LATE ARMOR

Fig. 11. A breastplate decorated with etched ornament against a black background.

Fig. 12. A morion with etched decoration. Handsome, but rather top-heavy.

Although we are accustomed to think of etching primarily in connection with pictures on paper, the process seems to have originated with the armorers. They would take a helmet or breastplate, paint it all over with a heavy acid-proof varnish, scratch a design through this varnish with a sharp needle, then place the metal in a bath of acid. The acid would eat away the steel where the varnish had been scratched, but not elsewhere. After the plate had been taken from the acid and the varnish removed, the etched part would show dark against the polished surface of the steel. This contrast could be heightened by rubbing in a little black pigment, and the early armorers discovered that they could readily keep a record of their work or a sample sheet to show other customers, by simply placing a piece of paper against the etched and blackened surface and rubbing it. Thefresh black would stick to the paper, giving a clear impression of the etched design. Masters of etching like Rembrandt used and modern etchers still use essentially the same process.

Fig. 13. A closed helmet with etching. Though heavier, it is more comfortable thanFig. 12, since its weight rests partly on the shoulders.

The Museum has a number of good examples of etched armor. InFig. 11we see a breastplate with etched designs of military trophies and mythological figures.Fig. 12shows a helmet, formerly in the collections of the Baron de Cosson and Henry G. Keasbey, of the type calledmorion, with an exceedingly high comb and similar etched decoration.Fig. 13shows a typicalclosed helmetof the mid-sixteenth century. Like the morion, it has a high, elaborately etched comb. The wearer’s face was protected by two plates, an upper one called thevizor, which has a narrow horizontal slit for vision like the salade described onpage 9, and a lower called theventailwhich has holes and vertical slits for ventilation. Both are pivoted at the ears, so that the vizor could be raised alone or vizor and ventail together,yet at the appearance of danger both could be snapped down into position with a single sweep of the gauntleted hand. The etching on this helmet shows floral arabesques and leaping stags against a background, not blackened, but gilt. Such gilding was done by rubbing the freshly etched surface with a mixture of gold and mercury, then heating the metal to evaporate the mercury and leave behind the gold firmly attached to the steel.

Fig. 14. A heavy helmet especially designed for the tournament. The man who wore this was about as safe as armor could make him.

Tournament armor, used in the toughest, most exciting sport that man has ever invented, was worn for comparatively short periods of time, and could, therefore, be considerably heavier than the military armor which a man might have to wear continuously. Decoration on the armor itself was reduced to a minimum, although elaborate trappings of cloth and feathers were often added to it.Fig. 14shows a helmet for use in a form of tournament conducted according to Italian rules, in which the contestants were separated by a fence which prevented their horses from colliding, thus permitting unrestricted speed of attack. The helmet is very solid and sturdy, with plain polished surfaces to deflect the opposing lance-point. Notice the circular hollow rim at the neck. This closed over an outward-turned rim on the throat defense (colletin) so that although the helmet could be turned to either side following the motion of the wearer’s head, it could not separate from the body armor at the throat and leave an opening for hostile spear or sword point.

Fig. 15. A parade shield, etched and gilded. Italian, XVI century.

Fig. 16. A parade helmet, probably made in Germany for the Hungarian or Polish market.

Fig. 17. A gauntlet of solid steel which is almost as flexible as chamois skin.

Parade armor was the lightest yet the most elaborate of all. Not intended for actual combat in either war or sport, it did not require the fundamental functionality of the other types; the armorers were free to follow their fancy and make the decoration as elaborate as they pleased. All methods were used. Etching and gilding were extensive and in addition the metal was embossed or chased in the most fanciful forms. In addition to the flat mercury gilding, gold was applied by thedamasceneprocess, either the “true” damascene in which plates or wires of gold (or silver) were actually inlaid into undercut grooves in the steel much as a dentist would fill a tooth, or the “false” damascene in which the precious metal was applied in the form of foil and rubbed onto the steel surface which had previously been roughened by tool work to produce innumerable tiny sharp points which could be burnished down to hold the foil firmly in place.

Fig. 18. A painted shield for a pageant or fancy-dress parade. Hungarian, XV century.

