Page:A record of European armour and arms through seven centuries (Volume 3).djvu/252

 substantial; a very distinct deterioration, however, became apparent in the protective quality of the limb defences. In many cases the thinner the material of the plates the more subject was it to surface enrichment; since etching, gilding, and even embossing were admirably calculated to conceal indifferent constructional workmanship and even faultiness of material. But let us not go too fast; for certainly almost up to the close of the first half of the century there is no reason to suggest a deterioration in the craft of the armourer. Many writers on and enthusiasts in the study of armour and of arms profess a very slight appreciation of the robust and somewhat bizarre decorations of the Maximilian order, forgetting that the vagaries of taste in dress were to blame for these innovations, for the armourer was called upon to try to imitate in stubborn iron the fashions that were in paramount vogue in civil costume. The excessive puffing of the limb-coverings, the cutting and cross cutting of the surfaces, the exaggerated forms, and the general grotesque treatment of the human form must all be assigned to the vogue Maximilienne. Such a harness may not have the elegance of form associated with an Italian or French suit of the previous half century; but its craftsmanship is as good if not better, its construction is as sound, while its decoration is as ingenious, though to some minds it may seem unsuitable. So much in defence of the art of the XVIth century armourer; a defence which may well appear somewhat supererogatory in view of the fact that the works of such famous Italian armourers as the brothers Negroli, the great Campi, Mondrone, and the Picinini, and of such German masters as the Kolman family, Seusenhofer, Peffenhauser, and the Wolfs all come within the period. These artists were perfect in their way: they satisfied the demand for enriched plate surface by producing work which was at once beautiful and individual in style. Our defence is prompted by the attack made on XVIth century armour by nearly every writer who deals with the subject. In our opinion this attack seems hardly fair; for although a splendid Gothic harness of the XVth century very rightly deserves the highest praise by reason of its beauty of line and soundness of construction, it must be borne in mind that the embossing and enriching of plate surfaces, which are characteristic features of XVIth century armour, were unknown and therefore unpractised in the greater part of the previous century. Those mediums of decoration were not in use, and if we have to regret the loss of contour which is occasionally noticeable in the later armaments, we have some compensation in the superb designs carried out on enriched harnesses.

Gorgeous enrichment is to be found, too, even in cases in which the