Algunas preguntas sobre Rada

[Charles Blair]

Hola.

Por favor permitidme presentarme: me llamo Charles, de la Chicago
Swordplay Guild (en los Estados Unidos). No hablo español muy bien,
pero intentaré hacer algunas preguntas en español.

Lorenz de Rada, Nobleza de la espada (1705) v. 3, p. 135, y p. 140,
escribe:

... darà el Maestro disposicion para la formacion de la estocada,
agregandose à la Espada del Discipulo por la parte de adentro
... mediante el movimiento mixto de natural, y remiso; de cuya
disposicion se valdrà el Discipulo ... haziendo vertice la mano,
descrivir con la Espada desde la parte de adentro, en que se halla, à
la de afuera por plano inferior à la otra, una porcion de piramide,
haste dexar la punta con direccion al centro del brazo derecho del
Enseñador ...

"desde la parte de adentro ... à la de afuera por plano inferior à la
otra ..." Mi primera pregunta: ¿si el plano vertical (la base del cono,
o de la pirámide) se compara a un reloj, esto describe una acción
donde la punta de la espada va desde el número ocho, más o menos (no
nueve, porque el acción del maestro incluye el movimiento natural),
por el número seis al número tres, desde el punto de vista del
estudiante, es verdad, o no?

Gracias.

[Oriol Salvador]

Welcome to this forum, it's really encouraging to have foreign members visiting us and having interest in Verdadera Destreza.

Now, focusing in your question, the action described it's a simple disengajement where you move your sword circulary from the inside of the Maestro sword (and also your inside) to the outside, pointing the weapon's arm. From the point of view of the Discípulo, after the agregación (engagement) you are at the 3 or 4 of your clock. Then, you move the sword in a conical way, being the wrist the vertex, under the Maestro sword, so you move from 4 to 9, clockwise.

I hope this helps, best regards.

[Jaime Girona]

.

[Charles Blair]

Gracias a ambos. Ahora yo comprendo: "la parte de adentro" y "la [parte] de afuera" refieran a la espada, no al cuerpo (pensaba: la parte de dentro = el lado correspondiente a la mano izquierda del discipulo, en inglés, "the inside line", y la [parte] de afuera = el lado correspondiente a la mano derecho del discipulo, en inglés, "the outside line", pero mi comprensión estaba al revés). Ahora la acción está claro. Gracias otra vez.

(Escribo en español porque no hay foro aquí de lengua inglesa y no quiero violar las normas de la etiqueta, but Oriol, I appreciate your responding in English, y Jaime, "Me temo que no manejo bien el inglés"--ça va .)

[Rorro González]

Hola Charles, bienvenido a nuestro foro.

Pese a que se trata de un foro en habla hispana, puedes expresarte en inglés si lo prefieres, aunque apreciamos mucho tu esfuerzo de adaptarte al idioma del foro, ya que así el diálogo llegará a más gente.

Nos complace ver el interés que despierta la esgrima española fuera de nuestras fronteras.

Un saludo.

[Luis Miguel Palacio]

Gracias a ambos. Ahora yo comprendo: "la parte de adentro" y "la [parte] de afuera" refieran a la espada, no al cuerpo (pensaba: la parte de dentro = el lado correspondiente a la mano izquierda del discipulo, en inglés, "the inside line", y la [parte] de afuera = el lado correspondiente a la mano derecho del discipulo, en inglés, "the outside line", pero mi comprensión estaba al revés)

Actually, both the inside of the body and the inside of the sword are on the same side, towards the left;and the outside of the sword and of the body are on the opposite side, towards the right. One can define the inside and the outside like this: given the vertical plane that contains the sword's blade, the inside is the space region from that plane towards the fencer's chest, and the outside is the space region from that plane towards the back. That definition fits for both right-handed and left-handed fencers.

Let me note that, perhaps, your original misunderstanding laid more on the fact that, by "darà el Maestro disposicion para la formacion de la estocada, agregandose à la Espada del Discipulo por la parte de adentro", you were thinking about a movement towards the disciple's inside line, instead of a movement that originates from the disciple's inside line.

[Charles Blair]

Since this is about the source of my misunderstanding, rather than about Rada per se, I'll respond in English.

I looked again quickly at Giganti and Capoferro, and in both authors "inside" and "outside" can refer to the sword, but also to the body. So, when the sword is in presence, yes: inside and outside the sword correspond to inside and outside the vertical plane which includes the sword and which divides the body into two corresponding parts. However, if my sword is out of presence to my outside (to my right), then it is defending neither my inside nor my outside (by which I mean, that part of my body which would be outside if my sword were in presence). In the action being described here, the sword is being deviated to my right, out of presence. I want to bring it back into presence, and defend myself at the same time, so the first thing I want to do is to bring it back in presence by moving it back to the inside, to put the master's blade to the outside.

