mauerhakenstreit complete illustrated

8/7/2019 Mauerhakenstreit Complete Illustrated

1/36

The collection of essays generally known as the Mauerhakenstreit, the Piton Dispute,as translated by Randolph Burks, with photographs selected by the translator.

Artificial Aid on Alpine RoutesBy Paul Preuss

1

No long philosophical meditations on Alpine questions will I bring here; no attacks that shall cause

the cornerstones of a proud decades-old building to shake. Only ideas, ideas that always imposethemselves upon me when I'm in the midst of the most active hustle and bustle of mountain climbing,

shall be loosely united here. Yet I myself can't say whether the portrait I'm sketching is entirely clear,but it seems to me that the individual ideas can be united quite well into a general portrait. One thing

only do I know: that I stand just about alone in my opinions, and whenever I expressed something ofthem, the answer was always: Quite an ideal point of view, but a crazy notion.

Paul Preuss


2/36

The Piton Dispute

2

As alpinism and rock-climbing2

differ, so

differ the aims and so differ the demands! Thesolution to a rock-climbing problem can be

alpinistically worthless, this we all know, andthis no more concerns alpinism than it does

rock-climbing, for in the latter the same

solution can possess the highest value. Fromthe rock-climbing point of view, there existsno general difference between the Totenkirchl

West Face and any other ascent on the secondterrace of that famous mountain, only a

qualitative one. From the alpinist's point ofview however most of these ascents are

completely worthless; the route lines areanything but ideal, and the ideality of the line

plays the same role certainly for alpinism asdo the greater or lesser difficulties, only in the

opposite sense.3 From both points of view thesolution to any problem at all only has value

if it is carried out independently,4

that is,without artificial aid. That seems to me to be

the supreme principle in alpinism as well as inrock-climbing,

5and with

that I come to the questionof artificial aid.

For the ladders taken inolden times on mountain

routes, for Winkler's6grappling hook and similar

aids, people today onlyhave a smile raised at

corners of the mouth. Butwhen a modern mountain

climber casts the ropethirty-seven times

around a blockuntil it holds fast

and then ascends it,people admire the

daring, energy andperseverance of

this. Wherein liesthe difference? It is

far from myintention to preach against fixed cable routes7: no thinking mountaineer

underestimates their value for the bulk of the mountain- and nature-lovingpublic. Something else is of concern to me, to put it briefly: I consider

protection by means of driven-in pitons in many cases even protection8 ingeneral as well as rappelling and all other rope-maneuvers which so often

The Totenkirchl West Face, above;

The Totenkirchls Second Terrace (the routes of the

highest tier), below

Georg Winkler and his

grappling hook


3/36

The Piton Dispute

3

make the ascent of the mountain possible or at least are used for that purpose to be artificial aidandconsequently from the point of view of the alpinist as well as that of the rock-climber as not free fromobjection, as not justified.

Rappelling! If there is someplace you can't go down,you should also not go up the alpine point of view

tells me: Overcome difficulties with your own

strength, on the ascent and the descent alike. That isthe postulate of an honest, sporting conviction. Anascent made without being conscious that everything

can go free9

on the descent as well is reckless andunalpinistic; a battle waged with unequal weapons,

unchivalrous and unsporting.10

Certainly every alpinistand every climber with this distinction however I

don't want to be understood as saying that a man can'tbe both at the same time must be able to rappel; it is a

means of deliverance in times of distress, duringsudden drops in temperature or nightfalls, after an

accident or when straying off-route. But I don't see thevalue of a traverse of the Campanile di Val Montanaiaif this traverse is impossible without a rope; climbingdirectly over all six Vajolet Towers seems senseless to

me if an eighty-meter air journey has to be undertakento do it. Wherein lies the value of a descent via the

South Wall of the Marmolada, from the Winkler orDelago Towers, via the Schmittkamin or over the

Kopftrl Ridge if all the difficulties are only overcomeby means of dangling on the rope? On the ascent, aid

given from above by the rope is universally frownedupon; but what's right for the

ascent must also be proper for thedescent! The virginity of a

mountain has not been taken when,although you may have gone up

free, you did not get down againfree on the contrary even! I

would like to express myself quiteclearly but without in doing so

offending everyone who has everrappelled (I myself also did it back

in the day): Is the victim of thetheft reprehensible or is it the

thief?The same goes, it seems to me,

for pitons too! I don't need tostress that using them as a foothold

is unjustified; but what differenceis there between downright fixed cable protection and installing triple ropes as protection

11by means of

pitons driven in every five meters on difficult stellen?12 I don't understand the value of the feelings nordo I understand the value of the achievement if you swindle your way up a face like this. I too once

The Campanile di Val Montanaia, above;

The Vajolet Towers: Delago, Stabeler,and Winkler, below


4/36

The Piton Dispute

4

wanted to conquer a towering face loaded down with a metal-working shop and a small ironmongery

in each pocket. Fortunately I was at that time rebuffed all the same, and today when I reflect on it well,I become conscious of the complete unsporting dishonesty of my beginnings back then! (By way of

example, a fact from a modern route report: The way cannot be missed, since it leads in an almostruler-straight direction and is marked by 22 pitons.!!)

The most outlandish Kletterstellen are made with

the aid of ropes and pitons: people swing back and forthon smooth walls, entire mountains are ascended withrope maneuvers ( Torre del Diavolo, Guglia Edmondo

de Amicis;13

though such ascents every now and thenaren't even taken by the participants as having full

value! ), cords tied to pitons are used as handholds oras maintainers of equilibrium. Yet experience teaches

that many of these stellen can be climbed free; and ifnot, they should rather immediately be left alone. The

piton too is a makeshift14

; it must not be a means toconquer the mountain. I don't want to put the case for

the love of danger, which is absolutely present to acertain extent in us modern mountaineers. However it

seems to me that the thought: if you fall, you'll hangthree meters on the rope is of lesser ethical worth than

the feeling: one fall, and you're dead! If you only wantto do gymnastics on steep walls with absolute security,

15

perhaps on triple ropes or above a spread out safety net,then you should rather stay at home and put your

skillfulness to the test in the gymnastics club. If youcannot also climb a kletterstelle without a belay fromthe alpinistic and sporting point of view then you mustnot climb it at all.

16In my opinion as leader you are

always only entitled to overcome such difficulties anddangers (naturally with the exception of objective

dangers such as the danger of crevasses and the like) thatyou would with the same feelings also overcome solo.17

It is far from my intention to rejectentirely the use of a rope; I will not and can

not bring into discredit this most importantaid to the modern mountaineer; yet it

seems to me that in recent times too muchmischief has been perpetrated with it.

Quite apart from all those who are draggedup the mountain under the motto as

second on the rope how many riskymaneuvers are often carried out even by

leaders just because they are on a rope. There are even, I believe, individual cases

where, precisely in the moment of highestdanger, keeping the solidlink between twoclimbers by means of the rope is immoraland imprudent! Certainly with correct,

The Guglia Edmondo de Amicis

The Torre del Diavolo, center


5/36

The Piton Dispute

5

methodical execution of a route such cases should not occur, but unfortunately we mountaineers know

from our own experience that we aren't proof against happenstance and that under exceptionalcircumstances even exceptional cases can occur. When the leader is in a precarious position and the

second occupies a poor stance that is completely unsuitable for belaying, it is in keeping with myopinion for the latter to undo the solid link of the rope and hold the end

of the rope in his hand as firmly as possible! This seems a commandment

of humanity and reason. Apart from the fact that every life that can bepreserved also must be preserved, apart from the fact that in the event ofa fall it's senseless and lawless to pull your friend into ruin with you

based on the admittedly ideal grounds of true comradeship, this rulecontributes at least a little to heightening the somewhat shaky security

of

such stellen! In each of us, however altruistic we may very well be,concern for our own life plays, at least in the subconscious, a definite

role. With the feeling of not, in the event of your friend's fall, having tofall along with him, the second can with much greater calm devote more

strength and attention to the nevertheless possible arrest of the fall thanhe would with the definite thought of, due to his unfavorable stance in

the event of a mishap by the leader, having to cling helplessly to the rockwith a heavy burden around the body! How many double falls would

surely have been avoided with the consistent application of thisprinciple?! A significant role should fall to the roped belay, yet daring

everything and carrying out everything trusting in roped belays andpitons is imprudent, unjustified and without style! Belaying the leader with a rope is permitted as and

should be a relief-bringing means but not the one true means for making the execution of the routepossible. He alone seems to me to have the right to call himself independent who can mountaineer on

this basis! Not only that you get up the mountain and back down again should be of significance but also how! If a horse gallops during harness trotting, it

will be disqualified for having an impure gait. We compelthe irrational animal into purity of style; should everything

be permitted with thinking mountaineers? Let style inalpinism and style in rock-climbing be a demand on all

alpinists and climbers; when that demand is fulfilled, allattacks should silence of themselves.

