Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Pseudo-Peter von Danzig"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 27: Line 27:
 
| state of existence    = Original hypothetical;<br/>multiple branches exist
 
| state of existence    = Original hypothetical;<br/>multiple branches exist
 
| principal manuscript(s)={{plainlist
 
| principal manuscript(s)={{plainlist
  | [[Codex Danzig (Cod.44.A.8)|Cod. 44.A.8]] (1452)
+
  | [[Starhemberg Fechtbuch (Cod.44.A.8)|Cod. 44.A.8]] (1452)
 
  | [[Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|MS Germ.quart.2020]] (1535-40)
 
  | [[Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|MS Germ.quart.2020]] (1535-40)
 
}}
 
}}
Line 46: Line 46:
 
| below                =  
 
| below                =  
 
}}
 
}}
'''"Pseudo-Peter von Danzig"''' is the name given to an anonymous [[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 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.
+
'''"Pseudo-Peter von Danzig"''' is the name given to an anonymous [[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]]. It has been argued that this name is inappopriate because the treatises attributed to pseudo-Danzig (and also pseudo-Hans Döbringer) are not true pseudepigrapha&mdash;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.</ref> Some time before the creation of the [[Starhemberg Fechtbuch (Cod.44.A.8)|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.
  
 
== Stemma ==
 
== Stemma ==
Line 54: Line 54:
 
Branch A, first attested in the [[Codex Lew (Cod.I.6.4º.3)|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 [[Oplodidaskalia sive Armorvm Tractandorvm Meditatio Alberti Dvreri (MS 26-232)|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 version in Branch A is the [[Codex Speyer (MS M.I.29)|Salzburg version]] (1491), which was copied independently<ref>Both Augsburg and Salzburg contain significant scribal errors of omission that allow us to identify manuscripts copied from them.</ref> 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), [[Maister Liechtenawers Kunstbuech (Cgm 3712)|Lienhart Sollinger]] (1556), and [[Fechtbuch zu Ross und zu Fuss (MS Var.82)|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 A, first attested in the [[Codex Lew (Cod.I.6.4º.3)|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 [[Oplodidaskalia sive Armorvm Tractandorvm Meditatio Alberti Dvreri (MS 26-232)|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 version in Branch A is the [[Codex Speyer (MS M.I.29)|Salzburg version]] (1491), which was copied independently<ref>Both Augsburg and Salzburg contain significant scribal errors of omission that allow us to identify manuscripts copied from them.</ref> 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), [[Maister Liechtenawers Kunstbuech (Cgm 3712)|Lienhart Sollinger]] (1556), and [[Fechtbuch zu Ross und zu Fuss (MS Var.82)|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 [[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 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 from Branch A in that three of the five known copies are illustrated to some extent, where none in the other branch are. The [[Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|Krakow version]] (1535-40) seems to be an incomplete (though extensively illustrated) copy taken from the Rome,<ref>Zabinski, pp 82-83</ref> while [[Hutter/Sollinger Fechtbuch (Cod.I.6.2º.2)|Augsburg II]] (1564) collects only the six illustrated wrestling plays from the Krakow. Even more anomalous is the [[Glasgow Fechtbuch (MS E.1939.65.341)|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. The other 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.
+
Branch B, attested first in the [[Starhemberg Fechtbuch (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 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 from Branch A in that three of the five known copies are illustrated to some extent, where none in the other branch are. The [[Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|Krakow version]] (1535-40) seems to be an incomplete (though extensively illustrated) copy taken from the Rome,<ref>Zabinski, pp 82-83</ref> while [[Hutter/Sollinger Fechtbuch (Cod.I.6.2º.2)|Augsburg II]] (1564) collects only the six illustrated wrestling plays from the Krakow. Even more anomalous is the [[Glasgow Fechtbuch (MS E.1939.65.341)|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. The other 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.
  
