A Spanish rapier Early 17TH century

[Jim McDougall]

Good work Fernando! and interesting note on the interpretation of the Wallace entries. The half moon mark of 'AN' Espadero del Rey would suggest that all of the makers in Toledo were then makers for the crown, and we presume that the half moon mark was used in this case by one of them.
As you point out in the Palomares nomina (1772) only one of the 99 entries uses a half moon mark , Juan Martin (#39).

While the Palomares chart lists just the names and little detail, with none of these makers specified as an Espadero del Rey, even Julian del Rey who of course has the name so specified. This must be the 'younger' as the Julian del Rey originally credited with the noted mark of the 'perillo' was a Moor converted to Christianity and maker to Boabdil 1484-1498.

In looking into "Small Arms Makers" (Gardner, 1963) which lists names of 'foreign swordsmiths' with certain key note details in varying degree, I found that of virtually all of the smiths represented in Palomares, only one was listed with the title, Espadero del Rey.....that was Antonio Ruiz of Toledo, 1566-1570 (p.365). In checking Palomares, this Ruiz is #13, and has a shield with an 'o' over a 'T' in a shield......no crown.

In the reference noted regarding Espaderos de Rey, you note the statute designating these makers as such is the royal crown over the makers personal mark. Looking at Palomares nomina, there are only a select number, perhaps half, with such crowns included in the punzon. Of these, none are those specifically noted as Espaderos del Rey. Neither Juan Martin (half moon #39); nor Antonio Ruiz (#13, o over T) have crowns nor #59, the perillo of Julian del Rey.

It would appear that the half moon mark was seemingly associated with Espaderos del Rey as in Wallace (Mann, 1962) A582, on a rapier there is the half moon mark along with the O, T mark (Antonio Ruiz) and in this case, it is crowned. Again, this smith was the only one specified as Espadero del Rey....and here is his mark OT and crowned, along with the half moon !

The suggestion seems to be that the half moon, in cases where the makers mark was present, and the marks congruently applied, may have been to makers who had the particular statute afforded them .

Apparantly the Kings of Castile granted privileges of different kinds or there were varying degrees of statute possibly represented in the recorded punzon listings which were no longer available when Palomares collected these at the Ayuntamiento in Toledo.

I am afraid this brings us no closer to resolving the curious mark at the forte on this blade, but an interesting foray into Spanish markings just the same.

[fernando]

Allow me Jim, to be stubborn ... like a mule (as we say here).
From within my empirical knowledge, let me put things in a backwards mode.
Whether Wallace material has a reliable significance, i can see no way that a symbol like a half moon is intrinsic to Toledan or other location smiths being appointed to the King. As for legitimate marks of such Masters, i would go as far as realize that the crown in some of them is a facultative procedure, one of his own choice, that not an imposition; this meaning that, the designing of each one's mark, be it one inherited from their family or made before such previlege was attributed, doesn't implicate in its mark composition including the crown.
Reading further in an article by Germán Dueñas Beraiz, a real expert in these things, he reminds us the Academy history records in that, what happened when a Master received the said privilege from the King, based on his known expertise or some service done to the Sovereign, was that he started signing the phrase Espadero del Rey in full words in the ricasso of the blade.
... algunos de ellos, por su sobresaliente habilidad o algun servicio a la Magestad, lograron el titulo de Espaderos del Rey, grabandolo en sus Espadas con todas letras en los cantos del recazo, como fueron Nicolas Hortuño, Juan Martinez, Antonio Ruiz,
Not only they had the right to engrave such phrase but also enjoyed the privilege of being exempted from a determined number of taxes.
But one must also bear in mind that, the engraving of the signature in the blades, was not per se a guaranty that the sword was actually a work of the respective master; neither some marks depicted by Palomares resist confrontation with examples of swords by some masters kept in the Real Armeria. Yes, Palomares made a work that, being deeply respected by critics, is not exempted from some discrepancies; besides having built his work a good couple centuries after the 'real thing', had a 'crush' for his Toledo base, to the point that, this or that Master was reported to be from Toledo and having 'also' worked in other cities, actually were from such cities and 'also' worked in Toledo; the more screaming case being famous Julian del Rey who, same as his father and brother, developed his work in Saragoça having 'also' laboured in Toledo, contrary to what he reported. Also noteworthy was Julian's mark, which real one was not the 'perillo' shown in the nomina but a cross inserted in copper
Some birth and activity dates ae also not precise, as is the case of Sebastián Hernández the elder, reported active in 1637 when in 1584 he was already dead, and 1625 for Tomás de Ayala, when he had his splendor in 1560, having died in 1583.
One other thing is that Palomares is thought to have only resourced the marks by observing them in the Toledo Municipality archives whereas evidence shows, as above narrated, that he also or mainly recorded them from the actual sword blades.
Just as an aside, the more than 90 mark punzones that were kept in the archives, and apparently were all present when Palomares has been around, have meanwhile mostly vanished (?), only some 14 currently existing.