With these remarks it is far from my intention to makeunfulfillable demands; a lot of bad habits have taken root so

firmly that they won't be uprooted in a single stroke. I onlythought to offer a few suggestions thereby, suggestions

which may with the coming generation fall on fertile ground.I will be reproached with striving for a too extreme

hypermodern climbing technique, one separated by a worldof difference from the alpinism of past times. I would not

like to concede this unconditionally. The manner ofexecution may well be different, but the basic idea seems to

me to be the same; I believe myself to be carrying out areturn to the declining alpinism of the purest style, to the

alpinism on whose solid ground and soil I believe myself tobe standing body and soul.

(Deutsche Alpenzeitung, XI/1, August, 1911; S. 242-244)

The two pitons that Ihad, in defiance of all

theories, put into myjacket pocket with care

clattered so impertinent-ly that Preuss with a

genuine expression ounhappiness suggested I

might like to pack thepitons individually, the

clanking of the iron wasa noise like the ting-a-

ling of the condemned man's bell before the

execution. Walter Schmidkunz

Kopftrl Ridge


6/36

The Piton Dispute

6

Artificial Aid on Alpine RoutesA Response by G. B. Piaz

18

No other article on the subject of alpinism demands in my opinion and I also take this to be the

opinion of the vast majority of all alpinists a reply so urgently as the article in this periodical's Augustissue in which Paul Preuss has developed his thoughts on artificial aid on alpine routes.

Had Preuss merely confined himself to castigating the not tobe denied and not to be condoned abuses that in recent times

have been committed with artificial aids in rock-climbing, hewould never have heard a word in opposition. That however he

makes no distinction between use and abuse, that on the way tohis ideal, unfortunately too ideal views he tramples underfoot

with equal lack of consideration anything that opposes him, that

he goes so far as to want to eliminate the use of artificial aidsand aids in general cannot and must not in any wise findapproval. Such opinions which for individuals, for a climber

of Preuss's abilities, can have a not to be underestimatedsporting and ethical value, but which constitute a danger that

cannot to be taken too seriously for the great mass of alpinistsand namely for the coming generation toward whom Preuss

especially directs himself must be opposed with every energy.The use of artificial aids is an old practice, one that has been

sanctioned in all alpine-theoretical writings and existed sincethe beginning of alpinism, but this is not why their use must be

defended: in this case, being conservative means beinghumanitarian. The destruction of this method means the

emergence of a great danger in rock-climbing. And moreoverthe author is too significant of an alpine personality not to be

able to become dangerous by means of his theory. The hunt fornew ideals will always find disciples!

To put forward the resolution of a problem without artificialaid as the supreme principle in alpinism and rock-climbing is in

my opinion utterly misconceived, and incomprehensible to allthose who see in climbing something more than a purely

sporting activity, one steered onto particular paths by arbitrarily fixed norms. The other principle,carrying out a mountain expedition

19with the least amount of danger,seems much more rational and

humane to me. Preuss permits himself to be mislead by his ideas to such a degree that he forgets thatwe were men before we became climbers, that the climber must not repress the man, that our relatives

have more right to us than the most shining of climbing ideals. Had the most ridiculous use of pitonssaved a single human life, its use would already have been justified thereby. I ask not to be

misunderstood: I'm talking about pitons as a means of protection, not as ladder rungs; for I too findclimbs characterized by a huge number of pitons to be at the very least ridiculous.

The author's great error lies in not having investigated the composition of the soil for which histeaching is intended. The climbing public consists of leaders and followers. The former divide into

professional and amateur leaders. Protecting with pitons is principally a question for the leader. Is there

Tita Piaz


7/36

The Piton Dispute

7

any need to prove that it is of the utmost

inhumanity to say to the mountain leader:refrain from a route if as a husband and father

you dare not tackle a dangerously friable stelleor dangerous in some other way without

letting the rope for lack of any natural horns

to use as protection run through a securingiron ring; refrain from a route which youyourself may manage entirely safely and

securely but which doesn't offer any realpossibility of protection for your companion

of lesser ability! Or to say: don't try to reducethe danger for your fellow route-mates and

yourself that's unchivalrous! The vastmajority of amateur climbers is young,

inexperienced and unpracticed; they generallypossess more ambition than ability. They are

often only just equal to coping with verydifficult stellen, but any difficult mountain is areal problem for them. How can one shout tothese young people: Just, whatever you do,

don't protect with pitons, don't rappel! All thatwould be unsporting, unchivalrous! What can

not or will not be undertaken entirelyindependently on the ascent as well as on

the descent should be left alone. The descentis as a rule harder and more dangerous because as is well known we have no more than corns on the

tips of our toes.20 Nevertheless: Don't rappel, that would be unsporting, unchivalrous! That would be abattle waged with unequal weapons! Take care not to reduce the risks! A peculiar view! Does the

mountain perchance behave chivalrously? Does it not set traps of the basest sort? Are brittle holds,rockfall, and so on chivalrous means on the part of the enemy that's to be defeated? Does not ruin,

particularly on first ascents, lurk behind every hold? And Preuss calls protecting yourself as much aspossible from the mountain's dirty tricks an unchivalrous way of fighting! Was the knight of the

Middle-Ages perchance unchivalrous because he protected his chest with armor?If a kletterstelle cannot be done without a belay it should not be done at all!21 What alpinist can

boast of having such experience that he can assess with certainty the climbability of a, say, merely sixmeter high section of face? And the proposition: where you can go up, you can also go down is only

entirely correct in theory; for nothing is easier on a complicated kletterstelle than forgetting thesequence of all the moves. On a ticklish retreat down a vertical face the slightest circumstance is apt to

cause a catastrophe! Even the best climber isn't proof against general happenstance!Any alpinist who doesn't comprehend the value of the feeling of having solved a great problem with

relative security is genuinely to be pitied; great treasures remain hidden from him! Wouldn't it beridiculous pedantry to turn back from a stelle when the undefeated face can perhaps be delivered up tous by one piton?

We don't want to swindle our way up faces by means of protective pitons; 22 we only want to reduce as

much as possible by their means the dangers that threaten us, so that, as Lammer23

puts it, of theabsolute danger only the danger of the danger remains, like a fraction of one half. We'd rather in the

event of a fall hang four or even twenty meters on a protective rope (perhaps with a broken leg) thanhave the ravens celebrate a feast with our corpse in the dark abyss.


8/36

The Piton Dispute

8

I admit without reservation that the worth of a mountain expedition carried out

without any artificial aid is greater; but this increase in value at the cost ofsecurity is unreasonable, inhuman and irresponsible.

That moderation in the use of aids in rock-climbing is desirable must beadmitted; but in order to attain such moderation, one must not immediately turn to

such radical means, so long as not every climber stands at Preuss's level.

It is my conviction that wherever serious danger threatens, the use of pitons is ofthe strictest moral duty, also out of consideration for one's companions. With thisthe question raised as to whether under certain circumstances the second may or

should undo the solid link of the rope, which in any case should never contributeto raising the feeling of security, is simultaneously answered in the negative.

I do not at all understand how a person can be so cruel as to want to constrainrock-climbing within limits; after all, we go into the mountains to be free of

limits! We go into the mountains to steer clear of all constraints, not to stumbleover an even more dangerous one.

(Deutsche Alpenzeitung, XI/1, Mitteilungen, Nr. 14, Oktober, 1911; S. 89)

Eugen Lammer

Torre Piaz, Vajolet Towers


9/36

The Piton Dispute

9

My AnswerBy Paul Preuss

[Response to Piaz]

The scathing critique bestowed upon my views by the pen of G. B. Piaz compels me to lay my cardson the table even more clearly than I did in the article in question. I readily concede that I've developed

my ideas to their ultimate consequences and because of that have gone somewhat too far for practicalapplication. I may have actually attacked the use of, when I primarily wanted to attack the misuse ofartificial aids, about which by the way I explicitly said that they may be permitted as a relief-bringingmeans but ought not be the one true means for making the ascent of the mountain possible!

