Would workmen wear their working knives?

[Destichado]

The fashionable dagger took on more or less three forms in the mid to late 15th century, none of which make for a particularly practical implement. There are many long knives a butcher or a farmer might find useful -the rondel dagger is not one of them. That's fine for a young gentleman whose business, one assumes, is to be about the killing.

But what of the fashionable tradesman? There are plenty of illustrations of commoners wearing daggers, so we know they were wearing something. There are also illustrations of (plain-handled) work knives with very practical, slightly curved, wide blades. Would a fashion-conscious man of the merchant class be more likely to have and wear a "dress" dagger as a simple fashion accessory, or would he have a fashionable hilt put on a knife he's likely to use?

[losthelm]

It depends on the area and time.
I would suspect more attention paid to the detail of the knife sheath then the knife. Most of what we would call decorative elements would cause blisters after any heavy use.

[Destichado]

Most of what we would call decorative elements would cause blisters after any heavy use.

But when was this sort thing done in period? No no, not what *we* would call decorative.


Take a look at the knife this cooper is wearing. Or the knives in this illustration. Very utilitarian, but someone carrying a knife like one of these was just a fellow carrying a tool, which one does not do in polite company. Someone carrying a ballock dagger or a baselard, on the other hand, is making a statement, which one does do in polite company.

See where I'm going?

[Kilkenny]

The fashionable dagger took on more or less three forms in the mid to late 15th century, none of which make for a particularly practical implement. There are many long knives a butcher or a farmer might find useful -the rondel dagger is not one of them. That's fine for a young gentleman whose business, one assumes, is to be about the killing.

But what of the fashionable tradesman? There are plenty of illustrations of commoners wearing daggers, so we know they were wearing something. There are also illustrations of (plain-handled) work knives with very practical, slightly curved, wide blades. Would a fashion-conscious man of the merchant class be more likely to have and wear a "dress" dagger as a simple fashion accessory, or would he have a fashionable hilt put on a knife he's likely to use?

Well, I guess there's the question of how you're defining a "fashionable tradesman". Then there's the question of what a person outside a certain ("noble") strata was permitted to wear (and you need to look pretty closely at where and when to get answers correct to the location as this varies from place to place and over time).

My thought is that a Tradesman is not seen in Polite Company, except in passing as a Tradesman. It's not like the butcher is going to be dining with the Lord and Lady this evening after he finishes work at the shop.

Within their societal strata, the Tradesmen - I would expect - would wear the knives they found useful and comfortable. Their blades are tools first, weapons under duress and fashion statements not at all. And yes, carrying a working knife might very well mark you as a working person.

At some later point, as the burghers rose in wealth and influence and began actively adopting "noble" fashions, I'm sure that successful business people (tradesmen, merchants - whatever) would start putting away the labels of their class in favor of the symbols of the higher station they might hope to achieve. But, as noted before, I would urge looking closely at time and place for just how far they were legally permitted to adopt the trappings of their "betters".

[Derian le Breton]

I know of about ten period images of moneyers (14th-16th centuries). I just checked all of them, and none of them are depicted carrying a blade of any sort.

-Derian.

[Destichado]

Within their societal strata, the Tradesmen - I would expect - would wear the knives they found useful and comfortable. Their blades are tools first, weapons under duress and fashion statements not at all. And yes, carrying a working knife might very well mark you as a working person.

That gave me pause. After looking through a few dozen paintings, I think you're right. Two decades or so into the 16th century it seems like everything changes and *everyone* is wearing honest-to-goodness daggers, but all through the 15th, only nobles have daggers, only workmen have knives, and the upwardly mobile aren't carrying anything.

[edricus]

At the Bockstensmannen find from Varberg in Sweden they found two knifes. This is scandinavia in the 14ct by carbon dating.

I have a reproduction of that knife and it looks a lot like an ordinary Mora knive which is a rather traditional scandinavian knife. It does however come with a dangler sheat. A sheat suspended from your belt by a leather cord so that it can hang on your inner belt, under your outer garnment and still be easy to reach.

This is also the way that many Sami from the north of sweden still carry their knives. The idea is that your knife is always on your belt even when you take of your jacket or tunic or doublet.

I have tried this way to carry my belt under my doublet and it is easy to reach the knife. So this might offer one solution to why we dont see the ordinary knife in paintings.

[Baron Alcyoneus]

Within their societal strata, the Tradesmen - I would expect - would wear the knives they found useful and comfortable. Their blades are tools first, weapons under duress and fashion statements not at all. And yes, carrying a working knife might very well mark you as a working person.

That gave me pause. After looking through a few dozen paintings, I think you're right. Two decades or so into the 16th century it seems like everything changes and *everyone* is wearing honest-to-goodness daggers, but all through the 15th, only nobles have daggers, only workmen have knives, and the upwardly mobile aren't carrying anything.

Clearly, the cook and his assistant? in the tent on the right, didn't get the memo...
http://image.ox.ac.uk/images/bodleian/m ... 4/204r.jpg

[Destichado]

NICE find!

Now, back to my original question. Are the blades the blades of a weapon, or that of a tool with fashionable hilt?

[Baron Alcyoneus]

I've read/heard that in Persia that one of the primary differences between a knife and a dagger was that a knife was not permitted to have a guard, making it more dangerous to the user to use as a weapon. Daggers were 'controlled items'.

