Notes on Paulus Hector Mair

[Keith P. Myers]

I have been giving the works of Paulus Hector Mair a close look, and would like to share my observations and comments. I have been working with the C93 version, and so far have translated 13 of the Longsword plates and 4 of the staff plates. I still have a long way to go!

The Man:

The dates I have found for Mair are 1517-1579. The works attributed to him are generally dated at c.1540, which would have made him only 23 years old at the time. Therefore I tend to question a birth date of 1517. His date of death seems more certain, because it was a matter of public record. Evidently Mair was very into collecting various Fechtbucher/Fencing Manuals….he even owned the Codex Wallerstein at one point. Mair was employed as some sort of government official and was driven to embezzle municipal funds in order to bankroll his manuscript collecting habit. He was hung for this in Augsburg in 1579. It is possible that he was a member of one of the fencing guilds such as the Marxbruder or the Federfechter. Although he is often described as a “compiler” in reference to the works attributed to him, he seems to have written the commentary and explanations himself. Therefore he was more than just a collector or compiler….he was a swordsman and martial artist as well. The illustrations in his manuals feature a wide variety of models. The artwork is good enough that the various models that posed for the illustrations are distinguishable by facial features. It is clear that the illustrations were posed for, because there are many details present that the artist would not have included otherwise. The fact that such a wide variety of skilled men were available as models suggests that Mair had access to a fencing school.

The Manuscripts:

I know of at least three manuscripts attributed to Mair. One is in the collection of the Sachsische Landesbibliothek in Dresden Germany. It is in two volumes, labeled as C93 & C94. It is one of the most artistically illustrated fechtbucher known. A full-color sample page can be seen here, courtesy of the Library of Congress in Washington D.C.:
http://loc.gov/exhibits/dres/dre060.jpg
It has been suggested that this is the earlier edition of Mair’s work. Another version is in the collection of the Austrian National Library in Vienna. This one is known as the Codex Vindobonensis Palatinus 10.825. It addition to the German text, this version has Latin text included. It also adds 16 plates to the Longsword section and 4 plates to the staff section. There may be other additions as well, but I have not compared them closely yet. It also seems to leave out sections on other weapons that are included in the Dresden Codex. A third version is said to be in the collection of the State Library in Munich. This one is labeled as Codex icon 393. I have not seen images of it, and know nothing more about it. There also seems to be a fourth version in the library in Augsberg, but I know nothing about that one. The first three of these versions of Mair’s work are assigned roughly the same date….1540. This is 30 years prior to the work of Joachim Meyer, and likely influenced Meyer’s own writings. I see Paulus Hector Mair’s method as being a sort of “transition” style within the Liechtanauer tradition. By 1570 Meyer’s Longsword method had developed somewhat of a “sporting” emphasis. He had removed thrusts completely from his system. Mair’s method includes a generous amount of thrusts to the face and chest. But Mair does include some techniques that may have been considered risky by men such a Sigmund Ringeck. So it is possible that Mair’s work is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between “all-out” fighting and fechtschule fencing.

Longsword techniques:

There is an extensive un-illustrated text portion of Mair’s work that appears to be further commentary on the classic Liechtenauer verses. I have not yet translated or looked closely at this portion of the manuscript. There are 136 Longsword plates that include a caption above the illustration and then commentary beneath. So far most follow a consistent format. The beginning of the commentary references the illustration directly and explains the how the basic action should be performed. The rest of the commentary then explains counters and responses. Most of the time this can be assembled into a 3 to 5 count “set-play” or partnered drill. Out of the 136 plates, 26 feature grappling….14 of which are throws and 5 of which are armbars. 8 of the plates are dedicated to explaining the concept of “nachraisen” or “traveling after.” Also featured are 11 different “schwert-nehman” or disarming techniques, and 22 plates that include half-swording. Mair refers to half-swording as “Kampfstuck” or “combat technique.” Although I have not yet translated the commentary for these plates, it appears to me that Mair’s half-sword techniques are specifically adapted for blossfechten, and are not simply armoured techniques demonstrated without the armour. Mair also appears to use the terms “absetz”, “versetz”, and “verschieb” interchangeably to refer to a defensive action.

