My "new" cup hilt sword for your kind comments

[Victrix]

Not sure how relevant this is but on patriarchal cross in Portugal from A Treatise On Ecclesiastical Heraldry by John Woodward: The title of patriarch was given to archbishops of metropolis, perhaps who had other metrolitans under them. Patriarchs have the right to use in the emblem of their dignity a cross with two bars. Roderid da Cunha, Archbishop of Braga and Primate of Portugal used such a cross. The patriarchal cross symbolises the powers of two offices in the same person: Metropolitan in own province but also having authority over other Metropolitans. The use of this symbol is very old. The patriarchate of Lisbon and the Indies was instituted by Clement XI in 1716. The archbishop of Toledo is the Primate of Spain since 1085 but the Archbishop of Braga in Portugal claims the Primacy of the whole peninsula and uses the double cross.

[M ELEY]

I think the only reason that the "colonial" thought is still being tossed around is #1-the fancier types owned by private citizens, gentlemen, aristocrats, etc and #2-the confusion with the so-named colonial Spanish cup-hilt rapiers from the New World. These, as you know, are plainer than their European cousins, lack many of the design nuances such as the bowl rim, possess plainer grips (usually horn) and quillons and have specific characteristics marking them as from the New World (such as the mushroom-shaped pommels). In retrospect, yours does not have many of these features, so I agree that this is as you pointed out, a military version of it's richer cousin, but you can see why there were comparisons. Sometimes when one sees a piece that stands out and is not of the typical pattern (and your Goliath blade does that!!), one might assume it is from 'other ports'. I never stated how much I love this piece!

[fernando]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

I think the only reason that the "colonial" thought is still being tossed around is #1-the fancier types owned by private citizens, gentlemen, aristocrats, etc and #2-the confusion with the so-named colonial Spanish cup-hilt rapiers from the New World. These, as you know, are plainer than their European cousins, lack many of the design nuances such as the bowl rim, possess plainer grips (usually horn) and quillons and have specific characteristics marking them as from the New World (such as the mushroom-shaped pommels). In retrospect, yours does not have many of these features, so I agree that this is as you pointed out, a military version of it's richer cousin, but you can see why there were comparisons. Sometimes when one sees a piece that stands out and is not of the typical pattern (and your Goliath blade does that!!), one might assume it is from 'other ports'...

Duly noted Mark; notwithstanding different perspectives, or different angles in which the (Spanish version)colonial atribution is viewed. A highly regarded Spanish dealer, when describing some (Colonial) sword i bought him, said:

Title:
Cup sword. Spain, colonies, around 1700.
Description:

Iron garnish, consisting of a sober cup with a rim, straight quillons, knuckle guard and pommel. Very wide wooden grip, lined in stingray skin. The status of "colonial" is determined by various aspects, one of which is the silver elements that compose it: ferrules, decorative rivets on the cup bowl, trim on the quillons and hoop, decorated nails and longitudinal bars on the grip. We also highlight the simulated recasso in gilted brass (photo 4). Straight blade, with with two fullers in its first third. The engraving of the legend "DON'T DRAW ME OUT WITHOUT RASON - DON'T SHEATH ME WITHOUT HONOR" is insinuated, although due to wear it is illegible.


Isn't this a somehow different aspproach ? I don't need to upload the sword in question; you will imagine how "not plain" it is by the above description .

Originally Posted by M ELEY

... never stated how much i love this piece!

Thank you so much .

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Duly noted Mark; notwithstanding different perspectives, or different angles in which the (Spanish version)colonial atribution is viewed. A highly regarded Spanish dealer, when describing some (Colonial) sword i bought him, said:

Title:
Cup sword. Spain, colonies, around 1700.
Description:

Iron garnish, consisting of a sober cup with a rim, straight quillons, knuckle guard and pommel. Very wide wooden grip, lined in stingray skin. The status of "colonial" is determined by various aspects, one of which is the silver elements that compose it: ferrules, decorative rivets on the cup bowl, trim on the quillons and hoop, decorated nails and longitudinal bars on the grip. We also highlight the simulated recasso in gilted brass (photo 4). Straight blade, with with two fullers in its first third. The engraving of the legend "DON'T DRAW ME OUT WITHOUT RASON - DON'T SHEATH ME WITHOUT HONOR" is insinuated, although due to wear it is illegible.


Isn't this a somehow different aspproach ? I don't need to upload the sword in question; you will imagine how "not plain" it is by the above description .


Thank you so much .

Always interesting rebuttal Fernando, certainly adds dimension to the discussion by bringing out different perspectives !

I very much like the assessment of 'colonial' which Mark's wonderfully worded description presents. The term 'colonial' ,which is agreeably a most ephemeral description of the character of certain weapons in typed groups, is truly often misunderstood.

It is most typically (in my experience) associated with Spanish colonial swords and weapons in the New World (the Americas), however it is easy to presume that Portuguese colonies would experience some degree of the same application.

The simplicity often associated with colonial weapons of course may be aligned with Peninsular production weapons which were made in the form of higher end weapons but intended for rank and file. It should be remembered that in most cases, highly 'worked' and embellished weapons were privately commissioned by officers; while the 'armory' or munitions grade examples were typically produced in multiple numbers and purchased by unit commanders to be issued to troops.