Specimens of the simpler parade armor, with etched and gilded ornament against a background colored a warm brown, are the shield shown inFig. 15and the helmet ofFig. 16. A mitten-gauntlet of the second half of the sixteenth century from the Clarence Mackay collection and formerly from the Imperial Russian Collection in the Hermitage Museum of St. Petersburg (Fig. 17) is an example of the work of the British Royal Armory at Greenwich, which made numerous finely decorated suits of armor for the nobles of the court of Queen Elizabeth. This gauntlet is a magnificent specimen of engineering skill as applied to the design of armor; its construction allows complete freedom to the wrist, knuckle, and finger joints, yet keeps the hand perfectly protected in any position. The gauntlet is decorated with an etched design of rising eagles in interlaced medallions against a dotted background; the latter is partly black, partly gilded.

An entirely different type of parade armor is the shield ofFig. 18. It is made of wood, covered on the inside with leather, on the outside withcanvas painted with a small coat of arms and a large representation of two unarmored men in mortal combat. This shield also was formerly in the Clarence H. Mackay collection.

Fig. 19. These stirrups are made of carved bronze, completely gilded.

Another example of parade equipment in a different medium is a pair of stirrups (Fig. 19) made of bronze and elaborately carved and gilded. They were formerly in the Spitzer collection.

As the sixteenth century drew to a close armor began to deteriorate. No single influence was responsible. Do not think that firearms were invented and armor was therefore suddenly made obsolete. As a matter of fact, firearms were in use before plate armor really received general acceptance, and firearms were in use all the time that plate armor was being worn in Europe. But the gradual improvement in the efficiency of firearms undoubtedly caused armor to be made heavier and heavier, and thereby contributed greatly to its decline. For just when armor was thus increasing in weight there developed a new school of cavalry tactics based upon the use of lightly armed troopers on fast horses who, instead of directly attacking the enemy, could dash around his flank and cut off his supplies from the rear. The tendency was, therefore, to make the armor light and very flexible, directly contrary to the need for solid, bullet-stopping protection. Even fashion had a deteriorating effect on armor.Fig. 20shows a late suitof armor which has a multitude of small plates to give extreme flexibility, and has extra wide leg protectors to cover the extravagant wide-topped trousers which were then the vogue. But what a clumsy suit this is compared to the Maximilian suit ofFig. 10!

Fig. 20. “Three-quarter” suit of armor for a young German of the early XVII century.

During the seventeenth century armor shrank away piece by piece, much as a tired soldier might have been tempted to discard it on a long march. The choking face defenses vanished from the helmet. The sollerets went, then the shin guards orgreaves, then the thigh guards. The arm guards were discarded, then the gauntlets. Finally the armored man was left with only breastplate, backplate, and helmet, and even these deteriorated in the following century into the decorative but inefficient trappings of the cuirassier. The two world wars, with their steel helmets and flak suits (the design of which was strongly influenced by ancient models) have revived the use of armor, but it is a machine-made product and, well-designed though it be, must be considered a reproduction rather than an original work of art.

Let us turn back to the armor of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, and consider some of the questions which naturally arise in our minds as we contemplate these relics of the past. In the first place, was it practical? How could men possibly wear such a mass of metal upon their bodies and engage in long military campaigns, interspersed with violent battles? Isn’t it true that an armored man, once fallen, could not get up again until he was hoisted with a derrick? No, that isn’t true. The comical scenes in the moving pictures of frustrated knights floundering about in search of hoisting engines were put in strictly for laughs. Armor was practical; it was worn by about all the most important men of more than three centuries; if they had not worn it they would not have lived long enough to become important! As a matter of fact armor is not as heavy as one might think. A good military suit weighs no more than the pack carried by a modern soldier, sixty pounds or less, and is a great deal more comfortable to carry. The pack hangs from the shoulders, but a good suit of armor, carefully made (as all good armor had to be made) to fit the individual body of the wearer, has its weight distributed over the entire body. The helmet rests partly on the head and partly on the shoulders. The breast and backplates rest partly on the shoulders and partly on the hips. The arm and leg guards are laced to the special undergarment which had always to be worn with armor, and each limb supports its own protection. The joints come at exactly the right places to correspond with the natural motions of the body, and every one of these motions is provided for. A man wearing a properly fitting suit of armor over the correct undergarment could do anything that a modern man can do wearing a winter overcoat, and probably, due to his special training, a number of things that the modern man could not. He could certainly walk, run, climb a wall, lie down and get up quickly, and mount his horse without help. To test the truth of these statements and the implications of the romantic novels of the past, the writer donned a suit of armor which fitted him only approximately, yet found himself able to perform all the actions above mentioned and, in addition, to descend two stories on a rope, hand under hand.

