Hungarian Sabre Fencing as Physical Exercise for Women — Norbert Sztrakay, 1895
Appendix
a) Fencing competition and fencing match*
written by Norbert Sztrakay, 1985
Translated by Krisztina Nagy, Hungary, 02.02.2014.
See remarks in footnotes.
Digitalised original: https://mek.oszk.hu/09100/09133/09133.pdf
Many people not only confuse the definitions of competition and match, but very often interchange them, too.
One may organise a competition in anything in the world; but for matches, only three sports are suitable, namely, wrestling, boxing and fencing.
The virtual essence of a competition is not the subject itself, but the way of its pursuance, which shall, of the subject of the competition, always introduce the artistic, or at least utility-based side to the audience.
While a match is solely the measuring of the forces struggling against each other, which, with the contribution of astuteness and skillfulness, merely, prosaically represents the end result.
In a competition, the artistic skillfulness, in a match, the raw physical power and astuteness have the leading role.
Thus, a fencing competition and a fencing match are completely different things.
In case of a fencing competition, one does not regard whether this or the other received more or less; but, who fenced more beautifully, better, truer to type and more accurately.
It is self-explanatory, that here, there is no place for 'ambo'[1]-s as it may not count as a merit of any of the parties.
Yet, in case of the fencing match, the decisive factor at all times is, which of the parties gave more touches ('volt'[2] -s) to the other in a given time, or, who gives a previously determined amount of cuts sooner, in one word, which one defeats or beats up the other!
Thus, in case of a match, we shall count ambo-cuts just as in case of a duel: it very well counts at the expense of the participants, - without regard to whether they both received sharp cuts or 'touch'-es - because it is a mistake an it is inappropriate from both parties, and for this very reason, it should also be counted impairing the participants!
The M.A.C.[3] declared a public fencing match on the 20th of May, where 1st, masters with masters, 2nd, amateurs with amateurs, 3rd, amateurs with masters shall encounter.
This fencing match is not only interesting because M.A.C., since its foundation, has never organised such before, but also because this match will be carried out without 'touch'-es.
This is about the same as wrestling - without throwing someone to the ground, or a duel without a shoot or a cut.
Although the Jury expects the contestants to call 'volt' ('touched') upon being touched, they will not count them, but let them struggle as long as they prefer, etc.
He may even disqualify the ones who perform 'ambo'-s; any remark, debate over observations is forbidden for the contestant; a member of the Jury may not participate in the match and vice versa, etc.
Thus, we shall ask the question, that, if in such a public tournament, the most excellent amateurs and the best masters are going to enter; who will then make the Jury?
Maybe those who feel themselves weaker and do not dare to sign up for the match? Or indeed the best, while only the weaker contest?!
As much is sure, that it is going to be a slightly controversial and strange thing, when amateurs will sit judgement on their masters; when the weaker referee over the stronger!!
In general, this, and in detail, it is the point 1 and 3 where I have objections.
If, before the audience, only young, fiery amateurs match their swords publicly, I find it appropriate, because, while the glory of victory, through the appreciating applause of the audience, taking pleasure in the pleasing spectacle, will flatter one's vanity: it may also serve as encouragement for the other too - for the future!
This is, thus, not harmful, either to fencing sport, or to the authority of the fencing masters; since the young amateur still collects and puts down the laurels of his victories to the wreath of his sometime master's renown, after all.
But that, to the amusement of the audience, like wrestlers on the circus floor, even fencing masters brace up and face each other: it is, to the authority of the profession of the masters, in my opinion, at least not quite becoming. That fencing masters should, on such public match performances, flaunt their ability to brawl with each other in front of the 'laic' audience; that they should make amateurs transformed into Jury-s, and former students of theirs compliment them for this publicly too: I hold it not only comic but also such a controversy, which may never benefit the fencing sport or the fencing master's authority at all.
Let them give any appearance to such a contest, the background of that envy of wage and greed always show through, when a master desires to undermine the renown and existence of his fellow master, and at the price of this, raise his own authority and fame!
As far as I know, the old Friedrich, Chappon, the old Keresztessy and Martinengó never encountered each other in such public performances, but they still always competed with each other in the field of coaching, yet without ever striving to tear the laurels of appreciation off each other's foreheads!
Yet still, any one of them has greater authority and higher renown than current fencing teachers all together!
And such an amateur, who solely out of the urge of ostentation, wishes to defeat his master also in front of an audience, publicly, affronts not only becoming, but also loosens the moral attachment that must permanently exist between student and master; affronts the recognition and respect, that a students owes his master in front of publicity as well.