To derive a justification for the use of artificial aids from the historical development ofmountaineering, as Piaz would like to, indicates in my opinion a misunderstanding of the historical

facts; the ways our alpine predecessors looked at problems24

were entirely different, so that today

parallels can no longer be constructed between the kinds of means that were employed for problem-solving. From the fact that the absolutely essential knowledge of the use of artificial aids in cases ofemergency has been admitted into the textbooks of rock-climbing, no conclusion can likewise be drawn

as to the justification of such means when no emergency exists. Nor does adherence to the principle ofcarrying out mountain expeditions (properly: pure sporting climbing routes of the most difficult sort!)

with the least amount of danger have in the present state of rock-climbing much better justification!Piaz himself rejects pitons as ladder rungs and accepts them only as a means of protection; yet in

his mockery of routes marked by a huge number of pitons he forgets that these too were almost alwaysemployed solely for protection on such climbs!

Where are you supposed to draw the dividing linebetween reasonable and excessive use? Continuing

the system used up to now should at least soon resultin having a good standard for assessing the difficulty

of a route a piton-coefficient which would beexpressed by the ratio between the height of the face

and the number of pitons! Incidentally, Piazunconsciously shows his inner aversion to the

unsporting pursuit of the art of climbing with thisrejection of such piton routes. I am so much the

more surprised that he attacks so severely myexpression of the battle with unequal weapons

(which for my part was used only as an image)! Yetas a student of the natural sciences I cannot follow

his personifications of the mountains as enemies wholikewise have unsporting and unchivalrous ways of

fighting. It is we humans who always put our uglyideas into the events of the external world, seeing intention, aim and purpose at every turn, where only

elementary natural forces are at work. Nature is and remains without intention!What does not surprise me is that Piaz attacks the practical feasibility of my opinion that everything

that's scaled on the ascent is also climbable free on the descent. Piaz in spite of his unusual climbingskill is unfortunately (like all Dolomite climbers) simply in the habit of rappelling over every

somewhat difficult stelle.25 Climbing down on the descent should however and can as well be learned

Preuss on the Hochtor-Nordwand


10/36

The Piton Dispute

10

just like climbing on the ascent. The present state of

down-climbing skill must really be found to beshameful should you have occasion, as I did, to

transport into the valley in the course of a year, due togood-naturedness or stupidity, sixty meters of rope off

the Sdostgrat, eighty meters off the Schmittrinne of the

Totenkirchl and ninety meters off the Hochtor-Nordwand (the latter admittedly stemming fromsomeone's having strayed off-route).

I have saved Piaz's most serious accusation until theend: that with my theory I would bring everyone who

wants to follow me into greater danger! Is the use ofartificial aids really always such an undangerous thing?

How many falls tell of poorly driven pitons; how manyfatalities has poor rappelling already cost? The places

where driving in pitons would truly be necessary areusually among the hardest parts of the entire route;

where the piton-driving is light, with a reliable personbehind you, it is in most cases superfluous. However

wanting to impose sporting motives and ambitions onprofessional guides who would have to pay with their

own bodies for the whims of those types of clients whohave the strange ambition to do precisely the hardest

and very hardest routes on a secure guide's rope, thisdoes not enter my head. These victims of their

profession should, as well as amateur leaders in the same situation, do everything in their power toensure their safety. It is just that no alpine significance or sporting value belongs in that case to suchroutes; only the distorted features of a sublime model are to be found in them.

Does Piaz then completely forget those young (and sometimes even

older) climbers who can be observed every Sunday on trips in the Munichor Viennese excursion districts who, with blind trust in pitons and rappel

slings, tackle the hardest routes without being even in the slightest equal tothem and without knowing the correct use of those fine things with which

they have stuffed their pockets? There is also an important demand callededucating to be a mountain climber, a demand whose fulfillment is themost important duty of the alpine clubs, periodicals and individualalpinists. Prospective climbers should be instructed to keep their ambition

within the limits of their abilities, standing just as high in their intellectualas in their technological education, no higher and no lower. It is in

limitation that the master shows himself!26

If a justification for rappelling will ultimately one day only be conceded in exceptional cases and as a

makeshift, mountains such as the Guglia, the Campanile, the Delago Tower, etc. may well receivefewer visits, but all the better on that account! All those today who may climb up but are not able to

climb down will content themselves with more modest summits, will learn to down-climb, just asrappelling is learned! The limits of their ability are for most climbers today uncertain because they are

all building themselves castles in the air with their artificial aids; an actual reasonable use of such aidsonly takes place today in the rarest of cases. Should one want however to counteract this deplorable

state of affairs and eradicate an evil, then friend Piaz, one is permitted to and has to seize it by the rootswithout becoming unreasonable, inhuman and irresponsible!

The Hochtor-Nordwand

With artificial climbing

aids you have trans-formed the mountains

into a mechanical play-thing. Eventually they

will break or wear out,and then nothing else

will be left for you todo than to throw them

away. Paul Preuss


11/36

The Piton Dispute

11

I am not the one who wants to force rock-climbing into limits! It has itself set these limits; they lie in

the concept of sport, which we can no longer change.27 For my person I am an alpinist, and only whenthere is no way around it does rock-climbing come for me into its rights. And in that case should I not

uphold the highest principle of sport and, so far as I can, also hold back others to that end theprinciple that is common to every sport and ennobles every sport, the principle of purity of style?Beautiful climbing, in a technological as well as an ideal respect, means good climbing, and good

climbing means secure climbing! We were men before we became climbers, that is true; we want toprove it by allowing thoughts to prevail over feeling, mind hold sway over body.(Deutsche Alpenzeitung, XI/1, Mitteilungen, Nr. 14, Oktober, 1911; S. 90)


12/36

The Piton Dispute

12

Artificial Aid on Alpine RoutesBy Franz Nieberl in Kufstein

28

No great epoch-making phenomenon goes without itsclashes and cleavages. Even in alpinism, though born

into the alpen air and grown up near the mountain sunand sparkling snow, such phenomena occasionally came

to light. These need not always be worthy ofcondemnation in advance; mostly however they only

bring forth a seemingly sweet but all the more poisonousfruit.

Thunderstorms clear the air.29

But now and then thelightning causes an endless amount of destruction; the

hailstorm wreaks enormous damage; a lasting deplorablestate of affairs arises from all this, so that oftentimes

even the clean atmosphere that occurs afterwards can nolonger really be enjoyed.

Such thoughts struck me while reading Preuss'sconsiderations on artificial aid on alpine routes.

30These

considerations may at first have kindled only a smallflame, but it's a flame that can according to

circumstances develop into a devastating blaze if notchecked in good time and confined to its hearth.

It seems to me as though the sportsman in Preuss hasnot only maintained its preponderance over his alpine

personality but that Preuss is already a sports-alpinist andonly a sports-alpinist of the purest stamp,31 in spite of hisassurance: Only when there is no way around it does rock-climbing come for me into its rights.Never before has anyone dared to express so starkly and baldly the separation of alpinism and rock-

climbing32

as Preuss has. That opens dim prospects. Perhaps we shall soon have a Free from AlpinismMovement,33 even if this ought not to be placed within Preuss's intention.

It is only the inveterate sportsman who won't dare to leap over the limitswithin the concept of sport because he deems that to be contrary to sport, to

be ignoble and ungentlemanlike. And that is what Preuss does; only in thisway can I understand his theory of purification. He wants to liberate the

sport in mountain climbing, especially in the case of crag-climbing, entirelyfrom the unsporting dross that still fortunately, I say adheres to it, by

rejecting every artificial aid there is rappelling, pitons, and yes, (onlyshyly hinted at, to be sure) even shoulder stands as unsporting. Preuss

doesn't really act consistently here. So as to climb completely purely,completely sportingly without aid, he ought also to reject climbing shoes,

indeed, perhaps he shouldn't even accept hobnailed boots since their nailstoo offer an artificial aid. The unswerving sportsman ought to go barefoot

in the future as soon as foot is set to rock. That is by no means a sophisticquibble, nor an exaggeration; it is really only an inference from the rest of

Franz NieberlThe Pope of the Wilder Kaiser

My fingertips were

climbed through, ad-hesive tape had to

come to my aid, whicheven the severe critic

probably won't chargeas a violation of my

theories on artificialaid since I used the

adhesive tape with thesticky side facing in-

ward. Paul Preuss


13/36

The Piton Dispute

13

Preuss's demands. But such a pure, irreproachable sportsman does not exist. The sports-equestrian

uses the most elegant, lightest saddle actually he should ride an unbridled Mustang. The automobiledriver seeks out the finest machines and arms his eyes with protective goggles; the sports-hunter affixes

a telescopic sight to his repeating rifle, and so on ad infinitum.With that however we mountaineers have arrived at dangerous ground. Once the sporting element in

alpinism comes so much to the fore, as Preuss desires, the alpinism that Preuss wants to raise

degenerates in my opinion into a raw sports-pursuit

34

that comes to light raw and naked preciselybecause it strives solely for purity of style. I realize quite well that many sporting elements are to befound particularly in the alpinism of today, but I would like to speak out formally and in all seriousness

against the cultivation of the sports-bacillus in its pure culture. Piaz has already, very happily to mymind, taken care of this in his response, and I would have remained silent had the editorial staff of this

paper not asked me to give my opinion on the matter. I do this gladly in accordance with my sincereconviction and in the hopes of having a useful effect.

