A rapier by Pietro Hernandez

[fernando]

Great input, Gonzalo, with thoughts and data confirming points already focused in these (three) recent threads around such subject.

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

...Though I repeated the common statement that Julian del Rey was a converse (probably baptized by the king Ferdinand the Catholic),

Speaking of which, the other day someone in a Spanish blog was asking how such person managed to be personaly baptized by the Catholic Kings and it was suggested (or assumed) that these baptisms were collective, you know, rites were processed before a number of gathered ones to be converted.. An interesting view.

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

...other sources points in other direction. Germán Dueñaz Beraiz, in "Julián del Rey: Nuevos Datos sobre su Figura" (Gladius Vol. XX, 2000), states that, according with legal documentation found in the archives of the city of Zaragoza (Libro de Actas de Zaragoza, 1549), there was a fight among Julián del Rey and his elder brother, named Miguel, for the exclusive use of the same stamp belonging to their father, also named Miguel. For which it can be concluded: first, Julián was not a converse, since his father and his brother bear christian names (so his baptism by the king as godfather is a myth); second, the stamp in question was possibly already prestiged, since both brothers were fighting for its use, though it is also possible that Julián gave it greater prestige. It must be noted that the sentence favoured Julián.

And, if i recall correctly, the dspute was not about the perrillo but their personal mark, the one shown in post # 45.

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

...It remains open the question about if Julián and his ancestors were really moors and when did they convert, or if the "moor" apelative was only a nickname derived from the color of his skin ...

Indeed the term Moor/Moro/Mouro, comes from the greek, meaning black, as dark.

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

...Nevertheless, the moors in Spain were very lax in their practice of Islam, a motive of criticism and fury from the fundamentalist berber Almohads, who came latter. I personally disagree with the statement, made by some French authors in the 19th Century (Maindorm, Les Armes, 1890, cited by J.J. Rodríguez Lorente), that a converse would not use this mark, if the mark actually represents a dog. Specially if the mark is already in use by the swordsmiths of the era, considering also that the sources also points out that this mark was not invented by Julián del Rey but used by him.

Good and plausible points, Gonzalo; namely your last paragraph.

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

...Since the mark of the "perrillo" had been in use for a considerable lapse of time, it had some variants. Not all of them represent a prancing animal. In fact, the older known marks do not represent a prancing animal.

Let's upload those variants in here.

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

...We can suppose that, if the mark of "el perrillo" is an old one already in use, primitively representing as a lion in a very schematic way with only straight lines made by a chisel, since an appropiate stamp made by hand would be costly, it is perfectly possible to infer that the animal could be a lion and not a dog...

Another theory; maybe not so strong but, not to be discarded.


.

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by fernando

And, if i recall correctly, the dspute was not about the perrillo but their personal mark, the one shown in post # 45.

Yes Fernando, it is correct. I did not intend to say that the mark in dispute was the one of the "perrillo", as I know that the personal mark of Miguel and Julián del Rey was another one. My point was to show that the members of the family all bear christian names. Also, I did not want to explore further subjects and to upload images, as I saw that my post was already loo long. Thank you for doing it, it is very useful to illustrate the point.

Other subject that dreserves to be explored in relation with the personal mark of those swordsmiths, is the fact that some swords attributed to Julián, could be in fact be made by his father, since it was the same mark, according with the information from Dueñas Beraiz. It is to be noted that the legal document of the dispute is dated as late as 1549, many years since the fall of the Kingdom of Granada and the exile of Abu `Abdallah Muhammed XII, known as Boabdil. So, the sword of Boabdil was made by Julián, or by his father Miguel, as other jineta swordsl?

The statement that the animal could be also a lion, refers only to a possibility, it is not a theory. The animal could belong to other species. As I said, the subject is complex and there is a void in the available information.

Regards