THE USE OF FABRICS AND LINEN

An important variety of defensive armour, which has not hitherto received the notice which it deserves, is the padded and quilted armour of linen, which was always popular with the foot-soldier on account of its cheapness, and was in the thirteenth century held in high esteem by the wealthier knight. In the case of crushing blows it would of course protect the body from breaking of the skin, but would not be of such use as the more rigid defence of plate. It was, however, very effectual against cutting blows, and had the advantage of being more easily put on and off, and, although hot, was less oppressive than metal in long marches. In miniatures of the fourteenth century we frequently find parts of the armour coloured in such a way as to suggest that it is either not metal or else metal covered with fabric. Where there was no metal and where the wearer depended entirely on the fabric for protection it was heavily quilted and padded, or else several thicknesses of the material were used (Fig. 40). Where metal was used the defence was the ordinary plate armour covered with fabric, or the metal was inserted in small plates as is the case in the brigandine.

It is not the intention of the present section to deal with the various details of defensive armour except only as far as those details bear directly on the employment of fabrics, therefore the construction of the brigandine, which is well known to all students of the subject of armour and weapons, will be found under the heading of the Craft of the Armourer on page 49. The same may be said of the horn and metal jacks which were a humbler form of the brigandine. The most concise descriptions of such armour will be found in the Catalogue of Helmets and Mail by de Cosson and Burgess (Arch. Journ., XXXVII). Guiart in his Chronicles, written in the early part of the fourteenth century, speaks of “cotes faitices de coton a pointz entailliez.” These were probably common doublets, quilted or laced like the jack.

Few of these defences of fabric have survived, owing to the ravages of moth and damp.

In the Pitt-Rivers Museum, Oxford, are a pair of culottes or drawers lined with thin busks of steel, and also two sets of rose-pink silk doublets, breast, back, and fald padded with cotton, both presumably of the late sixteenth century; they are noticed in Arms and Armour at Oxford, by the present writer, but no definite history is known of either of the specimens. Doublets and “coats of fence” of this nature occur frequently in inventories and other documents, but the following extracts give certain definite details which bear directly on the subject.

There is a doubt as to the actual date of this manuscript. In the edition from which the above translation is taken it is described as of Icelandic origin about the year 1150, but it may be possibly as late as the beginning of the thirteenth century. The details of the dress worn under the armour may be compared on the one hand with the leggings shown on the Bayeux tapestry and on the other hand with those mentioned in the Hastings MS. of the fifteenth century (Archæologia, LVII), which gives the details of undergarments worn by the armed man at this date (page 107). The horse-armour is the “couverture” or trapper so frequently mentioned in inventories, which was often decorated with fine embroidery. Even altar-hangings were used for this purpose, as was the case in the sack of Rome in 1527. Padded horse-armour was used in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries for tournaments, minute regulations for which are found in the Traité d’un Tournoi by King René of Anjou, which will be referred to farther on in this chapter.

This item is evidently for stuffing gambesons with cendal[103] and tow. Cendal is somewhat of a mystery as to its exact nature. Like all fabrics of past ages, we can but guess at its nature. It has been discussed under its name in Gay’s Glossaire Archæologic.

The first of these regulations concerns the materials used, and is very similar to that of the Armourers’ Company of London made in 1322, which is given in full in Appendix A. So much of the work of the padding and lining was hidden from sight that these regulations were most necessary to prevent the use of old rags and bad materials. The second entry seems to refer to the manner in which canvas and cendal were to be used and in what proportions. It should be noticed that at this period the surcoat, in England at any rate, was being gradually shortened. The regulation above quoted, however, suggests in the last sentence that in France it was still worn long.

Here the quantity of cotton is given and it is ordered to be new. It seems to have been allowed to put old linen, but this may possibly only mean seasoned linen, between the folds.

The name “Ada” of the armentarius rather suggests that it might be a female who provided these gambesons.

From the context of the first extract this haketon of buckram would appear to be a very serviceable defence, for the lance which had penetrated the shield and the jaserant, or coat of plate, had not penetrated the undergarment of buckram. Like all other fabrics mentioned in medieval writings, we cannot definitely say of what material this buckram was composed, but from the second extract it seems to have been used equally with silk for the haketon.

These very minute regulations show that the “jack” was considered a most serviceable defence in the fifteenth century. At the same time it must have been a hot and uncomfortable garment, for twenty-nine or thirty thicknesses of linen with a deerskin on the top, or worse still thirty-one thicknesses of deerskin, would make a thick, unventilated defence which would be almost as insupportable as plate armour. The last item may be a clerical error, and indeed from the context it would appear to be thirty thicknesses of linen with one of deerskin, for the leather would be far more costly to work up than the linen. The extract has been given in full because it is so rare to come across practical details of construction of this nature.

