Part II. of the _Trachten_. The jazerant coats of the fifteenth

century, of which several real specimens yet remain to us, are of a very similar construction. A third kind of Stud-work seems to differ from the articulated sort described above, in its basis being uniform and rigid, while the surface exhibits the same features, of a coloured ground-work spangled with bosses of gold or silver. See Stothard's Plates LXXVI. and XCIII. A fourth variety appears to be described in this passage of the Inventory of the effects of Piers Gaveston: "Item, en un autre coffre une peire de plates enclouez et garniz d'argent, od quatre cheynes d'argent, coverz dun drap de velvet vermail besaunte d'or[343]." Here we have a garment of velvet spotted with gold, covering an armour nailed with silver: clearly, therefore, differing from the preceding kinds, where the rivets unite the component materials into one vestment. A further item of the Inventory seems to shew still more clearly that the velvet coat (whether bezanted or not) was distinct from the iron defence: "Item, deux cotes de velvet pur plates coverir." Finally, another kind of studded military garment, of which we trace the existence through the examples of Modern Asia, consisted of several thicknesses of pliable stuff, held together by rivets with bossed heads which appear on the surface. In the Museum of the United Service Institution may be seen a Chinese armour constructed after this method, but having the coat lined at the breast with a few plates of iron about the size of playing-cards. In other examples, the studs are not rivetted, but only sewn down upon the garment.

Towards the close of the thirteenth century we find an armour offering a new appearance, to which has been given the name of Banded Mail. Notwithstanding much careful consideration, its exact structure has not yet been discovered, though the representations of it are very abundant. For a whole century, manuscript illuminations, monumental brasses, painted windows, royal and baronial seals, metal chasings and sculptures of various kinds, afford us an infinity of examples; in none of which has hitherto been detected the exact evidence either of its material or its construction. Monumental sculptures, from their large size and the careful finish of their details, might have been expected to solve a problem which they only perplex. The effigy[344] here engraved, of a knight of the De Sulney family, exhibits the warrior armed from head to foot in a suit of banded-mail; and in the following woodcut we have given a portion of the armour of this figure, of its real size. The profile view has been copied with particular care, in the hope that it might be of use in determining the structure of this very singular defence. By many writers this fabric has been described as pourpointerie; by others it has been considered as only a conventional mode of representing the ordinary chain-mail. Mr. Kerrich, whose opinions will always be received with, the greatest respect, speaking of the rows of little arcs used to express the latter defence, says: "When there are lines between the rows, whether _two_ or only one, I conceive it means still but the same thing[345]." M. Pottier, in the text to Willemin's _Monuments Inédits_, does not distinguish the so-called banded-mail from the other, but names it simply "armure de mailles[346]." But it seems difficult to believe that the common chain-mail could be intended, so widely different are the two modes of representation, whether in sculpture or in painting. Observe, for instance, the details--especially the portion in profile--from the effigy at Newton Solney. And in the following subject from the Romance of Meliadus, (Add. MS. 12,228, f. 79,) there seems no assignable reason for marking one figure so differently from the rest, unless the armour itself were of a distinct kind[347].

That the banded defences under consideration were of pourpointing is still more unlikely; for a gamboised garment, whether of velvet, silk, cloth, or whatever material, would, in painted representations, exhibit those various _colours_ which are so lavishly displayed in the other portions of the knightly attire. Yet a careful examination of many hundred figures in illuminated manuscripts has failed in detecting a single instance of positive colour on banded-mail, except such as may be referred to the metals. Green, scarlet, crimson, diaper or ray, never appear. But gold or a golden tincture, silver or white, and grey of various shades, occur continually. And all these seem to indicate a fabric in which metal plays at least a conspicuous part. The examples among vellum-paintings, in which the banding is tinted grey or left white, are so numerous that one can scarcely open a manuscript of the period without finding them. Instances of it in silver may be seen in Cotton MSS., Vitellius, A. xiii., and Nero, D. vi.; in Roy. MS. 20, D. i., and Add. MS. 12,228. On folio 217^{vo}. of the last-named book will be found the figure of a knight whose banded-mail is gilt. The same kind of armour, in gold colour, appears in the windows of Beer Ferrers Church, Devonshire, and of Fulborn Church, Cambridgeshire. See Lysons' Devonshire, p. 326, and Kerrich Collections, Add. MS. 6,730, fol. 61, for faithful copies of these examples. If from the foregoing evidences we derive the belief that the basis of this fabric was metal, from a monument figured in the superb work of Count Bastard, _Peintures des Manuscrits, &c._, we gather that the lines of arcs were rings; for the fillet that binds the coif round the temples is clearly passed through alternate groups of rings, exactly as in the ordinary mail-hood. The figure is from a French Bible of the beginning of the fourteenth century, and occurs in the seventh number of the _Peintures_. In fairness we must admit that this example is not altogether inadmissible as an evidence in favour of the theory of common chain-mail. And on that side may be ranged the very curious figure of Offa the First, given in our woodcut, No. 80, from the "Lives of the Two Offas," by Matthew Paris (Cott. MS., Nero, D. i. fol. 7); where the upper part of the warrior's coif is of "banded-mail," while the lower portion is marked in the manner usually adopted to express the ordinary chain-mail.

