The Italian school of fencing prides itself on its tradition of chivalry. So deeply rooted is this sentiment that Barbasetti — one of the School's most illustrious representatives — categorically rejects attacks against the opponent's sword hand... since a successful attack would remove the opponent's ability for "chivalrous" defence. It goes without saying that ideals like that are anathema to modern martialists who believe that every sword fight predating 1600 was a free-for all without rules and taboos.

In my view, anything that is published is open to a reviewer's criticism, and often the author can learn from this. Certainly, despite my efforts at accuracy in interpreting fencing texts of the past there is the possibility that archaic language could have been misleading. Just as we must be cautious in our interpretations of expressions found in Elizabethan English, so, too, should we be careful in reading Italian of the same time period. Translation with only a dictionary in hand is not enough, it takes first-hand experience with the living language, and especially, in this case, Italian fencing terminology. I think that this is where the difficulties lie, and since my Italian readers have raised no objections of the sort brought forth by Messrs. Clements and Hand, I suspect that the problem lies in their knowledge of Italian and French.

In this respect, I note that Mr. Clements, in his book, Renaissance Swordsmanship (p. 36), attributes the invention of the "metal-mesh fencing mask...in the late 1800s" to "the French master La Boksshire." He must mean La Boëssière's father in the 1700s (my History of Fencing, p. 93). And he lists in his primary sources (p. 141) works published in 1610 by "da Cagli, Italy," and "Ridolfo Capo Ferro...." He seems to have made two books out of one, since Ridolfo Capo Ferro da Cagli, as his name indicates, evidently came from the town of Cagli.

Beyond these minor difficulties with language in his own work, there are also serious misconceptions and errors in the reviews of my book by both Messrs. Clements and Hand, and these could only confuse the reader, and cause him or her to question my ability to undertake this work. Mr. Hand goes so far as to say that in his opinion I have "done historical fencing a disservice by reinforcing the preconceptions that many aspiring historical fencers have about the rapier." What I may have done, and quite inadvertently, is contradict what he believes to be the true art of the rapier, and what he probably teaches his pupils as gospel.

I shall deal only with the salient points in the two reviews. In my estimation the work that has been done to reconstruct rapier technique, and rapier combined with dagger etc., is valuable. The same holds for efforts to understand use of the staff arms. However, I believe that such work must be based on use of original texts. I deliberately chose to confine my book to the single sword, or as Camillo Palladini put it, the "queen of arms".

Now, first, Mr. Clement's criticisms: although I am familiar with the major texts of the German and Spanish schools, I did not include them in my publication, which in dealing with select publications from only the Italian and French schools already brought the volume up to just under 500 pages. But I did not omit names of Marozzo's predecessors, Fiore dei Liberi, Neppo Bardi, and Guid'Antonio di Luca, nor did I ignore other arms. They are mentioned regularly (my History, pp. 16, 10, 15, etc.). And Renaissance masters are in agreement that the single sword must be taught first.

The method of fencing I teach, and that is still taught generally in Italy, is based entirely on dueling practice. My first master, Aldo Nadi, fought a duel, and so did a substantial number of fencers of his generation and earlier, such as Eugenio Pini, and Agesilao and Aurelio Greco. What they learned to do with the épée and sabre enabled them to survive. Our fencers are trained to employ counterattacks, countertime, and the feint in time with the épée, and to push and pull cuts with the sabre à segatura (my History of Fencing, p. 44). They know how to dominate the opposing steel, have a range of actions on the blade, and a number of counterattacks that exceed anything normally encountered in today's competitive fencing.

Until recently, the term "sport" fencing did not exist. And I share the dismay that many fencers feel about contemporary competitive fencing. However, a distinction is important: Italian swordplay of the Scuola Magistrale is derived from use of edged weapons. The very design of the Italian foil and épée is based on the rapier prototype. Moreover, the Roman-Neapolitan system of pedagogy reaches back, through Rosaroll and Grisetti, Parise, and Pessina and Pignotti to the eighteenth century, and perhaps beyond. If you want to comprehend how the variety of counterattacks and their contraries are correctly used, you must learn the method of the Scuola Magistrale. Like my Italian colleagues, I believe that anyone wishing to practice and teach rapier technique should first complete at least one year of fencing instruction in the system of the Roman-Neapolitan school.

I have some knowledge of the social and military conditions of the Renaissance, since I originally began as a Renaissance scholar, and am familiar with primary sources. See, for instance, my article, "Observations on Botticelli's 'Calumny of Apelles,'" il Vieusseux (gennaio-aprile 1994) pp. 7-30. And I have had an interest in edged weapons since childhood, and have seen many of the major arms collections here and abroad, beginning with the one in the George F. Harding Museum, Chicago, the Metropolitan Museum, New York, and then later, during my many years of travel, the Villa Stibbert Collection outside Florence (where I also took our students in 1990), the Armories of the Tower and the Victoria and Albert Museum, Warwick Castle, the Armeria Real in Madrid, the Neue Burg Collection of Arms and Armor in Vienna, and the Topkapi Sarayi Collection of Arms in Istanbul. In my forthcoming book, The Tomb of Porsenna at Cluseum and Its Religious and Political Implications (Laureate Press 2001) I deal with the question of Etruscan and Lydian arms in the endnotes.

