Vom Tag = From the Day (Literally?)

[Darijan R.]

vom tage=stayed canon
->high guard, Sword held up high above or left or right beside the head. In the 3227a it clearly means Tag, which is always related to midday, when the sun is high(est). Tag becomes Tach (colloquial) and at some point that turns into Dach (roof), be it because the meaning "from above" doesn't actually change, be it because it was lost to them what it actually meant, whatever...

Don't forget some other sources which refer to the position as "von himmel", affirming this meaning of 'from above'. Moreover, were you aware that there was a form of poetry called 'alba' meaning 'sunrise'? Perhaps not relevant in this context, but still tantalising nonetheless...

Yeah, there is no particular reason why a name must/would be (highly) conserved if the substitute(s) have basically the same meaning/association. I'm pretty certain on the (H)alber thing. It is probably one of the hints to a (much) older (german) fencing system/nomenclature that the author of the MS I.33 too knew; if it really says albersleiben on 2r we may have a direct connection to (H)alber. (H)albersleiben (Halber Leib) is used to refer to halbschilt, it is obviously an older or outside system synonym. Now, no matter how you actually interpret halpschilt exactly, we see the pattern of low (prima custodia etc.), high (secunda custodia, quarta custodia) and middle guard(s). Halpschilt would be a middle guard because it is somewhere halfway between the high and low guard(s). For your personal interpretation of the MS I.33 it may be relevant how high or low you actually hold you halpschilt, for the obviously figurative (fencing) nomenclature of the times it isn't - it's about the tendency of halpschilt to be somewhere in the middle...

/

[Andreas Engström]

Don't forget some other sources which refer to the position as "von himmel", affirming this meaning of 'from above'. .

Which sources do this? I haven't seen it as far as I can remember..

-Andreas

[James Wallhausen]

Don't forget some other sources which refer to the position as "von himmel", affirming this meaning of 'from above'. .

Which sources do this? I haven't seen it as far as I can remember..

-Andreas

Hey Andreas!

The Folz manuscript has it: 148r, and this is corroborated in a rare and quite obscure manuscript dated 1414 which I discovered recently.

[Andreas Engström]

The Folz manuscript has it: 148r, and this is corroborated in a rare and quite obscure manuscript dated 1414 which I discovered recently.

Aha, quite so. Although one could debate whether it's really the name of a guard in that context, I suppose.. it's the zettel on the twerhaw. But nevertheless, interesting. I haven't looked very closely at Folz, perhaps I should.

Are you at liberty to tell us more about the other manuscript? That sounds very interesting too..

-Andreas

[James Wallhausen]

Aha, quite so. Although one could debate whether it's really the name of a guard in that context, I suppose...

You're quite right, though in most other accounts the term used is 'von dem tag' or 'vom tag' - demonstrating the use of a synonym, with an equal (though perhaps more Christian?) meaning. Certainly, the manuscript I discovered is believed to have been written in a Benedictine monastery between 1414 and 1444. So it's certainly earlier than the 'Pseudo-von Danzig' account of the zedel. I'm writing up a document on the manuscript which should be available soon. I'll probably make some kind of announcement here.

I haven't looked very closely at Folz, perhaps I should.

Folz is well worth a look. He provokes some important questions (or at least he did to me).

It is probably one of the hints to a (much) older (german) fencing system/nomenclature that the author of the MS I.33 too knew; if it really says albersleiben on 2r we may have a direct connection to (H)alber.

I'm not sure of your halber / alber hypothesis, I'll have to consider it at greater length. I'm also not certain why the I33 manuscript uses German nomenclature in place of Latin translations as it has done elsewhere. It may be a consideration that Liudeger was a warrior king in the Nibelungenlied, and a favoured technique mentioned in the poem is the schiltslac and the stichslac, but also that Alberich is the name of a Dwarf who has a cloak of invisibility (hence an "Albersleiben", could mean to make one's body invisible evoking Alberich the Dwarf). It is interesting that the I33 states the alberleiben in reference to not being able to reach the upper-parts (like the dwarf), "which is commendable from the albersleiben, for the reason that he could not reach the upper part" (Dieter Bachmann translation).

The Nibelungenlied, also describes the feats of a character towards the end of the poem who is a minstrel who fought with his Videlboge (the fiddle-bow):

Smote him yet the Fiddler / such a mighty blow,
That ’fore the feet of Etzel / sheer on the floor his head fell low....
For evil wrought upon them / those guests sore vengeance take.
Volker the doughty Fiddler, / what shining helmets there he brake!...
Doth fiddle for the Hun-men, / when near the door they go?
The stroke is red of color, / where he doth draw the fiddle-bow....
With fiddle-bow he cleaveth / e’en the steel so hard,
Bright-gleaming crests of helmets / are scattered by his mighty sword.
Never saw I fiddler / so dauntless heart display,
As the doughty Volker / here hath done this day.

Has anyone else realised these connections? I'm very interested in everyone else's take on the matter...

[Darijan R.]

It is interesting that the I33 states the alberleiben in reference to not being able to reach the upper-parts (like the dwarf), "which is commendable from the albersleiben, for the reason that he could not reach the upper part" (Dieter Bachmann translation).

[2r] (+) Notandum hic continetur prima custodia, videlicet sub [brachio] obsesseo vero halbschilt ¶ Et consulo sano consilio quod il[...] sub brachio non ducat aliquam plagam quod probat de al[b]ersleiben, per raciones quia partem superiorem attingere non potest si inferiorem capiti erit perniciosum sed obsessor intrando potest eum invadere quandocumque si obmittit quod tenetur vt infra scriptum est

(+) It is to be seen that here is the first ward contained, i.e. the one under the arm, and the displacer is in halpschilt. I give the good counsel that the one (assuming the ward) under the arm do not execute a strike, which is commendable from the albersleiben, for the reason that he could not reach the upper part, and (reaching anywhere) lower would be pernicious to the head. But the displacer entering to attack may reach him at any time if he fails to observe what is written below:

Note, here continues/is treated the first ward, the one under the arm (, further). It will be besieged/threatened by halbschilt. And I give the good advice that he who is in underarm does not carry out that attack which is advisable to do from albersleiben, for the reason that it is impossible to reach the higher targets and attacking the lower ones would endanger/open up the own head. The besieger (in halpschilt) on the other hand can, closing in, attack him if what follows below is omitted.

So Dieter and I agree here. It is impossible to reach the higher targets from first ward but it is adviceable to do it from halbschilt (albersleiben). In both quotes, you can just as well ignore the reference to halpschilt (red), the meaning stays the same.