What kind of sword is this?

ariel · 13th February 2017, 01:20 PM

I have never been to Dayton, but I know Toledo Art Museum quite well. These are cities of comparable size and wealth. They are both in NW Ohio, about hour and a half drive from each other.
The Toledo collection has works of Rembrandt, El Greco, Holbein, Rubens and a fantastic collection of French Impressionists.
Size, wealth and publicity do not always matter when we are talking about individual exponates.

I am sure that some of the items in our humble collections would be greedily snatched by Met, Hermitage and Walles:-)

Ian · 13th February 2017, 07:48 PM

David and Kubur:

Museums of all types frequently make mistakes in attribution of works of art. Unless the provenance is strong, there is always room for doubt. Larger museums obviously have more research staff than smaller ones, so can presumably do more in the way of research and establishing provenance.

Here, for example, is what the Metropolitan Museum of Art provides for one of its three works attributed to Ferdinand Bol:

Quote:

Petronella Elias (1648–1667) with a Basket of Fruit

Quote:

Artist: Ferdinand Bol (Dutch, Dordrecht 1616–1680 Amsterdam)
Date: 1657
Medium: Oil on canvas
Dimensions: 31 5/8 x 26 in. (80.3 x 66 cm)
Classification: Paintings
Credit Line: Purchase, George T. Delacorte Jr. Gift, 1957
Accession Number: 57.68

Bol was a pupil of Rembrandt in the late 1630s, and followed his teacher's style until the middle of the century. During the 1650s Bol became established in Amsterdam society, enjoyed considerable success as a portraitist and history painter, and adopted a more colorful, fluid, and Flemish style. The elaborate silver basket in the present picture appears again in a double portrait of 1661 in Antwerp.

Inscription: Signed and dated (lower right): FBol [initials in monogram] / 1657

Provenance:?Wigbold Slicher and his wife, Elisabeth Spiegel, the sitter's aunt, Amsterdam (until his d. 1718); ?their son, Antonis Slicher (1718–d. 1745); ?his son, Hieronymus Slicher (1745–d. 1755); his son, Wigbold Slicher, The Hague (1755–d. 1790; inv., 1783, no. 16); ?his widow, Dina Henriette Backer (1790–d. 1801); ?Slicher's eldest son, Jan Slicher, The Hague (1801–d. 1815); ?his unmarried sister, Anna Catharina Slicher (1815–d. 1827); Robert Ludgate, London (by 1834–at least 1835); the Bunbury family, Barton Hall, Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk; [Scott & Fowles, New York]; Miss Mary Hanna, Cincinnati; [Knoedler, New York, in 1929]; Mrs. Joseph Heine, formerly Mrs. I. D. Levy, New York (until 1944; her sale, Parke-Bernet, New York, November 25, 1944, no. 261, for $7,000); Sydney J. Lamon, New York; [Knoedler, New York, until 1957; sold to MMA]

This provenance appears to track all the way back to the creation of the painting by Bol, but the museum is not entirely sure about the early attributions, so its staff inserted "?" marks to indicate less than complete documentation. Nevertheless, it looks a pretty solid provenance.

For the subject of this thread, all we have for provenance is that it was "a gift of Mr and Mrs Elton F. McDonald, 1962." The museum may have more information, but they did not include it online. To learn anything more about the painting would mean contacting the museum. In looking at a blow up of the online photograph, I can see no signature or date that might help in identifying the artist.

The works of Ferdinand Bol are considered "rare." He does not seem to have been especially prolific and his career ended in 1669 when he remarried after the death of his first wife. He has been lumped in the group of "students and followers of Rembrandt," of which there may have been many, and later in his career he seems to have adopted a more Flemish style and moved away from that of his master somewhat.

Lastly, this portrait does not show up on a collected list of his works here.

I would suggest that we simply do not know the authenticity of the subject of this thread in regard to its attribution to Bol. The supplied provenance is sketchy (to say the least), and we do not know to what extent it has been vetted by experts in Dutch masters. Given the confusion in recent decades about the attribution of works to Rembrandt himself, the work of the Rembrandt Research Program not withstanding, it becomes even harder to know what can be attributed to his students and followers.

For the purposes of the present discussion, however, let's just go with what the Dayton Art Museum says, with the caveat that they could be wrong.

