the author of I.33

[Dieter A. B.]

hello all!

For maybe half a year now, I have been maintaining a website on I.33 ( http://freywild.ch/i33/i33en.html ). Recently, I received an email suggesting that the otherwise incomprehensible "lutegerus" on fol. 1v may be the name of the author.

I thought about this for some time until it dawned on me that "lutegerus" may well be a latinization of the german name Liutger (St. Liutger, the first bishop of Munster, lived in the 9th centry). With this idea in mind, I could suddenly make much better sense of the text of fol. 1v.:

Hec septem partes ducuntur per generales
Oppositum clerus mediumque tenet lutegerus

I now translate oppositum and medium as nouns, maybe as 'opposition' and 'means/method'. I get the sense of approx.:

"these seven wards are also executed by common fencers [as was said above, fol. 1r], but monk Liutger teaches [not only them, but also] the defense [against them] and their means [maybe, incorporating them into a system]"

note that the monk is called sacerdos everywhere in the text, but in the verses, he is referred to as clerus/clericus. To my understanding, it is clearly the same person that is being referred to. This may be for the sake of the metre (although I think we can agree that the "verses" can only be called such with much goodwill ) or because the composition of the verses predates the composition of the main text (i.e. the verses were in use in training even before the book was written).

As a side note, there is one place I could find to which the names of both Liutger and Walpurga are related!
Abtei St. Walburg where a nobleman called Liutger instigated a monastery dedicated to St. Walpurga.

I have so far had no access to the book on I.33 by Jeffrey Forgeng. So I do not know if all of this has been common knowledge all along. If this is the case, I will gladly be told as much.

best regards,

Dieter Bachmann

[Michael Huber]

Originally posted by Dieter A. B.
hello all!

For maybe half a year now, I have been maintaining a website on I.33 ( http://freywild.ch/i33/i33en.html ). Recently, I received an email suggesting that the otherwise incomprehensible "lutegerus" on fol. 1v may be the name of the author.

I thought about this for some time until it dawned on me that "lutegerus" may well be a latinization of the german name Liutger (St. Liutger, the first bishop of Munster, lived in the 9th centry). With this idea in mind, I could suddenly make much better sense of the text of fol. 1v.:

Hec septem partes ducuntur per generales
Oppositum clerus mediumque tenet lutegerus

I now translate oppositum and medium as nouns, maybe as 'opposition' and 'means/method'. I get the sense of approx.:

"these seven wards are also executed by common fencers [as was said above, fol. 1r], but monk Liutger teaches [not only them, but also] the defense [against them] and their means [maybe, incorporating them into a system]"

note that the monk is called sacerdos everywhere in the text, but in the verses, he is referred to as clerus/clericus. To my understanding, it is clearly the same person that is being referred to. This may be for the sake of the metre (although I think we can agree that the "verses" can only be called such with much goodwill ) or because the composition of the verses predates the composition of the main text (i.e. the verses were in use in training even before the book was written).

As a side note, there is one place I could find to which the names of both Liutger and Walpurga are related!
Abtei St. Walburg where a nobleman called Liutger instigated a monastery dedicated to St. Walpurga.

I have so far had no access to the book on I.33 by Jeffrey Forgeng. So I do not know if all of this has been common knowledge all along. If this is the case, I will gladly be told as much.

best regards,

Dieter Bachmann

I guess this emails comes from Franck Cinato, who have a great knowledge on the I33 and who first suggested in the last Dijon HEMAC event that Lutegerus may be the latinised name of Lutger and the author of the manual
However i didn't know the connection between Liutger and the monastry of St. Walpurga, which is very interesting...

[Dieter A. B.]

I apologize, I would of course mention the name of the person who sent me the email; however, he only signed "Angel", and his address was .ca (Canada).

I could find nothing about it on the web, but once you do get the idea, it seems very obvious, at least to me, so I would have been surprised if no-one of the experts had thought of it before...

I am very compelled by it, and I like to refer to the text as the "Fechtbuch of Liutger", now.

cheers

D

[Brian Hunt]

That would make a lot of sense. Thanks for the heads up on the possible meaning for the word Lutegerous. This one line of verse has been driving me nuts.

