Chapter III: A Contrast. Armour of Count Sigismond of Tirol, (5)

This entry may be compared with that of the Windsor Park Tournament quoted above. King René’s book has the advantage of being illustrated with drawings of these and all the other details mentioned in his regulations for a tourney. The brassards shown in the drawing have cords fixed lengthways so as to provide an extra protection against the blow of the mace or wooden sword which René describes as the weapons to be used. Brassards of a similar kind are mentioned in Antoine de la Salle’s _Des anciens tournois et Faictz d’Armes_ (edit. B. Prost., p. 120).

1471. _Inv. du Roi Rene à Angers, fo. 3 vo._

Quatre targetes de cuir bouilly a la facon de Tunes.

These targets, made after an Oriental model, would probably resemble those which are frequently seen in India and Persia at the present day, in which the leather is hard and often highly polished and decorated with painting and gilding. The Highland targe is fashioned differently, for the foundation is of wood and the skin or hide stretched over it.

1480. _L’Artillerie des Ducs de Bourogne, Garnier, appendix, p.
230._

Onze gands et huit brasselets de cuir pour archiers.

Here the “brasselets” are not arm-defences, but are simply the “bracer” or arm-guard which protected the wrist of the archer from the string of his own bow when released.

1493. _L’advis de gaige de battaille_, O. de la Marche.

S’il n’est point gentilhomme il peut combattre selon l’ancienne
coustume armé de cuir bouilly.

This evidently refers to the regulations laid down by King René in 1450, and suggests that by the end of the fifteenth century they had become obsolete and that full plate armour was the only equipment for the joust or tourney.

1500. _Inv. de Francois Ier. de Luxembourg, p. 6._

Plusiers bardes de chevaux de cuyr de cartes ou cartons.

The last-named materials were obviously only employed for parade or masque. They would be early forms of papier-maché, but were probably more like the modern cardboard than the hard papier-maché now in use.

1559. _Notes sur Dioscoride, II, chap. 21_, Matthée.

Le cheval marin une beste du Nil [the hippopotamus] de la peau
l’on en fait des écus, animes et rondelles; aussi n’y ha il
armes n’y poinctures quelles qu’elles soyent qui la puissent
transpercer, si premièrement elle n’est baignée.

This entry shows clearly that even the hide of the hippopotamus was not held to be weapon-proof till it had been soaked (in water or oil). One of these leather bards exists in the Armeria Reale, Turin, B, 2. It is catalogued as being of hippopotamus hide. A crupper of cuir-bouilli (VI, 89) is the only specimen of leather armour in the Tower.

1630 (_circ._). _Hist. of London, p. 26_, Pennant (1790).

Robert Scot ... was the inventor of leather artillery which he
introduced into the army of Gustvus Adolphus.

1644. _Military Memoirs of the Great Civil War, p. 42_, Gwynne.

At Crobredery Bridge (Cropredy) we overtook Waller’s army which
we engaged and beat, took Wemes General of their army prisoner
and withal took his leather guns which proved serviceable to the
King.

These leather guns were formed of a cylinder of copper round which was twisted thick hempen cord and the whole enveloped in a leather jacket. An example which is traditionally stated to be one of Scot’s guns used by Gustavus Adolphus, is exhibited in the Rotunda Museum, Woolwich (II, 173). The dolphins on this specimen are fashioned to the letter “G” placed horizontally. There are two similar guns in the Musée d’Artillerie.

1678. _Traité des Armes, p. 55_, Gaya.

Quoy que les Bufles ne soient proprement que les habillemens de
Cavaliers, nous pouvons neanmoins les mettre au nombre de leurs
armes deffensives, plus qu’ils peuvent aisement résister à l’Epée
lors qu’ils sont d’une peau bien choissie.

Les Bufles ... sont faits en forme de Juste-au-corps à quatre
basques qui descend jusqu’aux genoux.

Il n’y a pas un Cavalier dans les trouppes de France qui n’ait un
habillement de Bufle.

The buff coat of leather or “cuir de bœuf” was a part of the military equipment as early as 1585 and was in common use during the Civil War. It was worn by the Life Guards at the Coronation of James II in 1685 and by a detachment of the Artillery Company at the entry of George I in 1714. It ceased to be worn as part of the uniform in the following reign.[119]

1591-5. _Instructions, Observations and Orders Militarie, p.
185_, Sir John Smith.

... halbadiers ... armed with burganets and with short skirted
Ierkins of buffe with a double buffe on their breasts and the
sleeves of their doublets with stripes of maile or serecloth
aforesaide.

Here we find a return to the primitive defence of the eleventh century, due to the increased weight of armour which was necessary against the improved firearms which were by this time a serious factor in war. The serecloth recommended was probably a stout waxed or oiled canvas. In recommending sleeves of mail, which are shown on Plate XVIII, Sir John Smith considers that they are more convenient for the handling of the halberdier’s weapon than the more rigid brassards worn by the cavalry. These strips of chain are shown on one of the figures painted by Memling for the “Chasse of S. Ursula” at Bruges, 1486, which is given on Fig. 24 of this work. They have been re-introduced as shoulder-straps for heavy cavalry at the present day.

FOOTNOTES:

[113] The Pembridge effigy in Hereford Cathedral has thigh-pieces which apparently represent leather laced on the inside.

[114] _Memoirs_, Vol. I, ch. 33.

[115] _Arms and Armour at Oxford_, C. ffoulkes.

[116] _Arms and Armour at Oxford_, C. ffoulkes.

[117] Johnes’ trans., I, 739.

[118] Kündig, Geneva, 1910.

[119] Cannon, _Historical Records of the Life Guards_, p. 74.

THE WEARING OF ARMOUR

Though perhaps the wearing and putting on of armour was not directly part of the craft of the armourer, it was certainly a part of his duties to be present during the process and be ready to carry out any small alterations which might be needed on the spot.

As has been noticed in a preceding chapter, as late as 1625 we find this insisted upon by de Pluvinel (see page 115). Shakespeare describes the armourers as busy “accomplishing the knights” before Agincourt (page 33), and the fact that the travelling knight took his armourer with him shows that he was indispensable during the operation of dressing for war or joust.

Armour of the best kind was made to measure, and for ordinary purposes a mould or “dobble” was kept on which to make the ordinary harness for the man-at-arms (page 28). The following extracts show the methods employed for sending measurements, which were often obtained by submitting the clothes of the patron to the armourer:--

1406. In the will of Sir Ralph Bulmer, “armatura mea corpori
talliata.”[120]

1470. _Archives de Bruxelles._[121]

Baltazar du Cornet, armourer at Bruges, delivers for the Duke
of Burgundy “2 cuiraches complettes faites a la mesure de
Monseigneur.”

