Toledo Rapier Info

Jim McDougall · 6th March 2016, 06:40 AM

Philip, thank you again for this interesting view on this subject. It seems sometimes that we continue to learn more on these matters the more we review them.
In "The History of Chivalry" by Charles Mills (1826), the excellence of the sword makers of Toledo is discussed with Julian del Rey noted , and that his weapons had peculiar markings; el perrillo (a little dog); el morillo (a moors head) and la loba (a wolf).

In "Don Quixote" , Cervantes refers to swords made by Julian del Rey as being short and broad in the blade which were called 'little dog swords'.

J.J. Rodriguez Lorente in " The Perrillo Mark of the Spanish Swordsmith Julian del Rey" (Gladius III, 1964, pp.97-98), notes that the smith seems to have used the canine mark selectively on certain types of sword.
These seem of course to have been the 'jineta' type swords, but that on 16th century rapiers the marks seem to have been coupled with others, as if signifying various meanings.
The perrillo seems copied later in Germany, but here it becomes confusing, at which point did the perrillo end and the 'Passau' wolf begin?

Lorente notes in his article that the figure was probably intended to be a wolf but that it was likely mockingly referred to as a 'little doggy'.

The sword of Ferdinand III, (G21 Calvert) once regarded as the 'Colada of El Cid, is now believed to be the 'Lobera' sword of this King of Castile and Leon (known as St Ferdinand). Since this was 1201-1252, it does seem to pre date the known period of the 'wolf' used as a symbol or mark on blades.
This would also preclude my thoughts of a possible reference to the Passau wolf and blades from there, and seemingly before the wolf/little dog as well.

Still, the connections between the canine marks used in Spain, and those which evolved in Germany in Passau and later Solingen are compelling.

fernando · 6th March 2016, 06:57 PM

Hi Philip,
Your mentioning the dog as an impure animal for the Islam world is a very interesting start for the posing of different theories about Julian del Rey origins.
According to Maindron and Babelon he would never use the dog mark 'even' after being christianized. But a harder puzzle comes from a document issued in Zaragoza in 1549 referring a familiar conflict, between Julian del Rey, his father Miguel del Rey 'mayor' and his brother Miguel del Rey 'menor', all three sword smiths. This contradicts the assumption that Julian was patronized by Fernando el Católico. The said conflict was about the right to use the mark. Julian's brother, Miguel, demanded to share with him the use the mark, in which he was supported by their father. But Julian refused such right as he was the one to have inherited with father's will and so was the first one that started using it. A vital issue was that, in any case, the mark could not be used by both, as the smiths guild had a norm that the mark used by one smith could not be used by another. It is not know that the popularity of the mark was result of Julian's father ability or he (Julian) who raised its importance.
But mind you, the mark so much disputed was not the 'perrillo' but a cross, of small size in estocs and larger in swords, with 'coloured metal', which would mean filled with copper, as used in the period. This is not the only source that mentions than Julian used 'various' marks, a habit also adopted by his brother, although in 'less quantity'.
One version of such cross atributed to Julian can be seen in a sword in the Musée de l'Armée in Paris.
But of course the theme of the 'perrillo' mark is no doubt the one that made more ink run about, notwithstanding the doubts remaining about its zoomorphic figure, where even a lion is suggested to be the intended mark; this judjing by the hipothesis that Palomar made a wrong interpretation of the beast.
All the above is based in an article written by Germán Dueñas Beraiz, called new data on Julian del Rey and his person... which i bet you all know about it

.

Philip · 7th March 2016, 05:54 AM

Thanks, Jim, for posting the reference page on the evolution of the "Passau wolf" symbol. The most frequently seen styles are those of the 17th cent., but in looking at the evolution of the iconic beast as a whole, it's amazing to see the variations, bordering on the fanciful. Note some of them with rather equine necks and heads, one that can be mistaken for a shrimp or prawn, and another that is positively rodentian! Seeing this mini-zoo, the "mutant gerbil" that appears in Dr Astatsaturyan's book in the section on Caucasus imitations is not so outlandish after all!

