La Scherma di Sciabola by Ferdinando Masiello (3rd edition)

After releasing the scans of the 1902 edition of Masiello's foil treatise two years ago, it was only a matter of time before I would acquire a copy of the 1902 sabre book to share with you all. That time has now arrived, so here it is at last!

***Scans***

Attentive readers will note that while the 1902 foil book is labelled as the second edition, the 1902 sabre is actually the third edition, with the previous one having been published in 1893.

A detailed comparison of the 1887 and 1902 editions will be published later this month (both for foil and sabre), so for now I will limit myself to pointing out how Masiello's detailed fencing sabre specifications have been removed entirely, keeping only the general description of each part, and that the 3rd edition contains many significant additions, such as the interesting discussion of Radaellian cutting mechanics in the section 'Delle sciabolate'.

Radaellian sabre in Argentina

Among the many corners of the world which felt the influence of Italian fencing at the turn of the 20th century, South America is arguably one that deserves much greater attention in the Anglophone sphere of historical fencing. In my own modest attempt to contribute, today I will be sharing two sabre treatises from Argentina, both published in 1928 and both detailing distinctly Radaellian methods.

Students of the Argentinian military fencing master's school, with its director Eugenio Pini on the far left (1899)

The first of these is entitled Esgrima del sable, written by Italian expat Escipión Ferretto (a Spanishified version of his Italian name, Scipione Ferretto).

Click here to view Ferretto's book.

This book is an updated version of his 1901 treatise Esgrima italiana: primer tratado completo sobre esgrima de sable publicado en castellano ('Italian fencing: first complete treatise on sabre fencing published in Castilian'), referenced in the glowing reviews in the introduction. Despite the title of the 1901 version, it was certainly not the first sabre treatise published in Castilian Spanish, nor was it even the first Italian sabre treatise published in Argentina, as a Spanish translation of Masaniello Parise's Trattato teorico-pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola saw publication in 1896.¹ It does, however, appear to have been the first Radaellian sabre treatise to be published in Spanish.

Parries of 5th, 6th, and 7th

Ferretto reveals his Radaellian influence immediately in the dedication, saying that his material is 'the fruit of a wide and serious evolution of the magnificent works of the unforgettable founder of sabre fencing, Prof. Radaelli, and of the famous master Masiello.' The work of the latter master is very much apparent throughout Ferretto's text in both structure and content, with several sections being merely abbreviated Spanish translations of those in Masiello's book.

Cut to the flank

The earliest mention of Scipione Ferretto I have found so far is his participation at an exhibition in Verona in 1888, then an amateur student of Radaellian master Federico Giroldini in Vicenza. Three years later he is still living in Vicenza, but with Giroldini having since moved to Mantua Ferretto appears to have taken over the role of teaching at the local fencing club, but still as an amateur.² 

