acid, was employed with more or less intricacy of detail from the
beginning of the fifteenth century up to the period when armour was
discarded; for the suits of Charles I (Tower, II, 19) and of Louis
XIV of France (Musée d’Artillerie, G, 125) are almost entirely
covered with fine engraving. The tradition is well known that the
art of engraving and printing the results on paper was discovered
by the Florentine metal-workers of the fifteenth century, who
employed this expedient for proving their ornamental work upon
various metals. In some cases the engraving of armour was merely
the first process of the niello-work, in which the lines and
spaces cut out were filled in with a black compound. Neither the
engraving alone nor the niello-work in any way interfered with the
utility of the armour, for the surface was still capable of a high
polish and would still deflect the weapon. No better example of
this could be found than the “Engraved Suit” made for Henry VIII
by Conrad Seusenhofer (Tower, II, 5). Here the entire surface is
covered with fine engraving of scenes from the lives of SS. George
and Barbara, and of decorative designs of the royal badges--the
Rose, the Portcullis, and the Pomegranate. Originally the whole
suit was washed with silver, of which traces remain, but there was
no attempt to destroy the utility of the armour. Indeed, it would
have been a daring armourer who would have essayed such decoration
when making a suit which was to be a present from Maximilian to
Henry VIII, both of whom were among the most practised jousters
in Europe (Plate XII). It was only when work in high relief was
produced that this utility was destroyed. While condemning the
neglect of true craft principles in this respect, we cannot but
give our unstinted admiration for the skill in which this embossed
armour was produced. The Negrolis, the Colmans, Campi, Lucio
Piccinino, Peffenhauser, and Knopf were all masters of this form
of applied art; but the admiration which their work compels is
that which we have for the work of a gold or silver smith, and
not for that of the armourer. In some cases, it is true, there is
some definite idea in the craftsman’s mind of a subject, as for
example the parade suit of Christian II (Johanneum, Dresden, E,
7), in which the artist, who is generally considered to have been
Heinrich Knopf, embossed scenes from the labours of Hercules on
the horse-armour. As a rule, however, the ornamentation is merely
fantastic and meaningless, and consists for the most part of
arabesques, masks, and amorini based upon classical models of the
worst period and style. For sheer incoherence of design, and at the
same time for technique which could hardly be surpassed, we have no
better example in any of the applied arts than the parade suit made
for King Sebastian of Portugal by Anton Peffenhauser of Augsburg
in the second half of the sixteenth century (Real Armeria, Madrid,
A, 290). Here we have tritons, nereids, dolphins and sea-horses,
combats of classical warriors, elephants, allegorical figures of
Justice, Strength, and Victory, gods, goddesses, heroes, virtues,
and symbolic figures spread broadcast among a wealth of arabesques
and foliation which leaves the beholder breathless at the thought
that this was simply produced for parade purposes, when but little
of the detail could be seen and none of it could be adequately
studied or admired. In fact the whole equipment may be described in
a sentence originally used in far different circumstances: “C’est
magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre” (Plate XIV).
[Illustration: FIG. 39. Brass of an unknown knight at Laughton,
Lincs, 1400.
1. Vervelles.
2. Camail.
3. “Vif de l’harnois,” “défaut de la cuirasse.”
4. Baldrick.
5. Jupon.
6. Gadlings or gauntlets.
7. Bascinet.
8. Edge of hauberk.]
Much of this embossed work was blackened or oxidized so that the
full value of the relief-work could be appreciated. Gilding and
gold inlay were also in high favour, but the latter art never
reached the high pitch of excellence which we find in Oriental
weapons, though the arrogant Cellini asserted that he could
damascene swords as well as any Oriental craftsman, and better.
That the art was not seriously attempted we gather from Cellini’s
own words, for he says that it “differed from any he had as yet
practised.”[92]
In all this ostentatious riot of ornament we in England
preserved a dignified reticence. It is true that the City of
London commissioned Petit of Blois to make the cumbersome gilded
and engraved suit for Charles I, but we have in our national
collections no specimens of elaborately embossed parade armour
which were made for kings, princes, or nobles in England.
The master-craftsman Jacobi Topf and his pupil William Pickering
both produced suits of great richness and beauty, but they were
always eminently practical, and their utility and convenience
were never hampered or destroyed. Where there is embossing it is
shallow, and as the relief is not sharp there is no edge which
might catch the lance-point or sword. Much of the work of Topf was
russeted and gilt, a method which produced a highly ornate and yet
never a trivial or confused effect.
