Peter Finer 2010

Peter Finer

Peter Finer

Peter Finer 38 & 39 DUKE STREET ST JAMES’S LONDON SW1Y 6DF ENGLAND telephone :

+44 (0) 20 7839 5666 fa x : +44 (0) 20 7839 5777

from usa & canada tel/fax :

1 800 270 7951 (24 hours)

www.peterfiner.com gallery@peterfiner.com

The Cataloguing Team ian d. d. eaves, fsa, is a freelance consultant specialising in arms and armour. He was formerly Keeper of Armour at the Royal Armouries at The Tower of London where he worked for eighteen years. In 1993 he was awarded the Arms and Armour Society’s medal for services to the study of arms and armour. In March 2007 he was elected lifetime VicePresident of the Arms and Armour Society. For over thirty years he has written widely, and many of his research articles published in the Journal of The Arms and Armour Society remain the definitive text on the subject. guy wilson, ma, fsa, frsa, worked in the Royal Armouries, the British national museum of arms and armour, from 1972 until 2002, serving as Master of the Armouries from 1988 until 2002. Since retiring, he has established a creative consultancy and co-founded a design company. He is currently involved in research, writing, museum planning, display design and audio and film projects. He has published widely on the subjects of arms and armour and museology. Chairman of the International Committee of Museums and Collections of Arms and Military History (ICOMAM) and its predecessor, IAMAM, since 2002, he has been an Honorary Member of the American Society of Arms Collectors since 1998. stephen wood, ma, fsa, is an independent consultant with thirty years’ experience as a curator in British national military museums; he was Keeper of the National War Museum of Scotland 1983–2000. Author of several books and numerous articles on military history, arms and armour and military museums, he contributed fifty-three entries to The Oxford Companion to Military History (Oxford, 2001). He was created a Chevalier de l’Ordre des Palmes Académiques by the French government in 1994 in recognition of his book The Auld Alliance: France and Scotland, the military connection (Edinburgh, 1989). He has been an Honorary Member of the American Society of Arms Collectors since 1991.

Introduction Welcome to this, our ninth catalogue. When we produced our first catalogue in 1995 I never dreamed that we would publish a further eight in the following fifteen years. It is not an easy task to assemble so many important pieces each time, particularly those that are in exceptional condition and fresh to the market – but that is always our aim.

We shall be exhibiting most of items in this catalogue in New York City at The Winter Antiques Show and then in Palm Beach shortly afterwards. In March we will exhibit at Maastricht at The European Fine Art Fair. The dates of all the antique shows at which we exhibit are regularly updated on our website and we are always happy to send complimentary tickets to our established clients.

For anyone unable to visit our stand at one of the shows, please do visit our website which is now being managed and updated much more actively. I would like to take this opportunity to advise against buying on the internet unless from a reputable source. We peruse numerous auctions and the sites of many dealers both amateur and professional, unfortunately there are many, many items that are either optimistically or incorrectly described. Caveat emptor – Let the buyer beware!

As many of you will know, we opened our London shop some years ago in Duke Street, St James’s, just off Piccadilly. It is being run by our sons Redmond and Roland. They are always happy to welcome visitors there and will make every effort to accommodate their schedules. If your time is tight, give them a call and they will make an arrangement to suit you.

I would like respectfully to dedicate this catalogue to Dr Claude Blair: we shall miss not just his expertise and prodigious powers of recall, but also his humour and sense of fun.

Our cataloguers this year need little introduction and I am most grateful to all of them for their scholarly entries. Many others have contributed their time and effort, including Silke Ackermann, Doug Eberhart, Jeffrey Forgeng, Ron Gabel, Robert Held, Herbert G. Houze, Stuart Ivinson, James D. Lavin, Mark Murray-Flutter, Angus Patterson, Stuart Pyhrr, David Thomson, Dr Paula Turner, Ann Wagner, David Wilson and Larry Wilson.

Especial thanks are due to Chris Challis, who once again has spent many long hours taking photographs of armour that glints, swords which refuse to remain where placed, cannon which are extremely difficult to manoeuvre and pistols which refuse to stay in focus. All our catalogues are a testimony to both his skill and patience. Particular thanks go to Nickki Eden, who manages our database and is in charge of catalogue distribution.

I hope that you enjoy this catalogue – there are many exceptional pieces, each one unique, and I feel that this collection of items, which represents thousands of miles of travelling and many hours of negotiating, often with extremely reluctant vendors, ensures that this is one of the very best catalogues that we have ever produced. As always if we can help in any way with the formation or development of a collection, its conservation, maintenance or display, please do let us know. We have wide experience gained over many years of working in the field of antique arms and armour and are more than happy to share it with you. peter finer

Our Terms of Business Every item in this catalogue is for sale. All sales are made on a first come, first served, basis.

We will not reserve any item, but will send further photographs on request if required.

All the items described in this catalogue are guaranteed to be genuine antiques and of the period stated.

US and Canadian callers should note that when using our 1 800 270 7951 number they will be answered by a 24-hour telephone answering/fax machine. Please send a fax or leave a message and we will respond as soon as possible. Alternatively you can contact us by email: gallery@peterfiner.com.

We are always interested in purchasing single items or complete collections of antique guns, pistols, swords, armour and cannon, or taking goods on consignment. Our terms for selling are half those charged by the leading auction houses.

OUR BANKERS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM Adam & Company 22 King Street, London SW1Y 6QY Account Name: Peter Finer Sort Code: 83–91–36 Account Number: 14492400 IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA J.P. Morgan Chase 270, Park Avenue, 41st floor New York NY 10017 USA Account Name: Peter Finer Account Number: 817710007 A.B.A. / Routing Number: 021000021 Swift: CHASUS33 WE ACCEPT ALL MAJOR CREDIT CARDS © Peter Finer MMX Editor: Paula Turner Photography: Christopher Challis Design: David Bonser Printed and Bound in England at the De Montfort Press

by De Montfort International Printers Ltd.

Table of Contents

1. ‘Corinthian’ Helmet, circa 580–520 bc

6

2. Viking Sword, Second Half of the Tenth Century

11

3. Italian Basinet, circa 1400

15

4. ‘Venetian’ Sallet, circa 1460

20

5. North Italian ‘Gothic’ Shaffron, circa 1460

24

6. South German Stechzeug Armour, circa 1490–5

27

7. North German Wheellock Pistol, circa 1555

35

8. North German Field Armour, circa 1560–5

41

9. South German Powder Flask, circa 1580

50

10. German Parade Burgonet, circa 1585

52

11. Italian Half Shaffron, circa 1590

57

12. German Estoc, Saxon, circa 1580–90

64

13. German Rapier, Saxon, circa 1580–90

66

14. German Rapier and Dagger, Saxon, circa 1590–1600

68

15. German Estoc, Saxon, circa 1590–1600

70

16. German Horse Muzzle, Saxon, dated 1604

73

17. German Rapier, circa 1610

79

18. Pair of Scottish Snaphaunce Pistols, dated 1622

83

19. French Smallsword, circa 1655

89

20. French Smallsword, circa 1710–15

93

21. Scottish Basket-hilted Broadsword, circa 1718–37

97

22. Pair of Italian Snaphaunce Pistols, dated 1725

101

23. Bohemian Combined Candle Lighter and Alarm Clock, circa 1730

107

24. German Hunting Trousse, circa 1750

111

25. Pair of Russian Flintlock Pistols, circa 1765

117

26. Pair of French Pistol Holsters, circa 1765

124

27. French Smallsword, circa 1770–80

127

28. Russian Flintlock Sporting Gun, circa 1770

131

29. English Magazine Repeating Flintlock Pistol, circa 1780–3

137

30. Gold-mounted Indian Presentation Smallsword, dated 1785

143

31. Russian Flintlock Sporting Gun for a Boy, dated 1787

149

32. Spanish Miquelet Lock Sporting Gun, dated 1788

155

33. English Library Chair, circa 1797

161

34. Cased Pair of French Flintlock Pistols, circa 1799

167

35. American Gold-hilted Sword presented to Lieutenant George W. Rodgers, USS Wasp, 1812

175

36. Iron cuirass (yukinoshita-do), Japanese, Edo period, circa 1830–40

183

37. American Silver-hilted Sword presented to Major Daniel H. McPhail, dated 1849

191

38. Cased Pair of American Percussion Pocket Pistols, circa 1850

197

39. Spanish Iron Jewel Casket, circa 1870

203

40. English Watercolour, painted 1894–7 ‘The Marquess of Waterford at The Eglinton Tournament’

211

1

A Magnificent and Iconic ‘Corinthian’ Helmet, circa 580–520 bc Formed from a single sheet of bronze, of curvilinear form, the skull domed and the sides and back concave, the back flaring outwards at its base to form a neck guard and the sides being indented at the centres of their bases, over the shoulders; with a long spatulate nose guard between large eye holes tapering to points at their outer ends and above a wide opening for the mouth and chin; the border pierced all round with small rivet holes – some rivets remaining on the nose guard and above the eye holes – for the attachment of a padded lining and border; the crown of the skull pierced with two small pairs of holes and the nape of the neck retaining a small bronze loop for the attachment of a crest.

Height 9⅛ in Width 7¾ in Weight 2 lb 9½ oz Our fine helmet, which survives in remarkably good condition, is one of a small group of this particular form that has been recorded, many of which are now in museum collections throughout the world. Its shape and style place it towards the beginning of the development of this type of classical Greek helmet, associated since the time of the historian Herodotus (c. 484–425 bc) with the city of Corinth, and it represents the fully developed hoplite helmet so characteristically emblematic of that type of classical Greek warrior.

The term ‘hoplite’, meaning a heavily armed infantryman, was in use in the late classical period and derived from the ancient Greek word ‘hopla’, the plural form of ‘hoplon’, meaning the arms and armour of the armed man. The hoplite’s arms and armour comprised a helmet, breastplate and backplate, greaves, shield, spear and sword: the weight of this ensemble, or ‘panoply’, has been estimated at between 50 and 70 pounds and, of this total weight, the helmet generally weighed more than 5 pounds. Hoplites, independent and free citizens of Greece who had voting rights, were mainly farmers and their attitude to warfare tended to be fiercely parochial: their local assemblies decided where, when and why to engage in battle.

6

‘Corinthian’ helmets, named after the citystate, seem first to have appeared in classical Greece in about 700 bc: they were a development of and a major improvement on previous helmets which had generally been made from several small parts, usually riveted together, or made in two parts, joined longitudinally along the crest of the skull. Part of the significance of the Corinthian helmets lies in their having been made from single sheets of bronze, worked over an anvil or other shaped former to produce the shape now so much associated with that period of classical warfare: this is indicative of an important development in metalworking skill and technology. The form of the Corinthian helmet changed over the long period during which it protected the head of the hoplite (c. 700–300 bc): beginning with relatively vertical sides and back and with a comparatively wide T-shaped opening at the front, the shape developed into one with pronouncedly concave sides and back, with a flaring neck guard and with an opening at the front that narrowed as the period progressed. Our fine helmet falls into what Anthony Snodgrass called Group 3, which he described as the ‘first “classical” phase of the Corinthian helmet’, a group categorised by their possession of marked concavity at the sides and back and, particularly, with the indentation at

the sides that was intended to allow the helmet to sit comfortably just above the shoulders. The gradual widening of the base of the Corinthian helmet allowed it to be pushed back on the head when the wearer was not in combat. This allowed the wearer not only to hear better but also to cool down – the disadvantages of this type of helmet being that it restricted hearing and would have been very hot to wear, particularly in summer in Greece (the time of year at which most military campaigning took place) and by hoplites who traditionally wore their hair long and cultivated full beards. A Corinthian helmet worn on the back of the head by a bearded warrior remains one of our most evocative images of Antiquity, in the form of the marble bust of the statesman, orator and warrior Pericles (c. 495–429 bc) (British Museum, inv. no. GR 1805.7–3.91): although Pericles’s helmet is of a later style than ours, with

8

a more defined crown, narrower frontal opening and with surface decoration around the edges, it is this striking image that has so evoked ‘classical Greece’ for connoisseurs and scholars for more than 1,800 years.

A few excavated examples survive, but much of what we know of how these helmets appeared at the time when they were worn is derived from contemporary images, frequently painted on vases. A few bronze statues survive that show hoplites in their full panoply of arms and armour and indicate what a fearsome sight they must have been en masse. From these images we know that the helmet was generally fitted with a crest and it is noteworthy that our helmet retains both small holes in its crown and a loop at the nape of its neck where a crest would have been attached.

Ancient images also show crests fixed to run either along the middle of the skull from front to

back or across it from side to side, or positioned centrally and forming an erupting and cascading tuft. Scholars generally agree that the helmets’ crests were probably formed of horsehair, which, being an organic material, rarely survives. The linings and edgings of the helmets would like­wise have been of organic material – padded or quilted leather – and similarly do not usually survive. The crests must have added height and fear­someness to the appearance of the wearer but they cannot have been so extravagant or heavy that they affected the function of the helmet in battle.

The hoplite’s principal battle formation was the phalanx, a body of heavily armed infantrymen in close formation, usually eight ranks deep, with the long spears of the front three rows presenting a formidable hedge and being forced forward relentlessly by the ranks behind. When contact was made, casualties in the phalanx’s

front ranks were predictably high in the ensuing bloody contest. The use of the phalanx, which was famous for its rigid discipline, led to the phenomenal predominance of Greece in land warfare in the eastern Mediterranean until the widening of warfare in that region in the fourth century bc. Helmets such as our iconic example, and their stylistic descendants, would have been worn by the hoplite armies that fought at such battles as Marathon (490 bc) and Plataea (479 bc). The Corinthian helmet is an abiding image of war in antiquity and, for all its limitations, extraordinarily elegant in its form; it is not surprising that that form was to be so closely replicated in the ‘barbute’ steel helmets made in Milan in the fifteenth century, nearly two thousand years after our helmet was worn by a hoplite warrior on the plains of ancient Greece.

See no. 4 in this catalogue.

9

Provenance

Münzen und Medaillen GmbH, TEFAF, Maastricht 1989 Private collection, USA

Literature

V. D. Hanson, The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece, London, 1989, p. 72 V. D. Hanson, ‘Hoplites’, in R. Holmes (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Military History, Oxford, 2001, pp. 414–15 P. Hunt, ‘Military Forces’ in P. Sabin, H. Van Wees and M. Whitby, M. (eds), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, Cambridge, 2007, p. 114

10

J. F. Lazenby and D. Whitehead, ‘The Myth of the Hoplite’s Hoplon’, The Classical Quarterly, new series, vol. 46, no. 1 (1996), pp. 27–33 J. E. Lendon, Soldiers and Ghosts: a History of Battle in Classical Antiquity, New Haven and London, 2005, p. 54 A. Snodgrass, Early Greek Armour and Weapons from the end of the Bronze Age to 600 bc, Edinburgh, 1964, p. 23 A. Snodgrass, Arms and Armour of the Greeks, London, 1967

2

A Fine and Probably Unique Silver-hilted Viking Sword, Second Half of the Tenth Century With broad slightly tapering blade formed on each face with a single pattern-welded fuller, hilt of solid silver comprising trilobate pommel and short straight guards each formed with a raised transverse band incised around a series of equispaced dots with concentric circles separated by trios of vertical lines, and straight-sided grip of dark horn flaring to its ends and formed with four raised transverse bands in imitation of bindings.

Overall length 36 in Blade length 30¼ in Although it is as fierce warriors that the Vikings have traditionally been viewed, the fine arms carried by their chieftains testify to both the artistic and technological sophistication of their culture. In the context of their time, the Vikings were probably no more or less barbaric in their behaviour than most of their contemporaries. The Irish, however, who endured many of their most savage raids in the west, inevitably judged them as a ‘ruthless, wrathful, foreign, purely pagan people’, while the Arabs who traded with them in the east looked down upon them as rude and coarse ‘fireworshipers’ and ‘heathens’, observing that ‘They are the dirtiest of God’s creatures . . . and they do not wash themselves after sex’. Yet the Vikings were not simply pirates and plunderers, but able administrators and highly successful international merchants too. Through a combination of their military prowess and commercial acumen, they were able to gather to themselves a wealth sufficient to commission from the finest artists and craftsmen among their ranks, works of art of the most exquisite quality and beauty.

For members of a warrior-cult like the Vikings, few objects would have been deemed more worthy of embellishment than their weapons. Our fine sword shown here – clearly that of a chieftain – is apparently unique in its possession of a hilt of solid silver; it is decorated with a pattern of dots surrounded by circles. This popular Viking motif also occurs as part of the decoration of the 12

hilt of a ninth-century sword in the National Museum of Ireland, Dublin (inv. no. WK 33), found in a grave at Kilmainham, Ireland, and as the main ornament of that of another example, of the late tenth or early eleventh century, in the Universitets Oldsaksamling, Oslo (inv. no.

C3210-1), found at Korsoygaden, near Hedmark, Norway. The latter has a form similar to that of our sword but, unlike it, is composed only of iron sheathed with silver. Rather more elaborate silver sheathing is to be found on the hilt of a nearly contemporary sword, lacking its pommel, in the Statens Historiska Museum, Stockholm, which was found in Dybeck, Schonen, Sweden, The hilt of our sword, made of solid silver, would doubtless have been an exceptional rarity even in its own time, and is very certainly so now.

In form, it can be seen as a variant of Jan Petersen’s type T, thought by him to have been produced from the second quarter of the tenth century to the first quarter of the eleventh century. The moderately long, broad, slightly tapering blade with which the hilt is fitted can for its part be seen as transitional between Alfred Geibig’s type 3 and type 5, respectively thought by him to have been produced from the late eighth century to the third quarter of the tenth century, and the mid-tenth century to the third quarter of the eleventh century. Our sword is most likely, therefore, to have been made in the second half of the tenth century.

Of particular note is the pattern-welded construction of the central portion of its blade. Pure iron was too soft to make an effective blade. Adding carbon to its content, however, converted it to steel which was not only intrinsically harder than iron but could be made even harder by quenching it when red-hot. Unfortunately, in hardening the steel in this way, it also became excessively brittle.

A further problem for the bladesmith was that the usual method of producing steel, namely by heating iron in charcoal, allowed carbon to be introduced only into the surface of the metal. To distribute the carbon evenly through the metal, it had to be repeatedly folded and hammer-welded under intense heat. Even then, care had to be taken in the subsequent heat-treatment of the blade to ensure that it became neither too soft nor too brittle.

Pattern-welding offered the smith a safe way of dealing with this problem. By twisting and forging together several rods of iron that had been heated in carbon to give them an outer layer of steel, a blade could be produced that, with the appropriate heat-treatment, combined some of the hardness of steel with the malleability of iron. Very often, as in our example, only the central portion of the blade was formed in this way, with separate steel strips being hammer-welded to either side of it to produce hard edges.

First introduced in the third century, and attaining its greatest popularity around the sixth and seventh centuries, the practice of pattern-welding continued until well into the time of the Vikings, notwithstanding the impressive advances made by the latter in the art of manufacturing and reliably hardening all-steel blades. The reason for this survival was probably aesthetic as much as practical for, when polished and lightly etched, blades of the kind under discussion showed an attractive pattern that would surely have delighted their original owners as much as they do the modern student and collector of these rare relics of a colourful and once far-reaching culture.

Provenance

On the Dutch art market in the 1980s Private collection, Germany

Literature

Alfred Geibig, Beitrage zur Morphologischen Entwicklung des Schwertes im Mittelalter, Coburg, 1991, pp. 6, 153, figs 22 and 40 James Graham-Campbell and Dafydd Kidd, The Vikings, London, 1980, pp. 11–15 and 113–14 Ian Pierce, Swords of the Viking Age, Woodbridge and Rochester, 2002, pp. 18–19, 22, 42–3, 108 and 145–51, pl. VIII Heribert Seitz, Blankwaffen, Vol. I, Brunswick, 1965, pp. 108–10, figs 59 (T1) and 64

13

3

A Highly Rare and Important Italian Basinet, circa 1400 Formed of one piece with a high pointed crown encircled at the level of the brow by fourteen holes for lining rivets, and extending downwards to just above the level of the shoulders, its rear shaped to the nape and turned outwards over the neck to form a short ‘tail’, and its front cut with an arched face-opening that narrows towards its lower end.

Height 12⅝ in Width 8¼ in Weight 4 lb 13½ oz For the lover of early armour, the appeal of the medieval basinet lies not only in its exceptional rarity but in the elegance of its form. The deep drawing of such a helmet from a single piece of metal clearly required much skill. It was not until the fourteenth century, however, that that skill could for the first time be widely developed.

Before then iron and steel could only be produced in small quantities. Mail was therefore the most common defence of the earlier Middle Ages and any helmets and body armour that accompanied it tended to be formed of several small plates that had to be riveted to one another or to a connecting fabric. With the introduction of improved production techniques in the fourteenth century, however, larger plates became available to the armourer, allowing him to make more readily one-piece helmets like ours and even, eventually, full plate armour.

The basinet had its origins in the small, hemi­ spherical skull cap or cervellière of the thirteenth century, typically worn under the coif or hood of mail of that period. In the following century, however, it evolved into a slightly more substantial, independent defence, having an increasingly tall, conical crown of the kind seen in our example.

Two main lines of development were followed by the basinet of the fourteenth century. In the first, it acquired a movable visor and an aventail of mail that respectively protected the wearer’s face and neck, while in the second it lacked both of these features but had its lower edge 16

extended downwards, almost to the shoulders, to compensate for the lack of the aventail. Our basinet is a rare surviving example of the second type, popular with the infantryman of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries because of the superior visibility and ventilation that it afforded its wearer.

A silver altarpiece in Pistoia Cathedral, completed by Francesco di Niccolò and Lionardo di Ser Giovanni of Florence in 1376, a fresco in the Basilica di S. Antonio, Padua, produced by Altichieri da Zevio about 1376–9, and a further fresco in the Oratorio di S. Giorgio, Padua, produced by the same artist about 1379–84, provide early evidence of the use of this type of helmet. The type is of particular interest to the student of armour in that it was almost certainly from it that the sallet of the fifteenth century eventually developed. It may well have been to a basinet of the type under discussion that the term celata, first recorded in an Italian text of 1407, originally referred. By the mid-fifteenth century, however, it was being applied to the type of headpiece called by modern writers a ‘barbuta’ or ‘Venetian sallet’. The latter differed from its predecessor only in having a rounded and medially ridged crown rather than a conical one. See no. 4 in this catalogue.

The most closely comparable basinets to ours come from the former armoury of the Venetian garrison at Chalcis on the Aegean island of Euboea which fell to invading Turkish forces

in 1470, and the imperial Ottoman arsenal at Istanbul, where trophies of arms taken as booty from defeated Christian forces were periodically deposited.

As recorded more fully in entry no. 4, the Chalcis armour was discovered in 1840 and shortly afterwards taken to Athens where it moved around for a number of years before finally coming to rest in the National Historical Museum, Athens. Around 1919–20, however, many pieces from the collection were sold to Dr Bashford Dean of New York, the best of which eventually passed, in 1929, to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Acc. nos 29.158.45 and 42.50.33 in that museum’s collections are of exactly the same form as our helmet. Nos B2 and

18

B7 remaining in the museum at Athens are also very similar, although the latter has a faceted crown and a somewhat Y-shaped face-opening, anticipating the fashion seen in later ‘Venetian’ sallets.

Two more examples of the kind of basinet under discussion can be recorded in the arsenal at Istanbul, housed since the mid-fifteenth century in the former Christian church of St Irene. Interestingly, a third helmet of this form, preserved alongside them, appears originally to have been fitted with both an aventail and a detachable visor of Klappvisier type, hinging at the brow. Four further helmets of this type, also part of the Chalcis group, are recorded: one each in the National Historical Museum, Athens

(no. B1), in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (acc. no. 29.158.43), in the Cleveland Museum of Art (acc. no. 23. 1065) and in the Wallace Collection, London (cat. no. A74).

It is conceivable, from the character of its preservation, that our helmet might also originally have formed part of the Chalcis hoard.

At least thirty-six helmets were lost from the hoard between its discovery in 1840 and its first detailed publication in 1911.

Provenance

Private collection, Germany

Literature

Claude Blair, ‘Notes on Armour from Chalcis’, Arms & Armour at the Dorchester, London, 1982, pp. 8–14 Lionello G. Boccia, The Xalkis Funds in Athens and New York, privately distributed by the author at the Ninth Triennial Congress of the International Association of Museums of Arms and Military History held in Washington in 1981, no pagination Charles J. ffoulkes, ‘On Italian Armour from Chalcis in the Ethnographical Museum at Athens’, Archaeologia, vol. LXII, 1911, pp. 384–5 and pl. LII Carl Otto von Kienbusch and Stephen V. Grancsay, The Bashford Dean Collection of Arms and Armor in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Portland, Maine, 1933, p. 115 and pl. III Stuart W. Pyhrr, ‘European Armor from the Imperial Ottoman Arsenal’, Metropolitan Museum Journal, vol.

24, 1986, p. 91 and figs 8 and 12

19

4

A Highly Rare ‘Venetian’ Sallet, Eastern Mediterranean, circa 1460 Formed of a crown and a lower plate joined to one another at the level of the eyes by eleven roundheaded rivets, the medially ridged crown rising at its apex to a rounded point and pierced at the brow with five holes for lining rivets, the subcylindrical lower plate flaring slightly at its lower end and pierced near its upper end with a further twenty holes for lining rivets, the two elements cut at the front with a T-shaped face opening, the upper edge of which issues downwards between the eyes as a short tongue-like nasal projection, and the two elements each struck at their rear with a trio of dots used by the armourer to indicate that they belonged together.

Height 10¾ in Width 8⅛ in Weight 5 lb 10½ oz Few pieces of armour can boast the romantic history of this rare early helmet. Prior to 1470 it had formed a part of the armoury of the Venetian fortress of Chalcis, situated on the Aegean island of Negroponte, known today by its Greek name of Euboea. Lying at the outermost limits of the Christian world, this strategically placed fortress constituted from the late fourteenth century a first line of defence against the then rapidly expanding Ottoman Turkish empire. In 1470, however, it fell to Mohammed II, leaving the way open for him to invade Greece and the Balkans.

Although the occupying Turks would doubt­ less have stripped the fortress bare of whatever arms they found there, a significant part of its armoury remained hidden from them. Only in 1840 did it come to light when part of an inside wall of the fortress, by then converted to use as a hospital, collapsed during construction work to reveal a vaulted chamber. Inside it were found linen sacks containing medieval armour, weapons and jewellery. At the command of King Otto of Greece, the armour was brought to Athens for display in one of the halls of his newly built palace, but later moved about from one place to another, including for a while the Acropolis, until it found a permanent home in the National Historical Museum of the city.

20

About 1919–20, however, some of the Chalcis pieces were sold by the museum to Dr Bashford Dean of Riverdale, New York. A year after his death in 1928 most of them passed to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, where he had for many years served as curator of arms and armour. A few duplicates were nevertheless released from his collection either during his life­ time or shortly afterwards. Most important of them was our helmet which was sold anonymously by auction in New York in 1929, as having come ‘From the ancient armory of a castle on an island in the Eastern Mediterranean which during the fifteenth century was taken and dismantled by the Turks. It was one of the points of call of Crusaders on their way from Venice to the Holy Land.’

The helmet was acquired at the sale by Clarence H. Mackay of Harbor Hill, Long Island, New York, for the then notable sum of $4,600. From him it passed, shortly before the Second World War, into the collection of Hans von Schulthess of Schloss Au, near Zurich, Switzerland, whose heirs retained it until recently. It has had two working-life repairs, there are small riveted and hammer-welded patches to the nasal projection and to the right side of the face opening. The apex of the crown has also been repaired with a more recent welded patch.

Most closely resembling it is another of the Chalcis group, sold by Bashford Dean to his friend Carl Otto von Kienbusch of New York, who subsequently bequeathed it to the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Both helmets have only slightly pointed crowns, relatively short lower halves, and T-shaped, rather than Y-shaped, face openings, suggesting that they are among the latest members of their group. Although some of the armour found at Chalcis may have been as much as three-quarters of a century old at the time of its abandonment, most of it was probably made in the decades immediately preceding the surrender of Negroponte to the Turks in 1470. Since the helmet under discussion is likely, for reasons argued above, to be among the latest members of its group, it probably dates from around or just after the middle years of the fifteenth century.

Recent research suggests that it was a product of the ancient republic of Ragussa (now the Bosnian

22

city of Dubrovnik), renowned for its armourers and weaponsmiths in the Middle Ages and enjoying a lively trade with Venice in that period.

The use of helmets of this type was not, of course, confined to Chalcis. The crown of one now in the Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds, was initially stated in 1842 to have come from the ‘Grand Armoury at Constantinople’, but then, in 1844, to have come from the ‘Armoury of Santarem’. The crowns of two others now in private hands are respectively stated to have been found in the River Tiber and on a beach in Cyprus. Perhaps significantly in this context, Cyprus came under Venetian rule in 1473.

Although the crowns of such helmets can be recorded in a number of public and private collections in Europe, complete examples are altogether rarer: three are to be found in the National Historical Museum, Athens, two in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and,

as acknowledged above, one in the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Our example is the only one now remaining in private hands.

Provenance

The armoury of the Venetian garrison at Chalcis, Euboea The Royal Palace, Athens The Acropolis, Athens The National Historical Museum, Athens Dr Bashford Dean, Riverdale, New York American Art Association, New York, 23–24 November 1928, lot 207 Clarence H. Mackay, Harbor Hill, Long Island, New York Hans von Schulthess, Schloss Au, near Zurich, Switzerland

Literature

C. Blair, ‘Notes on Armour from Chalcis’, Arms & Armour at the Dorchester, London, 1982, pp. 8–14, fig. 2

Lionello G. Boccia, The Xalkis Funds in Athens and New York, privately distributed by the author at the Ninth Triennial Congress of the International Association of Museums of Arms and Military History held in Washington in 1981, no pagination J. A. Buchon, La Gréce Continentale et La Morée, Paris, 1843, p. 134 C. J. ffoulkes, ‘On Italian Armour from Chalcis in the Ethnographical Museum at Athens’, Archaeologia, vol. LXII, 1911, pp. 385–6, pl. LII C. O. von Kienbusch, The Kretzchmar von Kienbusch Collection of Armor and Arms, Princeton NJ, 1963, p.

52, pl. XXXIX C. O. von Kienbusch and S. V. Grancsay, The Bashford Dean Collection of Arms and Armor in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Portland, Maine. 1933, pp. 117–8, pl. III H. R. Robinson, ‘A Converted Helmet and some Early Barbute and Armets’, Journal of the Arms and Armour Society, vol. I, no. 3, 1953, p. 36, pl. VIId W. Wilbrand, ‘Die Hunderte Helme von Negropont’, Zeitschrift für Historische Waffen- und Kostümkunde, vol. VIII, 1918, p. 30

23

5

A Highly Rare North Italian ‘Gothic’ Shaffron by the ‘Master A’, Milanese, circa 1460 Formed of one piece with a pronounced medial ridge, lateral boxing and rounded cutouts for the eyes and ears, the edges of the former flanged outwards, both finished with plain inward turns, the lateral edges of the shaffron pierced with numerous small holes for the attachment of a lining, the upper edge pierced with two more for the attachment of a poll-plate, and the brow pierced with a further four, probably for the attachment of an escutcheon and plume; the right of the brow struck twice, side by side, with a maker’s mark comprising the Lombardic letter A enclosed within an orb surmounted by a cross.

Height 18¾ in Weight 1 lb 7 oz The mounted knight was the dominant figure of the medieval battlefield, charged with the task of forcing in the ranks of the enemy, thereby creating openings that could be exploited by following infantry. His chances of success were clearly increased when his horse, like himself, was protected by some kind of armour. The finely formed shaffron shown here is among the earliest pieces of medieval horse armour now surviving.

First mentioned by Robert Wace in his Roman du Rou of 1160–74, armour for the horse developed along similar lines to that for the man, with defences of rigid plate gradually supplanting those of mail. Shaffrons of plate are referred to as early as 1266 in the post-mortem inventory of Eudes, Comte de Nevers, and appear in some numbers in the illuminations of the Romance of Alexander (Bodleian Library, Oxford, ms 264), produced in Flanders about 1338–44.

The earliest surviving medieval shaffron is that now in the Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds (inv. no. vi.446), possibly made for the military commander Richard Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick (1382–1439). Another, of slightly later date, in the Palazzo Ducale, Venice, was probably made within the first half of the fifteenth century.

Closer in date to our example is a shaffron of about 1450–60 in the Historisches Museum der 24

Stadt, Vienna (inv. no. 505). Fitted with separate defences for the horse’s ears, eyes, cheeks and nose, it is of particular interest not only in forming part of the earliest surviving complete medieval horse armour, but also in bearing the marks of the Milanese armourer Pier Innocenzo da Faerno, twice named in contemporary records: first in 1452 and then again in connection with the manufacture of two horse armours in 1462.

A further, but rather more lightly constructed shaffron by this maker, made for a member of the Matsch family, is preserved in the celebrated armoury of his heirs at Schloss Churburg, South Tyrol (cat. no. 67). Aside from the fact that it is decorated with fluting – presumably as a concession to the tastes of its German purchasers – it closely resembles our example in having simple cutouts for the eyes and ears, flanged outwards in the case of the former. Another shaffron of the same sort, also bearing the marks of da Faerno, is in the Musée de l’Armée, Paris (inv. no. PO.2374).

Although the maker of our shaffron, the ‘Master A’, has not so far been identified in the records of his time, it can safely be assumed that he, like Pier Innocenzo da Faerno, worked in Milan, then Europe’s leading centre for the production of armour. A further shaffron,

Our shaffron is in any event the product of a master of the Gothic era: a period in which the craft of the armourer is acknowledged to have reached its highest point, both in terms of elegance and functionality. Aside from the Churburg example, moreover, it is now the only defence of its kind known to remain in private hands.

Provenance successively in the collections of J. N. Mappin, S. J. Whawell, E. W. Stead, W. R. Hearst and C. O. von Kienbusch (cat. no. 211), and now in the Philadelphia Museum of Art (acc. no.

1977.167.2640), appears to be struck with the same maker’s mark. It differs from our example only in having a separate plate over the nose.

Shaffrons, of course, were not the only elements of armour made by the ‘Master A’.

Open-faced ‘Venetian’ sallets bearing his mark can be recorded in both the Museo National del Bargello, Florence (cat. no. C 1634), and the Collezione Odescalchi, Rome (inv. no. 797).

Interestingly, the majuscule letter A of his mark is replaced in the latter instance by a minuscule one, suggesting that it might be of a later date than the other pieces recorded from his hand.

