In defense of destreza

[Miguel Palacio]

Well, when the recent discussion about tournaments sidetracked to the question of what is "Verdadera Destreza", I anounced that I had some written thoughts about the matter nearly ready for publication.

Since a promise is a promise, here you got:
In defense of destreza, by Miguel Palacio

[Cutlery Penguin]

As I suggested in the other thread. If you think Silver was in favour of the Spanish school you have sadly misunderstood what he said.

To summarize what he said...

Lots of people think the Spanish system is effective, however in reality whilst the theory sounds good it is unrealistic and impossible to achieve in practice.

I can see why you made that mistake due to the way he uses the word "perfect". He does not mean that the system is perfect as we understand the word, but uses the word to describe getting the system right. The term Ye uses to describe whether a system is safe and effective is "true".

[Magnus L]

Without getting into any arguments about one school/system being superior to another I think the "Verdadera Destreza" sounds like a good read. But there is no English translation, right?

[MugginsToadwort]

One of my biggest problems with all the Destreza stuff is that those of us who don't speak Spanish have no way to check what somebody claims for the system. I can read German and Dutch and use those in my sword stuff, but I can't learn another language just in case a system offers me something. Until a decent English translation of some of the major texts is available, the system will remain less than perfect.

Fact: If somebody is insane enough to start translating Marcelli, as announced on another forum, somebody should be able translate Narvaez or Caranza, and stop us getting everything via a broken telephone.

[Phil C]

somebody should be able translate Narvaez or Caranza, and stop us getting everything via a broken telephone.

Puck and Mary Curtis are doing just that, and have been for a decade or so at least, and are generally fairly open, honest and happy to share what they are doing-
http://www.destreza.us/

[MugginsToadwort]

somebody should be able translate Narvaez or Caranza, and stop us getting everything via a broken telephone.

Puck and Mary Curtis are doing just that, and have been for a decade or so at least, and are generally fairly open, honest and happy to share what they are doing-
http://www.destreza.us/

Excuse me, but I don't think the number of translations on the Curtises site qualify- a partial translation of Ettenhard, and two letters from Narvaez don't really count. I've followed Puck's work for 10 years, and I'm still waiting....

Considering the number of sources the Curtises list (http://www.destreza.us/resources/destreza_sources.html), I still can't see why the followers of perfection don't try harder to co-opt the rest of us.

[Miguel Palacio]

To summarize what he said...

Lots of people think the Spanish system is effective, however in reality whilst the theory sounds good it is unrealistic and impossible to achieve in practice.

You think that, since the theorical ideal (that you acknowledge it is perfect) can't be fully achieved in the real world, then the theorical ideal is useless; but the fact is that, althought the theorical ideal can't be fully reached, the closer you are from it, the better.

In a more practical tone, that of avoiding the diestro keeping the sword straight at you is more easily said than done: when you displace his sword to one side, he has three choices to get his sword back to pointing you: displacing, in his turn, your blade; moving his sword back to the proper line; and stepping offline in order to make the sword point back to you again without moving it.

And that not taking into account that that of keeping the sword pointing to your opponent is an oversimplification (not a bad one, but a little bit too simple) of that aspect of the Destreza system: when you dig into the matter you find that is a lot easier to keep your defense against your opponent's will than to avoid vomiting when your body urges you to do that.

However, that wasn't the main point of the article: no matter if he found it worth of praise or of disdain, he acknowledged that it looked simple and that it was regarded as the best one in that time.

[Michael Chidester]

There's a translation of the first part of Carranza here:

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wew/fencing/caranza-t.html

[Cutlery Penguin]

that you acknowledge it is perfect

No I don't. And neither did Silver. Again you misunderstand the word. In Silver's works it does not have the meaning that it does today, some 400 years later in a different context.

When looking at a practitioner of a system you have two ways of judging.

1) How good is that practitioner at carrying out the actions described in that system?

2) How effective a system is it?

The first option is what Silver describes as "Perfection". If you manage to do exactly what your system says you should do then what you have done was perfect. This does not mean that it would be effective, or even that it would work in reality. Simply that you did it as you were told to.

The second option is what Silver refers to as "Truth". If a system is "true" then it is effective and will keep you safe. If it is "false" then it will fail to do so.

Using Silver's description it is simple to use a "perfect" Spanish fight, however regardless of this it is still a "false" fight.

In essence he is saying that someone can be very good at it, but it is wasted skill as the system is intrinsically flawed.

[Miguel Palacio]

When looking at a practitioner of a system you have two ways of judging.