Longsword stances/guards:

Mair shows the standard 4 guards of Pflug, Ochs, Alber, and vom Tag. He also includes several “secondary” guards. One such guard is called the “obers henngen” or “upper hanger.” This is illustrated in plates 43 & 44 of the Dresden Codex. Mair describes the left side version in this way: “stand with your left foot forward with crossed arms such that your point hangs towards the ground at your left side.” The right side version is similar, but without crossing the arms. In both cases, this is described as a starting position from which one can “wind the point” into the opponent’s face as you do a passing step forward. Another secondary guard is the “Schrannckhut” or “barrier guard”, which is illustrated in plate 64. This is similar to the upper hanger, but is held low enough that the point actually touches the ground. Mair describes this as a position from which to do a deflecting parry, not a Krumphau as described in other texts. In plate 65, Mair illustrates what he calls the “Wechselhau.” This is what is typically known as the right side Nebenhut, with the weight on the rear leg. The word “hau” or “haw” is the rough equivalent of the English “hew” and refers to a strike or cut. It is not typically used to refer to a stance. Mair describes this stance or guard as the start position from which to launch a “Wechsel” or “changing cut.” Mair does a similar thing in plate 2, where he describes a starting position from which to launch a “Krumphau” and actually refers to the position with this word. He says “hold your sword with the point at your right side, and remain hence standing in the Krumphau.” So in at least two cases, Mair uses the name of the strike to refer to the guard from which it starts. In plate 69 Mair covers the “wechsel” guard itself, and shows both right and left versions. He also describes it as a position from which to launch the wechselhau strike.

Mair seems to depart from convention when it comes to the guard known as “Kron” or “crown.” The widely accepted version of this guard is described by Christian Tobler in his book “Secrets of German Medieval Swordsmanship” in this way: “A defensive position wherein one raises the long sword, point upward, to intercept a downward blow on the hilt.” But what Mair refers to as a “Kron” is actually a half-sword guard held overhead to intercept a descending blow much like the “St. George’s Guard” seen in later systems. What most seem to refer to as a “Kron”, Mair actually calls a “Brechfennster” or “breaking window.” It is illustrated on plate 45 and described like this “stand in the Brechfennster with your right foot forward, holding your crossguard before your head such that your thumb remains beneath, the point in the air at your right side, and looking out between your arms at the opponent.”

Staff:

Mair’s staff appears to be only 5 feet in length. The method shown is a “point forward” style, but still uses lots of “half-staffing” by sliding the hands up and down the shaft of the weapon. It seems to place a heavy emphasis on thrusting to the face. Similar to the Longsword method, the staff does a lot of work from the bind using winding. The basic grip is with thumbs towards each other in this fashion: -------m----m- with the butt at the right hip and the point angled upwards at approximately 45 degrees at the opponent’s face.

Halberd:

I haven’t worked in this area much yet, but the halberd techniques are certainly related to the staff. And this is definitely a halberd and not a poleaxe, Mair even refers to it as the “hallenparten”, which is German for “halberd.” The weapon appears to be 6 feet in length. It seems to be a training weapon, since it has a rounded knob at the top spike. It also has no butt spike, as a poleaxe would.

I haven’t examined the other sections yet. In our workouts we have been going through Mair’s Longsword and his staff. I’d like to hear whatever feedback, suggestions, or ideas you may have. Thanks!

Keith
ARMA-D.C.

[Steve Hick]

Originally posted by Keith P. Myers


.....

The Manuscripts:

....I have not seen images of it, and know nothing more about it. There also seems to be a fourth version in the library in Augsberg, but I know nothing about that one.

....

Hils has:
Anton Rast/Paulus Hector Mair Augsberg Stadtarchiv Schatze 82 Reichsstadt 1553

and Norbert Krines
1) Schätze 82 Reichsstadt/Augsburg, Stadtarchiv/ Auftraggeber: Paulus Hector Mair Autor der Vorlage: Antonius Rast (nicht erhalten) Schreiber, Maler: Heinrich Vogtherr/1553/ Misch-HS/ Papier

This was there ca 1990 (and Norbert had it in 1999), I have seen it, and have a copy of one of the pages. I remember the archivist as being very helpful.

Note, Anton Rast is noted as the author, while Mair seems to have been the editor/publisher.

Meanwhile, what ever happened to Norbert?

