The half moon symbol in early Spanish swords

[cornelistromp]

Hi Fernando,

I wish that rapier was mine

it is one of the nicest swords in the Victoria and Albert museum.

and.....believe me, there is very small chance that there is something wrong with the allocation of the blade.

(this description is made by Claude Blair, not the first best.)


please see

http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O9...-alonso-perez/

best,
jasper


PS : Lech Marek is from Poland and I'm Dutch

[fernando]

Hi Jasper,
Thank you for your enlightening.
I am not Polish or Dutch ... neither i have the capacity to attribute a sword to this or that smith, just by looking at its characteristics. But that the mark on the blade in the Victoria Museum and the one recorded in available sources are different, nobody can deny; notwithstanding that some early smiths introduced new marks at a different stage.
Ah ... also i would like to own such sword ... or the one i spotted also at the same place, with a blade of the same Master.

Met vriendelijke groeten ,

.

[Jim McDougall]

It is good to have Jasper join here, as this is a thread focused on an aspect of arms study which does often seem a bit too esoteric for the general arms study community. This has seemed apparent to me for the many years I have been admittedly obsessed with the origins, meanings and applications of blade markings and inscriptions. There have been a number of references over the years, mostly compilations with perpetuated errors among the fairly reliable remainder represented in these.

That is why this thread is so important in addressing at least one long misunderstood instance of the topic of blades, markings and those of Toledo with their spurious counterparts in Germany and Italy. That is the curious half moon device and the identity of the Espadero del Rey.

The article by Lech Marek is outstanding, and thank you Fernando for pointing it out. It does seem compelling in noting the character of the markings used by Juan Martinez, a noted and renowned Espadero del Rey.
It shows of course the half moon as his personal mark; the TO (which is an 'O' over 'T') as the Toledo export mark and the fluer de lis as the 'mark of the Espadero del Rey'.

In looking at this rapier from the Victoria & Albert, it does seem curious that the mark for Alonso Perez, an S apparently topped by an 'O' and crowned does not match the punzon shown in the Palomares nomina. Perhaps the reference used by the V&A was from one of these other sources we have discussed?
If the late Claude Blair was the author of the assessment of this sword, I would definitely consider it sound. This man was one of the most resounding authorities in the arms and armour world, and was cited personally as a source in more articles, books and references than I can even list.

In looking at Palomares chart, it seems there are so many duplicate punzones, for example the shield with crowned S (as noted for Perez) has 6 other similar examples with only subtle variations in crowns.
Ironically 4 of these are for the Sahagun's, another highly purloined name of Toledo, as well as the one for Juan Martinez!

Another thing I am curious about is why the TO always appears as OT (the over the T) and in the Perez example with S, it is topped by an O in the same manner.

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

In looking at this rapier from the Victoria & Albert, it does seem curious that the mark for Alonso Perez, an S apparently topped by an 'O' and crowned does not match the punzon shown in the Palomares nomina. Perhaps the reference used by the V&A was from one of these other sources we have discussed?
If the late Claude Blair was the author of the assessment of this sword, I would definitely consider it sound. This man was one of the most resounding authorities in the arms and armour world, and was cited personally as a source in more articles, books and references than I can even list.

In looking at Palomares chart, it seems there are so many duplicate punzones, for example the shield with crowned S (as noted for Perez) has 6 other similar examples with only subtle variations in crowns.
Ironically 4 of these are for the Sahagun's, another highly purloined name of Toledo, as well as the one for Juan Martinez!

Another thing I am curious about is why the TO always appears as OT (the over the T) and in the Perez example with S, it is topped by an O in the same manner.

Palomares is a good starting point, but it must be remembered that the Toledo blacksmiths use multiple marks while Palomares has only indicated one.

Palomares has made the list in 1762, by then the heydays of blade making in Toledo were over.
Actually there were hardly blades made in Toledo in the 18thC anymore, it was almost all taken over by Solingen. The newly established fabrica de armas in Toledo did not change this.


Furthermore there has no proper investigation done by Palomares. There is no indication when the blacksmiths have worked in Toledo, mentioned By Palomares under the chart list of names .
He has only listed 5 names with a year.
there are 99 marks and only 94 names, multpiple times; el viejo, the elderly, el mojo, the younger, son and brother are used.


