BOOKS ON ARCHITECTURE

Consult in image mode

Transcribed version of the text

French

     Sebastián Fernández de Medrano, the Director of the Royal Academy of Mathematics in Brussels, had begun a tradition of awarding an annual prize. He tells himself how the idea of translating his treatise into French came from this tradition. In fact, in the second edition of the treatise in Castilian (El architecto perfecto en el arte militar) which came out in 1700, he explains that there were only six Spaniards at the Academy, all the others being Walloons, Italians or from other countries. These students protested against giving all the prizes to Spaniards because they had books in their language. Fernández de Medrano decided to translate his book into French to make it possible for all students to win the prize. In his own words, he did the translation himself without worying about any criticism that his style could evoke, because he could find noone to complete the project successfully. He added to it some innovation to the Spanish text with the same care for clear language.
New plates embellish this French edition. On the title page Pallas and Mars appear, offering the book to Joseph Ferdinand, Elector of Bavaria, represented as a child warrior with all the symbols of power, the dais above him, the steps in the shape of a pedestal raising him up and the imperial eagle flying above the scene. The dedication is written on fabric, stretched out, on which one sees a system of trenches allowing the approach to a stronghold protected by ditches. On the ground are placed a terrestrial globe, a spherical astrolabe, quadrants and other measuring instruments summing up the work of the engineer. In the Spanish edition (1687), the book was dedicated to the Marquis de Gastañaga; Fernández de Medrano was only a captain and master of mathematics at the Academy then. On the other hand, when the French version dedicated to the Prince elector came out, he had become General de Batalla and the director of the Royal Military Academy of the Netherlands. There is no doubt that publishing his treatise in French, the language par excellence of engineering treatises at that time, represented the summit of his professional triumph. It is particularly interesting to compare this translation with both the first version in Castilian and the one which came out in 1700, in Spanish, because it does not seem that the latter was inspired directly by the French text but rather that it is much closer to the original version, in spite of the innovations that it takes into account.
Given the character of the book, it is not irrelevant that it was entitled L’ingénieur pratique, since it certainly is a question of practicality at each moment. It is also significant that he did not publish it in two volumes, as in the original version, because that made it less easy to use. In the translation, he makes an effort to be more clear and he introduces changes he probably judges necessary according to his experience and the usage of the book in training engineers at the Academy. Thus the equivalences between the units of measurement used in the various regions are set out more clearly and chapter titles are simplified: the Spanish “Construir cualquier Plaça regular valiéndose de los grados que comprehende el Angulo de sus Poligones” is reduced to “Ce que l’on apelle Angle”. Perhaps this linguistic simplification is due to a limited mastery of French, but it seems sometimes that it aims at a real simplification in the expression, deleting superflous explanations, such as specifying that a citadel is found in a city. Sometimes he feels the need to point out these improvements in his text by introducing as a subtitle the note “observation”. These are not exactly innovations, but the author wants to attract attention to questions he found more important as the years went by. He also tries to explain the translations well, for mastering the vocabulary is essential for an engineer. For example, “Ouvrage à Cornes, (which the Spaniardsand the Dutch call Hornabeque)”, or “ouvrage Couronné (ou à Coronne)” corresponds to what in Spanish is simply “Hornabeque doble”.
He introduces a few changes which convey wider expereience. In the Spanish edition, the doors of the fortresses are always 12 feet wide and 15 feet high and the bridges must be the same width. But in the translation, more nuanced, he explains that most often the width goes from 12 and 14 feet and the height between 14 and 16 feet. On the other hand, the bridges are wider, normally between 16 and 18 feet. As for the doors, there are more explanations in the French text: it develops the dimensions that they are supposed to have, specifies that they must not be straight, in order to prevent ennemy fire from reaching the streets directly; the Spanish edition omits this. On the other hand, the two versions agree that the doors must be in the center of the curtain walls and built in the Tuscan order, but whereas the Castilian text added that the choice of this order came from the fact that it was “obra fuerte, y durable”, he does not find it necessary to give this precision in French. In the fourth book, he deals with the methods of capitulation during the surrender of a stronghold. Although they are by and large similar, he makes an effort to give more details, including the number of rules to follow, which he reduces to nine: who can leave the stronghold and how, who can stay there, how to coordinate the exit of the defeated and the entry of the victors, etc.
There are other interesting differences, perhaps because they are significant and lead us to ask questions to which we have no answers. Why do the Spanish editions not name the most famous pentagonal citadels like Pampluna while the French translation does ? Why, when he explains the fortification method he invented, does Fernández de Medrano explain in detail the number and type of pieces necessary to attack a stronghold in the French book alone ? Why does he not quote the Count of Pagan in L’ingénieur pratique when speaking of his own method which takes up what Pagan says about flanks perpendicular to the line of defense ?
Pagan’s fortification proposal appears in all the editions, but in the French version the observation that it would be very costly disappears. The references to François Blondel and to the Spaniard Santans y Tapia are absent. This is very strange concerning Blondel, to whom Spanish editions give importance. Perhaps it is because the point of view is openly critical there; Fernández de Medrano wants to avoid having the French read that according to Blondel strongholds can be defended with cannons alone, which is contrary to all rules of fortification. On the other hand, it is possible that he did not dare to be exposed to the criticism of the French authors who were dominant in the theoretical domain and deleted the whole erudite system of the quotations of the other authors (Fournier, Deville, Errard, Manesson Mallet, etc.), whereas he kept it in the Spanish edition of 1700. It is also possible that he did not judge it necessary to summarize what French-speaking readers could read in their language, which was not the case for the Spaniards.
Fernández de Medrano made new additions about engineers’ drawing methods. In fact, in the French edition, he specifies that one must use the perspective called “bird’s eye view, showing the height of its defensive walls”, the one that does not reduce dimensions with distancing, which would cause harm to a correct perception of the most distant parts and harm the clarity necessary to the world of fortification. In the treatise on trigonometry, concerning geometrical instruments, he adds several, “the arbalest, the Geometrical quadrant, the proportional Compass, the proportional Triangle, etc.”, the “compass”, remaining nevertheless the one still in use. In the Spanish text, he restricted himself to describing this instrument without naming it, although it certainly is that. With the compass, one can measure everything, including draw the plan of a city, indispensable in the teaching profession of a “Professor of Military Architecture”. With these additions, he shows that his knowledge increased at the same time as did his abilities as a teacher.
Ramparts must be made of soil, because as a material it absorbs artillery impacts easily. In the French edition, Fernández de Medrano adds there are earthworks (“which the Spaniards call Tapias”), not only in Spain but also on the Barbary coasts, whichhave been resistant for more than eight hundred years. In the same version, and in the Castilian version of 1700, he concludes by saying that if the material is ugly, one can cover it with bricks. This does not appear in the original. L’ingénieur pratique develops the part devoted to constructions on water quite fully; it was to be developed still further in 1700. He reckons that this is the greatest problem an engineer can confront; in addition, this competence is indispensable for ports, where experience has shown him that methods of attacking them had changed. In the French text he also adds indications on dike construction and other techniques of beach protection, which he would take up again in 1700.
One might ask why Fernández de Medrano never mentions the name of Vauban in the French translation. One must take into account that La manière de fortifier de Mr. De Vauban by the Chevalier de Cambray had been published in 1689. But neither does he cite the other great engineer and theoretician of the end of the 17th century, Menno Van Coehoorn. Insofar as he was acquainted with both systems, and whether his silence was voluntary or not, his treatise which aimed at becoming a manual to train engineers was obsolete as soon as it came out.

