coming to languish away its life

The feudal levy of the Ban and Arrière-ban was of course much influenced by the pressure of the occasion requiring their armament. In 1205 King John, in a Council held at Winchester, called upon every tenth knight in the realm to accompany him into Poitou, at the expense of the other nine; and if, during his absence, the country should be invaded, every man capable of bearing arms was to join in its defence, under pain of forfeiting any lands he might hold; or, if not a landowner, of becoming, with all his posterity, a slave for ever, and paying a yearly poll-tax of four-pence. Each knight was to receive two shillings per day[304]. This expedition did not, however, leave our shores.

When Philip of France was preparing to attack King John in 1213, the English monarch summoned all his "liberos homines et servientes, vel quicunque sint," to aid him under pain of culvertage[305].

In 1264, when the Earl of Leicester mustered his forces on Barham Downs to resist the threatened invasion of Queen Eleanor, the military tenants were ordered, under pain of felony, to bring into the field not only the force specified in their tenures, but all the horsemen and infantry in their power: every township was compelled to send eight, six, or four footmen well armed with lances, bows, swords, cross-bows, and axes, who should serve forty days at the expense of the township; and the cities and burghs received orders to furnish as many horsemen and footmen as the Sheriff should appoint[306].

The Pay assigned to troops who, having contributed the stipulated service for their holdings or assessments, were required to render further assistance to the king in his wars, we discover in the Roll of Expenses of King Edward I. at Ruddlan Castle in Wales, in 1281-2. From this curious document, which is printed in full in the sixteenth volume of the Archæologia, we find:—

"Saturday the fifth day of January, paid to the Lord Engolrane, serving with the Lord John de Deynile and his four Esquires, for their wages from the first day of April to the fourth day of June, for lxv. days xix. li. x. s.

"To the same, for the pay of his fifth Esquire, for xxiv. days: xxiv. s.

"To the said five Esquires, for their pay, for fifteen days following the fourth of June lxxv. s."

---

"Paid to Geoffry le Chamberlin, for the wages of twelve cross-bowmen (balistariorum) and thirteen archers (sagittariorum) for xxiv. days, each Cross-bowman receiving by the day iv. d., and each Archer ij. d. vii. li. viii. s."

Here the arbalester gets double the wages of the archer, but in the following and other instances, his pay is the same.

"To Guillemin and his comrade, Cross-bowmen, for their wages, for twenty-one days, at ij. d. by the day xxi. s."

On one occasion, Guillemin and his companion receive sixpence per day: but this is altogether an unusual sum.

The archers were divided into bands of twenties, and over each was placed a Captain. To every hundred bowmen, with their captains, was appointed a Constable.

"To Master R. Giffard, for the wages of one Constable of foot, receiving vi. d. per day, and of fifty-three Archers, with two Captains of Twenties, for three days xxix. s.

---

"To Robert Giffard, —— for the wages of forty-three Captains of Twenties, each receiving iv. d. per day," &c.

There were also Constables of Cavalry, perhaps commanding mounted archers, and their pay is set down at twelve pence per day. Occasionally the constables have a command of two hundred men, and sometimes it sinks as low as fifty. The ordinary number, however, is a hundred.

