A cup hilted sword rapier for coments

[M ELEY]

Hello Gonzalo,
Yes, I think you are right. The plain wood/horn grips, plain construction and -shaped pommel point at a Caribbean origin. I've always like these just because of their 'colorful' background associations with piracy (I know most of these were not naval, but some undoubtedly made it to sea on privateers).

[Jim McDougall]

Outstanding discussion gentlemen on the development of fencing schools, and the term 'rapier', which clearly has been, and will likely remain, a point of contention. It really is great to see such well informed exchange, and carried out in such constructive manner, thank you guys!!!

Mark, I'm sorry you missed that rapier, which I agree has that Caribbean feel to it, and without more research, I am thinking this might be Brazilian. The ribbed vertical edges on the grip, the crescents (reminiscent of the so called sickle marks on blades) which we have indeed often discussed, as well as what appears to be one of the 18th century 'dragoon' blades. The pirate association as we have also discussed, deals with the continued preying on ships through the 18th century on the "Spanish Main" between South America and New Spains other colonial regions.

Returning to another point of discussion:

Concerning whether the 'cuphilt' was civilian or military, or both, this is addressed in degree in "The Rapier and Smallsword 1460-1820" by A.V.B.Norman, 1980, "...since the cuphilt is apparantly confined to Spain and lands under Spanish influence, that is southern Italy and the Spanish Netherlands, one must search in portraits of civilians from these areas, particularly in court dress. As far as I am aware, it is never illustrated in military dress in the 17th century". (pp.175-76).

With this, and as Mr. Norman's brilliant study uses works of art in establishing the typology and development of varied types of hilts, it can be presumed that through the 17th century, the cuphilt was primarily a civilian weapon.It is known however that this rule of thumb may not apply in provincial regions and in the colonies of New Spain, and the distanced and developing ad hoc officials from military ranks may well have adopted these rapiers as uniform accoutrements.
We know that the military broadswords with cuphilts were used well into the 18th century, and perhaps concurrently with the more developed hilt military swords termed 'bilbo'. It does seem however that even the very thin rapier blades of the late 17th century were shipped to the colonies to be hilted, much as the broadsword blades which were sent in such volume later in the 18th century into the 19th. I have seen such rapier blades found in the wreck of a Spanish ship in the Panama region some years ago. There were about 30 or 40 of these rapier blades and the wreck must have been from end of the 17th to early part of 18th century.

All very best regards,
Jim

[fernando]

Hi Jim,

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... Concerning whether the 'cuphilt' was civilian or military, or both, this is addressed in degree in "The Rapier and Smallsword 1460-1820" by A.V.B.Norman, 1980, "...since the cuphilt is apparantly confined to Spain and lands under Spanish influence, that is southern Italy and the Spanish Netherlands ...

I hate to think that a scholar like Mr. Norman is includable in that sort of people who thinks that Portugal was/is one more province of the Spanish Kingdom, therefore not worth to mention as also a country under Spanish domain at the period in question (1580-1640). This omission, together with that of not mentioning that cuphilts were also largely used in Portugal, both in this period as also long afterwards, denote a considerable gap in his work ... says i, within my ignorance .

End of catharsis
Fernando

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Hi Jim,



I hate to think that a scholar like Mr. Norman is includable in that sort of people who thinks that Portugal was/is one more province of the Spanish Kingdom, therefore not worth to mention as also a country under Spanish domain at the period in question (1580-1640). This omission, together with that of not mentioning that cuphilts were also largely used in Portugal, both in this period as also long afterwards, denote a considerable gap in his work ... says i, within my ignorance .

End of catharsis
Fernando

Hi Fernando,
This appears to be one of those times when it would have been preferable to paraphrase rather than quote, and as the late Mr. Norman was a truly great scholar whom I respected deeply, I doubt any oversight in his comments concerning the cuphilt was intentional. I think it is an altogether unfortunate case where his thoughts were likely focused on geographic situation, and perhaps in terms that the link between Spain and Portugal were presumed known by the reader.
Thanks to you I have learned to be very cautious in qualifying such comments and have, as I have often mentioned, learned how extremely important Portugal has been in exploration,colonization and trade, completely independant of Spain. As a very thorough scholar, as I knew him to be, I am sure he would welcome the opportunity to correct this unfortunately worded sentence.
Please accept my apologies for my own oversight in not properly vetting the quote I used.

All very best regards,
Jim

[Gonzalo G]

Mark, Jim, thank you very much for your valuable inputs. Very interesting points.
My best regards

Gonzalo

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... Please accept my apologies for my own oversight in not properly vetting the quote I used ...

... C'mon Jim ... don't embarass me
As my father used to say to my mum: Olha se tens saúde = just see if you're healthy .
Fernando

[M ELEY]

Thanks, Jim, for confirming my suspicions on that piece possibly being Brazilian. Just had to include this one because it reminds us of the other provinces as well. Maybe someday, that crescent patterning seen on New Spain swords will become more positively identified.