I think that the rule of thumb for Europe would be that if it had a single edge, it was a knife, and with a double edge it became a dagger.

Daggers were more likely to be fashion statements, but you will still find very ornate knives.

[Cillene mac Conghalaigh]

I encountered a similar question recently at Estrella War this past February. I am attempting to build an accurate late 16th century sailing persona, specifically a pilot, 1st mate, or even captain. I needed a belt knife and did not want to make the mistake that most newbies do of simply buying the largest war dagger I could find. I chose a knife of decent length but not dagger size as it would be particle for cutting rope, canvas, etc. It could also be eaten with yet has a nice bone handle as an officer on a ship might carry.

[Kilkenny]

Within their societal strata, the Tradesmen - I would expect - would wear the knives they found useful and comfortable. Their blades are tools first, weapons under duress and fashion statements not at all. And yes, carrying a working knife might very well mark you as a working person.

That gave me pause. After looking through a few dozen paintings, I think you're right. Two decades or so into the 16th century it seems like everything changes and *everyone* is wearing honest-to-goodness daggers, but all through the 15th, only nobles have daggers, only workmen have knives, and the upwardly mobile aren't carrying anything.

Clearly, the cook and his assistant? in the tent on the right, didn't get the memo...
http://image.ox.ac.uk/images/bodleian/m ... 4/204r.jpg

heh. Am I mistaken or is that marginalia with no context ? We can find similar images of all sorts of things, including tilting on donkeys with wicker baskets for helms. I don't think anyone would argue for these as evidence of wicker helms being used.

But, without a whole lot of contextual information, the image is meaningless. Are these soldiers on campaign in the field ? The fellow on the other side chatting with the lady (of likely ill-repute) would clearly appear to be a soldier. When and where are these people ? Are they in an area and time that did not have the sumptuary laws restricting their wearing a dagger ?

We can leap to conclusions, but the image is, so far, pretty much a free floating thing. Needs to be set in its proper place to be properly understood.

[Karen Larsdatter]

heh. Am I mistaken or is that marginalia with no context ? We can find similar images of all sorts of things, including tilting on donkeys with wicker baskets for helms. I don't think anyone would argue for these as evidence of wicker helms being used.

The whole manuscript (Bodley 264) is full of illustrations like these -- but most of the base-de-page marginalia seems to be fairly real-world, rather than fantastical grotesques.

Dismissing it as unrealistic because it's marginalia is just as foolish as embracing disembodied butts worshipped by monkeys as totally realistic. You have to consider the illustrator's intentions, and whether he's giving you a glimpse of the real world or the imagined (or grotesque) world.

[earnest carruthers]

Ooh a glimpse of a gambeson under mail perhaps http://image.ox.ac.uk/show?collection=b ... =msbodl264

look at king on horseback

even better one, there are others

http://image.ox.ac.uk/show?collection=b ... =msbodl264

Sorry OT I know, but I was so excited, thanks Karen.

[Baron Alcyoneus]

Those are just links to the main page.

[Kilkenny]

heh. Am I mistaken or is that marginalia with no context ? We can find similar images of all sorts of things, including tilting on donkeys with wicker baskets for helms. I don't think anyone would argue for these as evidence of wicker helms being used.

The whole manuscript (Bodley 264) is full of illustrations like these -- but most of the base-de-page marginalia seems to be fairly real-world, rather than fantastical grotesques.

Dismissing it as unrealistic because it's marginalia is just as foolish as embracing disembodied butts worshipped by monkeys as totally realistic. You have to consider the illustrator's intentions, and whether he's giving you a glimpse of the real world or the imagined (or grotesque) world.

I'm not dismissing it as unrealistic. I'm raising the question of "what is it we are being shown?" and pointing out that marginalia are not inherently reliable

Without a context for the representation, it is of less value than if it has context. It appears to show a cook, and a person helping (?) said cook, both wearing girdle purses with daggers. That has its uses, but it becomes more useful if we can confirm the people are actually cooks, not just people cooking. It becomes more useful if we can put it in a time and place, thus helping us to know that cooks in NJ in 2009 wore girdle purses with daggers while cooking.

I can't tell if those guys didn't get the memo, or if they got the one that permitted them to wear the daggers.

As to the illustrator's intentions, I'm pretty much at a loss. I cannot read the manuscript in order to try to determine whether the marginalia are related to the text or just decorative doodles. I can't tell whether they're intended as straightforward realistic representations of bits of everyday life or if they're intended as satire and therefore might realistically represent unrealistic situations.

[earnest carruthers]

"Those are just links to the main page."

Damn, that was the url over the page in question, anyway it is folio 43, the main one. There are many in this document with quilted kit underneath mail and COP, even a rear view of a COP with fastenings.

[Derian le Breton]

There are lots of great views of armour in this manuscript. I'm working on cataloging them.

-Derian.

[Karen Larsdatter]

Damn, that was the url over the page in question, anyway it is folio 43, the main one. There are many in this document with quilted kit underneath mail and COP, even a rear view of a COP with fastenings.

In that case, the URL is http://image.ox.ac.uk/images/bodleian/m ... 64/43v.jpg

[earnest carruthers]

That's odd Karen, my browser only shows the main link, mind Safari is a funny creature sometimes.

Great site though