4.2.1 Dat Boek der Wundenartzstedye. yn latin geheten Cirurgia

At the beginning of the sixteenth century, Brunschwig’s handbook reached the Low German language area, where it was translated and printed in Rostock by Ludwig Dietz in 1518. The text, of which three copies are known (Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Jg 3484; Schwerin, Landesbibliothek von Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Rara HSt VII 745; Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek, barcode 20002339), appears under the title Dat Boek der Wundenartzstedye. yn latin geheten Cirurgia. This title appears on the work’s first page together with a woodcut representing the so-called wound man (German Wundenmann) (see Figure 10 in the Image Gallery).

Figure 10 The first page of Dat Boek der Wundenartzstedye. yn latin geheten Cirurgia (1518), showing the so-called wound man.

Image reproduced by permission of the Landesbibliothek Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Günther Uecker

The name of the Low German translator is never mentioned in the text or in the preface, where we find the name of the Strasbourg surgeon (‘Hieronimus Brunswyck boͤrdich van Straßeborch’; see Benati Reference Benati2012: 15). According to Lisch (Reference Lisch1839: 154), the High German surgical manual could have reached Rostock through the court physician Dr Rembertus Giltzheim, who, in 1519, published with Ludwig Dietz the Liber collectionum Aphorismorum Hypocratis (Lisch Reference Lisch1838: 64).

Apart from the anatomical addendum (Von der Anathomi), the Middle Low German handbook preserves the structure of the High German original, which is divided into seven treatises (Benati Reference Benati2012: 11):

1. 1. wat eyneme yewelken wundenartzsten in steeden vnd wesen notrostich js (What every surgeon needs);

2. 2. van allen wunden yn eyner gemeynen lere / wo de gescheen to heelen vnd to cureren (On all wounds in general, how to heal them where they are);

3. 3. van allen wunden yn eyneme yewelken besunderen gelede van deme hoͤuede beth to den voͤten (On all wounds in a specific part from head to heel);

4. 4. van Vallen. Slaͤn. Stoͤen / bynnen edder buten lyues: van em suluen gescheen edder dorch andere minschen (On falls, blows, and hits both inside and outside the body which happen alone or are caused by other people);

5. 5. wo du de broͤke der been van deme hoͤuede beth vp de voͤte richten vnd bynden schalt (How you should treat and bandage fractures from head to heel);

6. 6. van den lederen. Enkelen vnd boͤgen yn to theen de dar sint vorrůcket ynt ghemeyne van deme hoͤuede beth to den voͤten (On sprained joint and ankles in general from head to heel);

7. 7. vynden eyn yslick stůcke des du yn desseme werke nottrofftich bist / ghescheeten Anthidotarius sere kort begrepen (How to find the remedies which are mentioned in this work, a very short antidotary).

Apart from the woodcut of the ‘wound man’ on the title page, the 1518 Low German print includes only another large (fol. XIXr) and twelve smaller images (fols. LXXIIIr, LXXIIIv, LXXIIIIr, LXIIIIv, CXXIIr, and CLr)Footnote ⁵ that represent surgical instruments and the procedure to reduce mandibular fractures, though none of the original woodcuts of the surgeon teaching his students has been reproduced.

4.2.2 Dat velt bock in Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek, GKS 1663 4^to

A fragment of the only known Low German translation of Hans von Gersdorff’s Feldtbuch der Wundarzney is transmitted in the early sixteenth-century (probably before 1540)Footnote ⁶ parts of Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek, GKS 1663 4^to.Footnote ⁷

As far as its contents are concerned, the manuscript may be defined as a collection of Middle Low German medical texts including:

• ◾ the fragment of a Low German translation of Hans von Gersdorff’s Feldtbuch der Wundarzney known as Dat velt bock (fols. 1r‒86v);

• ◾ Dat kinder bock (fols. 87r‒146r);Footnote ⁸

• ◾ a collection of recipes for the preparation of unguents (fols. 146v‒58r);

• ◾ a detailed explanation of some common medical verbs deriving from Latin (fols. 158v‒66v);

• ◾ two paragraphs about anthrax, which probably constitute an addition to what comes after (fol. 170v);

• ◾ an alphabetical glossary on surgically treatable pathologies (fols. 171r‒7v);