The parade suit by Bartolomeo Campi, made for Charles V (Real
Armeria, Madrid, A, 125), is so obviously a fantastic costume for
masque or pageant that it can hardly be criticized as armour. It
is based upon a classical model, for the cuirass is moulded to the
torse after the manner of the armour of the late Roman Empire. As
metal-work it will rank with the finest specimens extant, but as
armour it completely fails to satisfy (see page 132 and Plate XIV).
[Illustration: _PLATE XIX_
HELM OF SIR GILES CAPEL. XVI CENT.
ARMING FOR COMBAT IN THE LISTS
FROM THE HASTINGS MS., XV CENT.]
Although not in any way decorative, the “puffed and slashed”
armour copied from the civilian dress of the sixteenth century
is an example of the armourer making use of embossing apart from
the actual requirements of the constructive side of his craft.
Radiating lines of repoussé work, simple, fine, and delicate,
had been introduced into the later forms of Gothic armour, the
pauldrons had been fluted like the cockle-shell, and these flutings
had been made of practical use in Maximilian armour, giving
increased rigidity without weight, a factor which is found in
modern corrugated iron.
The imitation of fabrics in steel is, however, unpardonable, and
has not even the richness or minute technique of the parade suits
mentioned above. It is true that the embossing gives greater
rigidity to the metal, but we can have none of the admiration for
these unnatural forms of armour that we have for those in which the
goldsmith and armourer worked together. The style of dress which
was imitated was in itself designed to create a false impression,
for the slashings were intended to convey the idea that the wearer
was a swashbuckler, fresh from the wars. We can only, therefore,
regard it as an absurdity to represent fabrics, which were supposed
to have been frayed and cut by weapons, in weapon-proof steel. That
the fashion was popular we know from the number of suits extant,
and even Conrad Seusenhofer himself did not disdain to produce
them. The vogue did not endure for more than about twenty years,
for as soon as the fashion in civilian dress changed the armour
became simpler and the imitation ceased (Plate XXI).
FOOTNOTES:
[90] _New Fœdera_, II, 203.
[91] Froissart (Johnes’ trans.), II, 124.
[92] _Life of Benvenuto Cellini_, 1910 edition, I, 112.
THE CLEANING OF ARMOUR
An important part of the work of the armourer was the cleaning and
keeping in repair his master’s effects. This was especially the
case with mail, which from its nature is peculiarly susceptible
to the action of rust. It is to this cause and to the incessant
remaking of armour that we owe the loss of all authentic mail
armour of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. A good example of
this may be cited in the hoard of plate armour and helmets, of
which last nearly a hundred were collected, found in a cistern
in the castle of Chalcis, in Eubœa, in the year 1840.[93] They
had lain there since the year 1470, when the castle was taken by
the Turks, and are in many instances in excellent preservation
considering the condition in which they were found. The collection
was brought to light and catalogued in a very unscientific manner
by the historian Buchon, but there is no trace of mail of any kind
except one link attached to a helmet.
In the early part of the fifteenth century mail was used
extensively both for complete defence and for protecting vital
parts not covered by plate, of which details will be found on
page 109; therefore it is most improbable that a large collection
such as this should have been left with no vestiges of mail. It
is obvious, therefore, that the delicate fabric was attacked
and destroyed by rust long before the same agent could make any
effect on the solid plate. The following extracts will give in
chronological order the various entries which concern the cleaning
and repairing of armour:--
1250 (?). _The Avowynge of King Arthur, stanza 39._
Gay gownus of grene
To hold thayre armur clene
And were[94] hitte fro the wette.
Here we find the reason, or at any rate one of the reasons, for
wearing the surcoat. Some writers have suggested that it was worn
to protect the Crusader from the sun in his Oriental campaigns,
but the quotation given definitely asserts that it was to keep off
the rain. This is certainly a practical reason, for, as has been
stated before in this chapter, the intricate fabric of mail was
peculiarly susceptible to damp.
1296. 23-24 _Edw. I_ (_Duchy of Lancaster Accounts_).
Itm. xx s. xj d. in duobus saccis de coreo pro armatura comitis.
This refers to leather sacks used either for keeping the armour in
or for cleaning it by shaking it with sand and vinegar.
1344. _Inventory of Dover Castle_ (see also page 25).
i barrele pro armaturis rollandis.
The barrel was here used in the same way. The mail was placed
inside with sand and vinegar and rolled and shaken. The same method
is still practised in some districts for cleaning barrels for cider
or ale. Chains are placed in the barrel with sand to obtain the
same result. On Plate XV a barrel is shown on the extreme left of
the picture with a mail shirt hanging over the edge.
1364. _Inventory of the donjon of Vostieza._[95]
i barellum ad forbiendum malliam.
