Talk:Sigmund ain Ringeck

Work	Author(s)	Source	License
Glasgow Illustrations	Unknown
Translation (Long Sword)	Christian Trosclair	Wiktenauer
Translation (Long Sword)	Keith Farrell	Academy of Historical Arts (AHA)
Translation (Long and Short Sword)	David Rawlings	Historical European Martial Arts Coalition (HEMAC)
Translation (Long and Short Sword)	Jörg Bellinghausen	Association for Renaissance Martial Arts (ARMA)
Translation (Mounted)	Stephen Cheney	Wiktenauer
Salzburg Transcription	Dierk Hagedorn	Index:Codex Speyer (MS M.I.29)
Dresden Transcription	Dierk Hagedorn	Index:Johan Liechtnawers Fechtbuch geschriebenn (MS Dresd.C.487)
Glasgow Transcription	Dierk Hagedorn	Index:Glasgow Fechtbuch (MS E.1939.65.341)
Vienna Transcription	Dierk Hagedorn	Index:Oplodidaskalia sive Armorvm Tractandorvm Meditatio Alberti Dvreri (MS 26-232)
Augsburg Transcription	Werner Ueberschär	Index:Rast Fechtbuch (Reichsstadt "Schätze" Nr. 82)
Rostock Transcription	Dierk Hagedorn	Index:Fechtbuch zu Ross und zu Fuss (MS Var.82)

Transcription Notes (Salzburg Version)

Annotations

This is the transcription of an Early High German manuscript from 1491 which mentions the name of the author, Hans von Speyer, a couple of times (foll. 44r, 117r, 158r). The original with the number M.I.29 belongs to the Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg.

The transcription

The transcription follows the original as closely as possible. I have not dissolved the letter "v" in either "u" or "v". Abbreviations, duplication characters or other special characters remain mostly intact - considering the restraints of internet typography. Therefore I have reproduced the two most common abbreviations – a tailed "e" and an over-lined "e" (short for "en") in both cases as "e~". A specific peculiarity is the scribe's habit to write almost every single time "lb" instead of "w", so he writes rather "haulb" than "hauw" which one might expect. Additionally, there are several initial lines written in a much smaller size before the the actual verses by Liechtenauer and Lecküchner (written in red) start. Possibly the rubrication was done afterwards and the small lines helped to identify the correct spot to insert them into.

Capitalization according to modern standards (particularly in the German language) is rather vague, to say the least. Occasionally, a single word is capitalized for emphasis in mid-sentence, frequently words with an initial "i". In many cases it is very hard to make out the difference between small and capital letters so one could only guess sometimes.

Like various other manuscripts from the similar time-frame this one represents a collection of different authors about different aspects of fighting and fencing. The present codex is in essential parts very similar to the Jude Lew manuscript (Codex I 6 4° 3, Universitätsbibliothek Augsburg). Like that manuscript, Hans von Speyer shows basically the same deviations and similarities in comparison to the vast codex 44 A 8 (so-called Peter von Danzig manuscript). In contrast to the Jude Lew manuscript however the present codex offers no sword and buckler fighting at all but instead features a complete version of Ott's wrestling. Additionally, it contains an edition of Johannes Lecküchner's techniques with the "langes messer". This increases the extent of the manuscript enormeously; almost half of the 158 leaves (of which some are empty) covers master Lecküchner's art (foll. 46r – 117r). Consequently M.I.29 – together with the aforementioned codex 44 A 8 – belongs to the most substantial text-only fencing treatises.

Dierk Hagedorn, June 2009

Transcription Notes (Dresden Version)

Anmerkungen

Dieses ist die Transkription einer Handschrift aus dem 15. Jahrhundert, die dem Fechtmeister Sigmund Ringeck zugeschrieben wird. Das Original befindet sich unter der Bezeichnung Mscr. Dresd. C 487 in der Sächsischen Landesbibliothek Dresden.

