13 September 1999
Subject: Some Reflections on Stage Fencing
With a few notable exceptions, much present-day stage fencing is
choreographed by professionals designated fight arrangers or
directors, while certified fencing teachers engaged in preparing
competitive fencers tend to look askance at what is often no more
than a parody of serious swordplay. Maestro Aldo Nadi used to say
that there was only "one fencing." He meant by this that the
principles of fencing were universal, and applicable to all
swordplay. Indeed, he himself was involved in choreographing
fencing for the cinema, and sought in his work to reconstruct
historical swordplay as accurately as possible. His best work, in
my estimation, was the fencing sequence in Tyrone Power's The
Mississippi Gambler.
But the finest swordplay in a film that I have seen to date was
Maestro Enzo Musumeci Greco's reconstruction of turn-of-the-century
fencing at Rome in Visconti's L'innocente. In this rare instance,
according to Maestro Musumeci Greco, the director, Visconti, simply
said: "Do as you wish, Enzo." In other words, there were no
directorial preconceptions or misconceptions of swordplay that
influenced the course of the fencing in this picture. Now, it is
important to observe that Maestro Musumeci Greco was one of Italy's
most respected fencing masters and the teacher of champions. He
told me that the funds to maintain his fencing academy in Rome came
principally from his work with the theatre and film. And it is
significant that he was a very successful competitor in his youth;
for example, in 1942 he placed first in the Torneo Internazionale
di Spada for professionals at Vigevano. His biography and that of
his celebrated uncles, Agesilao and Aurelio Greco, can be found in
Lauriano Gonzales, "Greco" uomini e maestri d'armi (Roma, 1983).
Maître Pierre Lacaze, like Maestro Musumeci Greco, has
contributed much to stage fencing, and is not only one of France's
most prominent teachers of competitive fencers and past President
of the French Academy of Arms, but also one of the most
distinguished fencing historians of our time. His fine volume, En
garde: Du duel à l'escrime (Paris, 1991), is still obtainable in
France. Maître Lacaze was the student of his father, Maître Albert
Lacaze, who shared his Paris salle d'armes with Maestro Aldo Nadi
in the 1930s. In addition to the fencing instruction Pierre Lacaze
received from his father, he had the distinction of being taught by
Maîtres Camille Prévost, Lucien Mérignac, Luigi Barbasetti, and
Aldo Nadi. Maestro Nadi, in fact, speaks of Pierre Lacaze in his
autobiography, The Living Sword (Sunrise, 1995), 252.
What Maestri Nadi and Musumeci Greco had in common with my other
fencing masters, Maestri Ettore Spezza in Florence and Amilcare
Angelini in Frankfurt, both of whom also arranged swordplay for the
theatre, was their conviction that stage fencing should be as
realistic as possible. Unfortunately, most actors have little or no
professional training in classical fencing, and virtually no
knowledge of what is contained in the original texts of the time
periods they are portraying. Consequently, they do not look like
skilled swordsmen on the stage, and they turn fencing into a
ludicrous and burlesque exercise. I am certain that everyone
reading this has seen on the stage or on film the prolonged and
purposeless banging of blades, ducking from cuts to the head, and
jumping up to avoid cuts to the feet, pressing together at close
quarters, nose to nose, spinning around during the action, kicks to
the groin, and absurd acrobatics that result in complete exposure.
Add to this nonsense fencing up and down staircases and on the
edges of balconies, and the clownery is complete. Where in all of
this travesty of an elegant, beautiful, and exciting art form is
the repertoire of five hundred years of fencing experience? Do any
of the actors or fight directors participating in such farces know
how to execute a flanconade in fourth and oppose this with a ceding
parry? Do they know how to parry and riposte with a one-two, or
how to employ correctly the inquartata and passata sotto? They
probably do not! Yet these actions are defined and their execution
explained, as well as the appropriate counteractions, in the texts
of Masaniello Parise and Ferdinando Masiello. One need only follow
the synoptic tables in these books to construct logical fencing
sequences.
