Fechtbuchleinn work out there?

[Stevie T]

Interesting stuff!

He certainly likes to leap around quite a bit, like Ledall.

Incase it helps with your interpretation I see Ledall as having three types of leap, or Spring as he calls them. Unfortunately he doesn't always specify the specific type of spring but I've standardised them into something more usable.

Short Spring - using the lead leg to leap/lunge off line.

Spring - Using the rear leg in a full pass to leap off line and change the angle of attack, the other leg trails so that when the move is completed it is the new lead leg.

Full spring - Using the rear leg in a full pass to leap off line and change the angle of attack, the other leg is then swept behind in an arcing action.

The full spring may be what your author is meaning when he referes to "springing with the feet together"

The styles do seem to have similarlities, but a cursory glance doesn't lend me to beleive that he is using the terms in exactly the same way. His laying down of the sword appears to be quite different from Ledall's, saying that the 2nd Play of the sword sounds very like Ledall's 1st Counter, all most identical.

[James Wallhausen]

It's fantastic to see your translation Bob. I'm surprised there haven't been more comments on it here, since this is a significant step in my opinion. Thank you also for citing my influences too!

I see you have mentioned that you are going to move onto work on interpretation; and this is the reason why I haven't published my own translation on this booklet. I found that the more I tried to actually put the directions into practice, the more confusing the instructions seemed to be. In which case, my translation is something which I've certainly not been very happy with.

If anyone would like to view my translation for comparison, you're welcome to PM me.

Interesting stuff!

He certainly likes to leap around quite a bit, like Ledall.

Incase it helps with your interpretation I see Ledall as having three types of leap, or Spring as he calls them. Unfortunately he doesn't always specify the specific type of spring but I've standardised them into something more usable.

Short Spring - using the lead leg to leap/lunge off line.

Spring - Using the rear leg in a full pass to leap off line and change the angle of attack, the other leg trails so that when the move is completed it is the new lead leg.

Full spring - Using the rear leg in a full pass to leap off line and change the angle of attack, the other leg is then swept behind in an arcing action.

The full spring may be what your author is meaning when he referes to "springing with the feet together"

The styles do seem to have similarlities, but a cursory glance doesn't lend me to beleive that he is using the terms in exactly the same way. His laying down of the sword appears to be quite different from Ledall's, saying that the 2nd Play of the sword sounds very like Ledall's 1st Counter, all most identical.

This highlights some of the reasons why these manuscripts are so cyptic. I'm interested as to how you account the "Spring" to an actual jump? [I realise that the word "Spring" means a leap, but it's use in the manuscript does not suggest this context] Ledell's manuscript contains 23 uses of the word "Spring", with 12 of those instances using the phrases "smyte a spryng", "smyte a full spring", "smyte a short spring", with others stating "caste owte a full shorte spryng att hys face", "lythly pleying a shorte spryng", and 3 instances of "pley a bake foyne with an other spryng". The 18th Chase says "wyth a full spryng att hys legge" suggesting again an extension of the arms - perhaps a throw, "leap" of the arms.

The same theory is what I applied to my translation of the Fechtbuchleinn back in 2011, wherein I tentatively translated the Erste Ganng as:

This is performed by throwing the point with the arm (Stichsprunng auff dem arm, lit: ‘point-jump’ at the arm), thereafter [known as] the initial (ersten) or side launch/thrust (seittensprung).

In which case, I suggested that the "sprungen" was actually a launch of the sword by extending the arms; an 'interpretation' based upon my research into the English manuscripts.

As Bob suggested, I have plans to type up my notes formally into a document at some point in the future.

[Stevie T]

Sorry for perhaps not being clear enough with my definitions, I'm not used to discussing Ledall outside my group who all know exactly what I mean.

The 'Spring' is an attack accompanied by a leap, as set out above, that changes the line of attack.

I think most of Ledall's stuff is conceptual rather than specific techniques, though I'm perhaps not explaining that properly.

I'll use the 'quarter' to try and explain myself.

In the plays we have quarters to the head, the hand, and the leg, and in a poem from slightly before Ledall's time we have a "quarter-stroke" to the body made with a staff. We also have 'quarter void', 'quarter standing still', 'quarter above his head', 'quarter full', and 'quarter fare before you'. To me this is simply too much for a specific technique, it needs to be more general. A 'strike from above' works well for me, though I have to acknowledge that there are times when he is more specific, like the 'downright stroke'. The 'downright stroke' is a form of quarter that comes from the right on the outside, rather than along the centre line, but again it's execution will change slightly depending on the situation.

If you take this general approach to Ledall's work it becomes much easier to follow where he is coming from and where he is going with the plays.

So, with the 'spring' you can get that it's the concept of a leap, of some form, used to change the line of attack, and it is relatively apparent that it's meant to include some form of attack, but I would also argue that it's equally apparent that that attack can be of different forms.