Die Handschrift Sigmund Ringecks ist - neben den Handschriften des bekannten mittelalterlichen Fechtmeisters Hans Talhoffer - möglicherweise das populärste unter den erhaltenen Fechtbüchern. Ein Grund hierfür ist sicherlich, daß Martin Wierschin bereits 1965 sein Buch »Meister Johann Liechtenauers Kunst des Fechtens« herausgebracht hat, welches die Handschrift detailliert untersucht und beschreibt. Weiterhin sind bereits illustrierte Rekonstruktionen des Ringeck-Manuskripts erschienen: Zum einen Christian H. Toblers »Secrets of German Medieval Swordsmanship«, in dem er alle Kampftechniken anhand von Schwarz-weiß-Fotos darstellt, und zum anderen die aus zwei Bänden bestehende gezeichnete Rekonstruktion von David Lindholm und Peter Svärd (»Sigmund Ringeck’s Knightly Arts of the Longsword« und »Sigmund Ringeck’s Knightly Arts of Combat«).

Die Handschrift stellt wie andere Manuskripte des ähnlichen Zeitraums eine Sammlung unterschiedlicher Disziplinen des Fechtens dar. Anders als vergleichbare Sammelhandschriften (44 A 8, Jude Lew, Hans von Speyer) wird den jeweiligen Abschnitten kein individueller Autor zugeordnet. Somit entsteht der Eindruck, asl sei das gesamte Manuskript ein Werk Ringecks, der auf fol. 11r namentlich erwähnt wird. Zum Teil wortidentische Passagen finden sich aber in anderen Handschriften als Werke von z.B. Andre Lignitzer (Schwert und Buckler), Ringen (Meister Ott) etc.

Martin Wierschin und Hans-Peter Hils datieren die Handschrift auf die erste Hälfte des 15. Jahrhunderts. Hils unterstellt dem Autor der Handschrift 44 A 8 (bekannt als Peter-von-Danzig-Manuskript), aus der Ringeck-Handschrift kopiert zu haben. Rainer Welle weist jedoch nach, daß diese zeitliche Abfolge falsch ist und daß im Gegenteil Ringeck der Plagiator des 44 A 8 sei. Die Möglichkeit, daß die Schreiber beider Handschriften sich einer – unbekannten – dritten Quelle bedienten, wäre eine weitere Möglichkeit. Vgl. Hierzu Hans-Peter Hils (Meister Johann Liechtenauers Kunst des langen Schwertes, S. 54–57, S. 110–112), Rainer Welle (»… und wisse das alle höbischeit kompt von deme ringen«, S. 56–65) und Martin Wierschin (Meister Johann Liechtenauers Kunst des Fechtens, S. 14, S. 81).

Zur Transkription

Wierschin bietet in seinem Buch bereits eine vollständige Transkription, bei der er allerdings eine weitere Quelle herangezogen hat, nämlich die Handschrift 3227a des Nürnberger Germanischen Nationalmuseums. Aus dieser Handschrift hat er viele der Flüchtigkeitsfehler und Fehlstellen im Ringeck-Manuskript korrigiert und ergänzt. Er hat weiterhin die Orthographie leicht angepaßt, eine (moderne) Interpunktion eingeführt und die zahlreichen Abkürzungen aufgelöst.

Die vorliegende Transkription verzichtet auf all dies und folgt dem Original so weit wie möglich. Daraus ergibt sich zwar eine im Vergleich zu Wierschins Edition weniger flüssige Lesbarkeit, dafür aber bietet sich hiermit ein quasi unverfälschter Blick auf Ringeck - soweit dies mit den eingeschränkten typographischen Mitteln des Internets möglich ist.

Das Originalmanuskript ist weit weniger sorgfältig geschrieben als etwa die Handschrift 44 A 8 oder der Codex I.6.4^o.3 (Jude Lew). Es tauchen deutlich mehr Abkürzungen aber auch durchgestrichene und korrigierte Textstellen auf. Dem Schreiber sind außerdem zahlreiche weitere Fehler unterlaufen, die aber unkorrigiert geblieben sind.

Bei der Foliierung hat der Schreiber das Blatt 82 vergessen. Martin Wierschin verwendet ab hier eine korrigierte Foliierung, die er in kursiver Schrift wiedergibt. Dem folge ich auch hier, stelle aber in Klammern die originale Foliozahl dahinter.)

Die Handschrift ist, bevor die Folio-Numerierung angelegt wurde, neu gebunden worden, wobei einige Blätter durcheinander greaten sind. Wierschin hat bereits foll. 124r(123r)–125v(124v) korrekt zwischen fol. 47v und fol. 48r eingeordnet. Unbemerkt geblieben ist aber ein weiterer Bogen (123r/v(122r/v) und 126r/v(125r/v)), der eigentlich zwischen fol. 101v(100v) und 103r(102r) gehört.