Two particular devices aided in making such flexibility possible. Where the body needed protection combined with motility it could be covered with a series of narrow, overlapping steel strips, each of which was riveted in turn to one or more leather straps, the ends of which were fastened to the solid main defense. Then as the body was flexed the steel strips orlameswould slide over one another without exposing the body beneath them (Fig. 21). It was also possible to join a series of lames by not more than two rivets for each pair; these would act as pivots, allowing one lame to rotate slightly relative to the other (Fig. 22). However, if rivets were used with rather large heads with a washer under the burred end of each, and if the holes for the rivet in one lame were round while that in the other had the form of a slot, in addition to the pivoting motion, a certainamount of sideways motion between the lames would be possible (Fig. 23).

Fig. 21. The leathering of a tasset, from the inside.

Fig. 22. The pivot rivets of a solleret.

Fig. 23. The wrist plates of a gauntlet with sliding (Almain) rivets.

Who wore armor? Every man who could afford it. Armor was always very much of a luxury. Its making required the services of consummate craftsmen, men who were not only expert metal workers, but also skilled draughtsmen, expert tailors, and keen students of human anatomy. Armorers were the aristocrats of all mediaeval craftsmen, the most highly respected and by far the best paid. It required a great deal of their time; the completion of a full suit of armor might take a year or more. Armor was, therefore, in the class of the modern automobile. A wealthy monarch might have a large wardrobe of beautifully decorated armor, as a millionaire to-day owns a fleet of expensive imported motor cars. A simple knight would be proud to possess a single suit, plain, but nevertheless made exactly to fit him and no other person. A minor soldier was lucky if he could secure a simple ready-made breastplate and helmet.

What was the physical character of the men who wore armor? Why do the suits seem so small? Were people smaller in those days? Yes and no. It is true that the nature of their life tended to develop men of the cowboy type, wiry rather than massive. Men who spend their lives on horseback are likely to have a broad shoulder and narrow waist, strong thigh and slender calf. It is true too that with primitive medicine and sanitation man died young; the average age of adult males was less than it is now.

However the principal reason for the small average size of preserved suits of armor lies in its inextensibility. A suit of armor cannot be “let out”.As has been pointed out, it had to be made exactly to fit the wearer. Men had to learn their military duties very young, they had to have and to wear armor while they were still growing. Consequently they usually outgrew their first suit of armor, and it was this suit, unmarked by the scars of serious fighting, which was most likely to be preserved. By the time a man reached his full growth his armor showed wear and tear; when he died he was buried in it, or it was discarded after his death as too battered to be worth keeping. The suits of armor in the world’s collections are largely the outgrown suits of young men.

In addition to the armor of Europe, consideration should be given to that of the Middle East, of which the City Art Museum displays a number of fine specimens in a special gallery. Armor was worn in Persia and in India long after it had been abandoned in Europe; it is even possible that among isolated tribes armorers may still be plying their trade. However, as in Europe, the later work tended to deteriorate, and the earlier an Eastern armor is, the better will it probably be.

The Indian and Persian smiths had two specialties: Damascus steel and damascened steel, which are often and not unnaturally confused, both having presumably originated at Damascus. Damascene work has already been described onpage 15; both the “true” and the “false” variety were practised throughout the Middle East. Damascus steel, on the other hand, is a type of metal especially suitable for armor and sword blades, made by the intimate combination, in innumerable layers, of two kinds of metal, one extremely hard, the other soft and tough. As billets of this composite steel were twisted, bent, and reformed, the superimposed layers made intricate patterns like those in watered silk. Such Damascus steel patterns can be best observed in sword and dagger blades like those illustrated inFig. 35,page 29.

Fig. 24. This is the breastplate of a Persian suit of armor. The buckles are for the straps which attach the side and back plates.

