wallersteinrevisedintroduction.pdf

Codex Wallerstein

A Medieval Fighting Book from the Fifteenth Century

on the Longsword, Falchion, Dagger and Wrestling

Introduction

(revised)

by Grzegorz Zabinski

REMARKS ON THE MANUSCRIPT 1

2 and 3 are blank. This codex is by no means a

homogenous source—it seems to consist of two

different manuals (for the sake of convenience

called further A and B), which were put togeth-

er and later given a common pagination. 4 Part

A (No. 1 recto—No. 75 recto, and No. 108

verso; thus consisting of 151 pages) is probably

from the second half of the fifteenth century, on

account on both the representations of arms

and armour on No. 1 verso (full plate armours

and armets) and No. 2 recto, and costume

details of costumes on No. 108 verso 5 . On the

other hand, part B (No. 76 recto—No. 108 recto;

66 pages) is probably of much earlier origin,

The subject of this edition, one of the best

known late medieval Fechtbuch known as

Codex Wallerstein is preserved in the collection

of the Universitätsbibliothek Augsburg

(I.6.4°.2). The codex is a paper quarto manu-

script, written in Middle High German with

some Bavarian dialect influence, containing 221

pages, 2 every odd one numbered in the upper

right corner, starting from page 4 which is

given No. 1. Page 1 contains a date 1549, the

supposed manual owner’s name, Vonn

Baumans, 3 and the word Fechtbuch, while pages

1 Some observations upon the Codex Wallerstein, incor-

porated into the present edition, were already published

by the author in his paper ”Several Remarks on the

Bloßfechten Section of Codex Wallerstein.” (Last Update

12 March 2001). Available from the author’s homepage

http://sites.netscape.net/gadjaszczur/. Available from

the Journal of Western Martial Art http://ejmas.com/

jmwa/jmwaart_zabinski_401.html. Internet.

2 According to the numeration of pages, there are 108

charts; however, several pages at the beginning are not

numbered, that is why it seems to be more proper to give

an exact number of pages.

3 According to H.-P. Hils it is possible to attempt at iden-

tifying the owner of the manuscript on account of the tax

registers of Augsburg, which mention persons called

Michael Baumann (sometimes referred to as Söldner, i.e.,

a mercenary) in the second half of the fifteenth and the

first half of the sixteenth century. As it was quite com-

mon in the Middle Ages to give father’s name to male

children, one may suppose that these mentions concern

a family, in which the codex was inherited. See: Hans-

Peter Hils, Meister Johann Liechtenauers Kunst des langen

Schwertes (Europäische Hochschulschriften 3. Geschichte

und ihre Hilfswissenschaften 257. Frankfurt am Main:

Peter Lang, 1985), 28.