By 1896 he had moved to Argentina and found employment there as a fencing master, joining the ranks of other Italian masters that had been immigrating there in the late 19th century. Recognising the need for fencing masters in the army, Ferretto submitted a request to the Argentinian army chief of staff, eventually leading to a fencing and gymnastics master's school being founded in late 1897 under the leadership of Eugenio Pini. Little wonder then that Ferretto was among those Pini chose to be assistant instructors at the school.³ He seems to have continued being employed by the military for several decades, teaching at Argentina's military college and naval school as late as 1932.⁴

~~~~

The second treatise featured today is Contribución al estudio del arte de la esgrima: el sable ('Contribution to the study of the art of fencing: the sabre') by Juan Bay.

Click here to view Bay's book.

Juan Bay, Jr.

Juan Bay was the son of an Italian veteran of the Risorgimento and fencing master of the same name who immigrated to Argentina in 1870.⁵ Born in 1876, from an early age Juan Jr. was taught fencing by his father and as a young adult was sent to Italy to continue his fencing education under the renowned Radaellians Tito Corsini and Giordano Rossi (or possibly Gaetano Garbagnati) in Milan. On returning to Argentina he continued his training under the various Italian masters then in Bueno Aires such as Ernesto De Marinis and Luigi Scarani. Like Ferretto, the talented young Juan Bay was also hired as an assistant instructor at the new Argentinian military fencing master's school (the only Argentinian-born instructor to be hired initially) when it began its first course at the Buenos Aires Jockey Club in 1898, which also gave him ample opportunity to train with its director, Eugenio Pini.⁶

Exhibition in Buenos Aires, October 1895, organised by Ernesto De Marinis (centre, white clothing). Juan Bay is second from the left and Ferretto is third from the right, front row.

In 1902, Bay accompanied Pini on one of his many fencing tours of Europe. Being a natural showman and already well-known and well-loved by much of Europe's fencing scene, Pini actively sought to prove the skill of his protégé, which included issuing an open challenge on behalf of Bay to all French fencers in anticipation for their visit to Paris.⁷ Bay fenced foil with several amateurs and masters in public exhibitions throughout the city and was admired by the French press for his skill and effective adaptation of some aspects of the French method, thus clearly emulating his master Pini.⁸ He met a similar reception in Vienna, this time being matched against other proponents of the Italian school in both foil and sabre.⁹

Bay (left) fencing Prof. Masselin in Paris, January 1902.

Bay remained at the Jockey Club throughout his career, also teaching at other clubs in the city and eventually succeeding Pini as head fencing master there after the latter retired in the 1920s. At the 1928 Amsterdam Olympics Bay accompanied Argentina's fencing team as a coach and saw them achieve an admirable 3rd place in the team foil event.¹⁰

Thrust to the chest or cut to the outside face — Position of the invitation, engagement or parry of third.

Although distinctly Radaellian in his cutting mechanics, Bay does not include all six of the traditional Radaellian molinelli, choosing to omit the molinello to the head from the right and the rising molinello to the abdomen, but adding in two exercises equivalent to the first and second preparatory exercises seen in Pecoraro and Pessina's sabre treatise.¹¹ He names these six exercises 'passages over the opposing weapon' and all together they constitute the 'exercise of conduction and domination of the sabre'.

Horizontal passage to the inside face or chest

Both Ferretto and Bay's lives and writings deserve a more in-depth treatment than anything I can currently provide, and I hope in future to be able to provide some more context around the publication of these books, such as determining whether one was published in response to the other or if them being published in the same year was merely a coincidence. As always, readers with more knowledge on this subject are highly encouraged to leave a comment or reach out to me.

---

1 Masaniello Parise, Tratado de esgrima teórico-praticó, trans. Sócrates Pelanda Ponce (Buenos Aires: Julio Ghio, 1896).^↩
2 John Sportsman, "Accademia a Verona," Lo Sport Illustrato, 11 February 1888, 71; "Notiziario," Baiardo: periodico schermistico bimensile, 8 August 1891, 8.^↩
3 Alejo Levoratti and Diego Roldán, "Los batallones escolares de la patria. Estudio comparado de las representaciones sobre el cuerpo y el entrenamiento de los maestros de esgrima del centenario en la República Argentina," Revista História da Educação 23, no. 1 (2019): 9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2236-3459/88977.^↩
4 "Répertoire des Maîtres et Professeurs abonnés," L'Escrime et le Tir, December 1932, 4.^↩
5 "Los "gironi" del Club de Esgrima," Caras y Caretas, 2 November 1902, 26; "La morte del maestro Bay a Buenos Ayres," La Gazzetta dello Sport, 9 February 1903, 2; Juan José de Soiza Reilly, "Cien años de esgrima en la República Argentina: A través de los maestros y de los alumnos," Caras y Caretas, 29 October 1932.^↩
6 D'Artagnan, "Torneo di maestri a Buenos-Ayres," La Gazzetta dello Sport, 22 November 1901, 2; Jean Joseph-Renaud, "Chronique: Les Grandes Semaines. Les Escrimeurs Argentins à Amsterdam avec Juan Bay," L'Escrime et le Tir, July 1928, 9.^↩
7 Eugenio Pini, "Un défi a sensation," L'Auto-Vélo, 18 January 1902, 1.^↩
8 "Les assauts du Journal," L'Escrime Française, 1 February 1902, 7.^↩
9 "Pini-Barbasetti," Allgemeine Sport-Zeitung, 2 March 1902, 214.^↩
10 Pablo Javier Junco, "Los Camet: una historia olimpica," Fotos Viejas de Mar del Plata (blog), 1 December 2018, http://fotosviejasdemardelplata.blogspot.com/2018/12/los-camet-una-historia-olimpica.html.^↩
11 cf. Salvatore Pecoraro and Carlo Pessina, La Scherma di Sciabola (Tipografia G. Agnesotti: Viterbo, 1912), 31–2.^↩

Radaellian reflections on fencing weapons

One of the most distinguishing aspects of Italian sabre fencing, at least in the opinion of foreign commentators in the 1890s, was the fact that Italian sabres tended to be very light and flexible in comparison to their European neighbours. It is difficult to establish why and when exactly this trend began in Italy, but it is clear that by the late 1880s the light fencing sabre had firmly established itself as the typical Italian tool of choice. There was the occasional protest or counter-movement from Italians against this aspect of their fencing culture, most notably around the end of the 1890s from advocates of 'fencing on the ground' (a topic for a later time), but it was the light sabre that remained dominant and quickly spread throughout the western world, often accompanied by the Radaellian method.

Today we will be looking at two articles published by two different Radaellian masters, Luigi Barbasetti and Saverio Cerchione, in which they briefly comment on this established culture of light fencing weapons, one with resigned acceptance and the other with positive justification. Both were published in Gazzetta dello Sport in the late 1890s a little over year apart, and both had written and would go on to write several other articles for this magazine. Barbasetti's writing often concerned itself with duelling culture or suggestions for remedying what he and many others perceived as the 'decline' of fencing in Italy, particularly with regard to sabre. The article of his provided here is more in relation to his issues with the light foil as opposed to the sabre, but it also touches on his distaste for the general cultural trend of Italian fencing at the time as opposed to the 'old Italian fencing' of his youth. Cerchione shared similar views with Barbasetti on the trends in Italian fencing, but as we will soon see, he did not necessarily attribute this to the diminished weight of fencing equipment.