26

Comte D’Arlingcourt Count Hector Economos William Randolph Hearst Christie’s, London, 20 December 1978, lot 97 Howard M. Curtis, Christie’s, London, 31 October 1984, lot 238 Private collection, Germany

Literature

Lionello G. Boccia, and Eduardo T. Coelho, L’Arte dell’Armatura in Italia Milan, 1967, pp. 140–1, 143–4, pls 90–91 and 125–7.

Nolfo di Carpegna, Antiche Armi dal Sec. IX al XVIII già Collezione Odescalchi Rome, 1969, no. 25, p. 8 Ian Eaves and Thom Richardson ‘The Warwick Shaffron’, Journal of the Arms and Armour Society vol.

XII, no. 4, September 1987, pp. 211–2, n. 25 C. O. von Kienbusch, The Kretzchmar von Kienbusch Collection of Armor and Arms Princeton NJ, 1963, cat. no. 211, p. 117, pl. LXXVI. Graf Oswald Trapp and James Gow Mann, The Armoury of the Castle of Churburg London, 1929, pp. 99–100, pl.

XXXIIIb

6

A Highly Rare and Important Composite South German Stechzeug Armour, circa 1490–5 Comprising ‘ frog-mouthed’ Stechhelm with front plate projecting forward to a ‘ lip’ and fitted at its lower end with a later extension plate attached by screws to the top of the breastplate, low domed crown plate and rear plate, all rigidly riveted to one another, the crown and rear plates pierced with pairs of lace holes for the attachment of a lining, the latter further pierced at each side with heartshaped ventilation holes and a slot for a lining strap, and retaining at its lower end the proximal portion of a hasp to connect it to the backplate; breastplate pierced at its upper end with threaded holes for the attachment of the helm, at its left side with a pair of large lace holes for the attachment of a Stechtartsche, and at its boxed right side with threaded and plain holes for the attachment of a Rasthaken, its upper corners and sides fitted with hasps to connect it to the backplate, its right side with a sturdy lance rest attached by means of screws and studs, and its lower edge with a fishtailed internal abdominal plate originally connected by straps to the tailplate of the backplate, and a short waist lame formed at its upper edge with a truncated central cusp and flanged outwards at its lower edge to receive a fauld of five upward-overlapping lames, the lowest of which is cut over the crotch with a shallow arch separating a pair of tassets each of six upward-overlapping lames; backplate pierced at its upper corners and sides with threaded holes for the attachment of the hasps of the breastplate, over each shoulder with slots forming integral buckles for the reception of the free ends of internal shoulder straps issuing from the breastplate, and at the small of the back with a central vertical slot for the reception of the lower end of the rear hasp of the helm, and fitted within its lower edge with a later flaring tailpiece; pauldrons each formed of eight upward-overlapping lames of which the first two extend inwards over the chest and back, and the remainder only as far as the inside of the arm; large circular left besagew rising to a low conical point at is centre and curving forward very slightly at its upper and lower ends; left vambrace formed of a short gutter-shaped upper cannon, a couter of seven lames and a one-piece manifer boxed at each side of the hand; and a right vambrace formed of a gutter-shaped upper cannon, a couter of five lames and a polder mitten, the inner plate of which is formed at its upper end with a large fan-like wing, and is fitted at its lower end with a separate wristplate; the rear of the helm, the backplate, the pauldrons and the vambraces all decorated with ‘Gothic’ fluting, the waist lame and manifer with incised cabling, the lower edge of the left couter with fretting, and the lames of the fauld and tassets with cusped and bracket-cut upper edges, the upper edge of the waist lame struck with four circles in a lozenge formation, probably representing a serial number, and with five Saxon ownership marks, in one case comprising the arms of the Archmarshalcy of the Holy Roman Empire, in three others, the arms of the Dukes of Saxony, and in the remaining case, both sets of arms impaled.

Overall height including plinth 78¼ in Weight 75 lb

28

Few types of armour can boast the bold forms and imposing presence of the German Stechzeug of the high ‘Gothic’ era. Costly rarities even in the time of their use, such massively constructed defences survive today only in a relatively small number of collections. Ours is now the only authentic example of its kind known to remain in private hands.

The earliest record of our armour dates from the late nineteenth century when it formed part of the collection of the German Vice-Chancellor, Prince Otto zu Stolberg-Werningerode (1837– 96). It was presumably kept by him at his family seat of Schloss Werningerode, lying within the governorate of Magdeburg, to the north of the Harz Mountains. From there it passed into the collection of the printing magnate Georg Jacob Paul von Decker at Schloss Boberstein, near Hirshberg, Silesia. Although already owned by him as early as 1880, the castle is unlikely to have been furnished by him with armour until after he had completed its rebuilding in 1894. It was sold by his heirs in 1922.

At some time before that date, however, the armour had found its way into the collections of the nearby Schlesisches Museum, Breslau, Silesia, only to be transferred soon afterwards to the Zeughaus (now the Deutsches Historisches Museum), Berlin. The transfer must have taken place no later than 1921 when its helmet alone was illustrated as a part of the latter’s collections in Germany’s leading historical arms journal.

Two photographs, probably dating from the 1930s, show the complete armour mounted in one of the museum’s display cabinets. The museum’s accession numbers are still painted within several of its elements. In 1938 the armour was sold by the Zeughaus, through the agency of the Berlin dealer E. Kahlert and the Lucerne auctioneer Theodore Fischer, to the Swiss brewery magnate Hans von Schulthess (1885–1951) of Schloss Au, near Zurich.

The armour is of a kind intended for wear in the Gestech: a distinctively German version of the so-called ‘jousts of peace’ in which two mounted 30

contestants endeavoured to splinter their coroneltipped lances against one another. From the second quarter of the fifteenth century onwards such jousts tended in most parts of Europe to be fought over a dividing tilt or barrier that prevented the contestants from colliding. In Germany, however, the tilt was rarely employed before the early sixteenth century.

From about 1480, there­fore, participants in the Gestech, accepting that collisions would remain a feature of their sport, took to protecting their legs and the chests of their horses with thickly padded Stechsacken or ‘bumpers’ hung around their horses’ necks. The armours worn by them consequently needed no leg defences.

Special armour for use in the Gestech is mentioned as early as 1436 in an inventory of the armoury of the Archduke Friedrich of Tyrol (later Emperor Friedrich II). As in later years, it would presumably have been of heavier make than the contemporary field armour and equipped with a helm of ‘frog-mouthed’ form, having the lower edge of its sight bent forward to produce a protruding ‘lip’. Proper vision for the wearer of such a helm was only possible when he leant forward. On straightening up at the moment of impact, however, the ‘lip’ completely protected his eyes from the splinters of his opponent’s lance, which were a major cause of injury in the lists. The ‘frog-mouthed’ helm achieved its most elegant form in the strongly ‘swept’ German Stechhelm of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries.

That of our armour, closely resembling one in the Bayerisches Nationalmuseum, Munich, shows the deep pits and gouges of an opponent’s lance, as also does the besagew that accompanies it.

The Gestech enjoyed its heyday in the time of the Emperor Maximilian I (1459–1493–1519), a keen jouster himself, who even as a boy had bragged to his uncle of the number of lances that he had broken in a day. It is unlikely that anyone ever owned more Stechzeuge than did this self-styled ‘last of the knights’. Only a few of them, however, would have been intended for his personal use.

The majority were for loan to the participants in his lavishly staged court tournaments, which 31

involved so many different types of contest – each requiring its own specialised forms of armour – that few participants would have had the means to equip themselves for all of them. It is perhaps not altogether surprising therefore that most Stechzeuge remaining today are in, or were originally from, groups rather than surviving as single armours.

Making up the biggest group of such armours are the fifteen more or less complete examples preserved in the Hofjagd- und Rüstkammer, Vienna, ten of which belonged to the Emperor Maximilian I. Five of them, thought to have been made for the Emperor’s marriage to Bianca Maria Sforza of Milan in 1494, bear the marks of the brothers Lorenz and Jörg Helmschmied of Augsburg, while another three, dating from a similar or slightly later period, bear the mark of Konrad Poler of Nuremberg. Alongside them are preserved three further Stechzeuge thought to have been made, in part at least, for the marriage of the Archduke Sigmund of Tyrol to Katharina von Sachsen in 1484. These bear the marks of the Innsbruck armourers Klaus Wagner, Kaspar Rieder and Christian Schreiner the Elder. As a result of looting by Napoleonic troops in 1805, 1806 and 1809, four further Stechzeuge from the imperial collections in Vienna are now to be seen 32

in the Museé de l’Armée, Paris, while another was transferred to the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest in 1932. A helm and cuirass from the Helmschmied series passed via the collection of William Randolph Hearst to the Philadelphia Museum of Art The largest group of Stechzeuge surviving outside the imperial collections are the seven now in the Germanisches National Museum, Nuremberg, made for use in the Gesellenstechen or ‘bachelor jousts’ held in Nuremberg from 1446 to 1561. The earliest of them, dating from the late 1490s, are possibly the work of the Nuremberg armourer Conrad Poler. By the late 1530s, however, their condition had deteriorated to the point where another Nuremberg armourer, Valentin Siebenburger, had to be engaged not only to complete those that remained, but to add to them at least three new armours. Several of Maximilian’s Stechzeuge in Vienna also show signs of working-life replacements and alterations. It is perhaps inevitable that any series of armours remaining in use over a prolonged period would in due course become muddled and required some replacement of their lost or damaged components. As a result, all Stechzeuge surviving today are to some degree or another composite.

The several ownership marks struck on the waist lame of our example show that that element at least must have resided for a while in a Saxon royal arsenal or armoury. Similar marks are recorded on two late sixteenth-century armours preserved in the Saxon royal arsenal of Schwarzburg.

In general, however, our armour finds its closest comparable examples in the Stechzeuge thought to have been made for the Emperor Maximilian’s wedding celebrations of 1494. Its left upper cannon, for example, is decorated with ‘wolf ’s-tooth’ ornament similar to that occurring on two of the latter, respectively bearing the marks of the brothers Lorenz and Jörg Helmschmied (Hofjagd- und Rüstkammer, Vienna, inv. nos S. xii and xiii). In addition, the fretting at the lower edge of the left couter can be compared with that of two further armours of the series by Jörg (inv. nos S. xi and xv), while the scalloping of the lower edge of the right one is of a kind found on three more, variously marked either by himself or by his older brother Lorenz (inv. nos S. xi, xii and xv). The fluted decoration of the backplate and vambraces, moreover, resembles at certain points not only that of the Helmschmied Stechzeuge, but also that of three similar armours bearing marks attributed to the Nuremberg armourer Konrad Poler (inv. nos. S. xvii, xviii and xix). The resemblance of our armour to the latter’s work is particularly great in regard to its breastplate, backplate and lance rest.

Of the three Stechzeuge by Poler now remaining in Vienna, two are sufficiently similar in style to the Helmschmied armours of 1494 as to suggest that they were made in the same period as them.

It is in any event likely that our armour is composed in the main of elements of the once extensive series of Stechzeuge commissioned by the Emperor Maximilian I for use in the jousts held by him to celebrate his marriage to his second wife, Bianca Maria Sforza of Milan, in 1494. The makers of those armours, Lorenz and

Jörg Helmschmied of Augsburg (c. 1445–1515/16 and after 1445–1502 respectively), and perhaps also Konrad Poler of Nuremberg (recorded in the emperor’s employ in the period 1492–1500), were inevitably among the most distinguished armourers of their day. The emperor would never have settled for any less than the best. Maximilian knew that in Lorenz Helmschmied, generally regarded as the most gifted armourer that ever lived, he had a craftsman of unsurpassed talent; his superlative products are as prized by the collector of today as they were by their original princely owners.

Provenance:

Prince Otto zu Stolberg-Werningerode Georg Jacob Paul von Decker Schlesisches Museum, Breslau Zeughaus Museum, Berlin Hans von Schulthess, Schloss Au, near Zurich, Switzerland

Exhibited:

Musée Rath, Geneva, 1972

Literature:

Anon., ‘Meisterwerke der Waffenschmied Kunst’, Zeitschrift für Historische Waffen- und Kostümkunde, vol. IX, 1921, pp. 30–1 C. Blair, European Armour, London, 1958, pp. 157–62, figs 56, 89 C. Bosson, R. Géroudet and E. Heer, Arms Anciennes des Collections Suisses, Musée Rath, Geneva, 1972, cat. no.

4, pp. 12, 114 W. J. Karcheski Jr, ‘The Nuremburg Stechzeuge Armours’, Journal of the Arms and Armour Society, vol.

XIV, no. 4, September, 1993, pp. 181–217 L. Seelig, ‘Waffen’ in R. Eikelmann and I. Bauer (eds), Das Bayerische Nationalmuseum 1855–2005 – 150 Jahre Sammeln, Forschen, Austellen, Munich, 2005, p. 422 B. Thomas, ‘Jörg Helmschmied d. J. – Plattner Maximilians I. In Augsburg und Wien’, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, vol. 52, 1956, pp. 33–50 B. Thomas, and O. Gamber, Katalog der Leibrüstkammer, vol. I, Vienna, 1976, pp. 137–60, pls 68–73

33

7

A Fine, Important and Extremely Long North German Wheellock Pistol, Brunswick, circa 1555 Formed of a long, slightly swamped three-stage barrel, octagonal at the breach and muzzle with a rounded section between them, finely damascened overall with running foliage, flowerheads and pellets in gold and silver on a blued ground; flat lock with bevelled wheel cover, slightly angled dog, enclosed dog spring, push-button pan cover release and pivoted safety catch, decorated en suite with the barrel; walnut full stock with faceted fishtail butt profusely inlaid with engraved horn plaques depicting the Virgin and St John the Apostle attending Christ on the cross, winged horses, scenes of the chase, scrolling foliage and flowerheads between segmental bands, overlain at the rear with an engraved horn plaque representing a kneeling knight and his horse receiving the Holy Spirit, fitted with short belt hook of iron and restored trigger guard, decorated en suite with the barrel and lock, with restored trigger and a horn-tipped wooden ramrod.

Overall length 36⅝ in Barrel length 27¾ in Samuel Kriechel, writing of his visit to Brunswick in 1585, noted that ‘In the said city many arms and armours are made’. With its ready access to the rich mineral deposits of the nearby Harz Mountains, the city of Brunswick, seat of the ancient family of Welf, had long been an important centre for metalworking. In the reigns of Heinrich I (1514–68) and Julius (1568–89), successive Dukes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, a number of its smiths, along with those of the neighbouring town of Goslar, successfully turned their hands to the then rapidly emerging craft of gunmaking. The presence of their products in some of the greatest princely armouries of Europe affords some evidence of the high esteem in which they must then have been held.

Our pistol closely resembles in both form and detail three, all of about 1555, formerly preserved in the Hofjagd- und Rüstkammer, Vienna (inv. nos. A596, A599 and A600). The longest of them, which includes in the damascened decoration of its iron-overlaid stock the arms of the Archduke Maximilian II, is struck on its barrel with a mark attributed to the Goslar gunmaker Hans Schutte, recorded 1556–90. A further pistol of the 36

Archduke (inv. no. A1014), once again having an iron-overlaid stock, but decorated in this instance with etching by the master GS, still remains in the Hofjagd- und Rüstkammer, along with four others of the Archduke Ferdinand II, having silver-overlaid stocks (inv. nos A438, A 439, A439a and A527). The first three of them were the gift of Heinrich, Burggraf zu Meissen, whose arms and initials occur on one, together with the date 1555.

Marks attributed to the Goslar gunmaker Hans Schoman, recorded 1556, and the Brunswick goldsmith and embosser Hans Lampe, recorded 1550–68, are respectively to be found on its barrel and stock.

These pistols form a close-knit group. All, like ours, have faceted fishtail butts, flat lockplates with truncated front ends, flat, bevelled wheel covers, and pans filled at their outer ends with decorative ogees. Most also have internal dog springs and simple, rod-like pan cover releases, while a few, like ours, have their locks retained by screws that pass through them from their outside to engage threaded holes in belt hooks opposite them.

Inv. nos A596, A599 and A600, moreover, show exactly the same style of damascened decoration

as our pistol. Decoration of this kind also occurs on three other mid-sixteenth-century Brunswick school firearms preserved in the Hofjagd- und Rüstkammer, Vienna: a pistol of the Archduke Maximilian II (inv. no. A560) with a carved wooden stock, a carbine of the same prince (inv. no. D71) with an ivory-overlaid stock bearing heraldry dating it to the period 1549–56, and a pistol of the Archduke Ferdinand II (inv. no.

A525) with a monkey’s-head pommel of silver.

Outside the imperial collections, such decoration can be recorded on a pair of pistols of about 1560 in the Wallace Collection, London (cat. nos A1136 and 1137), possessing bone-inlaid butts with ball butts, and on a single pistol in the Historisches Museum, Dresden (inv. no. 441), dated 1557 on its lock, and bearing the maker’s initials es and the royal arms of Denmark on its staghorn-overlaid stock.

The decorator of this superlative series of weapons was clearly an outstanding master of his craft. He may perhaps have been the Brunswick damascener Reinerd Kreker, recorded 1553/4– 1580. The damasceners of Brunswick never belonged to any guild. The city’s goldsmiths not only refused to admit them to their ranks, but actively endeavoured to suppress their activities.

In 1572 they brought a complaint against the damascener Klawes Schwante, asserting that he ‘personally made and inlaid bad gold and

silver work in gunlocks, flasks and barrels and similar instruments’; even with their powers, they could not prevent this. When, three years later, Schwante decided to leave the city, he was described by its council as a ‘damascener and luxury gunmaker who inlaid with silver’. In 1560 Reinerd Kreker, the earliest of the Brunswick damasceners, sought the permission of the council to practise his trade independently of the goldsmiths, observing that ‘in no other city in the Empire are statelier arms made than here’.

The exceptional quality of our pistol provides strong support for his claim.

Provenance

The Princes of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt Fréderick Spitzer William Goodwin Renwick Private Collection, Australia

Exhibited

City Art Museum, St Louis, Missouri, USA, 1939

Literature

Franz Fuhse, Schmiede und verwandte Gewerke in der Stadt Braunschweig, Leipzig, 1930, pp. 50–1 Ortwin Gamber and Christian Beaufort, Katalogue der Leibrüstkammer, II Teil, Busto Arsizio, 1990, pp. 150, 167–70, 173–5, pls 92–3 and 95 Wolfgang Glage, Das Kunsthandwerk der Büchsenmacher im Land Braunschweig, Brunswick, 1983, pp. 31–59

39

8

An Exceptionally Fine and Rare North German Field Armour with Etched Decoration, from the Armoury of Julius, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, Brunswick, circa 1560–5 Comprising close helmet with one-piece skull rising to a high roped medial comb, pierced to either side of its rear with three pairs of holes for a plume, and over each ear with five lace holes with pewter eyelets, visor with stepped sight, pierced beneath the latter with three rows of ventilation holes, prow-shaped upper bevor pierced at each side with rows of diagonal ventilation slots each of double-ended keyhole form, bevor strongly shaped to the point of the chin, and two associated gorget plates front and rear, the visor, upper bevor and bevor attached to the skull by pivots with radially fluted domed heads, and secured to one another at the right by spring catches of which that securing the bevor to the skull has a swivel hook to lock it. The collar is of five lames front and rear, the breastplate with medially ridged main plate projecting forward over the belly, fitted at the right with folding lance rest attached by two screws, with moveable gussets at its arm-openings, and flanged at its lower edge for a fauld of three lames, the third of which is detachable and has suspended from it by three straps at each side a tasset of nine lames, the last five of which are detachable, and the ninth of which is fitted with a detachable winged poleyn of five lames. The one-piece backplate is flanged at its lower edge to receive a culet of two lames, symmetrical pauldrons are each of six upward overlapping lames, the third of which is pierced at the front with a pair of lace holes, each fitted with a pewter eyelet, for the attachment of circular besagews each formed with a small conical boss. The articulated vambraces comprise a tubular upper cannon with a turner of three lames, winged bracelet couter of three lames contrived to give the impression of a separate one-piece couter, and a tubular lower canon opening at the rear, and fitted with a separate articulated lame at the inside of the elbow. The mitten gauntlets are formed of a flared and obtusely pointed tubular cuff closed by rivets at the inside of the wrist and fitted there with a separate articulated lame, six metacarpal plates, a knuckle plate formed with a roped transverse rib, six shaped finger plates, and a hinged thumb defence formed of six scales overlapping outwards from the third. The main edges of the armour are roped and its surfaces finely etched at either side of the skull with classical warriors and prancing horse, at the rear of each pauldron is a mounted classical warrior, at the left of the breast with a representation of Daniel in the lion’s den enclosed within a circular border inscribed ach got bewar nit mer dan leib selen gvt vnd erre, and elsewhere with bands of running foliage inhabited by stylised flowers, birds, animals, masks, grotesques, winged herms, putti, busts and figural subjects including, on the breastplate, Jupiter, on the backplate Vulcan flanked by satyrs, on the tassets Sapientia, Justitia and Judith with the head of Holofernes, and involving at either side of the comb of the helmet the crowned monogram hi within an escutcheon, all on a blackened and stippled ground and enclosed by narrower bands of running foliage also on a stippled ground, with main borders of arabesque interlace on a plain blackened ground, giving way on the vambraces to running foliage on a blackened and stippled ground, and with subsidiary borders of repeated circular pellets giving way at some points of the vambraces to narrow bands of cabling, and the remaining surfaces painted black.

Overall height 82 in Weight 60 lb 42

The etched decoration of this remarkable armour is of a quality that would stand comparison with the best of any school. Its distinctive content and treatment readily identify it as a product of the north German metalworking city of Brunswick. In contrast to their south German contemporaries, the etchers of that city preferred always to leave their work ungilded, and to avoid so far as possible the use of mere repeated patterns. Characteristic of their rich and lively style is the mixture of biblical, classical and grotesque motifs drawn from diverse graphical sources, several of which are identifiable. Jupiter with his eagle, on the breastplate, is after Etienne Delaune’s engraving, one of a series of six figures from classical mythology (British Museum P&D 1870.0625.806, though labelled on the armour ‘Mercury’, another print in the same series). The reclining figure at the neck is also after Delaune, Sol from a series of Planets (BM 1934.0804.224– 30). On the tassets Rhetoric and Sapientia are from Delaune’s Allegories of the Sciences (BM BGgD,1.50, 1870.0625.800); Judith with the head of Holofernes is most probably after a print by Hendrik Goltzius (BM D,5.164); the winged angel is after Adrian Collaert’s Annunciation of John’s Birth to Zacharias (BM 1852.1211.95) and the figure of Justice is after Daniel Hopfer’s print, reversed to fit the space (BM 1949.0411.115). The putti with cornucopias are probably after Marcus Geeraerts (BM 1872.1012.889), while Dialectic blowing her horn is probably after a print by Frans Floris (BM 1979.1006.72).

The etcher of our armour would almost certainly have been a member of the Brunswick painters’ guild. In 1566 the guild noted that among other things that it could accept as the masterpiece of an etcher was a ‘heavy field armour (Curitz) or light field armour (Drabharnisch) etched’, suggesting that the decoration of armour had by then become a significant source of employment for its members.

One at least of the latter, Franz Bock (recorded 1550–78), is known to have been active as an etcher in the period that our armour was made. Among 44

other things he etched for the ducal armourer Jacob Koep in 1561 a burgonet with a pointed skull (Pickelhaube). A three-quarter-length field armour in the Hofjagd- und Rüstkammer, Vienna (inv. no. A396), thought to have been worn

by Heinrich I, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (1485–1514–1568), at the Battle of Kehlefeld in 1545, may also have been decorated by his hand since it is etched on its helmet with the signature i.f.b.i, plausibly to be interpreted as his initials flanked by a pair of columns. The decoration of Heinrich’s armour anticipates to an extent that found on our armour, raising the possibility that the latter might have emanated from the same hand as that of the armour of Heinrich I. The crowned monogram hi forming part of the decoration of its helmet, and standing for Herzog Julius, shows our armour to have belonged to Heinrich’s son, Julius, Duke of BrunswickWolfenbüttel (1528–1568–1589). The armour is in fact one of a notable series of such defences bearing the latter’s devices, which, although varying somewhat in the individual details of their decoration, are in all cases etched at the left sides of their breastplates with representations of Daniel in the lion’s den, enclosed within inscribed borders of either circular or quatrefoil form. The circular border of our armour is inscribed ach got bewar nit mer dan leib selen gvt vnd erre Oh God, protect no more than [my] life, soul, property and honour.

The image of Daniel in the lion’s den was a popular one among Protestants in mid-sixteenthcentury Lower Saxony, occurring, for example, on a tapestry dated 1550, and on the ‘Daniel-Taler’ of the Regent Maria von Jeva, dated 1561. It can perhaps be interpreted as an ironic allusion to the position of Protestant Lower Saxony within a then largely Catholic Europe.

The earliest Brunswick armour to show the subject is one bearing the date [15]56, that was until recently preserved in the collections of 45

the heirs of the Dukes of Brunswick at Schloss Marienburg, Lower Saxony. This, however, lacks any devices relating to Duke Julius. Others that do include a group of eight, also until recently preserved in the collections of Schloss Marienburg, two in the Philadelphia Museum of Art (acc. nos 1977.167.19 and 23), one each in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (acc. no. 14.25.711) and the Higgins Armory Museum, Worcester, Massachussets (inv. no. JWHA 935), the State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg (inv. no. I. 78), the State Historical Museum, Moscow (formerly Musée de l’Armée, Paris, inv. no. G53), the Musée des Arts Décoratifs, and the collection of HM The Queen at Windsor Castle (cat. no. 111). One of the armours formerly in the Marienburg armoury (and since sold by us to the Memorial Art Gallery of Rochester University, New York State in 2006) is dated 1562. That at Windsor is dated 1563, while another of closely related form in the Philadelphia Museum of Art (acc. no. 1977.167.22) is dated [15]64.

All of these armours were originally housed in the Zeughaus or arsenal at Wolfenbüttel, where from 1432 to 1753 the Dukes of BrunswickWolfenbüttel held court. In 1667 full armours of Duke Heinrich and Duke Julius, together with some eleven blued and four bright armours, making seventeen in all still remained there of the ‘Daniel in the lions’ den’ series. By 1732, however, their number had fallen to thirteen, with only ‘a complete black armour with bright borders of Duke Julius on a wooden horse and 12 bright etched armours without greaves’ being left. Tragically, orders were given, following the overthrow of the Kings of Hanover – successors of the Dukes of Brunswick – by the Prussians in 1866, for the Wolfenbüttel Zeughaus to be cleared.

Some of the series of armours under discussion were transferred to the ducal residence of Schloss Blankenburg in the Harz Mountains, only to be removed to Schloss Marienburg in 1945, to prevent their confiscation by advancing Soviet troops. Others were probably among the quantity of armour that the Prussians sold by weight to a

Hildesheim dealer who soon afterwards disposed of them through the London market.

Our armour is believed to have left the arsenal at Wolfenbüttel before it was broken up in 1866, with the result that it shows little of the muddling seen in most extant examples of its series. Like the Paris and Windsor armours that also left there in an earlier time (the latter was sent to King George IV from the Free Masonic Lodge in Hanover in 1820), it is not only well preserved, but remains largely homogenous.

Its collar, breastplate, backplate, besagews and gauntlets all belong to the same armour, while the helmet, pauldrons and tassets match them almost perfectly. The armour ranks among the very finest examples of its kind surviving today.

The quality of its decoration should not, however, be allowed to obscure the fact that it was in every respect a practical and indeed highly versatile armour made for real use in the field.

By replacing its close helmet with a burgonet, removing its lance rest, and variously shortening its knee-length tassets to just above the knees to mid-thigh-length or removing them altogether along with the lowest fauld lame, the armour could have been converted from one for heavy field use (Küriss), to one for medium field use (Harnasch), infantry use (Landsknechtharnisch) or light cavalry use (Trabharnisch).

Its maker would have been a member of the smiths’ guild of Brunswick. Formally incorporated by Duke Henry of Brunswick in 1293, it seems to have included armourers almost from the very beginning. By the sixteenth century they had become so numerous that the guild felt it appropriate to detail in its ordinances of 1555 and 1585, the types of armour that might be accepted it as masterpieces. Among armourers known to have been active in the city around the time that our armour was made are Frans Quermeyer, first recorded in 1552, Claus Oldenkorn, first recorded in 1554, Cuntz Hildebrandt, first recorded in 1555, Jacob Koep, first recorded in 1561, and perhaps also the brothers Claus and Wulf Gabriel, first recorded in 1562. These last, together with 47

their uncle Hans, recorded 1506-42, and their father Claus the Elder, recorded 1513–41, made up Brunswick’s most distinguished dynasty of armourers. Claus the Elder received employment from the court at least as early as 1537/8: a privilege that was in due course extended to his two sons as well, with Wulf in 1572 taking up appointment as personal armourer to Duke Julius. Unfortunately, as the extant products of the Brunswick armourers bear no makers’ marks, and court records of the period are only patchily preserved, their attribution to a specific hand must, for the moment, remain a matter for speculation.

The production of armours of the quality of that under discussion depended, of course, on wealthy patronage. Thanks in part at least to the international commerce of the great Hanseatic cities lying within their domain, the sixteenthcentury dukes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel enjoyed a high level of prosperity which Julius in particular administered with great efficiency.

As the third son of Duke Heinrich, it was never expected that he would rule. Unlike his older brothers, he opted for an academic career, studying first in Bourges and then in Löwen. A position in Cologne Cathedral in 1542 was followed by his appointment as Bishop of Minden in 1553. As a result of the tragic death his two older brothers in the Battle of Sievershausen in the same year, however, it was he that eventually succeeded to his father’s title in 1568.

Although his father had for a while tried to exclude him from the line of succession, he went on to prove himself one of Brunswick’s most capable and cultivated rulers. Within a short time legal reforms had been introduced by him, along with tax reforms designed to improve the rights of farmers in relation to those of the nobility.

In addition he founded a state militia and made it a requirement for every householder to own a weapon and participate in military training.

Trade and especially mining were encouraged by him, and improvements made to the roads and rivers needed to convey the ores of the nearby Harz Mountains to the celebrated metalworking centres of Brunswick and Wolfenbüttel. It was Julius, also, who in 1576 founded the state of Brunwick-Wolfenbüttel’s first university at Helmstedt. Every effort was made by him to raise that state to a position of wealth and inter­ national prominence. It is perhaps not altogether surprising in these circumstances that so many of the finest armours, swords and firearms of Brunswick make surviving today are those that bear his monogram.

Provenance

The Dukes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel Clarence H. Mackay Hans von Schulthess, Schloss Au, near Zurich, Switzerland

Exhibited

Musée Rath, Geneva, 1972

Literature

Robert Bohlmann, ‘Die Zeichen oder Monogramme des Hergzog Julius von Braunschweig’, in Festschrift Paul Zimmermann, Brunswick, 1914, pp. 255–62 Robert Bohlmann, ‘Die Braunschweigischen Waffen auf Schloss Blankenburg am Harz’, Zeitschrift für Historische Waffenkunde, vol. VI (1914), pp. 343–4, figs 12–15 C. Bosson, R. Géroudet and E. Heer, 1972, Arms Anciennes des Collections Suisses, Musée Rath, Geneva, cat. no. 30, pp. 17 and 119 Clément Bosson, ‘Quelques Armes de l’Exposition “Armes Anciennnes des Collections Suisses” – Genève 1972”, Zeitschrift für Historische Waffenkunde, James G. Mann, Exhibition of Arms, Armour and Militaria lent by H. R. H. The Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg at the Tower of London 1952–1953, cat. nos 12–16, pp. 5–7, pl. IV Alheidis von Rohr, ‘Die Braunschweigischen Prunkharnische des Herzog Julius’, Zeitschrift für Historische Waffenkunde, third series, vol. XXX (1988), pp. 108–28

49

9

A Fine and Rare South German Powder Flask, Augsburg, circa 1580 With a hemispherical body of ebony, its convex outer face inlaid with seven equispaced gilt-bronze strips radiating from a central lion’s-mask boss of the same material and cast in low relief with mannerist strapwork, the intervening panels inlaid at their centres with small gilt-bronze lion’s masks, and at their margins with strips and plaques of contrasting white horn partly engraved with stylised flowerheads and cabling, the base encircled by a band of gilt bronze etched with arabesque strapwork and interrupted by a filling port with hinged cover lying adjacent to a similarly decorated tapering gilt-bronze nozzle with spring cutoff, and fitted to either side of them with a pair of suspension rings.

Overall height 5⅜ in Overall width 3⅜ in A stunning object in its own right, this fine powder flask belonged originally to a magnificent garniture of matching pieces, other­wise represented by a pair of wheellock pistols and a priming flask offered by us as item no. 19 in our catalogue of 1997. Dominating its design are its brilliant gilt-bronze mounts set against a contrasting ebony ground. Such mounts would presumably have been costly in their own time and are today found only on a relatively small number of pistols and flasks dating from around 1580.

Although clearly made within the same brief period as one another, these pieces cannot represent the output of a single workshop. Aside from differences in detail, the pistols of the group bear a variety of marks, sometimes of Augsburg, and sometimes of Nuremberg origin. Of Augsburg manufacture are a pair by the Master MB in the Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg (inv. no. 6466), a further pair in the James A. de Rothschild Collection at Waddeston Manor, Berkshire (cat. nos 124–5), a single pistol by the Master HH in the Musée de l’Armée, Paris, (inv. no. M 1647), and another by the same master in the Wallace Collection, London (cat. no. A1146).

From Nuremberg can be recorded a single pistol

50

in the Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds (inv. no. xii.725), and another by Peter Danner and the Master AR in the Museo Poldi Pezzoli, Milan (inv. no. 2408), while unmarked examples are to be found in the Bayerisches Nationalmuseum, Munich (inv. no. W1493), and the Eric Pasold Collection. Zurich.

A powder flask decorated in a similar manner to the Wallace Collection’s pistol is in the Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds (inv. no. xiii.41).

Our flask, however, is the only one of its kind that can be related to a particular garniture.

The priming flask belonging to that garniture is formed entirely of gilt bronze cast in relief with classical warriors in combat on one side, and a classical female bust on the other. Its style, like that of a very similar flask in the Museo Poldi Pezzoli, Milan (inv. no. 369), is reminiscent of contemporary Augsburg goldsmith’s work. As the stocks of the pistols relating to our flask appear to be by the same hand as those of the Hermitage pistols, it is safe to assume that they, like the latter, are of Augsburg origin. They are in any event the finest known examples of their group, showing a richness of ornament that was exceptional even by the extravagant German standards of the day.

