Читать книгу The armourer and his craft from the XIth to the XVIth century - Charles John Ffoulkes - Страница 10

Table of Contents

The importance of the craft of the armourer in the Middle Ages can hardly be overestimated, for it is, to a large extent, to the excellence of defensive armour and weapons that we owe much of the development of art and craftsmanship all over Europe. The reason for this somewhat sweeping statement is to be found in the fact that up to the sixteenth century the individual and the personal factor were of supreme importance in war, and it was the individual whose needs the armourer studied. In the days when military organization was in its infancy, and the leader was endowed by his followers with almost supernatural qualities, the battle was often won by the prowess of the commander, or lost by his death or disablement. It would be tedious to quote more than a few instances of this importance of the individual in war, but the following are typical of the spirit which pervaded the medieval army.

At the battle of Hastings, when William was supposed to have been killed he rallied his followers by lifting his helmet and riding through the host crying, “I am here and by God’s grace I shall conquer!” The success of Joan of Arc need hardly be mentioned, as it is an obvious example of the change which could be effected in the spirit of an army by a popular leader. This importance of the individual was realized by the leaders themselves, and, as a safeguard, it was often the custom to dress one or more knights like the sovereign or commander to draw off the attack. At Bosworth field Richmond had more than one knight who personated him; Shakespeare gives the number as five, for Richard says, “There be six Richmonds in the field; five have I slain instead of him.”

When the importance of the leader is realized it will be obvious that the craft of the man who protected him in battle was of the utmost importance to the State; and when once this is admitted, we may fairly consider that, in an age of ceaseless wars and private raids, the importance of all the other applied arts which followed in the train of a victorious leader depended to a very great extent on the protection afforded him by his armourer.[1]

It would be indeed superfluous to dwell upon the artistic influences which may be traced directly to the military operations of the Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, and at a later date the Northern tribes of Europe, for every writer on the subject bases his opinions upon this foundation. In more modern periods the conquest of Spain by the Moors introduced a type of design which has never been wholly eradicated from Spanish Art, and in our own country the Norman Conquest gave us a dignified strength of architecture which would never have been established as a national phase of art if the victory had been to Harold and the English. The improvements in the equipment and military organization of the foot-soldier in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries necessitated a more complete style of defensive armour for the mounted man, and the elaborate leg armour of plate may be directly traced to the improvement in the weapons of the former. As is the case at the present day in the navy, the race between weapon and defence was ceaseless, each improvement of the one being met by a corresponding improvement in the other, till the perfection of the firearm ruled any form of defence out of the competition. More peaceful influences were at work, however, due to the interchange of visits between European princes; and German and Italian fashions of armour, as well as of the other applied arts, competed with each other all over Europe, though their adoption may generally be traced to a ruler of note like Maximilian or Charles V.

So without undue exaggeration we may fairly claim for the craft of the armourer a foremost place as one of the chief influences in the evolution of modern art and, as such, an important factor in the development of all the arts which follow in the train of conquest.

There are certain essential rules which must be observed in the practice of every craft; but in most cases only one or two are necessary for the production of good work, because of the limitations either of the craft or of the needs of those for whom it is practised. It would be out of place to go through the various applied arts and to consider the rules which guide them; but, on examination of these rules as they apply to the craft of the armourer, it will be seen how each and all are essential for the production of satisfactory work.

The rules are these:—

1. Suitability for purpose.

2. Convenience in use.

3. Recognition of material.

4. Soundness of constructional methods.

5. Subservience of decoration to the preceding rules.

It may be advantageous to examine these rules one by one and see how they are observed to the full in the best specimens of armour and how their neglect produced inferior work.

