The Adventures of the Gladiatoria Manuscript from New Haven
How nice it is when something you believed to be irretrievably lost finally reappears: the missing little red toy car, the untraceable wedding ring, the runaway pet—or the medieval fencing manuscript.
Quite frequently, these missing items are not really lost at all, but only misplaced somewhere else. And this is exactly what happened to the manuscript we will discuss here.
Codex MS U860.F46 1450 from the Yale Center for British Art (YCBA) in New Haven, Connecticut, has had a rather exciting and trying time, upon which we will now attempt to shed some light. It is a Fechtbuch—a book that deals with fighting techniques—that was originally only one part of a larger entity, Codex Gothanus Membr. II 109 from the Herzogliche Bibliothek in Gotha in Germany, which disappeared from the library during or shortly after World War II. We will only deal extensively with this first part, the one containing the Fechtbuch, and will begin by describing it. The fate of the original, entire manuscript will be briefly outlined later on.
Everything concerning our manuscript is ambiguous, even difficult. As such, we will encounter uncertainties and oddities time and again over the course of this brief essay. Even the format exemplifies this characteristic.
In the original shelf mark from Gotha—Membr. II 109—the Roman numeral “II” signifies a quarto book format.
The manuscript was measured at least five times in the past, each time with certain differences:
– In the first known description of the manuscript, Friedrich Jacobs and Friedrich August Ukert1 came to a result of 6 × 6¼ French inches, which corresponds to 163 × 169 mm (or 6.42 × 6.65 in)—according to the conversion carried out by Hans-Peter Hils,2
– Walter Benary3 measures 163 × 175 mm (6.42 × 6.89 in) in 1912,
– Cornelia Hopf4 stated 16.5 × 17.5 cm (6.50 × 6.89 in) in 1997,
– the catalogue of the German illustrated manuscripts from the Middle Ages5 from 2009 mentioned a size of 165 × 180 mm (6.50 × 7.09 in),
– and finally, the YCBA stated a format of about 19 × 20 cm (7.48 × 7.87 in) in 2012.
After a request from the author in August 2012, Francis Lapka, catalogue librarian of the YCBA, checked the measurements and determined a size of 172 × 185 mm (6.77 × 7.28 in) for the cover; the pages of the body of the book are consistently 165 × 178 mm (6.50 × 7.01 in)—apart from three leaves with their text cut off. These dimensions vary by less than one millimetre in total.6
The current format, however, is by no means the original one, since passages of the text have frequently been cropped at the outer and lower margins. The Gladiatoria manuscript from Vienna7 is extraordinarily similar to this one in several aspects, including in size and proportions. A direct comparison with the illustrations and texts of the Vienna manuscript—its size is listed as 185 × 195 mm (7.28 × 7.68 in)8—suggests that the New Haven manuscript was originally about one centimetre (or a little less than half an inch) higher and wider. It cannot be ascertained for sure when it was cropped, but Jacobs and Ukert had already mentioned damages.9
The cover consists of auburn leather. Five punched diagonals intersect each other on both the front and the back cover, thus forming rhombic fields. Two rows of three fields one above the other are shaped thus, and in each field, a narrow rhombus that is bordered by an outline carries a raised griffin rampant on a punched ground. Six more fields bear embossed flower heads in a circle: two smaller ones on top of another occupy the left and right side respectively, with two larger ones in the middle.
The spine is divided by four double raised bands. Between the second and the third, we find the golden embossed inscription “ARS PALAESTRA” (art of wrestling), beneath the fourth “XV s.” (= the 15th century).
On the inside of the front cover, there is an oval ruby-coloured sticker with a central gold wheatsheaf and the words “Oak Spring” and “Paul Mellon” in golden letters running around it.
An insert has been glued to the inside of the back cover. It bears the YCBA logo and has the accession number written in pencil below: U860.F46 1450. The lower margin of the inside of the cover carries the embossed name of the bookbinder: S. (= Sven) Wiklander.
