Page:A record of European armour and arms through seven centuries (Volume 3).djvu/341

 no chanfron en suite we attach little importance; as that could very well have been lost or stolen. The only circumstance that might make it possible, we will not say probable, that this is the suit referred to in the inventory, is that it is described as being "richly guilt," while parts of the suit described as "part engraven" might mean embossed; "part damasked" it certainly is. Although we are thereby taking it out of its chronological order, we propose at this point to illustrate this Tower suit (Fig. 1061); for by comparison with the Armure aux Lions from which we think its enrichment must have been copied, it serves as an excellent demonstration of the decadence of the armourer's craft towards the close of the XVIth century—even when there was a fine model at hand to imitate. It is curiously contradictory in the evidence of the period of its make. The close helmet, the pauldrons, the arms, the gauntlets, and the leg defences might be accepted generally as belonging to the last quarter of the XVIth century; but the breastplate, with its reinforcing plate and the heavy detachable gorget made en suite seem to be of the fashion of the first quarter of the XVIIth century. The theory might very fairly be put forward that the breastplate has been altered in fashion and that the presence of certain laminated splints at the base which now are missing—there is but one left—would cause it to assume a form more closely resembling that of the breastplate of the Armure aux Lions. But against this theory must be placed the fact that the reinforcing breastplate that goes with the suit fits perfectly the present proportions of the breastplate, splaying out with an additional plate to cover the spread of the tace plates. It would appear, therefore, that this was the original shape of the breastplate, and if that is so, the date of the suit is within the early years of the XVIIth century. In the decoration may be noted another puzzling contradiction in respect of period and style. The really spirited embossing and its accompanying gilding and azzimina damascening might be accepted as Italian work of late XVIth century date; but, were we only shown one of the bands of gold enrichment upon the additional gorget, or even on the suit itself, we should unhesitatingly pronounce it to be French work of the early years of the XVIIth century produced under Dutch influence. The author has the following alternative suggestion to make. As early as 1607 Henry, Prince of Wales, the elder son of King James I, received from Louis the Dauphin, son of Henry IV of France, a gift which comprised "a suit of armour well gilt and enamelled, together with pistols and a sword of the same kind and armour for a horse." Although the description is not very definite, we fancy that this Tower suit may perhaps be the one to which allusion is made. We admit