1) How good is that practitioner at carrying out the actions described in that system?

2) How effective a system is it?

The first option is what Silver describes as "Perfection". If you manage to do exactly what your system says you should do then what you have done was perfect. This does not mean that it would be effective, or even that it would work in reality. Simply that you did it as you were told to.

The second option is what Silver refers to as "Truth". If a system is "true" then it is effective and will keep you safe. If it is "false" then it will fail to do so.

Your definitions are coherent, indeed, but they don't fit the source:

"George Silver having the perfect knowledge of all manner of weapons, and being experienced in all manner of fights,[...]"
"There are foure especiall markes four to know the Italian fight is imperfect, & that the Italian teachers and setters forth of books of defence, never had the perfection of the true fight"

Silver, George: Paradoxes of Defense, London 1599 (London 1898), pags. 1 and 3.

Those uses (and I have not been exhaustive) clearly contradict your definitions: according to those definitions you have worked out, Silver would have had true knowledge, the italian fight would be untrue while the italian fighters might have perfection in their untrue fight, and perfection would not be a exclusive quality of true fights.

Quite the opposite, renaissance learned people tended to be pretty aware that perfection was an ideal that would be unreachable in the real world but that must been sought after. Thus, being an ideal, perfection in fencing was mainly an attribute of the theorical sphere.

Even more, Silver didn't put the Spanish fight effectiveness in doubt, as we may see on this:

"And this note, that as long as any man shall lie in that manner with his arm, and the point of his rapier straight, it shall be impossible for his adversary to hurt him, because in that straight holding forth of his arm, which way soever a blow shall be made against him, by reason that his rapier hilt lies so far before him, he has but a very little way to move, to make his ward perfect, in this manner."

Silver, George: Paradoxes of Defense, London 1599 (London 1898), pag. 14

That (and the following sentences) is a practical and fairly accurate description on how and why the Spanish ward works: note that, aside of asserting its perfection, he states that "[in that ward]it shall be impossible for his adversary to hurt him"; he did not wrote "it is supposed/believed/etc", neither "it might be/it would be": he wrote "it shall be", plain english at its best. What Silver challenged with that doctor's joke was not the theorical perfection nor the practical effectiveness of the Spanish ward, but its practical perfection, that is, in which grade that theorical perfection can be implemented in the real world (and he failed to sustain that challenge with something of more substance than that joke, but that's another question).

Finally, Silver's view on the Spanish fight, contemptuous as it is, is the closer you will get in terms of praise in any master's writen work regarding a foreing school unrelated to that master's tradition...or at least, is the closer you will get from Silver in terms of praise.

However, I grant that there's some small degree of speculation in my view on the matter(as in any other's view on it), so, as I have already said, for me the question of how well was Destreza regarded by Silver is a far secondary one compared with what can be objectively stated about Destreza from Silver's text: that it looked simple to Silver's eyes and that its fencers were regarded as the best ones in that time.

[Cutlery Penguin]

Fine you obviously know better.

Silver loved the Spanish fight, that's why he wrote two works claiming we should all use it.

[admin]

Silver said:

The reason which moved me to adventure so great a task, is the desire I have to bring the truth to light, which has a long time lain hidden in the cave of contempt, while we like degenerate sons, have forsaken our forefathers virtues with their weapons, and have lusted like men sick of a strange ague, after the strange vices and devices of Italian, French, and Spanish fencers, little remembering, that these apish toys could not free Rome from Brennius's sack, not France from the King Henry the Fifth his conquest.

= Spanish fencing was false

they in their rapier-fight stand upon so many intricate tricks that in all the course of a man's life it shall be hard to learn them, and if they miss in doing the least of them in their fight, they are in danger of death.

= Spanish fencing was risky

This seems to be the most important part in Silver's book concerning his view of Spanish fencing, told through a story:

There was a cunning Doctor at his first going to sea, being doubtful that he should be sea sick, an old woman perceiving the same, said unto him: "Sir, I pray, be of good comfort, I will teach you a trick to avoid that doubt. Here is a fine pebble stone, if you please to accept it, take it with you, and when you are on ship board, put it in your mouth, and as long you shall keep the same in your mouth, upon my credit you shall never vomit." The Doctor believed her, and took it thankfully at her hands, and when he was at sea, he began to be sick, whereupon he presently put the stone in his mouth, & there kept it so long as he possibly could, but through his extreme sickness the stone with vomit was cast out of his mouth. Then presently he remembered how the woman had mocked him, and yet her words were true.

