Ettenhard: Diestro italiano y español ... (1697)

[Charles Blair]

Having just finished reading it, I feel compelled to say that it is a masterful piece of work; some parts, especially towards the end of the last section, are sheer genius. He takes contemporary Italian fencing very seriously, putting it on a par with the Spanish. As a result, he has to dig very deeply into the fundamental elements of Destreza in order to address what he perceives to be a legitimate Italian challenge; in so doing he moves the art forward. It shows Destreza as a dynamic and not a static system of analysis and application.

Ettenhard rises above the commonplace, in both analytical skill and intellectual honesty. Seeing how it is applied by a man of this stature, I have to say that la Verdadera Destreza is head and shoulders above anything else I have encountered so far. I am very, very impressed (and I was already sufficiently impressed by Rada).

At exactly 200 numbered pages, it is also not particularly long for a text in this tradition.

[Steve Hick]

Charles, while readers here likely have known this, I think a disservice has been done to Spanish fencing within the English speaking world, if not the other non-Spanish cultures. It is clear this is a dynamic, well-reasoned and quality controlled tradition from the 1450s until the 1850s. And not as monolithic as we might suppose. I think the effort that you, among others, are attempting to convey this tradition to the anglophones, and in some instances, translate entire works, is admirable.

Steve

[Alquimista]

Hi Charles.
I havn't find this book, did you have a link to downloadit?

[Luis Miguel Palacio]

I'm glad, Charles, you have enjoyed reading two of the three members of the "holy trinity of destreza", Ettenhard and Rada. Actually, Rada's "Nobleza de la espada" is a good synecdoche of the whole array of destreza works' different approaches, from the phylosophy of knowlegde explored in the "Ciencia del instrumento armígero espada" to the direct practical applications shown in the "Experiencia ..."; so when working with a Destreza treatise the first you need to understand is in which place of the theoretical-practical spectre the author aims to put himself on.

Regarding the italian fencing styles from the Destreza point of view, it can be said that the more the given destreza author leans on the theoretical side, the more the italian fencing schools are disregarded, and the more he leans to the practical issues, the more the italians are respected. That isn't the contradiction it may look at first glance, once you realize that when destreza masters speak of false techniques ("treta falsa") they don't mean exactly uneffective techniques, that is, once you begin to understand the theory-practice dialectics of the destreza.

Getting back to the "Diestro italiano y español...", it could be a good idea to compare it with the "Comprensión de la destreza", from Don Alvaro Guerra de la Vega, and with the dagger section of the "Cartilla y luz de la verdadera destreza", from Don Nicolás Tamariz; both have a comparison, in a rather practical plane, between the sword-and-dagger destreza and italian styles.

Regards.

P.D. Speaking of english-speaking fencing comunity misunderstandings (that is, as a whole: Charles, Steve, Puck Curtiss and some other guys are making an outstanding efford mending them), I think that Thibault's being, till Puck's work on Ettenhard, the only english translation has been the cause of the more or less common idea of destreza being a mystical/esoteric rant, while the picture is quite the opposite: Thibault was the only destreza master that "went esoteric", while the rest were, of course, good old catholic christians that had their books approved by the church; it couldn't had been the other way in the good old catholic Spain of yore, isn't it?

[Alberto Bomprezzi]

Hi Charles welcome among the Destreza fans and thank you for you words. Quite often Destreza is considered at the same level of other systems because of a confusion between Practice and Theory. This leads to the mistake of not looking at things objectively. Destreza is by far a superior theory, unmatched as far as I know, which has nothing to do with producing better fencers. This is up to the teachers and mainly to the fencers themselves. The superior science contained in Destreza treatises is nevertheless a fact and, being honest, it can't be denied.

I'd like to state that I do not take this in a nationalistic way, I look at it objectively andI must admit that I am comforted by the fact that from time to time somebody realizes it, thanks Charles

Steve the truth is that we do know that Destreza it may never really develop outside Spain and maybe Mexico and France. Destreza presents certain rpoblems not easy to overcome: the lenguage barrier, a dynamic approach, a pure theoretical system with almost no practical descriptions, no drawings...

It is a pity as it could offer a lot to the study of historical weapons mainly the heavy ones, but things are as they are. We appreciate though the efforts and interest you, Charles, Matt, Puck and Mary, Ken, Philippe, Vincent, David etc. take in its defense.