1. Suitability for purpose.—The object of defensive armour was to protect the wearer from attack of the most powerful weapon in use at the period when it was made. This was obtained not only by thickness of metal, but also by so fashioning the planes of the metal that they presented a “glancing surface” to the blow. An early example of this consideration of the needs of the wearer is to be found in the first additions of plate to the suit of mail which were made in the leg armour of the thirteenth century (Fig. 38). The reason for this was the increased efficacy of the weapons of the foot-soldier, who naturally attacked the legs of the mounted man. The use of mail was far from practical, except in the form of gussets or capes, which could not be made so conveniently in plate. The mail armour of the thirteenth century was only a partial protection, for although it defended the wearer from arrows and from sword-cut or lance-thrust, it was but little protection against the bruise of the blow, even when, as was always the case, a padded garment was worn underneath. Up to the sixteenth century the shield was used for this reason and provided a smooth movable surface which the knight could oppose to the weapon and thus present a glancing surface to the blow.

An examination of a suit of armour of the fifteenth century will show how this glancing surface was studied in every part. The lames of the arm-pieces are overlapped downwards so that the blow might slip off, and the elbow-cop presents a smooth rounded surface which will direct the blow off the arm of the wearer. The breastplate, which was at first simply smooth and rounded, became in the sixteenth century fluted; and a practical experiment will show that when the thrust of a lance—the favourite weapon at that time—met one of these flutings it was directed to the strong ridge at neck or arm hole and thence off the body (Plate 30, 2). The upstanding neck-guards, wrongly called “passe-guards,” were also intended to protect the weak part where helmet and gorget met. The fan-plate of the knee-piece protected the bend of the knee, especially when bent in riding, the normal position of the mounted man, and the sollerets were so fashioned that the foot was best protected when in the stirrup.

PLATE I

ARMOUR FOR THE STECHZEUG

XV-XVI CENT.

Fig. 1. The “glancing surface.”

The helm and helmet are especially good examples of the craft of the armourer in this respect. The early flat-topped helm of the thirteenth century was soon discarded because it was found that the full force of the downward blow was felt, which was not the case when the skull of the head-piece was pointed or rounded (Fig. 1). A treatise on the subject of Military Equipment in the fifteenth century (Appendix D) distinctly enjoins that the rivets on the helm should be filed flat: “Et les autres ont la teste du clou limée affin que le rochet ny prengne.” This is not often found in existing helms, but the fact that it is mentioned shows that the smooth surface of the helm was an important consideration. In helms made for jousting these considerations were minutely studied by the armourer, for the object of jousters in the sixteenth century was simply to score points and not to injure each other. The occularium of the jousting-helm is narrow and is so placed that it is only of use when the wearer bends forward with his lance in rest. The lance was always pointed across the horse’s neck and was directed to the left side of his opponent, therefore the left side of the helm is always smooth with no projection or opening (Fig. 2). These are found, in cases where they occur, on the right side, where there would be no chance of their catching the lance-point. Again, the skull and front plate of the helm are generally thicker than those at the back, where there is no chance of a blow being delivered.

Fig. 2. Position of lance in jousting (Arch. Journ., LV).

2. Convenience in use.—Besides protecting the fighting man the armourer had to remember that his patron had to ride, sometimes to walk, and always to use his arms with convenience, and at the same time had to be protected while so doing. At first the cuirass was made simply in two pieces, the back and the front fastened under the arms with straps. In the middle of the fifteenth century each of these was made in two or more pieces joined with a rivet, working loose in a slot cut in the uppermost of the plates, so that a certain amount of movement of the torse was possible. The pauldrons, which often appear unnecessarily large, almost meeting in front and, as is the case in the statue of Colleoni in Venice, crossing at the back, are so made that they would protect the armpit when the arm was raised in striking a blow (Fig. 3). The upper part of the arm-piece or rerebrace is made of overlapping lames held together by sliding rivets, which allow a certain amount of play outwards and forwards, but the defence becomes rigid if the arm is moved backwards, for this movement is not necessary in delivering a blow (see page 52). The arm and leg pieces are hinged with metal hinges on the outside of the limb and fastened with straps or hooks and staples on the inside. In most cases modern theatrical armour errs in this respect, for it is obvious that if the straps were on the outside the first object of the enemy would be to cut them and render the armour useless. The vambrace or cannon and the lower portion of the rerebrace are in single cylindrical plates, for here no movement is possible independently from the shoulder and elbow. The rerebrace, however, is generally formed with a collar which turns in a groove bossed out in the upper portion, so that the arm can turn outwards or inwards without moving the shoulder (see page 54). The cuisse and the front and back of the jamb are for the same reasons each made in one piece, joined to the knee-cop and solleret by narrow lames working loose on rivets. The cuisse only covers the top part of the thigh for convenience on horseback, and wherever a cuisse is found that protects the back of the thigh we may be sure that the owner fought on foot (Plate IX). The solleret is made so that the foot can move naturally in walking. The upper part is formed of small lames working on loose rivets and overlapping downwards towards a centre-plate which covers the tread of the foot; beyond this the toe-plates overlap upwards and thus perfect freedom of movement is obtained.

