Victorian sword stick esoterica

[Jim McDougall]

Really regret my faux pas guys. I had no idea whatsoever that a name was such an issue in whether formal or familiar. I really hate being called James, so I guess I can relate, but meant no affront in my error. Personally it saddens me if I offend or upset anyone in my writing, and I actually work hard to recheck my text to ensure I have not worded something poorly, but in this case the matter was beyond my awareness.

With my last name, VERY few people seem to be able to pronounce it, and it is irritating when name is called at a restaurant....Mic doggle; or other distortions.
Surprising that my inadvertent use of Harry for Henry was actually correct in the Kings English, as here in Texas we are dreadfully unaware of such propriety.

As noted, I do enjoy learning, and I promise never to do it again. ........

Keith and Stu.......thank you guys for the entries regarding various sword cane related examples!!! I find myself looking into pretty much every nook and cranny seeking examples and these are great!

All best regards
Jim

[Triarii]

Thread diversion alert!
On the legal aspects of duelling (I have a number of books on this in the C16th / C17th and am expanding my interest into the roots of the duel in English law and the insinuation of the Italian duello into civil society - some of the latter makes for very dull reading indeed);

Benefit of clery gained you exemption from secular courts, originally if you were clergy, initally demonstrated by the tonsure and your garb, later (from the C14th) by reading, as from the early medieval period, only the clergy were literate. Indeed, teaching people who were imprisoned who were not clergy, to read, was an offence. Being able to read originally got you moved to an ecclesiastical court.

The reading test was used for quite a while and became a part of English Common Law, surving beyond the Reformation. Women could claim benefit of clergy in 1624 or 1629 (not clear) but didn't get full equality in this until 1691, showing that the warping of the original intent was accepted.

Over time (I can't identify the precedent), a rather appropriate opening line from Psalm 51 - one of the penitential psalms - came to be the standard reading material and became known as 'the neck verse':
“Miserere mei Deus secundum misericordiam tuam iuxta multitudinem miserationum tuarum dele iniquitates meas.” or in English;
“Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions”

People were known to rehearse the neck verse by rote in an attempt to claim the benefit of clergy.

The judge would ask in Latin if the defendent could read or not and the church representative would respond in Latin that 'he/she reads like a clerk'. In this case you could be whipped or fined. At some period during Henry VIIs reign, the punishment was branding on the thumb for non-clergy, as you could only get away with this once and hence the brand revealed any previous offence, but I'm having trouble with a reliable source for this.

Henry VIII extended branding to the clergy, but Edward VI abolished this and allowed Peers to claim the benefit more than once, which meant no branding (which may be the issue referred to in Byrons case), and both excepted the following from benefit of clergy: murder (in simple terms, if premediatated), poisoning, burglary, highway robbery, and sacrilege. This list was progressivley lengthened over time. The nobility (ie Peers) were not to be branded and were to be acquited for any offence, except murder and poisoning, even if they were illiterate. Hence the importance of 'hot blood and 'cold blood' in duelling and whether it was murder or manslaughter.

Benefit of Clergy was done away with acts passed in 1823, 1827 and 1841.

[urbanspaceman]

Thoroughly disabused... thank-you; all is now becoming clear. I am much obliged.
I wonder how many folks know all this?
"Mad, bad and dangerous to know"... I've actually known more that one person like that during my lifetime.

[Jim McDougall]

Amazing entry Triarii! While it might seem a bit off topic, actually these legal perspectives from these circumstances are most relevant. The sword cane/stick while intended as a defensive weapon, and primarily a deterrent, could certainly have been used otherwise as in a heated argument, and essentially a duel in cases.

Dueling is a most clouded topic, and while sensationalized in narratives and of course literature and movies in swashbuckling action, most are unaware of the legal issues involved which were very real behind the scenes matters. We could indeed do an entire thread on that topic alone.

