Radaellian resistance at the Pinerolo cavalry school

In early 1891, the Italian cavalry was a hot topic among the nation's fencing commentators. The finishing touches had just been made to the new cavalry regulations which included Masaniello Parise's thrice-modified sabre method—referred to by some as the Parise-Pecoraro method. Although this new sabre instruction retained some features of the old Radaellian method, these reforms were mostly seen as a defeat by pro-Radaelli commentators and an example of Parise's tightening grip on fencing instruction in the Italian military.

Meanwhile a seemingly unrelated debate had been going on with regard to a proposal to move the army's cavalry school from the Piedmont town of Pinerolo to Albano, just outside Rome. While this debate would continue for a few more years and end with the school remaining in Pinerolo, at least one commentator thought that this existential threat to the school had rather insidious origins: in the director of the military fencing master's school Masaniello Parise. Below is a translation of this anonymous commentator's article, taken from the 22 January 1891 issue of Lo Sport Illustrato.

-----------------

After six years have passed without any more talk of it, this matter is back in the picture, which will certainly be under consideration, but on which we believe we are able to assert that no decision has been made, as one of the most important considerations is also that—which it is not clear how to provide for—of compensating Pinerolo in some way for the serious loss which it is going to suffer economically with the departure of the Cavalry School.

The reasons, aside from being less eccentric and closer to the capital, by transporting it to Albano there would be the better pastures and the better climate, since in winter everything in Pinerolo is under snow, while in Albano—save for the truly exceptional case of this icy cold year—there is never snow. But as for pastures, rather than better, they would perhaps be more abundant, but of poorer quality. And if it is true that the climate around Rome is milder in the winter, vice versa in summer—it is perhaps too hot.

It is true, however, that in Albano there would be very nice establishments, already offered by that municipality, and beautiful surroundings, offered by the nature of the place, among which the Campo di Annibale, excellent for drills.

There are the obvious reasons, but we believe there are also some hidden reasons to draw the Pinerolo School into the vicinity of the capital, and that is that, if we are not mistaken, to us Pinerolo seems to have always been the home of opponents of the Parise cavalry sabre method. Parise prevails at the Ministry, and with the school no longer being in Pinerolo but under the immediate gaze of he who can say with Dante:

Thus is it willed there where

what is willed can be done…

it would end with there being no more opposition.

But will it be so easy to succeed in this?

Besides, these are our ideas, and it is also possible that they are not exact. But they seem to us so likely and acceptable as to even add that, in order to settle things and not kick the hornet's nest, the school will perhaps end up being moved not to Albano, nor to Palestrina, nor to Pisa, but…to Florence, and specifically to the barracks and riding school in front of the Fortezza da Basso.

Only time will tell!

Gustav Casmir's foil and sabre fencing

An advantage of studying the Radaellian lineage that I often emphasise is the number of treatises published by the graduates of Radaelli's fencing master's school and their students. In contrast, the comparatively few treatises penned by those who graduated from Parise's school (speaking here only of those who had not previously attended the Radaelli's Milan school) has resulted in some confusion and mystery surrounding the fencing those graduates would go on to teach during their careers. Choosing to deal with this broader topic at a later date, today I will instead share a 'mini-treatise' written not by one such graduate, but by his star pupil Gustav Casmir. The work in question is a well-illustrated 55-page article of his, simply entitled 'Fechten', which formed one chapter of the German sporting encyclopedia Das grosse illustrierte Sportbuch, likely published in 1908 or the latter half of 1907.¹

Scans  |  Transcription

Due to Casmir's association with a graduate of the Rome master's school, in this case Ettore Schiavoni, his short treatise is a critical data point in understanding what fencing methods the Italian military masters were propagating once they left the army and thus how closely they adhered to the officially-sanctioned method they had been taught.

The Work

As insinuated earlier, although I have called this work an article, its structure is much more similar to an average treatise of the time, despite its short length. Casmir begins with a historical summary of German fencing and a discussion of the health benefits of fencing, particularly for German youths. He then starts the technical material with foil, which appears to be largely based on Masaniello Parise's method.²

Some notable deviations from Parise's method, however, are first evident in the body carriage. Parise's slight rear-weightedness is not present here (perhaps even being slightly forward-weighted), and Casmir advocates full torso lean when lunging instead of Parise's fully upright body.

Casmir describes the same four traditional parries as Parise, but calls the half-circle parry Quint (5th), which was another common name for it among northern Italians,³ and although he prescribes parry of 3rd to be performed with the nails down like Parise, for the thrust by glide in 3rd he advises to supinate the hand during the arm extension. Further northern Italian influence is also apparent in his inclusion of the coupé and the counteraction, actions typically excluded in Neapolitan fencing. He finishes this section with 10 conventional exercises, which he recommends even advanced fencers to do every lesson.