• ◾ an alphabetical glossary on medical terms and phrases (fols. 179r‒204r; on this, see Benati Reference Benati, Domínguez-Rodríguez, Rodríguez-Álvarez, Herrera and Trujillo-González2016b);

• ◾ a practica (fols. 226r‒7r);

• ◾ a practica, mentioning the twelve months as well as the hours of the day (fols. 227v‒40r).Footnote ⁹

Moreover, the analysis of the alphabetical glossary on fols. 179r‒204r and of the cross-references constituting some of its glosses proves that the manuscript, in its original form, included at least two other large works (over 400 leaves altogether) – most likely a surgical manual (Ciurgia) and a herbal (Herbariuß) – which are now lost. The presence of the latter in the original construction of this medical commonplace book is also confirmed by the otherwise quite surprising absence of pharmacobotanical terms in the glossary (Benati Reference Benati, Domínguez-Rodríguez, Rodríguez-Álvarez, Herrera and Trujillo-González2016b: 7).

The fragment of the Low German translation of Hans von Gersdorff’s Feldtbuch der Wundarzney, whose title – Dat velt bock – appears in fol. 1r (see Figure 11 in the Image Gallery), together with that of the second text contained in the manuscript – Dat kinder bock – and repeated in fol. 15r, is preceded by a short note on how to perform medicine correctly and on the impossibility of fully mastering this art, two paragraphs containing therapeutic indications (fol. 2r), an analytical index to the text (fols. 3r‒12v; Benati Reference Benati2013: 298), and a short glossary of Latin terms (fols. 13r‒14r; Benati Reference Benati2013: 300; Benati 2022b: 406).

Figure 11 The first page of the fragment of a Low German translation of Hans von Gersdorff’s Feldtbuch der Wundarzney known as Dat velt bock.

Image reproduced by permission of the Kongelige Bibliotek, Copenhagen

The actual fragment transmits a series of apparently randomly ordered thematic chapters from the High German handbook, whose beginning is usually marked by bold-written keywords. These deal, inter alia, with phlebotomy (Ader latende, fol. 15r), zodiac signs (Van den teken, fol. 20v), fistula (Fistel, fol. 21r), carbuncle (Carbunculuß, fol. 23v), anthrax (Antrox edder Antrax, fol. 24v), ulcerated cancer (Cancer ulceratum, fol. 26r), estiomenus (Estiomenuß, fol. 28r), stemming blood flow (Blot stillen, fol. 33v), leprosy (Lepra, fol. 34v), morphea (Morphea, fol. 35v), the various remedies a surgeon has to know and use (Medicina, fol. 38v), head wounds (Houet dat vorwundet iß, fol. 45v), wounds to internal organs (Ingeweyd vorwüntinge, fol. 56r), and haemorrhoids (Von den flot, Emorroidarum, fol. 61r; Benati Reference Benati and Classen2017c: 508–9).

4.3.1 Medium of Transmission and Expected Readership

The first element contributing to determining this different approach to the source text is constituted by the medium of transmission: while the Low German version of Brunschwig’s Buch der Cirurgia is transmitted in print, the fragment of Hans von Gersdorff’s Feldtbuch der Wundarzney is inserted into a manuscript medical miscellanea.

The choice of different mediums is closely connected with the expected readership of the two translations. Printed texts such as the Boek der Wundenartzstedye were meant to be for sale and, therefore, for a wide circulation among practitioners and other medically concerned readers with a highly differentiated spectrum of interests. For this reason, its High German source has been translated integrally, from the first page to the last, without operating a selection of specific topics.

On the other hand, the fragmentary nature of the Velt bock included in Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek, GKS 1663 4^to, is the direct result of the specific time and circumstances in which this medical commonplace book came into being. In this historical moment, when writing by hand no longer represented the main form of large-scale knowledge dissemination, the very existence of a medical collection of this kind appears justified on an exclusively personal (or local) level as a scrapbook of a person somehow competent and active in medical practice, who wants to keep a record of what he considers to be the most interesting and useful indications he has found in various sources (see Taavitsainen Reference Taavitsainen and Brown2006: 692). The very fact that the anonymous compiler of the Copenhagen manuscript refrained from having his work printed suggests that he was not interested in making it available for the larger public. Not only does this free him from the conventions required by the market (e.g. paratextual elements, such as prefaces and colophons), but it also automatically excludes a linear, from-the-first-to-the-last-page reception of von Gersdorff’s Feldtbuch, opening the way to the free selection of individual topics and prescriptions within it.