Fig. 3. Back of Pauldrons of A. Statue of Colleoni, Venice.

B. Missaglia Suit, Waffensammlung, Vienna.

Fig. 4. (1) The practical solleret at rest and (2) in action.

(3) Unpractical solleret, late sixteenth century.

The various forms of head-piece all more or less exemplify this need of convenience in use, for they protected the head and at the same time gave as much opportunity for seeing, hearing, and breathing as was compatible with their defensive qualities. The armet or close helmet is perhaps the most ingenious, with its single or double visor, which could be lifted up so as to leave the face completely exposed till the moment of attack, when it was closed and fastened with a locking hook (Plate XIII). Examples of the armourer adapting his work to the requirements of his patrons are to be found in the globose helm for fighting at barriers made by one of the Missaglia family (Tower, II, 29). Here the vision-slits were evidently found to be too large and too dangerous to the wearer. An inner plate was added with smaller holes through which no weapon used at barriers could penetrate (Plate X). A second example shown in Fig. 14 has a plate added at the lower edge to increase the height of the helm, which suggests that the last wearer had a longer neck than the original owner. This convenience in use is also to be noticed in the gauntlet, which, as the science of sword-play developed, was gradually discarded in favour of a defence formed of the portes or rings on the sword-hilt (Plate XXII). In jousting-armour there was only one position to be considered, namely, the position with hand on bridle and lance in rest. The armourer therefore strove to protect his patron when he assumed that position alone. The arm defences of jousting-armour with elbow-guard and poldermitton would be useless if the wearer had to raise his arm with a sword, but, when the lance was held in rest, the plates of the defences were so arranged that every blow slipped harmlessly off. As the right hand was protected with the large shield or vamplate fixed to the lance a gauntlet for this hand was frequently dispensed with, and, as the left hand was only employed to hold the reins, a semi-cylindrical plate protected the hand instead of the articulated gauntlet in use on the field of war (Plate I).

PLATE II

EFFIGY OF RICHARD BEAUCHAMP,

EARL OF WARWICK

S. MARY’S CHURCH, WARWICK, 1454

S. GEORGE, BY MANTEGNA, 1431–1506

ACCADEMIA, VENICE

ARMOUR BY ANTONIO DA

MISSAGLIA, 1480

Fig. 5. Horse Armour, sixteenth century.

English	French	German	Italian	Spanish
1. chanfron	chanfrein	ross-stirn	testiera	testera
2. peytral	poitrail	brust panzer	pettiera	pechera
3. crinet	crinière	{ mähnen panzer { kanze	} collo	cuello
4. pommel	{ pommeau { arcade de devant	} sattel-knopf	primo arcione	pomo del arzon
5. cantel	{ troussequin { arcade de derrière	rückenstück pausch	} secondo arcione	zaguero
6. crupper	croupière	{ krup panzer { lenden panzer	} groppa	grupera
7. tail-guard	garde-queue	schwanzriem panzer	guardacorda	guardamalso
8. flanchard	{ flançois { flanchière	} flanken panzer	fiancali	flanqueras