Die Transkription orientiert sich so getreu wie möglich am Original. Der Buchstabe »v« wird nicht in »u« oder »v« aufgelöst. Abbreviaturen, Verdoppelungs- oder andere Sonderzeichen oberhalb eines Buchstabens bleiben weitgehend erhalten. Die häufigsten Abkürzungen, die durch einen geschwungenen Strich über einem Vokal gekennzeichnet sind, werden hier als zwei Zeichen wiedergeben: z.B. »e~« für »en«, »em« oder »er«. Die Groß- und Kleinschreibung ist, gemessen an modernen Standards, recht willkürlich. Gelegentlich wird mitten im Satz unvermittelt ein Wort durch ein Versal hervorgehoben, gerne bei Worten, die mit einem »i« beginnen. In vielen Fällen ist der Unterschied zwichen Majuskel und Minuskel so gering, daß nur geraten warden konnte, was ursprünglich gemeint war.

Quellen

Hans-Peter Hils: Meister Johann Liechtenauers Kunst des langen Schwertes. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Lang, 1985
David Lindholm, Peter Svärd: Sigmund Ringeck’s Knightly Arts of the Longsword. Boulder, Colorado: Paladin Press, 2003
David Lindholm, Peter Svärd: Sigmund Ringeck’s Knightly Arts of Combat. Boulder, Colorado: Paladin Press, 2006
Christian Henry Tobler: Secrets of German Medieval Swordsmanship. Chivalry Bookshelf, 2001
Rainer Welle: »… und wise das alle höbischeit kompt von deme ringen«. Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus, 1993
Martin Wierschin: Meister Johann Liechtenauers Kunst des Fechtens. München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1965

Transcription Notes (Glasgow Version)

Annotations

This is the transcription of a partially illustrated manuscript from 1508. The original with the number E.1939.65.341 belongs to the R. L. Scott Collection, Glasgow. Due to copyright restraints, I cannot show the according images, therefore this is a text-only version.

The manuscript

Like other manuscripts from a similar timeframe this one is a collection of various authors writing about various aspects of fencing. The present codex is remarkable insofar as it offers similarities to a number of manuscripts from the 15th century.

• The text for the longsword in the version of Sigmund Emring is identical to the Sigmund Ringeck mansucript from Dresden (Mscr. Dresd. C 487) in most respects. Interestingly, Paulus Kal mentions on fol. 2r in his manuscript from Munich (Cgm 1507) a certain master Sigmund Amring as being a member of the Gesellschaft Liechtenauers (Liechtenauer's society). In the Ringeck manuscript the author is introduced as "Sigmund ain ringeck".
• The additional longsword pieces appear also in the Ringeck manuscript. Here they are executed from "eiserne pforte" (iron gate), there from "nebenhut" (side guard).
• The techniques of the second wrestling section from the Glasgow manuscript are similar to those by Andre Lignitzer from the manuscript 44 A 8 (so-called Peter von Danzig). However, here his name is not mentioned.
• The techniques for the buckler specify Andre Lignitzer as the author, which is different from the Ringeck or the Jude Lew manuscripts (Augsburg, Cod. I 6 4° 3). These two codices do not mention a name at all.
• Martin Siber's text about longsword fencing appear only in one other manuscript: Hans von Speyer (Salzburg, M.I.29).
• The fighting techniqus of the other masters (»Andres Juden Jobs von der Nyssen Nicklass prewsñ Hans pfaffen Döbringers«) appear in a single other manuscript too: Cod. Hs. 3227a from Nuremberg. The Glasgow fechtbuch clarifies finally that the pfaffe (priest) Hans (or Hanko) Döbringer is only one master among others and by no means the author of 3227a, a misconception for quite some time.
• Unlike most of the other manuscripts (3227a, Ringeck, Jude Lew, Hans von Speyer) the present codex features the so-called figures – brief passages in circles preceding Liechtenauer's fighting on horseback. Only the manuscript 44 A 8 shows them in circles too; and the Jude Lew manuscript places them in front in text only.
• Different from the versions of Jude Lew or Hans von Speyer the Glasgow manuscript mentions Johannes Liechtenauer as the author of the kampffechten and the fighting on horseback sections.
• The text about fighting on horseback is less extensive than in the codex 44 A 8 but more substantial than offered by Lew.
• The fechtbuch from Glasgow is a compendium from various sources and provides connections to numerous additional fencing treatises but without following a single example. Earlier fechtbücher feature a diversity of segments that might have served as sources in order to create a completely new compilation.

