Arms & Armour

ISSN: 1741-6124 (Print) 1749-6268 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yaaa20

A Few Leaves Short of a Quire: Is the ‘Tower

Fechtbuch’ Incomplete?

James Hester

To cite this article: James Hester (2012) A Few Leaves Short of a Quire: Is the ‘Tower Fechtbuch’
Incomplete?, Arms & Armour, 9:1, 20-24, DOI: 10.1179/1741612411Z.0000000003

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1179/1741612411Z.0000000003

Published online: 12 Nov 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 856

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yaaa20
arms & armour, Vol. 9 No. 1, 2012, 20–24

A Few Leaves Short of a Quire:

Is the ‘Tower Fechtbuch’ Incomplete?
James Hester
Royal Armouries Museum, HM Tower of London

Royal Armouries MS I.33 is the oldest known surviving manual of swordplay,

dating to around 1320. The manuscript is in generally good condition con-
sidering it has made its way through raided monasteries, ducal libraries, and
likely a soldier’s kit bag over its 700-year life. But has it survived this journey
completely intact? A closer look reveals compelling evidence to suggest that
portions of this important manuscript may, in fact, be missing.

keywords Fencing, I.33, Swordplay, Fight Manuals, Manuscripts, Martial Arts

Amongst the many surviving medieval fight manuals in various libraries and collec-
tions around the world, MS I.33 (housed at the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds
and also known as the ‘Tower Fechtbuch’ or ‘Walpurgis Fechtbuch’) has the distinc-
tion of being the oldest known to survive. Dating from the early 14th century, the
manuscript comprises a series of sequences teaching the use of the sword and buckler.
Owing to its reputation from its age and the clarity in which its techniques are laid
out for the reader, it has become a favourite text of those who study and practise the
martial arts of medieval Europe.
The manuscript has had a tumultuous existence, having weathered looting, shuf-
fling between aristocratic libraries, and two world wars before finally coming to rest
in Leeds. However, there have long been suspicions that I.33 may not have reached
the end of this journey intact. Many in the past have cited inconsistencies in the text,
and Cinato and Surprenant’s Le livre de l’art du combat, an edition of the manuscript,
even suggests that it has been rebound out of order. Although others have offhand-
edly suggested the possibility that portions of the manuscript may be missing, no one
appears to have made any attempts to gather hard data to prove it.
This work attempts to do just that: to prove that a surprising amount of the text
of I.33 has been lost to us. By examining the manuscript itself, as well as the text and
flow of the sequences therein, I propose to confirm that folios are missing, identify
where in the text they would have been, and in some instances suggest what they may

© The Trustees of the Armouries 2012 DOI 10.1179/1741612411Z.0000000003

 A FEW LEAVES SHORT OF A QUIRE 21

have contained. Although the results may be harrowing for lovers of I.33, they will
I hope also be enlightening, giving us a far better picture of the remarkable work that
has survived in seeing to it that we have a better idea of what has not.
Today, the manuscript consists of 32 vellum folios measuring approximately 30 cm
× 23 cm. A rather non-descript board binding dating from the 19th or 20th century
was replaced with a more acceptable one in February 2012. The text is in Latin, but
with some German words for particular techniques. Three scribal hands can be iden-
tified throughout the manuscript, and the illustrations also shift in style several times.
Unusually, the illustrations were done before the text was added. The sequences,
forty in all, depict sword and buckler combat between the Priest (Sacerdos), who is
the instructor, and the Student (Scolaris).
The earliest reference to the manuscript is in a pamphlet from 1579, which states
that it was taken from a Franconian monastery by Johannes Herbart of Würzburg,
fencing master to Duke Frederick William of Saxony. Herbart’s signature can be
found on fol.7r. It was later given to Frederick, and made its way to the library of
the dukes of Saxe-Gotha where it remained on record until the early 20th century. It
vanished during the Second World War and emerged at a Sotheby’s auction in 1950,
where it was purchased by the Royal Armouries.1
Beginning our search by taking the most cursory glance at the manuscript, the
condition of some of the surviving folios can perhaps give clues as to where portions
of text may have gone missing. Jeffrey Forgeng, editor of the first facsimile edition
of I.33, noted that the poor condition of the first and last folios of the manuscript
indicated that it has at some point spent a good deal of time unbound.2 In fact, the
damage does not end there. The first four folios show substantial deterioration from
dirt, wormholes, and even apparent burn marks. Often, traces of the damage from
one folio are found, albeit gradually diminishing, on subsequent folios. By fol.5
the quality of preservation improves to what is the average for the majority of the
manuscript.
From this pattern, it would be a safe assumption that a handful of folios at the end
of the manuscript would be in similarly rough shape. However, the gradual easing
into heavy damage is curiously absent. A well-preserved fol.31 gives way immedi-
ately to a severely damaged fol.32, which is the end of the manuscript. The holes
seemingly caused by burning found on fol.32, as well as some of the discolouration
that might leave marks on facing pages, does not appear to have left any trace upon
fol. 31. This suggests that other folios, gradually improving in condition, may have
once been found between fols. 31 and 32. The confirmation of this possibility is
detailed below.
Another anomaly comes to light when one begins to examine the sequences illus-
trated in the manual. For a text that is as organized as I.33 appears to be, beginning
by explaining the key guards of the system and then demonstrating the possible
techniques derived from them, the uneven degree of attention given to each guard is
puzzling. Although seven guards are depicted in the beginning of the text, named the
22 JAMES HESTER