According to the information provided by the YCBA, the binding of the codex is neat. The manuscript begins with five empty leaves made of heavy paper resembling parchment; at the back, there is another such leaf. These leaves were inserted during the most recent binding in the 1960s.
The actual codex consists of 43 parchment leaves. The fashion of the binding is difficult to recognize without manhandling the manuscript too roughly. It appears, however, that some leaves are mounted on stubs, others by contrast are not. Unfortunately, the YCBA was unable to determine unequivocally whether the entire manuscript was bound together from single leaves. According to Francis Lapka “others appear to have conjugate leaves”.10
All leaves are generally in a good condition, save for leaf number 7, which is much grubbier than the rest, and quite dilapidated.
Folios 1r–43r feature water coloured pen drawings in black ink over pencil sketches with two fighting persons in harness on each page. The pictures occupy the entire width and approximately the upper three-quarters of the page.
A pencil sketch is particularly identifiable at the right leg of the right fencer on f. 17v. This sketch corresponds to the stance found in the Gladiatoria manuscript from Vienna, f. 22v; the finished drawing, however, matches the version from Cracow,11 f. 24v.
Beneath a separating line, three to eight lines of explanatory text are written in a blackletter script, called bastarda, with brown ink. Occasionally the text runs around the fighters’ feet which overlap the separating line. This suggests that the drawings were outlined first with the text being filled in later in a next step. On some leaves, however, the text has been cut off beneath the fighting pairs, specifically on ff. 3, 4, and 7.
Only one scribe was involved in the execution of the manuscript, and he was also responsible for the majority of the Vienna Gladiatoria manuscript, revealed by close comparison of the two examples of handwriting (ff. 1r–10v,12 12r–27v, and 29r–56v). Occasionally, even the alignment of the single lines is identical in both manuscripts.
The dialect is Austro-Bavarian.13
Folio 43v features several Spanish names, written in pencil, possibly in the 17th century: Don Diego de Coes (twice), Juan Perez del Gurca, Jusepe Cerdeño.14 Almost all pages carry at least one numbering. However, these are inconsistent and incomplete:
– Fencing techniques, numbered consecutively in the text
– in spear fighting (ff. 1r–5r, whereby the text is missing on leaves 3 and 4)
– in dagger fighting (ff. 30r–40r)
– in holding down techniques15 (ff. 41r–43v)
– Possibly contemporary leaf numbering in ink
– leaves 9–18
– leaves 28–32
– leaves 39–43
– Possibly contemporary leaf number in ink (ff. 25r and 37r)
– Possibly contemporary page numbering in ink (ff. 30r–37v)
– Page numbering in ink, probably from a later era (ff. 1r–6v)
– Page or leaf number in ink from a later (?) era (f. 7r)
– Modern in pencil (all pages except leaves 11, 18, 22, and 26)
– Modern pencil number 2, in a circle, on f. 22r
Since the current order of leaves got a bit mixed up—particularly in the middle part—these numberings may help us to reconstruct the initial configuration. More on this a little later.
Every page of the Fechtbuch shows two fighters in full armour16 who fight against each other in a variety of disciplines:
1r–5r: Spear
5v–19v: Sword
20r–22r: Wrestling
22v–28v: Sword
29r–29v: Wrestling
30r–40v: Dagger
41r–43r: Holding down
Wrestling, however, is not listed as an independent discipline, especially when we use the Cracow codex as a reference for comparison. In that volume, we find 50 consecutively numbered techniques for the sword between spear and dagger combat, and the wrestling techniques are included in these.
The suits of armour are depicted in minute detail, with coloured doublets or coats of arms appearing frequently. These are most often painted in blue, red, purple, orange, and green. All fighters wear closed helmets with visors that are illustrated quite uniformly; the amount of detail of the armour, on the other hand, varies considerably.
