The Radaelli-Enrichetti alliance and the 1882 Modena tournament

Following the closure of the Parma Fencing Master's School under Cesare Enrichetti, the graduates of this school were obliged to attend a 9-month course at the Milan school to learn Radaelli's method. Later reflections on this period from those who witnessed it remark that this formal meeting of the two schools was the beginning of a period of great collaboration and improvement for both parties.

The majority of Enrichettians could clearly see the results that experimentation among the Radaellians had produced with regard to sabre fencing, while the Radaellians were able to benefit from the established tradition inherited by Enrichetti and his students. It should also be noted that this exchange of knowledge was not purely confined to each school's respective specialisation, and while the Radaellians were in general not highly regarded for their sword fencing,¹ both Arista and Masiello (products of the Radaelli and Enrichetti schools, respectively) noted that Enrichettians recognised the value in relying less strictly on wrist movement in sword fencing, as was typical in traditional and Southern Italian schools.²

Neapolitan commentators and their supporters, on the other hand, made sure to differentiate between the Radaellians and the Enrichettians, as they generally respected the latter camp as an offshoot of the Neapolitan school while the former were an insult to their great fencing traditions. While northerners championed the military fencers on the whole as a shining example of the Italian military's educational achievements, Neapolitan partisans considered Radaelli's sword method 'seriously harmful' to the young men of the military.³ Because of this, they had to frame the competitive successes of the Radaellians, particularly in sword fencing, to factors unrelated to the merits of the Radaelli school. Take for example the very pro-Neapolitan official report of the 1881 Milan tournament:

We then saw Arista, who, despite the statement he made of belonging to the Radaelli school, fenced with an Italian foil, and except for a few things he showed us how, with good will and by fencing with fencers of a pure school, as well as by seeing them fence among themselves, he who has natural dispositions and love for the art can make serious progress. [...] In Giordano Rossi, strong in the Radaelli system, beautiful and composed in guard, we found a tight game, due to his frequent fencing with members of the Italian school. Pecoraro owes the speed of his parries and ripostes to his special talents more than to the Radaelli school.⁴

While the growing opposition towards the Milan Fencing Master's School—exemplified in this report, the report on the Naples Gymnastics Congress⁵ later that same year, and various publications of the late 1870s—was an issue for the Radaellians, in February 1882 they suffered their greatest blow when the very founder of their school, Giuseppe Radaelli, died tragically after a protracted illness. Although Radaelli had not been able to teach for some time beforehand, his death provided a golden opportunity for change. Proposals of this nature can be found in the aforementioned reports, made while Radaelli was still alive, and they naturally favoured putting a champion of the Neapolitan or 'Italian' school in power:

And given Radaelli's illness, the post of directing master of the Master's School in Milan is open, and since the directing master must start clearing the way, one must start by appointing to that post a master who is not only a good fencer, but also a good master, and shown to have made good students. This master must also not be driven by partisan spirit and must have the character of a perfect gentleman. Having appointed such a master to direct the Master's School, his first task should be to make use of all the good members that are in it, putting them on the good path, unifying the system with a single sword form (the Italian).⁶

Those who supported the current generation of Enrichettians and Radaellians, however, likely saw this more as chance to formalise the union of these two groups and create a new curriculum more representative of their collective experience and experiments.

And so it was in this tense climate that the Modena tournament took place, in July 1882. Although billed as a 'national' tournament, the competitors appear to have all come from Northern Italy and Tuscany. 67 masters and 40 amateurs competed, which was a reasonable turnout, but nevertheless overshadowed by the famous Milan tournament of the previous year, which saw competitors not just from Southern Italy, but also Austria and France.

Similar to the 1881 Milan tournament, well over a dozen special prizes were donated to the organisers by fencing societies and government ministries, to be awarded not just for those who won the sword and sabre pools, but also for the pairs deemed to have done the best bouts and for the 'best fencer' of the tournament. With the lack of competition from Southern Italians, however, most of the special prizes awarded to fencing masters went to Radaellians, with Salvatore Pecoraro alone receiving five by winning both pools, taking part in the best bouts, and winning the prize for best fencer.

The jury contained two amateurs and seven masters, the latter group consisting specifically of Paolo Cornaglia, Giovanni Ciullini, Giuseppe Perez, Cesare Enrichetti, Alessandro Pavia, Giovanni Domenico Reverso, and Antonio Tinti.⁷ Perez was the only master out of the jury not teaching in the military at the time, although he had in fact spent around 5 years in the 1860s teaching at the Modena school, where Enrichetti, Pavia, Reverso, and Tinti were teaching in 1882.⁸

The reason this tournament intersects with the topic at hand is not just that it was held in a very divided period of Italian fencing and only five months after the death of Giuseppe Radaelli, but because of a short report on the tournament that appeared first in the Milanese newspaper Il Secolo on 18 June, then again the following month in a slightly expanded form in Turin's Gazzetta Piemontese on 4 July. The anonymous journalist clearly favours the Radaellians, ignoring the many prizes awarded to non-Radaellian amateurs, but the second half of the article (the part republished from Il Secolo) demonstrates the author's main agenda. To this writer, the army already had all the resources it needed to establish a more solid theoretical foundation for its fencing instruction, through the combined knowledge of the champions of both the Enrichetti and Radaelli schools.

