Chapter III: A Contrast. Armour of Count Sigismond of Tirol, (4)

This engraving of armour, either by the burin or by etching with 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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

... l’abillement de jacques leur soit bien proufitable et
avantageux pour faire la guerre, veu qui sont gens de pié, et que
en ayant les brigandines il leur faut porter beaucoup de choses
que en homme seul et à pied ne peut faire. Et premièrement leur
faut des dits jacques trente toilles, ou de vingt-cinq, à un
cuir de cerf a tout le moins: et si sont de trente-un cuirs de
cerf ils sont des bons. Les toiles usées et déliées moyennement
sont les meilleures; et doivent estre les jacques a quartre
quartiers, et faut que manches soient fortes comme le corps,
réservé le cuir. Et doit estre l’assiette pregne pres du collet,
non pas sur l’os de l’épaule, qui soit large dessoulz l’assielle
et plantureux dessoulz les bras, assez faulce et large sur les
costez bas, le collet fort comme le demourant des jacques; et que
le collet ne soit bas trop hault derrière pour l’amour de salade.
Il faut que ledit jacque soit lasse devant et qu’il ait dessoulz
une porte pièce de la force dudit jacque. Ainsi sera seur ledit
jacques et aise moienant qu’il ait un pourpoint sans manches ne
collet, de deux toiles seulement, qui naura que quatre doys de
large seur lespaulle; auquel pourpoint il attachera ses chausses.
Ainsi flottera dedens son jacques et sera à son aise. Car il ne
vit oncques tuer de coups-de-main, ne de flêches dedens lesdits
jacques ses hommes.

These very minute regulations show that the “jack” was considered a most serviceable defence in the fifteenth century. At the same time it must have been a hot and uncomfortable garment, for twenty-nine or thirty thicknesses of linen with a deerskin on the top, or worse still thirty-one thicknesses of deerskin, would make a thick, unventilated defence which would be almost as insupportable as plate armour. The last item may be a clerical error, and indeed from the context it would appear to be thirty thicknesses of linen with one of deerskin, for the leather would be far more costly to work up than the linen. The extract has been given in full because it is so rare to come across practical details of construction of this nature.

1470. _Harl. MS. 4780. Inventory of Edward IV._

Item a doublet of crimson velvet lined with Hollande cloth and
interlined with busk.

This may be only an ordinary doublet, or it may be some kind of “coat of fence” or “privy coat” lined with plates of steel, horn, or whale-bone. These “busks” of steel are found as late as the seventeenth century, for Gustavus Adolphus had a coat lined with them (Lifrustkammer, Stockholm) and Bradshaw’s hat (Ashmolean Mus., Oxford) is strengthened with steel strips. (Fig. 50.)

1450 (_circ._). _Traité d’un Tournoi_, King René.

... que ledit harnoys soit si large et si ample que on puisse
vestir et mettre dessoulz ung porpoint ou courset; et fault que
le porpoint soit faultre de trys dois d’espez sur les espaules,
et au long des bras jusques au col.

* * * * *

En Brabant, Flandre et Haynault et en ce pays-la vers les
Almaignes, ont acoustome d’eulx armer de la personne autrement au
tournoy: car ils prennent ung demy porpoint de deux toilles ...
de quatre dois d’espez et remplis de couton.

It would seem from the above that in France the garment worn under the tourney-armour was folded till it was three fingers thick on the shoulders. In the Low Countries, however, the pourpoint was of a different fashion, for there they made the garment of two thicknesses and stuffed this with cotton-waste to the thickness of four fingers. The difference of thickness can be accounted for by the fact that folded linen would not compress so much as cotton-waste. It should be noted in the extract from the Ordinances of Louis XI that old material is advised as being more pliable and softer. At the same time we may be sure that it was carefully chosen. It is interesting to note that in 1322 the material is ordered to be new, but in 1450 old linen is recommended.

GAUNTLETS AND GORGET

1. BRIDLE GAUNTLET.
2. RIGHT HAND GAUNTLET BY JACOB TOPF, PART OF THE “LEICESTER” SUIT.
3. BRIDLE GAUNTLET OF JAMES I.
4. XV CENT. GAUNTLET WITH “GADLINGS” ON THE KNUCKLES.
5. LOCKING GAUNTLET, XVI CENT.
6. BRIDLE GAUNTLET, XVI CENT.
7. PARADE GAUNTLET BY HEINRICK KNOPF, 1590.
8. GAUNTLET FOR FIGHTING AT BARRIERS, XVI CENT.
9. GORGET BY JACOP JORINGK, 1669.]

