Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Wiktenauer:Main page/Featured"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(77 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{infobox writer
 
{{infobox writer
| name                 = [[name::Jud Lew]]
+
| name                   = Pseudo Ibn Akḥī Ḥizām
| image               =  
+
| image                   =  
| imagesize           =  
+
| imagesize               =  
| caption             =
+
| caption                 =  
 
+
| birthdate               = 10th AH/15th CE century
| pseudonym            =
+
| birthplace             = Egypt? Syria?
| birthname            =  
+
| occupation             = Mamluk scribe?
| birthdate           = before ca. 1440s
+
| nationality             = Circassian Period (“Burjī”) Mamluk
| birthplace           =
+
| influences              = {{plainlist
| deathdate            = unknown
+
  | Mamluk Martial Arts Literature
| deathplace          =
+
  | Lāchin b. ʿAbdallāh al-Ṭarablūsī
| resting_place        =  
+
  | Ibn Akhī Ḥizām
| occupation           = [[Fencing master]]{{#set:occupation=Fencing Master}}
 
| language             = [[language::Early New High German]]
 
| nationality          =
 
| ethnicity            = Jewish
 
| citizenship          =
 
| education            =
 
| alma_mater          =
 
| patron              =
 
 
 
| period              =
 
| genre                = {{plainlist
 
| [[Fencing manual]]
 
| [[Wrestling manual]]
 
}}
 
| subject              =
 
| movement            = [[Johannes Liechtenauer|Liechtenauer Tradition]]
 
| notableworks        =
 
| principal manuscript(s)= {{plainlist
 
| [[Codex Lew (Cod.I.6.4º.3)|Cod.I.6.4º.3]] (1450s)
 
| [[Codex Speyer (MS M.I.29)|MS M.I.29]] (1491)
 
 
}}
 
}}
| manuscript(s)        = {{collapsible list
+
| genre                  = Military manual
| [[Oplodidaskalia sive Armorvm Tractandorvm Meditatio Alberti Dvreri (MS 26-232)|MS 26-232]] (1512)
+
| language                = Arabic, Egyptian Colloquial Arabic
| [[Über die Fechtkunst und den Ringkampf (MS 963)|MS 963]] (1538)
+
| notableworks            =
| [[Opus Amplissimum de Arte Athletica (MS Dresd.C.93/C.94)|MS Dresd.C.94]] (1542)
+
| manuscript(s)           = [[Kitāb al-maḫzūn ğāmi' al-funūn (MS Arabe 2824)|MS Arabe 2824]] (1470)
| [[Opus Amplissimum de Arte Athletica (Cod.icon. 393)|Cod.icon.393]] (1540s)
+
| wiktenauer compilation by=
| [[Opus Amplissimum de Arte Athletica (Cod.10825/10826)|Cod.10826]] (1550s)
 
| [[Maister Liechtenawers Kunstbuech (Cgm 3712)|Cgm 3712]] (1556)
 
| [[Fechtbuch zu Ross und zu Fuss (MS Var.82)|MS Var.82]] (1570-71)
 
 
}}
 
}}
| first printed edition=
+
'''''Kitāb al-makhzūn: Jāmiʿ al-funūn''''' ("The Treasure: A Work that Gathers Together Combative Arts"; colophon dated 875 AH/1470-1CE) is an Arabic language work in the classical style of Mamluk furūsīya literature. The work is attributed to the famous «father» of Islamicate martial arts literature Ibn Akhī Ḥizām (c. 250 AH/ 864 CE; given as Ibn Akhī Khuzām), yet is clearly the work of a Mamluk author. Agnès Carayon suggests that a grandee of the Circassian Mamluk (''Burjī'') court commissioned the work, potentially for Sultan Qāʾitbay (r. 1468-1496). Composite in nature, the work is most likely a summary of other, more voluminous works—such as ''Nihāyat al-suʾl wa-l-amnīya fī taʿlīm aʿmāl al-furūsīya'' ("The End of Questioning: A Trustworthy Work concerning Instruction in the Deeds of Furūsīya") by Al-Aqsarāʾī (c. 9th cent. AH/14th cent CE). Certain sections begin and then trail off, while others remain incomplete, suggesting that this work is composite in nature and was most likely a summary or copy of other works both extant and lost. The author does not cite other authors within the body of the text itself.
| concordance by=[[Michael Chidester]]
 