I agree Charles on the stature of Ettenhard;. Diestro italiano y español is interesting not only for the fencing knowledge. A few months ago I went to visit the curch where he was buried, I have known it since childhood but this time I looked at it with a different perspective.

[Charles Blair]

I debated about posting at first, because it seemed a bit like a bolt from the blue, as we say in English ("blue" I suppose being the blue sky, and "bolt" being a thunderbolt or lightning bolt), so I wasn't sure of the response, but I'm glad I did, since as usual the informed responses help me fine-tune my understanding of what is going on. As Alberto intimates, the hard task, for me at any rate, has been the task of progressive understanding. I say progressive, because the more I read, the better I understand, but there is so much to read, and the reading has to take place between and around the other activities of life. So it's a few steps forward, maybe one step backwards or sideways, then forewards again, and so on. It's daunting, actually, not to mention lonely, but one thing with these texts is that even a chance remark in one text can all of a sudden help me understand something I've been struggling with elsewhere. Posting occasionally to this group also helps me in the same way as well. So, thank you for your responses, and encouragement! They're much appreciated.

Alquimista: I got my copy the old-fashioned way, a photocopy in the mail from this website:

http://www.jaredkirby.com/Int17thcent.htm

If you run into problems, let me know. We're on the same continent; we can work something out.

[Celebdol]

Thanks a lot for the contact, its really interesting

[Luis Miguel Palacio]

I say progressive, because the more I read, the better I understand, but there is so much to read, and the reading has to take place between and around the other activities of life. [...] It's daunting, actually, not to mention lonely,[...]

Just a note of advice, perhaps superfluous( as you, Charles, are already an "old-timer" on this matters), but nonetheless worth pointing it: the outstanding value of the destreza theorical frame is given by the fact that isn't some kind of intelectual juggling (well, sometimes it really is, you know), but because it has real, practical application. So the understanding of the theory can make you to improve your practice, and the improved practice gives you a better understanding of the theory, that in turn can help you to fine-tune your practice, and so on, and on, and on...

And dont' be shy, Charles: the destreza stuff also allows to have intrincate and nitty-gritty armchair fencer's discusions (f.e. Are the "tretas generales" really general ones? Is the "treta universal" really universal?) that aren't too useful, but that insane people like me find them enjoyable in a devious and rather insane way.

Regards.

[Charles Blair]

Ah, Miguel: I was always appreciate reading your posts. They're informative, well-balanced, and humorous.

I take your point about the dialectical relationship between theory and practice. It has already made an appreciable difference in my fencing, and how I think about fencing (the choices I want to make, and why I should want to make them). However, since I'm a big believer in doing one's homework (¿"hacer los deberes" en castellano?), I'll want to finish doing that before opening my mouth too much, unless I have a question about the homework itself.

On a more serious note, I'd like to return to the remark you made above about Thibault: that hadn't occurred to me, actually. When I read Thibault, I read him as a man who proved himself publicly as a fencer, and who is worth listening to on that account for whatever practical advice he may have to offer. The rest of it I take, rightly or wrongly, as being in part reflective of his own pedagogical style, and also as lending a certain kind of authority to what he is saying, leading to conviction on the part of a period reader. However, that he is perceived as being esoteric, coupled with the fact that he was translated into English by a man who himself "went esoteric"--well, the potential implications of that hadn't occurred to me at all, quite frankly. What had occurred to me is the sheer illogicality of Anglo's position: he values Thibault, but not Rada. Why? Lo que es salsa para el ganso es salsa para la oca. And to editorialize as he does, especially without sufficient foundation? This is part of what I mean when I say that, before having an opinion, I think it is best to have finished one's homework.

[Luis Miguel Palacio]

What had occurred to me is the sheer illogicality of Anglo's position: he values Thibault, but not Rada. Why? Lo que es salsa para el ganso es salsa para la oca. And to editorialize as he does, especially without sufficient foundation? This is part of what I mean when I say that, before having an opinion, I think it is best to have finished one's homework.