1369. _Prologue, Canterbury Tales_, Chaucer.
Of fustyan he wered a gipoun
Alle sysmoterud with his haburgeoun.
This extract shows clearly the need for the barrel and sand. The
mail had evidently rusted with rain and perspiration, and left
stains and marks on the quilted undergarment. We find the term
“rokked” used in the poem of _Syr Gawayn_, which means cleaned by
rolling.
1372. Froissart _uses the expression_
a rouler leurs cottes de fer.
1417. _Inventory of Winchester College._
i barelle pro loricis purgandis.
1423. _Roll of Executors of Henry Bowet, Archbishop of York, Oct.
20._
j barrelle cum suis pertinentiis ad purgandos loricas et alia
arma de mayle.
1467. _Howard Household Book._ (_Dom. Expenses in England_, 416).
9d. to an armerer at Pawles Cheyne for an harneys barelle.
1513. _Earl of Northumberland’s Equipage_ (see also page 30).
a paommyshe.
Eight yards of white blaunkett for trussing of my Lord’s harnes
in.
The pumice was for cleaning off the rust, and the blanket was used
for packing the armour when in store or on a journey.
1515. _King’s Book of Payments, Record Office, under various
payments to armourers._
Oct. 11. Payment to Adrian Brand for hire of his mill house for
cleaning the king’s harness, 26s. 8d. the month.
1517. April. Wm. Gurre, armourer, making clean of certain
harness, bockeling & ledering of 400 Almain rivets for the
Armoury at Eltham £24 7 8.
The “bockeling & ledering” of course refers to the fitting of new
leather straps and buckles. The Almain rivet was the half-suit of
the foot-soldier and has been explained on page 52.
1520. April. William Gurre for scouring 1000 pr. of Almain rivets
at 12d. a pair.
1530. Hans Clerc armorer for furbishing and keeping clean the
king’s armour in the armoury in the Tilt yard at Greenwich which
John Diconson late had at 6d. a day.
Thos. Wollwarde for keeping & making the king’s harnes att
Windsor & York Place 30s. 5d.
1567. _S.P.D. Eliz., Addenda xiii_, 101.
Payments are made in this entry to paint black various corselets
which had become “fowle and rustie” and had “taken salt water in
the sea” at a charge of 5d. each.
[Illustration: _PLATE XX_
ARMOUR OF HENRY, PRINCE OF WALES, BY WILLIAM PICKERING, 1591-1630]
Froissart describes the champion Dimeth, at the coronation of
Henry IV, as being “tout couvert de mailles de vermeil, chevalier
et cheval.”[96] This painting of armour was frequently indulged
in both for the above practical reason and also for personal
adornment. Tinning was also used for protecting armour from wet
(_vide_ page 33 _sub ann._ 1622). Armour in the Dresden Armoury and
elsewhere is painted black. Hall in his Chronicles in the account
of the funeral of Henry V states that men-at-arms in black armour
rode in the procession. The armour in the seventeenth century was
often blacked or russeted. Suits of this kind are to be seen in
the Gun Wharf Museum at Portsmouth and elsewhere. Haselrigg’s
“lobsters” were so called, according to Clarendon,[97] because of
their “bright shells.” It is quite possible that their armour was
blacked. In the Lansdowne MS. 73, William Poore suggested a remedy
for “preserving armour from pewtrifying, kankering or rusting,”
but there are no details given of the method he employed; it was
probably some kind of lacquer or varnish. Among the Archives of the
Compte du tresor de Savoie (63 f. 157) is mentioned a payment to
Jehan de Saisseau “por vernicier une cotte d’aciel,” and in one of
the Tower inventories (Harl. MS. 1419) of the year 1547 “a buckler
of steel painted” occurs.[98]
1567. _S.P.D. Eliz., Add. xiii_, 104.
Sundry payments for cleaning and repairing armour at the Tower,
Hampton Court, and Greenwich at 10d. the day.
1580. _S.P.D. Eliz., cxli_, 42.
A document written on the death of Sir George Howard ordering the
cleaning and putting in order of the arms and armour at the Tower.
1628. _S.P.D. Car. I, xciii_, 61.
Capt. John Heydon to Wm. Boswell, Clerk to the Council, for the
new russeting of a corslet, 5sh.
1603. _Inventory of the Armoury at Hengrave._
Item one barrel to make clean the shirt of maile & gorgets.
1671. _Patent_ applied for by Wolfen Miller (John Caspar Wolfen,
and John Miller), for twenty-one years, “for a certain oyle to
keep armour and armes from rust and kanker” for £10 per annum.