---

The best parry is the blow

This aphorism, although modern, could very well serve as a concise definition of old Italian fencing.

When the study of fencing had the sole aim of knowing how to use the weapon in a duel in the most practical and real way, fencing—by necessity having shed itself of all useless conventionalism—had to appear supremely simple and be carried out with few and elementary principles; but in reality that was really the great art, not only since it was based on what is true and certain, but because in it the necessary attributes for success could not be masked nor substituted by the false baroquism of the modern game. It is evident that with the heavy weapon and the longer and somewhat rigid blade, just like the weapon of the [duelling] ground, certain virtuosities are not permitted and, by necessity, they abolished all that junk, that embellishment and twirling of counters which we moderns think excellent things for entangling the opponent, while they are often nothing more than confirmation of our intrinsic impotence.

The fencers of old, given the structure of their sword and its true use, based their principles particularly on offence, using criteria without doubt exact in theory. For them the parry could only be a passive remedy through which they prepared their preferred blow in tempo on the opponent's attack. This is precisely where the inquartata, the interzata, the covered blows, the voids, the cartoccio etc. came from, and if this eminently Italian way of fencing was, as I said, adapted to suit the conditions that the weapon offered practically, it was also admirably suitable to our temperament's nature, its national character, which is shrewd and ingenious in its expedients. They would reason: 'having considered the blow that my opponent uses against me, it is a pleonasm, not to say absurd, to oppose it with a parry, since this does not exist in theory except through the deficiency of offence; but since this deficiency can always be counted on, more appropriate than the parry is the blow in tempo, through which the double aim of offence and defence is achieved in one tempo.'

The parries and ripostes which many consider to be a rare virtuosity are nothing more than theoretical absurdity; but having allowed, for the aforementioned reasons, the parry, it will always be a passive means of defence, since with a heavy duelling weapon one must be satisfied with deviating the blow also with the help of a retreat and leaving the riposte to the empiricism of theory which does not take into account the weapon with a sharpened point.

Attempting to return to the old would be an illusion, since fencing today does not have the duel as its purpose, but health, and we moderns have appropriately reduced it to a conventional game which in part—in its moral intent especially—nevertheless achieves useful results. But just do not persist in calling it traditional Italian fencing, since it has preserved as little of the tradition as it has the resemblance of the weapon to the old form.

The last and almost dismantled bulwark of our old fencing was, fifteen years ago, Palermo—in which the last captain, the valorous and poor Inguaggiato whom we so often forget, tried to fight even to the last bullet. Well, myself having just graduated from the Radaelli school at that time, and being completely pumped up with my modern theories and looking for trouble, I shouted against that tenacious persistence of the Palermitan fencers in preserving those large swords which bruised a rib with each direct thrust, and with the full presumptuous ignorance of those who are fresh out of a school, I haughtily insisted on demonstrating that with a good lash one could get through to the opponent's target even if the opponent parried. I was then foolish as I was young to have many personal followers; but the overwhelming wave which moved from Northern Italy was too impetuous for even Palermo to not yield—and unfortunately it yielded too much! And complete ruin came later, when the Master's School wanted to repaint its so-called Italian fencing by retouching it with that acumen, that depth of views and that competence which everyone knows. And today we no longer have the Radaelli School or the Italian School, but purely and simply a Frenchified mess.

That this is of serious harm, in any case I think not, and it would be vain to expect to stop the trend in its inexorable path when also it pleases the majority, even if in the artistic line it represents a disaster. On the contrary, let us wait—with a smile, since there is no use in moaning—for other novelties. Soon we will have aluminium weapons and leather guards and perhaps we masters will equip ourselves with a breastplate made of shortcrust pastry sprinkled with sugar in order to entice the children of elementary schools to study fencing.

LUIGI BARBASETTI¹

---

Weapon weight in fencing

Many fencers lament the fact that today fencing is done with overly light weapons, which, according to them, would be contrary to the progress of the art. The question then suddenly arises: is it more advantageous to fence with light or heavy weapons?

With regard to offence, it is evident that the lighter the weapon is, the easier it is to wield and the more obedient it is to the will of the wielder, and since the main aim of a fighter is always that of being able to hit the opponent, there should be no doubt as to the advantage of having a weapon whose lightness enables it to match—I would say—the speed of one's thoughts.

Regarding defence, does anything change? To me it seems not, since if the main aim of the fighter is that of hitting the opponent, it is an absolute necessity to be able to defend from their attacks—and everyone knows that a quick and secure parry is equivalent to near-certainty of hitting with the riposte.

Now, is it not evident that with a light weapon, guided by a quick arm and a sure eye, it is much easier to rush to the parry when threatened either by feints or attacks? A heavy weapon, even one slightly disproportionate to the muscular strength of the wielder, results in such mistakes as to be beaten even when the right actions are adapted to the opponent's game, even when guessing their intentions.

When there is no possibility of giving the arm full speed in the execution of the necessary movements, when blade control is lacking even just partly, you are in a position of inferiority compared to the opponent. Many and various mechanical and dynamic reasons could be given in this regard, but I think it is more effective to take teaching from practice, which the theories derive from.

We see that the Africans, to cite a single example, remnants of hand-to-hand fighters, fight with light weapons. Their spears, their knives, and their shields are such that they can be wielded even by young people at an early age. The long practice of those peoples who live by war and for war has evidently induced them to use light weapons rather than heavy ones.

