What kind of sword is this?

ArmsAndAntiques · 14th February 2017, 01:47 AM

The question of provenance is important for establishing time period, and the Dayton Museum's description which notes that the painting in the Hermitage uses the same prop sword is not accurate, at least from the example I was able to find which I post below and has a cross shaped guard quite different from the example in the Bol painting, so that does cast some doubt on their description and perhaps on provenance also, though I wouldn't conflate inaccurate descriptions with a lack of documented provenance. However, the scabbard does have some similar features which perhaps may indicate that these were made in a studio perhaps specifically for paintings.

However, the discussion here is about the sword, so the question remains as to what does provenance in a painting have to do with attributing the props used in that painting. I see it two ways.

If it can be established that a 17th C. painting is a copy, or a later forgery, what does that say about the origin of the props, let say a sword or armor or dagger used in the painting. That to me is still an interesting question, depending on when and where the forgery was made. But the more interesting question is the second, at least for those of us interested in cross-cultural movements of artifacts between Europe and Asia in the early modern period (admittedly, maybe a small group ).

If the painting is either by Bol or Rembrandt, and neither origin seems to matter much for our purposes to try to identify "what kind of sword is this" then our initial poster's question is unanswered, though questions about provenance in American museums have been raised.

The attribution to Cochin is interesting but the Rijksmuseum has examples of arms brought back from VOC concessions in that exact region, or otherwise acquired by Cornelis Tromp during the same period of the Bol painting, and those swords look dissimilar to the example in the painting. In fact some interesting work has been done by other forum members at dissecting the Viet sabres in the Rijksmuseum and they're referenced here, basically noting that the blades of those swords were Japanese but were mounted indigenously (nothing new even in Europe at the time considering the Dresden examples referenced earlier).

https://daivietcophong.wordpress.com...ornelis-tromp/

14th February 2017, 01:47 AM	#31
ArmsAndAntiques Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 80	The question of provenance is important for establishing time period, and the Dayton Museum's description which notes that the painting in the Hermitage uses the same prop sword is not accurate, at least from the example I was able to find which I post below and has a cross shaped guard quite different from the example in the Bol painting, so that does cast some doubt on their description and perhaps on provenance also, though I wouldn't conflate inaccurate descriptions with a lack of documented provenance. However, the scabbard does have some similar features which perhaps may indicate that these were made in a studio perhaps specifically for paintings. However, the discussion here is about the sword, so the question remains as to what does provenance in a painting have to do with attributing the props used in that painting. I see it two ways. If it can be established that a 17th C. painting is a copy, or a later forgery, what does that say about the origin of the props, let say a sword or armor or dagger used in the painting. That to me is still an interesting question, depending on when and where the forgery was made. But the more interesting question is the second, at least for those of us interested in cross-cultural movements of artifacts between Europe and Asia in the early modern period (admittedly, maybe a small group ). If the painting is either by Bol or Rembrandt, and neither origin seems to matter much for our purposes to try to identify "what kind of sword is this" then our initial poster's question is unanswered, though questions about provenance in American museums have been raised. The attribution to Cochin is interesting but the Rijksmuseum has examples of arms brought back from VOC concessions in that exact region, or otherwise acquired by Cornelis Tromp during the same period of the Bol painting, and those swords look dissimilar to the example in the painting. In fact some interesting work has been done by other forum members at dissecting the Viet sabres in the Rijksmuseum and they're referenced here, basically noting that the blades of those swords were Japanese but were mounted indigenously (nothing new even in Europe at the time considering the Dresden examples referenced earlier). https://daivietcophong.wordpress.com...ornelis-tromp/ Attached Images