Provenance

Blumka collection Alan, S. Kelly, Sotheby’s, New York, 24 May 1993, lot 502 Private collection, USA

Exhibition

The Winchester Arms Museum, Cody, Wyoming, 1989, cat. no. 8

Literature

John F. Hayward, The Art of the Gunmaker, vol. I, London, 1962, p. 80, pls I and 10c Houze, Herbert G., The Sumptuous Flaske: European and American Decorated Powder Flasks of the Sixteenth to Nineteenth Centuries, Cody, Wyoming, 1989, cat. no. 8, p.17, pl. 1 Leonid Tarassuk, Antique European and American Firearms at the Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, 1972, p. 158, figs 35–7

51

10

A Fine Etched and Gilt German Parade Burgonet, probably Augsburg, circa 1585 Formed in one piece with a rounded crown rising to a high roped medial comb, and projecting forwards and backwards respectively to an upturned pointed peak and matching neck guard connected to one another at each side by a narrow slightly down-turned brim with a downward deflection behind each ear, the crown pierced to either side of the nape with a pair of rivet holes for the attachment of a plume holder and encircled at its base with seventeen of an original eighteen lining rivets of brass, the lower edge of the helmet formed with a roped inward turn accompanied by a further twenty-eight such rivets, and its comb, lower border and three slightly divergent vertical bands on each side of its crown etched and gilt on a blackened ground with interlacing foliate scrolls inhabited by winged herms and cherubs’ heads, and involving in an oval cartouche at the left and right sides of the comb respectively, representations of Hercules fighting Achelous transformed into a serpent, and Poseidon, in recumbent pose, holding a trident.

Overall height 12 in Width 9½ in Weight 4 lb The spectacular parades that were such a feature of court ceremonial in Renaissance Europe can be seen as a conscious attempt to emulate as far as possible the triumphal processions of ancient Rome. The burgonet, with its obvious resemblance to the Roman ‘jockey-cap’ helmet was always going to be a popular choice for wear in those events. Particularly popular were the one-piece examples, like ours, that offered the decorator an uninterrupted surface for his ornament.

The fashion for such helmets seems to have originated in Italy. A splendidly embossed and damascened example made by the brothers Filippo and Francesco Negroli of Milan for the Emperor Charles V, and now in the Real Armería, Madrid (cat. no. D 30), is dated 1545.

More closely resembling our burgonet in form, however, is a Brescian group that include in their overall etched, gilt and blued decoration the arms and portrait busts of Pope Julius III. These were presumably made for his guard at some time between 1550 when he took office and 1555 when he died. Examples of the group can be recorded in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 52

(acc. no. 04.3.222), the Philadelphia Museum of Art (acc. no. 1977.167.113), the Victoria and Albert Museum, London (acc. no. M.178–1921), and the Collezione Odescalchi, Rome (inv. no. 325). Of slightly later date than those is a burgonet in the Schlossmuseum, Linz, which includes in its fine etched and gilt ornament representations of Jupiter and Ganymede on the one side, and of Mars, evidently inspired by the engraved designs of Etienne Delaune, on the other.

Parade burgonets of this elegant fashion were being made in Germany from almost the same period as they were in Italy. An elaborately embossed and damascened example in the Real Armería, Madrid (cat. no. A 239), forming part of an armour made by the Augsburg armourer Desiderius Helmschmied and the Augsburg goldsmith Jörg Sigman for Philip II of Spain, bears the dates 1549 and 1550. Probably dating from the slightly later period of about 1555–60 is a burgonet in the Hofjagd- und Rüstkammer, Vienna (inv. no. A 444) which has overall etched and gilt decoration picked out at points with red paint. A plain example of the type in the Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds (inv. no. iv.417),

bears the mark of the Innsbruck armourer Hans Hörburger (recorded 1556–86). Although dated by some to about 1565, it may well be later.

The closest comparable examples to our helmet are a series of three matching burgonets preserved respectively in the Philadelphia Museum of Art (inv. no. 1977.167.112), the Art Institute of Chicago (acc. no. 1982.2227) and the Higgins Armory Museum, Worcester, Massachusetts (acc. no.

1191), the last two of which bear the date 1585. All are finely etched and gilt on a blackened ground with band of trophies including, in cartouches at either side of the comb, representations of Leda and the Swan, and of Jupiter in the guise of a satyr ravishing Antiope in the presence of Cupid.

This decoration, although clearly German in its execution, must have received its inspiration from a north Italian example, such as that of about 1570–80 in the Wallace Collection, London (cat. no. A124), which is etched and gilt not only with bands of trophies but also with the same two classical subjects. Nevertheless, whereas the trophies of the Italian example are indifferently executed in the so-called ‘Pisan’ fashion, those of the group discussed above are executed in the altogether finer Augsburg manner.

Our burgonet, although decorated in the bands of its crown with foliate interlace rather than with trophies and in the cartouches of its comb with representations of Hercules and Poseidon, rather than the subjects just discussed, is sufficiently close in style to the Philadelphia, Chicago and Worcester helmets as to suggest that it, like them, was made about 1585 in the celebrated south German armour-producing city of Augsburg. It appears in any event to be the only example of its kind now remaining in private hands.

Provenance

Stephen V. Grancsay Private collection, USA

Exhibited

Brooklyn Museum, New York, 1933

Literature

Stephen V. Grancsay, Loan Exhibition of European Arms and Armor, Brooklyn, 1933, cat. no. 38 C. O. von Kienbusch, The Kretzchmar von Kienbusch Collection of Armor and Arms, Princeton NJ, 1963, cat. no. 94, pp. 73–4, pl. XLIX Walter J. Karcheski Jr, Arms and Armor in the Art Institute of Chicago, Boston, New York, Toronto and London, 1995, p. 70

55

11

A Fine Etched and Gilt North Italian Half Shaffron, probably Milanese, circa 1590 With main plate possessing a medially ridged lower end extending halfway down the nose, rounded lower corners and outward-flanged semicircular eye openings at each side, its upper end fitted between separate short gutter-shaped ear defences with a T-shaped pollplate attached by an internal hinge of leather, and the centre of its brow fitted beneath a tubular plume holder with a conical spike and rosette washer, all of engraved brass, the main edges of the piece turned inwards and accompanied by brass-capped round-headed rivets and circular internal washers variously retaining the remains of internal hinges of leather for the attachment of sideplates, of retaining-straps at its upper and lower corners, and of a series of lining bands, the lower of which, in conjunction with two others secured by similar rivets and washers to either side of the brow, have sewn to them a lining of canvas quilted with tow, and the outer surfaces etched with three diverging bands of trophies of arms, birds, dolphins, fantastic animals and masks on a stippled and blackened ground, enclosed between narrower bands of gilt running foliage repeated at the main borders of the piece.

Overall length over curve 15½ in Width 10½ in Weight 2 lb 9 oz Full plate armour for the horse, like that for the man, reached the peak of its development in Europe in the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance. With changing military practices, however, the fully armoured knight slowly faded into history. The fully armoured horse inevitably followed him. After the mid-sixteenth century, complete horse armours tended to be made only for parade purposes. Not altogether surprisingly, however, both the full and half shaffron, which protected the horse’s head, remained popular defences in both the battlefield and the lists until well into the seventeenth century.

Our half shaffron, although likely from its possession of plain, inward-turned edges to date from close to the seventeenth century, is decorated with etched bands of trophies of a kind first introduced in Italy around 1570. Such decoration is often referred to today as ‘Pisan’ because of its presence on much of the large quantity of armour sold in the nineteenth century from the Galleria Primi at Pisa where it had for several centuries been stored for use in the city’s annual mock battle known as the Gioco del Ponte. In fact, 58

most armour decorated in that style was made in the well-known north Italian arms-producing centres of Milan and Brescia.

Decorated in a different style, but otherwise very similar to our shaffron in form, is one in the Museo di Capodimonte, Naples (inv. nos 1205 and 3507), forming part of an armour garniture made by the Milanese armourer Pompeo della Cesa (recorded 1571–92) for Alessandro Farnese, Duke of Parma and Piacenza (1545–92). This clearly cannot date from any later than 1592.

Interestingly, it, in contrast to most other parts of the garniture, has plain turns at its edges like ours. Other etched shaffrons of its fashion can be recorded in the Museo Poldi Pezzoli, Milan (inv. nos 1760, 2276 and 2322), and the Philadelphia Museum of Art (acc. no. 1977–167–278).

Of particular interest in this context is a shaffron in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (acc. no. 14.25.1666), which almost exactly resembles ours in every detail. It even possesses the same form of lining. Significantly, the decoration of both pieces is partly gilt: a rare feature for ‘Pisan’-style ornament. The

Metropolitan Museum’s example belongs to a full armour in the same collection (acc. no.

1425.25.1717) which it of course matches. Also matching it are two partial cuisses and an additional shaffron with pollplate in the Museo Stibbert, Florence (inv. nos 2579 and 2458).

Our shaffron successively passed through the hands of the distinguished English scholar and collector Baron Charles Alexander de Cosson and the English-based American collector Henry G. Keasbey. When offered for sale at auction by the latter in New York in 1925, Dr Bashford Dean, Curator of Arms and Armor at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, declared it ‘one of the most important objects in the sale’.

Provenance

Baron Charles Alexander de Cosson, Christie’s, London, 25 June 1890, lot 139 Henry G. Keasbey, American Art Association, New York, 27–28 November 1925, lot 2309 Gallerie Fischer, Luzern, 4 July 1973, lot 47 Gallerie Fischer, Luzern, 17–19 June 1993, lot 8386

Literature

Lionello G. Boccia and Eduardo T. Coelho, L’Arte dell’Armatura in Italia, Milan, 1967, p. 460, pl. 390 Lionello G. Boccia, and José A. Godoy, Musei e Galleria di Milano: Museo Poldi Pezzoli: Armeria 1, Milan, 1985, pp. 135–6, pls 410, 412, 414 Kienbusch, C. O. von, The Kretzchmar von Kienbusch Collection of Armor and Arms, Princeton NJ, 1963, cat. no. 221, p. 120, pl. LXXVII Stuart W. Pyhrr et al., The Armored Horse in Europe 1480–1620, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 2005, pp. 50–1

59

12

14

13

15

12–15

Four Important German Swords from the Saxon Royal Collections at Dresden, One with Companion Dagger With their fine quality and stunning state of preservation, the late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century swords and daggers released at various times from the Saxon royal collections in Dresden have long enjoyed a special place in the affections of the discerning collector. Through the years, however, opportunities to acquire such pieces have inevitably diminished as, one by one, they found their way into the world’s museums.

The collection offered here would appear to be unique among those now remaining in private hands.

The rights of the Dukes of Saxe-Wittenberg, rulers of Upper Saxony, to elect the Holy Roman Emperor were formally conferred upon them by the Golden Bull of 1356. Along with this increased political power, the Prince Electors of Saxony, as they henceforth came to be known, also enjoyed great wealth, largely derived from the mining and metalworking industries that had since the twelfth century underpinned the economy of their state.

Within its boundaries, and in the region of the Erzgebirge in particular, iron, nickel, tin, cobalt, bismuth, copper, gold, salt and, above all, silver were to be found in quantities capable of sustaining for many a prosperous way of life. In the sixteenth century investment in new mines allowed Saxony to maintain its position as one of Europe’s leading producers of silver. Appropriately, therefore, and presumably not altogether coincidentally, it is that noble metal that has in almost every case been used to decorate the handsome group of weapons catalogued here, giving them their special character and appeal.

The period in which these weapons were produced was a colourful one in which osten­ tatious displays of wealth tended rather to be applauded than condemned. Accepting that, it was perhaps inevitable that the greatest rulers

of the age should have vied with one another to equip themselves, and also their bodyguards and entourages, with the finest and most fashionable arms and armour then available to them.

The successive late sixteenth-century and early seventeenth-century Electors of Saxony, Augustus I (1526–1553–1586), Christian I (1560– 1586–1591) and Christian II (1583–1591–1611), clearly had no intention of being outdone by their contemporaries in matters of appearance.

Enormous sums of money were laid out by them to equip not only the participants in their great state tournaments and hunts, but also, of course, their personal bodyguards, the Trabantenleibgarde.

These latter, dressed in black doublets and yellow trunk hose and stockings, would have had available to them such varied armour, weapons and accessories as morions, swords, daggers, halberds, guns, pistols, bandoliers and flasks, all more or less richly decorated.

No less remarkable than their quality, of course, is the unusually fine condition that so many of these pieces have managed to retain up to the present day. The Saxon royal armoury remained largely intact until 1832 when a substantial part of it was sold in order to meet the costs of setting up displays of the remainder in the then newly inaugurated Historisches Museum. Further sales took place in Berlin in 1919, 1920 and 1927 to provide funds for the Saxon royal family who had been required to abdicate their position at the end of the First World War. In order to strengthen the museum’s non-Saxon holdings, more disposals were made, partly by exchange, between the two World Wars. Some of those made in the 1930s, passed through Sotheby’s in London. An even larger sale, to raise funds for the acquisition of a major painting by an East German expressionist artist, was held by Sotheby’s in 1970.

61

It was from this last sale that our rapier no.

13 was obtained. With its exquisitely etched, overall silver sheathing, this splendid weapon is undeniably the star of our group, perhaps also the earliest member of it. Its open hilt closely resembles in style of that of the so-called rapier of Count Oldenburg in the Rosenburg, Copenhagen (cat. no. 6), which is dated 1576. The style is still to be found, however, in a design of about 1590– 1600 in the Staatliche Museen Kunstbibliothek, Berlin (inv. no. 1429), tentatively attributed to the Hamburg goldsmith Jacobe Mores (active 1579– 1612). Significantly, perhaps, the latter is known to have received employment from the Saxon Court.

Probably of the same type as ours were the twenty-nine swords recorded in the archives of that court as having been supplied by the Dresden goldsmith Wendel unter den Linden in 1587 for the guard of Christian I. A further twelve were supplied by him in 1604 for the guard of Duke Johann Georg who in 1611 succeeded his brother Christian II as Elector. On the other hand, one of this series, now in the Art Institute, Chicago, is struck on its scabbard with the mark of the Dresden goldsmith Urban Schneeweiss (1536–1600), suggesting that such work was not confined to a single workshop. The Chicago example, however, like three of those included in the Sotheby’s sale of 1970, shows rather less extensive silver overlay than ours. Closer to ours in both form and decoration is one in the Philadelphia Museum of Art (acc. no. 1977– 167–362). Plain, blued versions of it can also be recorded, as for example one in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London (acc. no. M.47-1947).

The quillons and side ring of the latter, however, are formed with strong medial ridges.

Such ridges are also a feature of the hilt of our first sword, the estoc no. 12, which rather than being plain, however, is decorated both on its pommel and ricasso with finely etched silver sheathing. Although the estoc, like the rapier, was principally intended for thrusting, its blade tended in the main to be of a sturdier 62

construction than that of the latter, and therefore better suited to military use. The result in the case of our example is a weapon of the most handsome proportions.

Its hilt differs from that of the example discussed above being fitted on the underside of its quillons with a pair of semicircular arms that support at their lower end a second, smaller side ring filled with a plate. The finest example of this doubleringed type still remaining in the Historisches Museum, Dresden (inv. no. VI/372), includes in the etched decoration of its silver-sheathed hilt a coat of arms identifiable as those used by Duke Johann Georg of Saxony (1585–1656) before he became elector in 1611. It is struck on its lower side ring with the Dresden quality-control mark. In the same collection is a plainer example of the type (inv. no. 6/40) of very much the same form as ours but with a blued iron, rather than silver-sheathed ricasso and rain guard. Other swords of this type, showing varying amounts of silver decoration, are held in the Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds (inv. no. ix.1225), the Philadelphia Museum of Art (acc. no. 1977-167-600) and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (acc. no. 29.157.11).

Also in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (acc. no. 29.157.17) is a variant of the type, having rounded rather than medially ridged quillons and side rings. Another like it, forming part of the Sotheby’s sale of 1970 (lot 58), is of particular interest in that the decoration of its scabbard is struck with the mark of the Dresden goldsmith Wolf Paller who died in 1583.

The Dresden inventory of 1606 shows the amount of silver used to decorate such swords to have varied according to rank of the particular guards to whom they were to be issued. In some cases, however, no silver was applied to them at all. Plain, blued examples of the pattern of sword under discussion can be recorded in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London (acc. no. M. 45 and 46-1947), and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (acc. no. 29.157.12).

Of the same colour as them are our matching rapier and left-hand dagger no. 14. The

simultaneous use of the rapier in the right hand and the dagger in the left is recorded in Italy as early as 1512 and was increasingly recommended by fencing masters from the 1530s onwards. Since the rapier was primarily a thrusting weapon, the belief arose at the time of its use that he who had the longest blade would have the greater chance of making the first hit. As the rapier increased in length, however, the left-hand dagger became an ever more essential accompaniment to it, not only for parrying purposes, but more crucially for dealing at close quarters with an opponent that had managed to side-step the rapier’s point.

Used in this way, the rapier was generally gripped with the forefinger and thumb thrust through the semicircular arms projecting from the underside of the hilt, and hooked around the blunted section or ricasso at the top of the blade. It is for that reason that our rapier, like most others of its period, has a relatively elaborate system of lower guards to protect the areas lying to either side of the ricasso. The blade of the accompanying dagger was usually stiffer and more robust than that of the rapier, but both were formed with a ricasso. The latter tended, as here, to be cut at each side with a broad groove to accommodate the thumb which was often extended down its length.

As is often the case in this early period, when no trademark protection existed for craftsmen, the signature sahagon stamped on each side of the blade of the rapier is a spurious one relating to the distinguished sixteenth-century Toledo sword cutler Alonso Sahagun the Elder, but clearly applied by a German maker wishing to capitalise on the Spanish maker’s celebrity. Aside from misspelling the latter’s name, the German has rendered the name of his place of work as doletta rather than Toledo. The quality of the blade is nevertheless of the highest order.

With their elegantly fluted pommels and medially ridged guards, our rapier and left-hand dagger are among the most attractive of their kind deriving from the armoury at Dresden.

Comparable examples preserved in the Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds (inv. no. ix.900) and

the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (acc. nos 28.1200.3 and 1981.2), along with others forming part of the Sotheby’s sale of 1970 (lots 23, 30–2 and 54–5), have only faceted pommels, simple rounded guards and spatulate terminals to their quillons. Interestingly, however, their pommels are in all cases of fig-shaped form, a common feature of Saxon swords and daggers of the period.

The same form of pommel is found on the fourth sword of our group, the elegantly proportioned estoc no. 15. This has the same, broad, sturdy type of blade as no. 12. Aside from the fact that it has no diagonal outer loop guard, its hilt is structurally identical with that of the rapier just described, and therefore likely to be more or less contemporary with it. What really distinguishes it from the latter, however, is its finely etched silver ornament. This includes, in the first instance, silver caps both for the apex of its pommel and the terminal of its rear quillon.

Beyond that, however, it also has in place of the usual iron plates with simple geometrical piercings that typically fill the side ring and spaces between the inner loop guards of such weapons, ones of silver with elaborately pierced and etched scrolling strapwork. Contrasting with its dark blued ground, this decoration gives our sword a richness of colour and sophistication that must be seen as exceptional even by the generally high standards of its particular group. It can hardly be doubted that any guardsman wearing it would at once have felt himself to be a member of a very elite guard.

Literature

Erich Haenel, Kostbare Waffen aus der Dresdener Rüstkammer, Leipzig, 1923, pls 58–9 C. O. von Kienbusch, The Kretzchmar von Kienbusch Collection of Armor and Arms, Princeton NJ, 1963, pp. 170–1, pl. CI C. O. von Kienbusch and S. V. Grancsay, The Bashford Dean Collection of Arms and Armor in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Portland ME, 1933, pp. 200–1 and 104, pl. LI Johannes Schöbel, Prunkwaffen und Rüstungen aus Dem Historischen Museum, Dresden, Leipzig, 1976, pp. 95, pls 92, 99

63

12

A Fine and Rare German Silver-mounted Saxon Estoc, Dresden, circa 1580–90 With hilt of blued iron comprising faceted pear-shaped pommel surmounted by moulded tang button and silver cap etched in panels with foliate scrolls, long straight medially ridged quillons flaring to their cusped ends, fitted at their outside with an open medially ridged side ring, and at their underside with a pair of semicircular arms of circular section linked at their lower ends by a smaller side ring en suite with the upper one but enclosing a flat plate, and three inner loop-guards diverging from the root of the forward quillon to lower ends of each arm and the mid-point of the rear arm respectively, wooden grip widening slightly to its lower end and bound with alternating plain and twisted silver wires enclosed between silver ferrules decorated at their free edges with repeated acanthus leaves, and broad uniformly tapering blade of sturdy lozenge-shaped section, its ricasso sheathed with silver etched on its outer face with foliate scrolls, and on its inner face with a saltire, and supporting at its lower end a silver rain guard engraved with the serial number 9.

Overall length 44¾ in Blade length 39¼ in Provenance

Armoury of the Electors of Saxony, Dresden Historisches Museum, Dresden American Art Association, New York, 24 November 1928, lot 278 Stephen V. Grancsay, New York Private collection, USA

Exhibited

Loan Exhibition of Arms and Armor, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1931, cat. no. 172 Arms and Armor, Allentown Art Museum, Allentown, Pa., 1964, cat. no. 107 Exhibition of Arms & Armour and Associated Works of Art, Howard Ricketts Ltd, London, 1973, cat. no. 10

65

13

An Exceptionally Fine and Rare German Silver-mounted Saxon Rapier, Dresden, circa 1580–90 With hilt of blued iron comprising squat pear-shaped pommel surmounted by a small tang button, long slightly down-turned flat quillons flaring to spatulate ends with baluster finials, fitted at their outside with a flat open side ring, at their front underside and inside respectively with a semicircular arm and thumb ring, both linked by a diagonal inner loop guard to the root of the rear quillon, and at their underside with a rain-guard formed with a moulded lower end, all except the inner guards and arm almost entirely sheathed with silver finely etched with foliate scrolls inhabited by hares, hounds and birds in display, barrel-shaped wooden grip bound with alternating plain and twisted silver wires enclosed between silver ferrules, and long slender tapering blade changing from a hexagonal section at the forte to a lozenge-shaped one at the tip, the forte inlaid in copper three times at each side with a makers mark.

Overall length 47½ in Blade length 42 in Provenance

Armoury of the Electors of Saxony, Dresden Historisches Museum, Dresden Sotheby’s, London, 23 March 1970, lot 57 Private collection, USA

67

14

A Fine and Highly Rare German Saxon Garniture of a Rapier and Companion Dagger, Dresden circa 1590–1600 The rapier with hilt of blued iron comprising fluted fig-shaped pommel with waisted neck and tang button, knuckle guard, long rear quillon swelling to its downward and outwardturned terminal, semicircular arms linked at their lower end by a side ring enclosing a fretted plate, bifurcated outer loop guard diverging from the lower end of the rear arm to the lower end of the forward arm and knuckle guard respectively, and three inner loop guards diverging from the lower end of the knuckle guard to the lower ends of each arm and the midpoint of the rear one respectively, the space between the rear two filled with a fretted plate en suite with that of the side ring, all of the guards except the inner ones medially ridged, wooden grip widening slightly to its lower end and bound with twisted silver wire enclosed between Turks’ heads of the same, and long slender tapering blade of hexagonal section respectively stamped doletta and sahagon on the ricasso and in the short central fuller at each side, and the companion dagger with hilt en suite with that of the rapier, comprising pommel, long symmetrical quillons with downward and outward turned terminals, and small open side ring, grip en suite with that of the rapier, and stiff blade of lozenge-shaped section with pronounced medial ridge and deep groove in the ricasso at each side.

Rapier overall length 50¼ in Blade length 43¾ in Dagger overall length 15¾ in Blade length 11¼ in Provenance

Armoury of the Electors of Saxony, Dresden John F. Hayward, Sotheby’s, London, 1 November 1983, lot 17 Private collection, USA

Exhibited

The Art of the Armourer, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, 1963, no. 100

69

15

An Exceptionally Fine and Rare German Silver-mounted Saxon Estoc, Dresden, circa 1590–1600 With hilt of blued iron comprising hollow-faceted fig-shaped pommel with waisted neck, tang button and silver cap etched in alternating panels with symmetrical and asymmetrical foliate scrolls, knuckle guard, long rear quillon swelling to its downward and outward-turned terminal, the latter faceted and capped en suite with the pommel, the quillon block supporting an open side ring and a pair of semicircular arms linked at their lower end by a smaller side ring enclosing a silver plate cut with interlacing strapwork etched with foliate scrolls, and three inner loop-guards diverging from the lower end of the knuckle guard to the lower ends of each arm and the mid-point of the rear one respectively, the spaces between them filled with silver plates fretted and etched en suite with that of the lower side ring, wooden grip widening slightly to its lower end and bound with twisted iron wire enclosed between Turks’ heads of the same, and broad uniformly tapering blade of sturdy lozenge-shaped section, its ricasso grooved at each side.

Overall length 43 in Blade length 37⅜ in Provenance

Armoury of the Electors of Saxony, Dresden John F. Hayward, Sotheby’s, London, 1 November 1983, lot 15 Private collection, USA

Exhibited

The Art of the Armourer, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, 1963, no. 98

71

12

13

14

15

16

A Fine and Rare German Horse Muzzle, Saxon, dated 1604 Formed of a framework of iron overlain with panels of iron shaped around the nostrils and elaborately fretted and engraved with foliate scrolls and flowerheads involving, at the top centre, the full arms of the Electors of Saxony flanked by a pair of confronted winged grotesques with scaled tails accompanied above and below by the inscription, in three lines, wergotvortravt hatwolgebavt/glavblibebesthet die weltvorgeih/1604, in circular frames flanking the nostrils, a pair of confronted griffins, and at the tip of the nose, in a circular frame of interlacing strapwork, an eagle in display with head and body formed in relief, the lower half overlain at points with long sinuous lizards, and fitted at each side with pivoted sidebars fretted with fleur-delis en suite with its upper edge.

Overall height 10⅜ in Overall width 6⅝ in Our beautifully preserved horse muzzle includes in its elaborately pierced and engraved ornament the full arms of the Electors of Saxony. The date 1604 shows it to have been made in the reign of the youthful Elector Christian I (1583–1591–1611).

The arms show in their first, third, sixth and eighth quarters, the arms of the Landgravate of Thuringia (azure, a lion barry of argent and gules crowned or), the Margravate of Meissen (or, a lion sable), the Duchy of Julich (also or, a lion sable), and possibly either the County of Orlamünde (or semé with hearts gules, a lion sable crowned gules) or the Duchy of Berg (argent, a lion gules with forked tail). In the second quarter, they show the arms of the Dukes of Saxony (barry of ten, or and sable, a cancelin vert in bend overall), in the fourth and fifth, the arms of the Palatinates of Saxony (azure, an eagle or) and Thuringen (sable, an eagle or), in the seventh, the arms of the County of Landsberg (or, two pales azure), in the ninth, the arms of the County of Altenburg (argent, a rose gules), in the tenth, the arms of the County of Marck (divided per pale,(1) gules, a half eagle argent, (2) barry of eight argent and gules), in the eleventh, the arms of the county of Brehna (argent, three waterlily leaves gules) and in the twelfth, the arms of the Principality of Henneberg (or, a hen sable on a mount vert). A central inescutcheon shows

74

the arms of the Archmarshalcy of the Empire (per fess sable and argent, two swords gules in saltire overall).

The inscription accompanying these arms can be translated as: Who trusts in God has built well: Faith and love endure; the world passes’.

Our muzzle is typical of its kind in possessing a rigid upper half and a flexible lower half and sides.

The earliest example to show this construction is one of 1512 in the Livrustkammaren, Stockholm (inv. no. 5787.50), followed at a short interval by one of 1515 in the Glasgow Museum and Art Gallery (inv. no. 39-65bz). Another in the Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds (inv. no. vi.401), appears to be datable to 1537. Most surviving muzzles, however, range in date from the midsixteenth century to the first quarter of the seventeenth century. The latest recorded example is one of 1621 in the Muzeum Narodowe, Wrocław (inv. no. 90).

An almost identical muzzle, bearing the same date as ours, is in the Hofjagd- und Rüstkammer, Vienna (inv. no. A 2244). Other muzzles of Saxon origin include one of 1562 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (acc. no. 14.25.1684), another of similar date in the same collection (acc.

no. 14.25.1686), and one of 1573 formerly in the collections of the Princes of Hanover at Schloss Marienburg, Lower Saxony. Closely resembling ours in many of its decorative details, even though it lacks both arms and an inscription, is one of 1590 in the Muzeum Wojska Polskiego, Warsaw.

Muzzles of this kind were frequently fitted with pendants intended, through their clatter, to drive insects away from the horse’s eyes and nostrils. Although frequently formed as acorns, those of the Warsaw example have been rendered as stylised phalluses.

The horse muzzle, presumably intended to prevent its wearer from biting either people or other horses, can trace its history back to the time of the Romans. It was in sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century Germany, however, that it achieved not only its greatest popularity but also its most attractive form. Although a small number of Scandinavian examples are recorded, most seem to have had their origin in the Middle Rhine Valley, Bavaria, Styria, Carinthia and Saxony.

The use of the horse muzzle is well shown in the paintings of Lucas Cranach the Younger (1515–86), court artist to the Electors of Saxony,

and in the woodcuts of Jost Aman of Nuremberg (1539–91). Among the latter is one of 1589, entitled a ‘Brunswick Horseman’, forming part of his Stammbüchlein. An earlier woodcut of about 1560 is of interest in showing the horse of King George of Thura wearing a muzzle in association with a complete armour including a full shaffron.

Muzzles such as these would almost certainly have been lined. Although the primary purpose of the lining would, of course, have been to make the muzzle more comfortable for the horse to wear, there can be little doubt that the colour of that lining showing through its fretting would have brought into sharper focus the intricate details of its attractive and carefully conceived design.

Provenance

Achille Jubinal Sotheby’s London, 19 July 1967, lot 90 Private collection, USA

Literature

Ernst Bosc, Dictionaire de l’Art, Paris, 1883, p. 485, pl. 546 Antoni Romuald Chodyński, ‘Horse Muzzles’, Zeitschrift für Historische Waffenkunde, third series, vol. XXIX (1987), pp. 4–20

17

A Fine German Swept-hilt Rapier with Silver-encrusted Hilt, circa 1610 With hilt of iron formed of a vertically grooved spherical pommel with waisted neck and small tang button, and guards of circular section comprising knuckle guard, long straight quillons supporting a pair of semicircular arms linked at their lower ends by an oval side ring enclosing a flat plate, two diagonal outer loop guards respectively linking the lower end of the knuckle guard to the root of the rear quillon and the root of the forward quillon to the lower end of the rear arm, and three inner loop guards diverging from the lower end of the knuckle guard to the lower ends of the arms, the quillons and the upper end of the knuckle guard each terminating in spherical finials, and the outer loop guards and side ring each interrupted at their centres by spherical mouldings between a pair of constricted mouldings, all except the inner loop guards and the inner faces of the arms richly decorated overall on a blued ground with silver-encrusted foliate scrolls and flowerheads inhabited at points by winged cherubs’ heads, grip of wood carved with a repeated chevron-pattern and bound with fine twisted silver wire between Turks’ heads, and long slender blade of hexagonal section formed at each side of the ricasso with a single broad fuller, and at each side of the forte with a pair of narrow fullers respectively struck with the inscriptions inte + domine and spe + ravit accompanied by an orb and cross on one side, and nonconfodat and ineternvn on the other.

Overall length 47⅜ in Blade length 41⅜ in The swept-hilt rapier is not only one of the most elegant forms of sword ever devised, but also one of the most interesting. At the height of its popularity in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, considerable variation could be found in the number and arrangement of the several guards that made up its hilt.

Two features in particular serve to characterise the hilt of our rapier: the first is its possession of a forward quillon as well as a rear one, and the second, its possession of two diagonal outer loop guards respectively linking the lower end of the knuckle guard to the proximal end of the rear quillon and the proximal end of the front quillon to the lower end of the rear arm. A portrait of David Joris, probably by Jan van Sorrel, in the Öffentliche Kunstsammlung, Basle (inv. no.

561), shows this combination of features to have existed as early as about 1540–5. The form of inner guard seen on the hilt of our rapier, however, is unknown before its appearance in Sir Martin Frobisher’s portrait of 1577 by Cornelis Ketel, in 80

the Bodleian Library, Oxford.

Closely resembling that of our example, except in having chiselled rather than encrusted ornament, are the hilts of two rapiers respectively preserved in the Musée de l’Armée, Paris (inv. no. PO 2024), and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (acc. no. 14.25.1190). They have not only spherical pommels, but also spherical mouldings decorating their guards. Of perhaps greater relevance to our example, because of their possession of silver-encrusted ornament, are the hilts of three further rapiers of the pattern under discussion: one in the Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin (inv. no. W 602), and two in the Wallace Collection, London (cat. nos 583 and 583).

Another, in the Collezione Odescalchi, Rome (inv. no. 335), is of interest in showing details generally associated with English swords of the early seventeenth century.

Silver-encrusted decoration involving winged cherubs’ heads of the kind found on the hilt of our rapier is in fact a relatively common feature

of high-quality English swords of the early seventeenth century, believed in some cases to have been made by the royal sword cutlers Thomas Cheshire, Nathaniel Mathew and Robert South of London. A royal warrant of 1614, for instance, authorised a payment to the second of those makers for, among other things, a sword decorated with ‘cherubyn heads de argento damasked’.

Such decoration was nevertheless popular throughout much of northern Europe. It is found for example on the hilt of a German rapier of about 1610 in the Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds (inv. no. ix.877), as well as on another of the same date and origin in the Collezione Odescalchi, Rome (inv. no. 415). This latter, aside from the fact that it lacks outer loop guards, is constructionally similar to that of ours. It even has a large vertically grooved pommel. Two further silver-encrusted swords possessing pommels of this type can be seen in the Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, Zurich (inv. nos LM 16736 and 16988). The first belonged to Hans Gugelberg von Moos (recorded 1562–1618), and the second to Rudolf von Schauenstein (recorded 1587–1626), whose name appears on its blade along with the date 1614. A third resembling them is in the Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds (inv. no. ix.1033). It seems probable from the foregoing that our rapier, like the pieces just discussed, was made in Germany.

That would almost certainly be true for its blade which bears the mark of an orb and cross, commonly found on the works of the sword cutlers of the north Rhine-Westphalian city of Solingen, then Europe’s leading producers of sword blades. Their Latin, however, seems not to have matched their metalworking skills. The inscriptions can be seen as a somewhat garbled version of the last two lines of the Te Deum: In te, Domine, speravi non confundar in aeternum In you, Lord, I have hoped may I never be put to shame – sentiments to which the owner of any sword would have done well to subscribe.