Now, thinking as a period Italian would, if I am being engaged from the inside, my response would be to perform a cavazione from the inside to the outside underneath my opponent's weapon, and to do so either moving my body backwards (because, perhaps, I am behind in time, and performing a cavazione di ubbidienza), or moving it forward (taking advantage of the trovare di spada to perform a cavazione di tempo and gain measure, or even to attack if I am in measure). But when I read, "haziendo vertice la mano, descrivir con la Espada desde la parte de adentro, en que se halla, à la de afuera por plano inferior à la otra, una porcion de piramide ..." I think: a cavazione is not "una porcion de piramide"; it's a complete "pyramid", or cone. So now I am not certain what is being described, and I ask the question.

P. 147, which I read last night, describes the action more clearly (at least for me): "se agregará el maestro con su espada por la parte de adentro de la del discipulo ..." Now this reinforces what you (all) have been saying, that the reference point for inside and outside is the sword, and for this I thank you.

[Aleix Basullas]

When reading Rada's third book you should remember a big part of it are training exercises, so you should be careful when applying "combat thinking" to it. This one trains the student in freeing his sword and going back to "angulo recto" when pushed from the inside while taking a step to the right (though the result between the 3/4 pyramid and the step should be similar to a full pyramid without a step, except the student will be able to have his point aiming at the master with a straight arm and will have gained a bit of distance to the side).

[Luis Miguel Palacio]

...But when I read, "haziendo vertice la mano, descrivir con la Espada desde la parte de adentro, en que se halla, à la de afuera por plano inferior à la otra, una porcion de piramide ..." I think: a cavazione is not "una porcion de piramide"; it's a complete "pyramid", or cone. So now I am not certain what is being described, and I ask the question.

Well, let's dig into the matter a little bit further.

What I miss of the action's description is the stepping advised (and I don't have Rada's third volume at hand), because it holds the key to tell whether Rada is writting about an action close to the italian "cavazione" or about something somewhat different. I bet for the second option, because he does not comand to reengage ("agregarse") the master's blade after doing the disengagement, but to point the sword to the master's arm ("haste dexar la punta con direccion al centro del brazo derecho del Enseñador"): I would even bet that the step that Rada advises to make with that hand action is a cuved or transverse step to the left. If it's that way, the aim of the whole action is not to take hold of the opponent's blade, but to regain the right angle while our opponent, who left it to move our blade also out of it, is still (and even further than at the begining, because of our steping) out of it.

But... thinking about the matter, if the step made is to the right instead than to the left, we'll be able to reengage the opponent's blade while also pointing our sword to the opponent's arm making only a part of the cone with the blade, because the lateral movement needed to "close the cone" is made with the whole body, and not only with the sword: that action would be closer to the "cavazione" than the first one. So... let me retire my aforementioned bets

So the conclusion is that it depends of the steping: if the step is to the left, the action is meant to regain the right angle without a reengagement while gaining particular diameter "por la postura de la espada"; if the step is to the right, the action is meant to reengage the opponent's blade while gaining particular diameter "por los grados del perfil".

As and ending note, let me explain that we tend to understand now (thanks, in great part, to Rada) the right angle not as an specific position of arm and sword (although that is still a good, simple, starting point to understand the matter) but as, let's say, the mean between the shortest line from the elbow of our armed hand to the opponent's body's closest part to us and the shortest line from the elbow of his armed hand to our body's closest part to him: that is, some sort of three-dimensional center line relative to the contender's bodies relative positions. Thus, "gaining the right angle", instead of merely taking a given, fixed, stance, becomes a dynamic, everchanging work of putting our sword between his and his intended target while keeping the best posible attack posibilities, and taking into acount that by "putting our sword between his" mean both strictly "putting the sword between" and "putting the body behind", that is, a combination of sword and body movements. Easier said than done, indeed.

I hope I had explained it in a understandable way.

[Alberto Bomprezzi]

Hello Charles,

In the Practice would be quite simple to explain, in detail, how it works, here it may be difficult and incomplete. I hope to make it clear enough. Before trying to understand the movement certain things must be established. If you change the context then the way you perform the action changes, as there is not one way to perform it but as many as possible contexts.
Now to perform the action we will define a precise context:

• We are in the Medio de Proporción
• The student’s sword is in the right angle or very close to it and while the master’s sword , when engaging the blade in an obtuse angle.

Now disengaging is done not always with a cone, it depends. Dependeing on the bind (agregacion) reactions may be different but they all respond to the need of covering the line of attack, so the closer and stronger the bind, the higher the student will raise the hilt – not exceeding from the height of the shoulder. (normally it is a very small movement made only with the wrist)

The student’s blade is then displaced slightly towards the right side, as a consequence of the movimientos natural y remiso. The action of the disengagement is then performed the shortest possible way, which is bringing down the blade – not the hand which is covering the line - under the master’s sword from right to left – the “porción de piramide” - and then it is raised with a straight or circular movement depending on the angle of the master’s sword in the horizontal plane when performing the bind.

It is necessary to understand that the way an action is performed it will change with the circumstances, so the same action of disengaging may be done in slightly different ways . Sometimes it wil be done with a circle , with half a circle, others with a part of a triangle and then half a circle. For obvious reasons a complete triangle is never used. The whole subject is related to distance, - very short – angle of the body. and angles of the swords.