Although the influence of Parise's method is clearly apparent in the foil section, Casmir's sabre section is instead predominantly Radaellian. He starts by describing the typical Radaellian grip (albeit with the photo showing the hand slightly further down than usual) and then immediately moves on to the six exercise molinelli, which are to be done standing upright and with the blade moved 'not from the wrist, but mainly from the elbow'. When speaking about the cuts a few pages later, he states that in order to ‘master the weapon completely’, the wrist must not be used at all, as the muscles used in wrist actions are weaker than those which move the forearm.

The two guards he describes as the most common are 2nd and 3rd, with the former being the usual Radaellian 2nd and the latter being a lower and more retracted 3rd, closer to Parise's. As a result of this retracted 3rd (and also retracted 4th), Casmir does not include separate low 3rd and low 4th parries/invitations, but still includes the other usual parries of 1st, 5th, 6th, and 7th.

An interesting deviation from the other Radaellian authors can be seen in Casmir's section on cuts, where for the cut by molinello to the head he advises to add a slicing motion to the cut, either by drawing the arm slightly after making impact or doing the cut with a slightly bent arm and then extending it. Similarly, the cut to the abdomen is done with a drawing motion across the body before returning to guard.

Like for foil, Casmir also gives 10 example conventional exercises for sabre, which should be done with students divided into groups according to their skill level. After describing all the other actions such as glides, beats, counterattacks etc., the work is concluded with advice on bouting and rules for assigning blame in double touches.

Gustav Casmir

Born in Mikołajki, Poland, on 5 November 1872, Gustav Casmir began his adult life as a primary school teacher, first teaching in north-eastern Poland before later moving to Berlin. It was here in 1898, at the Berliner Fechtclub, that Casmir had his first exposure to fencing, learning under the recently immigrated Italian master Ettore Schiavoni. His late start to fencing appeared to matter little for his skill development, with his first competitive success taking place at a large international épée tournament in Ostend in 1904, finishing in 2nd place. Later that year he would be the only European to compete in the fencing event at the Olympic Games in St. Louis. Although he did not win any medals there, two years later he would take home two gold and two silver medals at the 1906 Athens Olympics.⁴

After his triumphant return to Germany Casmir became a fencing master, first acting as Schiavoni's assistant at the Berliner Fecht-Club then moving to Dresden the following year to teach at the Dresdner Fechtclub. Despite all this promise, however, Casmir tragically died of a 'serious brain disease' in late 1910 at the age of 38.

Ettore Schiavoni

With so many notable figures throughout the history of Italian fencing, it can often be tempting to make light of their physical appearances. Whether it be their immaculately moustache or their distinctive dress, for us these features can help to not just differentiate the many faces, but also humanise them. To his contemporaries, Ettore Schiavoni's most striking feature was without doubt his height. Standing at 190 cm tall, as he began gaining the attention of the Italian sporting press he would earn himself the affectionate nickname Sua Lunghezza (literally 'His Length' or 'His Longness'), a play on the typical royal honorific Sua Altezza ('His Highness').⁵ With the average male height in Italy at the time being less than 165 cm, it is easy to see how Schiavoni would have stood out from the crowd even before he started fencing.

But it was not just his physical appearance that made him worthy of note; at a tournament in city of Bergamo in 1897, Schiavoni's display of skill and courtesy made a great impression on journalist Roderico Rizzotti, who in his report on the tournament gave the following light-hearted and rather endearing praise for Schiavoni:

Exceptionally tall in person, a young man with handsome eyes and black moustache, affable and always courteous, Schiavoni immediately wins the sympathies of the spectators when he steps onto the piste. But what really endears him, aside from his indisputable merits as a fencer, are some of his brilliant and inimitable exclamations of apology which he bursts into when he thinks the thrust did not hit the target well. In these exclamations, in his 'low, sorry, or rather, passé, outside' or in his 'no no no no, not at all', said with dizzying speed and following all the tones of the musical scale, one senses such an instinct of generosity and chivalry and such an air of childishness to make one want to climb onto a chair to...shake his hand.

The amateur Francesco Galli, who is not only talented, but also a very witty young man, said that Schiavoni seemed to him like an elongated child. And indeed he is, in the flattering sense of the phrase.

Schiavoni is one of the few masters who does not make the jurors sweat blood when a pool is in progress; he is one of the few who can submit himself serenely and philosophically to the jury's verdicts, whatever they may be.