Provenance

Private collection, USA

Literature

A. R. Dufty and A. N. Borg, European Swords and Daggers in the Tower of London, London, 1974, pls 13c, 26d Heinrich Müller and Hartmut Kölling, Europäische Hieb- und Stichwaffen aus der Sammlungen des Museums für Deutsche Geschichte, Berlin, 1981, pp. 208, 213 and 377 A. V. B. Norman, The Rapier and the Small-Sword 1460–1820, London, 1980, pp. 146–9, pls 31, 47 Hugo Schneider and Karl Stüber, Waffen im Schweizerishen Landesmuseum: Griffwaffen, Zurich, 1980, pp. 154–5

81

18

A Fine and Exceptionally Rare Pair of Scottish Brass-stocked Snaphaunce Pistols by the Master ‘AG’, dated 1622 Each with sighted, slightly tapering round barrels of brass each formed with moulded decoration at the muzzle and three raised bands at the breach, the upper surface finely engraved with symmetrical foliate scrolls and rosettes enclosed within interlacing ribbons, and incised at the rear with the date 1622, snaphaunce locks respectively of left-hand and right-hand form, each having a long flat bevelled lockplate of brass with shaped terminals, its surface engraved with foliate scroll and stuck with the maker’s initials ag, flat combed cock, flat buffer, flat arm of the steel and vertically ridged fence, all decorated with pairs of incised lines, full stocks of brass with slender fishtailed butts, finely engraved at each side of the latter with foliate scrolls separated by diagonal bands, and elsewhere with a key pattern separated by similar bands, each fitted opposite its lock with a replaced belt hook of iron, and on its underside with a slender iron ramrod and unguarded iron baluster-shaped trigger.

Overall length 16¾ in Barrel length 11⅝ in As a result of the various Acts of Disarming passed by the British Parliament in the wake of the unsuccessful Jacobite uprisings of 1715 and 1745, early Scottish pistols like ours are now of the greatest rarity. Most that do survive are to be found in the princely armouries of continental Europe where they were presumably deposited as diplomatic gifts.

While they clearly stand apart in character from the contemporary products of continental Europe, they are not in fact so very different from those then being produced south of the border. The fishtailed butts, the snaphaunce locks, the belt hooks, the unguarded baluster trigger and the moulded muzzles of our pistols are all features that could also then have been seen on English products. In two respects, however, they differ from the latter: in having all-metal stocks and in having lefthand and right-hand locks. The second of these features, at least, had come into existence at some time before the end of the sixteenth century.

Scottish gunmaking probably had its origins in the reign of James IV (1473–1488–1513) who, following the purchase of his first culverin in

84

January 1508, developed a passion for shooting.

In 1510 the Dutch culverin maker George Keppin was installed by him in a workshop in Edinburgh Castle where he remained working into the third year of the succeeding reign of James V (1513–42).

The latter, although only a baby at that time, must in due course have taken to his father’s sport. In 1533 he had to pay compensation to the owner of a cow that he had accidentally shot while hunting.

Despite the introduction of several acts seeking to limit the private ownership and use of hand firearms in Scotland, the decades that followed saw a gradual increase in the number of native craftsmen engaged in their manufacture. By the end of the sixteenth century the standing of the Scottish gun trade had risen to the point where its products were even on occasion exported to England and the Continent. Although Scottish firearms have traditionally come to be associated with the Highlander, their principal centres of manufacture were in fact to be found in the Lowlands: initially Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee where incorporations of hammermen had long been established.

In the Historisches Museum, Dresden, is a pair of pistols (inv. nos J1431–2) bearing the date 1598, and the mark ik, possibly of John Kello or John Kennedy of Edinburgh. They, and a possibly even earlier pair of restocked pistols in the Real Armería, Madrid (inv. no. K215–6), bearing the mark ia, possibly of either James or John Alison of Dundee, are already very like ours in all details, except that that their stocks are made of plain wood rather than brass. By the early seventeenth century, such stocks had acquired butt caps of gilt brass, as seen, for example, on a pair of pistols in the Tøjhusmuseet, Copenhagen (inv. no. B345.1–2), bearing the date 1602 and the mark il, probably of James Low of Dundee, and a left-hand pistol in the Royal Armouries, Leeds (inv. no. xii.737), bearing the date 1619 and the mark ca.

From the second decade of the seventeenth century, such fish-tailed pistols began to be made with all-metal stocks: usually of gilt brass, but just occasionally of iron, as in the case of one formerly in the museum at Göttenborg, Sweden, which bears the date 1616 and the mark ig, possibly of James Gray of Dundee. The earliest of the type with brass stocks are a pair from the armoury of King Louis XIII of France, now in the Royal Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh (inv. no. LH3256). These bear the date 1611 and also have the il mark. Closely resembling them is a further pair in the Livrustkammaren, Stockholm (inv. no. 15/228) bearing the date 1613 and the mark vb (or js?), a single pistol bearing the same

date and mark in the Royal Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh (inv. no. L.1949–90), a single lefthand pistol in the Tøjhusmuseet, Copenhagen (inv. no. B1021), bearing the same date and the il mark, a further single left-hand pistol in the Art Institute of Chicago (acc. no. 1982.2319), dated 1614, and a pair in the Glasgow Museum and Art Gallery, bearing the date 1626 and, once again, the il mark.

The close resemblance of our pistols to these last, both in regard to form and decoration, leaves little doubt that their maker, the Master AG, practised or at least learned his trade in the city of Dundee which, until its sacking by the troops of Oliver Cromwell at the end of the Covenanting wars in 1651, appears to have been the pre-eminent centre for the manufacture of presentation-quality firearms in Scotland.

Provenance

W. Keith Neal collection Private collection, USA

Literature

Claude Blair, ‘Scottish Firearms’, American Society of Arms Collectors Bulletin, no. 31, Spring 1975, pp. 61–101 Claude Blair and Robert Woosnam-Savage, Scottish Firearms, Bloomfield, Ontario and Alexandria Bay, New York, 1995 Arne Hoff, ‘Scottish Pistols in Scandinavian Collections’, Journal of the Arms & Armour Society, vol. I, no. 12, December 1955, pp. 199–214 W. Keith Neal and D. H. L. Back, Great British Gunmakers 1540–1740, Norwich, 1984, pp. 70–1, pls 6a–c

87

19

An Exceptionally Fine Gold-Damascened French Smallsword, circa 1655 With hilt of iron formed of a pair of oval, slightly dished shell guards, tall flat quillon block, knuckle guard with scrolled upper end, short rear quillon with rounded downturned rear end, and semicircular arms, all of rectangular section, and onion-shaped pommel formed with six broad flutes separated by prominent ridges and surmounted by a low tang button, all richly damascened in gold overall within finely pearled borders with foliate scrolls terminating at points in grotesque bird and animal heads, and inhabited by cherubs’ heads and male herms variously armed for combat, blowing horns or bearing baskets of fruit, grip of wood bound between Turks’ heads of twisted brass wire with twisted copper wire of different gauges, and associated slender two-edged blade formed on each face with a central fuller.

Overall length 40⅝ in Blade length 34½ in Only rarely is one privileged to see such exquisite and well-preserved gold-damascening as that which embellishes the hilt of this stunning early smallsword. Such a sword was of course as much a piece of masculine jewellery as it was a weapon.

Our smallsword was clearly the weapon of a man of wealth and position. Its cost would have lain not merely in the precious metal employed in its decoration, but in the many hours of skilled and patient labour required to apply it. The decoration is of a kind referred since the early sixteenth century as ‘counterfeit’ damascening, to distinguish it from the more durable true damascening only rarely applied to European arms. The distinction is explained by Denis de Coetlogen in his Universal History of the Arts and Sciences of 1745: For the first Manner of Damasceening, it is necessary, the Gravings and Incisions, be made in the Dove-tail Form, that the Gold and Silver-Wire, which is thrust forcibly into them, may adhere more strongly. The second Method is the most usual, and practis’d, by heating the Steel till it changes to a Violet or blue Colour, hatching it over and across with a Knife, then drawing the Design, or Ornament intended, on this Hatching, with 90

a fine Brass Point, or Bodkin. This done, a fine Gold or Silver-Wire is taken, and conducting, or chasing it according to the Figures already design’d, it must be sunk carefully into the Hatches of the Metal, with a Copper Tool.’

The decoration of our sword was applied to it by means of the second of these methods: albeit a de luxe version of it in which the use of thicker than usual gold allowed the artist to chase its fine details in low relief. Such extraordinary work, which might legitimately be viewed as encrustation rather than simple damascening, gives our sword a richness and refinement rarely seen in such weapons. Its quality would have said much about the social status of its original owner.

From the evidence of contemporary portraiture, the smallsword began to replace its longer precursor, the rapier, in the 1640s. It is only from the middle of the following decade, however, that datable examples of it actually survive. Our example appears to be from that early period. It closely resembles one worn by Cornelius van Aerssen in his portrait of 1658

by Adriaen Hanneman, in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (inv. no. 1104). Almost exactly like ours, except that its ornament is engraved rather than damascened, is a sword in the armoury of

the Wrangel family at Schloss Skokloster, Sweden (inv. no. 7206).

Fine gold damascening, although lacking the kind of low-relief detail discussed above, is nevertheless to be seen on a sword in the James A. de Rothschild Collection, at Waddesdon Manor, Buckinghamshire (cat. no. 36), which, aside from the fact that it possesses a forward quillon rather than a knuckle guard, it is more or less similar in design to ours. Closely resembling our sword, except that it has a single side ring rather than a pair of arms and a shell guard, is a sword in the collection of HM The Queen at Windsor (cat no. 57), bearing the signature la roche d’argent on an iron washer fitted between its hilt and blade. Also relating to it are two swords with knuckle guards, side rings and rear quillons, respectively preserved in the Musée de l’Armée, Paris (inv. no.

PO. 1577), and the Livrustkammaren, Stockholm (inv. no. 3871).

The second of them belonged to Karl X of Sweden (1654–60), is signed A la Chasse Royalle. A third sword of the same fashion in the Wallace Collection, London (cat. no. A 671), is signed av. dvc. d’orleans on a moulding separating its blade from its hilt.

The likelihood, therefore, is that our stunning smallsword was made by French craftsmen who then, early in the reign of the ‘Sun King’ Louise XIV (1643–1715), set the standards for most of Europe.

Provenance

Sir Martin Harvey Hans von Schulthess, Schloss Au, near Zurich, Switzerland

Literature

Claude Blair, The James A. de Rothschild Collection at Waddesdon Manor: Arms, Armour and Base-Metalwork, Fribourg, 1974, pp. 115–18 Sir Guy F. Laking, A Record of European Armour and Arms, vol. V, London, 1922, pp. 81–6, figs 1499–1500

91

20

An Exquisite French Smallsword with Gold-encrusted Hilt, circa 1710–15 The blued steel hilt encrusted throughout with gold: the globose pommel bears on the nearside the figure of Victory amid a trophy of arms and on the offside the figure of Fame and putti supporting and laureating a medallic portrait of Louis XIV; the centre of the knucklebow bears on the nearside the figure of Peace and on the offside the figure of Hercules; the nearside of the ricasso bears the figure of Minerva gesturing towards a bust of Louis XIV and the offside of the ricasso bears a female figure, murally crowned, seated upon trophies and supporting an obelisk while being laureated by a flying putto; the twin shells decorated overall, on both sides, with classical imagery symbolising Peace and the prosperity of France and incorporating a seated Louis XIV, the figures of Mars stripped of his armour and Minerva and numerous putti; the grip wound with gold and silver wire and ribbon, with Turks’ heads at either end. The blade of flattened lenticular section at the forte, changing to flattened hexagonal section, then to flattened diamond section towards the tip; with a gilded and engraved forte bearing on both sides a figure of Cupid holding a mirror image of the number 3 above the motto cet nombre vaut tout seul (This number alone is everything), a reference to the Holy Trinity.

Overall length 37¾ in Blade length 31½ in Our fine smallsword, with its exquisitely worked and classically decorated hilt, can be dated with confidence to the closing years of the reign of King Louis XIV, sole and supreme ruler of France and Navarre 1661–1715. It is possible that our sword was commissioned specifically to commemorate the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, or those of Rastatt and of Baden of 1714, which brought to an end a series of wars in which France had been engaged for the greater part of Louis’s long personal reign. Our sword is of the very finest quality and was probably commissioned by a nobleman and made in Paris towards the end of the reign of the king whose thirst for military glory, passion for the security of France’s borders and singleminded pursuit of the magnificence of the French monarchy led him, in his own lifetime to be known as Ludovicus Maximus, Louis le Grand, le roi soleil and Louis dieu-donné.

It is possible that the medallic bust of Louis XIV that forms part of the decoration on the offside of the pommel of our sword may have 94

been copied by the hiltmaker from a portrait of the king by Regnier Arondeaux, a Flemish medallist working 1678–1702 who produced a series of medals commemorating events in the life of Louis XIV. Arondeaux has been long regarded as among the finest of his contemporaries and used the bust of Louis XIV referred to here as the obverse of a medal struck in the late 1690s, probably to commemorate the Treaty of Ryswyck, which ended of the War of the League of Augsburg in 1697. Placing a portrait of the king of this style on the side of the pommel, where it would be most noticeable, where it is juxtaposed with the figure of Hercules on the offside of the knucklebow and the murally crowned female figure on the offside of the ricasso that probably represents either Paris or France, would have been a deliberate act on the part of the hiltmaker in order that the symbolism of the hilt would be evident to classically educated and sophisticated observers. The same reasoning would have dictated the positioning of the seated figure of

the king, in the guise of lawgiver and peacemaker, on the upper side of the offside shell of the hilt, where it would be most obvious when the sword was drawn and held, point uppermost, in the right hand.

Commemorative symbolism aside, there are factors in the hilt’s form and design that assist in its dating and its placing in the period when such weapons were the essential sidearm of anyone aspiring to be regarded as a gentleman, the period from about 1690 to 1790.

The arms of the hilt are large and well developed: deriving from similar arms present in some styles of rapier hilt of the seventeenth century and at that time intended to accommodate one or both of the first two fingers of the hand, these arms gradually diminished in size on smallsword hilts as the eighteenth century progressed, as can be seen on no. 27 in this catalogue. The shape and style of the hilt’s shells are similarly typical of the first quarter of the eighteenth century and the style of decoration of the hilt, with the use of classical iconography rendered in a baroque manner, is wholly contemporary for a smallsword hilt of that period.

Provenance

Sotheby’s, London, 19 April 1920, ‘The Collection of Arms and Armour and Objects of Art of the late Sir Guy Francis Laking, Bart. C.B., M.V.O., F.S.A., &c’, lot 201 Hans von Schulthess, Schloss Au, near Zurich, Switzerland

Literature

J. D. Aylward, The Small-sword in England, London, 1945 M. E. P. Jones, Medals of the Sun King, London, 1979 A. V. B. Norman, The Rapier and Small-Sword 1460–1820, London, 1980 A. R. E. North, An Introduction to European Swords, London, 1982

95

21

A Fine Scottish Basket-hilted Broadsword, or claidheamh mòr, by Thomas Gemmill, circa 1718–37 The iron hilt of fully developed ‘Highland’ type, made for the right hand, with stout bars of rectangular section, longitudinally fluted; the main knuckle guard and side guards widen at their centres to form fluted panels, each pierced with a pair of opposing stylised hearts and a pair of holes and each with cusped and crenellated edges; outside the hand over the knuckles, a square shield supported by four saltire bars, the shield pierced with two pairs of opposing stylised hearts and five holes and with cusped and crenellated edges; inside the hand, over the fingertips, a large oval ring of half-round section; with a pair of forward bars of fluted rectangular section and a widening wrist-guard that terminates in a curl; the main bars terminate in the step of a low, domed and fluted pommel; the grip covered in leather and wound with a double strand of silver wire; a buff leather liner at the stool; the main knuckle-guard struck where it joins the forward bars with a crowned lion rampant flanked by the maker’s name: t·gemmill and k·armourer. The wide double-edged blade with three principal fullers bordered by two vestigial fullers at the forte; inset on both sides with the orb mark for Solingen and each principal fuller struck with the name andrea ferara, between incised crosses and crescents.

Overall length 38¾ in Blade length 33 in It has been many years since we have offered a claidheamh mòr in one of our catalogues and it is particularly pleasing to be able to offer one of such exceptional quality and importance as this fine example, which exhibits – for its period – the best of Glasgow hiltmaking combined with the best of German blademaking: the result, presented here, is a Highland gentleman’s sword that may well have seen service in the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745–6.

At the time when our sword was made and assembled, in the Glasgow workshop of the King’s Armourer, Thomas Gemmill, Scotland resembled two different nations. One was the peaceful, prosperous and largely Calvinist Lowland and border region that stretched from the English border north and east, encompassing the university cities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen as well as the fertile country of Fife and the Mearns; the other was the wild, mountainous, Gaelic-speaking, and largely Catholic and Episcopalian Highland region 98

north-west of Perth. The two regions had little in common, regarded each other with mutual distrust and yet traded with each other in the basic necessities of life: for the Lowlands, this meant a steady supply of Highland black cattle and woollen cloth and for the Highlands, largely bereft of a metalworking industry, this meant swords with blades imported from Germany mounted with hilts from Glasgow, Stirling and Edinburgh – such a sword as is offered here.

The association of a Glasgow-made sword with a Highland gentleman, who was probably of high social status within his clan, is ironic since, at the time when our sword was made, the Highlands had erupted into open rebellion against the government, and threatened serious disruption to life and property in the Lowlands in 1689, 1708 and 1715 – and would do so again in 1719 and in 1745. These rebellions were caused by the enforced exile from Britain after 1689 of successive sovereigns of the Royal (and Scottish) House of Stuart and were initiated by Stuart

supporters, known as ‘Jacobites’ because of their support for the first and second of the kings to be exiled, James VII of Scotland and II of England and his son, also called James – which in Latin is Jacobus: the Jacobites were principally located in the Scottish Highlands and drawn from the Catholic and Episcopalian clans.

In fact, this sword may have been an illegal weapon when it was made and supplied since the Disarming Act that followed the 1715 Jacobite Rebellion was still in force, although – evidently – not much enforced and apparently not upon the King’s Armourer in Glasgow. This Act, and its more rigidly enforced successor in 1746, was intended to prevent the bearing of arms and wearing of tartan in Scotland but the very existence of our fine sword implies that it was not taken seriously, although it is conceivable that it was made for a gentleman of a clan loyal to government, such as the Campbells of Argyll.

For the Highland gentleman in the early eighteenth century, whether Jacobite or not, the sword was an everyday necessity, almost a tool in fact, and he regarded his weapons as emblematic of his status in society. Gaelic Highland culture at the time, and for centuries before, was one in which the warrior held a pre-eminent place and thus the weapons of the warrior – sword, pistols, targe and dirk – assumed a status reflective of that. While the appearance of the sword was important – a factor largely determined by the evident quality of its hilt, since that was on constant display – the standard of the blade was essential too, since it was on that that the warrior’s life might depend. For a sword to function well in the hand, its balance was of critical importance: too much weight towards the tip of the blade would make wielding the sword tiring, too little would prejudice its function, which was to kill or maim an opponent. At the same time, with basket-hilted swords, the hilt had to be sufficiently robust as to protect all parts of the hand, from the wrist to the fingertips, as well as – if necessary – serving as an armoured fist in the event of close-quarter combat while also not being so heavy as to be unwieldy. Our fine sword represents the quintessence of the basket-hilted broadsword: it is supremely finely balanced, with a top quality blade and a robust yet lightweight hilt evidently custom-made for a right-handed swordsman.

It was probably the best that money could buy in the 1720s, when our unknown Highland gentleman commissioned it from Thomas Gemmill.

Gemmill has been known to scholars of the Highland Scottish basket-hilt since the early 1930s, when the antiquary Charles Whitelaw first published the results of his research. He is thought to have been a ‘hammerman’, who became a burgess of Glasgow in 1709, was admitted a freeman of the Incorporation of 99

Hammermen of Glasgow in 1716, appointed King’s Armourer (in Scotland) in 1718 and superseded in that post in 1737 – which suggests that he probably died in that year, although no record of his death, or of any will made by him, has been traced. Prior to his appointment as King’s Armourer he is thought to have signed his hilts with the initials tg over g (for Glasgow) but after his royal appointment in 1718, the majority of his hilts are recorded as signed in the fashion that appears struck into the hilt discussed here. Examples of hilts signed

by Gemmill have been recorded in several public and private collections (for example, National Museums of Scotland inv. no. LA 127, illustrated in Wallace as No. 30 and Mazansky as No. F16d (TG), and private collection Guernsey, illustrated in Norman, et al, as No.1:11).

100

Exhibiting the best hilt-making craftsmanship available in Glasgow three centuries ago, they are still among the best that money can buy.

Provenance

Private collection, USA

Literature

C. Mazansky, British Basket-hilted Swords, Woodbridge and Leeds, 2005 A. V. B. Norman et al., The Sword and the Sorrows, Edinburgh, 1996 C. R. Rolland, ‘Observations on the Dating of Scottish Basket Hilted Swords’, Catalogue of the Seventh Park Lane Arms Fair, 1990, pp. 18–23 J. Wallace, Scottish Swords and Dirks, London, 1970 C. E. Whitelaw, ‘Notes on swords with signed basket hilts by Glasgow and Stirling makers’, Transactions of the Glasgow Archaeological Society, new series, vol. VIII (1933), pp. 15–38, esp. pp 22–3 and pl. 1, no. 6

22

A Fine and Exceptionally Rare Pair of Italian Snaphaunce Holster Pistols by Matteo Acqua Fresca of Bargi, dated 1725 Each with tapering slightly swamped barrel formed in two stages separated by a moulded band, the octagonal breeches struck in each case with a crowned monogram, one inscribed with the date 1725 on the left side, and engraved in front of linear border ornament with a central rosette and foliate scrolls repeated on the tang; snaphaunce locks with rounded lockplates each signed in script in front of their pans with the maker’s name acqua fresca, one engraved in front and behind its cock respectively with a man in a landscape playing a viol and a wolf devouring a lamb, the other engraved in the same positions with a woman in a landscape playing a lute and a fox devouring a bird, the rear figures in each case accompanied by scrolling foliage repeated on the cocks and pan covers, the former additionally chiselled in relief at their front edges with similar foliage, and on the heads of their retaining screws with lions’ masks, and the arms of the steels chiselled in relief as dolphins. Full stocks of figured walnut carved in relief in front of the locks at either side with foliate scrolls, long-spurred iron butt caps chiselled at their rears within concentric circles of stylised acanthus leaves with lions’ masks, in one case having an upturned moustache and in the other, a downturned one, and engraved at their sides with foliate scrolls surrounding masks, sideplates and escutcheons both fretted and chiselled in relief as foliate scrolls, the former fitted in each case with belt hooks, the latter involving at their centres cartouches engraved in one case with the bust of a male Turk, and in the other with that of a female Turk, rounded trigger guards engraved on their undersides with grotesque-headed birds, two moulded ramrod pipes in each case, and iron-tipped ramrods.

Overall length 20¼ in Barrel length 14 in Every once in a while there emerges from the ranks of the many able gunmakers who have practised their trade throughout the centuries a true artist whose skills and sense of design raised him above his contemporaries. One such was the gifted Italian gunmaker, chiseller and engraver Matteo Acqua Fresca (1651–1738) who is widely acknowledged to have produced some of the finest firearms ever made.

Interestingly, he worked not in one of the great cities famed for its arms production but in the remote Emilian village of Bargi, lying in the Apennine Mountains, midway between Bologna and Florence. His entry into his profession was nevertheless inevitable. He was one of a dynasty of gunmakers that worked in Bargi from at least the last quarter of the sixteenth century to the last quarter of the eighteenth century. The real 102

surname of the family was Cecchi, but they preferred always to sign themselves as Acqua Fresca. It was the refined work of Matteo, second son of Sebastiano (1619–92), that ultimately raised that name to international celebrity.

Few works of the family are dated, and even fewer signed with anything more than their surname, perhaps in part because several members of the family sometimes collaborated in their production. The full signature of Matteo can nevertheless be recorded on two repeating guns, respectively dated 1687 and 1692, in the Museo Nazionale di Storia della Scienza, Florence (inv. nos 834 and 838), a gun in the Bayerisches Nationalmuseum, Munich (inv. no. 13/606), a pair of pistols in the Collezione Odescalchi, Rome (inv. nos 32–3), and a superlative pair of pistols acquired from the Gwynn collection in

2006 by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (acc. no. 2006.471.1–2).

The Odescalchi pistols are particularly close to ours in both form and detail. They are even struck on their breeches with the same crowned monogram. It has been suggested that this monogram might be interpreted as the ownership mark of Ferdinando III de’Medici, Grand Prince of Tuscany (1663–1713), However, as one of our pistols is dated 1725, and a similarly marked gun in the Philadelphia Museum of Art (acc. no.

1977–167–850) is signed by the Viennese maker Augustin Scheffel who only began his career in 1728, they were clearly made several years after the death of the prince. More than that, the Viennese gun is engraved on its escutcheon not with the arms and name of the latter, but with those of Joseph Wenzel, Prince of Liechtenstein.

In the case of our pistols, moreover, the engraving of the breech flows around the monogram in such a way as to suggest that it represents a barrel­smith’s mark around which the artist had to work, rather than an ownership mark applied later. This is perhaps the more likely as Matteo seems not to have made his own barrels. Even the barrels of the Metropolitan Museum’s pistols, which are signed by him in full on their upper surfaces, bear on their undersides the mark of the Brescian smith Giovann Battista Francino. That said, there is every reason to believe that Matteo received patronage from the Florentine court.

Aside from the fact that a dated gun of 1709 in the Armeria Reale, Turin (inv. no. M 31), bears the Medici arms, one of the Odescalchi pistols is engraved on its escutcheon with the clearly recognisable bust of Cosimo III de’Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany (1642–1670–1723), father of the earlier mentioned Ferdinando.

The refined chiselling and engraving of Matteo and his family was occasionally applied to works of art other than firearms. In the Victoria and Albert Museum, London (acc. no. 1397–1888), is

a fine snuffbox signed Acqua Fresca and dated 1694. Its uninterrupted surfaces offered the artist an ideal field to demonstrate his skills. Even when applied to the more restrictive surfaces of firearms mounts, however, the decoration of the Acqua Fresca, was rarely prosaic. One of the attractive features of our pair of pistols and others by their maker is the fact that each of them is differently decorated from its mate. Aside from differences in the masks of their butt plates, each shows different but related subjects on its lockplates.

In 1894 G. B. Comelli, a local historian, visited Bargi in an attempt to learn something of the history of the Acqua Fresca family.

In addition to Matteo’s diary, he discovered Johann de Bry’s pattern books of knife-handles and sheath-mounts, first published in the early seventeenth century, and Jean Bérain’s pattern book of gunsmith’s ornament, published in 1659; motifs from both of these sources can be found in Matteo’s works. Particularly distinctive of his style is his use of exquisitely fine engraving: so fine, it has been said, that his work can only be adequately appreciated under a magnifying glass.

Provenance

Private collection, France

Literature

Lionello G. Boccia, ‘Gli Acquafresca di Bargi’, Physis, vol. IX, Florence, 1967, pp. 91–160 Nolfo di Carpegna, ‘Notes on the Firearms of the ToscoEmilian Apennines, Arms & Armor Annual, (ed.

Robert Held), vol. I, no. 2, 1973, pp. 227–817 and 242 Nolfo di Carpegna, Antiche Armi dal sec. IX al XVIII già Collezione Odescalchi, Rome 1968, pp. 111–16 R. T. Gwynn, ‘A Pair of 17th Century Italian Pistols’, The Fourteenth Park Lane Arms Fair [Guide], February 1997, pp. 21–4 John F. Hayward, The Art of the Gunmaker, vol. II (1660–1830), London, 1963, pp. 139–41 Eugene Heer (ed.), Der Neue Støckel: Internationale Lexicon der Büchsenmacher, Feuerwaffenfabricanten und Armbrustmacher von 1400-1900, vol. 1, Schwäbisch Hall, 1978

105

23

A Very Fine Bohemian Combined Candle Lighter and Alarm Clock by Ferdinand Engelsalch, Prague, circa 1730 The gilt-brass box case is supported on four baluster legs each expanding as a wide ‘ bun’ just above the foot, with a domed steel bell attached to the underside. The right side of the top of the case has a gilt-brass twelve-hour clock face set into a plate engraved with foliate scrollwork, the face pierced twice to the left of the dial for winding squares. The upper square, surrounded by a numbered semicircular dial allows the movement to be regulated and indicates the setting, the lower square activates or deactivates the alarm. The main dial has a fixed outer ring for reading the minutes, marked in five-minute intervals from 5 to 60, and an inner ring of Roman numerals for reading the hours marked I to XII. It has a long minute-hand and a short hour-hand with a fretted tail, both are adjusted using the winding key. In the centre of the main dial is a turning dial marked in numerals from 1 to 12. The pin at the rear of the key is used to turn this inner dial to set the alarm time, which is indicated by the tail of the hour hand, the dial advancing with the passage of time so that the alarm time set continues to be indicated. The gilded movement is engraved fer: engelsalchk prag and has a fusee and chain drive with a verge escapement controlled by a sprung balance wheel, the balance cock is pierced and engraved. The left side of the top has a cover, hinged and sprung at the front, and engraved within a strapwork border and inner strapwork surround with the name and address of the maker ferdinand/engelsalchk/prag. Set into a narrow plate running the length of the back is a flintlock. Inside the hinged lid the case is divided into two open compartments, one containing a sprung candle holder operated by an arm running from the alarm train of the clock through the other compartment, which also operates a cam to open the lid. Within this other compartment is a further, covered compartment, perhaps for flints or tinder. When the alarm and action are set and the lock primed and cocked, the lid is held closed by the closed frizzen and the candle holder is held horizontally by a spring with the end of the candle opposite the pan. When the alarm sounds the flintlock is triggered by an indirect, pre-set, sprung mechanism, the hinged cover opened and the candle lit and released to a vertical position through gearing that ensures it has time to be properly lit. Complete with a winding key.

Length overall 7 in Depth 37/8 in Height 33/4 in This combined candle lighter and alarm clock is a fine example of the mechanical contrivances which have been so popular in Europe since the Renaissance. Such ingenious marvels often adorned the cabinets of curiosities of men of fashion and learning, but this piece is not just ingenious, it is also supposedly practical. In the days before the invention of the friction phosphorous match by the English chemist John Walker in about 1826, lighters were exceptionally 108

important tools. From the Middles Ages on sparks were produced by striking flint against steel, which in turn ignited tinder – highly combustible, partly scorched linen that could then be used to light a candle or a fire. Special tinder boxes were being made in Europe by the early sixteenth century at the latest and remained a feature of ordinary life for some 300 years. Soon, to meet the demand for novelties and mechanical contrivances, the everyday tinder-lighter box

was developed into a number of decorative and ingenious mechanical forms. Instead of simply using separate pieces of flint and steel, mechanisms combining them were contrived to make flintlock lighters, often made to look like real flintlock pistols. In addition, special lighters combined with inkstands or made especially to light tapers or, as here, candles, were produced.

This particular example is of the type combined with an alarm clock that can be set to give a wakeup call and light the bedside candle. In his book Humane Industry, published in London in 1661, Thomas Powell includes an early description of one. He mentions that the Italian jurist Andrea Alciato (1492–1550) ‘had a kind of Clock in his chamber, that should awake him at any hour that he determined, and when it struck the determined hour, it struck fire likewise out of a flint, which fell among tinder, to light him a candle: it was the invention of one Caravagio of Sienna in Italy.’

That there may be some truth in this story and that candle-lighter alarm clocks were known in

the sixteenth century appears to be proved by the existence in the British Museum (no. 1901.0115.1) of a wheellock candle-lighter alarm.

Apart from this, surviving examples date from the eighteenth century and include one by Johann Maurer of Berlin, made in about 1730, that was sold by us in 1999. Another Maurer is marked london, but this is probably a spurious address rather than evidence of his having worked in England for a time – Bavarian clockmakers, especially, frequently added such spurious addresses to their work. A similar candle lighter made in Vienna by Joseph Sich (1697–1765) is also recorded and there is another, very similar to it in the British Museum (reg. no. 1897.0802.1) which may also be of Viennese origin. This is beautifully engraved with scenes of cavalry combat.

Our example was made in Prague, however its maker, Ferdinand Engelsalchk (some­times spelled Engelschalck or Engelshalkh), was born in Friedburg in Bavaria in 1680 but is known to have been working in Prague by 1706 when he

109

became a citizen, he died in 1755. He came from a large family of clockmakers and another member of the family, also named Ferdinand, worked in Friedberg and Würzburg and died in 1730.

Earlier, a Johann Engelsalchk had worked as a clockmaker in Prague in the second half of the seventeenth century but his relationship with the maker of our candle lighter is unknown. Our fine lighter could have been made by Ferdinand at any time after his arrival in Prague until shortly before his death. However, while the evidence of its form is an inconclusive guide to its exact date the overall style of its decoration suggests that it was made no later than about 1730.

Provenance Tom Key

110

Literature

J. Abeler, Meister der Uhrmacherkunst, Wuppertal, 1977, p. 416 G. H. Baillie, Watchmakers and Clockmakers of the World, Hebden Bridge, 2008, p. 101 Caspall, J. Making Fire and Light in the home pre 1820, Woodbridge, 1987, p. 36 Ralph Fastnedge, English Furniture Styles, Harmondsworth, 1955, p. 58 Peter Finer catalogue, 1999, no. 34 Helena Hayward (ed.) World Furniture: An Illustrated History, London, 1982, pp. 72–91, 100–1 Frederick Kaltenböck, Viennese Timepieces, Vienna 1993, p. 77 Stanislav Michal, Hodinářství a hodináři v českých zemích, Prague, 2002 H. Lee Munson, ‘Flintlock Tinder Lighters’, The Gun Report, May 1987, pp. 44–5 L. Stolberg, ‘Wecker mit Steinschloss pulverdampf und Kerze’, Alte Uhren und Moderne Zeitmessung, April 1989, pp. 9–15 G. M. Wilson, The Vauxhall Operatory: A Century of Inventions before the Scientific Revolution, Leeds, 2010, p. 107 Lewis Winnant, Firearms Curiosa, New York, 1955, p. 235

24

A Fine and Rare German Hunting Trousse, circa 1750 Comprising chopping knife with broad single-edged blade widening to its squared end and retaining traces of a maker’s mark, hilt of iron with bird’s-head pommel and short robust countercurved quillons fitted at their outside with an oval shell guard, all finely chiselled in high relief, the terminal of the front quillon with a bird’s head en suite with the pommel, the terminal of the rear quillon with a grotesque mask, the lower part of the grip and sides of the quillons with a standing huntsman and hounds pursuing stags, the upper surface of the shell guard with a grotesque mask and a lion attacking a bear, and its underside with a similar mask and a leopard, and the upper end of the grip inlaid in rectangular recesses at each side with a repeated pattern of alternating tortoiseshell and mother-of-pearl lozenges. Three small byknives, a fork and a combined file and bodkin, all with pommels and grips en suite with that of the chopping knife, and the knives with blades widening to their slightly clipped points and struck with a maker’s mark representing a scorpion. Scabbard of wood formed with separate compartments for each implement, covered over with green velvet and faced at the front with iron panels fretted and chiselled in low relief with interlacing branches and scrolling foliage inhabited at its centre by a figure of Diana, and elsewhere by animals of the chase, the upper and lower ends of the facing extended around the rear of the scabbard to form, respectively, a locket and a chape, the first fitted with a saltire-shaped suspension loop.