1647 (_circ._). _Laws and Ordinances of Warr, Bod. Lib., Goodwin
Pamphlets, cxvii_, 14.[99]
Of a Souldiers duty touching his Arms.
II. Slovenly Armour.--None shall presume to appeare with their
Armes unfixt or indecently kept upon pain of Arbitrary correction.
With regard to the keeping of armour in store two instances have
been mentioned above under the dates 1296 and 1513. In addition
to these we find that in 1470 in the _Chronique de Troyes_, the
French soldiers were forbidden to carry their arms and armour in
“paniers,” which, from the statement, was evidently a practice.
In the Wardrobe Account of Edward I, 1281, published by the Society
of Antiquaries, we find payments to Robinet, the King’s tailor, for
coffers, sacks, boxes, and cases to contain the different parts of
the armour.
In the Wardrobe Expenses of Bolingbroke, Earl of Derby (Camden
Soc.), 1393, are found the following entries:--
fol. 32. pro j cofre ... ad imponendum scuta domini. xvij scot.
fol. 33. pro j house[100] pro scuto domini ix scot. xij d.
fol. 40. pro i breastplate domini purgando ibidem iij li. vij s.
The “buckler of steel painted” mentioned above is scheduled as
being in “a case of leather.” In an engraving of Charles I by W.
Hole, in the British Museum, a box is shown for holding the breast
and back plates.[101]
FOOTNOTES:
[93] Charles ffoulkes, “Italian Armour at Chalcis,” _Archæologia_,
LXII.
[94] Protect.
[95] _Arch. Journ._, LX, 106.
[96] Vol. IV, c. 114. This detail is not given either in Johnes’ or
Lord Berners’ translation.
[97] _Rebellion_, VII, 104.
[98] _Archæologia_, LI.
[99] _Cromwell’s Army_, Firth, 413.
[100] Cover.
[101] _Arch. Journ_., LX.
THE USE OF FABRICS AND LINEN
An important variety of defensive armour, which has not hitherto
received the notice which it deserves, is the padded and quilted
armour of linen, which was always popular with the foot-soldier on
account of its cheapness, and was in the thirteenth century held in
high esteem by the wealthier knight. In the case of crushing blows
it would of course protect the body from breaking of the skin,
but would not be of such use as the more rigid defence of plate.
It was, however, very effectual against cutting blows, and had
the advantage of being more easily put on and off, and, although
hot, was less oppressive than metal in long marches. In miniatures
of the fourteenth century we frequently find parts of the armour
coloured in such a way as to suggest that it is either not metal
or else metal covered with fabric. Where there was no metal and
where the wearer depended entirely on the fabric for protection it
was heavily quilted and padded, or else several thicknesses of the
material were used (Fig. 40). Where metal was used the defence was
the ordinary plate armour covered with fabric, or the metal was
inserted in small plates as is the case in the brigandine.
[Illustration: FIG. 40. Pourpointed cuisses from the brass of Sir
John de Argentine, Horseheath, Cambs, 1360.]
It is not the intention of the present section to deal with the
various details of defensive armour except only as far as those
details bear directly on the employment of fabrics, therefore the
construction of the brigandine, which is well known to all students
of the subject of armour and weapons, will be found under the
heading of the Craft of the Armourer on page 49. The same may be
said of the horn and metal jacks which were a humbler form of the
brigandine. The most concise descriptions of such armour will be
found in the Catalogue of Helmets and Mail by de Cosson and Burgess
(_Arch. Journ._, XXXVII). Guiart in his Chronicles, written in the
early part of the fourteenth century, speaks of “cotes faitices de
coton a pointz entailliez.” These were probably common doublets,
quilted or laced like the jack.
Few of these defences of fabric have survived, owing to the ravages
of moth and damp.
In the Pitt-Rivers Museum, Oxford, are a pair of culottes or
drawers lined with thin busks of steel, and also two sets of
rose-pink silk doublets, breast, back, and fald padded with cotton,
both presumably of the late sixteenth century; they are noticed in
_Arms and Armour at Oxford_, by the present writer, but no definite
history is known of either of the specimens. Doublets and “coats
of fence” of this nature occur frequently in inventories and other
documents, but the following extracts give certain definite details
which bear directly on the subject.
1150-1200 (?). _Speculum Regale, Kongs-Skugg-Sio_, edit. 1768,
pp. 405-6 (actual date unknown).
For the rider the following accoutrements are necessary:
coverings for the legs, made of well-blacked soft linen sewed,
which should extend to the kneeband of his chaucons or breeches;
over these steel shin-pieces so high as to be fastened with a
double band. The horseman to put on linen drawers, such as I have
pointed out.