Besides the making of undergarments or complete defences of linen overgarments, pourpoints, the Linen Armourers, as we find them called in the City of London Records, made linings for helmets. This was a most important detail in the equipment of a man, for the helm or helmet was worse than useless if it did not fit securely and if the head was not adequately padded to take off the shock of the blow. In the Sloane MS. 6400, we find among the retinue of Henry V at Agincourt, “Nicholas Brampton, a stuffer of bacynets,” and in the Oxford City Records under the date 1369 are the entries “Bacynet 13/4, stuffing for ditto 3/4.” In the Hastings MS. (_Archæologia_, LVII), among the items given as the “Abilment for the Justus of the Pees,” the first on the list is “a helme well stuffyd.” This stuffing consisted of a thickly padded cap or lining tied to the head-piece with strings, which are clearly shown in the well-known engraving of Albert Dürer, of a man and a woman supporting a shield on which is a skull (Fig. 42, 2). There are some of these caps in the Waffensammlung, Vienna, which have been noticed in Vol. II of the _Zeitschrift für Historische Waffenkunde_.

1. Padded “harnisch-kappe,” Vienna.
2. Helm showing attachment of cap and lining (after Dürer).]

The original lining of Sir Henry Lee’s helmet (Plate XIII) is still _in situ_; this, however, is riveted to the helmet and follows the shape of the head. In this respect it is different from the helmet-cap, which was padded. A padded cap was worn independently of the lining of the helmet. These are shown on Figs. 43, 44. Similar caps are shown on the following works of Dürer: S. George on foot, S. George (Stephan Baumgartner) and Felix Hungersbourg.

FIG. 44. Helmet-cap (from a sixteenth-century engraving of Iacob Fugger).]

1586. _Chronicles_, Raphael Holinshed (edit. 1807, II, xvi, 333).

Our armour differeth not from that of other nations, and
therefore consisteth of corselets, almaine riuets, shirts of
maile, iackes quilted and couered ouer with leather, fustian,
or canuas, ouer thicke plates of iron that are sowed in the
same, & of which there is no towne or village that hath not hir
conuenient furniture.

These defences are of the same nature as the jack shown on Figs. 24, 25. The brigandine was more elaborate and costly, for it was composed of small plates riveted to the foundation and covering of fabric and was therefore the work of a skilled artificer. The jack, on the other hand, was more easily put together and could be done by the wearer himself or by his wife. An interesting example of one of these village armouries mentioned above is to be found at Mendlesham Church, Suffolk, in the strong-room of which are portions of suits and half-suits dating from the late fifteenth to the middle of the seventeenth century. The church also preserves the records of the upkeep of the equipment, one of the last entries being in 1613, a payment of 1s. 4d. to an armourer for “varnishinge the town head-piece and the corslitt and for setting on leathers and rivettes.”

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

Archers should weare either Ilet holed doublets that will resist
the thrust of a sword or a dagger and covered with some trim and
gallant kinde of coloured cloth to the liking of the Captain ...
or else Iackes of maile quilted upon fustian.

From the nature of their composition these “eyelet doublets” are rarely to be met with. They were made of twine or thread knitted all over in eyelets or button-holes. The appearance is much the same as modern “tatting” and macramé work. The best-known examples are in the Musée Porte de Hal, Brussels (II, 81), in the Cluny Museum, and in the Musée d’Artillerie, G, 210 (Fig. 45).

1662. _Decades of Epistles of War_, Gervase Markham.

The shot should have on his head a good and sufficient Spanish
morian well lined in the head with a quilted cap of strong linen
and bound with lined ear plates.

1643. _Souldier’s Accidence_, Gervase Markham.

... the shot should have good comb caps well lined with quilted
caps.

It will be obvious that the maker of linings and undergarments for the soldier had to be in constant touch with the armourer, for he had to make allowances for the style and cut of the armour.

1. Musée d’Artillerie, Paris, G, 210. 2. Musée de Cluny, Paris.]

In the Wardrobe Accounts of Edward I quoted on page 79 there are entries of payments to Robinet, the King’s tailor, for armour, banners, crests, helmets, and robes for the King, his son, and John of Lancaster. At the end of this chapter we shall notice this combining of the crafts of the armourer and tailor when dealing with the linen armourers.

