The History of Chivalry Volume I Part 5

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 a.s.sociated 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 ap.r.o.n or a short petticoat.

[Sidenote: The scarf.]

[Sidenote: Surcoats.]

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[105]

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 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.[106] 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, sable, 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 a.s.semblies, 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.[107] With these cloths and furs were mingled devices or cognizances symbolical of some circ.u.mstance in the life of the knight, and with the crest the whole formed in modern diction the coat of arms.

[Sidenote: Armorial bearings.]

Every feudal lord a.s.sumed the right of chusing 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 bearings without his permission, and many a lance was broken to punish such insolence. Kings, as their power arose above that of the aristocracy, a.s.sumed the right of conferring these distinctions;--an a.s.sumption 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 circ.u.mstances.

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.

[Sidenote: Surcoats of the military orders.]

A word may 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 was 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 t.i.tle, the Red Cross Knights.

[Sidenote: Helmets.]

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.[108] This nasal piece was not in general use, it being a very imperfect 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 subst.i.tuted 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 a.s.sisted 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 vizor.

Subsequently, plates were brought up from the chin, and this moveable portion of the helmet 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 surmounted 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 n.o.bility or of love; the simplicity of religion banishing all vain heraldic distinctions, and the soldier-priests being obliged, like the monks themselves, to pretend to that ascetic virtue which was so highly prized in the middle ages.

All the splendour of chivalry is comprised in the helmet of prince Arthur.

"His haughty helmet, horrid all with gold, Both glorious brightness and great terror bred; For all the crest a dragon did enfold With greedy paws, and over all did spred His golden wings: his dreadful hideous head Close couched on the bever, seem'd to throw 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."[109]

The helmet, with its vizor 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."[110]

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 t.i.tle from its resemblance to a basin; but the word was sometimes used, however improperly, for the helmet, the close helmet of knighthood. A vizor might be attached to the bacinet, and then the covering for the head became a helmet. Bacinez a 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."[111]

[Sidenote: The dagger of mercy.]

The only way by which death could be inflicted was by thrusting a lance through the small holes in the vizor. 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 kill the human being inclosed in the rolling ma.s.s of steel was the question; 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 curious t.i.tle, considering it was the instrument of death; but, in truth, the laws of chivalry obliged the conqueror to shew mercy, if, when the dagger was drawn, the prostrate foe yielded himself, rescue or no rescue.

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.

"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."[112]

[Sidenote: Story of its use.]

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 shew to Bernard 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 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.[113]

[Sidenote: Value of enquiries into ancient armour.]

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 and 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 forefather. Chaucer says,

"With him ther wenten knights many on, Some wol ben armed in an habergeon, And in a breast-plate, and in a gipon; And som wol have a pair of plates large; And som wol have a pruse sheld or a targe.

Som wol ben armed on his legges well, And have an axe, and some a mace stele.

Ther n'is no newe guise, that it n'as old.

_Armed they weren_, as I have you told, _Everich after his opinion_."

[Sidenote: A precise knowledge unattainable.]

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 it's 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 death: that the bust is tardily raised to buried merit is not the peculiar reproach of our times.

It is complimenting the sculptors of the middle ages too highly if we suppose that they did not sometimes violate accuracy, in order to introduce some favorite fashion of their own days. As for the illuminations of ma.n.u.scripts which are so much boasted of, they are often the attempts of a scribe to imitate antiquity, beautiful in respect of execution, but of problematical accuracy, and more frequently mark the age when the ma.n.u.script was copied, than that when the work was originally written. We know that violation of costume was common in the romances.

Thus, in the Morte d'Arthur, an unknown knight, completely armed, and having his vizor lowered so as to conceal his features, entered the hall of the king. Again,

"Cometh sir Launcelot du Lake, Ridand right into the hall; His steed and armour all was blake His visere over his eyen falle,"[114]

Now if the romance whence the above lines are extracted is to be considered as a picture of the earliest days of chivalry it is certainly incorrect, for it was not before the middle age of knighthood that the face was concealed by a vizor, the earlier defence of the nasal piece certainly not serving as a mask. The romances are unexceptionable witnesses for the general customs of chivalry, but we cannot fix their statements to any particular time, for they were varied and improved by successive repet.i.tions and transcriptions, and when they were rendered into prose still further changes were made in order to please the taste of the age. Thus, in an old Danish romance, a knight fighting for his lady remains on his horse; but when in the fifteenth century the tale was translated into the idioms of most chivalric countries, he is represented as alighting from his milk-white steed and giving it to his fair companion to hold; and the reason of this departure from the old ballad was, that the translators, wishing to make their work popular, adapted it to the manners of the age; and it was the general fashion then for the knights to dismount when they fought.

