A cup hilted sword rapier for coments

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Hi Gonzalo,

I meant that as a sincere compliment and in the very best sense of the word (detective) as one who detects or investigates. I very much admire your systematic and comprehensive approach to hoplology, which sets an example to all of us - After all, providing that link to that sword, if I may say so, was akin to finding a needle in the proverbial haystack.Again, it is held by some that `rapier' was derived from the Spanish `espada ropera' (dress sword). The problem with this interpretation is that we are told that during the halcyon days of the rapier in Spain it was not used and in any event the expression `espada ropera' was already evident by the mid 1400s, well before the rapier made its appearance. The Spanish renaissance linguists that I consulted confirmed that this is probably right; So, to uphold this origin of `rapier', it is incumbent on those who propose it, to come forth with some period fencing manual, in which the expression is used as such.

Now, the reason that I made that reference to the can of worms is because over the years many, including curators, wrongly come to identify the rapier with its complex hilt, rather than function, which was determined by the blade and hilt, and such hilts were also fitted to the better military broadswords of that era.

Chris

Chris, I understood your meaning. What I tried to say, is that it was not as hard to find this reference, because I already had it and studied it. It was easy to remember, and there were no need to search for it. What it is VERY difficult to remember, is where are my car keys. I thank you for your compliment, but my merit is very small.

I have an objection to the use of the expression "thrusting sword", because the ropera was a sword which sometimes was used to cut. There are some atacks in spanish style fencing with the use of the edge of the ropera, althought it is mainly a thrusting weapon. Marc can say much more than I about spanish fencing.

Yes, the term "ropera" appear for the first time in an inventory of the belongings from the Duke Alvaro de Zúñiga in 1468, according with the article "La Espada Ropera Española en los Siglos XVI y XVII" by José María Pelaez Valle in Gladius (pag. 147). In french, the first reference is from 1474.

Neverthless, we must clarify an important point. The term is referred not only to the late slender blade made to thrust, with a cup hilt guard. The ropera has evolved form a more broaded sword made also to cut in the the 15th Century. You know, many complex weapons do not just appear already defined in their ultimate characterisitics, unless adopted or imposed from other cultures. Since Spain is the original source of the espada ropera, it´s evolution began there, and it took some time and several transformations.

It is very difficult, at the sight of the early and very late roperas, when it began or ended to be a ropera. Even the classic model had important diferences on the guard, as it evolved from the lasso to the cup hilt with very long quillons, apart from national and period variations. We can´t say, without being reductionists, that the ropera or rapieris are only one of these models, overlooking the historical changes. Concepts are only structures created to help us understand reality, and we must use them in a flexible manner. "Epee" in french, means only sword, and it is not aplied only to the classic model designated as such. The same apply to words as shamshir, saif and kiliç, which only means "sword", and do not designate the conceptual models created by the occidental scholars and collectionists, IMHO.

I agree with you, Chris, when you mention the can of worms. It is a real problem to make distinctions, in many cases. Some criteria must be established, but history must be taken on account. It is not an abstract excercise of logics. And thank you for your reference to the HEMA.
Regards

Gonzalo

[Marc]

Indeed the "rapier" term is, if not anything else, a foothold for a good discussion...

Chris and Gonzalo have summed it up very nicely, I can barely add a few things, including my opinions

The term "espada ropera" or even "espada propera" is known in Spanish since the early 15th c., being the first reference we know of it (so far...) in the work of Juan de Mena (1411-1456) "Coplas de la Panadera"
(...)
Di Panadera.
Un miércoles que partiera
el Príncipe don Enrique
a buscar algún buen pique
para su espada ropera,
saliera sin otra espera
de Olmedo tan gran compaña
que con mui fermosa maña
al Puerto se retrujera.
(...)