My History of Fencing mentions weapons only when they are discussed in the texts themselves. Wounds and physiology are appropriate in another kind of publication, and these areas are best left to my colleagues with medical knowledge, Maestro Frank Lurz and Dr. Gregory Hicks. Both George Stone's Glossary and Maître Nick Evanglista's Encyclopedia contain valuable information and deserve attention. I would have been honored to count Maître Evangelista among my students; he was, however, the pupil and then assistant to Maître Ralph Faulkner, who taught the method of the French school. This information can be found in Maître Evangelista's, The Art and Science of Fencing (Masters Press, 1996) pp. 23-30.

Turning now to Mr. Hand's criticisms, Spanish troops were stationed at Naples in the thirteenth-century Castel Nuovo (where I took my fencing master's examination). And they, very likely, made an impression on the Italian swordsmen, and in turn were influenced by the Italians. There is, in fact, a tradition in Naples that the Neapolitan system of swordplay contains some Spanish elements. When I have asked my Neapolitan colleagues what these elements are, they are at a loss. But we do know from Francesco Marcelli, Regole della Scherma (1686), whose father, Titta, taught in Naples, that he was familiar with the principal publications by Spanish masters, and that he knew some Spanish fencing terms (my History of Fencing pp. 45-56). And despite the circles with footprints, which continue to be found in Spanish treatises as late as Manuel Antonio de Brea's Principios Universales (1805), Spanish swordplay, like all fencing, had to be based on the same fundamental actions: the straight thrust, the disengagement, the glide, the simple parry, the simple riposte, the beat, the renewed attack, and the arrest. This same material still appears later in the century in Antonio Alvarez Garcia's Manual de Esgrima (1887).

The curious notion that fencers of the old school relied chiefly on counterattacks is a misconception. Counterattacks depend on the actions they oppose. The synoptic tables in my Science of Fencing show clearly which simple and compound attacks can be opposed with counterattacks in the first, second, or third movement. In simple attacks, that is, attacks consisting of one blade motion, only glides can be met with counterattacks, because blade vibrations sensed in the ricasso give advance warning of the attack. By way of examples, the glide to the inside high and low lines can be opposed with the inquartata, and the flanconade in fourth can be countered by the imbroccata. But straight thrusts and disengagements provide no warning, and therefore must be countered with the parry and riposte. An arrest or time thrust would very likely result in a double hit, which no skilled swordsman would risk.

Marozzo already indicates the necessity to parry and riposte (my History of Fencing, pp. 2 and 434). The word ferire was used in the past both to designate an attack and a riposte. If it followed the word "parry", it was a riposte. Fabris (1606) Book One, Chapter Six, is chiefly concerned with criticizing those who draw the arm back to gain greater force in the thrust, and in the same chapter (p. 16) says "meglio è parare e ferire in tempo medesimo", which is translated in the Italian and German edition of 1713 as "besser...in einem Tempo zugleich pariren und stoßen". Even today the German word for riposte is either Riposte or Nachstoß, that is, to thrust after, meaning after the parry (see Karl Kerstenhan, Florettfechten, [München, 1978], p. 220).

Only if you had taken lessons from a variety of Italian masters would you know that a principle of the Italian school is to riposte immediately after the parry in such a way that the parry and riposte blend into one another, and are seemingly delivered in one motion or the same tempo. It was the later French school that stressed clear-cut separation of parry from riposte. The Italians, however, have always been conscious of the danger in delaying the riposte. In my Science of Fencing (p. xxv) I quote Aldo Nadi in reference to his brother's parry-riposte. He says: "For as soon as [the adversary's] blade was found, the riposte followed with lightning speed...." Indeed, every Italian master I worked with said that the riposte must arrive come un fulmine, like a thunderbolt. That is what the passage in Fabris means. If he had intended to speak of a counterattack, then he would have specified the type of counterattack as Francesco Marcelli does when he discusses body evasions (my History of Fencing, pp. 53-55).

This brings us to Chapter Thirteen and the question of passare. Here, too, knowledge of Italian fencing terminology is vital. The title alone indicates that Fabris will tell us what a thrust with lunge (ferire à piede fermo) is, and what passare signifies. In the first instance he says that the right foot is carried forward toward the enemy, and in the second, that both feet are carried forward (...si porta inanzi tutti dui li piedi....). The German translation of 1713 says the same thing (...mit beiden Füßen fort....). Passaggiare in Italian means to walk. And Ridolfo Capo Ferro (pp. 30-31) states that many and varied are the opinions of masters regarding walking (read advancing) with the weapon in hand, but he observes, "according to my judgment" one always moves the left foot accompanied by the right in a straight line, so that "one foot must chase the other, forward, as well as backward" (...vn pie deue cacciar l'altro, si innanzi come adietro....).

By this he means that the feet should not cross as in a normal walking step, but should move as when we step forward in modern fencing, maintaining, as we advance, the proper spacing of the guard position.

My hope is that my History of Fencing will prompt individuals interested in swordplay of the past to read the original texts, to be guided by their predecessors, and to draw on the vast fund of information that has been transmitted to us over the centuries and can still be found in living form in the theory and practice of the Scuola Magistrale.

Dr. William M. Gaugler
Director
Fencing Masters Program

The History of Fencing