Yet, the intention of such a fencing master is also incomprehensible for me, who is ready to engage in a public match with an amateur. What can possibly be his goal? What does he wish to achieve through this? It is beyond any reason in my eyes. Whether he wants to show the audience that he knows more than an amateur, or less?
But the first is rightfully expected and requested of him already due to his nature anyway, and through the latter, he would even destroy the former too, and would make himself unworthy of his position as well.
Whether there will be such an applicant too, I do not know yet; although as much I know for sure, that the fencing master of M.A.C. and Mr. Vay Lajos, who already called upon me, too, back in November, have already been training each other in fencing 'assaults', and since that, they probably got ready for the match too.
I believe that there will be enough amateurs too, who, being well accustomed to their partners, won't quite embarrass each other during the match.
If we also take the fact into account after all, that this fencing match will really be performed without 'touch'-es, then we might call this competition-fencing or anything else, but not a fencing match.
If, though we are talking about the disparaging of Hungarian sabre fencing, the national honour, let not only amateurs but also the masters take the ground when necessary! But let us never make public performances, spectacular games for the amusement of the audience out of Hungarian sabre-fencing, let it be always a serious, noble and chivalrous sport in our eyes.
Regarding this, let this letter from Trieste serve as a lesson, the contents of which, in certified translation, are as follows:
171. sz. 1894. 8/V .
This translation is literally the same as the original Italian text presented before me.
(Place of Seal)
Somogyi Ede. royal forensic interpreter.
Trieszt, 1894. ápril 27.
„Dear Béla! I have heard something about the progress of Hungary, or rather about Hungarian civilisation, what if Father Kossuth heard about, he could not refrain from laughing even in his anger, for fencing master Barbassetti, one of today's excellences, has written to some de Biase in Budapest, to inquire, whether it would be reasonable to organise an academy in the Hungarian capital. De Biase replied, "No," saying, "that fencing is treated here in a very new, special way," to which, to introduce you, I narrate the following case: “In Pest,” - as he writes, - “there is no circle of fencing of any kind; although there is an athletics club where fencing practised, and it organises an Academy every spring, at which time the fencers also stand up, and literally in the following way (sit down because the impact will be great): “The flowers of the sword line up, by the 15 or 20, all equipped to attack in a fencing jacket, with a big mask on their heads, and above that, a big pig bladder over it, where on they proceed to piff! paff! thwack like the blind; the last one, on whose mask the pig's bladder remains whole, is then proclaimed to the winner of a fighting game or contest!”
I am only writing this to you, because I find it impossible, and I believe de Biase only wrote that, in order to alienate my friend Barbassetti, with whom, of course, he would not really like to meet on the piste. Quietly inquire and write something about the nature of things, etc. G.S. " Although the match between the masters and the amateurs was cancelled due to this article, the students of de Biase took part in the match and de Biase himself was present.
* See: „Hazánk" 143. issue, „Magyar Hírlap" and „Egyetértést 18. 05. 1894.
1 points assigned for a simultaneous touch, to both fencers
2 a touch in a fencing match was called by the fencer with the word 'volt' - meaning 'there was'
3 Magyar Atlétikai Club
b) Open remarks for the first Hungarian fencing match.*
Written by: István K. Szabó, member and foreman of the fencing association in Győr
"Far be it from me to deem all I saw during the fencing match wrong on principle. Yet, I would by no means serve the purpose, if, contradicting the facts, I only wrote approvingly about the recent fencing match."
"The brave attack itself is far from being possible to be equated with the art of fencing. Therefore we must not call good brawling perfect fencing."
"The stance and foot movements revealed great superficiality, and thus it would be desirable to practice those better and care about them more."
"The posture was partially good, but partially - due to holding the left shoulder forward - bad."
"Although the moves of the sabre were fast in attack, they were only rarely precise at the same time. The cuts were delivered rather from the arm than the wrist, and during fencing, the sabre was brandished more than guided."
"The thrusts applied in sabre fencing revealed a completely wrong understanding of where, when and how they should be applied."
"In the case of parries (Parade) the transitions were executed with big roundabouts and in the wrong ways, for example, from tierce to prime parry, etc."
"The very often occurring ambo-s ['simultaneous' touches] show that the attackers advanced overly impetuously and set aside the necessary caution, while the defenders quite often preferred to cut into the attack, instead of parrying it and answering with a riposte."