A blacksmith who worked outside Toledo is also mentioned, labro tambien en Gordova and the same mark is given to two persons 65 and 66 ??

Pedro Hernandez, Juan Hernandez and Piedro del Monte are missing from the list, as are some German blacksmiths who worked in Toledo. Heinrich Col fe.

nr 13 nr 15 and nr 23 have only the Toledo town mark as their mark, this is probably a mistake ?

TBC

best,
Jasper

[fernando]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

Palomares is a good starting point, but it must be remembered that the Toledo blacksmiths use multiple marks while Palomares has only indicated one.

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

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

Furthermore there has no proper investigation done by Palomares. There is no indication when the blacksmiths have worked in Toledo,

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.

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

... He has only listed 5 names with a year...

Another of his imprecisions.

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

... there are 99 marks and only 94 names,..

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.

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

... multiple times; el viejo, the elderly, el mojo, the younger, son and brother are used...

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.

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

A blacksmith who worked outside Toledo is also mentioned, labro tambien en Gordova and the same mark is given to two persons 65 and 66 ?? ...

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.

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

... nr 13 nr 15 and nr 23 have only the Toledo town mark as their mark, this is probably a mistake ?...

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


.

[Jim McDougall]

Well Fernando, for not being a fan of esotericism.......on the solution for the crowned '3' (as I was seeing it) actually being a calligraphically embellished 'Z' ( as Sir James Mann had specified, 1962)........as they would say here in Texas....'ya done good!!!

The 'Z' as a toponymic for Zaragossa, as noted a key location for these masters outside of Toledo seems very well placed.


With the fluer de lis, it seems that was mentioned in discussion on Juan Martinez as being one of the multiple devices on his blades, along with half moon and crowned T (from Valle and Marek). I believe it was Marek who regarded the fluer de lis as associated with Espadero del Rey as it was of course the roya symbol of the Bourbon family.


Jasper,
Thank you for the scans of the detail on Clemens Stam and the marks used by them in Toledo.
The one (I think it is for Stam) which is a kind of grated image......would that be a portcullis?

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...calligraphically embellished 'Z' ( as Sir James Mann had specified, 1962)...

Is that so, Jim ... in what page ?

[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

Hi Jasper,
Thank you for your enlightening.
I am not Polish or Dutch ... neither i have the capacity to attribute a sword to this or that smith, just by looking at its characteristics. But that the mark on the blade in the Victoria Museum and the one recorded in available sources are different, nobody can deny; notwithstanding that some early smiths introduced new marks at a different stage.
Ah ... also i would like to own such sword ... or the one i spotted also at the same place, with a blade of the same Master.

Met vriendelijke groeten ,

.

Hi Fernando,
thanks!
Now it is clear to me why the first rapier is attributed to Alonso Perez while there is only ALONSO EN TOLEDO as inscription on the blade (no PEREZ)

the one you posted has the same OS mark but as inscription the full name OF Alonso Perez;
A.L.O.N.S.O. P.E. on one side
R.E.Z. E.N. T.O.L.E.D.O at the other side.


The style of horsemen on V&A rapier came 60 year later on equestrian small swords of around 1650.
they have a similar chiseled style with horsemen cut in high relief and were used extensively in the Netherlands.
however, it is not known where this type was made, perhaps by the medal cutters in Paris because of the very high and detailed quality work or maybe in liege. attached an equestrian hilted small sword from my collection

best,
Jasper

[Jim McDougall]

So why OS?
And why is the TO seemingly reversed (if it is to mean Toledo)? on the so called Toledo export mark as shown in Marek.

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

So why OS?
And why is the TO seemingly reversed (if it is to mean Toledo)? on the so called Toledo export mark as shown in Marek.

hi Jim,

I do not understand the question, can you explain it please?
Is The question why Alonso Perez used OS ?

best,
Jasper

[fernando]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

hi Jim,

I do not understand the question, can you explain it please?
Is The question why Alonso Perez used OS ?

best,
Jasper

I guess the answer Jim is looking for is basicaly expressed in my post #15

[Jim McDougall]

Yes Fernando, you did answer me exactly, and we being of the same pharaonic age group and of the same visional subjectivity, you hit exactly what I was trying to ask. Jasper, I thank you very much for your patience and am grateful for your input here as we try to sort out the enigmas of these swords and their markings.

