![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |||
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 685
|
![]()
Hi Gonzalo,
Quote:
Quote:
For my part: The term can have any number of origins, as is the case with many words. What is important is its unambiguous usage, and here we are doing so in English. Castle, who in the opinion of many wrote the near definitive history of post medieval swordsmanship, a century ago, at least in the English language, argued convincingly, that in the late 1500s the French called their weapon the `espee', the English sword, but both, when referring to the Spaniard's sword called it a `rapier'. He went on to say that in France the word rapier soon became a term of contempt, signifying a sword of disproportionate length, the weapon of a bully. However, in England, ever since the adoption of the term, it always meant in his words "...a sword especially convenient for thrusting.." and went on to say that then it was synonymous with the Spanish thrusting sword, on account of the many dignitaries and officials of that nation who visited the royal court of the day. He further held that the then nearest French term for a thrusting sword was `estoc' which was Anglicized to `tucke' and variations thereof. In the English of bygone days, the terms `rapier' and `tucke' were at times used interchangeably when talking about thrusting swords. Again, it is held by some that `rapier' was derived from the Spanish `espada ropera' (dress sword). The problem with this interpretation is that we are told that during the halcyon days of the rapier in Spain it was not used and in any event the expression `espada ropera' was already evident by the mid 1400s, well before the rapier made its appearance. The Spanish renaissance linguists that I consulted confirmed that this is probably right; So, to uphold this origin of `rapier', it is incumbent on those who propose it, to come forth with some period fencing manual, in which the expression is used as such. Now, the reason that I made that reference to the can of worms is because over the years many, including curators, wrongly come to identify the rapier with its complex hilt, rather than function, which was determined by the blade and hilt, and such hilts were also fitted to the better military broadswords of that era. Judging by your remarks, it would appear that the distinction is easy to make, but to do so, you'll have to define what a rapier is to the satisfaction of the majority, which I can assure you is no easy task. However, until something better comes along I shall adhere to the old English usage of the word, and where this does not suffice, by function, otherwise we open the doors to endless confusion and needless debate. Quote:
BTW. At the end of the 19th century in England there was a resurgence of interest in old sword play, and Egerton Castle, Alfred Hutton and Richard Burton formed a trio of gentleman fencer/scholars who studied the older weapons, but this gradually lost momentum, though not before writing some excellent works on the subject - With the advent of the SCA (see link below) there was a resurgence of interest in the old ways, including earlier swordsmanship, and later a more serious movement emerged, that of the study of Historical European Martial Arts, HEMA in short. My perception is that despite having an international following, it was and remains a US driven activity - Their exponents mostly focus on medieval and renaissance sword arts and try to reconstruct the relevant techniques from the old surviving manuals - In so doing, much new valuable material emerged, but also many contentious issues, along with considerable historical revisionism of dubious validity, much of which have muddied the waters for us collectors. For the origins of the SCA search in Google, or see http://history.westkingdom.org/Year0/index.htm Cheers Chris |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|