Even so a Spaniard having his rapier point put by, may receive a blow on the head, or a cut over the face, hand or arm or a thrust in the body or face, and yet his Spanish fight perfect, so long as he can keep straight the point of his rapier against the face or body of his adversary, which is as easy in that manner of fight to be done, as it was for the Doctor in the extremity of his vomit to keep the stone in his mouth.

In other words:
Yes of course you will not vomit while the stone is in your mouth - when you DO vomit the stone is no longer in your mouth!
He says that, similarly, the Spanish fight is perfect so long as you keep your point at the adversary, but as soon as your point is taken offline (either being forced by a beat, or in the act of parrying) the Spanish fight is no longer perfect. Hence he says it is a trick and not a really perfect system of fencing.

So on balance Silver seems to be saying that Spanish rapier fencing seemed to be perfect, but was flawed and imperfect.

[Miguel Palacio]

Silver loved the Spanish fight, that's why he wrote two works claiming we should all use it.

That's your saying, not mine. Matters are a little bit more complex than this.

[admin]

Oz's point is valid of course - if Silver had thought the Spanish system was correct then he would have taught it or something similar. Instead he thought the Spanish system was merely a trick, an illusion (of perfection), and that the rapier itself was also a flawed weapon.

[Miguel Palacio]

they in their rapier-fight stand upon so many intricate tricks that in all the course of a man's life it shall be hard to learn them, and if they miss in doing the least of them in their fight, they are in danger of death.

= Spanish fencing was risky

Sorry, but that was wrote about the italian fight.

This seems to be the most important part in Silver's book concerning his view of Spanish fencing, told through a story:[...]

That is wishful thinking: Silver's view on the question of Spanish fencing is depicted in the whole section he devotes to the matter, not only in the quoted paragraph.

He says that, similarly, the Spanish fight is perfect so long as you keep your point at the adversary, but as soon as your point is taken offline (either being forced by a beat, or in the act of parrying) the Spanish fight is no longer perfect. Hence he says it is a trick and not a really perfect system of fencing.

Well, he never called it a trick and he never called it unperfect: he just points out that its perfection's requisites migth not be kept continously. It is not the same thing.

However, since that's not my main concern, I feel that focusing too much in how well Silver regarded the Spanish fight is a spent issue, at least for me. Kind of that of the finger and the moon, you know.

[Cutlery Penguin]

However, since that's not my main concern, I feel that focusing too much in how well Silver regarded the Spanish fight is a spent issue, at least for me. Kind of that of the finger and the moon, you know.

It is however what you claim in your essay. And when an essay written in defence of a system quotes a text known to be against that system as if it were in favour it is extremely hard to take it seriously from then on. When a work opens with such a basic error of comprehension it rightfully taints the entire work with the impression that the author's conclusions are likely to be equally flawed.

[admin]

This seems to be the most important part in Silver's book concerning his view of Spanish fencing, told through a story:[...]

That is wishful thinking: Silver's view on the question of Spanish fencing is depicted in the whole section he devotes to the matter, not only in the quoted paragraph.

This is the whole section:

Of Spanish fight with the Rapier.

The Spaniard is now thought to be a better man with his rapier than is the Italian, Frenchman, high Almaine, or any other country man whatsoever, because they in their rapier-fight stand upon so many intricate tricks that in all the course of a man's life it shall be hard to learn them, and if they miss in doing the least of them in their fight, they are in danger of death. But the Spaniard in his fight, both safely to defend himself, and to endanger his enemy, has but one lying, and two wards to learn, wherein a man with small practice in a very short time may become perfect.

This is the manner of the Spanish fight. They stand as brave as they can with their bodies straight upright, narrow spaced, with their feet continually moving, as if they were in a dance, holding forth their arms and rapiers very straight against the face or bodies of their enemies, and this is the only lying to accomplish that kind of fight. And this note, that as long as any man shall lie in that manner with his arm, and the point of his rapier straight, it shall be impossible for his adversary to hurt him, because in that straight holding forth of his arm, which way soever a blow shall be made against him, by reason that his rapier hilt lies so far before him, he has but a very little way to move, to make his ward perfect, in this manner. If a blow is made at the right side of the head, a very little moving of the hand with the knuckles upward defends that side of the head or body, and the point being still out straight, greatly endangers the striker. And so likewise, if a blow is made at the left side of the head, a very small turning of the wrist with the knuckles downward, defends that side of the head and body, and the point of rapier much endangers the hand, arm, face or body of the striker. And if any thrust is made, the wards, by reason of the indirections in moving the feet in manner of dancing, as aforesaid, makes a perfect ward, and still withal the point greatly endangers the other. And thus is the Spanish fight perfect: so long as you can keep that order, and soon learned, and therefore to be accounted the best fight with the rapier of all other. But note how the Spanish fight is perfect, and you shall see no longer than you can keep your point straight against your adversary: as for example, I have heard the like jest.