This hopeful vision for a formalised union of the two schools, to be brought about through a collaboration of military fencing masters alone, lies in stark contrast to what would result from the Ministry of War's treatise competition, announced in September that same year, the submissions for which to be judged by a commission made up entirely of amateurs, both military and civilian.

Below is the Gazzetta Piemontese's version of this article, translated in full.

---

On the day of 18 June the national fencing tournament initiated by the La Fratellanza Society of Modena ended.

The royal and ministerial prizes placed at the disposal of the tournament jury surpassed in number and value those of all other tournaments and fencing congresses, and well-deserved praise for this is owed to the honourable deputies Corvetto and Triani, who left no stone unturned for the success of the tournament.

The two distinguished deputies, urged by Maestro Cav. Cornaglia, promised to make every effort at the Ministry of War to improve the conditions of military fencing masters.

Worthy of special commendation are the Marquis Carandini, president of the La Fratellanza Society, promotor of the tournament, vice-president Avv. Martinelli, responsible for receiving the jury, and the engineer Cialdini, secretary of said jury—who with their untiring activity contributed so much to the good progress of the tournament.

The champions of the tournament were the masters Pecoraro, Corsini, Rossi, Pessina, Scarani, and Varrone, all students of Maestro Radaelli, graduates of the Milan Master’s School.

There were 67 masters and 40 amateurs who took part in the competitions, and they declared themselves to be of various schools, that is: Radaelli, Enrichetti, Italian, mixed, and several: Enrichetti sword, Radaelli sabre.

The competitions always proceeded regularly and the fencers all competed with skill and chivalry.

In this tournament everyone admired the indisputable quality of the Radaelli sabre school, and these facts are worth far more than any contrary judgement given by people who, if not incompetent, are certainly very biased.

Until now a true fencing system has not existed in the army; in order to have one single system the Ministry of War should form a Commission of masters of the two schools, Radaelli-Enrichetti, and adopt a uniform Italian school, which is suited to our military needs.

Then if the Ministry of War wants a sabre fencing treatise which serves as the basis of training in the army, it could entrust the task to any of the current masters in the military institutes who have been teaching in the army for several years.

The basis of this system should be Radaelli’s, because it is too rational to be changed; so true is this that almost all the old sabre fencing masters practise the Radaelli system even though they criticise it, because they recognise its utility.

Proof of the quality of the Radaelli sabre system is seen in the fact that in all the congresses, national and international tournaments, including the last one in Naples and the recent one in Modena, the first prize in sabre was always won by the students of Radaelli.

And as evidence, even in the recent tournament the prizes from His Majesty the King, Prince Amedeo, the Ministers of War, the Navy, the Interior, Public Education, and from Modenese gentlemen, were all won by the students of Radaelli, and the prize from the Foreign Minister was won by Maestro Provenzale, a student of Enrichetti for the sword and Radaelli for the sabre.

* * *

1 The best example can be seen in the first hand impressions in Giovanni Pagliuca, Cenni di critica sul sistema di scherma Redaelli (Turin: Tipografia Letteraria-Forense-Statistica, [1880?]).^↩
2 Salvatore Arista, Del progresso della scherma in Italia (Bologna: Società Tipografica già Compositori, 1884), 8–9; Ferdinando Masiello, La scherma italiana di spada e di sciabola (Florence: G. Civelli, 1887), 129.^↩
3 Domenico Cariolato and Gioacchino Granito, Relazione del torneo internazionale di scherma tenuto in Milano nel giugno 1881 (Naples: Tipi Ferrante, 1881), 37.^↩
4 Ibid., 139–40.^↩
5 Luigi Cosenz, Il XI congresso ginnastico italiano in Napoli (Naples: Francesco Giannini, 1881).^↩
6 Cariolato and Granito, Relazione del torneo, 149.^↩
7 "Torneo nazionale di scherma," Corriere della Sera, 15 June 1882.^↩
8 A list of civil fencing masters employed by the Italian army can be found in the yearly releases of Annuario militare del Regno d'Italia, published in Rome by Carlo Voghera.^↩

In Defence of a Dead Man by Jacopo Gelli

It has been quite some time since this blog has consulted the opinions of the prolific Radaellian crusader Jacopo Gelli. As someone with fierce convictions in several topics, it is natural that many would in turn also have strong opinions of him, both positive and negative; regardless of how one may feel about him, however, it is hard to deny that he commanded a large audience in the period, and his writings are at least entertaining to read. Nowhere else is this latter fact more true than for the booklet featured here today, his 1894 work In difesa di un morto; ovvero agonia del metodo ufficiale ('In defence of a dead man; or agony of the official method').

