It is forbidden to fence sword or sabre without a mask, glove, and duck canvas underplastron,³ so as to avoid any unpleasant mishaps.
56. If a piece of fencing equipment breaks during a lesson or bout, the teacher whose presence it occurs in will communicate with the director for the appropriate replacement or repair requests.
57. Replacements and repairs of equipment broken or ruined during instruction will be paid for by the school. If instead the damage is produced by negligence or in the absence of teachers, it will be paid for by the one who caused it, and if the culprit cannot be found, the damage will be shared between those admitted to the school.
58. Since it is the technical director's responsibility for the teaching and its results, the students owe him their absolute obedience and deference in the fencing hall, and similarly they owe obedience and deference to the assistant masters whom they receive the teaching from.
59. In the interest of the instruction, the very best behaviour is required in the fencing halls.
60. If the senior director of the school or another military authority superior to him are present in the fencing halls, the technical director will suspend the instruction, which will be resumed only on invitation from the senior director or the above-mentioned authority.
61. Any discussion of the various fencing methods which have existed in Italy until now are absolutely prohibited, as are all comparisons. Everyone must therefore keep in mind that the school was instituted with the sole aim of propagating throughout the army knowledge of the method chosen by the Ministry.
62. Any doubt or controversy which arises in the fencing halls will be resolved by the technical director or whomever takes his place.

Examinations and final exhibition

63. At the end of every school year, in front of a special commission appointed by the Ministry, theoretical-practical examinations will take place which serve to classify the candidates.
64. Individuals who do not pass the aforementioned examinations, and who do not compensate for the deficiencies reported in them with an average fortnightly score reported throughout the year, will be discharged from the school.
65. The final classification score of each course year will consist of the score reported in the aforementioned examination and the average score for the year.
66. The classifications are given by numerical marks from 0 to 20.
67. To pass from the 1st to the 2nd course year, each individual must have a final classification score of no less than 12/20.
68. To receive the military fencing instructor licence, those admitted to the school must have achieved a final classification score in the 2nd course year of no less than 14/20.
69. With the examinations complete, on a day determined by the senior director a final grand exhibition will take place, with the primary authorities being invited and which will, depending on the means and premises available for the school, be given the greatest possible solemnity.
70. Provisions for the arrangement and preparation of this grand exhibition will be given by the senior director, who, where he deems it appropriate, may also allow masters and amateurs not belonging to the school to take part.
71. The Ministry of War reserves the right to allocate one or more prizes to be distributed to the best fencers participating in the exhibition.
72. The aforementioned prizes will be awarded by the special jury appointed by the Ministry of War on the advice of the senior director.

Reports

73. Every quarter the technical director must make a summary report in writing to the senior director on the course of the instruction and the progress of those admitted to the school.
74. At the end of the year, this report must be as detailed as necessary to give an exact and perfect conception of the development and fruits of the instruction.
This annual report will be sent through the commander of the IX army corps to the Ministry of War by the senior director, who will add his own observations.
75. The senior director—whether for technical reasons, disciplinary reasons or anything other reason—will send to said Ministry all other reports which he deems appropriate along with the others.

---

1 Emilio Ferrero, "Atto N. 123. - SCUOLE MILITARI. - Regolamento di servizio interno della scuola magistrale militare di scherma. - 27 giugno," Giornale Militare 1884: parte prima, no. 29 (4 July 1884): 453–62.^↩
2 Emilio Ferrero, "Circolare N. 131. - Corsi eventuali presso la scuola magistrale militare di scherma. - (Segretariato generale). - 26 settembre," Giornale Militare 1884: parte seconda, no. 41 (3 October 1884): 757–9..^↩
3 TN: 'petto di tela olona' — Also known as cotton duck, this is tightly-woven canvas which was commonly used for sails.^↩