rious subject of inquiry. The simpli- | the field with his gory hood thrown back. The mail covered also the chin, and sometimes the mouth; in the latter case the office of breathing being entirely committed to the care of the nose. Finally, the sleeves of the jacket were carried over the fingers, and a confinuation of the chausses protected the toes. A goodly knight all arm'd in harness meet That from his head no place appeared to his feete." city of ancient times, in using the skins of beasts, is marked in the word loricum, from the word lorum, a thong, and the word cuirasse is traceable to cuir, leather. Body harness has three general divisions; mail; plate and mail mixed; plate mail entirely. Rows of iron rings, sown on the dress, were the first defences, and then, for additional defence, a row of larger rings was laid over the first. These rings gave way to small iron plates which lapped over each It is curious that foppery in armour other, and this variety of mail is inter- began at the toe. It was the fashion for esting, for armour.now resembled the the knight to have the toe of the mail selorica squammata of the Romans, and veral inches in length and inclining downhence ancient mail of this description has wards. To fight on foot with such generally been called scale-mail, while incumbrances was impossible, and therethe ordinary appearance of armour being fore the enemies of the crusaders (for like the meshes of a net, gained it the foppery prevailed even in religious wars) title of mail from the macula of the La-shot rather at the horses than at the men. tins, and the maglia of the Italians. Sometimes the plates were square, and sometimes of a lozenge form: but it would be considering the matter much too curiously to divide armour into as many species as the shapes and forms which a small piece of iron or steel was capable of being divided into.* The fashion I am speaking of crossed the Pyrenees, for in the pictoral representation of a tournament at Grenada, between Moorish and Christian knights, the former are drawn with the broad shovel shoes of their country, while the latter have long pointed shoes, like the cavaliers of the North. mail armour from the earliest æra of Such were the various descriptions of chivalry to the thirteenth century. They were worn at different times in different countries, and often in the same country at the same time by different individuals: but at length so excellent an improvement was made in chain mail, that military fashion could have no longer any pretence for variety. The different descriptions of mail armour show the skill of the iron All this variety of mail harness was sown on an under garment of leather or cloth, or a more considerable wadding of various sorts of materials, and called a gambeson. If the garment were a simple tunic or frock the whole was called a hauberk. The lower members were fended by chausses, which may be intelligible to modern understandings by the words breeches or pantaloons. When the mailed frock and chausses were joined, the union was called the hauber-smithsamong our ancestors, and that they geon. In each case, the back and crown of the head were saved harmless by a hood of mail, which sometimes formed part of the hauberk or haubergeon, and sometimes was detached. In Spain, the hood and the other parts of the dress were united, if the case of the Cid be held as evidence of the general state of manners; for after his battles he is always represented as slowly quitting were capable of inventing the next and at a time when the Asiatic mode of warlast great change. But as it was made fare was known in Europe, and as the improvement I am about to mention was the general mode of the Saracenian soldiers, it is as probable that it was borrowed as that it was invented. The rings of mail were now no longer sewn on the dress, but they were interlaced, each ring having four others inserted into it, and consequently the rings formed a garment of themselves. The best coats of mail were * Dr. Meyrick, in his huge work on armour, divides the sorts of this early mail into the rustred, the scaled, the trellissed, the purpointed, and the tegulated. The grave precision of this enume-made of double rings.* The admirable ration will amuse the curious inquirer into the infinite divisibility of matter. In a masterly dissertation upon Ancient Armour, in the sixtieth number of the Quarterly convenience of this twisted or reticulated mail secured its general reception. A knight was no longer encumbered by his armour in travelling. His squire might be the bearer of his mail, for it was both flexible and compact, or it could be rolled upon the hinder part of a saddle. Before, however, this last great improvement in mail-armour took place, changes were made in that general description of harness which foretold its final fall, although it might be partially and for a time supported by any particular invention of merit. Plates of solid steel or iron were fixed on the breast or other parts of the body, where painful experience had assured the wearer of the insufficiency of his metal rings. The new fashion of reticulated mail added nothing to the strength of defence, and, therefore, ingenuity and prudence were ever at work to make defensive armour equal to offensive. New plates continually were added, and many