As i first let conclude, i am not such one with enough knowledge to bear an expert discussion.
My first attempt was to post the mark/s of Peter Munsten in the context that the sword in discussion could or could not be authentic. My focus did not go for the date appointed by Gyngell, which in fact is earlier than the period both Munstens lived in. I would not intend to pulverize the thread with long (and poor) considerations, specially those out of the authenticity topic, but i dare say that the marks depicted by Gyngell appear to be correct, as well as the presence of Peter Munster in England, as approached by James Mann in Wallace collection, for one, and exhaustively narrated by Wendelin Boeheim in his work “PETER MUNSTER, MÜNSTEN, MÜNGSTEN der ALTE SOLINGEN LONDON”, where he cites swords historians like Weyersberg and Cronau.
As the title of the work suggests, blades are found in Copenhagen and Stockolm with the inscription Peter Munster me fecit London.
Also in “Pulley Sword” we may read in an article called “Swordsmiths in England” that Peter Munster joined his German trade colleagues, Johan Hopple, Recordus Hopkins and others, in immigrating to England (Hounslow), having later lost interest in such work and returned home.
Back to Boeheim, he refers that, besides Andreas having gone to work in Spain (Toledo and Calatayud), Peter’s swords had such a remarkable resemblance with those made in Spain, that suspicion exists that he has also been in Toledo. A strong sign would be his marks: the wild man and the Moor's head; the former being borrowed from Sebastian Hernandez the elder - the Moor's head – which has been already detected on blades of swords of emperor Karl V, from around 1530. Johannes Hoppe also used the wild man in similar shape, by the way. Cronau pretends that the marks of Andreas are like those of Peter.
Below are marks of Peter; the second one being a variation found in the blade at Scandinavian Museum.
But of course all the above, even more, mostly roughly translated from german, is far from being the unequivocal truth. But then, even the best scholars have difference of opinions in these things that occurred centuries ago.
.
|