The weapons are drawn in a rather similar fashion as well, but the ecranches, the little shields, which mostly lie on the ground, are rendered a bit oddly: the bouche, the indentation for the spear or the lance,17 is usually situated—in heraldic terms— on the right hand side of the shield. On folios 3r, 9v, 11r, 20r, 25r, 29r, and 41v, however, we find ecranches with a left sided orientation lying beneath or next to each of the left fighters; the same is true for the right fighters on folios 19v and 42r; the right one on fol. 4r is holding one of these in his hand; fol. 17r even portrays two wrongly arranged ecranches on the ground; and several ecranches seem to be devoid of any strap or grip at all: folios 9r, 14v, 15r, 15v, 16r, 16v, 17v, 18v, 19r, 20v, 21r, 23r, 23v, 26r, 26v, 27v, 28r, 28v, 31r, 31v, 34r, 36r, and 36v. With only a few exceptions, each ecranche displays a red St. George’s cross on a white background.
Although the suits of armour vary considerably in detail, the overall style of the drawings appears homogeneous throughout, so that it is quite likely that only a single illustrator was responsible for the creation of the manuscript. In contrast to the Vienna Gladiatoria codex mentioned before, the pictures all share a similar high level of quality.
Based on the particularities of the writing, the dialect, the arms, and the armour, the manuscript can be dated to about 1430.
Before the entire manuscript disappeared from Gotha, it consisted of three parts. The first one is the manuscript we deal with in this article; the second one is the fragment of a Spanish comedy, penned by Lope de Vega (1562–1635): El testimonio vengado; the third one remains lost without a trace to this day, and it contained several Spanish poems with later additions of French and Latin sentences on some leaves.18
That means that the original composition was as follows:
56 leaves of parchment:
1–43: Gladiatoria Fechtbuch
44: empty recto page, a pen sketch on the back
45–55: Lope de Vega: El testimonio vengado
56: title and listing of names
44 leaves of paper: Spanish poems, French and Latin texts
Regarding the correct number of pages, as for the question of format, a certain disagreement in the specialist literature prevails: Sometimes the number of parchment leaves is stated as 55, sometimes as 56. Quite probably, this inconsistency can be traced back to a mistake in counting the leaves that must have occurred even before the very first description of the manuscript written by Jacobs and Ukert. These two gentlemen account for 55 leaves, in which both Martin Wierschin19 and Hans-Peter Hils20 follow them. The latter first repeats Martin Wierschin’s statement in Meister Johann Liechtenauers Kunst des langen Schwertes, but later on, in his essay from 1987 about three Gladiatoria manuscripts, he refers to the description of the manuscript by Rudolf Ehwald, director of the library in Gotha from 1893 until 1921, who counted 56 parchment leaves.21 The Katalog der deutschsprachigen illustrierten Handschriften des Mittelalters contains an internal discrepancy, since on one occasion it states 55, on another 56 leaves. Nevertheless, it points to a newer pagination only on the recto pages: 87–111. Cornelia Hopf lists 56 pages. The confusion can be explained quickly: Walter Benary22 tells us in a footnote that page 101 (which corresponds to fol. 55) has been counted twice.
Benary reproduces the text of the fragment of the comedy in accordance with the original page numbers, namely from page 89 (fol. 45) to page 109 (fol. 55). In some additional remarks concerning the last part of the fragment he writes that fol. 55v (the verso page of the last leaf of our fragment) carries the name Pedro de l’Gurça; on fol. 56v there are some pen scribbles and the name Pedro dee Gnça (sic) in capital letters. Additionally, we find the title of the comedy on fol. 56r.23
The remaining leaf that belongs between the Fechtbuch and the fragment is blank on the recto page, and on fol. 44v (see plate 15) shows a rough pen sketch of a fighter in harness that is left uncoloured. The assumption that this drawing was executed by the writer of the comedy in the 17th century, using an illustration from the Fechtbuch as a template,24 can certainly be excluded since neither the style of the depicted harness nor the combination of weapons—sword and dagger— appear in our manuscript in this manner.
Unfortunately, we cannot continuously verify the provenance of the manuscript; however, we can identify a number of locations that provide reliable indications regarding where it has been held.