Steve

[Keith P. Myers]

Oops! Just realized I left out the "www" part of the URL for the full-color example of the C93 version of Paulus Hector Mair that is in the Dresden library. Here is the proper address:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/dres/dre060.jpg


Keith
ARMA-D.C.

[Keith P. Myers]

Originally posted by Steve Hick


Hils has:
Anton Rast/Paulus Hector Mair Augsberg Stadtarchiv Schatze 82 Reichsstadt 1553

and Norbert Krines
1) Schätze 82 Reichsstadt/Augsburg, Stadtarchiv/ Auftraggeber: Paulus Hector Mair Autor der Vorlage: Antonius Rast (nicht erhalten) Schreiber, Maler: Heinrich Vogtherr/1553/ Misch-HS/ Papier

This was there ca 1990 (and Norbert had it in 1999), I have seen it, and have a copy of one of the pages. I remember the archivist as being very helpful.

Note, Anton Rast is noted as the author, while Mair seems to have been the editor/publisher.

Meanwhile, what ever happened to Norbert?

Steve

Thanks for the info Steve! Do we know anything about Anton Rast? Did this manuscript look like the other versions of Mair? I ask because it is given a later date than the others....1553 vs. 1542, and the notations suggest to me that Mair simple authored a "forward" or introduction for the manuscript...."autor der Vorlage." It could be that Mair's only involvement was to give Rast's work a little more credibility by writing a forward for it. But if it does appear to be another version of the manuscripts that came before, then we have to wonder just who Rast was and what role he played.

Keith
ARMA-D.C.

[Michael Huber]

Mair seems to depart from convention when it comes to the guard known as “Kron” or “crown.” The widely accepted version of this guard is described by Christian Tobler in his book “Secrets of German Medieval Swordsmanship” in this way: “A defensive position wherein one raises the long sword, point upward, to intercept a downward blow on the hilt.” But what Mair refers to as a “Kron” is actually a half-sword guard held overhead to intercept a descending blow much like the “St. George’s Guard” seen in later systems.

I have already seen this version of Kron somewhere, but i don't remember exactly where...

What most seem to refer to as a “Kron”, Mair actually calls a “Brechfennster” or “breaking window.” It is illustrated on plate 45 and described like this “stand in the Brechfennster with your right foot forward, holding your crossguard before your head such that your thumb remains beneath, the point in the air at your right side, and looking out between your arms at the opponent.”

That's really intersting as it look closely like the Sprechfenster Pauerfeindt shown in la noble science/Egenolph, and which bothered me a lot.
You can see it for example in http://ardamhe.free.fr/biblio/noble_science/img/18.JPG

[Keith P. Myers]

Michael wrote:

That's really intersting as it look closely like the Sprechfenster Pauerfeindt shown in la noble science/Egenolph, and which bothered me a lot.
You can see it for example in http://ardamhe.free.fr/biblio/noble_science/img/18.JPG


----Mair's example is much better illustrated. This picture from Egenolph looks like a pretty standard vom Tag guard. But in Mair the illustration shows a fairly deep stance with the weight on the forward leg, and the sword is obviously held out in front with the blade angled straight up and to the right at 45 degrees....not backwards like vom Tag. Interesting that it is called "sprechfenster" in Egenolph. This would translate as "speaking window" rather than "breaking window." Given the inconsistent spelling in this era, this could have been what Mair intended as well. "Speaking" seems to make more sense than "breaking" to me, because you are looking out between your own arms as if you were looking through a "window" in order to "speak" to the opponent. I'm not sure what "breaking" would connotate. Maybe "breaking" the opponent's attack by stepping forward with the "brechfennster" to interrupt it? Anyway....thanks for the feedback.

Keith
ARMA-D.C.

[Michael Huber]

Originally posted by Keith P. Myers
----Mair's example is much better illustrated. This picture from Egenolph looks like a pretty standard vom Tag guard. But in Mair the illustration shows a fairly deep stance with the weight on the forward leg, and the sword is obviously held out in front with the blade angled straight up and to the right at 45 degrees....not backwards like vom Tag.

I think it's a perspective problem. the blade is on the right side, the swordman is facing the other.

[Gregory Mele]

Originally posted by Keith P. Myers
The dates I have found for Mair are 1517-1579. The works attributed to him are generally dated at c.1540, which would have made him only 23 years old at the time. Therefore I tend to question a birth date of 1517. .... Although he is often described as a “compiler” in reference to the works attributed to him, he seems to have written the commentary and explanations himself. Therefore he was more than just a collector or compiler….he was a swordsman and martial artist as well. .