"Yet, despite all the remarks listed, we may not call the fencing match completely useless; because it turned out that there were many good, more over excellent talents among the contestants, who, with the right guidance, certainly will become strong representatives of the art of fencing, against anyone."
For my part, I would only say as much to these "Open remarks": an expert witness could have had more to say, but without bias and benevolent favouritism; to say even less would not have been not possible at all!
The fact that there were "many good, more over excellent talents" is, in my opinion, maybe not quite the merit and the outcome of the match: they have already existed before and without it.
It is undeniable that we have great, good power and many excellent talents. But maybe this was not doubted by anyone, even without this match - although, for the fact that the "Open remarks" above were created by that very lack of proper guidance, the occasion of this fencing match delivered perfectly good proof!
Thus, this too proves my point, and supports the idea that we need learning, correct school [lessons?] above all, and not public performances!!
*See: 27th issue of "Sport-Világ" in 1894 - published after the match and left without opposition.
C) 12 and 13. May 1895.
'The result is proven by the facts, and the end can not justify the means'
These two days became notable because this was the day the M.A.C. held the first, larger-scale national fencing competition and public international fencing match.
The number 13 has always been unfortunate since ancient times, and this was proven this time too.
It is not my intention - rather the opposite -, and also beyond the scope of this booklet, to engage in detailed judgement of the course of the competition and take it under worthwhile criticism now.Yet I still can not suppress one or the other thing, for the good of the Hungarian fencing sport and Hungarian fencing masters; especially because certain gazettes blame and reproach the fencing masters of the capital city for the failure.
A quite interesting and characteristic example is, among others, the contemplation and approach of Pesti Hírlap (131st issue 14th May).
"The sabre competition of fencing masters - says he - brought an unpleasant surprise. We have mentioned that Br. Bothmer stood down, so we were sure that the victory would be Halász'."
"Yet fate's will was different and our metropolitan fencing masters should be ashamed that the first prize was taken by a foreigner. It would not hurt - continues the gazette - if they learned a little entrepreneurship from the ambitious Halász Zsiga (?), who is known for never evading when he gets the occasion to match his sabre with a worthy opponent."
I believe, they might indeed learn entrepreneurship from him, but hardly knowledge, ambition or ability.
The organising committee had but great ambitions too, - more over, showed overly bold entrepreneurship as well - when, ignoring the fencing masters of the capital city, without local experts, they undertook the organising of a national fencing competition, and even an international public fencing match. They thought to have discovered "the worthy sons of the sometime swordsmen forefathers", in themselves!
Why should the metropolitan fencing masters be ashamed that they got slightly disappointed later? The 'glory' is the organisers'!
In my opinion, all foreign fencing masters or amateurs have the same right to the first prize, as everyone else, if they enter a competition for it, according to the rules.
We owe respect to knowledge and ability equally - even if they are those of a foreigner or a rural fencing master. No-one at all can have an exclusive right to the first prize, for the winning of which, in my opinion, mere entrepreneurship and ambition is not sufficient - there may be some other things required, too!
"In the match, - says the Magyar Hírlap (11st May) - two excellent metropolitan fencing masters, Sztrakay Norbert and Vay Lajos won't participate. According to our information, these two masters refrained from the festivity, because the organising committee forgot to invite them into the jury. The amount of time they have been in the business and their qualities have surely made them worthy of taking this place in the jury, even before this time."
This gentle warning did not remain without a result of course. The executive committee, being slightly ashamed of this inattention, hurried, on the eve of the competition, at 8 in the evening that very day, to invite Vay through Bekény Gyula and Dr. Krasznay Ferenc jury members - to be the starter in foil fencing. Count Vay Lajos, lacking other options, readily accepted even this position, which, by all means, certainly needed more than little entrepreneurship, but where was the ambition?
Why did he not enter the competition if he longed to appear, while two of his students and his assistant Zolnay Viktor were competing anyway?
Then, if he withdrew because he was neglected for the jury, how could he still undertake the role of the starter at the last moment?!
In reality, only three metropolitan and four rural fencing masters participated in the competition: Gisser -Nyitra, Chappon -Nagyvárad, Robély -Kaposvár, Lovas (Rössler) -Kecskemét and 38 amateurs.