First through the Seventh Guard(s), there are in fact three additional ones shown in
the text (High Longpoint, Priest’s Special Longpoint, and Fiddlebow), thus bringing
the total number of guards to ten.
Of these ten, the First Guard is featured in eleven of the forty sequences, over a
quarter of the entire manuscript. Following at a distant second place are the Third,
Fourth and Seventh Guards, each of which feature in five sequences. Close behind
them is the Fifth Guard with four sequences, Second and Priest’s Special Longpoint
with three, and Fiddlebow with two. The Sixth Guard and High Longpoint are each
featured in only one sequence.3
Even allowing for the fact that some guards may simply have been more versatile,
whereas others required only a couple of sequences to demonstrate their best applica-
tions, showcasing one of the seven principal guards only once does not seem to make
sense. The results below demonstrate how missing sequences could perhaps have
brought the tally up to, though not a perfectly even treatment of each guard, at least
a situation where each of the primary guards had a minimum of four sequences in
which it was highlighted.
These superficial observations encourage a more in-depth investigation into the
‘guts’ of the manuscript to reveal further clues. An examination of the quire make-up
reveals significant inconsistencies that could only be due to missing folios. Quires
typically consisted of four bifolia that, when folded, produced eight folios, although
occasionally a ten-folio quire was added. Having identified areas where folios might
be missing, checking for textual inconsistencies in these places often helped to
confirm these suspicions.
There are five quires in I.33. The first is of eight folios (fols. 1–8), excluding
the modern flyleaf. The middle of the quire is between fols. 4 and 5, dividing them
evenly with four folios on each side. This, combined with the orderliness of the
sequences, suggests that this quire is likely to be fully intact.
The second quire has only six folios (fols. 9–14) and divides evenly into three
folios per side between fols. 11 and 12. Despite this apparent symmetry, the possibil-
ity of missing portions from this quire cannot be ruled out. There is an inconsistency
between fols. 14 and 15 which suggests missing text. A new sequence begins at the
bottom of fol.14v in which the text explains that the reader will see a familiar
completion of the sequence ‘up to the next mark of the cross’.4 Yet fol.15r begins with
a new cross, a new sequence, leaving the former sequence unfinished.
This suggests that a folio is missing between these two. Thus, following the bifolio
around from there, that would place an additional folio between fols. 8 and 9. In
short, we are possibly missing the first and last folios of this quire, which would have
brought the total number of folios to eight. If the sequences being featured around
these areas are any indication, this bifolio would possibly have contained additional
sequences featuring the Second and Fourth Guards.
The third quire seems to have fared the worst, as it contains only three folios
(fols. 15–17). The small number aside, when folios are formed from the folding in
 A FEW LEAVES SHORT OF A QUIRE 23

