A rapier by Pietro Hernandez
 

A rapier by Pietro Hernandez

This rapier has a faceted olive shaped pommel, the hilt with rest of gold decoration also an half-moon punch on the ricasso.
Any comment on it will be welcome.

Best
Cerjak

Great sword, Jean-Luc.
This is the first time we see here the inscription ESPADERO DEL REY on the ricasso spine of a sword; as we read DEL REY in the side you pictured, naturally the word ESPADERO appears on the other side.
Notably this master smith is not contemplated by neither Palomares nor del Canto in their works ... go figure why :confused:.
Another riddle is why this, being a Toledan famous master with his own prestige, uses the Italianized version of his first name, Pietro instead of Pedro; as we start from the principle that such spelling doesn't originate in forgeries introduced in the market by less famous competitors.
It seems as, although hardly discerned, there are other marks in your blade, which wouldn't surprise you, as apparently Pedro Hernandez used a few symbols all together, as you may see in Gyngel's work, for one.

.

Whether it was made by Pedro Hernandez himself or not, I cannot say, but it certainly is a very well made rapier! :)

Fernando,

Many thanks for your interesting comment, It “s a real opportunity to receive an answer from the specialist of the Spanish swords.

Best
Jean-Luc

Ne rigole pas, Jean-Luc.
What i know of these things is next to nothing. It won't take too long before real knowledged members correct my humble assumptions.

It is really hard to determine a match to these rapiers with their variations in guard systems, but in going through Norman (1980, "The Rapier and Small Sword 1460-1820") one of the most compelling in similarity is #69 (p.141). This is listed as c.1560-1640, a considerable range for a 'type' but the earliest example seen is in the portrait of Fernando Alvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba (by Alonso Sanchez Coello date, 1567).


The pommel of elongated olive form (see #36, Norman, p.256) date of 1625-45, is shown as smooth, but faceted types seem well known in most of the forms.

The Hernandez family, according to Eric Valentine ("Rapiers", 1968. p.67) were Toledo swordsmiths with Sebastian the elder working c. 1570-1600.
Pedro (the younger) worked about 1610-1630.
Interestingly, in this reference, plate #38 is a Spanish cuphilt with date estimate c.1660, and inscribed SEBASTIAN HERNANTZ (note spelling).
Clearly a German use, as indicated in references that claim his was one of Spanish smiths whose name was often spuriously used.

Other references note spellings such as HEERNENTEEZ (Kinman, 2015), another clearly German example.
This reference notes Pedro as of Toledo 1610-30. It also notes the use of the crucifix by him, which was also used by Hannes Cleles.

Turning to rapier here, and the comments of Pedro not being mentioned by Palomares or del Canto may have been that he was absent from there.
I would note that the Gyngell compendium, much as some of the others, is often a grouping of known markings used by a maker, not necessary all at once.

I may be reaching (and I expect Jasper will correct me if wrong) but perhaps Pedro either was in Italy, or a maker in Italy chose to use his name, obviously the PIETRO a compelling note. It is also known that in Italy the half moon of this same style (with rostrillo) was used in this fashion (Kinman, p.133) to signify the espadero del rey.
This rapier seems to have Italian characteristics, but that is mere free association on my part.

With spellings, it seems that the Hernandez was more likely to be misspelled in the German cases with Sebastian's name. The Pietro is not a misspell, but a linguistic variation, which suggests contemporary with or perhaps by the maker himself in other location.

All of these ideas and so on are simply my ideas and observations which may be incorrect, but I place them regardless, and emphasize, I am NOT presuming to have any expertise of these subjects. I am however a very fascinated student of them. I hope these notes might help.