(Of the horse) let his head, bridle, and neck, quite to
the saddle, be rolled up in linen armour, that no one may
fraudulently seize the bridle or the horse.
[Illustration: _PLATE XXI_
HALF ARMOUR, CIRC. 1520
TONLET SUIT BY CONRAD LOCHNER, 1510-1567
“MAXIMILIAN” ARMOUR, CIRC. 1515]
There is a doubt as to the actual date of this manuscript. In
the edition from which the above translation is taken it is
described as of Icelandic origin about the year 1150, but it may
be possibly as late as the beginning of the thirteenth century.
The details of the dress worn under the armour may be compared on
the one hand with the leggings shown on the Bayeux tapestry and
on the other hand with those mentioned in the Hastings MS. of the
fifteenth century (_Archæologia_, LVII), which gives the details of
undergarments worn by the armed man at this date (page 107). The
horse-armour is the “couverture” or trapper so frequently mentioned
in inventories, which was often decorated with fine embroidery.
Even altar-hangings were used for this purpose, as was the case in
the sack of Rome in 1527. Padded horse-armour was used in the
fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries for tournaments, minute
regulations for which are found in the _Traité d’un Tournoi_ by
King René of Anjou, which will be referred to farther on in this
chapter.
[Illustration: FRONT. BACK.
FIG. 41. Padded Horse-armour for the Tourney (from King René’s
_Traité d’un Tournoi_).]
1286. _Comptus Ballivorum Franciæ._[102]
Expense pro cendatis, bourra ad gambesones, tapetis.
This item is evidently for stuffing gambesons with cendal[103] and
tow. Cendal is somewhat of a mystery as to its exact nature. Like
all fabrics of past ages, we can but guess at its nature. It has
been discussed under its name in Gay’s _Glossaire Archæologic._
1296. _Ordonnances des Métiers de Paris_, p. 371.
Que nus (armuriers) ne puisse fère cote ne gamboison de tèle
dont l’envers et l’endroit ne soit de tèle noeve, et dedenz de
coton et de plois de toiles, et einsi que est qu’il soient dedenz
d’escroes.
It. Si l’en fait cote ne gamboison dont l’endroit soit de cendal
et l’envers soit de tèle, si veulent il que ele soit noeve et se
il i a ploit dedenz de tèle ne de cendal, que le plus cort ploit
soit de demie aune et de demi quartier de lonc au meins devant,
et autant derrières, et les autres plois lons ensuians. Et si il
i a borre de soie qui le lit de la bourre soit de demi aune et
demy quaritier au meins devant et autant derrières et se il i a
coton, que le coton vienge tout contreval jusques au piez.
The first of these regulations concerns the materials used, and
is very similar to that of the Armourers’ Company of London made
in 1322, which is given in full in Appendix A. So much of the
work of the padding and lining was hidden from sight that these
regulations were most necessary to prevent the use of old rags and
bad materials. The second entry seems to refer to the manner in
which canvas and cendal were to be used and in what proportions.
It should be noticed that at this period the surcoat, in England
at any rate, was being gradually shortened. The regulation above
quoted, however, suggests in the last sentence that in France it
was still worn long.
1311. _From the same source as the above._
Que nules d’ores en avant ne puisse faire cote gamboisée où il
n’ait 3 livres de coton tout neit, se elles ne sont faites en
sicines et au dessous soient faites entre mains que il y ait un
pli de viel linge emprès l’endroit de demi aune et demi quartier
devant et autant derrière.
Here the quantity of cotton is given and it is ordered to be new.
It seems to have been allowed to put old linen, but this may
possibly only mean seasoned linen, between the folds.
1322. _Chamber of Accounts, Paris._
Item Adae armentario 40 sol 4 d. pro factoris gambesonorum.
The name “Ada” of the armentarius rather suggests that it might be
a female who provided these gambesons.
1383. _Chronique de Bertrand du Guesclin_ (_T. II, p. 95_, 235.)
Ainsois l’ala d’une lance tranchant
L’escu li a rompu et le bon jaserant
Mais l’auqueton fu fort qui fu de bougeran
* * * * *
Et prendre auquetons de soie ou de bougerans.
From the context of the first extract this haketon of buckram would
appear to be a very serviceable defence, for the lance which had
penetrated the shield and the jaserant, or coat of plate, had not
penetrated the undergarment of buckram. Like all other fabrics
mentioned in medieval writings, we cannot definitely say of what
material this buckram was composed, but from the second extract it
seems to have been used equally with silk for the haketon.
1450. _Ordinance of Louis XI of France, Chambres des Compts,
Paris._[104]