Of the Armed Town-Watch in England we obtain some particulars from the "Breve Regis" of the 36th Hen. III. "Henry, king, &c. to such or such a sheriff, greeting. Be it known to you that, for the maintenance of our peace, it has been provided in our Council, that watch shall be kept in every city, borough and town of your county, from Ascension Day to the Feast of St. Michael; to wit: that in every city, six armed men (armis munitos) shall watch at every gate: in every borough, twelve men: in every town (in singulis villis integris) six men, or at least four, likewise furnished with arms, according to the number of the inhabitants. They shall watch continually throughout the night from sunset to sunrise; so that all strangers seeking to pass through, may be detained till morning. And then, if he be a loyal man (fidelis), he shall be set at liberty; if a suspected person (suspectus), he shall be delivered over to the Sheriff, to be by him kept in a place of safety. But if it happen that strangers of this latter sort refuse to allow themselves to be stopped, then the aforesaid Guards shall raise the hue against them on all sides, and shall follow them with all the inhabitants of the place (cum tota villata) and places adjacent, raising the hue and cry 'de villa in villam' until they be taken[307]," &c. The manner of the hue and cry is set down in the "Articuli[308]." "Pursuit by hue and cry to be made according to the ancient and proper form, so that those who neglect to follow the cry may be taken as accomplices of the evil-doers, and delivered to the Sheriff. Moreover, in every town, four or six men, according to the number of the inhabitants, shall be appointed to make the hue and cry with promptitude and perseverance, and to pursue evil-doers, if any should appear, with bows and arrows and other light weapons (et aliis levibus armis); which weapons ought to be provided for the custody of the whole town, and to remain for the use of the aforesaid town. And besides the foregoing, there shall be provided out of each hundred, two free and loyal men of most influence, to be over them, and to see that the watch be duly made, as well as the pursuits aforesaid."

Compare the regulations for the Watch of the city of Paris, contained in an ordinance of Saint Louis in 1254; printed in the Collection des Ordonnances.

The feudal constitution of armies was necessarily modified in different countries by the nature of the territory, the habits of the people, and the wealth of the state. In Germany, where the class of nobles was more restricted than in France and England, the foot-troops were at an early period regarded with consideration. In hilly countries, where the breed of horses was of a small stature, a light-armed cavalry was the most available force. While, in the fastnesses of mountains, the pikes and halberds of a sturdy infantry compensated for the want of horses and the poverty of a rugged territory.

The Scottish army in 1244, Matthew Paris[309] tells us, was "very numerous and powerful, consisting of a thousand armed knights, well mounted, although not on Spanish or Italian, or other costly horses, and well protected by armour of steel or linen; and about a hundred thousand foot-soldiers, who were all of one mind, and who, having made confession, and been encouraged by the consoling assurance of their preachers, that the cause in which they were engaged was a just one and for their country's good, had very little fear of death." In 1298 Wallace contending against Edward I. in person, formed his pikemen, who were the strength of his army, into four circular bodies[310], connected together by a number of archers from the Forest of Selkirk. Before them he planted a defence of palisades: behind them, the cavalry was stationed. In front of all was a morass, dividing them from the English. The latter, having passed the night on the bare heath, in the morning advanced to the attack. Their first division, commanded by the Earl Marshal, from its ignorance of the ground, soon became entangled in the morass. The second, led by the Bishop of Durham, wheeled round the swamp and came in sight of the Scottish cavalry, when the prelate ordered his men to await the arrival of the other bodies. "To thy mass, bishop!" exclaimed one of his knights, and rushed on the enemy. They gave way at the first charge; the bowmen were trampled under foot, but the four bodies of pikemen opposed on all sides an impenetrable front. The bravest resistance, however, could not restore the fortune of the day. Edward advanced his archers, supporting them with his military engines, an opening was made in each circle, the men-at-arms dashed in among the disordered pikemen, and the battle was won[311]. This conflict, fought near Falkirk, on the 22nd of July, 1298, affords one of innumerable instances, shewing that little reliance can be placed in the numbers of the slain given by even cotemporary writers. Trivet reports the loss of the Scotch at twenty thousand; Matthew of Westminster raises it to forty thousand.

The Welsh, keeping up their hostilities to their Norman invaders, reserved their aggressive operations till the wet and stormy season of the year, when the land was unfit for the manœuvres of a heavy-armed cavalry, and the gloomy days favourable for the sudden onslaught of mountain warriors. "Videntes tempus hyemale madidum sibi competere," says Matthew Paris[312].

The rich cities of Italy, as we have seen, began about the middle of this century to employ stipendiary men-at-arms; and it seems probable that the first of these knightly soldiers were those of the equestrian class who, from political disgust or family feuds, had become refugees in the territory of their new masters. The good wages and the booty obtained by these gentle mercenaries induced others of a more humble class to take up the trade, and under skilful leaders (the well-known Condottieri) they obtained fame, fortune and honours.

