shield of the heater shape. These shields generally retain their armorial blazonry; and it is at least probable that originally such blazonry was always displayed upon them. Of the earlier and larger shields fine examples may be seen in the series of effigies in the Temple Church, London. (These effigies, it is true, have been restored; but they retain their shields in their original size and form.) The brass to Sir R. de Bures, at Acton, in Suffolk (A. D. 1304), has a good and characteristic shield of the period when the 13th century passed into the 14th. The fine effigy in alabaster of Prince John of Eltham, younger brother of Edward III., in Westminster Abbey, displays a splendid shield, with the armorial ensigns admirably executed in rather low relief; it is represented in Fig 70, and the date is A.D. 1336.

NOTE 54, p. 116.-The series of French royal monumental effigies, in the Abbey Church of St. Denis, near Paris, is very numerous, and it ranges over a long period of time; and, notwithstanding the very complete restoration that all the earlier and specially interesting effigies have recently undergone, these works must still be considered to be of great historical importance and value. So thoroughly complete, indeed, is this restoration, that not a vestige remains of any original work which may be accepted as unquestionably untouched. Consequently, it would not be possible to recognise in any one of those remarkable sculptures a certain authority upon "Arms and Armour," without some corroboration, such as a cast taken from the original before the restorer had touched it; or, at any rate, without a trustworthy drawing or other representation (of the same rank as Stothard's etchings of our Temple Church effigies also executed previous to the restoration. I carefully studied the St. Denis effigies last summer; and if I had before entertained any doubts on the subject of the restoration of early effigies, even the shadow of any such doubt had passed away some time before I left that grand Abbey Church, the Westminster Abbey (to our own Westminster-THE Abbey, as we rightly call it, proxima, sed proxima longo intervallo) of France.

NOTE 55, p. 117.-In England, in the middle ages, three distinct classes of military heraldic flags were in general use, each class having a distinct and welldefined signification.

1. The Pennon, the ensign of knightly rank, small, pointed, or swallow-tailed, and charged with a badge or other armorial device, was displayed by a knight upon his own lance as his personal ensign.

2. The Banner, square or oblong in form, larger than a pennon, and charged with a complete coat of arms, was the ensign of a sovereign, prince, noble, or knight banneret, and also of the entire force attached to his person and under his immediate command.

3. The Standard, introduced about the middle of the 14th century, large, of great length (its size varying with the owner's rank), appears to have been adopted for military display rather than for any specific significance and use in war. Except in royal standards, the standard had the cross of St. George next to the staff, and the rest of the field displayed various badges accompanied with a motto. See English Heraldry," p. 254; and Heraldry Historical and Popular," third edition, p. 286.

NOTE 56, p. 117.-I may here consistently remark on the very great value of our English mediæval effigies, whether sculptured or engraven, as contemporaneous authorities which exemplify and illustrate not only varieties in arms and armour, but also their details. A complete armoury of swords, for example, down almost to the close of the 15th century, with their characteristic varieties of sword-belts, showing every detail of form, ornamentation, and adjustment, is preserved in these admirable national works.

NOTE 57, p. 119.-In the introduction to his "Monumental Effigies," Stothard has given an excellent treatise on mail armour, as it was worn in western Europe; and, since the publication of his work, the subject has attracted no little attention. It does not appear, however, that we have much certain knowledge concerning the mail armour of the western chivalry before their return from the Crusades. In fact, the term "mail," when applied to defensive military equipment in western Europe, must be regarded as simply a general conventional name for any kind of garment that was strengthened with studs, rings, or small plates of metal attached to its surface. Unfortunately, no authority is given for the very complete description in the text of the Saracen mail-armour at the time of the Crusades, and for the account of its excellence. M. Lacombe appears to consider that both Crusaders and Saracens were armed alike, except so far as the existence of a palpable superiority in the Saracen equipment, arising from the greater skill with which it had been made. It would be interesting to learn in what direction further information on this point might be sought, with a probability of finding it. See No. 48.