Woh Keith, that is a HUGE assumption, based on ???? We have no idea who wrote that commentary - it could have been previous owners or subsequent ones. You would need a hand analysis to compare known pieces of Mair's writing with the commentary you think is his in the compilations. I'm sure not up to that text. Wierschin was a linguist and textual analyst and I don't think he touched that. As to membership in one of the fencing fraternities - maybe, but do we have a record of it?

I'm not saying you couldn't be right, but I don't think we have any evidence to clearly suggest that, and it certainly requires an academic's training to make the sort of analysis I'm suggesting. A 23 year old collector makes perfect sense. I think you need to be careful before going any farther than that.

Best,

Greg

[Keith P. Myers]

Greg wrote:

Woh Keith, that is a HUGE assumption, based on ???? We have no idea who wrote that commentary - it could have been previous owners or subsequent ones.

----He didn't do the illustrations and he wasn't the lone model for them....so there had to be some reason his name is attached. I think it is no more an assumption to think that Mair wrote those commentaries on the illustrations than it is to make the assumption that Sigmund Ringeck wrote all of what is attributed to him. An assumption yes, but not that HUGE of one, in my opinion.

You would need a hand analysis to compare known pieces of Mair's writing with the commentary you think is his in the compilations. I'm sure not up to that text. Wierschin was a linguist and textual analyst and I don't think he touched that.

---Hasn't it been said that he is thought to have written some of the marginal comments in the Codex Wallerstein? Maybe that would be a place to start comparing. But there is clearly a handwriting difference between the Dresden and the Vienna versions. But the Vienna could be a copy of the Dresden made by someone other than Mair.

As to membership in one of the fencing fraternities - maybe, but do we have a record of it?

----I did say that is was "possible" not "certain." And this is based on the fact that there were such a wide variety of models available for the illustrations. It seems logical to me to think that he had access to some sort of fencing school. And how many people do we have any record of that were actually part of these fraternities?

I'm not saying you couldn't be right, but I don't think we have any evidence to clearly suggest that, and it certainly requires an academic's training to make the sort of analysis I'm suggesting. A 23 year old collector makes perfect sense. I think you need to be careful before going any farther than that.

----A 23 year old collector of the Codex Wallerstein and other independently existing texts makes sense. But these manuscripts are unique and are attributed to Mair for some reason. They may include material from other manuscripts (certainly from the Codex Wallerstein), but the illustrations are not just simple copies of those from other sources. They are unique, and certainly seem to be posed. A fairly large pool of martial artists were available to perform the techniques. So I don't think they could have been just a "compilation" of things that Mair brought together from manuscripts in his collection. The Dresden and the Vienna manuscripts are two different versions of the same thing, and both attributed to Mair. If he had "collected" them from somewhere, it seems like we would have some documentation of them existing or being owned by someone prior to Mair. So yes....it is an assumption that Mair was more than just a "collector"....that he was a martial artist that actually wrote the texts attributed to him. But I don't think it is a large assumption, nor one that is out of line. I would say that the evidence we have at this time supports it. The evidence we use to attribute authorship to many of the other historical manuscripts is not any stronger. I think calling Mair a "compiler" is a bit of a slight. I wonder what academic gave him that label?

Keith
ARMA-D.C.

[Christian H. Tobler]

Originally posted by Keith P. Myers
----He didn't do the illustrations and he wasn't the lone model for them....so there had to be some reason his name is attached. I think it is no more an assumption to think that Mair wrote those commentaries on the illustrations than it is to make the assumption that Sigmund Ringeck wrote all of what is attributed to him. An assumption yes, but not that HUGE of one, in my opinion.

Actually Keith, I caution against making just such an assumption in my book. In the introduction, I delineate the problem of associating the entire fechtbuch with Ringeck - his name only appears in one section after all.

These things get names in funny ways. Consider the 'von Danzig' manuscript, which contains three anonymous sections of commentary on Liechtenauer, a bunch of Lignitzer, Huntfeltz, and Ott stuff, and then one puny final section by Peter von Danzig. That's rather like me writing the appendix to a large book, and then getting credited by history as the book's author. The scholars who gave us the common names for these works weren't always very careful.