It's Old Spanish, I leave it here as is for the documentation's sake. My limited linguistic abilities would only be able to do a half-assed translation of what is essentially a humorous little poem about a young quarrelsome nobleman who ends up having to shamefully face the consequences of his hot head. The relevant fact here is that it does docuemt the term "espada ropera" even earlier than the so often quoted inventory of Duke Alvaro de Zuñiga. As already mentioned, the term is later on documented in French (“rapière”) and more later on in English (“rapier”). It was also used by Germans (“rappier”). I can confirm what’s been said by Chris about the term “ropera” not being used in Spanish since the 16th c. on. I’m not sure about French, although I understand it went through a similar process of abandoning, but this would need confirmation. In German was in use at least to the end of the 16th c. (Joachim Meyer uses it in his fencing manual Gründtliche Beschreibung der kunst des Fechten, published in 1570).Anyway, where it really sticks is in English, where it seems to start describing a sword worn in everyday dress (which seems to be the original meaning of the word) and ends a describing a more or less specific typology of sword, indeed worn in - let’s say - “civilian” dress but also with a long and slender blade and with an associated style of fencing where thrusts were emphasized above cuts. The term survived in English and has indeed been re-taken recently with the spreading and internationalization of HEMA, which started as a consequence of medievalism and romanticism at the end of the 19th c. and was re-taken with renovated strength at the end of the 20th c. when the new systems of communication allowed for scholars and practitioners to share their interest and exchange information. But it was already being in use worldwide by Arms collectors, aficionados, antiquaries and scholars before that

So, Chris’ points about the actual meaning of the term are very pertinent. It was used for more than 500 years, and meant different things in different periods and different geographical locations, so it’s important to define what we do NOW understand as a rapier. And it must be defined from a modern perspective, because it’s US who are using it now to define something. To anyone familiar with the antique arms community or the HEMA world is somewhat intuitive what a rapier is: a sword supposed to be carried in civilian dress, with a more or less complex hilt (this includes cup-hilts) and with a blade somewhat “ligther” than to ones used in a military context in the same period. A sword, as some have defined it, designed to be used for “carry, duel and self-defence” (“carry”, here, would incorporate some elements of “show”). This should be enough for the majority of us, but the problems arise when we step into hardcore taxonomy, and start to try to define if it’s the blade or the hilt what defines a rapier, if it’s the intended use or the appearance, etc. I won’t go into that, after all, unless there is an agreement between the people that can be considered “authorities”, it’s all a matter of opinion, and I just have my own, as do everyone else .



Now, trying to steer this back to the original subject, Fernando’s nice Christmas Present … I would put it also at the end of the 17th c, beginning of the 18th. I would also say it’s civilian, but that’s because of the morphology of the blade, long and slender, not as much as because of the knucklebow. There is an 18th c. typology of cup-hilt swords, which, at least here, are considered Portugese and military, with broad blades, bare wood grips, plain decorations, and the quillions directly welded to the cup, which usually also features a “rompepuntas” rim. Many of these present a knucklebow attached to the pommel (usually with a transversal screw that also fixes the tang), but not all of them. In fact I’ve seen some of those swords with a long and slender blade of “rapier” (here we go again… ) type, but these could easily be officer’s swords, or “civil” swords imitating the “military” style. Anyway, in the exemplar we’re discussing here, the shape of the pommel, the style of the grip, the length of the quillions, and the type of attachment of the cup to the quillion block, all point to a “Spanish” construction. Specially in contrast with the “Portuguese” style of construction of the cup hilt that I’ve described above. But I think this would be a bit of a simplification… The legend in the blade makes this a sword clearly for a Portuguese costumer. Cup-hilts developed in Spain after a particular style of fencing (the so-called “Verdadera Destreza”). I won’t go in detail into this, but let’s say that the morphology of these hilts and their variants are adapted to it. We know that this style of fencing became quite popular in Portugal, also, so a Portuguese-made sword suited to it wouldn’t be strange, but fact is that the general style of the hilt is quite “Spanish”. The problem is that we don’t know if by that time (end 17th-befinning 18thc) there was a “Portuguese” typology of hilts that was different from the “Spanish” one. We know there was one later on (the one described above) for “military” swords, but truth is that we can’t be sure if the sword is “Spanish” made for a Portuguese, Portuguese made for a Portuguese in a “Spanish” style, or if there was no distinction at that time between “Spanish” and “Portuguese” styles of cup-hilts for “civilian” rapiers. Hence, as Fernando suggested, we maybe could speak of a “Peninsular” style in this particular case…