Thank you Jim

It is nice to have your always well documented comment.
Best

Jean-Luc

Jim, you can not presume that simply beause you are an expert; all we common mortals can do, is tease your faculties ;).
I don’t have Valentine’s work, or any other source from where i could have learnt that the Hernandez family was composed with Sebastian and Pedro and not of two Sebastians. My daring questioning such assumption is firstly because, according by both Palomares and also common sense, calling one person the older (el viejo) and the other the younger (el mozo) implicate that both had the same name. Not that Palomares nomina is not full of imprecisions but, so are other authors namely, for one, on what touches smiths ages and or their acting periods. Sebastian the elder could not have worked until 1600 (per Valentine) as also could not be alive in 1637 (per Palomares); according to a source i repute as accurate, he died in 1584.
This also takes somehow to questioning the working period of Pedro, if he were Sebastian’s son he could well have started working some time during (and learning with) his father’s activity, and not so much later. More consistent is the listing of Sebastian the younger, so much because, besides the said nomination of 'el mozo' he was entitled to use the same mark … whereas Pedro had a completely different array of punzones.
On the other hand, the spotting of blades made by Sebastian el mozo seem to be (for me) a hard task, as also that of his actual age or working activity, which would help a better confrontation of data.
The suggestion that Pedro is not mentioned by Palomares and del Canto (?) having as a reason the probability that he was absent from Toledo, may have some 'competition'; Palomares resourced the data one or two centuries after 'all' smiths existence and, what he did was checking on their archived marking irons and mostly on their blades, at least on (both) those he got hand of. It seems as, surprinsingly both Palomares father and son, despite having access to archives, including vital eclesiastic ones, didn’t resource much on such means. Perhaps a useful detail for perusal is to remind that it was Francisco Santiago Palomares who advanced with the material for the nomina but it was his son Francisco Javier who actually made it; and it was only several decades afterwards that this work was echoed, by Achille Jubinal whom, being a French man, corrupted some the smiths names spellings.
On the other hand, and as already mentioned in my previous post, it is clear that Pietro is not a mispelling of Pedro but an intentional attitude; whether being Pedro using an italianized version of his name to 'please' Italian clients with his export blades, an hypothesis suggested by a member in an earlier thread, or some Italian smith’s atempt to take advantage of the Spanish master prestige. It is simply implausible that Pedro Hernandez, as illiterate as he might (might) have been, made such surgical confusion with his own name.
Concerning Jean-Luc's discussed beautiful sword and waving considerations on its style and typology, is something i can not reach, due to ignorance and laziness to compare it to those in books, like Walace and Norman. But when brain storming on marks and smiths, we are aware that those are about blades, independently from the hilts they are mounted on as, so often the smith that forges the blade and takes historical advantage of having attached his mark and name on the result of his work, is not the same who makes the guards, or grips, or pommels or scabbards for the sword.

Attached a picture of Dom Francisco Santiago Palomares, at the age of 48.


.
.

Thank you Fernando!
It is very interesting to learn that there are even more players and compounding in this litany of intrigue, as I had no idea the Palomares factor was doubled and that the son had a hand in compiling this data. I had forgotten about Jubinal who came in later as well.
It seem as though historical record is of course typically recorded later, by individuals searching contemporary sources and narratives with people like ourselves doing the same thing in later generations.

This is very much the reason that history itself is always 'a work in progress', and as described by some as 'always changing'. We cannot realize in the moment that what we are seeing, doing, and witnessing is indeed history, so we are not likely to record things we see as every day or significant. Even unusual events we do not think to record as the stir of it wears away. Most of these records we are observing were administrative matters which were perused by these later writers, and as we know, such records are often disheveled and inaccurate (I look at my own financial records! eek!).

So ...
 

Ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat :shrug: .

The well known paradox of Socrates seems well placed here, as we struggle with these conundrums and feel very much the same as challenged by these perplexing dilemmas.

In my latest round of research, I discover we have had this very discussion on the Hernadez' before, in 2014, but this time I think we have much better traction.