"Three masters from the capital - writes the Hazánk (9th May) - and these three were: Halász Zsiga, Knight Arlow Gusztáv and Benyovits Lajos. And the rest of the masters, Sztrakay Norbert, Keresztessy Sándor, Count Vay Lajos, Grabowieczky Leó, Bély Miska, Endrédy Márton, Rákossy Gyula, Izecseszkul Leó, and, well, Fodor Károly, who, according to malevolent tongues, has already brawled through the most famous masters and even got certificates of appreciation (!) - where were they?"
"Maybe they did not have the qualification defined in the rules of the competition: five years of work as a fencing master in the capital city?"
"Rákossy Gyula and Izecseszkul Leó did not indeed, as both of them are still young fencing masters." (Rákossy has been the assistant of his fellow master, Fodor for 6 years, and business partner of his for 2 years, so he is not even that young.)
But how and based on what qualification did the assistant of Count Vay Lajos, Zolnay Viktor who, two years ago, still studied in my school, get mixed among the competing gentlemen fencing masters: only the executive committee and Halász Zsiga can tell! According to hearsay, he might have got a fencing master's certificate from his master?!
"However, Sztrakay Norbert - according to public awareness - the oldest fencing master after the recently passed away Keresztessy József, already has 24 years behind him as a fencing master. Keresztessy Sándor is an about 18 years old fencing master, the rest, 10-12 years old masters."
"We understand the non-attendance of Fodor Károly who got tired already, of matching grand-masters of the continent; and to be honest, unfortunately, we have to understand and appreciate the stand-down of Sztrakay Norbert, Count Vay Lajos, Bély Miska and Endrédy Márton too. For the competition-organisers of the Hungarian Club of Athletics [M.A.C.] did not invite any of the masters named above into the jury of the national festivity."
Six foreign and only one Hungarian fencing masters are really in the jury, the rest of the jury members are all amateurs.
"We can not approve of it either, that in such a competition where masters - maybe even the masters of the amateur jury-members - also participate, students should judge the knowledge of the masters; we do not mean that amateurs are incompetent in refereeing, but this would be such an anomaly, which can quite easily discredit the severity and trustworthiness of the jury of the national competition." (And, this indeed occurred here, because Chappon, Knight Arlow and Br. Bothmer all raised objections against the proceedings of the jury).
"Otherwise, we do not hesitate to declare either, that on principle, we are absolutely no friends of masters' public competition-fencing. These can be interesting as spectacular performances; can be educational, as studies, but ordinarily, happen at the expense of the reputation and renown of one of these masters."
"From the capital, only the schools of Keresztessy, Halász, Vay, Litomiszky (military) and Benyovits are going to be represented."
"Sztrakay Norbert's school did not enter for the competition out of obligation of honour. Where the authority of the master is not recognized, the school can not represent itself. Although, the Sztrakay-school has already given as many illustrious fencers to the country, as - except for the school of the late Keresztessy József - hardly any others did.
From here emerge, among others:
Lisznyay Tihamér, | Dr. Kosztka Emil, |
Bekény Gyula (now jury-member), | Asbóth Jenő, |
Fülepp Kálmán, | Dr. Nyevitzkey Antal, |
Ifj. Szentgyörgyi Imre, | Dr. Rózsa Elemér, |
Mérai-Horváth Károly, | Papp Elemér, |
Szuk Géza, | Dr. Hanzély László, |
Dr. Zerdahely Imre, | Dr. Bessenyey Béla, |
Dr. Pálföldy Lajos, | Dr. Kenedy Géza, |
Nagy László, | Belcsák László, |
Pláner Gyula, | Dr. Kováts Seb. Endre, |
Kiticsán Zsiga, | Gáspár Arthur, |
Dr. Papp Mór, | Dr. Simó Károly etc." |
" Others who have also learned in the Sztrakay-school are Halász Zsiga, the current fencing master of the Hungarian Club of Athletics, in 1876; in 1880 and 1881, Endrédy Márton fencing master; in 1880, Count Vay Lajos (although, he only attended the school for a short time) and in 1884, Mozogh István, fencing master in Fiume."
"The constant visitors of Endrédy Márton will also be missed in the competition."
"The greatest interest - writes the "Pesti Hírlap" (issue 131, 14th May) - manifested in the sabre match of the masters, and especially, they wanted to see the encounter between Halász and Br. Bothmer."
"But, Br. Bothmer, referring to a skin bruise on one of his fingers, stood down."