of them received their titles from the parts of the body which they were intended to defend: the pectoral protected the breast, the cuisses were for the thighs, the brassarts for the arms, the ailettes for the shoulders, while the gorget defended the throat, and a scaly guantlet gloved the hand. The cuirass was the title for the defence of the breast and the back. This mixed harness gained ground till the knight had nearly a double covering of mail and plate. The plate was then found a perfect defence, and the mail was gradually thrown aside; and thus, finally, the warrior was entirely clad in steel plates. This harness was exceedingly oppressive to the limbs, and therefore we find the circumstance so frequently mentioned in old writers, that when a knight alighted at his hostel or inn, he not only doffed his armour, but went into a bath. No wonder that it Review, it is said, that "though chain-mail was impervious to a sword-cut, yet it afforded no defence against the bruising stroke of the ponderous battle-axe and martel; it did not always resist the shaft of the long or cross-bow, and still less could it repel the thrust of the lance or the long-pointed sword." There is a slight mistake here. All good coats of mail were formed of duplicated rings, and their impenetrability to a lance thrust was an essential quality. Induitur lorica incomparabili, quæ maculis duplicibus intexta, nullius lanceæ ictibus transforabilis haberetur." Mon. 1. 1. ann. 1127. 66 was necessary to keep changes of dress to present to the cavaliers who arrived. Plate armour must have been as destructive of clothes as the old chain mail, and describing his knight, Chaucer says. "Of fustian he wered a gipon Alle besmotred with his harbergeon. The plate harness was in one respect far more inconvenient than the armour it superseded. The coat of chain mail could be put on or slipped off with instantaneous celerity; but the dressing of a plate-armed knight was no simple. matter. 66 From the tents Besides this depravation of rest before a battle, the knight, in order to prevent surprise, was obliged to wear his heavy harness almost constantly. It is curious to observe, that chain mail formed some part of the harness of a knight until the very last days of chivalry, chivalric feelings seeming to be associated with that ancient form of armour. It was let into the plates round the neck, and thus there was a collar or tippet of mail; and it also generally hung over other parts of the body, where, agreeably to its shape and dimensions, it became, if I may again express myself in the language of ladies, if not of antiquarians, an apron or a short petticoat. The armour of the knight was often crossed by a scarf of silk embroidered by his lady-love. He wore also a dress which in different times was variously designated as a surcoat, a cyclas, or a tabard. It was long* or short, it opened at the sides, in the back, or in the front, as fashion or caprice ruled the wearer's mind; but it was always sleeveless. Originally simple cloth was its material; but as times and luxury advanced it became richer. For the reason that this sort of dress was almost the only one in which the lords, knights, and barons * Froissart describes Sir John Chandos as dressed in a long robe, which fell to the ground, blazoned with his arms on white sarcenet, argent a field gules, one on his breast, and another on his back. could display their magnificence, and because it covered all their clothing and armour, they had it usually made of cloths of gold or silver, of rich skins, furs of ermine, sables, minever, and others.* There was necessarily more variety in the appearance of the surcoat than in that of any other part of his harness, and hence it became the distinction of a knight. In public meetings and in times of war the lords and knights were marked by their coats of arms; and when they were spoken of, or when any one wished to point them out by an exterior sign, it was sufficient to say that he wears a coat of or, argent, gules, sinople, gris, ermine, or vair, or still shorter, he bears or, gules, &c., the words coat of arms being understood. But as these marks were not sufficient to distinguish in solemn assemblies, or in times of war every lord, when all were clothed in coats of arms of gold, silver, or rich furs, they, in process of time, thought proper to cut the cloths of gold, and silver, and furs, which they wore over their armour, into various shapes of different colours, observing, however, as a rule, never to put fur on fur, nor cloths of gold on those of silver, nor those of silver on gold; but they intermixed the cloths with the furs, in order to produce variety and relief.t With these cloths and furs were mingled devices or cognisances symbolical of some circumstance in the life of the knight, and with the crest the whole formed in modern diction the coat of arms. Every feudal lord assumed the right of choosing his own armorial distinctions: they were worn by all his family, and were hereditary. It was also in his power to grant arms to knights and squires as marks of honour for military merit; and from all these causes armorial distinctions represented the feudalism, the gentry, and the chivalry of Europe. One knight could not give more deadly offence to another than by wearing his armorial * Du