A RECORD OF
EUROPEAN ARMOUR AND ARMS
THROUGH SEVEN CENTURIES
CHAPTER XIX
DAGGERS
Up to this point we have made no special mention of the dagger,
contenting ourselves with noticing it here and there, where an
early appearance of the weapon in effigy or in missal seemed to
call for comment. But now, in view of the fact that its evolution
is a subject of great interest, and one, too, that has rarely received
serious consideration, we propose to give it a separate chapter. Although
writers upon armour and upon weapons have to a large extent neglected the
dagger, it has always received considerable attention from collectors. To them
it has much to commend it: it is of a handy and convenient size occupying
little space, while the period of its manufacture is generally indicated clearly
by its shape and by the details of its decoration. Unfortunately the collector
has generally remained content with acquiring specimens and has seldom
cared to proceed to a systematic investigation into the history of the weapon.
In the early days of the revival of interest in arms and armour, Sir Samuel Meyrick possessed what was then considered a representative series illustrating the fashions in daggers from 1400 to 1670. But, with a few exceptions, every Meyrick specimen that has come to light since the collection was dispersed has proved unsatisfactory under examination. In other words, few of the daggers are found to be in their original complete states. The pommel is either a restoration or one that has belonged to some other weapon; the guard has perhaps been altered to accentuate the unusual character of the form; or the hilt and blade are strangers. Lord Londesborough in his famous collection had just such another unsatisfactory series of daggers; although he possessed individual weapons of great rarity and beauty. The Tower of London has practically nothing to show, save one fine cinquedea; in the Victoria and Albert Museum are a few rare and fine examples. At Hertford House the Wallace Collection exhibits quite a remarkable series; if we con-
