Toledo Rapier Info

[Philip]

Thanks, Jim, for posting the reference page on the evolution of the "Passau wolf" symbol. The most frequently seen styles are those of the 17th cent., but in looking at the evolution of the iconic beast as a whole, it's amazing to see the variations, bordering on the fanciful. Note some of them with rather equine necks and heads, one that can be mistaken for a shrimp or prawn, and another that is positively rodentian! Seeing this mini-zoo, the "mutant gerbil" that appears in Dr Astatsaturyan's book in the section on Caucasus imitations is not so outlandish after all!

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Philip

Thanks, Jim, for posting the reference page on the evolution of the "Passau wolf" symbol. The most frequently seen styles are those of the 17th cent., but in looking at the evolution of the iconic beast as a whole, it's amazing to see the variations, bordering on the fanciful. Note some of them with rather equine necks and heads, one that can be mistaken for a shrimp or prawn, and another that is positively rodentian! Seeing this mini-zoo, the "mutant gerbil" that appears in Dr Astatsaturyan's book in the section on Caucasus imitations is not so outlandish after all!

I totally agree Philip, these zoomorphic renditions in these assemblages of chiseled markings would make Picasso proud! The plate from Wagner is misleading, as it purports that there was some sort of chronological progression with these 'wolf' marks by placing date years on them. In fact, these were stylized because of the 'freehand' application by workers who were simply complying with the apparent requirement of placing a 'wolf' on the blade.
I think that in the case of the 'perrillos' it was very much the same, and I have seen a plate of examples drawn from a number of smiths in Spanish context which display the same 'range' of depiction.

In discussions, Oakeshott (1962) mentions that in many cases it is hard to tell what creature is depicted, and notes others such as unicorns were depicted in similar 'creativity'.
In his discussions of Sudanese kaskara, Reed (1987) notes a Darfur chieftain examining a 'wolf' mark on one of these blades, and thought it represented a hippopotamus!!

Its really great to have you writing here again Philip!!!!

[cornelistromp]

the Unicorn has one horn and the wolf not, furthermore the tip of horn always points toward the point so that the force is directed to the opponent.
the horn of the unicorn is always clearly recognizable in the inlay of a sword.

best,
jasper

[Jim McDougall]

Excellent point !! (sorry, couldn't resist)

Thank you so much Jasper, excellent images illustrating these markings.
Actually what I meant, in my bungled wording, was that unicorns were among creatures which were represented in these artistically stylized renderings, many of which could not be discerned. Obviously that distinct unicorn feature would be readily spotted, making that one of the exceptions.

[fernando]

We may read in a paper by Rodriguez Lorente that, when the beast present in a blade is of Spanish origin, usually comes accompanied by other marks, whereas the German wolf appears only by itself.
Two Hispano-Arab ginetas can be seen in the National Library of Paris (as per picture uploaded) and in the the Armeria Real de Turin.
So it appears that in later times (XVI century) the perrillo was used by Spanish masters, like Sebastian Hernandez for one, as a quality hallmark.
Lorente also presents us a list of the various perrillo marks found here and there.

.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Fernando! That was the plate I was trying to print but couldn't get it to cooperate. In that article by Rodriguez Lorente in my post 29 I was trying to describe those circumstances, and what I was understanding was that perhaps the 'perrillo' on the earlier jinete blades was used on a specific form of blade by the Master. It seemed the author suggested they were not on all blades produced by Julian.
Later, the blades indeed were accompanied by other marks which seem to be in hallmark type groupings with the marks having various significance.

The spurious applications in Germany of course rest on their own situation, but I began wondering just how the perrillo might have confluenced with the wolf of Passau.

With the wolf of Passau, it seems that it typically was by itself on one side of the blade, while often another mark, inscription or name was on the other, at least in many of the examples I have seen.

In "Miecze Srodkowoeuropejskie z X-XVw", (Marian Glosek, Warsaw, 1984, p.184) it is noted regarding the mark of the wolf "...it should be noticed however, that not all the swords marked in this way and presented in our work were made in the same hilt producing workshop. Only the specimens produced in the second half of the 13th century and the first part of the 14th century, that is in the initial period of their being in use, are certain to have their provenance at Passau".

Further, "...the first complaint against illegal borrowing of this mark by hilt makers of Solingen lodged by Passau in Colony (Cologne?) on Nov. 20, 1464 was most presumably the result of a situation existing for some time. W.M. Schmid mentions also Nurnberg and Augsburg as centers using the wolf sign on its products. A. Nadolski points to the wolf like features visible on weapons of the Caucusus. In my opinion swords marked in this way were also produced in Hungary".

While some comments in these quotes are puzzling (hilt makers vs, bladesmiths??) and the obviously much later Caucasian circumstances, which I do not believe had anything to do with Hungarian swords. ..it still portrays just how widespread was the use of these 'canine' marks.

It seems quite clear they were not intended as the mark of a maker per se' but imbued either some sort of talismanic imbuement or that of power and quality as well.

Could the perrillo of Julian del Rey have been in some way been related to these wolf marks apparently well known in Europe in these parlances?

[Philip]

The blades found in the Caucusus appear to be a mix of German and other European exports, and local copies of same.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Thank you Fernando! That was the plate I was trying to print but couldn't get it to cooperate. In that article by Rodriguez Lorente in my post 29 I was trying to describe those circumstances, and what I was understanding was that perhaps the 'perrillo' on the earlier jinete blades was used on a specific form of blade by the Master. It seemed the author suggested they were not on all blades produced by Julian...

I wouldn't figure it that way Jim or, better saying, jinetas were the business of the time so, tese were the ones on which he would (first) apply his usual marks. Also taken into account is that, jineta blades could easily be (re)mounted in hilts of later style, those espadas de lazo, where the perrillo may be seen.
Nothwithstanding that Julian lived as long as to the following century and would have produced different blades for his Christian clients, in which he would have mark them in the same way ... admitedly with design variants of the same beast.
Remember that Lorente apparently wasn't yet aware of the 1549 Zaragoza document cited by Berainz, in which Julian's origins and faith were questioned, as in his paper he still raises the problem of the perrillo being a impure animal and so a matter of controversy for a man of Moor origins. But then this opens another problematic door, as there are voices that question the attribution of the zoomorphic figure to an actual doggy. Apparently it was Palomares that defined graphically the beast as being definitely a perrillo, potentially influenced by Cervantes citations. But nothing avoids that the animal depicted by Julian was a stylized jackal or similar, much more consonant with the inclinations of a Moor smith.
Lorents also discards the theory in that that the perrillo and the Passau wolf could be distinguished by the attitude of their tail (the one in the perrillo upwards), as the Paris example shows us an horizontal tail, confusing such theory.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Fernando.....very well explained and really helps get this more into perspective. The comparisons of these various writers over time and disparities in their views and observations based on information at hand at the time certainly adds to more of a status quo in our understanding of these materials.

I think that is what is so vital here, to analyze and compare extant material which often either dispels or better qualifies information from earlier writers.

Remember, we all make misteakes !

All the best
Jim