The manuscript is partially illustrated, namely the two chapters about Johannes Liechtenauer's techniques with the longsword, following the edition of Sigmund Emring, and the first wrestling section of an anonymous author (two further wrestling sections remain without images). This is a particular speciality, since this manuscript is – until now – the earliest known illustrated version of Liechtenauer's teachings concerning the longsword. The so-called Goliath manuscript (Ms. Germ. Quart. 2020, Krakow from about 1510–1520) offers images too. It presents 38 in the longsword section whereas the Glaswegian manuscript only offers 31. However, the first leaves are missing which according to expectations and experience would have covered the techniques from the zornhau and the krumphau. The two illustrated parts show a significant difference in quality: The longsword section is quite colourful but only roughly drawn, the wrestling techniques are rendered with more anatomical detail but only in reds and yellows – with two exceptions. Rainer Leng has identified six illustrators in total.

The transcription

The transcription follows the original as closely as possible. I have not dissolved the letter "v" in either "u" or "v". Abbreviations, duplication characters or other special characters remain mostly intact - considering the restraints of internet typography. Frequently occuring signs above "u" or "w" that indicate either a distinction from "n" or usage as a vowel remain usually disregarded, occasionally the differences to other characters of distinction are rather subtle.

Due to bookbinding and cropping processes some minor parts of the text are missing. I have tried to fill in these gaps as good as possible in square brackets.

I am profoundly indebted to Jeffrey Hull. Without his substantial help and support this project would not have been possible. Thank you very much.

Dierk Hagedorn, July 2009

Source

Rainer Leng (compiler): Katalog der deutschsprachigen illustrierten Handschriften des Mittelalters, Band 4/2, Lieferung 1/2 – 38. Fecht- und Ringbücher. C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 2008

Transcription Notes (Augsburg Version)

Die Handschrift

Die Handschrift stammt aus der Sammlung von Paulus Hector Mair, einem leidenschaftlichen Sammler von Fechthandschriften und selbst Herausgeber eines Kompendiums „de Arte Athletica“ über die Fechtkunst.
Es handelt sich nach Paulus Hector Mair eigenen Angaben um die Abschrift der Bücher des Meister Anthony Rast, Schwertfeger von Nürnberg und Meister des langen Schwerts, gestorben im Alter von über 70 Jahren im Jahr 1549.
Die im 16. Jhd angefertigte Abschrift entspricht inhaltlich den Fechthandschriften des 15. Jhd.
Über den Verbleib der Originalvorlagen ist nichts bekannt. Diese dürften somit als verloren gelten.

Es gibt eine Namensähnlichkeit mit einem in der ebenfalls aus der Sammlung Mair stammenden Handschrift I.6.2°.5 erwähnten Nürnberger Meister der Marxbrüder Anthoni Rasch bzw. Resch (1522 als neu gewählter Hauptmann und 1534 als "in der Herbstmeß das meß gewandt und alles was dazu gehört von den maistern auß den Clostern genomen worden und haben die münch quitiert")

Weitere Informationen über Antonius Rast sind bisher nicht bekannt.

Transkription

Transkribierte Inhalte

Die Transkription beschränkt sich auf die Bereiche der Fechthandschrift, welche das Bloßfechten zum Thema haben. Diese Techniken dürften für die Mehrzahl der ausübenden Fechter relevanter sein als der Kampf zu Roß oder im Harnisch.

Bisher übertragen wurden:

• „Eigenschaften eines Fechters“ und Anmerkungen von Paulus Hector Mair
• Liechtenauer Lehre im Langen Schwert
• Bildunterschriften zum Ringen, Degen, Messer, Langen Schwert und der Stange