***Click here to read the full translation***

The 'dead man' in question is, of course, none other than Giuseppe Radaelli, whom Gelli has once again stood up to defend in the face of what he feels are false and unfair personal insults towards the late master. Gelli's primary accusation is that Parise and the Rome Master's School of appropriating Radaelli's method by teaching it at the school but passing it off as Parise's work. In addition, he maintains that despite the recent reforms to the cavalry regulations, many high-ranking military personnel are in full support of Gelli's condemnations of Parise's method and reforms.

Very little of what Gelli touches on in this booklet will be new to readers, as many of his talking points appear in his previous publications; however, what does make this particular booklet interesting is that he makes ample use of personal testimonies from third parties. Although most of the names are withheld (unsurprising given the damning accusations being made), Gelli quotes current and former instructors of the Master's School to prove that sabre fencing is not being taught there as per Parise's treatise, and quotes several letters he had received from various amateurs, fencing masters, and military officers voicing their support for Gelli's arguments.

But perhaps the most damning testimony of all is one of the few that is not anonymous. Following the publication of Resurrectio, Gelli received a letter from Achille Angelini complaining that he was being unfairly targeted by Gelli and other Radaellians for approving Parise's treatise through the famous government Commission from 1883, over which Angelini presided. In his defence he maintains that while he was very favourable towards the section on the sword, he did not approve of the sabre material, going so far to call it a 'negation of God'. Although subsequently pressured by the rest of the Commission to give a positive score to both the sword and sabre sections, Angelini claims to have sent a separate report of his own, along with the official Commission report by Fambri, in which he gave his true thoughts on Parise's sabre method. This letter was apparently ignored, and was supposedly not even read by anyone at the Ministry.

To further support all this damning evidence, Gelli quotes liberally from another colourful writer we have encountered previously: the Neapolitan journalist Enrico Casella. Gelli sees in Casella a valuable ally with an 'impartial' voice of criticism for Parise, being a Neapolitan and an old associate of the Parise family. No doubt his favourable opinions of the Radaellians are also very welcome on Gelli's part.

After briefly going over the large amount of money spent in maintaining the Rome Master's School in comparison to its previous iterations, Gelli finishes his work with an ultimatum addressed squarely at Masaniello Parise: either admit that Radaelli's method is taught at the Master's School and cease appropriating his teachings, or prepare to be sued in court by Gelli himself for unlawful use of Radaelli's intellectual property. It should not be too surprising to know that Parise never did respond to Gelli, nor am I aware of any court case involving the two.

Gelli's campaign in support of Radaellian fencing did not end with this booklet, but it was certainly the last publication of any kind by him that focused solely on attacking Parise and his school in the name of Radaellian fencing. His efforts to reframe the evolution of fencing centred on Bologna and northern Italy (opposing the ideas of Neapolitan fencing being a continuation of Italy's oldest traditions) continued to appear in his magazine articles on fencing and his 1906 book L'Arte dell'Armi in Italia, but In defence of a dead man would end up being Gelli's final pitched battle in the war for Radaellian redemption, a fight which was still carried on in many ways by his companions for decades to come.

1889 Italian Cavalry Regulations

Having already made available the 1873 and 1885 editions of the Italian cavalry regulations, today I am pleased to present the first volume of the 1889 edition, with its slightly shortened title Regolamento di esercizi per la cavalleria.

***Click here to view***

As it states on the title page and the notes on the following two pages, this version was explicitly 'experimental' due to the number and nature of the changes made to the previous 1885 version, the primary goal being to simplify the material and put it in a more logical order. While the first volume of the 1889 edition, containing the fencing material, is actually longer than the first volume of the 1885, the fencing material itself is indeed shortened slightly, reduced from 52 pages down to 48.

Like the previous edition, the fencing instruction of the 1889 regulations is heavily based on the Radaellian method, with Masaniello Parise's proposed cavalry sabre method having been rejected by a ministerial commission earlier the same year. In the years following, however, Parise's method would finally be approved for use in the cavalry with the help of Salvatore Pecoraro. Thus the 1889 cavalry regulations mark the last edition to feature Radaelli's method prior to the introduction of the Parise-Pecoraro method in 1891, which would remain in force until a more Radaellian-aligned method was reintroduced in 1912.

Compared to the previous version, the fencing instruction of the 1889 regulations gives less emphasis to the on-foot instruction and prioritises techniques that can be done as part of the come a cavallo or 'as if on horseback' part of training. Cut and thrust drills against a stuffed dummy are added to this section as well as paired drills between soldiers wearing masks and gloves. Slight changes to the positions can be seen for example in the guard position, which becomes a more retracted but still high 3rd, more resembling the first position for the thrust on horseback. A curious change is also found in the 'Principles and general rules', where instead of being told that the sabre should be wielded with a firm wrist, 'through movement of the forearm and never the hand' as in the 1885 edition, the 1889 regulations say to wield the sabre 'through movement of the forearm with the assistance of the hand.'