If we then take an example from our fencers, we see that the best among them, the most famous, almost always tend to use the lightest weapons. It is therefore my conviction that those who claim using light weapons in our fencing halls is contrary to the progress of the art are wrong.

SAVERIO CERCHIONE²

---

1 Luigi Barbasetti, "La miglior parata è la botta," La Gazzetta dello Sport, 20 August 1897, 3.^↩
2 Saverio Cerchione, "Il peso dell'arma nello schermire," La Gazzetta dello Sport, 24 October 1898, 2.^↩

Student notes in two copies of Del Frate's treatise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barbasetti manuscript transcription

Lombardi manuscript transcription

Side-by-side comparison

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

4 Giordano Rossi, Manuale teorico-pratico per la scherma di spada e sciabola con cenni storici sulle armi e sulla scherma e principali norme pel duello (Milan: Fratelli Dumolard Editori, 1885), 198–9; Salvatore Pecoraro & Carlo Pessina, La Scherma di Sciabola: Trattato Teorico-Pratico (Viterbo: Tipografia G. Agnesotti, 1912), 75–6.^↩

Masiello's retrospective on the Master's School

After the military fencing master's school in Rome was indefinitely closed at the end of 1914 as part of Italy's military preparations, its absence was deeply felt on all sides of Italy's fencing community, even by those who had been publicly critical of the school for most of its existence. Ferdinando Masiello would have been considered by many to be at the head of this critical faction, at least during the period in which Masaniello Parise was in charge of the school.

By September 1923 the military fencing master's school had been closed for almost nine years and Italy itself had also undergone a radical change in government. As the call to reopen the school continued to grow louder, particularly from its alumni, an aging Masiello also took the opportunity to offer his own two cents on the matter with an article in the recently-founded fencing magazine La Scherma Italiana entitled 'The teaching of fencing in Italy', which has been translated here for the reader.¹

The first half of the article summarises the early days of the three military fencing master's schools and their unification (both in the physical and moral sense) into a single school, rehashing much of the introduction to his 1887 treatise, but then goes on to emphasise how wide-reaching and beneficial this national unification was for the art and thus why it is so important for the school to be revived now. giving his own suggestions on how this should be done so as to avoid the schisms and disputes that resulted from the formation of the Rome school in the 1880s. It is worth noting that Masiello's opinion of Pecoraro & Pessina's sabre treatise seems to have softened significantly (here calling it 'worthy of consideration') since it was first published in 1910, given that shortly after its publication Masiello wrote a lengthy and perhaps overly-harsh criticism of it, accusing them of plagiarism and incompetence, among other things.

So without further ado, here is the article itself translated in full.

---

Maestro Ferdinando Masiello, on the piste for 56 years.
Photo taken in Florence, May 1923.

Since 1887 I believe to have brought a useful contribution to Italian fencing in the 'historical summary' put forward in my treatise, also with regard to the development of the art in the various periods in which it was explained in the publications of our most celebrated masters.

I will therefore limit myself to recalling the attention of all fencing enthusiasts, and particularly my colleagues from the army, to a matter which I consider absolutely vital for our art and the teaching of it.

THE CONDITIONS OF THE TEACHING OF FENCING IN ITALY IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE LAST CENTURY

Those who have only a basic knowledge of what has been published on the subject of fencing are aware that there has never been true unity of concept in the teaching of fencing, but rather true discord, and this not just between province and province, but also in the same city where two or more masters reside.

The division and discord in the fencing methods in Italy date back, as everyone knows, to the beginning of the last century. The science and good intentions of distinguished masters such as Rosaroll-Scorza and Grisetti, and later Marchionni and Zangheri, were still not enough to impart a true unifying force to the teaching of fencing.

Such discord of methods was naturally more felt in the army, insofar as a change of garrison almost always meant a change of system. It must not be forgotten that until 1868 fencing was taught to the military by civilian masters residing in the city of the regiment's headquarters, sometimes by officers who bore some practical elements in teaching, but outside of any theoretical knowledge, and sometimes the teaching was instead entrusted to the best drummer!!!

From such irregularity and dissimilarity of teaching derived inevitable consequences which all returned to detriment of the art and the army. Everyone knows that not only in exhibitions, but also in duels, the worst was always a military man.

This state of affairs could not last long without someone getting the concrete desire, latent in all lovers of the art, to unify its teaching method.

INTRODUCTION OF METHODICAL TEACHING IN THE ARMY — 1868

Indeed the Minister of War, General Bertolè-Viale, had the happy thought—among the many improvements he introduced—of also establishing the teaching of fencing in the army. But his idea, however happy I said it was, was overly so, since instead of a single school, he decided that three would be opened, located in Parma, Modena, and Milan, with their respective heads being: Captain Gioberti and Mr. Mendietta-Magliocco; Cesare Enrichetti; and Giuseppe Radaelli.

As it is easy to imagine, while the work was in full swing at all three schools, the result from the artistic side—especially in the two at Parma and Modena—was not very satisfactory. Instead in Milan, under the direction of Radaelli, sabre fencing progressed day by day, both due to the undisputed ability of the master and due to the lesser importance that was given to sword fencing. I note here that the required attendance to obtain the master diploma for the two weapons was fixed at a year for the first two schools. The school directed by Radaelli in Milan was almost independent.

The ministerial commission charged with examining which of the first two aforementioned schools had given the best results—in order to award the master diploma to the students and furthermore to get an idea on the preference to be given to the system adopted in the schools—recognised that the one directed by Maestro Enrichetti merited special consideration. Indeed the commission itself granted the diploma to four students of this school and three to the Parma school, reporting to the ministry for the Enrichetti school to be the standard and proposing that the master's course be brought from one to two years.

This happened in 1868–69.

In approving the commission's various proposals, the minister considered it useful to merge the two schools in Parma and Modena into a single one residing in Parma, under the direction of Enrichetti.

From this fusion, masters and students immediately sensed all the benefit which they could have obtained, and in the period 1869–75 there was true emulation on the basis of reciprocal enthusiasm so as to achieve the most remarkable progress: the Milan school prevailed in sabre; the Parma school in sword.

