A rapier by Pietro Hernandez

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

Very nice rapier, I have a somewhat similar piece.

Very nice; who is the smith ?

[Foxbat]

I was not able to determine, but thare is what appears to be a wolf mark on both sides, so likely a Solingen blade.

[Jim McDougall]

This seems to me a most unusual rendition of what purports to be the 'running wolf' of Passau, later Solingen. While these marks, while indeterminate as far as actual significance symbolically, certainly do appear in varied, almost abstract sometimes, configurations....this one seems to face the opposite direction from most I have seen. I am not saying this is not a Solingen rendition, just that it is very atypical from most I have seen.

[Foxbat]

Well, if you ask me, it looks more like a mule, than anything else, but I am not sure that was the idea.

Here's the other side.

[fernando]

I admire your guys sharp eye; i can see neither a woolf nor a mule .
... But the sword is excelent .

[Jim McDougall]

It seems that in observing these 'running wolf' marks in many examples which cover several centuries, there is far more than variation in the exemplars, and many reach the point of abstraction. In my opinion these figures were chiseled into the blades by shop workers rather than the artisans who were charged with inscribing them.

These workers were not skilled artistically (obviously) but the marks were probably intended as talismanic imbuement which derived from conventions such as that known as 'Passau Art', in which the running wolf 'of Passau' was one of the leading devices as far as sword blades.

The notion seems to have been that despite the artistic deficiency of the application, the talismanic factor would stand in effect simply by the act of the marking. The superstitious fervor that existed with weaponry in these times is something often deeply underestimated in studies of them, which is why markings and inscriptions are most often not well attended to.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by fernando

I admire your guys sharp eye; i can see neither a woolf nor a mule .
... But the sword is excelent .

Looks like a bull to me...

[ulfberth]

Originally Posted by Iain

Looks like a bull to me...

well maybe not a wolf but it looks like a dog to me


the blade looks indeed German, the position of the stamps on the ricasso and the running K9 all point in that direction

[Foxbat]

Well, your picture clearly explains why we have three protrusions where the hind legs are, and only two in the front.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by ulfberth

well maybe not a wolf but it looks like a dog to me


the blade looks indeed German, the position of the stamps on the ricasso and the running K9 all point in that direction

Sure, I wasn't disagreeing that it's a German blade, but I think often we are too quick to designate any vaguely four legged depiction of an animal as a running wolf. From memory the unicorn crops up from time to time as well on Passau blades.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Iain

Sure, I wasn't disagreeing that it's a German blade, but I think often we are too quick to designate any vaguely four legged depiction of an animal as a running wolf...

Amen .

[Jim McDougall]

The perplexing case of these abstract animals depicted in these blades for yet unknown significance has been a notable feature for as many years as I can recall in my own research, as well as clearly included in the work of many writers.

Ewart Oakeshott in 1960, ("Archaeology of Weapons". N.Y. p.223) notes,
"...a mark which can easily be mistaken for the 'wolf' of Passau is a unicorn; since both wolf and unicorn are only very summarily sketched wth a few inlaid strokes; it needs the eye of faith to distinguish an animal at all; the examples of the unicorn I have met with look exactly the same as the wolves except they have a long straight stroke sticking out in front".

To carry the analogy further, in the well established cases of German trade blades imported into Sudan, Reed ("A Kaskara from Darfur", JAAS, 1985) notes that in examining a blade with a Fur chief, the chief thought the wolf was a hippopotamus!

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

Well, your picture clearly explains why we have three protrusions where the hind legs are, and only two in the front.

yup, it's obviously a male animal!

[Gonzalo G]

I don´t know if this can be useful, but according with the icollector web site, and I quote: "Excellent quality Victorian decorated rapier with period blade signed Pietro Hernandez. This rapier was probably a military issue and plain style which was embellished in the 19th Century; 47-1/2” overall with a 38” blade; good condition with normal aging. The hilt and blade show quality forging and the decorative chiseling and engraving are almost an exact simulation of 17th Century work but just not quite as fine or detailed enough." You can find the reference here:


It seems that there was made an intent to to imitate a very well known mark or stamp used on Spanish blades from the 15th and 16th Centuries, consisting in a small running dog, made with very elementary lines. For this reason, those swords were commonly called "Espadas del Perrillo" (Swords of the Little Dog). The mark belonged originally to Julián del Rey, known as Julián el Moro, a moorish converse from Granada, supposedly baptized by the king Ferdinand the Catholic. It is to be noted that, according with some people, this swordsmith made the famous jineta sword of Boabdil exhibited in the Museo del Ejército in Toledo, but latter the mark was imitated by other swordsmiths in Spain. Maybe even by those of Passau, and it most be taken care to not confuse the marks, since some people, not knowing this facts, misatribute a Espada del Perrillo to those of the running wolf from Passau. I was unable to load the image of this mark or stamp, since when I try to insert the image in this post, it appear a text "Enter the text to be formatted", and I don´t know how to upload, but you can see the image of the stamp here:


Regards

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

... The hilt and blade show quality forging and the decorative chiseling and engraving are almost an exact simulation of 17th Century work but just not quite as fine or detailed enough." You can find the reference here: ... I was unable to load the image of this mark or stamp, since when I try to insert the image in this post, it appear a text "Enter the text to be formatted", and I don´t know how to upload, but you can see the image of the stamp here:...