Due to the sheer number of pages in all three volumes of the regulations and the reduced relevance of the other material in relation to this blog, I have only provided scans of the first volume here. Nevertheless, if any researchers wish to read the second and third volumes (containing unit manoeuvres and accessory instructions, respectively), I would be more than happy to oblige.

Radaelli Under Fire: Giovanni Pagliuca

This is the seventh and final article in the 'Radaelli Under Fire' series. Click here to return to the introduction and view the other entries in the series.

In each of the three critical works seen so far in this series, the observations given on Radaelli's method, whether for the sword or the sabre, have predominantly been limited to the theoretical realm, based off the critic's own readings of Del Frate's 1868 and 1876 treatises. What sets this work apart from the others is the fact that its author, Giovanni Pagliuca, had learnt Radaelli's system in person at the Milan Military Fencing Master's School. Although not published until at least 1880, Pagliuca's rare booklet Cenni di critica sul sistema di scherma Redaelli ('Brief critique of the Radaelli fencing system') consists essentially of journal entries, written while he was attending the Milan school, criticising each element of Radaelli's sword method as it was taught and comparing it to the method he previously learnt from Cesare Enrichetti.¹

***Click here to read the translation***

Pagliuca had already been a fencing master for several years by this point, but since Radaelli's method became the sole approved method for the Italian army in late 1874, each military fencing master who had received their qualification Enrichetti's school in Parma was eventually sent to Milan to attend a 9-month conversion course in the Radaelli method.² It was this course which Pagliuca was taking part in while writing this critique. However, as can be seen by the date of the reply to Pagliuca's dedication, his notes were not published until at least December 1880, or more likely early 1881. Therefore Pagliuca's work occupies a unique position in this series in that it was the earliest to be written out of the four works, while also the last to be published. The first entry in the booklet after the dedication is dated 31 July 1876, which means the course at the Milan school already been underway for four and a half months by this point. Presumably that time had been spent learning Radaelli's sabre method, with the remaining time, that is from August to December, to be dedicated to the sword and general consolidation.

The booklet is dedicated to Baron Ottavio Anzani, who was a highly regarded amateur fencer from Naples. Shortly after writing his reply to Pagliuca's booklet dedication, Anzani would find himself in the middle of a great controversy at the 1881 international tournament in Milan, where the jury became hotly divided over the decision of whether to give the tournament's most prestigious prize for the 'best fencer of the tournament' to Anzani or the young Radaellian master Salvatore Arista. Ultimately it ended up going to Arista, but as a concession to the Neapolitan partisans of the jury another prize of 'equal merit' was also awarded to Anzani.³ Although Anzani stopped fencing at competitions and public exhibitions after the Milan tournament, his most fateful moment in Italian fencing was his participation in the 1883 government fencing treatise commission, which resulted in Parise's method being chosen as the army's new regulation method and a reversal of the power dynamic between the Radaellian and Neapolitan factions for the next two and a half decades.⁴ Pagliuca was said to have submitted a manuscript of his own to the treatise commission, and it ended up being ranked second after Parise's.⁵ If this is true, one cannot help but wonder if the relationship between Pagliuca and Baron Anzani changed at all as a result.

Pagliuca explicitly states that his remarks were confined solely to those aspects of Radaelli's sword system he thought were particularly egregious, leaving out insignificant flaws as well as aspects of the system which aligned with his own Enrichettian foundation. While most of Pagliuca's observations can be found in one of the previous books seen in this series, we do find several unique insights that are the direct result of his insider knowledge. One is his observation that the Radaellians, who care little about maintaining a 'correct' guard position at all times, sometimes shift their body weight entirely onto the front leg as a way to invite their opponent to strike, which may be describing the slight lean seen in the illustrations of Del Frate's books, a topic discussed here previously. Another is Pagliuca's description of the technical term margin, used by the Radaellians to refer to fencing measure. The word margin is not found in any of Del Frate's writings on Radaelli's system; however, it does appear on two occasions in the handwritten notes of two student copies of Del Frate's 1876 book. Thus Pagliuca confirms that although Del Frate's writings contain no discussion of fencing measure, the concept was not totally alien to Radaelli's students, even if the term they used was to describe it was, like much of their terminology, quite different to what was common at the time.

