1884 Regulations for the Italian Military Fencing Masters School

After a government commission organised by the Italian Ministry of War declared that Masaniello Parise's fencing treatise would become the new regulation fencing text for the Italian army (thus supplanting the Radaellian method), a new national school for training military fencing masters was founded in Rome in 1884, with Parise appointed as its head of instruction.

This school, known as the Scuola magistrale militare di scherma in Italian, replaced the one in Milan which was directed by Giuseppe Radaelli until a few years before his death, with his number one assistant Giovanni Monti taking over the role until the school's closure some time between 1882 and 1884.

What I present here today is a translation of the official regulations which laid out the structure of the training at the new fencing masters school in Rome as well as the roles and responsibilities of the various personnel assigned to it. This Act no. 123 was issued on the 27 June 1884, and was published in the official Italian military journal Giornale Militare on the 4 July.¹ At the beginning of the following October the first 'conversion' courses began at the school, in which all fencing masters employed by the military would be taught the new official method.²

---

Internal service regulations for the military fencing masters school

Generalities

1. The military fencing masters school was instituted with the aim of propagating the instruction of Italian sword and sabre fencing in the army, with uniformity of method and in conformity with the official treatise approved by the Ministry of War.
2. The treatise, according to which the teaching must be conducted, is that compiled by Mr. Masaniello Parise and which has already been examined and selected by a special commission delegated for this purpose by the Ministry itself.
3. Under the high dependence of the command of the IX army corps (Rome), the direction of the military fencing masters school is entrusted to the commander of the 6th cavalry brigade.
4. Called to the military fencing masters school are the non-commissioned officers who were put forward to hold, after passing the required exams, the post of fencing instructor.
5. As an exception, civilian masters and non-commissioned officers already appointed as fencing instructors may be called to the school to acquire practical knowledge of the method developed in the prescribed official text.

School structure

6. The military fencing masters school is composed of:

1. A senior director, whose functions are carried out, as said in no. 3, by the commander of the 6th cavalry brigade;
2. A deputy director;
3. A technical director;
4. Three assistant masters to the technical director;
5. A junior supervising officer of military personnel and secretary of the Directorate-General;
6. A number of candidates attending the courses at the school, determined on a case-by-case basis by the Ministry;
7. Three official orderly soldiers.

The senior director

7. The responsibility of the senior director is the supervision of discipline, instruction, and administration of equipment in the school's charge.
8. On consultation with the technical director, he compiles the timetables and invigilates their continuous adherence.
9. Leaving the full responsibility of the results of the teaching to the aforementioned technical director, he maintains high supervision of it and makes sure that said teaching is successfully imparted and in accordance with the chosen treatise.
10. With regard to the personnel permanently or temporarily assigned to the school, all the duties prescribed in Chapter VI of the regulations of military discipline will be honoured.
11. If the conduct or behaviour of any of the civilian personnel assigned to the school leaves something to be desired, after a warning the senior director will refer him in writing to the Ministry of War, formulating concrete proposals regarding the punishments to be applied.
12. If any of the military personnel commanded to attend the courses at the school do not meet the requirements of good behaviour, discipline, and attitude towards the art professed in the school, after hearing the technical director's opinion regarding this person's attitude, [the superior director] will immediately send that person back to their own corps, giving notice of the measure taken to the Ministry of War through the command of the IX armed corps (Rome).
13. The position of deputy director is held by the commander of the cavalry regiment, which has its headquarters in Rome.
He assists the senior director in carrying out the functions assigned to him by these regulations and according to the orders which will be given by him.
14. In the absence of the senior director, the deputy director will take over in the supervision of discipline, instruction, and administration of the school without, however, as far as possible, bringing substantial change to the rules established by the senior director whose place he is taking.

The technical director

15. The direct responsibility for the teaching and the direction of the same teaching, for the artistic side, will be assigned to the technical director, except always with the high supervision of the senior director.
16. He will be obliged by the aforesaid director to scrupulously conform the teaching to the rules of the Italian school of fencing, given in the above-mentioned treatise, and to the highest standards of perfect chivalry.
17. He proposes to the senior director the allotment of instruction hours and the division of the candidates attending the courses at the school into sections.
18. He resolves any technical doubt which arises in the candidates in conformance with the principles established by the treatise.
19. He directs the lessons given by his assistants, giving lessons himself where he sees fit.
20. He indicates to the supervising officer the required equipment or repairs, to submit the requests for approval by the senior director.
21. He keeps a current register of the individuals admitted to the school and fortnightly he assigns, to each of those on the register, a numerical classification score between 0 and 20.
22. He proposes to the senior director the expulsion or dismissal from the school of those candidates who prove deserving of such due to bad behaviour, indiscipline or ineptitude in fencing.

The technical director's assistants

23. The technical director's assistant masters have the task of giving the lessons to the school's candidates, according to the rules established by the treatise and according to the other prescriptions which said technical director believes best to issue.
24. The highest ranked or oldest of the assistants substitutes the technical director in case of absence and assumes all his obligations and responsibilities.
25. During the time he holds this position, the assistant master who temporarily replaces the technical director cannot make any changes to the method followed by the director. It will instead be his constant care that said method undergoes no alteration of any kind so that the necessary and perfect unity of direction is maintained at the school.
26. The assistant masters are entitled to a month of annual leave to be enjoyed in the months of August or September at their choice, provided one of them is always present at the school headquarters. This leave will be granted by the senior director.
27. When special needs require their absence from the school for a few days, they will ask the senior director, through the technical director, and comply with the decisions he makes.
28. All reprimands and criticisms on the behaviour and conduct of individual candidates at the school by the assistant masters must be made to the technical director, who will in turn refer them to the senior director.

The supervising officer

29. The direct disciplinary supervision of military personnel assigned to the school is fully devolved to the junior officer assigned to the school.
30. He therefore exercises the aforementioned powers according to the Regulations of discipline and subordinate to the senior director.
31. He has free access to the fencing halls in which, even during instruction, he exercises disciplinary supervision without, of course, hindering the progress of said instruction in the slightest.
32. He ensures the delivery of all equipment entrusted to the school and keeps the register up to date.
33. On direction from the technical director, he compiles the requests for new equipment or repairs to existing equipment in order to then submit them for approval and signing by the senior director.
34. He must be present at the beginning of every instruction in order to verify the participation of those admitted to the school, make note of absences, and the reason for the absences, which will in turn be reported to the technical director.
35. The dress standards, order in the chambers and fencing halls, and general behaviour of the soldiers assigned to the school will be the particular subject of his care and his responsibility.