 
Branch C is first attested in the [[Paulus Kal Fechtbuch (MS KK5126)|Vienna version]] (1480s), and only glosses the long sword. 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 plays of Branch A and including the gloss of the short sword, but the actual text is more consistent with that of Branch A (though not identical). The other substantial copy of Branch C is [[Rast Fechtbuch (Reichsstadt "Schätze" Nr. 82)|Augsburg III]] (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 this gloss is present in five additional 16th century manuscripts alongside the illustrated treatise of [[Jörg Wilhalm Hutter]]; while four appear to be attributed to Hutter in the 1520s, one, [[Gregor Erhart Fechtbuch (MS E.1939.65.354)|Glasgow II]] (1533), assigns the text a much earlier origin, stating that it was recorded by one [[Nicolaüs]] in 1489. This branch has received the least attention and is currently the least understood.
 
Branch C is first attested in the [[Paulus Kal Fechtbuch (MS KK5126)|Vienna version]] (1480s), and only glosses the long sword. 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 plays of Branch A and including the gloss of the short sword, but the actual text is more consistent with that of Branch A (though not identical). The other substantial copy of Branch C is [[Rast Fechtbuch (Reichsstadt "Schätze" Nr. 82)|Augsburg III]] (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 this gloss is present in five additional 16th century manuscripts alongside the illustrated treatise of [[Jörg Wilhalm Hutter]]; while four appear to be attributed to Hutter in the 1520s, one, [[Gregor Erhart Fechtbuch (MS E.1939.65.354)|Glasgow II]] (1533), assigns the text a much earlier origin, stating that it was recorded by one [[Nicolaüs]] in 1489. This branch has received the least attention and is currently the least understood.
Line 77: Line 77:
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the [[Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|Kraków version]]</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the [[Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|Kraków version]]</p>
 
! <p>{{rating|A}}<br/>by [[translator::Cory Winslow]]</p>
 
! <p>{{rating|A}}<br/>by [[translator::Cory Winslow]]</p>
! <p>[[Codex Danzig (Cod.44.A.8)|Rome Transcription]] (1452){{edit index|Codex Danzig (Cod.44.A.8)}}<br/>by [[Dierk Hagedorn]]</p>
+
! <p>[[Starhemberg Fechtbuch (Cod.44.A.8)|Rome Transcription]] (1452){{edit index|Starhemberg Fechtbuch (Cod.44.A.8)}}<br/>by [[Dierk Hagedorn]]</p>
 
! <p>[[Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|Kraków Transcription]] (1535-40){{edit index|Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)}}<br/>by [[Grzegorz Żabiński]]</p>
 
! <p>[[Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|Kraków Transcription]] (1535-40){{edit index|Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)}}<br/>by [[Grzegorz Żabiński]]</p>
 
! <p>[[Hutter/Sollinger Fechtbuch (Cod.I.6.2º.2)|Augsburg Transcription]] (1564){{edit index|Hutter/Sollinger Fechtbuch (Cod.I.6.2º.2)}}<br/>by [[Dierk Hagedorn]]</p><section end="credits1"/>
 
! <p>[[Hutter/Sollinger Fechtbuch (Cod.I.6.2º.2)|Augsburg Transcription]] (1564){{edit index|Hutter/Sollinger Fechtbuch (Cod.I.6.2º.2)}}<br/>by [[Dierk Hagedorn]]</p><section end="credits1"/>
Line 1,833: Line 1,833:
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the [[Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|Kraków version]]</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the [[Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|Kraków version]]</p>
 
! <p>{{rating|c|Draft Translation (from the Rome)}}<br/>by [[User:Stephen Cheney|Stephen Cheney]]</p>
 
! <p>{{rating|c|Draft Translation (from the Rome)}}<br/>by [[User:Stephen Cheney|Stephen Cheney]]</p>
! <p>[[Codex Danzig (Cod.44.A.8)|Rome Transcription]] (1452){{edit index|Codex Danzig (Cod.44.A.8)}}<br/>by [[Dierk Hagedorn]]</p>
+
! <p>[[Starhemberg Fechtbuch (Cod.44.A.8)|Rome Transcription]] (1452){{edit index|Starhemberg Fechtbuch (Cod.44.A.8)}}<br/>by [[Dierk Hagedorn]]</p>
 
! <p>[[Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|Kraków Transcription]] (1535-40){{edit index|Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)}}<br/>by [[Michael Chidester]]</p>
 
