Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Lew"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 65: Line 65:
 
== Stemma ==
 
== Stemma ==
  
Early on in its history, the prototype of the Pseudo-Peter von Danzig gloss seems to have split into at least three 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 a fourth branch).
+
Early on in its history, the prototype of the [[Pseudo-Peter von Danzig]] gloss seems to have split into at least three 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 a fourth branch).
  
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 plays 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 Lignitzer]] and [[Martin Huntsfeld]] (or, in the case of the 1512 [[Oplodidaskalia sive Armorvm Tractandorvm Meditatio Alberti Dvreri (MS 26-232)|Vienna II]], Ringeck's short sword gloss). Branch A is sometimes called the [[Lew]] gloss, based on a potential attribution at the end of the mounted gloss in a few copies. 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 twelve paragraphs from Ringeck's gloss and nineteen 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.
+
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 plays 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 Lignitzer]] and [[Martin Huntsfeld]] (or, in the case of the 1512 [[Oplodidaskalia sive Armorvm Tractandorvm Meditatio Alberti Dvreri (MS 26-232)|Vienna II]], Ringeck's short sword gloss). Branch A is sometimes called the '''[[Lew]]''' gloss, based on a potential attribution at the end of the mounted gloss in a few copies. 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 twelve paragraphs from Ringeck's gloss and nineteen 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.
  
Branch B, attested first in the [[Starhemberg Fechtbuch (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 plays 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 differs 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 Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|Krakow version]] (1535-40) 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 plays 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 which begins with seven paragraphs of unknown origin. The other version of Branch B is the Vienna, which includes the mounted and short sword sections but omits the long sword in favor of Branch C. A fifth manuscript, the [[Falkner Turnierbuch]], is known to have once existed but seems to have been destroyed in the Siege of Strasbourg.
+
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 plays 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 differs in that three of the four known copies are illustrated to some extent, where none in the other branches are. Branch B is the one most commonly identified with '''pseudo-Danzig''', because it is entirely anonymous and lacks any clues for other attribution. The [[Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|Krakow version]] (1535-40) 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 plays 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 which begins with seven paragraphs of unknown origin. The other version of Branch B is the Vienna, which includes the mounted and short sword sections but omits the long sword in favor of Branch C. A fifth manuscript, the [[Falkner Turnierbuch]], is known to have once existed but seems to have been destroyed in the Siege of Strasbourg.
  
Branch C is first attested in the [[Paulus Kal Fechtbuch (MS KK5126)|Vienna version]] (1480s). It is unclear whether it was derived independently from the original, represents an intermediate evolutionary step between Branches A and B, or was created by simply merging copies of the other branches together. The structure and contents of this branch very closely align with Branch B, lacking most of the unique plays of Branch A and including the gloss of the short sword, but the actual text is more consistent with that of Branch A (though not identical). The other substantial copy of Branch C is the [[Rast Fechtbuch (Reichsstadt "Schätze" Nr. 82)|Augsburg version II]] (1553), which was created by Paulus Hector Mair based on the writings of [[Antonius Rast]], and which segues into the text of [[Sigmund ain Ringeck|Ringeck]]'s gloss for the final eighteen paragraphs. A substantial fragment of Branch C is present in five additional 16th century manuscripts alongside the illustrated treatise of [[Jörg Wilhalm Hutter]]; one of these, [[Gregor Erhart Fechtbuch (MS E.1939.65.354)|Glasgow II]] (1533) assigns the text a much earlier origin, stating that it was devised by one [[Nicolaüs Augsburger|Nicolaüs]] in 1489. This branch has received the least attention and is currently the least understood.
+
Branch C is first attested in the [[Paulus Kal Fechtbuch (MS KK5126)|Vienna version]] (1480s). It is unclear whether it was derived independently from the original, represents an intermediate evolutionary step between Branches A and B, or was created by simply merging copies of those two branches together. The structure and contents of this branch align closely with Branch B, lacking most of the unique plays of Branch A, but the actual text is more consistent with that of Branch A (though not identical). The other mostly-complete copy of Branch C is the [[Rast Fechtbuch (Reichsstadt "Schätze" Nr. 82)|Augsburg version II]] (1553), which was created by Paulus Hector Mair based on the writings of [[Antonius Rast]], and which segues into the text of [[Sigmund ain Ringeck|Ringeck]]'s gloss for the final eighteen paragraphs. A substantial fragment of Branch C is present in five additional 16th century manuscripts alongside the illustrated treatise of [[Jörg Wilhalm Hutter]]; one of these, [[Gregor Erhart Fechtbuch (MS E.1939.65.354)|Glasgow II]] (1533) assigns the text a much earlier origin, stating that it was devised by '''[[Nicolaüs]]''' in 1489. This branch has received the least attention and is currently the least well understood.
  