Cange, Dissert. the first on Joinville. The extravagance of people in the middle ages on the subject of furs is the theme of perpetual complaint with contemporary authors. By two statutes of the English parliament, holden at London in 1334 and 1363, all persons who could not expend one hundred pounds a-year were forbidden to wear furs. † Du Cange, ubi supra. bearings without his permission, and many a lance was broken to punish such insolence. Kings, as their power arose above that of the aristocracy, assumed the right of conferring these distinctions; an assumption of arms without royal permission was an offence, and the business of heralds was enlarged from that of being mere messengers between hostile princes into a court for the arranging of armorial honours. Thus the usurpation of kings was beneficial to society, for disputes regarding arms and cognisances were settled by heralds and not by battle. It is totally impossible to mark the history of these circumstances. Instances of emblazoned sopra vests are to be met with in times anterior to the crusades. They were worn during the continuance of mail and of mixed armour: but they gradually went out of usage as plate armour became general, it being then very much the custom to enamel or emboss the heraldic distinctions on the armour itself, or to be contented with its display on the shield or the banner. On festival occasions and tournaments, however, all the gorgeousness of heraldic splendour was exhibited upon the cyclas or tabard. A word may was be said on the surcoats of the military orders. The knights of St. John and the Temple wore plain sopra vests, and their whole harness covered by a monastic mantle, marked with the crosses of their respective societies. The colour of the mantle worn by the knights of St. John was black, and from that colour being the usual monastic one, they were called the military friars. Their cross was white. The brethren of the Temple wore a white mantle with a red cross, and hence their frequent title, the Red Cross Knights. The history of the covering of the head is not altogether unamusing. The knight was not contented to trust the protection of that part of himself to his mailed hood alone; he wore a helmet, whose shape was at first conical, then cylindrical, and afterwards resumed its pristine form. The defence of the face became a matter of serious consideration, and a broad piece of iron was made to connect the frontlet of the helm with the mail over the mouth.* This nasal piece was not in general use, it being a very imperfect * Montfaucon, Pl. 2. xiv. 7, and Gough, i. 137. protection from a sword-cut, and the knight found it of more inconvenience than service when his vanquisher held him to earth by it. Cheek-pieces of bars, placed horizontally or perpendicularly, attached to the helmet, were substituted or introduced. Then came the aventaile, or iron mask, joined to the helmet, with apertures for the eyes and mouth. It was at first fixed and immoveable, but ingenuity afterwards assisted those face defences. By means of pivots the knight could raise or let fall the plates or grating before the face, and the defence was called a visor. Subsequently, plates were brought up from the chin, and this moveable portion of the hemlet was called, as most people know, the bever, from the Italian bevere, to drink. In early times the helmet was without ornament; it afterwards (though the exact time it is impossible to fix) was mounted by that part of the armorial bearings called the crest. A lady's glove or scarf was often introduced, and was not the least beautiful ornament. The Templars and the knights of St. John were not permitted to adorn their helmets with the tokens either of nobility or of love; the simplicity of religion banishing all vain heraldic distinctions, and the soldierpriests being obliged, like the monks themselves, to pretend to that ascetic virtue which was so highly prized in the middle ages. sur All the splendour of chivalry is comprised in the helmet of prince Arthur. "His haughty helmet, horrid all with gold, From flaming mouth bright sparkles fiery red, That sudden horror to faint hearts did show, And scaly tail was stretch'd adowne his back full low. "Upon the top of all his lofty crest A bunch of hairs discoloured diversely, With sprinkled pearl and gold full richly drest, Did shake and seem'd to dance for jollity, Like to an almond-tree ymounted hye On top of green Selinis all alone, With blossoms brave bedecked daintily; Whose tender locks do tremble every one At every little breath that under heaven is blown."* *Fairy Queen, Book i., canto vii., st. 31, 32. The helmet, with its visor and bever, was carried by the squire, or page, on the pommel of his saddle, a very necessary measure for the relief of the knight, particularly when the sarcasm of the Duke of Orleans was applicable, that "if the English had any intellectual armour in their heads, they could never wear such heavy head-pieces."