Although it may not seem like it, this is great praise we give to Schiavoni, and with it the hope that other masters will have to imitate his example.⁶

Born in the southern Italian city of Taranto, Schiavoni's towering height and build made him an obvious top choice for the grenadiers. Having achieved the rank of sergeant, he was accepted into the Military Fencing Master's School in September 1888, where he was a student of the great master-of-masters Carlo Pessina. After graduating in 1890, he served as the fencing master of the 1st grenadiers regiment for several years before being called back to the Master's School, this time as an instructor.⁷

Schiavoni with his young students, 1910

It would not be long, however, before he followed in the footsteps of many of his colleagues to find fame and fortune abroad. In late 1897 he left for Vienna, then a popular crossroads for Italian fencing masters thanks largely to the pioneering work of Luigi Barbasetti, before eventually making his way further north and settling in Berlin, finding employment at the Berliner Fechtclub from September 1898. Here Schiavoni would spend the rest of his career, taking under his wing many of the top German fencers of the time, including a young Erwin Casmir, future Olympic medallist and nephew of Gustav Casmir. Schiavoni died of a heart attack in Berlin on 30 July 1930, aged 62.⁸

---

1 Das grosse illustrierte Sportbuch (Leipzig: J. J. Arnd, [1908?]). The proposed publication date is based on the fact that throughout several of the articles containing various sporting statistics and results, the last year to be included is 1907.^↩
2 Masaniello Parise, Trattato teorico-pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola (Rome: Tipografia Nazionale, 1884).^↩
3 cf. Settimo Del Frate, Istruzione per la scherma di punta (Milan: Gaetano Baroffio, 1872); Giordano Rossi, Manuale Teorico-Pratico per la Scherma di Spada e Sciabola (Milan: Fratelli Dumolard, 1885); Luigi Barbasetti, Das Stossfechten (Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1900).^↩
4 Manlio, 'Il Torneo d'Ostenda', Gazzetta dello Sport, 12 August 1904; 'Casimir', Nemzeti Sport, 12 November 1910, 13; 'Allerlei', Sport im Bild, 18 November 1910, 1289-90.^↩
5 Some early examples of this nickname being used: La Gazzetta dello Sport, 9 December 1898, 2; Gaetano, 'Da Napoli: Accademia Nazionale', La Gazzetta dello Sport, 18 April 1900, 2. Regarding his height, see 'Sport: Santelli vivóakadémiája', Magyar Ujság, 25 December 1897, 8.^↩
6 Roderico Rizzotti, 'Ancora del Torneo di Bergamo', La Gazzetta dello Sport, 6 September 1897.^↩
7 Giovanni Corvetto, "Circolare N. 124. - Corso normale d'istruzione presso la scuola magistrale militare di scherma. - (Segretariato generale). - 16 agosto," Giornale Militare 1888: parte seconda, no. 38 (18 August 1888): 461; 'Tre Campioni della Scherma italiana', La Stampa Sportiva, 2 November 1902, 11; 'La scherma a Berlino', Il Littoriale, 13 October 1928, 3; 'La morte di un celebre schermitore della nostra Provincia', Voce del Popolo, 9 August 1930, 5.^↩
8 'Nécrologie', L'Escrime et le Tir, August 1930, 21.^↩

Comparing editions: Masiello 1887 vs. 1902

Having released scans of the 1902 edition of Masiello's foil treatise a few years ago and the 1902 sabre edition earlier this month, I thought it would be appropriate to provide a detailed comparison of these with the first edition, published in 1887. As opposed to being simple reprints, the 1902 editions contain significant changes to the earlier material, partly due to Masiello providing more detailed explanations for some concepts, but also due to the different context within the Italian fencing scene by this time.

A comprehensive side-by-side comparison of the different editions can be read here, in which each change is listed and highlighted according to whether it is a deletion, modification or addition. For those less interested in the specifics of each individual change, what follows below is a summary of the most significant changes in both the foil and sabre treatises. It must also be noted that while the 1902 edition is the second edition of Masiello's foil treatise, his sabre treatise saw its second edition published in 1893, thus making the 1902 sabre book the third edition. One must therefore keep in mind that many of the changes seen in the 1902 edition may have already been present in this 1893 edition. How exactly the second edition differs from the third is a topic that will have to wait until I acquire a copy of it myself.