Different from all these is the interpretation offered by M. de Vigne in his _Recueil de Costumes du Moyen-Age_. On Plate LVI. of that work, the author has given a series of sketches, shewing the supposed construction of various ancient armours. The banded mail is represented as formed of rows of overlapping rings, sewn down on leather or other similar material, "avec les coutures couvertes de petites bandes de cuir." Von Leber, in his sketch of medieval armour, has the same notion: "Vom 13. his nach Anfang des 14. Jahrh. der lederstreifige Ringharnisch als unschöne und unbequeme Ritterhülle[348]." This interpretation, however, is at variance with those ancient monuments where the _inside_ of the defence exhibits the ring-work as well as the exterior. See our print of the De Sulney effigy. A more improbable garment, to say the least of it, than a hauberk of leather, _faced_ with mail and _lined_ with mail, can scarcely be conceived. Other examples of the hauberk, shewing the banding on the inside, are furnished by the brass of De Creke (Waller, Pt. viii.; Boutell, p. 39), a brass at Minster, Isle of Sheppey (Stothard, Pl. LIV.; Boutell, p. 42), in the effigy of Sir John D'Aubernoun (Stothard, Pl. LX.), and the brass at Ghent, figured in the Archæological Journal, vol. vii. p. 287.

Sometimes the knight's horse is barded with banded-mail, as in the figure from a manuscript in the Library of Cambrai, given by De Vigne in his _Recueil de Costumes_, vol. ii., plate VIII. In Roy. MS. 20, D. i. fol. 330, a work of about the close of the thirteenth century, are elephants with similar caparisons: on their backs are castles, full of fighting men.

We have already noticed that four sculptured effigies with banded-mail have been observed in England. The Tewkesbury figure is given by Stothard; an example further curious from the hauberk being sculptured as ordinary chain-mail, while the camail alone is of the banded work. In the "Memoirs," p. 125, Stothard, writing of this camail to Mr. Kerrich, says: "Amongst other curious things I have met with, is a figure which has some remarkable points about it; but, for the discovery of these, I devoted a whole day in clearing away a thick coating of whitewash which concealed them. The mail attached to the helmet was of that kind so frequently represented in drawings, and which you have had doubts whether it was not another way of representing that sort we are already acquainted with. I am sorry that I know no more of its construction now than before I met with it." The effigy at Dodford, near Weedon, is engraved in Baker's Northamptonshire, vol. i. p. 360. The knight has hauberk, chausses and coif of banded-mail, with poleyns, coutes and cervellière of plate. The figure at Tollard Royal, Wilts, has not been engraved; but from some memorandums kindly furnished by a friend, it appears that this knight is habited in hauberk, chausses and coif of banded-mail, with a skull-cap of plate.

Compare also the effigy of gilded metal in Westminster Abbey, of William de Valence, who died in 1296 (Stothard, Pl. XLIV.). In the following figures, from a German manuscript of about 1280, copied from Hefner's _Trachten_, it will be observed that each knight differs from his fellow in the manner of his equipment, though the staple defence of all is the banded-mail. Other examples of this kind of armour will be found in our woodcuts, No. 47, 48, 63, 72 and 77. At last, we can establish no definite conclusion. Our proofs are but of a negative character. Yet it is always something, to have determined what a thing is not. It seems pretty clear, then, from the absence of varied colours which we have remarked, that the Banded-mail is not pourpointerie of any kind. And, from the presence of the ring-work on the inside of the armour as well as the outside, it appears not to be of the construction suggested by the German and Belgian antiquaries. If meant for ordinary chain-mail, it must be confessed that the medieval artists never hit upon a mode of expressing this material so little resembling the original. It is to the further examination of ancient evidences, or to the discovery of monuments hitherto unobserved, that we must look for a satisfactory solution of this knightly mystery.

In addition to the various armours already noticed, we find in the thirteenth century the defence expressed by cross-lines which we have remarked in the earlier periods. Good examples occur on folio 9 of Roy. MS. 12, F. xiii., and in Laing's Scottish Seals, Plate IV.

