Arrieta Arandia y Morentín: Resumen de la verdadera destreza

[Charles Blair]

Hola. ¿Alguien ha mirado esto? ¿Vale la pena la obtención de la BNE? (Para mí, en los Estados Unidos, el costo para enviar dinero es el mismo que el costo de la reproducción.) Gracias.

Resumen de la verdadera destreza, y modo facil para saber los caminos verdaderos en la batalla, reducidos a christianos y reales movimientos ... [Texto impreso]
Arrieta Arandia y Morentín, Juan Antonio de
Autor personal: Arrieta Arandia y Morentín, Juan Antonio de
Título: Resumen de la verdadera destreza, y modo facil para saber los caminos verdaderos en la batalla, reducidos a christianos y reales movimientos ... [Texto impreso] / por D. Iuan Antonio de Arrieta Arandia y Morentin...
Publicación: En Pamplona : por Martin Gregorio de Zabàla, 1688
Descripción física: [24], 126, [2] p.; 8º
N.area desc. fis.: Sign.: ¶±8÷, 2¶±4÷, A-H±8÷
N.area desc. fis.: Port. con orla tip.
N.area desc. fis.: Inic. grab.
Encabez. materia: Batallas
Encabez. materia: Esgrima
Autor Secundario: Zabala, Martín Gregorio de, imp.

[Jaime Girona]

Vale la pena, pero no hace falta pagarlo en la bne, está online en la biblioteca digital hispánica

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=L2XOJ7JC

[Charles Blair]

Muchas gracias, señor Girona. Le estoy muy agradecido. (Miré hacia allí primero, pero no lo encontró. Mi billetera es feliz.)

[Charles Blair]

Having finished reading Pacheco's Las cien conclusiones, I couldn't help but notice this in Arrieta's Resumen:

Cap. III

En la destreza devemos considerar, y atender á cinco particulares fines, en razon de defensa, y ofensa del contrario; y para que se sepan con realidad, el primero fin se divide en absoluto á entrambos batallantes: el segundo es de detencion; el tercero de diversion; el quarto, y ultimo contingente, ó casual, á quien se atribuye la temeridad, ó ignorancia, por falta de conocimiento.

Here's how Pacheco lists them:

98. Ay en la destreza ... cinco fines ... El primero es fin de privacion, y se divide en particular y absoluta. El segundo, de terminacion. El tercero, de diversion. El quarto de detencion. [450] El quinto y ultimo, contingente, o casual. [Estos dos ultimos] se atribuyen a la ignorancia y temeridad.

450 [que se divide en privada potencia, y en potencia libre] ...

I am of course citing from the very recent AGEA critical edition of Las cien conclusiones by Manuel Valle Ortiz.

I wonder whether there aren't some typesetting (or other) errors in Arrieta: "el primero fin se divide" isn't divided (assuming I'm reading the printed text correctly: it's not the clearest); he begins by saying there are five, but ends with "the fourth, and last." On the other hand, the Pacheco textual history seems to show some variation as well. Anyway, this is nothing worth losing sleep over; since I'm interested in intertextual comparisons, it is just something to note. It may be that Pacheco says this differently in other texts, though this passage in Arrieta does seem to have some problems as printed.

[Luis Miguel Palacio]

It seems that it's a gross mistake by the part of mr. Arrieta. IMO, he knew the five aims of fencing as formulated by Pacheco, but he didn't understood them properly, hence the mistakes, that can be summed up as:
-Arrieta didn't wrote what is the first aim.
-He didn't clasified properly that first aim.
-He forgot one of the aims.
-He miscounted

But, in the first place, what those aims (as properly described by Pacheco) actualy mean? IMO, those five aims constitute an intermediate conceptual layer between the primary aim of fencing, own's defense and offense on the opponent, and the actual fencing actions. Thus, the five aims can be described as:
-Privación: denial of the opponent's freedom of action
-Terminación: absolute end of the opponent's chances of acting
-Diversión: deflection (corruption) of the opponent's actions, so they don't fulfill their intended purpose
-Detención: Interruption of the opponent's actions, so they don't end as intended
-Contingente o casual: the opponent's action don't reach its intended purpose by chance
If we see the matter that way, we'll find that each actual fencing action should try to pursue one or some of these aims.

Pacheco formulation is, IMO, conceptualy complete and coherent; that, coupled by the nature of the mistakes in Arrieta's text, is what led me to think that Arrieta's mistakes weren't typos, but lack of proper understanding on the concept, that led to a defective copy of Pacheco's formulation.