For the present, Preuss is fortunately still right when he professes to stand quite alone in his opinions.Quite an ideal point of view, but a crazy notion. But perhaps this crazy notion will win followers in

the coming generation and then: goodbye, you old, reliable, deeply refreshing joy in climbing; longlive solely the pure stylish rock-climbing! This pure style however will not bring about any pure

separation of climbing's votaries into those who will really know how to climb and those who willsimply refrain from it because the grapes of stylish climbing hang too high for them.35 It will rather

demand sacrifices in such appalling numbers that Preuss himself will one day sigh: The spirits I called;I cannot get rid of them now.

36

Our climbing of today suffers from many maladies; artificial aids also share the blame for this, butmerely because their misunderstood utilization has led to ridiculous and contemptible misuse. No

honest thinking alpinist denies this.It is above all the rope that plays nowadays such a

degrading role in the hands of certain people.Intended for the protection of the climber, an

external sign so to speak of the inseparablesolidarity of brave mountain comrades, the moral

placet37 for serious alpine routes, it has frequentlydegenerated into an uncomplaining means of

transportation for human sacks of potatoes, into alasso for recalcitrant mountain horns (also known as

the summit) as well as into a gymnasticapparatus. That is, of course, a great abuse. The

deliberately forced traverse38

of a mountain, whenit can only be contrived by means of outrageous

rope maneuvers, is something I regard as gymnasticexercises that do not belong in the mountains. It

does not even occur to me to traverse theCampanile di Val Montanaia, the Guglia di Brenta,

the six Vajolet Towers, permitting myself themodest remark that what keeps me from doing so is

not physical inability and just as little any lack inpersonal courage. I go into these mountains with

high pleasure and climb with high pleasure up thenatural route that I can climb back down free (or on

which at most short sections of rappelling occur onthe descent). I certainly no longer rappel on the The Guglia Di Brenta


14/36

The Piton Dispute

14

Sudstgrat of the Totenkirchl ever since I found that this ridge can quite well and securely be climbed

by the ascent's bypass route.39 Thus I too, like Preuss, reject unnecessary and deliberately sought outrappelling. Wherever safety is called for, mostly only on short stellen, I calmly hang my rope and godown it. For I do not see why I should not carry out a route that I find beautiful merely because out ofprudence I want to cover a small fraction of the way on the rope. The route has therefore not lost an

inch of ethical value for me.

If there is someplace you can't go down, you should also not go up; overcome difficulties with yourown strength, on the ascent and the descent alike. That is the postulate of an honest, sportingconviction, Preuss writes. That's quite an ideal point of view! But from experience there are many

kletterstellen that I can tell right off by looking that I can overcome, even if perhaps with greatdifficulties, nevertheless with complete security on the ascent. However hardly a climber will probably

exist who can recognize the same stellen as also being climbable free with complete security on thedescent. This is the case with most not very articulated, nearly vertical sections of face having poor

grip, with many overhanging cracks, and so on. How many quite good climbers would frequently haveto turn back under such circumstances? The man in that situation need not at all be assessed as

reckless and unalpinistic if he thinks to himself: I can quite certainly get up without any recklessrisk. Should the same stelle on the descent not afford me the greatest security for hand and foot, I'llmake use of the rope, precisely so as not to set about things recklessly, albeit perhaps unsportingly.

A battle waged with unequal weapons, unchivalrous and unsporting. If Preuss uses the metaphor of

battle even once, then he implicitly assumes an antagonism between man and rock. Then it's evenentirely natural that we personify the warring parties. Thus it would hardly have been necessary for

Preuss as a student of the natural sciences to inform Piaz of the absence of intention in nature. Piazhimself would have been quite conscious of that, but just because Preuss speaks of a battle Piaz

proceeded quite logically when he spoke of the mountain's basest traps. Piaz is right. Whether takenfiguratively or not, every initiate must admit that much treachery, many dangerous pitfalls and

mantraps lie hidden in the cliffs. Whether the mountains have that object in mind or not changesnothing regarding the fact of their existence.

Therefore wherever the rope is used as an aid for the capturing of new, otherwise unconquerablepeaks, wherever the rope is used as a runged rope ladder, as an unbroken chain of stirrups, as a

gymnastics climbing rope on a grand scale for the traversing of mountains that by their nature cannotbe traversed without steeple-high air journeys, anywhere as well that it has served as a proven means

for the purchase of cheap laurels, may it disappear. Were a rope possessed of feeling and the capacityfor thought, perhaps it would often break out of wrath over the dishonorable services expected of it.

Completely unnecessary rappelling on stellen that can obviously be climbed free without any dangermust also be regarded as an abuse. This abuse of course cannot thoroughly be done away with until all

those who set off toward climbing truly learn to climb. One must, until one can go free independently,go to school with good teachers. When occasional or renowned tourists

40march into the mountains

without experienced companions, naturally they won't know where and how climbing can be done free,and then the poor rope shall have to make up for the stupidity and incompetence of its masters. It is

certainly not there for that purpose, although for reasons of safety even in this case I'd sooner have toapprove of an excess of rope use over an abandoning of the roped belay in accordance with Preuss's

principles. Sound life and limb are simply worth more than the most stylish pursuit of sports.The passage Preuss devotes to maintaining the solid link of two climbers by means of the rope on bad

stellen seems to me to be only loosely related to the misuse of the rope. He may on the whole be rightwith these remarks; however everything here depends on the personal disposition of the individuals

involved. I know such worrying situations from experience; if the second in a noble feeling ofsolidarity doesn't agree to the suggestion of severing the link, this will be an uplifting feeling for the

leader that should spur him, if possible, to heightened care. This is worth at least just as much as theheightening of the shaky security of the second in the case of unroping.


15/36

The Piton Dispute

15

That much horrid mischief has been done with pitons is unfortunately only all too true.

Manufacturing an iron staircase on an otherwise inaccessible face should by rights be left to those whobuild the alpine club paths for the general public. I too maintain: the piton is a makeshift and should

remain one. But to interpret the word makeshift so narrow-mindedly, as Preuss seemingly does, is adangerous thing. A piton is already necessary

41where a belay is not ensured with absolute security by

means of good stances, horns of rock and the like. It is, in my opinion, a moral commandment to climb

really serious stellen only with complete security. If this complete security is only to be achieved bydriving in a piton, then the iron peg mustcome to one's aid. The means Preuss specifies for dispensingwith pitons is enormously simple. If such stellen are not climbable free, they should ratherimmediately be left alone. Again quite an quite ideal point of view! But of course this doesn't evenoccur to the majority of climbers; therefore almost no one will deny themselves a route because on one

or anothershortstelle a piton can help them to get over a very bad section of the route with securitythat without pitons would be a serious risk. This is no swindle, neither in one's own ethics nor in the

sport. I do completely understand Herr Preuss when he writes: The thought: 'if you fall, you'll hangthree meters on the rope' is of lesser ethical worth than the feeling: one fall, and you're dead. That's a

mighty ideal point of view. The newly arisen Puritan of cliff climbing certainly means it seriously too.He believes in what he says until it is perhaps too late for him to realize that the completely strict,

sportingly-practiced pursuit of mountaineering is not the infinitely attractive ideal image that wealpinists have in mind but rather a terrible Moloch.42 Herr Preuss, you would really have to be a cold-

hearted monster if you would stand one day by the shattered corpse of your best climbing partner whohad fallen to his death in a place where a small artificial aid, a single miserable piton, would have

preserved his life and supported his family and then perhaps wanted to maintain as well: It's better thatway. At least he wanted to overcome the stelle in the properly sporting manner; he fell as animpeccable sportsman; had he driven in a piton, the ethical value of his route would have been drivendown.43