The final part of the text - hasta dexar la punta con diección al centro del brazo derecho del Enseñador. - clearly establishes that the student is not performing a complete circle or a triangle and half a circle, thus letting us know that the student is not binding back on the other side. Which makes sense because if the master has moved his sword even slightly far from the central line the student will let it go and simply keep his sword in the right angle in the central line.

According to our theory we do not analize the actions n terms of timing but in terms of movement. The main idea is "as long as I have the central line my opponent wil have to always perform longer movements than me". Cavazione in ubbidienza is a concept that may cause confusion as it suggests that we lost time so to disengage properly we need to adjust the distance by stepping or shifting the weight back, thus recovering the time we lost.
To me losing time is not a major problem as long as I keep control of the central line, the major problem is actually losing the central line. For that reason I do not need to disengage always with a cone but I also use parts of a triangle. A triangle is made of sttraight lines and staight lines are always shorter to perform than circular ones.

This is a basic action and even in free assaults not difficult to perform but you must think the spanish way : look for the Medio de Proporción and never use two steps in a straight line or in the same circle,. Blade actions do not work well without the fotwork.

Thanks for your interest Charles, we appreciate it.

[Jaime Girona]

.

[Aleix Basullas]

Adjunto la pagina para los que no tengais el libro a mano.

[Charles Blair]

Thank you all again for your responses. I am finding them all very useful.

Jaime: yes, the movement is described to both sides. First, to one side, as the page posted by Aleix shows, then, to the other, on p. 140.

Miguel: thanks for the deeper explanation about the angulo recto; it provides a very clear picture of what to strive for and also what to avoid. It brings to mind one of Rada's comments either here or in volume II, which says, in effect: everything I am telling you to do, your opponent can do as well; therefore, the outcome will depend on carelessness on the part of one or the other ("descuido" is the word I think Rada uses).

This leads me to this comment of Alberto's:

According to our theory we do not analize the actions n terms of timing but in terms of movement. The main idea is "as long as I have the central line my opponent wil have to always perform longer movements than me" ... To me losing time is not a major problem as long as I keep control of the central line, the major problem is actually losing the central line.

This I find very interesting. It is clear to me that the Spanish had a notion of fencing time (Rada mentions it here and there, for example), but it is a subordinate concept, unlike in Italian authors, for whom it is the equal of measure in importance. The above explains how that is possible: since the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, and if movement measures time, then any movement along that line (my movement) has to be shorter in duration than any movement around that line (my opponent's movement). This is no different from Italian rapier theory arguing for the superiority of the thrust versus the cut, but it applies that theory even earlier in the activity: seeking the straight line, the shortest distance, ensures the shorter tempo, without thinking about tempo directly. This is very interesting indeed.

Putting this together with what Miguel said earlier, this is pretty fundamental, so let me see if I truly understand. "Afirmarse en el ángulo recto" is not important because it is the superior guard, in the Italian sense (in the manner, say, of Capoferro's terza, as opposed to seconda or quarta, or Alfieri's terza/quarta, contra Capoferro). It is not truly a guard at all in that sense. (In fact, I have yet to see a Spanish word for guard in anything I have read.) It is a kind of "pre-attack", or seizing the initiative from the outset, and trying to maintain it in face of, as Rada points out, "whatever I can do, the opponent can do, too". Is this understanding more or less correct?

[Luis Miguel Palacio]

Putting this together with what Miguel said earlier, this is pretty fundamental, so let me see if I truly understand. "Afirmarse en el ángulo recto" is not important because it is the superior guard, in the Italian sense (in the manner, say, of Capoferro's terza, as opposed to seconda or quarta, or Alfieri's terza/quarta, contra Capoferro). It is not truly a guard at all in that sense. (In fact, I have yet to see a Spanish word for guard in anything I have read.) It is a kind of "pre-attack", or seizing the initiative from the outset, and trying to maintain it in face of, as Rada points out, "whatever I can do, the opponent can do, too". Is this understanding more or less correct?

You are right on track, lad. However, there's something I want to stress: that "seizure of the iniciative" is not a vague, subjective concept; is the pure and simple seizure of a given space region for your sword and the denial of it for the other's. Translating it to the practice isn't so easy, because that space region you should ocupy changes with each movement, and the other guy also tends to try to make it his own. But IMO, is a more clearly guided process, as you have a phisical reference of what you intend to do, than the more vaporous "you must take and hold the initiative" and the likes you may find in other fencing schools.

P.D. From the description of the action put by Aleix (¡Moltes Gràcies, en Aleix! ) the action is intended to gain "medio proporcional", a intermediate position between the "medio de proporcion" and the "medio proporcionado" in which you are in a particular diameter but out of range to strike; that is, to gain an position of advantage from which make a futher action to strike.

[Aleix Basullas]

Gracias por el intento de catalan, pero me temo que sobra el "en"