Lazarus de St. Augustin delivers “un harnais complet fait naguere
a la mesure de Monseigneur et pour son corps.”

1512. A jacket and hose of Prince Charles (afterwards Charles V)
are sent to Conrad Seusenhofer.[122]

1520. _Brit. Mus., Calig. D, VIII_, 181.

16 March. Francis I asks for an “arming doublet” of Henry VIII
that he may have made a new kind of cuirass which he will send
him as a present.

DRAWING BY JACOB TOPF, 1530-1597

FROM THE “ARMOURER’S ALBUM,” VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM]

ARMOUR OF SIR JOHN SMITH, BY JACOB TOPF]

1564. _S.P.D. Elizabeth, Jan. 30._

Warrant to the Master of the Armoury. To cause to be made one
armour complete fit for the body of our well beloved servant
Christopher Hatton, one of our Gentlemen Pensioners, he paying
according to the just value thereof.

1667. _Verney Memoirs, IV_, 301. Rich. Hals to Edmond Verney.

The armour fits well enough only the man did cut away to much
just under the arme pit both of back and breast, but for the head
piece it is something heavy, yet I think it well enough if it did
not come downe so low upon my forhead as to cover all my eyes and
offend my nose when I put my head backwards to look upwards.

In the preceding chapter some notice was taken of the part which the linen armourer played in the equipment of the armed man, and it was to him that the clothing which was worn under the armour was entrusted. Under the heading of the “Cleaning of Armour” mention has been made of Chaucer’s knight whose “gipoun” was “besmoturyd with his haubergeon,” but this garment was an outer garment or surcoat. In the age of plate armour a complete dress was worn for legs, arms, body, and head to prevent the chafing of the armour, which in spite of its own lining of silk, velvet, cloth, leather, or other fabric would cause grave inconvenience, if not danger to the wearer. Besides this reason there was also a question of warmth, which was of importance, for in long marches and expeditions there was no warmth in a suit of plate, in fact there was an added cold which had to be counteracted by warm garments worn underneath.

In the eleventh and twelfth centuries we have not much in the way of documentary evidence which will help us as to the clothes worn under the armour. The Bayeux Tapestry shows us the wounded and dead being stripped of their hauberks, under which nothing was apparently worn (Fig. 51). It should be remembered, however, that these hauberks were probably of quilted fabric, which therefore did not gall the body of the wearer. The drawing from a fourteenth-century manuscript on Fig. 52 gives some hint at the arming-doublet, which will be noted farther on in this chapter, and shows also the laces or points that held up the hose. Towards the end of the fourteenth century, however, we find on the incised brasses, which are such valuable records of the military equipment of the period, very distinct garments represented. On the brass to Sir John de Creke at Westley Waterless, Cambs, 1325, we see the “cyclas” or outer surcoat, the “upper pourpoint,” of fabric, studded with metal, “the hauberk,” and under all the “haketon” or “gambeson” (Fig. 53). According to William de Guilleville, in the _Pèlerinage de l’Ame_, written in the fourteenth century, the “pourpoint” was so called because of its quiltings:--

De pontures de gambison
Pourquoi pourpoint l’appelle-t-on.

1. Bascinet.
2. Vervelies and camail.
3. Cyclas or surcoat.
4. Upper pourpoint.
5. Hauberk.
6. Gambeson or haketon.
7. Poleynes.
8. Beinbergs or jambs.]

The gambeson continued in use up to the seventeenth century under the name of “arming-doublet,” with but little change except in shape and form, as the style of armour required. Of the undergarments of the early fifteenth century we have little or nothing to guide us, and we are often at a loss to know even what armour was worn under the tight-fitting, small-waisted jupon or surcoat which distinguishes the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth century. We have, however, a valuable record under this head in the monument at Ash, which shows “splinted armour” of lames worn instead of a cuirass.

The illustration on Plate IV is from a wood-carving in the church of S. William, Strasburg. It represents the travelling armourer riveting what appear to be bands of iron on arms and legs. Whether these are some contrivance used in arming in the fifteenth century, or whether they are some instrument of torture used upon the saint, Duke William of Acquitaine, it is impossible to discover, as no other instances of the kind can be found.

For full details of the equipment of the latter half of the fifteenth century we cannot do better than refer to the Hastings MS. of the fifteenth century, which has been discussed by the late Albert Way,[123] and more fully by Viscount Dillon.[124] Under the heading of “The Abilment for the Justes of Pees” we find much that is of value in this respect. On page 122_b_ of the manuscript we find the following minute directions for dressing a man for the joust, which should be compared with those given in Appendix C, page 173.

How a man schall be armyd at his ese when he schal fighte on
foote:

He schal have noo schirte up on him but a dowbelet of ffustean
lyned with satene cutte full of hoolis. the dowbelet must be
strongeli boude there the pointis muste be sette aboute the greet
[bend] of the arm. and the b ste [_sic_] before and behynde and
the gussetis of mayle muste be sowid un to the dowbelet in the
bought of the arme. and undir the arme the armynge poyntis muste
ba made of fyne twyne suche as men make stryngys for crossebowes
and they muste be trussid small and poyntid as poyntis. Also
they muste be wexid with cordeweneris coode. and than they will
neyther recche nor breke Also a payr hosyn of stamyn sengill
and a payre of shorte bulwerkis of thynne blanket to put aboute
his kneys for chawfynge of his lighernes Also a payre of shone
of thikke Cordwene and they muste be frette with smal whipcorde
thre knottis up on a corde and thre cordis muste be faste swoid
on to the hele of the shoo and fyne cordis in the mydill of the
soole of the same shoo and that ther be betwene the frettis of
the hele and the frettis of the mydill of the shoo the space of
three fvngris.

To arme a man

ffirste ye muste sette on Sabatones and tye them up on the shoo
with smale poyntes that wol breke And then griffus [greaves] &
then quisses & [=he] the breeche of mayle And [=the] tonletis
And the brest And [=he] vambras And [=he] rerebras And then
glovys And then hange his daggere upon his right side And then
his shorte swered upon the lyfte side in a rounde rynge all nakid
to pull it oute lightlie. And then putte his cote upon his back
And then his basinet pynid up on two greet staplis before the
breste with a dowbill bokill behynde up on the bak for to make
the bassinet sitte juste. And then his long swerde in his hande.
And then his pensil in his hande peyntid of seynt George or of
oure lady to blesse him with as he goeth towards the felde and in
the felde.