Herr Preuss may be striving for an ideal. I quite believe him,but it is a cold, rigid, frosty ideal. The Grim Reaper already

follows the climber of the good old school wherever he goes andlies in wait for the moment the man, perhaps intoxicated and

drunk with pleasure from his previous successes, lets for only asecond the necessary caution flag. How delighted the Reaper

will be when he sees one day the adherents of the Preuss schoolmarch off in droves to hurry aidless into the mountains! The

individual climber who is fanatically ruled by such ideas anddoes not feel the fatal fall with its terrors; happy is the man. But

the sum of tears, of mutely despairing pain, of suddenly dashedhopes that now already lie buried in the mountains, all of that

could increase tremendously. Is Herr Preuss not afraid of havingsuch a heavy burden there? May he for his person chase after his

ideal. He may well find for himself the sport rock-climber'sworthwhile aspiration in his doubtless sincere conviction of its

excellence. I even have genuine admiration for the bold theoriesthat he puts forward, theories that do contain much that is

beautiful and noteworthy, but that he only puts forward becausehe can call a quite unusual ability his own, and because, based

on it, he sees the crown of rock-climbing therein. But he oughtnever ever to set up the yardstick of his own ability as the norm,

for there are also dii minorem gentium44 who may want tofollow him on his bold, sportingly conducted rock path, but are


16/36

The Piton Dispute

16

not able to! What he can do, I can do too, many will tell themselves. I have already indicated whatresults from this. For Preuss his theory of purification is the shining climbing ideal45 he keeps it;no one can dispute his right to it. But to teach these beautiful false doctrines to others is something Itake to be wholly false and terribly dangerous. Sometimes nowadays I would almost like to believe in adecadence of rock-climbing; for such attempts at purification and reinvigoration are almost always

signs of an unhealthy condition. A truly robust organism has no need of such things. Nevertheless here

too I would like to believe it's just a passing, meteoric, vanishing phenomenon. The old, honestclimbing (I intentionally call it honest in contrast to Preuss) doesn't really need to be vamped up to ashiny new. Even with the moderate and sensible use of artificial aids, it stands at a previously

unimagined height that may no doubt satisfy even us modern climbers. The love of danger is a fine andmanly thing; the tasting of a danger, come through, is a great treat, an ethical agens46 that I would notlike to miss; but exposing oneself to an all too obviously threatening danger is extravagant

47; it's a

criminal game of chance with the best goods we have. I also leave the judgment of the so-called world

here altogether out of account. The general public can remain a matter of complete indifference to us inour almost always misunderstood activities. But I don't believe I am deluding myself that the majority

of serious, reasonable alpinists side with my judgment, or rather have already rendered the samejudgment, and that, after all, Herr Preuss will not so easily dismiss. May climbing not be for us an

extra-high tension almost perverse titillation of the senses for the exhausted nervous system that nolonger reacts to gentler stimuli, but rather a pure spring of healthy pleasure in life and nature. And as is

well known pleasures can be enjoyed better in calm than with incessant nerve excitation, not tomention over-excitation. Therefore I assert in precise contrast to Preuss: adherence to the principle ofcarrying out mountain expeditions (even pure sporting climbing routes of the most difficult sort) withthe least amount of danger has even in the presentstate of rock-climbing unqualified, completejustification.

The best here, as in so many cases, likewise lies inthe mean. When I consider the lines of the routes on

the many faces that the entirely modern piton-menhave conquered, then I certainly have my duty

free48 ideas in view of the extensive iron ladderinstallations.

49In my opinion that has practically

nothing to do with mountain-gladdened climbing;but I let these people follow their own path to

happiness, and would only strive to oppose it shouldthis rope and piton work passed off as climbing be

promoted and become an entire school. If a such aface as the venerable Laliderer Wall for instance,

which has recently risen to the rank of the hardestroute in the Alps (it's sure to be deposed again next

year), can truly only be conquered by means of suchheaps of iron and braided hemp, then hands off; here

I go hand in hand with Preuss. But should the latterclimb the same wall without any artificial aid on the

ascent or on the descent, something he mayultimately achieve, then it is no doubt permitted to

shake your head in view of this extreme as well. Forwith this stylish climbing he exposes himself, in

spite of his eminent climbing skill, to just as eminentdangers, assuming the difficulties indeed match the The Laliderer North Wall


17/36

The Piton Dispute

17

account given by the first ascensionists. In the meantime Preuss too

may follow his own path to happiness, but he must not recruitstudents for his bare, stylistically pure sports-pursuit. I would not like

to do routes either under the aegis of the Laliderer Wall climbers50

orunder that of Preuss and indeed for the reasons already given and

because in both cases the sporting way the climbing is practiced

doesn't please me, in Preuss's case with the additional subconsciousawareness that his climbing involves so much danger to life and limbthat risk and profit on the mountain expedition are out of all

proportion. For no one can persuade me that the ethical aspect inhumans is thereby strengthened to such a disproportionately high

degree that it is permissible for it to completely and utterly suppressevery other human stirring.

What now will be the practical application of this dispute ofopinions? Preuss himself furnishes this in irreproachable sentences:

There is an important demand, called educating to be a mountain climber, a demand whose fulfillmentis the most important duty of the alpine clubs, periodicals and individual alpinists. Prospective climbers

should be instructed to keep their ambition within the limits of their ability, standing just as high intheir intellectual as in their technological education, no higher and no lower. It is in limitation that the

master shows himself!Yes, in limitation! Something however Preuss would above all have to impose on himself before he

went and so flatly and entirely without limitation rejected artificial aid. Everything in measure and aim!In the mountains we are free of constricting limits. If someone with such reverence makes the limits

that sport itself has set, that lie in the concept of sport out to be the sole legitimate benchmarks ofour sporting climbing, then we can shout to him with complete justification: My dear fellow, you

yourself are not free; your judgment is biased; you may be an irreproachable sportsman but you reallyno longer see that beyond the high sport limits there unfurls a completely different, sublime world,

notwithstanding your claim to be an alpinist and only when there is no way around it, a climber.(Mitteilungen des Deutschen und sterreichischen Alpenvereins, Bd. 37, Nr. 22, November 30,1911; S. 265-267)

Angelo Dibona


18/36

The Piton Dispute

18

Artificial Aid on Alpine Routes:A Reply by Paul Preuss in Vienna

[Response to Nieberl]

The reader of this periodical will hardly, from the critique my remarks on artificial aid on alpine

routes received from the pen of Franz Nieberl, have obtained clear picture of the ideas I explained inthat essay.

51He likely takes me for a really wild and unbridled companion, for whom nothing, not only

not the lives of strangers but not even his own life, is sacred. Herr Nieberl only presented a distortedpicture of the views I set down there, which naturally could all the more easily be combatted since the

entire logical connection of ideas and many of the most important principles established there havefallen by the wayside in his way of seeing things. This fact compels me to concern myself once again

and in more detail than is agreeable for me and perhaps for the editorial staff of the Mitteilungenwiththe question of artificial aids.

It seems immensely regrettable to me that Herr

Nieberl was incapable of separating the subjectmatter from the person and permitted himself be

led in his way of regarding theoretical opinionsby a prejudice toward my person. Yet however

much he may take me for the pure, incorrigiblesportsman capable of none but sporting feelings, I

still don't believe that a refutation of this view, orthe view itself, falls within the scope of a public

discussion of theoretical questions. I would onlylike to allow myself the one remark that to a

certain extent I take the credit for it if I disregard

emotions, feelings and moods in such discussionsand let myself be swayed by the purely logicalsuccession of the theoretical ideas about alpine

theory and technique52 and not by atmosphericpictures and my non-sporting love for the

mountains. Logical thought, aesthetic sensationsand feelings, these are things that must be

separated in such considerations, just as must entering more closely now into Nieberl's reply

alpinism and rock-climbing.I do not want to discuss this question, which has

no immediate, necessary connection with thequestion of artificial aids, in detail; doing so

would too easily fan again into a fire the coals thathave been glowing since Steinitzer,

53something

that unfortunately frequently seems unwelcome. I only want to remark very briefly that in my opinionalpinism and rock-climbing lay at the endpoints of a long series in which every transition between both

extremes exists, that rock-climbing is in many cases just as independent of alpinism as for instancesporting snowshoeing is. Both the sport of snowshoeing and the sport of rock-climbing are already

capable of existing as ends in themselves, a fact that becomes clear to anyone who wanders with open

Preuss on the Hochtor-Nordwand


19/36

The Piton Dispute

19

eyes through the most popular climbing centers. Only if you are blind or will not see will you not

concede that with the ascent of the Piazkamin on the East Tower of the Vajolet or the Nieberlkamin onthe Totenkirchl rock-climbing has become an end in itself. Or is the alpine element perhaps preserved

by dashing on to the summit from the second terrace of the Totenkirchl so that the route is counted inthe route report?