Hola Gonzalo,
It is visible that you have not been around for some time (years). Let's try and update you.
You should not link to web life auctioners; i did save the sword you wish to show and will upload it here with the appropriate forum attachment pictures.
Concerning the second link in your post, It is not difficult, contrary to what you have experienced, to upload the perrillo mark, as also you should not get it by linking it to ephemeral blogs; also here i will upload this famous symbol with appropriate features. However if you have a quick view to recent threads or browse the forum archives, you will notice that much has been discussed about the perrillo mark; starting by the fact that the very image you have atempted to post is the one figuring in Palomares nomina; a chart often posted in recent (and earlier) discussions. One less dicussed detail but still present in our discussions on this subject is that, while the perrillo would have been a symbol used by Julian del Rey in his blades, such may have been a sort of quality contrast punzon, his personal sword smith mark, one eventually disputed in court by his son and also present and recognized in his blades in museums, is one associated with his name.
Obviously these are all perspectives; always subject to better judgement.

Abrazo

.

[Gonzalo G]

You overwhelm me, Fer. I will ask you via private message how to uoload images, since in the past I didn´t have problems to do it. Julián del Rey seems to have used at least three stamps, but I am under the impresion that the perrillo mark, present in the Palomares relation, was not his personal stamp, but I can be wrong. Don´t forget that the relation from Palomares is unaccurate and have some mistakes. The matter must be researched.

Sorry if I repeated statements already clarified in this forum. You are right, I was absent seven years from this and other forums, I am obsolete.

[Gonzalo G]

According with the sources, the mark of the perrillo always appear in authentic spanish blades accompanied by other stamps, seemingly personal stamps particular to each swordmaker. Some of those blades are not from Julián del Rey. All indicates that the perrillo mark was a sort of garantee of the quality of the steel of the respective sword, used by Spanish swordsmiths in the 16th Century and it was not the personal stamp from Julián del Rey. Probably the mark of the perrillo was used by the Hipanic-Arab swordsmiths since at least the 15th Century, if not before. Julián del Rey worked at the end of the 15th Century, beginnings of the 16th Century. It is possible that this mark was not invented by him, but taken from a common practice on that time. The scarcity of Hispano-Arabic pieces of quality from the period, makes it difficult to have certainty. Also, it most be considered that the animal was not really a dog, but a different species, though the Spanish people in time, would considere it a perrillo, a small dog, because of its resemblance.
Regards

[Gonzalo G]

On the other side, probably the running wolf from Passau was a mark developed independently of the "perrillo" mark, and I quote:

"The sign of a wolf was used by the swordsmiths from the German town of Passau, as it is confirmed in a charter from 1340. Herzog Albrecht of Austria gave permission to the guild of swordsmith in this southeastern Bavarian town to
put the sign of a wolf from the town coat of arms on the blades they produced. Albert III, bishop of Passau confirmed this right in a new charter from 1368: ‘That stamp, which we call wolf we restore, verify and acknowledge. And it is our will that also our swordsmiths here in Passau engrave the same sign of a wolf on each blade’."

from Marko Alecsic´s Maediaeval Swords from Southeastern Europe.

Regards

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

According with the sources, the mark of the perrillo always appear in authentic spanish blades accompanied by other stamps, seemingly personal stamps particular to each swordmaker. Some of those blades are not from Julián del Rey. All indicates that the perrillo mark was a sort of garantee of the quality of the steel of the respective sword, used by Spanish swordsmiths in the 16th Century and it was not the personal stamp from Julián del Rey. Probably the mark of the perrillo was used by the Hipanic-Arab swordsmiths since at least the 15th Century, if not before. Julián del Rey worked at the end of the 15th Century, beginnings of the 16th Century. It is possible that this mark was not invented by him, but taken from a common practice on that time. The scarcity of Hispano-Arabic pieces of quality from the period, makes it difficult to have certainty. Also, it most be considered that the animal was not really a dog, but a different species, though the Spanish people in time, would considere it a perrillo, a small dog, because of its resemblance.
Regards

You may well regard his subject as a "two ends stick", or a point of discord, yet to be clarified.
Assuming this 'quality contrast' mark represents the zoomorphic figure of a perrillo (little dog) ...
The canine is considered by Muslims as an impure animal, almost as maligne as swines. If Julian del Rey was indeed born a Moor, how could he use this symbol in his swords? was he so deeply converted that this was a way to show Christian stalkers he really changed his faith ?
On the other hand when we read Leguina's work, according to Maindron, who followed Babelon's perspective, Julian would never use the dog mark 'even' after being christianized.