Vorgehensweise bei der Transkription

• Die Abbreviaturen, bis auf wenige Ausnahmen am Satzende stehend, wurden in runder Klammer aufgelöst. Beispiel: (en)
• Buchstaben und Wörter, welche nicht eindeutig lesbar, aber mit einer gewissen Wahrscheinlichkeit deutbar sind, wurden in eckige Klammer gesetzt. Beispiel: [a]
• Buchstaben und Wörter, die kaum lesbar und auch schwer zu deuten sind, wurden in eckige Klammer gesetzt und mit einem "?" verstärkt. Beispiel: [ce?]
• Ein unklarer Wortsinn wurde mit einem folgenden Fragezeichen in eckiger Klammer gekennzeichnet. Beispiel: [?]
• Anmerkungen zur Vorlage wurden in eine kursive eckige Klammer gesetzt. Beispiel: [kursiv]
• Anmerkungen zur Vorlage oder zu einzelnen Textinhalten wurden kursiv als Fußnote_[1] gesetzt, wenn diese den Textfluß beeinträchtigen.
• Da sich bei gleicher Schreibweise Minuskeln und Majuskeln am Wortanfang nur schwer auf Grund ihrer Größe unterscheiden lassen, wurde zumeist die Minuskel verwendet. Bei einer eindeutigen Unterscheidung in der Schreibweise von Buchstaben wurden entsprechend diese als Majuskel wieder gegeben.
• ü in der Schreibweise mit v wurde grundsätzlich nach v aufgelöst, da sich dadurch der Wortsinn in der Regel nicht verändert.
• Auf die Wiedergabe von Umlauten, insbesondere über dem „u“ wurde verzichtet.
• Da sich die Buchstaben c und t in der Schreibweise mit z in der Vorlage nicht unterscheiden lassen, wurde hier grundsätzlich nach cz aufgelöst.
• Die im Text vorhandenen Satzzeichen wurden, soweit in der Vorlage erkennbar und von Tinten- und Altersflecken im Papier unterscheidbar, übernommen. Da eine Unterscheidung zwischen Komma und Punkt in der Vorlage schwierig ist, wurde hier zumeist ein Punkt wiedergegeben.
• Da die verwendete Vorlage in schwarz-weiß ist, kann keine Aussage über die verwendeten Schriftfarben getroffen werden. Die Vorlage läßt nur vermuten, daß es farbliche Hervorhebungen gibt. Dies betrifft z.B. die „Glosa“, die in der Transkription zur besseren Textgliederung grundsätzlich fett dargestellt wird.

Transcription Notes (Rostock Version)

Introduction

Late in 2014, the Universitätsbibliothek Rostock published the digitized colour scans of Mss. var. 82, an important manuscript by the hand of fencing master Joachim Meyer (ca. 1537–1571). He was among those pioneers that were the first to ever publish a fencing manual in print. The first edition of his magnum opus “Gründtliche Beschreibung der Kunst des Fechtens” (Thorough Description of the Art of Fencing) was published in 1570. Before—with very few exceptions—fencing knowledge was passed on in the form of handwritten manuscripts. Nevertheless Joachim Meyer produced two manuscripts himself: One voluptuous, representative volume with numerous full-page colour images around 1560 (MS A.4º.2, currently held in Lunds Universitets Bibliotek in Lund, Sweden), and another one—the one present here—that seems to have served as his personal exemplar, copied from various sources in 1570.
Apart from the last section, which is Meyer’s very own take on how to fence with the rapier, this manuscript is another specimen of those vast compendia that consist of numerous fighting techniques by various masters: We encounter unarmoured fencing with the sword as well as in armour; there’s wrestling and fighting on horseback; and also dagger plays and techniques for sword and buckler are depicted.
One of the most intriguing aspects are master Johannes Liechtenauer’s teachings with the sword that can be found twice: Once in an edition (so to speak) of Sigmund Einring (also erroneously known as Ringeck), and once in a version that is similar to the one from the so-called Jude Lew manuscript (Cod. I 6 4o 3, Universitätsbibliothek Augsburg) or that from the so-called Hans von Speyer codex (M.I.29, Universitätsbibliothe Salzburg). The former is furthermore most interesting since quite frequently the text says: “als hie gemalt stet” (as it is painted here).
All this suggests that Meyer copied from various sources—one of them obviously (or possibly) illustrated. His copy however does not contain any such images.
Meyer’s Einring version is a rather abridged one, particularly in comparison to the famous so-called Ringeck manuscript from the Sächsische Landesbibliothek Dresden (Mscr. Dresd. C 487). Major portions of the corpus are missing.
The version that is similar to the Jude Lew manuscript is much more complete, and in fact this similarity goes beyond when we look at the following sections that seem to be a verbatim copy of other sections from Lew, including armoured combat by an anonymous author and by Mertein Huntzfeltz (which is attributed to Andre Lignitzer in the manuscript 44A8, Biblioteca dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei e Corsiniana, Rome).
Apart from that, Meyer seems to have copied rather randomly what he could lay his hands on like for instance very brief excerpts from Liechtenauer’s wrestling in armour that are stacked completely out of context between Huntzfeltz’ armoured combat and some notes on fighting on horseback on fol. 74v/75r.
Another section about the dagger, fol. 76r–86r, is interesting insiofar as it shows no particular resemblance to any other master we are currently aware of—and it addresses the student in the second person singular and plural, thus differing from any other source.
Possibly Joachim Meyer was a bit absent-minded when we look at fol. 94v/95r and 96r/v which present exactly the same text about wrestling on horseback twice.
Particularly interesting is the name of a fencing master called Pegnitzer that appears on fol. 94r. His teachings do not appear in any other fencing manual but his name is nevertheless familiar to us on account of his membership to the “Gesellschaft Liechtenauers” (Liechtenauer’s society), as listed by fencing master Pauls Kal in his manuscripts (Ms. 1825, University Library Bologna; Cgm 1507, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Munich; KK 5126, Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna).

