Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Jim McDougall · 24th November 2008, 03:44 AM

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

24th November 2008, 03:44 AM	#40
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,747	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 Last edited by Jim McDougall; 24th November 2008 at 03:56 AM.