It was obviously important that the tailor should be in touch with the armourer and suit his material and cut to the equipment worn over them.

1591-5. _Instructions and Orders Militarie, p. 185_, Sir John
Smith.[105]

No armed man should weare any cut doublets, as well in respect
that the wearing of armour doth quicklie fret them out and also
by reason that the corners and edges of the lames and jointes
of the armours doo take such holde uppon such cuttes as they do
hinder the quicke and sudden arming of men.

All parts of the suit were lined, for in spite of the padded undergarment there was bound to be a certain amount of chafing which, if the armour was unlined, would in time rub through the undergarment. In many portraits, especially those of the late sixteenth century, the linings are shown projecting below the edges of the various pieces of the suit. The edges of these linings are generally scalloped.

In the picture by Breughel on the frontispiece a cuisse is shown, immediately beneath the basket of glass bottles in the centre of the picture, which clearly has a padded lining. In a list of payments for work done to Henry VIII’s armour we find “9 yards of Cheshire cotton at 7d. for lining the king’s pasguard grandguard great mayn de fer.” A similar charge is made in 1521 for two yards of yellow satin at 7/4 for lining two head-pieces, two pair of tasses, a pasguard, and two maynd fers. In 1510 we find an entry of payment of 25 fl. 29 kr. to Walter Zeller of Innsbruck for lining armour with black velvet and silk.[106] Frequently the padding is shown in miniatures, especially on the inside of shields and bucklers. The Highland targes are generally padded on the inside with straw to take some of the shock of a blow from the arm. The lining of such pieces as the taces and pauldrons was added to prevent the metal over which they worked from being scratched, and also to lessen the metallic noise, which would be a serious factor in night attacks. Horse-armour, of course, needed heavy lining, but little of this remains. An excellent reconstruction of lined horse-armour is to be found on No. 620, Wallace Collection.

The stuffing of these padded garments was not always of cotton. In the inventory of the goods of Sir John Falstoffe, 1459 (_Archæologia_, XXI), we find “i. jack of black linen stuffed with mail and vi. jacks stuffed with horne, xxiiij. cappes stuffed with horne and mayle, vj. payre of glovys of mayle of shepys skynne.” Under the heading “Gambeson,” Du Cange[107] states that the gambeson was stuffed with wool soaked with vinegar, to resist iron, and he gives a reference to Pliny, Bk. VIII, c. 48, as bearing on this statement. This was probably done to keep out vermin, a serious factor when long marches with bad camping arrangements were undertaken.

In all the defences which were mainly composed of fabrics, the object seems to have been to provide a substance which would resist cut or thrust and at the same time would offer a certain resiliency to the blow. A practical experiment upon thick leather and upon folded or padded cloth will prove this. Till recent years the Japanese made much of their armour of quilted fabrics, the chief drawback to which was its heat and want of ventilation.

MAN AT ARMS. MIDDLE OF XV CENT.]

This linen armour or linen and fabric covering for armour was a distinct craft in itself, and was practised by the linen armourers, who had the sole right to cover armour or to make such defences as have been enumerated above. That they were also tailors we know from their subsequent incorporation with the Merchant Tailors and also from the Wardrobe Accounts[108] of Edward I, in which Robinet, the King’s tailor, is mentioned as making robes and armours and banners.

Besides the lining of armour and the provision of padded defences of fabric, there was a large field of employment in the covering of armour. As may be noticed in Appendix A, this covering of helmets seems to have been common in the first years of the fourteenth century. There were three reasons for covering the steel head-piece with fabric. Firstly, as Chaucer writes with regard to the mail hauberk (page 78), to keep it from wet, the enemy of all iron and steel work; secondly, as Roger Ascham writes of the peacock-wing for arrows, “for gayness”; and thirdly, to prevent the glitter of metal attracting attention.[109] In the _Treatise_ of Johan Hill, written in 1434 (Appendix C, page 173), the covering of the armour, especially for the legs, is ordered to be of scarlet “because his adversarie shall not lightly espye his blode.” Helmet-bags are mentioned in inventories, etc. In 1578 we find “steel caps with covers” noticed in more than one will,[110] and in the Lieutenancy Accounts for Lancashire, _temp._ Elizabeth, the archer’s dress includes a “scull and Scottish cap to cover the same” (Fig. 46). Several helmets in the Waffensammlungen at Vienna still show the silk and satin coverings, and in Munich a triple-crowned burgonet has a black velvet cover. The highly ornate Venetian sallads, covered with crimson velvet, over which is set a gilt open-work decoration of metal, are fairly common in collections (Plate XVI).

