A rapier by Pietro Hernandez

[Gonzalo G]

Though I repeated the common statement that Julian del Rey was a converse (probably baptized by the king Ferdinand the Catholic), other sources points in other direction. Germán Dueñaz Beraiz, in "Julián del Rey: Nuevos Datos sobre su Figura" (Gladius Vol. XX, 2000), states that, according with legal documentation found in the archives of the city of Zaragoza (Libro de Actas de Zaragoza, 1549), there was a fight among Julián del Rey and his elder brother, named Miguel, for the exclusive use of the same stamp belonging to their father, also named Miguel. For which it can be concluded: first, Julián was not a converse, since his father and his brother bear christian names (so his baptism by the king as godfather is a myth); second, the stamp in question was possibly already prestiged, since both brothers were fighting for its use, though it is also possible that Julián gave it greater prestige. It must be noted that the sentence favoured Julián.

It remains open the question about if Julián and his ancestors were really moors and when did they convert, or if the "moor" apelative was only a nickname derived from the color of his skin, as it is not an unusual practice in Spain, Italy and Mexico (in Mexico the very dark skinned persons are called affectionately "negro", a black person, nigro, without a derogatory meaning, and it must be remembered also Ludovico Sforza, Duke of Milan, nicknamed "Il Moro", the moor, by the color of his skin and hair).

The peoples from the desertic areas consider impure certain animals on sanitary grounds. Muslims and jews prohibit the consume of the pig, and the dog is considered impure, as Kronckew has said, because it loves to eat garbage and rotten corpses, which is a potential source of infections, specially in hot climates.

Nevertheless, the moors in Spain were very lax in their practice of Islam, a motive of criticism and fury from the fundamentalist berber Almohads, who came latter. I personally disagree with the statement, made by some French authors in the 19th Century (Maindorm, Les Armes, 1890, cited by J.J. Rodríguez Lorente), that a converse would not use this mark, if the mark actually represents a dog. Specially if the mark is already in use by the swordsmiths of the era, considering also that the sources also points out that this mark was not invented by Julián del Rey but used by him.

Since the mark of the "perrillo" had been in use for a considerable lapse of time, it had some variants. Not all of them represent a prancing animal. In fact, the older known marks do not represent a prancing animal. The sword of Boabdil, which is a "espada a la jineta", represented by Ada Bruhn Hoffmeyer in her article "Introduction to the History of the European Sword" (Gladius Vol. I, p.49), carries the mark of el perrillo, which is represented in the article of J.J. Rodríguez Lorente, "La Marca del Perrillo del Espadero Español Julián del Rey" (Gladius Vol. III, 1964). It is not a prancing animal, but a running animal with the tail laid straight behind at the level of the corpse, not a tail naturally curved, like in some dogs. More Spanish marks of "el perrillo" representing a running animal and not a prancing animal, can be found on other Spanish swords, as it can be seen in the figure No.5, p.96, of the last cited article. Some have raised tails, but lions in heraldry are also represented with raised tails.

Dueñaz Beraiz also points out that, though the ordinances for the swordsmiths of Zaragoza does not mention a quality garantee mark from the city, the ordinances for the knifesmiths of the city does, indicating that it should be the heraldic symbol of the city, a lion. We can suppose that, if the mark of "el perrillo" is an old one already in use, primitively representing as a lion in a very schematic way with only straight lines made by a chisel, since an appropiate stamp made by hand would be costly, it is perfectly possible to infer that the animal could be a lion and not a dog.

About the mark of "el perrillo" beign a quality mark and not the personal mark of a specific swordsmith, diverse Spanish specialists consider it so, among them, José Maria Florit y Arizcun, Francisco Javier Sánchez Cantón, Enrique de Leguina, Germán Dueñas Beraiz and J.J. Rodríguez Lorente. Enrique de Leguina, Barón de la Vega de Hoz and one of the greates Spanish specialists from the 19th Century, gives more specifics about this mark. In his book Los Maestros Espaderos, p.32, Don Enrique says that from the mines of Peña de Udala, in Gupúzcoa, was extracted a "natural steel", from which supposedly were made the swords with the mark of "el perrillo", without a core of iron, in other words, a pure steel blade.

It must be noted that when the Real Fábrica de Armas Blancas in Toledo was established in the 18th Century, the documents mention that the old way of making blades was entirely lost, except for one swordsmith. The "new" way of making, quenching and tempering sword blades since time ago, was made with a composite of iron and steel, some authors as Leguina saying "con alma de hierro" (core iron wrapped in steel), others, like Palomares saying that the steel was sanwiched among two outer layers of iron, like the san mai knives. The fact is that it was a composite, in which the iron gave thoughtness and the steel hardness to the blade. So it is relevant the distinction with the blades made with pure steel, which are more difficult to make, since the steel alone is more prone to breaking, if the carbon content is not adecuate and the thermal treatment is not made correctly. Anyway, we don´t know for sure how it was the “old way” technique of making swords.

Among these references, sometimes contradictory, the problem of the “perrillo” mark seems not be a simple one, since the available information raises more questions than answers. So, without more original information from the primary sources and a more detailed and guided study of the swords from this period, it is difficult to make valid generalizations. I am personally more interested in the knowledge on construction and uses of the edged weapons than in collecting, so my perspective could be a little different.

