New York in the 1880s was rapidly on its way to becoming the cosmopolitan metropolis of today. Already, it was a world-class city, where Old World culture met American new money. Though it is well known that fencing was all the rage with Parisian gentlemen at this time, there should be no surprise that, in keeping with the fashionability of things from the Continent, there was also a healthy interest in the art in New York. In the Tribune interview with Senac, for instance, the Maître indicates that "we average 100 pupils a year, for the most part among the people of leisure. Actors and actresses occasionally take lessons for stage purposes, or merely to discipline the body into flexibility."

Even if the Tribune (one of the more highbrow papers of the day) ran only some two dozen articles on fencing through the decade, the fact that this pastime was mentioned at all in a paper that had only twelve pages speaks of some special significance. Indeed, until 1887, the compiler of the index of subjects covered in the paper seemed to think that "fencing" deserved its own category, rather than having it grouped under "sporting," as were rowing, cricket, and lacrosse. Plainly, to the editor, something about "the art of the foil" made it stand out-it was not a game, it was art. Though of interest perhaps to only a small fraction of the paper's readership, it was nonetheless near and dear to the hearts of the upper crust, and thus deserved mention.

The interview with Maître Senac¹ begins the series, and is plainly intended to give the reader an introduction to this fashionable pursuit. Indeed, the whole reads amusingly like the modern "frequently asked questions" lists published on the Internet. Queries include: "And how soon can one become an expert in the art?"; "Isn't there a certain amount of danger in the use of the foils?"; and "But the expense of an outfit?" Some things, apparently, have never changed.

Senac's was not, of course, the only fencing school in the city. The other was headed by one Captain Hippolyte Nicolas (or Nicholas), who taught a "method partly borrowed from the Italian school but principally original" at the "New-York Fencing Club on Twenty-fourth St.," which institution is still in existence. An article comparing the two schools, dated February 22, 1885, is, on the whole, is rather well-informed. Maître Senac's method is, of course, praised as most orthodox and correct, representing the classical French school at its finest. "There is but one school, and this school has but two fundamental principles: to touch one's adversary and not to be touched one's self."

Conversely, Captain Nicholas' teachings may have been less orthodox, but are nonetheless fascinating. He preferred his students to hold the foil with the arm extended and the point ascending, which is in keeping with a southern Italian style, but with the hand in tierce (the Italian terza), since in that position "a greater leverage is obtained upon the sword of one's adversary."² This last detail is unusual, but it is characteristic of an earlier Italian style, more in keeping with schools of rapier or smallsword use. Parries were executed entirely through circular motions: one in tierce; one in quarte. Footwork was similarly conservative, with the students standing closer together and rarely lunging. On the whole, Captain Nicholas appears to have taught his students a modified version of an old-fashioned form of Italian fencing that had not changed much from the days of Rosaroll and Grisetti. Of the latter two masters, Egerton Castle has said that their play "retains many of the characteristics of the rapier fence of the seventeenth century."³

The reporter draws the final conclusion that the true artistic temperament was taught at Maître Senac's, while Captain Nicholas seemed to be more popular, at least with the hoi poloi. Indeed, though the salle of the former could boast a hundred pupils in 1883, by two years later, the Fencer's Club had thrice as many members. (Of course, it would be logical to assume that even the proles of the fencing world were likely to have been upwardly mobile petit bourgeoisie, at the least in this period.)