(A final text of interest is the treatise of [[Hans Medel|Hans Medel von Salzburg]], which was acquired by Mair in 1539<ref>Medel's section of the [[Hans Medel Fechtbuch (Cod.I.6.2º.5)|Cod. I.6.2º.5]] is internally dated on [[page:Cod.I.6.2º.5 21r.jpg|folio 21r]].</ref> and bound into the [[Hans Medel Fechtbuch (Cod.I.6.2º.5)|Cod. I.6.2º.5]] after 1566.<ref>The record of the [[Marxbrüder]] in the manuscript ends on [[page:Cod.I.6.2º.5 20r.jpg|folio 20r]] with the year 1566, so Mair couldn't have acquired it before then.</ref> Medel demonstrates familiarity with the teachings of a variety of 15th century Liechtenauer masters, and his text often takes the form of a revision and expansion of the long sword glosses of Branch C and Ringeck. Because of the extent of the original and mixed content, Medel's versions are not included in any of these pages.)
+
(A final text of interest is the gloss of [[Hans Medel|Hans Medel von Salzburg]], which was acquired by Mair in 1539<ref>Medel's section of the [[Hans Medel Fechtbuch (Cod.I.6.2º.5)|Cod. I.6.2º.5]] is internally dated on [[page:Cod.I.6.2º.5 21r.jpg|folio 21r]].</ref> and bound into the [[Hans Medel Fechtbuch (Cod.I.6.2º.5)|Cod. I.6.2º.5]] after 1566.<ref>The record of the [[Marxbrüder]] in the manuscript ends on [[page:Cod.I.6.2º.5 20r.jpg|folio 20r]] with the year 1566, so Mair couldn't have compiled it before then.</ref> Medel demonstrates familiarity with the teachings of a variety of 15th century Liechtenauer masters, and his text often takes the form of a revision and expansion of the long sword glosses of Ringeck and Branch C. Because of the extent of original and modified content, no attempt has been made on either of those pages to associate Medel's gloss with the sources he was copying from.)
  
 
== Treatises ==
 
== Treatises ==

Revision as of 16:49, 31 January 2022

Lew
Occupation Fencing master
Ethnicity Jewish (?)
Movement Liechtenauer Tradition
Genres
Language Early New High German
Principal
manuscript(s)
Manuscript(s)
Concordance by Michael Chidester
Translations Traducción castellano

Lew or Lewe is the presumed name of a 15th century German fencing master. 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.[1]

The name Lewe means "lion" and might have been a nickname or pseudonym. The colophon to the Cod. I.6.4º.3,[2] which states "Here ends the Jewish art of the man called Lew", has lead people to fabricate names like Jud Lew or Jude Lew (meaning "Lew the Jew"), even though such a name doesn't appear anywhere in the historical record, and even to speculate that Lew might be a Germanization of a Hebrew name like Levi.

Lew is sometimes erroneously credited with authoring the whole of the Cod. I.6.4º.3, which is an anonymous compilation of various fencing treatises created in the 1460s. His name is actually associated with just two sections of that book: he is credited as the author of an armored fencing treatise which was really written by Martin Huntsfeld,[3] and is mentioned at the end of a gloss of Johannes Liechtenauer's Recital on mounted fencing[4] (by convention, the gloss of Liechtenauer's Recital on long sword fencing that almost always accompanies this mounted gloss is also attributed to Lew). Though this colophon is generally regarded as indicating that Lew authored the gloss (which is one branch of the larger Pseudo-Peter von Danzig gloss family), it could alternatively be interpreted to mean that Lew was the scribe or client for the whole manuscript.

Stemma

Early on in its history, the prototype of the Pseudo-Peter von Danzig gloss seems to have split into at least three 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 a fourth branch).