And in a chess-piece of the early part of this century, the markings of the armour are made in a very peculiar manner: by rows of drilled holes divided by lines. (Woodcut 69.) This seems to be the device of a rude artist to express the ordinary chain-mail. The example was first brought into prominent notice in the pages of the Archæological Journal, vol. iii. p. 241.

Occasionally, but very rarely, the chain-mail was indicated in monumental statues by merely painting the links on a flat surface. The effigy of a De l'Isle in Rampton Church, Cambridgeshire, engraved by Stothard, Plate XXI., affords a good instance of this method.

A further singularity of the period is that the chain-mail sometimes presents a surface of a hue which does not appear consistent with a defence of steel. The effigy of Longuespée at Salisbury (woodcut No. 54) has the armour painted brown. The centre figure in our woodcut No. 53 wears a hauberk which is marked with buff on a white ground, the other hauberks being blue. The knight on woodcut No. 62 has a chausson shaded with red. And in Harl. MSS. 1,526 and 1,527 are many figures in which the chain-mail markings appear on a bright red ground. It seems probable, however, that such variations may be charged on the caprice of the artists; as in the colourings of the Bayeux tapestry, where the near legs of the horses are made blue, while the off legs are yellow.

Among the knightly effigies in the Temple Church, London, is a figure which seems to require an especial notice; the armour being of a fashion not elsewhere remarked. It consists of a back and breast-piece, each in a single part, united at the sides by straps. The sculpture being in stone, without any painting preserved, it is of course impossible to ascertain the material which the artist desired to represent. It may have been leather (the _cuirie_, of which we have already noted the existence); but there seems no good reason why it should not have been iron: and if so, it is perhaps the earliest example of a body-armour formed of a "pair of plates large[349]" that Europe has to offer. The effigy in question lies at the south-east corner of the group in the Round Church.

About the beginning of the thirteenth century arose the use of the military SURCOAT. The first English monarch who, on his Great Seal, appears in this garment, is King John: 1199-1216. (See our woodcut, No. 52.) The seal of the dauphin Louis, the rival of John, (appended to Harleian Charter, 43, B. 37, dated 1216,) has it also. The earliest Scottish king who wears the surcoat is Alexander the Second: 1214-1249: a fine impression of his seal is attached to Cotton Charter, xix. 2. Imaginative writers have affirmed that this garment was first used by the Crusaders, in order to mitigate the discomfort of the metal hauberk, "so apt to get heated under a Syrian sun." Cotemporary authority, however, expressly tells us that its purpose was to defend the armour from the wet:--

"Then sex or atte[350] on assente Hase armut hom and furthe wente

* * * * * With scharpe weppun and schene, Gay gownus of grene, To hold thayre armur clene And were[351] hitte fro the wete." _The Avowynge of King Arther_, stanza 39.

The Surcoat was of two principal kinds: the sleeveless and the sleeved. The latter is not found till the second half of the century.

The Sleeveless Surcoat occurs of various lengths: sometimes scarcely covering the hauberk, sometimes reaching to the heels. Both the short and the long are seen throughout the century. The long appear on the royal seals noticed above. And on the seal of De Quinci, circa 1250 (woodcut, No. 87); on the sculpture from Haseley, c. 1250 (cut, No. 46); on the brass of D'Aubernoun, 1277 (No. 55); on that of De Trumpington, 1289 (No. 73); on the effigies at Ash and Norton, of the close of the century (Nos. 59 and 70); and on the statues of De Vere and Crouchback (Stothard, Plates XXXVI. and XLII.).

The shorter Surcoat occurs on the effigy of Longuespée, d. 1226 (woodcut, No. 54); the knight at Whitworth, c. 1250 (Stothard, Pl. XXIV.); the figures from the Painted Chamber and the "Lives of the Two Offas" (woodcuts, Nos. 80 and 86); the knight at Florence, 1289 (cut No. 58); De Valence, in Westminster Abbey (Stothard, Pl. XLIV.); and our engravings, Nos. 47, 56, 63, 64 and 68: the last-named examples being of the close of the century.

The Surcoat is either of a uniform tint, or diapered, or heraldically pictured. Probably, in some early sculptured effigies, the surcoat, now plain, had armorial devices expressed by painting, which time has obliterated. The armorial surcoat was a necessary result of the visored helm; for when the visor was closed, it was no longer possible to distinguish king from subject, leader from stranger, comrade from foe. A similar inconvenience had already been found in the nasal helmet. At the field of Hastings, Duke William was obliged to remove the bar from his face, in order to convince his followers that he was still alive. The figure of Longuespée at Salisbury,