In the 17th Counter we have a 'spring at his face', looking at the other times Ledall uses the face as a target we only get two associations; the 'proffer' and thrusts and they are in some ways both related to each other. My interpretation has that the 'proffer' throws out the point along the centre line as the opponent closes in to attack, the result is that if I were to ignore my opponents attack then my opponent would walk his face onto the point of my sword, a passive thrust to the face as it were. If I'm correct and we keep true to Ledall's use of the face as a target for a thrust then, in the 17thcounter we have a thrust to the face while leaping off line.

As you mentioned in the 18th Counter we then have a 'full spring at his leg', and while it would be possible to thrust at his leg it seems a little lacking. However, if we look at the play as a whole we can see the spring put into context, and surprisingly an alternative, that allows us to see what Ledall is trying to achieve with the play.

The 18 th callyde ye duble rabett
A profur a rake with a full quarter lyghtly sett in the lyfte legge with a rabett stondyng styll lyghtly pley another rabett wyth a full spryng att hys legge other ??? sett in ye ryght legge with a downe ryght stroke att hys hede and a full quarter another a voyde and be att youre stoppe.

A proffer, a rake with a full quarter. Lithely set in the left leg with a rabbet, standing still lithely play another rabbit, with a full spring at his leg, (otherwise set in your right leg with a down-right stroke at his head) and a full quarter, another, a void and be at your stop.

For me we have the 'proffer, rake' which deals with the opponents attack, followed by a quarter, which looking at previous plays of the 'proffer, rake, quarter' has the quarter on a right pass, so attacking from the right. The rabett is a beat followed by a strike from the left, and another doing the same; this forces the opponent into a strong defence on his right side. The next part of the play then has two options, the spring to the leg or a downright stroke on a right pass.

The Downright stroke in my opinion is, as I've mentioned before, a powerful attack from the right on the outside, if you step off line while doing this it is going to mean that your opponent has to move from his overly strong defence on his right to defend his far left. If instead you play my version of the full-spring and strike to his leg (I'd aim for the knee) your going to force him to move from a strong right, high defence to a low, left defence coming in behind him, a much stronger situation which is why the downright is put as a secondary alternative.

Coming after these you again strike a high quarter from the left, and another to the same target before stepping back with a quarter void. Again, your switching sides, applying lots of pressure to his right before switching again to strike to his weaker side. Over all the play can be describe as; attack weaker side, force defence on strong side, attack opposite onto weaker side, force defence on strong side, attack different place on weaker side. It's all about manipulating your opponent and trying to stop him predicting what your going to do,just compare it to something like the 5th counter.

To me this is what Ledall is all about, setting your opponent up using general concepts with the odd bit of specific technique thrown in.

Sorry for hi-jacking the OT!

[James Wallhausen]

Sorry for perhaps not being clear enough with my definitions, I'm not used to discussing Ledall outside my group who all know exactly what I mean.
..<--- cropped for brevity --->

Thanks Stevie, you've certainly clarified your interpretations and you have given me lots to think about - thank you

I'm afraid to say that I've often been disheartened, and subsequently discouraged, from interpreting the English manuscripts when I consider the variables conspiring against such a venture. That being said, your logical approach is appealing. I had myself once adopted a statistical attempt at understanding the manuscripts (to take a term and identify it's context, relativity to other terms and frequency in the text). You have inspired me to take another look at them, and to look over my old notes.

Just a quick question: to what extent do other manuscripts (i.e. German, Italian, Spanish etc) inform your interpretation?

All the best,

James

[Stevie T]

Sorry for perhaps not being clear enough with my definitions, I'm not used to discussing Ledall outside my group who all know exactly what I mean.
..<--- cropped for brevity --->

Thanks Stevie, you've certainly clarified your interpretations and you have given me lots to think about - thank you

I'm afraid to say that I've often been disheartened, and subsequently discouraged, from interpreting the English manuscripts when I consider the variables conspiring against such a venture. That being said, your logical approach is appealing. I had myself once adopted a statistical attempt at understanding the manuscripts (to take a term and identify it's context, relativity to other terms and frequency in the text). You have inspired me to take another look at them, and to look over my old notes.

Just a quick question: to what extent do other manuscripts (i.e. German, Italian, Spanish etc) inform your interpretation?

All the best,

James

I've been interpreting Ledall since 2005-7, I'd read Rector's Talhoffer in 2002 and Tobler's Secrets in 2003/4, haven't attended a class or read a book on anything else since then.

I first came across Talhoffer in 1998/9, photocopies of the original, in my reenactment group. Worked with and studied under Martin 'Oz' Ostwick 2000/01, under grad thesis on sharp force trauma in archaeology and the various ms ( 1st from Bradford) and listened to a lot of HEMA static.

And I like the pictures in Meyer.

Oh, I've been "teaching" since about 2008, workshops at Dijon and Fightcamp the same year (HEMAC membership the same year, though I'm no longer a member) but, I have to acknowledge there is so little evidence I might as well be making it up!