Well, as far as I know, and as far as I may speculate, that view, not uncommon in the english-speaking academic comunity (Richard Cohen "By the sword" is another example of the same) dates back to Egerton Castle's "Schools and masters of fence". In that work, mr. Castle stated:

"Carranza's is the first of the long series of ponderous Spanish treatises on the "raison demostrative" in which the ruling principle, after the Aristotelian method, is the "conocimiento de la cosa por su causa", and the purpose, to demostrate that a perfect theoretical knowledge must infalibily lead to victory, notwithstanding griveous physical disavantage. This arrogant theory, which applied no better to the long rapier than to any other weapon, was unfortunately so plausibly expoused by the early masters as to ruin any prospect of improvement in the Spanish school, where it was never discarded."
Castle, Egerton, "Schools and masters of fence" (London, 1885) pag. 67-68

Obviously, Castle never did his homework properly regarding "destreza". To be fair, Castle was, to an extend, a victim of the rather common victorian intelectual arrogance, that in terms of fencing translates to the belief that foil fencing is the supreme form of fencing: in his "Schools and masters", even the italian masters that he respected the most don't get out clean of some gross mistakes, that, when analized, are nothing more that the fruit of the foil-minded biases of Castle.

So IMO, Anglo took his stance about destreza directly and uncriticaly from Castle, except regarding Thibault. Why this exception?My guess is that Anglo studied the "Academie de l-Espee" directly by himself, perhaps encouraged by:

-the somewhat lesser critical note that Castle applies to Thibault's work, compared with that he used with the rest of the destreza masters
-the fact that the "Academie de l-Espee" is an artistical masterpiece on its own
-the fact that the original is wrote in french, a language typicaly known by XIX-XX century english-speaking scholars
-the fact that the "Academie de l-Espee" is profusely illustrated

And Castle wrote about the destreza being an "arrogant theory": talk about the speck of chaff in your brother's eye, man.

P.D. Right: to do your homework=hacer tus deberes
P.P.D. For my post, you really should thank the firm I work on perhaps I'll put its logo on my posts in return of its sponsorship

[Charles Blair]

For me Castle is valuable mainly because of the illustrations: it is a quick way for someone new to the field to survey the history of European fencing via pictures. I view Jacopo Gelli, the Italian Castle in some respects, the same way: nice pictures; forget the text.

Castle is sometimes accurate, sometimes inaccurate, and sometimes incomplete, as if he stopped reading half way through and then came to a conclusion. The problem for anyone reading Castle who is unfamiliar with the material is that there is no way of judging the truth or completeness of what he says, except by going on to read the texts themselves. This makes him dangerous, in my opinion. Even Anglo at one point has to say that he's not much of a scholar. His unashamed display of personal bias can make him unintentionally funny at times:

"If this is not fencing, it is, however, a very severe and difficult exercise, and a duel with Schlaegers, although very rarely dangerous, must be considered a very fair test of pluck and endurance." Egerton Castle, Schools and Master of Fence, 185.

Here is an Englishman saying that German students scarring one another for life is perfectly acceptable behaviour. This sort of thing makes me laugh, because it says more about him (and possibly the English gentleman of the day) than it does about the topic. It's a lens by which to view the thinking and prejudices of the period.

Here, by way of contrast, is what a period Italian has to say about Spaniards fighting Destreza. Given the lack of YouTube videos for the late 17th/early 18th centuries, I think that a description like this is valuable:

"The Spaniard plays admirably well, easily, in motion, and consequently more strongly, and with more ability to resist. He steps lightly, now here, now there, without extending his step much. He holds the sword high, straight, and with a small motion of the hand turns the guard with his fingers now up, and now down, which they call uñes avaho, uñes ariva. They keep the arm straight, and seek to guard more than any other thing the upper parts: the top of the chest, the face and the head, because when they they play amongst themselves, in motion, the cuts and the thrusts always land in those places, also the arm and the right shoulder, although sometimes, when the swords are joined, they let go, sometimes with a ricavazione, sometimes voiding with the edge the opposing sword to give a light thrust to the right flank, without bending the torso very much, but turning their feet towards that part, returning to the opposition of blades, or to grips, which these Spaniards do with more force and less entanglement than the French. Their cuts are no less skilful, but forceful, without arm movement, but only strong of the hand, and because they are used to it, they make them descend like lightning. Their thrusts, except for the mugnetta,[1] all the others do not penetrate so much as the Italian, because the Spaniard, holding the arm extended, cannot launch them with the force of the Italian, who holds it bent. So, instead of extending, they only pierce, so that it enters to the extent that the opponent comes in too far."

