You are not currently logged in. Are you accessing the unsecure (http) portal? Click here to switch to the secure portal.
Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Ott Jud"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 77: Line 77:
 
The oldest extant copy is the Gotha version, which was included in a [[Talhoffer Fechtbuch (MS Chart.A.558)|manuscript]] in the 1440s alongside works by [[Johannes Hartlieb]], [[Hans Talhoffer]], and others. The Gotha version is decidedly incomplete compared to other early renditions, suggesting that Ott was not directly involved despite its proximity to his career. Gotha was copied into several further manuscripts, including the [[Talhoffer Fechtbuch (MS 26.236)|New York]] (16th century), the [[Talhoffer Fechtbuch (2º Col.MS.Philos.61)|Göttingen]] (17th century), and the third [[Talhoffer Fechtbuch (Cod.icon. 395)|Munich]] (ca. 1820) versions; since these are all direct copies, they offer little additional help in understanding Ott's work (apart from evidence of its continued transmission).
 
The oldest extant copy is the Gotha version, which was included in a [[Talhoffer Fechtbuch (MS Chart.A.558)|manuscript]] in the 1440s alongside works by [[Johannes Hartlieb]], [[Hans Talhoffer]], and others. The Gotha version is decidedly incomplete compared to other early renditions, suggesting that Ott was not directly involved despite its proximity to his career. Gotha was copied into several further manuscripts, including the [[Talhoffer Fechtbuch (MS 26.236)|New York]] (16th century), the [[Talhoffer Fechtbuch (2º Col.MS.Philos.61)|Göttingen]] (17th century), and the third [[Talhoffer Fechtbuch (Cod.icon. 395)|Munich]] (ca. 1820) versions; since these are all direct copies, they offer little additional help in understanding Ott's work (apart from evidence of its continued transmission).
  
−
Two copies of Ott's work date to the mid-15th century, the [[Starhemberg Fechtbuch (Cod.44.A.8)|Rome]] (1452) and [[Codex Lew (Cod.I.6.4º.3)|Augsburg]] (1460s) versions. These both contain plays not found in Gotha but also show differences from each other, indicating that the textual tradition had already diverged into two branches, and Augsburg is only a substantial fragment of its branch. Of the later 15th century copies, [[Paulus Kal Fechtbuch (MS KK5126)|Vienna Ⅰ]] (1480s) and [[Ortenburg Fechtbuch|Ortenburg]] (late 1400s) follow Rome, and [[Codex Speyer (MS M.I.29)|Salzburg]] (1491) is a complete version of the text appearing in Augsburg&mdash;indeed, Rainer Welle describes Salzburg as the most detailed version of the treatise up to that time.<ref>Welle 1993, p 44.</ref> Likewise, in the 16th century, [[Johan Liechtnawers Fechtbuch geschriebenn (MS Dresd.C.487)|Dresden]] (1504-19), [[Glasgow Fechtbuch (MS E.1939.65.341)|Glasgow]] (1508), and [[Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|Kraków]] (1535-40) follow Rome, while [[Oplodidaskalia sive Armorvm Tractandorvm Meditatio Alberti Dvreri (MS 26-232)|Vienna Ⅱ]] (1512), [[Wassmannsdorff's Fechtbuch|Wassmannsdorff]] (1539), [[Maister Liechtenawers Kunstbuech (Cgm 3712)|Munich Ⅱ]] (1556), and the works of [[Paulus Hector Mair]] follow Augsburg.
+
Two copies of Ott's work date to the mid-15th century, the [[Starhemberg Fechtbuch (Cod.44.A.8)|Rome]] (1452) and [[Codex Lew (Cod.I.6.4º.3)|Augsburg]] (1460s) versions. These both contain plays not found in Gotha but also show differences from each other, indicating that the textual tradition had already diverged into two branches, and Augsburg is only a substantial fragment of its branch. Of the later 15th century copies, [[Paulus Kal Fechtbuch (MS KK5126)|Vienna Ⅰ]] (1480s) and [[Ortenburg Fechtbuch|Ortenburg]] (late 1400s) follow Rome, and [[Codex Speyer (MS M.I.29)|Salzburg]] (1491) is a complete version of the text appearing in Augsburg&mdash;indeed, Rainer Welle describes Salzburg as the most detailed version of the treatise up to that time.<ref>Welle 1993, p 44.</ref> Likewise, in the 16th century, [[Johan Liechtnawers Fechtbuch geschriebenn (MS Dresd.C.487)|Dresden]] (1504-19), [[Glasgow Fechtbuch (MS E.1939.65.341)|Glasgow]] (1508), and [[Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|Kraków]] (1535-40) follow Rome, while [[Oplodidaskalia sive Armorvm Tractandorvm Meditatio Alberti Dvreri (MS 26-232)|Vienna Ⅱ]] (1512), [[Wassmannsdorff's Fechtbuch|Wassmannsdorff]] (1539), [[Maister Liechtenawers Kunstbuech (Cgm 3712)|Munich Ⅱ]] (1556), and the works of [[Paulus Hector Mair]] follow Augsburg (May's works and Munich Ⅱ even have the same gaps as the Augsburg fragment).
  
