Talk:Pseudo-Hans Döbringer

Work	Author(s)	Source	License
Translation (13v - 65r, 74r)	Michael Chidester	Wiktenauer
Translation (13v - 65r)	Christian Trosclair	Wiktenauer
Translation (13v - 65r, 82r - 89v)	Thomas Stoeppler	Private communication
Translation (13v - 40r)	David Lindholm	Wiktenauer
Translation (78r)	Betsy Winslow	Wiktenauer
Transcription	Dierk Hagedorn	Index:Pol Hausbuch (MS 3227a)

Transcription Notes

Anmerkungen

Dies ist die Transkription einer auf das Jahr 1389 datierten frühneuhochdeutschen Handschrift, die früher einmal irrtümlich Hanko Döbringer zugeschrieben wurde. Das Original befindet sich unter der Bezeichnung Cod. Hs. 3227a in der Bibliothek des Germanischen Nationalmuseums in Nürnberg.

Die Handschrift ist eine Sammlung von Texten aus unterschiedlichen Themengebieten. Neben Anweisungen für den Kampf mit dem Schwert - mit und ohne Harnisch, zu Pferd und zu Fuß - gibt es Abschnitte über Feuerwerkerei, Eisenhärtung, Alchimie etc. Es kommen Kochrezepte, astrologische und astronomische Passagen vor. Das Manuskript besteht aus deutschen und lateinischen Texten; bisweilen wird mitten im Satz von der einen in die andere Sprache gewechselt.

Das Manuskript ist das älteste bekannte, das den Namen Johannes Liechtenauers nennt, eines Fechtmeisters, dessen Einfluß noch bis weit ins 16. Jahrhundert reichte. Da hier – anders als in anderen Fechtbüchern – die ansonsten übliche Formel »dem Gott gnädig sei« fehlt, kann man spekulieren, daß er zur Entstehungszeit des Manuskripts noch am Leben war.

Ausführliche Beschreibungen der Handschrift finden sich bei Hans-Peter Hils (Meister Johann Liechtenauers Kunst des langen Schwertes, S. 104–110) und Martin Wierschin (Meister Johann Liechtenauers Kunst des Fechtens, S. 31–34). Beide allerdings nennen noch Hanko Döbringer als Autor – ein Irrtum, der mittlerweile als korrigiert gelten darf: Auf fol. 43r werden (von Liechtenauers Lehren abgesehen) die Gefechte »anderer Meister« genannt. Vor dem Namen »Andres Juden« befindet sich ein Pluszeichen, mit dem (wie noch häufiger in der Handschrift) eine Textstelle gekennzeichnet wird, an der der Schreiber etwas vergessen hat. Ein entsprechendes Pluszeichen findet sich oberhalb der ersten Zeile, gefolgt von dem Namen »hanko pfaffen döbringers«. Hankos Name war also ursprünglich lediglich vergessen worden und mußte nachträglich eingefügt werden. So erklärt sich auch der Genitiv, der von Hils als bemerkenswert herausgestellt wird.

Im Manuskript werden zahlreiche Techniken zum Teil detailliert erläutert, zum Teil aber lediglich in enttäuschender Kürze angerissen; gelegentlich bricht der Text nach einigen einleitenden Zeilen einfach ab (z.B. Stange, langes Messer, Dolch).

Zur Transkription

Diese Transkription bietet lediglich die für das Fechten relevanten Abschnitte. Eine Gesamtübersicht vermittelt aber einen Überblick über die komplette Handschrift.

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 (im Rahmen der eingeschränkten typographischen Möglichkeiten des Internets) weitgehend erhalten.

Das Manuskript kennt zahlreiche Ligaturen, die im modernen Schriftsatz nicht mehr üblich sind. Diese Ligaturen werden in ihre einzelnen Buchstaben aufgelöst. In der Handschrift werden weiterhin mehrere unterschiedliche Formen des »s« benutzt. Die entsprechenden Ligaturen sind ebenfalls aufgelöst, auch die Buchstabenverbindung von langem und rundem »s« am Wortende. Erhalten bleibt lediglich eine »sz«-Ligatur, die durch »ß« wiedergegeben wird.

Die Groß- und Kleinschreibung ist, gemessen an modernen Standards, recht willkürlich. Gelegentlich wird mitten im Satz unvermittelt ein Wort durch ein Versal hervorgehoben. In vielen Fällen ist der Unterschied zwichen Majuskel und Minuskel so gering, daß nur geraten werden konnte, was ursprünglich gemeint war.

