Wiktenauer logo.png

Pseudo-Peter von Danzig

From Wiktenauer
Revision as of 02:25, 21 March 2022 by Michael Chidester (talk | contribs) (Undo revision 133587 by Michael Chidester (talk))
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Gloss and Interpretation of the Recital
die gloss und die auslegung der zettel des langen schwerts
Johannes Liechtenauer.jpg
Author(s) Unknown
Ascribed to Pseudo-Peter von Danzig
Illustrated by Unknown
Date before 1452
Genre
Language Early New High German
State of Existence Original hypothetical;
multiple branches exist
Principal
Manuscript(s)
Cod. 44.A.8 (1452)
Manuscript(s)
First Printed
English Edition
Tobler, 2010
Concordance by Michael Chidester
Translations

"Pseudo-Peter von Danzig" is the name given to an anonymous 15th century German fencing master.[1] Some time before the creation of the Starhemberg Fechtbuch 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 the identity of the glossator remains unknown, it is possible that he was in fact Lew, a name associated with one of the branches of the gloss (see below), or Sigmund ain Ringeck, whose gloss shows strong similarities to the work. On the other hand, the introduction to the Rome version of the text could be construed as attributing it to Liechtenauer himself.

Textual History

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 Branch D).

Provisional stemma codicum for Pseudo-Danzig

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[2] 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 five 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,[3] while Augsburg II (1564) collects only the six illustrated wrestling plays from the Krakow. The other substantial 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. Most anomalous are the Glasgow version (1508), consisting solely of a nearly-complete redaction of the short sword gloss which begins with seven paragraphs of unknown origin, and the Dresden version, consisting of a redaction of the first half of the mounted fencing gloss which begins with four paragraphs from Ringeck. A final 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[4] and bound into the Cod. I.6.2º.5 after 1566.[5] 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.)

Treatise

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

For easier comparison between the two most complete versions, the Kraków has been removed from its chronological position and placed alongside the Rome.

The text of the Krakow version of Pseudo-Danzig frequently refers to intended illustrations, some of which 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 illustrations will be replaced.

Additional Resources

References

  1. This name stems from the false assumption of many 20th century writers identifying him with Peter von Danzig zum Ingolstadt. It has been argued that this name is inappropriate because the treatises attributed to pseudo-Danzig (and also pseudo-Hans Döbringer) are not true pseudepigrapha—they are internally anonymous. However, many Ancient and Medieval pseudepigraphic texts were originally anonymous and were assigned their false attributions by later readers, and this is also the case with these two glosses in our fledgling tradition.
  2. Both Augsburg and Salzburg contain significant scribal errors of omission that allow us to identify manuscripts copied from them.
  3. Zabinski, pp 82-83
  4. Medel's section of the Cod. I.6.2º.5 is internally dated on folio 21r.
  5. 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.
  6. Per Trosclair, Goliath text reads "In the same way, the counterpart from the left side through, you shall always render hew and tread with each other as one."
  7. Or "tap-hit".
  8. Line added in the Kraków.
  9. Couplets 102-109.
  10. Couplet 74.
  11. Literally "from crossed arms".
  12. "and binds strongly on your sword therewith" omitted from the Kraków.
  13. Squint here means “an askew glance”, referring to both the sword's direction of travel and also the use of deception with the eyes with this hew.
  14. "the Four Openings" omitted from the Kraków.
  15. K. "The Following Technique".
  16. "from all" omitted from the Kraków.
  17. "with" omitted from the Kraków.
  18. Letter erased and overwritten.
  19. "with something" omitted from the Kraków.
  20. This text is a repetition of the first paragraph on folio 68r, but this is the illustration that corresponds to the text in Goliath (folio 54v).
  21. K. "with both hands".
  22. 22.0 22.1 Indecipherable due to an ink blotch.
  23. "and see" omitted from the Kraków.
  24. K. "Here you should drive four windings from both hands from the two over-hangings, that is, the ox".
  25. The rest of this paragraph appears after paragraph 6, but has been moved here for consistency with the other versions.
  26. Steht nach der nächsten Zeile.
  27. crosswise? across? obliquely?
  28. satelbogen, maybe saddle horn?
  29. let your lance sink down in front
  30. “sittigklich,” or “sittiglich,” at the time meant “moderately” in the sense of slowly or not too fast, modern “sittlich” means morally or ethically.
  31. "zaum," literally "bridle," context indicates reins
  32. Steht nach der nächsten Zeile.
  33. Steht nach der nächsten Zeile.
  34. A “tasset” is a piece of armor that covers the side of the thigh. It is possible that the last part of this hew aims for a gap in the armor on the back of the leg.
  35. zu hilff - to help
  36. This is wrong, it is the 5th figure.
  37. Different ink, original text possibly scraped off and replaced.
  38. eysenhuet - iron hat
  39. move him? move to him?
  40. Could be bridle. Have it as "reins" because it makes more sense in the context of the play below.
  41. Letter I smudged.
  42. The text ends here abruptly, in the middle of a play. Since the page isn't full, it's unclear why the scribe stopped at this point. The subsequent folia come from earlier in the manuscript; they were removed and then added back in at the end.
  43. Other one says "too".
  44. Typo in the source, should be 25 (xxv)
  45. Steht nach der nächsten Zeile.
  46. Somewhere else it says "strike a glancing blow," I think that's the same idea
  47. This quatrain is a mess
  48. Scribal error, doubling this phrase.
  49. Make a note, "zu dem schuß," literally "to the shot"
  50. "Nachent in weyshait" is reversed in the text, with markings indicating the correct word order"
  51. This paragraph is displaced in the text, and appears between paragraphs 18 and 19.
  52. Glasgow version adds "him"
  53. G. "wisely and masterfully".
  54. G. "students".
  55. Nota is written in the margin in a different hand, with a line pointing to kainen.
  56. Wie hienach conterfct[?] written below in a different hand.
  57. Corrected from »sein«.
  58. Added in a different hand.
  59. Corrected from »seinem«.
  60. Glasgow contains extensive differences.
  61. And you shall... with the point" omitted from the Glasgow.
  62. G. "work to the openings".
  63. The rest vanishes in the binding.
  64. "the face" omitted in the Glasgow.
  65. Clause omitted from the Glasgow.
  66. Clause omitted from the Glasgow.
  67. Tricky. The rome says "vrbrigen," the Glasgow says "verpringen," and the Vienna says "vbaring." Since we see this exact same construction in a lance play earlier, I'm going with "urbaring," and going to say that the author of the Glasgow didn't understand the word, so he went with "verbringen."
  68. Illegible deletion
  69. This paragraph and the next one are displaced in the text, and appear between paragraphs 54 and 55.
  70. U changed to an I
  71. I don't get this or the following one.
  72. This paragraph is displaced in the text, and appears between paragraphs 74 and 75.
  73. Corrected from »dam«.
  74. Corrected from »dem«.
  75. Corrected from »vchsel«.
  76. It is "er" in the text because "ee wenn" is a conjunction, so it resets the case. It wouldn't do that in english I think, or I'm just an idiot.
  77. The order of these two paragraphs is reversed in the manuscript.
  78. This paragraph is displaced in the text, and appears between paragraphs 96 and 97.
  79. Korrigiert aus »sein«.
  80. The verses are placed before the title in the text.
  81. Corrected from »mit«.
  82. Text was effaced and "unnder ein arm" written over it.