 
 
| spouse              =
 
| partner              =
 
| children            =
 
| relatives            =
 
| influences          =
 
| influenced          =
 
| awards              =
 
| signature            =
 
| website              =
 
| translations        = {{Spanish translation|http://www.aveh.eu/documentos/EdadMedia/TETRAPTICOV.pdf|1}}
 
| below
 
}}
 
'''Jud Lew''' was a [[century::15th century]] [[nationality::German]] [[fencing master]]. His name signifies that he was Jewish, and he seems to have stood in the tradition of [[Johannes Liechtenauer]], though he was not included in [[Paulus Kal]]'s ca. 1470 list of the members of the [[Fellowship of Liechtenauer]].<ref>The Fellowship of Liechtenauer is recorded in three versions of [[Paulus Kal]]'s treatise: [[Paulus Kal Fechtbuch (MS 1825)|MS 1825]] (1460s), [[Paulus Kal Fechtbuch (Cgm 1507)|Cgm 1570]] (ca. 1470), and [[Paulus Kal Fechtbuch (MS KK5126)|MS KK5126]] (1480s).</ref>
 
 
 
Lew is often erroneously credited with authoring the [[Codex Lew (Cod.I.6.4º.3)|Cod.I.6.4º.3]], an anonymous compilation of various fencing treatises created in the 1450s. In fact, his name is only associated with a single section of that book, a [[gloss]] of [[Johannes Liechtenauer]]'s [[Recital]] on [[mounted fencing]] that is actually one branch of the so-called [[Pseudo-Peter von Danzig]] gloss. Though some versions of [[Martin Huntfeltz]]'s treatise on [[armored fencing]] are also attributed to Lew, this is almost certainly an error.<ref>Jaquet, Daniel; [[Bartłomiej Walczak|Walczak, Bartłomiej]]. "Liegnitzer, Hundsfeld or Lew? The question of authorship of popular Medieval fighting teachings". ''[[Acta Periodica Duellatorum]]'' '''2'''(1): 105-148. 2014. {{doi|10.1515/apd-2015-0015}}.</ref>
 
 
 
== Treatises ==
 
  
Early on in its history, the Pseudo-Peter von Danzig [[gloss]] seems to have split into two or three primary branches, and no definite copies of the unaltered original are known to survive. The gloss of [[Sigmund ain Ringeck]] also seems to be related to this work, due to the considerable overlap in text and contents, but it is currently unclear if Ringeck's gloss is based on that of pseudo-Danzig or if they both derive from an even earlier original gloss (or even if Ringeck and pseudo-Danzig are the same author and the "Ringeck" gloss should be considered Branch D).
+
The text of ''Jāmiʿ al-funūn'' is by and large more classical in nature with a great deal of dialectal, Egyptian Arabic of the period. This pertains both to vocabulary (ex: ''bāṭ'' for ''ibāṭ'' "armpit" throughout; ''jawwān'' as a preposition) as well as to grammar (verbs not in gender alignment, plurality disagreements, grammatical inconsistencies of adverbial phrases etc.). An introductory phrase in Ottoman Turkish in the beginning of the text has it that on «The seventh night of Muharram, 975 AH (1567CE)” a certain “Ṣilāhdār Aǧa” Dervish (unknown) petitioned God to be among those counted as Muhammad’s companions. Likewise, the intricate title page has “The owner of this work is Derviş Ağa” crossed out in black ink. Whether or not this was a higher ranking “Arms-Bearer” of the Sultan cannot be confirmed. The version from which the following translation stems is Bibliothèque Nationale MS 2824 (another version can be found in the same collection: MS 2826). Scholars have yet to produce a critical edition of this work.
  
