Alfred Hutton, Masiello, and the 'Italian' lunge

When consulting historical fencing sources, one should give extra scrutiny to any broad claims made regarding fencing outside the author's cultural context or geographic region. Although often treated as an authority in 19th century British fencing, Alfred Hutton is one author who made many such claims in his day, particularly during the 1890s where he was at the forefront of the opposition against Masiello's method being made regulation in the British army.

It is a matter for a future article to pick apart Hutton's criticisms of Masiello's method (some valid, others not so much), but today I wish to touch on a matter which concerns the 19th century Englishman's perception of both French and Italian fencing, specifically with regard to the position of the upper body in the lunge.

Hutton and his fellow opponents of Masiello's system were very vocal in their criticism of Masiello's preference for leaning the upper body in the lunge position so as to obtain more reach without having to lunge further with the front leg. Despite such a lunge being very common among Radaellian and northern Italian methods, this was certainly not unique to northern Italy; indeed it may also be found in German, English, and French methods both in and around the late 19th century.

In general, Hutton and the critics claim to prefer the principles of the 'French School'¹, which they say only advocates an upright torso. This incorrect generalisation was highlighted in an article in The Irish Times, where the author points out that some of the most prominent French fencing masters teach and advocate leaning the torso in the lunge, albeit claiming that the French masters were directly inspired to do so from the Italians.²

Hutton saw this article and forwarded it along with some questions to André Pouget, director of the French fencing magazine L'Escrime Française. Here is Hutton's letter:³

London, 1st October 1896

          Dear Sir, 

An article, of which I send you a copy, has appeared in the newspaper The Irish Times, as well as other newspapers. Some assertions regarding French fencing masters seem to me so difficult to believe that I have taken the liberty to ask if you will inform me on this subject.
1. Is it true that the best French fencing masters were inspired by the Italian Masiello?
2. Is it true that the lunge with the upper body pushed forward as much as possible is taught and made compulsory, so to speak, at the school of Joinville?
3. Is it true that Mr. Rue, the best fencer in Paris, teaches and practices this forward inclination in the lunge?
4. Is it true that this lunge is taught in most of the fencing halls in Paris?
5. What do Louis and Lucien Mérignac think of this manner of lunging?
6. Did representatives of the Masiello school take part in the International Tournament last summer?⁴

L'Escrime Française then provided the relevant excerpt from the article in the Irish Times, here taken from the original English:

... But in addition to the wonderful way in which this Italian system has proved its merits in the United Kingdom, it is encouraging to find that the French themselves have begun to recognise its superiority by the adoption of some of its leading principles. The forward inclination of the body in the 'lunge,' which is one of the great features of Masiello's system, and which has hitherto been strenuously opposed by the French masters of fence, is now actually taught and insisted upon in the great French Military School of Fencing at Joinville-le-Pont. Monsieur Rue, the best fencer in Paris, now practices and teaches this forward inclination of the body when lunging, and it is also taught in most of the Salles d'Armes in Paris. It is not only that some of Masiello's principles are now being adopted by the French fencers, but the great French fencing master, the celebrated Merignac, who for years has been looked upon as one of the best fencers that France has ever produced, has recently sent his son to Vienna to study fencing there under a pupil of Masiello. That Merignac, formerly the bitterest opponent of the Italian system, should send his son to study fencing on Masiello's principles, speaks volumes in favour of the Italian system.⁵

Pouget forwarded these questions and the article to the masters in question, Edouard Rue and Louis Mérignac, who were two of the most renowned French fencing masters of the time.⁶ Here is Rue's reply:

          Dear Mr. Pouget,
You asked me what I think of the questions asked of you in Captain Hutton’s letter, which you kindly passed on to me.
I will only talk about those concerning fencing and those involving myself personally.
1. Is it true, your distinguished correspondent asks, that the best French fencing masters were inspired by the teachings of the Italian Masiello?
— I will not answer for my colleagues, and I will limit myself to declaring to you that I could not personally have been inspired by this Italian professor, as I have never heard of him and do not even know if he has published a fencing treatise.
2. Is it true that Mr. Rue teaches and practices this forward inclination in the lunge?
Without claiming to have invented anything on this subject, I have always taught and practised the inclination of the body at the end of the lunge. This inclination enables a reach to be obtained in the development which is impossible to achieve if the body is kept upright.
Allow me to make a small final observation: the author of the article which accompanies Captain Hutton’s letter appears to unfortunately be confusing the sword and the sabre, and it should be understood that what I just said about the lunge only applies to sword fencing.
Yours truly, etc.