Jim McDougall · 13th February 2017, 09:50 PM

Extremely well said Ian!!
I understood your note to mean exactly as you have explained, and from what I understand about the study of art, there is often question as to attribution and many other aspects. It seems too often it is presumed that anything specified in museum documentation and cataloguing is taken by many to be the final word on the item or topic specified.
A good many decades ago I admit I was among that group, however in many experiences with museums, large and small, I have found inevitable inaccuracies which have usually inadvertently filtered into their literature.

This is not to discount the character or reputation of any of them, nor their very hard working personnel and staff. We all make 'misteakes'.......and they are not infallible.

As you say, while the evidence may be categorically compelling, we must always allow for the possibility that new evidence may reveal facts which may alter the key material used in support of other research. It is prudent to acknowledge and qualify comments and observations to allow for that possibility.

Gustav · 13th February 2017, 09:53 PM

Ian, the portrait does appear on the website you provided:

A Young Man with a Sword, https://www.pubhist.com/w9562.

Jim McDougall · 13th February 2017, 10:07 PM

I couldn't find it in the paintings in the link Ian added either. How did you get to this, using search or other access?
In any case, I remember some time ago being intrigued by Rembrandt's works and all the fuss over 'The Polish Rider' and the actual character etc. Then "The Man in the Golden Helmet", how many years was that attributed to Rembrandt? Then it was discovered to be one of his students or school who had actually painted it.
It seems like reading various art study literature there are so many controversies and highly debated aspects of not only attribution, but of course the many deeply imbued allegories and symbolism in the works.

As one scholar once said, "the thing I like most about history, is how its always changing'! It would seem art history is well included.

Gustav · 13th February 2017, 10:14 PM

Jim, the picture changes places, but the two last times it was in the last row (first page).

David · 13th February 2017, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gustav

Ian, the portrait does appear on the website you provided:

A Young Man with a Sword, https://www.pubhist.com/w9562.

I agree. The painting was indeed in the list of acknowledged works by Bol. When i checked it was in the last row of the first page, second from the left.

Jim McDougall · 14th February 2017, 12:07 AM

Thanks guys, found it!

ArmsAndAntiques · 14th February 2017, 12:47 AM

The question of provenance is important for establishing time period, and the Dayton Museum's description which notes that the painting in the Hermitage uses the same prop sword is not accurate, at least from the example I was able to find which I post below and has a cross shaped guard quite different from the example in the Bol painting, so that does cast some doubt on their description and perhaps on provenance also, though I wouldn't conflate inaccurate descriptions with a lack of documented provenance. However, the scabbard does have some similar features which perhaps may indicate that these were made in a studio perhaps specifically for paintings.

However, the discussion here is about the sword, so the question remains as to what does provenance in a painting have to do with attributing the props used in that painting. I see it two ways.

If it can be established that a 17th C. painting is a copy, or a later forgery, what does that say about the origin of the props, let say a sword or armor or dagger used in the painting. That to me is still an interesting question, depending on when and where the forgery was made. But the more interesting question is the second, at least for those of us interested in cross-cultural movements of artifacts between Europe and Asia in the early modern period (admittedly, maybe a small group ).

If the painting is either by Bol or Rembrandt, and neither origin seems to matter much for our purposes to try to identify "what kind of sword is this" then our initial poster's question is unanswered, though questions about provenance in American museums have been raised.

The attribution to Cochin is interesting but the Rijksmuseum has examples of arms brought back from VOC concessions in that exact region, or otherwise acquired by Cornelis Tromp during the same period of the Bol painting, and those swords look dissimilar to the example in the painting. In fact some interesting work has been done by other forum members at dissecting the Viet sabres in the Rijksmuseum and they're referenced here, basically noting that the blades of those swords were Japanese but were mounted indigenously (nothing new even in Europe at the time considering the Dresden examples referenced earlier).

https://daivietcophong.wordpress.com...ornelis-tromp/

Jim McDougall · 14th February 2017, 06:19 PM

From Aylward, ("The Smallsword in England", 1945, p.57):
"...at the very opposite pole to brass hilts are the most beautiful ones commonly known as 'Tonquinese' . Made originally in the Far East between 1710 and 1750 to the order of the Dutch East India Company, it would seem that the ascription of the work to Tonquinese artists is hardly correct, for while Dampier , for instance, in his 'Voyages', describes all the then manufacturers of Tonquin most closely, he says nothing at all about swords being made there, and it is a historical fact that the Dutch withdrew their factory from Tonquin in 1707. It is most likely that these weapons were first made for the Dutch factory in Pekin, and it is known that, afterwards, the Company brought over some Chinese workmen to Europe, who produced in Amsterdam hilts of similar character which were fitted with blades made in Holland and Solingen".