That aside, I'd like to take a look at the text-only sections of Mair to see whose glosa it is...

Best regards,

[Keith P. Myers]

Originally posted by Christian H. Tobler


Actually Keith, I caution against making just such an assumption in my book. In the introduction, I delineate the problem of associating the entire fechtbuch with Ringeck - his name only appears in one section after all.

These things get names in funny ways. Consider the 'von Danzig' manuscript, which contains three anonymous sections of commentary on Liechtenauer, a bunch of Lignitzer, Huntfeltz, and Ott stuff, and then one puny final section by Peter von Danzig. That's rather like me writing the appendix to a large book, and then getting credited by history as the book's author. The scholars who gave us the common names for these works weren't always very careful.

That aside, I'd like to take a look at the text-only sections of Mair to see whose glosa it is...

Best regards,

---Point taken! But that is why I said that it is no more of an assumption than is used to assign authorship to many of the fechtbucher. It could very well be that Paulus Hector Mair backrolled the production of these manuscripts that carry his name and therefore served as the "publisher" or "editor" to some extent. It is hard to say. But I still think that it is not necessarily a HUGE assumption to postulate that he wrote what carries his name. I will see if I can send you images of the glosa sections as eMail attachments. Thanks.

Keith
ARMA-D.C.

[Stefan Dieke]

I just wonder why there's such a speculation on the function of Paulus Hector Mair. Is there a good reason to doubt the position which is taken by the main literature on the topic like Wierschin, Hils and the authors dictionary?

There the history of Mair is told quite in detail.
Mair was the scribe, later the exchequer of the city of Augsburg. He was a collector of fencing treatises, thus bought what he could get on the subject and had some treatises copied and compiled in the best and most beautiful form he could afford. He did not write a treatise, he did not draw it and he did not pose for it. He ordered it.
Finally he was hung for stealing money from the city to pay for the books he ordered.

Obviously he was interested in fencing. Most likely he knew how to fence, at least to a certain degree. At his time that was not that unusual.

Cheers,

Stefan
Veritas vincit.

[Steve Hick]

Originally posted by Keith P. Myers



---Point taken! But that is why I said that it is no more of an assumption than is used to assign authorship to many of the fechtbucher. It could very well be that Paulus Hector Mair backrolled the production of these manuscripts that carry his name and therefore served as the "publisher" or "editor" to some extent. It is hard to say. But I still think that it is not necessarily a HUGE assumption to postulate that he wrote what carries his name. I will see if I can send you images of the glosa sections as eMail attachments. Thanks.

Keith
ARMA-D.C.

I think Hils has a section on Mair, do you have that keith? I am not sure what he has to say about the man, although I suspect real insight might be lacking, as Hils I think was unclear where Mair was getting his stuff--the chart has question marks leading to Mair. I might suspect some of his (and Meyers) interpretation as they may be from the 'dance master' tradition.

Steve

[Steve Hick]

Originally posted by Stefan Dieke
I just wonder why there's such a speculation on the function of Paulus Hector Mair. Is there a good reason to doubt the position which is taken by the main literature on the topic like Wierschin, Hils and the authors dictionary?

There the history of Mair is told quite in detail.
Mair was the scribe, later the exchequer of the city of Augsburg. He was a collector of fencing treatises, thus bought what he could get on the subject and had some treatises copied and compiled in the best and most beautiful form he could afford. He did not write a treatise, he did not draw it and he did not pose for it. He ordered it.
Finally he was hung for stealing money from the city to pay for the books he ordered.

Obviously he was interested in fencing. Most likely he knew how to fence, at least to a certain degree. At his time that was not that unusual.

Cheers,

Stefan
Veritas vincit.

Stefan, this is from Hils (or Wierschin)? What do they have about Wierschin and Rast?

Steve

[Gregory Mele]

Originally posted by Stefan Dieke
I just wonder why there's such a speculation on the function of Paulus Hector Mair. Is there a good reason to doubt the position which is taken by the main literature on the topic like Wierschin, Hils and the authors dictionary?

There the history of Mair is told quite in detail.
Mair was the scribe, later the exchequer of the city of Augsburg. He was a collector of fencing treatises, thus bought what he could get on the subject and had some treatises copied and compiled in the best and most beautiful form he could afford. He did not write a treatise, he did not draw it and he did not pose for it. He ordered it.
Finally he was hung for stealing money from the city to pay for the books he ordered.

