Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Marc · 18th November 2008, 10:19 AM

Indeed the "rapier" term is, if not anything else, a foothold for a good discussion...

Chris and Gonzalo have summed it up very nicely, I can barely add a few things, including my opinions

The term "espada ropera" or even "espada propera" is known in Spanish since the early 15th c., being the first reference we know of it (so far...) in the work of Juan de Mena (1411-1456) "Coplas de la Panadera"
(...)
Di Panadera.
Un miércoles que partiera
el Príncipe don Enrique
a buscar algún buen pique
para su espada ropera,
saliera sin otra espera
de Olmedo tan gran compaña
que con mui fermosa maña
al Puerto se retrujera.
(...)

It's Old Spanish, I leave it here as is for the documentation's sake. My limited linguistic abilities would only be able to do a half-assed translation of what is essentially a humorous little poem about a young quarrelsome nobleman who ends up having to shamefully face the consequences of his hot head. The relevant fact here is that it does docuemt the term "espada ropera" even earlier than the so often quoted inventory of Duke Alvaro de Zuñiga. As already mentioned, the term is later on documented in French (“rapière”) and more later on in English (“rapier”). It was also used by Germans (“rappier”). I can confirm what’s been said by Chris about the term “ropera” not being used in Spanish since the 16th c. on. I’m not sure about French, although I understand it went through a similar process of abandoning, but this would need confirmation. In German was in use at least to the end of the 16th c. (Joachim Meyer uses it in his fencing manual Gründtliche Beschreibung der kunst des Fechten, published in 1570).Anyway, where it really sticks is in English, where it seems to start describing a sword worn in everyday dress (which seems to be the original meaning of the word) and ends a describing a more or less specific typology of sword, indeed worn in - let’s say - “civilian” dress but also with a long and slender blade and with an associated style of fencing where thrusts were emphasized above cuts. The term survived in English and has indeed been re-taken recently with the spreading and internationalization of HEMA, which started as a consequence of medievalism and romanticism at the end of the 19th c. and was re-taken with renovated strength at the end of the 20th c. when the new systems of communication allowed for scholars and practitioners to share their interest and exchange information. But it was already being in use worldwide by Arms collectors, aficionados, antiquaries and scholars before that

So, Chris’ points about the actual meaning of the term are very pertinent. It was used for more than 500 years, and meant different things in different periods and different geographical locations, so it’s important to define what we do NOW understand as a rapier. And it must be defined from a modern perspective, because it’s US who are using it now to define something. To anyone familiar with the antique arms community or the HEMA world is somewhat intuitive what a rapier is: a sword supposed to be carried in civilian dress, with a more or less complex hilt (this includes cup-hilts) and with a blade somewhat “ligther” than to ones used in a military context in the same period. A sword, as some have defined it, designed to be used for “carry, duel and self-defence” (“carry”, here, would incorporate some elements of “show”). This should be enough for the majority of us, but the problems arise when we step into hardcore taxonomy, and start to try to define if it’s the blade or the hilt what defines a rapier, if it’s the intended use or the appearance, etc. I won’t go into that, after all, unless there is an agreement between the people that can be considered “authorities”, it’s all a matter of opinion, and I just have my own, as do everyone else

.

Now, trying to steer this back to the original subject, Fernando’s nice Christmas Present

… I would put it also at the end of the 17th c, beginning of the 18th. I would also say it’s civilian, but that’s because of the morphology of the blade, long and slender, not as much as because of the knucklebow. There is an 18th c. typology of cup-hilt swords, which, at least here, are considered Portugese and military, with broad blades, bare wood grips, plain decorations, and the quillions directly welded to the cup, which usually also features a “rompepuntas” rim. Many of these present a knucklebow attached to the pommel (usually with a transversal screw that also fixes the tang), but not all of them. In fact I’ve seen some of those swords with a long and slender blade of “rapier” (here we go again…

) type, but these could easily be officer’s swords, or “civil” swords imitating the “military” style. Anyway, in the exemplar we’re discussing here, the shape of the pommel, the style of the grip, the length of the quillions, and the type of attachment of the cup to the quillion block, all point to a “Spanish” construction. Specially in contrast with the “Portuguese” style of construction of the cup hilt that I’ve described above. But I think this would be a bit of a simplification… The legend in the blade makes this a sword clearly for a Portuguese costumer. Cup-hilts developed in Spain after a particular style of fencing (the so-called “Verdadera Destreza”). I won’t go in detail into this, but let’s say that the morphology of these hilts and their variants are adapted to it. We know that this style of fencing became quite popular in Portugal, also, so a Portuguese-made sword suited to it wouldn’t be strange, but fact is that the general style of the hilt is quite “Spanish”. The problem is that we don’t know if by that time (end 17th-befinning 18thc) there was a “Portuguese” typology of hilts that was different from the “Spanish” one. We know there was one later on (the one described above) for “military” swords, but truth is that we can’t be sure if the sword is “Spanish” made for a Portuguese, Portuguese made for a Portuguese in a “Spanish” style, or if there was no distinction at that time between “Spanish” and “Portuguese” styles of cup-hilts for “civilian” rapiers. Hence, as Fernando suggested, we maybe could speak of a “Peninsular” style in this particular case…

I don’t know if I clarified anything or muddied things even more… In any event, it’s a very nice rapier, Fernando, I’m envious… again

P.S. Notice that as I've put "Spanish" and "Portugese" in quotation marks because there might not be such a clear differentiation of styles in this case, I've also put the quotations marks in the terms "civilian" and "military", not only because they were terms that at the time were not as clearly differentiated as we like to think they are today, but because the distinction between them that we do right now regarding the swords of those periods is also consensual, and not always agreed upon.