Yours humbly

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Fernando, and please note, you are not being stubborn, but prudent in more thoroughly testing observations and ideas to ensure the information we compile here is as accurate as possible.
I must confess that my suggestions and notes were actually placed as such in anticipation for your vetting, as your experience and knowledge in the swords of Portugal and Spain, as well as their makers, is exemplary.

While I have studied markings and these swords for many years, I have actually learned more in the past week in going through these details and with your assistance than I have in a very long time.

In ways though I have played devils advocate with regard to this rapier of the original post, but given the many variables and extenuating situations with not only early makers, but the production of these blades in centers such as Solingen spuriously using punzones and names, there may be wider berth for such anomalies. Adding this to the hilt conventions of provincial regions, the conundrums grow.

You have also brought up a most salient point which I had completely forgotten, that of taxation, which would be a most inducing reason for makers to seek such a title or honorific. In markings it is most difficult to determine which were indeed makers punzones; which may have been guild marks for compliances; or perhaps, which may have signified a royal exemption for taxation (possibly the half moon? for example) .

Such groupings in configurations are of course well known in silver mounted hilts where a makers mark, city mark, assayers mark etc are grouped together. We see certain blades with multiple marks and punzones which suggest key charges or devices signifying possible administrative meanings.
We can only guess at most as detailed records are long lost as to the structure of uses for these markings.

Palomares is our best source for what detail we use, though as noted, it is not without flaws. It is encouraging to know he did use actual blades for his records as he could, but the purloining of marks among makers later compounded by copying in other centers places expected doubts.
As you note there were conflicting reports on work locations for various makers. Possibly some of this from Toledo to Madrid was result of moving the Royal Court to Madrid around 1561. Other reports may have been simply moving for personal reasons or expanding scope of operation, or again taxation or financial reasons.
The dates of work seem to conflict at times due to similar or same names of father, son, brother etc and the usual record keeping errors .

Again, I thank you for your diligence in adding and clarifying these points in studying these details, which I know has benefitted my understanding on this topic. As always learning together.......you're the best Nando!!!

[ariel]

Sorry for barging in, as it is not my area of interest and expertise, but I think more of Italy or Styria rather than Spain.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/366550857155039469/

That would explain the spelling.

No matter where from, it is a very good one.

I am not going to suggest "adopting" it, but for rapier lovers it is a nice catch.


.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

Sorry for barging in, as it is not my area of interest and expertise, but I think more of Italy or Styria rather than Spain.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/366550857155039469/

That would explain the spelling.

No matter where from, it is a very good one.

I am not going to suggest "adopting" it, but for rapier lovers it is a nice catch.

Not at all Ariel, no matter on area of interest or expertise (I have no idea what mine really is! ) its good to have you enter in. I think the spelling conundrum may be as much with levels of literacy and language variation in Solingen along with workers skills. However the centers in Styria and Italy are a valid suggestion as they adopted these Toledo names spuriously as well .
While I have had my doubts on this one, must say it is growing on me! and it really is an attractive weapon. The grid patterns suggested earlier to me are compelling for Italian weapons as Philip has pointed out.
Thank you for joining in and the links!

Best,
Jim


.

[cornelistromp]

spherical pommels can be found in all ages in all countries, even in the Middle Ages.
However, at the time of the rapier of Jean Luc late 16th century early 17th century, this pommel was very fashionable in the Netherlands on Rapiers in Art. This in contrast to Italy where the heydays had already passed. (in the early - mid 16th century)

F/M the inscription is of low quality (btw the blade is not) and Francisco is spelled in the German language (phonetically) with a Z. (Franz is a German name)

for this reason my contention is that this inscription is probably done a bit later and has not been done by the blade maker.
perhaps on a export-blade from a marketing perspective.