Overall length with scabbard 20 in Length of blade of cleaver 13⅝ in Hunting was among the most important social activities of the eighteenth century for a German nobleman, enabling him to meet in a convivial setting others of his class with whom he might in due course hope to form useful friendships and political alliances. Like any courtly activity of the time the hunt had its strict etiquette.

Dress and accoutrements would necessarily have been appropriate to the occasion but of a quality that declared the wealth and rank of its owner.

Our trousse, with its striking and altogether apt chiselled ornament, is of a kind that even the wealthiest and most cultivated sportsman would have been proud to hand around for admiration to others of his party.

In general it would have been worn suspended from the right side of the belt, leaving the left side free to receive the sword as usual. This is clearly to be seen in a miniature portrait of the Elector Johann Georg I of Saxony painted

by Daniel Bretschneider in 1647, now in the Landesbibliothek, Dresden, as well as in another 112

version of it preserved in the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Further evidence of the fashion is to be seen in the engravings of Joseph Anton Zimmerman (1705–96) based on the designs of Peter Candito (1548–1628) for a series of tapestries in the Bayerisches Nationalmuseum, Munich.

Broad-bladed hunting knives capable of being used both to cut and to serve meat were already being made as early as the middle of the fourteenth century. From the early fifteenth century at least some were being provided with accompanying byknives and other utensils. An inventory of 1420 mentions among the possessions of the Dukes of Burgundy, ‘A large German knife accompanied by six smaller ones, a file, a bodkin and forceps’. The earliest surviving garniture of matching knives is that in the Stift Kremünster (cat. no. 45), made

by Hans Sumersperger of Hall in Tyrol for the Emperor Maximilian I in 1496, while another of about 1520 in the Historisches Museum, Dresden (inv. no. M53) forms a companion piece to a sword. From the middle of the sixteenth century

such garnitures or trousses became increasingly popular, as several of the later paintings of Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472–1553) testify.

The purpose of the trousse was, of course, to dismember the carcase of a successful kill. This ritual process, involving the stripping, disjointing and skinning of the animal, is shown in all its grisly details in one of the twenty-one hunting scenes that make up the Coburg Chronicle, a series of paintings prepared by Wolff Pirkner for Duke John Casimir of Saxe-Coburg (1564–1633).

The key element of the trousse was always the large, cleaver-like chopping knife, called by the Germans a Waidpraxe.

This type of knife, as another of the scenes of the Coburg Chronicle shows, could occasionally have been employed in a secondary role: the meting out of a punishment known as ‘blading’. Since tradition played an important role in hunting, anyone caught contravening its strict codes and conventions was forced to kneel over the body of a stag and received three whacks with the flat of the Waidpraxe, to the accompaniment of a chant roughly translating as: This for the King, princes and Lords . . .This for the Knights, huntsmen and serving-men . . . And this for the good old law of noble venery.

In late eighteenth-century Germany at least, even women could be forced to submit to this light-hearted ordeal, with the person of highest rank having the privilege of administering it. It has been suggested that this may in part account for the large number of attractive females who appear in hunting pictures of the period.

Be that as it may, the trousses of that late period differed little from their predecessors other than in their decorative detail. The decoration of ours is of a mid-eighteenth-century fashion. It closely resembles in style one in the Philadelphia Museum of Art (acc. no.

1977-167-709). Although the pommel and quillon ends of the latter are of lion’s-head rather than bird’s-head form, and the inlay of its grip consist of a pattern of alternating light and dark horn squares rather than mother-of-pearl and tortoiseshell lozenges, there can be little doubt that it is a product of the same distinguished workshop as ours.

Provenance

Private collection, USA

Literature

H. L. Blackmore, Hunting Weapons, London, 1971, pp. 56–66, fig. 21, pls 8, 10, 53 and 57 C. O. von Kienbusch, The Kretzchmar von Kienbusch Collection of Armor and Arms, Princeton NJ, 1963, cat. no. 443, p. 202, pl. CXII

115

25

A Fine and Rare Pair of Russian Flintlock Holster Pistols, Tula, circa 1765 With slightly tapering sighted barrels, each formed in three stages separated by moulded bands, the rear two finely chiselled in relief and burnished against a matt-gold ground with trophies of arms, scrolling foliage, flower heads and ribbons surrounding the figure of a mounted soldier in contemporary dress raising his sword, flat lock similarly decorated with trophies of arms, captive warriors, grotesque masks and scrolling foliage, full stocks of figured walnut carved in relief around the barrel tangs and in front of the locks with grotesque masks and foliate scrolls. Full mounts of iron comprising long-spurred butt caps, flat sideplates, rounded trigger guards with acanthus terminals, escutcheons and ramrod pipes, all except the last decorated en suite with the barrels and locks, the butt caps additionally decorated in ovals at their rear ends and sides with classical male busts, in the former case helmeted, and the escutcheons additionally decorated in crowned ovals with further such busts, also helmeted, and wooden ramrods tipped with dark horn en suite with the fore-end caps.

Overall length 18⅜ in Barrel length 11⅝ in The brilliantly decorated presentation-quality firearms made in Tula in the eighteenth century represent a high point in Russian gunmaking and are clear evidence of a desire on the part of the Russians to produce firearms in the Western European rather than native Russian fashion.

Although gunmakers are known to have existed in Russia from as early as the late sixteenth century, it is only from about 1620 onwards that any actual examples of their work survive: in most cases made by craftsmen employed in the workshops of the Kremlin Armoury in Moscow.

These were usually fitted with snaphaunce locks of Anglo-Dutch type but decorated in a distinctively Russian manner showing Eastern influence. Such firearms continued to be produced until the end of the seventeenth century.

In the following century, however, things were to change. In 1705 Tsar Peter the Great (1672– 1682–1725) founded in the metalworking city of Tula, some 120 miles to the south of Moscow, a State small arms factory. Ever since his return from a tour of Western Europe in 1697, he had been determined to modernise his country. He even ordered his courtiers and officials to adopt 118

Western European fashions. Above all, however, he sought to modernise his nation’s industry.

The challenging brief of his Tula factory was to supply the Russian armed forces with all the firearms and swords that they needed: some 8,000 muskets annually in the early eighteenth century, rising to 70,000 a century later. Despite the completion of a new building to accommodate them in 1718, most of the 2,750 or so employees of the factory worked from home, specialising in just a single part of the production process.

From at least 1720, however, some of the more gifted of the factory’s craftsmen were encouraged to produce luxury weapons such as ours for the use of the court and for presentation to foreign rulers and dignitaries. These weapons would of course have been expected to follow the Western European fashions favoured by the factory’s founder but initially alien to his indigenous workforce. It may in part have been to remedy this deficiency that foreign gunmakers were brought in to work at Tula. Of the fifteen immigrants named in the factory’s records, most were of German, Swedish and Danish origin, with others, however, possibly coming from the Baltic area.

Curiously, although none seem to have come from France, it was French fashions that dictated the style at Tula. This style, ultimately deriving from the early eighteenth-century pattern books of Nicholas Guérard of Paris, came to Russia in the form of the pirated edition of his designs published

by Johann Christoph Weigel of Nuremberg.

Yet for all their readiness to adopt these fashions, the Tula gunmakers took little time to modify them to a form that was at once recognisable as their own. Particularly distinctive of their rich style was the brilliant burnish of their metal parts. Interestingly, in the reign of the Empress Catherine the Great (1729–1762– 1796), the Tula factory was put to work producing cut-steel furniture mounts as well as arms. It is clearly no coincidence that it was in that factory that the fashion for cut-steel sword hilts seems to have originated. The fine polishing of steel was very much a feature of its products.

As might be expected, the largest group of fine-quality Tula firearms surviving today is that to be found in the former Imperial arms collection in the Kremlin. Numbering some seventy-five signed examples in all, they bear dates ranging from 1720 to 1793. Our pistols, with their flat locks and flat, unpierced sideplates probably date from about 1760–70. Although flat locks of French fashion were occasionally to be found on Tula firearms as early as the 1740s, they only became common after about 1760.

That our pistols belonged to a person of high rank is evident not only from the presence of closed crowns above their escutcheons, but also from the

superlative quality of their decoration. Consisting in the main of trophies of arms and captive slaves, the theme of decoration is clearly to be seen as triumph in the battlefield. It has been suggested that the helmeted busts on the escutcheons represent Alexander Nevski, a key figure in medieval Russian history, who rose to legendary status on account of his victory over the German and Swedish invaders in the thirteenth century.

Interestingly, the mounted figure with raised sword dominating the decoration of each of the breeches can be identified as a version of the iconic image of Peter the Great triumphing over Charles IX of Sweden in the Battle of Poltova in 1709. Beginning with the paintings of Louis Caravagne in 1718 and Denis Martens the younger in 1726, the image has been repeated many times.

One of the closest in date to our pistols is the celebrated mosaic image prepared by Mikhail Lomonosov in 1762–4. The busts on either side of the pommels are further representations of Peter the Great. That his image, as the founder not only of modern Russia but also of the Tula Arms factory, should adorn our superlative pistols could hardly be more appropriate.

Provenance

Gustave Diderrich Private collection, USA

Literature

John F. Hayward, The Art of the Gunmaker, vol. II (1660–1830), London, 1963, pp. 177–81, 268–70 Moscow: Oruzcheinaya Palata, Moscow, 1954, ch. I, pls 13–40

123

26

An Important and Rare Pair of French Officer’s Pistol Holsters, circa 1765 In cuir boulli, coloured brown and deeply tooled in reserve on each front with detailed depictions of flowers, including roses, stems and leaves encircling trophies of arms; on one holster the trophy includes a mortar firing a smoking shell, a cannon barrel, two powder barrels, a linstock, a worm, a ladle, a sponge, priming flasks and cannon balls; and, on the other holster, the trophy includes a breastplate, a classical crested helmet, swords, flags and musical instruments. A border of laurel leaves and berries engraved in reserve encircles the holsters’ mouths and the tips are engraved in reserve with encircling acanthus leaves that almost cover the turned ivory finials; the backs plain, polished and fitted with small, plain, polished brass panels bearing loose brass rings for suspension.

Overall length 13½ in Width of mouths 5¼ in Our finely made leather holsters were undoubtedly commissioned personally by a French officer of considerable means. They are highly unusual in being decorated with the most exquisite tooling executed ‘in reserve’ in order to create a cameo effect, whereby the design is heightened through the surrounding field being minutely cut away.

Indeed every feature is of the highest quality, even extending to the turned ivory finials, that are themselves partly – and deliberately – covered by the finely cut detail of the acanthus-leaf tips of the holsters. Such fine detailing is an example of the aesthetic for which the applied arts of France in the eighteenth century are now widely recognised. It is clear that our holsters were originally the property of a very grand officer indeed.

Our holsters, although of inestimably higher quality, are typical of the types of holster used by mounted troops from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. During that period cavalry soldiers of all ranks, as well as senior staff officers, generals, marshals and even heads of state, would have been mounted when on the battlefield and, as part of their personal accoutrements, would have been equipped with a pair of pistols. These holsters, and all others like them, no matter what their quality, were intended to hold a pair of 124

pistols and would have been carried strapped in front of the saddle, flanking the horse’s shoulders.

They were intended to be easily removable from the horse so that, if it bolted, the owner of the pistols did not lose them: in the case of an officer such a loss would have involved financial loss; for a trooper it would have brought punishment.

While worn on the horse, saddle holsters of all types and for all ranks of soldier were covered, and the holster covers, made of cloth of varying degrees of richness and embroidered or laced with the same attention to cost and status, would have obscured the greater part of the holster itself: the holster covers were often used as a canvas for monograms or regimental insignia.

We offered a superb British saddle cloth, or shabracque, a saddle and pair of holsters and covers of circa 1665, all decorated en suite in silk velvet and embroidery, in our catalogue of 1997, item number 35. It would have been for the French equivalent of just such a saddle that our holsters would have been made, perhaps for a general or a marshal of France. The very accurate depiction of artillery equipment on the trophy of one of the holsters suggests strongly that they were made for a général d’artillerie.

The iconography revealed by the fine engraving in reserve on our holsters is non-

regimental in type, depicting matériel used by all arms of eighteenth-century armies, but it is clearly identifiable as French. The infantry colour depicted can clearly be seen to be a drapeau d’ordonnance of a French infantry regiment and the cavalry standard is of a type common to most French cavalry regiments: it would have been decorated with the device of the sun-insplendour and the motto nec pluribus impar (not unequal to many, i.e. equal to any), a motto adopted by Louis XIV of France (1639–1643–1715) and retained by his successors on the cavalry standards of their armies. The original owner of our superb holsters would have served in the French army at a time when its officer corps was almost exclusively aristocratic by birth: he would have believed in and sympathised with the French king’s motto and, it might be observed, applied it when commissioning saddle holsters of such unparalleled magnificence.

The ornamentation of such masculine items as military holsters with cascades of flowers comes as a direct result of the popularity of such floral decoration in France in the mid-eighteenth century, a fashion that developed naturally from the rococo style and was fanned into almost an obsession in France, encouraged in part, at least, by the work and influence of the artist François Boucher (1703–70). The interest in flower decoration seems to have been a development of rococo naturalism and, although by no means confined to France, reached its peak of popularity in that country. By 1748 the Vincennes porcelain factory was employing forty-five women just to make ceramic flowers and even this number had to be increased as the fashion for them became a craze. Flowers appear in profusion on Vincennes and Sèvres porcelain in the 1750s, were also used commonly on French silver of mid-eighteenth century, and are still found on ceramics made there twenty years later. They are also sometimes found on French silver. Of special relevance to our holsters is a tea and coffee service in the Victoria and Albert Museum (no. 768–1882), London made at Sèvres in about 1760 and 126

decorated in rose Pompadour style by Charles Buteux on which military trophies are partly surrounded by cascades of flowers. Although the flowers are not so profuse or as dominant as on our holsters, this set is very much in the same style. Buteux seems rather to have specialised in such a combination and is known to have worked at Sèvres from 1756 to 1782. The artist Boucher was first employed by the French court in 1735, but his dominant position in French art was sealed by the influence of King Louis XV’s mistress, Madame de Pompadour (1721–64), who was his enthusiastic patron from the mid 1740s until her death. Boucher exerted enormous influence on French art and fashion which led Europe at this time and in 1765 his eminence was recognised by his appointment as Premier Peintre du Roi (First Painter of the King). His portraits of aristocratic and sensuous young ladies usually show them wearing, holding or surrounded by flowers. In a series of eight paintings (now in the Frick Collection, New York, acc. nos 1916.1.04–11) depicting the arts and sciences, which he painted between 1750 and 1752, Boucher framed all the scenes with garlands of flowers, mostly roses, in a manner very reminiscent of the way garlands surround the trophies on our holsters. There is no doubt that our holsters were decorated to comply with this passion for flower ornament which was the height of fashion in mid-eighteenth-century France. Their owner, when he went to war with them, would have looked elegant and stylishly modern.

Provenance

Private collection, France

Literature

Bevis Hillier, Pottery and Porcelain 1700–1914: England, Europe and North America, London, 1968, p. 104 George Savage, Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century French Porcelain, Feltham, 1969, pp. 111–17, 138 Rosalind Savill, The Wallace Collection: Catalogue of Sèvres Porcelain, vol. III, London, 1988, pp. 1007–9 J. Turner (ed.), The Grove Dictionary of Art, vol. IV, London, 1998, pp. 513, 517

27

A Fine French Smallsword with Chiselled and Gilded Hilt, circa 1770–80 The blued steel hilt chiselled overall and enhanced with gilding: both sides of the ovoid pommel, of the centre of the knucklebow, of the ricasso and of the twin shells all decorated with oval panels containing trophies representative of the Arts, Music, Learning and War and the remainder of the hilt decorated with a continuous laurel pattern and with sprays of foliage. The blade of concave triangular section, blued and gilded for approximately one-third of its length, engraved in that section on both sides with a winged figure armed with a buckler and flourishing a sword and, at the forte, with the name and address Kiessmann Mᵈ fourbiʃseur rue des êpronières a Bruxelles.

Overall length 38in Blade length 31¾in Our splendid smallsword, with its beautifully chiselled and gilded hilt, is typical of the fashion of court sword worn by gentlemen in France in the 1770s and early ’80s. Examples of this style of French smallsword hilt, in which rich gilding has been selectively and carefully applied to a chiselled blued steel ground in order to produce the resultant decoration, are shown in many scholarly reference books, exist in major museum collections and can be seen in contemporary portraits.

The smallsword, as an essential item for wear by a gentleman between around 1690 and 1790 and worn as much to indicate his social status as to defend himself, was as subject to the changes in and vicissitudes of fashion in that period as were a gentleman’s other everyday accoutrements, such as his watch, his walking cane, his shoe and knee buckles and his snuff box. It is not unusual to find these examples of a gentleman’s jewellery en suite, so that his sword hilt matched his snuffbox, his watch case and the top of his cane and all were affected by changes in the style of the day: thus, one finds sword hilts in the baroque style – see item 20 in this catalogue – as well as in the rococo and in the neoclassical style. The hilt of our beautiful sword, almost certainly made in Paris but clearly mounted with a blade made by a cutler with a workshop in a small street in 128

Brussels famous for many centuries as a centre for iron-working (an éperonnier is a maker of spurs), reflects the prevailing fashion in France in the decade before the Revolution of 1789: a type of baroque-classical style that connoisseurs of furniture know by the name of the French monarch of the period, ‘Louis XVI’ – or Louis seize. Its lack of much in the way of neoclassical features, together with its retention of large and developed arms of the hilt, suggest that it can be dated to the 1770s rather than to the period immediately before the French Revolution, an event that would sweep away such fashions and, just as swiftly, replace them with ones of its own.

This style of sword hilt, although most usually associated with French hiltmakers, was also executed very well by hiltmakers in Tula, Russia, and in other continental European cities (North, pl. 46; Victoria and Albert Museum 193-1928).

However, it appears not to have found favour with British or American hiltmakers, although Francophile British gentlemen able to visit Paris in times of peace between Britain and France, undoubtedly equipped themselves with the latest fashion of Parisian smallsword.

Throughout the period that the smallsword was worn by gentlemen, the quality of its hilt was both a measure and a demonstration of the depth

of the owner’s purse and the design of the hilt was deliberately intended to make manifest to knowledgeable observers the owner’s interests, connections and sympathies. Thus, we find smallswords with patriotic hilts, such as item 20 in this catalogue, as well as those whose hilt iconography clearly marks them as the weapons of naval or military officers, composers of music, classical scholars, scientists and writers. By the end of the period, and particularly in Britain, where a growing middle class was providing a ready market for manufactures of all kinds, smallswords are to be found with hilts intended to be worn when in mourning: it is certainly the case that anyone wishing to be regarded as a gentleman would have owned several smallswords and worn whichever was deemed most appropriate to the rest of his dress or the circumstances of the moment. Our fine sword, with its hilt iconography reflecting the arts of both peace and war, would have marked its wearer as a civilised, cultivated, sophisticated gentleman at ease at the court of Louis XVI and in the salons and drawing rooms of pre-Revolution Paris. Its hilt is an exquisite example of the last flowering of French smallsword hilt design and decoration at the end of the long period when such sidearms were worn by gentlemen.

Provenance

Sotheby’s, London, 19 April 1920, ‘The Collection of Arms and Armour and Objects of Art of the late Sir Guy Francis Laking, Bart. C.B., M.V.O., F.S.A., &c’, lot 197 Hans von Schulthess, Schloss Au, near Zurich, Switzerland

Literature

J. D. Aylward, The Small-Sword in England, London, 1945 A. V. B. Norman, The Rapier and Small-Sword 1460–1820, London, 1980 A. R. E. North, An Introduction to European Swords, London, 1982

129

28

A Magnificent Russian Oval-barrelled Sporting Gun

by G. Kuprin, Tula, circa 1770 Bright steel lock with rounded plate, faceted frizzen and swan-neck cock, the latter with chiselled leaf scroll supports from the heel to the back of the neck and the front of the neck to the lower jaw.

The lock encrusted and chiselled with roses in two-colour gold and with a rocaille motif at the rear.

The walnut full stock inlaid with profuse silver wire decoration in the form of spiralling scrolls and carved with ribs around the main elements and sprays of flowers on the wrist and at the front end of the pronounced cheek rest. Mounts of bright steel, consisting of three ramrod pipes, a scroll trigger guard, a butt plate and a two-part side plate, with horn fore-end cap. The butt plate shaped to the shoulder with stepped, faceted tang encrusted and chiselled with gold and silver roses and with a large acorn-shaped finial engraved with foliate and floral scrolls on a gilt ground. The side flat edged with a double line and zigzag border in silver wire within which are silver wire scrolls and expanded steel washers for the two side nails chiselled, cut out and gilt in the form of rococo foliate scrolls. The trigger guard decorated en suite with blued steel trigger reinforced behind with a triangular fin. The two-stage oval-bore barrel with ribbed octagonal section chiselled at the breech with rocaille scroll work and ahead of this on the three top flats chiselled and gilt with roses, top flat also bearing the maker’s name in gold г купринь, with stepped tang decorated en suite, raised backsight just to the rear of the breech, leaf foresight at the muzzle. Wooden ramrod of oval section with horn tip.

Length overall 451/2 in Barrel length 293/4 in This magnificent sporting gun was made in Tula, a city just over 100 miles south of Moscow which had been involved in arms manufacture since the late sixteenth century and had close ties with the central Armoury workshops in the Moscow Kremlin where Tula armourers went regularly for training. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, at a time when quantities of good quality munition weapons were required, Peter the Great (reigned 1682–1725) established a state armoury there to satisfy the needs of the Russian army during the latter stages of the Great Northern War (1700–21). When peace came, however, the government’s need for military weapons was drastically reduced and so the armoury’s craftsmen were encouraged to turn more and more to the production of finequality weapons for the civilian market. These craftsmen were more home workers than factory 132

workers, plying most of their trade from their own workshops but using the armoury and its equipment for complicated operations like the boring and turning barrels. As the Russian economy developed so the demand for luxury goods grew and the craftsmen of Tula broadened their production to meet the demands of an increasingly affluent aristocracy for all sorts of luxury goods from chess sets to coaches, though the production of firearms and edged weapons always remained their main business.

The westernising policies of Peter the Great had the effect of making these newly affluent consumers demand not traditional Russian styles and forms but fashionable, western European ones. Therefore early in the eighteenth century the craftsmen of Tula had to turn away from traditional Russian types of form and decoration and perfect those commonly used in Western

Europe, including westernised shoulder stocks for long guns, chiselled steel ornament, the inlay of wood with silver wire and engraved plaques, and the production of twist or ‘Damascus’ barrels. They were helped to do this by the policy of employing foreign craftsmen to work alongside them, mostly gunmakers from the German lands and Scandinavia, and their influence can be seen, for instance, in the often quite Germanic stock forms of Tula guns.

In this regard the full stock of our sporting gun and its pronounced cheek rest seem to be inspired by Germanic prototypes.

However, in eighteenth-century Russia it was France that was regarded as the leader in fashion and it was to French decorative arts that the craftsmen of Tula turned for the inspiration of much of their decoration. On many Tula guns of the mid-century much of the silver inlaid ornament on their stocks can be traced back to the pattern-book published by Nicholas Guérard in Paris earlier in the century, a pirated edition of which was published by Johann Christoph Weigel of Nuremberg and which was widely circulated in the gunmaking trade. However, too much has been made of Guérard’s influence on the ornament of Tula guns which, in fact, show evidence of far more diverse sources of inspiration, though the influence of French fashion remains clear. While the use of silver-wire inlay to decorate stocks continued throughout the second half of the century, generally becoming more delicate, the manner of decorating the steel of locks, barrels and mounts changed considerably. In the mid-century the fashion was for heavily chiselled ornament on a gilt ground but by the 1760s a far lighter and more delicate type of decoration came into favour following the French fashion (see the holsters, no. 26 in this catalogue) in which bright steel surfaces were chiselled and inlaid in precious metals with rocaille and flowers. Our gun is a superb example of this type of embellishment.

The oval-bore barrel of this gun is a most unusual and intriguing feature. Occasionally blunderbusses dating from the mid-eighteenth century onwards are found with elliptically expanded muzzles, presumably in an attempt to spread the shot more horizontally than vertically. For a birding gun the advantage of this is obvious as it would appear to give more chance for a shooter ‘leading a bird’ to hit it. Unfortunately, however, the theory was incorrect, at least as far as expanded muzzles were concerned, and the effect of an oval bore was probably also insignificant.

The maker of our exceptional gun, whose name can most accurately be transliterated as G. Kuprin, appears to be otherwise unrecorded. However, in overall style our gun is very close to one in the State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg (inv. no. З.O.5632) by the Tula maker A. Leontyev. The steelwork of that gun, however, 135

is blued, it has a conventional barrel, and the lock does not have a safety catch, but the rest of its form and decoration is very similar to that of ours, exhibiting the same mix of flower and rocaille decoration that dates them both to around 1770. Both Leontyev’s gun and Kuprin’s exhibit the highest standards of artistry attained by the gunmakers of Tula.

Provenance

Private collection, USA

Literature

Vladimir Berman (ed), Masterpieces of Tula Gun-makers, Moscow, 1981, pp. 6–7 J. F. Hayward, The Art of the Gunmaker, vol. 2, 1660–1830, London, 1963, pp. 178–9 Valentin Mavrodin, Firearms and Edged Weapons in the Hermitage, Leningrad: Fine Arms from Tula, New York, 1977, p. 6, pls 71, 72 H. L. Peterson, ‘The Eighteenth Century and the End of the Flintlock’, in C. Blair (ed.), Pollard’s History of Firearms, Feltham, 1983, p. 151 Leonid Tarassuk, ‘The Collection of Arms and Armour in the State Hermitage, Leningrad: Patris Mei Memoriae: 2. The Collection of Russian Arms and Armour’, Journal of the Arms and Armour Society, vol. V, nos 4–5, March 1966, pp. 222, 251, 258

136

29

A Fine and Important English Lorenzoni Magazine Repeating Flintlock Pistol,

by William Grice, Birmingham, circa 1780–3 The lock engraved with leaf scrolls with ribbon bearing the name grice, the flat, steel swan-neck cock and the pivoted cover of the priming magazine are similarly engraved. The bulbous walnut butt is decorated with silver wire, consisting of edging bands of zig-zag ornament within which is running scrollwork with flower terminals, a military trophy on the left side and an oval border for an escutcheon topped by a British royal crown in the centre. The butt is drilled with two axial, tubular magazines internally, the upper for ball, the lower for powder. The spurred butt cap is of cast silver with floral decoration, the cap itself with a leaf spray. Under the cap the main body of the butt cap is stamped with a silversmith’s mark consisting of the initials i.s in an oval. The trigger guard bow is of paktong, engraved with flowers and a gadrooned urn, and the trigger is of blued steel. The action housing and breech block are made in one with the barrel, all of paktong, the top of the housing with a stepped tang to the rear and pierced with a central hole. On the left side an engraved hinged cover gives access to the powder magazine in the butt for loading. The whole is engraved with floral and ribbon designs. The breech block is set vertically and revolves around a horizontal axle. The left side of the block is covered by a washer plate and flat-headed screw of steel, engraved with rococo leaf work. The three-stage cannon barrel is octagonal from the breech to a moulding just to the rear of which each face is engraved with leaf ornament, and then round to the moulded muzzle. The round section is split into two by a further moulding three-quarters of the way to the muzzle. The top flat of the breech section is engraved with a ribbon with foliate surround engraved london.

Overall length 123/4 in Barrel length 51/2 in This exceptional pistol is a fine example of what was probably the most popular, and certainly one of the most long-lasting, breechloading repeating systems developed in the flintlock era.

Its success was undoubtedly due to its robustness and simplicity. By holding the muzzle down and turning the handle on the left of the breech block 180 degrees, powder and ball were collected from the magazine in the butt and a valve opened to allow priming powder to enter the pan. By returning the handle to its original position the ball was seated in the breech of the barrel and the powder chamber aligned behind it for firing.

This system was invented some time in the second half of the seventeenth century, certainly by the early 1680s, though scholars disagree 138

both on the likely date of its development and on the identity of the likely inventor. It was, however, almost certainly developed in Italy and it has come to be known as the ‘Lorenzoni’ system after the Siena-born gunmaker Michele Lorenzoni who worked in Florence, inter alia for the Medici family from the early 1680s until some time in the 1730s. Whether or not he was actually the inventor of the system that bears his name is uncertain, but his interest in a number of different forms of repeating guns is proven by surviving examples and so it is fitting that his name has come to be so associated with one of them. It was not the first successful magazine system as it was preceded by that invented or perfected by members of the Kalthoff family in

the 1630s but it was certainly never entirely superseded, and perhaps not bettered until the development of other ignition systems in the nineteenth century.

Whoever invented and developed it, the Lorenzoni system soon became extremely popular: it spread rapidly from Italy across Europe and beyond and continued to be employed for over 150 years. For some reason, though, far fewer Lorenzoni pistols seem to have been made than long guns, certainly until the mid eighteenth century. Later, in the last quarter of the eighteenth century, something of a fashion for pistols of this type, normally with nine-shot magazines, developed in England. Some were made by the very best London makers, including Henry Nock and Harvey Walklate Mortimer. Indeed, Mortimer seems almost to have specialised in them and at least twelve by him are known to survive, dating between 1783 and 1799, and two more slightly later ones by his brother Thomas Mortimer are also known.

The original owner of our Lorenzoni pistol is unknown. The escutcheon surround on the butt has not been filled either with a monogram or a coat of arms. It is, however, surmounted by a royal crown which suggests that the pistol was made with the intention of its either being sold to or being presented to a member of the British royal family and this intriguing possibility adds much to its interest. In the Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds, is a virtually identical pistol (acc. no. xii.3835), though now with a plain replacement cover to its priming magazine. It has the same silversmith’s mark under the butt cap and was either made as a pair to ours or as part of an identical set of pistols made for presentation to different recipients. It also has a similar crowned escutcheon surround to that on ours, but rather than being plain within it contains an oval silver plate engraved with the initials e, m and either r or l. These have not been identified and may possibly have been inserted later. The absence of any proof marks on the barrel of both ours and that in the Royal Armouries is typical of these English Lorenzoni pistols, none of which seem to have been proofed in the normal way, perhaps because the barrel could not be detached to be sent for proving. The name engraved on our pistol might suggest it was made by the London gunmaker James Grice who worked at 2 Whistler’s Court, Cannon Street, from 1793–6.

However, while these dates are entirely consistent with the fashion for such Lorenzoni pistols in England, they are too late for the style of the decoration or the silver butt and its cap which are of a type found on English pistols that date from the late 1750s to the early 1780s. It is known that the Birmingham makers Joseph and William Grice also sometimes marked their guns london and their working dates are more consistent with the general style of 140

this pistol. A William Grice is recorded working at 43 Bull Street in Birmingham from 1766 to 1777.

Either the same maker or another with the same name is also recorded working at 5 Sand Street from 1773–4 to his death in 1790. From 1782 he worked there in partnership with Joseph Grice, obviously a relative and perhaps his son, and Joseph continued at the same address until 1797.

The maker’s mark on the butt cap of both pistols is positioned as would be expected for a London, not a Birmingham silversmith, and appears to be that registered by the London smallworker Joseph Steward in 1770 and presumably used until he registered another in June 1773. This suggests that both pistols were made by William Grice and the dates of the mark fit with what is known of William himself, for in 1773 he registered his own silver mark at the Birmingham assay office and from then until 1780 is recorded as sending silver furniture of his own for assaying. He would not, therefore, have needed the services of a London silversmith after 1773. The evidence, therefore, all points to our pistol and that in the Royal Armouries having been made at the very beginning of the 1770s, making them highly important and very early examples of the ‘English revival’ of the Lorenzoni system The major elements of the pistol are made of paktong, an alloy of copper, nickel and zinc which was imported from China in relatively small quantities during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This is also consistent with its having been made in Birmingham. The alloy, both durable and resistant to tarnishing, was used increasingly from the 1730s for the production of domestic items such as candlesticks, tableware and fire grates, and from the 1770s it was also used by gunmakers both for furniture and, as on this pistol, for barrels and other major structural elements. Both London gunmakers like Henry Nock and Birmingham makers, including members of the Grice, Ketland and Richards families are known to have used paktong but it

seems from surviving examples to have been more popular with Birmingham than with London makers. Our pistol is a very early example of its use by a gunmaker.