Horse armour or “barding” was of necessity more cumbrous and but little was attempted beyond the covering of the vital parts of the body with plates or padded trappings (Fig. 5). Mail was used for the whole “bard” in the thirteenth century, as we know from the decorations in the “Painted Chamber” at Westminster.[2] It was still in use for the neck-defence or “crinet” in the middle of the fifteenth century. Examples of the latter are to be found in Paris (Plate XXIII) and in the Wallace Collection, No. 620. Some attempt to make an articulated suit was evidently made; for we have a portrait of Harnischmeister Albrecht (1480) mounted on a horse whose legs are completely covered by articulated plates similar to those on human armour (Fig. 6). A portion of the leg-piece of this or of a similar suit is in the Musée Porte de Hal, Brussels (Fig. 7). Besides the obvious advantage of plate armour over mail for defensive purposes, it should be noted that in the former the weight is distributed over the body and limbs, while with the latter the whole equipment hangs from the shoulders, with possibly some support at the waist. Hence the movements of the mail-clad man were much hampered both by the weight of the fabric, and also by the fact that in bending the arm or leg the mail would crease in folds, and would thus both interfere with complete freedom and would probably produce a sore from chafing.

Fig. 6. Harnischmeister Albrecht, 1480.

From a painting in the Arsenal, Vienna.

Fig. 7. Cuissard for the off hock

of a horse. Musée Porte de

Hal, Brussels, IV, 9.

3. Recognition of material.—It would seem at first sight superfluous to give examples of this when considering armour; but in the sixteenth century, when the craftsman desired to show off his technical skill, we find many suits made to imitate the puffed and slashed velvets and silks of civilian dress. A notable example of this is to be found on the famous “Engraved Suit” made by Conrad Seusenhofer for Henry VIII in the Tower, in which the cloth “bases” or skirts of civilian dress are imitated in metal (Plates XII, XXI). The human form, head and torse, were also counterfeited in metal in the sixteenth century, with no great success from the technical point of view.

4. Soundness of constructional methods.—This rule is really contained in those that have preceded it, but some notice should be paid to the various methods of fastening different plates and portions of the suit together. There are many ingenious forms of turning hook and pin by which these plates can be joined or taken apart at will (page 55). The sliding rivet is one of the most important of these constructional details. The lower end of the rivet is burred over the back of the lower plate, and the upper plate has a slot cut of less width than the rivet-head, but sufficiently long to allow the plate to move backwards and forwards, generally from three-quarters to one inch (page 52).

5. Subservience of decoration to the preceding rules.—The best suits are practically undecorated, but at the same time there are many which are ornamented with incised or engraved lines and gilding which do not detract from the utility of the armour. This last rule is best understood by examples of the breach rather than the observance; so we may take the rules in order and see how each was broken during that period known as the Renaissance.

(1) The “glancing surface” was destroyed by elaborate embossing, generally of meaningless designs, in which the point or edge of a weapon would catch.

(2) The convenience was also impaired by the same methods, for the lames and different portions of the suit could not play easily one over the other if each had designs in high relief. Plates were set at unpractical angles, sometimes overlapping upwards, in which the weapon would catch and would not glance off. We find that foot-armour was made in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with the lames all overlapping upwards or downwards, and with no centre-plate for the tread. In the suit given to Henry, Prince of Wales, by the Prince de Joinville in 1608 (Tower, II, 17) the lames of the solleret all overlap downwards (see also Fig. 4). It will be obvious that with such a foot-covering it would be impossible to walk with ease.

(3) The observance of this rule may be taken as a matter of course and its neglect has been noticed above.

(4) The careless arrangement of the foot-armour, as mentioned in No. 2, is an example of the disregard of this rule. Another instance is the embossing the metal of various parts of the suit so as to simulate lames or separate plates. They do not ornament the suit and of course do not add to its convenience; they merely create a false impression and save the craftsman some labour. The same may be said of the “clous perdus” or false rivets, which are found in late suits, doing no work in the construction of the suit, but giving an appearance of constructional work which is lacking.

