Another of these MSS., 158ab, defines the duties and emoluments of a king-at-arms.—The office of a Kinge at Armes. “Fyrst as nyghe as he canne he shall take knowledge and kepe recorde of creastes cognissances and auntient used wordes,” etc.[149]
The principal additional or reinforcing pieces, pièces d’avantage, are:—the grand-guard or main-guard, which is in two plates, the volante-piece and the body portion, and these, though sometimes separate, are usually riveted together. The former is adapted to the contour of the helmet, to which it is firmly attached; while the latter, fixed to the breastplate, conforms to the curves of the neck, fits round the left side of the chest and left shoulder, and is flanged over the right shoulder to protect the weak place at the armpit on that side. The whole thus forms a double defence for that portion of the body against which an attack was mainly directed. The term “volante-piece,” as applied to the face piece of the grand-guard, is, however, of doubtful authority. It is sometimes referred to in English chronicles, though without stating what it really is. Meyrick employs it in the sense above referred to, but Lord Dillon[150] inclines to the opinion that the term properly belongs to the two extra plates over the forehead attachable to some helmets, and I am sure he is right. These plates are present on jousting salades, and are called Stirnplätten or Stirndoppolstuck (forehead-plates) by the Germans. However this may be it is convenient to apply the term generally in use unless quite assured of its incorrectness. The elbow-guard or pas-guard is a reinforcement for the left elbow-joint, fastened by a pin. The manifer, or mainfere, main de fer, steife henze, or miton-gauntlet is the stiff, heavy jousting gauntlet for the bridle hand and forearm; the name “manifer” is given by Meyrick to the crinet, absurdly connecting the word with the mane of the horse. The poldermiton or épaule de mouton, is a piece for the defence of the right forearm and bend, which is further protected by the vamplate of the lance. In the course with sharp lances, called Scharfrennen by the Germans, a dilge or jousting-cuisse is employed, strapped to the saddle; and there was an armlet for the right lower arm, used in that and some other courses. The jousting-shields differ in form in the various courses: they will be described in their order.
Catalogue No. 383 of the Wallace Collection, London, comprises a small set of additional pieces, which from the subject and character of enrichment (chevrons with minute pomegranates and scrolls, etched and gilt) would appear to have belonged to a suit of armour in the possession of the Duke of Northumberland, at Alnwick Castle, which was acquired in Italy by Duke Algernon, about the year 1840; and it has been freely and excellently restored.
When arming, the additional pieces were screwed on one after the other, the jousting-shield being adjusted last. This process completed, the jouster was almost immune from injury and was left almost an automaton, with little power of initiative beyond aiming his lance, and that with difficulty.
Jacques de Lalain sent a challenge to a feat of arms in the year 1448 to James, brother to Earl Douglas; the fight to take place in Edinburgh in the same year. He stated the conditions of combat proposed, for a foot encounter, à outrance, with spear, battle-axe, sword and dagger, which conditions were accepted by Douglas, with the reservation, at the instance of the King of Scotland, that no lance-casting should be allowed. The Burgundian party consisted of Jacques and his uncle Simon de Lalain, and a Messire de Mériadacq; while a Scottish trio, the brothers Douglas and a Lord de Haguet, arranged to fight them: the King to act as umpire. After some initial misunderstanding the knights fought paired against one another as follows:—Haguet against Simon de Lalain, Jacques against James Douglas, and Mériadacq against the other Douglas. The chronicler describes the course of the encounter, going into much detail, from which one would imagine that there was deadly peril to life and limb, but no serious hurt was sustained by any of the combatants; that fact being that the armour of proof enclosed each of the fighters in an almost impregnable fortress. La Marche was not present at this fight, but got his information from hearsay. Two out of the Burgundian trio were Chevaliers (Knights), the third combatant an Escuyer (Esquire), and it is interesting to note the difference in costume between the two grades. Matthieu de Couci gives it in the following terms[151]:—Chevaliers “furent revêtus de longues robes de velours noir, fourrées de martes zibelines fort riches”; quant au troisième qui étoit seulement Escuyer, “il en avoit une seulement de satin noir fourrée comme les autres.” King René says the stuff of an esquire’s costume at his court should be “drap de damas,” and it would appear generally that an esquire could wear either satin or damask, but the chevalier must be clad in velvet. Further regulations were made in 1486, when cloth of gold and cloth of silver came in.
The armour of the fifteenth century up to almost its close is usually termed “Gothic,” an incongruous appellation, though one convenient to employ owing to its having been so generally adopted and understood. Beyond a few fragments there is no armour of the first half of the century left to us; and for our knowledge of the knightly body-harness of that period we are mainly indebted to an ample series of monumental effigies and brasses. Though one cannot draw any decided line, it may be said that the process of transition from chain-mail to plate armour had been practically completed at the commencement of the fifteenth century; and the progress made in the directions of elegance, comprehensiveness and strength had been steady and continuous until towards the middle of the century, when we have glorious complete suits of armour spread out before us.
The brass of Sir John Wylcotes, in Great Tew Church, Oxfordshire, dating about 1410, affords an example of the standard of mail, which was a collar worn under a gorget of plate. The figure is without jupon, so that the breastplate and taces are exposed to view, and they are of plate; small motons, oval in form, cover the weak places at the armpits.
The brass in South Kelsey Church, Lincolnshire, dated about a decade later, shows the armour to be much more ornate, having crescent-shaped motons, fan-formed wings to the coudes; taces of six lames and short tuilles; the figure wears a pointed bascinet. The armour on the effigy in Hoveringham Church, Nottinghamshire, believed to have been ascribed by Stothart to Sir Robert Grushill, is certainly not of the reign of Richard II, 1377-1399, but should rather be dated in that of Henry VI. There are fluted motons over the armpits, of a curved tooth-like form; coudes with elaborate heart-shaped wings; taces of eight narrow lames, with short rectangular tuilles, attached to the bottom rims by straps and buckles. The helmet is still the bascinet. This effigy exhibits an instance of the presence of the collar SS. There is an example of this collar in the Tower of London.[152] It was found in one of the turrets of the White Tower in 1913.[153] It is beyond the province of this work to discuss the probable meaning of these ciphers, which is obscure.
The Gothic armour of the connoisseur is reached in the beautiful effigy of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, in St. Mary’s Church, Warwick. It is cast in laton, a golden looking blend something between bronze and brass. The earl died in 1439, but the contract for his monument was not given out until fifteen years after, so that the type of armour is later than that of any actual harness worn by the earl. The effigy exhibits body-armour at its very best, as well in dignity of form as in beauty of outline; and if it was not directly copied from a suit made by Tomaso Missaglai of Milan, the design for it certainly came from Italy. The breastplate exhibits a deep curved groove on either side; it is shorter than was usual somewhat later, with a large number of taces; and there are low neck-guards. Mr. Stothart also gives a back view of the figure, showing the armour as completely delineated behind as in front. The effigy is depicted on [Plate II], giving both a front view and one in profile.
The great armour-smiths of the fifteenth century were fine artists in steel, and many of their creations preserved are models for all time in elegance of form and excellence of workmanship. One can trace their individuality and idiosyncrasies to an extent making it often possible to attribute their work even when unstamped with their monograms and devices. The Missaglias Negrolis and Piccininos of Milan, the Kolmans of Augsburg, the Seusenhofers of Innsbruck, the Grünewalts and Von Worms of Nuremberg, and many others, carried on their craft from generation to generation.