Those weapons which fall into the 'netherworld' between may be with regard to the oft cases of officers who used 'fighting swords' on campaign. While certainly ego, tradition and status might compel many officers to carry thier elegant dress weapons (many officers did not engage and simply used these to signal or direct with according authority).

With 'colonial' examples, these (especially in Mexico) were often locally made examples using blades imported, heirloom or otherwise acquired with various components, emulating the much admired swords of Spanish officers there.
I have seen almost bizarre combinations of various forms which were entirely not congruent to their host forms, such as the bilbo or cup hilt, where the cup and cross guard (obviously redundant) were both present.

There are also examples of 'colonial' examples become, in a word' nearly garish in their interpretation of the beautifully worked higher end examples.
The example described by Fernando may be in this category (though it is not pictured) in degree. The blade is quite likely one of the 'Spanish motto' blades produced in Solingen in the 18th century specifically for export to Spain's colonies. I have seen countless examples of these blades on swords in that context which have been remounted well into the 19th c.

With regard to the use of religious devices and symbology, I think it is important to note that many of these military orders were with deep religious connection, so use of invocations and devotional devices is hardly unusual.
With groups of letters which appear to have no familiar meaning or seem disconnected, in my understanding these are often most likely 'acrostics' (that is the first letters of phrases, mottos etc) which are meant to be recognized by those so initiated.
I have a cuphilt with a curious assembly of such letters, which is presumably associated with a fraternal/ secret ? organization of years before, and an acrostic as described.

Many swords have these kinds of acrostic situations engraved in blades, which was a traditional convention from medieval times carried forth very much in Italy (I believe Caino blades were known for this).

While the brevity of this group of course could suggest initials, that seems less likely than the possibility otherwise to me. Often the decoration and associations on blades were controversial, so makers may have been less likely to 'sign' work due to possible repercussions. They did not necessarily hold to the convictions of the client.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... The example described by Fernando may be in this category (though it is not pictured) in degree. The blade is quite likely one of the 'Spanish motto' blades produced in Solingen in the 18th century specifically for export to Spain's colonies. I have seen countless examples of these blades on swords in that context which have been remounted well into the 19th c...

C'mon Jim, is that what you infer from the description ? I am so frustrated that it wasn't clear enough and gave a wrong interpretation ... 19th. century ?. See PICTURES HERE .

[Jim McDougall]

C'mon Fernando, it was more my 'interpretation' than your description. I already had in mind the examples I had seen which did often closely respond to those you described, at least in my mind.

Thank you for the link to that discussion of 2011, and while an attractive example of 'Caribbean' form cuphilts, it varies from the standards of the Continental examples of the form.
As I explained then, the 'skin' used on the grip I believe to be 'galuchat', a faux rayskin developed by a leather worker in the court of Louis XV around 1760s. This was seeds embedded in untreated horse skin to give the hide appearance of the rayskin, and dyed accordingly.


In kind, I do hope the rest of my missive was somewhat decipherable in describing my views on this subject.

Interesting that while my descriptions of Caribbean/colonial cuphilts lent toward dramatic austerity, this one is nicely done with the grip material as well as turned quillon terminals. On your example the terminals are simply bulbous, but unworked. This observation is just that, and not meant to classify or categorize yours or any other cuphilt example. For me, the entire genre is fascinating regardless of these factors!

I took the liberty of extracting a photo from the thread you linked and cuphilt described for the benefit of readers for visual comparison to what we are referring to. The box is of the galuchat material, again for comparison.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Thank you for the link to that discussion of 2011, and while an attractive example of 'Caribbean' form cuphilts, it hardly meets the standards of the Continental examples of the form...

Hardly the point, dear Jim; which was (in my atempt) to oppose to the idea that 'Colonial' (tricky term) swords aren't necessarily plain in their construction, as has been put; wooden grips, plain cup bowl and all that. But make no big issue of the subject; we were probably transmitting in different frequencies .

PS
Too late i saw that you have added a couple more paragraphs to your previous entry .


.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Victrix

Not sure how relevant this is but on patriarchal cross in Portugal from A Treatise On Ecclesiastical Heraldry by John Woodward: The title of patriarch was given to archbishops of metropolis, perhaps who had other metrolitans under them. Patriarchs have the right to use in the emblem of their dignity a cross with two bars. Roderid da Cunha, Archbishop of Braga and Primate of Portugal used such a cross. The patriarchal cross symbolises the powers of two offices in the same person: Metropolitan in own province but also having authority over other Metropolitans. The use of this symbol is very old. The patriarchate of Lisbon and the Indies was instituted by Clement XI in 1716...

Now, that is a rather interesting approach ... and i thank you for that .
Dom Rodrigo da Cunha 1577-1643 after being Bishop of Portalegre, Bishop of Oporto, and Archbishop of Braga, ended his career as Archbishop of Lisbon, where he was assigned deputy for the inquisition. The interesting part in context is that D. Rodrigo da Cunha, one of the strong opposers to the anexation of Portugal by Spain, having even refused the Cardinalate of Madrid, during the Restauration of Independence war supported the insurgent and, together with the then Archbishop of Braga, governed the kingdom until the return of Dom João IV.
So this explains the engraving of the cross on these swords tang/ricasso; as i view it, more a motivation of patriotism and authority rather than for religious purposes... or perhaps in great part.