54

The fundamental idea that emerges from every sentence of my remarks and was also not picked out

by many other readers (fortunately not by all of them) is also not sufficiently minded by Nieberl.Although he himself quotes my sentences: ...to keep ambition within the limits of ability, etc...., hedoes not seem to be completely aware of the full import of these words, and that this could happen to a

Franz Nieberl arouses in me the consideration that I myself have possibly opened the door by means ofmy stylization to numerous, admittedly possible, misinterpretations. (So for example some individuals

believed that everything I demand of the leader would also be laid down as a requirement for thesecond on the rope!) So as to counter these misunderstandings, I want to try in the following to present

once more the guiding principles of my views in a stylization that can leave no room for doubt:

1. You should not be equal to the mountain climbs you undertake, you should be superior.2. The degree of difficulty that a climber is able to overcome with security

55on the descent and also

believes himself capable of with an easy conscience must represent the upper limit of what heclimbs on the ascent.3. The justification for the use of artificial aids consequently only arises in the event of animmediately threatening danger.

4. The piton is an emergency reserve and not the basis for a method of working.5. The rope is permitted as a relief-bringing means but ought never be the one true means for

making the ascent of the mountain possible.And what I gladly concede:

6. The principle of security56

ranks among the highest principles. But not the frantic correction ofone's own insecurity attained by means of artificial aids, rather that primary security which withevery climber should be based in the correct estimation of his ability in relation to his desire.

First ideas presumably have no need to be established atany greater length. Or should I first have to prove that it's

not of any use to us merely to go up in my opinion, that wemountaineers must have reserves when we find ourselves

on a hard route, reserves that even in immediate dangerconduct us safely back into the valley again? It is not when

the kletterstelle seems too hard to us that we should, inorder to overcome it, hang on pitons in blind trust it is

rather only when adverse conditions impede us frommethodically carrying out our route, when outer

circumstances have weakened our strength and our self-confidence, then let pitons and rope be our deliverance from

distress. Nieberl too rejects the conquering of faces withpitons, rejects superfluous rappelling. But can he determine

the dividing line between rational and expedient piton use,the dividing line between necessary and superfluous

rappelling? Herr Nieberl rappels over short stellen; hewants to conquer a short stelle protected by pitons, butwhere does short begin and long stop?57 Opinions onthis might be as various as the climbers and even more so Preuss on the Predigtstuhl-Nordkante


20/36

The Piton Dispute

20

than the kletterstellen. Perhaps one wants to delimit short and long numerically, like that SaxonSwiss58 climber who, although he wants to be taken seriously, nonetheless writes: If an impassiblestelle cannot be overcome with the aid of one ring, then it should not be done at all.59 (Bergheil-Kalender, 1912, O. Jngling: Knstliche Hilfsmittel) One meter that can no longer be climbed on anascent is infinitely long in my opinion; nature has erected a bulwark for us men there, a bulwark the

overcoming of which is meant to go beyond our strength.

And not the genuine mountaineer, no, only the inveterate and incorrigible sportsman, whosepathological ambition is put above all else, leaps with disregard over such limits, bringing himselfacross with protection from pitons in places where his own self-assurance60 fails, and he ought

therefore to admit to being defeated. But correcting your own insecurity by tying yourself into pitons atevery opportunity and then calling this procedure fostering security is a great error. Its principle is not

security, but securing,61 and what Herr Nieberl calls love of danger and as such finds fine andmanly he searches for by passing absolutely protected as near as possible to the possibility of adanger; he thus cultivates a feeling that according to his own principles he ought not to have, could nothave.

But the middle course that Herr Nieberl would so readily like to take unfortunately leads to where wealready are today, so that at hard stellen climbers do not ask: Where will I get to when I am upthere?, but rather only: Where will I fall when I don't get up? With artificial aids just about anythingcan be accomplished! (In Nieberl's view and Jacobi's too, which incidentally strongly influenced

Nieberl, I ought to count even climbing shoes as artificial aids. During this line of reasoning Nieberlrepudiates the accusation of sophistic quibbling from the outset because his unerring instinct tells him

nonetheless that this is the only correct term for it.) The old, joyful art of climbing that Nieberl soreadily claims for himself becomes, according to such principles, a mindless and meaningless craft.

But as far as climbing on the descent is concerned, I have to flatly contradict even such an authorityas Herr Nieberl. I quite readily admit that climbing on the descent is harder than the reverse, but only

because very few people are used to it, and becausethey have not learned it. Admittedly the hardest stellencan only be descended if one knows them fromclimbing up. But that a kletterstelle exists that wouldbe possible with security on the ascent but not on thedescent, that's something I contest from my own

experience. Climbing on the descent is something thatcan be learned, as I also emphasized in my reply to

Piaz, and as I expressed above, a climber's climbingability on the descent must have a determining

influence on his route selection.The fact that Nieberl highlights the dangerousness of

my theories so much shows how little he haspenetrated into the spirit of what I actually demand. I

would indeed be a cold-hearted monster and myideal a terrible Moloch, were it true that I demand of

mountaineers that they ought to so to speak die inbeauty. How baseless it was to ascribe this demand to

me is something Herr Nieberl may see from the fol-lowing: I gladly follow his notion: a single miserable

piton would have preserved his life and supported hisfamily. Yet I ask further: Has it been necessary, and

will it always be necessary for things to get to thispoint? Is there really no power that will be capable of Preuss in action


21/36

The Piton Dispute

21

preventing the mountaineer of his own accord from always forging ahead to the utmost limit of his

abilities and exposing himself where life and death already stand in unstable equilibrium? Manymountaineers, alarmingly many, have fallen to their deaths in recent years precisely while conquering

difficult stellen. But would a single one of those dead from past years have fallen had the moral andsporting feeling of each of them been thoroughly animated by the

principle: not one step up where you cannot get down? A Moloch is the

previous principle; that unfortunately is shown by the experiences of thepast decades; hundreds have fallen victim to it. Does then Herr Nieberlbelieve that the majority of mountaineers know how to handle ropes and

pitons better than the rock and themselves? For in order that artificial aidsbe, as Herr Nieberl says, used moderately and sensibly you wouldalready have to have achieved perfect mastery. But then you no longerneed them because you can already determine the limit of your own ability.

And now Herr Nieberl will perhaps understand me correctly when I say:There is an important demand called educating to be a mountain climber:

Prospective climbers should be instructed to keep their abilities within thelimits of their ambition,

62standing just as high in their intellectual as in

their technological education, no higher and no lower. It is in limitationthat the master shows himself! The moral placet for hard routes does not consist in physical abilities orclimbing technology skills but in the education of the mountaineer's intellectual and moral foundationand in his line of reasoning.

The beautiful time of the old mountaineering can be resurrected if the over-simplification of sport,as Karl Planck

63terms it (sterreichische Alpen-Zeitung; August 5, 1911) the craft-like pursuit, as I

myself would like to call it is put in its place64

through the sporting regulation of routes and throughthe intellectual and mental education of the mountaineer! Now the mountains are hated, fought with

every means we shall learn once more to fear and to love them!(Mitteilungen des Deutschen und sterreichischen Alpenvereins,Bd. 37, Nr. 23, Dezember 15,1911; S. 282-284)

How I could have

taken it all personallyhad I wanted to! But I

don't want to, becausethe subject matter goes

beyond the person andbecause I would like to

see such childish resis-tances eliminated from

the evolution of thesport.

Paul Preuss


22/36

The Piton Dispute

22

Marginal Notes to P. Preuss's Artificial AidsBy Paul Jacobi

65

In the first August and the second October issues of this periodical, Paul Preuss published two

articles, Artificial Aids on Alpine Routes and My Answer, both of which, the second to a higherdegree than the first, caused quite a stir in alpinist circles, and justifiably so, by their condemnation of

modern climbing technique,66 but which also must not pass unchallenged with regard to the inferencesdrawn in them and their proposed corrective measures. Even though the author himself endeavors in

the course of his treatise to soften his demands in their abrupt form, these themselves are put are soprecisely that on the one hand this toning down is only perceived to be a concession to the reader, but

on the other one feels pressed to examine them in their logical justification and practical feasibility.After a few preliminary words in which the meticulous separation of alpinism and rock-climbing

particularly stands out, since rock-climbing must actually be regarded as being merely a component of

alpinism, albeit one of the most important, in his first essay Preuss puts forward the proposition thatfrom the point of view of alpinism as well as that of rock-climbing the solution to any problem at allonly has value [Wert] if it is carried out independently, that is, without artificial aid. But what areartificial aids? Protection by means of pitons, in many cases even protection in general, rappelling andall other rope-maneuvers... Then imposing itself upon us as a necessary inference pretty much our

entire active development in the Alps will from the alpine and rock-climbing point of view probably beabsolutely worthless [wertlos]. Preuss contrasts this with the assertion that the construction of a parallelbetween long ago and now with regard to alpine problems

67is inapt, an assertion for which no

satisfactory explanation can be discerned. An alpine problem in the final analysis always consisted and

consists still in reaching the summit of a mountain via a previously thought-out route; the solution tothis problem consists today as well as formerly in the more or less successful assertion of human

intelligence in the face of the raw forces of nature that oppose the attainment of this preset goal. In thisrespect we speak of a battle of men with the mountain, and this personification of the latter is a usage

that is generally practiced in alpine literature, one that Piaz also uses with complete justification in hisresponse without thereby deserving a rebuke, since he too will have been aware, without having studied

the natural sciences, of the metaphorical sense of his remarks. It should be admitted that elements of aproof for Preuss's hypothesis could be constructed from the coefficients of difficulty, that is, from a

comparison of what was formerly considered difficult and today, but a discussion of the pros and consof this would go too far afield to fit within the scope of these marginal comments.