Im Text tauchen zahllose kleinere textgliedernde Elemente auf, seien es kleine rote und/oder schwarze Punkte zwischen zwei Wörtern, Schrägstriche zwischen Wörtern, die gelegentlich in Zweier- oder sogar Dreiergruppen erscheinen, in schwarz oder wechselweise schwarz-rot oder schwarz-rot-schwarz. Hinzu kommen Absatzzeichen in roter Tinte. Bei meiner Transkription habe ich (entgegen meiner Gewohnheit) auf die möglichst akkurate Wiedergabe eines Großteils dieser Zeichen verzichtet. Erhalten bleibt als Gliederungszeichen lediglich ein einzelner Schrägstrich – gleichgültig, ob im Original einer, zwei oder drei stehen –, und Absatzzeichen habe ich in einen Absatz mit Leerzeile aufgelöst.

Im Unterschied zu anderen Handschriften, ist ein »ÿ« mit Umlautzeichen in diesem Manuskript äußerst selten, bisweilen steht nur ein einzelner Punkt über dem »y«. Ich habe komplett auf das Umlaut-ÿ verzichtet und durchgängig mit »y« transkribiert. Ein gelegentlich auftauchendes kleines »e« über den Vokalen »o« und »u« habe ich als Umlaut wiedergegeben.

Dierk Hagedorn, Oktober 2008

Quellen

• Trude Ehlert und Rainer Leng: Frühe Koch- und Pulverrezepte aus der Nürnberger Handschrift GNM 3227a (um 1389); in: Medizin in Geschichte, Philologie und Ethnologie. Königshausen & Neumann, 2003
• David Lindholm: Transkription und englische Übersetzung der Teile über das lange Schwert (PDF) http://www.thearma.com/Manuals/Dobringer_A5_sidebyside.pdf
• Hans-Peter Hils: Meister Johann Liechtenauers Kunst des langen Schwertes.
• Martin Wierschin: Meister Johann Liechtenauers Kunst des Fechtens. München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1965
• Grzegorz Zabinski: Transkription (Arma PL)

Translation Notes (Michael Chidester)

My primary intent with this translation was to produce a readable text that untangles a lot of the convoluted phrasing and conveys the core ideas as clearly as possible. This is a departure from my usual translation style—I actually love convoluted phrasing—but this text is so dense that it's hard to make sense of it any other way.

I prepared it for use in my gloss compilation project, where I reimagine Pseudo-Döbringer as an owner and marginal commentator on a copy of the combined Ainringck-Danzig-Lew-Nicolaus gloss. Some who saw it there asked for it to be released separately (and in an easier-to-read format), so here we are. I won't claim that this translation is as easy to read as other similar entries in the market, such as Harry R.'s recent publication of the anonymous gloss of Pseudo-Peter von Danzig, but I've done my best to put together a text that says what the author was trying to say in the clearest way I could.

This manuscript is extraordinarily dense and difficult, and in preparing this translation (and untangling the language) I relied heavily on the marvelous transcriptions of Dierk Hagedorn, a revised and corrected version of which is included here, and Ondřej Vodička.

I'm also deeply indebted to the pioneering work in the first years of the 21st century by David Lindholm (and friends), Thomas Stoeppler, and Grzegorz Żabiński, as well as more recent efforts at translation and analysis by Jens P. Kleinau and Christian Trosclair.

Rather than produce my own translation of Liechtenauer's core Recital, I have instead relied on a version of Harry's remarkable rhyming translation (modified to better match my translation and to remove the German words he sometimes uses). I chose this over a more direct translation, even though some meaning might be lost, for two reasons: first, because the Recital is not intended to convey meaning without the gloss (or without instruction from someone who understands it), so that's not much of a loss, and second, because having a rhyming poem explained in prose might give a tiny glimpse of the intended experience of a 15th century German learning Liechtenauer's art. Unfortunately, my own skills as a poet are not sufficient to attempt a similar rhyming translation of the unique verses in this text.

No translation can ever be truly unbiased. That said, 3227a, even more than most texts, stubbornly refuses a generic or neutral reading. All of the translations mentioned above are reflections of the martial arts ideologies of their authors, and mine is no different. Please forgive my mistakes as they become apparent in the future. HEMA is a journey of discovery for all of us.