[kronckew]

ah, yes, the koran says somewhere that 'thou shall not suffer a black dog to live'.

normal city dogs are indeed, to the islamic faithful, unclean foul and nasty scavenger animals.

the running hound depicted on blades however is likely in islamic cases anyway, a saluki, which is not considered a dog, and actually lives in the bedu tents as a family member. in the traditional home, they are never sold, but given as gifts (for which a large 'gift' is expected in return)., they are noble creatures loved by, and bonded to their humans, and used to hunt gazelle, and rabbits, and raced for status. again i mention that they are known for their feathering on the feet, legs, tail and especially their ears. see my avatar.

human, horse, falcon, saluki - living together still, a team that are the beduin, masters of the desert.

[Jim McDougall]

First thing...........................Gonzalo, ITS GOOD TO HAVE YOU BACK!!!!!

Wayne, outstanding rendition on the Bedouin, and their dogs. I personally cannot see anything derogatory about dogs, in fact quite the contrary. They are outstanding and amazing beings, very much an important part of our world.

Getting to the 'perillo' dilemma, very interesting points Fernando makes, but looking at that image, I cannot see how it can be determined what this creature is (as Gonzalo has noted). It seems important to note that the 'running wolf' is always rendered in a four legged stance, not in the 'rampant' stance up on hind legs seen here. That seems more for lions , horses etc.
I think the 'perillo' moniker owes more to Cervantes colorful imbuement than actual intention , and has been described, its presence seems rather irregular as other marks are better known.

I had once thought that perhaps the perillo might be a perception toward the running wolf of Passau, which was of course known by this time, but since have regarded that unlikely.

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?

[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

[Gonzalo G]

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?

I forgot. According with the Catálogo Histórico-Descriptivo de la Real Armería de Madrid, by the Count of Valencia de Don Juan (1898), p.201, perhaps the term "Lobera" was used in the sense that the sword was to be carried with the costume used in the medieval Castile, known commonly as "Loba", which is more properly called a "traje talar" (search Internet with this words). The hilt with its guards is not the original, and the inscription on the blade can be interpreted as a way to say that a knight must keep his word, or as a quote from the bible (Mathew 5,37).

Regards

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

I forgot. According with the Catálogo Histórico-Descriptivo de la Real Armería de Madrid, by the Count of Valencia de Don Juan (1898), p.201, perhaps the term "Lobera" was used in the sense that the sword was to be carried with the costume used in the medieval Castile, known commonly as "Loba", which is more properly called a "traje talar" (search Internet with this words). The hilt with its guards is not the original, and the inscription on the blade can be interpreted as a way to say that a knight must keep his word, or as a quote from the bible (Mathew 5,37).

Regards

Salaams Gonzalo ~ An interesting thread! I note we enter the whats in a word connotation around Lobera which comes out as being related to wolves and other fractions of that meaning such as;

1. Ana María García, la Lobera, who appeared before the Inquisition of Toledo in 1648 accused of controlling seven demonic wolves.

2. Wolf trap, funnel-like walls leading to a pit with stakes for hunting wolves in Spain
3. Wolf-slayer Lobera (sword)
4. A wolfs lair.

Naturally I would swerve toward its meaning as a powerful sword..

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

I forgot. According with the Catálogo Histórico-Descriptivo de la Real Armería de Madrid, by the Count of Valencia de Don Juan (1898), p.201, perhaps the term "Lobera" was used in the sense that the sword was to be carried with the costume used in the medieval Castile, known commonly as "Loba", which is more properly called a "traje talar" (search Internet with this words). The hilt with its guards is not the original, and the inscription on the blade can be interpreted as a way to say that a knight must keep his word, or as a quote from the bible (Mathew 5,37).

Regards

Yes, the author mentions such possibility using the term "acaso" (by chance), with fair consistence with naming swords on a context and not referring to them by their use on the field. So we would have that, in such case, the Lobera term doesn't originate in Lobo (wolf) from the latin Lupu, but from Loba, originating in latin Alba, by french L'aube (alb) =white dress, such ancient judicial and clerical attire, to which this type of sword would be connected.