FIG. 55. Attachment of brassard by points (from the portrait of the Duc de Nevers, Hampton Court).]

From the above extract it will be seen that the undergarments consisted of a thick doublet lined with silk, but with no shirt underneath; the reason for this being one that we at the present day can well appreciate, for when the body is hot from exertion and exercise a shirt is apt to “ruck up,” and it would be impossible to readjust it when fully armed. In the _Paston Letters_ we have the following request from Edward IV:--

Item I praye you to send me a newe vestmente off whyght damaske
ffor a Dekyn, whyche is among myn other geer, I will make an
armyng Doublet off it.

ARMET, MIDDLE OF XVI CENT.

ARMET ENGRAVED AND GILT, END OF XVI CENT.

HELM OF SIR RICHARD PEMBRIDGE, CIRC. 1360

PARADE CASQUE, AFTER NEGROLI, MIDDLE OF XVI CENT.

SALLAD BY ONE OF THE NEGROLIS, END OF XV CENT.]

The gussets and, in the sixteenth century, the sleeves of mail protected the bend of the arm and armpit, and sometimes the bend of the knee, which were not adequately covered with plate. The two portraits of unknown noblemen by Moroni (National Gallery) show these details of the equipment very clearly (Plate XVIII). The arming-points or “tresses” were used in civilian as well as in military attire and joined the hose to the doublet, laced sleeves, and held coats together, much as laces are used in ladies’ dresses at the present day (Figs. 54-57). They are also shown tying up the hose on Fig. 52 and the brayette on Plate VIII.

Lord Dillon explains the hose of “stamyn sengill” as being a worsted cloth made in Norfolk. The “bulwerkis” were pads of blanketing fastened over the hose at the knees to prevent the chafing of the knee-cop, and the shoes were of Cordova leather fastened with laces. A complete underdress of this kind, with quilted doublet and hose with gussets of mail at the knees, is to be found in the Museum at Munich. The arming of a man began at the feet, and as far as was possible each piece put on overlapped that beneath it, to ensure that glancing surface upon the utility of which such stress has been laid in the first chapter of this book.

The arming of a man, therefore, was carried out in the following order and his equipment put on in the following order: Sollerets or sabatons, jambs, knee-cops, cuisses, skirt of mail, gorget, breast and back plates, brassards with elbow-cops, pauldrons, gauntlets, sword-belt, and helmet (Fig. 58).

The “tonlet” would appear to be a bell-shaped skirt of plate or deep taces such as is shown on Plate XXI, and is another example of the use of the “glancing surface,” especially in combats with axe and sword at barriers, for in these jousts the legs were often unarmed and were not attacked. The rerebrace, elbow-cop, and vambrace are usually joined by rivets in which there is a certain amount of play. Where this was not the case, each piece was separately strapped to the arm, as may be seen in the brasses of Sir John de Creke, 1325 (Fig. 53), and of Sir Hugh Hastings, 1347. When the three pieces, called collectively the Brassard, were joined together, they were kept in place on the arm by arming-points fastened to the “haustement” or doublet just below the shoulder. The operation of tying on the brassard is shown on the portrait now labelled the “Duc de Nevers” at Hampton Court (Fig. 55). In the list of the equipment taken by the Earl of Northumberland to France in 1513[125] we find mention of arming-pateletts of white satin quilted, for wearing under the armour, trussing-bolsters to wear round the waist to keep the weight of the cuirass from the shoulders, arming-hose, arming-doublets, arming-shoes, garters to wear under the armour, and coffers in which to keep the armour.

ENGLISH FRENCH GERMAN ITALIAN SPANISH
1. scull timbre scheitelstück coppo calva
2. visor visière visier visiera vista
3. ventail ventail schembart ventaglio ventalle
4. bevor {bavière } kinreff baviera barbote
{mentonnière }
5. crest crête kamm cresta cresteria
6. plume-holder{porte-plume } pennachiera penacho
{porte-panache}
7. nape-guard couvre-nuque nackenschirm gronda cubrenuca
8. gorget colletin kragen goletta gorjal
9. spring-pin piton à federzapfen
ressort
10. neck-guard garde-collet brechränder guarda- bufeta
goletta
11. pauldron épaulière achseln spallaccio guardabrazo
12. rerebrace arrière-bras oberarmzeug bracciali brazali
13. lance-rest faucre rüsthaken resta restra de
muelle
14. rondel or } rondelle achselhöhl- {rotellino } luneta
besague } scheibe {da bracciale}
15. breast plastron brust petto peto
16. back dossière rücken schiena dos
17. elbow-cop }
or coude } coudière armkasheln cubitiera codales
18. vambrace avant-bras unterarmzeug bracciali brazali
19. gauntlet gantelet handschuhe mittene manopla
20. taces bracconière bauchreisen panziera faldaje
21. loin-guard garde-reins gesassreifen falda ”
22. fald or } {stahlmaschen-}
skirt } brayette { unterschutz } braghetta
of mail }
23. tasset tassette beintaschen fiancale escarcela
24. upper cuishe cuissard oberdiechlinge cosciali quijotes
25. cuishe ” unterdiechlinge ” ”
26. knee-cop genouillière kniebuckel ginocchielli guarda o
rodillera
27. jamb or } jambière, beinröhen gambiera greba
greave } grève
28. solleret or} soleret schuhe scarpe escarpe
sabbaton }
29. fan-plate ailerons
]

There is no mention of the pauldron in the Hastings MS., but when this was worn it was strapped to the neck-opening of the cuirass or hung from spring-pins which project from the shoulder-plate of the cuirass.

The staples mentioned in the Hastings MS. are often very elaborate contrivances, especially in jousting-armour, and the foremost fastening was called the “charnel.” Fig. 59 shows the methods of attaching jousting-helms to the cuirass. No. 1 shows the adjustable plate which fixes the front of the helm of the suit of Philip II (Madrid, A, 16). A similar contrivance was used with the “Brocas” helm (Fig. 12). No. 2 is the front of a helm (Mus. d’Art, Paris, G, 163) in which the lower plate is bolted to the breast and can be released from the helm by withdrawing the hinge-pin. No. 3 shows the back of the same helm. Fig. 60 is a larger sketch of the fixing-hook of this helm. A is the back-plate of the helm, E the pillar hinged at D and hooked into a lug on the back of the cuirass. B is a solid block of steel of circular section pierced with holes and connected to a screw in E. B can be turned by inserting a pin in the holes and the screw tightened or loosened. Minute details as to the fastenings of the helm will be found in Appendix D, page 178.

