Page:A record of European armour and arms through seven centuries (Volume 4).djvu/349



English workmanship, of the early XVIIth century. The early form of cup-hilt is here shown. Ex collection: Spitzer

absolutely impossible to accept these weapons as belonging to the first quarter of the XVIth century. We have consulted the most famous experts abroad, hoping that their verdict would make the attribution of the sword and dagger to King James IV possible, if not probable; they were unanimous in agreeing with the author that a hilt of this form and of this style of decoration could not possibly have been produced before the last quarter of the XVIth century, or, more likely still, before the first quarter of the next. If the traditional provenance now assigned to these weapons was ever true of any weapons at all, then it is possible that they may have been lost late in the XVIth century and have been replaced by those of which, by the courtesy of the Garter King of Arms, we are able to illustrate the sword (Fig. 1383). Even the slender hope of the blades being of early XVIth-century make—even the belief that the hilts alone were altered—is considered by the Baron de Cosson to be untenable, inasmuch as both blades are essentially of a mid-XVIth century Spanish type. The sword blade is inscribed on one face,. Domingo Maestre was a well-known blademaker of Toledo, whose productions are known to belong to the second half of