As for Pagliuca himself, it is hard to say too much about the man aside from the simple facts of his respectable if rather quiet career, as he spent most of his adult life teaching fencing in the military. Born in Naples on 3 September 1847, Giovanni Pagliuca joined the military at the age of 17 and began his foray in fencing four years later, soon graduating from the renowned Fencing Master's School in Parma directed by Cesare Enrichetti. After learning Radaelli's method in 1876 Pagliuca would continue to maintain his Enrichettian style for the sword, although it is likely his sabre fencing took on more of a Radaellian character, as was observed in most Enrichettians following the merger of the two schools. His early career saw him teach in Turin for a few years, making a name for himself among the local civilian fencing scene at the Club d'Armi, as well as at the Naples military college, during which time he received a promotion to 'civil gymnastics master' in late 1883. This was improved the following year to civil master of gymnastics and fencing while attending a 3-month course in Parise's method at the Fencing Master's School's new location in Rome.⁶

In 1887 Pagliuca found himself back at the Scuola Magistrale, this time as an instructor. His many years of experience earned him the role of vice-director of the school in February 1889 along with Salvatore Pecoraro, but this only lasted until October of the following year, when he was transferred to the Rome military college; here Pagliuca spent the rest of his teaching career, aside from a brief period at the Modena military school around 1897.⁷ To my knowledge, the only other occasion Pagliuca stepped into the realm of public debate on fencing matters was in 1910, joining Ferdinando Masiello in criticising the recently-published sabre treatise of Salvatore Pecoraro and Carlo Pessina.⁸ Giovanni Pagliuca retired from the army in December that same year.

Thus to my knowledge we are left with only two surviving writings by Pagliuca, both being critiques of Radaellian authors, but in starkly different contexts. While in 1876 the Radaellian method was still having to prove itself to the jealous defenders of traditional Italian sword fencing, by 1910 Italian sabre had exploded throughout the Western World, and the graduates of both the Milan and Rome Fencing Master's Schools were its most decorated representatives. Having witnessed this dramatic development take place over the past 40 years, and despite his harsh words for the teaching practices at the Milan school in the 1870s, Giovanni Pagliuca was in no doubt as to who the founder of this movement was: 'Giuseppe Radaelli, the creator of sabre fencing in Italy'.⁹

*******

1 Giovanni Pagliuca, Cenni di critica sul sistema di scherma Redaelli (Turin: Tipografia Letteraria-Forense-Statistica, [1880?]).^↩
2 Cesare Ricotti-Magnani, "Circolare N. 21. - Istruttori e sottistruttori di scherma chiamati alla scuola magistrale di scherma in Milano," Giornale Militare 1884: parte seconda, no. 4 (28 January 1876): 67.^↩
3 Domenico Cariolato and Gioacchino Granito, Relazione del torneo internazionale di scherma tenuto in Milano nel giugno 1881 (Naples: Tipi Ferrante, 1881).^↩
4 Paulo Fambri, "Relazione," in Masaniello Parise, Trattato teorico pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola: preceduto da un cenno storico sulla scherma e sul duello, (Rome: Tipografia Nazionale, 1884), i–xxxv.^↩
5 Egidio Candiani, "Masaniello Parise," La Stampa Sportiva, 30 January 1910, 17.^↩
6 Edoardo De Simone, La Scuola Magistrale Militare di Scherma. Dalla sua fondazione in Roma a tutto l'anno 1913. Note storiche (Rome: Tipografia Editrice "Italia", 1921). Date of birth and military enrolment date are found in Annuario militare del Regno d'Italia. Anno 1909, vol. 1 (Rome: Voghera Carlo, 1909), 247.^↩
7 For the specific dates of Pagliuca's various appointments and transfers see the relevant volumes of Ministero della Guerra, Bollettino ufficiale delle nomine, promozioni e destinazioni negli ufficiali del R. Esercito Italiano e nel personal dell'amministrazione militare (Rome: Voghera Carlo).^↩
8 Giovanni Pagliuca, "La scherma di sciabola di Pecoraro e Pessina," La Nazione, 7 October 1910, 2.^↩
9 Ibid.^↩

Radaelli Under Fire: Giuseppe Perez

This is the sixth article in the 'Radaelli Under Fire' series. Click here to return to the introduction and view the other entries in the series.

Just as the Radaellian question appeared to fading from the minds of the public press, in comes another commentator. After receiving multiple public requests to provide his opinion on the matter (one of which we saw in the previous article), the highly respected Neapolitan master Giuseppe Perez responds to the call with a detailed critique focused solely on Radaelli's sword method. The booklet, entitled Il sistema di spada Radaelli giudicato dall'arte della scherma ('The Radaelli sword system judged by the art of fencing') was published in 1878, and although it only deals with the Radaellian sword material, it is the longest of the works in this series.¹ A copy of the original can be read here in the Corble Collection at KU Leuven.

***Click here to read the translation***

Similarly to Forte, Perez places Radaelli's method in contrast with the 'classical Italian school', but also takes this comparison a step further by citing the Marchionni's treatise on the mixed school as well as French authors to demonstrate how often Radaelli deviates from both the Italian and French traditions, thus calling into question how 'mixed' his system is, as opposed to being a pure invention of Radaelli himself. Perez shows himself to be well-read in fencing literature, and this knowledge leads to a very rigorous and laudable critique; however, whilst the Radaellian sword method deserved much of this criticism, Perez's many comparisons to Marchionni may be understating the diversity of the mixed school throughout much of the 19th century, and many of his insightful remarks are let down by nit-picking on terminology. The 10-page long quotation of Rosaroll & Grisetti's treatise in the section on the bout is also, in my view, rather excessive.