The grid pattern was popular in the last quarter of the 16th century and probably originated from Styria. see dussages of post #7

for comparison, an Attachement of the same type of rapier.

best,
jasper

[Jim McDougall]

Jasper,
I am very glad to have you back on this, and thank you so much for the elucidation on the issues we are observing and discussing here. I clearly very much agree on the blade and inscription, which has been one of my primary concerns since the outset. The blade as you note is of good quality and age, and the inscription was as you suggest probably added in German context using this much favored makers name to enhance value in trade.
Unfortunately the inscriber, though carefully following the standard conventions of wording spaced by the 'x's, was not very proficient in lettering and their placement. It would seem that a style or fashion hilt would still appeal to the extremely traditional Spaniard, who generally held stubbornly to the venerable forms of earlier times. Perhaps this may account for an older hilt or blade or both filtering through trade entrepots destined for Spanish Netherlands and the German application of the famed name of Francisco Ruiz?

It seems that the observation placed by Ariel was most astutely placed, as in all honesty, I had not even thought of Styria. Your illustration clearly shows this grid pattern compellingly in that context .

Can you offer thoughts on the curious mark at the forte , which looks like a crescent?

All best regards
Jim

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... You have also brought up a most salient point which I had completely forgotten, that of taxation, which would be a most inducing reason for makers to seek such a title or honorific. In markings it is most difficult to determine which were indeed makers punzones; which may have been guild marks for compliances ...

There were ordinance, brotherhood, guild ... and marks.
Some ordinance inspectors visited the smith and submitted to him to a number of sword (and accouterment) making operations, against some fees (12 reales), to recognise him as espadero. The brotherhood submitted him to a secret vote, with the practice of 'habas' (small balls), white for yes and black for no. This was a well organized system, with clerks and all, but not well seen by the Crown. The guild was somehow connected to the brotherhood, but subject to Municipality, that cared for smiths protection and industry evolution.
Then there were the marks, made with anagrams of their names and also that of Toledo. There were smiths who opted by only aplying their own anagram, those that used both of their name and that of Toledo and others, feeling fundamentaly Toledan, opted by ony applying the city To symbol. It was the author i am roughly quoting (Esperanza Pedraza Ruiz) who pretended that the crown over the anagram meant the smith was espadero del rey, but i tend to give credit to Dueñas Beraiz in that this had no such meaning.

[Jim McDougall]

Fernando,
I feel most fortunate for your sharing with me the information from Mr. Beraiz, which offers intriguing perspective on the character on these various marks, as well as the designation of 'Espadero del Rey'. As I had noted earlier, I had pretty much exhausted the resources at my disposal, and was hoping that with your access to contacts and resources in Portugal and Spain, you would add to what I had provided.

You also are most kind to have added translation of the material from Mr.Beraiz to spare me the trouble of doing so, and that the wording would be effectively placed. Knowing my difficulties in spelling and proper wording with your languages this would surely save you the frustration of having to correct me further, so thanks.

While I have no reason to dispute the material from Mr. Beraiz in these matters, I will gladly add it to my notes to be considered respectively with the information I have found elsewhere. Although his opinions are certainly most reasonable, the key value is the description of the complexity of the economic social and regal regulatory systems in place in these times.

It seems that the addition of the social factor of brotherhoods, in league with guilds which adhered to municipal regulation, and operating in degree under the auspices of the King, would emplace an almost unfathomable potential for use of markings and compliance devices.

Certainly the use of the phrase 'Espadero del Rey' would instantly represent the maker whose name accompanied it. But it seems that numerous makers carried out commissions for royal patrons on occasions, yet they seem not to have had such wording on their blades (at least necessarily) . Is it not possible that the half moon mark, occurring along with other marks, might have had significance to any of these groups in the hierarchy and even linked to Royal patronage rather than being a random or spuriously used symbol? Conversely, could this half moon have been used 'unofficially' in implying royal patronage in certain circumstances?

