Main Gauche or Misercorde Dagger
 

Holiday greetings to all! I picked this interesting old dagger in a trade to day and it's well beyond my collecting field. I found what I think is similar examples in Stone's A Glossary... but I'm just guessing and trying to match my trade to very old drawings. May I ask the Forum what their thoughts are?

Sincerely,

Greg

Beautiful !

Thanks Fernando, does this speak to any particular country? Age wise, 1550?

Greg

Let the more knowledged members give you an adequate answer, Greg. Italian, maybe ... i don't know :o.

So surprising. No one pops in with some comments !

I can add no knowledge to this thread but just to echo Fernando's comments that you have a beautiful acquisition there and a real stand out piece. One I am sure many of us would love to have in our collections,
Well done you
Regards
Ken

The 'main gauche' thing is IMO a bit overplayed usually, these pretty much fell out if use, at least in the fencing aspect by the end of the 17th c. but daggers, presumably of this basic form did remain worn as secondary weapon. While fencing was typically not necessarily a duel to death, in many situations involving sword to sword combat such as brawls or melee in civilian setting (i.e. Italy as in Shakespearean dramas) the dagger became key when close quarters tussle rendered further use of sword/rapier impossible.

Though this example seems to have the presumed look of a misercorde, that particular weapon had not been in use for some time, these were of course allegedly for 'coup de grace' to mortally wounded knight. While this rather dramatic notion was popularized in the annals of chivalry, these were more for the same close quarters combat as they were intended to penetrate any open area in armor whether gaps or damage.

That the classic design might well have been carried into the theme of this interesting example seems likely, and the intriguing six point star in cartouche seems to have a symbolic character as in architectural motif, more research would be most interesting. The blade seems aligned with daggers of late 16th to 17th c. but I would defer more on that to experts.

Egerton Castle, "Schools and Masters of Fence" (1885) examples 8,10,14 , plate IV, shows three examples of this basic form as cross hilted daggers of Baron de Cosson, coll. 16th c. Italian seems likely, but of course hard to say as Italian influences strongly diffused into other arms centers.

As the readership on this thread is resounding it seems, nearing 2000 views in 4 days! I thought I could at least try to stay active, so hit the books! to find more on the interesting device in the raised guard ring.

This appears to be a 'chrismon' monogram of Christ, which resembles an ancient pagan sun wheel. ..however is transposed letter I over a Greek X.
This rather explains the 'ecclesiastical' feel to the device, noting how many hilt themes and elements included religiously oriented basis.

Thanks for posting this Greg, always fun to have something to research, I didnt know much on these until I opened the books two days ago.

In my worthless opinion, i would not discard that this is potentially a left hand (main gauche) dagger, notwithstanding that its guard features have a somehow unusual design, both the (one only) direction curved quillons and specially the guard device, being not a ring but a solid disc. Judging by the fact that there aren't many like these out there, we may presume this was the whim of some wealthy client.
OTOH, whatever the signification of this finger guard design may be, i suspect such is not yet deciphered.
But then and again, my assumption is to be taken with lots of salt.


-

Thank you for your addition Fernando, and as always you underestimate the value of your keen insights from many years of experience in handling and exposure to weapons of these times. The key thing is that you 'post' and at least express your thoughts. A discussion requires input, thoughts, ideas, in order to put together a reasonable perspective on a topic or subject item.

As I mentioned, I know very little on these, and actually have never seen or handled an actual example, but I do know how to look things up, and its not just my own books, with the web these days, most anything can be found.

I cannot help but wonder, in this huge volume of views in just a matter of days that shows distinct interest, why no entries with thoughts or observations?

There are of course obvious answers, but I am of course more focused on the fact that this weapon has prompted the opportunity to learn, and I have, just as you, entered what I could.
Actually what you have noted is important as it emphasizes that this daggers use as a 'main gauche' cannot be ruled out. Castle (1885) did in fact note that while these 'left hand daggers' had fallen largely 'out of use' in that capacity by end of 17th c...............their character had become more in this lighter manner. While mostly straight quillons and simple ring guard in typical examples, this one seems to have been clearly more elegant, suggesting perhaps it may have indeed been an 'en suite' pairing and to an owner of notable station or position.

The question asked in the OP was generally, how old? what country? etc.
The reality of the study of historical arms is of course, without distinct and irrefutable provenance, speculation and ratiocination is all there is.

Do you have any reasoning which opposes that this dagger falls within such period, Jim ? Actually, well within... i would bet :o.
And by the way, this pommel is also an intriguing work of art. I wonder what is that yellowish (?) material showing off between the steel spaces. Maybe Greg could tell us ?

Actually, as far as reasoning, no........I am relying more on the material providing expert opinion/reasoning, of the author Egerton Castle (1885), in PLATE IV......note item #4 shown as 16th c......while 8 and 10 are remarkably similar shown as 17th.

While this plate simply refers to these items as 'daggers' (not otherwise specified) the examples I cited show the propensity for early forms remaining popular in later times (early 16th example to 17th c.).

I have added a page of text that has pertinent data as well.

Tenuously, might I suggest that perhaps the 'notching' in the pommel may be an aesthetic nod toward the 'pie shaped' pommels popular in eastern/central Europe in early mid 17th century as well as N. Italy with some schiavona (attached personal notes) ...these known as
Kosarice. Obviously tenuous as noted, it seemed worth mention as it seems unusual to notch a pommel in this manner.

As far as the yellow, I think maybe just lighting in the photo? rather than actual coloration.