Provenance

Private collection, USA

Literature

De Witt Bailey and Douglas A. Nie, English Gunmakers: The Birmingham and Provincial Gun Trade in the 18th and 19th Century, London, 1978, p. 38 Clay P. Bedford and Stephen V. Grancsay, Early Firearms of Great Britain and Ireland from the Collection of Clay P. Bedford, New York, 1971, pp. 39–41, 43–4, 47 nos 28, 33 H. L. Blackmore, Guns and Rifles of the World, London, 1965, 86, pls 673–4 H. L. Blackmore, English Pistols, London, 1985, p. 24 H. L. Blackmore, A Dictionary of London Gunmakers 1350-1850, Oxford, 1986, p. 104 C. Blair, Pistols of the World, London, 1968, p. 123 Nolfo di Carpegna, ‘A Summary of Note on CentralItalian Firearms of the Eighteenth Century’ in R. Held (ed.) Art, Arms and Armour: An International Anthology, Chiasso, 1979, pp. 336, 352 n. 31 Norman Dixon, Georgian Pistols: The Art and Craft of the Flintlock Pistol 1715–1840, London, 1971, pp. 16–17, 170–1, 175 Agostino Gaibi, Armi da Fuoco Italiane, Busto Arizio, 1978, pp. 244, 252, figs 418–9 Arthur Grimwade, London Goldsmiths 1697–1837: Their Marks and Lives, London, 1990, pp. 124–5, 670–1 J. F. Hayward, The Art of the Gunmaker, vol. 2, 1660–1830, London, 1963, p. 142 Robert Held, ‘Michele Lorenzoni’s Masterpiece’ in R. Held (ed.) Art, Arms and Armour: An International Anthology, Chiasso, 1979, pp. 366–79 H. Munson, Lee The Mortimer Gunmakers, 1753–1923, Lincoln RI, 1992, pp. 225, 232, 236–7, A. V. B. Norman and G. M. Wilson, Treasures from the Tower of London, London, 1982, p. 91 Keith Pinn, Paktong: The Chinese Alloy in Europe 1680– 1820, Woodbridge, 1999, pp. 33, 36, 38, 69–70, 127, 129 G. M. Wilson, The Vauxhall Operatory: A Century of Inventions before the Scientific Revolution, Leeds, 2010, pp. 18–31

141

30

The Magnificent Indian Gold-mounted Smallsword presented

by Warren Hastings, Governor-General of India, to Lieutenant Colonel John Edmonson of the Bengal Army, dated 1785 Of smallsword form, the hilt and scabbard mounts cast and chased in fine gold. The hilt in the neoclassical taste, its decoration all cast, chased and engraved upon a polished ground: the urnshaped pommel cast and chased in relief with a band and swags of laurel leaves and engraved with dotted swags depending from rays; the knucklebow, quillons, quillon block and arms of the hilt all cast in one piece, of rectangular section, chased in relief with borders and wreaths of laurel leaves and engraved with multipointed stars and serpentine-and-dart borders; the oval shell polished on the blade side and cast and chased with a laurel leaf border on the hilt side, the border enclosing two engraved trophies of arms and two multifaceted stars from each of which depend pairs of floral sprays; the four-sided grip cast and chased in relief, the sides bordered by lines of laurel leaves and with wreaths of laurel leaves enclosing two of the three presentation inscriptions; three sides of the grip set with three oval, blue, translucent, champlevé enamel panels terminating in engraved rays and enclosing the following inscriptions: this sword was presented a.d 1785

by the honorable the government genl. of india in testimony of their approbation of his services

to lieut. colonel john edmonson who during the late war served in the detachment of bengal troops in the carnatic The wooden scabbard covered in white-painted vellum and bearing three gold mounts, each with scalloped edges, cast and chased with laurel leaf motifs, the upper and middle mount each fitted with a loose ring. The blade of concave triangular section, blued, engraved and decoratively gilded for about one-third of its length.

Overall length 41⅞ in Blade length 35 in Our sword occupies a very significant place in the taxonomy of British eighteenth century presentation swords and is comparable in its historic importance to the sword presented by the East India Company to Lieutenant Colonel James Hartley in 1779 and now in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London (inv. no. M.39–1960) – a sword with which it shares certain elements of its design and style of manufacture as well as its source and type of recipient. Scholars now agree 144

that the East India Company was the first British institution to present swords to its officers, and to officers of the British army serving in India, in recognition of their achievements and that this practice began during the third quarter of the eighteenth century.

Our Edmonson sword is one of three that were awarded by the Governor General and the Council of the East India Company to officers who had been in senior command of a detachment

of Bengal troops sent as reinforcements to the Madras army during the Second Mysore War of 1780–3: it is the only one of the three now known to survive. Its recipient, John Edmonson, was probably born in about 1745. Nothing is known of his background but the fact that he came from the city of Liverpool, on the north-west coast of England, suggests that his father, or another of his male relations, may well have been a merchant or shipowner of that increasingly prosperous city. Initially, Edmonson was posted to the Bombay army, sailing in the East Indiaman Latham from Portsmouth on 25 April 1763. For a young and ambitious man, this was a good time to be going to India: the Seven Years War was almost at its end and French traders and soldiers had been largely ejected from the subcontinent, leaving it free for the British East India Company to widen its trading activities, extend its influence and expand into the vacuum in Indian politics left by the departing French.

Edmonson was commissioned ensign in the Bombay infantry late in 1763. In June 1765 he transferred to the Bengal infantry in the rank of lieutenant and was promoted captain in June 1767, serving in that rank in command of the 18th Battalion of Bengal Sepoys (native infantry) during the 1st Rohilla War of 1774 and participating in the battle of Kutra on 23 April 1774. In October 1779 he was promoted major in command of the 12th Battalion of Bengal Sepoys and was associated with that battalion until his death, being recorded as proudly declaring on one occasion that every soldier in his battalion was brave enough to ‘take a tyger by the tooth’.

On the outbreak of the Second Mysore War in 1780, the Madras army found itself seriously outnumbered by the forces of Haidar Ali, ruler of Mysore, and his son and heir, Tipu Sultan. Haidar Ali resented and resisted efforts by the East India Company to increase its influence in Mysore and southern India and, having sought and received French aid, invaded the Carnatic, in the south-west of India, in 1780, quickly capturing a number of British minor outposts and threatening the garrison of Fort St George in Madras itself. The Governor General of India, Warren Hastings (1732–1818), resolved to send a brigade from the Bengal army to relieve the siege of Fort St George and to act as reinforcements for the Madras army against Haidar Ali. This brigade was commanded

by Colonel Thomas Deane Pearse (1741/42–89); Edmonson was appointed Pearse’s second-in-command. Pearse’s brigade consisted of five battalions of sepoys and an artillery detachment and joined the Madras field army, commanded by Lieutenant General Sir Eyre Coote kb (1726–83), shortly after its victory over Haidar’s forces at Porto Novo on 1 July 1781. For the following two years, Pearse’s brigade was in the forefront of the action against Haidar 145

in the Carnatic, gaining enormous credit and praise for its part in the battles of Polillur, 27 August 1781, Sholinghur, 27 September 1781, and Cuddalore, 13 June 1783. Although the war ended in 1783 – when Haidar, having lost the remains of his French support, was forced, temporarily, to concede defeat – Pearse’s brigade did not return to Bengal until early in 1785 and then with only 2,000 men of the original 5,000 sent in 1781.

Warren Hastings also wished to bestow some mark of honour on the senior British officers of the brigade, not only personally to reward and thank them for their services but also as a parting gift: the Governor General had been summoned home to Britain and was shortly to depart. This gift was recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the East India Company’s governing Council, at Fort William, Calcutta, on 26 January 1785 as follows: The detachment sent from this presidency to the relief of the Carnatic consisted, in its original formation, of about 5,000 men, and is now reduced, by the service that it has seen, to less than 2,000. These small remains being returned to Ghyretty, the Gov.-Gen. yesterday visited their encampment; and he hopes that the Board will allow that indulgence to his feelings, excited by the mixed sentiments of gratitude and regret which were impressed by the occasion, as to accept with candour the following remuneration which it has induced him to make in their behalf.

The board have liberally rewarded the services of the Native officers and privates of the detachment . . . Such additional honours as may be bestowed, the Gov.-Gen. now begs leave to recommend; and these are as follows:1st, That a sword be given to Col. Pearse, the commanding officer of the corps, and that one to each of the Lieut.-Col.’s, his second and third in command, Lieut.-Col. Edmonstone, and Lieut.-Col. Blane, both as a testimony of their faithful and meritorious services, and for the incitement of example to others their juniors.

The second and third ‘additional honours’ were the confirmation of all officers in the ranks in which they had served while with the brigade and the recording of their services with the brigade in their personal files. Thus it was that Lieutenant Colonel John Edmonson, who had been promoted to that rank while on service in the Carnatic on 3 December 1782, was confirmed in his rank and received our fine smallsword, with its gold hilt recording the circumstances of its presentation.

Edmonson continued to serve in India after 1785, commanding the 3rd Bengal Brigade and the Sepoy Corps at Barrackpore from July 1787 until his death, which took place while travelling on 146

the River Ganges, on 31 January 1789. He had married a Miss Sarah Ware in Calcutta on 15 March 1787 and following his death she married a fellow officer, Captain James Pearson (1752/53– 1826), who had served with Edmonson in the Carnatic. Before remarrying, Edmonson’s widow

oversaw his interment in the South Park Street Burial Ground in Calcutta on 2 February 1789 and subsequently raised a tablet to his memory in St Mary’s Church, Calcutta, the text of which read:

Post varios Casus, varios post, Belli Labores Hic procul a Patria Indi propter Ripas Edmondsoni Legionis Praefecti Ossa quiescunt Quem Rohillorum Praedatoriae Manus Impia quem Agmina Hyderi, quem Indiae fasti Invictum Testantur Indomitum Mors Sola Negat Bellicae Virtutis praemio Gladio honorifico donatum voluit Anglia grata Moribus ornate Castus Sodalitio Comis Hospitio largus Munificus Denique bonus, omnibus Carus Vixit ad Aetat 44 Ann. Flebilis Obiit Jan 31 A.D. 1789.

O Qui cunque Audes Moliri grandia, disce Edmondsoni instar Vivere, disce mori Which may be translated as: After various calamities, after many labours of war here, far from his homeland, close to the banks of the Indus lie the bones of Edmonson, lieutenant colonel, whom the predatory bands of Rohillas, whom the unholy battle lines of Hyder, whom the annals of India attest as ‘Unconquered’.

Death alone denied him, indomitable, the reward for his virtue in war.

A grateful England voted him a sword of honour.

Eminently pure in his character, kind in his friendship, liberal and bountiful in his hospitality, at the last, a good man, dear to all, he lived to the age of 44 years; mourned, he died on 31 January 1789.

Oh, whatever grand designs you dare to undertake, learn to live and learn to die the equal of Edmonson

147

As the sole surviving example of the three swords presented by the East India Company to its Bengal officers for the Second Mysore War, Edmonson’s sword is historically important. As one of the few known examples of swords presented by the Company during the eighteenth century, and hitherto unrecorded, it is a significant item. As an example of a British presentation smallsword with a gold and enamel hilt in the neoclassical taste – a fashion in 1785 still in its infancy – it represents a noteworthy milestone in the development of the design of British presentation swords. It is particularly interesting to note that the sword is completely unmarked: the gold hilt and scabbard mounts do not bear the mark of any goldsmith or of any assay office, nor is the upper mount of the sword’s scabbard engraved with the name of any retailing sword cutler. This conspicuous lack of marking may imply that it was designed and made in India and, if so, probably in Calcutta by one of the few British goldsmiths active in that city, the Indian headquarters of the East India Company.

If this is the case, it is the only such sword known 148

to exist – all other recorded near-contemporary examples being marked in some way and all, thus far, identified, through their various marks, as being made and sold in England.

Provenance

Private collecion, USA

Literature

C. Blair, Three Presentation Swords, London, 1972 V. C. P. Hodson, List of Officers of the Bengal Army 17601834, vol. II (D–K), London, 1928, p. 121.

Holmes & Co., The Bengal Obituary . . . being a compilation of monumental inscriptions . . ..biographical sketches and memoirs, Calcutta, 1848, p.76.

L. Southwick, London Silver-hilted Swords: Their Makers, Suppliers and Allied Traders with Directory, Leeds, 2001 J. Philippart, The East India Military Calendar Ccontaining the Services of General and Field Officers of the Indian Army, London, 1823–26), vol. I, pp. 88–9; vol. II, pp. 218, 247–50 Captain J. Williams, An Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of the Bengal Native Infantry from its first formation in 1757, to 1796, . . . with a detail of the service on which the several battalions have been employed during that period, London, 1817, pp. 164–5

31

An Exceptional Russian Flintlock Sporting Gun for a Boy

by Churkin, Tula, Dated 1787 Bright steel lock with flat plate and swan-neck cock engraved with leaf scrolls within cusped and dotted borders and inlaid in gold on the cock with a flower, on the cock screw with a sunburst, and on the plate ahead of the cock tyλа, pan of angular, faceted form and back of the frizzen chiselled with a floral motif. Figured walnut full stock with cheek rest carved with ribs and decorative scrolls around the major elements and inlaid with silver wire scrollwork decoration, including at the wrist a Russian closed crown surrounded by flags, with horn fore-end cap. The mounts of bright steel are engraved with foliate scrolls and inlaid with engraved and gold floral ornament, the side plate cut out as a ribbon surround to the single side nail and has silver wire scrolls inset in the stock in the panels thus revealed. The butt plate has a short, stepped tang with chiselled and engraved finial of floral form, the trigger guard tangs have similar finials. The horn-tipped ramrod is secured by three pipes and the barrel by three slides. The two-stage barrel is blued and decorated on the octagonal section with inlaid gold and silver flowers and eight-pointed stars. On the top flat inlaid in gold is the name of the maker f. чypкинz within a dotted border. The stepped bright steel tang is engraved with foliate scrollwork and has a raised and scooped backsight at its forward end.

Overall length 32¼ in Barrel length 21⅛ in This superb boy’s gun was made in Tula where, in the mid-eighteenth century, the fashion had been for heavily chiselled ornament on a gilt ground but in the 1760s a far lighter and more delicate type of decoration came into favour following the French fashion in which bright steel surfaces were chiselled and inlaid with precious metals with rocaille and flowers (see no.

27). By the 1780s the rocaille ornament was much reduced and the decorative scheme was entirely dominated by flowers. Our fine boy’s gun is a most elegant example of a gun embellished in this later manner.

The maker of this masterpiece is something of a mystery. Relatively few Tula makers actually signed their work, though the practice became more common as the eighteenth century drew to its close. Some names are known, including those of Krapíventsov, Leóntiev, Liálin, Makárischev, Polin, Sálischev and Tretiakóv, and for some of these details of their careers can be assembled, but most of the craftsmen of Tula remained 150

anonymous. For a discussion of the development of the arms industry there and of its distinctive styles see nos 25 and 28 in this catalogue.

The maker of our gun appears to be otherwise unrecorded and, indeed, even the transliteration of the name itself is uncertain. Given as I. Kurkin in our 1996 catalogue it has more recently been read as F. Churkin. The first initial engraved in cursive script does not correspond to any letter in the Cyrillic alphabet and may suggest that the engraving was done by a foreign craftsman, as does the reversed from of the initial letter of the surname. The final ‘Z’ is the old sign for hardening the ‘N’ at the end of the name.

In the later eighteenth century boys’ guns seem to have been something of a speciality of the Tula makers, though few are known that display the quality and elegance of our gun. Surviving examples include sporting guns for the sons of Tsarovitch Paul (1754–1801) who reigned as tsar for only five years before his assassination in 1801.

When this gun was made Paul had only two

sons, the Grand Duke Alexander Pávlovitch (born 1777) who was to reign as Tsar Alexander I from 1801 to 1825, and his younger brother Grand Duke Konstantine Pávlovitch (1779–1831) who abdicated the throne soon after the death of his elder brother in 1825 in favour of his younger brother, Nicholas (born 1796). In the collections of the State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg are a series of presents from Empress Catherine II (known as ‘the Great’, reigned 1762– 96) to Alexander, all made by Tula gunmakers. The earliest is a set of miniature guns made for his fifth birthday in 1782, and the latest a sporting gun some twenty-four inches overall dated 1782. Also in the Hermitage are other Tula-made guns belonging to the young Alexander, including a pair of pistols and matching long gun by the maker I. Krapíventsov and a sporting gun dated 1787, the same date as ours which is just under thirty-six inches long. The Hermitage also has a number of guns made elsewhere in Russia for the young Alexander, including a fine sporting gun by Johan Adolphe Grecke made in St Petersburg in 1779. Of the guns made for young Grand Duke Konstantine, however, there remains in the Hermitage only a pair of pistols dating to the mid 1780s.

Our boy’s gun has on the wrist a depiction of the Russian imperial crown and it is, therefore, very likely that it was made for a member of the Russian royal family, and probably for one or other of the Grand Dukes Alexander and Konstantine. They were born only two years apart and when this gun was made would have been respectively ten and eight years old. As it seems probable that both an eight-year-old and a ten-year-old could have shot this gun comfortably, it is not possible to be certain for which of the brothers it was made. However, as we know that Alexander had a gun made for him in the same year that was some three and a half inches longer than ours, it seems on balance more likely that it was made not for him but for his younger brother Konstantine. As such it is of very particular interest as so few guns made for him as a child are known to survive.

Provenance

Prince Lwoff collection Private collection, USA

Literature

Leonid Tarassuk, ‘The Collection of Arms and Armour in the State Hermitage, Leningrad: Patris Mei Memoriae: 2. The Collection of Russian Arms and Armour’, Journal of the Arms and Armour Society, vol. V, nos 4–5, March 1966, pp. 251–2, 258 Leonid Tarassuk, Antique European and American Firearms in the Hermitage Museum, Leningrad, 1972, pp. 180–1, nos 281, 294–6

153

32

A Fine Spanish Miquelet Lock Sporting Gun by Antonio Guisasola Made in the Royal ‘Factory’ at Placencia, dated 1788 Bright steel miquelet lock with external mainspring, ring-headed jaw screw and serrated face to the frizzen. The lockplate and cock engraved with floral and foliate scrolls, the toe of the cock chiselled as a shell and the back of the frizzen chiselled with a grotesque foliate mask. Between the cock and the pan the lockplate is struck with a gold-lined mark bearing beneath a coronet the name an/ton./ gvi/sas/ola. The underside of the barrel is stamped at the breech mro esamr p s m placa guipa 1788. Fruitwood half stock with traditional Spanish ‘ boot-shaped’ butt, carved behind the barrel tang, at the rear of the side and lock flats, and around the fore-end with foliate and floral scrolls. The mounts of iron, the scroll trigger guard with a front tang chiselled as a foliate baluster and engraved on the bow in an oval escutcheon with the royal Bourbon arms of three fleur-de-lis encircled by the Collar of the Order of St Michael, with the Badges of the Order of St Michael and the Order of the Holy Spirit pendant from it. The arms are surmounted by the crown of an infante or a ducal coronet and flanked by angel supporters, below the badges of the orders, the decoration ends with a panel of addorsed interlacing leaf scrolls. The side plate has fretted edges cut to follow the engraved ornament of leaf scrolls involving flowers and pelicans and a central scene of a pelican feeding its young on its own blood. The barrel is secured by a pierced band, the wooden ramrod by a single baluster pipe.

The blued, two-stage barrel of octagonal section inlaid with engraved silver decoration in the form of running floral and foliate scrolls involving hounds, hare, boar, stag and birds highlighted with gold. At the breech the two visible side flats are stamped with gold-filled fleur-de-lis and the central flat with four gold-filled marks: a foliate cross; a fleur-de-lis; a covered crown above ant./gui/sas/ ola; and a rampant lion. The bright steel tang is engraved with rococo leaf scrolls.

Overall length 52 in Barrel length 36¾ in This is a fine example of a Spanish sporting gun made in traditional style with the exaggerated ‘boot-shaped’ butt that was fashionable in eighteenth-century Spain. It was made in 1788 by the Eibar gunmaker Antonio Guisasola.

The same mark as appears on the barrel of our gun, with the closed crown and his name, also appears on the barrel of a superb silver-mounted gun he made in 1796 in conjunction with Juan Navarro for presentation to King Carlos IV of Spain (1748–1819, reigned 1788–1808) that is now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (acc. no. 16.135). The stamping on the underside of the barrel of our gun shows that it was made in the royal ‘factory’ at Placencia, a village near Guisasola’s home town in the northern Spanish 156

province of Guipúscoa which had been involved in arms manufacture since the fourteenth century. The full inscription would read as maestro examinador por su majestad palencia guipúscoa (Master Inspector for His Majesty, Placencia, Guipúscoa) and indicates that the gun was made, or at least inspected and approved, at the royal arms ‘factory’ at Placencia.

As it is known that Guisasola himself was Master Inspector there from 1790 to 1833 it suggests strongly that our gun was made as part of the official business of the factory for some royal purpose. However, it appears that at this time the ‘factory’ operation at Placencia was not a factory in the conventional sense. When the author and politician Caspar de Jovellanos visited the area

in 1791 he found that the guns were made not in one place but by craftsmen working in Placencia itself and the surrounding towns and villages of Ermua, Eibar, Elgoibar and Mondragón with the work subdivided between barrelmakers, lockmakers, stockmakers and mountmakers. For most of the time these craftsmen worked on their own private commissions, the king contracting for those guns that he required and relying on a local director to ensure delivery.

Given this loose organisation of the ‘factory’ at Placencia our fine and elegant gun could either have been a private or a royal commission, though the fact that it was inspected on behalf of the King strongly suggests that it may have been a royal commission. It has previously been suggested that the gun was made for presentation to King Louis XVI of France by King Carlos IV of Spain on his accession to the throne in 1788. The arms on the trigger guard are certainly those of the Bourbon family but do not accurately represent the royal arms of France, which at this time had the arms of Navarre impaled with the Bourbon arms, nor are they surmounted by either a French regal or princely crown. The chivalric orders referred to are both French. Although the Order of Saint Michael was the earlier, being founded in 1469, it was the Order of the Holy Spirit, founded in 1578, that became the senior order, and anyone who became a knight of it was automatically also a knight of Saint Michael. In 1788, when this gun was made, there were appear to be no French Bourbons who were members of these orders whose arms should have been depicted in this way. As this gun was made in Spain and as Spain had been ruled by the Bourbon family since 1700 it therefore seems likely that this gun was made for a Spanish member of the Bourbon family who was a Knight of the Holy Spirit and St Michael.

In 1788 there would appear to be only three possible candidates who were of an age to receive such a gun - the three surviving sons of King Carlos III (ruled 1759–88), Carlos, Ferdinand and Gabriel. Carlos, the Spanish heir apparent and Prince of Asturias and Viana (1748–1819), became 158

Carlos IV on the death of his father in December 1788. He was renowned for his strength and love of hunting. Indeed, during his reign he showed much more inclination to hunt than to become involved in the minutiae of politics and ruling his kingdom. He, therefore, would have appreciated a fine hunting gun like this. Ferdinando (1751–1825) ruled as Ferdinand III of Sicily and Ferdinand IV of Naples from 1759 and is also known to have been a keen hunter, so the gun would also have been an appropriate gift for him. Gabriel (1752–88) as the youngest son was given the title of infante, which in Spain denoted the child of a monarch who was not in line to succeed. Born and brought up in Naples he moved to Spain when his father became King and, together with his wife and only surviving son, died of smallpox in November 1788 at El Escorial. Of the three brothers he was the most cultured, being renowned as a classical scholar and musician and was, perhaps, the least interested in hunting, but there is no reason whatever why such a gun should not have been made for him. The image of the pelican feeding her young with her own blood that appears on the side plate speaks of the piety of the owner as this was symbolic of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and this imagery is likely to have appealed to the scholar in Gabriel.

At first sight what is depicted above the arms seems to be a normal ducal coronet, which would be inappropriate for Gabriel, but close inspection suggests that the engraver has intended to show the velvet cloth cover arching within the circlet which denotes the crown of an infante. It, therefore, seems most likely that this elegant gun was made for the infante Gabriel shortly before his tragic death.

Provenance

Private collection, USA

Literature

Ramiro Larrañaga, Síntesis Histórica de la Armería Vasca, Caja de Ahorros, 1981 James Lavin, A History of Spanish Firearms, London, 1965, p. 142–4, 262, pl 56

159

33

An English Library Chair Constructed from the Timbers of Dutch Ships Captured at the Battle of Camperdown, 11 October 1797 Of oak: with a shaped square seat with slightly convex sides; with square-section reeded legs with four plain rectangular-section stretchers and tapering to terminate in brass castors and caps; with square-section reeded back supports, arm supports and slightly concave rear arms, each rear arm pierced with a pile of carved cannon balls and carved on its sides with a pair of cannon rammers crossed in saltire; the front arms carved in imitation of gun barrels and supported by concave arms springing from the upright supports; the back with five horizontal reeded columnar splats, the centre of which incorporates a rectangular panel containing a fouled anchor, and with top and bottom rails with reeded borders containing the carved inscriptions, this wood was part of admL de winters fleet, and, capturd by admL duncan octr 11 1797, a crown and cushion surmounting the centre of the top rail.

Overall height 41 in Overall depth 23 in Overall width 22 in Our remarkable and emotive chair is one of a small number commissioned following the decisive defeat of a Dutch fleet in the North Sea on 11 October 1797. Although single items made from the wood of historic warships, whether British or captured, are widely known as part of the ‘industry’ in such items that arose and flourished in the early nineteenth century, the recorded set of Camperdown chairs, of which ours is such a fine example, appears to be unique: no other sets of such commemorative furniture are known from this period, the naval wars with France 1793–1815.

Adam Duncan, who commanded the British fleet at Camperdown, was a Scot, born in Dundee in 1731, who joined the Royal Navy in 1746 and, after serving in home waters during the closing years of the War of the Austrian Succession, remained employed during the peacetime years of 1749–55 before being commissioned lieutenant in 1755, at the beginning of the Seven Years (or French and Indian) War. Coming under the patronage of the Hon. Augustus Keppel (1725–86) worked greatly to Duncan’s advantage: he served with and under Keppel’s distinguished command 162

for most of the war, being promoted commander in 1759 and post-captain in 1761 and serving in North American waters, off the Atlantic coast of France and in the Caribbean. On half pay 1763–78, Duncan married the well-connected Henrietta Dundas in 1777 and in 1778 joined the Channel Fleet, under Keppel’s command and as captain of, first, HMS Suffolk (74) and then HMS Monarch (74). War with the American colonies and subsequently with France and Spain kept Duncan employed in the Channel, off Gibraltar and at the Battle of Cape St Vincent in January 1780 and he remained afloat until 1786, being promoted rear admiral of the blue squadron in 1787. On the outbreak of war with Revolutionary France in February 1793, Duncan was promoted vice admiral of the blue and then advanced in 1794 to vice admiral of the white squadron, being appointed commander-in-chief in the North Sea in February 1795 and then promoted admiral of the blue in June 1795.

Since 1793, and the invasion of the Dutch Republic by French Revolutionary forces, large sections of Dutch society had been sympathetic to the French cause and the creation of the

Batavian Republic in the Low Countries in 1795 directly allied the Dutch with France against Britain. The Dutch had a justifiably high reputation as seafarers but their navy was no longer the powerful force that had beaten the British Royal Navy on several occasions during the Anglo-Dutch wars of the mid-seventeenth century. Nonetheless, the Dutch fleet in the late 1790s, principally based in the Texel, represented a threat and particularly so if it could ally with a French fleet from Brest or Rochefort to convey an invasion fleet to Ireland – which was a dangerous possibility in the mid-1790s. To keep the Dutch fleet in port, or to defeat it if it emerged, was Duncan’s role and his fleet, which occasionally incorporated some Russian ships, was based upon Great Yarmouth when not shadowing the Dutch coast. Although Duncan was able to fly his flag in HMS Venerable, a 74-gun Third Rate ship of the line, most of the ships in his fleet for most of his time in command were, by the standards of naval warfare in 1797, too small to take their place in the line of battle, many of them mounting only 64 or 50 guns; fortunately, the Dutch fleet was generally composed of ships of similar medium size. Equally fortunately, by the time that the anticipated battle occurred – in October 1797 – Duncan was able to take seven 74-gun ships into battle with him: this was a fleet that the Dutch could not match for firepower and strength.

On 9 October 1797 Duncan’s fleet was victualling and refitting in Great Yarmouth when it received news that the Dutch fleet was out.

The following day, the British fleet left port and, early in the morning of 11 October, sighted the Dutch fleet sailing on a north-easterly course off the Dutch coastal village of Camperduin in what is today the Dutch province of Noord-Holland.

The two fleets were fairly evenly matched, each consisting of sixteen line-of-battle ships and several smaller warships, although the Dutch ships were lighter and of shallower draught than their British opponents and the British possessed an advantage in firepower. Having spotted the approaching British fleet, the Dutch formed line 164

of battle and, aided by an onshore wind, edged gradually inshore to shallow water where, unless he acted at once, it would have been difficult for Duncan’s ships to engage them effectively. There was no time to form line of battle and Duncan realised that time was of the essence, as was getting between the Dutch ships and the land: thus he signalled his ships ‘to bear up, break the Enemy’s Line, and engage them to Leeward, each Ship her Opponent’ (Camperdown, p.

205). Breaking an opponent’s line of battle was generally hazardous and frequently costly in terms of casualties and ship-damage, since the broadsides from the enemy’s line could take effect on the approaching ships for a longer period and not easily be replied to. The advantage was that, as each British ship passed eventually through the Dutch line they were able to deliver devastating rolling broadsides from their port and starboard batteries of guns that raked, fore and aft, the undefended bows and sterns of the ships in the Dutch line to their port and starboard sides.

Duncan’s fleet divided itself into two squadrons, broke the Dutch line in many places and engaged the enemy ships closely and bloodily. The battle began a few minutes before 1 p.m., when HMS Monarch (74) broke the Dutch line, and two hours later Duncan was able to scribble his first dispatch to the Admiralty with the briefest of details of a great victory. By late afternoon, the position had become clear: all three Dutch flagships had been taken, as had eight other ships, although three of those – two frigates and one of the 56-gun ships – were subsequently wrecked. Dutch casualties amounted to 540 men killed and 620 wounded; the British lost 244 killed and 796 wounded: Duncan was unharmed.

Although eight comparatively large Dutch ships had been captured, the effect of the devastatingly heavy British gunnery on their hulls, masts and spars effectively rendered them useless for recommissioning into the British Royal Navy.

In addition, the style in which Dutch ships of the period were generally built – lighter in weight and shallower in draught than British, French or

Spanish ships – made them unattractive for the navy, even had they been in good condition once captured. The fact that the eight captured Dutch ships from Camperdown were not required for service with the Royal Navy must account for the use of some of their timbers in the manufacture of the set of commemorative chairs of which ours is such a good and typical example: had the captured ships been snapped-up by the British Admiralty for recommissioning, it is probable that our chair would not exist.

Duncan’s rewards for the victory at Camperdown were appropriately lavish: he was created a Knight of the Imperial Russian Order of St Alexandr Nevski by the Tsar and Viscount Duncan of Camperdown by King George III; the City of London presented him with its freedom and a sword worth 200 guineas and many other cities and boroughs made him a freeman and gave him gifts of plate. Given that the Admiralty rejected the captured Dutch ships as prizes – which would have meant that Duncan would have earned little or no ‘prize money’ from Camperdown – it seems probable that he and other senior officers of the fleet may have been given quantities of Dutch ships’ timber and that the chairs made from that timber were commissioned either by Duncan or by one or more of his senior subordinates at the battle. It is certainly the case that the three of these chairs in the collections of the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich until the mid1990s, two of which are now in the collections

of the National Museums of Scotland, had an unimpeachable provenance to Admiral Duncan and so his involvement in their creation is very likely indeed. The size of the original set of ‘Camperdown chairs’ is unknown but it might perhaps be estimated at a dozen or so and minor variations exist between extant and recorded examples.

Following Camperdown, Duncan remained in command in the North Sea until 1800, being advanced to admiral of the white in February 1799, and late in 1799, oversaw the naval contribution to a British expedition to the Helder which resulted in the capture of twenty-five Dutch ships and thus the effective end of the Dutch naval threat to Britain. Duncan struck his flag in April 1800 and died suddenly in August 1804.

Provenance

Private collection, Italy

Literature

The Earl of Camperdown, Admiral Duncan, London, 1898, pp. 204, 210–11 P. K. Crimmin, ‘Adam Duncan’ in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford, 2004 C. Graham, Ceremonial and Commemorative Chairs in Great Britain, London, 1994, pp. 95–6 D. Lyon, ‘The Battle of Camperdown’ & ‘Camperdown: the end of the battle’ in R. Gardiner (ed.), Fleet Battle and Blockade: the French Revolutionary, War 1793–97, London, 1996, pp. 173–9 R. P. Prentice, A Celebration of the Sea, London, 1994, p. 16

165

34

A Magnificent and Important Cased Pair of French Flintlock Pistols from the Versailles Workshop of Nicholas-Noël Boutet, circa 1799 Each with flat lock with bevelled edges to the major parts; ahead of the swan-neck cock one lockplate is engraved in script boutet directeur artiste and of the other manufre à versailles, the rear of each lockplate recessed beyond an engraved flowerhead and square foliate spray, the pan faceted and the frizzen with a roller bearing. Full stocks of walnut, carved with foliate sprays at the muzzle, around the trigger guard, the front of the lock and around the tailpipe. The grips are cut with fine chequering, edged with silver beading, which arches over inlaid silver palmettes on either side of the butt, which expands to an ovolo rim. The fore ends are carved with an upper band of repeated overlapping leaves and with a lower band of beading. The stocks are embellished with a series of cut-out and engraved silver plaques, on the fore end forming a design of running foliate scrolls involving roses, on each side of the small symmetrical budding foliage around a central twelve-petalled flower. On the sideflats two dragons, and, ahead of the trigger guard, a winged, satyr-headed sphinx with, above his bearded head, a foliate circlet surrounding a patterned, concave-sided diamond. The mounts are of bright steel, the sideplate takes the form of a washer for the rosette-headed side nail and is cut out and engraved with symmetrical foliate scrollwork, the butt cap is a flat oval edged with chiselled palm and acanthus leaves. The trigger guard is chiselled on the bow with fruit and foliate scrolls and on the forward tang with scrolling leafwork, the trigger has a pierced, globular-headed setting screw to the rear. The ivory-tipped ebony rammer is secured by two pipes and a tailpipe all of rounded baluster form. Two steel pins with large oval heads secure the barrel. Finely stippled, matted blued octagonal barrels with multigroove rifling and swamped muzzles, the visible flats enriched by gilt bead edgings, a double gilt band at the muzzle, decorated with repeated roundels, and a gilt panel at the breech, part matt, part bright and decorated with triangles, a central diamond, an engraved garland of flowers, circlets and dots and volute scrolls.

The breeches are stamped with a series of gold-filled marks: on the top flat nb, on the left flat bg or c; on the right flat lc; and ahead of three on the top flat two superimposed letters, nb. Forward of this the top flat of each is engraved in script boutet directeur artiste manufacture à versailles. On the underside of both barrels is stamped an oval mark consisting of the initials d.b surrounded by two leaf fronds, each barrel also lightly engraved before it was blued with name armani or armand in script. Between the two muzzle bands the top flat of each barrel is set with a small leaf foresight. Walnut veneered case with cut-out interior lined with purple velvet, complete with a full set of accessories consisting of: powder flask, oil bottle, bullet mould, hammer, mallet, turn screw, cleaning rods, jag ends and prickers. The horn-bodied flask is signed in script: boutet directeur artiste manufre à versailles. Under the lining of the one compartment lid the wood is marked in pencil with the number 381.

Overall length 18½ in Barrel length 12⅞ in

168

These magnificent pistols were made under the direction of Nicolas-Noël Boutet at the arms factory established by the French revolutionary government in the former royal palace of Versailles.

