Sword of Myles Standish

fernando · 16th May 2021, 08:05 PM

No semantic issues here, i guess. The inventory lists one sword (and) one cutlass (and) three belts. Given that the 'sword' is the rapier, the cutlass is another edged weapon ... whatever the inventory officer called it. Meaning that, such second sword, once it existed, could not be the fancy (in)famous 'crusader' hanger.

Jim McDougall · 16th May 2021, 09:06 PM

While I am no linguist, possibly I should explain my use of the word 'semantics' and what I meant by my observation, in this case as applied to the word 'cutlass' (sic) in the 1656 document. I wanted to elaborate further, as I should have done earlier, for clarification to those reading here.

Semantics refers to the meaning of a word or a phrase, in some cases the interpretation of same. The term 'coutelas' seems to derive from a French word of 16th c. for machete type blade (Fr. couteau=knife). This in turn comes from It. 16th c. cortelazo, coltellaccio= knife or broad bladed saber.

By the 17th-18th c. the French 'couteau' had become termed 'cuttoe' in English and often used for the familiar hunting hangers.

It is interesting to note the utilitarian nature of these weapons which are noted as having served as both tool and weapon much in the manner of the machete. Many references note 'cutlasses' as having machete like blades though that term is of course much later.

The references to Myles Standish having a sword which had 'come from the crusades' did not have origin in the documents of his period nor his estate, but from 19th century, and later 20th century writing.

That was actually the point of looking into this inventory.....the rapier was clearly not of the crusades, but early 17th century English.
The 'cutlass' , the second sword clearly itemized, of course cannot have been from the crusades, made in Persia, earlier than the time of Christ, and above all, would not have been the 18th century hanger of the creative 19th century writings.

The only 'cutlass' used in the times of the crusades was the falchion, and these are of enormous rarity, and would be unlikely to meet the cutlass category even in the remote chance one existed in the colonies. Thus, as suggested, this mysterious second sword could not be the 'crusaders sword' heralded in the much later writings.

So again, we ask, what became of it? that is, the cutlass described in the 1656 inventory.

fernando · 16th May 2021, 09:19 PM

So Jim, as you confirm, semantics are not the issue. And you are putting in many words what i have just said in a short clumsy way

.

Jim McDougall · 16th May 2021, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

So Jim, as you confirm, semantics are not the issue. And you are putting in many words what i have just said in a short clumsy way

.

Not at all, what I meant was that semantically the author of the 1656 inventory was describing the sword/item in question as a cutlass, his choice of term, but he might have been describing any number of weapons of the time used in a cutting or chopping manner.
Unfortunately there is no illustration for us to know exactly what he meant, but semantically presume it is our perception of a 'cutlass'.

Words can be confounding and often confusing, which is why I, as you often note, use more words to try to qualify what I am saying.

16th May 2021, 08:05 PM	#1
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	No semantic issues here, i guess. The inventory lists one sword (and) one cutlass (and) three belts. Given that the 'sword' is the rapier, the cutlass is another edged weapon ... whatever the inventory officer called it. Meaning that, such second sword, once it existed, could not be the fancy (in)famous 'crusader' hanger.

16th May 2021, 09:06 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	While I am no linguist, possibly I should explain my use of the word 'semantics' and what I meant by my observation, in this case as applied to the word 'cutlass' (sic) in the 1656 document. I wanted to elaborate further, as I should have done earlier, for clarification to those reading here. Semantics refers to the meaning of a word or a phrase, in some cases the interpretation of same. The term 'coutelas' seems to derive from a French word of 16th c. for machete type blade (Fr. couteau=knife). This in turn comes from It. 16th c. cortelazo, coltellaccio= knife or broad bladed saber. By the 17th-18th c. the French 'couteau' had become termed 'cuttoe' in English and often used for the familiar hunting hangers. It is interesting to note the utilitarian nature of these weapons which are noted as having served as both tool and weapon much in the manner of the machete. Many references note 'cutlasses' as having machete like blades though that term is of course much later. The references to Myles Standish having a sword which had 'come from the crusades' did not have origin in the documents of his period nor his estate, but from 19th century, and later 20th century writing. That was actually the point of looking into this inventory.....the rapier was clearly not of the crusades, but early 17th century English. The 'cutlass' , the second sword clearly itemized, of course cannot have been from the crusades, made in Persia, earlier than the time of Christ, and above all, would not have been the 18th century hanger of the creative 19th century writings. The only 'cutlass' used in the times of the crusades was the falchion, and these are of enormous rarity, and would be unlikely to meet the cutlass category even in the remote chance one existed in the colonies. Thus, as suggested, this mysterious second sword could not be the 'crusaders sword' heralded in the much later writings. So again, we ask, what became of it? that is, the cutlass described in the 1656 inventory.

16th May 2021, 09:19 PM	#3
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	So Jim, as you confirm, semantics are not the issue. And you are putting in many words what i have just said in a short clumsy way .