The surcoat and tabard hardly come within the province of the armourer, for they were quite distinct from the armour. They were, however, in fashion in various forms till the middle of the reign of Henry VIII, who landed in France, according to Hall, in 1514 with a garment of “white cloth of gold bearing a red cross.” Padded and quilted defences appear to have been worn in the early seventeenth century, for the Hon. Roger North in his _Examen_ writes that “there was great abundance of silk armour,” which in many cases was said to be of pistol proof. Some of these backs, breasts, and taces, wadded with cotton and covered with salmon-coloured silk, are preserved in the Pitt-Rivers Museum, Oxford.

THE LINEN ARMOURERS

As we have seen on page 91, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the tailor was often also a purveyor of armour. M. Buttin[111] quotes several extracts from documents of the fourteenth century in which different names of craftsmen appear classed as “Brodeurs et Armuriers.” It may not be out of place to notice here that the “milliner” of the present day was originally the Milaner or Milanese pedlar, who purveyed armour, weapons, and clothing of all sorts.

The Linen Armourers, as they were called, were a gild distinct from the Armourers, for in 1272 they were instituted as “The Fraternity of Tailors and Linen Armourers of Linen Armour of S. John the Baptist in the City of London.” Edward III was an honorary member of the gild, and Richard II also became a member when he confirmed their charter. Their first patent of arms was granted by Edward IV in the year 1466, and in this document the society is called “Gilda Armorarii.”[112] This naturally causes some confusion with the Armourers’ Company, and in many documents it is uncertain which gild is referred to. The first master was Henry de Ryall, who was called the Pilgrim or Traveller. As has been stated above, their first charter was from Edward III. Richard II confirmed by “inspeximus” this charter. Henry IV also confirmed the charter, and Henry VI granted right of search, which allowed the gild to inspect shops and workshops and confiscate any work which did not come up to their standard. It is doubtful whether the document given in Appendix A refers to this gild or to that of the Armourers, for it contains regulations which would affect both gilds. It gives details as to that “right of search” which was an important part of the duties of the gilds.

In the reign of Edward IV the gild was incorporated, and under Henry VII it became the Merchant Tailors’ Company, with the charter which is held by that company at the present day. This charter was confirmed by Henry VIII, Edward VI, Philip and Mary, Elizabeth, and James I.

FOOTNOTES:

[102] Meyrick, _Antient Armour_, I, 139.

[103] Cf. jupon of Black Prince at Canterbury, wadded with cotton.

[104] See also Du Cange, _Glossaire_, under “Jacque.”

[105] Cousin of Edward VI, and knighted by Elizabeth in 1576. His free criticism on military matters led to the suppression of his “Discourses on the form and effects of divers sorts of weapons,” and he was committed to the Tower.

[106] _Jahrbuch des Kunsthist. Sammlungen_, II, 995.

[107] Johnes’ edit., I, 131.

[108] _Lib. Gardrobæ_, 28 Ed. I, 1300. Soc. of Antiq.

[109] _Vide_ modern War Office regulations of the present day as to scabbards of swords, Highland kilts, etc.

[110] _Arch. Journ._, LX, “Armour Notes.”

[111] _Le Guet de Genève_, Geneva, 1910.

[112] _Hist. of 12 Livery Co.’s of London_, Herbert, 1836.

THE USE OF LEATHER

From the earliest times leather has been a favourite material for defensive armour. The shield of Ajax was fashioned of seven bulls’ hides, and the soldiers of the King and of the Parliament in the Civil War favoured the buff coat. Between these periods leather was utilized in many ways, and when specially treated was a most serviceable protection which had the merit of being lighter and less costly than metal. The word “cuirass” itself is derived from the body-defence of leather (cuir).

The Hon. Robert Curzon, writing in 1869, mentions a cuirass of three thicknesses of leather found in a stone coffin of the thirteenth century (_Arch. Journ._, XXII, p. 6).