The Basques were at this time among the most prominent of the mercenary troops, acting as a light corps, for which their mountain-life rendered them very apt. They were the Swiss of the thirteenth century.

Among our northern neighbours we obtain a glimpse of the Frieslanders, through the means of the indefatigable Matthew Paris. "These Frieslanders," he says, "are a rude and untamable people: they inhabit a northern country, are well skilled in naval warfare, and fight with great vigour and courage on the ice. It is of the cold regions of these people, and their neighbours the Sarmatians, that Juvenal says, 'One had better fly hence, beyond the Sarmatians and the icy ocean,' &c. The Frieslanders, therefore, having laid ambuscades among the rush-beds along the sea-coast, (in their war with William of Holland,) as well as along the country, which is marshy—and the winter season was coming on—went in pursuit of the said William, armed with javelins, which they call gaveloches, in the use of which they are very expert, and with Danish axes and pikes, and clad in linen dresses covered with light armour. On reaching a certain marsh they met with William, helmeted, and wearing armour, and mounted on a large war-horse covered with mail. But, as he rode along, the ice broke, although it was more than half a foot thick, and the horse sank up to his flank, becoming fixed in the mud of the marsh. The trammelled rider dug his sharp spurs into the animal's sides to a great depth, and the noble, fiery beast struggled to rise and free himself, but without success. Crushed and bruised, he only sank the deeper for his efforts, and at length by his struggles he threw his rider among the rough slippery fragments of ice. The Frieslanders then rushed on William, who had no one to help him from his position, all his companions having fled, to avoid a similar disaster; and attacking him on all sides with their javelins, despite his cries for mercy, pierced his body through and through, which was already stiffened with wet and cold. He offered his murderers an immense sum of money for ransom of his life, but these inhuman men, shewing no mercy, cut him to pieces. And thus, just as he had a taste of empire, was the Flower of Chivalry, William, king of Germany and count of Holland, the creature and pupil of the Pope, hurled, at the will of his enemies, from the pinnacle of his high dignity to the depths of confusion and ruin[313]."

Clerics are still found participating the dangers and glories of the battle-field; not alone as councillors or leaders, but sturdily wielding the deadly mace, and clad in hauberk and helm, like the lay vassals and men-at-arms around them. We have already seen the Bishop of Durham leading a division of the English at the battle of Falkirk. At the great battle of Bovines, in 1214, the French army was commanded by Guerin, bishop-elect of Senlis; and there too, armed to the teeth, and plying the cleric weapon, the mace, contended that bishop of Beauvais, whom we have, on a former occasion, seen the prisoner of Richard Cœur-de-Lion. At the siege of Milan, in 1238, "the bishop-elect of Valentia, who knew more of temporal than spiritual arms, hastened with the knights whom the counts of Toulouse and Provence had sent to assist the emperor[314]." In 1239 the Emperor Frederic, writing to the king of England, complains of the Pope becoming a general and his monks men-at-arms, to wrest from him his crown of empire. "He hath openly declared himself the leader and chief of the war against us and the empire, making the cause of the Milanese and other faithless traitors his own, and openly turning their business to suit his own interests. Moreover, he appointed as his lieutenants over the Milanese, or rather the papal, army, the before-mentioned Gregory de Monte Longo and brother Leo, a minister of the Minorite order, who not only girded on the sword and clad themselves in armour, presenting the false appearance of soldiers; but also, continuing their office of preaching, absolved from their sins the Milanese and others, when they insulted our person or those of our followers[315]." Father John of Gatesden boldly throws aside alb and chasuble to don the knightly hauberk and chausses in good earnest. "Anno Domini 1245, King Henry passed Christmas at London, and observed the solemnities of that festival in the company of many of his nobles. At that place, on Christmas-day, he conferred the honour of knighthood on John de Gatesden, a clerk, who had enjoyed several rich benefices; but who, as was proper, now resigned them all[316]." In the contest for the empire in 1248, the army raised against Conrad by the legate, "was commanded by the archbishops of Mayence, Metz, Lorraine and Strasburg, and consisted of innumerable bands from their provinces and from Friesland, Gothland, Russia, Dacia, and from the provinces of Germany and those adjoining who had received the cross[317]," &c. For it was part of the papal tactics to invest the soldiers who fought in the quarrels of the Holy See with the sacred dignity of Crusaders. In the revolt of the Scots under Bruce in 1306, among the prisoners captured by the English were the Abbot of Scone and the Bishops of St. Andrew's and Glasgow, all taken in complete armour[318].

