Part 3

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The craft of the armourer merits far more study than has hitherto been bestowed upon it, for in its finest examples it fulfils all the essential laws of good craftsmanship to the uttermost. Added to this the works of the armourer have what may be called a double personal interest. In the first place, they are the actual wearing apparel of kings, princes, and other persons of note, made to their measure and often exhibiting some peculiarity of their owner. Owing to the perishable nature of fabrics but little of wearing apparel has survived to us of the periods anterior to the seventeenth century, and therefore the suit of armour is most valuable as an historical record, especially when taken in conjunction with portraits, historical paintings, and sculpture. In addition to this we have the personality of the maker. The boldly grooved breast-plate, the pauldrons, and the wide elbow-cops of the Missaglia, the distinctive hook for the armet which appears only on Topf suits can be recognized at once, and besides this we have the _poinçon_ or signature of the craftsman, which it is almost impossible to imitate, and which at once proclaims the authorship of the armour.

The whole subject of the armourer and his craft, his limitations, his success at his best period, and his decadence in later years can be best summed up in the illustration given on Plate III. Here we have the graceful and light yet serviceable suit of Sigismond of Tirol, made by an unknown armourer about the year 1470, placed side by side with the cumbrous defence made for Louis XIV by Garbagnus of Brescia in 1668. Though this craftsman must have had fine work by his forefathers at hand to study, and though the other arts and crafts were tending towards a light and flowing, if meaningless, style of design, the craft of the armourer had by this time reached a depth of sheer utilitarian ugliness which was never equalled even in the most primitive years of its history.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See Regulations of the “Heaumers,” Appendix B, p. 171.

[2] _Vetusta Monumenta_, VI, and _Armour and Weapons_, p. 88, C. ffoulkes.

[3] Haute Savoye, near Aix-les-Bains.

[4] Charles ffoulkes “Italian Armour at Chalcis,” _Archæologia_, LXII.

[5] Sir Henry Lee.

[6] _Arch. Journ._, June, 1895.

[7] Sir Thomas Gresham’s steelyard in the London Museum is decorated with portions of sword hilts.

TOOLS, APPLIANCES, ETC.