This may be only an ordinary doublet, or it may be some kind of “coat of fence” or “privy coat” lined with plates of steel, horn, or whale-bone. These “busks” of steel are found as late as the seventeenth century, for Gustavus Adolphus had a coat lined with them (Lifrustkammer, Stockholm) and Bradshaw’s hat (Ashmolean Mus., Oxford) is strengthened with steel strips. (Fig. 50.)

It would seem from the above that in France the garment worn under the tourney-armour was folded till it was three fingers thick on the shoulders. In the Low Countries, however, the pourpoint was of a different fashion, for there they made the garment of two thicknesses and stuffed this with cotton-waste to the thickness of four fingers. The difference of thickness can be accounted for by the fact that folded linen would not compress so much as cotton-waste. It should be noted in the extract from the Ordinances of Louis XI that old material is advised as being more pliable and softer. At the same time we may be sure that it was carefully chosen. It is interesting to note that in 1322 the material is ordered to be new, but in 1450 old linen is recommended.

Besides the making of undergarments or complete defences of linen overgarments, pourpoints, the Linen Armourers, as we find them called in the City of London Records, made linings for helmets. This was a most important detail in the equipment of a man, for the helm or helmet was worse than useless if it did not fit securely and if the head was not adequately padded to take off the shock of the blow. In the Sloane MS. 6400, we find among the retinue of Henry V at Agincourt, “Nicholas Brampton, a stuffer of bacynets,” and in the Oxford City Records under the date 1369 are the entries “Bacynet 13/4, stuffing for ditto 3/4.” In the Hastings MS. (Archæologia, LVII), among the items given as the “Abilment for the Justus of the Pees,” the first on the list is “a helme well stuffyd.” This stuffing consisted of a thickly padded cap or lining tied to the head-piece with strings, which are clearly shown in the well-known engraving of Albert Dürer, of a man and a woman supporting a shield on which is a skull (Fig. 42, 2). There are some of these caps in the Waffensammlung, Vienna, which have been noticed in Vol. II of the Zeitschrift für Historische Waffenkunde.

The original lining of Sir Henry Lee’s helmet (Plate XIII) is still in situ; this, however, is riveted to the helmet and follows the shape of the head. In this respect it is different from the helmet-cap, which was padded. A padded cap was worn independently of the lining of the helmet. These are shown on Figs. 43, 44. Similar caps are shown on the following works of Dürer: S. George on foot, S. George (Stephan Baumgartner) and Felix Hungersbourg.

These defences are of the same nature as the jack shown on Figs. 24, 25. The brigandine was more elaborate and costly, for it was composed of small plates riveted to the foundation and covering of fabric and was therefore the work of a skilled artificer. The jack, on the other hand, was more easily put together and could be done by the wearer himself or by his wife. An interesting example of one of these village armouries mentioned above is to be found at Mendlesham Church, Suffolk, in the strong-room of which are portions of suits and half-suits dating from the late fifteenth to the middle of the seventeenth century. The church also preserves the records of the upkeep of the equipment, one of the last entries being in 1613, a payment of 1s. 4d. to an armourer for “varnishinge the town head-piece and the corslitt and for setting on leathers and rivettes.”

From the nature of their composition these “eyelet doublets” are rarely to be met with. They were made of twine or thread knitted all over in eyelets or button-holes. The appearance is much the same as modern “tatting” and macramé work. The best-known examples are in the Musée Porte de Hal, Brussels (II, 81), in the Cluny Museum, and in the Musée d’Artillerie, G, 210 (Fig. 45).

It will be obvious that the maker of linings and undergarments for the soldier had to be in constant touch with the armourer, for he had to make allowances for the style and cut of the armour.

In the Wardrobe Accounts of Edward I quoted on page 79 there are entries of payments to Robinet, the King’s tailor, for armour, banners, crests, helmets, and robes for the King, his son, and John of Lancaster. At the end of this chapter we shall notice this combining of the crafts of the armourer and tailor when dealing with the linen armourers.

It was obviously important that the tailor should be in touch with the armourer and suit his material and cut to the equipment worn over them.

All parts of the suit were lined, for in spite of the padded undergarment there was bound to be a certain amount of chafing which, if the armour was unlined, would in time rub through the undergarment. In many portraits, especially those of the late sixteenth century, the linings are shown projecting below the edges of the various pieces of the suit. The edges of these linings are generally scalloped.