The manuscript came into being in the beginning of the 15th century, probably in the area of what today is Bavaria or Austria. It was presumably created in a larger studio or workshop, but only one scribe and one illustrator were involved.
We can only trace back the history of the manuscript with certainty to the 18th century: Hereditary Prince August of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg presented the volume to the Herzogliche Bibliothek Gotha (the ducal library) as a gift on October 22, 1792.
At this time, the manuscript Membr. II 109 consisted of the aforementioned three parts. During or shortly after World War II, however, it disappeared from the library, only to resurface some time later and in separate parts:
The fragment of Lope de Vega’s comedy was restored to the library in Gotha in 1997. This part had found its way into the possession of the antiquarian and auction house Hauswedell & Nolte in Hamburg, which handed it over to the Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg (state and university library) in 1953 due to the unclear property situation. After an extensive examination, it was given back to the Forschungs- und Landesbibliothek Gotha.25
The third part remains lost to this day.
However, the first part, our Fechtbuch, reappeared in Heidelberg a couple of years after the end of the war.
The Buch- und Kunstantiquariat Dr. Helmut Tenner (book and art antiquarian) sold parts of the manuscript at several auctions in the 1950s and 60s. As far as we can determine, 19 individual leaves (out of 43) were sold at auction:26
Auction 5 on November 8/9, 1956: 3 leaves
Auction 7 on June 4/5, 1957: 4 leaves
Auction 9 on February 6–8, 1958: 4 leaves
Auction 11 on October 8/9, 1958: 6 leaves
Auction 37 on October 23/24, 1963: 1 leaf
Auction 43 on November 11/12, 1964: 1 leaf
Each auction catalogue depicts a manuscript page in a rough dot matrix print. We can definitely identify the images that are attached to Hans-Peter Hils’ essay27 as the ones stemming from the New Haven codex. Page and plate numbers in the corresponding auction catalogues are juxtaposed with the folio numbers of our manuscript in this table:
A5 (p. 4, no. 3): 28r
A7 (p. 5, no. 2): 34r
A9 (p. 3, no. 3): 9r
A11 (p. 2, no. 10 and plate 1): 30r
A37 (p. 5, no. 2): 22v
A43 (p. 5, no. 2 and plate 1): 18r
After this point, the line of descent is broken, and the fate of the remaining 24 leaves remains unresolved.
In fact, all of the sections that had been auctioned off at Tenner’s—but obviously not only these—found their way to Sweden.
AB Sandbergs Bokhandel in Stockholm sold the leaves that had been purchased at auction to the United States.
Paul Mellon (1907–99) was an American businessman, philanthropist and patron of the arts. He studied at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut ,and was co-heir to a phenomenal fortune, that of the Mellon Bank, which was founded by his grandfather, father and uncle. He facilitated the foundation of the YCBA and made a vast number of charitable donations. Over the years, he purchased the entire Gladiatoria Fechtbuch:
1959: 28 leaves
February 1960: 11 leaves
December 1962: 2 leaves
December 1963: 1 leaf
December 1964: 1 leaf
Subsequently, the manuscript was put into the current order and re-bound by bookbinder Sven Wiklander.
Paul Mellon bequeathed his collection, including our Fechtbuch, to the Rare Book and Manuscript Library (Paul Mellon Bequest) of the Yale Center for British Art, where it has resided since the time of his death.
In his 1985 general survey of German fencing manuscripts,28 Hans-Peter Hils still lists the codex from Gotha and the so-called manuscript ‘T’ as two distinct volumes (catalogue nos. 21 and 23). But in 1987, he re-examined the descriptions of the manuscript and the catalogues of the Tenner auction house, and through a masterly investigative and deductive process, he came to the conclusion that these two were in fact one and the same book.29
In 2009, by using the various descriptions of the volume, I was finally able to identify the New Haven codex, which had become generally accessible in the meantime, as the manuscript that was believed to be lost.30
The criteria by which the codex that was presumed lost can be considered as rediscovered are these:
– The description of the manuscript and the text excerpt by Jacobs and Ukert.