Originally Posted by Victrix

... The archbishop of Toledo is the Primate of Spain since 1085 but the Archbishop of Braga in Portugal claims the Primacy of the whole peninsula and uses the double cross...

Yes sir, indeed.


.

[fernando]

I thought i would post a couple pictures (finally) received from the Military Museum, courtesy of its Director Colonel Albuquerque, in which we can see in their example, besides a nicely decorated hilt (cup bowl rim, quillons and knuckle guard), the recurrent threaded tang particularity. But above all, the common features in all three swords shown are the same patriotic inscription, the patriarchal cross and the King's coat of arms. We may gather that, whether these three ( and most possibly more) swords had different provenances, have all been joined and gone under an emblematic intervention, to serve national interests, possibly some King's guard or the like.


.

[Jim McDougall]

Excellent images and another interesting example Fernando. I think you are on the right track presuming these swords with the 'Patriarchal' cross and the regal motto 'Viva Portugal' seeming to represent a collective grouping of swords with similar motif being from some group or unit of guard forces perhaps.

The cross has brought up some great discussion, and while the Caravaca Cross as previously noted has apocryphal legend attached to it from the 13th c.,
it does seem this commemoration was used in degree talismanically and associated to Knights Templars in the 15th c. With that it seems plausible such application may have steeped into Iberian military orders, and placement on these kinds of blades might have had such imbuement associated.

It would seem as well that your cuphilt (of OP) with a heavy arming blade could have been from perhaps a city guard unit ? and the heavy blade a matter of personal choice. With such a blade, the rapier character seems to be more traditional and almost vestigial. For example the 'rompepuntas' (rolled lip surround on cup) intended ostensibly to catch the fine tip of typical rapier would not serve in that way with heavy striking swords. Still, it may be a construction oriented feature, not sure.
The ricasso of course might still serve to cover finger grip around quillon as known in Italian and Spanish fencing and on other rapiers. With heavy blade it served to steady blade in impact.

The idea that this Patriarchal cross would relate to Orthodox type cross is not the case, as you have previously noted the Russian Orthodox type has the added diagonal bar (suppenaneum) near bottom.
It seems there was a Patriarchal cross WITH crucifix is seen on some examples (the examples of crucifix , Apostolic cross were Pedro Hernandez and H. Cleles associated according to my notes, but possibly others).

[fernando]

Thank you for your input, Jim.
Whether this and other crosses have their origin in earlier times, with their religious character and certainly loaded with legendary contents, eventually some contradictory, i have for myself that, once this episcopal cross appears in these swords, this will be an emblem associated to the contemporary period, the war of restoration of Portuguese Independence, as i tried to put in post #30. It was not (at all) the only time the church or its representatives played a role in political issues. Also to note that the crosses engraved in all three swords located, have no Christ crucified in them, thus excluding interpretations related with marks adopted to identify popular smiths ... as suggested ?
Concerning the significant width of the blade first posted, i could not call it a matter of personal choice, as the other example kept where mine came from, has precisely the same width. And of course this type of swords falls competely out of the rapier concept, being no doubt weapons for field combat. Also it seems to me that sword breakers (rompe puntas) do not appear in swords with these features.


.

[Jim McDougall]

Well put Fernando. It seems there are always efforts to put finite distinctions on these kinds of symbols, motif etc. but actually they become more a product of popularization and association in a commemorative or iconic sense by writers etc. of the time.
It is often hard to place dates or time frames using these kinds of markings accurately without considerable other corroboration.

That is surely the case regarding these large blades, where you note there are a number of other cup hilt examples mounted with them as well. As you note, this does suggest a particular convention toward these 'arming' blades, indicating of course use in a more combative sense militarily rather than the more civilian rapiers, where the rompepuntas served a viable function.

While all we can do is collectively discuss and speculate on these matters, it is most interesting to see all the possibilities brought together so we can all evaluate and form our own perspectives on the possibilities.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... As you note, this does suggest a particular convention toward these 'arming' blades, indicating of course use in a more combative sense militarily rather than the more civilian rapiers, where the rompepuntas served a viable function...

Jim, i confess this is one of these things i consider a riddle, until i read a convincing statement produced by a fencing expert or some old written material supporting this story of the rompe puntas (points breaker). While i admit that i as too quick to state that these implements do not match with certain sword features, i think of them as been more of an ornamental addition than a practical fencing device. An exponential version would be seen in the attached sword, as late (for the case) as of the XVIII century. But even considering swords as early as when these rompe puntas started to be seen (XVI century ?) within my ignorant no knowledge, i take it as a pure fantasy that, during a fight, one would be able to manage the blocking of the adversary's sword tip with such a shallow cannelure ... and ingeniously break it. Nothwidstanding that a tipless sword still functions with almost the same capacity.

(Picture cortesy Eduardo Nobre).


.