Jim McDougall · 7th March 2016, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philip

Thanks, Jim, for posting the reference page on the evolution of the "Passau wolf" symbol. The most frequently seen styles are those of the 17th cent., but in looking at the evolution of the iconic beast as a whole, it's amazing to see the variations, bordering on the fanciful. Note some of them with rather equine necks and heads, one that can be mistaken for a shrimp or prawn, and another that is positively rodentian! Seeing this mini-zoo, the "mutant gerbil" that appears in Dr Astatsaturyan's book in the section on Caucasus imitations is not so outlandish after all!

I totally agree Philip, these zoomorphic renditions in these assemblages of chiseled markings would make Picasso proud!

The plate from Wagner is misleading, as it purports that there was some sort of chronological progression with these 'wolf' marks by placing date years on them. In fact, these were stylized because of the 'freehand' application by workers who were simply complying with the apparent requirement of placing a 'wolf' on the blade.
I think that in the case of the 'perrillos' it was very much the same, and I have seen a plate of examples drawn from a number of smiths in Spanish context which display the same 'range' of depiction.

In discussions, Oakeshott (1962) mentions that in many cases it is hard to tell what creature is depicted, and notes others such as unicorns were depicted in similar 'creativity'.
In his discussions of Sudanese kaskara, Reed (1987) notes a Darfur chieftain examining a 'wolf' mark on one of these blades, and thought it represented a hippopotamus!!

Its really great to have you writing here again Philip!!!!

cornelistromp · 7th March 2016, 06:25 PM

the Unicorn has one horn and the wolf not, furthermore the tip of horn always points toward the point so that the force is directed to the opponent.
the horn of the unicorn is always clearly recognizable in the inlay of a sword.

best,
jasper

Jim McDougall · 7th March 2016, 07:32 PM

Excellent point !! (sorry, couldn't resist)

Thank you so much Jasper, excellent images illustrating these markings.
Actually what I meant, in my bungled wording, was that unicorns were among creatures which were represented in these artistically stylized renderings, many of which could not be discerned. Obviously that distinct unicorn feature would be readily spotted, making that one of the exceptions.

fernando · 7th March 2016, 07:55 PM

We may read in a paper by Rodriguez Lorente that, when the beast present in a blade is of Spanish origin, usually comes accompanied by other marks, whereas the German wolf appears only by itself.
Two Hispano-Arab ginetas can be seen in the National Library of Paris (as per picture uploaded) and in the the Armeria Real de Turin.
So it appears that in later times (XVI century) the perrillo was used by Spanish masters, like Sebastian Hernandez for one, as a quality hallmark.
Lorente also presents us a list of the various perrillo marks found here and there.

.

Jim McDougall · 7th March 2016, 08:30 PM

Thank you Fernando! That was the plate I was trying to print but couldn't get it to cooperate. In that article by Rodriguez Lorente in my post 29 I was trying to describe those circumstances, and what I was understanding was that perhaps the 'perrillo' on the earlier jinete blades was used on a specific form of blade by the Master. It seemed the author suggested they were not on all blades produced by Julian.
Later, the blades indeed were accompanied by other marks which seem to be in hallmark type groupings with the marks having various significance.

The spurious applications in Germany of course rest on their own situation, but I began wondering just how the perrillo might have confluenced with the wolf of Passau.

With the wolf of Passau, it seems that it typically was by itself on one side of the blade, while often another mark, inscription or name was on the other, at least in many of the examples I have seen.

In "Miecze Srodkowoeuropejskie z X-XVw", (Marian Glosek, Warsaw, 1984, p.184) it is noted regarding the mark of the wolf "...it should be noticed however, that not all the swords marked in this way and presented in our work were made in the same hilt producing workshop. Only the specimens produced in the second half of the 13th century and the first part of the 14th century, that is in the initial period of their being in use, are certain to have their provenance at Passau".

Further, "...the first complaint against illegal borrowing of this mark by hilt makers of Solingen lodged by Passau in Colony (Cologne?) on Nov. 20, 1464 was most presumably the result of a situation existing for some time. W.M. Schmid mentions also Nurnberg and Augsburg as centers using the wolf sign on its products. A. Nadolski points to the wolf like features visible on weapons of the Caucusus. In my opinion swords marked in this way were also produced in Hungary".