And Mérignac's reply:

          My dear student and friend,
I hasten to respond to the questions contained in the letter sent to you by Captain Hutton and which you kindly passed on to me.
For the first question regarding the influence of Maestro Masiello on the teachings of French masters, I will answer, for my part, that he is completely unknown to me.
I teach my students the lunge which seems to me the only rational one, in accordance with the principles of fencing and combat—that is to say, with forward inclination of the body. This principle belongs exclusively to the French school, because all Italians only attack on the march and completely ignore the lunge, which is one of the distinctive traits of our school.
If my son went to professor Luigi Barbasetti in Vienna, it was not to follow the teachings of the Italian school, but to practise sabre fencing, which the article in the Irish Times naively confuses with the sword and which, I admit, is still neglected in France.
The French school has always maintained its superiority and my son Lucien has just affirmed this once more with his victory at the international tournament in Budapest.
Yours truly, etc.

A few issues later this magazine reproduced a letter on the matter from Colonel Fox, the director of the British school at Aldershot:

         Dear Mr. Pouget,
I saw an article in your interesting newspaper 'The position of the body in the lunge', and I saw in the response to Captain A. Hutton's questions that the great masters Rue and Mérignac practise the forward inclination of the body in the lunge! I hope that you also answer in the affirmative for the military school of Joinville (the one in question); I myself noticed it at the time during my last two visits to this school.
Would you be so kind as to tell me whether Captain Hutton sent you the full article published in the Irish Times, because I conclude from your observations and also those of Mr. Rue and Mr. Mérignac that they were under the impression that the author was speaking of the foil and épée de combat. The sabre is what was being discussed, which in England we call the sword.
The article was entitled: Sabre fencing on the continent.
I should explain that, in England, we only have two weapons in fencing, the fleuret (foil) and the sabre (sword). We do not have the épée de combat.
Barbasetti, from Florence, is either a faithful disciple of Masiello's school, or his student. I think he is both. And I know Sestini, from Berlin, who recently had a victory over a student of Mérignac.
Masiello wrote the most complete treatise in existence, both on the sabre (sword) and the fleuret (foil), and if you wish, I would be pleased to send a copy to you immediately.
He has since written a very complete book on the sabre (sword) which I used to form the basis of our military system.
I must declare that in our military schools, fencing is limited to the handling of the sabre (sword). 

Yours sincerely,
Fox⁷

The next issue contained a letter from Garibaldi Burba, a decorated Italian amateur fencer and L'Escrime Française's correspondent in Rome:

Rome, 26 November 1896

          Dear Director,
I have been waiting to write a few words to you regarding the letters of Rue and Mérignac published in a previous issue of l'Escrime Française in the hope that some fencer or Italian master with more authority than me would do so.
I do not wish to discuss the merits of citing Mr. Masiello on the manner of performing a fencing action, as Captain Hutton wishes to do. But it is not random and without reason that the name of Mr. Masiello appears in this correspondence addressed to l'Escrime Française from England.
The translation into English and adoption of Masiello's fencing treatise in the British army is today a fait accompli and has official sanction. Mr. Masiello was even called to London to explain through a series of short but precious lessons the method through which, despite his modesty, he has made himself famous.
It must also not be forgotten that in Italy Mr. Masiello represents, with the constancy which comes from an enlightened and rational conviction, the splendid traditions of the Radaelli school, whose flag Mr. Masiello has always held high, and which has given Italian fencing Pecoraro, Guasti, Pessina, Barbasetti, Sartori, Rossi, and many others.
If I were to write to an Italian newspaper, I would be careful not to praise Mr. Masiello—he is too well-known for that and too esteemed in the world of fencing, even among laymen. He is a truly remarkable personality, both for his intelligence and for his intellectual culture, unusual among fencing masters, among whom he is distinguished above all by his special qualities of logical, precise, and original teaching.
This is why I allowed myself to ask you for a small place in your newspaper, in the hope that it would not be disagreeable for you to print these few lines which would do justice to one of the kindest figures in the world of fencing, unfortunately largely unknown by strong and courteous French fencing masters. 