The factual evidence clearly confirmed the quality of the teaching. At the various congresses and tournaments these two schools found themselves together with the most talented civilian fencers from private schools, and as predicted, those from the Milan school (Radaellians) won in sabre, and those from the Parma school (Enrichettians) in sword.

These results could not pass unnoticed by the ministry, also because it highlighted well the superiority of the military school compared to civilian ones.

On the other hand, the coexistence of the two schools, however excellent they both were, had perpetuated a dualism which had to be removed in order to achieve the desired unification. And since for obvious reasons the ministry had to give its preference to the sabre, as the weapon of the army, the Parma school was merged with the Milan school, at the same time decreeing that all military masters attend a course there for about a year. From this provident order was born that true reconciliation of minds that was to bring the most glorious results and a friendly and honest exchange of ideas, both in theoretical research as in practical development. In short, from the rational and intense work done by the students of the two combined schools, the results were such as to be able to say—without fear of being proven wrong—that the art of fencing had never achieved similar progress. As proof of this it will suffice to take a glance at the results achieved in the congresses and tournaments which took place in the decade from 1874 to 1884.

Bologna Congress 1874

Sword: 1. Ferdinando Masiello, military.

Sabre: 1. Giuseppe Ronga, military.

Siena Congress 1875

Sword: 1. Ferdinando Masiello, military.

Sabre. 1. Giuseppe Ronga, military.

Rome Congress 1876

Sword: 1. Salvatore Arista, military.

Sabre. 1. Gaetano Barraco, military.

Turin Congress 1877

Sword: 1. Salvatore Pecoraro, military.

Sabre: 1. Giordano Rossi, military.

Milan International Tournament 1881

Sword: 1. Salvatore Arista, military.

Sabre: 1. Luigi Scarani, military.

Naples Congress 1881

Sword: no competition held.

Sabre: 1. Carlo Pessina, military.

Turin International Tournament 1884

Sword: 1. Carlo Pessina, military.

Sabre: 1. Foresto Paoli, civilian.

But not only from the above results must the progress achieved by fencing be deduced, but also from the phalanx of masters who—for various reasons—could not take part in the congresses. The names are many and known to all, and I will abstain from mentioning them.

I do believe, however, to not do wrong to any young people if I also proclaim here that in them the art of fencing had—and still does in the survivors—its most pure expression.

That the unification of the two systems was a fait accompli we can deduce furthermore deduce by a characteristic circumstance verified at the Rome congress (1876) in which Salvatore Arista (Radaellian) won the sword competition, while Gaetano Barraco (Enrichettian) won the sabre competition. At the following congress (1877) a Radaellian, Salvatore Pecoraro, won the sword competition, at the tournament in 1881 the same Arista (Radaellian) again won the sword competition. At the 1884 international tournament in Turin an Enrichettian, Foresto Paoli, (the only civilian champion) won the sabre tournament.

This is abundant proof that the fusion of the two schools had fully achieved the aim which the minister of war had set: i.e. obtaining true unification in teaching methods.

—————

So, what was missing to make this unique method official? Nothing more than a treatise, since this term cannot apply to the schematic manual compiled in 1870 by the then-Captain Del Frate on the basis of Radaelli's principles, and in any case preceding the future merging of the two schools by over seven years.

But if a written treatise was missing, the masters and students (who then in turn became masters) were lively and ready to fully contribute to their theoretical-practical science for the formation of said treatise.

However, the champions of the Southern School, ever attached to their now outdated traditions, being unable to ignore the facts after being repeatedly and clearly beaten by the school of the army, tried by any means to demolish an edifice constructed with so many sacrifices and such consciousness, attacking that poor little treatise which had no fault in what we had all achieved with intense work and tireless study.

And it is useless to recall here what everybody knows: the licit and illicit means deployed by fencers and influential people, by members of parliament and senators to put the unified system in a bad light, and to compare it with another. And so much was done and schemed as to bring about the notorious competition and the even more notorious results, forming a commission with the vast majority of which being against the system in power in the army.

None of the masters and students of the unified Enrichetti-Radaelli school could ever forget,  nor ever forgive an artistic assassination which morally wounded the champions of the army in the most atrocious way, among whom it was elementary justice to choose those who should have received the inheritance of the two deceased grand masters, Enrichetti and Radaelli.

The adoption of the official method was not only an affront to the military masters, but the greatest calamity that could happen to the art, inflicting a decline of about half a century. And what should be pointed out most is that while the author of the approved treatise had never wielded the sabre, the commission gave more merit points to that part than it did for the sword treatise!!!

This shows that they were not looking for a competent person who knew how to impart true development to the art and to fencing in the army, but they wanted a (southern) school, the director of which already in pectore² even before the competition was announced.

If I also mention such facts here, it is because the teaching of the official treatise's hybrid principles has continued for over a quarter of a century, with who knows how much damage to the art.

Proof of this lies in the fact that when the director of the Master's School was alive, the teaching of fencing was never done with scrupulous orthodoxy; and with him dead, the vice-directors, the illustrious colleagues Commendatore³ Pecoraro and Pessina (originating, like the author, from the two glorious unified schools) felt the need to return to our first principles, publishing a sabre treatise which, especially in the second edition, I will not hesitate to declare in many respects to be coherent and worthy of consideration.

And for the sword?

Do we again have to turn to the treatise which proclaimed force as the enemy of fencing?

Everyone sees, therefore, the necessity of returning to the old; not in the sense of restoring errors already condemned, but reconnecting the theoretical-practical results of the two united schools with what has been done rationally in the progress of time.

How can this aim be achieved?

Here is what I think must be done:

1. Re-establishment of a single Fencing Master's School;
2. Adoption of a single textbook for the two weapons;
3. Choose a director.

Many will marvel that I, a fierce opponent of the late Master's School, begin with proposing its re-establishment. This shows once again that I never fought the institution, but solely the doctrine which was imparted there. As a lover of the art I indeed feel the necessity for this re-establishment to happen as soon as possible.