At a time when the weaving of fabrics was in a more or less primitive state, the skins of beasts were used either as the sole defence of the warrior or were reinforced with plates of metal applied over the most vital parts of the body (Figs. 47, 48).

It is always a matter of some difficulty, especially in the earlier examples, to tell what materials are intended in illuminated miniatures, for we find what appears to be plate armour painted brown or parti-coloured, and this points to the fact that armour of all kinds was frequently painted, even chain mail being coloured to suit the taste of the wearer, and also, a more important reason, to preserve it from wet and rust. In some representations of scale armour, the drawing of the scales, as for example the figure given on Plate 1, 2, of my book on Armour and Weapons, suggests leather rather than metal, and certainly the much-debated-upon “banded mail” must have been a mixture of leather and metal.

Towards the end of the twelfth century we find the material known as “cuir-bouilli” or “cuerbully” mentioned as being used for the armour of man and horse. The hide of the animal was cut thick, boiled in oil or in water, and, when soft, moulded to the required shape. When cold it became exceedingly hard and would withstand nearly as much battle-wear as metal.

It had the advantage of being easily procured, easily worked, and also of being much lighter than the metal. For this reason it was used largely for jousts and tourneys, which up to the fifteenth century were more of the nature of mimic fights than was the case at a later date, when the onset was more earnest and the armour was made correspondingly heavy to withstand it.

PARADE SHIELD BY DESIDERIUS COLMAN, 1554

THE DETAIL IS GIVEN ON PAGE 135]

The best leather seems to have come from Spain and especially from Cordova. Among the _Ordonnances des rois_ in the Bib. Nat. Français (T. II, 357) we find it distinctly stated that Cordova leather was far better than that of France or Flanders. This may have been due to the breed of horses or cattle found there, but it is more likely that the tanners of that town had made a speciality of treating the hides.

On the sculptured effigies and monumental brasses of the fourteenth century we find the jambs and poleynes often richly decorated and moulded with more skill than the other parts of the armour,[113] and these were probably of cuir-bouilli.

The d’Aubernon, Setvans, and Gorleston brasses are good examples of this. Chaucer in his _Rime of Sir Thopas_ mentions jambs of cuir-bouilli as being part of the ordinary equipment of the knight (see page 100).

Both King Rene and Antoine de la Salle prescribe cuir-bouilli as the material for the brassards used in the tourney (Fig. 49), and this fashion seems to have lasted from the last quarter of the thirteenth century, at which date we have cuir-bouilli armour mentioned in the roll of purchases for the tournament at Windsor Park, held by Edward I, down to the last quarter of the fifteenth century. Oliver de la Marche, writing at the end of the same century, describes the armour of Mahiot and Jacotin Plouvier fighting in a duel as being of cuir-bouilli sewn on the body, legs, and arms.[114] In his _Advis de gaige de battaile_ the same author mentions leather armour as being only fit for the man who is “point gentilhomme.”

As late as the year 1500 cuir-bouilli was much used for horse-armour on account of its lightness. Of this we have two specimens remaining to us in the full suit at Turin (G, 2) and the crupper at the Tower (VI, 89). The horse on Plate XVII is apparently armed with mail which is covered with trappers of leather. The original, which was an ivory chessman in the possession of Rev. Eagles, has disappeared. It was figured by Hewitt in _Ancient Armour_, Vol. I, and was cast. The photograph given here is from the cast. Among the few specimens of leather armour for the man may be noted a morion in the Zeughaus, Berlin (60_b_), and a pair of seventeenth-century leather “lobster-tail” cuisses at Goodrich Court, Herefordshire.

The reason for this dearth of examples of leather armour in collections at the present day is twofold. Much of the discarded armour of this nature would be used for various domestic purposes, such as jugs, horse-furniture, and such-like uses, and also much would be thrown away as useless, for leather unless carefully kept and oiled tends to crack and warp out of shape.

The above-mentioned bards for horses appear frequently in paintings of the early sixteenth century. The picture of the battle of Pavia in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford,[115] shows many of these brilliantly painted with armorial and fancy designs, and the absence of rivet-heads points to the fact that they are not of metal.

The painting of bards seems to have been a distinct trade, for we find in the Statuto de’ pittori Fiorentini rubr. 79 (_Carteggio ined. d’artisti_, T. II, p. 40) regulations forbidding any but the registered bard-painters to undertake such work.