While this excerpt clearly is from much later than the subject of the painting and sword of our discussion, and is regarding small sword hilts, it does illustrate the presence of the VOC in both Tonkin (North Vietnam) and China in the 17th century as well as the importation of Chinese artisans to Europe.
I would point out here that Cochin, when referred to in Dutch context, seems to refer to the Malabar coast of India, not Viet Nam (indeed normally termed Cochin in the south). The southern or Cochin part of Vietnam was termed 'Quinam' by the Dutch, and was primarily a French concern.

Dutch VOC trading posts were in Hoi An and Pho Hien in northern Viet Nam or Tonkin.

Having noted the Tonkin/Cochin aspects and European use of Chinese artisans brought into Europe, I would like to return to the distinct (in my opinion) Siamese character of the sword in this painting, regardless of artist, which is clearly Dutch and of first half of 17th c.
It seems that the VOC was well established in the Kingdom of Ayuttlaya (Siam) through the 17th c. from about 1608, though trading posts were somewhat intermittently open.

That the aspects of foreign artisans and makers brought into Europe seem to have focused more on fashioning hilts of European style, while applying Oriental or Asian motifs and decorative techniques (such as shakudo or Tonquinese), it seems that the sword in question would more likely be a dha from Siam and as traditionally produced there. As throughout the 17th century, the Dutch sent various embassies to Siam with these trading posts, certainly these weapons may have been obtained either diplomatically or as souveniers by VOC.

I think that the painting, regardless if attributed to Bol or not, is of the Dutch masters style of the first half of the 17th century, and depicts an individual holding what appears to be a Siamese dha in characteristic high relief silvered motif seen traditionally on these type swords. Given the significant presence of the VOC in Siam as noted, and other items brought back to Holland by VOC factors, it seems likely this sword became a prop among others used by Rembrandt and others in his circle using this convention in their work.

14th February 2017, 12:47 AM	#9
ArmsAndAntiques Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 80	The question of provenance is important for establishing time period, and the Dayton Museum's description which notes that the painting in the Hermitage uses the same prop sword is not accurate, at least from the example I was able to find which I post below and has a cross shaped guard quite different from the example in the Bol painting, so that does cast some doubt on their description and perhaps on provenance also, though I wouldn't conflate inaccurate descriptions with a lack of documented provenance. However, the scabbard does have some similar features which perhaps may indicate that these were made in a studio perhaps specifically for paintings. However, the discussion here is about the sword, so the question remains as to what does provenance in a painting have to do with attributing the props used in that painting. I see it two ways. If it can be established that a 17th C. painting is a copy, or a later forgery, what does that say about the origin of the props, let say a sword or armor or dagger used in the painting. That to me is still an interesting question, depending on when and where the forgery was made. But the more interesting question is the second, at least for those of us interested in cross-cultural movements of artifacts between Europe and Asia in the early modern period (admittedly, maybe a small group ). If the painting is either by Bol or Rembrandt, and neither origin seems to matter much for our purposes to try to identify "what kind of sword is this" then our initial poster's question is unanswered, though questions about provenance in American museums have been raised. The attribution to Cochin is interesting but the Rijksmuseum has examples of arms brought back from VOC concessions in that exact region, or otherwise acquired by Cornelis Tromp during the same period of the Bol painting, and those swords look dissimilar to the example in the painting. In fact some interesting work has been done by other forum members at dissecting the Viet sabres in the Rijksmuseum and they're referenced here, basically noting that the blades of those swords were Japanese but were mounted indigenously (nothing new even in Europe at the time considering the Dresden examples referenced earlier). https://daivietcophong.wordpress.com...ornelis-tromp/ Attached Images

13th February 2017, 01:20 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I have never been to Dayton, but I know Toledo Art Museum quite well. These are cities of comparable size and wealth. They are both in NW Ohio, about hour and a half drive from each other. The Toledo collection has works of Rembrandt, El Greco, Holbein, Rubens and a fantastic collection of French Impressionists. Size, wealth and publicity do not always matter when we are talking about individual exponates. I am sure that some of the items in our humble collections would be greedily snatched by Met, Hermitage and Walles:-)