4 Regretfully, the author had a microfilm and not the

actual manuscript at his disposal while writing this con-

tribution. As a thorough inspection of the codex would

surely reveal much more than a mere view of a microfilm

reproduction, the remarks on the manuscript and its ori-

gin are by no means as decisive. For more data about the

codex consult the works quoted below. Previous litera-

ture dealing with the codex divides the manuscript into

three parts: two Fechtbücher and one Ring-or Kampfbuch

(i.e., concerning wrestling and dagger fighting), which

corresponds to the division applied here: part A could be

further divided into a Fechtbuch (long sword) and

Ringbuch (wrestling and dagger). See: Martin Wierschin,

Meister Johann Liechtenauers Kunst des Fechtens

(Münchener Texte und Untersuchungen zur Deutschen

Literatur des Mittelalters. Kommission für Deutsche

Literatur des Mittelalters der Bayerischen Akademie der

Wissenschaften 13. C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuch-

handlung, München 1965), 21; H.-P. Hils, 26-27, divides

the manuscript in two basic parts (I: charts 1-74, II: charts

76-108), which could be further divided: part I into 2 sub-

parts (according to the division into Fechtbuch with long

sword and Kampfbuch with wrestling and dagger), part

II into 2 sub-parts as well, according to the same divi-

sion; Friedrich Dörnhöffer, “Quellen zur Geschichte der

Kaiserlichen Haussammlungen und der Kunstbestre-

bungen des Allerdurchlauchtigsten Erzhauses: Albrecht

Dürers Fechtbuch,” Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen

Sammlungen des Allerhöchstes Kaiserhauses 27.6 (1909), IX-

XIII, XXXIII, divides the manuscript into three parts: the

first one is a Fechtbuch (principle of division see above),

the second one a Ringbuch, and the third one a mixture of

various scenes and ways of fighting. This author point

rightly to the fact that the two first parts were put togeth-

er in the fifteenth century, while the present form of the

codex, with the addition of the third part, is the matter of

the sixteenth century; F. Dörnhoffer and H.-P. Hils

attempt at dating the manuscript, referring it in general

to the fifteenth century: F. Dörnhoffer claims that the

third, mixed part is the oldest, originating in the mid-fif-

teenth century, while the two first parts are dated at

about 1470; H.-P. Hils, accepting the date 1470 for the

two first parts, maintains that the third part is older,

originating from the mid-or even early fifteenth centu-

ry—his division seems to be more justified.

5 See: Mary G. Houston, Medieval Costume in England and

France: the 13 th , 14 th , and 15 th Centuries (New York: Dover

Publications, Inc., 1996), 158-185.

which, on account of the details of armour

(basinets without visors or basinets with early

types of visors; mail aventails; cloth worn on

the breast-and backplates cuirasses) can be

dated to late fourteenth—early fifteenth century.

It is worth noticing that this Fechtbuch

belonged once to one of the most famous six-

teenth-century authors of combat manuals,

Paulus Hector Mair; 6 and it was him who was

the author of the contents of the manuscript

(No. 109 recto), and several minor remarks on

the number of pages for particular sections of

the manual, which were inserted in some

places in the codex.

Codex Wallerstein, like many other

medieval and Renaissance Fechtbücher, contains

a wide range of sections devoted to particular

weapons and kinds of fighting:

This part consists of images provided with

relevant comments.

P ART B

long sword (Bloßfechten), No. 76 recto—No.

80 verso; No. 101 recto—No.102 verso,

armoured combat (Harneschfechten) with

long swords, shields, lances and daggers,

No. 81 recto—No. 95 verso; No. 103 recto—

No. 108 recto,

judicial duel with judicial shields, maces,

and swords, No. 96 recto—No. 98 verso,

wrestling (Ringen), No. 98 verso—No. 100

verso.

This part consists of images only, without

any comments or explanations. On No. 109

recto there is a summary of the manuscript’s

contents, written in sixteenth-century Neo-

Gothic script. Apart from sections mentioned

above, there are several blank pages in this

codex: No. 2 verso, No. 34 verso, No. 75 recto

(with an unfinished sentence), No. 75 verso,

No. 92 recto, and No. 92 verso. Both parts, as

already remarked in previous scholarship,

were put together in the sixteenth century.

According to H.-P. Hils, both parts were writ-

ten by several different scribes and illumina-

tors, which can be seen in the style of script and

images. Moreover, he maintains that part B

belongs to the so-called “Gladiatoria” group,

which cannot be linked to the teaching of

Liechtenauer. 7

This manual, as many other fighting manu-

als, 8 puts considerable stress on judicial duels,

which is attested to by several elements typical

P ART A

a representation of a man-at-arms, No. 1 recto,

judicial duel scenes, No. 1 verso—No. 2 recto,

long sword unarmoured combat (Bloß-

fechten), No. 3 recto—No. 14 verso; No. 21

recto—No. 21 verso,

wrestling (Ringen), No. 15 recto—No. 20

verso; No. 33 recto—No. 74 recto,

unarmoured dagger combat (Degen), No. 22

recto—No. 28 verso,

unarmoured falchion combat (Messer), No.

29 recto—No. 32 verso,

advice on how to rob a peasant with a knife,

No. 74 verso,

a represantation of persons in courtly cos-

tumes, No. 108 verso.

6 A note on No. 1 recto: Uber ii Khumben Im / 1556 Jar am

/ 26 Januari / paulus hector / mair zugehorig. Mair was a

notary of the town of Augsburg and was executed in

1579 on account of theft, H.-P. Hils, “Hans Talhoffer:

Fechtbuch,” in Rudolf Frankenberger, and Paul Berthold

Rupp, eds., Wertvolle Handschriften und Einbände aus der

ehemaligen Oettingen-Wallersteinschen Bibliothek

(Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 1987), 96; id., Meister

Johann, 198. See also: F. Dörnhoffer, XXXIII; H.-P. Hils,

Meister Johann, 28. It is worth noticing that Augsburg

was an important centre of martial arts teaching in the

sixteenth century and the Universitätsbibliothek

Augsburg has several fencing manuals in its collection—

see: H.-P. Hils, 21-40, 189-201. It is also remarkable that

Codex Wallerstein served as a source for the Fechtbuch

of Albrecht Dürer (1512), see: F. Dörnhöffer, IX-XIII,

XXXIII; H.-P. Hils, 27. The section on wrestling from

Codex Wallerstein, supplemented with techniques from

Dürer’s Fechtbuch, and provided with the images of the

latter, was already a subject of the work of Karl

Wassmannsdorff, Die Ringkunst des deutschen Mittelalters

(Lepizig: M.G. Prieber, 1870). Moreover, it would be of

extreme interest to research the relationship between

Codex Wallerstein and Mair’s works; On Mair and his

manuals see Sydney Anglo, The Martial Arts of

Renaissance Europe (New Haven and London: Yale

University Press, 2000).

7 Hils, 26-28, 135, 201-202.

for such kind of fighting. For example, No. 1

verso and No. 2 recto, present a remarkable

duel scene in a fenced yard, with coffins

already prepared for both combatants; more-

over (apart from such obvious elements like

judicial shields and maces), one’s attention is

drawn by the crosses on the garments of the

combatants in part B. 9

Although such presentation of the material

is not a peculiarity of this manuscript (another

example could be Talhoffer’s Fechtbuch aus dem

Jahre 1467, where, for example, comments on

long sword unarmoured combat are divided

into two sections), 10 the fact that sections on

particular weapons are mixed with one anoth-

er to such extent makes the researcher wonder

about the way in which the manuscript was

actually written. It could be tentatively sug-

gested that the scribes proceeded gradually,

writing or copying particular sections as they

had access to relevant data, without caring

about putting the material in a coherent order.

Moreover, the scribes of part A were in all

probability not very familiar with the Kunst des

Fechtens. To support this point of view, one can

refer to No. 9 verso and No. 10 recto, when the

scribe simply confused two images’ comments

with each other—at least, he realized his mis-

take and provided the images with relevant

explanations; moreover, he made another mis-

take (No. 12 recto), having confused the words

‘your’ (deines) with ‘his’ (seines). On the other

hand, it seems that the manuscript was first

illustrated, and then provided with comments;

however, the fact that the scribe confused the

comments for two entirely different techniques

speaks a lot about his knowledge of the subject.

Of interest is the fact that in the first seven

plates of the long sword section (No. 3 recto—

No. 6 recto) there are headings with general

fighting principles: 11 written just above the first

line of the comments, and with a different

script, they are in all probability later additions.

THE WEAPON OF

CODEX WALLERSTEIN

T HE LONG SWORDS PART A OF C ODEX

W ALLERSTEIN

With regard to the length of the long

swords in section A, they seem to vary consid-

erably: from about 110-120 cm (plates 5, 6, 7, 8,

20, 24, 25, 26, and 41), through about 130-140

cm (plates 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23,

24, 27, 28, and 42) to about 150 cm (plates 9, 10,

and 21), or even 160-180 cm (plates 1, 2, and 3);

similarly, the lengths of the hilts vary.

However, this variety seems to have been

caused rather by the illuminator’s style (it is a

well-known fact that medieval artists often did

not pay much attention to issues of dimensions

and proportion) than by a conscious differenti-

ation for the purpose of particular techniques.

What is important is the fact that all the long

swords can be seen as belonging to one type:

ridged blades without fullers, with a diamond-

shaped cross-sections, and rigid, sharp points;

fig-shaped pommels; simple straight cross-

pieces with chappes. According to the com-

monly accepted typology of Robert E.

Oakeshott, the blades could be classified as

type XV (XVa respectively, according to his

recent observations) or XVIII/XVIIIa (the dif-

8 For example, see Hans Talhoffer, Fechtbuch aus dem Jahre

1467. Edited by Gustav Hergsell (Prague: J.G. Calve’sche

K.K. Hof-und Universitäts-Buchhandlung, Ottomar

Beyer, 1887). A modern English edition which is used

here: Medieval Combat: A Fifteenth Century Illustrated

Manual of Swordfighting and Close-Quarter Combat.

Translated and Edited by Mark Rector (London:

Greenhill Books, 2000); Judicial duels are also dealt with

in other manuals of Talhoffer: Fechtbuch aus dem Jahre

1443. Edited by Gustav Hergsell (Prague: Selbstverlag,

1889), and Fechtbuch aus dem Jahre 1459. Edited by Gustav

Hergsell (Prague: Selbstverlag, 1889). A splendid exam-

ple of such manual is Das Solothurner Fechtbuch (1423).