NOTE 58, p. 122.-The statement in the text concerning the comparatively small loss of life in the battles of the 12th and 13th centuries requires to be accepted with some caution; and it ought to be subjected, not only to a careful investigation of authentic data, having reference to both medieval and modern battles, but also to a variety of circumstances that bear on both sides of this question. Whatever may have been the loss of life in the battles of the 12th and 13th centuries, in those of the 14th and 15th centuries the loss undoubtedly was very great. And, as the art of war has gradually been perfected in modern tinies, it is equally certain that the increased destructiveness of the weapons that have been brought into use has tended rather to diminish than to increase the amount of destruction that has actually been accomplished. With the most improved weapons of precision and long-range projectiles, a great and severe loss may be inflicted suddenly and within a very short space of time; but, on the whole, in modern battles the tremendous power of their weapons does not by any means necessarily imply that the combatants now inflict and suffer heavier losses than attended the conflicts of the olden time.

"

NOTE 59, p. 122.-It can scarcely be admitted that M. Lacombe is justified in his use of personal epithets, when he contrasts the "little modern foot-soldier -" le petit fantassin moderne," with "l'enorme baron"-the "enormous baron" in full panoply of the middle ages. Modern French foot-soldiers, generally speaking, in their stature and in the slight structure of their hardy and athletic frames, are certainly "little" enough; nor, in our own service, is the standard of height very elevated "in the line;" still, these modern facts do not necessarily magnify the bulk of the mediaval warrior, until he attains "enormous" proportions. On the contrary, so far as the argument rests on the testimony of armour, the question concerning the relative sizes of the men now living and their predecessors of the middle ages, is decided in direct opposition to the views expressed in M. Lacombe's comparison. The existing suits and

pieces of medieval armour, that certainly were habitually worn in their own times, and which as certainly have no exceptional qualities, are much too small to be worn now by men of moderate average height and size. In fact, we have reason to believe, as a general rule, that the medieval knights and barons were very far from being enormous," and that the once popular theory of the physical degeneracy of modern generations reverses the fact. The ideal image of a "man in armour," and more particularly of an armour-clad "baron," seems to have an inherent tendency to assume colossal (or, at any rate, "enormous") proportions-somewhat like the figure of the "king," whose greatness is typified in Egyptian hieroglyphics by his being represented as equal in stature to at least half a dozen of his subjects; still, in point of fact, it is more than probable that very small was the number of even the most potent of the old "barons," who in physical magnitude could have taken rank with either the "Cent Gardes" of the French empire, or our own Life Guards.

The French term fantassin, signifying "foot soldier," is evidently derived from the same source as the word "infantry;" and both lead us back to the times in which foot-soldiers were neither more nor less than attendants (and very generally hired servants who attended) on the knights and mounted men-at-arms. These attendants for the most part were young men or lads-in Latin infantes, and in Italian fanti, or infanti. And, when massed together, these youthful knights' attendants became "infantry;" and, still retaining the original form of the name, though without a trace still existing of the original condition of his prototype, the "little" French "footsoldier" of to-day is a fantassin still.

NOTE 60, p. 123.-The descriptions of the arms and armour of the 14th century given in the text, in accordance with the original work, must not be considered in any way or degree applicable to England.

NOTE 61, p. 124.-The great war between Edward III. and Philip of Valois commenced in the year 1340, when the English sovereign asserted his title and right to the crown of France, and maintained that he was ipso facto King of France. In that same year the armorial ensigns of France and England were marshalled quarterly upon the same shield by Edward III. Sandford, however ("Genealogical History," edition of 1707, p. 160), states that on March 1, 1339, Edward III. promulgated and used a new Great Seal, bearing the legend, KING OF FRANCE AND ENGLAND; whereas, in the document of that date, to which the seal was appended, the style of the king was, "Edward the Third, by the Grace of God, King of England and France.

NOTE 62, p. 125.-Strictly French in their authority and application are the statements in the text, which ascribe to the example and influence of the Free Companies a "revolution in arms and armour;" and the descriptions, which accompany these statements, while strictly applicable to France, have no reference to our own country.

The armour worn in England during the second half of the 14th century, and the well-known jupon of that period, do not appear to have attracted the notice of M. Lacombe. A plastron, or small breast-plate, at that time was constantly worn by English men-at-arms under their mail hauberk. See Chapter XII.

NOTE 63, p. 128.-M. Lacombe's dislike for the great "heaume" of the mediaval warriors has already been noticed in Note 50. He does not advert to the modifications in the adjustment of the camail, not its lacing-at first exposed, and then covered-eminently characteristic matters of detail in English armour.