There was a cunning Doctor at his first going to sea, being doubtful that he should be sea sick, an old woman perceiving the same, said unto him: "Sir, I pray, be of good comfort, I will teach you a trick to avoid that doubt. Here is a fine pebble stone, if you please to accept it, take it with you, and when you are on ship board, put it in your mouth, and as long you shall keep the same in your mouth, upon my credit you shall never vomit." The Doctor believed her, and took it thankfully at her hands, and when he was at sea, he began to be sick, whereupon he presently put the stone in his mouth, & there kept it so long as he possibly could, but through his extreme sickness the stone with vomit was cast out of his mouth. Then presently he remembered how the woman had mocked him, and yet her words were true.

Even so a Spaniard having his rapier point put by, may receive a blow on the head, or a cut over the face, hand or arm or a thrust in the body or face, and yet his Spanish fight perfect, so long as he can keep straight the point of his rapier against the face or body of his adversary, which is as easy in that manner of fight to be done, as it was for the Doctor in the extremity of his vomit to keep the stone in his mouth.

Yet one other pretty jest more, scarce worth the reading, in commendation of outlandish fight. There was an Italian teacher of Defence in my time, who so excellent in his fight, that he would hit any English man with a thrust, just upon any button in his doublet, and this was much spoken of.

Also there was another cunning man in catching of wild-geese, he would have made no more ado, when he had heard them cry, as the manner of wild-geese is, flying one after another in rows, but presently looking up, would tell them, if there had been a dozen, sixteen, twenty, or more, he would have taken every one. And this tale was many times told by men of good credit, and much marvelled at by their hearers, and the man who would have taken the wild-geese, was of good credit himself. Merry they said, indeed he did never take any, but at any time when he looked up, and seen them fly in that manner, he would with all his heart have taken them, but he could no more tell how to do it, then could the cunning Italian Fencer tell how to hit an Englishman, with a thrust just upon any one of his buttons, when he listed.

I have highlighed the important part of the section, which as you will see is mostly made up of the part I quoted above.
To summarise:
- Silver notes that the Spanish system is thought better in England than the Italian/German/French because it is simpler.
- Silver describes the Spanish system.
- Silver tells a story to show how the Spanish system only works if you can keep your point online.
- Silver points out that this is a very tenuous foundation on which to judge a system 'perfect'.

I don't know how you are interpreting Silver's words, but they appear very clear to me.

[Miguel Palacio]

It is however what you claim in your essay.

No, I don't. Check it.

Or let me quote myself:

There is no need to remark that Silver considers the Spanish rapier school over all the others: mr. Castle also acknowledges, somethat puzzled, that spanish fencers were famous those times. It would be more interesting exploring the radical contradiction between Castle’s and Silver’s views on Destreza: where the first one sees an arrogant and superfluously complex system which requires constant and careful practice to reach, at the end, an imperfect execution, the last one sees a simple, efficient and easy to learn combat art.

[Miguel Palacio]

Matt, that's almost a good sumary. Mine is:

- Silver notes that the Spanish system is thought better in England than the Italian/German/French because it is simpler.
- Silver describes the Spanish system, and its effectiveness
- Silver tells a story to show how the Spanish system only works if you can keep your point online.
- Silver points out that this is a very tenuous foundation on which to judge a system 'perfect'.

That is, I undescore that in the second paragraph, Silver describe the Spanish system without hiding its effectiveness. As a matter of fact, if read alone (except the last two sentences) it would be taken as a clear and undisputed endorsement of Destreza by Silver's side. Of course, I don't meant so and, as I have said, the picture is a little bit more complex than that of Silver loved/hated Destreza.

What I claim on the article is that Silver saw the Spanish fight as simple (he did), easy to learn (he did) and effective (to an extend, if you take both the second and the third paragraphs of Silver's section on the matter). No more.

[admin]

I wouldn't disagree with that. I just think it would be going too far to say that Silver approved of the Spanish rapier system - rather he admitted it had good qualities. But his story does suggest that he considered these good qualities a 'trick' or 'illusion' (like the stone in the mouth).