(5) One has only to keep the above rules in mind and then to examine an embossed suit by Piccinino or Peffenhauser to see how this rule was broken to the detriment of the work as a good piece of craftsmanship, though perhaps the result may have increased the artistic reputation of the craftsman (Plate XIV).

It should be noticed that the craftsman of the Renaissance, in spite of his disregard of the craft rules, did not deteriorate as a worker; for some of the suits of the Negrolis or of the two above-mentioned armourers could hardly be equalled at the present day as specimens of metal-work. But his energies were directed into different channels and his reputation as an honest craftsman suffered. By the sixteenth century everything concerned with the defensive qualities and the constructional details of armour had been discovered and carried to a high pitch of perfection. The craftsman therefore had to find some way of exhibiting his dexterity. Add to this the love of ostentation and display of his patron, one of the most noticeable traits of the so-called Renaissance, and we find that by degrees the old craft-excellence became neglected in the advertisement of the craftsman and the ostentation of his patron.

In dealing with the first rule no mention was made of the defensive qualities of armour against firearms, and this from the middle of the sixteenth century was an important detail in the craft of the armourer. The glancing surface was of some use; but the armed man could not afford to take chances. So his equipment was made to resist a point-blank shot of pistol or arquebus. This will be noticed with details as to the proof of armour on page 65. It was the fact that armour was proof against firearms which led to its disuse, and not that it was of no avail against them, as is the generally accepted idea. The armourer proved his work by the most powerful weapons in use, and by so doing found that he had to increase the weight of metal till it became insupportable (see page 117).

PLATE III

ARMOUR OF SIGISMOND OF TIROL, 1427–96 ARMOUR OF LOUIS XIV, BY GARBAGNAUS, 1668

In the days when travelling was difficult and the difficulties of transportation great, both on account of the condition of the roads and also because of the insecurity of life and property, due to national and personal wars, it was but natural that each country and district should be in a large measure self-supporting, especially with respect to armour and weapons. At the same time, by degrees, some localities produced superior work, either because they possessed natural resources or because some master founded a school with superior methods to those of his neighbours. Thus we find Milan famous for hauberks, Bordeaux[3] for swords, Colin cleeves (Cologne halberds), Toulouse swords, misericordes of Versy, chapeaux de Montauban (steel hats), Barcelona bucklers, arbalests of Catheloigne, and of course swords of Solingen, Toledo, and Passau.

The principal centres for the making of armour were Italy and Germany, and it is quite impossible to say which of the two was the superior from the craftsman’s point of view. If anything, perhaps the German school favoured a rather heavier type of equipment, due, no doubt, to the natural characteristics of the race as compared with the Italian, and also, when the decadence of armour began, perhaps the German armourer of the Renaissance erred more in respect of useless and florid ornamentation than did his Italian rival. But even here the types are so similar that it is almost impossible to discriminate. France produced no great armourers, at least we have no records of craft-princes such as the Colmans, the Seusenhofers, the Missaglias, or the Negrolis, and the same may be said of England. We have isolated examples here and there of English and French work, but we have no records of great schools in either country like those of Milan, Brescia, Nuremberg, Augsburg, and Innsbruck. A few scattered entries from state or civic documents will be found under the various headings of this work and portions of regulations respecting the trade; but of the lives of the craftsmen we know but little. At a time when personal safety in the field was of the utmost importance, it can be easily understood that the patron would take no risks, but would employ for choice those craftsmen who held the highest repute for their work, just as till recently the prospective motorist or airman would not risk a home-made machine, but patronized French makers. It may seem strange that the local craftsmen did not attempt to improve their work when examples of foreign skill were imported in great quantities; but against this we must set the fact that the detail of the first importance in the craft of the armourer was the tempering of the metal and this the craftsman kept a close secret. We have various accounts of secret processes, miraculous springs of water, poisoned ores, and such-like which were employed, fabulously no doubt, to attain fine temper for the metal, but no details are given. It may be that the metal itself was superior in some districts, as witness the Trial of Armour given on page 66. Seusenhofer when provided with inferior metal from the mines by Kugler suggested that it should be classed as “Milanese,” a clear proof that the German craftsmen, at any rate, considered the Italian material to be inferior to their own. Little is known as to the production of the Florentine armourers. Mr. Staley in his Guilds of Florence has unfortunately found little of importance under this heading in the civic records of the city.

