Toledo Rapier Info - Page 2

Philip · 7th March 2016, 05:54 AM

Thanks, Jim, for posting the reference page on the evolution of the "Passau wolf" symbol. The most frequently seen styles are those of the 17th cent., but in looking at the evolution of the iconic beast as a whole, it's amazing to see the variations, bordering on the fanciful. Note some of them with rather equine necks and heads, one that can be mistaken for a shrimp or prawn, and another that is positively rodentian! Seeing this mini-zoo, the "mutant gerbil" that appears in Dr Astatsaturyan's book in the section on Caucasus imitations is not so outlandish after all!

Jim McDougall · 7th March 2016, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philip

Thanks, Jim, for posting the reference page on the evolution of the "Passau wolf" symbol. The most frequently seen styles are those of the 17th cent., but in looking at the evolution of the iconic beast as a whole, it's amazing to see the variations, bordering on the fanciful. Note some of them with rather equine necks and heads, one that can be mistaken for a shrimp or prawn, and another that is positively rodentian! Seeing this mini-zoo, the "mutant gerbil" that appears in Dr Astatsaturyan's book in the section on Caucasus imitations is not so outlandish after all!

I totally agree Philip, these zoomorphic renditions in these assemblages of chiseled markings would make Picasso proud!

The plate from Wagner is misleading, as it purports that there was some sort of chronological progression with these 'wolf' marks by placing date years on them. In fact, these were stylized because of the 'freehand' application by workers who were simply complying with the apparent requirement of placing a 'wolf' on the blade.
I think that in the case of the 'perrillos' it was very much the same, and I have seen a plate of examples drawn from a number of smiths in Spanish context which display the same 'range' of depiction.

In discussions, Oakeshott (1962) mentions that in many cases it is hard to tell what creature is depicted, and notes others such as unicorns were depicted in similar 'creativity'.
In his discussions of Sudanese kaskara, Reed (1987) notes a Darfur chieftain examining a 'wolf' mark on one of these blades, and thought it represented a hippopotamus!!

Its really great to have you writing here again Philip!!!!

cornelistromp · 7th March 2016, 06:25 PM

the Unicorn has one horn and the wolf not, furthermore the tip of horn always points toward the point so that the force is directed to the opponent.
the horn of the unicorn is always clearly recognizable in the inlay of a sword.

best,
jasper

Jim McDougall · 7th March 2016, 07:32 PM

Excellent point !! (sorry, couldn't resist)

Thank you so much Jasper, excellent images illustrating these markings.
Actually what I meant, in my bungled wording, was that unicorns were among creatures which were represented in these artistically stylized renderings, many of which could not be discerned. Obviously that distinct unicorn feature would be readily spotted, making that one of the exceptions.

fernando · 7th March 2016, 07:55 PM

We may read in a paper by Rodriguez Lorente that, when the beast present in a blade is of Spanish origin, usually comes accompanied by other marks, whereas the German wolf appears only by itself.
Two Hispano-Arab ginetas can be seen in the National Library of Paris (as per picture uploaded) and in the the Armeria Real de Turin.
So it appears that in later times (XVI century) the perrillo was used by Spanish masters, like Sebastian Hernandez for one, as a quality hallmark.
Lorente also presents us a list of the various perrillo marks found here and there.

.

Jim McDougall · 7th March 2016, 08:30 PM

Thank you Fernando! That was the plate I was trying to print but couldn't get it to cooperate. In that article by Rodriguez Lorente in my post 29 I was trying to describe those circumstances, and what I was understanding was that perhaps the 'perrillo' on the earlier jinete blades was used on a specific form of blade by the Master. It seemed the author suggested they were not on all blades produced by Julian.
Later, the blades indeed were accompanied by other marks which seem to be in hallmark type groupings with the marks having various significance.

The spurious applications in Germany of course rest on their own situation, but I began wondering just how the perrillo might have confluenced with the wolf of Passau.

With the wolf of Passau, it seems that it typically was by itself on one side of the blade, while often another mark, inscription or name was on the other, at least in many of the examples I have seen.

In "Miecze Srodkowoeuropejskie z X-XVw", (Marian Glosek, Warsaw, 1984, p.184) it is noted regarding the mark of the wolf "...it should be noticed however, that not all the swords marked in this way and presented in our work were made in the same hilt producing workshop. Only the specimens produced in the second half of the 13th century and the first part of the 14th century, that is in the initial period of their being in use, are certain to have their provenance at Passau".