Branch A, first attested in the Augsburg version (1450s) and comprising the majority of extant copies, has more plays 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 Lignitzer and Martin Huntsfeld (or, in the case of the 1512 Vienna II, Ringeck's short sword gloss). Branch A is sometimes called the Lew gloss, based on a potential attribution at the end of the mounted gloss in a few copies. Apart from the Augsburg, the other principal text in Branch A is the Salzburg version (1491), which was copied independently[5] and also incorporates twelve paragraphs from Ringeck's gloss and nineteen paragraphs from an unidentified third source. Branch A was redacted by Paulus Hector Mair (three mss., 1540s), Lienhart Sollinger (1556), and 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.

Branch B, attested first in the Rome version (1452), is found in only four manuscripts; it tends to feature slightly longer descriptions than Branch A, but includes fewer plays 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 differs in that three of the four known copies are illustrated to some extent, where none in the other branches are. Branch B is the one most commonly identified with pseudo-Danzig, because it is entirely anonymous and lacks any clues for other attribution. The Krakow version (1535-40) seems to be an incomplete (though extensively illustrated) copy taken from the Rome,[6] while Augsburg II (1564) collects only the six illustrated wrestling plays from the Krakow. Even more anomalous is the Glasgow version (1508), consisting solely of a nearly-complete redaction of the short sword gloss which begins with seven paragraphs of unknown origin. The other version of Branch B is the Vienna, which includes the mounted and short sword sections but omits the long sword in favor of Branch C. A fifth manuscript, the Falkner Turnierbuch, is known to have once existed but seems to have been destroyed in the Siege of Strasbourg.

Branch C is first attested in the Vienna version (1480s). It is unclear whether it was derived independently from the original, represents an intermediate evolutionary step between Branches A and B, or was created by simply merging copies of those two branches together. The structure and contents of this branch align closely with Branch B, lacking most of the unique plays of Branch A, but the actual text is more consistent with that of Branch A (though not identical). The other mostly-complete copy of Branch C is the Augsburg version II (1553), which was created by Paulus Hector Mair based on the writings of Antonius Rast, and which segues into the text of Ringeck's gloss for the final eighteen paragraphs. A substantial fragment of Branch C is present in five additional 16th century manuscripts alongside the illustrated treatise of Jörg Wilhalm Hutter; one of these, Glasgow II (1533) assigns the text a much earlier origin, stating that it was devised by Nicolaüs in 1489. This branch has received the least attention and is currently the least well understood.

(A final text of interest is the gloss of Hans Medel von Salzburg, which was acquired by Mair in 1539[7] and bound into the Cod. I.6.2º.5 after 1566.[8] Medel demonstrates familiarity with the teachings of a variety of 15th century Liechtenauer masters, and his text often takes the form of a revision and expansion of the long sword glosses of Ringeck and Branch C. Because of the extent of original and modified content, no attempt has been made on either of those pages to associate Medel's gloss with the sources he was copying from.)

Treatises

While all branches were originally presented in a single concordance in the pseudo-Peter von Danzig article, the differences between them are extensive enough that they merit separate consideration. Thus, Branch A has been placed here on the page of Lew, Branch B has been retained on the main pseudo-Danzig page, and branch C is now on the Nicolaüs page.