* The reader should know, with the barber in Don Quixote, that, except in the hour of battle, a knight wore only an open casque, or bacinet, a light and easy covering. The bacinet derived its title from its resemblance to a basin; but the word was sometimes used, however improperly, for the helmet, the close helmet of knighthood. A visor might be attached to the bacinet, and then the covering for the head became a helmet. Bacinez à visieres are often spoken of. The helmet of war appeared to complete the perfection of defensive harness; for the lance broke hurtless on the plate of steel, the arrow and quarrel glanced away, and it is only in romance that we read of swords cutting through a solid front of iron, or piercing both plate and mail, as some bolder spirits say. "From top to toe no place appeared bare, That deadly dint of steel endanger may."† be inflicted was by thrusting a lance The only way by which death could through the small holes in the visor. Such a mode of death was not very common, for the cavalier always bent his face almost to the saddle-bow when he charged. The knight, however, might be unhorsed in the shock of the two adverse lines, and he was in that case at the mercy of the foe who was left standing. But how to rolling mass of steel was the question; kill the human being enclosed in the and the armourer, therefore, invented a thin dagger, which could be inserted between the plates. This dagger was called the dagger of mercy, apparently a strument of death; but, in truth, the laws curious title, considering it was the inof chivalry obliged the conqueror to show mercy, if, when the dagger was drawn, the prostrate foe yielded himself, rescue or no rescue. * Shakspeare, Henry V., Act. iii., sc. 7. Fairy Queen, Book i., c. 7, st. 29. It may be noticed that a dagger or short sword was worn by the knight even in days of chain mail, for the hauberk was a complete case. 66 Straight from his courser leaps the victor knight, And bares his deadly blade to end the fight; The uplifted hauberk's skirt he draws aside, In his foe's flank the avenging steel is dyed."* Froissart's pages furnish us with an interesting tale, descriptive of the general chivalric custom, regarding the dagger of mercy. About the year 1390, the lord of Langurante in Gascony rode forth with forty spears and approached the English fortress called Cadilhac. He placed his company in ambush, and said to them, "Sirs, tarry you still here, and I will go and ride to yonder fortress alone, and see if any will issue out against us." He then rode to the barriers of the castle, and desired the keeper to show to Bernad Courant, their captain, how that the lord Langurante was there, and desired to joust with him a course. "If he be so good a man, and so valiant in arms as it is said,"continued the challenger, "he will not refuse it for his ladies sake: if he do, it shall turn him to much blame, for I shall report it wheresoever I go, that for cowardice he hath refused to run with me one course with a spear." A squire of Bernard reported this message to his master, whose heart beginning to swell with ire, he cried, "Get me my harness, and saddle my horse; he shall not go refused." Incontinently he was armed, and mounted on his war steed, and taking his shield and spear, he rode through the gate and the barriers into the open field. The lord Langurante seeing him coming was rejoiced, and couched his spear like a true knight, and so did Bernard. Their good horses dashed at each other, and their lances struck with such equal fierceness that their shields fell in pieces, and as they crossed Bernard shouldered sir Langurante's horse in such a manner that the lord fell out of the saddle. Bernard turned his steed shortly round, and as the lord Langurante was rising, his foe, who was a strong as well as a valiant squire, took his bacinet with both his hands, and * Lay of the Knight and the Sword. wrenching it from his head, cast it under his horse's feet. On seeing all this the lord of Langurante's men quitted their ambush, and were coming to the rescue of their master, when Bernard drew his dagger, and said to the lord, "Sir, yield you my prisoner, rescue or no rescue; or else you are but dead." The lord, who trusted to the rescue of his men, spoke not a word; and Bernard then gave him a death-blow on his bare head, and dashing spurs into his horse, he fled within the barriers.* Such was the general state of armour in days of chivalry. A more detailed account of the subject cannot be interesting; for what boots it to know the exact form of dimensions of any of the numerous plates of steel that encased the knight. Nor indeed was any shape constant long; for fashion was as variable and imperious in all her changes in those times as in ours; and as we turn with contempt from the military foppery of the present day, little gratification can be expected from too minute an inspection of the vanities of our forefathers. Chaucer says, "With him ther wenten knights many on, A chronological history of armour, minutely accurate, is unattainable, if any deduction may be made from the books of laborious dulness which have hitherto appeared on the armour of different countries. Who can affirm that the oldest specimen which we possess of any particular form of harness is the earliest specimen of its kind? No one can determine the precise duration of a fashion; for after ruling the world for some time it suddenly disappears, but some years afterwards it rears its head again to the confusion and dismay of our antiquarians. Our best authorities sometimes fail us. The monumental effigies were not always carved at the moment of the knight's Froissart, livre i., c. 342. |