The candidates attending the courses at the school

36. In each year some non-commissioned officers who aspire to become fencing instructors are admitted to the school, the number of which being determined each time by the minister.
37. These non-commissioned officers will be drawn from bodies of troops proportionately to the need of each arm.
38. The proposals for admission to the masters school will be made by the corps commanders, taking into account, for those coming from educational departments, the note of the student's special aptitude for fencing made by the commanders of said educational departments.
The proposals will be directed to the Ministry of War (Directorate-General of conscripts and troops), and the number of requests must be greater than the number of admissions in order to be able to choose, through examination, the people most suitable for the purpose.
39. The non-commissioned officers who are called to attend the courses at the masters school in order to then obtain the appointment of fencing instructor, as soon as they have arrived at the school, will be subjected to a practical examination in the presence of the senior director, deputy director, and technical director in order to verify their fencing aptitude. Those who are sent back in this examination will be made to return immediately to their corps by the senior director.
40. As an exception, non-commissioned officers already provided with a military fencing instructor's licence may be called to attend the school's courses, with the aim of verifying if they know and profess perfectly the instruction method established by the Ministry.
41. With the same intention, civil fencing masters dependent on military administrations may also be called to the school.
42. Those admitted to the school are divided into sections in accordance with the rules which will be given by the senior director, on the advice of the technical director.
43. The highest-ranking or the most senior of each section will be its leader with respect to discipline and internal services.
44. In the fencing halls, those admitted to the school must maintain the behaviour, courtesy, and deference to the directors and teachers which is dictated by the feeling of duty and by the profession of an essentially courteous and knightly art.
45. Those who, through their conduct, character or incompetence, prove to be less suitable for the role of fencing instructor will be immediately expelled or discharged from the school.
46. With respect to discipline, the military personnel assigned to the school are directly under the junior supervising officer, to whom should be directed all questions and complaints which the individual wishes to be addressed to the senior supervisor.

The official orderly soldiers

47. The official orderly soldiers attend to the cleaning and care of the premises and, if necessary, the preparation of the canteen for the non-commissioned officers assigned to the school.
48. Through daily shifts, one of these soldiers will be assigned to the care of all the premises belonging to the school and may not leave or be distracted for any reason.
49. Another of the aforementioned soldiers must remain in the vicinity of the fencing halls throughout the whole period of instruction, at the disposal of the technical director and supervising officer.
Said soldier must ensure that the fencing halls are opened in a timely manner and arrange for their closure according to the orders given by the technical director and supervising officer.
50. The third of these soldiers may, if necessary, be assigned to the preparation of the canteen for the non-commissioned officers assigned to the school. If he is not assigned to this service, he will join the other two in carrying out their duties.

The courses and lessons

51. The course of instruction at the military fencing masters school normally lasts two years for those aspiring to become military fencing instructors.
Possible courses for civil fencing masters and non-commissioned officers who have already obtained a military fencing instructor licence will have a duration determined by the Ministry on a case-by-case basis.
52. Lessons will begin on the 1st October of each year and will finish on the 31st July the following year.
53. On each working day, the instruction will last for a total of six hours, three of which being before midday and three after.

Disciplinary rules for the fencing halls

54. The weapons, masks, and gloves required in the fencing halls may not be used without the presence of the director or teachers.
55. It is forbidden to fence sword or sabre without a mask, glove, and duck canvas underplastron,³ so as to avoid any unpleasant mishaps.
56. If a piece of fencing equipment breaks during a lesson or bout, the teacher whose presence it occurs in will communicate with the director for the appropriate replacement or repair requests.
57. Replacements and repairs of equipment broken or ruined during instruction will be paid for by the school. If instead the damage is produced by negligence or in the absence of teachers, it will be paid for by the one who caused it, and if the culprit cannot be found, the damage will be shared between those admitted to the school.
58. Since it is the technical director's responsibility for the teaching and its results, the students owe him their absolute obedience and deference in the fencing hall, and similarly they owe obedience and deference to the assistant masters whom they receive the teaching from.
59. In the interest of the instruction, the very best behaviour is required in the fencing halls.
60. If the senior director of the school or another military authority superior to him are present in the fencing halls, the technical director will suspend the instruction, which will be resumed only on invitation from the senior director or the above-mentioned authority.
61. Any discussion of the various fencing methods which have existed in Italy until now are absolutely prohibited, as are all comparisons. Everyone must therefore keep in mind that the school was instituted with the sole aim of propagating throughout the army knowledge of the method chosen by the Ministry.
62. Any doubt or controversy which arises in the fencing halls will be resolved by the technical director or whomever takes his place.

Examinations and final exhibition

63. At the end of every school year, in front of a special commission appointed by the Ministry, theoretical-practical examinations will take place which serve to classify the candidates.
64. Individuals who do not pass the aforementioned examinations, and who do not compensate for the deficiencies reported in them with an average fortnightly score reported throughout the year, will be discharged from the school.
65. The final classification score of each course year will consist of the score reported in the aforementioned examination and the average score for the year.
66. The classifications are given by numerical marks from 0 to 20.
67. To pass from the 1st to the 2nd course year, each individual must have a final classification score of no less than 12/20.
68. To receive the military fencing instructor licence, those admitted to the school must have achieved a final classification score in the 2nd course year of no less than 14/20.
69. With the examinations complete, on a day determined by the senior director a final grand exhibition will take place, with the primary authorities being invited and which will, depending on the means and premises available for the school, be given the greatest possible solemnity.
70. Provisions for the arrangement and preparation of this grand exhibition will be given by the senior director, who, where he deems it appropriate, may also allow masters and amateurs not belonging to the school to take part.
71. The Ministry of War reserves the right to allocate one or more prizes to be distributed to the best fencers participating in the exhibition.
72. The aforementioned prizes will be awarded by the special jury appointed by the Ministry of War on the advice of the senior director.

Reports

73. Every quarter the technical director must make a summary report in writing to the senior director on the course of the instruction and the progress of those admitted to the school.
74. At the end of the year, this report must be as detailed as necessary to give an exact and perfect conception of the development and fruits of the instruction.
This annual report will be sent through the commander of the IX army corps to the Ministry of War by the senior director, who will add his own observations.
75. The senior director—whether for technical reasons, disciplinary reasons or anything other reason—will send to said Ministry all other reports which he deems appropriate along with the others.

---

1 Emilio Ferrero, "Atto N. 123. - SCUOLE MILITARI. - Regolamento di servizio interno della scuola magistrale militare di scherma. - 27 giugno," Giornale Militare 1884: parte prima, no. 29 (4 July 1884): 453–62.^↩
2 Emilio Ferrero, "Circolare N. 131. - Corsi eventuali presso la scuola magistrale militare di scherma. - (Segretariato generale). - 26 settembre," Giornale Militare 1884: parte seconda, no. 41 (3 October 1884): 757–9..^↩
3 TN: 'petto di tela olona' — Also known as cotton duck, this is tightly-woven canvas which was commonly used for sails.^↩

The Parise-Pecoraro Method (Part 3)

In parts one and two of this series we looked at the political background of Masaniello Parise's sabre method in the army and how there was mounting pressure from within the Ministry of War for reforming it. This reform took place over several years and the resulting method was eventually accepted in 1891 thanks to the assistance of the Radaellian master Salvatore Pecoraro.