And for those who do not read Italian, I have reorganized and
expanded the same material on foil in The Science of Fencing
(Bangor, 1997)135- 177. For example, a fencing phrase that might
be used effectively on the stage or on film for a seventeenth- or
eighteenth-century encounter can be developed from the flanconade
in fourth. On Table I Principal Simple Attacks, the action begins
with fencer A, from his own engagement in fourth, executing a
flanconade in fourth with a lunge. This is then opposed by fencer
B with either a parry in second or a ceding parry in fourth,
followed by ripostes, respectively, to the high line or outside low
line, or to the inside high line or outside low line by flanconade
in fourth; or instead of parrying, fencer B can counterattack with
the imbroccata. This relatively simple progression of movements,
which is easy to follow, duplicates exactly what might have
occurred in a real duel. And, of course, if a more prolonged
fencing phrase is desired, the flanconade can be employed as a
single or double feint, as in Tables II and III, with a
corresponding increase in the number of possible counterattacks.
When we see a film such as Ross's Dancers, with Mikhail
Baryshnikov, the fact that Baryshnikov is highly esteemed as a
dancer by everyone in the narrative is clearly evident to anyone
watching him perform. He is a well- trained professional, and this
is evident in every movement he makes dancing. But when we are
told in the story of a picture that the protagonist is a superb
swordsman, and a fumbling display of buffoonery follows, the whole
thing becomes unbelievable. Either fencers trained to act, or
actors replaced by fencers as doubles, are possible solutions to
the problem. In the past, fencing masters, like Fred Cavens and
Ralph Faulkner, did fencing choreography in Hollywood, and have
left their marks on films such as The Mark of Zorro, with its
exciting fencing sequence between Tyrone Power and Basil Rathbone.
Here is an instance in which both actors already knew how to fence
before making the film.
Obviously, in some plays fencers should be inept for comic
effect, as in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night in which Viola is
confronted by Sir Andrew. But in Romeo and Juliet the fight
between Mercutio and Tybalt is serious business; and the same is
true of the fencing match between Hamlet and Laertes in Hamlet.
Undoubtedly, there were trained swordsmen in every one of
Shakespeare's audiences, who would very likely not have tolerated
silliness where the story required skillful swordplay.
In the most recent issue of the Italian Fencing Masters
Association publication, Notiziario Aims (no. 3/99), Maestro
Giovanni Toran, President of the Association, observes that at the
national examinations in Naples this year two specialists in
historical fencing, Drs. Massimo Malipiero and Giovanni Rapisardi,
participated in a new program for examining and certifying teachers
of historical swordplay. Three levels have been developed:
Scholar (Scholare), Master (Magistro), and King Master (Magistro
Re). The highest classification can only be obtained after the
candidate has earned the title of Regional Instructor (Istruttore
Regionale) in sport fencing. In this way the teacher of historical
swordplay will have acquired a sound basic knowledge of traditional
fencing theory and practice, which can then become the key to
comprehending swordplay of the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth,
and nineteenth centuries. I should mention here that Dr. Malipiero
has developed two interesting videotapes in Italian and in English:
Medieval Sword Fighting, and The Flower of the Battle. And these
are available for purchase.
I realize, of course, that there are some who would reject a
link between the past and present, but careful reading of older
texts makes it apparent that the current theory of the Italian and
French schools is the product of Renaissance swordplay. In my
opinion, without the framework of traditional fencing theory it is
impossible to interpret correctly the texts of the great masters of
the past. Indeed, one of the chief aims of my contribution, The
History of Fencing (Bangor, 1998), was to encourage my readers to
go to the original texts, rather than relying entirely on secondary
sources, such as Egerton Castle. I have the utmost respect for his
monumental work, but it is important to remember that he was an
amateur exposed chiefly to the French foil technique of the
nineteenth century. This was somewhat precious, and far removed
from the duelling practice of the preceding centuries. Castle
speaks of Marozzo "as the greatest teacher of the old school, the
rough and undisciplined swordsmanship of which depended as much on
dash and violence and sudden inspiration as on carefully cultivated
skill." Marozzo's organization of material, description of method,
and pedagogical advice, suggest otherwise.
It would be profitable, in my view, if we followed the Italian
example and encouraged fight directors and historical fencers to
acquire a background in classical fencing theory and practice
through a program such as the one offered by the United States
Fencing Association Coaches College under the directorship of
Maître Alex Beguinet. In addition, knowledge of Italian and French
fencing theory can be acquired by reading Luigi Barbasetti's The
Art of the Foil, and Roger Crosnier's Fencing with the Foil.
With a professional background gained through the study of
fencing theory and practice, the fight arranger and historical
fencing teacher can reconstruct with precision the swordplay of
the past.
William M. Gaugler
Director, Fencing Masters Program
San José State University
Submitted by Military Master at Arms Ralph K. Sahm for
Maestro di Scherma William M. Gaugler