Brian Hunt
ARMA member

[M J Austwick]

This is something I have also been thinking about after an interesting evening with Dave Rawlings.

My take on this is that we have a german manuscript that takes verses and explains their meaning into a complete fighting system.

Sound familiar?

I don't think that Lutegerus is the name of the author of I.33 but I do think it could be the original author of the verses that I.33 is an expansion of.

If for a moment we accept this, then it leads on to a few interesting questions. Who then did write it? Could the fact that the artist has provided us with a priest be because the text mentions a priest and not because it was written by one? How did it end up in a monastary?

Also while we're on the subject of unanswered questions about I.33, was the language as uncomprehensible in the C16th as it is now. Is so how the hell did a belt maker get to be a swordmaster after finding it. If not why aren't there more examples of bastardisations of Latin and German.

Either way it makes for a fun discussion...

Take Care

Oz

[Matt Galas]

Hi, Oz!

The beltmaker question is not hard to answer. German fencing masters often came from the middle class. In fact, during the 16th century, most of the documented German fencing masters came from middle class professions. I've gone through the surviving master lists from the Marxbrueder, and can tell you that most of the names have a rather mundane profession attached. The most common are the furriers (closely connected with the Marxbrueder) and the shoemakers and goldsmiths (closely connected with the Federfechter). Another familiar example is Joerg Wilhalm, a hat-maker from Augsburg.

Regards,

[M J Austwick]

Hi Matt

That makes a lot of sense, but you've got to admit that his story is a little unusual if you believe Gunterrodt's version of events.

Take Care

Oz

[Dieter A. B.]

I don't think that Lutegerus is the name of the author of I.33 but I do think it could be the original author of the verses that I.33 is an expansion of.

hi Oz -- it is also my impression that the text is somehow built around the verses. Still, I believe that the "priest" (sacerdos=clerus) is the author (not the scribe, maybe, and not the painter, either) of both, for the following reasons -

There is some implied context that would not be presupposed if only the verses had come down somehow to the author of the text. On several occasions, the "priest and his youths", or the "priest and his pupils" etc. are mentioned

vanity -- in many instances where the pictures show the priest in a position of disadvantage, the text insists that the priest let this happen purposedly because he wanted to instruct his pupil about possible dangers. I think I can almost feel the sort of "alpha" mentality we are all familiar with; a fencing master supervising the production of his manual

(I can give references to the passages I have in mind, if desired)

Thus, I believe that the manuscript originated in a monastery; possibly the one where Herwart "found" it -- and I think he just kept it as a curiosity, because I doubt it would have been very helpful for him to cut it as a fencing master in his day...

All of this will of course always remain pure speculation. My point is just that I believe that the evidence is altogether consistent with a single author composing a manual around his own verses.

best regards

dab

[M J Austwick]

Originally posted by Dieter A. B.
hi Oz -- it is also my impression that the text is somehow built around the verses. Still, I believe that the "priest" (sacerdos=clerus) is the author (not the scribe, maybe, and not the painter, either) of both, for the following reasons -

There is some implied context that would not be presupposed if only the verses had come down somehow to the author of the text. On several occasions, the "priest and his youths", or the "priest and his pupils" etc. are mentioned


vanity -- in many instances where the pictures show the priest in a position of disadvantage, the text insists that the priest let this happen purposedly because he wanted to instruct his pupil about possible dangers. I think I can almost feel the sort of "alpha" mentality we are all familiar with; a fencing master supervising the production of his manual

(I can give references to the passages I have in mind, if desired)

I'm not sure I entirely agree with you here. We know for certain that the artist was not the author. The manuscript is quite clear on that. We also know that we have verses and explanations of those verses. We also know that as you the evidence would seem to imply that the author of the text is the sacerdos that is constantly referred to, but we also know that in the verses the priest is referred to as clerus and in the explanations as sacerdos. I realise this isn't conclusive evidence that thhey are different people but it is a start.

I suppose what I am saying is that I am not convinced that the priest shown is the founder of the system, just the one that wrote down this surviving manuscript.

