Wolfgang Ritter wrote:@Michael: sorry, I don't get your point. Ringeck is mentioned as the author - or better commentator on Lichtenauers "secret teachings" in folio 10v and 11r10v
Hie hept sich an die vßlegu~g der zedel
in der geschriben stett die Ritterlich kunst des langes schwerts Die gedicht vnd gemacht hat Johannes lichtenawer der ain grosser maiste~ in der kunst gewesen ist dem gott genedig sÿ der hatt die zedel laußen schrÿbe~ mitt verborgen vñ verdeckte~ worten Daru~b dz die kunst nitt gemain solt werde~ Vnd die selbige~ v°borgneñ vñ verdeckte wort hatt maister
11r
Sigmund ain ringeck der zÿt des hochgeborne~ fürsten vñ herreñ herñ aulbrecht pfalczgrauen bÿ Rin vñ herczog in baÿern schirmaiste~ Glosieret vñ außgelegt alß hie in disem biechlin her nach geschrÿben stät dz sÿ ain ÿede~ fechter wol verömen vnd vestan mag der da ande~st fechten kan ~
Ringeck is not explicitly mentioned apart from the long sword section in 10v, but neither any other author except master Lichtenauer himself as founder of the secret teachings. If it's an error to think Ringeck was the author/interpreter of all the sections, it would have been an error now and then.
Yes, the "secret teachings" refers to Liechtenauer's Epitome, and the commentary on it is the gloss found at the beginning of the manuscript. While the names of the authors of the other sections (Andres Lignitzer and Ott Jud) are omitted, that's not the same as asserting their authorship to Ringeck. Plagiarism and its assorted baggage is a very recent invention, and in this period they simply didn't place much importance in proper attribution. Most likely the source text that the scribe who penned the C487 was copying Lignitzer's sword and buckler from didn't have his name attached to it, while the text that he was copying Sigmund ain Ringeck's gloss from did. He didn't know who the author was and didn't need to know.