Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Pseudo-Peter von Danzig"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 54: Line 54:
 
Early on in its history, Pseudo-Peter von Danzig's 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, Pseudo-Peter von Danzig's 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, appearing first in the [[Codex Lew (Cod.I.6.4º.3)|Augsburg version]] (1450s) and comprising the majority of extant copies, has more devices overall than the other branch (particularly in the extensive [[Codex Speyer (MS M.I.29)|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]]. Branch A was later used by [[Johannes Lecküchner]] as a source when he compiled his own gloss of a Recital on the [[Messer]].
+
Branch A, appearing first in the [[Codex Lew (Cod.I.6.4º.3)|Augsburg version]] (1450s) and comprising the majority of extant copies, has more devices overall than the other branch (particularly in the extensive [[Codex Speyer (MS M.I.29)|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; 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, appearing first in the [[Codex Danzig (Cod.44.A.8)|Rome version]] (1452), is found in only four manuscripts; it has slightly longer descriptions than Branch A, but fewer devices overall. Branch B glosses Liechtenauer's entire Recital, including the Short Sword, 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. Apart from the Rome, all versions of Branch B are fragments: the [[Goliath (MS Germ.Quart.2020)|Krakow version]] (1510-20) seems to be an incomplete (though extensively illustrated) copy taken directly from the Rome; [[Hutter/Sollinger Fechtbuch (Cod.I.6.2º.2)|Augsburg II]] (1564) offers only the six illustrations of wrestling from the Krakow with their captions; and the [[Glasgow Fechtbuch (MS E.1939.65.341)|Glasgow version]] contains only part of the short sword gloss, appended to the beginning of Ringeck's short sword gloss and accompanying Ringeck's long sword and mounted fencing glosses (perhaps because the scribe lacked a complete copy of Ringeck's short sword).
+
Branch B, appearing first in the [[Codex Danzig (Cod.44.A.8)|Rome version]] (1452), is found in only four manuscripts; it has slightly longer descriptions than Branch A, but 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, 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]], which only consists of a sizeable fragment of the short sword gloss (hence its assignation to Branch B), and this is appended to a fragment of Ringeck's short sword gloss; since it accompanies Ringeck's long sword and mounted fencing glosses, a possible explanation is that the scribe lacked a complete copy of Ringeck's short sword gloss and tried to fill in the deficit with another similar text.
  
There is one version of the Pseudo-Peter von Danzig gloss that defies categorization into one branch or the other, namely that included in the [[Paulus Kal Fechtbuch (MS KK5126)|Vienna manuscript]] (ca. 1480) along with [[Paulus Kal]]'s work (thought Kal's level of involvement is unknown). The text of this version is more consistent with the generally shorter descriptions of Branch A, but the contents are more consistent with Branch B, lacking most of the unique devices of Branch A and including the gloss of the Short Sword. The Vienna version may thus be a copy of the original gloss before it split into these branches (or it may merely be an odd attempt by a scribe to synthesize the two branches into a single, shorter work).
+
There is one version of the Pseudo-Peter von Danzig gloss that defies categorization into either branch, namely the [[Paulus Kal Fechtbuch (MS KK5126)|Vienna version]] included in a 1480 manuscript along with [[Paulus Kal]]'s work (Kal's personal level of involvement is unknown). The text of this version is more consistent with the generally shorter descriptions of Branch A, but the overall contents more closely match Branch B, lacking most of the unique devices of Branch A and including the gloss of the short sword. The Vienna version may therefore be a copy of the original gloss before it split into these branches (or it may merely be an odd attempt by a scribe to synthesize the two branches into a single, shorter work).
  
While Branches A and B were formerly presented in a single concordance on this page, the differences between them are extensive enough that they merit separate consideration. Thus Branch A has been moved to the page of [[Jud Lew]], to whom may be attributed the gloss on mounted fencing, while Branch B has been retained here. As the Vienna version cannot be cleanly assigned to one branch or the other, it appears in both concordances for comparative purposes.
+
While Branches A and B were formerly presented in a single concordance in this article, the differences between them were revealed thereby to be extensive enough that they merit separate consideration. Thus Branch A has been placed on the page of [[Jud Lew]], to whom is seemingly attributed the gloss on mounted fencing, while Branch B has been retained here. As the Vienna version cannot be cleanly assigned to one branch or the other, it appears in both concordances for comparative purposes.
  
 
{{master begin
 
{{master begin

Revision as of 22:48, 18 May 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
Translations

"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—the oldest currently extant—might be construed as attributing it to Liechtenauer himself.

Treatise

Early on in its history, Pseudo-Peter von Danzig's 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, appearing first 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; 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, appearing first in the Rome version (1452), is found in only four manuscripts; it has slightly longer descriptions than Branch A, but 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, 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, which only consists of a sizeable fragment of the short sword gloss (hence its assignation to Branch B), and this is appended to a fragment of Ringeck's short sword gloss; since it accompanies Ringeck's long sword and mounted fencing glosses, a possible explanation is that the scribe lacked a complete copy of Ringeck's short sword gloss and tried to fill in the deficit with another similar text.

There is one version of the Pseudo-Peter von Danzig gloss that defies categorization into either branch, namely the Vienna version included in a 1480 manuscript along with Paulus Kal's work (Kal's personal level of involvement is unknown). The text of this version is more consistent with the generally shorter descriptions of Branch A, but the overall contents more closely match Branch B, lacking most of the unique devices of Branch A and including the gloss of the short sword. The Vienna version may therefore be a copy of the original gloss before it split into these branches (or it may merely be an odd attempt by a scribe to synthesize the two branches into a single, shorter work).

While Branches A and B were formerly presented in a single concordance in this article, the differences between them were revealed thereby to be extensive enough that they merit separate consideration. Thus Branch A has been placed on the page of Jud Lew, to whom is seemingly attributed the gloss on mounted fencing, while Branch B has been retained here. As the Vienna version cannot be cleanly assigned to one branch or the other, it appears in both concordances for comparative purposes.

Additional Resources

References

  1. This name stems from the false assumption of many 20th century writers identifying him with Peter von Danzig zum Ingolstadt.
  2. Könnte auch als »thun« gelesen werden.
  3. 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.
  4. Letter erased and overwritten.
  5. 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).
  6. 6.0 6.1 Indecipherable due to an ink blotch.