Alicia Cámara (Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia-UNED, Madrid) – 2013

Critical bibliography

Note “Sebastián Fernández de Medrano, El arquitecto perfecto...”, Centro Virtual Cervantès, Spain.

P. Bragard, “La fortification en Europe (seconde moitié du XVII^e siècle)”, I. Warmoes (ed.), Vauban, bâtisseur du Roi-Soleil, Paris, Somogy Editions d’Art, Cité de l’Architecture et du patrimoine, Musée des Plans-reliefs, 2007, pp. 97-106.

A. Cámara, “Tratados de arquitectura militar en España. Siglos XVI y XVII”, Goya 156, May-June, 1980, pp. 338-345.

A. Cámara, “La arquitectura militar del padre Tosca y la formación teórica de los ingenieros entre Austrias y Borbones”, A. Cámara (ed.), Los ingenieros militares de la monarquía hispánica en los siglos XVII y XVIII. Madrid, Ministerio de Defensa, Asociación Española de Amigos de los Castillos, Centro de Estudios Europa Hispánica, 2005, pp. 133-158.

H. Capel, “La geografía española en los Países Bajos a fines del siglo XVII”, Tarraco. Revista de Geografía, 2, 1981, pp. 7-34.

C. Lemoine-Isabeau (ed.), Cartographie belge dans les collections espagnoles XVI^e au XVIII^e siècle, Musée royal de l’Armée et d’Histoire militaire, Brussels, Crédit Communal de Belgique, 1985.

J. La Llave y García, “Don Sebastián Fernández de Medrano, como escritor de fortificación”, Memorial de Ingenieros, Madrid, Imprenta del Memorial de Ingenieros, 1878.

J. M. Muñoz Corbalán, Los Ingenieros Militares de Flandes a España (1691-1718), Madrid, Ministerio de Defensa, 1993.

J. M. Navarro Loidi, Las Ciencias Matemáticas y las Enseñanzas Militares durante el Reinado de Carlos II, Madrid, Ministerio de Defensa, 2006

A. Rodríguez Villa, “Don Sebastián Fernández de Medrano. Director de la Real Academia Militar de Bruselas (1646-1705)”, Revista Contemporánea, 8, Madrid, 1882.