The half moon symbol in early Spanish swords

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by fernando

True in a way, Japer ... but i realize the majority of the smiths only used one mark, that of their personal seal; otherwise period chroniclars like Jehan Lhermite would have related such profusion. Instead, he only mentions as using various marks one or two smiths, the more profuse being Juan Martinez. But we also know that, those with more than one mark, often used secondary ones as either prestige symbols (Espadero del Rey), or decoration signs, that not their personal seals. Juan del Rey is also said to have used a 'few' marks but then again, the perrillo was more of a 'quality' contrast and apparently there is no record of what the others may have been. Curiously Lhermite doesn't mention this famous master, probably because he was still working in Zaragossa by the time the Flemish passed by Toledo, a vital detail not well distinguished by Palomares



As already approched and according to specialists in this subject, Palomares, a Toledan native, had a tendency to list smiths as having 'also' worked elsewhere, when in fact they 'first' worked elsewhere (their home towns) and only after went to Toledo.


Another of his imprecisions.


Yes, he saw the 5 punzones in the Toledo archives but never found out whom they belonged to. Eventually mark #95 contains a fleur-de-liz and could (could) well be, not a personal mark but, an additional contrast mark belonging to an Espadero del Rey.
Mark #99 could (could) be that from whom Lhermite calls Machin, who recorded that he used an aguililla (small eagle) as his mark.


This was in fact a current use in tat period, to distinguish each one of the family, as so often the son was given the name of his father ... and this from his grandfather.



They are quoted to have the 'same' mark as the previous one as, according to regulations, they could use the mark and privileges of their fathers.


Historians mention that some smiths opted by only using the Toledo mark ... just as others used their personal mark and not the Toledo contrast.


.

Hi Fernando,

thanks but of course there are many possible explanations, but I think the fact that Palomares created the document in 1762 is decisive.

So 150-200 years after the blacksmiths worked, there probably was not enough information available.

it seems that there has been a previous blacksmith register before palomares made by Rodriquez del Canto, el discipulo instruido.
have you maybe heard of that document.


best,
jasper

[fernando]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

.. it seems that there has been a previous blacksmith register before palomares made by Rodriquez del Canto, el discipulo instruido.
have you maybe heard of that document....

Yes i have Jasper ... and that has been already mentioned somewhere around here. Actually i thought i spotted his whole work in the Web but i now realize i was wrong. The thing is, del Canto manuscript, which apparently was never printed and edited, belonged to Count Valencia de Don Juan, by the time this noble published his work Catalogo Historico-Descritivo de la Real Armeria, in 1898. Apparently del Canto manuscript is a very exhaustive work, with numerous illustrations, mainly foccusing in the art of sword fencing and, for what matters, is 'only' 40 years earlier than that of Palomares. From the quotatins i have read so far, nothing indicates that his (possible) description of smiths marks tells us something new. I will keep digging into this. So far i enjoyed learning about Lhermite, who lived in the exact period and has resourced important material on more than 20 smiths, their marks and the type of blades they used to forge. This yes, must have a been a genuine work as, according to experts, the terminology he uses to describe their respective products should only be learnt through personal contact.
Attached a page of del Canto manuscript, where e compares the sizes of the different "instruments".


.

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by fernando

Yes i have Jasper ... and that has been already mentioned somewhere around here. Actually i thought i spotted his whole work in the Web but i now realize i was wrong. The thing is, del Canto manuscript, which apparently was never printed and edited, belonged to Count Valencia de Don Juan, by the time this noble published his work Catalogo Historico-Descritivo de la Real Armeria, in 1898. Apparently del Canto manuscript is a very exhaustive work, with numerous illustrations, mainly foccusing in the art of sword fencing and, for what matters, is 'only' 40 years earlier than that of Palomares. From the quotatins i have read so far, nothing indicates that his (possible) description of smiths marks tells us something new. I will keep digging into this. So far i enjoyed learning about Lhermite, who lived in the exact period and has resourced important material on more than 20 smiths, their marks and the type of blades they used to forge. This yes, must have a been a genuine work as, according to experts, the terminology he uses to describe their respective products should only be learnt through personal contact.
Attached a page of del Canto manuscript, where e compares the sizes of the different "instruments".


.

