The Sword of John Hampden(?)

[Interested Party]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

"...the only hilt so far attributed to ROBERT SOUTH is that of Henry Prince of Wales (this sword we are discussing) this follows the fashion ofv the 17th c. but is of higher quality. Another hilt that can be attributed to South is the sword of James I with blade by CLEMENS HORN in the Windsor Castle armory. It is not unlikely that SOUTH was the importer of the Horn blades and that all the hilts originally furnished with such blades CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO HIM" !!!


Further noted, South was the leading cutler during first half of 17th c. was appointed cutler to James I, and held office under Charles I. His name first appeared in records of cutlers company 1603.

It seems that some of the sources we have been citing somehow missed this important attribution by the late Mr. Hayward. Looks like ROBERT SOUTH is the artisan we're looking for.

Great sleuthing Jim! This post has prompted me to re-read all of the source material that I have found. I had a reading comprehension error while perusing the Wallace Collection it seems that that source does not link the Prince of Wales sword to the armor gift from Charles Emanuel of Savoy but to a previous set with a laurel motif en suite with the sword. I apologize.

https://wallacelive.wallacecollectio...objectId=61004 wow Jim with our reliance on print you and I both missed the obvious. I need to remember to cross check my sources. I have found a record of another South Sword from 1610 https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O...-south-robert/. Unfortunately, there is not a picture to go with the description. This second South sword listed a partner in its manufacture named John Bushnell. That said Norman (p. 373) links the Hampden hilt to "One workshop active from perhaps the late 1630s, seems to have specialized in mythological and biblical scenes with rather large figures among foliage which includes bursting pomegranates.... Its works include the type 39 hilt, said to have belonged to John Hampden at Windsor.... " Norman goes on to list swords in the group mostly housed continental collections minus several in the Victoria and Albert Museum including the sword mentioned in my previous post attributed to a French workshop (Norman p 189). On page 190 he mentions a sword in Copenhagen Inv. No. C329/42 "with decoration again resembling that of the Hampden sword at Windsor" that I also have not been able to locate an image of.

Norman is conditional in both his inclusion of these swords into one production facility and his attribution of the OP sword to John Hampden. As noted in a previous post there is no record of the sword being Hampden's till over 150 years after his death. Mr. Norman has a discrepancy in the passage quoted above of calling the Hampden sword a type 39 where earlier he discussed it as a type 40. With the production period of the Prince's sword being between 1610 (when he was created the Prince of Wales) and his subsequent death in 1612, and the attribution of the other group beginning in the 1630s and continuing till at least 1655. Robert South did produce royal swords from at least 1610 till a period between 1625-1649. With a documented career beginning in 1603. Objectively, to me with Robert South being English based and at least one of the other group of swords with a style resembling Hampden's being attributed to France in 1655, and souths career needing to be 52 years long, the relation of the Prince of Wales sword and Hampden's seems tenuous. Subjectively when I look at the three blades previously pictured, they do not look like the same maker both stylistically and thematically. Two are large, elongated figures one biblical the other mythological. They are fluid and evocative. Hampden's speaks of righteousness. Both with the defeat of of the giant Goliath and his later conquest of the morally fallen king Saul. Both victories were through his belief in the righteous power of God and for he who belief amounts to even a grain of mustard all things are possible. The beheading of Goliath is sadly prophetic of 1649. The Prince's sword is more sparse in decoration. It is static and dark. The theme here is his right to rule through a lineage descending from Aneas and London being the new Rome, inheriting its empire of not religion. He will rule through tradition. Let us remember laurels are for the victor and that in later Roman tradition might creates right. These two hilts are diametrically opposed and offer a simplified overview of the conflict between the parties in the civil war.

I am sorry Rob I am sure this is not what you hoped for when you asked if anyone "knows anything about this sword, the sculptor, and the accuracy of attributing this to a date in the first half of the 1600s." All parties in this discussion have been using transitive proprieties very freely and I not sure if the current sources can be reconciled. They have left us with a generous supply of good data points, but no consensus for a conclusion.

For a final note of this missive there is a book I cannot find by Leslie Southwick "London Sliver Hilted Swords" that may have information pertaining to our search. Bezdek may also have information on South particularly when he died and where he finished his career.

Thanks to all for helping to occupy my mind while I recover from a minor injury.
IP