– The description by Rudolf Ehwald.
– The documented list of some Spanish names on folio 43v.
– The plates in the auction catalogues.
Friedrich Jacobs and Friedrich August Ukert gave an account of a brief text passage in their description of the manuscript on page 9 (which corresponds to fol. 5r): “wenn du rasch den anderen packen willst, so nymb deinen speer und swert zw samb an den arm und schrawff ab den knoph von deinem swert und wirff heriklachen in in und lauff nach dem wurff mit ym ein und nutz swert oder spyes, welches dir eben sey. […] ob er also auf dich würff mit dem knoph, so nym dein taschen (Tartsche. Schild) für dich und vach darauff den Wurff und nym din spyes für dich in die recht hant zu dem stich und hüt dich sein dass er dir nicht inlauf, als er in synne hat.”
The transcription we offer in this book differs only slightly: “ob dw wildt reschleich mit ym entten So nymb deinen spyes vnd swert zw samb an den arm vnd schrawff ab den knöph von deinem swertt vnd wirff hertikchleichen in in vnd lauff nach dem würff mit ym ein vnd nütz swert oder spyes welichs dir eben sey ob er also auff dich wurff mit dem knopph So nym dein taschn für dich vnd vach darauff den wurff vnd nym den spyes für dich in die recht hant zw dem stich vnd rett dich sein das er dir nicht in lauff als er yndem synne hatt.”
Additionally, Jacobs and Ukert provide some details about certain pages that correspond to our manuscript: “From page 13 onwards combat goes on with the sword, from page 59 onwards with the dagger. On page 81 start depictions of how to hold the overthrown adversary.” The last two statements are accurate; the first one, however, is not. Page 13 corresponds to folio 7; sword fighting, though, already begins on fol. 5v. Nevertheless, this very page is marked with a number “13” written in ink, which does not relate to the actual page number, allowing us easily to explain this discrepancy.
Rudolf Ehwald also provides us with several page and leaf numberings in his description of the codex, most of which closely approximate to those from the New Haven manuscript. Minor differences result in part from the new rebinding, in the process of which the original order was not entirely maintained: “On pages 3, 4, 8 the text beneath the picture is cut off. 2 leaves are missing in the beginning (= title and three pages with pictures), 1 leaf between 35 and 36, 6 leaves between 37 and 38, 1 leaf between 38 and 39, at least 1 leaf before 41. Leaves 1–6 are marked on the individual pages from a more recent hand on each page with 4–15, leaf 7 is unmarked, leaf 8 with the signature 16, 9–14 with later signatures 11–16; 15–17 unmarked; 18–23 have page numbers 22/25, 37=26, 39/43=31/36; in addition, however, leaves 30/37 possess the page numbers 1–12 […], 15–18. Leaves 1, 2 describe the 4th to 7th, leaf 5r the 12th technique of spear fighting; leaves 30/35 eleven subsequent figures of dagger fighting; leaves 36, 37 the 14th/17th, leaf 38 the 30th/31st, leaves 39/40 the 34th/37th figures of the same fight; from the last series only pictures 3/7 have survived. Leaf 43 only has a picture on the front.”
Unfortunately, there are several difficulties with the above. On the one hand Rudolf Ehwald states that leaves 15 to 17 are unmarked. But this isn’t so, at least not in the current order. In the reconstructed version which I present in table II (p. 239) in the appendix, there are even more unmarked pages. As such, this statement must remain in doubt.
On the other hand, he writes that the leaves 18–23 show the leaf numbers 22–25 (although not continuously). Yet these numbers are on leaves 29–32 and show the last of the wrestling techniques and the beginning of the dagger section. Elsewhere, Ehwald indicates eleven consecutive dagger techniques for leaves 30–35, which indeed corresponds to the facts. Unfortunately, this contradiction is also impossible to resolve.