[1] I believe the word may be dialect for curved knife.

D'Alessandro, Giuseppe. Opera di d. Giuseppe D'Alessandro duca di Peschiolanciano divisa in cinque libri. 1723. p. 21.

D'Alessandro died in 1715 (two years after Rada), so these words were penned well before the date of publication of this volume, which was compiled by his son. This means that he is describing the kind of Spanish fencing he saw during Ettenhard's and Rada's later years. He himself, being a Neapolitan, is used to the fencing of the style that Ettenhard is describing, so his work is in a way complementary to Ettenhard's.

The above is a quick translation. If I had time, I would fine-tune it, but I think it is enough to show that a Neapolitan has absolutely nothing negative to say about contemporary Spanish fencing, just as Ettenhard had nothing negative to say about the contemporary Italian fencing he saw. They were just two different traditions.

I think what Ettenhard, Tamariz, Pallavicini, D'Alessandro, and others had in common were three things.

1) They knew their own traditions well, and they also read texts by authors in other traditions. Ettenhard cites Fabris and Nuzo; Pallavicini cites Carranza and Pacheco. (Rada mentions Viggiani and Thibault.) At least to a certain extent, they appreciated each other's traditions: Ettenhard finds much to admire in Fabris; Pallavicini finds much to admire in Carranza and Pacheco.

2) They fenced their own traditions well, and they directly observed fencers of other traditions. Again, they seemed to admire each other's styles of fence.

3) They were men of fierce national pride, strongly committed to their own fencing traditions--both sides will put some thought into how to defeat the other's style--but they were also men who did not find it necessary to disrespect each other's traditions. To me this sets us an example for how to conduct civil, informed discourse on this subject, and it is part of the reason why I felt the need to say something about the topic in the subject line: Ettenhard completely "blew me away" in this regard. Yes, it is clear from other sources that this mutual respect was going on, at least on the part of men of high caliber, but to witness such a sustained display--wow.

Authors like Castle fall down on points 1) and 2), so to me reading them is a bit like watching monkeys at the zoo. I look; I laugh a little; I walk away.

[Jaime Carbó (Zippo)]

Here, by way of contrast, is what a period Italian has to say about Spaniards fighting Destreza. Given the lack of YouTube videos for the late 17th/early 18th centuries, I think that a description like this is valuable:

And about the respect between them, you have to take into account the Naples kingdom was part of the Spanish empire End XV century-1713...spanish and italian soldiers fought together in the Tercios and they were nearly considered as same nationality...

[Luis Miguel Palacio]

Here is an Englishman saying that German students scarring one another for life is perfectly acceptable behaviour. This sort of thing makes me laugh, because it says more about him (and possibly the English gentleman of the day) than it does about the topic. It's a lens by which to view the thinking and prejudices of the period.

Indeed, hell, indeed: "Schools and Master of Fence" is outstanding at teaching about XIX century fencing, in a devious way.

Authors like Castle fall down on points 1) and 2), so to me reading them is a bit like watching monkeys at the zoo. I look; I laugh a little; I walk away.

Tempted as I am just to sit down, throw Castle some untemporal peanuts, and watch the fun, I will absolve him of his sins, as they are exactly his, but those of his times. But I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who nowadays follow the old and wrong path of Sir Egerton Castle. And you will know my name is Pacheco when I lay my natural upon thee!!!

[Marc Gener]

And you will know my name is Pacheco when I lay my natural upon thee!!!

Wishful thinking...

Now, about being a Bad M****r F****r... you know, I could settle for that...

[Alberto Bomprezzi]

The relationship between the spanish and italian fencing schools during the end of the XVII and a good part of the XVIII century is fascinating. It is the only moment in old fencing history (In the XIX century something similar it will ahppen between the italian and french school) when two different traditions actually faced each other, learned, changed and evolved because of that.

To nowadays fencer this historical phrase of arms between both traditions is extremely rich as the rapier they were using, it looks and it appears to be very similar to the replicas we are using nowdays, though I have reasons to thinnk they shoould be somewhat heavier. This leads us to solve very similar problems in nowadays practice, technically and tactically. And often the answers are already there.

From practical experience to me both traditions are very close and are but two sides of the same coin. And it is truly fencing not, duelling or fighting in the streets which makes it even more interesting for a nowdays fencer.