It has been my understanding that Toledo, with the Court moved to Madrid (1561), began deteriorating economically, and that its key sword making industry faltered badly by the opening of the 17th century along with other key aspects of its traditional standing. It would seem in these conditions, the prospects for corruption and counterfeit marks would be heightened. It is clear that by 1680 the guilds had been dissolved (Cohen, "By the Sword", p.115). By the time Palomares wrote (1772) there was virtually none left of the craft and King Carlos III was desperately trying to find smiths.

It does not seem that Toledo would have been exporting much in blades in the early 17th century, Solingen was quite consuming in its command of the blade making industry. It is even suggested that the German smiths using Spanish names may have deliberately produced lesser quality work to tarnish the reputation of the Toledo blades (Cohen, p.117).
The conflicts in the cities of various Spanish smiths listed as their workplace seems perhaps to be associated with the denigration of the industry as noted by the early 17th c.

I think there are many more factors and situations in the Toledo markings conundrums than can be conclusively decided in the data in any one singular report, or for that matter, numbers of them. I do however very much appreciate the inclusion of the valuable work of Mr, Beraiz in our discussion.

[fernando]

Thank you for your generous entry Jim,
I take it in short that your perspective of the half moon being a symbol of Castillian Royal benefit to sword smiths constitutes an unassailable theory; notwithstanding the Wallace work being the sole source where so far this assumption resides... also notwithstanding again that, out of nearly ten items marked with half moons in this catalogue, only two of them mention such potentiality; and even in one of such two (A652) the author tags the sword as Toledan but he question marks the blade as being German ... as German and Italian are all the other sword blades with the half moon in this catalogue (all variants of this symbol in page 688/9).
On the other hand, we have that a couple Spanish scholars either reject or never heard of such intentional marking. Besides the magnificent example in the Met shown above, revealing the existence of the ESPADERO DEL REY signature for Juan Martinez but no half moon presence, i have gone through the whole descriptive catalogue of Armeria Reale by Valencia de Don Juan and saw not one half moon symbol in their swords.
As you know Jim, my previous knowledge of these things is infinitely less than what i have recently learnt but, suggestion that the half moon might be linked to Royal Castilian patronage is something i find hard to digest; eventually this symbol was one the favorite of French King Henry II, by the way.
Concerning Beraiz notes, i shoul remind that part of his assessments are personal but a great part of what he wrote about the Palomares nomina are not his conclusions but actual transcriptions of Palomares work, namely the privileges and tax exemptions (Alcavalas) granted by the King to those selected Espaderos del Rey. And speaking of such, Palomares, a studious of Toledo marks, makes no mention to a half moon being a statute mark. Also i should precise that what i brought here about the Brotherhood and Guild was captured from a work by Esperanza Pedraza Ruiz.
I look forward to hear from you or other member an explicit evidence of the half moon being an appendix to the Espadero del Rey signature.
... And then it's time i eat them frogs .

Yours humbly


.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you as well Fernando, for your also very generous reply.
Please understand, I did not mean to imply that my thoughts on the half moon mark being a Castilian statute or mark of such benefit was in any way unassailable. In fact, I would not ever consider any of my theories or matters being observed as such, as it would be contrary to my place as a student of arms, certainly not an expert.

What I meant is that I consider the data from Mr. Beraiz, as well as most of the work of Palomares in review as being valuable and highly considered, however that there may always be other aspects or conditions which might have put certain significance to the moons, not yet discovered or known.

While your explanations regarding the espadero del rey signature as most reliably described by Mr. Beraiz seem of course quite definitive, the conundrum of the moons to me remains very much inconclusive.
Actually I am with you in hoping for more definitive evidence of what significance or symbolism these half moons might have held; who used them; and why. The fact that some well versed and highly respected authorities, such as Sir James Mann (1962, Wallace Coll.) accepted the idea of links to the Espaderos del Rey lead me to believe that such a thought had some reliable source.
It is clear that even the most highly regarded authorities are not without certain information which may be incorrect or improperly assumed, but it is typically a singular or unusually rare case. That circumstance does seem to diminish proportionally with those who in specialized fields and in their own national context, such as Mr. Beraiz, so I recognize his comments accordingly as most reliable.

Thank you as always for such well placed and supported discussion.

All the best
Jim

[Foxbat]

Very nice italian rapier, good find!