The Two Sides of Aldo Nadi

Recently I have been reading two books by the same author, Aldo Nadi. He was an Italian born fencer of the early 20th century who is widely hailed as the best fencer of his generation. The first title I read was "Nadi On Fencing" (kindly gifted me by my friend Ian) in which the man explains his fencing philosophy and techniques for the beginner as an instruction manual on fencing the Nadi way. The second title was his autobiography entitled "The Living Sword" (leant to me by the same friend) in which he details his life's exploits from his childhood in Italy to his later exodus to America. The first title, though hard going and technically detailed was very valuable in terms of the philosophy and learning demonstrated within the pages. The second title was quite frankly, ludicrously vain, nearly unbelievable and one of the most spiteful autobiographical accounts I have read (with the possible exception of "Me and My Mouth" by Austin Healey the rugby player). The contrast between the two was so marked it is difficult to rationalise the man and his character. In his treatise on fencing Nadi certainly comes across as opinionated but those opinions are supported by clearly described facts and scenarios that a fencer can understand and agree with. Some of his thinking echoes writings of earlier and more diverse authorities on the art of the sword, showing that there are principles of swordplay that are almost universal. I find it impossible that Nadi would have ever heard of some of the Japanese sources I regularly quote but his intuitive understanding based on experience and practice of the fundamental psychology and technique of the blade mirror those of Musashi and Munenori. I found some of his comments highly instructive and would urge anyone interested in improving their technique to study this book; not all is relevant today but much of it is. So then, why does his autobiography jar so painfully with me as a reader? I suppose that some of my discomfiture is caused by Nadi being very much a man of his time i.e. an early 20th century Italian male with pretensions (some might say delusions) to glory. In that sense it is almost excusable that he is a misogynist, a serial philanderer/adulterer, a snob (he 'loathes peasants' - despite coming from a working class background), an inveterate and unrepentant gambler, hypocritically vain and in the latter parts of the book a bitter and sour critic of all that fails to match his standards. It is probably also understandable that his dislike of his brother and rival was inculcated by his obsessive father and fencing master, as was his overwhelming superiority complex and contempt for most of his peers. So in many ways Nadi should be forgiven for being a product of his times, peers and upbringing. But.... I think the things that rankle with me on a personal basis is the sense of a great gift squandered. Nadi makes it clear that as a 'professional' he will only fence for money and is also prepared to rig outcomes for the right amount of purse. He prostitutes his skills around Europe, disdainfully dispatching all-comers until he has no-one left to humiliate. Then he heads off to America to see if he can wring more money from his 'profession' over there. He only turns to coaching (seeing it as beneath him in the early years) when he no longer makes money from competition, although one could argue albeit generously that his book "On Fencing" may be an attempt to benefit posterity rather than ego or bank balance. I suppose the idea that someone could make money just from competition fencing is a fantastic one in this modern age and may distance my own opinions from the reality of the day, but I never get the sense that Nadi enjoyed his art that much. He is either complaining about others, transparently excusing himself from blame/error, or obsessively trying to live up to some imagined goal or ideal that he has no way of attaining. Certainly his father has much to blame for Nadi's fundamental insecurity; a salutary lesson for masters, coaches and parents everywhere in how not to do things. It is also a near tragedy that someone who is so obviously brilliantly talented should be so persistently unpleasant a person. Delve into his thoughts on fencing by all means but beware his example as a role model.