Furthermore, he seems to have simply miscalculated when enumerating the “last series” of the holding down techniques, since the manuscript features five techniques out of seven, not three.
Jacobs and Ukert wrote: “On the back of the last leaf a more recent hand has written down several names: Don Diego de Coes, Juan Perez del Gurca”; and Walter Benary said: “Various names are inscribed in the volume, which read as follows: fol. 43v (the verso of the last leaf of the Fechtbuch): Don Diego de Coes (twice). Juan Perez del Gurca. Jusepe Cerdeño.” These are exactly the names we can find on fol. 43v of our Fechtbuch – although the Spanish researcher Manuel Valle Ortiz offers a somewhat different reading of the first two names: Sr Don Diego de Cea and Juan Perez de Quirça.
As already outlined above, the plates from the catalogues of the Tenner auction house clearly correspond to those from the New Haven manuscript, thus forming our most striking evidence.
Consequently, Hans-Peter Hils was able to prove as a first step that the codex from Gotha and the manuscript ‘T’ are one and the same book; and then, in a second step, I succeeded in verifying that this very manuscript is identical to that one from New Haven and therefore can no longer be considered lost at all.
Over the course of its history, the manuscript has been taken apart and rebound repeatedly. The current binding is incoherent and doesn’t always follow a consistent order. Nevertheless, bookbinder Sven Wiklander has recognisably made great efforts to bring the pages into a logical and comprehensible order based on the above-mentioned diverse numberings. However, he did not succeed in every aspect, as we can see on folios 27r and 28v: As these two pages depict the sequence of a technique with the plate gauntlet, they clearly belong together, but are separated here. For a direct comparison, we can turn to the same sequence in the codex from Cracow on folios 26v and 27r, or 24v and 25r respectively in the Vienna version. Both codices preserve the correct order of the technique.
I have already indicated above the different numberings that occur throughout the manuscript. Subsequently, I will strive to use these and a number of additional descriptions and hints as a means to reconstruct the order the pages were in when the volume still resided in Gotha. I also attempt to reconstruct its original form—if there ever was one to begin with. For even Jacobs and Ukert wrote: “The bookbinder has not been mindful and has not sewn in the parchment leaves in their proper order; he has also damaged many a figure by cropping [the pages].”31 As a guideline for this reconstruction, I have used the two Gladiatoria manuscripts from Cracow and Vienna which principally follow the same internal logic. Thus a theoretical original composition can be determined quite exactly.
Table I on page 236 shows the current state of the manuscript and lists all numberings. The most important criterion is the number of the individual Stück (or fighting technique) in the beginning. A slash “/” marks those pages whose text has been cut off. The techniques for spear and dagger fighting and for holding down are numbered throughout in the text; only for the sword is this not the case. Consequently, it is only here that the order of the pages has become confused.
Additionally, we have leaf numberings from the old days, but we cannot tell for sure whether these were allocated in the time or even in the process of the making of the manuscript, or at some later date. The nature and the style of the numbers point at least to the period of origin of the manuscript. The dagger techniques feature an old numbering as well, and the spear fighting section has been numbered in more recent times. The final, likewise not entirely universal page numbering in pencil was presumably done in the 1960s.
The last column of the table shows the order of the pages from the time in Gotha. Here the sequence is partially interrupted since unfortunately it proved to be impossible to determine the exact state. Those leaves that are shifted in contrast to the current order are marked red for reasons of clarification.
The Stücke in sword fighting are unnumbered in the New Haven and the Vienna manuscript, thus differing from the Cracow version. Nevertheless, there is frequently a definite order when a certain technique is followed by its corresponding counter technique. These passages are marked with small letters. Since the sequence of the manuscript was disrupted in the process of rebinding it, a certain technique is now followed by the wrong counter on several occasions. In order to clarify the original composition, sequences that belong together are marked with small Roman numerals. The order follows the codex from Cracow, which features a stringent numbering of the sword-fighting techniques.
