 |
You are not currently logged in. Are you accessing the unsecure (http) portal? Click here to switch to the secure portal. |
Difference between revisions of "Wiktenauer:Main page/Featured"
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''"Pseudo-Peter von Danzig"''' is the name given to an anonymous late 14th or early [[century::15th century]] [[nationality::German]] [[fencing master]].<ref>This name stems from the false assumption of many 20th century writers identifying him with [[Peter von Danzig zum Ingolstadt]].</ref> Some time before the creation of the [[Codex Danzig (Cod.44.A.8)|Codex 44.A.8]] in 1452, he authored a [[gloss]] of [[Johannes Liechtenauer]]'s [[Recital]] (''Zettel'') which would go on to become the most widespread in the tradition. While his identity remains unknown, it is possible that he was in fact [[Jud Lew]] or [[Sigmund Schining ein Ringeck]], both of whose glosses show strong similarities to the work. On the other hand, the introduction to the Rome version of the text might be construed as attributing it to Liechtenauer himself. | '''"Pseudo-Peter von Danzig"''' is the name given to an anonymous late 14th or early [[century::15th century]] [[nationality::German]] [[fencing master]].<ref>This name stems from the false assumption of many 20th century writers identifying him with [[Peter von Danzig zum Ingolstadt]].</ref> Some time before the creation of the [[Codex Danzig (Cod.44.A.8)|Codex 44.A.8]] in 1452, he authored a [[gloss]] of [[Johannes Liechtenauer]]'s [[Recital]] (''Zettel'') which would go on to become the most widespread in the tradition. While his identity remains unknown, it is possible that he was in fact [[Jud Lew]] or [[Sigmund Schining ein Ringeck]], both of whose glosses show strong similarities to the work. On the other hand, the introduction to the Rome version of the text might be construed as attributing it to Liechtenauer himself. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Early on in its history, the Pseudo-Peter von Danzig gloss seems to have split into two primary branches, and no definite copies of the unaltered original are known to survive. The gloss of [[Sigmund Schining ain Ringeck]] also seems to be related to this work, due to the considerable overlap in text and contents, but the exact nature of this relationship is currently unclear. | Early on in its history, the Pseudo-Peter von Danzig gloss seems to have split into two primary branches, and no definite copies of the unaltered original are known to survive. The gloss of [[Sigmund Schining ain Ringeck]] also seems to be related to this work, due to the considerable overlap in text and contents, but the exact nature of this relationship is currently unclear. | ||
| Line 50: | Line 48: | ||
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 directly from the Rome,<ref>Zabinski, pp 82-83</ref> while [[Hutter/Sollinger Fechtbuch (Cod.I.6.2º.2)|Augsburg II]] (1564) is taken from the Krakow but only includes the six illustrated devices of wrestling from the Krakow and their respective captions. Even more anomalous is the [[Glasgow Fechtbuch (MS E.1939.65.341)|Glasgow version]], consisting solely of a sizeable fragment of the short sword gloss (hence its assignation to Branch B) which is appended to the opening sections 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. | 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 directly from the Rome,<ref>Zabinski, pp 82-83</ref> while [[Hutter/Sollinger Fechtbuch (Cod.I.6.2º.2)|Augsburg II]] (1564) is taken from the Krakow but only includes the six illustrated devices of wrestling from the Krakow and their respective captions. Even more anomalous is the [[Glasgow Fechtbuch (MS E.1939.65.341)|Glasgow version]], consisting solely of a sizeable fragment of the short sword gloss (hence its assignation to Branch B) which is appended to the opening sections 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. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
([[Pseudo-Peter von Danzig|Read more]]...) | ([[Pseudo-Peter von Danzig|Read more]]...) | ||
Revision as of 03:28, 1 June 2016
| Gloss and Interpretation of the Recital on the Long Sword | |
|---|---|
| die gloss und die auslegung der zettel des langen schwert | |
| |
| Author(s) | Unknown |
| Ascribed to | Pseudo-Peter von Danzig |
| Illustrated by | Unknown |
| Date | before 1452 |
| Genre | |
| Language | Early New High German |
| Archetype(s) | Hypothetical |
| Principal Manuscript(s) |
|
| Manuscript(s) |
|
| First Printed English Edition |
Tobler, 2010 |
| Concordance by | Michael Chidester |
"Pseudo-Peter von Danzig" is the name given to an anonymous late 14th or early 15th century German fencing master.[1] Some time before the creation of the Codex 44.A.8 in 1452, he authored a gloss of Johannes Liechtenauer's Recital (Zettel) which would go on to become the most widespread in the tradition. While his identity remains unknown, it is possible that he was in fact Jud Lew or Sigmund Schining ein Ringeck, both of whose glosses show strong similarities to the work. On the other hand, the introduction to the Rome version of the text might be construed as attributing it to Liechtenauer himself.
Early on in its history, the Pseudo-Peter von Danzig gloss seems to have split into two primary branches, and no definite copies of the unaltered original are known to survive. The gloss of Sigmund Schining ain Ringeck also seems to be related to this work, due to the considerable overlap in text and contents, but the exact nature of this relationship is currently unclear.
Branch A, first attested in the Augsburg version (1450s) and comprising the majority of extant copies, has more devices overall than the other branch (particularly in the extensive Salzburg version of 1491) but generally shorter descriptions in areas of overlap. It also includes glosses of Liechtenauer's Recital on long sword and mounted fencing only, and 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. Apart from containing the most content, the Salzburg version is notable for including nine paragraphs of text that are not found in any other version of Pseudo-Peter von Danzig, but do appear in Ringeck (and constitute almost 10% of that work); this predates all known copies of Ringeck's text, but is another indicator of some connection between the works. Branch A was later used by Johannes Lecküchner as a source when he compiled his own gloss of a Recital on the Messer.
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 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 Krakow version (1510-20) seems to be an incomplete (though extensively illustrated) copy taken directly from the Rome,[2] while Augsburg II (1564) is taken from the Krakow but only includes the six illustrated devices of wrestling from the Krakow and their respective captions. Even more anomalous is the Glasgow version, consisting solely of a sizeable fragment of the short sword gloss (hence its assignation to Branch B) which is appended to the opening sections 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.
(Read more...)
- Recently Featured:
- Martin Syber – Fiore de'i Liberi – Sigmund Schining ain Ringeck – Joachim Meÿer
- ↑ This name stems from the false assumption of many 20th century writers identifying him with Peter von Danzig zum Ingolstadt.
- ↑ Zabinski, pp 82-83