It can therefore be easily imagined that the work of arming a man was a serious business, and it was necessary that the armourer or an expert assistant should be present in case some portion of the suit or its fastenings gave way.

Details of the different parts that went to make up the complete suit, with the thickness of each plate, the laces or points, and various fastenings and methods of attachment, will be found in the fifteenth-century Treatise on Military Costume of which a portion is given in Appendix D.

The Marquis de Belleval published an interesting monograph on this manuscript in 1866, which is now scarce and difficult to obtain.

In the illustration on Plate XVII the squires are shown arming their masters from horseback, which appears to involve some gymnastic exercises.

That such agility of the armed man was by no means an artistic licence we may gather from the fact that Froissart[126] mentions Sir John Assueton leaping fully armed behind his page on to his war-horse. Again, Shakespeare makes Henry V (Act V, Sc. 2) say, “If I could win a lady at leapfrog or by vaulting into my saddle with my armour on my back,” and Oliver de la Marche states that Galliot de Balthasin in 1446 leaped fully armed out of the saddle as though he had on a pourpoint only. That this was no mere figure of speech we may judge from a little book entitled _The Vaulting Master_, written by W. Stokes, an Oxford riding-master, in 1641.

ARMOUR OF THE MIDDLE XV CENT.

ARMOUR OF FRIEDRICH DES SIEGREICHEN, BY TOMASO DA MISSAGLIA, 1460]

In the preface he writes: “In war the nimble avoydance of a man’s horse if wounded or killed under him, and in like manner the ready ascent into his enemies saddle if it be his hap to unhorse him, and much more which the experienced souldier shall find.”

There is an engraving on Plate I of the work showing a cuirassier in half-armour about to vault into the saddle without stirrups. Stokes occasionally breaks out into verse as follows:--

Here’s that will make a stubborne armour weare
Gentle as Persian silks and light as air,

which refers to the ease of mounting which his prescribed exercises ensured.

On the subject of the wearing of armour we have much valuable information from the works of the great military reformer of the sixteenth century, Sir John Smith, who, as has been stated previously, suffered imprisonment for his opinions. In his _Instructions and Observations and Orders Militarie_, 1591-5, he writes:--

Page 183. “No man can be conveniently armed unlesse he be first
fitly apparelled.” He states that at Tilbury he saw “but very few
of that army that had any convenience of apparel and chieflie of
doublets to arme upon, whereof it came to passe that the most of
them did weare their armors verie uncomelie and uneasilie.... But
because the collars of their armours doe beare the chief waight
of all the rest of the armour, I would wish that the souldiers
... should have under Collars of Fustian convenientlie bombasted
to defende the heveth weight, and poise of their armours from the
paining or hurting of their shouldiers.”

On page 193 he writes: “Also I would have them to have pouldrons
of a good compasse and size, and vambraces both joined together,
and not asunder, because that the poise of the pouldrons and
vambraces, hanging upon the pinnes and springes of their collars,
they doe not weigh so much, nor are not so wearisome as when they
are separated; and that they weare their vambraces tied with
points to their doublets under their pouldrons.” Here the author,
who was pre-eminently a practical soldier, saw the discomfort
and inconvenience caused by the drag of the arming-point on the
sleeve and wisely considered that the whole arm-defence should
hang from a pin or strap from the gorget or cuirass, so that the
weight might be on the shoulders and not on the arms.

The armour for the joust in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was far too heavy to allow of such vagaries. Pluvinel in his _Maneige Royale_, 1625, gives an imaginary conversation between himself and the King which bears upon the subject:--

The King.

It seems to me that such a man would have difficulty in getting
on his horse and being on to help himself.

Pluvinel.

It would be very difficult, but with this armament the case has
been provided for. In this way, at triumphs and tourneys where
lances are broken, there must be at the two ends of the lists a
small scaffold the height of the stirrup, on which two or three
persons can stand; that is to say, the rider, an armourer to
arm him, and one other to help him, as it is necessary in these
dangerous encounters that an armourer should always be at hand
and that all should be ready. Then the rider being armed, and the
horse brought near to the stand, he easily mounts him ... for
this reason the horses must be steady.

A little pen-drawing of the sixteenth century in a manuscript dealing with jousts (Heralds’ Coll., M, 6, 56) shows the armourer on one of these scaffolds at the end of the lists (Fig. 61).

In the chapter on the Proving of Armour the question of disuse on account of weight was considered. From the sixteenth century and even earlier we have records of the discarding of armour because it hampered the wearer or for some equally cogent reason. The following extracts bear upon the subject:--

1383. _Chroniques de Dugesclin_, line 5973 (edit. 1839).

Leurs cuissieres osterent tres tous communement
Par coi aler peussent trop plus legierement.

This refers to the action of Sir Hugh Calverly at the battle of Mont Auray, who ordered his men to take off their cuisses in order to move more easily.

1590. _Discourses_, p. 4, Sir John Smith.

But that which is more strange, these our such new fantasied men
of warre doe despise and scorne our auncient arming of ourselves
both on horseback and on foote saying that wee armed ourselves in
times past with too much armour, or peces of yron as they terme
it. And therefore their footmen piquers they doo allow for verie
well armed when they weare their burganets, their collars, their
cuirasses, and their backs, without either pouldrons, vambraces,
gauntlets or tasses.

Sir John Smith goes on to say that it was the discarding of his cuisses that cost Sir Philip Sidney his life, for he received a wound from a spent bullet which his armour might have deflected.

1619. _The Art of Warre_, Edward Davies.

[the arquebusiers were loaded] with a heavie shirt of male and a
burganet, by the time they have marched in the heat of summer or
deepe of winter ten or twelve English miles they are more apt to
rest than readie to fight.

1625. _Souldiers’ Accidence_, Markham.

As for the pouldron or the vant-brace they must be spared because
they are but cumbersome.

Against these extracts we must place the opinions of military leaders who deplored the disuse of armour:--

1632. _Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie_, Cruso.

Captain Bingham in his Low Countrie exercise appointeth him [the
harquebusier] a cuirass pistoll proofe which condemneth the late
practice of our trained Harquebusiers to be erroneous which have
wholly left off their arms and think themselves safe enough in a
calf’s skin coat.