Obviously he was interested in fencing. Most likely he knew how to fence, at least to a certain degree. At his time that was not that unusual.

Cheers,

Stefan
Veritas vincit.

Thanks Stefan, this was the point I was trying to make.

We need to apply Occam's Razor here. The simplest and most likely answer is the one above.

Christian addressed the Ringeck/von Danzig issues. (Although at least we have text saying that Ringeck *was* Albrecht's fencing instructor.) As to attribution, the manuscripts *are* attributed to Mair, as he was the compiler. Remember Keith, we don't know *from what* it was compiled. If Hils or Wierschin elucidate this, then it will take Jorg, Stefan or someone else far better suited to read them than I to point it out.

I have no problem with your speculation, but as Stefan suggests, the first question is why suspect it, the second becomes why does the academic literature say otherwise. Only if you can blow a hole in point two, is there any reason to speculate further.

Greg

[Keith P. Myers]

Stefan wrote:
I just wonder why there's such a speculation on the function of Paulus Hector Mair. Is there a good reason to doubt the position which is taken by the main literature on the topic like Wierschin, Hils and the authors dictionary?

---No reason to doubt it, it is just that such info is not readily available here in the U.S......hence the speculation.

There the history of Mair is told quite in detail.
Mair was the scribe, later the exchequer of the city of Augsburg. He was a collector of fencing treatises, thus bought what he could get on the subject and had some treatises copied and compiled in the best and most beautiful form he could afford. He did not write a treatise, he did not draw it and he did not pose for it. He ordered it. Finally he was hung for stealing money from the city to pay for the books he ordered.

---Thanks for the additional info. I still wonder.......if 1517 is an accurate birthdate, then he was only 23 at the time these manuscripts were produced. I assume they were quite expensive. Would a scribe be able to afford them? He was hung much later than this.....over 35 years later. So either he had one heck of a good payment plan worked out on these manuscripts he ordered, or he compiled other works that we know nothing about. And to me "compiled" suggests that he had someone take some techniques from one source and throw them together with techniques from another source. Kind of like what Christain describes for von Danzig.....things taken from Ott, Lignitzer, Hunztfeld, etc. The von Danzig manuscript is obviously a "compilation" of various things, as is the Goliath manuscript. But the illustrated portions of Mair with their accompanying captions don't strike me that way. They leave the strong impression that someone was actually performing the techniques that the artist was rendering. The captions then explain counters and responses from the illustrated technique in a systematic fashion. I know this is still just speculation, but it sure seems to me that what is presented was an actual existing systematic method being modeled by members of a fencing school. Even if Mair didn't write any of the commentary or have anything else to do with it than paying for its production, someone that was knowledgeable put it all together for him. Perhaps he commissioned the Master of a local Fechtschule? Anyway, the point of my speculation here is that the manuscripts that bear Mair's name strike me as a systematic whole, and not a compilation of various things.....regardless of who actually wrote them. Thanks.

Keith
ARMA-D.C.

[Keith P. Myers]

Originally posted by Steve Hick


I think Hils has a section on Mair, do you have that keith? I am not sure what he has to say about the man, although I suspect real insight might be lacking, as Hils I think was unclear where Mair was getting his stuff--the chart has question marks leading to Mair. I might suspect some of his (and Meyers) interpretation as they may be from the 'dance master' tradition.

Steve

---No, I do not have Hils. What do you mean by the "dance master tradition"?

Keith
ARMA-D.C.

[Keith P. Myers]

Greg wrote:

I have no problem with your speculation, but as Stefan suggests, the first question is why suspect it, the second becomes why does the academic literature say otherwise. Only if you can blow a hole in point two, is there any reason to speculate further.

---I wasn't aware of how solid the info on Mair was assumed to be until Stefan pointed it out. Without solid facts to deny an idea, speculation is a valid way to prompt further thought. But even if we discount Mair as the author, I still think that there was someone knowledgeable writing the commentary to the illustrations and that it is more than a compilation from various sources. Again....just speculating....but my impression is that Mair's fechtbuch represents a cohesive system, as valid as Meyer's that came 30 years later. It wasn't just a portion of this manual mixed with a portion of that with some of another added in for good measure. A scribe can do this without really understanding was is being described or seeing it performed. Again....just speculating.....but I think it is very possible that the manuscripts that bear Mair's name represent a significant portion of the curriculum of some contemporary fencing school. Thanks for all the feedback. I'd like to know what all of you think of this idea.

