Fernando,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fernando
The term rapier sounds nice and romantic, which contributes for the ambiguity of its correct attribution ... if in fact one was ever 'homologated'.
|
I am inclined to think that "rapier" will sell better than "sword".
For a definition, I think, we can take a cue from Castle, who wrote:
... Abrahm Darcie who recounts how "Roland Yorke, a desperado who betrayed Devanter to the Spaniards in 1587, was the first who brought into England that wicked and pernicious fashion to fight with a Rapier called a Tucke, only fit for the thrust."
"Rapier"was the name given at that time to the Spanish weapon. A Frenchman called his arm, "espee; an Englishman "sword". Both when they talked of the Spaniard's weapon called it a rapier.
In France the word "Rapiere" soon became a contemptuous term, signifying a sword of disproportionate length - in fact the weapon of a bully.
Not so however, in England, where the word has always meant, since its introduction into the language, a sword especially convenient for thrusting and adorned with a more or less elaborate guard.
With the present resurgence of interest in historical sword play, there have been numerous attempts to define what a rapier is, but am not aware of anything proposed that has met everybody's satisfaction.
Etymology aside, part of the problem, I think is that the era in question spanned some 150 odd years, the weapon evolved and during this time there were quite a number of variations on the primacy of the point over the edge coupled to all kinds of attempts, some regressive, to retain the cut, at least to some extent. This presents us now, as collectors, with some hybrid weapons that do not clearly fall into one group or another (cut or thrust), and we have not even touched on the transition rapier and its derivatives.
Cheers
Chris