Giuseppe Perez was born around the year 1830, possibly in Naples, and was brought up in fencing from a young age under his father, Onofrio Perez, who had studied under Massimino Pepe (for some reason Perez gives his name as 'Anassimena Pepe') and Giuseppe Morbilli, two of the most renowned Neapolitan fencers from the first half of the 19th century. In 1860 he left Naples and moved to Cuneo, where he enlisted in the 1st Bersaglieri regiment. Here at the local military garrison Perez continued his fencing education, learning French foil from Colonel Maffi and sabre from a Polish immigrant named Stojoscki, who was said to specialise in false edge cuts. A few months later he joined Garibaldi's campaign in southern Italy as the fencing master of the Hungarian Legion, learning sabre fencing from a Hungarian fencer named Yessenschi.²

From 1864 to 1867 he was an assistant fencing master at the Modena military school alongside the famed Cesare Enrichetti. From here he moved to Verona and opened up his own fencing hall, also teaching fencing to the local military regiments for several years, even after regiments were no longer allowed to hire civilian fencing masters. In 1869 he founded a successful fencing equipment manufacturer, which was still in operation at least until the 1940s. In the last decade of his life Perez was a regular contributor to several sporting and fencing-focused magazines, writing about various topics such as standardising Italian fencing terminology, the declining standard of competitive fencing, and comparisons of the French and Italian schools of foil. He died in Verona in March 1894.

*******

1 Giuseppe Perez, Il sistema di spada Radaelli giudicato dall'arte della scherma (Verona: Gaetano Franchini, 1878).^↩
2 "Giuseppe Perez," Scherma Italiana, 15 February 1891, 19–20; Liberato De Amici, "Biografie di schermitori illustri: Giuseppe Perez," Baiardo: periodico schermistico bimensile, 8 September 1892, 61–2; Jacopo Gelli, Scherma Italiana, 15 March 1894, 22–3.^↩

Radaelli Under Fire: Urciuoli Stokes the Flames

This is the fifth article in the 'Radaelli Under Fire' series. Click here to return to the introduction and view the other entries in the series.

Despite a growing sense of apathy towards the Radaelli debate among military circles (as seen in the remark from Italia Militare's editor in the previous article in this series) to see an end to the Radaellian question, it seems that there were still those who wished to ensure that Radaelli's school received its full due of criticism. This sentiment is fully visible in the letter translated below, published in the Florentine newspaper La Nazione on the 16 April 1878, and was written by Alfonso Urciuoli.¹ At the time of this letter's publication, Urciuoli was an infantry lieutenant stationed at the Brescia recruiting office, and although his signoff states that he was a fencing master, nothing is yet known of his career or involvement within this profession.²

In his short letter, Urciuoli summarises the Radaelli debate so far (although being very dismissive of the pro-Radaelli camp), citing the articles we have already seen and heard mention of such as those by Angelini, Masiello, and Forte, but also mentioning articles by the famous Neapolitan master Giacomo Massei, one Count A. G., and 'several others', which are yet to be uncovered.

Urciuoli's rallying cry for the anti-Radaellian movement culminates in directly calling on the renowned fencing master Giuseppe Perez to give a critique of Radaelli's sword method, a topic which was only briefly touched on in Luigi Forte's articles. As we will see in the next chapter of this series, Urciuoli was not the only person to request Perez's contribution in the debate, nor would his call for aid go unanswered.

---

Dear Mr. Editor,

Among enthusiasts of the art of fencing an event of some importance has recently occurred, onto which for my part I, thanks to courteous hospitality in the columns of your trustworthy newspaper, would like to draw the public's attention.

The well-known booklet by General Angelini on sabre fencing in refutation of the Radaelli system was welcomed with enthusiasm by all lovers of fencing as a work dictated with rare clarity and supported with very convincing mathematical and physiological arguments. There was a moment when it was hoped that such a valuable work would be worth giving rise to a healthy debate, which would have made way for the intelligent people of fencing to make themselves known; at the same time indicating progress of the noble art which for a long time has been stationary in Southern Italy and degenerated in some northern regions, as General Angelini makes clear in his aforementioned booklet.

