Ringeck re-dated

[Dierk Hagedorn]

Thanks to the user Thore on the German speaking Ars Gladii forum, I was made aware that the Ringeck manuscript has undergone recent research again. As a matter of fact, the dating had to be re-adjusted to the beginning of the 16th century. Martin Wierschin's impression that put the mansucript into the first half of the 15th century is obviously not correct.

Rainer Welle ("... und wisse das alle höbischeit kompt von deme ringen") had already pointed out by using circumstantial evidence that the Ringeck manuscript has a definitely later origin than the so-called Peter von Danzig manuscript (1452), something that has been widely ignored so far, I believe.

See also this thread.

Best regards
Dierk

[Andreas Engström]

That's very interesting, and obviously puts the Glasgow manuscript at sort of an "even footing". Quite possibly none of them is a copy of the other, rather both are copies of an earlier manuscript. Now, if we could only find Ringeck's original..

-Andreas

[Harry]

I wouldn't say ignored, but what is the evidence.

I truly believe that ringeck was at least 10-20 years later than PvD, but why almost 50 years?

would be great if you could copy some quotes from the AG forum to this one, because the AG forum is locked here at my company