This post is intended as a kind of follow-up to my earlier post on my research into the link between historical fencing and esoteric practices. As that post was of a more general, introductory nature, I would like to devote this and a few other, future post to some specific examples of what my research entails.
One of the main difficulties I encounter when trying to write about my findings is substantiating my claims. A lot of things that by now have become basic assumptions for me, may actually be incorrect, and need to be verifiable by my audience, and in order to do so I need to provide a thorough description of my reasoning and the way I approached my sources. In this post, I like to take a stab at doing that with one of my basic assumptions.
This basic assumption concerns the manuscript Hs. 3227a, also known as the Codex Döbringer. The reason for it being called the Codex Döbringer is part of another basic assumption as to the authorship of the book, but that is a can of worms I'll try to crack some other time. I do, however, want to discuss elements of the authorship of the manuscript. I believe that whoever composed the manuscript, while copying numerous texts from other books, did not copy the Glosse of Liechtenauer's Zettel contained in the book, but was the Glosse's original author.
There are several reasons why I believe this to be the case. The first reason concerns the use of personal pronouns, the second reason concerns the links to other texts in the manuscript, and the third reason concerns the structuring of the contents of the manuscript. The very nature of the book also plays a role, albeit only tangentially.
First, the use of personal pronouns. Usually, a Fechtbuch is prefaced with some kind of introduction, explaining the nature of the Glosse, but also quite often an explanation of the identity of the author of the Glosse. Because these texts are usually found in compilations by third parties, the authors are usually referred to in the third person. The use of the first person, where the writer of the maniscript refers to themselves in the first person, is exceedingly rare. in the few examples of it being done, such as in the works of Fiore and Talhoffer, it is clear that the first person is used because the author is referring to themselves. There is one example, in the Hans Medel Fechtbuch, where the copyist is referring to themselves in the first person, but here the scribe is quite careful to distinguish between themselves and the author of the text, Hans Medel. The Glosse in the Codex Döbringer, while being anonymous, does contain sections where the first person is used, while no reference is made in the third person to an author.
My second indication concerned the link between the Glosse and another anonymous text concerning fencing in the manuscript. This essay, if you will, on the general principles of fencing, precedes the Glosse. It is, however, quite similar in style, as well as in the nature of the principles being explained. On multiple occasions, emphasis is made on what the author considers the foundation of longsword fencing, which he considers point-centric, lean and simple, and devoid of any superfluous techniques. The phrasing of these principles is so similar, that I would be very surprised if the author of the essay preceding the Glosse and the author of the Glosse were not the same person.
My main reason for thinking that the writer and original owner of the Codex Döbringer is also the author of the Glosse, however, lies in the way that the book is structured. The martial arts sections seem to be structured with the intent of providing a complete system. The Glosse is the meat and potatoes of the treatise, to be sure, but it is preceded by a foreword of sorts; it is summarized; and, it is followed by 'chapters' on a variety of weapons and their use, all described as deriving from Liechtenauer's system. Strangely, though, interspersed between these chapters are texts on a variety of other subjects, which ostensibly have nothing to do with martial arts. On top of this, many of the chapters seem unfinished, some even breaking off mid-sentence. It's almost as if the author decided to write a general treatise on martial arts, set aside a bunch of pages for each chapter, and got quite far into his first draft of the manuscript, but never quite got around to finishing the entire thing. But, books are expensive, and there's no sense in wasting a good notebook, so the empty pages were used for random notes from other books that interested the author.
This last bit is obviously merely a hypothesis, and a lot of the evidence is circumstantial, but I do believe I made a strong case for it. The above points are the main pieces of evidence I have, but there are lots of other little bits that pointed me in the direction. At the very least, the possibility that a professional scribe wrote the manuscript for a client can be excluded. For example, the book is quite small, pretty much the size of a modern Moleskine notebook. Also, while the handwriting is the same throughout the book, there are indications, such as in the color of the inks used, that the author went back and forth within the book, adding sections within paragraphs perhaps days or weeks later. Not only that, but a lot of sections are striked through, to be rewritten or discarded.
All these little things give me small indications as to the identity and perhaps even character of the author of the manuscript. Since the manuscript is anonymous, this is all I have to go on, but now, aside from knowing his interests through what he chose to copy from other books, I can also say with some confidence I have access to his original thoughts.