To determine how this new method differed from both the previous Radaellian and Parise's method (as detailed in his 1884 treatise), here we will examine the sabre method as detailed in the cavalry regulations published in January 1896.¹ The original scans of volume one, containing the sabre instruction, may be viewed here. A translation of the relevant sabre section may be found in the link below.

Translation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jEIYPVNR6_JfjJvi3WEQq5uFwm0qdytr/view?usp=sharing

For those who have read the 1873 cavalry regulations, the new material will appear noticeably simpler, with the general on-foot fencing instruction having been removed, leaving only the come a cavallo or 'as if on horseback' instruction. For the sabre, the traditional Radaellian exercise molinelli and coupés are completely absent, and the parries have been reduced in number and most are renamed.

While the new cutting mechanics in these regulations are a departure from the Radaellian method, they do on the other hand closely resemble Parise's revised molinelli as detailed in the fifth edition of his treatise, which was not published until 1904.²

Unlike in the first edition from 1884, where the molinelli were based almost entirely on wrist rotation, keeping the arm extended, the fifth edition gives starting positions for the molinelli with an almost fully bent arm. The resulting cuts are therefore a much wider, more sweeping action than Parise's first conception of the molinelli, but still not quite what the Radaellians were advocating—more an amalgamation of the two methods.

For example, the 'blow to the head from the right' is described in the following manner:

Blow to the head—FROM THE RIGHT (3 tempi)

1. Raise the sabre and bring the hand to the height and a palm away from the right temple with the blade diagonally to the rear and the edge turned up.

2. Extending the arm, violently give a cut in a diagonal direction from one's own right shoulder to the left flank, with the body accompanying the movement of the arm, letting the blade continue its path until its rotation is complete and the hand ends up about a palm away from the left temple with the blade diagonally to the rear, edge up.

3. Retake the guard position.³

Comparing this to the 1904 version of Parise's descending molinello from the right, the similarity is immediately obvious:

The descending molinello from the right is performed in two movements:
First, from guard of third the sabre is raised, carrying the hand, turned to third-in-fourth, up to the height of the right temple and about a palm away, with the blade diagonally to the rear;
Second, keeping the same hand position, the cut is given violently in a diagonal direction, and then by turning the hand into second-in-third the sabre is brought back, passing close to the left shoulder, describing a circular arc with the point to come back on guard.⁴

The resulting cut ends up like a combination of Radaelli's coupé and the recovery molinello used in Parise's original sabre method. The blows to the face bear more resemblance to Radaelli's molinelli to the face, but with the same Parise-style recovery motion to come back to the guard position.

Due to the extreme similarities between the descending and horizontal molinelli in the fifth edition of Parise's treatise and the cutting exercises in the 1896 cavalry regulations, as well as the fact that the changes detailed in these regulations were supposedly introduced to the whole army by early 1892 (see part 2), it seems rather safe to assume that the new molinelli exercises were being taught at the fencing master's school as part of the revised system for at least 12 years before the publication of the fifth edition of Parise's treatise in 1904, and that at least some of the changes shown in it were reflective of Pecoraro's influence (and the influence of other the Radaellians employed at the school at various points in time) on the sabre method practised at the school.

As mentioned above, there are two fewer parries than in the 1873 and 1885 regulations, removing the regular extended parries of 3rd and 4th in favour of keeping only the low versions. In addition to the 'semicircle' parries, which are unchanged, the remaining parries now have descriptive names instead of the traditional numbering:

• Forward (analogous to parry of 1st)
• To the right (low 3rd)
• To the left (low 4th)
• High right (5th)
• High left (6th)

The theoretical and tactical foundation of the method is still wholly that of the preceding Radaellian method, echoing the main requirements of the blow as power, length, and direction. The last part of the sabre instruction contains the following tactical advice for the soldier:

Attack instead of defending;

Favour blows with the point, because they are more effective and more difficult to parry;

As much as possible direct the cuts to the face and the left hand;

Attacking from the front, try to always have the opponent to the right;

Do not let them gain you on your left side;

When following a cavalryman, place yourself to his left.

The first point, that being to focus on attacking rather than defending, is something that was heavily criticised by Achille Angelini in his critique of the Radaelli method, and was even mentioned in the report of the commission which decided in 1883 that Parise's treatise would become the new official method for the Italian army.⁵ It seems that despite this criticism, cavalry commanders still considered it sound advice to teach to the troops.

The 1896 cavalry regulations may not have been the full triumphant return of Radaelli's method that his disciples had hoped for, but it is a clear indication that the original Parise sabre method was considered insufficient by those in the cavalry, who were by this point the only arm that were expected to use their sabres on the battlefield. Just like how pressure from the Neapolitan school of fencing had overcome the incumbent Radaelli method in the early 1880s, the same change had now been experienced in the opposite direction, albeit to a lesser degree and with no fanfare.

1 Ministero della Guerra, Regolamento di esercizi per la cavalleria, vol. 1 (Rome: Voghera Enrico, 1896).^↩
2 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), pp. 284–6.^↩
3 Ministero della Guerra, 30–1.^↩
4 Parise, Trattato teorico pratico, 285.^↩
5 Paulo Fambri, "Relazione" in Parise, Trattato teorico pratico, 27.^↩

Italian Fencing Visits London

Left to right: Italo Santelli, Agesilao Greco, Masaniello Parise, Vincenzo Drosi, and Angelo Torricelli.

In 1892, at the invitation of the British government, Masaniello Parise and a delegation of four fencing instructors from the Military Fencing Master's School in Rome were sent to England in order to give demonstrations at London's annual military tournament.

Although it was not strictly Radaellian fencing being showcased at the 1892 military tournament, the demonstration did reflect the growing interest in England and most of Europe around Italian fencing, particularly with regard to sabre. This had begun in the late 1880s as seen with Francis Vere Wright and his 1889 partial translation of Masiello's sabre treatise¹ and culminated with the publication of the 1895 Infantry Sword Exercise, which made Masiello's sabre system regulation for the British army.²

The appearance of Italian fencing masters in England was at the request of the English government themselves, who also covered every expense the Italians would incur in their travels (much to the disgust of some commentators, who believed that such an offer should have been refused on the grounds on national pride).³ The delegates chosen by the Italian Ministry of War were considered by many to be among the finest young graduates of the Fencing Master's School: Agesilao Greco, Italo Santelli, Angelo Torricelli, and Vincenzo Drosi.