Branch A, first attested in the [[Codex Lew (Cod.I.6.4º.3)|Augsburg version]] (1450s) and comprising the majority of extant copies, has more devices overall than Branch B but generally shorter descriptions in areas of overlap. It also glosses only Liechtenauer's Recital on long sword and mounted fencing; in lieu of a gloss of Liechtenauer's short sword, it is generally accompanied by the short sword teachings of [[Andre Liegniczer]] and [[Martin Huntfeltz]] (or, in the case of the 1512 [[Oplodidaskalia sive Armorvm Tractandorvm Meditatio Alberti Dvreri (MS 26-232)|Vienna II]], Ringeck's short sword gloss). Apart from the Augsburg, the other principal text in Branch A is the [[Codex Speyer (MS M.I.29)|Salzburg version]] (1491), which was copied independently<ref>Both Augsburg and Salzburg contain significant scribal errors of omission that allow us to identify manuscripts copied from them.</ref> and also incorporates nine paragraphs from Ringeck's gloss and twenty-one paragraphs from an unidentified third source. Branch A was redacted by [[Paulus Hector Mair]] (three mss., 1540s), [[Maister Liechtenawers Kunstbuech (Cgm 3712)|Lienhart Sollinger]] (1556), and [[Fechtbuch zu Ross und zu Fuss (MS Var.82)|Joachim Meyer]] (1570), which despite being the latest is the cleanest extant version and was likely either copied directly from the original or created by comparing multiple versions to correct their errors. It was also one of the bases for [[Johannes Lecküchner]]'s gloss on the [[Messer]] in the late 1470s.
+
Despite its brevity in comparison to other works of the Mamluk furūsīya tradition, Jāmiʿ al-funūn provides a great deal of insight into the ways in which the Mamluks trained their troops. The illustrations featured in the work are some of the best examples of the medium. Distinct from other works in the genre with lengthy introductions, Jāmiʿ al-funūn begins with only minor benedictions, then jumps straight into a description of how to establish the training area for cavalry exercises – the nāwārd. From there, the author displays 72 bunūd or paired lance exercises – most likely inspired by al-Ṭarāblūsī’s famous 72 forms (c . 738 AH / 1337-8 CE). Following this, the author then treats issues deemed relevant to the development of a cavalier, without a particular logic to the ordering of the sections.
  
Branch B, attested first in the [[Codex Danzig (Cod.44.A.8)|Rome version]] (1452), is found in only four manuscripts; it tends to feature slightly longer descriptions than Branch A, but includes fewer devices overall. Branch B glosses Liechtenauer's entire Recital, including the short sword section, and may therefore be considered more complete than Branch A; it also different from Branch A in that three of the four known copies are illustrated to some extent, where none in the other branch are. The [[Goliath (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|Krakow version]] (1510-20) seems to be an incomplete (though extensively illustrated) copy taken from the Rome,<ref>Zabinski, pp 82-83</ref> while [[Hutter/Sollinger Fechtbuch (Cod.I.6.2º.2)|Augsburg II]] (1564) collects only the six illustrated wrestling devices from the Krakow. Even more anomalous is the [[Glasgow Fechtbuch (MS E.1939.65.341)|Glasgow version]] (1508), consisting solely of a nearly complete redaction of the short sword gloss (assigning it to Branch B), which is appended to the opening paragraphs of Ringeck's gloss of the same section; since it accompanies Ringeck's long sword and mounted fencing glosses, a possible explanation is that the scribe lacked a complete copy of Ringeck and tried to fill in the deficit with another similar text.
+
Unlike other works of furūsīya, ''Jāmiʿ al-funūn'' contains several sections detailing the ways in which soldiers can train for combat on foot. Most notably, the author presents a system for training swordsmanship. The work begins with instruction on the ways in which one can execute paired exercises with cane fighting, dagger fighting, and cane and shield fighting on foot. The author details the proper ways to feint and hit, the ways in which one can parry and riposte (and disarm), and where to target with a sword. In the author’s system, training with the cane was a safe means to perfect one’s technique before moving on to using sharp swords in battle. After training with the cane, the author recommends perfecting test cutting on clay mounds as a way to develop arm strength and ensure proper edge alignment. Following  both of these methods of training, a potential cavalier would be ready to pursue test cutting on horseback.
  
([[Jud Lew|Read more]]...)
+
([[Pseudo-Ibn Akḥī Ḥizām|Read more]])
  
<dl>
+
<dl style="clear:right;">
 
<dt style="font-size:90%;">Recently Featured:</dt>
 
<dt style="font-size:90%;">Recently Featured:</dt>
<dd style="font-size:90%;">[[Pseudo-Peter&nbsp;von&nbsp;Danzig]] – [[Martin&nbsp;Syber]] – [[Fiore&nbsp;de'i&nbsp;Liberi]] – [[Sigmund&nbsp;ain&nbsp;Ringeck]]</dd>
+
<dd style="font-size:90%;">[[Andre Paurenfeyndt]]&ensp;&ensp;[[Federico Ghisliero]]&ensp;&ensp;[[Alfonso Fallopia]]&ensp;&ensp;[[Hugold Behr]]&ensp;&ensp;[[Angelo Viggiani]]</dd>
 