Garibaldi Burba⁸

A month later, L'Escrime Française published a letter it received from Luigi Barbasetti, who also wished to correct some comments made by the article in The Irish Times and Colonel Fox:

          Dear Mr. Pouget, 

I am grateful you were kind enough to point out an inaccuracy overlooked by Colonel Fox concerning me, and which it may be good to clarify.
Masiello is a dear friend of mine, but he was never my master.
Indeed, I am of the pure Radaellian school (for the sabre), and I had as my first master Carlo Guasti, to whom Masiello also owes his knowledge of the sabre, as Masiello belongs to the old Enrichetti school, which completely ignored the handling of this weapon in which we Radaellians have exclusivity, and it seems to me that Masiello could well be a disciple of our great St. Paul on this subject.⁹
The difference is certainly not slight; however, I would feel very honoured to be from Masiello, and I would accept this title with all the more enthusiasm, since it would give me a few less years on my shoulders!
I spoke here with regard to the sabre.
As for the sword, Masiello’s method is even more different than mine, to the point that we are exact opposites. It is not for me to say which of the two is right. This is a question which I leave to be discussed by the students whom I have everywhere.
Finally, there is one thing especially which I would like to avoid, which is that I must not be confused with Sestini of Berlin, who is a genuinely good student of Masiello, but, in the Italian art, only amounts to a good amateur, and nothing more. 

Yours sincerely,
Barbasetti¹⁰

Thus we see that Hutton was not alone in having a limited understanding of contemporary fencing outside his own country. The same incorrect assumptions can be found in all discussions of fencing throughout the ages—we are all only human, after all. These letters also demonstrate that the French were not necessarily much better in their knowledge of the Italian fencing scene. This should hopefully serve as a good demonstration that we must be ever sceptical in what we read, even from contemporary sources, and to be careful when assuming the reliability of certain authors.

The full translations of these articles, including a transcription of the article from the Irish Times, I have collated together here.

I shall leave you with two videos showing French fencers who demonstrate a torso lean in their lunge. The first is a video of the younger Mérignac giving a lesson to the great Lucien Gaudin, who, like his master, shows some amount of lean in the lunge. The second is a video compiled from a flip-book showing two French fencers giving a demonstration of sabre fencing, both showing considerable torso inclination (despite Rue's statement about said torso inclination only applying to foil).

1 Alfred Hutton, "The infantry sword exercise of 1895," The United Service Magazine, March 1896, 631–40; "Military Matters," The Globe, 7 December 1895, 3; I. D. Chepmell and G. H. Savage, "Infantry sword exercise and the recent handbook from the war office," The Lancet 146, no. 3752 (27 July 1895): 234; C. T. Dent, "Infantry sword exercise and the recent handbook from the war office," The Lancet 146, no. 3770 (30 November 1895): 1391–2.^↩
2 "Sword fencing on the continent," The Irish Times, 3 August 1896, 6.^↩
3 Note that this letter was translated into French for publication in L'Escrime Française, which I have then translated back into English.^↩
4 "La position du corps dans l'allonge," L'Escrime Française, 1 November 1896, 4.^↩
5 Emphasis added by the editors of L'Escrime Française.^↩
6 "La position du corps dans l'allonge," L'Escrime Française, 1 November 1896, 4.^↩
7 "L'escrime en Angleterre," L'Escrime Française, 29 November 1896, 1.^↩
8 "L'escrime en Angleterre," L'Escrime Française, 6 December 1896, 3.^↩
9 Here Barbasetti is likening Masiello to Paul the Apostle, most likely in the sense that he was not originally a Radaellian, but 'converted' and became Radaelli's most devoted follower.^↩
10 Luigi Barbasetti, "Une lettre de Barbasetti," L'Escrime Française, 13 December 1896, 4. For Barbasetti's short letter correcting errors in the translation of his previous letter, see "Masiello et Radaelli," L'Escrime Française, 3 January 1897, 3.^↩