The entire volume seems to have been written by one hand, quite likely Joachim Meyer’s own, although the two last sections differ in style. Both parts deal with the rapier: The first one seems to be an adaptation of the messer to be compatible to the new weapon that became modern at the time. It is written in a more stately, less fluent and cursive style than the rest of the manuscript. The handwriting however deteriorates considerably on the last pages as if it was done in a hurry or by an increasingly ill person. Nevertheless, this section is frequently annotated in the very same style of handwriting that is responsible for the bulk of the manuscript.
The last section shows yet another style in writing. It also describes the rapier and is of Meyer’s own invention which he has composed of various sources as he states on the preface page on fol. 123r, which also bears the date 1570.
It may be possible however, that the major part was written somewhat earlier. When we compare the style of writing to the second manuscript that has survived from Joachim Meyer’s hand, the one from Lund which is dated to the 1560s, we notice a stunning similarity.
The largest part of the manuscript, from fol. 6–110, is written in one homogenous and clear hand, with only very few deletions or corrections. Occasionally, there’s a marginal note, mostly in Liechtenauer’s horsefighting, where the text is segmented by horizontal lines with the words “end” and “anfang” (beginning) next to them. Some portions of the text are crossed out. Whether this indicates that the manuscript served as a blueprint for another volume and edited sections were marked in that way is only an assumption that cannot be ascertained.

The transcription follows the text as closely as possible. The specialties of capitalisation are maintained, but it was not always clear whether a single glyph was meant to be upper or lower case. When in doubt, lowercase was preferred, except in the beginning of a sentence.
Since the letters “n” and “u” look almost identical in handwriting, the scribe used a demicircle above the “u” for differentiation. This symbol is not maintained here since the modern typeface used makes the difference quite clear.
The vocal letter “y” is written as an umlaut througout the manuscript. The dots are omitted here, and “ÿ” appears as “y”.
The ligature for “sch” is written in a condensed form so that the “c” between “s” and “h” is hardly noticable—if at all. Nevertheless, the transcription writes “sch”.
Another combination that frequently appears in the transcription is “tz”. It was not always clear whether the scribe intended to write “cz” or “tz”. When in doubt, I opted for “tz”.
Other abbreviations, such as “ẽ”, mostly indicating a missing final “n”, have not been resolved in order to keep as much character of the original text intact as possible.
The text is structured by commas and full stops. It was not always possible to determine whether a spot omn the page was meant to be a comma, a full stop—or whether it was just that: a spot.
The manuscript has not preserved its original size, the pages have been cut at the outer margins, resulting in an occasional slight loss of text material. Additions to the text that I made in an attempt to restore the original are set in square brackets [].
The foliation of the transcription follows the modern one in pencil, that is written in the centre at the bottom of each recto page. Another, older foliation at the top right corner of these pages is partially or even completely lost due to the clipping the manuscript had to suffer from. This old, possibly contemporary foliation is lesser by four than the current one in the beginning, or by three (around fol. 83), or by two (from about fol. 107 onwards).