Table II on page 239 offers the complete reconstructed proper sequence which is displayed in the first column on the basis of the current extent of the manuscript. The second column takes into consideration all page losses that can be demonstrated particularly by the numbering in the techniques directly in the text; missing passages are marked with square brackets. The third column repeats the numbering of the techniques as they occur in the text like in the second table in order to facilitate an enhanced comparison with the manuscripts from Vienna and Cracow. These two are also introduced with their respective foliation and sequence of techniques. It becomes apparent that none of the three Gladiatoria manuscripts is entirely complete; but, in sum, we are able to reconstruct an archetype. Thus we obtain an overview of not only the probable original sequence of the New Haven codex but also of the initial extent of the work, which must have included at least eleven additional leaves. By means of these juxtapositions, it becomes evident that more than half of the manuscript was quite probably in the same order since the days of its creation. The consecutive numbering of the fencing techniques provides the most striking support for this position. Further considerations, however, must remain provisional, as they cannot be resolved unambiguously.
When we create a composition based on the two Gladiatoria manuscripts from Cracow and Vienna—as has been done in columns two and three in the second table—the following inconsistencies appear:
Leaf 7 is tricky to integrate in every regard. On one hand, its condition has suffered more than any other leaf; if, on the other hand, we insert it into the textually correct position, it is located between the current leaves 10 and 11, which were marked consecutively as 12 and 13 long ago. Thus, it doesn’t really fit there. Furthermore, leaf 7 carries the number 16. There is another leaf in this manuscript with that same leaf number 16, namely leaf 14. But this is located in correct proximity to leaves 13 and 15—which carry the numbers 15 and 17. In order to complicate matters even more, leaves 25 and 15, which belong together as stated in the reconstructed order, carry the leaf numbers 15 and 17 respectively, so a leaf 16 might very well fit between them. The handwriting of the numbering, however, shows a thoroughly distinct character.
When we turn our attention more closely to the old foliation from 11–16, we realise that the reconstructed tenth leaf (currently leaf 9) shows the folio number 11.
A consideration: when the foliation was being executed, which stylistically fits very well into the period of origin of the codex, leaf 7 (the dirty one) had already been inserted wrongly, namely before the original tenth leaf, so that it was counted as the eleventh one. Thus the sequence of the leaves of the manuscript may have been disrupted even at the time of its creation.
A daring hypothesis: what if the author of our Fechtbuch had noticed this erroneous composition completed by a bookbinder who was not familiar with the correct execution of the fencing techniques—albeit too late—and subsequently proceeded also to number the sword-fighting techniques in the text itself, as he had done with the remaining spear, dagger, and holding-down techniques in any case? In this way, he could prevent further discrepancies in future editions of the Gladiatoria corpus. And indeed, the sword-fighting techniques are in fact numbered in the text of the Cracow version that was created later.
Beyond that, the sequence of leaf numbering from 15 to 36, that presumably was written by one scribe, remains a mystery, as it is interrupted by a larger block not only in the reconstructed version but also in the present one.
There also remains some uncertainty with regard to leaf 20. In contrast to the two Gladiatoria manuscripts from Cracow and Vienna, the order of both pages is reversed.
Nevertheless, writing in response to my inquiry, Francis Lapka said that he could not find any clue to prove that the leaf had been inserted the wrong way round: “The inner margin is still rather healthy in breadth, while the outer margin is closely trimmed (with minor loss of content, as with other leaves in the volume).” If the page was ever reversed, this must have happened a long time before the most recent rebinding.
Ultimately, we end up with several possibilities for assembling the manuscript by making use of the various available numberings; unfortunately, none of them turns out to be entirely coherent. Even the continuous page numbers don’t lead to satisfying and convincing results: if we kept together the old numbered leaves 21 and 22, we would pull apart the aforementioned connected sequence of the technique with the plate gauntlet (ff. 28v and 27r). In the end, the foliations and paginations that stem from different times can only serve as reference points. It is unlikely that we can ever know the initial structure of the manuscript with certainty.