The leading principle in the Tactics of this century was, with the exceptions already noticed, to compose the strength of the army of the knightly order. It was the knight who fought in the terrible mêlée of the battle-field: it was the knight who scaled the walls of the besieged fortress; who directed the discharge of perrier and mangonel; who filled the towers of assault by the city walls; who defended those walls from outward attack; and who, in sea-fights, manned the ships of war, and with pike and javelin contended against other men-at-arms battling in the adverse fleet. The remainder of the troops were looked upon as mere accessories, engines useful to clear the way for the "achievement" of the equestrian order.

The men-at-arms marched to the field of battle in squadrons so dense that, as a cotemporary writer records, "a glove thrown into the midst of them would not have reached the ground."

They charged, however, in single line—en haie—the onset of the first rank being supported by the successive charges of those behind. The ancient formation of the wedge (cuneus) was not, however, altogether abandoned, whether for horse or foot. The particular manner in which the German cavalry composed the wedge, beginning with a front of seven men, and increasing each rank by one additional soldier, as far as to half the depth of the formation, is very clearly shewn by Fronsperger[319]. "Wie wohl bey den Alten gebraeuchlich gewesen das sie ihre Schlachtordnung (fur die Reisigen) gespitzt oder in Dreyangel gemacht haben, also das etwan im ersten Glied sieben Mann, im andern acht, im dritten neun, im vierten zehn; also fort an bis auf den halben Theil der Ordnung und Hauffen, darnach seien si durchaus geviert gemacht worden." In 1302, a body of Flemish infantry adopted a similar formation in acting against the French. "Les François virent une très grande bataille des Flamands, qui contint bien huit mil hommes; et avoient ordonné leur bataille en guise d'un escu, la pointe devant, et s'estoient entrelaciez l'un en l'autre, si que on me les peut percier[320]."

Of the circular formation we have already seen an example among the Scotch at the battle of Selkirk. Guiart furnishes another:—

The entire army was usually formed into three "battles:" sometimes into four; and occasionally the whole force was gathered into one body. In 1249 the Imperialists, fighting against the Bolognese, distributed their troops into three corps, while the latter formed four[321]. And in 1266, Manfred, in a battle with Charles d'Anjou, ranged his cavalry in three bodies, while his adversary divided his army into four parts[322].

In front of all were placed the various "gyns" of the host; the mangonels, trebuchets, perdriaux, &c., serving in some degree the purpose of gunnery in our own day.

At the battle of Mons-en-Puelle, in 1304, three espringoles were placed in battery before the French army, of which the force was so great that the quarrels discharged from them are said to have pierced four or five ranks of the enemy in succession.

The Archers and Cross-bowmen were usually placed at the wings, the infantry of the communal levy in the centre, and behind these the mounted men-at-arms.

Archers were sometimes intermixed with the cavalry. Thus, in the 23rd of Edward I., the Earl of Warwick fighting against the Welsh, the latter "placed their men-at-arms fronting the earl's army: they were furnished with very long spears, which, being set on the ground, had their points suddenly turned towards the earl and his company, in order to break the force of the English cavalry. But the earl had well provided against them; for between every two horsemen he had placed an archer, so that, by their missile weapons, those who held the lances were put to the rout[323]." We have already seen bodies of archers interspersed with other troops in the conflict between Edward and Wallace in 1298[324].

To defend themselves from the attack of cavalry, the army occasionally formed a barrier of carts and wagons.

The more usual entrenchment was the ancient one of a ditch and palissaded bank.