That cuir-bouilli was not proof against firearms we learn from Jean de Troyes (page 260), who writes: “Si y eut un cheval tout barde de cuir bouilli qui fut tue d’un coup de coulverine.” This refers to the date 1465, when firearms were but primitive weapons. Dressed leather, however, in the form of the buff coat was used up to the middle of the seventeenth century, when the penetrating power of the bullet was greater. At the same time we should remember, as Marshal Saxe very truly points out in his advocacy of plate armour (_Rêveries_, p. 58), that many wounds at this time were caused by sword, lance, and spent bullet, all of which might have been avoided by the use of some thick material. The Marshal suggests sheet-iron sewn upon a buff coat, but the buff coat itself, ⅜ in. thick, would be a very adequate, though hot and heavy, protection without the addition of metal.

The leather guns of Gustavus Adolphus will be found mentioned in the following pages, but these were only covered with leather, presumably to protect them from wet, and were not made entirely of this material. We have no record of cuir-bouilli being employed to make artillery, and of course the chief reason against its use would be the weakness of the seam or join.

The only use of leather or cuir-bouilli for defensive armour found at the present day is found in the small bucklers of the hill tribes of India. These are often so skilfully treated that the leather is transparent and is almost impervious to a sword-cut, forming a very fair defence against the bullet from the primitive flintlocks in use among those tribes.

The leather hat reinforced with steel plates given at Fig. 50 was worn by the regicide Bradshaw at the trial of Charles I.[116]

REFERENCES TO LEATHER AND CUIR-BOUILLI FROM CONTEMPORARY DOCUMENTS

1185. _Chanson d’Antioche._

Moult fu riches qu’il li a chief mi
Son poitrail lui laca qui fu de cuir bolis.

The “poitrail” in this extract is the breastplate of the knight and not of the horse.

1278. _Roll of Purchases for the Tournament at Windsor Park._

De Milon le Cuireur xxxviij quiret: p’c pec iij s.

Itm. ij Crest & j Blazon & una galea cor & j ensis de Balon de
Rob’o Brunnler xxxviij galee de cor p’c galee xiv.

This tournament seems to have been more of a pageant than a serious contest like those of the fifteenth century. No armour of metal is mentioned among the purchases and the weapons are of whalebone, a material which was used also for gauntlets, as we know from Froissart’s[117] description of the equipment of the troops of Philip von Artevelde at the battle of Rosebecque in 1382. Whalebone was also employed for “privy coats” or brigandines, in which it was inserted between the lining and the cover. Buckram is also mentioned as being used for body-armour, which material will be found alluded to in the section devoted to the Linen Armourers.

1345. _Les Livres de Comptes des Freres Bonis_, I. 174, Forestie.

Item deu per un brasalot ... de cuer negre.

1351. _Ordonnances du roi Jean IV_, 69.

Ordenons que l’arbalestrier ... sera arme de plates ... et de
harnois de bras de fer et de cuir.

These brassards of cuir-bouilli seem to have been common in the fourteenth century; their popularity being doubtless due to their lightness and cheapness as compared with metal. M. Buttin in his interesting pamphlet _Le Guet de Genève_[118] gives several extracts from inventories and other documents which bear out this statement.

1350. _Rime of Sir Thopas_, Chaucer.

His jambeux were of curebully.

DRAWING BY JACOB TOPF, 1530-1597

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

ARMOUR OF SIR CHRISTOPHER HATTON, BY JACOB TOPF]

The skilfully modelled jambs and poleynes which appear on many brasses and effigies of the fourteenth century rather suggest that leather was used and not metal, as the rest of the armour does not show such skill of forging. These leg-pieces are nearly always shown as richly engraved, which also points to the suggestion that they were of cuir-bouilli, which would be an easier material to decorate with painting or modelling than metal.

1411. _Inventorie de l’ecurie du roi, f. 108 vo._

Une armure de cuir de Surie pour armer l’homme et le cheval.

1450. _Traité d’un Tournoi_, Roi René.

En Brebant, Flandres et Haynault at en ces pays la vers Almaignes
... mettant unes bracieres grosses de 4 dois d’espez et remplies
de cotton sur quoys ils arment les avant bras et les garde-bras
de cuir bouilly.