Keith
ARMA-D.C.

[Steve Hick]

Originally posted by Keith P. Myers


---No, I do not have Hils. What do you mean by the "dance master tradition"?

Keith
ARMA-D.C.

I have it, bug me after the 4th and I'll xerox it, or transcribe the section. You know, Dave has it as sort of a challenge from Professor Hils to translate this into English... and its easier than Welle.

Dance masters. There was always a competing tradition of fencing in Germany, who are oft refered to as dance masters, or other derogatory terms. Flashy, but ineffective. This may be what is creeping into the tradition in the 16th century.

If memory serves me, it was to counter just this that Doebringer wrote the first set of merkverse.

Steve

[Stefan Dieke]

Hi Steve!

Originally posted by Steve Hick


Stefan, this is from Hils (or Wierschin)? What do they have about Wierschin and Rast?

Steve

It's from Hils. Welle also has some info on Mair.
Hils mentions that Antonius Rast as a "Schwertfeger" (Swordgrinder, -polisher, -sharpener ; don't know the english term) from Augsburg.
He may be identical with "Anthoni Rasch", an officer of the Marxbrüder in the 1520s, who was still around in the 1540s. But there's no proof for this theory.

Wierschin?!?

Stefan
"Veritas vincit"

[Stefan Dieke]

Hi Keith!

Originally posted by Keith P. Myers
---No reason to doubt it, it is just that such info is not readily available here in the U.S......hence the speculation.

When dealing with the german fencing treatises from the Liechtenauer Tradition Wierschin and Hils are must-reads, the same is true for Welle, although his focus is the 'Ringen'-aspect.
Hils can be found at the AEMMA-WebSite at http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/hils/hilsHome.htm.

---Thanks for the additional info. I still wonder.......if 1517 is an accurate birthdate, then he was only 23 at the time these manuscripts were produced. I assume they were quite expensive. Would a scribe be able to afford them? He was hung much later than this.....over 35 years later. So either he had one heck of a good payment plan worked out on these manuscripts he ordered, or he compiled other works that we know nothing about.

I've found no hint for the birthdate of 1517 other than Hils' statement that he was hung in 1579 at the age of 62.

In 1541 one Mair was a scribe and a (the?) treasurer of the city. Hils considers this as well payed jobs on the one hand and on the other hand he states that Mair started taking money from the city treasure fairly early to cover his expenses.

And to me "compiled" suggests that he had someone take some techniques from one source and throw them together with techniques from another source. Kind of like what Christain describes for von Danzig.....things taken from Ott, Lignitzer, Hunztfeld, etc. The von Danzig manuscript is obviously a "compilation" of various things, as is the Goliath manuscript.

Mair's books (at least C93/C94, which I have)are definetely a compilation in the fact that they combine some Illustrated sections and some text only sections which are not connected otherwise. His illustrated Longsword is very different from the Liechtenauer-verses in this work. I haven't dealt with the illustrated section too much but the Liechtenauer text is good standard, much more like von Danzig and 'Goliath' than Ringeck.

But the illustrated portions of Mair with their accompanying captions don't strike me that way. They leave the strong impression that someone was actually performing the techniques that the artist was rendering.

Good observed! That's actually what Hils says how the illustrations were taken. But that doesn't mean that the techniques did not come from various sources.

... snip ...
Anyway, the point of my speculation here is that the manuscripts that bear Mair's name strike me as a systematic whole, and not a compilation of various things.....regardless of who actually wrote them.

Besides the illustrated / text-only sections the systematic approach turns it into a good compilation. The aspect of a single writer and a single artist may hide the further compilation aspect. This may be revealed by a brief analisation and comparison to potential sources.

Regards,

Stefan
"Veritas vincit."

[Keith P. Myers]

Stefan wrote:

When dealing with the german fencing treatises from the Liechtenauer Tradition Wierschin and Hils are must-reads, the same is true for Welle, although his focus is the 'Ringen'-aspect.