Stratagems were still greatly in vogue, and some of them are of so dramatic a character that they tell rather of the jongleur than of the sober historian. Others, with enough of the marvellous, are less out of the bounds of probability. In 1250, Matthew Paris informs us, the Saracens gained a victory over a body of Crusaders, whom they slew. Desiring to obtain possession of Damietta, which was in the hands of the Christians, "a strong body of them, about equal in number to the Crusaders they had slain, treacherously putting on the armour, and carrying the shields and standards of the Christians who had fallen, set out thus disguised towards Damietta; in order that, having the appearance of French troops, they might gain admission into the city, and, as soon as admitted, might kill all they found therein. When they approached the walls, the Christians on guard looked forth from the ramparts and towers, and at first thought they were Christians, exultingly bearing spoils and trophies: but the nearer they approached, the more unlike Frenchmen they seemed: for they marched hurriedly and in disordered crowds, and sloped their shields irregularly, more after the manner of Saracens than of French. And when they reached the extremities of the fortifications and approached the gates of the city, they were clearly seen to be Saracens by their black and bearded faces. But who can fully relate the heartfelt grief of the Christians when they saw the enemies of the faith giving vent to their pride and derision, clad in the armour, and bearing the standards and painted devices which were so well known to them[325]."

The device of equipping several soldiers in similar arms to the leader of the host, seems also to have been in use. At the siege of Viterbo in 1243, Matthew Paris tells us, "One illustrious soldier on the Emperor's side, and adorned with his special arms, (armis ipsius specialibus decoratus,) miserably expired, to the great grief of the Emperor, being pierced by the quarrel of a crossbow. His enemies raised a shout of joy, thinking they had slain the Emperor himself; but the Emperor, preceded by his trumpeters, advanced; and, though not without difficulty, disengaged his army from the fury of their opponents, who had suddenly pressed forward to crush them[326]."

The influence of the stars, the power of lucky and unlucky days over the issue of battle, were still occasionally acknowledged; not alone by the rude leaders of a company of men-at-arms, but by the commanders of armies, by crowned dignitaries. The Emperor Frederic II. had a firm faith in the predictions of astrologers; he never undertook a march until the fortunate moment for departure had been fixed by those skilled in divination; and when, in 1239, he was about to advance against Treviso, his march was suddenly arrested by an eclipse of the sun[327].

The usual Body-armour of the knightly order was, in the early part of the thirteenth century, of interlinked chain-mail; but, in the second half of the century, portions of plate appear, in the form of shoulder-pieces, elbow-pieces, and knee-pieces. The chain-mail was of hammered iron, the art of wire-drawing not being found till about the middle of the next age. Other materials were occasionally employed for defensive purposes: leather, quilting, scale and jazerant-work, and, at the close of the century, a kind of armour which has been named Banded-mail, but of which the structure has not been exactly ascertained. There can be little doubt that, among the more humble troops, the Coustillers and the Ribauds, every kind of defensive material was in use which these men could obtain: a pectoral and a helmet of some sort were almost indispensable, to protect them from the downward flight of the arrows, which played so principal a part, whether in the field or the siege. The knights themselves, indeed, did not attempt a uniform costume: on the contrary, it is often made a reproach to them, that each endeavoured to outvie the other in the magnificence of his apparel. On rare occasions we find a band of cavaliers who exhibit the marvel of a similar equipment. When Richard, earl of Gloucester, visited the Pope, in 1250, "he travelled through the kingdom of France accompanied by the Countess, his wife, and his eldest son, Henry, with a numerous suite, and attended by a large retinue, in great pomp, consisting of forty knights equipped in new accoutrements, all alike, and mounted on beautiful horses, bearing new harness, glittering with gold, and with five wagons and fifty sumpter-horses; so that he presented a wonderful and honourable show to the sight of the astonished French beholders[328]."

The usual series of knightly garments was the tunic, the gambeson, the hauberk, the chausses, the chausson, and the surcoat. With these are found various accessories: the ailettes, coudières, poleyns, and greaves.

The Tunic has already been seen in the first seal of Richard I., and other monuments. It again appears in this curious group, part of a martyrdom of Thomas à Becket, from Harl. MS. 5102, fol. 32, a work of the beginning of the thirteenth century (overleaf.) It is found also in our woodcut No. 63, from Add. MS. 17,687, an example of the close of the century.