I think I most agree with Fernando's suggestion ( post #8) in that the use of the 'PIETRO' alternate for PEDRO in Italian parlance was likely a condition of attitude, meant as a pretense toward the fashion of the times toward the art of fencing. While Italy had been a leader in arms and armour design and fashioning as well as development of fencing, the Spaniards were by the advent of the 17th century developing their own abstruse mathematically oriented style of swordsmanship.
In 1561, the Spanish Royal Court moved from Toledo to Madrid, and the demise of industry, particularly the premiere sword production factor was quickly faltering.
We know that Sebastian Hernandez (el Viejo) was working in Toledo c. 1570, as of course were so many of the old masters, but by 1594, Toledo's population had been decimated. Accordingly, the swordsmiths had decreased but in what numbers is unclear.
It does seem that movement of many of them to other Spanish centers was likely, and with Sebastian Hernandez, the compelling (but unproven) suggestion that the crowned '3' he used may have been the letter 'Z' (presumably Zaragoza, one of the other centers). In any case, according to Fernando's notes (which I consider most reliable), Sebastian had passed in 1584.
This date is significant because of the numbers of blades attributed to him well through the 17th century and positively illustrating the spurious use of his name by German makers long after he was gone .
Accordingly, the German makers applied known Spanish punzones and other marks incongruently with his name. These same 'mismatched' conditions occur on numbers of other blades known to be German as is well known.

Turning to Pedro Hernandez, though not listed in Palomares and el Canto, he is in other sources as of Toledo 1610-30. What is most significant with Pedro is that he (or someone using his name) used a punzon of a crucifix, and that (or variations) was also used by several other known German makers. This suggests either he was indeed in Solingen working, or other German makers were using his name, just as with Sebastian's.

The Renaissance had placed Italy at the fore in many aspects in addition as mentioned besides arms, and it would seem that in early 17th century, these influences would have been well in place. If Pedro was in fact in Germany, and using his already influential name, Hernandez, perhaps a pretentious attitude might have compelled the use of PIETRO in the inscription on this blade. The very attractive hilt here, as I mentioned, does seem to carry a certain Italian gestalt, particularly the pommel and asymmetrical 'attitude', and coupled with the name, Italianized, would have been a remarkably stylish choice for a gentleman of the period.
This emphasis on style would be heightened with the quality by the 'espadero del rey' on the blade, along with the significant 'half moon' which apparently was in itself well associated with that honorific.

It is important to note here that the Duchy of Milan was a Spanish province until the 18th century. With the decline of Toledo, not only the loss of its masters, but the dramatically increased use of famed Spanish names and well known marks and punzones became keenly established not only in Germany but Italy and other centers as described in the early to mid 17thc.
These circumstances provide many scenarios which may explain the inscription on this fine rapier.However only close hands on examination and comparison of its physical characteristics to other examples with known provenance or propensity of form to other identified examples will tell us more on its probable identity.

In my previous post, I neglected to respond to Fernando's well placed note on observing on swords such as this much agreed, very nice example posted by Jean Luc....in that our focus on the markings on the blade may very well be quite independent of the circumstances of the hilt.

Swords, particularly rapiers, were often refurbished numbers of times in their working lives, and these instances may have been to repair a damaged sword; to refurbish a blade with a new hilt aligned with changes in style or fashion. ..these were not only weapons, but status oriented accoutrements.

While the most common reason, other than damage or change in fashion, may have been a heirloom blade, there are numbers of cases where old hilts much more vintage than the blade are used. These cases are seen in a number of the swords in the Wallace Collection (Mann, 1962), where an 18th century German blade is mounted on a 17th century Spanish hilt etc.

When AVB Norman wrote his "The Rapier and Small Sword" in 1980, he noted that his focus was on the styling of the hilts, as blades were mostly a matter of trade and various acquisition while hilts were local and personal preference. He innovatively used portraiture primarily and some other art to establish the period and general locations for various hilt styles, and much in the same manner attended to pommels. The pommels are another hilt element subject to variation and acquisition often separate from its other components.

Therefore our observations on this blade may well be entirely incongruent with the hilt, thus provenance for the separate components might be notably different, even from different countries and periods.

Hi Jim, i just meant to say that Socrates knew nothing about these swords ... but he sure was a brain in other areas ;).

