Mr. Oakeshott's Sword

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by Ed

Sort of. What it means is that something that is depicted must, necessarily, have been around for a while. Might be a year, might be a decade. Appearance in art can only tell you that the thing existed prior to the date of the art.

Of course, if a person appears all decked out in his finery in a portrait you can reasonably assume that what you see is a reasonably accurate representation of that person and his possessions at that time. But that is a trivial observation. What it tells you is that the technology to create the weave of the cloth that he is wearing must have been developed before that date. It tells you that the form of a weapon was around for some period of time prior to the depiction of it in the piece. It tells you nothing about when those things were first developed, only that they were there then. And it certainly does not provide a definitive date of a form of an object, only that that form was in existence when the art was created. That is why you often see the phrase "Before such and such a date" in museum identification cards.

That is what I mean by terminus ante quem:

"Terminus post quem ("limit after which", often abbreviated to TPQ[1]) and terminus ante quem ("limit before which") specify the known limits of dating for events. A terminus post quem is the earliest time the event may have happened, and a terminus ante quem is the latest. An event may well have both a terminus post quem and a terminus ante quem, in which case the limits of the possible range of dates are known at both ends, but many events have just one or the other. Similarly, terminus ad quem ("limit to which") is the latest possible date of a non-punctual event (period, era, etc.), while terminus a quo ("limit from which") is the earliest."

I noticed you copy-paste Wikipedia;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminus_post_quem


This is what Norman published about this, in rapier and the small sword.
it is often argued that painters were very slap dash and unreliable over details. at least as far as sword hilts are concerned, my impression is that the painters whose work I have used here are not unreliable. In any case they are not likely to paint hilts prophetically, showing a type which would be developed a decade later. their work can be used at least as a terminus post quem.

terminus post quem, so the earliest possible date, of course!
can we limit this in time?
I believe that the time between the manufacture of a weapon and a painting where the weapon is depicted can be expressed in years and not in decades.
developments in arms were subjected to fashion and followed in rapid succession.

if we go back to the sword under discussion, your sword, we have to bridge at least a 100 years. based on the Hilt/pommel type in art and the dating of Oakeshott.
this is however, very unlikely.

it is more likely That Oakeshott was 100 years too early with his dating, based on the knowledge in the period of his publishing, the 60'ties.
This assumption is strengthened by the fact that no examples of ring guards can be found from the 15th century, no physical examples and not in art.

furthermore, the period indicated by Norman for this type of hilt-11, 1520-1600, is based on several sources, multiple dated paintings, dated examples in museums and Publications. This gives an accurate picture of the period in which this type of hilt has been used.
This combined with the time period of the pommel, 1470-1585, gives a clue to the dating of the sword under discussion. see #14

best,
Jasper

[Jim McDougall]

While not wishing to deviate from the discussion of the posted Oakeshott sword, the subject of artistic license is I think key to the process of historical detection here, and a fascinating subject.
I also appreciate the elucidation on the Latin terms 'terminus ante quem' and 'terminus post quem', which are of course key to the protocols of such detection.

It seems that in earlier times, the idea of antiquated thus traditional or venerated weapons was far subordinate to having the most up to date or fashionable arms of the time. In the case of paintings or works depicting ancient or Biblical themes, the artists often did not have access to the weapons of these times, and simply imagined weapons which suited their themes.
Rembrandt was not only a collector of arms and armor to be used as studies in his works, but of other miscellania for the same purposes.
Most notable instance that comes to mind is his use of an Indonesian keris in the painting of Samson and Delilah, in which the wavy blade profoundly accents the sinister demeanor of the event.

With Norman, whose work using portraiture as a means of identifying the character and styling of hilts, he has achieved a brilliantly reliable accounting of these. As portraits were typically done in real time and with the subject displaying proudly their own personal arms, the noted span on their life establishes a central time frame for the style of hilt seen.

Naturally, a certain weapon might be a heirloom and have earlier provenance, but it would seem that in most cases, the subject would prefer to be wearing the most current and fashionable weapon of the time.

As for the cases of artistic license, it seems these would have been more aligned with paintings of historic, ancient or Biblical events or figures, using either more current weaponry or in some cases more exotic forms to dramatize the rendering.

Getting back to the topic sword being discussed:
I think Jasper has wonderfully explained his reasoning and analysis regarding this and agree with his thoughts on the probable date on this being later than Oakeshott's estimate.

[fernando]

I am going to add something not so valid here but, for what it is worth ...
In the eyes of historian/collector Rainer Daehnhardt (author of HOMENS ESPADAS E TOMATES), the finger protection appeared in fusion with late medieval cross guard swords, which he places in the transition from XIV to XV centuries. As seen in the sketch, he pretends that this was also the beginning of the ricasso solution.
Later he shows the same type of finger guard in a sword with a guard of curved quillons, now dating it from the 2nd quarter XV century.
In the description text he states that this sword typology was present in a painting by Master Nicolás Francés in the altarpiece of the Cathedral of Leon, called the Visit of (King) Alfonso III to Saint Froilan. It happens that Nicolás Francés was comissioned this work in 1434.
Such a pity i didn't manage to locate a picture of such work with reasonable dimensions.
Meanwhile i notice that, in the same altarpiece, there is a work by Master de Palanquinos, named the Apostles, where a sword with a visible finger guard is depicted. However this artist, whose actual name and identity are obscure, surely lived at a later stage, more towards the end of XV century.

.

[Reventlov]

Originally Posted by fernando

I am going to add something not so valid here but, for what it is worth ...
In the eyes of historian/collector Rainer Daehnhardt (author of HOMENS ESPADAS E TOMATES), the finger protection appeared in fusion with late medieval cross guard swords, which he places in the transition from XIV to XV centuries. As seen in the sketch, he pretends that this was also the beginning of the ricasso solution.
Later he shows the same type of finger guard in a sword with a guard of curved quillons, now dating it from the 2nd quarter XV century.

Single and double finger-rings can be seen in many Spanish altarpieces, and to a lesser extent in Italian art also. It is interesting to try to trace the development of more complex hilts in this period...

The earliest depiction of a finger-ring that I know of is in an Italian altarpiece from the 1340s, now in the Met... Oakeshott mentions it somewhere. I have found a few other examples from nearer the end of the century: the Grant Cronica de Espanya, an altar by Lippo di Dalmasio, one shown in the famous Très Belles Heures from France.

More complex hilt forms seem to consistently appear first in Spanish art, and then later in Italian. The first double-ring I have found was painted by Lluis Borrassa (d. 1425). Double-rings continue to appear frequently into the 16th century, with both straight cross-guards and the distinctive Spanish/Portuguese style of curved hilts as shown in the St. Vincent panels. The "Spanish" hilt crosses over into Italian art late in the 15th century, see examples by Ghirlandaio (1483) and Raphael (1504).

The other development that seems to first appear in Spain/Portugal is the "counter-guard" ring joining the prongs of the pas d'ane. This is shown clearly in the Pastrana tapestries from the 1470s. Another is shown in an engraving of St. James Matamoros by Martin Schongauer, who may have visited Spain during his Wanderjahre - his travels as a journeyman artist. So far, the earliest counter-guards I have found in Italian art are by Raphael and Luca Signorelli, both circa 1500.