Regarding the equally incomplete modern pagination in pencil, the odds are that the four leaves without that pagination (11, 18, 22 and 26) were the last ones that Paul Mellon purchased between 1962 and 1964, meaning that the pagination must have been done between February 1960 and December 1962. Another theory brought forward by Dr. Elisabeth Fairman, curator of the manuscript library of the YCBA, is that the three leaves with the cut-off texts were the last ones to be purchased—which unfortunately does not coincide very well with the actual leaf numbers. Since we regrettably cannot determine when Paul Mellon acquired each leaf, this question must also remain unsettled.
The long-lost fencing manuscript has resurfaced, yet it stubbornly refuses to give up its last secrets.
1 JACOBS/UKERT: Beiträge zur ältern Litteratur oder Merkwürdigkeiten der Herzogl. öffentlichen Bibliothek zu Gotha, p. 141.
2 HILS: “‘Gladiatoria’. Über drei Fechthandschriften aus der ersten Hälfte des 15. Jahrhunderts’. – Codices manuscripti, Heft 1/2, 1987, p. 11.
3 BENARY: “Ein unbekanntes handschriftliches Fragment einer Lope’schen Komödie”. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 36 (1912) pp. 657–678; here: p. 658.
4 HOPF: Die abendländischen Handschriften der Forschungs- und Landesbibliothek Gotha. Bestandsverzeichnis. 2. Kleinformatige Pergamenthandschriften Memb. II. Gotha: Forschungs- und Landesbibliothek, p. 66f.
5 FRÜHMORGEN-VOSS/OTT/BODEMANN/STÖLLINGER-LÖSER/LENG: Katalog der deutsch spra chi gen illustrierten Handschriften des Mittelalters, p. 23 ff.
6 Email correspondence from August 21, 2013.
7 KK 5013. Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum.
8 FRÜHMORGEN-VOSS/OTT/BODEMANN/STÖLLINGER-LÖSER/LENG: Katalog, p. 30.
9 JACOBS/UKERT: Beiträge, p. 141.
10 Email correspondence from August 21, 2013.
11 Ms. Germ. Quart. 16. Cracow: Biblioteka Jagiellońska.
12 In the Katalog der deutschsprachigen illustrierten Handschriften des Mittelalters erroneously indicated as 11v.
13 Corresponding to the information for the codex from Vienna in the Katalog der deutschsprachigen illustrierten Handschriften des Mittelalters, p. 30.
14 BENARY, loc. cit., p. 659.
15 This term signifies fighting techniques on the ground. Once the opponent was brought down he was to be immobilised and forced to surrender, often using a dagger. See also Martin Huntfelt’s holding down techniques in codex 44 A 8, Rome: Biblioteca dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei e Corsiniana, ff. 90v–93r.
16 See also “Offence and Defence”, p. 17.
17 See also “Offence and Defence”, p. 17.
18 JACOBS/UKERT, loc. cit., p. 141.
19 WIERSCHIN: Meister Johann Liechtenauers Kunst des Fechtens, p. 17.
20 HILS: Meister Johann Liechtenauers Kunst des langen Schwertes, pp. 65.
21 EHWALD: Chart. B 1974. Gotha: Forschungsbibliothek, p. 164.
22 BENARY, loc. cit.
23 HOPF, loc. cit., p. 67.
24 Katalog der deutschsprachigen illustrierten Handschriften des Mittelalters, loc. cit.
25 HOPF, loc. cit., p. 67.
26 HILS: “Gladiatoria”, loc. cit., pp. 11, 13.
27 HILS: “Gladiatoria”, loc. cit., pp. 32–54.
28 HILS: Meister Johann Liechtenauers Kunst des langen Schwertes, p. 21–134.
29 HILS: “Gladiatoria”, loc. cit.
30 I am very much indebted to Christian H. Tobler who was so kind as to draw my attention to this manuscript.
31 JACOBS/UKERT: Beiträge, loc. cit.