—————

We Italians are often reproached for mimicking foreigners, and unfortunately the examples of this bad habit abound.

But if we imitate them in frivolous and harmful things, why should we not imitate them in what is good?

One of the main causes of disagreements (speaking always of our art) was precisely, as I said, the plurality and variety of teaching methods.

Instead in other nations, and especially in France, such artistic disputes do not occur, because the ministry of war, among its numerous regulations for the army, always had a single text for sabre and sword fencing which is the gospel of the Master's School. This text did not bear the signature of any master, and by being so impersonal it is scrupulously followed like all the other regulations.

It is therefore necessary that we too think of unifying what exists in our art that is rational and practical for the two weapons into a single text.

And in order to arrive at the compilation of this unique text it is necessary to assemble a commission composed of masters known for their publications on the subject (treatises or other important publications), including among them three professors: a mathematician, a physiologist, and a scholar, with goal of using the authority of science to put an end to the controversies between the various authors and give the best form to the book, with regard to both conciseness and clarity.

The choice of director should by right fall to fencing masters on active service employed by the ministry of war, and naturally with the exclusion of those in retirement and civilians.

All the masters (I repeat) on active service summoned to an assembly will proceed to appoint the director in the manners considered best so that the election falls on the master most suitable due to his intellectual and artistic qualities without regard for seniority.

Before closing this brief summary, I feel I have to direct an urgent call to the central committee of the meritorious Italian Fencing Federation so that they fully realise the necessity of bringing about, when appropriate, the actuation of what I have proposed and what the enlightened experience of others may suggest is best and most profitable. Since 1887 I hoped that with the end of disputes—existing mostly in the theoretical field—the true Italian school would achieve its well-deserved triumph.

In this terrible historic moment, through a tumult of passions the generations are setting off towards their destinations in which we can, we must give an example of harmony, sacrificing every susceptibility and every ambition to the love of the art. The new Master's School that will rise over the ruins of the old must be the forge in which minds are educated and dispositions tempered, so that—it is good not to forget it—the practice of fencing, understood with national criteria, not only has indisputable health benefits, but must have a great moral effect on customs and intellectual faculties.

Although I have by now descended 'into the vale of years' I cannot yet break the old promises which I have always scrupulously kept up to now; and I will remain at the breach as long as I live, for our art which has always been and must be a credit to our country.

Free from any concern of self-interest, and faithful to my motto Non mihi, sed arti—nothing for me and everything for the art—I place at your disposal the knowledge acquired with long study and incessant practice, hoping with all my heart for this revived and glorious Italy of ours to have a Fencing Master's School which is truly a meaningful expression of its glorious army.

FERDINANDO MASIELLO

---

1 Ferdinando Masiello, "L'insegnamento della Scherma in Italia," La Scherma Italiana: Giornale degli schermidori 1, no. 2 (2 September 1923): 2. See also the previous issue from 18 August for appeals from Fausto Salvatori and Vincenzo Drosi to reopen the school.^↩
2 TN: Lit. 'in the breast', a Latin phrase originating from the Catholic church when the pope appoints a cardinal in secret, without publicly revealing their name.^↩
3 TN: A chivalric title, lit. 'commander'.^↩

Fencing at the 1875 Siena Gymnastics Congress

In 1870s Italy, competitive fencing was very much still in its infancy. The dominant fencing events of the time were exhibitions: non-competitive public displays designed to entertain and to show off the skills of the fencers and the master's ability to train well-rounded students. These exhibitions were generally organised as a local club's yearly celebration or by a visiting fencing master seeking to build their reputation. Starting in 1873, however, the Italian Gymnastics Federation began holding a fencing competition as one of the events at their annual congress.

Following the success of this new addition at the 1873 and 1874 congresses, in preparation for the 1875 Siena congress the organising committee sent a request to the Italian government to send a group of fencers to represent the Milan military fencing master's school, which had formally become the sole military institution of its kind in December of 1874. The ministry of war accepted this request and sent six young sotto-maestri or 'assistant masters': Luigi Scarani, Giordano Rossi, Giordano Moccagatta, Benedetto Toziani, Salvatore Pecoraro, and Giuseppe Alciatti.

By the beginning of the congress a total of 42 fencers had enrolled in the event, all of them from northern and central Italy and the majority being military fencing masters. Compared to the grand tournaments that would later be seen in the 1890s and beyond, the Siena congress was relatively modest, and with no fencers from the southern provinces it was certainly not a 'national' competition in the truest sense. Nevertheless, like the other congresses of the 1870s, the results of this competition contributed to the growing reputation of the military fencing masters and the schools that created them.

As alluded to above, at the end of 1874 the Parma military fencing master's school, directed by Cesare Enrichetti, was absorbed by the Milan school, thus marking the total unification of the military's fencing instruction under Giuseppe Radaelli. In May 1875 the first conversion course took place at the Milan school for military fencing masters that had not yet been taught Radaelli's method, which was the beginning of a period of great collaboration between the Radaellians and the champions of the Enrichetti school, resulting in further refinement for both sabre and sword (foil) fencing. In August 1875, however, this fusion of the two schools was still very much in its early stages, with the first conversion course at the Milan school still underway.

The fencing competition in Siena took place on 16 August 1875, with the jury's speaker Giovanni Boffi noting in his report that despite observing several disappointing double touches, the quality of the fencing on the whole had improved substantially since the previous congress, where he had noted that 'the fencers did not fully observe the laws which the art of fencing teaches, both due to the lack of composure during the bouts, the positions of the fencers, and the implementation of the actions.' Boffi also expressed his views on how to avoid these lamented double touches in future competitions:

Any amateur of fencing knows very well that in fencing the first things that should be observed are the elegance of one's position, the invitation to the actions, parries, and ripostes, anticipating the opponent's intentions, and by adhering to these rules, in my opinion, I believe that discussions during the bout and double touches would vanish—these double touches being most deplorable during a bout. And with these words of mine I do not pretend to maintain that during a bout there can be no double touches, and that is why I have allowed perfect and imperfect tempi, i.e. the intentions of the two fencers lunging at the same time. We know very well that the tempo cannot be taken on simple actions, but rather on compound actions and on the opponent’s faulty attack; and he who makes the action in tempo should not be touched, and if he is touched, the fault should fall on the one who did the action in tempo.

Ferdinando Masiello came in first place for the sword competition, and Giuseppe Ronga (a Radaellian) for sabre, with both having achieved these same results at the Bologna congress the year prior. Although Masiello would eventually become the most vocal proponent of Radaelli's method, at this stage he was still the star pupil of Enrichetti, having not yet attended the Milan school, but still came in 4th place overall in the sabre competition. The Enrichettians as a whole were given great praise, with their solid collective performance backed up by elegant and composed form throughout. Of the 6 students from the Milan master's school: in the sword competition Rossi came in 5th and received a silver medal and Pecoraro earned an honourable mention; in sabre, only Alciatti received a bronze medal, being in 10th place overall. Also of historical note was the winner of the amateur sword pool—a 15-year-old Eugenio Pini, who would eventually become famous both in Italy and throughout the western fencing world.

Three days later came the grand fencing exhibition, scheduled as one of the final events of the Siena gymnastics congress. The congress report does not give its own account of the exhibition, but instead reproduces the following article published in Gazzetta d'Italia on 22 August, which is once again full of praise for the Enrichettians but with some critical remarks for the Radaellians:

This morning at 11:30 in the Lizza Theatre the fencing exhibition took place. The audience is estimated to have risen to as many as 2000 people, among whom many ladies. There were 28 bouts from 46 fencers, of whom 38 masters, and what masters they were! In the intermissions the town band let us enjoy good musical pieces.

Colonel Corrado Colli opened the exhibition with the fencing master of our military recruiting headquarters,¹ Arlunno Carlo. In this demonstration we saw how, even at a rather advanced age, exercise can maintain that virile strength which usually disappears as the years pass; in fact Colli made a great impression, even with a fencer as correct as Arlunno. The latter dealt marked and distinct coupés, and the colonel, among other blows, showed us a magnificent blow in controtempo. Those present greatly applauded the two opponents.

The second sword bout which interested us most was from the other cavalry colonel Giuseppe Colli, together with the distinguished master Bellincioni. Mr. Colli showed himself to be an expert connoisseur of fencing. He has a tall, slender figure, truly a handsome soldier. His guard is very elegant, an uncommon subsidence of struggles. His competitor Mr. Bellincioni is a precise and skilled player, very quick in his actions. His short stature confines him to a somewhat low game, but his blows never miss.

The sabre clash between the masters Giuseppe Ronga and Massimiliano Roggia was also very satisfactory. However, it must be noted how in general the students of the Radaelli school are not devoid of certain flaws. Their guard lacks composure because they keep their left foot out of line and they raise it when they lunge, this with a serious continuous loss of balance; moreover, since their bouts look like raids, it sometimes happens that when marching down the piste their out-of-line feet meet and the fencer falls, as happened here in Siena and six times last year in Bologna.

To us the Radaelli method seems to be based on a rising rotation from the left side; a continuous rotation which imposes a posture of preparation to these rotary movements, which, by bringing the weapon arm to the left side, leaves the fencer's body almost completely exposed, since the sabre is then positioned out of line. Nor can we understand how this method is suited to a cavalry soldier, when the lance and the horse's head prevent this precise rotation which seems to be the basis of the system. This is without taking into account that with the descending cuts being thrown a bit too violently, they do not help to keep the cavalryman in his saddle, nor do they give the impression of fencers who are masters of a weapon that they must know how to dominate.

With this sincere critique we do not intend to condemn the ability and goodwill of the students, who, with their seemingly lovely dispositions and slender figures, could outdo themselves if the teaching they imparted were free of these defects. Everyone knows that it is not possible to be an eminent sabre master without knowing well enough about the sword, and it is equally well-known by everyone that before today it was customary to take at least a year of sword lessons before moving on to handling the heavier weapon. That the students of the Radaelli school had very little knowledge of the foil was seen in the competitions where, in the course of a bout, we did not see one clean blow, nor a varied action or an attempt in tempo.

The master from Ancona, Mr. Italiano Enrici, who had not received the full sympathy of the spectators during the competition due to his slightly strange and advantageous guard, showed us in the exhibition that he also knows how to hold an elegant guard, and conduct a bout in the manner of a true and talented master.

The honour of closing the first part of the exhibition was given to our master Mr. Cesare Picconi along with Bellincioni. We had never had the fortune of seeing our talented fellow citizen fence, but his bout showed him worthy of his great fame, which confirms yet again the excellence of the methods he learnt from his poor father. He directed the exhibition himself, and honourably exhibited his students Rinieri de' Rocchi and Sergardi.

The masters Arlunno and Masiello, students of Prof. Enrichetti, inaugurated the second part. I spoke about both of them in my past correspondence, and if I wanted to fully describe the beautiful things of their bout, I could not, because it is impossible to repeat the delicacy, the taste, and the perfection of their play. At the moment they appeared in the limelight there was frenetic applause, which was repeated a good three times. The blows which I managed to observe distinctly were two coupés masterfully given by Masiello; then Arlunno dealt a thrust of inquartata in second intention, and after him Masiello gave an arrest and the sword curved on the opponent's chest. The bout closed with a sbasso² of the rarest precision. Needless to say, thunderous applause broke out and the fencers were called to the stage multiple times with their master, who wished to kiss them as a reward for the height at which these two excellent students held the Enrichetti school even within the walls of Siena.