The Persian armorers did not follow the European custom of forging body armor exactly to fit the wearer, but instead made theprincipal defense of four rectangular plates known aschar ainaor “the four mirrors”. Two were worn as breast- and backplate respectively, the other two, made concave on the upper edge, were worn at the sides, the concavity fitting under the arm. Chain mail was always used in the East, even more extensively than in Europe, to protect all areas of the body not covered by the char aina or other defenses of solid plate.Fig. 24shows a plate of such a four-piece armor. It is made of fine Damascus steel (the pattern is too fine to show in the photograph), and is decorated with damascene inlay of floral arabesques in gold. This is work of the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century, and combines adequate functionality with oriental elegance. A Persian helmet (Fig. 25) of the same period shows skillful forging of the fluted ornament.

Fig. 25. The chain mail which now looks rather ragged originally hung evenly around the rim of this Persian helmet.

Fig. 26. Although corroded, this fifteenth century Turkish helmet demonstrates the wonderful skill of Middle Eastern armorers.

But the helmet inFig. 26, probably a century or more earlier, shows a much greater appreciation of sculptural form. With a row of parallel vertical flutings around its domed upper part, it resembles closely the Maximilian armor of contemporary Europe. It is doubtful, however, if many European smiths could have forged the minaret-like pinnacle which terminates the dome. The helmet is decorated with damascene work of silver in calligraphic inscriptions and arabesques. Its owner’s neck was protected by chain mail attached around the lower edge of the helmet. Probably because of the warmer climate, the Saracenic warriors never adopted the closed helmet of European lands, but preferred to leave the face exposed, or protected only by a nasal bar which was often so arranged that it could be slid upwards and clamped.

Man’s first weapon was probably a club, and the simple club has always retained a certain popularity. Even in the middle of the sixteenth century, when arms of all kinds attained great elaboration, the mace, or short one-handed club, was the accepted weapon of military men in holy orders who, forbidden to shed blood, found no such prohibition against the bloodless cracking of skulls.Fig. 27shows such a mace, of heavy steel, carved and gilded, a formidable though beautiful weapon. Related arms are short-handled military axes and hammers.

But the accepted symbol of man as a fighting creature has always been the sword, and the sword, perhaps more than any other item of man’s warlike panoply, has experienced the full range of his artistic and technical initiative. Space does not here permit a discussion of the innumerable types of swords; only a brief resumé of the general development can be given. This is supplemented by a display of some typical forms along one side wall of the armor gallery.

Fig. 27. A mace or one-handed club, made of steel carved and gilded. A beautiful implement for smashing heads!

Fig. 28. A Chinese bronze sword from about the time of Christ. Not very sharp, but it could still do quite a lot of damage.

Fig. 29. Typical swords of the sixteenth-seventeenth centuries, as displayed in the armor gallery.

Stone Age man could not make any true swords, for the flint and obsidian which he had to use were too brittle to be available in large pieces. But bronze could be cast into swords both effective and beautiful. A number of Chinese bronze sword blades from the Han Dynasty (206 B.C.-220 A.D.) (Fig. 28) are available in the study collection. They are rather short, double edged blades, adapted primarily for thrusting, but not without cutting ability too. The Greeks and Romans used swords of rather similarform, and also another type which tended to broaden near the point, bringing the weight forward and adding impetus to both the thrust and the cut.

Mention has already been made, (p. 4), of the rare but beautiful swords of the dark ages, made in whole or in part of laminated metal resembling the Damascus steel of the Middle East, (cf.p. 20). Such swords were carried by the Vikings who harried the coast of Britain and extended their voyages even to North America. These swords had long, straight, symmetrically double-edged blades, a short hilt, and a short crossbar guard between blade and hilt. They were very powerful in a downward slash, but too heavy to be manipulated easily as thrusting weapons.

By the fifteenth century the crossbar and the hilt had become longer, giving the weapon a better balance, but the general character of the arm remained the same. With the longer hilt, both hands could be used, considerably increasing the power of the weapon (Fig. 29[1], alsotitle pageillustration). This tendency continued in the sixteenth century until it culminated in the enormous two-handed swords used by the professional mercenary soldiers, orlandesknechts(Fig. 29[2]). Such swords were over five feet long, with immense drooping guards and long leather-wrapped hilts.