The Right Tool for the Job

We interrupt your regular broadcast to announce that an article of mine has just been published here on the Melbourne Fencing Society's website. The article takes a look at what various authors of sabre treatises said with regard to what kind of sabres should be used for fencing, collating all the preferences, specifications, and opinions I have been able to find so far.

I hope you enjoy.

The republication of Marchionni's 1847 treatise

Alberto Marchionni's Trattato di scherma was the first work to be published explicitly discussing the 'mixed' school of fencing, and was highly regarded by many of those in the north of Italy who were themselves also considered proponents of the mixed school. Although it is of great significance within the context of Radaelli and his contemporaries, I will not be discussing the technical matter contained in the treatise here today. Instead, I wish to provide a clarification for the publication of this important work which may not be immediately obvious upon first reading it.

The title page of this book gives a publication date of 1847, however, I wish to point out a few parts of the book which indicate that the majority of copies which can now be found online (and presumably those found in libraries) were published almost 20 years later.

Our first clue of this is contained at the end of part 1, where one finds the following note to the reader from the publisher:

In 1847 the author undertook the printing of this treatise, but due to the political events that took place in 1848, he had to suspend its publication in order to take part in the war of independence as a volunteer, and then due to various circumstances having to continue his military career, where he still finds himself with the rank of major on leave of absence.
Encouraged by several of his old associates, and urged on again by various masters of this art who would like to see this treatise completed, he took to continuing it.
Hence we are more than certain that this book will receive universal approval, due to the useful considerations demonstrated by the author, and due to it truly being a complete treatise on this most noble art.¹

Thus we already see that this edition must have been published some time after the First Italian War of Independence. At the end of the book, Marchionni includes various acknowledgements to his friends and colleagues for their support in continuing the publication of his treatise. Among others, he lists Enrichetti at the Royal Military College in Florence as having bought one copy of the book, Maestro Pini in Livorno as buying 4, a Maestro Radaelli in Milan buying 5, and Maestro Lambertini buying 2.²

Further on he gives praise to Carlo Tambornini and Cesare Alberto Blengini for their treatises, calling the former the best sabre treatise written to-date, and commending the latter for his methodology for group fencing instruction.³ Given that Blengini's treatise was published in 1864, the republication of Marchionni's treatise cannot have occurred earlier than this.

By searching outside Marchionni's text, we find an issue of a short-lived newspaper from 8 August 1864 by the name of l'Esercito Illustrato. In this issue, we find an article by an unnamed writer giving a review of Marchionni's treatise, which he says was in fact republished twice in that year:

The first instalment of this important work was published in 1847, the second and the third date from 1864.⁴

So with a republication date of 1864 (or better yet, two republication dates), we can fairly safely assume that the masters cited by Marchionni would have been Giuseppe Pini (father of the famous Eugenio Pini), Bonaventura Radaelli (older brother of Giuseppe Radaelli, who at this time was following Avogadro and the Monferrato cavalry in their various postings in Italy⁵), and Clemente Lambertini (father of Vittorio Lambertini).


1 Alberto Marchionni, Trattato di scherma sopra un nuovo sistema di giuoco misto di scuola italiana e francese, [2nd ed.] (Florence: Federigo Bendici, 1847 [1864]), 206.^↩
2 ibid., 373.^↩
3 ibid., 373–4.^↩
4 Bibliografia, L'esercito illustrato: giornale militare, 6 August 1864, 445.^↩
5 Jacopo Gelli, Bibliografia generale della scherma con note critiche, biografiche, e storiche (Florence: Tipografia Editrice di Luigi Niccolai, 1890), 167.^↩

Translation - Sinossi della scherma di sciabola by Antonio Tinti

In the period of history focused on in this blog, it is not often that one encounters a text without a named author or date of publication. The curious text Sinossi della scherma di sciabola is rather unique in this sense, if not for its content. The text and illustrations (aside from a few small additions) are largely identical to Del Frate's 1868 treatise on Radaelli's sabre method Istruzione per maneggio e scherma della sciabola¹, albeit shorter and more concise. Despite this, the small differences in the text may prove interesting for those interested in the Radaellian method at a deeper level. The Biblioteca Fondazione Collegio San Carlo has kindly allowed me to share the excellent quality scans of this text.