Hi Fernando,

very interesting! do you know where can I find the literature of Lhermite?

thanks+regards,

[fernando]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

Hi Fernando,

very interesting! do you know where can I find the literature of Lhermite?

thanks+regards,

The whole of his (french written) work was published in two volumes and both (PDF) are too heavy to upload here.
However the part related with the Toledo sword smiths is written in spanish, in volume 2, pages 293-298, which i have extracted and posted in the other thread ... and upload here again.

MVG


.

[fernando]

Looking back to this topic issue, one may still find further material on the half moon mark; something only possible by trying all wording and phrase combinations that come to mind.
All three quotations found are linked to master Julian del Rey, one we knew from a good couple sources to have used ‘various’ marks in his blades. It is highly possible (probable) that all three sources derive from one only origin, but it is interesting to mention them all, as each one quotes particular details.
From MEMORIAL LITERARIO de la corte de MADRID (1793) we have that:
Commenting on the Palomares nomina, the text reminds that, some of the masters moved to towns other than Toledo to either teach their skills or look for better trade chances, whom among others, in Zaragoza Julian del Rey, who used other marks of half moon and a “mundo con grillos”.
From DICCIONARIO MILITAR by D. José Almirante (1869) we have that:
(Under the term ESPADERO):
Still today the famous “ la del perrillo” is researched, one that was adopted by the famous Toledan Smith, Julian del Rey, converted moor. Apparently he also worked in Zaragoza; and besides the perrillo, he used as mark a half moon and a “mundo com grillos”.
Finally from DON QUIJOTE DE LA MANCHA comented by Don Diego Clemencin (1835) we have that:
Explaining why Julian’s swords were called those of the perrillo, adding that Don Pedro Jimenes de Haro owned two of those, which were wide and short, the same sword shape cited in Cervantes novel Rinconete y Cortadillo, as used by the gang leader Monipódio, describing it as in the style of “las del perrillo”, which were fabricated by Julian del Rey, a Moorish 'so they say', who also worked in Zaragoza whom, besides the perrillo, also used as mark a half moon and a “mundo com grillos”.
This mark “mundo com grillos” all times quoted together with the half moon, is rather peculiar and new (to me), as also containing a language dilema; besides not being a Spaniard, i find it possible to translate these two words in more than one mode. 'Mundo' means 'world', but may also be read as 'globe'; 'grillo' means 'cricket', but also means 'shackles'. So, could the right interpretation mean a 'globe with shackles' … or could it not be actual shackles and just an allegory ? Here is something that might take little or long time to figure out. On the other hand we find that, the half moon mark (symbol) keeps popping up here and there … even in the universe of the “Moor”.


.

[fernando]

So far i have learnt that, the attributing to shackles the name of grillos (crickets), would refer to the noise made by prisioners walking and dragging their shackles.

[Jim McDougall]

Fernando, thank you so much for staying with this intriguing topic, and especially for all the work you have done in translating, searching resources and compiling all of this valuable data. I admire your tenacity as well in the deductive reasoning in observations on the material.

This especially with the well supported new information on the markings of Julian del Rey, which in addition to the half moon, adds the curiously described 'MUNDO CON GRILLOS'. It is fascinating to see this come out to mean 'mundo' (= world or globe) and the 'grillos' perhaps tenuously also meaning 'shackles'.

While I am trying to imagine what these markings look like, I can add some interesting and potentially associated notes pending more on translation.
It is always curious where makers or tradesmen got ideas for their chosen guild or trademarks.
In the 18th century, the Spanish military arming rapiers were somehow termed 'bilbos'. I recall researching this curious term, and finding the detail on the Basque port of Bilbao in Northern Spain. Apparently the term had earlier use by Shakespeare in his "Merry Wives of Windsor" , where it is noted that swords of Biscayan (Bay of Biscay there) iron were called 'bilbos' (for the port of Bilbao).
I found also that the Toledan masters used iron from the Mondragon mines in Basque provinces, perhaps lending further to the Bilbo term.

Now here's the pitch, the word 'bilbo' also refers to a long iron bar with sliding shackles and lock worn on ankles of prisoners.

Not sure if this is 'cricket', but here is a word for sword and famed iron (termed alma de hierro, =soul of iron) linked to 'shackles'.

Tenuous yes, but intriguing just the same. Now if we could just find what this mark looked like!