These fencers may not have (yet) had the international reputation of masters such as Salvatore Pecoraro and Carlo Pessina, who were under the employ of the master's school, but they did represent the new generation of fencers intended to rival the champions of the old Radaelli school (despite their instructors being those very same Radaellians).

The first exhibition took place on 23 May in the Royal Agricultural Hall, Islington, as the London Daily News reported:

Whether in honour of the regular soldiers, who for the first time this year made their appearance in mounted combats and competitions at Islington yesterday, or by way of giving cordial welcome to the Cavaliere Parise and to fencing instructors of the Italian army, some thousands of spectators assembled in the Agricultural Hall yesterday afternoon. Among them were Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, Count and Countess Tornielli, accompanied by members of the Italian Embassy, the Turkish Ambassador, Rustem Pacha, the Greek Minister, the Duke of Westminster, General Hamett, and several colonels commanding regiments whose chosen representatives were to take part in the competition. They watched every event with appreciative interest, and the Duke of Westminster—a celebrated horseman in his day—was especially demonstrative in his admiration of the Musical Ride in which the 17th Lancers display more and more smartness every day. When Lieut.-Colonel Parise—who is the Colonel Onslow of the Italian Army—appeared with Sergeant-Majors Greco, of the Government School at Rome, Santelli of the Grenadiers, Drosi of the 6th Infantry, and Torricelli of the Savoy cavalry regiment, they were heartily cheered, and the dexterity of the four swordsmen with foil and sabre justified all the expectations that had been formed. The prolonged fencing bout between Sergeant-Majors Greco and Santelli was marked by many brilliant passages of arms, and it is a pity that some people among the assembled crowd who could not understand the subtle art of such swordsmen gave expression to a desire for something more exciting.⁴

The main event, however, happened a week later on the 30th:

Then the fencing instructors of the Italian Army, directed by Lieutenant Colonel Parise, gave a special display of fencing and swordsmanship, designed chiefly to show the importance of the foil as a commencement of training in swordsmanship, inasmuch as it is by the use of the foil that a thorough knowledge of distance, time, and speed is acquired. Colonel Parise explained in French, at some length, the modes of training in the Italian Fencing Schools, for which, he contended, that it was both simpler and more scientific than the methods usually approved of in other countries. He subsequently, with Sergeant Major Greco and Sergeant Major Torricelli, gave practical illustrations with foil and sabre of the Italian style. It was seen that they use a convex shell for the hilt, as a means of diverting a thrust, as, because of that form, a very slight movement of the hand or arm turned aside an opponent's point. Another detail was that while 'en garde' the weight of the body should be evenly distributed between the two legs, instead of placing too much weight on either, and that the arm should be slightly bent instead of straight. He said that advances were better made by short steps than by a long stride. Comparing the Italian practice with that of the French school, he explained that whereas the Italians only use four 'parades' the French use eight. In his country the movements were made, not so much by wrist action, as by a turn of the arm. Another point of some interest was that instead of parrying a cut they returned in certain cases a thrust depending upon the element of time to render their opponent's attack valueless. Somewhat similar observations were made by Colonel Parise prior to engaging with Sergeant Greco in a bout of sword v. sword. The exhibition of swordsmanship was concluded by showing the Italian system of cavalry sword exercise, which, however, did not seem to have the same merit as the really excellent system of training for the exercises of the infantry.⁵

Ignoring the journalist's apparent slight confusion between the foil and sabre demonstrations, it would no doubt have given any Radaellian observers back home some smug satisfaction at the comments made regarding Parise's cavalry sabre system (also repeated in several other English newspapers), which had only recently been approved by the Italian Ministry of War after years of modification.

The Italians also took a visit to the fencing club in St. James' later that same day, then the Aldershot school on the invitation of General Evelyn Wood three days later, with a formal lunch at the house of Colonel Fox. On the following day, Colonel Tully presented the Italians with a silver cup on behalf of Prince Edward, as well as commemorative silver cigarette cases to each of the four young masters.⁶

Despite the warm reception they received throughout all their visits and public appearances, the apathy towards the Italian fencers among a certain percentage of the public during the exhibitions did not go unnoticed by journalists. In a rather scathing indictment of the British public, an Italian magazine stated that the Italian masters chose a bad audience to display their talents to, claiming that 'in England, except for Egerton Castle, Captain Hutton, and the two French masters who teach in London, we believe there are fewer than ten other people capable of distinguishing a disengagement from a direct thrust or a coupé from a feint by glide, or even from a traversone'.⁷

The reaction among the Italians was nevertheless largely positive, even from the factions opposing Parise and his supporters, although there was of course some disappointment that the Ministry of War had not sent some renowned representatives of the Radaellian school such as Pecoraro, Arista or Rossi.

Having seen the British perspective on Italian fencing as shown by Parise and his party, the Italian magazine Baiardo soon after received the following letter from a correspondent in London giving an Italian perspective on British fencing:

I hasten to reply to your letter by telling you what you asked for in a few words.

The expectations of seeing four Italian masters fence were immense, so much so that there were no empty seats on that day at the racecourse.

After having done the first demonstrations with the sabre, they received congratulations in abundance, and from what I understood the audience were surprised to see that the Italians acknowledged the blows they received, and surprised to see them fence with only a mask and glove, since the English strike wildly,⁸ being in the habit of covering themselves with huge masks, double-layered protection,⁹ leather jackets, and a cushion fitted to the right leg, since they also strike at the legs.

In bouting, the English take the measure such that the points of the blades touch the guards, then they take a step back and place themselves on guard. To attack, both opponents take a step forward, and without any study they cut at the same time, such that for them a double touch is always the order of the day.

On what basis the jury judges these bouts, embellished with doubles, without ever seeing a clean cut, I just cannot understand; nevertheless, they were quite rightly surprised to see the Italian masters bout without even the slightest double, constantly maintaining measure.

For the sword, I will tell you that what most impressed the English was their fencing in-line,¹⁰ something that the English do not do, using the sword in a similar manner to the sabre.

Greco then also enchanted the audience with his quick and secure parries, his immense attacking speed, and the suddenness in the execution of his actions.

Our fencers also went to test themselves at the Fencing Club and bouted with the amateurs there (partly less incorrect than the fencers seen at the tournament), and even there the English were impressed with the handling of both the sabre and sword through their powerful attacks, the speed of their parries and ripostes, the remises, as well as the continuous inchiodature¹¹ (!), as soon as they moved to attack.

While Santelli of the Grenadiers fenced sabre with one of these amateurs, I heard one of them say a sentence in English which, translated literally into Italian, would be ‘By Jove, I have never seen a fencer of this strength!’ and stated earlier that in 10 minutes Santelli would have dealt about forty cuts over his whole body.