I don’t know if I clarified anything or muddied things even more… In any event, it’s a very nice rapier, Fernando, I’m envious… again

P.S. Notice that as I've put "Spanish" and "Portugese" in quotation marks because there might not be such a clear differentiation of styles in this case, I've also put the quotations marks in the terms "civilian" and "military", not only because they were terms that at the time were not as clearly differentiated as we like to think they are today, but because the distinction between them that we do right now regarding the swords of those periods is also consensual, and not always agreed upon.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Marc,

I drafted my post referencing Las Coplas De La Panadera, before seeing your post, so please accept my apologies for not acknowledging your contribution.

Enjoyed reading your post, which expounds things very nicely. I can't add anything meaningful to it, other than to alert readers to a very comprehensive treatment of this subject by AVB Norman in his The Rapier and the Small-Sword, pages 19-28.

Cheers
Chris

[Marc]

Absolutely no need to apologize, Chris, please, it was evidently a question of cross-posting

Best,

Marc

[Gonzalo G]

Marc, yes, there is such reference to the use of the word "ropera" on the article from Germán Dueñas Beraiz, also published by Gladius, mentioning this earlier poem, but it seems to me that we must take a more serious source about the conventional and accepted use of this term in the ordinary daily languaje of the people related with the use of the swords, and not from a poem where the languaje obeys to poetic licences.

Neverthless, the discussion was not about the obvious fact that the word, in several languajes and not only in english, had different meanings throught the time, but about the statement that "the term "rapier' is essentially and English one ", being the proper and correct, if I understood correctly. Which also, can have another implications. It is this statement that I found very questionable, and althought Chris has made a clarification about this point, still remains the fact about what can be properly named "rapier".

Another point is to say that we (whatever that "we" means), define the meaning of this word. In that case, we can also say that all the machetes mentioned in the spanish sources, in fact they are not machetes, because they do not correspond with the actual meaning of this word, and for that case, with the modern morphology of the machete. They even do not correspond with the meaning of the word, as used on the spanish army throught the 19th Century, as it´s morphology had several and drastical modifications in this period of time (short blades, long blades; straigh double edged, curved single edged, and so on). The machete has the same problem to define as a type, with fixed and invariable characteristics. This also happens with other historic swords. Of course, we can say otherwise. But that will not change, fortunately or unfortunately, the fact that the scholars, sword specialists and researchers, will continue to use this term aplied to the distinct variants produced on the evolution of the rapier, the ropera, or their equivalents in other languajes. I belive in the need to fix some parameters to each type of sword, but with the understanding of their historical evolution and uses, or we fall, as I said, in a reductionist and excesively formalist posture. The recongnition of the difficulty in diferentiating military and civil swords, portuguese and spanish, rapiers or not, makes evident the problem of making a valid "hardcore taxonomy", as proposed.


!Oh, I know!...people find very easy to learn and memorize fixed classifications, but classifications do not sustitute real knowledge, which is knowledge about the singular objects, and about their construction, variations and uses, not always reductible to be classified in a specific existing type, as they can contain features not foreseen by the people who makes such classifications. Classifications are only a tool, to be used within it´s limits, and to be discarded when not adecuated to a certain objects.

[fernando]

Magnificent input, Gentlemen.
I am still trying to emerge from such ocean of knowledge, to thank you all for the comprehensive posting exchange.
When the sword arrives, i will tell 'her' how deeply discussed 'she' has been in the Forum .
Thanks again; i will now take some time to extract the most possible from such authentic lectures ... including the poems, which make me feel how ignorant i am .