Additional Resources

References

  1. The Fellowship of Liechtenauer is recorded in three versions of Paulus Kal's treatise: MS 1825 (1460s), Cgm 1570 (ca. 1470), and MS KK5126 (1480s).
  2. Subsequently copied into the Graz version as part of Lew's mounted gloss.
  3. Jaquet, Daniel; 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.
  4. See the colophon on folio 123r.
  5. Both Augsburg and Salzburg contain significant scribal errors of omission that allow us to identify manuscripts copied from them.
  6. Zabinski, pp 82-83
  7. Medel's section of the Cod. I.6.2º.5 is internally dated on folio 21r.
  8. The record of the Marxbrüder in the manuscript ends on folio 20r with the year 1566, so Mair couldn't have compiled it before then.
  9. "the hew" omitted from the Salzburg.
  10. S. "right-side foot".
  11. Mair: "If he comes then onto your sword with the strong".
  12. sic : nahent
  13. Liechtenauer's verse has in der rechten, "on the right", here, but it has been changed in all copies except the Salzburg and the Rostock.
  14. A. "or"
  15. sic : rechten
  16. S. "art or fencing".
  17. S., R. "before"
  18. sic : lonen
  19. S. "crooked hew"
  20. S. "thwart hew"
  21. Mair: "twelve"
  22. 22.00 22.01 22.02 22.03 22.04 22.05 22.06 22.07 22.08 22.09 22.10 22.11 22.12 22.13 22.14 22.15 Word omitted from the Salzburg and Rostock.
  23. S. "peasant hew".
  24. 24.00 24.01 24.02 24.03 24.04 24.05 24.06 24.07 24.08 24.09 24.10 24.11 24.12 24.13 24.14 24.15 24.16 24.17 24.18 24.19 24.20 24.21 24.22 24.23 24.24 24.25 24.26 24.27 24.28 24.29 24.30 24.31 24.32 24.33 24.34 24.35 24.36 24.37 Word omitted from the Salzburg.
  25. Could be read as “schlichter”.
  26. Mair: "This is a lesson on when".
  27. "with a" omitted from Rostock.
  28. Mair adds "not", making it "after the Soft and not after the Hard".
  29. "The lower opening" is omitted in Mair, shortening it to "to the left side".
  30. "And you shall... with the other" omitted from the Augsburg, the Rostock, and Mair. This omission is probably a scribal error, jumping to the second instance of also soltu das.
  31. Couplet 104, part of the group 102-109.
  32. 32.00 32.01 32.02 32.03 32.04 32.05 32.06 32.07 32.08 32.09 32.10 Word omitted from the Augsburg, the Rostock, and Mair.
  33. "of the man… of the girdle" omitted from the Salzburg. This omission is probably a scribal error, jumping to the second instance of der gürttell.
  34. 34.0 34.1 34.2 34.3 The subsequent play in Salzburg is taken from the gloss of Sigmund ain Ringeck, and is therefore omitted here.
  35. "To you truthfully" effaced from the Augsburg by damage to the page.
  36. "of the sword" omitted from the Salzburg.
  37. Fehlstelle im Manuskript
  38. "and you bind with… standing on the sword" omitted from the Augsburg, the Rostock, and Mair.
  39. "with the arms… and drive" omitted from the Rostock. This omission is probably a scribal error, jumping to the second instance of den armen.
  40. "And wind yet… and stab him" omitted from the Augsburg, the Rostock, and Mair.
  41. Here Salzburg segues into Sigmund ain Ringeck's gloss of the same verse describing how the Crooked hew is used as a counter-cut: "This is how you shall cut crooked to the hands, and execute the play thus: When he cuts from your right side with the over- or under-cut, spring away from the cut with the right foot against him well to his left side, and strike him with outstretched arms with the [point] upon his hands."
  42. Literally "boar" (eber) in Augsburg, Salzburg, and Mair, probably due to a scribal error from über. Rostock further changes this to alber.
  43. A. "him"
  44. A., M. "the"
  45. A, M: "the
  46. "the hew" omitted in Mair.
  47. A., M., R. "the"
  48. "with the short edge" omitted from the Salzburg.
  49. S. "bind of the sword hews".
  50. A., R. "him".
  51. sic : schwerts
  52. A., M., S. "go"
  53. "the head, then throw your sword on" omitted from Mair. This is probably a scribal error, jumping from dem to dein.
  54. Augsburg and Mair just have "protect".
  55. "before your" omitted from the Salzburg and Rostock.
  56. A., M., R. "your"
  57. A., M., R. "the"
  58. Lit. "his".