As soon as the authoritative work appeared, a great number of letters were sent to this author and many articles were published, all in support of the irrefutable arguments contained in this booklet. Energetic works were compiled by very competent and authoritative people such as Prof. Cav. Massei, Captain Forte, Count A. G. and several others. Unfortunately, however, the accountable opposing side has not shown up. A single article in defence of the Radaelli system appeared written by Mr. Ferdinando Masiello, in issue 9 of the journal Italia Militare,³ but the writer limited himself to speaking at length about himself and to assure the public that the Radaelli system was, in his view, the best among those known so far. With that columnist and master having been invited to support in writing—but with indisputable scientific rules—the veracity of his assertion, as well as to refute just some of the very many criticisms expressed by the distinguished General, he sincerely confessed that he was not able to, with a second article appearing in Italia Militare on the 9 March.⁴

Therefore in this state of affairs, the long-awaited debate died as soon as it was born. But if in the end this means a complete triumph for General Angelini, it is no less true that it does immense harm to the progress of the noble art, which has among us passionate and zealous enthusiasts. This is why I am urged to make a final attempt by asking scientists in the matter of fencing to resume the charge, but on different terrain, since the first one was fatally exhausted. With the intention of restarting a fight which could promise effective artistic and scientific results, I will mention the opportunity to bring the discussion to the sword fencing invented by Mr. Radaelli.

In order to better achieve the aim I propose, such that it will be necessary to find supporters in those who love the art which I am fond of, I ask my colleague, the eminent Prof. Giuseppe Perez, to take the lead in the critique I briefly mentioned. The reason why I turn to Perez over many other distinguished people is because, aside from being highly reputed among reputable fencing masters, it is he who is designated by the public opinion of our colleagues as the one who could best lead a reasoned debate, strengthened by the excellence of his pen and the factual demonstrations of his skilful sword.

As a good gentleman, Mr. Perez, you who are perhaps the only one in your sphere who has not given your opinion on the matter of the sabre, unfortunately too exhausted, at least this time make your authoritative voice heard, and you will have the approval of all those who sincerely love the true progress of fencing.

In thanking the editor for wanting to give authority to these lines of mine by welcoming it in your rightly directed newspaper, I am grateful of the honour to declare myself

Your humble servant

Lieutenant ALFONSO URCIUOLI

Fencing Master

*******

1 Alfonso Urciuoli, 'Comunicazioni del Pubblico', La Nazione, 16 April 1878, 3.^↩
2 Annuario Militare del Regno d'Italia 1878 (Rome: Carlo Voghera, 1878), 414, 473.^↩
3 Translated here in part 2, 'Masiello on Defence'.^↩
4 Translated here in part 4, 'Masiello's Final Word'.^↩

Radaelli Under Fire: Masiello's Final Word

This is the fourth article in the 'Radaelli Under Fire' series. Click here to return to the introduction and view the other entries in the series.

In previous years criticism of the Radaelli method had received some public responses in the military press, but as 1878 dragged on it seemed that nobody else would come to the aid of Masiello. Forte's articles added pressure in this regard with criticism of Radaelli's sword method alongside comments on sabre, drawing on a storied tradition which Masiello himself had been a proud practitioner of early in his career: the Neapolitan school of fencing. On the 9 March 1878, for one last time Masiello takes up his pen to provide some closing remarks to the Radaellian question.¹ The full translation can be found below.

The fact that this debate had been dragging on for some time now is demonstrated by the editor's preface to Masiello's letter, published again in Italia Militare, which expressed a 'desire for this debate to end by now, since we think the arguments for and against have been dealt with widely enough.' Masiello notes at the beginning that Angelini had written an article in early February inviting Masiello to respond directly to the arguments put forward against the Radaellian method; however, with a similar attitude to that shown by Italia Militare's editor, Masiello sees nothing new in Angelini's arguments. He asserts that Angelini's supposed 'scientific' arguments were in fact personal opinions of a practical nature, and that scientific arguments had already been provided by others with greater authority than he, including those who had represented commissions from the Ministry of War.

Despite his reluctance to engage with Angelini's booklet, Masiello does point out how Angelini constantly referred to Del Frate's 1868 text on Radaelli's method rather than the newer, corrected 1876 version, as the earlier version provided a more convenient punching bag for criticism. Additionally, Angelini's anecdote about a friend of his who is able to break a sabre by swinging it in the air is mocked as being solely a demonstration of a flat, useless cutting action. The letter ends with Masiello confessing his 'ineptitude' to provide a competent and comprehensive rebuttal to the critics, mentioning the recent remarks of Luigi Forte. It is perhaps this incident which, almost a decade later, would prompt Masiello to spend so much time on mathematical proofs for the method detailed in his own treatise, thus pre-empting those who might wish to question its merits.

---

Mister director,

I interest Your Lordship's exquisite courtesy in wishing to make room, in your esteemed journal, for the following few observations which I deem appropriate to publish in response to the article by General Achille Angelini, inserted in no. 17 of this journal with the title: Observations on the handling of the sabre, Radaelli system.

General Angelini, in his work on the topic in question, says in the preface, on page 6,² these exact words: 'The field was already largely harvested; since the question, on the scientific and mathematical side, was discussed with greater ability and clarity by others, all that is left for me is to deal with the practical side in precise detail. I will establish comparisons and cite theoretical-practical examples.'