Fernando

[Marc]

Agreed.


Taxonomy is a tool, not the end, something that seems to be frequently forgotten. It makes things easier, helps in classification, allows for a more flexible and useful data treatment and contributes (ideally) in building a common language through which all those dealing with the subject can better understand each other. But, as so many things, it also works in layers. So, "rapier" is enough to evoke among those who are aware of the terminology an object specific enough to communicate the meaning. From there, we can start to add information to be as precise as necessary, and there’s where taxonomy and the consensual language it brings starts to be useful. So, for example, we can start to talk about a swept-hilt, a cup-hilt, number of branches, an urn, onion or cylindrical pommel, length, shape and section of quillions, characteristics of their finials, morphology of the knuckleguard, the grip, the ricasso, the channels, marks, inscriptions, edges, point, style of decoration, chronology, geographical area, etc… So, yes, “rapier” applied to this kind of swords is modern. So are we (some more than others ). It’s also useful, that’s why it’s used. I don’t think we should spend much time talking about if the term is “proper” or not, we should instead check if we agree or not in its use, and then we can start discussing about the object itself, instead of about the terms we use to describe it.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Gonzalo,

I have an objection to the use of the expression "thrusting sword", because the ropera was a sword which sometimes was used to cut. There are some atacks in spanish style fencing with the use of the edge of the ropera, althought it is mainly a thrusting weapon. Marc can say much more than I about spanish fencing.

However that may be, in Elizabethan England, the term "rapier" was used to describe a predominantly thrusting sword that could be fenced with - And we are using here an English word, probably an Anglicized one, in the context of the English language and a historical time-frame; So I feel that it would serve us all well to keep to this convention - Otherwise any sword capable of thrusting, from a two handed estoc used in armoured combat to the Polish cavalry koncerz, will qualify for the term, a most unrewarding proposition I suggest.

I emphasize that I am not arguing here about the origin of the word rapier, or whether they could or could not cut, rather am attempting to reduce confusion as to what was meant by rapiers in English at the time that they were used in earnest. And this in turn was prompted by questions re possible military usage of the breed.

Yes, the term "ropera" appear for the first time in an inventory of the belongings from the Duke Alvaro de Zúñiga in 1468, according with the article "La Espada Ropera Española en los Siglos XVI y XVII" by José María Pelaez Valle in Gladius (pag. 147). In french, the first reference is from 1474.

No. The Expression `espada ropera' was already used in "Coplas de la Panadera', generally attributed to Juan de Mena and written around 1445. But Mena's Coplas and both those dates that you quote predate the appearance of the kind of sword that the English recognized as a rapier.

Rapiers require skill and very specific techniques for their usage, so where are the manuals of the 1400's? Caranza wrote his famous manual in 1569, and his is considered to be the first significant substantiated Spanish treatise on fencing with the point. Though according to Castle there were supposedly three unsubstantiated manuals that predated Carnza, all mentioned by other historical treatises, but none that could be dated any earlier than the late 1400s or early 1500s.

I don't know what an `espada ropera' of the 1400's was, but if you do, please let us know and direct us to reliably dated examples. Or alternatively, to period manuals that clearly describe the weapon.

Since Spain is the original source of the espada ropera, it´s evolution began there, and it took some time and several transformations.

It is true that many held and still hold that Spain is where point fencing originated. However, beyond the undisputed fact that there were schools of arms in Spain in the 15th century, as in other nations/states, Castle tells us that we have little else to substantiate this view. The Spaniards overran the Italian states in the 16th century and by this means may have introduced point fencing there, but it is equally possible that the said play was developed by the Italians and adopted by the Spanish - Or, both developed it more or less simultaneously. I fear that this is another can of worms.

Cheers
Chris