−
Establishing the relationships between these versions is very problematic. The pattern of which plays are present in each of the early versions and which plays are missing doesn't match the later versions in each branch&mdash;for example, Vienna Ⅰ has plays not present in Rome, Salzburg has far more than the fragmentary Augsburg, and there are a few plays present in both Vienna and Salzburg that are in neither one of those first versions. Either some later versions were created by combining multiple earlier ones, or there are many missing links in this chain. Furthermore, certain plays have descriptions that gain extra pieces of clarifying text as time passes, especially in the Rome branch.<ref>See, for example, play 4, which has an additional segment added beginning in the Rome, and a second additional segment in the Kraków.</ref> This is especially apparent in the Kraków, which has expanded versions of more than half of the plays (and was also intended to be augmented with illustrations for the first time). This expanding text might be evidence that the existing copies are mostly incomplete and the expanded versions are the correct ones, but it may equally suggest that Ott's treatise received additional input from other knowledgeable wrestlers over the course of time.
+
Establishing the relationships between these versions is very problematic. The pattern of which plays are present in each of the early versions and which plays are missing doesn't match the later versions in each branch&mdash;for example, Vienna Ⅰ has plays not present in Rome, Salzburg has far more than the fragmentary Augsburg, and there are a few plays present in both Vienna and Salzburg that are in neither one of those first versions. Either some later versions were created by combining multiple earlier ones, or there are many missing links in this chain. Furthermore, certain plays have descriptions that gain extra pieces of clarifying text as time passes, especially in the Rome branch.<ref>See, for example, play 4, which has an additional segment added beginning in Rome, and a second additional segment exclusive to Kraków.</ref> This is especially apparent in Kraków , which has expanded versions of more than half of the plays (and was also intended to be augmented with illustrations for the first time). This expanding text might be evidence that the early copies are all incomplete fragments and the expanded versions are the correct ones, but it may equally suggest that Ott's treatise received additional input and clarifications from other knowledgeable wrestlers over the course of time.
  
−
Finally, there were two notable transformations of Ott's treatise in the 16th century. Wassmannsdorff's now-lost 1539 manuscript contains two versions of Ott. One is a fragment of the first 22 plays of Ott. The other covers the final 20 plays, but also includes plays 50-55 recomposed as poems. This rewriting of a core text is otherwise unprecedented in the Liechtenauer tradition, and the author appears to be anonymous. The second transformation of the text occurred in the 1540s, when Mayr had it translated into Latin.
+
Finally, there were two notable transformations of Ott's treatise in the 16th century. First, Wassmannsdorff's now-lost 1539 manuscript contains two versions of Ott: one a fragment of the first 24 plays, the other covering the final 20 plays (49-69) but also including plays 50-55 recomposed as poems. This rewriting of a core text is otherwise unprecedented in the Liechtenauer tradition, and the author appears to be anonymous. The second transformation of the text occurred in the 1540s, when Mayr had it translated into Latin.
 +
 
 +
Most texts in the Liechtenauer corpus seem to have ossified immediately and been preserved without any intentional changes after they were initially written. The expansions to Ott's core plays and the poetic rewrite of part of the text both buck this trend, and make his treatise a unique example of a living textual tradition that may mirror a living teaching tradition.
  