Translation (without illustrations)

Transcription

Scans (includes illustrations)

Although this copy does not list an author, in Gelli's 1890 fencing bibliography he states that some copies bear the name 'A. Tinti' in the top right-hand corner of the title page. As Gelli suggests, this is most likely Antonio Tinti, a fencing master at the Military School of Modena. He also gives an estimated date of publication of around 1880, which I would also agree with.²

One piece of evidence that gives a strong indication of it being published before 1884 is the presence in this copy of the following hand-written note at the end of the book, most likely written by the original owner of this copy:

The modifications recently introduced in the Fencing system included in the treatise adopted as the Text for the Army and approved by the Ministers of the Navy and Public Education are based specifically on the teaching of the Sword (Foil).
The sabre fencing is therefore only the continuation of the same artistic principles announced in the sword text, namely: tempo, speed, and measure.
The difference between the sabre method now adopted and that of this booklet is in the method of performing the blows, which are struck with the pivot point in the articulation of the wrist instead of the elbow.
The modifications introduced in the form of the sabres can be seen from the new sabre models; and the theories, pictures, and prints of the swords and sabres for the aforementioned new method are fully explained and highlighted in other sword and sabre synopses.

It is clear that they are referring to Parise's treatise, which became the regulation fencing treatise for the army in 1884³, thus indicating that Tinti's book was published earlier than this.

The book includes 21 illustrations, which mostly appear to have been copied from Del Frate's aforementioned 1868 book, but with a few additions such as the diagram labelling the parts of the sabre, plus a close-up illustration showing how to grip the sabre.

As for the method described, the main notable differences to Del Frate is Tinti's explicit recommendation that in the student's later lessons, the half cross-step back in the parries of low 3rd and low 4th may be omitted. He is also the only Radaellian author to state that the change sforzi (sforzi di cambiamento) are only intended as exercises:

With the exception of the sforzo of half-circle and various other simple sforzi done with the edge, the sforzi are only done as exercises in the lesson, while the first ones are also performed in the bout.

There are other minor differences here-and-there, which I leave to the reader to discover for themselves.

Thanks to Biblioteca Fondazione Collegio San Carlo for providing these scans and for allowing me to share them with you all.

1 Settimo Del Frate, Istruzione per maneggio e scherma della sciabola (Florence: Tipografia, lit. e calc. la Venezia, 1868).

2 Jacopo Gelli, Bibliografia generale della scherma con note critiche, biografiche, e storiche (Florence: Tipografia Editrice di Luigi Niccolai, 1890).

3 Cesare Francesco Ricotti-Magnani, "N. 107. - Pubblicazione del trattato di scherma di spada e sciabola compilato dal signor Masaniello Parise. - (Segretariato generale). - 11 agosto," Giornale Militare 1884: parte seconda, no. 33 (16 August 1884): 653–4.

La Scherma di Fioretto by Ferdinando Masiello

Considered by many to be the leader of the Radaellian school of fencing in the decades following the death of its founder, Ferdinando Masiello was without doubt a giant in the Italian fencing scene of the late 19th century. He first published his method of fencing in 1887 under the title La scherma italiana di spada e di sciabola ('Italian sword and sabre fencing'). His sword method was a combination of all the principles he considered best among those systems he studied, the main influence being Cesare Enrichetti, along with dozens of footnotes criticising and refuting Masaniello Parise's method. Masiello's sabre method, however, was based only on Radaelli's method, with a few of his own modifications.