Sorry to have barged in on this thread! Didn't mean to interrupt the conversation concerning civilian vs military dress. I am greatly appreciating this topic and will read on with interest!

[celtan]

As long as it isn't

Olha se tens saúdade


BTW, my own take on the subject is that, evidently as every galego knows, Portugal could not have been a Spanish province, since Spain, Portugal, Nueva Espana, England etc... were all provinces of Galicia.

They just didn't know it.

: )


Now seriously: Unknown origin CH/bilobate sword, possibly north european.







Best

Manuel Luis

Originally Posted by fernando

... C'mon Jim ... don't embarass me
As my father used to say to my mum: Olha se tens saúde = just see if you're healthy .
Fernando

[Chris Evans]

Hi,

Originally Posted by celtan

...... Portugal could not have been a Spanish province, since Spain, Portugal, Nueva Espana, England etc... were all provinces of Galicia.....

An interesting world-view. Ever considered a career in international relations?

Nice swords to have in any collection. Any chance of posting their principal dimensions, including weight and point of balance?

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi Jim,

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Concerning whether the 'cuphilt' was civilian or military, or both, this is addressed in degree in "The Rapier and Smallsword 1460-1820" by A.V.B.Norman, 1980, "...since the cuphilt is apparantly confined to Spain and lands under Spanish influence, that is southern Italy and the Spanish Netherlands, one must search in portraits of civilians from these areas, particularly in court dress. As far as I am aware, it is never illustrated in military dress in the 17th century". (pp.175-76).

I must agree with Fernando. This was a case of Norman not choosing his words carefully enough - Perhaps he should have said something like "the widespread use of the CH in Spanish influenced...". In fact, the cup hilt found its way to many parts of Europe that was not under Spanish influence, England for one. Swordplay was in a constant state of evolution and the CH addressed the emergent need for a more comprehensive protection of the hand in response to the ever `tighter' style of fencing. All I can say is that his otherwise excellent work must be read in conjunction with works like that of Castle to get around such minor slip-ups.

Additionally, looking at portraits is only a hint, because unless the scabbard is very narrow, we can't say what kind of blade the hilt is attached to. In other words, a cup, or any other complex hilt, a rapier does not make.

Cheers
Chris

[Jim McDougall]

OK Fernando but as Chris has further noted the quote I used, it seems even more clear that it would have been better paraphrased ....and the content of the wording affected you from the omission of Portugal, while Chris notes possibilities of other areas where cuphilts might have appeared in limited instance. I believe I have even heard of an example or two in Germany, though I cannot support that with examples, but would not be surprised as they often produced swords intended for other countries.

Regardless, Mr. Norman was in my opinion addressing the widely held perspective on the regions typically associated with these cuphilt forms in general, and truly did not propose an in depth study of the type nor related fencing theory. His focus was on hilts alone, and his wording seems to lean toward keeping more to that, with brevity probably leading to the questionable wording. Had he been writing with other focus than simply identifying the hilts, perhaps his statement would have been more qualified.

The cuphilt seems to be essentially a deeper and more protective version of the shallow saucer or dish type guards on earlier similar type swords (intentionally avoiding the term rapier), but in identification the term cuphilt basically refers to the type hilt pictured here in the thread.

Mr. Norman's work was most innovative in using the classical art and portraiture for identifying hilt forms, which is why there is virtually no discussion of blades whatsoever in the book (actually offhand I cannot recall a single reference to blades).

In the study of weapons, I could not agree with Chris more, one should always cross check with any resource avaliable on the subject. I do not think however, that the type of blade was an issue with Norman's work, as the focus of his typology was on hilts identified to period through contemporary art, and had nothing to do with development of fencing theory or style.


Excellent points Chris and Fernando, and I dont mean to be too defensive of Mr. Norman, but his work remains to me an outstanding work of scholarship and I believe did what he set out to do. He had some difficulty with it at the time with publishing etc as I recall, and it really was well received when it was finally complete.

Mark, ya old scalawag!! I'm glad you barged in!!! You know we cant resist those beauties from the Spanish Main!!!


All very best regards,
Jim

[Chris Evans]

Hi Jim,

Firtsly, I would like to say what a pleasure it is to find a fellow enthusiast or arms and armour, who is so appreciative of the work of AVB Norman - His work reflected a curatorial approach and I suspect that he had scant knowledge of swordsmanship, but with all his faults, he made a huge practical contribution to our knowledge, though mostly of hilts as you say.

He did seem to have an awareness, albeit none too strong, of the significance of the blade, which he addresses in passing in chapter 2 "Rapiers and Small-swords", pgs19-28. For example: "...many so called swept hilts are found on relatively broad blades....which no modern collector would class as a rapier...."

