Ringeck:couple translation ?'s RE online text

[ChrisThies]

Many genuine thanks to translators involved in getting this text available online at ARMA. I have a couple translation ?'s, though, that I can't resolve using my old German/English pocket Dict. [Langenscheidt's, 1993]. Perhaps someone whose bi-lingual skills surpass my limited ability to order a bier can help?
- What are "Mutieren" and "Duplieren"?
- "Nachreissen" is trnsl. as "traveling after". In Dict. 'reise' is def. as 'travel', yet 'reiBen' [with that letter that looks like a stretched capital 'B' and pronounced 's'] is def. as 'tear, be torn, rip'. Wouldn't that make more sense?
- "Zucken" is trnsl. as "the twitching". In Dict. 'Zucken' is def. as 'jerk, twitch', yet 'Zucken' with the two diacritic marks over the vowel 'u' (umlauted?) is def. as '1. draw (weapon), 2. pull out (wallet, etc.)'. Wouldn't that make more sense?
This may well be unneccessary semantic debate, but I'm asking because I've created a simple (spreadsheet) terminology/thesaurus/'cheat sheet' to use as a crutch until I can learn the Historical Fencing terms and follow discussion (without constantly scratching my head in puzzlement).Thanks, Chris.

[Guest]

I know Dave Lindholm has an excellent translation forthcoming (see below)

Dave Lindholm's forthcoming book on Sigmund Ringeck's longsword method, the first in a series on Medieval martial arts, will be published later this year to be followed with a book on the MS I.33 fencing manuscript. (From his essay)

Cheers,

Todd

[Richard Strey]

Hi, Chris. I may be able to help out.
Mutieren and Duplieren are two techniques explained in Ringeck (in case that was part of your question at all), I'd translate them as "to Mutate" (since it has to do with changing) and "to Double" (as Duplieren means do "do a strike double"). Why make it more complicated than it already is?

Indeed someone translated "Nachreissen" as "to travel after" at the beginning of time and I've seen it used thus ever since. I figure it comes from the fact that there were no orthography rules in Ringeck's times, so that both "Nachreissen" and "Nachreisen" were used.
Nachreissen = Nach[rip]
Nachreisen=Nach[travel]
Indeed, "to travel after" would be a valid interpretation, if you performed the technique *only* in the Nach, having your blade "traveling after" (behind) the opponent's. But you don't! You also perform it in the Vor, where I find it most useful as a "preemptive Strike".
Considering this, I find the translation "ripping at" ("nach" being used in the locative, not temporal sense) much more fitting.
Item, the difference between Zucken and Zücken:
Twitching seems to be the one here. Zücken is indeed translated as "pulling out" or "drawing" something. However only in the "producing" sense; you had nothing in your hand and then, *zück* you have it. It has nothing to do with the "draw" as in "draw-cut" or pulling as in a pulling motion. It simply is "taking [something] out of [a container]".

I hope this helps in some way. Otherwise, thanks for listening. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Jeffrey Hull]

Excellent! I have been awaiting the Lindholm book eagerly. JH

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Guys,

One of the community's foremost scholars, Christian Tobler has already published an interpretation of the manual attributed to Sigmund Ringeck.

Even if you don't agree with Christian's interpretations, you can still make good use of the translation of the text and re-interpret the techniques yourself.

There are plenty of manuals out there waiting to be translated that have never been touched. ARMA seem to also have a few that nobody else does so why not translate one of those and put something new out in the community?

I should also add that my own instructors have just about finished writing an comprehensive interpretation of the 1.33 manuscript. This book will most likely some out later this year from Chivalry Bookshelf. Again I am puzzled as to why someone would choose to go to all that effort for something that someone else has already done?
Cheers,
Stu.

[Bart Walczak]

Hi Stu,

Maybe because of the differences in the interpretation? Possibly in the translation? To share their own insights and research?