"Otherwise, the course of the sabre competition of the masters was as follows:
In the I. series Halász Zsiga defeated Robélyi Jenő, (Kaposvár); Halász received 31/2 touches, Robélyi, 41/2 touches. (According to the touch-count of the audience, Halász received 5 and Robélyi received 4). Chappon (Nagyvárad) and Gregurich (M.-Fehértemplom) did not finish their bout as Chappon stood down, raising objection against the touch-counting of the jury. Dr Benyovits Lajos (Budapest) defeated Gisser Gyula (Nyitra), Gregurich defeated Lovas (Rössler) Gyula (Kecskemét)."
"Then, in the II. sequence, Halász Zsiga met Gregurich Ámon and received 4 touches from Gregurich, while he was not able to give any. After that, Gregurich defeated Dr. Benyovits too (receiving 1 touch and giving 4) so, the first winner was Gregurich Ámon."
This failure - according to the "Pesti Hírlap" - paralyzed Halász so much that he then kept losing against Benyovits too, so that the second winner in the fencing masters' sabre competition became Benyovits Lajos, and Halász Zsiga only managed to get the third place. Otherwise, from among the members of the M.A.C. too, only two managed to get a 3rd prize, one in foil and one in sabre fencing.
"Benyovits - says the gazette - acquitted himself quite well today in general."
"In the final fight of the fencing masters as well, Gregurich first beat Halász, then Benyovits, and so, the first winner was Gregurits Ámon, the great state-gold-medal and the honorary diploma is his; second is Benyovits Lajos; third, Halász Zsiga."
The secretary of the M.A.C. too, announced this judgement of the jury, from the podium, in front of the audience, and this is how the next day all the daily papers reported it.
Yet the next day at 4 o'clock, the M.A.C. awarded the prizes as follows:
The I. prize (great gold medal of the state and honorary diploma) went to Gregurich Ámon.
The II. prize (smaller gold medal of the state and honorary diploma) was awarded to Halász Zsiga, the fencing master of the Hungarian Athletics Club, while,
The III. prize (the gold medal of the M. A. C.) was given to dr. Benyovits Lajos. It is strange, that here Mr. Benyovits did not "acquit himself as well" any more as during the competition, and allowed the II. prize, won by himself, to be deferred so easily without a sabre-cut. Instead he settled for the III. prize. Here we see great entrepreneurship again, but where is the ambition?!
If Halász did in fact deserve the II. prize: then the Jury had awarded it to Benyovits wrongly, which can not possibly be presumed. But if according to the correct judgement of the jury, Benyovits has won the II. prize: then the M.A.C. did not award the prize according to the judgement of the jury.
After all this I believe that not only the foreigners and amateurs, but even our own fellow countrymen will learn from these events, and will hardly or at least not very soon feel like competing for such laurels, which they do not receive, even if they have really earned them.
What and how will the magazines write about this abroad; in what colours will they paint the Hungarian fencing sport for the rest of the world? This will unfortunately not be felt by the organisers but the Hungarian fencing sport and the Hungarian fencing masters - in the nearest future already.
Through this competition, the M.A.C., without the involvement and permission of the Hungarian fencing masters - and despite neglecting them - still mired the Hungarian fencing sport, in front of the country and the world, at their expense!
National fencing competitions, moreover, international matches may be organised by any club - with amateurs or their own members - but no one has the right, in my opinion, to do so involving all the fencing masters of the country, without their consent, yet at their expense.
Such events may only be organised by the masters themselves, with consensus; although abroad, national level masters' academies, like the ones there are in Italy and France, can do this too.
Such a decision had already been made by the metropolitan fencing masters under the presidency of the old Keresztessy, with one accord, on the 21st November, 1893 when de Biase had also organised an international fencing competition, also neglecting the metropolitan fencing masters. Or did this too descend to the grave with old Keresztessy?! Dear fellow masters! Anybody with even only little self-esteem and self-sufficiency can not be the puppet of others and must not jump as and when some club whistles as it pleases!
We shall emphasise, with joint force, that private interests shall not oppress common interests, at least not in the Hungarian fencing sport!
They shake even the foundations of our existence through our reputation; they hire strangers and bring them to our necks, provide them rich remuneration, while the reward of our self-sacrificing efforts is neglected!
The time has come for united effort, - for the foundation of a circle of fencing masters; with joint force and common will, we shall enforce the authority of Hungarian fencing masters.
So, awake from your dreams, awake son of Árpád! Line up with united heart and soul, under the common banner, and keep in mind:
'Let fortune bless or fortune curse, From hence you shall not roam!' [1]
Sztrakay Norbert.
1 Mihály Vörösmarty - Appeal. Translation of Watson Kirkconnell