Boutet (1761–1833) worked as a gunmaker in Paris for over a quarter of a century during the greatest social and political upheavals ever known in France. He plied his trade under a monarchy, then a republic, then an empire and finally a monarchy again. He inherited the title of arquebusier du roi from his father-in-law, Desainte. The Versailles factory where these pistols were made was set up in 1793 and Nicolas-Noël Boutet was appointed its first artistic director, a position he retained until the factory closed down in 1818. He was authorised to recruit Liège gunmakers, to acquire gunmaking equipment and to establish a special shop for the manufacture of luxury arms. From this moment on the Versailles factory performed the dual role of manufacturing large quantities of regulation military firearms and much smaller quantities of decorated weapons, mostly for presentation. The presentation weapons produced at Versailles ranged from standard-issue weapons presented to deserving soldiers and sailors to magnificent and lavishly decorated weapons like ours for senior officers and heads of state. Napoleon Bonaparte was to become Boutet’s greatest patron, and the production of presentation weapons at Versailles gained momentum with the success of Napoleon’s Italian campaigns (1796–7) which generated a real need to reward bravery and exceptional performance pour encourager les autres. Over the next two decades as Napoleon’s power first rose and then fell, considerable numbers of luxury presentation pieces were produced as awards for service. Most of these were weapons – swords, muskets, rifles, carbines, pistols or boarding axes – but trumpets and drumsticks were among other items of equipment that were beautified for presentation. All these special weapons and presentation pieces were made in the national arms factory at Versailles under the direction of Nicolas-Noël Boutet .

Our superb pair of pistols generally conforms to the pattern made for presentation to générals en chef during the later years of the Directory (1795–9), a body of five Directors that governed France after the Convention and before Napoleon’s Consulate. However, when presented to a general, such pistols were normally engraved with the name of the recipient on the bow of the trigger guard, or sometimes on the butt cap or barrels and often had the name of the recipient printed in gold on the lining to the case lid. Our pair, on the other hand, shows no sign of ever having been so marked and this may suggests that they were made for a rather different sort of presentation. Our pair is also more sumptuously decorated than the majority of this type of générals en chef presentation guns.

The marks on the barrel help to confirm the date of the pistols.

170

The two nb marks of Boutet himself are of the forms found on guns dating from 1794 to 1800, as is the lg mark which denotes that the barrels were made in Liège and finished at Versailles.

The unidentified bc or bg mark has been found on a gun made in 1801–2. The initials db within leaf fronds is the mark used by Daniel Bouyssavy between September 1797 and 1801. Bouyssavy was appointed an inspector at Versailles in February 1794, a controller in October 1797 and became first controller in September 1800. The evidence of the marks, therefore suggests strongly that our pistols were made some time between 1797 and 1800. The decoration at the breeches of our pistols is very similar to that found on a magnificent pair of pistols in the Musée de l’Armée (inv. no.

05878) that was given as a prize at a pistol shooting contest on 23 September 1800. The majority of the marks stamped on the barrels of our pistols are also found on the rifle and the holster pistols of a superb gold-inlaid set in the Wallace Collection, London (cat. nos A1131, A1219–22) that also includes a pair of pocket pistols – one of the masterpieces of the Versailles factory. It is not common to find names engraved in script on the hidden surfaces of Versailles guns and those few that have been noticed and identified have belonged to factory inspectors or controllers, including the Daniel Bouyssavy, whose initial mark appears beneath the barrels of these pistols.

On the other hand, Stuart Pyhrr has shown that the hidden stamped inscriptions on Boutet guns can also refer not to someone involved in their manufacture but to their intended recipient. In the absence of any definite proof we can only conclude that the script name on the underside of one of the barrels of our pistols could refer either to a craftsman who made them or an inspector who inspected them or, though less likely, to the intended recipient. If the name is that of either a French factory inspector or a craftsman it should probably be read as the more French Armand rather than as Armani. No inspector has so far been recorded with this name, but a gun- and barrelmaker called Armand is known to have

worked in Paris in the period from 1780 to 1840 and from 1814 on is recorded first at 268 and then 19 rue du Roule. Eugen Heer found evidence that previously he had worked at Versailles during the period 1795–8. If, on the other hand, the name refers to the intended recipient there is no obvious candidate with the name Armand, but there is one with the name Armani. Napoleon landed an army at Alexandria on 1 July 1798 in an attempt to disrupt Britain’s trade with its eastern empire. The Mameluke rulers of Egypt sent a trusted diplomat to negotiate with Napoleon to secure the safety of Cairo and its people, one Muhammad Kehia al-Armani. Napoleon was so impressed by Armani’s diplomatic and political skills that, following the conquest of Egypt, he appointed him the Head of Cairo’s Political Affairs Administration. The presence of a sphinx on the underside of the stocks of our pistols, quite in line with the fashion for things Egyptian following the invasion of Egypt, may be of no direct significance, but this motif would be entirely appropriate on a pair of pistols destined for presentation to a wily negotiator like Muhammad Kehia al-Armani. If these pistols were, indeed, made for him they could either have been ordered by Napoleon while he was still in Egypt or after his return to Paris in October 1799.

Provenance

W. Keith Neal Marshall M. Fredericks H. H. Thomas

Literature

Captain M. Bottet, Nicholas Boutet et la Manufacture de Versailles, Paris, 1903 Captain M. Bottet, ‘Manufacture Impériale d’Armes de Versailles Année 1800’, Bulletin de la Societé des Amis de Musée de l’Armée, no. 25, April 1927, pp. 28–9, 41 J. J. Buigne and P. Jarlier, Le ‘Qui est qui’ de l’arme en France de 1350 à 1970, La Tour du Pin, 2001, p. 29 S. W. Pyhrr, ‘Hidden Marks on Boutet Firearms’, in R. Held (ed.) Arms and Armor Annual, Northfield, Illinois, 1973, pp. 267–71 La Manufacture d’Armes de Versailles et Nicholas Noel Boutet, exhibition catalogue, Musée Lambinet, Versailles, 1993, pp. 49–53, 86, 90, 132, 182, 201

173

35

The American Historic Gold-hilted Sword presented by the State of Maryland to Lieutenant George W. Rodgers, USS Wasp, for the Capture of HMS Frolic, 1812 The hilt of gold, cast and chased in high relief throughout: the pommel in the form of an eagle’s head in the round; three sides of the four-sided grip decorated with scrolling ornament and oval paterae in the antique taste, the fourth side incorporating a naval trophy of arms; the single shell in the form of a demi-dipylon shield, the ends terminating in inward-facing eagles’ heads and the centre charged with the emblem of the United States of America, the eagle’s head placed within a halo of seventeen visible stars; the knucklebow and quillon formed in one piece and decorated en suite with the grip, the centre of the knucklebow bearing a single mullet, pierced, within an oval border and the quillon terminating on either side in a palmette. The blade single-edged, polished and etched with naval trophies of arms, a single line of foliage, the inscription, georgio w rodgers filio fortï et fideli, maryland dedit, and a depiction of a naval engagement beneath which is the legend, the wasp boarding the frolic; struck with the name rose on the back edge at the forte. The scabbard covered in black leather and bearing three gold mounts, each of which is cast and chased in high relief on the outside, the upper mount with a naval trophy of arms within a wreath of palm and laurel, the middle mount with a depiction of Neptune being drawn in his chariot by seahorses and the bottom mount with a single spray of oak leaves and acorns within a border terminating in a palmette; the upper two mounts bearing loose rings attached to their back edges.

Overall length 37¼ in Blade length 30¼ in Our magnificent and historic sword is one of a very small number commissioned by the State of Maryland to reward a select few of its sons who had distinguished themselves at sea in the War of 1812–14 against Britain.

Although described on the blade of our sword as a strong and loyal son of Maryland, George Washington Rodgers was born in Hartford, Connecticut on 22 February 1787, according to one source. He was one of eight children of John and Elizabeth Rodgers, emigrants from Scotland who, by the time of the War for American Independence, were the owners of what is now known as the Rodgers Tavern beside the ferry across the Susquehanna River in the Maryland town of Perryville. John Rodgers was a patriot who bought the tavern in 1780 but who had raised

176

and commanded a company of Maryland militia in 1775 and who ended the war in the rank of colonel: he and his wife were to produce, among their offspring, two sons who were to distinguish themselves in the United States Navy: John Rodgers and George Washington Rodgers.

George Washington Rodgers, the recipient of our sword, was the younger brother of the distinguished American naval officer Commodore John Rodgers (1773–1838), a gallant naval commander during the War of 1812–14 and head of the Board of Navy Commissioners 1815– 24 and 1827–37 who many sources describe as the ‘Founder of the US Navy’. George W. Rodgers entered the United States Navy as a midshipman in 1804 and, having qualified through six years’ ‘sea time’ (a qualification in which the USN

copied the practice that had long obtained in the British Royal Navy), was commissioned lieutenant in 1810.

War was declared between Britain and the United States in June 1812; the final declaration was the result of gradually escalating tensions between the two nations exacerbated by Britain’s war with Napoleonic France since 1803. As part of their war strategies, both Britain and France needed to curb each other’s capacity to trade and this necessarily impacted upon the mercantile activities of nations that were neutral, such as the United States. At the same time, the enforcement by the Royal Navy of its age-old practice of stopping and searching vessels likely to be harbouring British subjects, in order to ‘press’ them for service in the Royal Navy, gave rise to resentment in the United States. The pro-French American governments of Thomas Jefferson (president 1801–9) and James Madison (1809–17) regarded Britain’s actions – justified by the London government as necessary war-winning measures – in blockading the Caribbean islands from American trade, pressing ‘American citizens’ from American ships and bolstering the economic position of Canada as provocative and so the United States went to war in 1812 with not only much the same type of righteous and patriotic indignation as had motivated the Thirteen Colonies to rebel against the British government in 1775 but also the feeling that it could and would win such a war. In 1775, the American colonies’ naval power had been initially negligible and such early successes as the colonists enjoyed against the British were achieved by privateers such as John Paul Jones. By 1812, though, United States naval power had increased considerably, an increase due in no small measure to the presence on ships of the US Navy and mercantile marine of British subjects, many of whom had ‘run’ from ships of the Royal Navy and who were motivated accordingly.

Characterising the strength of the US Navy in 1812 was a small number of big, high-quality frigates, such as USS Constitution, President and United States: larger in size than most British frigates on the North American station at that time, they also mounted 24-pounder guns, whereas most British frigates mounted only 18-pounders. Thus, the early contests between the two navies in single-ship actions were generally unequal, given that the two navies’ seamanship was probably on a par. The results were predictable and both the Royal Navy and British public were given a series of nasty shocks, as ships of the US Navy defied their government’s expectations and captured several British warships in single-ship actions. The most famous single-ship actions at the beginning of the war were fought between frigates – HMS Guerriere and USS Constitution, HMS Macedonian and USS United State, HMS Java and USS Constitution – but, as is commemorated by our splendid

and historic sword, single-ship actions between smaller warships also occurred, and often with similar results. In some cases, as with the loss of the brig-sloop HMS Peacock (18) to the shipsloop USS Hornet (18) in February 1813, British defeat was caused by inefficient gunnery but when British ships used their guns to optimum effect, and were only opposed by shorter-ranged carronades, as in the action between HMS Phoebe (36) and USS Essex (32) in March 1814, then the Americans tended to come off worse.

The action which our sword commemorates was fought early in the war, at a time when the morale of the US Navy was justifiably high and the Royal Navy more than a little complacent about its fighting abilities and contemptuous of those of any likely opponent. The opposing ships in the action were USS Wasp, a ship-rigged sloop mounting sixteen 32-pounder carronades and two long 12-pounder guns, and HMS Frolic, a brigsloop mounting much the same armament but with two 6-pounder guns instead of the two long twelves mounted by Wasp. Wasp was the larger of the two ships and carried a healthier ship’s com­pany, many of Frolic’s men being sickly from service in the West Indies. Being ship-rigged, Wasp enjoyed greater manoeuvrability over Frolic, ship-rigged sloops being equipped with three masts to the brig-sloops’ two; both types were square-rigged and both had a gaff-rigged spanker sail, on the mizzen mast in the case of Wasp and the mainmast in the case of Frolic. Thus, although the two ships were apparently slightly unequal in their fighting capacities, both had suffered severely before the action began through damage caused by bad weather: when they met, on 18 October 1812, they did so on fairly equal terms.

HMS Frolic was a ‘Cruizer’ class brig launched in 1806. On 12 September 1812, she left Honduras as sole escort to a convoy of fourteen merchantmen destined for Britain; off Cuba, her commander – Thomas Whinyates, who had been promoted to post-captain just a month before – was told of the United States’ declaration of war and warned to be on his guard against patrolling 178

American warships. Having little alternative but to continue his voyage in protection of the convoy, Whinyates continued on his course, which took the convoy north-east up the eastern seaboard of the United States. On the evening of 16 October, the convoy was hit by a gale, which scattered the ships and caused considerable damage to the masts, rigging and sails of the British warship. The next day, part of the convoy rejoined but the day was spent aboard HMS Frolic in attempting to ensure her seaworthiness for the Atlantic crossing. Early in the morning of the 18th, a strange sail was sighted and this proved eventually to be USS Wasp.

USS Wasp had also been launched in 1806. She sailed from the Delaware river on 13 October, having previously returned from a trip to France and been refitted, but had been caught by the same gale that damaged the Frolic, had suffered damage and lost two men overboard. Her captain, Master Commandant Jacob Jones (1768–1850), was an experienced officer of unusually mature years who would become a distinguished US Navy officer and whose ship had already, on 13 October, captured the 12-gun brig HMS Dolphin by the time she sighted the damaged Frolic and the remains of her convoy.

In order to gain time, and to allow the six merchantmen to escape, Captain Whinyates ran up Spanish colours aboard Frolic, backed his sails and allowed Wasp to approach within hailing distance. When the two ships were about 60 yards apart, British colours replaced those of Spain and Frolic opened fire with her carronades and with small arms. Wasp immediately returned fire with her main armament and the two ships pounded each other steadily and at closing range. A heavy sea was running and most accounts of the action mention that, from time to time, the muzzles of the guns of both ships were under water as the ships rolled and that while the Americans fired on the downward roll – so that their shot struck the hull of the British ship – the British fired on the upward roll – so that their shot damaged the rigging and masts of the American ship. At

some point, the two ships were so close together that the bases of the wooden rammers used to reload Wasp’s short-barrelled carronades struck the hull of Frolic as they were worked to load the guns. Both ships rapidly lost their gaffs, which meant that Frolic’s manoeuvrability was severely compromised, and the masts and yards of both vessels – already weakened by storm damage – were repeatedly damaged. Frolic’s inability to manoeuvre enabled Wasp both to move closer to the British ship and to take position off her port bow, from which vantage point the American ship was able to pour in numerous raking broadsides, to which the British ship was largely unable to respond. These American broadsides, sending lethal showers of grapeshot the length of the British deck and solid and bar shot into his masts and rigging, caused carnage on the open decks of Frolic and reduced her in the space of about thirty minutes to little more than a wallowing hulk. Once he was satisfied that little resistance could be mounted, Jones brought his ship mid-ships on to the starboard bow of Frolic and ordered a boarding party away.

Most accounts agree that it was Lieutenant George Washington Rodgers who led the boarding party aboard HMS Frolic, where Rodgers and his men found a scene of devastation and almost no one unwounded. The dead and the wounded who had been unable to leave the deck lay under a mass of spars, rigging and sails that Jacob was later to record was so extensive that even two hours’ exertion was inadequate to clear it away; the British captain and all his officers were severely wounded and no resistance was offered against the American boarding party, who struck Frolic’s colours and took command of their prize. HMS Frolic had been so damaged in the action, which lasted about forty-five minutes from beginning to end, that her two masts went over the side within a moment or two of her surrender. Out of a ship’s company of ninetytwo, she lost fifteen killed and forty-six wounded, several severely and five or six mortally; Wasp, which had begun the action with a complement of 135 men, lost five men killed and five wounded.

Despite the disparity in human loss and the crippling and loss of his ship, Captain Whinyates had achieved his aim: the convoy had escaped capture and he had inflicted considerable damage on his opponent. In fact, the damage to both ships was so severe that Captain Jones and his remaining men were unable to resist the recapture of Frolic, the capture of Wasp and their own capture two hours after the ending of their action when the Third Rate 74-gun ship of the line HMS Poictiers came up, received Jones’s surrender and escorted both damaged vessels into Bermuda. Although captured, so little daunted was the fighting spirit of Wasp’s ship’s company that they attempted to take over Poictiers en route for Bermuda but the attempt failed.

Jones, Rodgers and their men remained prisoners in Bermuda until being exchanged and returning to the United States. Wasp’s officers and men were commended and rewarded by Congress. Although repatriation to the United States meant freedom from imprisonment, the growing stranglehold of the British blockade through 1813 and 1814 reduced opportunities for big-ship actions by the US Navy and so Rodgers saw little more active service during the war.

Promoted and given command of USS Firefly during the United States’s war with Algiers in 1815, Rodgers was subsequently appointed to command USS Peacock in the Mediterranean, where he served 1816–18. In 1815, he married Ann Perry, sister of Commodores Oliver Hazard Perry and Matthew Calbraith Perry, thus uniting two major American naval dynasties: their two sons, Christopher Raymond Perry Rodgers (1819–92) and George Washington Perry Rodgers II (1822– 63) followed in the tradition of both families and became distinguished officers of the US Navy. Promoted captain in 1825, Rodgers was commodore of the Brazilian squadron of the US Navy at the time of his death, which occurred off Buenos Aires on 21 May 1832; although initially buried in Buenos Aires, his body was subsequently disinterred on the orders of his wife and reinterred at New London, Connecticut.

Miniature portraits of Commodore and Mrs George Washington Rodgers, thought to have been executed in about 1815, at the time of their marriage, exist in the collections of the Smithsonian American Art Museum (acc. nos 1950.4.8 and 1950.4.32).

Late in the 1820s the State of Maryland decided to award swords to those of its sons who had distinguished themselves in the US Navy during the War of 1812-14 and three such swords were

ordered from the Philadelphia firm of silversmiths Fletcher and Gardiner. In 1831 a fourth sword was commissioned for presentation to George Washington Rodgers: this sword ultimately cost Rodgers’s home state $425 and seems to have been completed early in 1832. It is this sword that we offer here, its hilt by the surviving member of the partnership of Fletcher and Gardiner, Thomas Fletcher (1787–1866) – Sidney Gardiner having died in 1826 – and its blade from the Philadelphia cutler William Rose, Senior, whose family were pre-eminent among cutlers in that city. It is not known whether George W. Rodgers was spared to appreciate his sword in the short period between its completion and his death but the sword itself remains today to commemorate a short, distinguished but bloody action in which he participated with such distinction in the early years of the United States Navy.

Provenance

Andrew Mowbray collection Private collection, USA

Literature

C. B. Davenport, Naval Officers, their heredity and development, Washington DC, 1919, pp. 19, 22, 30, 69, 162, 165, 189 and 191 W. R. Denslow and H. S. Truman, 10,000 Famous Freemasons, vol. III K–Z, 1959, repr. Whitefish MT, 2004 R. Gardiner, ‘The United States Navy in 1812’ and ‘Frolic versus Wasp’ in R. Gardiner (ed.), The Naval War of 1812, London, 1998, pp. 29–34, 44–5 E. A. Mowbray, The American Eagle Pommel Sword, Lincoln RI, 1988, fig. 65, pp. 212–15 N. A. M. Rodger, The Command of the Ocean: A Naval History of Britain, 1649–1815, London, 2004, pp. 564–72.

A. K. Wagner, ‘Fletcher and Gardiner: Presentation Silver for the Nation’, University of Delaware, unpublished Master’s thesis, 2004, p. 113, fn 19

181

36

Five-panelled iron cuirass (yukinoshita-do) with gold and silver inlay, Japanese, Edo period, circa 1830–40 The panels of the cuirass are of russet iron, joined by silvered hinges. The front panel is decorated in silver inlay with a Buddhist deity, the four-headed and twelve-eyed god of love Aizen Myoo (Ragaraja) seated on his Chinese lion (shishi), his upper pair of arms holding a halberd and pagoda, his other four sets of arms wielding swords. On his head he wears a lion’s head (shishika), surmounted by a tiny Dainichi Nyorai, the Buddha from whom boundless light emanates.

Above the front panel are two narrow plates, the lower decorated in silver and gold overlay with cloud scrolls, chrysanthemums and the seven stars, the upper with a dragon between phoenixes. The other main panels are decorated with a calligraphic prayer or gohonzon dedicated to the Nichiren sect of Japanese esoteric Buddhism. The rear panel is made of three vertical plates and a horizonal upper plate, all riveted together, with shoulder straps hinged at ether side, each with a hinged shoulder defence and forward section. At the centre of the rear panel is the odaimokyu, the mantra of the Nichiren Buddhist sect, Namu Myoho Rengekyo (Hail the Lotus Sutra), with the name of Nichiren placed on a lotus throne below it. The name of Aizen Myoo, usually included in the gohonzen of Nichiren, is omitted as he features so prominently on the armour. Each shoulder strap component is decorated with a single dragon. The left side panel is formed of a single main plate with a narrow upper plate, while the right side is formed of two narrow panels, each with its upper plate, hinged to the front and rear. Around the waist are pairs of holes for the attachment of the kusazuri; the shoulder plates are all pierced for cords, and the front main panel is pierced for sugake lacing at the top. The entire interior retains traces of gilding.

Overall height 15½ in Overall width 13½ in Japanese transcription and English translation of the inscriptions on the armour, read from right to left across the rear: Right front panel 1 Namu Tendai Dengyo Daibutsu Hail the great Buddhas Tendai and Dengyo [the posthumous name for Saicho, 766–822, who founded the Tendai or Lotus Sutra sect of Japanese esoteric Buddhism] 2 Honke betto-ji Nichigen [seal] First convert and chief priest Nichigen [before 1263–1315, converted from the Tendai temple Jisso-ji to follow Nichiren in 1270 and founded numerous temples after Nichiren’s death] 184

Right rear panel 3 Dai mandara nari This is the great mandala 4 Hachi dai ryuo Eight great dragon kings 5 Dai Komokuten Great Komokuten [Virupaksa, one of the Four Buddhist Heavenly Kings, shitenno, guardian of the west] Rear panel 1 Dai Jikokuten Great Jikokuten [Dhrtarastra, one of the Four Heavenly Kings, guardian of the east]

2 Dai Nitten daio, santenno Great sun god, three deities 3 Namu Muhengyo Bosatsu, dai roku tenmao, Amaterasu Omikami Hail Bodhisattva Muhengyo, great six demon gods, Amaterasu [the Shinto sun goddess] 4 Namu Jogyo Bosatsu, dai Bontenno, hachi tenno, Kishimojin Hail Bodhisattva Jogyo, great Bonten, the eight deities, Kishimojin [Harita, goddess of mothers and children] 5 Namu Taho Nyorai Hail Buddha Taho [the Buddha of Many Treasures] 6 Namu Myoho Rengekyo, Nichiren ‘Hail the Lotus Sutra’, Nichiren [the odaimokyu or mantra of the Nichiren sect of Japanese Buddhism and the name of its founder, 1222–82] 7 Namu Shakyamuni Butsu Hail Buddha Shakyamuni 8 Namu Jyogyo Bosatsu, Shateikan’in daio, Ju rasetsu nyo Hail Bodhisattva Jyogyo, Buddhist deity Shateikan’in, ten demons [Rakshasa] 9 Namu Anryugyo Bosatsu, Dai Gattenno, Hachiman dai Bosatsu Hail Bodhisattva Anryugyo, great moon god, Bodhisattva Hachiman [originally a Shinto deity popular with samurai] 10 Dai Myojo tenshi Great angel Myojo [the star messenger] 11 Dai Bishamonten Great Bishamonten [Vaisravana, one of the Four Heavenly Kings, armour-clad guardian of the north] 186

Left panel 1 Dai Zochoten Great Zochoten [Virudhaka, one of the Four Heavenly Kings, guardian of the south] 2 Nichiro, Nissh,o Nisshin shonin Holy priests Nichiro, Nissho, and Nisshin [disciples of Nichiren; Nichoro 1245–1320 nephew of Nissho, c. 1236–1323] 3 Nichiju, Nikkan, Nittatsu shonin Holy priests Nichiju, Nikkan, and Nittatsu [later followers of Nichiren; Nichiju 1314–92, converted by Nichijin from the Tendai sect in 1379, Nikkan arrested and executed in 1668, Ryogi Nittatsu 1674–1747, author of the important Shinto work Shinbutsu Myo-oron] 4 Butsumetsudo go nisen nihyaku niju yo nen 5 no aida ichienfutei 6 mizou no dai mandara nari After the death of Buddha more than two thousand, two hundred and twenty years this great mandala to save the people of the world appeared The calligraphy of our armour is carefully arranged in its symmetry, just as on a conventional gohonzen in ink on paper. Placed about the central mandala are the names of the Four Heavenly Kings of Buddhism (the shitenno), reading from right to left across the back Zochoten, Jikokuten, Bishamonten and Komokuten, guardians of the south, east, north and west respectively. At either side of the mandala are invocations (beginning Namu, ‘Hail’) to the Buddhas Shakyamuni and Taho, and to the four Boddhisatvas Muhengyo, Jogyo, Jyogyo and Anryugyo. Sun balances moon, and Shinto deities Amaterasu and Hachiman placed in apposition across the mandala. The mixture of Shinto and Buddhist deities recalls the syncretism of Nichiren’s Buddhism, and reminds us how intertwined the two religions were until their forceful separation following the Meiji restoration of 1868.

Nichiren (1222–82) was a historical Buddhist monk of the Kamakura period, founder of a major school of esoteric Buddhism that, despite conflict with and periods of repression by the authorities, remains important in the present day. His revolutionary beliefs included the ideas that women could attain enlightenment and that anyone could become a Buddha. On the left side panel of the cuirass the names of important monks of his sect appear, first three of his contemporary disciples, Nichiro, Nichizo and Nisshin, then three of his later followers, Nichiju, Nikkan and Nittatsu. The last of these, Ryogi Nittatsu (1674–1747), gives the armour a terminus post quem.

Armours of the Edo period with embossed cuirasses (uchidashi-do) decorated with Buddhist themes are relatively common. The warlike deity Fudo Myoo, with his sword and aura of flames, is a particular favourite with samurai. Decoration with silver overlay is less common, but attested; an armour signed by Myochin Muneakira in the Egerton Collection at Manchester City Art Gallery is decorated with Bishamonten in silver and gold overlay. The god of love, Aizen Myoo is otherwise unrecorded as the subject of an armour. The dedication to Nichiren is paralleled by another armour, formerly in the collection of John Anderson. Signed on the mempo by Myochin Muneyasu, this armour has a smooth hotokedo or ‘saint’s breast’, decorated in gold lacquer with the odaimokyu of Nichiren. The similarity in style between our cuirass and signed pieces

by Muneyasu makes it highly likely that he was its maker. He was the leading armour maker of the Myochin family in the second quarter of the nineteenth century, with works dated between 1830 and 1843, a retainer of the Tsuyama family and teacher of a number of prominent Myochin armourers of the following generation who also specialised in armour of russet iron.

188

There is no indication that the cuirass was ever laced, and it may have been made as a work of art, like the helmet in the form of an abalone shell with forecrest (maedate) decorated with Fudo Myoo in the Fitzwilliam Museum (inv. no. HEN.467.1933), signed by Myochin Muneakira and Munesuke and dated 1712 and 1719. However, a helmet (maru bachi no kabuto) formerly in the Galeno collection in California has such strikingly similar decoration, with dragons on the skull, kiri flowers and foliage on the peak (mabisashi) and simple cloud scrolls on the russet iron plates of the neck guard (shikoro), that it might very well be from the same armour.

The helmet is inscribed with the signatures of the early Edo smith Shigekatsu, probably for Myochin Shigekatsu, but its mounting and decoration clearly date from the late Edo period.

It was very common for later Edo armourers to incorporate earlier helmet skulls in their armours: Muneyasu’s other recorded armours, for example, incorporate helmets by the seventeenth-century armourers Saotome Iyesada and Nagasone Masanori. The shikoro is sugake laced in dark blue, perhaps indicating the original or intended mounting of our cuirass. The patron for whom this armour was made is unknown; Anderson speculated that his armour was made for a priest of the militant Nichiren sect, and this seems equally likely for our cuirass also.

Provenance

Private collection, USA

Literature

L. J. Anderson, Japanese Armour: An Illustrated Guide to the Work of the Myochin and Saotome Families from the 15th to the 20th Century, London, 1968, p. 53 I. Bottomley, ‘A remarkable armour’, Royal Armouries Yearbook vol. 2, 1997, pp. 144–8 I. Bottomley, Japanese Armor: The Galeno Collection, Berkeley, 1998, pp. 62–3 K. K. Chappelear, Japanese Armor Makers for the Samurai, Tokyo, 1987, pp. 91–4, 166–73, 252–3

37

The Historic American Silver-hilted Sword presented by the Citizens of Baltimore to Major Daniel H. McPhail, 5th Infantry, US Army, Dated 1849 The hilt of coin silver, cruciform in shape, cast and chased: the straight-sided octagonal grip with four wide polished faces and four narrow chequered faces and with narrow plain polished collars at either end; the pommel in the form of a bewigged portrait head, in the round, of George Washington; the quillons in the form of classical dolphins with scaled double-curved bodies, addorsed and accompanied by acanthus ornament; linking the pommel and the forward quillon tip by roped rings at either end, a chain of rings and pierced, shaped flat links. The blade of polished steel, with a narrow silver collar at the forte, double-edged except for a short ricasso struck on both sides with the cutler’s name samuel jackson baltimore, with a single central fuller, etched with a design of six parallel lines, three on each blade face, running from the forte and terminating in a chevron. The scabbard of polished blued steel with three polished silver mounts, all deeply indented at their ends and with saw-cut edges to the indentations: the top mount with a flat-topped throat and fitted on the offside with a frog button in the form of a mask of Socrates and engraved on the nearside, at the top, with the names of the following battles of the Mexican War 1849: Monterey; Vera Cruz; San Antonia; Churubusco; Molino del Rey; Chapultepec; Garita de Belén; Garita de San Cosme; City of Mexico separated by curling lines and, at the bottom, with the inscription: col. d.h. mcphail to g.h. coutts january 30th 1884 The middle mount engraved on the nearside with the inscription: presented to bvt maj. daniel h. mcphail 5th infantry u.s. army by citizens of baltimore as a testimonial of their esteem for his services as a soldier in the war with mexico, and as a citizen of baltimore feb. 22, 1849.

The bottom mount fitted with a U-shaped drag with scallop-cut edges.

Overall length 38½ in Blade length 31¼ in Our historic and important sword, commissioned by the City of Baltimore in 1849 to reward one of its sons who had greatly distinguished himself in the recently ended war between the United States and Mexico, represents superlative craftsmanship in both steel and silver from one of the leading Maryland cutlers of the period.

Samuel Jackson worked in Baltimore as a cutler and surgical instrument maker from 1836 to 1866 and is recognised as a leading American maker of that most iconic of edged weapons 192

of the American frontier, the Bowie knife. He was clearly well established in the capital of the State of Maryland by February 1849, when he was commissioned by the city of Baltimore to undertake the commission that resulted in our fine sword. The sword was presented to its recipient on 22 February 1849 but not until after it had been examined in Jackson’s workshop and duly reported upon by a reporter from the Baltimore American and Commercial Advertiser, who wrote on 23 February as follows:

An unique and elegant Sword. – We examined yesterday at the cutlery and surgical instrument manufactory of Mr Samuel Jackson, on Baltimore Street above St Paul’s Street, a splendid sword, every part of which has been manufactured in Mr J.’s own establishment, and after an unique pattern of his own designing. The hilt is octagon shaped, made of solid silver, and surmounted by a well executed head of Washington, also of silver.

The guard represents two dolphins, the graving and chasing of which has been finished in a style of unsurpassed beauty. The blade, which is of the straight, cut and thrust order, is of the truest and finest steel, polished in the most exquisite manner; the upper half of it being elegantly marked. A more beautiful specimen of workmanship than this blade presents has never come under our inspection. The scabbard is of steel, finely polished, and elegantly mounted with silver. The whole appearance of the sword is that of a chaste and rich neatness, which will recommend it to the taste of all. The reputation of Mr Jackson, as an able and experienced workman in his line of business, even if it were not already so well established, would need no better guarantee than an inspection of this elegantly finished piece of his handicraft.

The object for which the sword has been prepared will be fully explained by the following inscriptions, which are to be engraved upon it by Anderson, viz: ‘Presented to Brevet Major Daniel McPhail, 5th Infantry, U.S.A., by citizens of Baltimore, as a testimony of their esteem for his services in the war with Mexico – and as a citizen of Baltimore Baltimore City, Feb. 1849.’

With the names of the following battles in which the Major so gallantly bore his part – Monterey, Vera Cruz, San Antonio, Cherubusco, Molino del Rey, Chapultepec, Garita de Belen, Garita de San Cosme, City of Mexico.

Presentation swords designed and manufactured in the United States of America in the nineteenth century are a subject worthy of study since, like all other branches of the decorative arts, their designs were subject to a different and far wider range of influences than, say, British or French presentation swords of the same period.

In the McPhail presentation sword, we see an attempt on the part of the designer to replicate the type of sword that in France would be called an épée-glaive, its cruciform hilt, straight blade and scabbard clearly intended to be suspended vertically from a shoulder belt, or frog attached to a waist belt, and thus echoing the Roman gladius, with its implications of classical militarism. In France, from the period of the Directory in the late 1790s until the 193

Second Empire of the 1850s and ’60s, épée-glaives – which were always subject to classical influences in their design – were reserved for the highest ranking military officers and politicians and thus implied high status. In the McPhail sword, we see classical decorative influences present not only in the use of two stylised dolphins to form the quillons but also in the subtle use of a mask of the Greek philosopher Socrates to form the scabbard’s frog button; many in 1849 Baltimore would have regarded Socrates as a patriot of high moral principles. These classical references are combined with a portrait head of the greatest American patriot, and first president, George Washington (1732–99) – who was both soldier and politician – in a manner that is quintessentially American. This head, intended mainly to be viewed in profile, is probably derived from the pastel profile portrait of Washington executed from life in 1796 by the English artist James Sharples (1751–1811) and which is now owned by the Virginia Historical Society; much reproduced during the first half of the nineteen century, this profile enjoyed widespread currency in the USA and so would have been the obvious inspirational choice for the designer of a sword intended for presentation to a patriot and soldier.