The more books we have, the more sources we can draw upon. Especially those of us who don't know the Middle High German or old Italian <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Jake_Norwood]

I'll chime in. I'm really looking forward to the new Ringeck because every new translation helps us better use this popular and influential manual.

Stu said:

Even if you don't agree with Christian's interpretations, you can still make good use of the translation of the text and re-interpret the techniques yourself.

I find that to be exactly true. Many of Christian's interperetations helped me to figure out some things that had confused me in the past. Likewise there are many places where I disagree with Christian's interperetations, but the fact that they're there gives me something to start from and modify until I find that it fits my definitions better. And it's pretty. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Jake

[GaryGrzybek]

I agree,

Christian's book raised a few questions when trying to work through it but I can honesly say it's well done and has helped quite a bit in my training. I think the biggest concern was that the reference images seemed very stiff and unatural.

I still think it's some very good work <img src="/forum/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />

[Matt Easton]

"Again I am puzzled as to why someone would choose to go to all that effort for something that someone else has already done?
Cheers,
Stu. "

Don't be puzzled Stu - it has good scholarly precedent, and serves to continually reassess a historical source. That is good scholarship and should be encouraged, not dismissed. You only have to look at two different people's translations and interpretations of one source to see this is the case.

To this end there will be an English translation of Ringeck by Dave Rawlings, and a new translation of Le Jeu de la Hache by Fabrice Cognot, on the forthcoming HEMAC website.

Historical sources are there to be studied and re-studied, not franchised and boxed. Our knowledge and study of history would be in a pretty poor state if we had all sat on our hands for the last 100 years, quite happy with the recording of old history that the Victorians set down. Hell, why don't we all study Castle, Burton and Hutton and leave it at that? <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

The day we stop working with historical sources and re-working our analyses is the day history dies.

Matt

[Jake_Norwood]

Well said, Matt.

To be honest I'll want every translation and interpretation of Ringeck available. Christian Tobler himself aptly wrote in the introduction to "Secrets:"

"The reader should note my use of the word interpretation, for that is what my comments are - one man's interpretation. I've no doubt that seasoned practitioners will take issue with some of them and equal confidence that translations more skillful than I will find room for improvement in that area. I welcome this, because debate forces all of us to learn. Our knowledge of medieval fighting arts is changing at a brisk pace and we must all, with humility, accept the fact that our current understanding must e improved upon and in many cases, completely superceded" (p. xv).

So while I see Stu's point -- that more manuals and materials would be great -- there is also a lot to be said for a re-working of this very important manuscript.

Jake

p.s. any and all typos in Christians paragraphs are, in actuality, mine.

[Guest]

The day we stop working with historical sources and re-working our analyses is the day history dies.

Amen Matt Amen

[Jeffrey Hull]

I await the translation of the Ringeck by Lindholm, which I hope is printed by summer's end. JH

[John_Clements]

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

JC

[Brian Hunt]

EEEK! ACK! <sigh> . . . <shrug> . . . Oh Well.

That was the sound of my wallet cringing at the thought of yet another book I wish to buy. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Hi everybody,

although this is a late post I hope it will help:

Please be patient I am neither a fencer nor a native speaker of English.
According to Martin Wierschin, who wrote an excellent book on Johann Liechtenauers Art of Fencing ( in German ) trying to shed some light on the special vocabulary those fencing masters used
duplieren means:hitting with the "false edge" after your opponent has parried/evaded an " oberhau" by crossing your forearms. So you hit twice.
mutieren:changing your attack from the upper exposed spots of your opponent to his lower spots after you got into contact ( = anbinden) by raising your arms (true edge loses contact false edge gets it ) and stabbing down his exposed lower parts
Nachraysen: in the moment your opponent raises his arms to hit, you stab or strike in his now exposed spot
Zucken, Zücken: a sudden disengagement from a bind usually followed by a strike or a stab. Of course zücken means also "bring into the ready position".
Though German is a slowly changing language please keep in mind that using modern dictionaries while interpreting 500 year old texts can lead you pretty far off the track.

Yours Arnold