13th February 2017, 09:50 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Extremely well said Ian!! I understood your note to mean exactly as you have explained, and from what I understand about the study of art, there is often question as to attribution and many other aspects. It seems too often it is presumed that anything specified in museum documentation and cataloguing is taken by many to be the final word on the item or topic specified. A good many decades ago I admit I was among that group, however in many experiences with museums, large and small, I have found inevitable inaccuracies which have usually inadvertently filtered into their literature. This is not to discount the character or reputation of any of them, nor their very hard working personnel and staff. We all make 'misteakes'.......and they are not infallible. As you say, while the evidence may be categorically compelling, we must always allow for the possibility that new evidence may reveal facts which may alter the key material used in support of other research. It is prudent to acknowledge and qualify comments and observations to allow for that possibility.

13th February 2017, 09:53 PM	#4
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,280	Ian, the portrait does appear on the website you provided: A Young Man with a Sword, https://www.pubhist.com/w9562.

13th February 2017, 10:07 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	I couldn't find it in the paintings in the link Ian added either. How did you get to this, using search or other access? In any case, I remember some time ago being intrigued by Rembrandt's works and all the fuss over 'The Polish Rider' and the actual character etc. Then "The Man in the Golden Helmet", how many years was that attributed to Rembrandt? Then it was discovered to be one of his students or school who had actually painted it. It seems like reading various art study literature there are so many controversies and highly debated aspects of not only attribution, but of course the many deeply imbued allegories and symbolism in the works. As one scholar once said, "the thing I like most about history, is how its always changing'! It would seem art history is well included.

13th February 2017, 10:14 PM	#6
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,280	Jim, the picture changes places, but the two last times it was in the last row (first page).

14th February 2017, 12:07 AM	#8
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Thanks guys, found it!

14th February 2017, 06:19 PM	#10
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	From Aylward, ("The Smallsword in England", 1945, p.57): "...at the very opposite pole to brass hilts are the most beautiful ones commonly known as 'Tonquinese' . Made originally in the Far East between 1710 and 1750 to the order of the Dutch East India Company, it would seem that the ascription of the work to Tonquinese artists is hardly correct, for while Dampier , for instance, in his 'Voyages', describes all the then manufacturers of Tonquin most closely, he says nothing at all about swords being made there, and it is a historical fact that the Dutch withdrew their factory from Tonquin in 1707. It is most likely that these weapons were first made for the Dutch factory in Pekin, and it is known that, afterwards, the Company brought over some Chinese workmen to Europe, who produced in Amsterdam hilts of similar character which were fitted with blades made in Holland and Solingen". While this excerpt clearly is from much later than the subject of the painting and sword of our discussion, and is regarding small sword hilts, it does illustrate the presence of the VOC in both Tonkin (North Vietnam) and China in the 17th century as well as the importation of Chinese artisans to Europe. I would point out here that Cochin, when referred to in Dutch context, seems to refer to the Malabar coast of India, not Viet Nam (indeed normally termed Cochin in the south). The southern or Cochin part of Vietnam was termed 'Quinam' by the Dutch, and was primarily a French concern. Dutch VOC trading posts were in Hoi An and Pho Hien in northern Viet Nam or Tonkin. Having noted the Tonkin/Cochin aspects and European use of Chinese artisans brought into Europe, I would like to return to the distinct (in my opinion) Siamese character of the sword in this painting, regardless of artist, which is clearly Dutch and of first half of 17th c. It seems that the VOC was well established in the Kingdom of Ayuttlaya (Siam) through the 17th c. from about 1608, though trading posts were somewhat intermittently open. That the aspects of foreign artisans and makers brought into Europe seem to have focused more on fashioning hilts of European style, while applying Oriental or Asian motifs and decorative techniques (such as shakudo or Tonquinese), it seems that the sword in question would more likely be a dha from Siam and as traditionally produced there. As throughout the 17th century, the Dutch sent various embassies to Siam with these trading posts, certainly these weapons may have been obtained either diplomatically or as souveniers by VOC. I think that the painting, regardless if attributed to Bol or not, is of the Dutch masters style of the first half of the 17th century, and depicts an individual holding what appears to be a Siamese dha in characteristic high relief silvered motif seen traditionally on these type swords. Given the significant presence of the VOC in Siam as noted, and other items brought back to Holland by VOC factors, it seems likely this sword became a prop among others used by Rembrandt and others in his circle using this convention in their work.