Returning to the presumed deterrent aspects of the sword cane, we might note that these were intended to be less obtrusive than open wearing of the sword in the same defensive manner. But of course gentlemanly dictum of the period saw the sword cane as less than proper.

With the duel, contrary to popular belief, in most cases the objective was not to kill, but to deter the opponent, typically a simple cut drawing blood, even if a scratch, would satisfy honor and end the event. Skilled swordsmen knew deterrent moves with swords of course, and there were such movements which were meant to throw off a less than skilled opponent.

An interesting case is with the Van Gogh matter of his slashed ear. There is a well supported theory that his companion, Gaugin, may have been the real cause of that wound. Gaugin, a skilled fencer and duelist (as well as painter) after the heated argument with Van Gogh, stormed out into the night, and took his epee as self defense in the seamy night activity there. Van Gogh, incensed, went after him, wielding a straight razor, and when they encountered seems to have made threatening moves with it.
Gaugin, reacted instinctively with just such a deterring slash, but it was dark and possibly poorly guaged. Whatever the case, the result was the severing of much of Van Goghs ear.
Van Gogh relented and returned home , and contrived the story to avoid bringing authorities in against Gaugin, as this would have brought charges against him in view of his known reputation as a swordsman, and assault charges under dueling laws.

Again, not directly related to the topic, but legal matters which pertain in many circumstances to the sword cane as well as with the sword in dueling parlance.

Keith, that 'mad,bad and dangerous' phrase reminds me of a country/metal 'ballad' (?) by the Texas Hillbillies called "Pissed off and mad about it" ! Yeah, Ive known a few as well.

[Jim McDougall]

Amazing entry Triarii! While it might seem a bit off topic, actually these legal perspectives from these circumstances are most relevant. The sword cane/stick while intended as a defensive weapon, and primarily a deterrent, could certainly have been used otherwise as in a heated argument, and essentially a duel in cases.

Dueling is a most clouded topic, and while sensationalized in narratives and of course literature and movies in swashbuckling action, most are unaware of the legal issues involved which were very real behind the scenes matters. We could indeed do an entire thread on that topic alone.

Returning to the presumed deterrent aspects of the sword cane, we might note that these were intended to be less obtrusive than open wearing of the sword in the same defensive manner. But of course gentlemanly dictum of the period saw the sword cane as less than proper.

With the duel, contrary to popular belief, in most cases the objective was not to kill, but to deter the opponent, typically a simple cut drawing blood, even if a scratch, would satisfy honor and end the event. Skilled swordsmen knew deterrent moves with swords of course, and there were such movements which were meant to throw off a less than skilled opponent.

An interesting case is with the Van Gogh matter of his slashed ear. There is a well supported theory that his companion, Gaugin, may have been the real cause of that wound. Gaugin, a skilled fencer and duelist (as well as painter) after the heated argument with Van Gogh, stormed out into the night, and took his epee as self defense in the seamy night activity there. Van Gogh, incensed, went after him, wielding a straight razor, and when they encountered seems to have made threatening moves with it.
Gaugin, reacted instinctively with just such a deterring slash, but it was dark and possibly poorly guaged. Whatever the case, the result was the severing of much of Van Goghs ear.
Van Gogh relented and returned home , and contrived the story to avoid bringing authorities in against Gaugin, as this would have brought charges against him in view of his known reputation as a swordsman, and assault charges under dueling laws.

Again, not directly related to the topic, but legal matters which pertain in many circumstances to the sword cane as well as with the sword in dueling parlance.

[Rick]

"Mad, bad and dangerous to know" describes my father-in-law to a T.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Rick

"Mad, bad and dangerous to know" describes my father-in-law to a T.

LOL Rick!!! I was thinking of ALL my ex wives!!

[serdar]

If someone knows about this sword stick, blade is etched im not sure from what it is, springy, handle is made from walrus wery nicely with inlays, shaft is some kind of bamboo like maybe som swamp holow cane?, engrawed brass part.