  59. "after the Weak of his sword" omitted from Mair. This omission is probably a scribal error, jumping to the second instance of Schwerts.
  60. 60.0 60.1 60.2 60.3 60.4 Word omitted from the Augsburg, Rostock, and Mair.
  61. Salzburg and Rostock double "schlag".
  62. "and to the body" omitted from the Salzburg.
  63. A. treffen, S. griffen.
  64. A., M., R. "him"
  65. 65.0 65.1 65.2 65.3 65.4 65.5 Word omitted from the Rostock.
  66. M. "you shall bring the Inverter with extended arms".
  67. A., S., R. "when you are gone half to him with the pre-fencing"
  68. A., M., R. "each and every"
  69. Mair has "from the right side, in accordance with the right side, in accordance with each step forward", which is probably scribal error of duplication, where the scribe repeated a line of text.
  70. A., M. "and"
  71. A. "on"
  72. A., M. "when"
  73. Couplet 91.
  74. S. has vier oder trieb, which should perhaps be read as fahr oder treib, "drive or drive".
  75. Scribal error in S. and R., replacing "even to you" with "above".
  76. S. "to his"
  77. A. "to the"
  78. M. "with"
  79. "and slice" omitted from the Salzburg.
  80. "if that is what you wish" omitted from the Salzburg.
  81. sic : deinem
  82. "of the sword" omitted in Mair.
  83. A., R. "the"
  84. "with the stab" omitted from the Rostock.
  85. A., M., R. "the"
  86. A., M., R. aber: "yet"; this seems to be a misspelling of alber.
  87. "and all Windings... are all short" omitted from the Salzburg. This omission is probably a scribal error, jumping to the second instance of kurtz vnd.
  88. "that so fight short" omitted from Mair. This omission is probably a scribal error, jumping from fechtern to fechten.
  89. 89.00 89.01 89.02 89.03 89.04 89.05 89.06 89.07 89.08 89.09 89.10 Word omitted from Mair.
  90. A., M. anwind: "wind on".
  91. A., M., R. "him".
  92. S. "your"
  93. R. "the breast".
  94. Korrigiert aus »Hautt«.
  95. These verses are glossed previously, as the Rostock indicates (see the next note), but with a significantly different play.
  96. A., M., R. "the"
  97. R. "his"
  98. "as if you" omitted from the Salzburg and Rostock.
  99. Rostock ends here with the statement (written in Latin) "Previously in the chapter Vom Feler", which is odd because this is the exact point when the text ceases to bear any resemblance to the earlier version in that chapter.
  100. "in the arms with the edge" omitted from Mair and the Rostock. This is probably a scribal error, jumping from schneiden to schnitt.
  101. Disappears into the margin.
  102. S. "he then".
  103. S. "the one hilt".
  104. S. "thrusts your point up".
  105. Clause omitted from the Augsburg, Mair, and the Rostock.
  106. Word omitted in the Augsburg, Salzburg, and Mair.
  107. Augsburg doubles the phrase "and hold your sword on your right side with the hilt in front". This is probably a scribal error in which the scribe's eye jumped to the wrong line.
  108. This couplet is listed separately in Salzburg, with a paragraph from the gloss of Sigmund ain Ringeck.
  109. 109.0 109.1 109.2 109.3 Word omitted from the Augsburg, Salzburg, and Mair.
  110. The subsequent play in Salzburg, which repeats couplet 71 and glosses it, is taken from the gloss of Sigmund ain Ringeck, and is therefore omitted here.
  111. "this is" omitted in the Augsburg, the Rostock, and the Mair.
  112. The subsequent two plays in Salzburg are taken from the gloss of Sigmund ain Ringeck, and are therefore omitted here.
  113. Mittels Einfügezeichen korrigiert aus »siten rechten«
  114. M. "his"
  115. A. "quickly there".
  116. "many and" omitted in Mair; Augsburg omits "many" and just says "are and multiple".
  117. "that fence from free long hews" omitted from the Salzburg. This omission is probably a scribal error, jumping to the second instance of fechten.
  118. "do not hold" omitted from the Salzburg.
  119. "to him" omitted from the Salzburg and Mair. Rostock just has "to".
  120. 120.0 120.1 Title is repeated in Mair.
  121. M. "if he the drives his sword quickly upward".
  122. M. "Soft or Hard".
  123. A. zwer: "thwart".
  124. "on his neck... on his right side" omitted from the Salzburg. This omission is probably a scribal error, jumping from to the second instance of seiten.
  125. "Strike or" omitted from the Augsburg, Salzburg, and Rostock.