The recipient of our sword, Daniel H. McPhail, was of Scottish descent: he is said by most sources to have been born in Baltimore on 25 January 1813 and to have enlisted in the US Army at the age of twenty-one in 1834. On 8 March 1837 he was commissioned Second Lieutenant in 5th Regiment of Infantry; at that time his regiment was stationed in the Upper Midwest, building frontier posts, providing garrisons and operating in protection of the growing number of frontier settlers against the resistance of the native inhabitants of that territory. McPhail was promoted First Lieutenant on 1 March 1840 and remained with his regiment in the Upper Midwest until the outbreak of the United States’s war with Mexico in 1845. The war was provoked by the United States’s offer of annexation to the Republic of Texas, which had broken away from 194

Mexico in 1836; this offer was welcomed by the Texans but opposed by the Mexicans, whose view of the location of the southern border of Texas differed from the US and Texan view, which placed it on the Rio Grande. Tension between Mexico and the USA rose during the latter months of 1845 and, on 11 October 1845, five companies of 5th Infantry – including First Lieutenant Daniel H. McPhail – joined the army of Brigadier General Zachary Taylor at Corpus Christi, Texas. Having wintered in Corpus Christi, Taylor’s army marched south to the Rio Grande early in March 1846 and hostilities with Mexico began on 3 May, when the Mexican army began besieging and bombarding Fort Texas, now Brownsville, Texas.

McPhail’s part in the Mexican war may not have begun until the battle of Monterey on 21 September 1846, since that is the first battle commemorated on his sword, but by that time his regiment had participated in the actions at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma early in May and in the relief of Fort Texas. By the time of the battle of Monterey, McPhail was a captain commanding ‘B’ company of 5th Infantry, having been promoted on 10 July 1846. After the capture of Monterey, the five companies of the 5th were posted back to Texas to join an army being assembled by Major General Winfield Scott for an amphibious expedition to capture Vera Cruz – the second battle commemorated on McPhail’s sword. Following the capture of Vera Cruz in mid-March 1847, the 5th participated in Scott’s march on Mexico City, which resulted in McPhail being present at the remaining battles commemorated on his sword, from the battle of San Antonia (or San Antonio) to the capture of Mexico City in September 1847. For his conduct at the battles of Conteras and Churubusco, five miles from Mexico City, on 20 August 1847 McPhail was given the brevet rank of major in the US army, although he remained a captain in his regiment, and he was wounded in the attack on Mexico City, which the last four actions on his sword commemorate. The 5th Infantry

remained in occupation of Mexico City until May 1848, when the regiment marched back to Vera Cruz and into the United States, being stationed in Arkansas from 1849–50.

Although Brevet Major Daniel H. McPhail was still a serving soldier when he was presented with our fine sword in February 1849, he resigned his commission just two months later, on 30 April. Later that year, his military service in Mexico was formally recognised by his home state in a Resolution of the Legislature of the State of Maryland, as follows: Whereas, Brevet Major Daniel H. McPhail, late of the firth regiment of United States Infantry, a native of the city of Baltimore, in this state, having distinguished himself by his bravery and gallantry in eleven battles during the recent conflict of arms with the Republic of Mexico; therefore, be it Resolved by the General Assembly of Maryland, That the thanks and congratulations of the Legislature of his native State, be and they are hereby tendered to Brevet Major Daniel H. McPhail, late of the United States Army, for his gallant conduct and bearing as an officer during the recent war with Mexico.

Resolved, That His Excellency the Governor be requested to transmit a copy of this preamble and resolution to Major McPhail.

(Resolution 17, Acts of 1849, passed January 29, 1850) Four years later, on 3 April 1853, by which time McPhail was living in Brooklyn, New York, he applied for and received 160 acres of land in Maryland under the Act passed by the US Congress on 28 September 1850 ‘granting bounty land to certain officers and soldiers who have been engaged in the Military service of the United States’. From the 1850s, McPhail seems to have made his home in Brooklyn but in 1861, at the beginning of the American Civil War, he volunteered to serve in the Union Army and was appointed a Paymaster of Volunteers on 1 June that year; on 13 March 1865 he was given the brevet of lieutenant colonel in recognition of his faithful and meritorious services. Continuing to serve as a paymaster after the end of the war, and being posted to New Orleans, Florida and Texas, he was honourably mustered out of the army on 1 January 1869.

For the remaining fifteen years of his life, until his death on 30 January 1884, McPhail lived in Brooklyn. He merited numerous newspaper obituaries, that in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle of 31 January 1884 being perhaps the fullest and noting that McPhail ‘was at one time in business as a manufacturer’ but no further details are given.

It is probable that such business interests as he had in Brooklyn were what brought his family into contact with George H. Coutts, 195

another American of Scottish extraction, whose wife’s maiden name was McPhail and who was probably a kinswoman of the recipient of our sword. In 1877, Coutts and James Holmes established a bakery business in New York City that was one of the predecessors of the firm ‘Nabisco’ and his family became eminent in New York Society, featuring in that Social bible ‘The Brooklyn Blue Book’ of 1910. Although McPhail died without making a will, the fact that the date of his death was the same as that engraved on the scabbard of his sword which commemorates its gift to G. H. Coutts suggests that the two men were close and that Coutts had the inscription engraved after McPhail had died, leaving him the sword.

In its design, our historic McPhail presentation sword of 1849 is remarkable; in the fact of its presentation by the city of Baltimore to one of its sons for his service in the Mexican War, it is unique. While nothing now remains of the gallant Daniel H. McPhail, his sword lives on as a testament to his career, to the estimation of his worth by the city in which he was born and raised and to the skill of one of that city’s most renowned craftsmen in metal of the midnineteenth century.

Provenance

Philip Medicus Norm Flayderman Private collection, USA

Literature

F. B. Heitman, Historical Register and Dictionary of the United States Army . . . , Washington DC, 1903, p. 681 J. Lhoste, Les épées portées en France des origines à nos jours, La Tour du Pin, 1997, pp. 454–61 ‘Men of Maryland Specially Honored’, Maryland Historical Magazine, vol. XII, 1917, pp. 228–9 S. C. Mowbray, (ed.), American Swords from the Philip Medicus Collection, Woonsocket RI, 1998, pl. 3a National Archives, Washington DC, ‘Daniel H. McPhail, Capt. Co. “B”, 5 Infy. File Number 3413, Bounty Record’ W. H. Robarts, Mexican War Veterans . . . , Washington DC, 1887, p. 21

38

An Important Cased Pair of American Percussion Pocket Pistols by Henry Deringer, Philadelphia, circa 1850 The back-action locks are of case-hardened steel, engraved within a serpentine border with leaf scrolls, stamped behind the cock deringer philadel. The half stocks of walnut with chequered grips and beaked butts, some mounts are of coin silver and some of German silver, on each pistol the trigger guard, sideplate, and single barrel slide washers are of silver, as is the cover plate between the front of the lock and the nipple bolster mounts. The fore-end cap is of German silver as is the butt cap that has a hinged circular butt-trap cover. The larger mounts are engraved with leaf scrolls, the sideplate is decoratively shaped in a scroll pattern, the slide washers have opposed thistle finials and the front tang of the trigger guard is formed with a pineapple finial. Urn-shaped gold escutcheons engraved with leaf scrolls bordering the superimposed initials awb above the date 1884. The wooden ramrods with brass tips are retained by a single plain pipe beneath the barrel. The scroll trigger is of blued steel and has ahead of it in the steel trigger plate a pierced cylindrical adjusting screw.

Octagonal barrels rifled with seven grooves with a marbled brown finish to all except the breech which is blued between bands of nine-carat gold. The top flat of the breech is stamped deringer philadel and the left flat with a p flanked by feathered arcs. A German silver leaf foresight is set on a silver block dovetailed into the barrel just to the rear of the muzzle. Lockable case with recessed brass carrying handle in the centre of the top, reinforced with brass strip along the top edges and corners and decorated with intersecting double lines of brass wire. The case is lined with purple velvet, padded on the inside of the lid, open cut-outs contain the pistols and a range of accessories consisting of wooden handled screwdriver and nipple wrench, oil bottle, bullet mould, powder flask and cleaning rods. Two lidded compartments contain ball and chamois.

Overall length 9½ in  Barrel length 5 in The name Deringer is today synonymous with the little pocket pistols using a variety of ignition systems that were made in numerous sizes and calibres and with one or more barrels by a wide variety of makers and that came to be carried for personal use by many Americans, especially in the more lawless western states and territories, during the second half of the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth century. These pistols were owned by men and women, honest citizens and criminals, civilians and soldiers, gamblers and gold miners. They were used in self-defence, for cold-blooded murder and for assassination.

Their name derives from the name of the maker who developed a durable, dependable and effective percussion pocket pistol that answered 198

a real need in mid-nineteenth-century America, Henry Deringer of Philadelphia. Henry was born to German immigrant parents at Easton, Pennsylvania, in 1786. He was apprenticed as a gunmaker and, after a short period working at the Virginia Manufactory in Richmond, he moved to Philadelphia in about 1808 where he remained until his death in 1868. For all those sixty years he lived in North Front Street, until about 1812 at no. 300 and thereafter at no. 612, behind which he built a workshop approached via Tamarind Street. After his death Deringer’s business was continued until 1880 first by his son-in-law, Dr Jonathan Clark, and then by his son, I. Jones Clark. For the early part of his career Deringer concentrated upon the bulk production of flintlock military muskets

and flintlock trade rifles. He later claimed to have made his first pair of percussion pistols in 1825; he was certainly producing some pistols in the 1830s, but his first involvement in making large numbers of them came in 1845 when he acquired the machinery used by N. P. Ames of Springfield, Massachusetts, to fulfil a US government contract for 2,000 percussion pistols and contracted to produce 1,200 more. It may have been this that stimulated Deringer’s interest in bulk pistol production and it seems that he had begun to make his distinctive pocket pistols by the time of the California Gold Rush in 1849. However, it was not until the 1850s that they became really popular. Near the end of his life Deringer took legal action against one of the many who had copied his design and, posthumously, won the case. In his deposition for this action Deringer claimed to have made 5,280 pairs of pocket pistols between 1856 and 1865, 4,000 in the first five of those years and only 1,280 in the second period.

The real popularity of the original Deringer pistol can, therefore, be seen to have been relatively short-lived. So, after the Civil War, with the technical advances that produced reliable metallic cartridges and robust breechloading systems, major US arms manufacturing companies such as Colt and Remington began producing cartridge ‘deringers’ and others soon followed, supplemented by imported European production.

This whole market for deringers derived from Henry Deringer’s design for his percussion pocket pistol. While they may not have looked very special or different they obviously worked very well. The records of the trial already referred to give at least one clue to the success of Deringer’s pistol. In his evidence one gunmaker and retailer noted that the design of the stock meant that the pistol when held ‘is on a level’ and naturally points at the intended target. They rapidly became very sought-after and even the notoriety caused by the assassination of President Lincoln with one of them did nothing to reduce the growing popularity of the deringer.

By family tradition our pistols were owned

by Thomas Jefferson Brady (1839–1904) who was 200

born at Muncie, Indiana, and educated at Asbury College where he studied law. At the outbreak of the Civil War he raised the first company that went to fight from Delaware County. It would have been presumably around this time that he purchased and carried our pistols. Thereafter he served in the Indiana Infantry and then the Indiana Volunteer Infantry. He had risen to the rank of brevet Brigadier General by the time his military service came to an end in 1865. He purchased the Muncie Times in 1868, selling it in 1870 when President Grant appointed him US Consul to the West Indies island of St Thomas where he served until 1875. In 1876 he became a supervisor in the Internal Revenue Service and from 1876 to the end of his active working career in 1881 he served as 2nd Assistant Postmaster General.

Brady had married Emmeline Wolfe in 1864 and it was to their son Arthur W. Brady, born just one year after the marriage in 1865, that the pistols were presented when he was nineteen years old and at Yale University. Their case is magnificent, being of brass-bound veneered rosewood, perhaps not made by Deringer – his cases being usually leather-covered and not having a carrying handle on the top, although the accessories are typical of other known cased pairs of his pistols.

Our cased pair is of the highest quality attained

by Henry Deringer. The pistols have the gold barrel bands and the mixture of German silver and silver mounts found only on the very best of his guns. They are very important in being early examples of his pocket model and from their over­all form and the style of their front triggerguard tangs they are likely to date between 1848 and 1850.

Provenance

Brady Family by descent

Literature

H. L. Blackmore, ‘The Percussion System’, Pollard’s History of Firearms, ed. C. Blair, Feltham 1983, p. 178 L. B. Eberhardt and R. L. Wilson, The Deringer in America: Volume One: The Percussion Period, Lincoln RI, 1985, pp. ix–x, 13–16

39

A Magnificent Spanish Domed and Footed Iron Jewel Casket

by Plácido Zuloaga, Eibar, circa 1870 On a forged iron base, of chiselled and engraved iron repoussé upon a ground of gold leaf and with niello work in gold and silver: intensely decorated overall in panels of scrollwork in the GiulioRomano style incorporating Renaissance and early baroque motifs of grotesque and mythical beasts and scrolling vegetal foliage, the panels bordered by bands of guilloche ornament enclosing small domed ovals of gold niello-work; at either side-end of the domed lid are classical trophies of arms flanked by dolphins’ heads, the lid top with a central medallion depicting Leda and the swan flanked at either end by crabs, themselves flanked by piping fauns, and at centre front and centre back by classical trophies of arms; the centre of the back with a repeated medallion depicting Leda and the swan; the ends with winged grotesque masks flanked by snails above a pair of mermaids; the front with a pair of fauns proffering cornucopias and a pair of putti; the lid hingeing and fastened with a hasp bearing a medallion depicting Cupid riding a dolphin beneath which, into the plain iron body of the box, is set the monogrammed signature pz in gold; the ends fitted with curved moveable handles widening from their end-spindles to incorporate a central disc; with four gilded pad feet and a steel key with a chiselled and pieced head.

Height 12½ in Width, including handles, 19½ in Depth 10¼ in Our extraordinarily finely made and outstandingly important casket can be confidently dated to about 1870 and is known to have belonged to the connoisseur and collector Alfred Morrison (1821–97), being recorded and illustrated as being in his London house in 1879. Morrison was the most important non-royal client of the firm of Zuloaga and Son from the early 1860s and he may have commissioned this casket from Plácido Zuloaga following his marriage in 1866, perhaps for the storage of his wife’s jewels or for small objets de vertus from his extensive collection.

The designer of our casket, Plácido Zuloaga (1834–1910), was the second of his surname to specialise in the very finest of Spanish decorative ironwork. His father, Eusebio Zuloaga (1808– 98), was born in Madrid, the son of Blas Zuloaga of Eibar (1782–1856), armourer to the Royal Bodyguard and honorary chief armourer of the Real Armería (Royal Armoury). Eusebio was apprenticed to his uncle, Ramón (born 1760), in Placencia near Eibar between 1822 and 1827, 204

returning to Madrid to work with his father before going to France in 1830 to work for Le Page in Paris and at the royal arms factories at St Etienne. Returning to Madrid in 1833, Eusebio held the position of Deputy Armourer to the Royal Household between 1834 and 1838, visited Paris and Liège during 1839–40 and established his own gunmaking factory in Eibar in 1841. During the 1840s, Eusebio Zuloaga’s status improved – he was appointed Honorary Gunmaker to Queen Isabella II in 1844 – and his reputation as a virtuoso artist in weapons grew: he was awarded a silver medal at the Exhibition of Spanish Industry in Madrid in 1845. Charged with the refurbishment of the neglected Spanish Real Armería in 1847, Eusebio continued to exhibit quality work at International Exhibitions, such as those in Madrid in 1850, London in 1851 and Paris in 1855. By 1855, the ‘father-and-son’ team of Zuloagas was represented by Eusebio and his son Plácido, the designer of our casket.

It seems apparent that the Zuloagas were

employing design styles of the form exhibited so strongly on our casket by the time of the Great Exhibition in London in 1851: a pair of pistols is recorded from 1851 that demonstrate an early form of this style and technique (Lavin, 1997, fig.4).

By 1856, by which time – as has been suggested

by Professor Lavin – Plácido was increasingly working alone, this form of decoration had become well developed and is shown in drawings, ascribed to Plácido and published by Charles Claesen following the Brussels Industrial Arts Exhibition of that year (Lavin, 1986, plate XXX).

In 1859 Plácido took over the management of the family firm, although Eusebio remained very active and, as Professor Lavin says, ‘The five years following 1859 saw a flurry of activity.’ The Zuloagas exhibited in London again in 1862 and it has been suggested that it was at the time of the South Kensington Exhibition of that year that Plácido Zuloaga met Alfred Morrison, the original owner of our magnificent casket.

Alfred Morrison was the second son of the art collector, merchant, banker and politician James Morrison MP (1789–1857) who, by the time of his death, was estimated to be the richest commoner in Britain, leaving assets worth more than £4,000,000 – at contemporary values – along with 100,000 acres of land. On the death of his father, Alfred inherited one of his country estates, Fonthill in Wiltshire, where the house, Fonthill House, had been built for Morrison in 1848. As well as enormous wealth, Alfred inherited a large part of his father’s art collection and, although it is not known when he began to collect works of art, he rapidly established a collection of his own. This was kept at Fonthill, and also, after 1865, immediately prior to his marriage, at his London home, 16 Carlton House Terrace. In decorating the interior of his London house, as well as at Fonthill, Morrison employed the architect Owen Jones (1809–74), author of the seminal work The Grammar of Ornament

205

(1856), and one of the few British architects of the time to be internationally known, both for his architecture and for his interior decorative skills.

Jones’s skill lay in creating exotic interiors based upon designs that were essentially un-British – Chinese, Moorish, Greek – but rendering the result in manner that was wholly British. Jones’s talent and Morrison’s fabulous wealth resulted in interiors at Fonthill and at 16 Carlton House Terrace that were the talk of the time in artistic circles and Morrison’s relationship with Plácido Zuloaga may have been a direct result of his work with Jones: as Wainwright (p. 31) says: The mutual love of Islamic ornament by Jones and Morrison also naturally encompassed Spanish design and craftsman­ship, indeed Jones had actually lived in the Alhambra for a while when he was working on his book. So it is no surprise that one of the most dramatic aspects of the collection at Carlton House Terrace was the damascened work of the Spanish metalworker Plácido Zuloaga (1833–1910); indeed it is possible that Jones introduced them. In 1879, The Magazine of Art noted: ‘Conspicuously in Mr Morrison’s collection are a number of metalworks by Zuloaga of Madrid . . . the great care bestowed in the finish of workmanship, especially in the case of his damascened work – gold and silver forms let into dark toned steel – gives them a distinctive character. Neither England nor France – indeed, in no other country save Spain do we know of metal works which could be mistaken for Zuloaga’s’ . . . Though the Rothschilds did patronise Zuloaga, Morrison was his main English patron and owned a number of his most important pieces including two which were given by his wife to the Victoria and Albert Museum [a coffer and a matchbox acquired in 1927]. Morrison patronised him for more than twenty years, during which time they became friends and Zuloaga stayed at Fontill several times.

Morrison’s patronage of Plácido Zuloaga was timely for the craftsman. In 1868, the fall of the Spanish monarchy left the Zuloagas without their Royal patron and almost immediately after this catastrophe, Plácido wrote to Morrison to ask him to become the company’s sole patron. While it is clear from surviving examples of Plácido’s work that sole patronage was not achieved, it does seem to be the case that Morrison was Plácido’s principal patron and commissioner of his more important and magnificent work, such as our superb jewel casket.

In considering the dating of our casket, we must turn for comparison to the finest private collection of the Zuloagas’ work in existence today: the collection of Dr Nasser D. Khalili so well catalogued in 1997 by Professor Lavin.

The Khalili collection, as catalogued in 1997, contains five items originally commissioned

by Morrison: a massive coffer, or ‘cassone’, dated 1870 and 1871 in an inscription by Plácido Zuloaga on the piece and two pairs of urns, one in the ‘Alhambra’ style, dated 1877 and known to have been acquired by Morrison in 1878–9 and the other decorated in a quasi-Renaissance style and dated to about 1875. Decoratively, the panels of the ‘cassone’ are remarkably similar to the panels on our casket: the same technique has been employed in their realisation and the style – that which The Magazine of Art Illustrated in 1879 called the ‘Giulio-Romano style’ and that which Professor Lavin in 1997 (p. 71) called ‘seventeenth-century baroque design . . . [with] animal and vegetal grotesques’ – is so similar as to suggest strongly that the two items must have been made at approximately the same time. Our casket is of course undated but it is signed with the monogram pz that Plácido Zuloaga is recorded as using on work designed by him in the 1870s.

The pair of urns comprising item 3 in Professor Lavin’s catalogue of the Khalili collection and dated by him to about 1875 are not only signed in the same manner but also exhibit, in some of their decoration, a similar style – having a central band of ‘Renaissance and baroque ornament in 207

an obviously nineteenth-century interpretation’; their handles are also similar, in their curved and tapering form and with their juxtaposition to grotesque masks, to the outer elements of the handles on our casket. There can, thus, be no doubt that our casket was designed by Plácido Zuloaga in the very early 1870s. Having said that, how can we be certain that it was once owned by Alfred Morrison?

The answer lies, as does so much of our knowledge about the relationship between Plácido Zuloaga and Alfred Morrison, in the second of two articles on his house and collection at 16 Carlton House Terrace published in The Magazine of Art Illustrated in 1879. In that anonymously written article, our casket is not only described but also illustrated (fig. 2, p. 208).

In describing it, the unknown author favourably compared it with the ‘cassone’ now in the Khalili collection, saying:

208

of the same degree of fine handicraft are Zuloaga’s caskets and chests. These are chiefly of an Italian renaissance style of design. Floral arabesques, with delicate stems intertwining amongst cupids, escutcheons, and such-like devices, are wrought in repoussé work upon a gold ground. The largest of such works is a cassone . . . To our thinking, however, his smaller casket is a better achievement from the pleasure-giving point of view . . . As we have before hinted, the jewel casket is perhaps one of Zuloaga’s most satisfactory productions. It is sumptuous with its beaten steel ornamentation, in a Giulio-Romano style of scroll work, on a granulated dull gold ground pp. 206–7

It may be worthy of note that, while the writer in 1879 admitted to the magnificence of the ‘cassone’ now in the Khalili collection, it was the jewel casket that we are privileged to offer here that merited illustration in the article about the interior decoration of 16 Carlton House Terrace.

As regards the provenance of our casket, it would have passed to Morrison’s widow on his death in 1897 and must then have descended to one of their two surviving daughters, Katherine, who married the judge Sir Stephen Gatty kc (1849–1922) in 1905. Their daughter, Hester Gatty (1906–73), married the writer Siegfried Sassoon (1886–1967) in 1933, after which the couple lived until their separation in 1944 at Heytesbury House in Wiltshire. Their son, the writer George Thorneycroft Sasson (1936–2006), must have inherited our casket from his mother, Alfred Morrison’s grand-daughter, and it was sold by his descendants following his death.

Provenance

Alfred Morrison (1821–97) Siegfried Sassoon cbe mc dlitt (1886–1967) George Thorneycroft Sasson (1936–2006)

Literature

Anonymous, ‘Treasure-Houses of Art’, part II, The Magazine of Art Illustrated, vol. II (1879), pp. 206–11 C. Jones, ‘James Morrison (1789–1857)’ in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford, 2004 J. D. Lavin, ‘The Zuloaga Armourers’, Journal of the Arms and Armour Society, vol. XII, no. 2, September 1986, pp. 63–148 J. D. Lavin, The Art and Tradition of the Zuloagas: Spanish Damascene from the Khalili Collection, London, 1997 C. Wainwright, ‘Alfred Morrison: a forgotten patron and collector’, Handbook of the Grosvenor House Art & Antiques Fair, London, 1995

209

40

An English Watercolour, painted 1894–7

by Edward Henry Corbould: ‘The Marquess of Waterford at The Eglinton Tournament August 31 1839’ Depicting Henry de la Poer Beresford, 3rd Marquess of Waterford, in armour and mounted on a caparisoned black horse, in the act of exchanging a broken lance for a new one, while at one end of a tilting yard, with tents and spectators in the background; inscribed, at bottom left, with the artist’s name Edward Henry Corbould, the date 1894 and the letters RI within an artist’s palette and, at bottom right, with the title ‘The Marquis of Waterford at The Eglinton Tournament August 31 1839’ and with the inscription ‘Painted expressly for Reginald Henry Pott Esq. by ƎHC his Father in Law Aged 82 1897’; glazed and contained in a gilt and gesso wooden frame; pasted to the back, a handwritten label bearing the inscription Victorian Era Exhibition 1897 Earl’s Court Lent by Reginald Henry Pott Esq. Scarsdale Villas Kensington W. and a printed label bearing the inscription v.e.e. 209 earl’s court.

Height 23¼ in Width 32¼ in Painted six decades after the event depicted, our watercolour was executed by an artist who had been the Official Artist at the Eglinton Tournament of 1839: it survives today as probably the last depiction of that extraordinary event by someone who was actually present.

The tournament held by Archibald William Montgomerie, 13th Earl of Eglinton (1812–61), at Eglinton Castle in Ayrshire in the last days of August 1839 inspired both interest and ridicule at the time and has remained a subject of fascination and study by scholars of arms and armour and of those early nineteenth-century phenomena, the ‘Gothic’ and ‘Romantic’ movements. Lord Eglinton, who had inherited his title and the vast wealth that accompanied it at the age of seven, was educated, ‘ineffectually . . . wretchedly . . . and riotously’ before leaving Eton to spend the years 1828–33 in ‘claret drinking, debauchery and steeplechasing’. After reaching his majority in 1833, he took his seat in the House of Lords, became colonel of the Ayrshire Militia and actively pursued an interest in racing. The tournament with which he will always be 212

associated was a personal, and Tory, reaction to the Whig government’s insistence on economies at the coronation of Queen Victoria in June 1838 that involved the omission of traditional chivalric pageantry.

The idea of a medieval tournament was immediately popular since it took the imagination of a public that had witnessed a growth since the mid-eighteenth century in the ‘Gothic’ style in architecture, had seen a revival of interest in heraldry and pedigree since the beginning of the nineteenth century and had been increasingly exposed both to the novels of Sir Walter Scott and to works of art inspired by them: in the quartercentury between the publication of Waverley in 1814 and the Eglinton Tournament of 1839, 267 Scott-inspired paintings appeared on public exhibition. Alongside the growth of popular interest in the romantic notion of the medieval period came new technologies in printing and so illustrated editions of the works of Scott, as well as those of Chaucer, Spenser and Shakespeare, began to appear and to provide work for artists who specialised in painting ‘historical subjects’:

one of the most prolific of these was Edward Henry Corbould (1815–1905), the artist of our watercolour. Given his already well-established reputation as a painter of romantic historical subjects, Corbould was the obvious choice as the tournament’s Official Artist.

Recruitment of his artist by Lord Eglinton accompanied recruitment of the participants in his tournament: six of the eventual knights had been with him at Eton and many other Etonian contemporaries were to serve in lesser roles in August 1839. Principal among the Etonian knights was Henry de la Poer Beresford, 3rd Marquess of Waterford (1811–59), whose short and rumbustious life has been dismissed by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as that of a ‘reprobate and landowner’. Waterford was undoubtedly a wild young aristocrat, even by the standards of the time: between 1829 and 1839, ‘he was to be found most frequently at the racetrack, on the hunting-field, or in the police 214

courts’. Enormously enthusiastic at the idea of the tournament, Waterford threw himself into his personal arrangements with characteristic gusto and extravagance. He bought his armour from the Bond Street dealer Samuel Luke Pratt, who had probably had it made in Germany and who had been entrusted by Lord Eglinton with overseeing much of the construction of the tournament area and its temporary buildings; Waterford’s armour still exists, in the British Royal Collection, which acquired it in 1840, but is currently on loan to the Royal Armouries (acc. nos RCIN 71650 and al81.1). As can be seen in our watercolour, and better than in any contemporary depiction of Waterford at the tournament – even those executed by Corbould at the time, Waterford also took the heraldic aspect of his appearance seriously: his livery colours predominate, the Beresford crest tops his close helmet, the Beresford crosses ‘fitchy’ figure on his shield and on his horse’s reins and caparison

as does the Beresford motto nil nisi cruce (nothing but by the Cross) and his shield of arms, quartering Beresford with De la Poer, dominates his horse’s flank. The dragon’s head crest of the Beresford family gave Lord Waterford his title for the tournament: the Knight of the Dragon.

The tournament did not begin well: the arrangements for the first day, Wednesday 28 August, were marred by torrential rain and some organisational chaos but some courses were run in the increasingly muddy and waterlogged tiltyard. Of these courses, it appears that Lord Waterford engaged Lord Eglinton, ‘the Lord of the Tournament’, in what Anstruther describes as, ‘the only combat of any reality’, going on to say: Both were exceptionally able horsemen, both had taken their training seriously, both had comfortably fitting armour, both were out to prove their skill and, in spite of increasingly difficult conditions – for every hoofmark had become a puddle and the Lists had become extremely slippery – both dashed at each other as hard as they could. Although on the second course they missed, on the first and last Lord Eglinton engaged, striking the centre of the Dragon’s shield and breaking his spear on it perfectly.

Anstruther, p. 210 The next day, the 29th, although drier, was spent in attempting to tidy the arena and repair the pavilions and stands so that, when Friday the 30th dawned and the sun came out, all was in readiness for what proved to be the tournament’s final day. Although courses were run, Anstruther does not record a prominent part in any being played by Lord Waterford, although he does record the famous loss of temper on Waterford’s part in the mêlée – which involved Waterford setting about Lord Alford, the Knight of the Black Lion, with such aggression that the two

peers had to be separated by the Knight Marshal.

By Saturday the rain had begun again and so the tournament was finally abandoned.

In 1894, when Corbould probably began our watercolour, he was aged seventy-nine, had been married three times, had been ‘Instructor in Historical Painting’ to the Royal Family since 1851 and had been a member of the Royal Institute of Painters in Watercolours (RI) since 1837: after such a passage of time, his incorrect dating of the event he was depicting – which must be of the joust between Lords Eglinton and Waterford on 28 August – is understandable.

The first owner of our watercolour, Reginald Henry Pott (1870–1957) had married Corbould’s daughter from his third marriage, Rosina Mary Corbould (1870–1955) in 1896 and, no doubt, been enthralled by his father-in-law’s tales of that early Victorian medieval pageant of nearly six decades before.

Provenance

Private collection, England

Exhibited

Victorian Era Exhibition, Earl’s Court, London, 1897, item 209

Literature

I. Anstruther, The Knight and the Umbrella: an account of the Eglinton Tournament 1839, London, 1963 H. Mallalieu, ‘Edward Henry Corbould (1815–1905)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford, 2004 M. S. Millar, ‘Archibald William Montgomerie, thirteenth earl of Eglinton and first earl of Winton (1812–61)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford, 2004 K. D. Reynolds, ‘Henry de la Poer Beresford, third marquess of Waterford (1811–59)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford, 2004 K. Watts et al., ‘The Eglinton Tournament’ in Riddarlek och Tornerspel: Tournaments and the Dream of Chivalry, Stockholm, 1992, pp. 267–72, 449–52

215

Cataloguing & displaying your collection

We can offer a full research, cataloguing and appraisal service utilising the extensive knowledge and experience of a variety of consultants and scholars. This can result in the creation of an illustrated catalogue of your collection, resulting not only in a permanent memorial but also in a valuable record for reference in the event of damage or loss. We can undertake both conservation and restoration work.

We are always happy to help with the display of a collection. The display of suits of armour is crucially important. We can supply mannequins with fully articulated torsos and locking nuts and complete with excellent heads. We can offer two different models of horse: one with all four legs on the ground and one prancing.

216

Books for sale We deal in the rarer out-of-print books and a list of some of our current titles is set out below. These are generally for the advanced collector or serious bibliophile. We are always interested in purchasing either entire libraries or rare single volumes.

C. Boissonnas and Jean Boissonnas Alte Waffen aus der Schweiz, Paris and Berlin, 1914 James Drummond Ancient Scottish Weapons, Edinburgh and London, 1881 C. Gilot Nouveaux Desseins D’Arquebuserie, Paris, circa 1700 Erich Haenel Kostbare Waffen, Leipzig, 1923 [Kienbusch] The Kretzschmar von Kienbusch Collection of Armor and Arms, Princeton, 1963 G. F. Laking The Armoury of the Knights of St John of Jerusalem, London, 1903 Sir G. F. Laking A Record of European Armour and Arms through Seven Centuries, 5 volumes, London, 1920–22 (sold with the following volume) F. H. Cripps-Day A Record of Armour Sales 1881–1928, London, 1925.

James Logan The Clans of the Scottish Highlands, 2 volumes, London, 1845 Joseph Skelton Engraved Illustrations of Ancient Armour from the Collection of Sir S. R. Meyrick at Goodrich Court, Herefordshire, 2 volumes, London, 1830 O. Smith Det Kongelige Partikulpere Rustkammer I. København, 1938 Girard Thibault Academie de l’Espee, Leyden, 1628 Graf Oswald Trapp Die Churburger Rüstkammer, London, 1929 For in-print books on Military History and Arms and Armour we recommend: Ken Trotman Limited, PO Box 505, Huntingdon, PE29 2XW, England Contact Richard Brown on +44 (0) 1480 454292, fax +44 (0) 1480 384651 or email enquiries@kentrotman.com www.kentrotman.com

217

2011 Antique Shows The Winter Antiques Show, which we have exhibited at since 1993, will run from Friday 21 January to Sunday 30 January. The show’s preview, with a benefit for the East Side House Settlement, will take place on Thursday 20 January (call +1 718 292 7392 for information or visit www.winterantiquesshow.com). It is held at The Seventh Regiment Armory, Park Avenue at 67th Street, New York City.

Following this we will be exhibiting at America’s International Fine Art & Antique Fair, which is held in Palm Beach from Saturday 5 February to Sunday 13 February.

The preview will be held on Friday 4 February (for details call +1 239 949 5411 or visit www.aifaf.com). The show is held at the Palm Beach County Convention Center, 650 Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida.

The European Fine Art Fair, TEFAF, will be held in Maastricht, Holland and will run from Friday 18 March to Sunday 27 March (for details call +31 411 64 50 90 or visit www.tefaf.com). The show is held at the MECC (Maastricht Exhibition & Congress Centre), Forum 100, 6229 GV Maastricht.

Masterpiece London will be held in the grounds of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea. It will run from Thursday 30 June to Tuesday 5 July. A preview will be held on Wednesday 29 June (for details call +44 20 7499 7470 or visit www.masterpiecefair.com).

We then return to New York in October for The International Fine Art and Antique Dealers Show, at which we have exhibited since its inception in 1989; again it is held at The Seventh Regiment Armory, Park Avenue at 67th Street, New York City. The show runs from 21 October until 27 October. A Gala Benefit Evening for the Society of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center will be held on 20th October (for details phone + 44 20 7389 6555 or visit www.haughton.com).

Please do remember to carry photo ID when visiting the shows in New York as it is required for entrance to the Seventh Regiment Armory.

218