Thus, I believe that the manuscript originated in a monastery; possibly the one where Herwart "found" it -- and I think he just kept it as a curiosity, because I doubt it would have been very helpful for him to cut it as a fencing master in his day...

All of this will of course always remain pure speculation. My point is just that I believe that the evidence is altogether consistent with a single author composing a manual around his own verses.

best regards

dab

I'm sure you are right about the usefulness of the manuscript to Herwart but is nice to think that people hhave been trying to work this stuff out for centuries. I'm still not convinced about the author being the original creator of the system though, I haven't yet checked all the possible definitions of Clerus but I know of at least three for Sacerdos. "Priest", "Nun" and twice to my knowledge "the leader of a Jewish community". I'm guessing it simply means holy one.

More food for thought I guess...

Take Care

Oz

[Brian Hunt]

Just for reference. Could be more definitions than these, but here are the standard ones I have found.

cler.us N 2 1 NOM S M
clerus, cleri N M Late
clergy, the clerical order;
allotment of land; assignment by lots (L+S);


Brian Hunt
ARMA member.

[Dieter A. B.]

hello Oz --

I am not convinced I can quite follow your argument -

we know that the artist is not the author because of fol. 23v quod fuit vicium pictoris, which I suppose is good enough.

but if I understand correctly, you suggest that the monk (sacerdos) depicted is identical with the author, while the clerus of the verses is not.

In this case, both of them are talking about themselves in the 3rd person, the sacerdos in his text, and the clerus in his verses, which I suppose is normal for the time. At the same time, the sacerdos is claiming the original portion (i.e. all that is not known to "common fencers" anyway) as his own, i.e. not the seven custodie, but at least the specificata custodia sacerdotis que nuncupatur langort, the custodia rara & valde bona (29r) and the specificata custodia secunda sacerdotis locata in humero dextro (32r). Only the nucken is the cleric's -- because it is mentioned in a verse (3v)!

For my part, I am convinced that clerus and sacerdos are the same person. This of course leaves open the possibility that the actual author is still another person that is not mentioned at all. It is against this possibility I was trying to defend when I said I can feel a whisp of the author's arrogance across the centuries

As to the meaning of "clerus", I just think if it is inappropriate for "monk", then we're just dealing with bad latin (which I could even supply as a motivation for the change to sacerodos in the text). Even sacerdos is not what you would expect, because it refers to a priest who does the actual sacrifice / trans-substantiation, and not just your average monk-in-the-street.

But as I said before, while it is a pleasure to argue about these points, we can very well go on disagreeing about it, because there will most likely never be a definite answer.

best regards

dab

[Matt Galas]

Hello, again!

As far as "clerus" vs. "sacerdos", this could simply be a matter of difficulty constructing a rhyme. "Clerus" rhymes with "lutegerus." "Sacerdos" is a bit harder, especially if you're not such a great poet...

As much as I hate to admit it, neither Liechtenauer nor the author of the verses in I.33 qualify as great poets...

Regards,

- Matt

[David Rawlings]

Originally posted by Matt Galas
Hello, again!

As far as "clerus" vs. "sacerdos", this could simply be a matter of difficulty constructing a rhyme. "Clerus" rhymes with "lutegerus." "Sacerdos" is a bit harder, especially if you're not such a great poet...

As much as I hate to admit it, neither Liechtenauer nor the author of the verses in I.33 qualify as great poets...

Regards,

- Matt

Hahahahahah ,
I'd just like to give credit to Franck Cinato again, he certainly the first person I know of who thought of this, shame he ain't on this thread. I'll mail him.

[Dieter A. B.]

David -- please note, I never tried to get credit for the idea myself; it really sort of turned up in my inbox & I couldn't find it on the web. I'm happy to attribute it to Franck Cinato if it was he who first thought of it.

Not all verses are even meant to rhyme, I think. Some certainly do, in a half-assed sort of way...