Further, "...the first complaint against illegal borrowing of this mark by hilt makers of Solingen lodged by Passau in Colony (Cologne?) on Nov. 20, 1464 was most presumably the result of a situation existing for some time. W.M. Schmid mentions also Nurnberg and Augsburg as centers using the wolf sign on its products. A. Nadolski points to the wolf like features visible on weapons of the Caucusus. In my opinion swords marked in this way were also produced in Hungary".

While some comments in these quotes are puzzling (hilt makers vs, bladesmiths??) and the obviously much later Caucasian circumstances, which I do not believe had anything to do with Hungarian swords. ..it still portrays just how widespread was the use of these 'canine' marks.

It seems quite clear they were not intended as the mark of a maker per se' but imbued either some sort of talismanic imbuement or that of power and quality as well.

Could the perrillo of Julian del Rey have been in some way been related to these wolf marks apparently well known in Europe in these parlances?

ariel · 7th March 2016, 10:05 PM

On the original blade posted by Mariusgmioc, it is not Bracho: it is Brach. The "letter o is in fact just a decorative motive: compare its size with the unquestionable "O" in the word Toledo.

Philip · 7th March 2016, 10:09 PM

The blades found in the Caucusus appear to be a mix of German and other European exports, and local copies of same.

fernando · 8th March 2016, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Thank you Fernando! That was the plate I was trying to print but couldn't get it to cooperate. In that article by Rodriguez Lorente in my post 29 I was trying to describe those circumstances, and what I was understanding was that perhaps the 'perrillo' on the earlier jinete blades was used on a specific form of blade by the Master. It seemed the author suggested they were not on all blades produced by Julian...

I wouldn't figure it that way Jim or, better saying, jinetas were the business of the time so, tese were the ones on which he would (first) apply his usual marks. Also taken into account is that, jineta blades could easily be (re)mounted in hilts of later style, those espadas de lazo, where the perrillo may be seen.
Nothwithstanding that Julian lived as long as to the following century and would have produced different blades for his Christian clients, in which he would have mark them in the same way ... admitedly with design variants of the same beast.
Remember that Lorente apparently wasn't yet aware of the 1549 Zaragoza document cited by Berainz, in which Julian's origins and faith were questioned, as in his paper he still raises the problem of the perrillo being a impure animal and so a matter of controversy for a man of Moor origins. But then this opens another problematic door, as there are voices that question the attribution of the zoomorphic figure to an actual doggy. Apparently it was Palomares that defined graphically the beast as being definitely a perrillo, potentially influenced by Cervantes citations. But nothing avoids that the animal depicted by Julian was a stylized jackal or similar, much more consonant with the inclinations of a Moor smith.
Lorents also discards the theory in that that the perrillo and the Passau wolf could be distinguished by the attitude of their tail (the one in the perrillo upwards), as the Paris example shows us an horizontal tail, confusing such theory.

Jim McDougall · 8th March 2016, 09:21 PM

Thank you Fernando.....very well explained and really helps get this more into perspective. The comparisons of these various writers over time and disparities in their views and observations based on information at hand at the time certainly adds to more of a status quo in our understanding of these materials.

I think that is what is so vital here, to analyze and compare extant material which often either dispels or better qualifies information from earlier writers.

Remember, we all make misteakes !

All the best
Jim

Jim McDougall · 9th March 2016, 03:28 AM

In revisiting the interesting notes by Fernando regarding the 'perrillo' mark and the actual identity of the animal especially as suggested in the Lorente paper. As Fernando has noted in his summary of the paper by Duenas Beraiz the German writer, which I am not familiar with, it seems that Julian del Rey had a father and brother, and there was a dispute over the use of a common mark and it was the cross..not the perrillo.

What is odd is the idea of the use of the 'perrillo' or little dog, to prove Julians move from Islam to Christianity as this was an 'unclean' animal. It is suggested that others claimed it might be a lion (because of the rampant stance?) or as Fernando notes perhaps a jackal, but these cases rendering the 'dog' identity moot.

It is further noted that it was Palomares (1772) who termed the figure the 'little dog', presumably taking from Cervantes using the term in his description of the swords of Julian del Rey, in his work Don Quixote, published in 1605 and 1615.
Here it should be noted that in Shakespeares "Henry V" (1599), in the text one line which states, 'thou diest on point of fox'....suggesting the thrust of a deadly sword and implying high quality by the specific tone.
We cannot be sure of course, but it would seem that this would refer to a blade with the more diminutive canine, not the Passau wolf, and at the time, the blades of Toledo were in highest esteem, hence the mark of Julian, which was perceived as a 'fox', meaning 'a good sword'.