Fifteen years later, he separately released a second edition of his sword treatise (third edition for sabre). His treatise on the sword (now using the name fioretto to differentiate it from the recently popularised épée du combat) entitled La scherma di fioretto is what I wish to share with readers today.

Scans: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1y2cb5sUZqx_mFQPsRQVNgCFtn43uDIiY

The second edition removes much of the fluff in the introduction of the 1887 edition, and is far less scathing of Parise, having none of the footnotes picking apart his method. Short of doing a detailed side-by-side comparison, the method itself is much the same, still retaining his unique preference of wielding the sword predominantly through the shoulder, both for disengagements and parries. The most obvious change is the illustrations, which replace the clothed clones of the 1887 edition with ripped Adonises in budgie smugglers.

Translation - Lezioni collettive di spada e sciabola by Eugenio Pini

Eugenio Pini is one of the most famous names in modern Italian fencing history, perhaps second only to Aldo Nadi. He was undoubtedly the first modern Italian fencing celebrity, with his name being known across Europe thanks to his high-profile fencing exhibitions, duels, feuds, and not least his renowned fencing club in Livorno, which produced many champions, the most prominent of whom being Giuseppe 'Beppe' Nadi, father of Aldo and Nedo Nadi.

Before he was quite so famous, while employed at the Royal Naval Academy in Livorno, Pini wrote a short book detailing his method of group instruction for fencing, according to the regulation method of the time (see Parise's 1884 treatise Trattato teorico-pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola). It is this valuable and interesting work which I wish to share with you all today, which is entitled Lezioni collettive di spada e sciabola ('Group sword and sabre lessons'), published in 1891 in Milan.

Translation | Transcription | Scans

With very little in the way of technical notes, this booklet is more of a pedagogical guide for trained fencing instructors. Although individual lessons were the more popular method at the time for imparting technical skills (at least in the initial phases of learning), Pini's text provides a valuable insight into how skilled fencing masters would impart lessons to groups without compromising the quality of their teaching in doing so.

With reference to Parise's regulation treatise, Pini divides his curriculum into 5 years (the same length as an officer's course at the Royal Naval Academy), with the first four years of which being devoted almost entirely to sword fencing. Here is a summary of each year of the curriculum:

1st year

Instruction begins with sword fencing only. Students learn basic footwork, simple attacks, simple parries, circular parries, disengagements and counter-disengagements, and feints.

2nd year

The instructor transitions to doing individual lessons with the students, who practise among themselves when not taking a lesson.

3rd year

The instructor continues in the same manner as in the second year, but also begins slowly transitioning only the most capable students into bouting, which they will be allowed to do in the last months of the year.

4th year

The instructor will continue perfecting the students' fencing individually, still only allowing the best students to bout between themselves and with the instructor. In the last months of the year, students will begin learning the fundamentals of sabre fencing through group exercises

5th year

Students will receive individual sabre lessons, whilst the rest practise among themselves through exercises and bouting. All the while, the instructor will keep a watchful eye on the students, correcting and guiding them to becoming skilled and courteous fencers.

La Scherma della Sciabola e del Bastone a Due Mani by Alberto Falciani

Seeing as it has been a while since I have made public any original fencing treatises, I thought I should get around to completing a transcription of Alberto Falciani's La scherma della sciabola e del bastone a due mani ('Fencing with the sabre and two-handed stick'), published in Pisa in 1870.

Transcription: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1okZkYb02Xpuky_KnIUfZ6BbATDv_Bx9L

As the name implies, this treatise is devoted to both sabre and bastone, the latter being the practice of fencing with two-handed sticks, which was quite popular in the middle of the 19th century, before going out of fashion around the time this treatise was published.

Although it contains no illustrations, the language is clear and simple enough for them to not be required, such as the description for the typical northern Italian lunge ('... the right breast is almost directly above the right knee').

In an article from Corriere dell'Arno, published 31 October 1886, the writer states that Falciani was a volunteer in the 2nd and 3rd Italian Wars of Independence, and he is now a 'master of fencing, gymnastics, and military exercises' in Pisa.

Thanks to Biblioteca Universitaria di Pisa for providing the scans for this transcription.