Just before jean-Luc decides he had enough of this hijacking his thread, let me post some loose notes on Pedro Hernandez.

---
Starting by the sword sample of Jean-Luc we may discern the inscription in thr blade as being PIETRO HERNAN, one of the names variations connotated with the master, eventually one seen in two swords at the Instituto Valencioa de Don Juan, # 68 and 70. Being this collecction and sponsor of great prestige, one should consider this name variation to be a genuine one.
---
Being of general knowledge that Italy and Spain interchanged in the period, among other stuff, sword blades, one may easily guess the logic in the two directions; Spanish blades moving to Italy due to their quality and those from Italy moving to Spain due to their medium/low cost. Assuming that blades would not serve final clients by their own, one may clearly realize that they would be imported with the purpose to garnish them with hilts (and scabbards) before being introduced in the market. While in the case of Italians mounting Spanish blades with local hilts, one may admit that they went on sale with high prices with all justice, we may guess (guess) how deceptive or trasparent would be the business with Spanish swords mounted with Italian blades.
Do not forget that, the difference in price between Spanish blades and those of other regions was dramatic.
According to Rafael M. Girón Pascual, in his work "Cruzando aceros", price of blades in reales, between 1627 - 1680, were the following per origin:

Toledo ....... 24 - 30
Germany ... 13 - 18
Toulouse
& France ... 11 - 11
Génova ...... 9 - 10

So far so good but, what one might not expect is who was importing these Itaian blades in Spain to increase their value were not general traders but actual smiths (Espaderos).... and prestigious ones.
See an example of Italian blades imported in Toledo between 1587-1621:
.

Year -Quantity -Origin ------------- ----Seller --------------------Buyer ------------------------Price in reales
.
1587 ... 338 ... Génova ................ Ansaldo ...............Pedro Hernández, espadero .......... ?
1590 ... 360 ... Génova ... Bocangelino y Baba ........... Pedro Hernández, espadero ........... 4

1593 ... 250 ... Milán ...... Juan Bautista Dosio ........... Lorenzo de la Fuente, espadero .......... ?
1621 ... 200 ... Génova ... Esteban Cebolín y A. Dungo ........ Francisco Díaz, espadero ......... 4,5

This information is enequivocal, as may be read in "La Monarquia Hispanica en tiempos del Quijote", there is an obligation of Pedro Hernandez, espadero in favor of Bocangelino-Baba, for the buying of two bales with 360 blades from Genova, at price 4 reales each, to be paid in two instalments, three and six months.
---
According to Don Enrique de Leguina, en "Los Maestros Espaderos", containing an extensive list of smiths from all cities, we may read:
Hernández (Pedro) or Pietro (?). Sevilla. XVI century. Mark: big cross with two equal arms.
(Besides the two Sebastians father and son, not referenced as being Pedro's family).
Also we spot Pedro Hernandez in J. Gestaso Y Perez work, an epic compendium of all craftsmen of Seville, listing this espadero as having died in 1596. This is somehow confusing as Pedro was importing blades in Toledo 1590.
Could it be a different Pedro ... or has he first moved to Toledo and later came back to Seville for his last days?
And the 'Pietro' alias; was it because Pedro trade with Italy made him adopt such 'second' name ?.
Riddle, riddle, riddle :shrug:


.

Another thing ...
 

Sorry my ignorance but, looking at Jean-Luc's sword grip, we see that the ferrules are not the traditional turks heads. Could this be another period 'locking' version in its genuine wired grip? :o .

Absolutely outstanding detail and research Fernando!!!! Thank you!!!
Thank you as well for the explanation on the quote, these pithy philosophical axioms in Latin can be pretty cryptic.

Actually I am unclear on how this discussion is 'hijacking' this thread, as we are covering material which directly applies to the name inscribed on this blade, in variant manner, markings, the hilt styling etc.. The fact that we are adding detailed material on the circumstances of the times, conventions in use in application of marks and names and the very economic climate of the times which might bring certain conditions to bear.