Turning to Cervantes, who uses the description 'little dog', I think we must remember that 'Don Quixote' was a satire, intended to humorize the knights errant and the romanticization of chivalry. Thus it would seem quite in context to describe the much cherished blades of this master with their distinct marking as 'a little dog'.

That Palomares took this satirical note quite literally, rather than recognizing the well established term used by Shakespeare and probably much more widely of the 'fox'......the little dog, perrillo became the more recognized description. With this, it would render the concept of the use of the dog, as a pledge of faith to Julian's conversion as interesting lore.

Also, as Fernando well notes, Lorente's comparison of tail posture between the 'perrillo' and Passau wolf seems rather irrelevant.

fernando · 9th March 2016, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

,,, Remember, we all make misteakes !

...

...that so, Jim ?

fernando · 9th March 2016, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...As Fernando has noted in his summary of the paper by Duenas Beraiz the German writer, which I am not familiar with ...

Jim, you mean a Spanish writer, Germán Dueñas Beraiz of his name. Pity that the resumen of the paper i have HERE posted and you have just analized in a fine scholarly manner, is a PDF format in the spanish (castillian) language. This would also explain some possible gaps in my poor translation, as that is not my mother language ... neither is english

But if you want me to email the PDF to you, be my guest

.

Jim McDougall · 9th March 2016, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Jim, you mean a Spanish writer, Germán Dueñas Beraiz of his name. Pity that the resumen of the paper i have HERE posted and you have just analized in a fine scholarly manner, is a PDF format in the spanish (castillian) language. This would also explain some possible gaps in my poor translation, as that is not my mother language ... neither is english

But if you want me to email the PDF to you, be my guest

.

Oops!! I must have made a misteake!!!

I think that seeing 'German' it was a conditioned response on my part Nando, after the discussions we have had with Germans working in Spain, not any inadequacy in your translation.
With your command of both these languages I would never have guessed you were not entirely fluent in either.

Thanks again for the great insights here in the discussion, and for the kind words on my analysis. Its great to finally look in depth at some of these conundrums that have lingered for years.....the perrillo....Andrea Ferara...Assad Allah...et al.
It is a sound reminder of the knowledge base that exists here on our forums.
I learn here every day!

7th March 2016, 05:54 AM	#31
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	quite the menagerie! Thanks, Jim, for posting the reference page on the evolution of the "Passau wolf" symbol. The most frequently seen styles are those of the 17th cent., but in looking at the evolution of the iconic beast as a whole, it's amazing to see the variations, bordering on the fanciful. Note some of them with rather equine necks and heads, one that can be mistaken for a shrimp or prawn, and another that is positively rodentian! Seeing this mini-zoo, the "mutant gerbil" that appears in Dr Astatsaturyan's book in the section on Caucasus imitations is not so outlandish after all!

7th March 2016, 06:25 PM	#33
cornelistromp Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,058	unicorn against wolf the Unicorn has one horn and the wolf not, furthermore the tip of horn always points toward the point so that the force is directed to the opponent. the horn of the unicorn is always clearly recognizable in the inlay of a sword. best, jasper Attached Images

7th March 2016, 07:55 PM	#35
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	We may read in a paper by Rodriguez Lorente that, when the beast present in a blade is of Spanish origin, usually comes accompanied by other marks, whereas the German wolf appears only by itself. Two Hispano-Arab ginetas can be seen in the National Library of Paris (as per picture uploaded) and in the the Armeria Real de Turin. So it appears that in later times (XVI century) the perrillo was used by Spanish masters, like Sebastian Hernandez for one, as a quality hallmark. Lorente also presents us a list of the various perrillo marks found here and there. . Attached Images

7th March 2016, 07:32 PM	#34
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,940	Excellent point !! (sorry, couldn't resist) Thank you so much Jasper, excellent images illustrating these markings. Actually what I meant, in my bungled wording, was that unicorns were among creatures which were represented in these artistically stylized renderings, many of which could not be discerned. Obviously that distinct unicorn feature would be readily spotted, making that one of the exceptions.