With Greco and Drosi then bouting each other, everyone stood with their noses in the air and mouths wide open on seeing them fence, and for every blow they all exchanged glances in approval of what they saw.

On the penultimate day Cav. Parise and Greco, in the presence of 300 spectators (all invited for this demonstration), presented themselves on the piste to demonstrate the Italian method.

Parise explained the actions in French, and with mathematical precision Greco produced them.

In this demonstration there were the usual compliments and felicitations for their manner of giving lessons, for the precision of their movements, for the speed of their actions and also for their manner of advancing on guard—that is, the step forward and lunge, the pattinando.

On the same day Torricelli of the 3rd Cavalry appeared, doing demonstrations of sabre on horseback according to the Parise method, and I will also say that this bold and powerful young man received the most lively and enthusiastic part of the huge applause.

From exercise to exercise Torricelli came to the charge, in which the vehemence of his cuts aroused another salvo of applause, which was repeated resoundingly for his last exercise in which, with the sabre fixed against the target, the sabre was literally bent in two.

I will now end this letter of mine, in which I was not interested in writing what either the Daily Chronicle or the Standard already told the Italian press, since at this point they are things that everyone knows, assuring you that both Greco and Torricelli were eagerly asked to stay in London to teach Italian fencing, an invitation which Greco declined for various reasons which do him the highest honour; as for Torricelli I do not know the answer, but here in London it is hoped that he will accept and we Italians will then have the pride, as we have in past centuries, to see our masters teach the handling of arms to other nations.¹²

For the partisans of the Neapolitan school of fencing, the Italian demonstrations in London would have served as some amount of vindication for the master's school in Rome, whose image had taken a hit as a result of the reforms to Parise's sabre method forced upon it by the Ministry of War over the previous years.

1 Francis Vere Wright, The broadsword as taught by the celebrated Italian masters, signors Masiello and Ciullini of Florence (London: W. H. Allen, 1889).^↩
2 War Office, Infantry sword exercise 1895 (London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1895).^↩
3 L'Italia del Popolo, 22 May 1892.^↩
4 London Daily News, 24 May 1892, 6.^↩
5 London Evening Standard, 31 May 1892, 3.^↩
6 Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News, 11 June 1892, 476.^↩
7 Scherma Italiana, 2 July 1892, 52.^↩
8 'da orbi' — Literally 'like blind men'.^↩
9 'corazze doppie' — For the Italians, a corazza was a tough, generally tightly-woven fabric which served as an extra layer of protection and padding for the fencer's dominant side. It served a similar purpose to what a modern under-plastron is used for in fencing today.^↩
10 i.e. the typical Italian guard position of keeping the arm almost fully extended at all times.^↩
11 Literally 'nailings' or 'nailing-downs', this term is likely referring to the Italian preference for counter-attacking, particularly in foil fencing.^↩
12 "Come tirano gl'inglesi," Baiardo: periodico schermistico quindicinale, 8 July 1892, 25–6.^↩

La scherma di fioretto by Primo Tiboldi

With yet another book from my own collection, this month we are taking a look at Primo Tiboldi's treatise La scherma di fioretto ('Foil fencing'). Originally published in 1905 by Sonzogno as part of their 'Biblioteca del Popolo' series, this booklet was repeatedly published over the next few decades, with my own copy being printed in January 1928.

Scans here

Although a small booklet of only 62 pages, the method it contains is quite detailed for its length. It also bears a very close resemblance to the foil method of Luigi Barbasetti,¹ with the rear-weighted guard and slight bend in the arm, moderate torso lean in the lunge, the inclusion of footwork such as the balestra, as well as various similarities in terminology.

Whether or not there was some amount of plagiarism involved on the part of Tiboldi, it is not unlikely that the fencing method he learnt was quite similar to Barbasetti's, given that Tiboldi learnt fencing under the Radaellian maestro Gaetano Garbagnati at the Circolo Ferruccio in Milan.²

The only mentions I have been able to find about Primo Tiboldi so far are mentions of his noteworthy tournament results in the 1890s and a couple of articles of his published in the fencing magazine Scherma Italiana, with the editor calling him a 'cultured and distinguished young man'.³

1 Luigi Barbasetti, La scherma di spada (Milan: A. Gattinoni, 1902).^↩
2 Accademie, Tornei e Notizie, Scherma Italiana, 1 January 1894, 8.^↩
3 Primo Tiboldi and Roderico Rizzotti, "Campionato di scherma annuale fra dilettanti milanesi," Scherma Italiana 16 July 1896, 26–7.^↩

Risorgimento della vera scherma di sciabola italiana by Nicolò Bruno

The most recent addition to my antique book collection is one that, despite being written by a student of Radaelli, is perhaps one of the least remembered in the Radaellian tradition. Today I am pleased to present Nicolò Bruno's Risorgimento della vera scherma di sciabola italiana ('Revival of true Italian sabre fencing'), published in Novara in 1891.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I_dKQfFpEUag3bHmm2Vl1ElqDrtI3p5w/view?usp=sharing

With the release of these scans, it thus means that every treatise written by a '1st generation' Radaellian (i.e. those who attended Radaelli's school in Milan) is now available to read online (excluding some later editions), these being the treatises of Settimo Del Frate (1868 and 1876), Giordano Rossi (1885), Ferdinando Masiello (1887), Nicolò Bruno (1891), Luigi Barbasetti (1899/1936), Salvatore Pecoraro & Carlo Pessina (1912), and Poggio Vannucchi (1915).

Bruno's illustrations are particularly interesting for the Radaellian practitioner due to the interesting detail shown in several of them. In figure 27, shown above, three dotted lines show the paths for the large, regular, and small molinello to the head from the guard or parry of 2nd or 1st in line. Figure 13 below demonstrates the parry of 1st in line and angled 1st, while at the same time showing the path the sabre follows in a molinello to the head from these parries, as well as the path the sabre follows when performing the parry of counter 1st.

Bruno is a great supporter of Radaelli's sabre mechanics and terminology, however, in his introduction he is quick to assert that he did not agree with Radaelli's teaching method, which was supposedly only successful due to the fact that Radaelli's students were young, well-disciplined military men.

Bruno introduces his own teaching method, one which he claims is better suited for producing talented fencers while still providing an enjoyable and rewarding learning experience. In addition to this, Bruno greatly decreases Radaelli's torso movement, teaching the molinelli with a fully upright body initially, then introducing 'natural' torso movement later on when the student has mastered the actions.

The teaching progression of Bruno's method contains many preparatory flexion and extension exercises in addition to traditional exercise molinelli, motions based on the 'oscillation of a pendulum', a recurring theme in Bruno's writings. These preparatory exercises serve to teach the student to move the sabre correctly and keep the body well-balanced in all these motions before moving on to the 'true lesson', that being the various blows on the lunge, feints, ripostes, etc.

