Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

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.

9th March 2016, 03:28 AM	#41
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,738	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.