18th November 2008, 10:19 AM	#18
Marc Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Madrid / Barcelona Posts: 256	Indeed the "rapier" term is, if not anything else, a foothold for a good discussion... Chris and Gonzalo have summed it up very nicely, I can barely add a few things, including my opinions The term "espada ropera" or even "espada propera" is known in Spanish since the early 15th c., being the first reference we know of it (so far...) in the work of Juan de Mena (1411-1456) "Coplas de la Panadera" (...) Di Panadera. Un miércoles que partiera el Príncipe don Enrique a buscar algún buen pique para su espada ropera, saliera sin otra espera de Olmedo tan gran compaña que con mui fermosa maña al Puerto se retrujera. (...) It's Old Spanish, I leave it here as is for the documentation's sake. My limited linguistic abilities would only be able to do a half-assed translation of what is essentially a humorous little poem about a young quarrelsome nobleman who ends up having to shamefully face the consequences of his hot head. The relevant fact here is that it does docuemt the term "espada ropera" even earlier than the so often quoted inventory of Duke Alvaro de Zuñiga. As already mentioned, the term is later on documented in French (“rapière”) and more later on in English (“rapier”). It was also used by Germans (“rappier”). I can confirm what’s been said by Chris about the term “ropera” not being used in Spanish since the 16th c. on. I’m not sure about French, although I understand it went through a similar process of abandoning, but this would need confirmation. In German was in use at least to the end of the 16th c. (Joachim Meyer uses it in his fencing manual Gründtliche Beschreibung der kunst des Fechten, published in 1570).Anyway, where it really sticks is in English, where it seems to start describing a sword worn in everyday dress (which seems to be the original meaning of the word) and ends a describing a more or less specific typology of sword, indeed worn in - let’s say - “civilian” dress but also with a long and slender blade and with an associated style of fencing where thrusts were emphasized above cuts. The term survived in English and has indeed been re-taken recently with the spreading and internationalization of HEMA, which started as a consequence of medievalism and romanticism at the end of the 19th c. and was re-taken with renovated strength at the end of the 20th c. when the new systems of communication allowed for scholars and practitioners to share their interest and exchange information. But it was already being in use worldwide by Arms collectors, aficionados, antiquaries and scholars before that So, Chris’ points about the actual meaning of the term are very pertinent. It was used for more than 500 years, and meant different things in different periods and different geographical locations, so it’s important to define what we do NOW understand as a rapier. And it must be defined from a modern perspective, because it’s US who are using it now to define something. To anyone familiar with the antique arms community or the HEMA world is somewhat intuitive what a rapier is: a sword supposed to be carried in civilian dress, with a more or less complex hilt (this includes cup-hilts) and with a blade somewhat “ligther” than to ones used in a military context in the same period. A sword, as some have defined it, designed to be used for “carry, duel and self-defence” (“carry”, here, would incorporate some elements of “show”). This should be enough for the majority of us, but the problems arise when we step into hardcore taxonomy, and start to try to define if it’s the blade or the hilt what defines a rapier, if it’s the intended use or the appearance, etc. I won’t go into that, after all, unless there is an agreement between the people that can be considered “authorities”, it’s all a matter of opinion, and I just have my own, as do everyone else . Now, trying to steer this back to the original subject, Fernando’s nice Christmas Present … I would put it also at the end of the 17th c, beginning of the 18th. I would also say it’s civilian, but that’s because of the morphology of the blade, long and slender, not as much as because of the knucklebow. There is an 18th c. typology of cup-hilt swords, which, at least here, are considered Portugese and military, with broad blades, bare wood grips, plain decorations, and the quillions directly welded to the cup, which usually also features a “rompepuntas” rim. Many of these present a knucklebow attached to the pommel (usually with a transversal screw that also fixes the tang), but not all of them. In fact I’ve seen some of those swords with a long and slender blade of “rapier” (here we go again… ) type, but these could easily be officer’s swords, or “civil” swords imitating the “military” style. Anyway, in the exemplar we’re discussing here, the shape of the pommel, the style of the grip, the length of the quillions, and the type of attachment of the cup to the quillion block, all point to a “Spanish” construction. Specially in contrast with the “Portuguese” style of construction of the cup hilt that I’ve described above. But I think this would be a bit of a simplification… The legend in the blade makes this a sword clearly for a Portuguese costumer. Cup-hilts developed in Spain after a particular style of fencing (the so-called “Verdadera Destreza”). I won’t go in detail into this, but let’s say that the morphology of these hilts and their variants are adapted to it. We know that this style of fencing became quite popular in Portugal, also, so a Portuguese-made sword suited to it wouldn’t be strange, but fact is that the general style of the hilt is quite “Spanish”. The problem is that we don’t know if by that time (end 17th-befinning 18thc) there was a “Portuguese” typology of hilts that was different from the “Spanish” one. We know there was one later on (the one described above) for “military” swords, but truth is that we can’t be sure if the sword is “Spanish” made for a Portuguese, Portuguese made for a Portuguese in a “Spanish” style, or if there was no distinction at that time between “Spanish” and “Portuguese” styles of cup-hilts for “civilian” rapiers. Hence, as Fernando suggested, we maybe could speak of a “Peninsular” style in this particular case… I don’t know if I clarified anything or muddied things even more… In any event, it’s a very nice rapier, Fernando, I’m envious… again P.S. Notice that as I've put "Spanish" and "Portugese" in quotation marks because there might not be such a clear differentiation of styles in this case, I've also put the quotations marks in the terms "civilian" and "military", not only because they were terms that at the time were not as clearly differentiated as we like to think they are today, but because the distinction between them that we do right now regarding the swords of those periods is also consensual, and not always agreed upon.