4.3.2 Structure and the Translator’s Attitude towards His Work

The different mediums of transmission and expected readership not only influence the structure of these Low German translations in terms of indiscriminate or selective approaches to the source, but also determine the text (in)stability and the translator’s attitude towards his work. While the Boek der Wundenartzstedye, once printed, can be considered a stable text that can be revised by the author only in the case of a new edition, the Velt bock – as with all the texts in Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek, GKS 1663 4^to – is an object of continuous revision and re-elaboration by its author.

This constant reworking of the Low German manuscript is witnessed by a great number of interlinear glosses and marginalia partially emending the original diction. Many of these emendations are of a terminological nature and can be explained with the precariousness of vernacular surgical terminology in general and with the challenge represented by translating it from one vernacular to another.

As the contrastive analysis of the specialised terminology in the Boek der Wundenartzstedye and in its High German source has shown (Benati Reference Benati and Monnier2018), Giltzheim (or whoever translated Brunschwig’s surgical handbook) only replaced the High German term if the Low German language had a consolidated alternative to it, for instance in the semantic field of anatomy. If, on the other hand, no such consolidated term existed in Low German (or if it coincided, at least etymologically, with the High German one), the original diction had to be borrowed, phonologically – and graphemically – adapted to the target language, and, if necessary, clarified through juxtaposition with a synonym and/or a paraphrase (Benati Reference Benati and Monnier2018: 81–4).

A very similar approach was applied by the scribe of Copenhagen GKS 1663 4^to, who, despite the differences in the medium of transmission and expected readership, certainly shared with the translator of the Boek der Wundenartzstedye a concern for the risks connected with the arbitrariness of the specialised terminology in early sixteenth-century Low German. Moreover, since the Copenhagen manuscript was the work of a lifetime for him and was never released for autonomous circulation, for example in printed form, its author continued to have access to his own work to revise previous terminological choices, which, at the moment of the first translation, must have appeared adequate and unequivocal, but, at a later consultation, no longer appeared so clear (Benati Reference Benati, Serrano and Climent2020: 33–4). In these cases, a different adaptation of a loanword (1), a synonym (2), or a paraphrase (3) was inserted between the lines or on the margin:

A further witness of the Velt bock and, in general, of Copenhagen GKS 1663 4^to being a perpetual ‘work in progress’ is provided by the numerous additions to the High German text of von Gersdorff’s Feldtbuch, as well as by the deletion of both single words and entire prescriptions. The former situation, which is witnessed – among others – by short prescriptions on the treatment of fistulas and synovitis hastily written in fol. 21r between two passages from von Gersdorff’s chapter on fistulas (Benati Reference Benati2017a: 28) and on the Longinus blood-staunching blessing in fol. 34r (Benati Reference Benati2017a: 49; Benati Reference Benati2016a), is to be ascribed to the author’s wish to update his previous work on the basis of the reading of new sources. The latter circumstance can, on the other hand, be considered the result of both an attentive and critical reflection on the operative instructions found in his readings of medical texts and his own activity as practitioner.

The critical approach to the source is witnessed in the passage on the use of phlebotomy as a therapy for the quartan ague, in which the scribe of the Copenhagen manuscript corrected a mistake present in the 1517 first Strasbourg edition of the Feldtbuch and repeated in all the subsequent printed editions; namely, that the vena salvatella must be punctured between the middle finger and the ring finger and not between the middle finger and the little finger, as stated in the prints (Benati Reference Benati2014: 13–14). On the other hand, the scribe’s medical practice, which had proven certain remedies to be ineffective, is most likely at the basis of the rejection of the recipes previously inserted in the manuscript (Benati Reference Benati2014: 14).

In this respect, the Low German scribe of the Copenhagen manuscript is at the same time the author and the consumer of his own work: his first draft was later revised, emended in both language and content, and integrated with new information, which was no different from what (early) modern readers did (and still do) by annotating printed texts on the margins (see also Leong Reference Leong2018: 161). Another form of interaction with the previously written text is possibly represented by the underlining of specific passages and prescriptions and the insertion of manicules pointing at them (see Sherman Reference Sherman2009: 25–52). Even though we cannot know for sure that these markings can be ascribed to the same hand that wrote the main text, this assumption seems to be consistent with the above-described continuous reworking of the manuscript: as ineffective remedies were deleted, those that had proved to be particularly useful were underlined or marked in some other way.