As for the evolution of hilts, I feel we would do better to defer to Castle who dealt with this at some length. He draws our attention to that in the era when the sword was merely an offensive weapon, the simple cross guard, complemented by a mail gauntlet sufficed. However once blade on blade actions became normative greater hand protection was required and the complex hilts (CH), swept and baskets (on broad swords) were developed. In time, many of the loops were filled with solid or pierced plates for ever greater protection and eventually these solidified and morphed into the cup hilt and its variants, which appeared around 1630, maybe earlier, and in all likely hood in Spain. As the ponderous long rapier gave way to the nimbler transitional rapier the action of parrying with the blade became increasingly more frequent and there was less need for the larger complex hilts. The first radical departure from the CH was that of the Flamberg, a transitional rapier (TR) equiped with a simple small dish with quillons (cross bars). Other simplifications found on TRs included the retention of a light knuckle bow and quillons with pas d'ane (finger rings surrounding the ricassso) and the reduction of the cup into what these days we tend to call bilboate shells. With the advent of the small-sword and the attendant full parry-riposte play, hilts were further simplified with the gradual elimination of the pas d'ane, further shortening of the quillons, and reduction of the shell or dish and the retention of a largely ornamental knuckle bow, as by that time the risk to the hands was no longer posed by a cut, rather a thrust. Interestingly, the late 19th century dueling epee retained a cup hilt every bit as large as that of the earlier rapier, so this suggests that the much reduced hilt of the TR and the small-sword was as much about convenience as the reduced need for hand protection on account of a more evolved blade play.

Cheers
Chris

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Hi Jim,

Firtsly, I would like to say what a pleasure it is to find a fellow enthusiast or arms and armour, who is so appreciative of the work of AVB Norman - His work reflected a curatorial approach and I suspect that he had scant knowledge of swordsmanship, but with all his faults, he made a huge practical contribution to our knowledge, though mostly of hilts as you say.

He did seem to have an awareness, albeit none too strong, of the significance of the blade, which he addresses in passing in chapter 2 "Rapiers and Small-swords", pgs19-28. For example: "...many so called swept hilts are found on relatively broad blades....which no modern collector would class as a rapier...."

As for the evolution of hilts, I feel we would do better to defer to Castle who dealt with this at some length. He draws our attention to that in the era when the sword was merely an offensive weapon, the simple cross guard, complemented by a mail gauntlet sufficed. However once blade on blade actions became normative greater hand protection was required and the complex hilts (CH), swept and baskets (on broad swords) were developed. In time, many of the loops were filled with solid or pierced plates for ever greater protection and eventually these solidified and morphed into the cup hilt and its variants, which appeared around 1630, maybe earlier, and in all likely hood in Spain. As the ponderous long rapier gave way to the nimbler transitional rapier the action of parrying with the blade became increasingly more frequent and there was less need for the larger complex hilts. The first radical departure from the CH was that of the Flamberg, a transitional rapier (TR) equiped with a simple small dish with quillons (cross bars). Other simplifications found on TRs included the retention of a light knuckle bow and quillons with pas d'ane (finger rings surrounding the ricassso) and the reduction of the cup into what these days we tend to call bilboate shells. With the advent of the small-sword and the attendant full parry-riposte play, hilts were further simplified with the gradual elimination of the pas d'ane, further shortening of the quillons, and reduction of the shell or dish and the retention of a largely ornamental knuckle bow, as by that time the risk to the hands was no longer posed by a cut, rather a thrust. Interestingly, the late 19th century dueling epee retained a cup hilt every bit as large as that of the earlier rapier, so this suggests that the much reduced hilt of the TR and the small-sword was as much about convenience as the reduced need for hand protection on account of a more evolved blade play.

Cheers
Chris

Chris, what an absolutely fantastic summary on the development of these hilts as associated with fencing style!!! and thank you for the gentle correction on that part of Mr. Norman's book, which I had completely overlooked. Indeed, his approach was curatorial and as mentioned, in 1978 his tremendous work encountered difficulty in publishing, at the time he was Master of the Armouries in London. The book was finally published in 1980.

In my studying on weapons some time ago, he always patiently and faithfully responded to my queries and openly shared his perspective in the most kind and friendly manner. In 1998, he informed me he would be coming to Dallas and suggested we meet, and you can imagine my excitement. A short time later he became ill, and I received his regrets of not being able to make the trip from his family. He passed several weeks later. Inserted in the pages of my copy of his book, which I treasure, are still the letters from this kind man, who was indeed an inspiration to me, and actually, still is.

With all very best regards,
Jim

[Chris Evans]

Hi Jim,

Allow me to say that it is always a pleasure to read your posts, which reflect great scholarship and a gentlemanly approach.

I envy your good fortune in having corresponded with the late Mr Norman. IMHO, his wonderful work and that of Castle pretty much covers the evolution of the rapier to the small sword. I only wished that Castle would have dealt with some of the developments of the 19th century such as that of the Italian fencing sabre and the French dueling epee.

I feel that neither of these works will be improved upon in the foreseeable future, as they both covered all that could be within reason and little else will go beyond being mere commentaries, footnotes and minor corrections to these two foundational works.

Cheers
Chris