 
== Treatise ==
 
== Treatise ==

Revision as of 18:16, 29 April 2023

Ott Jud
Born date of birth unknown
Died 1448-52 (?)
Occupation Wrestling master
Ethnicity Jewish
Patron princes of Austria
Movement Fellowship of Liechtenauer
Genres Wrestling manual
Language Early New High German
Manuscript(s)
First printed
english edition		 Tobler, 2010
Concordance by Michael Chidester
Translations
MS Thott.290.2º 011r.jpg

Caution: Scribes at Work

This article is in the process of updates, expansion, or major restructuring. Please forgive any broken features or formatting errors while these changes are underway. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed. Stay tuned for the announcement of the revised content!

This article was last edited by Michael Chidester (talk| contribs) at 18:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC). (Update)

Ott Jud was a 15th century German wrestling master. His name signifies that he was a Jew, and several versions of his treatise (including the oldest one) state that he was baptized Christian.[1] In 1470, Paulus Kal described him as the wrestling master to the princes of Austria, and included him in the membership of the Fellowship of Liechtenauer.[2] While Ott's precise lifetime is uncertain, he may have still been alive when Hans Talhoffer included the Gotha version in his fencing manual in ca. 1448, but seems to have died some time before the creation of the Rome version in 1452.[3]

Ott's treatise on grappling is repeated throughout all of the early German treatise compilations and seems to have become the dominant work on the subject within the Liechtenauer tradition.

Stemma

It is difficult to say when Ott's treatise was written, and the original is certainly lost at present. It is also unclear how much of the material in the existing versions should be attributed to him directly. Jessica Finley has pointed out that the first 31 plays form a coherent progression, whereas the subsequent 38 plays are disorganized; the order of plays is generally consistent across all copies, but there are small variations in this second portion. Furthermore, there are a number of copies that are limited to one half or the other, including Vienna and the prose Wassmannsdorff for the first part and Dresden and the poetic Wassmannsdorff for the second; these copies of only the second part make no mention of Ott in their introductions. It's possible that these two halves of the text had separate origins, with the first being written by Ott and the second mistakenly attributed to him early on, persisting in the tradition ever after.

The oldest extant copy is the Gotha version, which was included in a manuscript in the 1440s alongside works by Johannes Hartlieb, Hans Talhoffer, and others. The Gotha version is decidedly incomplete compared to other early renditions, suggesting that Ott was not directly involved despite its proximity to his career. Gotha was copied into several further manuscripts, including the New York (16th century), the Göttingen (17th century), and the third Munich (ca. 1820) versions; since these are all direct copies, they offer little additional help in understanding Ott's work (apart from evidence of its continued transmission).

Two copies of Ott's work date to the mid-15th century, the Rome (1452) and Augsburg (1460s) versions. These both contain plays not found in Gotha but also show differences from each other, indicating that the textual tradition had already diverged into two branches, and Augsburg is only a substantial fragment of its branch. Of the later 15th century copies, Vienna Ⅰ (1480s) and Ortenburg (late 1400s) follow Rome, and Salzburg (1491) is a complete version of the text appearing in Augsburg—indeed, Rainer Welle describes Salzburg as the most detailed version of the treatise up to that time.[4] Likewise, in the 16th century, Dresden (1504-19), Glasgow (1508), and Kraków (1535-40) follow Rome, while Vienna Ⅱ (1512), Wassmannsdorff (1539), Munich Ⅱ (1556), and the works of Paulus Hector Mair follow Augsburg (May's works and Munich Ⅱ even have the same gaps as the Augsburg fragment).

Establishing the relationships between these versions is very problematic. The pattern of which plays are present in each of the early versions and which plays are missing doesn't match the later versions in each branch—for example, Vienna Ⅰ has plays not present in Rome, Salzburg has far more than the fragmentary Augsburg, and there are a few plays present in both Vienna and Salzburg that are in neither one of those first versions. Either some later versions were created by combining multiple earlier ones, or there are many missing links in this chain. Furthermore, certain plays have descriptions that gain extra pieces of clarifying text as time passes, especially in the Rome branch.[5] This is especially apparent in Kraków , which has expanded versions of more than half of the plays (and was also intended to be augmented with illustrations for the first time). This expanding text might be evidence that the early copies are all incomplete fragments and the expanded versions are the correct ones, but it may equally suggest that Ott's treatise received additional input and clarifications from other knowledgeable wrestlers over the course of time.

