The two swords pictured are both English, are both gentleman's 'small swords', and were both made in the first half of the 18th century. The top one would have been carried by a gentleman as part of his normal dress. The lower one was made for a boy of between six and eight years. It is of equal quality and effectiveness as the larger one - it is potentially deadly. Someone once said that childhood was a Victorian invention, and I think there's something in that idea. If you look at eighteenth century oil paintings of families, the children (even quite young ones) are dressed as miniature adults. Sometimes the boys are even armed as miniature adults.
Ann has an English version of a 'Nuremburg Kitchen' , which is furnished with all the fittings of a kitchen of the early nineteenth century. In one sense it is not a toy, but is designed and built to familiarise a young lady with the necessary fittings and instruments of the household items that a young woman is going to need to run the household she will eventually govern. The smaller of the two swords is a perfectly proportioned weapon of the type that a young gentleman (boy) will need to teach him to wear, and when necessary , to use that mark of a gentleman - the smallsword.
Following on this idea, I've even come across very small flintlock pistols that are too small to fit into adult hands, but could be used by six to nine year olds very comfortably. Like all tools they would have had to be 'learned'. I've even come across the odd pair of unmistakable duelling pistols (but very small, and with little sign of regular usage, I'm glad to report).
Going back to swords, the child sized ones are not even particularly rare. Over the years I've come across half a dozen or so of them. I don't ever recall, though, reading of one being misused, or of any boys being puncture with one. Perhaps the Georgian young gentleman was more responsible that his modern counterpart. Or, and this is what I started out to suggest, perhaps the pre-Victorian boy was expected to behave responsibly, and as a result of that expectation, did behave more responsibly than might be expected of his modern counterpart?
6 comments:
I completely concur with your dissertation on these glorious objects and their relevance to modern youth's responsibilities which is largely stifled by'pansy' blade banning. A much more hands-on approach is needed to provide public conduct education. The same could be said for driving, youngsters don't seem to be given details of the power and weight of cars and the gory details of the injury and death resulting from a moment's inattention.
I particularly like the moulding on the pommel of the boy's sword.
Yes, it's a very nicely finished little lethal item.
I've had a few blades in my time Mike (remember that ten shilling tulwar I purchased whilst at the Suffolk Gospel Camp late 1950s.) and as far as I can recall I've never even considered using such beautiful objects to damage or afright other people. I can't imagine how anyone could risk damaging such wondrous objects merely to poke holes in other folk. Where's the fun in that???
Not having tried it(yet) - I wouldn't know.
Men used to be classier back then, pretty much unlikely than the men in 21st century. I wish the men in 21st century were as "manly" as they used to be before.
Some of us are. But we're also much too old now to be of much use to any but our offspring; but as, in my case, that's now three generations (children, gandchildren, and great grandchildren) that's pretty good going.
P.s. thanks for your comment.
Regards, Mike.
Post a Comment