At the start of his introduction, Bruno states that sabre fencing has been in gradual decline, and that he felt compelled to publish his book after waiting in vain for someone else to come forward and publish their own work correcting the flaws of Radaelli's method. When Bruno's treatise was submitted to a competition for sporting publications in 1894, one of the criticisms the jury the made was in reference to these statements, saying that Bruno needed only consult the treatises of Rossi and Masiello to find what he was looking for. In response to this, Bruno states that he originally wrote his method prior to 1885, before any other Radaellian publication had come to light, publishing the unmodified treatise in 1891 only when others insisted he do so.¹

If Bruno truly had not made any modifications to the original text prior to publishing it in 1891 as he claims, the presence of several references to Parise's treatise means that he must have still been writing it after August 1884, when the first edition of Parise's treatise was published.²

1 Nicolò Bruno, "Appunti rilevati alla relazione della Giurìa di scherma sul mio metodo d'insegnamento e le relative risposte," Scherma Italiana, 6 July 1894, 54–5.^↩
2 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.^↩

Trattato di scherma teorico-pratico illustrato by Vittorio Lambertini

It is with great pleasure that I can share with you today the 1870 treatise by Vittorio Lambertini, its full title being Trattato di scherma teorico-pratico illustrato della moderna scuola italiana di spada e sciabola ('Theoretical-practical fencing treatise on the modern Italian school of sword and sabre'). This particular book comes from my own collection, so I have been able to take high quality photos of every page; the resulting PDF is thus quite large. I have also provided a transcription to make it easier to search through the text for study purposes.

Scans  |  Transcription

The 150-year-old book shows many signs of its age, largely due to it being a paperback, but its 29 fold-out plates are mostly in good condition. I personally find the illustrator's art style to be rather elegant despite is simplicity.

My particular copy appears to have been purchased by the highly decorated war veteran Leopoldo Serra in 1875, as indicated by the signature near the front of the book and by what seems to be part of a receipt for a magazine or newspaper subscription that was found between pages 60 and 61, probably being used as a bookmark.

Nothing is yet known about Lambertini's life or career, and his treatise was, unfortunately, largely overlooked in its time. Nevertheless, Lambertini's treatise is significant for the modern reader as it provides a very detailed look into the sword method of Luigi Zangheri, a fencing master who was highly regarded in the 19th century but never wrote a treatise himself. Clemente Lambertini was a student of Zangheri, and passed the method on to his son, Vittorio.¹

Luigi Zangheri was a fencing master from Cesena who opened a fencing hall in Bologna around the year 1825, where he taught sword, sabre, counterpoint, and bastone. He soon developed an outstanding reputation as a fencer, a teacher, and as a man who was reviving the art of fencing in northern Italy.² His method was not revolutionary in the same sense as Radaelli's, but rather he was largely seen to be preserving the traditional Neapolitan method whilst also making his own modifications, such as using a slightly lighter and shorter Italian foil, abandoning the practice of binding the sword to the hand, and allowing the use of certain 'French' techniques such as the coupé. Zangheri produced several celebrated fencing masters, such as Giuseppe Borelli, Gaetano Simonetti, and Cesare Enrichetti.³

Enrichetti was already quite famous by the time Lambertini published his treatise, having been appointed as the head of the Scuola Magistrale in Parma in 1868 and himself producing a host of talented fencers such as Ferdinando Masiello, Giovanni Pagliuca, Gaetano Baracco, and Giovanni Ciullini.⁴ Enrichetti published his own treatise a year after Lambertini did, and so by being able to compare the two, we can achieve an excellent understanding of Zangheri's method.

Aside from containing more detailed information on the teaching progression and pedagogy of his method than Enrichetti's treatise, Lambertini's book also contains a treatise on the sabre. The exact origins of this sabre method are not stated, but it nevertheless provides an added insight into the sabre fencing methods of northern Italy prior to the rise of the Radaellians. It is also possible that it resembles the kind of sabre fencing that was being taught at Enrichetti's school before it was merged with Radaelli's in 1874.

A full, detailed analysis of Lambertini's method and its differences compared to Enrichetti's is a topic for another day, but one example of this is something which Lambertini himself points out, which is that he only includes five parries in his method, those being 4th, 3rd, half-circle, 2nd, and 1st, compared to Enrichetti who also includes the 'intermediary' parries of low 3rd and low 4th. Lambertini states that it was his father who reduced the number of parries to five.⁵

1 Vittorio Lambertini, Trattato di scherma teorico-pratico illustrato (Bologna, 1870), iii.^↩
2 "Accademia di scherma," Teatri, arti e letteratura, 14 May 1835, 86.^↩
3 Carlo Pilla, Arte e scuole di scherma (Bologna: Società tipografica già compositori, 1886), 34–5.^↩
4 ibid., 36.^↩
5 Lambertini, Trattato di scherma, 39.^↩

Pecoraro defends the Parise method

Despite losing its official status in the Italian army, the Radaellian method had no shortage of public supporters even at the end of the 19th century. The amateur Radaellian Roderico Rizzotti was, like the famous Jacopo Gelli, a man who wrote many articles in support of Radaelli and his theories, particularly in the magazine Scherma Italiana, which he was the editor of from the start of 1893 until mid-1894.

Like those of his colleagues, many of Rizzotti's articles show some of the frustration felt by the Radaellians at the continued silence from the Italian Ministry of War regarding the state of sabre fencing in the army and the Radaellians' calls for Masaniello Parise, the technical director of the Master's School in Rome, to come to the table with them and find a compromise.

This frustration is especially evident in an open letter from Rizzotti, published in Scherma Italiana in 1894, entitled 'To Professor and Colonel Masaniello Parise':