1756. _Rêveries_, Marshal Maurice of Saxe, p. 56.

Je ne sais pourquoi on a quitte les Armures, car rien n’est si
beau ni si avantageux. L’on dira peut-etre que c’est l’usage de
la poudre qui les a abolis; mais point du tout car du tems de
Henri IV. et depuis jusq’en l’annee 1667 on en a porter, et il y
avoit deja bien longtems que la poudre etoit en usage: mais vous
verrez que c’est la chere commodite qui les a fait quitter.

Marshal Saxe further suggests that the large proportion of wounds are received from sword, lance, or spent bullet, and that all these might be guarded against by wearing armour or a buff coat of his own invention which when reinforced with steel plates weighed 30 lb.

THE WEIGHT OF ARMOUR

We have but few records in contemporary documents of the actual weight of the different parts of the suit of armour, but we can obtain these from examples of the sixteenth century onwards from specimens in the different museums and collections.

That armour had become burdensome in the extreme owing to the necessity of subjecting it to pistol and musket proof we know from various writers on the subject.

La Noue in his _Discours Politiques et Militaires_, translated by “E. A.” 1587, writes on page 185: “For where they had some reason in respect of the violence of harquebuzes and dagges [muskets and pistols] to make their armor thicker and of better proofe than before, they have now so farre exceeded, that most of th[=e] have laden themselves with stithies [anvils] in view of clothing their bodies with armour ... neither was their armour so heavie but that they might wel bear it 24 hours, where those that are now worne are so waightie that the peiz [weight] of them will benumme a Gentleman’s shoulders of 35 yeres of age.”

PORTRAIT MEDAL OF COLOMAN, COLMAN, 1470-1532

DESIGNS FOR ARMOUR BY ALBERT DURER, 1517]

On page 196 of Sir John Smith’s _Instructions, Observations, and Orders Militarie_, the author strongly objects to the discarding of the arm and leg defences which was advised by other authorities. He insists that these limbs are as important as the “breste, belly, and backe,” and should be adequately protected. His opinions are also held by Marshal Maurice of Saxe in his _Rêveries_, quoted above.

Edward Ludlow, at the battle of Edgehill, 1642,[127] was dismounted in getting through a hedge, and says: “I could not without great difficulty recover on horse-back again being loaded with cuirassiers arms as the rest of the guard were also.”

It would be superfluous to mention the different occasions on which unhorsed knights were captured or killed through their inability to remount in battle. Froissart in describing the battle of Poitiers says that when once dismounted men could not get up again, and other historians bear equal witness of the disadvantage of armour when unmounted; and the Sieur de Gaya, who has been so often referred to in these pages, writing in 1678, says in his _Traité des Armes_, page 60: “Ils n’avoient trop de tort à mon avis d’équiper ainsi leurs chevaux parce qu’un Cavalier armé n’est plus propre à rien quand il est démonté.”

Although this may be taken as a reason put forward by the writer for more armour for man and horse, it shows at the same time that the fully armed man was considered to be comparatively useless when unhorsed, as the Spanish proverb ran: “Muerto el Cavallo, perdido el hombre d’armas.”

It may be somewhat of a surprise to learn that the present-day equipment is but little lighter than that of the fifteenth century. The Under Secretary for War, speaking in the House of Commons on November 28th, 1911, stated that the infantry soldier marched on an average thirty miles a day during the manœuvres, carrying 59 lb. 11 oz. of equipment and kit. Against this we may place the weight of some suits of foot-soldiers’ armour of the sixteenth century, which weigh with the helmet at the outside 25 lb.; leaving therefore a wide margin for underclothes and weapons. And this comparison of weight carried is even more interesting when considering the cavalry equipment, as will be seen from the annexed table on the opposite page.

Of course all these figures represent “dead weight”; and here we are brought back to one of those fundamental rules of good craftsmanship--the recognition of “Convenience in Use.”

Even in the Golden Age of armour, the fifteenth century, the armourer was hampered by material and by methods of construction which even the most expert craftsman could not overcome; but when we reach the period of decadence in the seventeenth century, the excellence of craftsmanship had deteriorated to an alarming extent and these difficulties were still greater. The secret therefore of the weight-carrying powers of man and horse at the present day is greater convenience in carrying, the scientific distribution of weight, and a more adaptable material, which when taken together give greater freedom and greater mobility, even though the actual weight be the same as the equipment of steel.

The following table gives the weights of typical suits from the fifteenth century onwards:--

ARMOUR FOR THE JOUST

XV-XVI.--HELMS (ENGLISH). lb. oz.

Barendyne, Great Haseley, Oxon 13 8
Wallace Collection, No. 78 17 0
Westminster Abbey 17 12
Brocas, Rotunda, Woolwich 17 12
Dawtrey, Petworth, Sussex 21 8
Captain Lindsay, Sutton Courtenay, Berks 24 14
1518. Madrid, A, 37 41 9

SUITS.
1520. Tower, II, 28, for fighting on foot 93 0
1530 (_circ._). Madrid, A, 26 { man 79 0
{ horse 79 0
1590. Tower, II, 9, man 103 0

WAR HARNESS

1439. Musée d’Artillerie, Paris, G, 1, man and horse 163 0
1514. Tower, II, 5 { man 64 13
{ horse 69 3
1588. Musée d’Artillerie, G, 80, man 92 6
1590. Tower, II, 10 79 0
1590. Tower, II, 12 55 8
1612. Tower, II, 18 77 14

CAVALRY

1450 1875 1909
+--------------------------------------+---------+---------+----------+
|G, 1, Musée d’Artillerie, Paris. | | | |
| _Man, about 140 lb._ } | | | |
| _Armour for man and horse, } | | | |
| 163 lb._[128] } | 333 lb. | | |
| _Arms, clothes, saddlery, etc., } | | | |
| about 30 lb._ } | | | |
+======================================+ | | |
|British Household Cavalry | | 308 lb. |} |
| ” Heavy ” | | 280 lb. |} |
| ” Medium ” | | 266 lb. |} 246 lb. |
| ” Light ” | | 259 lb. |} [130] |
| | | [129] | |
|German Cuirassier | | | 334 lb. |
| _All the above are Service equipment,| | | |
| including rider and saddlery._ | | | |
+--------------------------------------+---------+---------+----------+

INFANTRY

1550 1875 1911
+----------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------------+
|106-8, Rotunda, Woolwich, Maltese Suits.| | | |
| _Half-armour and helmet, 25 lb._ } | | | |
| _Clothes and arms, about 15 lb._ } | 40 lb.| | |
+========================================+ | | |
|British Infantry. | | | |
| _Service equipment, including arms_ | | 52 lb.|59 lb. 11 oz.|
| | | [129]| [131] |
+----------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------------+

FOOTNOTES:

[120] _Arch. Journ._, LX.