The latter master met with Colonel Corrado Colli, and they carried out an exemplary fight. Enrichetti sculpted magnificent coupés and a surprising sbasso. The match between these fine contenders was confirmation of the professor's skill, and convinced us how such a master could create students like Masiello, Arlunno, Vergiati, and others. There is no doubt: Enrichetti's method will always give the most remarkable impression in any fencing gathering. It is a school which for the good of the army we would like to see imitated by many, and which would be eminently useful if it were studied and applied in fencing halls.

Also distinguishing themselves were the masters Paolo Cornaglia, Paolo Bianchi, Lorenzo Del Vivo, Ettore Marchi, and all those who eventually took part in the marvellous exhibition.

Closing the day were Masiello and Count Giuseppe Colli with a bout brilliant for its variations of attack, parrying changes, and many blows of tempo, controtempo, and proposal. With the exhibition finished—which, in the words of the masters themselves, was unlike any other so far—prolonged and unanimous applause saluted all the fencers and brought an end to such an impressive day.

1 TN: Recruiting centres in Italy were in charge of both the recruitment and training of soldiers.^↩
2 TN: Otherwise known as passata sotto.^↩

The remarks regarding the Radaellians' less aesthetic form is a criticism that would continue to follow them for many years after this competition, often being a point of contention in how it should affect their classification scores at the tournaments which took aesthetics into account, such as in the 1881 Milan tournament. The observation on their twisted body position is particularly interesting, seemingly indicating that the Radaellians at this time put an emphasis on rising cuts from the left. The described out-of-line position with the feet may be similar that seen in several of the fencers in the following footage of the 1928 Amsterdam Olympics, with the rear foot further to the outside than the traditional position:

Despite the various critical remarks, both the competition and the exhibition were evidently popular with the public, and the overall impressions of the above Gazzetta d'Italia article and Giovanni Boffi showed positivity in this event marking significant progress in Italian fencing and demonstrating the art's recent resurgence in popularity. Given the number of military masters present at the tournament, it is therefore understandable why many commentators would later attribute this great resurgence to the institution of the military fencing master's schools.

Bibliography

"Congresso ginnastico." Il Secolo, 4 August 1875, 2.

Federazione Ginnastica Italiana. Sesto congresso-concorso ginnastico italiano tenuto in Siena dal 15 al 20 Agosto 1875. Relazione fatta a cura del comitato esecutivo. Siena: Stab. tip. di A. Mucci, 1876.

Ricotti-Magnani, Cesare Francesco. "N. 251. — SCUOLE MILITARI (Nota N. 5). — Scuola magistrale di scherma. — 6 dicembre." Giornale Militare 1874: parte prima, no. 44 (11 December 1874): 492.

⸺. "N. 57. — Istruttori e sott'istruttori di scherma chiamati alla scuola magistrale di scherma in Milano. — 4 aprile", Giornale Militare 1875: parte seconda, no. 12 (15 April 1875): 105–6.

Masiello, Ferdinando. La scherma italiana di spada e di sciabola. Florence: G. Civelli, 1887.

Valletti, Felice. Relazione sull'operato del VI congresso ginnastico tenutosi in Siena - Agosto 1875. Turin: Tipografia Subalpina di Marino e Gantin, 1875.

Die moderne Fechtkunst by Gustav Ristow

Although Luigi Barbasetti's seminal 1899 treatise Das Säbelfechten is sometimes cited as the first German-language treatise to be published on the Radaellian sabre method, such an honour should in fact be given to Gustav Ristow and his 1896 treatise Die moderne Fechtkunst ('The modern art of fencing'), the scans of which I present here to the reader.

Scans: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kWq_-s1nslkwZXrvYrsbp7sf_Fbp685Q/view?usp=sharing

Those who have read Ferdinando Masiello's 1887 treatise may find some of the illustrations from this book particularly familiar, as it is clear that Ristow largely plagiarised Masiello's work without so much as a single mention of him. This is also reflected in the text itself, which largely follows the same structure and is often just a straight translation of Masiello's text.

Top: Ristow
Bottom: Masiello (1887)

Aside from a shorter and more Germanocentric introduction, some obvious changes can be observed in the fact that Ristow does not advocate Masiello's shoulder-based disengagements and point manipulation, instead preferring the more traditional wrist and finger movement, and he depicts a fully upright posture in the lunge as opposed to Masiello's diagonal lean.

Counteraction in 2nd. Note the upright posture in Ristow (top) compared the straight line from left heel to right shoulder show in Masiello (bottom)

Readers will also note that for some reason all the illustrations are placed at the end of the book in a seemingly random order, with even each step in the molinelli being randomly arranged. This could be an indication that my own copy has been rebound in a questionable order at some point in its long life.

While I have yet to find much detail on the life of Gustav Ristow, more is known about his master, Italian military fencing master Pietro Arnoldo. Having been born into poverty in Forno di Zoldo (northern Veneto), Arnoldo left his hometown at the age of 15 and joined the military, eventually fighting in the Battle of Custoza in 1866. Three years later he attended the military fencing master's school in Parma, learning under the renowned Cesare Enrichetti. After graduating in 1871, he taught in the 31st infantry regiment until 1875, when he left the army and moved to Austria. Arnoldo settled in the city of Graz, teaching at the Steiermärkischen Fechtclub until becoming gravely ill in 1897. When his illness eventually became unbearable, Arnoldo tragically took his own life on 21 July 1898, only 56 years old.

Left: Pietro Arnoldo
Right: Gustav Ristow

Although it is unclear if Ristow's exposure to the Radaellian method was through his beloved master, it is likely Arnoldo was aware of the developments in sabre fencing taking place in Italy both before and after moving to Austria, and since he had attended Enrichetti's school at the same time as Masiello, he would likely have been aware of Masiello's highly influential 1887 treatise.

Aside from authoring Die moderne Fechtkunst, Ristow was also the translator for Barbasetti's duelling code, published in 1898 under the title Ehren-Kodex. Gustav Ristow died of dysentery in Albania on 11 July 1916 whilst serving as a colonel in the Austro-Hungarian army.

References

Barbasetti, Luigi. Ehren-Kodex. Translated by Gustav Ristow. Vienna: Allgemeine Sport-Zeitung, 1898.

⸺. Das Säbelfechten. Translated by Rudolf Brosch and Heinrich Tenner. Vienna: Allgemeine Sport-Zeitung, 1899.

G. R. [Gustav Ristow], "Pietro Arnoldo." Allgemeine Sport-Zeitung, 6 August 1898, 928.

Gelli, Jacopo. "Pietro Arnoldo." La Gazzetta dello Sport, 25 January 1897, 3.

⸺. "In memoria di un Maestro di scherma italiano: Pietro Arnoldo." La Stampa Sportiva, 4 May 1902, 11.

⸺. "A traverso la scherma. Le sfide e i maestri." L'Illustrazione Italiana, 7 December 1902, 452.

Gemeinsames Zentralnachweisebureau. Nachrichten über Verwundete und Verletzte. 5 October 1916, 5.

Masiello, Ferdinando. La scherma italiana di spada e di sciabola. Florence: G. Civelli, 1887.

Ristow, Gustav. Die moderne Fechtkunst: Methodische Anleitung zum Unterrichte im Fleuret- und Säbelfechten, nebst einem Anhange, enthaltend die wichtigsten Duellregeln. Prague: J. G. Calve, 1896.