The Sword of John Hampden(?)

[Jim McDougall]

You bet I.P. ! and likewise thank you for these images and more intriguing ideas...pomegranites etc? hadnt noted these details.

Found this:
from "Swords and Daggers" John Hayward, 1951, p.5,
"...during the first half of the 17th century, a number of hilt constructions were developed in England that were peculiar to this country."
further,
"...the decoration of these hilts was executed in silver and gold encrustation and damascene, often of high quality. Some of the 'damaskers' mentioned in contemporary English documents were probably foreigners, but there is good evidence, for example in the Royal Wardrobe Accounts, to show that such native CUTLERS AS ROBERT SOUTH AND THOMAS CHESHIRE were supplying work like this kind in the early 17th c.".

I checked Boccia & Coelho ("Armi Bianche Italiene", Florence, 1975) and found no evidence of Cellini work on hilts. Reading his biography however, thus guy was one of the most dynamic, scandalous characters ever.

So it seems that the elaborate work in these hilts is quite likely by South.

[Jim McDougall]

From: "A Rare English Sword from Plymouth Colony", Anthony D. Darling, Arms Collecting, Vol.20, #2:

from a sword excavated at the Edward Winslow house property, 1898.
It is noted in Norman (1980) that in its earliest form this hilt style is found in Europe from c.1490 to mid 16th c. It reappeared for a time in England briefly in the 17thc.

"...the fashion of a simple cross guard occurred as a result of a large number of Knights of the Bath created by James I at his coronation in 1603. It was usual for a sword of antique type to be used in the Bath ceremony. The finest of this group was made for Henry, Price of Wales, and bears his crest. This sword can be dated prior to his death in 1612. At least one undecorated example of this type is known. It is shown in the portrait of the First Earl of Doune, in the rones of the Order of the Bath.c.1605. the example illustrated in this paper from the Tojhusmuseet has a cross guard about identical from the Plymouth sword hilt".

I would note here that South was bound to Thomas Cheshire in 1603, who was officially cutler to Prince Henry, Prince of Wales, and son of King James I.
The sword for Henry was once thought to be a gift to him from Louis the Dauphine in 1607 , but as noted by Mann (Wallace Coll. 1962.. p.263) this seems unlikely.

It does seem this hilt style is of vintage form as noted, and distinctly English as shown in the Plymouth sword example relating to these spherical pommel forms.

What puzzles me at this point is, why would such a sword of this regal stature be associated with John Hampden, who was a Presbyterian cousin of Oliver Cromwell, staunch Parliamentarian often at odds with the Royal Court. It seems entirely contrary to such context , and clearly South was entirely and officially to the King.

Interestingly South was instrumental to establishing Hounslow in 1629, which was later taken by Cromwell's forces. Aylward (1945, p.32) notes that "Cromwells New Model Army, apart from what it could get from Hounslow was supplied with Dutch (German) blades".
This was of course 1642, Hampden was killed 1643.
Not sure if even a tenuous connection could be made with this.

Thus, the Cellini connection seems entirely fanciful, and unsupported, and the Hampden 'tradition' seems questionable at this point. Why a 'firebrand' of Parliamentary background and prominent command would have a sword clearly of the cutler of the Royal Wardrobe ?

Admittedly there are differences in the so called Hampden sword of OP, the pommel taller, the quillons slightly alternated and the rapier ring guard, but the manner of decoration and styling ring closely to these English swords described.

[shayde78]

Gents,

I apologize for not being more involved in this thread after posting. I greatly appreciate all the wonderful scholarly information. This is exactly why this forum is THE resource for such queries. You're all amazing

Thanks again,
-Rob