Fig. 8. Arms of the

Armourers’ Gild, from

the church of Or San

Michele, Florence.

The “Corazzi e spadai” of Florence will, however, be always known by their patron S. George, whose statue by Donatello stood outside the gild church of Or San Michele. At the base of the niche in which it stood are carved the arms given in Fig. 8.

Fig. 9. S. George, by Hans

Multscher, 1458, Augsburg.

Armourers were imported by sovereigns and princes to produce armour for their personal use and thus to avoid the difficulties of transit, but they seem to have kept their craft to themselves and to have founded no school. Henry VIII brought over the “Almain Armourers” to Greenwich at the beginning of his reign, but most of them went back in time to their own country, and few took out denization papers. In 1624 we find that only one of the descendants of these foreigners was left and he resolutely refused to teach any one the “mysterie of plating” (page 188). A colony of armourers migrated from Milan to Arbois towards the end of the fifteenth century, but no celebrated craftsmen seem to have joined them except the Merate brothers, who worked for Maximilian and Mary of Burgundy. It is difficult, in fact impossible, to say which country led in the beginnings of the armourer’s craft. We have the suit of Roberto di Sanseverino (Vienna, Waffensammlung, No. 3) signed with the mark of Antonio Missaglia, circ. 1470, and we also have a statuette by Hans Multscher at Augsburg, circ. 1458, which represents S. George in a suit of armour of precisely the same design (Fig. 9). It should be noted, however, that the treatment of this figure shows a strong Italian influence. In European history of the fifteenth century we have few records of German armourers being employed, during the first half, at any rate, by the rulers of other states. We know that Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, travelled in Italy and wore armour of a distinctly Italian style, for it is depicted in the Beauchamp Pageants (Fig. 10) and is also shown on his magnificent monument in S. Mary’s Church, Warwick. The likeness of the armour on this monument to that shown in the picture of S. George, by Mantegna, in the Accademia, Venice, is so striking that we are bound to admit that the two suits must have been produced by the same master, and on comparison with the suit in Vienna above alluded to, that master must have been one of the Missaglia family. The Earl of Warwick died in 1439 and Mantegna was born about 1431, so that it is quite possible that the former purchased a suit of the very latest fashion when in Italy, and that the latter, realizing the beauty of work produced when he was but a boy, used a similar suit as a model for his picture (Plate II). As early as 1398 the Earl of Derby had armour brought over to England by Milanese armourers, and by the year 1427 Milan had become such an important factory town that it supplied in a few days armour for 4000 cavalry and 2000 infantry.

Fig. 10. Richard Beauchamp,

Earl of Warwick

(Cot. Jul. E, IV, F, 12 b).