Edited by Charles Studer (Solothurn: Vogt-Schild AG).

9 Like in Talhoffer (1467), plate 69, 104-169; Talhoffer

(1443), plates 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 31, 35, 37, 39-47

and 55; Talhoffer (1459), plates 1, 15, and 16; Das

Solothurner Fechtbuch, plates 59-71. See also M. Rector’s

comments, Talhoffer (1467), 10-11, as well as the remarks

of Ch. Studer, Das Solothurner Fechtbuch, 8-13.

10 Talhoffer (1467), plates 1-67 and 74-78.

11 See F. Dörnhöffer, LXXVI-LXXVII.

ference consist in the fact that a type XV blade

has a ridge flanked with deeply hollowed faces,

in the case of type XVIII the ridge rises from

almost flat faces): it does not seem possible to

solve this issue by looking at the images in the

manuscript. Actually, one would rather opt for

type XVIII, as type XV (which dates back to the

thirteenth century) is in the fifteenth century

accompanied by a short, one-handed grip.

However, it may not be that important, as both

types of blades were so similar to each other in

the fifteenth century that it is sometimes hard

to distinguish them from each other. 12 As

regards the cross-pieces, they belong clearly to

type 1; 13 the pommels represent the T family

and bear the strongest resemblance to the T3

type (plates 1, 2, 3, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,

25, 26, 27, 28, 41, and 42). 14

Of course, one could ask the question

whether the codex illuminator had a particular

type of sword in front of his eyes when illus-

trating the manuscript (this refers in general to

all the types of weapons depicted in the codex),

or he was rather presenting in general the

forms of sword commonly used in his environ-

ment: the latter option is more probable.

Moreover, one should not assume that he was

that much interested in depicting the details of

weapons which were surely well known to

contemporary men. Therefore, the above

attempt at classifying the swords should be

rather seen as a search for analogies among the

known examples of existing artifacts than as a

decisive definition of the weapon’s typology.

A functional analysis of the swords present-

ed in the manuscript is more important: this

shape of the blade was universal both for cut-

ting and thrusting, and the form of pommels

allowed for comfortable use with both hands—

this is especially relevant for the purpose of

winding (e.g., plates 6 or 8), and generally the

techniques performed with crossed forearms

(e.g., plates 7, 9, 10 or 13), as well as hitting with

the pommel (e.g., plates 22 or 25). 15

T HE FALCHIONS (M ESSER ) IN PART A

The falchions presented in part A of the

manuscript (plates 57-64) are about 120 cm

long, and their hilts, although basically

designed for a one-handed grip, seem to be

long enough to be used comfortably with both

hands. The length of hilts if of importance not

only from this point of view, but also with

regard to the fact that long hilts could be of

considerable use for the purpose of hooking the

adversary’s hand, forearm, or throat, like in

plates 57, 59, 63 and 64. The pommels are of

hoof or wedge shape (similar to sword type T1,

although definitely asymmetrical), 16 the handle

is formed of two plates riveted to the tang; the

cross-pieces are straight. 17 The form of the

blade is very interesting, as the sharp part of

the short edge seems to extend from the point

to the cross-piece—however, the manuscript

does not contain any advice about using this

part of the weapon.

T HE DAGGERS IN PART A

The daggers depicted in the manual clearly

belong to one type, very common in the late

Middle Ages, called “Rondel daggers”: 18 about

40-60 cm long, with round cross-pieces, and

round, slightly convex pommels. Their blades

are tapering, with rigid points and diamond-

shaped cross-sections. Such a weapon was

used for thrusting only (as one can see, there

are no cutting techniques in this manual), and

was extremely efficient against an armoured

opponent to penetrate the openings in the

armour or stab through the chain mail. Of

12 Robert E. Oakeshott, The Archaeology of Weapons

(Boydell Press, 1964), 306-309, 313, and plates 16, 19, and

20 between pp.184-185; Id., Records of the Medieval Sword

(4 th ed., Boydell Press, 2000), 127-145, 171-196.

13 Oakeshott, The Archaeology, 232; Id., Records, IX.

14 Oakeshott, The Archaeology, 314-315; Id., Records, 10.

15 See also M. Rector’s remarks in Talhoffer (1467), 15-16;

John Clements, Medieval Swordsmanship: Illustrated

Methods and Techniques (Boulder: Paladin Press, 1998), 38-

39, 181-185.

16 Oakeshott, The Archeaology, 314.

17 Ibid., 232.

18 Ibid., 337.

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: