Brian Hunt wrote:I agree that "Cade ad gladium" would be a much better way to write "fall at or towards the sword." However we don't even know the education level of the person writing the I:33. Maybe they made a mistake in their writing. The Latin is certainly crude enough to allow for that. We just don't know. Maybe the phrase was a regional shortcut for a specific action and was used that way during teaching of the techniques and was simply written down that way because that is how it was barked out in class, much like the simple instructions in a karate dojo. Punch! Front kick! Back kick! Shoto! Without the base understanding of these commands the average joe could put any action to the command without first being trained how to punch, do a front kick, a back kick or a shoto.
This is the problem with the I:33, what did the author actually mean or intend. Most manuals are a written means to help remember a system, as such they are often filled with obscure notes or phrases that could mean anything without the formal instruction that went with them. In my own translation that I finished before Forgeng's came out I also translated "Cade sub Gladium" as "fall under the sword." I also wondered about an implied possablity of "fall from below the sword." Because of the crudity of the Latin I also went with the most common usuage of the word "sub." However, I wanted to point out that our translation could be incorrect and or the mere act of "Falling under" the sword could be a shortcut phrase for an action that we don't even fully understand.
"Cade sub gladium" could even be a shortened version of something along the lines of "Fall from the under arm position at his sword." The problem is, we don't know for sure and everything is a guess. Often a highly thought out and well reasoned guess, but still a guess. As has often been said in the past, "the traitor is in the translation." One of the problems with "Cade sub gladium" is the simple phrase "Cade" which comes from the root word "Cado." The way the verb "Cade" is conjugated it stands as an instruction by itself with it's own punctuation as "Fall!" Then we add in the words "sub" and "gladium" to get "Fall! under the sword." Without further clarification we have a specific command for an unclear action that may or may not finish with a bind. When we throw in the rest of the often repeated phrase we come up with a basic translation that would read "Fall! under the sword and also the shield."
I could also translate it as "Fall! from below the sword and also the shield." with the word "from" being inferred as is often the case in Latin, conjunctions and other words may be implied rather than written but doesn't always mean that they are. Rats! Another guess. Thus I am left with supposition and a straight forward translation of a poorly written phrase that has no clarifing instructions as to what it actually means or it's true intent and look to the images to try and further my understanding (which have their own perspective problems due to the type of art they illustrated in the 13th century where meaning was often included by the position of the figures). Why are the figures up on their toes? What foot is actually forward? Why does the priest often have a simpid smile and often seems to be looking up at the heavens? Are those crossed swords actually touching in a bind or not?
I think this is actually a problem that's almost systemic. Those of us who are working with the sources don't have the contextual background that the people who wrote them did. I have no doubt that there are linguists out there who have a sufficient grasp of, in this case, early 14th Century German Church Latin to clear up a lot of our confusion, but we have no idea how to contact them (and they're probably not interested in our field regardless). Likewise, I'm sure there are art historians who could comment extensively on all of the questions you raised about the images in the I.33, but they are also unlikely to get involved. And the only way to gain access to such esoteric knowledge ourselves seems to be to spend many years grinding through the ranks of academia. I'd love to find a book that takes you through Medieval art or linguistic conventions from the ground up, but such a thing doesn't seem to exist.
Michael Chidester wrote:How do the descriptions in Mair's version of the Paulus Kal S&B (77r - 83v of the Cod.Icon.394) compare to the version of Kal with text (CGM 1507)? That might gives us some baseline for how well Mair can interpret uncaptioned illustrations.
CPG 430, f 8r wrote:Item auch magstu das thün mit der kurtzñ schneyden und auch alzo schlagen oder mit dem ent//rusthaw magstu zw dem kopff ~ hawẽ alz offt dw den ortt hast alzo sinitñ[?] das get alles recht zw so dw das recht treyben kanst[?] ¶ Auch magstu dy duplierẽ dar eyn machñ das ist auch gar gut yn dy erbat
Item nymbt du eỹneʳ ab am messeʳ so wendt deyn messeʳ mit dem ruck deynen messers ayn wenick[?] auff das seyn und haw ym obñ nach der plos so schleghstw yn durch den kopff annẽ[?]
MS Dresden C93, f 141v wrote:Vom dupliern
Auch magstu die Duplieren darein machen ist auch gar guot zu der arbait. Item numpt die ainner ab an dem Duseggen so wirff dein Duseggen mit dem ruckh ain wennig[?] auff den seinnen unnd haw Im oben nach der ploss so hawstu In durch de kopff.
MS M.I.29, f 49r wrote:ein anders
Itm~ nÿmpt dir eyner ab am messer So wind din messer mit dem ruᵉck dines messers anwenig auff dz sin vñ haulb im oben noch der ploß so schlechstu In duᵉrch den kopff
Michael Chidester wrote: If he didn't have access to the 430, then the version of Lecküchner that he was working from has not yet been rediscovered by the HEMA community.