In this place also I must particularly caution English readers to observe that in the text, which follows the French original, no clear distinction is drawn between the armour of the second half of the 14th century and that of the first half of the 15th century, as such a distinction would be drawn by an English writer who based the leading statements of his essay on English armour. And, further, in like manner, the French author does not arrange the armour of the entire 15th century into welldefined groups, each having its own period, as an English writer certainly would do. The lance-rest is not mentioned by M. Lacombe.

NOTE 64, p. 129.—I have been very careful to give a strictly faithful rendering of this paragraph, since it sets forth in so explicit a manner what, in the judgment of a living French writer, could be effected about the middle of the 14th century by such infantry as the English and Genoese archers against mounted men-at-arms.

M. Lacombe appears thoroughly to appreciate the effect upon the English mediæval foot-soldiers of the superior social position enjoyed by them, in comparison with the position of their contemporaries who formed the infantry in the armies of France and of other continental countries. From the days of Magna Charta, in England the commonalty had shown that they were not to be despised, and they

were not despised. With an aptitude and a love for manly exercises, the yeomanry of England was sturdy and muscular; and, moreover, the English yeomen were cherished and trusted by the English nobles. These were the men who enabled the Edwards and Henrys first to dispense with foreign mercenaries in their own armies, and then to beat them when they appeared under hostile banners. It was an honour to command and even to fight side by side with such men. Their services were of great value, and they were highly valued accordingly. And, above all, between themselves and the king and his nobility there existed a cordial sympathy and a a mutual confidence. "Nothing," says Froude (History of England,' vol. i., p. 60), "nothing proves more surely the mutual confidence which held together the government and the people, than the fact that all classes were armed.' In war, in those days, the archers of England were the best infantry in the world; but, then, their famous long-bow acquired its reputation in no slight degree from the fact that, in peace, archery was the favourite national pastime of the English yeomanry. Very different from this was the condition of the commonalty in France. There nobility was rampant, and arrogated exclusively to itself the profession of arms. The people, despised by the nobles, and at once trampled down and distrusted by them, were purposely made unfit to become good soldiers. Accordingly, a French writer (Brantôme) has recorded of the native infantry of his country that, until the 15th century, it was composed of the very lowest and the most degraded dregs of the populace. And even if, in spite of every adverse circumstance, those unfortunate men chanced to fight well, their courage and success at once aroused the jealousy of their own menat-arms, who actually would charge and beat them down as if they were enemies. Thus, while in the one country a martial spirit was earnestly cherished, in the other it was rigorously repressed; and while the English archer had his natural manly qualities developed and matured, while he himself was highly esteemed and his services were suitably acknowledged, the French foot-soldier was conscious that for him to possess and exhibit any true military qualities was simply to imperil his own life.

The archers wore iron head-pieces, and sometimes breast-plates or mail shirts; but generally their principal defence was their thickly quilted tunic.

NOTE 65, p. 135.-M. Lacombe has omitted all notice of armour for the defence of horses. The protection of their war-horses from injury or mischance was to the medieval knights a matter of such vital importance, that they provided for their defensive equipment with the most scrupulous care. The accoutrements of the knight's war-horses have the general name of "bardings ;" and an armed charger is accordingly said to be "barded." This horse-armour came into use in England in the second half of the 13th century; and its use was continued until about the middle of the 17th century.

NOTE 66, p. 135.-Whatever may be the nature of the inferences drawn from the Homeric descriptions of the chariots of the Greeks at the siege of Troy, the chariots of antiquity appear generally to have been destined to fulfil other duties on the field of battle besides that of simple locomotion. The chariots of Egypt and Assyria mentioned in Holy Writ, were strictly war-chariots; and the existing remains of both Egyptian and Assyrian art confirm the warlike character of the chariots, and exemplify their use in actual battle. Again, it is not possible for us to forget the warchariots of our remote predecessors in the occupancy of this island, with their scythearmed axles, of which Cæsar, after his manner, has bequeathed to us a vivid description.

NOTE 67, p. 137.—The pavise-which may be regarded as a kind of portable intrenchment was in use in England-that is to say, it was in use by English soldiers -as early as the first quarter of the 15th century. See the end of Note 64, and Fig. 81. Examples of the pavise are given in the fine MS. in the British Museum, marked "Cotton. MS., Julius, E. IV., 219 and 225."

NOTE 68, p. 146.-The armour that is described in the text from page 146 to page 152 inclusive is French armour. The text contains no description of the true plate armour of England. The engraved figure bearing the number 28, and entitled a French knight of the time of Charles VI., A.D. 1380-1422, however accurate in representing the French armour of that period, does not convey any idea of such a suit of armour as was habitually worn in England, either during the forty-two years of the reign of the French king, or at any other period. See Chapter X.