7th March 2016, 08:30 PM	#36
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,940	Thank you Fernando! That was the plate I was trying to print but couldn't get it to cooperate. In that article by Rodriguez Lorente in my post 29 I was trying to describe those circumstances, and what I was understanding was that perhaps the 'perrillo' on the earlier jinete blades was used on a specific form of blade by the Master. It seemed the author suggested they were not on all blades produced by Julian. Later, the blades indeed were accompanied by other marks which seem to be in hallmark type groupings with the marks having various significance. The spurious applications in Germany of course rest on their own situation, but I began wondering just how the perrillo might have confluenced with the wolf of Passau. With the wolf of Passau, it seems that it typically was by itself on one side of the blade, while often another mark, inscription or name was on the other, at least in many of the examples I have seen. In "Miecze Srodkowoeuropejskie z X-XVw", (Marian Glosek, Warsaw, 1984, p.184) it is noted regarding the mark of the wolf "...it should be noticed however, that not all the swords marked in this way and presented in our work were made in the same hilt producing workshop. Only the specimens produced in the second half of the 13th century and the first part of the 14th century, that is in the initial period of their being in use, are certain to have their provenance at Passau". Further, "...the first complaint against illegal borrowing of this mark by hilt makers of Solingen lodged by Passau in Colony (Cologne?) on Nov. 20, 1464 was most presumably the result of a situation existing for some time. W.M. Schmid mentions also Nurnberg and Augsburg as centers using the wolf sign on its products. A. Nadolski points to the wolf like features visible on weapons of the Caucusus. In my opinion swords marked in this way were also produced in Hungary". While some comments in these quotes are puzzling (hilt makers vs, bladesmiths??) and the obviously much later Caucasian circumstances, which I do not believe had anything to do with Hungarian swords. ..it still portrays just how widespread was the use of these 'canine' marks. It seems quite clear they were not intended as the mark of a maker per se' but imbued either some sort of talismanic imbuement or that of power and quality as well. Could the perrillo of Julian del Rey have been in some way been related to these wolf marks apparently well known in Europe in these parlances?

7th March 2016, 10:05 PM	#37
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	On the original blade posted by Mariusgmioc, it is not Bracho: it is Brach. The "letter o is in fact just a decorative motive: compare its size with the unquestionable "O" in the word Toledo.

7th March 2016, 10:09 PM	#38
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	The blades found in the Caucusus appear to be a mix of German and other European exports, and local copies of same.

8th March 2016, 09:21 PM	#40
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,940	Thank you Fernando.....very well explained and really helps get this more into perspective. The comparisons of these various writers over time and disparities in their views and observations based on information at hand at the time certainly adds to more of a status quo in our understanding of these materials. I think that is what is so vital here, to analyze and compare extant material which often either dispels or better qualifies information from earlier writers. Remember, we all make misteakes ! All the best Jim

9th March 2016, 03:28 AM	#41
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,940	In revisiting the interesting notes by Fernando regarding the 'perrillo' mark and the actual identity of the animal especially as suggested in the Lorente paper. As Fernando has noted in his summary of the paper by Duenas Beraiz the German writer, which I am not familiar with, it seems that Julian del Rey had a father and brother, and there was a dispute over the use of a common mark and it was the cross..not the perrillo. What is odd is the idea of the use of the 'perrillo' or little dog, to prove Julians move from Islam to Christianity as this was an 'unclean' animal. It is suggested that others claimed it might be a lion (because of the rampant stance?) or as Fernando notes perhaps a jackal, but these cases rendering the 'dog' identity moot. It is further noted that it was Palomares (1772) who termed the figure the 'little dog', presumably taking from Cervantes using the term in his description of the swords of Julian del Rey, in his work Don Quixote, published in 1605 and 1615. Here it should be noted that in Shakespeares "Henry V" (1599), in the text one line which states, 'thou diest on point of fox'....suggesting the thrust of a deadly sword and implying high quality by the specific tone. We cannot be sure of course, but it would seem that this would refer to a blade with the more diminutive canine, not the Passau wolf, and at the time, the blades of Toledo were in highest esteem, hence the mark of Julian, which was perceived as a 'fox', meaning 'a good sword'. Turning to Cervantes, who uses the description 'little dog', I think we must remember that 'Don Quixote' was a satire, intended to humorize the knights errant and the romanticization of chivalry. Thus it would seem quite in context to describe the much cherished blades of this master with their distinct marking as 'a little dog'. That Palomares took this satirical note quite literally, rather than recognizing the well established term used by Shakespeare and probably much more widely of the 'fox'......the little dog, perrillo became the more recognized description. With this, it would render the concept of the use of the dog, as a pledge of faith to Julian's conversion as interesting lore. Also, as Fernando well notes, Lorente's comparison of tail posture between the 'perrillo' and Passau wolf seems rather irrelevant.