half of bifolia, an odd number of folios can only be achieved when there is without
a doubt at least one folio missing. The quire divides between fols. 16 and 17, leaving
two folios on one side and a single folio on the other. As fols. 16 and 17 comprise a
single bifolium, the one confirmed missing folio was once attached to fol.15 and
would have been situated between fols. 17 and 18. If this quire adhered to the typical
eight-folio format, we must allow for the possibility that a further two bifolia, thus
a further four folios, have also been lost.
The text sheds further light on determining where the missing folios were. Folios
17 and 18 seem to flow into one another. The top of fol.18r references a ‘bind above
the Priest’s sword’, a move that is in fact shown in the previous illustration on fol.17v.5
However, this technique is fairly common throughout the sequences. The likelihood
of a different sequence, now lost, having also ended with this technique is reasonably
high. Thus, it is distinctly possible that the reference of fol.18r is to a different
binding above and not the one taking place on fol.17v.
To attempt to determine the gaps for the two missing bifolia it is worth noting that
between fols. 16 and 17 the guards discussed shift abruptly between the Fourth and
First Guards, discussed in the previous few folios, to the Sixth on fol.17r. Recall also
the fact, mentioned above, that the Sixth Guard is featured only once in the entire
manuscript. This could suggest that the two missing bifolia were once found between
fols. 16 and 17, thus forming what was once the true middle of the quire. Further-
more, it is reasonable to suppose that these four folios contained the now missing
sequences featuring the Sixth Guard, and possibly one or more of the Fifth.
At first glance the fourth quire, which comprises eight folios (fols. 18–25), might
appear to be another that has survived intact. However, the fact that the middle point
lies between fols. 22 and 23, leaving five folios on one side and three on the other,
quickly dispels this notion. By tracing each individual bifolio the spaces for the
missing folios reveal themselves to be between fols. 24 and 25, and fols. 25 and 26.
This quire then becomes a ten-folio quire which, though breaking the eight-folio
formula, is still not atypical.
The sequences confirm the possibility of parts missing in these places. The last
sequence on fol. 24v has the Student’s sword bound from below by the Priest. The
sequence continued on fol. 25r shows the Student executing a failed upward cut
toward the Priest’s head; a move that would take quite a bit of manoeuvring to arrive
at from where we left the Student in the previous illustration.6 Thus it would be
likely that the illustration on fol. 25r is the culmination of a different, now missing,
technique. The same is true for the sequence spanning fols. 25v and 26r. At the
bottom of fol. 25v we have the Student binding the Priest’s sword, whereas in the
next illustration on fol. 26r it is the Priest who appears to be binding the Student.7 In
both of these cases, the addition of currently missing content between these spaces
would most likely make these sequences flow better and more sensibly. As the guard
featured shifts considerably throughout this part of the manuscript, it is not possible
to speculate as to what guards would have featured on these folios.
24 JAMES HESTER

We now come to the fifth and final quire. Suspicions are already raised by virtue
of this quire having seven folios (fols. 26–32). Examining the bifolia reveals that the
second one is incomplete, resulting in a folio missing between fols. 31 and 32. This
is possibly the most exciting of all these finds, as it places a missing folio just before
the final one in the manuscript where we are introduced, without any explanation,
to the swordswoman Walpurgis who has for some reason arrived to stand in for the
Student. It is tantalizing to think that this single missing folio may have provided the
answer to why she is in the manual, and perhaps even who she is. A missing folio
here would also explain why, unlike in the first few folios of the manuscript, the
rearmost portion transitions from exceedingly dirty and damaged straight in to
remarkably clean and intact on the very next folio.
This implies that there may well be at least ten folios missing from I.33, comprising
no fewer than twenty pages of text and illustrations. That both textual and codico-
logical evidence supports this makes the proposal all the more compelling. This is
perhaps disquieting for those who strive to understand or even practice the techniques
recorded therein. However, fight scholars studying I.33 need not lose heart. There is
a wealth of information that has survived in this extraordinary text, in the form of
both techniques and general principles or ‘fight philosophy’. There is plenty to keep
fight scholars occupied for a good long time. However, to prevent undue accusations
of I.33 being an inferior text (which it most certainly is not), it is important to be
aware of the substantial amount of this text that would appear, sadly, to have been
lost.

Notes
1 3
Jeffrey Forgeng, ed., 2000, The Medieval Art of Leeds, Royal Armouries, MS I.33 fols. 17v, 21r.
4
Swordsmanship: A Facsimile & Translation of RA, MS I.33 fol.14v.
5
Europe’s Oldest Personal Combat Treatise, Royal RA, MS I.33 fols. 17v–18r.
6
Armouries MS.I.33. Union City, pp. 5–7. RA, MS I.33 fols. 24v–25r.
2 7
Forgeng, 2000, p. 2. RA, MS I.33 fols. 25v–26r.

Notes on contributor
James Hester is a specialist in swordplay and fight manuals. He lives in London,
where he has most recently served as Royal Armouries Curator of Tower Collections.
Correspondence via Royal Armouries.