NOTE 69, p. 151.-Sollerets, formed of articulated plates of steel, and having mail to guard the instep-joint, were in general use by English knights from about the middle of the 14th century. After about the year 1500, the solleret was superseded by the sabbaton, which was cut off squarc and was very broad at the toe.

The statement in the text, that military gauntlets were unknown in France until the era of the seventh Charles, appears very singular to those who are familiar with the military effigies of England. The actual gauntlets (I see no reason to doubt their accepted authenticity) of our Black Prince, who died in 1376, hang in Canterbury Cathedral above his monument, whereon reposes his noble effigy, with similar gauntlets upon the hands. This is not the earliest effigy with gauntlets. It will be observed that the gauntlet, which is a glove provided with defences of steel plates or scales, and with formidable little knobs or spikes (called gads or gadlyngs) on the knuckles, is quite distinct from the mail mitten-in reality a prolongation of the sleeve of the shirt of mail, which at earlier periods medieval warriors were able to draw over their hands at pleasure. The true gauntlet was introduced in England as early as the time of Edward I., or about A. D. 1300.

NOTE 70, p. 152.-In England in the 15th century the gorget was a collar of plate armour, which at first superseded the camail, and subsequently assumed various modifications. A gorget of plate is represented worn over the camail, as early as 1347, in the brass to Sir Hugh Hastings, to which I have already referred.

The basinet was worn in England early in the century; but several varieties or modifications of the helm were introduced before the 15th century had reached its close.

NOTE 71, p. 155.-For a notice of the passe-gardes, and the various additional plates that were introduced into English armour at late periods of its history, see Chapter X.

NOTE 72, p. 155.-See Notes 49 and 62. The fluted, puffed, and other highly decorated armour in use in England in the 16th century was evidently made in imitation of the costume worn by the nobles and gallants of the day. Such a direct and indeed servile imitation of textile fabrics in metal is in itself a very decided sign of decadence in armour. It is not by any means a necessary inference from the undoubted imitation of dress in the armour of the Tudor era, that a similar imitation was prevalent, or even existed at all, in earlier periods when true art was flourishing.

NOTE 73, p. 162.-With the increase of decoration and of elaboration of details, and with the contemporaneous addition of extra plates to the suit of armour, the decline of the armourer's art and craft in England may be considered to have kept pace, until at length the era of true armour in our country came finally to a close.

It will be observed that the morion, and the burgonet, together with the pike, the halberd, the partisan, and the bill, and other pieces of armour and other weapons also that were in use in France, were well known and were in habitual use at the same period in England. We appear, moreover, to have introduced more than one additional modification of weapons of the halberd and partisan class, which are not represented in Fig. 68, page 273.

There is also one continental weapon of the same order not included in the group in Fig. 68, which I think must have been accidentally overlooked by M. Lacombe, since it certainly may claim a place amidst its formidable (or formidable-looking) confederates that compose his group. The weapon in question is the morgenstern, a club or mace having a long and strong stock, like the shaft of a halberd, surmounted by a globular or oval head of hard wood, bound about with three or more bands of iron, each of which bands bristles with iron spikes; and another spike, somewhat longer than the rest, projects at the top. It was used in the 16th and 17th centuries in the defence of breaches and walls. At the end of the fourth chapter of his "Legend of Montrose," Sir Walter Scott mentions this weapon after such a fashion as this:-Major (then Captain) Dalgetty, loquitur, "It's a pity he should be sae weak in the intellectuals, being a strong proper man of body, fit to handle pike or morgenstern, or any other military implement whatsoever.' A remarkably fine specimen of a Swiss morgenstern is conspicuous in the collection of my friend, Mr Ricketts.

NOTE 74, . 163.-Early in the 15th century the Swiss showed that a pike, 16 or 18 feet in length, in strong hands, was the most effectual weapon to check the charge of a body of horse.

The pike, which never had been regarded with favour by French soldiers, was abolished in the armies of France in 1703-4; and it is probable that it ceased to be used in our own army at about the same time. The plug-bayonet was introduced into the English army in 1672; and in about a quarter of a century the musket and bayonet could not fail to supersede the pike. It would seem that the dislike of the French for the pike arose in a great measure from the fact that they were not physically as strong as the well-fed English yeoman.