We come now to the second question. If protection is only objectionable, that is, artificial aid, inmany cases, then when is it permitted? The only definite answer that Preuss gives relating to this iswhen necessary [im Notfall]. However since no closer precision has been established in either articleas to what when necessary might mean because Preuss, probably owing to the aforementioned

concession to the reader, indulges repeatedly in contradiction (for instance If you cannot also climb akletterstelle without a belay, you must not climb it at all. Five lines lower: It is far from my intentionto reject entirely the use of a rope...) we can only hold on to the literal meaning of the words,therefore in a case of emergency [im Falle der Not]; but that pretty much amounts to turning thecomplete rejection a priori of protection into a basic principle.

68Now taken theoretically this would

perhaps have its justification.

If the roped belay, etc. is ever an artificial aid and this is what it is, at least in regard to moralquality then let it be permitted everywhere or nowhere. But I go even further; if the rope, used for

protection, is an artificial aid, then so are ice axes, climbing shoes and in the end our hobnailed boots


23/36

The Piton Dispute

23

because even they contribute to relief and the heightening of security.

Now after we have granted a theoretical justification to the rejection ofartificial aids, we want to make clear to ourselves the feasibility of its

practical implementation, the setting about of which however might lead to anegative result. Purtscheller

69once said, In the high mountains, there are

not only things you cannot do but also things that you should not do, and on

almost all of our so-called very hard rock-climbing routes there is at leastone stelle precisely the very hard one that surely belongs to the lattercategory, assuming that the person climbing it is not adequately protected.

Admittedly Preuss says, However it seems to me that the thought: 'if youfall, you'll hang three meters on the rope' is of lesser ethical worth than the

feeling: 'one fall, and you're dead!' If that's the only thingthat one thinks onsuch a stelle he may perhaps be right. A careful climber, one who is morethan merely that, but rather at the same time also a man with a heart andmind, will in the course of this mull over many other things besides.

Certainly one thinks first of all, if you fall you're dead a thought that more or less arises fromanimal instinct and for that reason alone ought not to make any claims to ethical value but the

thinking man continues on logically, If you're lying down below, then the danger will begin for yourfellow men. Your corpse will perhaps lie in an inaccessible place; your companion will try to reach you

at any cost, even that of sharing your fate; worse still, strangers, leaving wife and child at home, willhave to set out at the risk of their lives to retrieve you. And perhaps none of this will happen if you

climb with a rope. In that case I ultimately prefer the "shameful feeling of a potential fall onto the ropeof three meters. He who is solidly tied into the rope while leading the difficult stelle will also have torectify his speculation, I'll only fall three meters in the favorable case; for who gives him theabsolute certainty that unlucky happenstances won't occur (happenstances whose possibility Preuss too

mentions in several places), and upon the entrance of these the entire preceding chain of thought can beappended here, strengthened by consideration for one's companions.

The expenditure of energy used

for self-overcoming while reflecting upon all these factors is therefore in either case only minimallydifferent. And yet every climber should at the very least constantly bear these factors in mind; moral

duty requires it. But it is precisely the eventuality of double fall that is to be avoided by free climbing, Ihear in reply. That is a matter of dispute, one that ranges the province of casuistry, and if Preuss

exclaims, how many double falls would have been avoided,I counter: how many thousands of falls were rendered

harmless by the rope or at any rate made less severe. Andbecause only a minute number of accidents with bad outcomes

can be set against these thousands of accidents that have beenaverted, we therefore choose the lesser of two evils. For

confirmation of what was said above it might not be out ofplace here to compare Preuss's remarks with the opinion of

another modern climbing-competence. Franz Nieberl writes inhis Klettern im Fels:70 Careful and conscientious protectionis the moral placet for hard routes, which can become veryfoolish and reckless undertakings in its absence. You owe it to

your relatives, yourself and even according to circumstancesto human society not to gamble irresponsibly with your life

and the lives of others. An opinion that stands contrary toPreuss's. And yet Preuss will hardly succeed in branding a

man like Nieberl as an outdated authority.Daring everything trusting in the belay is something every

Ludwig Purtscheller


24/36

The Piton Dispute

24

rational climber will condemn just as he condemns superfluous rappelling, etc.; such maneuvers are

even anything but alpine, characterizing the reckless go-getter or the enthusiast. Ropes and, if need be,pitons are to serve only for protection against unforeseen happenstances the moral coefficient is not

the main issue but rather a side one. But a hard route laid down entirely in accordance with the strictestrules of alpine protection technique decidedly possesses more style and sooner has claim to the title

work of art and, because standing morally higher, to the distinction ethically valuable than one

carried out unprotected or one that is insufficiently protected, say, merely for reasons of making aquicker progress.And if Preuss questions this by claiming that Nor does adherence to the principle of carrying out

mountain expeditions...with the least amount of danger have in the present state of rock-climbing muchbetter justification, so it stands to hope that he will truly stand alone with this afterlife-theory. For this

hypothesis is not only unreasonable, inhuman and irresponsible, but it would, established as aguiding principle, constitute a downright public danger. Courage and bravery are ethically valuable

factors; daredevilry and foolhardiness however are ethically to be rejected.I do not doubt that Preuss, from his point of view, was led by the best of intentions with his

suggestions, but his remarks and preeminently the last cited sentence can given the popularity that thename (despite or because of the youth of its bearer) Preuss enjoys lead to downright dangerous

consequences particularly with rash young folk, and it should also be more prudent of him in the futureto suffer that other children of men may do routes according to old method that he did according to his,

and that these latter may nonetheless consider themselves justified in claiming that they too madethis or that face.

But if Preuss believes he is standing on the solid ground and soil of the alpinism of the purest style it'sgood that he'll be in a position to present other proofs than what an inference drawn from the

comparison of alpinism and horse-racing to his alpine sports-concept is capable of providing us.(Deutsche Alpenzeitung, XI/2, Mitteilungen, Nr. 16, November, 1911; S. 99-100)


25/36

The Piton Dispute

25

Artificial Aid on Alpine RoutesBy Paul Preuss

[Response to Jacobi]

As in any discussion that goes into any detail, so has the debate over the question of artificial aidsgiven rise to a series of errors and misunderstandings that, due to the use of an incorrect stylization or

even more often to an incorrect comprehension of a precise stylization, was capable of causing ahopeless confusion. P. Jacobi's Marginal Notes, which appearing in the second November issue of

this periodical, is an apt instance of this. An evaluation of the few arguments that Jacobi has presentednot based on mistaken interpretations is something I can largely spare myself I don't want to

needlessly try the patience of the editorial staff of the Deutsche Alpenzeitung, which has alreadyopened its columns so often now to the factors interested in this. In a longer explanation of my point of

view, which will appear as a reply to an article by F. Nieberl in the Mitteilungen des Deutschen und

sterreichischen Alpenvereins, Jacobi's fundamental arguments will receive their assessment as well. Itherefore confine myself here to defending myself against his actual errors.It is not the alpine problems

in the fundamental sense of theword that have changed since

the bygone heyday of themountaineer, it is rather, as I

explicitly remarked, the way oflooking at the problem.71 Noman will be able to deny thatsomeone who sets about being

the first to climb the thirteenchimneys leading to any terrace

on the Totenkirchl's north sideis guided in doing so by a

different line of reasoning thanthe first ascensionist of the

Winkler Tower, the ZmuttRidge, or the Marmolada South

Face, even if both endeavor toreach the summit [and

sometimes not even that] of amountain via a previously

thought-out route.The battle Jacobi and Nieberl are waging against my attacks on Piaz's personifications is also based

on a mistaken understanding of my words (which incidentally was not judged so tragically by myfriend Piaz). When I speak of a battle with unequal weapons I mean that we men must from the

outset reckon with the dangers of the mountains, therefore also with rockfall, friability, etc., while figuratively speaking the mountain cannot reckon that men will tackle it with iron pitons, hammers,

chisels, rock drills and perhaps even cement. The mountains' weapons are of a natural sort thatcannot escape our reckoning, but these sorts of human weapons are unnatural! That mountains are

personified lies in our linguistic usage and in our human inability to think impersonally. In reality

Marmolada South Face


26/36

The Piton Dispute

26

mountains are always the standard by which, never the enemy againstwhich we measure our strength.If you can not climb a kletterstelle without a belay (= could not and would not climb without a

rope!), you must not climb it at all It is far from my intention to reject entirely the use of a rope

(= therefore one still need not always do it without a rope!). Where a contradiction is supposed to liein these two phrases remains a mystery to me.

