Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Lew"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1,390: Line 1,390:
| {{red|Who threatens to Change,<br/>Squinter robs him therefrom.}}
| {{red|Who threatens to Change,<br/>Squinter robs him therefrom.}}
<p>Know that the Squinter is a strange, good, serious<ref name="word-s"/> technique, when it breaks one with power (with hew and with stab), and goes ahead with inverted sword. Therefore many masters of the sword know nothing to say of the hew. And also [it breaks] the guard that is called the Plow.</p>
<p>Know that the Squinter is a strange, good, serious<ref name="word-s"/> technique, when it breaks in with power, with hew and with stab, and goes ahead with inverted sword. Therefore many masters of the sword know nothing to say of the hew. And also [it breaks] the guard that is called the Plow.</p>
| <p><br/></p>
| <p><br/></p>

Revision as of 00:55, 1 August 2017

Jud Lew
Born before ca. 1440s
Died date of death unknown
Occupation Fencing master
Ethnicity Jewish
Movement Liechtenauer Tradition
Language Early New High German
Concordance by Michael Chidester
Translations Traducción castellano

Jud Lew was a 15th century German fencing master. His name signifies that he was Jewish, and 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]

Lew is often erroneously credited with authoring the Cod.I.6.4º.3, an anonymous compilation of various fencing treatises created in the 1450s. In fact, his name is only associated with a single section of that book, a gloss of Johannes Liechtenauer's Recital on mounted fencing that is actually one branch of the so-called Pseudo-Peter von Danzig gloss. Though some versions of Martin Huntfeltz's treatise on armored fencing are also attributed to Lew, this is almost certainly an error.[2]


Early on in its history, the Pseudo-Peter von Danzig gloss seems to have split into two or three primary 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).

Branch A, first attested in the Augsburg version (1450s) and comprising the majority of extant copies, has more devices 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 Liegniczer and Martin Huntfeltz (or, in the case of the 1512 Vienna II, Ringeck's short sword gloss). Apart from the Augsburg, the other principal text in Branch A is the Salzburg version (1491), which was copied independently[3] and also incorporates nine paragraphs from Ringeck's gloss and twenty-one 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 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 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 Krakow version (1510-20) seems to be an incomplete (though extensively illustrated) copy taken from the Rome,[4] while Augsburg II (1564) collects only the six illustrated wrestling devices from the Krakow. Even more anomalous is the Glasgow version (1508), consisting solely of a nearly complete redaction of the short sword gloss (assigning it to Branch B), which is appended to the opening paragraphs 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.

A Branch C might be said to exist as well, first attested in the Vienna version (1480s), though 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 devices of Branch A and including the gloss of the short sword, but the actual text is more consistent with that of Branch A. A fragment of Branch C appears in the writings of Jörg Wilhalm Hutter (several mss., 1520s), though Glasgow II (1533) assigns the fragment a much earlier origin, stating that it was devised by one Nicolaüs in 1489.

Finally, there is one version of the Pseudo-Peter von Danzig gloss that defies categorization into any branch, namely the one that Mair created based on papers purchased from the estate of Antonius Rast. This gloss is a chimeric abomination, combining text from all three branches in an apparently-arbitrary sequence, and then concluding with the final eighteen paragraphs of Ringeck.

While all branches were originally presented in a single concordance in the pseudo-Peter von Danzig article, the differences between them were revealed thereby to be extensive enough that they merit separate consideration. Thus, Branch A has been placed here on the page of Jud Lew, to whom is seemingly attributed the gloss on mounted fencing, while Branch B has been retained on the main pseudo-Danzig page. Branch C will be placed on another page in the future.


