The blade (see plate 4) is smooth, double-edged, and round-pointed; on both sides for two-thirds of its length it is grooved, like most swords of that time. Inside both grooves are certain signs or letters, engraved and gilded, which the Conde de Valencia reads as the words—Si, si, No, non. This somewhat cryptic inscription, the learned antiquary explains as being part of the motto of St. Ferdinand, which may be roughly translated—“Let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay.” The hilt is of the sixteenth century, and was the work of Salvador de Avila, a swordmaker of Toledo, who died in 1539.

Next to this sword is another of the same era (G22), erroneously attributed to Roland, the famed Paladin of the eighth century. It is not impossible that this also was one of St. Ferdinand’s weapons. It is very long and broad, thin and flexible, double-edged, scallop-pointed, and grooved for two-thirds of its length. The groove is engraved with rings or circles, and ends in an elaborate cruciform device. The guard, of massive silver-gilt, has quillons drooping and curving inward, and bears the arms of Castile on one side and those of Leon on the other. The hilt is of wood, plated with silver; the pommel is of iron, and is plated with silver-gilt. The plates were once covered with filigree work. The scabbard is of wood, sheathed in silver-gilt plate, and covered with lace-work, essentially Morisco in character. Of the seventy-five stones originally set in this filigree, only the half remain, including a large amethyst and three engraved stones of the classical style and period (plate 5).

Shields had not changed much since the preceding century to judge from the specimen numbered D60. Like the twelfth century shield next to it, it is of wood covered with parchment, and has grips of skin. On the obverse may be traced the design of a hood, which has led Don Leocadio Salazar to conclude that the shield was the property of the Conde de Bureba, four hoods being on his coat of arms. The epitaph on that illustrious personage’s tomb declares that “he filled Spain with the fame of his name, as Themistocles did Athens.”

Our last instance of a Spanish suit of armour of the thirteenth century illustrates a curious fashion in military attire that often has occupied the attention of experts. The statue of Don Berenguer de Puigvert, in the suppressed Monastery of Poblet, represents him clothed in a full and richly embroidered surcoat, confined at the waist by a baldric, beneath which he is wearing a complete suit of banded armour of a very elaborate pattern. On the forearm the mail seems to be composed of rings placed end to end vertically instead of horizontally. The gauntlets and leg-armour are composed of alternate horizontal bands, some showing a zig-zag pattern; the others, perhaps rings set vertically. Banded mail of various designs seems to have been fashionable all over Europe at the close of the thirteenth century. Hewitt enumerates four examples in English statuary. He expounds the various theories advanced to explain the nature of this armour, and finally confesses that the riddle is still unsolved. As Aragon seems in all improvements in armour to have kept well ahead of the rest of the world, we need not be surprised to find there an example of what was evidently a fashionable style in Europe generally.

The headpiece universally worn at this time was the heaulme or helm. About the middle of the century the aventail, or hinged opening for the face, was introduced, and accordingly we find St. Ferdinand (represented in the windows of Chartres Cathedral) wearing a casque with an aventail cleft with three vertical slits. The camail was still generally worn under the heaulme, which rested not only on the head but on the shoulders of the wearer, and was secured by a chain. It was too heavy to wear habitually, and was, therefore, carried at the saddle, or by the esquire, to be put on at the approach of an enemy. Steel caps also were often worn underneath; but much must obviously have depended on the degree of strength and foolhardiness possessed by the individual.

“From the collection of mediæval ‘Proverbs,’ ” remarks the author we have so often quoted, Mr. Hewitt, “we learn that Spain was the favourite mart for the knightly charger. Denmark and Brittany had also a celebrity for their breeds of horses of a different character. The fiat of popular approval is given to the—

“ ‘Dextriers de Castille,
Palefrois Danois,
Roussins de Bretagne.’

“Such was the nature of the high-bred dextrarius that, when two knights had dismounted, and were continuing the fight on foot, their horses, left to themselves, instantly commenced a conflict of their own of the most gallant and desperate character.” Bucephalus and Pegasus were inferior steeds in comparison.

NOTE

The representation of armour on tombs and sepulchral effigies was subject, during the Middle Ages, to regulations, which throw light on the rank and the circumstances of the death of the deceased. In Carderera’s Iconografia we find the following ordinances ascribed to the Emperor Charles V. They are probably merely a recapitulation of enactments which had been in force several centuries:—