In the picture by Breughel on the frontispiece a cuisse is shown, immediately beneath the basket of glass bottles in the centre of the picture, which clearly has a padded lining. In a list of payments for work done to Henry VIII’s armour we find “9 yards of Cheshire cotton at 7d. for lining the king’s pasguard grandguard great mayn de fer.” A similar charge is made in 1521 for two yards of yellow satin at 7/4 for lining two head-pieces, two pair of tasses, a pasguard, and two maynd fers. In 1510 we find an entry of payment of 25 fl. 29 kr. to Walter Zeller of Innsbruck for lining armour with black velvet and silk.[106] Frequently the padding is shown in miniatures, especially on the inside of shields and bucklers. The Highland targes are generally padded on the inside with straw to take some of the shock of a blow from the arm. The lining of such pieces as the taces and pauldrons was added to prevent the metal over which they worked from being scratched, and also to lessen the metallic noise, which would be a serious factor in night attacks. Horse-armour, of course, needed heavy lining, but little of this remains. An excellent reconstruction of lined horse-armour is to be found on No. 620, Wallace Collection.

The stuffing of these padded garments was not always of cotton. In the inventory of the goods of Sir John Falstoffe, 1459 (Archæologia, XXI), we find “i. jack of black linen stuffed with mail and vi. jacks stuffed with horne, xxiiij. cappes stuffed with horne and mayle, vj. payre of glovys of mayle of shepys skynne.” Under the heading “Gambeson,” Du Cange[107] states that the gambeson was stuffed with wool soaked with vinegar, to resist iron, and he gives a reference to Pliny, Bk. VIII, c. 48, as bearing on this statement. This was probably done to keep out vermin, a serious factor when long marches with bad camping arrangements were undertaken.

In all the defences which were mainly composed of fabrics, the object seems to have been to provide a substance which would resist cut or thrust and at the same time would offer a certain resiliency to the blow. A practical experiment upon thick leather and upon folded or padded cloth will prove this. Till recent years the Japanese made much of their armour of quilted fabrics, the chief drawback to which was its heat and want of ventilation.

This linen armour or linen and fabric covering for armour was a distinct craft in itself, and was practised by the linen armourers, who had the sole right to cover armour or to make such defences as have been enumerated above. That they were also tailors we know from their subsequent incorporation with the Merchant Tailors and also from the Wardrobe Accounts[108] of Edward I, in which Robinet, the King’s tailor, is mentioned as making robes and armours and banners.

Besides the lining of armour and the provision of padded defences of fabric, there was a large field of employment in the covering of armour. As may be noticed in Appendix A, this covering of helmets seems to have been common in the first years of the fourteenth century. There were three reasons for covering the steel head-piece with fabric. Firstly, as Chaucer writes with regard to the mail hauberk (page 78), to keep it from wet, the enemy of all iron and steel work; secondly, as Roger Ascham writes of the peacock-wing for arrows, “for gayness”; and thirdly, to prevent the glitter of metal attracting attention.[109] In the Treatise of Johan Hill, written in 1434 (Appendix C, page 173), the covering of the armour, especially for the legs, is ordered to be of scarlet “because his adversarie shall not lightly espye his blode.” Helmet-bags are mentioned in inventories, etc. In 1578 we find “steel caps with covers” noticed in more than one will,[110] and in the Lieutenancy Accounts for Lancashire, temp. Elizabeth, the archer’s dress includes a “scull and Scottish cap to cover the same” (Fig. 46). Several helmets in the Waffensammlungen at Vienna still show the silk and satin coverings, and in Munich a triple-crowned burgonet has a black velvet cover. The highly ornate Venetian sallads, covered with crimson velvet, over which is set a gilt open-work decoration of metal, are fairly common in collections (Plate XVI).

As we have seen on page 91, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the tailor was often also a purveyor of armour. M. Buttin[111] quotes several extracts from documents of the fourteenth century in which different names of craftsmen appear classed as “Brodeurs et Armuriers.” It may not be out of place to notice here that the “milliner” of the present day was originally the Milaner or Milanese pedlar, who purveyed armour, weapons, and clothing of all sorts.

The Linen Armourers, as they were called, were a gild distinct from the Armourers, for in 1272 they were instituted as “The Fraternity of Tailors and Linen Armourers of Linen Armour of S. John the Baptist in the City of London.” Edward III was an honorary member of the gild, and Richard II also became a member when he confirmed their charter. Their first patent of arms was granted by Edward IV in the year 1466, and in this document the society is called “Gilda Armorarii.”[112] This naturally causes some confusion with the Armourers’ Company, and in many documents it is uncertain which gild is referred to. The first master was Henry de Ryall, who was called the Pilgrim or Traveller. As has been stated above, their first charter was from Edward III. Richard II confirmed by “inspeximus” this charter. Henry IV also confirmed the charter, and Henry VI granted right of search, which allowed the gild to inspect shops and workshops and confiscate any work which did not come up to their standard. It is doubtful whether the document given in Appendix A refers to this gild or to that of the Armourers, for it contains regulations which would affect both gilds. It gives details as to that “right of search” which was an important part of the duties of the gilds.

In the reign of Edward IV the gild was incorporated, and under Henry VII it became the Merchant Tailors’ Company, with the charter which is held by that company at the present day. This charter was confirmed by Henry VIII, Edward VI, Philip and Mary, Elizabeth, and James I.