Septem custodie sunt, sub brach incipiende / Humero dextrali datur alter, terna sinistro / Capiti da quartam, da dextro latere quintam / Pectori da sextam, postrema sit tibi langort (1r) -- no rhyme, but the cadence makes it easy to remember

Tres sunt que preeunt, relique tunc fugiunt / Hec septem partes ducuntur per generales / Oppositum clerus mediumque tenet lutegerus. (1v) -- preeunt:fugiunt, partes:generales, clerus:lutegerus (serves to explain why clerus is not next to lutegerus)

Custodia prima retinet contraria bina / Contrarium primum halpschilt, langortque secundum / Dum ducitur halpschilt, cade sub gladium quoque scutum / Si generalis erit recipit caput, sit tibi stichschlach / Si religat, calcat, contraria sint tibi schiltschlac. (2r) -- prima:bina, secundum:scutum, stichschlach:schiltschlac

Clerici sic nucken / generales non nulli schutzen (3v) -- well, nucken:schutzen, I guess...

Ligans ligati contrarij sunt & irati / ligatus fugit ad partes laterum, peto sequi. (4v, 7r, 14v, 20v, 24r, 26r, 27r, 30v, 32v) -- ligati:irati

Dum ducitur langort, statim liga sub quoque supra. (6v) -- no rhyme; note this use of quoque for the "gladium quoque scutum" discussion.

Dum subligaueris caueas ne decipieris / dum subligatur capud ligantis recipiatur (19v) -- subligaueris:deciperis, subligatur:recipiatur

[Ralph Klein]

Hello to all,

does anybody know what Jeffrey Forgeng writes about the Lutegerus-Liutgar thing?

Best regards

Ralph

(Ochs Munich)

[M J Austwick]

Originally posted by Dieter A. B.
hello Oz --

I am not convinced I can quite follow your argument -

we know that the artist is not the author because of fol. 23v quod fuit vicium pictoris, which I suppose is good enough.

Can't argue with you there...

but if I understand correctly, you suggest that the monk (sacerdos) depicted is identical with the author, while the clerus of the verses is not.

Not quite, I am suggesting that it may be the case. I am saying that there is nothing that makes me think that your argument is fact.

In this case, both of them are talking about themselves in the 3rd person, the sacerdos in his text, and the clerus in his verses, which I suppose is normal for the time. At the same time, the sacerdos is claiming the original portion (i.e. all that is not known to "common fencers" anyway) as his own, i.e. not the seven custodie, but at least the specificata custodia sacerdotis que nuncupatur langort, the custodia rara & valde bona (29r) and the specificata custodia secunda sacerdotis locata in humero dextro (32r). Only the nucken is the cleric's -- because it is mentioned in a verse (3v)!

It is pretty common for authors of medieval texts to claim other people's work as their own. Take a look at Mandeville's Travails if you get chance, if nothing else it's a damn fine read. Also a lot of Chaucer's work isn't original. OK this doesn't prove anything but it does give us an element of doubt.

For my part, I am convinced that clerus and sacerdos are the same person. This of course leaves open the possibility that the actual author is still another person that is not mentioned at all. It is against this possibility I was trying to defend when I said I can feel a whisp of the author's arrogance across the centuries

You are more than likely right, it is just that I feel we should be extremely cautious when stating anything about a manuscript that we cannot know. It is likely that they are the same person but it is possible that they are not, just as it is possible that the author was in actual fact another person altogether.

As to the meaning of "clerur", I just think if it is inappropriate for "monk", then we're just dealing with bad latin (which I could even supply as a motivation for the change to sacerodos in the text). Even sacerdos is not what you would expect, because it refers to a priest who does the actual sacrifice / trans-substantiation, and not just your average monk-in-the-street.

So both terms refer to Clergy rather than just a member of a religious order? A priest rather than a monk if you like. This is probably significant...

But as I said before, while it is a pleasure to argue about these points, we can very well go on disagreeing about it, because there will most likely never be a definite answer.

best regards

dab

Absolutely right, but it is fun to debate it though, I need to spend more time here...

Take Care

Oz

[David Rawlings]

Hi Dieter, did not mean it that way at all, please accept my apologies if I gave that impression.
Just waned to make people aware of Franks good work, who may not have had the chance to meet or talk to him.
All the best,
Dave.