Fig. 30. How many figures are carved in the solid steel of this court sword hilt?

Court sword hilt

As the sixteenth century advanced, sword blades became narrower, lighter, and more adapted for thrusting, while guards developed rings and curved knuckle-guards to protect the out-thrust hand (Fig. 29[4], [3]). The new method of fighting had definite advantages over the old slashingsystem, which required the sword to be raised high, exposing the body, before a blow could be struck, and soon the thrusting sword, orrapier, was used everywhere. The system of rings which formed the guard grew more complicated and finally coalesced into a solid metal cup, which completely shielded the hand within it (Fig. 29[6], [8]). Sometimes a dagger (Fig. 29[5], [7]) was held in the left hand to parry the opponent’s sword blade, but eventually this was abandoned and fencers learned to parry with the rear portion of their own blades, before making a second thrust (riposte) with the point. Action grew faster and faster, and swords lighter and more manageable, until by the seventeenth century the customary weapon was thecourt sword, with a short, single-handed hilt, a small flat guard often magnificently decorated in chiselled steel, and a relatively short, light blade having a needle-like point, and often without any sharp cutting edge at all (Fig. 30).

Fig. 31. A rondel dagger with a silver handle.

Fig. 32. An outfit for a hunter: dagger, knife, awl, and larding needle, all fitting into one scabbard.

In addition to the sword, the dagger was often used as a supplementary weapon which could still be carried for self-protection when courtesy or convenience made the wearing of a sword impracticable. Daggers were made in a number of special shapes, varying with changes of fashion. In the fifteenth century two popular forms were therondel dagger(Fig. 31) which had guard and pommel in the form of disks, and thekidney dagger(then known by a less-printable name and worn, with the naive exhibitionism of pre-Victorian days, directly below the belt buckle) which had a straight, simple hilt and a short guard of ball-like form. Italians of the sixteenth century liked theanelace, with its drooping guard and short, wide, sharply tapering blade. Mention has already been made of the left-hand daggers of the seventeenth century. Thestiletto, without a guard other than a short cross-bar, was also popular at this time. Hunters and landesknechts often carried a complete outfit of small tools in the scabbard with their dagger; such atrousse(Fig. 32) was very convenient when preparing freshly-killed venison for the cook or when eating around a camp fire.

The chief arm of the mounted knight was the lance, a weapon having a long and often quite heavy wooden shaft and a steel point. Near the butt its diameter was reduced to provide a comfortable hand grip, and just in front of this grip there was applied avamplateor conical hand guard of steel. Behind the grip there was attached a thick iron ring called agraper, which, when the lance was in use, rested against the hook or lance-rest projecting from the right side of the knight’s breastplate. The graper thus served as a thrust bearing, and put directly behind the point of the lance the entire momentum of horse and rider. When such a projectile made a direct hit upon an opponent something had to give. Either the opponent was knocked completely off his horse, or his back was broken, or the lance was shattered.

Foot soldiers also employed arms with long wooden shafts, of which by far the commonest was thepike, which had a very simple steel point and butt ferrule respectively on the ends of a slender rod of wood about fourteen feet long. This was the arm of the great bodies of mercenary infantry which did so much of the fighting of the seventeenth century. A company of such men, formed into a square or circle, the front rank kneeling, the second standing, and both holding their pikes with the butts against the ground and the points projecting outward, was almost invulnerable to cavalry, whose horses would not charge against the forest of pike-points. The one effective maneuver against them was for some of the cavalry to dismount and attack swinging great two-handed swords, which could beat down the pike points and allow the cavalry to ride in.

Lance and pike were simple utilitarian tools; few have survived. But there are other pole arms, from the fifteenth century on, which offeredmore opportunity to individual taste in form and decoration; a number of these are present in the Museum’s collection. Some (Fig. 33) were developments of the simple spear point, as for example (1) the type called anox-tongueor (2) a boar spear provided with a toggle to prevent a wounded animal from charging right up the shaft of the weapon which transfixed him. In (3), now a well-developedpartisan, the toggle has been replaced by a projecting spur at each side of the base. In (4) these spurs have become large and ornamental, the weapon is decorated with etching, and has become a ceremonial object rather than a weapon for actual fighting. (5) is a partisan of the state guard of Augustus the Strong, Elector of Saxony and King of Poland (1697-1733), and is even more noticeably designed for display purposes only.