While some comments in these quotes are puzzling (hilt makers vs, bladesmiths??) and the obviously much later Caucasian circumstances, which I do not believe had anything to do with Hungarian swords. ..it still portrays just how widespread was the use of these 'canine' marks.

It seems quite clear they were not intended as the mark of a maker per se' but imbued either some sort of talismanic imbuement or that of power and quality as well.

Could the perrillo of Julian del Rey have been in some way been related to these wolf marks apparently well known in Europe in these parlances?

ariel · 7th March 2016, 10:05 PM

On the original blade posted by Mariusgmioc, it is not Bracho: it is Brach. The "letter o is in fact just a decorative motive: compare its size with the unquestionable "O" in the word Toledo.

6th March 2016, 06:40 AM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,458	The Perrillo Mystery Philip, thank you again for this interesting view on this subject. It seems sometimes that we continue to learn more on these matters the more we review them. In "The History of Chivalry" by Charles Mills (1826), the excellence of the sword makers of Toledo is discussed with Julian del Rey noted , and that his weapons had peculiar markings; el perrillo (a little dog); el morillo (a moors head) and la loba (a wolf). In "Don Quixote" , Cervantes refers to swords made by Julian del Rey as being short and broad in the blade which were called 'little dog swords'. J.J. Rodriguez Lorente in " The Perrillo Mark of the Spanish Swordsmith Julian del Rey" (Gladius III, 1964, pp.97-98), notes that the smith seems to have used the canine mark selectively on certain types of sword. These seem of course to have been the 'jineta' type swords, but that on 16th century rapiers the marks seem to have been coupled with others, as if signifying various meanings. The perrillo seems copied later in Germany, but here it becomes confusing, at which point did the perrillo end and the 'Passau' wolf begin? Lorente notes in his article that the figure was probably intended to be a wolf but that it was likely mockingly referred to as a 'little doggy'. The sword of Ferdinand III, (G21 Calvert) once regarded as the 'Colada of El Cid, is now believed to be the 'Lobera' sword of this King of Castile and Leon (known as St Ferdinand). Since this was 1201-1252, it does seem to pre date the known period of the 'wolf' used as a symbol or mark on blades. This would also preclude my thoughts of a possible reference to the Passau wolf and blades from there, and seemingly before the wolf/little dog as well. Still, the connections between the canine marks used in Spain, and those which evolved in Germany in Passau and later Solingen are compelling. Attached Images Last edited by Jim McDougall; 6th March 2016 at 07:11 AM.

6th March 2016, 06:57 PM	#2
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Hi Philip, Your mentioning the dog as an impure animal for the Islam world is a very interesting start for the posing of different theories about Julian del Rey origins. According to Maindron and Babelon he would never use the dog mark 'even' after being christianized. But a harder puzzle comes from a document issued in Zaragoza in 1549 referring a familiar conflict, between Julian del Rey, his father Miguel del Rey 'mayor' and his brother Miguel del Rey 'menor', all three sword smiths. This contradicts the assumption that Julian was patronized by Fernando el Católico. The said conflict was about the right to use the mark. Julian's brother, Miguel, demanded to share with him the use the mark, in which he was supported by their father. But Julian refused such right as he was the one to have inherited with father's will and so was the first one that started using it. A vital issue was that, in any case, the mark could not be used by both, as the smiths guild had a norm that the mark used by one smith could not be used by another. It is not know that the popularity of the mark was result of Julian's father ability or he (Julian) who raised its importance. But mind you, the mark so much disputed was not the 'perrillo' but a cross, of small size in estocs and larger in swords, with 'coloured metal', which would mean filled with copper, as used in the period. This is not the only source that mentions than Julian used 'various' marks, a habit also adopted by his brother, although in 'less quantity'. One version of such cross atributed to Julian can be seen in a sword in the Musée de l'Armée in Paris. But of course the theme of the 'perrillo' mark is no doubt the one that made more ink run about, notwithstanding the doubts remaining about its zoomorphic figure, where even a lion is suggested to be the intended mark; this judjing by the hipothesis that Palomar made a wrong interpretation of the beast. All the above is based in an article written by Germán Dueñas Beraiz, called new data on Julian del Rey and his person... which i bet you all know about it . Attached Images

