Brian Hunt wrote:I would like to point out that Mair was a fencing enthusiast who was trying to write down what he considered a dying and soon to be lost art. He is supposed to have consulted with various fencing masters during the writing of his volumes. The pictures were supposed to have been modeled from real life for Jorg Breu the younger, his illustrator.
I have found interesting additions to the materials he wrote down, such as the text only section of the longsword conforms with the Goliath, but has additional phrases added to clarify the material. Whether or not these words are Mairs, or a different version of the Goliath, or clarifications he was given. I don't know.
One of the things I need to get sorted in the next few weeks is whether Mair's copy of the Anonymous Gloss is identical to the one in the Jud Lew Fechtbuch (Augsburg Cod.I.6.4°.3). I suspect that Mair owned this treatise, even though he didn't sign it, and used it as a principle source for his manuscripts. Not only is every section of the manuscript present in Mair's texts, but the only text-only parts of Mair that aren't in Lew are a copy of Leckuechner, an anonymous dagger treatise also used by Meyer, and a few short anonymous grappling treatises. This combined with the fact that every other Fechtbuch held by the Augsburg University Library belonged to Mair makes a pretty strong case to me.
Brian Hunt wrote:While his rappier and buckler sections look a lot like the I.33, the translations do not use the phrases found in the I.33, such as falling under the sword, or shield strike, etc. Also a large number of his rapier and buckler plates corrispond with previous manuscripts that have no text. (I have an old article on this that arrives at some incorrect conclusions due to a date error on a manuscript that Bart Walcazak clarified for me but I haven't had the time to rewrite it. If anyone is interested I would be willing to share the article with the understanding that it needs a serious rewrite). Are his written instructions correct? We don't know. I do know that when I work throught them, they work.
Yes, those sword and buckler plays fascinate me. They seem at this point to be recaptioned copies of textless copies of an actual series of pages that were lost from the I.33 early on. I initially hoped that Mair had the original missing leaves, but the lack of distinctive I.33 terminology, even in the Latin version, dashed this hope. Still, they're the best chance of understanding these plays that we have. I've done a little more work with them here: http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Lutegerus , and Craig Shackleton has been working on determining where exactly they might fit into the main body of I.33. If we could ultimately reconstruct the I.33 as it once was, I think it would be a great achievement.
I've seen your article on the subject (Bart sent it to me a few weeks ago), and it's a very interesting analysis of the plays. I think the errors in creating a historical context are quite forgivable given how much less data we had on the subject when you wrote it.