[121] _Archives de Bruxelles_, Cat. Mus. Porte de Hal, 1885.

[122] _Jahrbuch des Kunsthist. Sammlungen_, II, 1032.

[123] _Arch. Journ._, IV.

[124] _Archæologia_, LVII.

[125] _Antiquarian Repertory_, IV.

[126] Johnes’ edition, I, 449.

[127] _Ludlow’s Memoirs_, Firth, I, 44.

[128] Catalogue of the Museum.

[129] Sir G. P. Colley, K.S.I., _Encyc. Brit._, 1875.

[130] Col. F. N. Maude, _Encyc. Brit._, 1910.

[131] _Morning Post_, December 9, 1911.

THE ARMOURERS’ COMPANY OF THE CITY OF LONDON, ARMOURERS’ HALL, COLEMAN STREET, E.C.

At the present day this Company is combined with that of the Braziers, but this combination only dates from the beginning of the eighteenth century, when it had ceased to deal with the making of armour and was more concerned with other branches of the craft of the metal-worker. The objects of the craft-gild of the armourers were the same as all those of like nature in the Middle Ages. Members were protected from outside piracy of methods and trade-marks, they were cared for in body when ill or incapable of working, and in soul by masses and religious exercises.

An important detail in the organization of these craft-gilds and one sadly lacking in modern trade combinations was the examination and approval of the members’ work by the gild-masters. In this way was the craftsman encouraged to produce good work, and also the purchaser was protected against inferior workmanship. A reference to the Appendices B, K will exemplify this, for in these two instances alone we find that careless work is condemned by the Company. In the document of the reign of Edward II it is noted that “old bascute broken and false now newly covered by men that nothing understood of ye mystery wh. be put in pryvie places and borne out into ye contrye out of ye said Citye to sell and in ye same citie of wh. men may not gaine knowledge whether they be good or ill of ye wh. thinge greate yill might fall to ye king and his people.”

Again, under Charles I, in the appeal of the Company to the Crown, leave to use the mark is requested “because divers cutlers, smythes, tynkers & other botchers of arms by their unskillfulness have utterly spoiled many armes, armours, &c.”

The Company seems to have existed during the reign of Edward II, but was not then incorporated, and with the exception of the document transcribed in Appendix A, there is but little evidence of their existence before the date of 31st Henry VI, in which year a Charter of Incorporation was granted. This deals mostly with questions relating to religious observances, the gild-chapel and like matters. A report to the Court of Aldermen, dated 20th Eliz. (1578), as to right of search for armour, etc., states that “the Armourers did shewe us that in Kinge Edward the Second his time, the Lord Maior and his bretheren did then graunte the serche unto the Armourers.”

As has been noticed before, the fact that armour plates were expensive and difficult to forge will account for the scarcity of examples of the defensive equipment up to the sixteenth century. Either the suit was remade or, having been cast aside, it was utilized by the common soldier as well as might be. It was only when the age of the firearm was reached that armour was left in its perfect state and was not improved upon. We have therefore but little to show whether the English armourers of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were more or less expert than their foreign rivals, but, from other examples of metal-work that remain to us, we are forced to the conclusion that the foreigner was our superior. At the same time we find on more than one occasion that the English armourer claims to equal his foreign rival; but whether these claims were ever proved we are unable to decide without actual examples of the craft work or documentary evidence. In Appendix J is printed an appeal from Capt. John Martin in 1624 for leave to import German “platers” to teach English armourers, with the hope that this will establish a home trade and will stop the import of foreign work. At the same time the very fact of this request shows that the craft in England in the reign of James I was not in a very flourishing condition. On the other hand, in 1590 the Armourers of London petitioned Queen Elizabeth to purchase only home products, because they can furnish her with “farre better armors than that wch cometh from beyond the seas.”

In the year 1580 the Armourers’ Company endeavoured to obtain an Act of Parliament to protect and encourage the craft of the Armourer, but with no result owing to the opposition of other Companies. In the minutes of the Company detailing this effort occurs the following passage, which is of interest as bearing upon the skill of English workmen at that date: “It was the Master’s chance to speak with Sir Walter’s[132] honor again, Dr. Doull, one of the Masters of Requests, being with him, praying him to have the Armourers’ Bill in remembrance. ‘What,’ said Mr. Doctor, ‘there is none of your Company that can make an armor.’ ‘Yes, sir,’ said the Master, ‘that there is verily good workmen, and skilful as needeth to be.’ ‘Tell me not that,’ saith he, ‘for I will hould you a hundred pounds that there is none in England that can “trampe” an armor for “the Cappe to the Soul of the foot.”’ ‘I will lay with your worship afore Sir Walter’s honor if you will give me leave that we have in England that shall work with any in the world from the toe to the crown of the head from 100 to 1000’; and then he made as though he would have laid it. ‘No,’ saith Sir Walter, ‘ye shall not lay, for he will win of you, for they have very good workmen, and I know of the workmanship myself.’”

This skill in craftsmanship was doubtless attained under the tutelage of the Almaine armourers that have been referred to before who were brought over by Henry VIII to Greenwich. As an example of this we may notice the work of Pickering,[133] to whom is attributed the suit made for Henry, Prince of Wales, now at Windsor Castle, which bears a strong resemblance to the work of Jacob Topf, who was Master Armourer at Greenwich in 1590 (Fig. 63).

In 1595 a Court of the Armourers’ Company was held to examine targets and other pieces of armour, and the decision arrived at was that it was “not of the proportion that cometh from beyond the seas, the Breast and Back Plates were too short and too narrow everywhere.” Again in the year 1620 at a Court it was certified that a Sussex smith “did alter old Armour, persuading the Countrey that they were workmanly done, which notwithstanding were utterly unserviceable.” This matter was reported to the Justices at Guildford to be dealt with by them. From these entries it will be seen that the control of the Company was very real and that in the main the English craftsman was of not much account until he had learned his trade from foreign experts.