  126. S., R. "ere when you come up"
  127. S. "to"
  128. 128.0 128.1 128.2 128.3 128.4 128.5 128.6 128.7 Word omitted from the Augsburg and Mair.
  129. "The word" omitted from the Augsburg, the Rostock, and Mair.
  130. A., R. "in"
  131. Salzburg doubles "the feeling".
  132. "Feel and cannot undertake" omitted from the Salzburg. This is probably a scribal error, jumping from one instance of nicht to the next.
  133. S. "work".
  134. S., R. entphindest: "perceive".
  135. S., R. "ere when".
  136. M. "undertake"
  137. Word doubled in the Salzburg.
  138. S. "word".
  139. S. "right or left side".
  140. S. "Whoever aims below", which matches the standard Recital. R. "whoever winds below", which might represent an intermediate change between these two readings.
  141. S. bindest gebünde~.
  142. M. "under"
  143. S. "his"
  144. M. "left side"
  145. 145.0 145.1 Disappears into the binding.
  146. S. "his"
  147. S. "after".
  148. R. "hews you"
  149. S., R. "change through"
  150. Corrected from 'mit'.
  151. S. "the"
  152. S., R. "wind".
  153. S. "Technique".
  154. R. "on"
  155. Word doubled in the Augsburg.
  156. S. "your"
  157. A., R. "the"
  158. "down a little" omitted from the Salzburg.
  159. A., M., R. "the"
  160. A., S., R. "the"
  161. "before you" omitted from the Salzburg.
  162. S., R. "a"
  163. M. "rightful"
  164. Word doubled in Mair.
  165. S. dring.
  166. "at the sword" omitted from the Salzburg.
  167. M. "rightful"
  168. Word omitted from the Augsburg, the Salzburg, and the Rostock.
  169. "and thrust... the right" omitted from the Augsburg and Mair. This omission is probably a scribal error, jumping to the second instance of siner rechte~.
  170. R. "but"
  171. sic : sein rechten bis repetita
  172. S., M., R. "over-winding"
  173. S., R. "Another wrestling".
  174. A., M. "him".
  175. A. "his"; M. "the".
  176. M. "on"
  177. S. "weapon".
  178. S. "your".
  179. M. "with his"
  180. A. "with".
  181. S. "on"
  182. S. "his".
  183. "and from each single Winding" omitted from the Salzburg. This is probably a scribal error, jumping to the second instance of winden.
  184. S. "be it Over-/Under-hew".
  185. A., S., R. "the"
  186. ”einwindẽ durchwindẽ“ written in another hand above the line.
  187. Illegible word from another hand written above the line.
  188. R. "change"
  189. R. "correct"
  190. "I mean" omitted from the Augsburg, the Rostock, and Mair.
  191. "So they are" omitted from the Augsburg and Mair.
  192. S., R. "meditate and judge"
  193. "and the same Eight Windings" omitted from Mair. This is probably a scribal error, jumping to the second instance of winden.
  194. Rest der Zeile verschwindet im Bund
  195. A., M., R. "him".
  196. M. "against his hew oppositely"
  197. S., R. "against".
  198. S., R. "the one"
  199. M. "hangings"
  200. A. "his".
  201. M. "another"
  202. S., R. "your".
  203. "on the" omitted from Mair.
  204. "in the techniques" omitted from the Salzburg and the Rostock.
  205. korrigiert aus »schnudt«
  206. Germ. And the eyes
  207. illegible deletion
  208. S corrected from D
  209. Germ. ”the sharp grip”
  210. Unleserlich. Gemeint ist die 20. Figur. Illegible. Refers to the 20th figure.
  211. Marginalie von anderer Hand. Marginal note from a different hand.
  212. German. How you use the bag strike at your opponent.
  213. Auf beiden Seiten neben dem Text, oberhalb einer Linie. On either side of the text, above a line.
  214. Marginalie. Marginal note.
  215. Marginalie neben einer Linie. Marginal note next to a line.
  216. Germ. If you have caught the opponent by the reins you can pursue his openings.
  217. Unleserliche Streichung
  218. Germ. Do not!
  219. Marginalie. Maginal note.
  220. Illegible deletion
  221. Die Wörter »so« und »Spricht« sind im Manuskript vertauscht, was durch entsprechende, oberen Anführungen gleichenden, Einfügezeichen kenntlcih gemacht wird.
  222. Marginalie. Marginal note.
  223. Über der Streichung eingefügt.
  224. Germ. The left
  225. Der Text läuft in den Bund.
  226. Marginalie. Marginal note.
  227. Germ. sword, messer, or dagger
  228. Der Text läuft oben aus der Seite heraus (beschnittenes Buchformat?).