Jim, as i hardly managed to find a path to learn and discuss these things, your material on Mr. Castle set me back significantly. His chart of someone's collection on daggers 'in general' which, apart of unequivocal cinquedeas and 'sail' left handers, leaves me unable to distinguish the fine line among the other so similar examples, some with dates omitted; poor quality pictures not helping either. A fine line may also be raised when approaching 16th or 17th centuries; their beginning and their end, before or after, etc., this when we talk about when determined styles ended their activity.
When sticking to left hand daggers properly, if we consult James Mann's Wallace collection, we notice that their dates versus their styles, seem to be discrepant from Mr. Castle criterion. A798 with wide quillons is dated about 1600; A793 Italian with wide bent quillons (and guard ring) is dated about 1590; A805 about 1600, and others more.
Obviously i may as well be dealing with an (English) language insufficiency and also attribute no fair interpretation of Mr. Castle chart and his quotations, and therefore i am talking plain rubbish. If so, just say the word and i withdraw all that i have said.
Wishing you a Merry Christmas ;).

Thanks very much Fernando, my best wishes for very Happy Holidays to you as well!

The Wallace Collection work by Sir James Mann is of course superb! and of course I use this reference as much as you do as it offers comprehensive details on arms and especially markings that are unmatched in other sources.

I must apologize for the reference I used being cause for such consternation, and used it as it was actually at hand in some research on fencing at the moment.

Actually the book by Egerton Castle I referenced was written by him in 1885, just after his contemporary Sir Richard Burton wrote his "Book of the Sword" in 1884. While Burton, like Castle, was Master of Arms, he had chosen to focus on the sword forms of the world, without attention to the actual manner in use.
Castle, decided he would write on that aspect, the actual use.

In Castle's book, he inscribed it to BARON DE COSSON and CAPT A HUTTON, his colleagues, "....in recollection of many hours spent with the former, among old books and old arms, with the latter in the fencing room, foil in hand".

Both Castle and Hutton were Masters at Arms who studied, practiced and taught historical fencing, and both military men who were brilliant swordsmen.
BARON CHARLES ALEXANDER deCOSSON (1846-1929) was hardly just some collector. He was well known as a HIGH authority on the subject of ancient arms and armor.......also WARING FAULDER was another of the most experienced connoisseurs of the time, with both of these men offering weapons from their magnificent collections for Egerton's book.

While the plate of photos is of course 'poor quality' (early 1880s) and the cataloging might have been more precise to each weapon, it was still significant at the time. The 'cinqueda' among these you will note was termed an 'anelace'. This term applied to a type of large dagger carried by English gentlemen in the 14th c.
The arms writer Auguste Demmin (1877) used that term to describe the Italian cinquedea, so likely it was carried forth by Castle here.

So not at all discounting what you are saying, however my point was there was not any clear distinction in styling of these daggers apparent from the late 16th century well into the 17th. I had hoped my entry and images would have illustrated what I was saying.

What is fascinating to me is that Egerton Castle; Baron de Cosson; Capt. Alfred Hutton; Sir Richard Burton were all contemporaries who were deeply involved in the study of ancient arms and armor, in particular, the sword, and actually used them..........not just reading of them in books.
Incidentally all of these men wrote the books that many of us have used in our own studies, as they set the foundations for the study of arms as it stands today.

Dear Jim, it is i who is the dissident, thus the apologetic one, for reaching the books is not what i can do best, as my library is a no library; my resources coming from a few pages read here and there. For one, i wasn't famliar with the term Anelace, which i now know its origin is based on how this weapon was suspened from the waist (girdle). Yet i still am more fan of the term Cinquedea, based on how wide its blade was, (five fingers) on its base.
One other thing is how Mr. Castle names figures 6 to 12 as 'shell' daggers, which i find hard to assimilate. In fact these are consensually called 'sail' (guard) daggers, or 'dagas de vela'. Shell daggers are a different thing. His connotation of these being (occasionally ?) sword breakers (as per your 1 - stressed paragraph), perhaps deserves a 'separation of the waters'. They were no doubt left hand weapons.The fact that some had breaking sword implements in them is only an occasional fantasy, notwithstanding the basic purpose of these daggers.
Yours humbly !



-

Actually, I had no idea of the term either until I looked it up online yesterday, and truthfully saw a cinquedea oddly in this plate from Castle, wondering WHY it was with left hand daggers! Books are a wonderful thing, however, they have severe limitations, and have always been hard to come by. Most of these I have cited were rare books even in my early days of collecting and I could only access them via interlibrary loan and photocopy pages.

Thankfully we now have the web, and many new references, with these classics now reprinted and readily available. This is good..........as the 'bookmobile' does not have room for a library of notable presence :)

As you note on the 'cinquedea', that is the PROPER term for these Italian large daggers, which were worn actually in the small of the back. My note to the use of 'anelace' as the term for what we know is 'cinquedea' was to show how the antiquarians of this 19th c. period used terms rather 'unusually', and how Demmin, one of their contemporaries was the source they followed.

Your notes on the 'sail' daggers are well placed and as always fascinating.
One of the most intriguing things for me over the years studying here are the remarkable notes and colorful terminology you have always shared which illustrate the Portuguese and Spanish perspectives on these arms. These I have copied into notes that augment these references I have otherwise, as it is material entirely valuable and NOT found in any books I have.

The highlights on the page shown were not intended for anything in this discussion, but were result of research years ago on these, and were as noted with regard to the often fanciful notions of many of these unusual features.

The best thing in our discussions are the dynamics of shared ideas and supportive evidence, which are, as seen here, most helpful seen together comprehensively regardless of source material. I know I've learned a great deal on these daggers in this, and hope the readers have as well.

As always
Jim

Wait until i tell you the name given to the cinquedeia by the Portuguese; LINGUA DE VACA = COW TONGUE. Easy to know why, when you think of the blade shape :D.




.

Thank you all for commenting on my new acquisition. As always I am in awe of the breadth of knowledge within the Forum.

Greg