*** Update 2024/09/26

A comparison of the 1887, 1893, and 1902 editions is now available here.***

Generalities

The first difference one encounters is in the physical form of the books. While Masiello's 1887 treatise is a single 593-page volume, in 1902 the foil and sabre material were published separately, the former coming in at 232 pages and the latter 278 pages. The reduction in the total number of pages between these two 1902 volumes is largely due to the removal of the 141-page historical summary at the beginning of the 1887 edition.

Gone too is Masiello's 6-page preface, where he summarises the competitive achievements of the military's fencing masters, declares himself to be an opponent of Parise's method, and describes the purpose for his treatise and the artistic influences that contributed to the conclusions it makes. In the 1902 volumes this is replaced by a short preface from the editors, who state that they chose to publish Masiello's work for the benefit of the Italian youth due to the 'unanimously favourable opinions' expressed for the previous editions (citing the adoption of his method in the British army), and explain that with Masiello's consent they chose to 'remove everything which could have hampered elementary teaching'. The illustrations were also updated, both in art style and in that they are now all in line with the text, no longer take up entire pages.

Thus it is apparent that the 1902 editions were intended to be more relevant and accessible to the new generation of Italian fencers, those who were unburdened by the ideological debates of the 1870s and 1880s and who may have been less familiar with French and Italian fencing material of previous centuries. This improved accessibility in part derived from the foil and sabre material being published separately, which would likely have reduced the purchase price for those who were more interested in only one or the other.

A significant part of how the 1902 editions were made more relevant to younger readers is the removal of all the criticism directed towards Parise's 1884 treatise. The first edition of Masiello's 1887 book was clearly written as a response to Parise's work, with the first half containing a chapter almost entirely dedicated to refuting Parise's discussion of fencing mechanics as well as over 20 footnotes citing Parise. By 1902 the Neapolitan-Radaellian debate was well and truly tired, and while the rebuttals may be interesting for today's fencing historian, they were clearly a product of Radaellian sentiments in the 1880s. In the 1902 editions the critical footnotes were removed and the refutations of Parise's mechanics were revised to remove all references to Parise's work, with each topic being distributed throughout the rest of the book as opposed to being in one dedicated chapter.

In fact all references to other fencing treatises were removed in the 1902 editions, such as Masiello's many citations of Rosaroll-Scorza and Grisetti's 1803 treatise. Unlike the first edition, Masiello's work is now intended to be appreciated entirely on its own merits, not as an improvement over the military's regulation method or as a part of a specific tradition. The only citations that are retained are those referencing works on physiology and biomechanics, a topic which Masiello devotes much more time to in the 1902 editions, adding many quotations from Fernand Lagrange's 1888 book Physiologie des exercices du corps.

The other expanded explanations we see in both the foil and sabre volumes were partly prompted by the questions and criticism he received following the publication of the first edition, most notably the remarks made by the jury of 1891 Bologna fencing tournament, who as part of a competition for fencing and duelling publications awarded his 1887 treatise and 1891 cavalry sabre manual with a gold medal, with their thoughts on these works being published in a report. Masiello's response to these remarks was published as a booklet and also printed in several magazines in subsequent years.

Foil

Stepping back from the book's content, the title of the 1902 volume dedicated to the thrusting sword is perfectly emblematic of how Italian fencing had changed in the 15 years since the treatise's original publication. When the first edition was published in 1887, Italians were by-and-large of the opinion that Italian sword fencing had lost none of its duelling application to artistic convention—unlike French foil, which made use of a weapon that beared little resemblance to its duelling counterpart, the épée du combat. By 1902, however, fuelled by increasing contact with the French in the growing international competitive fencing scene, there was a significant number of Italians who no longer held this view, and the term 'sword fencing' was no longer synonymous with foil, but rather with the duelling sword or épée. Thus we see that while Masiello's 1887 treatise bears the title Italian sword and sabre fencing, the 1902 volume for the former weapon is instead called Foil fencing to more accurately describe its content.

As mentioned above, the most significant edits made in the 1902 foil volume are the lack of comparisons to other authors, namely Parise and Rosaroll/Grisetti; but this is not to say that there were no new additions. The introduction was expanded from 3 pages in the 1887 edition to 14 pages in the 1902, although some of this material was already contained in the mechanics discussion in the 1887 edition. Further in the book, there are an additional 3 pages in the section on the lunge discussing the advantages of inclining the torso, both with regard to the extra reach and target minimisation it provides as well as how the torso can aid a swift recovery, and the section on disengagements now has more discussion of biomechanics, with Masiello drawing from the aforementioned Lagrange as well as other authors to justify his advocacy for using the shoulder joint to perform the action as opposed to the wrist.