While I followed the proceedings of the sabre bouts between the amateurs who flocked to the recent tournament in Venice, fully absorbed and engrossed, my thoughts went to you, dear professor and colonel.
There before me, seated in a less plebeian stall, but equally absorbed and engrossed, sat Comm. Caracciolo¹—a prefect of the province—for hours and hours, and I sense that within him, an old student of Achille Parise, your father and master of great fame, his now advanced age had not extinguished his passion for our art. Perhaps his mind went back to the good times of his youth, when his companions in his great fencing studies were, among others, the ex-minister Rattazzi, Count Nigra, Colli di Felizzano, and…Agostino Depretis².
Sure, even Depretis—speaking of the period from 1848 to 1859—studied fencing, and perhaps it is to fencing that he later owed, at least in part, his famous ability of manoeuvring through the treacherous waves of power, always staying afloat and valiantly opposing the continuous attacks of his political opponents—fencers less accustomed than he to the tricks of the trade.
The sabre bouts followed one another, and on the piste appeared Baldi, Ceni, Fazi, Fougier, Meyer, Montalto, Galli, Piacenti, Roffeni, Rosso, Sestini, Weysi, and so many other amateurs, one better than the other, a whole pleiad of fencers simultaneously strong and elegant. Sure in the parry, quick in the riposte, and with majestic and light handling of the blade, obtained not just with the wrist, but with coordinated action of all the joints of the arm and with the elbow as the main point of rotation.
They were the students of Rossi, Arista, Corsini, Masiello, Guasti, Foresto Paoli, Pini, Pecoraro, and so on—these all being masters who, with regard to the official system of fencing which revolves around you, professor, have as much faith in it as I have that the sinful mind will one day take flight into the merciful arms of God.
Thinking of you, professor and colonel, I said to myself: Oh, how will you feel, here at the Milan tournament, in your capacity as a juror—provided that you accept the honourable task, as I hope—when you will have to judge these same amateurs and many others?
If you, in homage to your artistic principles, your theories, your method, will give the vestal virgin's pollice verso³ for them all, what will you say when your given sabre rankings are found in clear opposition to those of the other Italian and foreign jurors? Will you not think, professor, perhaps with a shiver, that a decade of the Master's School's life, as well as convincing everyone of the quality of his sabre method, has further cherished the memory of Giuseppe Radaelli, his school, and his devoted, unfailing apostles?
You, professor, are too much of a gentleman not to admit, even tacitly, that your position would have been very embarrassing, all the more considering that among your colleagues of the jury who would have voted in clear contradiction with you, there would be masters who are or were previously instructors at the same Master's School, in which you reign as the absolute—if not inviolable and sacred—sovereign.
And by association of ideas, my mind also went to that great sin of ingratitude which was committed—along with many others—by a young master, recently graduated from the Master's School, when in response to my observation that he did not seem to me to be fencing sabre according to the canons of the official teachings, he said: 'Just between friends, do you know that at the Master's School, when a student has a promising disposition, he is secretly told that when it comes to sabre, there is no use in doing any system other than Radaelli.'
I was thinking about all this because I saw in the Milan newspapers you were appointed to the jury, along with Pecoraro, Guasti, and Captain Moccagatta!
And it was not me, professor, who had the idea of arousing your remorse or making you confess that Fambri's notorious report to the Ministry of War on the fencing treatise which bears your name, the report to which you owe your high position as director of the Master's School and colonel...regardless of whether it is, with regard to form, a masterpiece, with regard to substance—I am speaking of sabre—it is…a tumble.
I thought of this simply because the mind cannot be commanded, nor can its flights be restrained. And I did not predict that you would then not come to Milan, and to me it is a great shame, because instead of writing to you, I would have turned to your proverbial courtesy for a verbal response.
What do you think?
Especially since, as you already know, you do not have time to respond to letters, or you do not want to—not because you are at a loss for good reasons, no, but…so as to not spoil noble blood, perhaps. And so what is the need to write and discuss when you have at your disposal so many means of convincing…forcefully and with so many acolytes to spread your word amongst the faithless rabble, in pills as big as meatballs?
I am, dear professor,

your most obedient servant,

RODERICO RIZZOTTI⁴

A month later, a response from Salvatore Pecoraro, one of the two vice-directors of the Master's School, appeared in Scherma Italiana. Despite being one of the most celebrated Radaellian fencers of the time, Pecoraro is quick to defend to Parise and his sabre method despite the universal opposition shown to it by the other Radaellians.

      DEAR MR. RIZZOTTI, 

I read your letter directed to Cav. Parise and published 11 May in the newspaper Scherma Italiana.
For the part which concerns me, I feel a duty as both a fencer and the vice-director of the Master's School to address this to you with the request that it be accepted into the columns of Scherma Italiana.
You, Mr. Rizzotti, assert that Guasti, Pecoraro, and many others believe in the quality of the Parise method like the sinful mind will one day take flight into the merciful arms of God.
I will tell you that loyalty is the uniform of the fencer, because if I am converted (as we might say) to the Parise method, it is because I recognise its superiority over all others. And I would have openly fought the Parise sabre system, within the limits of my power, if I were not convinced of what I said above.
Now to the other subject matter, that being what was said by a young master who recently graduated from the Master's School, who told you:
'Just between friends, do you know that at the Master's School, when a student has a promising disposition, he is secretly told that when it comes to sabre, there is no use in doing any system other than Radaelli.'
The NCO in question has certainly forgotten all his duties. It is entirely made up, and at this moment I will reclaim the honour of my colleagues, those who were and who are now employed at the Master's School, in telling you that what he claimed is not true.
My colleagues and I are not dominated by the spirit of servility, and you, Mr. Rizzotti, should have quarantined the words of an individual who, having spent three years at the Master's School and attaining an honourable position, in order to now be accepted by the opponents in art, not only does he seek to renounce the past, but also throw a shadow of distrust on masters who all have an artistic life to prove their loyalty.
I declare myself a partisan of the Parise method; I firmly believe in it. And on behalf of my dear colleagues I reject the words spoken to you by the young master.
Thank you, Mr. Rizzotti. 

        Rome, 27 May 1894

yours truly,

SALVATORE PECORARO⁵

This is not the first time Pecoraro has publicly defended Parise's method in Scherma Italiana. The first time he did so was when Parise's cavalry sabre method was being reformed so that it would at last be accepted by the Ministry of War (see here and here). As would be expected, Rizzotti did not pass up the opportunity to include his own response underneath Pecoraro's letter, with even more emotive and somewhat poetic language than his first open letter:

