Page:A record of European armour and arms through seven centuries (Volume 1).djvu/242

 This appears to be conclusive proof that the suit of armour so minutely copied by William Austin was of North Italian make. Mantegna was born in 1431, so it is just possible that he may have painted his picture about the same time when the London brass-founder was modelling a similar suit for the Beauchamp Chapel.

It is not recorded at what period of his life Mantegna painted this St. George, but it has the appearance of being in his earlier style.

Even if Mantegna painted the suit at a later date, he may have had an old Missaglia suit in his studio to work from; for there are many instances of artists of those times depicting suits which were by no means of the latest fashion. Dürer, for instance, when in 1498 he made that beautiful study of a mounted man-at-arms which is now in the Albertina at Vienna, was careful to write on the top of it: "This was the manner of arming in former days" (Fig. 202).

Compare the photograph of Mantegna's St. George with Stothard's drawing of the effigy of the Earl. The suits are constructionally the same and are certainly made from the designs of the same armourer, the only difference to be noticed being in the placing of the decorative channelling. On the effigy the placate of the breastplate has two simple wide grooves; in the picture it is plain. In the picture the lance rest is on the foundation plate of the breastplate; in the effigy the holes for its attachment are on the placate. In the effigy again the cuisses are represented as though decorated with duplicated chevron ridges, while in the picture they are plain. The tuilles in the picture meet closely together; in the effigy they show a space between them. The sollerets in the picture are multilamed; on the effigy they are represented with large pointed toe-caps. The Earl in his effigy rests his head upon his crested helm, which in itself is a good deal like that of Italian origin illustrated in Chapter XIII. So accurate was Stothard in the drawings which he made of this splendid effigy, that after ascertaining that the heavy figure of latten lay loose upon the altar tomb he succeeded with assistance in turning it on its face and was thus enabled to record all the detail on the back of the armour, which was found to be as carefully and accurately represented as that on the front, showing all the parts of the suit, its shape and fastenings, with instructive minuteness. Stothard's actual description of the armour represented on the effigy is so admirable that we give it here in its entirety, only deleting the matter that does not bear directly upon this particular effigy.

"The first garment in view, especially evident (Figs. 199, b, d), is