After several years of on-and-off work, I am very excited to announce that my translation of Giordano Rossi's 1885 treatise Theoretical-Practical Manual for Sword and Sabre Fencing is at last available for purchase.
This treatise was the first to be published after the death of Giuseppe Radaelli, with the sabre method largely being an expansion of that published by Del Frate in 1876. I cannot recommend this book more highly for those who have even a passing interest in Radaellian fencing.
This publication would likely never have happened without the kind help of Jherek Swanger and Harry Ridgeway, so my heartfelt thanks to those two gentlemen.
To make the shipping cost more worthwhile, consider also grabbing a copy of Harry's excellent translation of the 'Pseudo-Peter von Danzig' manuscript Cod.44.A.8, also available on Blurb.
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.↩
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.
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.
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.
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.↩
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).
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.
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.↩
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').
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.