À tout seigneur, tout honneur,⁶ esteemed Professor, and as you see, not only do I hasten to give you your requested hospitality, but, certain that I echo the thoughts of our whole editorial staff, I have respectfully given you the front page.
My goodness! It is not every day one is lucky enough to publish something of yours, even if it is a letter in which you inform us that you serve in a camp which is not ours.
Having said that, I take note of your ample and loyal declaration of your conversion to the Parise sabre method—a conversion which may pain me, but does not surprise me. What would surprise me would be a declaration to the contrary, given your position as vice-director of the Master's School. But if you, as you write, 'would have openly fought the Parise sabre system, within the limits of your power, if you were not convinced of its superiority over all others', you would understand, Professor, how I too do the same in the opposite sense, taking advantage of the means which are at my disposal, with this difference: that in the work of our respective propaganda—presumption aside—there is a consideration of a moral order which I feel must be put in a position favourable to the eyes of those who love the art of fencing, and it is that by making yourself a champion of an idea, you, Professor, are also implicitly fighting for yourself and your eminent position. I, on the other hand, have no other hope than in the triumph of the idea because of the idea. Sic vos non vobis⁷ could apply to me, and you would not wish for it, albeit unjustly, to apply to you.
I wrote that you, Arista, Rossi, Masiello, Guasti, Paoli, and Pini do not have faith in the official sabre system, and I was wrong; but mine is a slight error, because I only needed to bring the verb into imperfect past tense and say 'did not have faith, etc.', not because everything went smoothly like oil, but because aside from those mentioned previously, I could cite countless other names, such as Pessina, Monti, Sartori, etc., who, like you, Guasti, and Pini, I cannot cite in 'present tense' for the simple reason that they are not free teachers, as all fencing masters should be, but even if they are civil masters, they instead depend on the Master's School and the Ministry of War, such that it would be certain that if they were officially consulted one by one, they would out of necessity make the same declaration that you made of your own free will.
And this, Professor, only because the spirit of discipline, so high and noble in those who wear or have worn the uniform of the Italian soldier, seals the lips to truth when it may be unwelcome to one's superiors.
But try, Professor, to remove the appointment of military and civilian masters from the Master's School; try to raise them to the dignity of free and independent professionals in their artistic criteria, and you will see the debacle that is caused by the Parise sabre method.
If Parise can now be proud of the statement of faith which you give for his method, you nevertheless cannot change face to sacrosanct truth: that with regard to sabre, Parise is to Radaelli, Masiello, and Rossi as the flea is to the cyclops.
With all due respect to your opinion, this is as true for me, esteemed Cav. Pecoraro, as it is true that you achieved your greatest triumphs and brought the greatest prestige to your name when you served in our ranks. This is as true as the fact that even now, despite your new faith, and certainly without knowing it, through force of inertia or habit, you wield the sabre just like when you were at the perihelion of your fame. At least so it seemed to the whole audience who applauded you recently at the La Scala theatre, and so it seemed to me that in this same newspaper I gave you, as best as I know how, the modest tribute of my admiration, even though I had already received your letter, which was not possible for me to publish until now. Unless, however, Giordano Rossi has also changed; he who had a sabre bout with you at the La Scala which was altogether marvellous, but especially due to the simultaneously majestic and light handling of the blade which used to be the most beautiful quality of Papa Radaelli's students.
I will not repeat what was said by many, many great masters, even those joined to you by the bonds of old friendship, which is that at the Master's School, one is now taught the Parise system theoretically and the Radaelli sabre system practically, with clear, patent artistic plagiarism. But I will limit myself to vowing, for the good of our cause, that you, like Emperor Julian of the East—who went from paganism to Christianity then back to paganism—may return to us who will gladly open our compassionate arms...that if this does not come true, we will have one less soldier—or rather—one less skilled captain in our ranks, but we will continue on all the same, even knowing we will leave victims along the way.
And now we come to the second part of your letter, Professor.
The quotation written by me and cited by you was said by a young master, sure; but why call him an NCO, thus running the risk of turning an artistic matter into a matter of military discipline?
The quote was said to me—and so I wrote it—but how, esteemed Professor, were you able to read that it related to teachers past or present of the Master's School? I am with you in rejecting it, but for it to be known, is it necessary for this great discovery of the superiority of the Radaelli sabre method compared to the Parise method to 'descend through the branches' ⁸ in the minds of those who are barely intelligent and slightly out of their minds? No, by the Gods, no! If it is sacrosanct truth (and I have a whole pyramid of fellow believers, masters who cannot confess for reasons of discipline and employment), it will penetrate, like the light, from every direction, from a fellow student or colleague in the art, from this or any other newspaper that deals with the subject. If it is true, it will sing itself in the air or arise clearly in the brain of anyone through love of study or a comparative reading of Parise's treatise and those of Radaelli, Masiello or Rossi.
Unless it is forbidden to read any bible other than that of the meek silk-fisted Parise—as one of his admirers said—or put the intelligence and common sense of our good students of the Master's School at daggers drawn for the rest of their lives.
And it would perhaps be the only means for the sure triumph of the good cause.
In this case, we will content ourselves with finding us all together, in forty years, in the glory of heaven to gather around Giuseppe Radaelli, who will perhaps apostrophise us again with his fatherly: vioroni⁹.
And when they are close in fraternal embrace, Colonel Del Frate (now an incessant hunter), the quick-witted and unswerving Arista, the volcanic and nebulous Monti, the profound Masiello, the candid and virtuous Varrone, the untiring Pessina, the diabolical Pini, the slender Barbasetti, the agile Gallanzi, the powerful Sartori, the cautious Morini, the elegant Foresto Paoli, Roggia, Arzani, Verzani, Rognini, Cardellini, and hundreds of others—when they are close in fraternal embrace, without the fear of superiors and glad to be guaranteed golden bread for all of eternity, you can be certain, Professor, that they will let fly those jests and witty remarks concerning the Parise sabre method, disturbing even the cautious and cold sap of the Great Priest of the Master's School...until then, even if it will not be as I suppose and hope, there is a lot of time before it all goes to ruin.
And even the ghosts of many intelligent women, who have learned to make their own refined judgement through marrying a fencer, will have companions in their jests. And as full as they are of that fantasy which always portrays and considers things from new artistic and scientific points of view, they have already ruled that, for them, handling the sabre according to Parise method is a desolately feeble method.
I am, dear Professor,

your most obedient servant,

RODERICO RIZZOTTI

The question of 'military discipline' has arisen on several other occasions in the various writings in defence of Radaelli (see Gelli's Resurrectio, for example) in reference to the relative silence of the Radaellians post-1884, supposedly due to the fact that their loyalty to the army took precedence over publicly denouncing the new regulation sabre method. With the benefit of our modern hindsight, it is curious to see Pecoraro so publicly defending Parise's sabre method, considering he would revert back to a largely Radaellian sabre method after Parise's death in 1910.¹⁰

---

1 Emilio Caracciolo di Sarno^↩
2 These men being Urbano Rattazzi, Costantino Nigra, and Major general Giuseppe Colli di Felizzano, all prominent political or military figures of the Risorgimento.^↩
3 A reference to the famous 'turn of the thumb', which the vestal virgins of Rome would supposedly signal to a gladiator to indicate whether they wished them to kill or spare their fallen opponent.^↩
4 Roderico Rizzotti, "Al prof. e colonnello Masaniello Parise," Scherma Italiana, 11 May 1894, 37–8.^↩
5 Salvatore Pecoraro, Scherma Italiana, 15 June 1894, 49.^↩
6 'Credit where credit is due'.^↩
7 'For you, but not yours': a phrase attributed to Virgil in response to seeing his work plagiarised.^↩
8 A quote from Dante's Divine Comedy (Purgatorio, VII:121).^↩
9 I have absolutely no idea what he means here. The word is perhaps a variant of fioroni, which are large, artistic flowers. Perhaps it was an endearing nickname Radaelli gave to his students?^↩
10 S Pecoraro & C Pessina, La scherma di sciabola, G. Agnesotti, Viterbo, 1912. Chris Holzman's translation is available here.^↩