It is my hope that this translation can now speak for itself, so I will offer only one small piece of interpretive advice. I once believed that Pseudo-Döbringer was presenting a unique interpretation of Liechtenauer's teachings, but after this work, it seems clear to me that his writings are very much in line with the teachings of other early glossators, and only his terminology differs much.

The core device of Pseudo-Döbringer's writings, the Vorschlag ("Leading Strike") and Nachschlag ("Following Strike"), is not a unique teaching at all, but merely a more verbose treatment of Liechtenauer's common lesson. If you take and follow all of the advice in the common lesson at once (striking from your strong side Before your opponent, without waiting for his action, remaining with your point in front of his face so you threaten him and he must parry, and then follow up on your attack with a hit to the nearest exposure), then you will be performing the Leading Strike and Following Strike in accordance with this teaching.

Indeed, it seems to me that even though the other glosses break the common lesson up into 5–6 chunks, they also intend you to apply it all at once, and simply lack a handy name to describe it.

In general, I recommend that you come to this text with two assumptions. First, that it is in general agreement with the five major glosses and the points of disagreement are minor. Second, that you don't understand the other glosses nearly as well as you think you do, and Pseudo-Döbringer has lessons to teach you about them.

Translation Rules

While my translation style usually tends toward the cryptographic (meaning a fairly direct 1:1 relationship between the original text and the translation), I have tried a different approach here. I made no effort to preserve German word order or speech patterns, clauses are moved around or collapsed together, and sometimes whole sentences are given out of order. (Furthermore, words are often translated differently in different places.)

Where marginal notes are inserted into the main text, this is indicated by the given symbol (usually a † or #) followed by {curly brackets} containing the inserted text. Latin words and phrases are rendered in italics.

Pseudo-Döbringer is notable among Liechtenauer authors because he expands the Recital to almost twice its typical length. In this book, lines of the standard Recital are assigned their couplet number (from 1 to 109), while extra lines are given Roman numerals. (Some verses appear several times, and they are given the same numeral in each.)

Finally, it is a custom in our community to leave certain magic words untranslated. I despise this practice and believe that the translator's job is to translate, so I have not left any German words in my translation.

Translation Notes (Thomas Stoeppler)

This is the complete english translation of the treatise. It was quite a bit of work, however it does still require some editing; after all, engish is just my secondary language. Please also consider that this translation is not literal, there may stylistic elements that cannot be transferred to the english language. Apart from this, I consider the following text to be quite accurate, to the best of my knowledge and understanding.

~ Thomas Stoeppler, March 2006

I translated the german ms3227a based on several transcriptions available in 2005 and nowadays there are a few things I would read slightly differently. There are, however, no major issues and should not cause problems when working with the source. Since I have not updated (you may or may not forgive me..) the text, should you find any critical issues feel free to contact me (Forum ID is T. Stoeppler on the SFI / www.swordforum.com)

~ Thomas Stoeppler, March 2013

Translation reference

Attacks / Geferte

Zornhau – wrath strike

Krumphau – bent strike

Zwerchhau – transverse strike

Schielhau – squintng strike

Scheitelhau – vertex strike

Oberhau - downstrike

Unterhau -upstrike

Oberstich - downthrust

Unterstich - upthrust

Vorschlag – first strike

Nachschlag –follow up strike

Oberschnitt – high cut

Underschnitt -undercut

Alter Schnitt –cut the hands and then the throat

Stück / Set techniques

Huten/Leger - Guards

Ochs - Ox

Pflug - Plow

Alber – Fool (provocation guard)

Vom Tag – high guard (pausing guard)

Versetzen – parrying, displacing

Nachreissen - adhering

Absetzen – setting aside

Ansetzen – placing the point

Abwenden – turning aside

Überlaufen - overreaching

Durchlaufen – running through

Abschneiden – cutting off

Hängen - hanging

Winden - winding

Principles

Vor - Before

Nach - After

Indes – In the moment

Schwach / weich weak / soft

Stark / hart /strong / hard

(frequens) motus (constant) motion

Anhebung (principium) begin

Endung (finis) ending

Zu hand fahren – moving in (in a slightly flanking manner)

General

Schützen – protecting

Schiessen – shooting the point

Dar bringen – to execute

Bawer, Büffel – peasant, unskilled fencer

Beschämen – to shame

Schaden - damage, injury

Enden – lethally finishing the combat

Schantze – place of combat

Leichmeister – false master, Mc Dojo master

Translation Notes (David Lindholm)

Hanko Döbringer's Fechtbuch from 1389

Presented here is a transcription and modern English translation of the earliest extant manuscript dealing with the longsword yet discovered; Cod.HS.3227a, so named, "Hanko Döbringer's Fechtbuch," from 1389. Written in Germany it is the earliest known exposition of the "Lichtenauer tradition," and a very important document for the field of historical fencing studies.