[Dieter A. B.]

Dave -- not at all I was just making sure

Oz -- well, I suppose claiming your book was by some famous author was common. i.e., if the text said something like Tthis is the technique of the famous master Lutegerus, the renowned expert of the sword!!", I agree we could be all but sure it was actually not written by Lutegerus. On the other hand, just because we pull the name from some obscure corner of a page does not necessarily make it authentic -- I guess I'm just glad I have any name at all to put to this beautiful manuscript.

And, noting that no-one so far has found the idea of reading lutegerus as a name ridiculous, I emerge from this thread with enhanced confidence in talking about the "Liutger Fechtbuch"

[Fabrice Cognot]

Originally posted by David Rawlings
Hi Dieter, did not mean it that way at all, please accept my apologies if I gave that impression.
Just waned to make people aware of Franks good work, who may not have had the chance to meet or talk to him.
All the best,
Dave.

Dave and everyone :

Franck's Dijon presentation will be online (in French at least) on the HEMAC website shortly (blame me for the delay)

and I am still waiting for an English translation by P-A Lorillard (unfortunately I do not think I will have enough time to translate it myself)

Fab

[M. Hoess-Boettger]

Hallo zusammen,

Have a look at this link:Germanic Names in the Low Lands before 1150


Under Liud, Liudger it is listed as alternative spelling: Luteger

Mr. Forgengs explanation in the glossary
lutegerus adj. ?combative, 2. [?from luct- 'combat' + ger- 'doing']
seems debatable (no pun intended).

All the best, M.

[David Rawlings]

I hope I am not being too random, does anyone now if there are rolls of membership for the teutonic orders.
Be interesting to see if there were any appropriate.
Thanks,
Dave

[M. Hoess-Boettger]

Hm... its interesting how everybody looks more and more towards the teutonic order.
I guess one of the problems with this one is, just as a neat website about this topic ironically points out, that the order was something like the 'leading business for adventure-journeys' for wayfaring knights. Hard to make out something about somebody who wasn't a full member. Just as the case is with the one and only Johannes L., there might have been more than one individual by the name of Liudger (Liutger) in the eastern, german speaking areas at that time.

I am unable to do any research in that direction, though I like to point to a collection of documents here about the history of prussia and the teutonic order. Maybe someone else is able to at least go on further from here. Somebody from the eastern europe area with access to the libraries there and who understands some polish should be able to dig out a lot.

Allthebest, M.

[Matt Easton]

Hmm, I wonder who we know who fills that criteria...

Matt

[Fabrice Cognot]

Hi all

I found a few things on fighting monks/clerics in the middle ages :

in the bishophoric of Vic, in the X-XIth century, some members of the canonial college are designated as "levita", but still being "canonici". most of the things they give to the college at their death are arms and armour (and horses). this phenomenon lasts until about 1050. (Spain)

also : Burgundian Chronicler Raoul Glaber quotes in the Xth century monks from the Cluny abbey arming themselves to fight Al-Mansour.

also : I read that a Mr Prinz has studied the relationship between Clergy and Krieg in the German area - but I am unable to give more details about that book.

also : Monks/abbeys/monasteries were apparently not that reluctant to take part in judical duels (in the IXth-Xth centuries, that is) - only those whose laws/traditions were different from the Frankish law condemned the judical duel as a form of Divine Trial (the Wisigoths, for instance, or other southerners. Those depending of the Gombette Law (Burgundians) were able to duel (and apparently liked to do so)). Duel at that time was apparently fought on foot, with clubs and shields (cum scutum et fustibus), in a limited field (campus). only those too "weak" (the old, young and/or female) or too "strong" (the dukes/counts/kings) were forbidden to duel, though they could ask a 3rd party.

interestingly enough, such a duel was fought on an island in Magdeburg in 979 between one Count Gero and one Waldo.

that's all for now...

Fab

[M. Hoess-Boettger]

Ah, great, I found the book in the local library:
Prinz, Friedrich; 'Klerus und Krieg im frühen Mittelalter', Stuttgart, 1971

Matt, yes, there's somebody i had in mind.