To characterize climbing shoes and hob-nailed boots as artificial aids is in my opinion a prime

example of a sophistic quibble. With this same line of reasoning, it ought also in Jacobi's opinion beconsidered justified from the alpine and sporting point of view to have a rope ladder tossed down fromthe summit in order to get up.

What Jacobi writes about the line of reasoning of theclimber on a difficult kletterstelle is characteristic of theweak, decadent type of modern mountaineer who goes tothe mountains so as to numb his shattered nerves by

means of intense impressions. Physically and mentallysound, strong men belong to the carrying out of mountain

routes! But if, during the overcoming of a hardkletterstelle, anyone really thinks of the difficulties thatthe---body-recovery expedition will encounter, then thatsomeone should, if he is not so prudent as to give up

climbing on his own, be forbidden the mountains and beplaced in a sanitarium for nervous conditions. Jacobi is

quite right when he quotes Purtscheller: In the highmountains, there are not only things you cannot do but

also things that you should not do, but he should alsoapply this sentence to those who want to undertake

difficult mountain expeditions with his line of reasoning.That passage in which I speak about the possible

necessity of undoing of the rope link between twoclimbers was also outright misunderstood. This error too

will be refuted in the Nieberl article. It is only theeventuality of a double fall that I want to avert in the mostpressing danger by climbing free (cases which, as Iexplicitly wrote, should not occur with methodical route

execution), not falls in general. In actual fact, it goeswithout saying that I remain opposed to Nieberl as well as

to Jacobi in my opinion that, in the event of a fall, it isbetter to have only the one participant come off than the both of them. For this reason the leader has the

duty in such cases if he possesses the necessary presence of mind to induce the second, possiblyeven by twisting the facts, into unroping.

Security is even my highest principle; that's something that Jacobi has completely misunderstood. It'snot the principle of security that seems unjustified to me, it's rather the in the present state of rock-climbing (= as climbing is pursued nowadays) alleged adherence to this principle, which in reality isnot abided by at all. Should one want, as I do, to adhere to the principle itself, the way rock-climbing is

practiced must be set on a completely different foundation. Let how I conceive this principle beestablished for the last time in these pages in six theses that contain nothing other than the fundamental

ideas of my previous essays and whose justification every thinking mountaineer has to concede:

1. You must not be equal to the mountain climbs you undertake, you must be superior.2. The degree of difficulty that a climber is able to climb with security on the descent and also

Preuss on the first ascent of the Gugliadi Brenta


27/36


28/36

The Piton Dispute

28

Artificial Aid on Alpine RoutesBy Hans Dlfer in Munich

73

[Summary of Alpine Club Discussion Meeting]

The question of the use of artificial aids on alpine routes, stimulated by

the remarks of Dr. P. Preuss, has intensely occupied the circle of alpinistsof late. On the 31

stof January of this year an evening discussion meeting

devoted to this topic took place in the Bavarian chapter of our AlpineClub in Munich. At the request of the editorial staff, in the following

lines I shall report briefly on the proceedings.After a few introductory words from the first chairman of the chapter,

Judge E. Oertel,74

Dr. P. Preuss in brief remarks established his stand-point which is above all laid down in his six guiding principles (cf.

Mitteilungen 1911, No. 23). These guiding principles also formed the

basis for the evening discussion meeting.Herr Franz Nieberl, the first speaker, referred in a few introductorysentences first of all to the relationship of alpinism and rock-climbing

and depicted alpinism as to a certain extent a concept that among otherthings also encompasses rock-climbing. It would not be befitting for

rock-climbing to occupy a position in relation to alpinism that would bejust as independent as the one occupied by, for instance, sporting

snowshoeing. Admittedly, even Nieberl could not close his eyes to thefact that rock-climbing, for instance in Saxon Switzerland, is perfectly

capable of existing for itself alone and being its own raison d'tre.Nieberl's position on the above-mentioned six principles took shape

approximately as follows:With Proposition #1 (You should not be equal to the mountain climbs

you undertake, you should be superior.) Nieberl is in completeagreement, as long as it only comes into consideration for independent

climbers who are in the lead.In order to comply with the principle put forward in Proposition #2

(The degree of difficulty that a climber is able to overcome withsecurity on the descent and also believes himself capable of with an easy

conscience must represent the upper limit of what he climbs on theascent.) Nieberl deems it necessary, as Preuss also emphasizes, to learn

every kletterstelle so well that you virtually know it blindfolded, andeven then in Nieberl's opinion many a kletterstelle will be found that youmay be able to manage with security on the ascent but not on the descent. Incidentally Nieberlgenerally considers climbing on the descent to be easier than on the ascent.

Theoretically, in Nieberl's

opinion, the boundary line drawn by Preuss is correct, but in practice it will not always be feasible.Nieberl concedes the correctness of the 3rd Proposition as well (A justification for the use of artificial

aids consequently only arises in the event of an immediately threatening danger.) but calls for aprecise determination of the term danger. According to Nieberl any kletterstelle that brutallyobstructs further progress on a face that's easily passable everywhere else would also have to beregarded as an immediately threatening danger.

The 4th

Proposition: (The piton is an emergency reserve and not the basis for a method of working.)

Sketch of HansDlfer


29/36

The Piton Dispute

29

is even declared by Nieberl to be self-evident. Piton routes are absolutely to be rejected. For Nieberl a

case of emergency ad with it the justification for the use of pitons arises the instant he does not wantto turn back before the world of rock's occasional bulwark.

Nieberl also gives his complete assent to the principle: The rope is permitted as a relief-bringingmeans but never as the one true means for making the ascent of the mountain possible. Employing the

rope for senseless traverses of otherwise untraversable mountains or for aid with the so-called potato-

sack technique is unwarranted. It may however still be used for example to overcome a singleunclimbable break in the ridge on a longer ridge route. Regarding #4 and #5 Nieberl remarks that thesetting of boundaries between short and long for sections of rappelling and so on has to remain left to

the alpine sense of tact.The 6

thProposition: The highest principle is security, but not the frantic correction of one's own

insecurity attained by means of artificial aids, rather that primary security which is based in the correctestimation of ability in relation to desire, strictly speaking brings nothing new; it only gives expression

to something that's long since been universally recognized as true.Protection however should also be a safeguard against

unforeseen happenstance. Pitons and rope don't provide direct aidin such cases, since the stellen were still climbed free.75

Nieberl also concedes the legitimacy of the principle: only in acase of emergency may one make use of an artificial aid, only he

doesn't want the concept case of emergency to be interpretednarrow-mindedly. Nieberl thinks that Preuss, with his complete

rejection of artificial aid, throws by the wayside just about everyalpinist of significance, every previous alpine textbook, and so

forth, precisely because artificial aids were in fact used byalpinists of the old guard.

In general therefore Nieberl declares himself to be in agreementwith the six basic principles; he even adds that no one who obeys

them exactly will expose himself to subjective dangers. Thedanger doesn't lie in Preuss's theories but rather in their

observance not being correctly carried through by everyone.Along with that would also have to be reckoned that there will be

many, particularly among young mountaineers, whose recklessdaring cannot be checked by any theoretical consideration and

whose intellect, to their own shame, is not capable of grasping thecrux of Preuss's explanations.

To conclude, Nieberl remarked that in the mountains everyoneshould follow their own path to happiness.

This sentiment was also put forward by P. Jacobi, the nextspeaker, in the form that one goes to the mountains in order to

be able to enjoy life to the full and only because it pleases aperson and for rest and relaxation. Jacobi too, regarding

Propositions Four and Five, calls for a more precise explanationof the emergency-term, as well as a clarification as to what the difference between relief-bringing

and the one true means consists in. Jacobi reproaches Preuss: You want this as a rule: no rope and

mauerhakenstreit complete illustrated

Documents