It was doubtless due to the instruction given by the foreigner that the Company possessed skilled hammermen. Under Elizabeth in 1560 these hammermen were employed to assist in the process of coin-striking and were sent, two to the Clothworkers’ Hall, two to the Sessions Hall, Southwark, and two to the Merchant Taylors’ Hall, to strike and stamp “with portcullis and greyhound the several pieces of money called ‘Testons,’ there to continue until the end of fourteen days from the date of precept.”[134]

Many of the foreign immigrants took out letters of naturalization and became members of the Company, but none of these seem to have been craftsmen of note, for the expert workmen were generally recalled to the German Court after some time, where there was a wider scope and, possibly, higher remuneration for their services.

The Company, like other Corporations, suffered severely during the Reformation. Religious observances were so much a part of the gild life that the members soon fell under suspicion, as practising superstitious rites. Heavy fines were enacted, and it was only by the generosity of John Richmond, a member of the Company, who bought part of the corporate property of the Farringdon estate for £120 and left it back to the Company in his will, that the fine was paid.

Informers, of whom Tipper and Dawe were the chief, levied blackmail on the Company up to the end of the reign of Elizabeth, and continued to suggest that superstitious practices were indulged in till their demands were met at heavy expense.

The Armourers had, in 1515, absorbed the whole craft of the Blade-smiths, which seems to have caused much friction with the Cutlers. The books of the Company are full of appeals and negotiations before the Court of Aldermen on the question of search for unlicensed craftsmen and faulty goods, which was one of the important duties of the Company. These were finally arranged by a joint search being made by the two Companies. The Company was from the beginning dedicated to S. George, who was the patron of armourers all over Europe. His statue by Donatello, formerly outside the gild-church of Or San Michele in Florence, is well known. The figure of S. George appears on the charter granted by Henry VI in 1453, and also upon the matrix of a seal of about the same date. The registered mark of the Company was “A,” surmounted by a crown, and this was ordered to be stamped upon all weapons, armours, and guns supplied by the Company when tested and approved.

There are many interesting details dealing with the apprentices of the Company which, although they do not bear directly upon the craft of the armourer, are nevertheless worth recording as typical of the craft laws and regulations as practised in England.

In most craft-gilds it was considered sufficient for an apprentice to serve for seven years before he was free of the gild; but in the Armourers’ Company we frequently find entries of apprentice bonds for nine years, and in some instances ten and fourteen. There are records of misbehaviour of one of the apprentices, who is ordered “honest correction as that a Servant shall be used.” This correction was sometimes administered in the Hall before the Gild-Court, and is described as being “indifferently well” carried out. The case of the Sussex smith who produced unworkmanly armour has been referred to above. In a letter from the Lord Mayor in 1560 we read that the apprentices are not to use “swearing and blaspheming, haunting evil women or Schools of Fence, Dancing, Carding, Dicing, Bowling, Tennis play, using of Ruffs in their shirts, Tavern haunting or Banqueting, and if any shall be found faulty the same be forwith punished by whipping openly in your Hall in the sight of other Apprentices, and ye shall give in charge that the said Masters shall not permit nor suffer any of their Apprentices to wear in their hosen any cloth of other colours than are here expressed, that is to say, White, Russet, Blue, Watchet, and the said Hosen to be made without great Breeches in most plain manner without stitching of Silk or any mannar of Cuts.”

The most valuable of the possessions of the Armourers’ Company from the technical point of view is the suit of armour made by Jacobe, who is now considered to be the same as Jacob Topf, an Innsbruck craftsman who was Master Armourer at Greenwich in 1590. The design for this suit appears in the _Almain Armourer’s Album_, which is noticed under the heading of German Armourers. There is also a “locking-gauntlet,” which is sometimes erroneously called the “forbidden gauntlet,” by the same craftsman (Fig. 32).

The Company at one time possessed a model suit of armour made in 1567 by John Kelk, a naturalized German member, which, when completed, was brought into the Hall with much ceremony and laid upon the high table. It was intended to be a pattern of the armour made by the Company. There are various entries in the Company’s Records of payments for repairing and keeping up this “Mannakine,” as it was called. It has since disappeared; but Hewitt, the noted authority on medieval armour, seemed to think that it was in the Tower in 1855 (II, 52).

FOOTNOTES:

[132] Sir Walter Mildmay, Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[133] William Pickering was Master of the Company 1608-9.

[134] In September, 1575, “Hopkins, a maker of coining irons in the Mint, has also been making calivers and great iron pieces.”--State Papers, _sub ann._

LISTS OF EUROPEAN ARMOURERS

The following short notices give what details are known of some of the more important armourers. In many instances they are only known by their works, and no details are forthcoming about their private or professional lives. The dates given are those of the earliest and latest mention of the individual in contemporary chronicles.

ENGLAND

(K.A., Q.A. = KING’S OR QUEEN’S ARMOURER)

Albert, Hans. 1515.

Ashton, John. 1633. K.A. and Armourers’ Co.

Aynesley, Edward. 1633. K.A. and Armourers’ Co.

Baker, Thomas.[135] 1547. Armourers’ Co.

Basyn, John. 1524-44. (Naturalized Norman.)

Bawdesonne, Alen. 1547. King’s Armourer, Westminster.

Blewbery, John. 1511-16. (Yeoman of the Armoury at Greenwich, 1515.)

Boreman, W., also called Alias Hynde. 1599-1609. (Appointed
armourer at Greenwich, 1599. Will dated 1645.)

Brande, Rauffe.[136] 1520.

Baltesar Bullato. 1532. Milanese, King’s Armourer.

Carter, William. 1534. Ludlow.

Clere, Hans. 1530. K.A., Greenwich.

Clynkerdager, Hans. 1542-4. K.A., Greenwich.

Clynkerdager, John. 1525.

Copeland. 1529. London.

Cooper, John. 1627-9. Keeper of the King’s Brigandines.

Cowper, Thomas. 1559. K.A., Greenwich.

Coxe, Wm. 1633. K.A. and Armourers’ Co.

Croche, Francis. 1528-9. K.A., Greenwich.

Crochet, John. 1515-20. K.A., Greenwich.

Crompton, John. 1544. Southwark.

Crouche, Wm. 1633. K.A. and Armourers’ Co.

Cutler, Richard.[137] 1520.

Dael, Thomas. 1515. K.A., Greenwich.

Daniele, Edmond.[138] 1547.

Daniele, John.[138] 1547.

Darwin, William. 1613. Yeoman of the Armoury at Greenwich.