Dierk Hagedorn, 24th February 2015
(Joachim Meyer’s 444th day of death)

Catalog quotes

Hils 153-7:

Textual transmissions depending on Sigmund Ringeck

Sigmund Ringeck and his followers

No autograph has survived from Liechtenauer himself (cf. the description of HK 41); the first written fixation of the doctrine comes from the hand of the priest Hanko Döbringer. According to the current state of research, it is not possible to say to what extent editorial falsifications must be attributed to the priest, because the first noteworthy copy of Liechtenauer's teachings can be found almost 50 years later in the manuscript created in the first half of the 15th century Sigmund Ringecks (HK 16), who at the time of the codification was 'the high-born prince and herrenn, hern Aulbrecht, Palatinate gray by Rin and hertzog in Bavaria, schirmaister'.

Peter von Danzig copied his manuscript (HK 42) to Ringeck, adopting not only the core parts of Liechtenauer's teachings but also Ringeck's glosses and giving the impression that they were his own. However, there are also texts attributed to the two fencing masters Andreas Liegnitzer and Martin Hundfeld. Not only is it striking that the six pieces for Liegnitzer's buckler fencing and the art of ringing attributed to him correspond verbatim with Ringeck's notation, but also that Hundfeld's art of fencing seems to have broken out of Ringeck's block of text. So if Liegnitzer and Hundfeld had their own manuscripts that are now missing or lost, they should be included in an overall stemmatization as missing links.

Both Ringeck and Peter von Danzig comment on Liechtenauer's text in the same wording that he not only 'did and made the knightly art of the long sword', but that he 'had written the zedel Lauszen with hidden and covered words'. However, since Peter von Danzig copied Ringeck, only Ringeck's statement can be used to clarify the question of whether Liechtenauer's teaching was written down on his behalf, with his silent toleration (although controlling it through his presence), or only after his death. I have already indicated in the description of the original manuscript (HK 41) that the latter can possibly be ruled out.

The following can be considered for the other two possibilities: The fact that Ringeck wrote with a consciousness of historical distance has already been explained with regard to the dating in the comment on his manuscript (HK 16). But either his manuscript was created when direct access to the master was still possible via one of the personal students of the old master (the priest Hanko?) and news about his person could be passed on, or Ringeck obtained his information on fencing theory essentially from Hanko's manuscript, whereby he was aware of his "serving" role and naturally assumed that he had written on behalf of Liechtenauer. I don't think a clear decision is possible. The only thing that is certain is that Liechtenauer's teachings were written down by Döbringer and that both Ringeck and Peter von Danzig could have known this.

The manuscript attributed to the Jew Lew (HK 5) was created at about the same time as the manuscript of Peter von Danzig (HK 42), which was probably copied from Peter's fencing book. All of Liegnitzer's fencing art and large parts of Hundfeld's art are attributed to the Jew, while Ott and his ring art are listed by name, but without the postmortem blessing formula and with the disrespectful-sounding addition: 'who was a baptized Jew'.

I assume that the manuscripts of Master Ringeck, Peter von Danzig and Lew, as well as the fencing teachings of Liegnitzer and Hundfeld, were all created within a narrow period of time, spanning at most three decades. This assumption is supported not only by the palaeographic findings for all the manuscripts viewed, but also by the following consideration: The uninterrupted transition of the text block of the Liechtenauer teachings from one master to the other, hardly accompanied by losses, suggests the conclusion that the transmission under the effect of the personal contact between one and the other or even several at the same time. With this consideration, however, not only a possible geographical migration of the codified texts in the luggage of their owners or authors has to be considered, but also the dialect-based notation. However, since it is usually not the dialect of the place of writing that influences and shapes the text, but rather that of the writer, the dialectal characteristics of a text should not be given excessive weight in this context.

The next verifiable copy, which also represents a faithful copy of Lew's fencing book, came about only in 1491 by Hans von Speyer (HK 43); In addition, however, the knife fencing theory of Lecküchner (HK 24), created in 1478, was also completely adopted. The resulting compilation - deletion of Liegnitzer's name while retaining his teachings and the text block of Lew's horse fencing, which can be regarded as an archetype - is easy to identify because of its specific text constellation and can be traced back to the middle of the 16th century to Paulus Hector Mair's fencing compendiums (HK 15, 34 and 51) as well as the Munich Cgm 3712 (HK 39).