Finally, there were two notable transformations of Ott's treatise in the 16th century. First, Wassmannsdorff's now-lost 1539 manuscript contains two versions of Ott: one a fragment of the first 24 plays, the other covering the final 20 plays (49-69) but also including plays 50-55 recomposed as poems. This rewriting of a core text is otherwise unprecedented in the Liechtenauer tradition, and the author appears to be anonymous. The second transformation of the text occurred in the 1540s, when Mayr had it translated into Latin.

Most texts in the Liechtenauer corpus seem to have ossified immediately and been preserved without any intentional changes after they were initially written. The expansions to Ott's core plays and the poetic rewrite of part of the text both buck this trend, and make his treatise a unique example of a living textual tradition that may mirror a living teaching tradition.

Treatise

Select one or more fencing styles using the checkboxes below to view the associated treatises.

The number in brackets at the beginning of each translation box is a paragraph number assigned by Wiktenauer; clicking it will take you to the translation page. The numbers in brackets in the transcriptions with an "r" or "v" are manuscript folio numbers; clicking them will take you to original page scan with the transcription alongside for comparison. If you want to sort a column by number, click the black triangles in the table headers.

The text of the Krakow version frequently refers to intended illustrations that were never added to the manuscript. The appropriate blank pages are included in the illustration column for reference. It's possible (though not likely, given what we know about its origins) that this manuscript was replicating another one with a complete set of illustrations; if this ever surfaces, the blank pages will be replaced.