The translation has been done using B. Henning's, Kleines Mittenhochdeutsches Wörterbuch, working from a microfiche of the original document that I obtained from the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nurnberg, and relying on several dictionaries from the close of the 19th century…

This translation is not intended to be the final word on the work, but to be more of a usable draft for use of students who may have greater or lesser difficulty in working with the original text. As such this is not a literal translation, but a modernized text interpreted by myself. I have tried to make sure that the instructions and meaning of the original have not been changed, only made more readable. I have also chosen to use “You” in the text as much as possible in order to make it clear who is doing what. At a later date I will add illustrations of some techniques and concepts as well as a list of technical terminology with some references.

This work is intended for public use, so feel free to print it, reference it, or quote it, but please do not use it for any commercial purposes. As always I am grateful for suggestions on how to improve the translation and transcription in the future.

I would like to thank Anders Linnard, Jeffrey Hull, Stewart Feil and John Clements for their help in commenting and correcting this translation and transcription. Aside from these gentlemen I have had the help and suggestions from many others over the web. None mentioned and none forgotten. Thanks to Peter Svärd for creating a PDF and producing the layout. All faults, mistakes and erroneous ideas are my own.

David Lindholm
ARMA Senior Researcher
Malmo, Sweden
April 2005

Translation Update: Mosse a Mistake?

In my translation and transcription of Döbringer's Fechtbuch I translated Mosse as "reach" with the meaning of being able to reach the opponent. To do that you have to have the proper distance, that was my intention. But after reading and thinking a bit more I would like to offer a different understanding, namely that Mosse is the same as measure, Misura, etc., meaning the distance between you and the partner. The term in Japanese martial arts is maai. This is the effective combat distance and I believe now the same translated idea works better with Döbringer's text. Capo Ferro uses the term Misura in that sense and so do other of the Italian masters such as Fiore dei Liberi. The term Mosse in its various forms does seem to me to reflect the concept of the place where you must be in order to offend or defend in a winning manner. That is also why Döbringer says that you should take rather two smaller steps than one large since the latter makes it more difficult for you to place yourself at the correct distance.

Döbringer says that all art has "Lange und masse" and I would now take that to mean that all arts, at least of the sword, have length in the sense of reach by a weapon and placement in the fight that is Masse. So we must place ourselves at the correct place in order for us to be able to use the length that our body and weapon gives us. Take away one of these two pillars and the art crumbles to nothing. It is a very clever statement by Döbringer, since in it he manages to convey the complete aspect that these two cornerstones are that upon which everything else rests, and we can also take it to mean at least by implication that this differs from person to person. That is why he does not give advice in feet or angles; we are all of different stature and prefer different weapons. What he does say is that you cannot ignore the fact that the distance and length (or reach of your weapon) matters. So if he intended distance how does he measure it? I think that he does so from his sword point to the body of the opponent. The reason is simply that he does not in the manuscript refer to the idea of thinking in terms of body to body. But he does several times indicate that the point is important. For example that the point should go straight to the opponent as if a string was attached to it, that the point should be no more then 40-50 cm from the opponent when weapons are crossed. It is natural to measure from the point that is likely to reach the opponent first and that will threaten him first. I would here also like to point out that this is also how Capo Ferro measures the Misura, from the point to the opponent's body.

And this makes good sense, especially when we consider the Langort, Hengen, Winden, etc., the Longsword seems to have been a weapon that utilized a great amount of thrusting and threatening with the point. Naturally the body matters as well; I do not think that Döbringer was so narrow-minded that he did not consider the fact that we may place the sword in such a way that the point is very far away and thus of little use in determining the Mosse. But if we take this idea and the fact that he says that we should close with the opponent from the side and not head on, and those two smaller steps are better than one large one, well then we begin to discern a pattern. This also makes sense when Döbringer says that we should close with the opponent with an idea or intention ready in our minds about what to do, we will then be able to determine what the correct "Lange und masse" would be in that situation. Remember that Döbringer advises us to use as few techniques or attacks as possible; you are not a better swordsman just because you use flashy techniques. In his mind you are a good swordsman if you win.

David Lindholm