The Gambeson, that quilted garment which we have seen was worn as an additional defence beneath the hauberk of chain-mail, is in view in the monumental effigy from Haseley church, Oxfordshire, (woodcut 46,) a figure seemingly of the middle of this century. It is again very clearly shewn in our woodcut No. 59, an effigy in Ash church, near Sandwich. In both these examples the vertical lines of quilting are plainly expressed by the sculptor. Ducange, in his Observations on the History of St. Louis, cites an account of the year 1268, which includes "Expensæ pro cendatis et bourra ad Gambesones[329]." These might, however, have been the Gambesons that formed of themselves the body-armour of the soldier. It is very clearly distinguished as a horseman's garment in a passage of the Statutes of Frejus, in 1235; where also we see the gambeson alone accorded to the foot-fighter: "Militem sine equo armato intelligimus armatum auspergoto et propuncto (with hauberk and gambeson) et scuto: peditem armatum intelligimus armatum scuto et propuncto seu aspergoto." The Chronicon Colmariense, under the year 1298, is still more explicit: "Armati reputabantur qui galeas ferreas in capitibus habebant, et qui wambasia, id est, tunicam spissam ex lino et stuppa, vel veteribus pannis consutam, et desuper camisiam ferream."

The Hauberk of chain-mail, in the beginning of the thirteenth century, was made with continuous coif and gloves, the coif somewhat flattened at the top of the head, and the gloves not divided into fingers; it descended nearly to the knees, and at the face-opening left little more than the eyes and nose of the knight in view. A striking example of the last-named arrangement is afforded by the figure here engraved, the sculptured effigy of William Longespée, at Salisbury, c. 1227. See also the seal of King John, p. 228, and the woodcut, No. 53, from Harl. MS. 5102. The sleeve of the hauberk is sometimes secured at the wrist by a lace or strap; as in the figure of Longespée, in the brass of Sir Roger de Trumpington, c. 1289, (woodcut 73,) and the effigy at Norton, Durham, of the end of the century (woodcut 70). In order to liberate the hand occasionally from its fingerless glove, an aperture was left in the centre of the palm. This is clearly shewn in our woodcuts, No. 80 and 62; the first from the Lives of the Offas, Cotton MS., Nero, D. i.; and the other from Roy. MS. 2, A. xxii. The glove turned off and hanging from the wrist may be seen in Plate 17 of Hefner's Trachten, and in the sculptured effigy of a knight in Bingham church, Nottinghamshire. In the second half of the century the gloves of the hauberk were divided for the fingers; from which we may suppose that the armour-smith had by this time improved his art by making his mail-web more flexible and more delicate. Early examples occur in the sculptured effigies of knights at Rampton, Cambridgeshire, and Danbury, Essex; the former figured in Stothard's Monuments, Plate 20; the latter in Strutt's Dress and Habits, Plates 45 and 46. Instances both of the undivided and the fingered glove will be found among our engravings. Occasionally the sleeves of the hauberk terminate at the wrist, as those of the archers in cuts 47 and 48; in these instances obviously for the greater freedom in handling the bow. Where the lancer's hauberk is thus fashioned, the hand has the supplementary defence of a gauntlet. Gauntlets of scalework occur in a knightly brass, c. 1280, engraved by Waller, Part x., and Boutell[330], p. 113. To the elbows of the hauberk were sometimes affixed, but rarely in this century, plates of metal called coudières. An effigy in Salisbury Cathedral, circa 1260, (Stothard, Pl. xxx.,) offers a good example. There is another, a knight of the Clinton family, in the church of Coleshill, Warwickshire. The hauberk was subject to a further variety: it was made with or without a Collar. Matthew Paris tells us that in a hastilude "at the abbey of Wallenden" in 1252, the lance of Roger de Lemburn entered beneath the helm of his antagonist and pierced his throat, for he was uncovered in that part of his body, and without a collar (carens collario). Ducange cites an analogous passage: "Venitque ictus inter cassidem et collarium, dejecitque caput ejus multum a corpore[331]." The hauberk without collar may be seen in the figures of Largesse and Debonnaireté in the pictures of the Painted Chamber (Vet. Mon., vol. vi.)