----I have Welle, but it is very academic German and hard for me to translate. I do better with the 16th C German than with Welle. I have been to AEMMA's online version of Hils, but it is difficult to navigate and near impossible for me to print in order to spend time translating sections. Hopefully Steve can help me out with a copy (thanks for the offer Steve!).


I've found no hint for the birthdate of 1517 other than Hils' statement that he was hung in 1579 at the age of 62.

---I only found this in one spot, hence my comment that I questioned it as an accurate date.


Mair's books (at least C93/C94, which I have)are definetely a compilation in the fact that they combine some Illustrated sections and some text only sections which are not connected otherwise.

----Good point. I have been referring primarily to the illustrated sections.

His illustrated Longsword is very different from the Liechtenauer-verses in this work. I haven't dealt with the illustrated section too much but the Liechtenauer text is good standard, much more like von Danzig and 'Goliath' than Ringeck.

----Then we are in opposite camps. I have dealt mainly with the illustrated portion and have not yet looked closely at the text portions.


Good observed! That's actually what Hils says how the illustrations were taken. But that doesn't mean that the techniques did not come from various sources.

----True. But it would mean that the techniques were actually being used and practiced. Which is quite different than simply dusting off an old manuscript and copying portions of it into a newer "compilation."

Besides the illustrated / text-only sections the systematic approach turns it into a good compilation. The aspect of a single writer and a single artist may hide the further compilation aspect. This may be revealed by a brief analisation and comparison to potential sources.

----I do believe there is some pretty direct correlation between the dagger section in the Vienna Codex and the dagger material from the Codex Wallerstein. I have C93, but I do not yet have C94.....which I understand contains the dagger and grappling. I am assuming that the dagger in C94 is almost the same as in the Vienna Codex, so the above statement would hold true. I need to see the grappling from C94, and then I may be able to source it as well. But still.....it seems to be more than just a copy of the Codex Wallerstein or some other source. These dagger techniques still give the distinct impression that they were being performed for the artist. So in my opinion, and still just speculation, the illustrated portion of Mair's work represents a "living" tradition being utilized and practiced at the time of writing. This makes it more than a simple compilation of "favorite techniques" from other manuscripts in his collection. If it is a compilation, I think the "compiling" took place at the level of the people practicing and learning the method....not at the level of the scribe copying manuscripts. And I still think it is possible that the illustrated sections represent a fairly significant portion of the curriculum of some contemporary fencing school.

---Again, just speculating......but what do the rest of you think about this idea that Mair's fechtbuch (at least the illustrated portions) may represent the curriculum of a 16th C fechtschule....and that perhaps Mair commissioned the school's Fencing Master to produce or at least provide the info for the manuscript? Steve has shown that an Antone Rast is connected to as least one version of Mair's manuscript, and Stefan has said that one theory is that he is the same person as Anthoni Rasch...who was a member of the Marxbruder. So the connections are a little fuzzy, but still this idea doesn't seem to me to be too far out of line.

Thanks for the feedback.

Keith
ARMA-D.C.

[Keith P. Myers]

As I continue to translate Mair I discover new things. One such discovery is a technique that he calls the "Einschiessen", which I would translate as "shooting in" though it also seems to imply "shooting down." This appears to be a thrust from a right Ochs position. But I believe that it must be more that just thrusting forward to the face or chest from Ochs, overwise it would not be given its own name. I interpret the "Einschiessen" as a technique that begins from a lower position and "whips" the point of the sword around and forward from above to do an extended thrust downward and inward to the face or chest. Somewhat like a "Sturzhau" or "plunging cut", but more extended and meant to thrust with the point rather than cut with the tip. Has anyone come across this technique in any of the other Fechtbucher?

Keith
ARMA-D.C.

[Stefan Dieke]

Hi Keith!

Originally posted by Keith P. Myers
As I continue to translate Mair I discover new things. One such discovery is a technique that he calls the "Einschiessen"

Could you provide a page number? I'd like to have a look.

Stefan
"Veritas vincit"

[Keith P. Myers]

Originally posted by Stefan Dieke
Hi Keith!



Could you provide a page number? I'd like to have a look.

Stefan
"Veritas vincit"

---From the C93 version, going by the numbering on the Longsword plates themselves it is pictured in plates 21, 51, 78, and 101. It is also mentioned in the commentary to plate 1.

Keith