As we have seen, the compiler of the Copenhagen manuscript freely selected single passages from the High German surgical handbook on the basis of their potential relevance to his own practice. Furthermore, the manuscript’s medium and limited intended readership of the Velt bock also determine the author’s attitude towards these portions of text. Not only does he, in fact, almost exclusively translate prescriptions and praxis-oriented passages (see Panse Reference Panse2012: 158), but – within these pragmatic parts – he also systematically omits all those elements simply aimed at legitimising the message or providing ‘bibliographical’ references for it.

In the High German originals, both Brunschwig and von Gersdorff needed to convince any potential reader that he or she should follow their instructions, entrusting someone’s life to them. This aim is pursued in different ways throughout the two sources: both authors refer – though with different emphases – to their own personal experience (experientia; see also Toellner Reference Toellner, Schmitz and Keil1984: 164) and to universally acknowledged medical authorities (auctoritates). Single remedies and procedures are usually first ascribed to one or another authority, and then their efficacy is assessed through the surgeon’s experience. In some cases, a logical explanation (ratio) for a procedure is provided.

The need for legitimation was shared by Giltzheim (or whoever translated the Boek der Wundenartzstedye), who, consequently, followed the conventions of printed texts and adopted the same legitimation strategies as Brunschwig. The preface to the Boek der Wundenartzstedye, which begins with the usual dedication to God, the Virgin, and the Saints, revolves around Brunschwig’s diligence in collecting the teaching of the most eminent masters of the past in order to prevent damage possibly arising from unexperienced surgeons and barbers:

Writing for himself, the scribe of Copenhagen, GKS 1663 4^to, does not need to explain the reason why he started his personal scrapbook, nor does he need to ‘promote’ his work to potential readers and buyers. Consequently, he can omit the preface singing the praises of Hans von Gersdorff and of his forty-year experience in the field of surgery (von Gersdorff Reference von Gersdorff1517: preface); moreover, the Strasburgian surgeon is never mentioned in the manuscript. The only mention of the High German field surgery manual is represented by the translation of its title – Dat velt bock – appearing in fols. 1r and 15r, which should not be considered a real bibliographical reference, but rather a tool allowing easier and quicker consultation of the prescriptions collected in his commonplace book, as witnessed by the cross-references included in the glossary in fols. 179r–204r (see Benati Reference Benati, Domínguez-Rodríguez, Rodríguez-Álvarez, Herrera and Trujillo-González2016b).

Similarly, the Copenhagen scribe does not need to justify his selection of texts or display his erudition by dropping the names of recognised medical authorities and summarising their position in the medical debates of the time. He is exclusively interested in doses, remedy ingredients, and operative instructions. This approach is perfectly exemplified by the Low German scribe’s rendering of this passage on the treatment of the wounds of the intestines, where both Albucasis’s rejection of ant sutureFootnote ¹¹ and Rogerius’s suggestion to lay elder pith in the intestine to prevent infections are completely glossed over:

Since the references to von Gersdorff’s personal experience have lost their function as knowledge legitimation, all anecdotes are omitted, and all first-person passages are rephrased in a more impersonal form (usually the third-person indicative or the second-person imperative). In this way, ‘Wann ich ein fystel gereiniget hett’ (‘Once I had cleaned the fistula’) is rendered as ‘Wen de fisteln gereyniget iß’ (‘Once the fistula is clean’) and ‘so hab ich sye geheylt’ (‘then I healed them’) is rendered as ‘dar na hele se’ (‘Then, heal them’) (von Gersdorff 1715: fol LXIIr; Benati Reference Benati2017a: 29). The same logic applies to introductory passages, general recommendations to the reader (e.g. to be careful when performing a procedure), and efficacy statements (see also Benati Reference Benati, Serrano and Climent2020: 37–8).

An analogous reduction of purely conventional discursive elements in favour of praxis-oriented indications can be found in another, later medical commonplace book in which fragments of Hans von Gersdorff’s Feldtbuch der Wundarzney are transmitted (Lucerne, ZHB, Pp 27 4^to), and such a reduction seems to be typical of this kind of transformation of medical discourse.Footnote ¹²