In accordance with these words, throughout his dissertation he kept himself, in my view, in the purely practical field, citing examples and making comparisons, and I, in my reply, also mentioning that others had discussed the matter scientifically, refuted the criticism with practical reasoning and by citing well-known facts as proof of my proposition. Now the General invites me again to discuss the matter scientifically, almost meaning to say that he has discussed it from this point of view.

I am very sorry that I cannot satisfy my opponent's wishes, for the following reasons:

1. Because in my view I do not consider that the principles and the ideas expressed by him on the topic are to be considered scientific, but rather his own opinions which I can respect only as such and not otherwise;
2. Because he has already touched on the truth by judging my pen incapable of saying how strong I feel to express and prove otherwise.³
3. Because by dealing with the matter scientifically, I could only repeat, and poorly, what was already said at length and very well by various others who had to discuss the matter from this point of view, both as members of commissions from the Ministry of War, appointed precisely to judge the Radaelli fencing system scientifically before adopting it for our army, as well as to support disputes in our military journals on the subject in discussion.

Without treating the matter scientifically, however, in my rebuttal I could touch on a few points so as to make the weakness of the argumentations in the aforementioned booklet stand out even more clearly. I could first of all note why General Angelini, in undertaking to criticise a system which is represented by an instruction, has taken the old 1868 edition instead of the one published in 1876, notably corrected and enriched with further clarifications, primarily in those points which were the subject of his main criticisms. I could note that the citations he made about our instructions under consideration are partly erroneous and partly incomplete, and therefore devoid of a basis for logical and rational arguments. I could note that, in the examples he offers us in support of his ideas on how to wield and rotate the sabre, there is one so contrary to every principle of good handling of the sabre itself that this alone is enough for people knowledgeable on the topic to judge how erroneous his ideas are on the application of force and the articulations of the arm and hand in wielding the sabre in fencing. The example which I allude to is the one cited on page 13 of his booklet,⁴ where he says that when one of his friends grips the sabre and puts it in motion as he wishes, he rotates it with such force and violence as to make the blade bend into a hook towards the point. Allow me to exclaim: good heavens, no! Can these movements even be called cuts? These movements are what are commonly called flat hits, harmless movements which happen by gripping and rotating the sabre just as General Angelini wishes, never with the Radaelli system.

In fencing, cuts are performed with the edge and not the flat, and then they are powerful; then they can be directed well, and it is this purpose which the system I advocate achieves. But even if I had broadened the scope of my rebuttals, what purpose would we have achieved with our discussion? In my opinion none. In fencing, words can only apply to those who are highly intelligent in the subject being discussed, and even in this case the ideas must be explained with the greatest simplicity without trying to find in the complication of the ideas themselves that darkness or flexibility which is appropriate in all matters that are difficult to resolve.

Therefore I, not at all offended by the doubt expressed by Gen. Angelini in the last part of his article, i.e. that I could purely be a strong fencer and not a good master and skilled writer, and by frankly confessing my ineptitude to properly express in writing those ideas on fencing which I hear clearly and precisely in my mind, I nevertheless always present myself ready to debate verbally and practically on the matter in question, in order to thus demonstrate to the judges who will be called to give their verdict that the masters of the school I advocate are not only strong fencers, but that they also know how to give a well-reasoned and profitable lesson, and that it is precisely by virtue of the rationalism of the school that there are real results which everyone, partisan of said school or not, acknowledges and respects.

So in concluding these final notes on the dispute discussed here, I will take the liberty to recall that if I was not able to properly explain my ideas, I never failed to support them with factual proofs; that I have always declared that every noble competition proposed to them with other schools will be welcomed with celebration by the proponents of the Radaelli system—both to debate the quality of the system, as well as to give fencing lessons and to bout; and that it helps me to hope that such a declaration cannot fail to be welcomed by anyone as a very favourable conclusion for the fencing system advocated by me. It is a consequence of the ideas explained so far that I ask the exquisite kindness of Captain Cav. Luigi Forte, director of the Catania stallion horse depot, to also accept what I said so far about Radaellian fencing, also as a reply, where applicable, to the articles on the same subject he published in issues 24 and 25 of Italia Militare.

I have faith that he too will judge the proposal I made to be the most suitable and appropriate for resolving the questions in respect to which, as I said, words and written reasoning too easily deviate from that path which leads directly to knowledge of the truth, without the encumbrance of those excessive theoretical principles and those flexible phrases which do not always conform to true reality.

FERDINANDO MASIELLO

Fencing master at the Turin military academy

*******

1 Ferdinando Masiello, "Corrispondenze," l'Italia militare: giornale delle armi di terra e di mare, 9 March 1878, 2.^↩
2 TN: See pages 3 and 4 of this translation.^↩
3 See the last part of his aforementioned article.^↩
4 TN: See pages 10 and 11 of this translation.^↩