Ringeck:couple translation ?'s RE online text

[Jake_Norwood]

I am told Ringeck's Longsword Vol. 1 will be out next month.

Any word on this?

[John_Clements]

Yes, we will be premiering it at the Gathering next week. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

JC

[Jake_Norwood]

Arnold-

Some of those definitions are different from much of what we hear nowadays. What's your source? I like a few of those much better than what we curently have.

Jake

[John_Clements]

Jake,
It's, Die Ritterlich Kunst des Langen Schwerts, c.1455-1460, (Transcript by Martin Wierschin, 1965), Sächsische Landesbibliothek, Germany.
From what I understand, Wierschin's view is somewhat controversial.

[Randall Pleasant]

John

Will we be able to purchase a copy at the event?

[John_Clements]

No, it won't actually be available for a few more weeks from what I understand. I suppose you might be able to advance order it.

[Randall Pleasant]

...but it is Precious to me...lost...must have my Precious!

[Jake_Norwood]

Ach, so it is. I overlooked that in the original post.

So who is Martin Wieschin, and how did he get to his definitions? I think that mutieren and duplieren are very poorly understood by even the best of us (there's very little in the way of a consensus), and while I know that "my" interpretation is functional, I want to know what Hans L. would have had me do. Hence my curiosity on those sources.

Jake

[Guest]

Hi Jake,

Martin Wierschin did his doctoral thesis ( in germanics I assume) in 1963 and published it in 1965:

Martin Wierschin, Meister Johann Liechtenauers Kunst des Fechtens, C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Munich, 1965

In this thesis he edited Sigmund Ringeck's commentaries of Liechtenauers rules ( the manuscript in den Dresden Sächsische Landesbibliothek John mentioned), using an older manuscript from Nürnberg, ( Hank Döbringer's version of Liechtenauer's Art of....) additionally.
Since this is a German scientific text from the sixties it's pretty hard to read, still I do believe he tried to do a thorough job in clarifiying fencer's language from a philological point of view.
Of course it needs a real fencer to find out whether his interpretations prove to be correct in the corresponding fighting technique. ( And a historian to provide the background information )
From your reply and from John's I learn that Wierschin's interpretation of Sigmund Ringeck ( or my translation of his ) is unusual and controversial. Why is that so? Did he make methodical mistakes or do you end up cut in half when fighting according to his interpretation?

Yours Arnold

[Jake_Norwood]

From your reply and from John's I learn that Wierschin's interpretation of Sigmund Ringeck ( or my translation of his ) is unusual and controversial. Why is that so? Did he make methodical mistakes or do you end up cut in half when fighting according to his interpretation?

I don't know anything about the controversy (JC?), it's just that some of those definitions are different from what I've heard elsewhere, I can't comment on their quality as of yet.

Jake

[Guest]

Hi Jake,

I found Wierschin's book on the ARMA Reading List:

http://www.thearma.org/NonEnglishList.htm

and the appropriate definitions of those expressions in:

http://www.thearma.org/terms2.htm

They resemble Wierschin's interpretation pretty closely.

Yours Arnold