I'd like to join in here with the interchange on misreading, and admit that I also misinterpreted some the the text here Thilo. I have studied arms for more years than I can accurately specify, and believe I felt that it was being suggested our efforts in discovering more on this term were in vain. With that I wanted to show the evidence we did have, and posit that although not conclusive it was the best we had to date.
When you mentioned the reference you noted from Gerhard Seifert, initially I misperceived what was said, and in reaction thought the comment 'obviously he had no evidence' disparaging to this distinguished arms scholar. He was of course, and as you must well know, one of the foremost arms scholars who edited the esteemed journal of arms and armour for many years. After later rereading the post I realized what you had actually said was that when he noted that the term 'could have' come from that source, he had specified, as I knew him to do, that he could not be sure. I was glad I had not responded to that initially, especially after reading your well worded responses to David.
I would also note I had no idea of the time span with the Grimm Brothers work, which would negate my presumption in regard to discovery of the term.
Thank you for the informative detail on that. I had been unaware of many of the usages of these terms and the discourse you and David have had has been really outstanding in better understanding of these words.
Returning to the discussion at hand, it seems that if the actual term or its variations remain unclear in the formidable corpus of material on arms and armour that was certainly well known to Mr. Seifert, the German arms journals he knew thoroughly, and other arms scholars who have surmised the meaning and purpose of use for the term on blades, then all we can do is indeed speculate.
It does seem established that the cutting of nails to test blades, as noted by Mr. Seifert, as well as other references I have heard noting that the same type testing was accomplished using iron wire, suggest that the 'iron cutting' ability must have been a well known standard for quality. That would stand regardless of the specific term used.
Even in modern marketing, emphatic terms are used to dramatize the quality of a product, for example 'everready' batteries, which suggest that they are always dependable and many other analogies. I would speculate, in accord with the arms authors previously noted, that in the burgeoning commercialism and industrialization of the 19th century, the term 'eisenhauer' may have been intended to recall these classical references to the testing of blades that seem to date back to Passau's early days as an arms center. We already know that the almost legendary 'running wolf' marking which is generally held to have its origins there was a symbol used to suggest quality in much the same manner.
Thank you very much for the very courteous manner in these interactions and especially for the excellent contributions and information. Its good to have you here on the forum!
All the best,
Jim
|