Original Teaching

16th Century Poetic Rendering

Teachings of Ott Jud

16th century poetic rendering

Additional Resources

References

  1. ↑ The Gotha version, as well as the Augsburg, Vienna, and Glasgow versions, all use the term tauffter Jud, "baptized Jew".
  2. ↑ 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).
  3. ↑ His name lacks the traditional blessing on the dead in Talhoffer, but receives it in the Rome (see folio 100v).
  4. ↑ Welle 1993, p 44.
  5. ↑ See, for example, play 4, which has an additional segment added beginning in Rome, and a second additional segment exclusive to Kraków.
  6. ↑ vor ringen
  7. ↑ mit ringen
  8. ↑ nach ringen
  9. ↑ This column is not a true transcription of the first fragment of Ott in Wassmannsdorff's manuscript. It is, instead, Wassmannsdorff's transcription of the Augsburg version, modified according to the differences he notes in his apparatus. It is placed here to offer a rough idea of the contents of this section in the absence of the actual manuscript or complete transcription. After the 22nd play, the footnotes stop except for
  10. ↑ das Wort »auf« ist nachträglich in anderer Handschrift klein über der Zeile zwischen den Wörtern eingefügt worden.
  11. ↑ Corrected from »deinem«.
  12. ↑ Corrected from »dein«.
  13. ↑ Korrigiert aus »rechtenn«.
  14. ↑ Korrigiert aus »rechtz«.
  15. ↑ Corrected from »dein«.
  16. ↑ There is obviously a mistake in the text. This is evident from the von Speyer version of the Ott text, which says to hold his left arm with your right. In the Goliath manuscript the relevant text says: "grab his right arm with your left hand firmly and come with your right hand to help your left". Taking into consideration the subsequent instruction on the direction of the turning through, the last record of Ott’s teaching seems to be the most logical and credible.
  17. ↑ wendt dich durch
  18. ↑ German has vallen - may be intended as "speciem".
  19. ↑ This play is placed before the previous counter in Rome and Krakow, but following Augsburg, it appears to be a second counter to the same action.
  20. ↑ This is clearly a scribal error for unndter. However, it is also clear that the text reads “vindter”. In this case, note that the following title “Unndten durchfarn” is spelled correctly.
  21. ↑ The phrase "seinen linngen arm auß, mit deiner rechten hannd, von oben nider, vnnd begreif ime damit" is struck through on MS Dresd.C.94 118r, but this manuscript's scribe seems to have not recognized that.
  22. ↑ corrected from »sein«
  23. ↑ nym Im das gewicht
  24. ↑ The Rome version places this text before the previous play.
  25. ↑ This is clearly a scribal error for unndter. However, it is also clear that the text reads “vindter”.
  26. ↑ Ribs.
  27. ↑ This is the title given in Dresden. Gotha and Rome have Ein pruch wider das schrencken or "a counter to the barrier", while Glasgow gives Ein pruch wider Sterck, "a counter against strength".
  28. ↑ The words "In sein" are transposed, with marking indicating that they should be reversed.
  29. ↑ Schranck
  30. ↑ Should be "his right side" (against your left), which follows the preceding rhyme.
  31. ↑ Corrected from »seinem«
  32. ↑ The manuscript only says “vnd”.
  33. ↑ The above word “reiben” (rub, as in “drehen”, ‘turn’, ‘twist’) is clarified by the word “prechen”.
  34. ↑ Append: “linken Bein”.
  35. ↑ “deine”.
  36. ↑ An dieser Stelle bricht der Text ab.
  37. ↑ “klein (groβ).”
  38. ↑ Missing word, error: “Seite”.
  39. ↑ Dresden differs here
  40. ↑ Should be "Goller"
  41. ↑ “kannst du”.
  42. ↑ Possibly “und erfahe”, or simply “und fahe”.
  43. ↑ The words "seitten oder" are probably because of carelessness of the scribe.
  44. ↑ Interpret as “ihn”.
  45. ↑ Interpret as “Linken”.
  46. ↑ Read: “oberhalb des”.
  47. ↑ “Eile ihm”.
  48. ↑ play
  49. ↑ Talhoffer mentions “stainwerffen vnd stainschüben” in his list of exercises within his own Vorrede.
  50. ↑ Possibly: für was (wofür)?
  51. ↑ ‘ohne’.
  52. ↑ ‘Stangenwerfen (== schieben) und Steinstoβen’.
  53. ↑ Could this be a reference to the oldest printed Fightbook, Paurnfeindt’s Ergrundung Ritterlicher kunst der Fechterey (Vienna 1516), whose author concludes with ‘auszug dizer Ritterlichen kunst’?
  54. ↑ ‘beiwohnt’.
  55. ↑ Paurenfeindt offers his students his Fechtbuch in the same hope, that “von tag czu tag czu merren vnd bessern” (from day to day, to increase and improve).
  56. ↑ Auerswald and the Berlin and Munich Ringbücher all begin with this affirmation: “In Sant Jorgen namen heb an. Und schaw zum ersten ob der man hoch oder nider gange das ist des ringens anefang.”
  57. ↑ Should be "his right side" (against your left), which follows the preceding rhyme.
  58. ↑ Compare play 50.
  59. ↑ Missing “umb”, as in “Dich umfangen ist – dich umfängt.”
  60. ↑ The manuscript only says “vnd”.
  61. ↑ Compare play 51.
  62. ↑ Should be read as “Aber”.
  63. ↑ The above word “reiben” (rub, as in “drehen”, ‘turn’, ‘twist’) is clarified by the word “prechen”.
  64. ↑ Compare play 52.
  65. ↑ Should be read as “gan”.
  66. ↑ Append: “linken Bein”.
  67. ↑ “deine”.
  68. ↑ Compare play 53.
  69. ↑ Compare play 54.
  70. ↑ That is: ‘durch die seitten’.
  71. ↑ “Beiten”, is the dialect of the text for “warten”. In Rückert’s Makamen, the Schoolmaster from Hims (Schulmeister von Hims) states “beaten ist ein Wort für weilen, alt und gut; wähle nach Gefallen zwischen beiden”.
  72. ↑ “können”.
  73. ↑ “klein (groβ).”
  74. ↑ Missing word, error: “Seite”.
  75. ↑ Compare play 55.
  76. ↑ In the manuscript, the remaining plays of Ott are included without a poetic rendering before this concluding section. It cannot be determined from the transcription whether space was left for those paragraphs to be rendered into verse.
  77. ↑ Lit: ‘lie down’
  78. ↑ Should be “denn”.
  79. ↑ Should be “euch”.
  80. ↑ “Wollen”.
Early Germanic Traditions
Common Fencing Johannes Liechtenauer reversed.jpg
Wrestling
Liechtenauer
Tradition
Beringer Verse
Augsburg Tradition
Other Works
Fabris Tradition
Retrieved from "https://wiktenauer.com/index.php?title=Ott_Jud&oldid=142154"