The Continuous Coif was in the early part of the century nearly flat at the top; in the second half the round-topped coif was more usual. The flattened form is well shewn in the statue of Longespée (woodcut, No. 54), and in those of De l'Isle and De Braci, (Stothard, Plates xix. and xx.) The rounded crown occurs frequently in our woodcuts. The coif was drawn over the head by means of an opening in the side, and was then fastened by a lace, a buckle, or a tie. The manner in which the lace, passing through alternate groups of the links farming the coif, is made to secure the loose to the fixed part of the cap, is excellently shewn in the figures of Longespée and the so-called Duke of Normandy in Gloucester Cathedral, (Stothard, Plate xxii.) A good example of the fastening by strap and buckle is furnished by the fragment of an effigy found at Exeter, engraved in the Archæological Journal, vol. ix. p. 188. The coif adjusted by a tie is seen in our woodcut, No. 62. The side-piece hanging free is shewn in a knightly statue of this century in the Abbey Church of Pershore, Worcestershire, engraved in the Journal of the Archæological Association, vol. iv. p. 319. The coif is sometimes encircled by a fillet. See our woodcuts, No. 46, 59, and 63. The circles are of gold-colour in figures of the Painted Chamber (Pl. xxx.): in the effigy of William de Valence the band is richly jewelled, (Stothard, Pl. xliv.)

Many examples shew that the warrior often went to battle without any kind of helmet over the coif of chain-mail; though it is probable that some additional defence, whether of plate or of quilted-work, was in this case worn beneath it. The regular and compact form of the crown in many ancient examples favours this belief; and a modern instance from the East helps to confirm it. A suit of Birman armour in the Tower of London has a skull-cap of plate which is quite hidden from view by the outer armour of the head. In the effigy at Bingham, Notts., already mentioned, the upper part of the coif is so large that it almost gives the notion of a turban being worn beneath. The coif used in battle without any further defence over it, may be seen in our engravings, No. 80 and 82.

On other occasions, the mail-coif had the additional armament of a helmet of some kind. This may be better considered in our general notice of helmets.

The Hood of Chain-mail appears to have been designed as an improvement on the Continuous Coif by rendering unnecessary the side-opening and the lacing about the face. But the hood had this great disadvantage; that, as it lay on the shoulders of the knight, it permitted the lance of the adversary to pass beneath it and deal a deadly thrust on the unguarded neck. This fact is of constant occurrence, as well in the chronicles as in the pictures of the times. The hood, like the coif, is both flat-topped and round. The flattened hood is seen in the effigy of De l'Isle, (Stothard, Pl. xx.) The round appears in the brasses of Sir John D'Aubernoun (woodcut, No. 55), and Sir Roger de Trumpington (Waller, Pt. iv., and our woodcut, No. 73): in the statues of De Vere, Crouchback, and Shurland, figured by Stothard; and in our engravings, No. 59 and 63. A simple lace, passing across the forehead and tying behind, bound the hood firmly to the head. The manner of this may be seen on comparing the brass of Sir John D'Aubernoun and the statue of Sir Robert Shurland. Both hood and coif appear occasionally to have been slipped over the head and suffered to rest on the shoulders. Compare the effigy in the Temple Church (Stothard, Pl. xxxviii.), Hefner's plate 27, and our woodcuts No. 56 and 70. The hood is sometimes shewn as made of a cloth-like material, (cloth, leather, or pourpointerie?) as in the front figure of our engraving, No. 68, from a MS. in the library of Metz. Its colour is brown, while the banded mail in this drawing is iron-colour. (Hefner, Pl. lxxvii.) Plain and enriched fillets, which we have seen were worn over the mail-coif, appear also upon the hood. The plain circle occurs in the Gosberton effigy (Stothard, Pl. xxxvii.), and in our woodcuts, No. 59 and 63. Enriched examples are found in the sculptures of De Vere and Crouchback (Stothard, Pl. xxxvi. and xlii.).