Fig. 33. Spear-type pole arms, XV-XVII centuries. Developing from a simple tool for stabbing to a decorated badge of office.

Other pole arms are developments of the axe. Military axes (Fig. 34[1], [2]) had handles somewhat shorter than those of pikes, spears or partisans but longer than the short-handled axes used on horseback. They were particularly popular for use in judicial combats or “trial by battle”. Each contestant in a law suit would swear to the truth of his claim, and call upon God to prove its truth. The two men, armed with such axes, would fight until one was killed or driven out of the ring. The victor was thus provento have told the truth, while the unsuccessful contestant, if still alive, was executed for perjury. Such axes, capable of defending the right, were made with special care, and were highly valued by their surviving owners.

Fig. 34. Axe-type pole arms, XV-XVII centuries. The earlier ones, at the left, were used in judicial duels, the later, at the right, were held by warders of the doors of princes.

Axes with longer shafts were known ashalberds, and were usually provided with a sharpened hook at the back of the axe blade to permit a man on foot to catch and cut the bridle rein of an attacking horseman. Like the partisans, halberds developed from plain functional military types, (Fig. 34[3], [4]) of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries respectively to highly decorated types carried as badges of authority by the state guards of Christian II of Saxony (Fig. 34[5]) and of the Princes of Liechtenstein (Fig. 34[6]) respectively.

The chief characteristic of the blades of the Middle East is the beautiful watered pattern of the Damascus steel, discussed onpage 20. Unfortunately this pattern is too delicate to show well in reproduction, but it may readily be observed in the actual objects, exhibited in the gallery of MiddleEastern Art. Two knives are shown inFig. 35, illustrating delicate Damascene work in gold and similar ornament carried out not by inlay of another metal, but by chiselling in low relief.

Fig. 35. Persian dagger-knives of the seventeenth century, equally useful as tool and as weapon, and beautiful too!

Fig. 36shows a Persian sword hilt of solid gold, from the late thirteenth or fourteenth century. The ends of its guard are formed as the heads of lions. It is engraved with floral arabesques and a calligraphic inscription. The engraved lines are filled in with black pigment (niello).

Fig. 36. A Persian sword hilt of solid gold, XIII-XIV century, inscribed: “Salute to Mohammed”.

Ever since a hairy primitive first picked up a stone and threw it, man has tried to find better and better ways to strike from a safe distance. The devices which he has produced for this purpose have been many and varied, yet, strangely enough, remarkable similarities often occur between inventions of widely separated areas. In ancient Peruvian graves have been found cord slings for hurling stones almost identical with those used by herd boys in Palestine today, as in the time of David and Goliath. Bronze arrowheads from prehistoric Japan are much the same as those excavated from Roman Britain. The bow has several different characteristic forms distributed throughout the world, but its fundamental principle is everywhere the same.

Fig. 37 (Left). A light crossbow like this would be used by a young man or an athletic girl. Flemish, XV century.

Fig. 38 (Below). Made a little lighter. A prodd or bullet-shooting crossbow, probably for a lady.

The first projectile-throwing arm appropriate to an art museum is the crossbow, which is simply a bow mounted on a wooden stock provided with a catch and trigger, so that the bow could be carried ready to shoot. This was a great convenience in hunting or war, because otherwise the time lost in drawing the bow might give the victim opportunity to escape. Moreover, it was soon found that the application of mechanical devices permitted the use of a bow much stronger than any man could draw unaided.

Fig. 39. It took a powerful man to wind and shoot this heavy Swiss hunting crossbow, even with the cranequin to help wind!

Fig. 40. If you take off the outer case, these three parts make up the entire mechanism of the cranequin.

Fig. 41. Mechanism of a crossbow lock, complicated but effective.

Fig. 37shows a light Flemish crossbow of the fifteenth century. Its wooden stock is inlaid with white and with green stained bone in openwork patterns. This type of crossbow required mechanical assistance to pull the string back to the catch which would hold it until the moment should arrive to shoot; the instrument employed was called agoat’s footlever.