JIM: THANK YOU FOR YOUR WELCOME. IT IS GREAT TO READ YOU, FERNANDO AND OTHERS AGAIN, SINCE I LEARN MUCH FROM ALL OF YOU!!!

[Jim McDougall]

As we do from you Gonzalo!!! Fantastic dissertation and very well described. Definitely puts much needed perspective on this dilemma.

[fernando]

Waine, thank you for your contribution towards cracking the doggy riddle.
Noteworthily renaissance smiths were not skilled enough to shape a silhouette more in accordance with the saluki figure ... except for the feathers .


.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... I think the 'perillo' moniker owes more to Cervantes colorful imbuement than actual intention ...

You are right Jim; imbuement or conviction, were it not for Cervantes, who later decided to imortalize the mark as being a doggy Julian, for one, could have intended to shape a different animal ... be iy symbolic or phisical. Lorente suggests a jackal, more in acordance with Moorish tendences, if such were the case.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... While leaning toward these sorts of esoterica, I have always wondered about the 'Lobera' sword of Fernando III of Castile of the 13th c. His grandson writing of his exploits in 1337 described his sword as "Lobera", (=the wolf hunter"). Could there be any sort of commemorative or honorific allusion?

.
Ah, esoterica, your cup of tea .Apparently Spaniards did not come to a conclusion, the doubt being whether it was a hunting sword or just a name, as per period custom to sttribute names to swords. It could also be that such status was already given by previos owner as, according to what is written, the sword originaly belonged to the great Count Fernán González.
I deeply regret having been twice in the cathedral of Seville and not get visual contact with this sword, which is kept in the Capilla Real. Probably it is not at sight.

[fernando]

Great input, Gonzalo, with thoughts and data confirming points already focused in these (three) recent threads around such subject.

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

...Though I repeated the common statement that Julian del Rey was a converse (probably baptized by the king Ferdinand the Catholic),

Speaking of which, the other day someone in a Spanish blog was asking how such person managed to be personaly baptized by the Catholic Kings and it was suggested (or assumed) that these baptisms were collective, you know, rites were processed before a number of gathered ones to be converted.. An interesting view.

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

...other sources points in other direction. Germán Dueñaz Beraiz, in "Julián del Rey: Nuevos Datos sobre su Figura" (Gladius Vol. XX, 2000), states that, according with legal documentation found in the archives of the city of Zaragoza (Libro de Actas de Zaragoza, 1549), there was a fight among Julián del Rey and his elder brother, named Miguel, for the exclusive use of the same stamp belonging to their father, also named Miguel. For which it can be concluded: first, Julián was not a converse, since his father and his brother bear christian names (so his baptism by the king as godfather is a myth); second, the stamp in question was possibly already prestiged, since both brothers were fighting for its use, though it is also possible that Julián gave it greater prestige. It must be noted that the sentence favoured Julián.

And, if i recall correctly, the dspute was not about the perrillo but their personal mark, the one shown in post # 45.

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

...It remains open the question about if Julián and his ancestors were really moors and when did they convert, or if the "moor" apelative was only a nickname derived from the color of his skin ...

Indeed the term Moor/Moro/Mouro, comes from the greek, meaning black, as dark.

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

...Nevertheless, the moors in Spain were very lax in their practice of Islam, a motive of criticism and fury from the fundamentalist berber Almohads, who came latter. I personally disagree with the statement, made by some French authors in the 19th Century (Maindorm, Les Armes, 1890, cited by J.J. Rodríguez Lorente), that a converse would not use this mark, if the mark actually represents a dog. Specially if the mark is already in use by the swordsmiths of the era, considering also that the sources also points out that this mark was not invented by Julián del Rey but used by him.

Good and plausible points, Gonzalo; namely your last paragraph.

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

...Since the mark of the "perrillo" had been in use for a considerable lapse of time, it had some variants. Not all of them represent a prancing animal. In fact, the older known marks do not represent a prancing animal.

Let's upload those variants in here.

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

...We can suppose that, if the mark of "el perrillo" is an old one already in use, primitively representing as a lion in a very schematic way with only straight lines made by a chisel, since an appropiate stamp made by hand would be costly, it is perfectly possible to infer that the animal could be a lion and not a dog...

Another theory; maybe not so strong but, not to be discarded.


.

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by fernando

And, if i recall correctly, the dspute was not about the perrillo but their personal mark, the one shown in post # 45.

Yes Fernando, it is correct. I did not intend to say that the mark in dispute was the one of the "perrillo", as I know that the personal mark of Miguel and Julián del Rey was another one. My point was to show that the members of the family all bear christian names. Also, I did not want to explore further subjects and to upload images, as I saw that my post was already loo long. Thank you for doing it, it is very useful to illustrate the point.

Other subject that dreserves to be explored in relation with the personal mark of those swordsmiths, is the fact that some swords attributed to Julián, could be in fact be made by his father, since it was the same mark, according with the information from Dueñas Beraiz. It is to be noted that the legal document of the dispute is dated as late as 1549, many years since the fall of the Kingdom of Granada and the exile of Abu `Abdallah Muhammed XII, known as Boabdil. So, the sword of Boabdil was made by Julián, or by his father Miguel, as other jineta swordsl?

The statement that the animal could be also a lion, refers only to a possibility, it is not a theory. The animal could belong to other species. As I said, the subject is complex and there is a void in the available information.

Regards