! <p>[[Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|Kraków Transcription]] (1535-40){{edit index|Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)}}<br/>by [[Michael Chidester]]</p>
 
! <p>[[Paulus Kal Fechtbuch (MS KK5126)|Vienna Transcription]] (1480s){{edit index|Paulus Kal Fechtbuch (MS KK5126)}}<br/>by [[Dierk Hagedorn]]</p>
 
! <p>[[Paulus Kal Fechtbuch (MS KK5126)|Vienna Transcription]] (1480s){{edit index|Paulus Kal Fechtbuch (MS KK5126)}}<br/>by [[Dierk Hagedorn]]</p>
Line 3,003: Line 3,003:
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the [[Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|Kraków version]]</p>
 
! <p>Illustrations<br/>from the [[Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|Kraków version]]</p>
 
! <p>{{rating|C|Draft Translation (from the Rome)}}<br/>by [[translator::Stephen Cheney]]</p>
 
! <p>{{rating|C|Draft Translation (from the Rome)}}<br/>by [[translator::Stephen Cheney]]</p>
! <p>[[Codex Danzig (Cod.44.A.8)|Rome Transcription]] (1452){{edit index|Codex Danzig (Cod.44.A.8)}}<br/>by [[Dierk Hagedorn]]</p>
+
! <p>[[Starhemberg Fechtbuch (Cod.44.A.8)|Rome Transcription]] (1452){{edit index|Starhemberg Fechtbuch (Cod.44.A.8)}}<br/>by [[Dierk Hagedorn]]</p>
 
! <p>[[Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|Kraków Transcription]] (1535-40){{edit index|Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)}}<br/>by [[Michael Chidester]]</p>
 
! <p>[[Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|Kraków Transcription]] (1535-40){{edit index|Goliath Fechtbuch (MS Germ.Quart.2020)}}<br/>by [[Michael Chidester]]</p>
 
! <p>[[Paulus Kal Fechtbuch (MS KK5126)|Vienna Transcription]] (1480s){{edit index|Paulus Kal Fechtbuch (MS KK5126)}}<br/>by [[Dierk Hagedorn]]</p>
 
! <p>[[Paulus Kal Fechtbuch (MS KK5126)|Vienna Transcription]] (1480s){{edit index|Paulus Kal Fechtbuch (MS KK5126)}}<br/>by [[Dierk Hagedorn]]</p>
Line 4,536: Line 4,536:
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{sourcebox
 
{{sourcebox
  | work        = [[Codex Danzig (Cod.44.A.8)|Rome Transcription]]
+
  | work        = [[Starhemberg Fechtbuch (Cod.44.A.8)|Rome Transcription]]
 
  | authors    = [[Dierk Hagedorn]]
 
  | authors    = [[Dierk Hagedorn]]
 
  | source link =  
 
  | source link =  
  | source title= [[Index:Codex Danzig (Cod.44.A.8)]]
+
  | source title= [[Index:Starhemberg Fechtbuch (Cod.44.A.8)]]
 
  | license    = copyrighted
 
  | license    = copyrighted
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 16:35, 14 November 2020

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)
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.

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).

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 version 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 four 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 from Branch A in that three of the five known copies are illustrated to some extent, where none in the other branch are. 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. 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. The other 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.

Branch C is first attested in the Vienna version (1480s), and only glosses the long sword. 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 plays of Branch A and including the gloss of the short sword, but the actual text is more consistent with that of Branch A (though not identical). The other substantial copy of Branch C is Augsburg III (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 this gloss is present in five additional 16th century manuscripts alongside the illustrated treatise of Jörg Wilhalm Hutter; while four appear to be attributed to Hutter in the 1520s, one, Glasgow II (1533), assigns the text a much earlier origin, stating that it was recorded by one Nicolaüs in 1489. This branch has received the least attention and is currently the least understood.

(A final text of interest is the 1539 treatise of Hans Medel von Salzburg,[4] which was acquired by Mair 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 Nicolaüs. Because of the extent of the original and mixed content, Medel's versions are not included in any of these pages.)

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.