</dl>
 
</dl>

Latest revision as of 02:46, 11 March 2025

Pseudo Ibn Akḥī Ḥizām
Born 10th AH/15th CE century
Egypt? Syria?
Occupation Mamluk scribe?
Nationality Circassian Period (“Burjī”) Mamluk
Influences
  • Mamluk Martial Arts Literature
  • Lāchin b. ʿAbdallāh al-Ṭarablūsī
  • Ibn Akhī Ḥizām
Genres Military manual
Language Arabic, Egyptian Colloquial Arabic
Manuscript(s) MS Arabe 2824 (1470)

Kitāb al-makhzūn: Jāmiʿ al-funūn ("The Treasure: A Work that Gathers Together Combative Arts"; colophon dated 875 AH/1470-1CE) is an Arabic language work in the classical style of Mamluk furūsīya literature. The work is attributed to the famous «father» of Islamicate martial arts literature Ibn Akhī Ḥizām (c. 250 AH/ 864 CE; given as Ibn Akhī Khuzām), yet is clearly the work of a Mamluk author. Agnès Carayon suggests that a grandee of the Circassian Mamluk (Burjī) court commissioned the work, potentially for Sultan Qāʾitbay (r. 1468-1496). Composite in nature, the work is most likely a summary of other, more voluminous works—such as Nihāyat al-suʾl wa-l-amnīya fī taʿlīm aʿmāl al-furūsīya ("The End of Questioning: A Trustworthy Work concerning Instruction in the Deeds of Furūsīya") by Al-Aqsarāʾī (c. 9th cent. AH/14th cent CE). Certain sections begin and then trail off, while others remain incomplete, suggesting that this work is composite in nature and was most likely a summary or copy of other works both extant and lost. The author does not cite other authors within the body of the text itself.

The text of Jāmiʿ al-funūn is by and large more classical in nature with a great deal of dialectal, Egyptian Arabic of the period. This pertains both to vocabulary (ex: bāṭ for ibāṭ "armpit" throughout; jawwān as a preposition) as well as to grammar (verbs not in gender alignment, plurality disagreements, grammatical inconsistencies of adverbial phrases etc.). An introductory phrase in Ottoman Turkish in the beginning of the text has it that on «The seventh night of Muharram, 975 AH (1567CE)” a certain “Ṣilāhdār Aǧa” Dervish (unknown) petitioned God to be among those counted as Muhammad’s companions. Likewise, the intricate title page has “The owner of this work is Derviş Ağa” crossed out in black ink. Whether or not this was a higher ranking “Arms-Bearer” of the Sultan cannot be confirmed. The version from which the following translation stems is Bibliothèque Nationale MS 2824 (another version can be found in the same collection: MS 2826). Scholars have yet to produce a critical edition of this work.

Despite its brevity in comparison to other works of the Mamluk furūsīya tradition, Jāmiʿ al-funūn provides a great deal of insight into the ways in which the Mamluks trained their troops. The illustrations featured in the work are some of the best examples of the medium. Distinct from other works in the genre with lengthy introductions, Jāmiʿ al-funūn begins with only minor benedictions, then jumps straight into a description of how to establish the training area for cavalry exercises – the nāwārd. From there, the author displays 72 bunūd or paired lance exercises – most likely inspired by al-Ṭarāblūsī’s famous 72 forms (c . 738 AH / 1337-8 CE). Following this, the author then treats issues deemed relevant to the development of a cavalier, without a particular logic to the ordering of the sections.

Unlike other works of furūsīya, Jāmiʿ al-funūn contains several sections detailing the ways in which soldiers can train for combat on foot. Most notably, the author presents a system for training swordsmanship. The work begins with instruction on the ways in which one can execute paired exercises with cane fighting, dagger fighting, and cane and shield fighting on foot. The author details the proper ways to feint and hit, the ways in which one can parry and riposte (and disarm), and where to target with a sword. In the author’s system, training with the cane was a safe means to perfect one’s technique before moving on to using sharp swords in battle. After training with the cane, the author recommends perfecting test cutting on clay mounds as a way to develop arm strength and ensure proper edge alignment. Following both of these methods of training, a potential cavalier would be ready to pursue test cutting on horseback.

(Read more…)

Recently Featured:
Andre Paurenfeyndt – Federico Ghisliero – Alfonso Fallopia – Hugold Behr – Angelo Viggiani