[Sidenote: Its general features interesting]

In spite of all our attempts at chronological accuracy, something or other is perpetually baffling us. We commonly think that mixed armour was the defensive harness in the days of our Edward the Third; but in Chaucer's portrait of the knightly character of that time, only the haubergeon is a.s.signed to the cavalier. Plate-armour seems to have been the general costume of the fifteenth century; and in any pictorial exhibition of the murder of John Duke of Burgundy in the year 1419, the artist who should represent the Duke as harnessed in chain-mail, would be condemned by a synod of archaeologists as guilty of an unpardonable anachronism; yet we know, on the unquestionable authority of Monstrelet, that when the Duke lay on the ground, Olivier Layet, a.s.sisted by Pierre Frotier, thrust a sword under the haubergeon into his belly; and that after he had been thus cruelly murdered, the Dauphin's people stripped from him his coat of mail.[115] But though it is difficult to determine the fashion of any part of armour in any particular century, and life may afford n.o.bler occupations than considering the precise year and month when the Normans gave up the clumsy expedient of inserting the sword through a hole in the hauberk, and adopted the more graceful and convenient form of a belt[116], yet viewing the subject of armour in some of its broad features, matter of no slight interest may be found. We may not regard the precise form and fashion of a warrior's scarf, or care to enquire whether the embroidery were worked with gold or silver, but the general fact itself involves the state of manners and feelings among our ancestors: it carries us to the lady's bower where she was working this token of love; our fancy paints the time and mode of bestowing it; and we follow it through all the subsequent career of the knight as his silent monitor to courage and loyalty.

[Sidenote: The broad lines of the subject.]

It is curious also to mark the perpetual efforts of defensive armour to meet the improvements in the art of destruction. Chain-mail was found an inadequate protection; plates of steel were added, and still this mixed harness did not render the body invulnerable. The covering of steel alone at length became complete, and defensive harness reached its perfection.

It is utterly impossible for us to state with accuracy the year when plate-armour began to be mixed with chain-mail in any particular country, or to determine what particular part of the body the first plate that was used defended; but the general features of the subject are known well enough to enable us to sketch to our imagination the military costume of some of the most remarkable events in the warfare of the middle ages. In the first crusade, the armour was in the rude state of mail worn on the tunic. There was the emblazoned surcoat, for that part of dress was of very early use; the hood was the common covering of the head, and when the helmet was worn it was of the simplest form, and occasionally had a nasal piece. The crusades began at the close of the eleventh century, and before the end of the thirteenth, not only was the hauberk composed of twisted mail, but mixed armour of plate and mail was common. The English wars in France during the reign of our Edward III. are the next subject to which our chivalric recollections recur. By that time plate had attained a general predominance over chain-mail. Perhaps, at no period of chivalry was armour more beautiful than in those days when France was one vast tilting ground for the culled and choice-drawn cavaliers of the two mighty monarchies of Europe. It was equally removed from the gloomy sternness of chain-mail, and the elaborate foppery of embossed steel: its solid plates satisfied the judicious eye by showing that the great principle of armour was chiefly attended to, and the surcoat and scarf gave the warrior's harness a character of neat and simple elegance. The horses, too, were barded in the most vulnerable parts; the symmetry of the form not being obscured, as it was in after-times by a casing of steel which left only part of the legs free of action. The helmet had its crest and silken ornament; the former being the sign of n.o.bility, the latter of love: and no warriors were so justly ent.i.tled to those graceful tokens of ladies'

favour, as the warriors of Edward III., for love was the inspiring soul of their chivalry.[117]

In the second series of our French wars complete plate-armour was in general fashion. Gradually, as armour became more and more ponderous, the knights preferred to fight on foot with their lances. That mode of encounter was found best fitted for the display of skill, for in the rude encounter of the horses many cavaliers were thrown, and the field presented a ludicrous spectacle of rolling knights.[118] Some traces of the custom of cavalry dismounting may be found in the twelfth century. The practice grew as plate-armour became mixed with mail; and when complete suits of steel were worn, knights sought every occasion of dismounting; and they were wont to break their lances short for the convenience of the close conflict.

As the spirit of chivalry died away, the military costume of chivalry increased in brilliancy and splendour. Ingenuity and taste were perpetually varying decorations: the steel was sometimes studded with ornaments of gold and silver, and sometimes the luxury of the age was displayed in a complete suit of golden armour.

"In arms they stood Of golden panoply, refulgent host."

But such splendour was only exhibited in the courteous tournament; less costly armour sheathed the warrior of the working day. Armour gradually fell out of use as infantry began to be considered and felt as the princ.i.p.al force in war. It was not, however, till the beginning of the seventeenth century that the proud n.o.bility of Europe would abandon the mode of combat of their ancestors, and no longer hope that their iron armour of proof should hang up in their halls as an incentive to their children's valour. "They first laid aside the jambes or steel boots; then the shield was abandoned, and next the covering for the arms. When the cavalry disused the lance, the cuisses were no longer worn to guard against its thrust, and the stout leathern or buff coat hung down from beneath the body armour to the knees, and supplied the place of the discarded steel. The helmet was later deprived of its useless vizor; but before the middle of the seventeenth century nothing remained of the ancient harness but the open cap and the b.r.e.a.s.t.s and backs of steel, which the heavy cavalry of the Continent have more or less worn to our times. In our service these have been but lately revived for the equipment of the finest cavalry in Europe, the British Life-guards, who, unaided by such defences, tore the laurels of Waterloo from the cuira.s.siers of France."[119]