The impetus given to the craft in Germany was due to the interest of the young Emperor Maximilian, who encouraged not only the armourer, but every other craftsman and artist in his dominions. In the Weisz Künig we find him teaching the masters of all crafts how best to do their own work, though this is probably an exaggeration of the sycophantic author and illustrator. Still we are forced to admit that the crafts in Germany attained to a very high level during his reign. In the description of his visit to Conrad Seusenhofer, the armourer, it is recorded that the latter wished to employ certain devices of his own in the making of armour, to which the young Emperor replied, “Arm me according to my own wish, for it is I and not you who will take part in the tournament.” From Germany came armour presented by the Emperor to Henry VIII, and it is clear that such a master as Seusenhofer, working so near the Italian frontier as Innsbruck, must have influenced the Milanese work, just as the Milanese in the first instance influenced the German craftsmen. With the succession of Charles V to the thrones of Spain and Germany we find a new impetus given to German armourers. In Spain there seems to have been a strong feeling in favour of Milanese work, and the contest between the two schools of craftsmen was bitter in the extreme. So personal did this feud become that we find Desiderius Colman in 1552 making a shield for Charles V on which the maker is represented as a bull charging a Roman soldier on whose shield is the word “Negrol,” a reference to the rivalry between the Colmans and the Negrolis of Milan (Plate XXIV). With the demand for decorated armour the rivalry between the two centres of trade increased, and there is little to choose between the works of the German and Italian craftsmen, either in the riotous incoherence of design or in the extraordinary skill with which it was produced and finished.

PLATE IV

ARMOURERS AT WORK. XV CENT. BRIT. MUS. ROY. MS. 16, G. V, FOL. II		WOODCARVING OF DUKE WILLIAM OF AQUITAINE AND HIS ARMOURER. XV CENT.
VENUS AND VULCAN. XIII CENT. BERLIN, KÖNIGL. BIB. CODEX MS. GERM. 282, 79

From entries in the State Papers preserved in the Record Office, it would seem that Milanese armourers were employed by Henry VIII during the first years of his reign. By the year 1515 the Almain or German armourers from Brussels had evidently taken their place, for they are entered as king’s servants with liveries. Only one Milanese name is found in the list of armourers, Baltesar Bullato, 1532, so that it is clear that Henry, owing, no doubt, to the influence of Maximilian, had definitely committed himself to German armour as opposed to Italian. England seems to have remained faithful to this German influence, but her rulers and nobles never indulged in the exaggerated and over-elaborate productions which held favour in Spain and Germany, a fact which is noticeable even at the present day, when the so-called “Art Nouveau” disfigures many German and Italian cities but has never obtained a serious foothold in England. Simplicity and practicality were always the chief features in English armour. The few known specimens of English work of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, the jousting-helms at Westminster, Woolwich, Ashford, Petworth, and the Wallace Collection, are examples of this, and the armour of later years has the same qualification (Figs. 11–14). Even the suits of Topf, who worked in England at the end of the sixteenth century and produced the magnificent work that is shown at the Tower, Windsor, and elsewhere, the designs for which are contained in an album in the Art Library at South Kensington, are marked by a restraint which is not found in the works of Piccinino and Peffenhauser. The decoration never impairs the utility of the armour, and the designs are always those suitable for work in tempered steel, and are not in any way suggestive of the goldsmith’s work of his foreign contemporaries. In the English national collections we have but little eccentric armour, which is so common in Continental museums; all is severe and yet graceful, practical even if decorated, a tribute to the characteristics of the English race of fighting men.

Fig. 11. The Westminster Helm, circ. 1500. Westminster Abbey. 17 lb. 12 oz.

Fig. 12. The Brocas Helm, Rotunda,

Woolwich. 22 lb. 8 oz.

Fig. 13. The Fogge Helm, Ashford, Sussex. 24 lb.

Fig. 14. The Barendyne Helm, Great Haseley,

Oxon. 13 lb. 8 oz.