[Michael Chidester]

I've completed adding the translation to the Wiktenauer article:

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Fechtbuchleinn_(Cod.Guelf.1074.Novi)

(This will look better when we get the wiki working right again.)

[Bob Foster]

Sorry for ignoring this thread for so long...work and the whatnot, plus I'd spent so much time staring at the Fechtbuchleinn that I honestly needed a break.

Stevie, sorry if I wasn't clear on my proposal of similarity, I meant the titles of the paragraphs, not the content. The stuff that had me hooked on similarity was all of a small-stuff nature (Kleinkram) such as those paragraph headings, "smite a spring" vs "leap with the blade", "full stroke" equaling "full stroke", all the leaping, etc. It just struck me that certain turns of phrase were both identical and particular to those texts. I actually started going line-by-line through the English stuff and the Fechtbuchleinn trying to identify the precise applications of identical-nearly identical instructions, phrases, and wording but stopped after a couple of hours due to the mind-numbing nature of the effort...I know I'm lazy and should pick it back up, and I will when I have some more solid Me Time.

As for interpretations on the English stuff, I figured it might be a good idea to familiarize myself with those texts and read some of the available interpretations which include explanations of the process used to interpret before diving any deeper into my own efforts. I picked up Lessons on the English Longsword and snatched a couple of articles from online; any other suggestions?

Given my lack of time with training partners outside of normal training (where I participate and learn rather than run the show), I'm almost leaning toward just picking up some other untranslated German texts to work on: just the translation portion is fun in a word-puzzle kind of way for me. We'll see.

Thanks for all the feedback.

[Bob Foster]

THREAD NECROMANCY!
Hey gang, the whole similarity thing between the Fechtbuchleinn and the English texts made me go ahead and begin the process of REALLY taking a hard look at them for concordance. As I said before (at least for me) this is a painful and time-consuming process. Thus far, I have managed to disect only the MS Harley 3542 for concordance with the Fechtbuhleinn in the areas of Format, Terms, Paragraphs and Actions.
Unfortunately, the resultant word document is stranded on my other computer (without internet access at the nonce), so I will provide here the highlights for those of you still interested.

The strongest evidence of relationship between these two (2) manuscripts lies in format and structure. Additionally, given that the Fechtbuchleinn is the singular German text (at least that I'm tracking) that deals primarily with Flourish-type activities rather than the standard if-then format, the similarity of structure is pretty damning evidence (my humble opinion) of a relationship beyond happenstance. The structures of the two (2) manuscripts in question are:
MS Harley -
- 8x Lessons for the use of the 2HS which read as short(ish) flourishes
- 11x "other" Lessons consisting of 5x "chases," 3x "laying down," and 3x "taking up."
- 7x Encounters/Counters which directly reference an opponent
Fechtbuchleinn –
- 7x Actions (Gänge) with the sword
- 5x Settings Down
- A single (although complex) Laying Down
- 10x Steps of a Play which reference an opponent

Thus, both manuscripts begin with a series of short solo drill type actions followed by a series of drill type actions named as either Setting- or Laying- Down of the sword which conclude with the sword being set or laid down. Both manuscripts also conclude with a multi-part or series of interconnected Play(s) which allude to an opponent but do not follow the if-then format typical of German texts. Given that the Fechtbuchleinn is unique in both its type and the terminology of the Setting Down / Laying Down, these similarities are hard to dismiss, although the two documents are formatically not identical.

Unfortunately, beyond the structure and unique use of Setting/Laying Down, there is not much direct concordance between the manuscripts. There are four (4) concordances of odd terminology although admittedly they are not overwhelmingly unique:
1. Harley concludes paragraphs with “setting [the sword] down by the foot” and “setting down the sword by the foot” a total of four (4) times while the Fechtbuchleinn’s Fifth Setting Down concludes with, “set the sword near the foot.”
2. Both Harley’s 3d Lesson and the Fechtbuchleinn’s Little Leap Before the Laying Down include the command to “spring upward.”
3. Harley’s 4th Lesson includes the action of, “a step upon both feet,” and the Fechtbuchleinn’s Third Setting Down includes the action of, “step with both feet together.”
4. Harley’s 8th Lesson includes a “step upon both feet,” which is remarkably similar to the Fechtbuchleinn’s command of “step with both feet together” which is found in the Third (and perhaps the Fourth) Setting Down.

Beyond these items, all concordances of sub-actions described within paragraphs are small enough to be dismissible through coincidence, although several exist.

Once I muster up the motivation to conduct the same analysis with the Ledall, I’ll post the results. Have a nice day, and don’t forget to re-enlist!

[Michael Chidester]

Press on, Ledall is the one that particularly interests me.

[Keith P. Myers]

Very interesting analysis Bob! Keep up the good work! I know I would like to see more. And my current status is indefinite. No need to re-enlist.