Dawson. 1515. K.A., Greenwich.

Dedikes, Dirike. 1530. Yeoman of the Armoury at Greenwich.

Dericke or Diricke, Mathew. 1559-74. K.A., Greenwich.

Dericke or Diricke, Robert. 1524.

Diconson, John. 1528. K.A., Greenwich.

Faulkenor, Roger.[139] 1625-31.

Fevers, Peter. 1512-18. K.A., Greenwich.

Foster, Rowland. 1633. K.A. and Armourers’ Co.

Franklin, John. 1633. K.A. and Armourers’ Co.

Fuller, James. 1559. Yeoman of the Armoury, Greenwich.

Garret, John. 1559-1601 (date of will). Q.A., Greenwich.

Gurre, Wm. 1511-38. Brigandarius.

Halder, Jacob. 1574. Q.A., Greenwich.

Halore (?), Jacob. 1559. Q.A., Greenwich. (Possibly the same as
Halder.)

Harford, Richard. 1590. London.

Herste, Martyn. 1574. Q.A., Greenwich.

Hill, Johan. 1434. Armourer to Henry VI. See page 173.

Horne, Geofrey. 1516-18.

Hotton, Richard. 1592.

Hunter, Hans.[138] 1547. Westminster.

Jacobi or Jacobe.[140] 1530-90. Master Armourer, Greenwich.

Kelte, John. 1559-74. Q.A., Greenwich.

Kemp, Jasper. 1544. K.A., Greenwich.

Keymer, Roger. 1571. Q.A., Greenwich.

Kirke, John. 1577. Master Armourer at Greenwich.

Kirkener, Erasmus or Asamus. 1519-93. Brigandarius, 1538; Chief
Armourer, 1544.

Kornelys. 1515. K.A., Greenwich.

Lasy, John. 1533. Nottingham.

Lincoln, Thomas. 1604-8. Yeoman of the Armoury at Greenwich.

Mare de la, Will. K.A., 1672.

Marshall, Nicholas. 1533. K.A. and Armourers’ Co.

Martyn, “Old.” 1544. K.A., Greenwich.

Mightner, Hans. 1559-74. Q.A., Greenwich.

Oliver, Jermyn. 1514-44. (Naturalized Norman.)

Pellande, Richard. 1520.

Pellysonne, Frances. 1524-44. (Naturalized “from the domains of
the Emperor.”)

Pickering, William. 1591-1630. Master Armourer at Greenwich, 1604-14.

Pipe, Nighel. 1559. Q.A., Greenwich.

Pitwell, Giles. 1516-44. (Naturalized Gascon.)

Polston, John. 1552. K.A., Greenwich.

Pounde, John de. 1520.

Poyes, Francis. 1525-44. (Naturalized Norman.)

Purday, John. 1562.

Sewell, John. 1590-1.

Sherman, Nicolas. 1629. Chief Armourer at Greenwich.

Spirarde, Carries or Tarys. 1574. Q.A., Greenwich.

Spyltherup or Speldrup, Francis.[141] 1532.

Stephens, Thos. 1626. K.A. and Armourers’ Co.

Stile, John.[142] 1524. K.A., Greenwich.

Stone, Benjamin. 1636. Sword-smith, Hounslow.

Ureland, Peter van. 1515. Gilder and Graver, Greenwich.

Watt Copyn Jacob de. 1512-26. K.A., Greenwich.

Whetstone. 1628.

White, Thomas. 1416. Master Armourer.

Wolf, John. 1538-42. K.A., Greenwich.

Wollwarde, Thomas. 1530-41. K.A., Greenwich.

Woode, Richard. 1590. London.

GERMAN ARMOURERS

Aldegraver, Heinrich. 1502-58.

Brabenter, Wilhelm, Solingen. Sixteenth century.

Colman, Coloman. 1470-1532. Augsburg. Mark No. 40. See page 133.

Colman (Helmschmied), Desiderius. 1552. Mark No. 40. See page 134.

Colman (Helmschmied), Lorenz. 1490-1516. Mark Nos. 2, 23, 41. See
page 133.

Frauenpreis, Matthaias. 1549. Mark No. 38. See page 135.

Frauenpreis, Matthaias, the younger. See page 135.

Grofsschedl, Franz. Landshut. 1568. Mark No. 39.

Grünewalt, Hans. Nuremberg. 1503. Mark No. 54. See page 135.

Hopfer, Daniel. 1566. See page 136.

Jövingk, Jakob. Dresden. 1650-9.

Knopf, Heinrich. 1604.

Lochner, Conrad. Nuremberg. 1567. Mark No. 46. See page 136.

Obresch, Heinrich. Grätz. 1590. Mark No. 47.

Peffenhauser, Anton. Augsburg. 1566-94. Mark No. 48.

Ringler, Hans. Nuremberg. 1560. Mark No. 49.

Rockenberger or Rosenberger, Hans. 1543-70. Dresden.

Rockenburger, Sigmund. 1554-72. Mark No. 79.

Rotschmied. Nuremberg. 1597. Mark No. 6.

Seusenhofer, Conrad. Innsbruck. 1502-18. Mark No. 7. See page 141.

Seusenhofer, Jorg. Innsbruck. 1558. Mark No. 8. See page 141.

Seusenhofer, Wilhelm. Augsburg. 1547.

Siebenburger, Valentine. Nuremberg. 1547. Mark Nos. 20, 74.

Sigman, George. 1560. Mark No. 76.

Speyer, Peter. Dresden. 1560. Mark No. 60.

Speyer, Wolf. Dresden. 1580.

Topf, Jacob. Innsbruck. 1530-90. See page 143.

Treytz, Adrian. Innsbruck. 1469-1517. Mark No. 15.

Veit. Nuremberg. Sixteenth century. Mark No. 16.

Wolf, Sigismond. Landshut. 1554.

Worms, Wilhelm (father and son). Nuremberg. 1539. Mark No. 17.

FRANCE

Petit, M. Seventeenth century. Mark No. 83.

NETHERLANDS

Merate, Gabriel and Francesco. Arbois. 1495. Mark Nos. 18, 51, 53.
See page 136.

Voys, Jacques. Brussels. Fifteenth to sixteenth century. Mark No. 56.

ITALY

Campi, Bartolomeo. Milan. 1573. See page 132.

Camelio, Victor. Brescia. 1500. See page 131.

Cantoni, Bernardino. Milan. 1500. See page 133.

Chiesa, Pompeo della. Milan. 1590.