7th March 2016, 05:54 AM	#3
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	quite the menagerie! Thanks, Jim, for posting the reference page on the evolution of the "Passau wolf" symbol. The most frequently seen styles are those of the 17th cent., but in looking at the evolution of the iconic beast as a whole, it's amazing to see the variations, bordering on the fanciful. Note some of them with rather equine necks and heads, one that can be mistaken for a shrimp or prawn, and another that is positively rodentian! Seeing this mini-zoo, the "mutant gerbil" that appears in Dr Astatsaturyan's book in the section on Caucasus imitations is not so outlandish after all!

7th March 2016, 06:25 PM	#5
cornelistromp Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,060	unicorn against wolf the Unicorn has one horn and the wolf not, furthermore the tip of horn always points toward the point so that the force is directed to the opponent. the horn of the unicorn is always clearly recognizable in the inlay of a sword. best, jasper Attached Images

7th March 2016, 07:55 PM	#7
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	We may read in a paper by Rodriguez Lorente that, when the beast present in a blade is of Spanish origin, usually comes accompanied by other marks, whereas the German wolf appears only by itself. Two Hispano-Arab ginetas can be seen in the National Library of Paris (as per picture uploaded) and in the the Armeria Real de Turin. So it appears that in later times (XVI century) the perrillo was used by Spanish masters, like Sebastian Hernandez for one, as a quality hallmark. Lorente also presents us a list of the various perrillo marks found here and there. . Attached Images

7th March 2016, 07:32 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,458	Excellent point !! (sorry, couldn't resist) Thank you so much Jasper, excellent images illustrating these markings. Actually what I meant, in my bungled wording, was that unicorns were among creatures which were represented in these artistically stylized renderings, many of which could not be discerned. Obviously that distinct unicorn feature would be readily spotted, making that one of the exceptions.

7th March 2016, 08:30 PM	#8
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,458	Thank you Fernando! That was the plate I was trying to print but couldn't get it to cooperate. In that article by Rodriguez Lorente in my post 29 I was trying to describe those circumstances, and what I was understanding was that perhaps the 'perrillo' on the earlier jinete blades was used on a specific form of blade by the Master. It seemed the author suggested they were not on all blades produced by Julian. Later, the blades indeed were accompanied by other marks which seem to be in hallmark type groupings with the marks having various significance. The spurious applications in Germany of course rest on their own situation, but I began wondering just how the perrillo might have confluenced with the wolf of Passau. With the wolf of Passau, it seems that it typically was by itself on one side of the blade, while often another mark, inscription or name was on the other, at least in many of the examples I have seen. In "Miecze Srodkowoeuropejskie z X-XVw", (Marian Glosek, Warsaw, 1984, p.184) it is noted regarding the mark of the wolf "...it should be noticed however, that not all the swords marked in this way and presented in our work were made in the same hilt producing workshop. Only the specimens produced in the second half of the 13th century and the first part of the 14th century, that is in the initial period of their being in use, are certain to have their provenance at Passau". Further, "...the first complaint against illegal borrowing of this mark by hilt makers of Solingen lodged by Passau in Colony (Cologne?) on Nov. 20, 1464 was most presumably the result of a situation existing for some time. W.M. Schmid mentions also Nurnberg and Augsburg as centers using the wolf sign on its products. A. Nadolski points to the wolf like features visible on weapons of the Caucusus. In my opinion swords marked in this way were also produced in Hungary". While some comments in these quotes are puzzling (hilt makers vs, bladesmiths??) and the obviously much later Caucasian circumstances, which I do not believe had anything to do with Hungarian swords. ..it still portrays just how widespread was the use of these 'canine' marks. It seems quite clear they were not intended as the mark of a maker per se' but imbued either some sort of talismanic imbuement or that of power and quality as well. Could the perrillo of Julian del Rey have been in some way been related to these wolf marks apparently well known in Europe in these parlances?

7th March 2016, 10:05 PM	#9
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	On the original blade posted by Mariusgmioc, it is not Bracho: it is Brach. The "letter o is in fact just a decorative motive: compare its size with the unquestionable "O" in the word Toledo.