While the separate publication of the foil and sabre treatises resulted in various chapters and passages being repeated in both volumes, the 1902 foil volume does lack the glossary of fencing terms found at the end of the 1887 edition (although the sabre volume retains it).

Sabre

If the most notable parts of the 1902 foil volume are what was removed, it is the opposite case for the sabre. Not only does the sabre volume contain all the aforementioned additions to the foil volume (i.e. the lengthier introduction and additional discussion in the sections on the lunge and disengagement) and repetition of the foil mechanics discussion seen in the 1887 edition, but it also has several other valuable expansions and clarifications.

The first of these can be found in the 'method of gripping the sabre', where he gives further mechanical explanation for the advantages of the Radaellian grip and describes how the point can be better brought in line with the arm by sliding the thumb down the grip (keeping the other fingers in place). We also find a lengthy physiological discussion added to the section on the guard position, some of which also appearing in the 1887 and 1902 foil material; justification for preferring parries with an extended arm in the section on parries; several mechanical justifications for prescribing percussive cuts over drawing cuts in the section on cuts in general; and lastly an explanation added to the end of the section on the various cuts and thrusts as to why the attacker has such an advantage over the defender, and how if they perform their action with all the necessary requirements (e.g. measure, speed, timing), the opponent will be hit. The last major additions to the text are descriptions of the simple remise and the remise with feints—although this text has been copied from the foil volume.

Buried among all this additional content is a slightly more subtle and somewhat unexpected modification, and that is the addition of rearward weight shifting in the exercise molinelli. After a brief addition at the start of the section to explain the difference between exercise molinelli and cuts by molinello, the note at the end now begins with:

The first tempo of each molinello must be accompanied by the greatest rearward inclination of the torso (in a fencing sense) and accompanied by a slight extension of the right leg; and the second tempo, by the opposite inclination and partial extension of the left leg.

Although this back-and-forth weight shifting is present in Del Frate's 1868 text and both the 1873 and 1885 Italian cavalry regulations, Del Frate's 1876 treatise retains only the forward lean, and the only other Radaellian to include backwards leaning in their treatise is Poggio Vannucchi in 1915. The amplified weight shifting actually first reappears in Masiello's 1891 book Sabre fencing on horseback, so it does not seem that very long had passed after the publication of his 1887 treatise before he thought to alter the molinelli.

Molinello to the head from the left

In the 1902 sabre text Masiello implies that this weight shifting serves to compensate for the asymmetrical muscular development of the right side of the body (as a consequence of lunging), thus preventing 'the vice of scoliosis'. The illustrations for the molinelli, now a single picture per molinello, show a more exaggerated forward lean, but they do not seem to reflect the prescribed rearward lean as accurately.

As for textual material from the 1887 edition that was removed, the only thing of note is the lack of fencing sabre specifications. While the 1887 sabre text began with a detailed description of each part of the fencing sabre, including its dimensions and weight, the 1902 edition leaves only a general description of each component. The design of the sabre is now different too, having a completely straight blade and a guard of perforated sheet steel instead of the carved branches seen in the 1887 edition, and Masiello no longer prescribes a 4 cm point-of-balance for the sabre, but expands the section on the 'balance of the sabre' and states that the it should constructed in such a way that its centre of gravity lies at the grip.

*** Update 2023/05/04

One additional change between the two editions that was subtle enough for me to miss when originally writing this post is Masiello's reversal regarding wrist extension when moving the sabre. In the section 'Method of wielding the sabre' in the 1887 edition he states that the hand 'must never perform movements of flexion, but only lateral movements [ulnar and radial deviation] towards the forearm and movements of extension', while in the same section of the 1902 edition only the 'lateral movements' are allowed, with flexion and extension explicitly forbidden. This curious change sees Masiello's mechanics become slightly more dogmatic, and may have been a reaction against attempts to 'soften' Radaellian mechanics by the addition of wrist movement.***

Conclusion

Through his increased reliance on contemporary science and mathematics to explain his precepts and innovations, it is easy to see why Masiello was widely considered among Italians to be the torchbearer of the Radaellians since the mid-1880s. Not content with merely publishing a treatise as large and comprehensive as his 1887 book Italian sword and sabre fencing, he was determined to make sure his theories were properly understood and still taken seriously 15 years later, updating his material to address possible criticism and make it more accessible to younger generations.

While lacking the fiery and reactionary jabs towards Parise and the fateful government treatise competition that make the first edition of Masiello's treatise so distinctive, the 1902 volumes are, in my view, much better expositions of Masiello's keen intelligence and ambition and are a credit to his lifelong advocacy for the Radaellian method.

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.^↩