The crossbow ofFig. 38is Italian work of the sixteenth century. The bow is light enough to be pulled by the hands alone, without mechanical assistance. It had a double string, with a little pouch attached between the two strands, and shot small bullets, instead of arrows. The wooden stock is beautifully carved and the metal parts are damascened with arabesques in gold. This type of light crossbow was especially popular with aristocratic ladies who are frequently represented shooting it in hunting tapestries of the period.

InFig. 39is shown a very powerful hunting crossbow of the seventeenth century. The bow is of steel, two inches wide and a third of an inch thick. The bowstring resembles a piece of heavy rope. To pull this string, bending a steel spring as massive as this, requires a tremendous power and an immense strength in the mechanism which will hold the fully-drawn bow until the moment for its release.

The pulling power is supplied by a device, also shown in the illustration (Fig. 39) called acranequinorcric. It is in mechanical respects essentially identical with a modern geared automobile jack, although, of course, it pulls instead of lifts (Fig. 40). A force of fifty pounds applied to the handle generates on the claw which grasps the bowstring a pull of more than two tons!Fig. 41shows the mechanism for holding and releasing the string. (These parts are, of course, normally invisible, being hidden inside the wooden stock).

Returning to the artistic aspects of the crossbow ofFig. 39, we observe that the whole of the wooden stock is inlaid with plates of white stag horn engraved with scenes illustrating the legend of William Tell—certainly an appropriate decoration! The bow is quite plain except for the addition of decorative pompoms of colored wool, but the cranequin gear housing is elaborately etched with representations of Biblical and mythological personages, strapwork, and interlace, much of this unfortunately now worn away.

The study of antique firearms is a fascinating one. Contrary to usual belief, firearms are not a late invention. They were in use before complete suits of plate armor were made, and continued in use throughout the entire period that plate armor was worn. Many thousands of different specimens have been classified, but all firearms before the nineteenth century belongto one of four types. These include (1) the cannon or hand cannon in which the charge of gunpowder was set off by direct application of a burning slow match or hot iron held by the shooter; (2) the matchlock in which burning slow match or tinder was held in a clamp attached to the gun and was brought into contact with the gunpowder by a mechanism attached to the gun and operated by the shooter; (3) the wheellock in which fire was not carried about, but was produced by a mechanism like that of a modern cigarette lighter: a rough wheel was spun around in contact with a stone (not flint, but a nodular form of iron pyrite) so that sparks were produced to set off the gunpowder; (4) the flintlock and its variations, in which a piece usually of flint stone held in a clamp attached to a strong spring was moved by the spring to strike a piece of steel, and thereby generate the spark which would set fire to the gunpowder. The Museum’s collection includes interesting and unusual specimens of all but the first of these types.

Fig. 42. This is how a musketeer looked when he was just getting ready to aim his gun. He has more gadgets than even a modern infantryman.

Fig. 43. The Three Musketeers carried muskets like this one in form, but without the elaborate inlaid decoration.

Fig. 44. Was the decoration of the gun copied from the engraving, or the engraving from the gun?

The earliest, simplest form of hand firearm, the hand cannon of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, is also the least interesting esthetically. Consisting of a simple tube of iron, it was usually crudely formed, and quite undecorated. Such hand cannon have much archaeological interest, but contribute nothing to the history of art. The first step forward in the mechanization of firearms was the matchlock, and matchlock guns also were usually crude and strictly utilitarian, military pieces (Fig. 42). However, a few specimens of fine quality were made for important personages, and the Museum is fortunate in possessing precisely such a specimen (Fig. 43), the gift of the John M. Olin Trust. The exact date and place of its manufacture are uncertain; it could be English but seems a bit more likely to be Dutch, toward the middle of the seventeenth century.

The lock is the standard seventeenth century matchlock, with the earlier form of trigger resembling that of a crossbow. The serpentine which holds the burning slow match moves upon pressure of the trigger in the rearward direction, from the muzzle towards the butt, bringing the burning slow match (a piece of rope impregnated with saltpeter) into contact with the powder pan, the swiveling cover of which must first have been opened by hand. After the slow match has ignited the priming powder and fired the piece, a release of pressure on the trigger allows a return spring to force the serpentine back to its original position. Notice the shape of the serpentine, suggesting not so much a snake as a double-headed dragon.

Back to Index Next