The ornamentation of armour with gilding had obtained such a firm hold that in the seventeenth century James II was obliged to make an exception in its favour in his proclamation against the use of “gold and silver foliate,” an extract of which is given in Appendix I, page 187. In discussing the craft of the armourer it should be remembered that we can only base our conclusions on the scattered entries of payments, inventories, and other documents in State or private collections, and by examination of suits which have been preserved in the armouries and collections of Europe and England. These suits represent but a very small percentage of the large stores of armour of all kinds which must have been in existence at the beginning of the seventeenth century, and it is only the fine and exceptional examples which have survived. The material was so costly in the making that it was made and remade over and over again; which will account for the absence of complete suits of the fourteenth century and the scarcity of those of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries now in existence. Occasionally we have local collections which give us a suggestion of what the standing armoury must have been, such as the armour stores at Gratz, Zurich, the collection of helmets and armour found in the castle of Chalcis,[4] and village armouries like that at Mendlesham, Suffolk. Two examples of the treatment of armour must suffice. In the Inventory of the Tower, taken in 33 Hen. VI, 1455, is the entry: “Item viij habergeons some of Meleyn and some of Westewale of the which v of Melyn were delyv’ed to the College of Eyton and iij broken to make slewys and voyders and ye’s.” Here clearly the hauberk is cut up and used to make sleeves and gussets, which were more useful when the complete plate body-defences had come into fashion than the shirt of mail. This is also another example of the competition between Milan and Germany (Westphalia) in the matter of armour-making. As an example of the other reason for the absence of armour in national and private collections in any great quantities, we may cite Hearne’s account of his visit to Ditchley, given in his Remains under the date 1718. He says: “In one of the outhouses I saw strange armour which belonged to the ancestors[5] of the Earl of Litchfield, some of the armour very old.” In the steward’s accounts of but a few weeks later Viscount Dillon has discovered an entry, “received of Mr. Mott, the brazier for the old armour wayed 14 cwt. 1 qr. 21 lb. at 10s. the cwt. £7. 4. 6.” The saddles had been previously cut up to nail up the fruit trees.[6] From the weight of armour sold there were probably about twenty suits, some of which must certainly have been of value, possibly one or more of the missing suits designed by Topf for Sir Henry Lee and illustrated in the Almain Armourer’s Album now in the South Kensington Art Library. It can be readily understood that when the historic or artistic value of armour was not appreciated it was a cumbrous and useless possession, which soon deteriorated if not kept clean and bright, and therefore it was melted down just as are the broken stoves and domestic ironmongery which litter the rubbish-heaps to-day. We find interesting examples of the application of munitions of war to peaceful purposes in the use of sword-pommels as weights for steelyards, helmets for buckets and scale-bowls, and portions of body armour cut up and fashioned into lock-covers in the Stibbert Museum, Florence, in the collection of the Marchese Peruzzi, and elsewhere.[7] Even as late as the year 1887 the value of armour was not realized, for in that year two half-suits, stamped with the college mark, were sold from New College, Oxford, as old iron (Arms and Armour in Oxford, C. ffoulkes).

State and civic records have frequent entries of regulations and disputes connected with the various craft-gilds, and the armourers were no exception. The right of search was a privilege jealously guarded, for it prevented the competition of those outside the gild and was also a check against foreign competition, which was always a thorn in the side of the armourer. Every country enacted laws against importation of arms, and yet for really fine work every country had to look to Italy or Germany. But this was probably the case only among the richest, and it is the elaborate workmanship on the armour which has ensured the survival of many suits of this type. The ordinary hosting or war-harness was made quite as well in England as elsewhere; just as the Englishwoman of to-day can be dressed as well in London as in Paris; but, if she can afford it, elects to pay large sums for the cachet of the Parisian name. With regard to the documents bearing on the life of individual armourers, we have such records as wills, registers of baptisms and marriages, and also trade accounts and bills. In the latter the armourer seems to have been no better off than the painter or sculptor of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. He was always in financial difficulties and was ceaselessly pressing his patron for payment. An example of this is given on page 59, where we find that W. Pickering was paid £200 in 1614, the balance of his bill for £340, for a suit made for Henry, Prince of Wales, who died in 1612; so that he had to wait at least two years before he received the whole amount. Conrad Seusenhofer suffered in the same way and his life was one long struggle with Maximilian and the Diet for payments for his work. The armourer, however, had the advantage over his fellow-craftsmen; for when a war or a tournament was imminent he made his own terms and refused delivery till he had received payment.