Fernando, it is most interesting about Valle's theorizing about the 'Toledo' mark with its curious letter positioning in the shield, and uses knowledgeable , though tenuous theorizing about what such placements of letters might signify. It would be naïve to discount the number of potential answers there might be, and which may involve unusual explanations.

We must remember that there was nowhere in Europe more involved in religious contrasts, mysticism, magic and occult and military brotherhoods and orders than Spain and Portugal. While there are no records specifying Jewish armourers and swordsmiths, we know they existed of course. The use of Cabbalistic symbolism and sigils which were it seems often used in talismanic contexts along with other symbols and motif.

With illiteracy prevalent, as noted even with many of the famed masters, the use of symbols, sigils and allegorical signs were often key in conveying the imbuement of quality and talismanic virtue in blades.
With the many forms of codification and secret symbols held so profoundly by Spaniards and Portuguese in so many instances, it would be extremely difficult to define any meanings in these punzones and markings accurately.

Even the Spanish system of swordsmanship, destreza , was an occult and scientific mystery, with complex numerical and geometric features. Is it possible aspects of this, along with the many other types of symbolism, may carry the mysteries even further?

As noted, the letter 'S' seems well represented in at least 7 examples, with 4 of them being Sahagun. The placement of a dot or a line may explain which specific maker the punzon might represent, but others are simply the letter S. Perhaps subtle differences in the crown may be the key?

The idea of the placement of the letters as signifying the initial of the maker, his place of origin also seems questionable. I recall one writer once suggested the repeated use of the letter 'P' in a number of punzones possibly because so many makers were named Pedro! Another conundrum is with the number '3', which occurs in a number of them. I have seen no adequate explanation for this one.

While these dilemmas seem almost impossible to resolve, with lack of accurate records, the purloining and spurious use of marks in Spain as well of course in the busy centers of Germany and Italy.....we have come a long way here thanks to you guys and the great insight and information you share.

[fernando]

Jim, i am glad that you stood with me in the Alonso Perez mark enigma, as to comfort me for not having visions, something potential with my pharaonic age.
As for the Toledo punzon, Jose Maria Pelaez Valle questions himself on this issue and takes a guess that the different positions ot the two initials and their shield could indicate the different period (year) in which the blades were produced, like in silver hallmarks of certain countries; as also that the non applying of such TO mark in blades could mean that some masters were so reknown out there that they would see no need for such quality contrast.
It is a fact that, the abundance of the letter S on smith's marks which names appear not to contain such letter, needs some enlightenment; other than the fact that period Latin phonems could cause erroneous situations, besides cultural perceptions. Remember the great master Tomas de Ayala was illiterate. On the other hand and subject to double check, marks being usually correspondent to the initial of the first or family name, were not necessarily so; allegory to the smiths place of origin (toponimic) could also be taken into account. It seems as the S for the Sahagun family was so attributed because they actually were from Sahagun.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

... Now it is clear to me why the first rapier is attributed to Alonso Perez while there is only ALONSO EN TOLEDO as inscription on the blade (no PEREZ)...the one you posted has the same OS mark but as inscription the full name OF Alonso Perez;
A.L.O.N.S.O. P.E. on one side
R.E.Z. E.N. T.O.L.E.D.O at the other side...

Yes Jasper, the second example having the full name makes it clear that both blades were forged by the same smith. Now we only ignore the reason why he apparently changed his mark... and why in both cases he uses the letter S. If it weren't for the discussed S 'mania' and trying to unveil the criteria used by (Toledan) smiths in their names, the little o over the S in the the Vitoria examples might be that of ALONSO and the vertical line crossing the S in Palomares nomina could be the l of ALONSO. But this only giving wings to imagination.

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

... attached an equestrian hilted small sword from my collection...

Superb .
I tell you what; next time you come over to the peninsula for kite surfing you bring this one with you for, say, your self defence ... and tell me which hotel you will stay at .