Additional Resources


  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. 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.
  3. Both Augsburg and Salzburg contain significant scribal errors of omission that allow us to identify manuscripts copied from them.
  4. Zabinski, pp 82-83
  5. "thereby the hew" omitted from the Salzburg.
  6. S. "right-side foot".
  7. sic : nahent
  8. .n. : cross ref Cod.10825
  9. sic : rechten
  10. sic : lonen
  11. intortiones
  12. istaec
  13. S. "peasant hew".
  14. 14.00 14.01 14.02 14.03 14.04 14.05 14.06 14.07 14.08 14.09 14.10 14.11 14.12 14.13 14.14 14.15 14.16 14.17 14.18 14.19 14.20 14.21 14.22 14.23 14.24 14.25 14.26 14.27 14.28 14.29 14.30 14.31 14.32 14.33 14.34 14.35 Word omitted from the Salzburg.
  15. Could be read as “schlichter”.
  16. "And you shall... with the other" omitted from the Augsburg. This omission is probably a scribal error, jumping to the second instance of also soltu.
  17. Couplet 104, part of the group 102-109.
  18. 18.00 18.01 18.02 18.03 18.04 18.05 18.06 18.07 18.08 18.09 18.10 18.11 18.12 18.13 18.14 18.15 18.16 18.17 18.18 Word omitted from the Augsburg.
  19. "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.
  20. 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 The subsequent play in Salzburg is taken from the gloss of Sigmund ain Ringeck, and is therefore omitted here.
  21. "To you truthfully" omitted from the Augsburg.
  22. "of the sword" omitted from the Salzburg.
  23. Fehlstelle im Manuskript
  24. "and you bind with… standing on the sword" omitted from the Augsburg.
  25. "And wind yet… and stab him" omitted from the Augsburg.
  26. 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[sic: his] 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."
  27. A. "him"
  28. "with the short edge" omitted from the Salzburg.
  29. S. "bind of the sword hews".
  30. A. "him".
  31. sic : schwerts
  32. Sentence omitted from the Augsburg.
  33. Augsburg just has "protect".
  34. A. "your"
  35. Lit. "his".
  36. Salzburg doubles "schlag".
  37. "and to the body" omitted from the Salzburg.
  38. A. treffen, S. griffen.
  39. A. "him"
  40. "and every" omitted from the Salzburg.
  41. S. "or"
  42. A. "on"
  43. Couplet 91.
  44. S. "to his"
  45. A. "to the"
  46. "and slice" omitted from the Salzburg.
  47. "if that is what you wish" omitted from the Salzburg.
  48. sic : deinem
  49. A. "the"
  50. A. aber: "yet".
  51. "and all Windings... are all short" omitted from the Salzburg.
  52. A. anwind: "wind on".
  53. A. "him".
  54. S. "your"
  55. Korrigiert aus »Hautt«.
  56. After this paragraph is a repetition of [59], the Twofold Failer.
  57. S. "he then".
  58. S. "the one hilt".
  59. S. "thrusts your point up".
  60. Clause omitted from the Augsburg.
  61. Augsburg doubles the phrase "and hold your sword on your right side with the hilt in front". This is probably a scribal error.
  62. This verse is glossed together with 70 in the Augsburg, but the Salzburg separates it out.
  63. The subsequent two plays in Salzburg are taken from the gloss of Sigmund ain Ringeck, and are therefore omitted here.
  64. Page reads "site~ rechte~", with marks indicating that the words are reversed.
  65. A. "quickly there".
  66. "that fence from free long hews" omitted from the Salzburg.
  67. "do not hold" omitted from the Salzburg.
  68. "to him" omitted from the Salzburg.
  69. S. were: "weapon".
  70. "on his neck... on his right side" omitted from the Salzburg.
  71. S. "ere when you come up"
  72. S. "to"
  73. A. "in"
  74. Salzburg doubles "the feeling".
  75. "Feel and cannot undertake" omitted from the Salzburg. This is probably a scribal error, jumping from one instance of nicht to the next.
  76. S. "work".
  77. S. entphindest: "perceive".
  78. S. "ere when".
  79. Word doubled in the Salzburg.
  80. S. "word".
  81. S. "right or left side".
  82. S. bindest gebünde~.
  83. 83.0 83.1 Disappears into the binding.
  84. S. "after".
  85. S. "wind".
  86. S. "Technique".
  87. A. "Item".
  88. Word doubled in the Augsburg.
  89. "down a little" omitted from the Salzburg.
  90. "before you" omitted from the Salzburg.
  91. S. dring.
  92. "at the sword" omitted from the Salzburg.
  93. "and thrust... the right" omitted from the Augsburg. This omission is probably a scribal error, jumping to the second instance of siner rechte~.
  94. sic : sein rechten bis repetita
  95. S. "Another wrestling".
  96. A. "him".
  97. A. "his".
  98. S. "weapon".
  99. S. "your".
  100. A. "with".
  101. S. "his".
  102. "and from each single Winding" omitted from the Salzburg.
  103. S. "be it an Over-/Under-hew".
  104. ”einwindẽ durchwindẽ“ written in another hand above the line.
  105. Illegible word from another hand written above the line.
  106. A. "noblest"
  107. Rest der Zeile verschwindet im Bund
  108. A. "him".
  109. S. "against".
  110. S. "your".
  111. S. "your".
  112. "in the techniques" omitted from the Salzburg.
  113. Korrigiert aus »schnudt«