While examining items posted by participants here for comment, it seems that observation and discussion, as we have shared here and on others have given us remarkable historic perspective through these very items.
In the case of these Spanish swords, you have shared amazing detail from resources most of us have no access to, and kindly translated and qualified the material to help us understand these weapons better.

Again, my sincere thanks, and I am getting writers cramp from furiously adding all this to my sheaves of notes!

P.S on the unusual ferrules.....I hadn't noticed! The plot thickens!

.

I was thinking of posting my rapier to discussed Jean-Luc's example, as to presume both hilts have significant similarity. Mine is clearly marked and signed Alonzo Simon, a Toledo master recorded in 1608-1617.
Perhaps the grip wiring and the turk's heads are not the original; you never know, with folks out there able to re-do these things so well.
Speaking of hilts not being original to the blades, i came across an essay by Virgilio Martinez Enamorado on the protocol sword of Nasrid Sultan Muhammed V (1338-1391), which blade has epic inscriptions, those apparently trancribed in the walls of the Alhambra Patio de los Arraianes. When it came to comment on the sword hilt assumedly not being the original one, the author reminds the Arab concept in that (in my words), it is the blade that has primary significance and not the hilt, as also in man is not his turbant that counts but the man himself.


.

Excellent Fernando! So it is a 'Z' QED!!!!
NO, not 'Zorro'!!! but compelling to think of Zaragoza!!!
There are numbers of initials used which do not seem to necessarily align with the Christian names of the master using the punzon, so that I must look into more.

Your example is amazing as well! and the pommel indeed very much is like Jean Luc's only truncated. As you note, turks heads are often later added, much like changing gaskets when valve cover is off on engine.
On that note.....that analogy is outstanding on hilt/blade.... and well placed in present context.......not the TURBAN but the man.....not the hilt....but the blade!!! :)

As a veteran of several battles, in which he served with distinction, he must have known a thing or two about them… ;)

Yes, Andreas, i should/could have said these sords but, in the context, i took it that my expression would be considered accordingly; i appologize for such flaw :o .
I realize that Socrates, not being a military by career, but appointed General for the Peloponese wars, due to his ascendence abilities, would have had serious engagements with his high end κοπίς , and has even realized that, the evolution of such Kopis woud turn into the Iberian falcata but, would have hardly envisaged the characteristics of the Iberian rapiers, that appeared two thousand years afterwards.
In any case, and for the record, i will edit my previous post, so that pointed contingencies don't prevail :cool:.

I believe the sword in question is a composite piece, the guard appears to be an Italian munition-grade one, the blade is of better quality. One most likely could see non-original peening on the pommel.

Fernando's rapier seems to be an all-original solid piece of good quality. Would be nice to see the blade.

Composite ?
The blade is fitting perfectly like a glove in the quillon block .
There is no sign that the blade and hilt have been separated The tang button seem perfect as it should be.
The rest of gilding decoration on the hilt and pommel in order to have a nice looking hilt to match with this beautiful blade.
The style of hilt and blade are both correct for period and can be from the same period.
Other German rapier with beautiful blade in the MET.
http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collect...ch/34787?img=1
BEST

CERJAK

The one in the last picture is a very different sword.

of course the hilt is different type but the blade geometry is quite similar

Yes, but that was very typical (don't want to use the word common) style at the time, with many blades of that style also made in Germany. The main reason I think it is a composite (without being able to actually see it in person) is the large discrepancy in the quality of the blade and the hilt, and the poor fit of the hilt parts. But of course you have the benefit of having it in your hand, I am just commenting on the pictures I see.

I don't see any problem with this pommel

Lousy pictures; not so good as those taken by Jean-Luc :shrug:

Very nice rapier, I have a somewhat similar piece.

Fernando

In Portugal you have sun so good light ,you should try with day light.
Or you could send me your best swords but I'm not sure that I will send you back !

Best
Jean-Luc :D

The problem is not the light, but the photographer's ability and his modest equipment. Ah ... mon cher, i would only risk to send you my swords linked to a rope ;) .

Very nice; who is the smith ?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.