Abstract
ARMS & ARMOUR, Vol. 0 No. 0, Month 2023, 1–20 The Elusive Musekin—Interpreting a Mysterious Piece of Medieval Armour ANTÓNIO CONDUTO OLIVEIRA Centre for the History of Society and Culture, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal Centre for the History of Society and Culture, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal The field of medieval arms and armour abounds with terms whose mean- ings are, as yet, lost to us. Of these, none is perhaps as recurrent or as widespread as the term musekin, amply present in a variety of European sources and languages between the 13th and the 16th centuries. Although familiar to experts, and included in a number of seminal works, no one source has of yet provided a definite, well-researched answer as to what musekins might be. This paper’s aim is therefore to try and work out what object or objects musekins might have corresponded to, by bringing together a considerable number and typology of sources—textual, artistic, and archaeological—from a wide variety of medieval European cultures, which are then analysed in a multi-pronged, multi-lingual, interdisciplinary approach. Possible identifications are then presented, in a process which highlights the potential for complementarity between different European languages and archives in researching medieval arms and armour. KEYWORDS musekins; medieval armour; interdisciplinarity; evolution; linguistic research When the Portuguese knight Vasco de Sousa died in 1359, his son Gil inherited all of his father’s arms, armour, and martial accoutrements. These included o cavallo do dito Vasco de Sousa, seu Padre, e huma espada, e huma lanc¸a, e huma loriga de cavallo, e duas ffalhas [solhas], e huum elmo com sseu camalho, e huuns brac¸aes, e huuns mosequinrs, e humas luvas d’ac¸o, e huuns coixotes, e caneleiras 3 4 velhas de coiro, e huum escudo, e c¸apatos de ferro hunns’. This vivid portrait of how a mid-14th century Portuguese warrior ought to be fully armed is marred by a single word of as of yet unknown meaning: mosequinrs,or # 2023 The Trustees of the Royal Armouries DOI 10.1080/17416124.2023.2189871 2 A. CONDUTO OLIVEIRA mosequins. This mysterious object appears again in the late 14th century regula- tions of the city of Evora, in southern Portugal, whose alfagemes (makers/cleaners of cold steel weapons and armour) were required to turn any ‘coixotes e canilleiras e brac¸aees e mogiquis e sselhas e capellinas e bac¸inetes armaduras outras’ to their vedores (inspectors/overseers) before cleaning them, so that a price could be deter- mined for the job. Two different spellings, to which we will add a third from yet another list of assorted arms and armour from 1418 which included ‘huuns coixoes e canelleiras e huuns bracelloens, e huum morsequill, e hua ocha [acha?], e uma sex- tuma, e mais dous terc¸os de huum tendilhom, com seus guarnimentos’. Mosequins, mogiquis, morsequill, medieval derivations of the same word, all employed in very similar contexts—namely, lists of military equipment. This Portuguese conundrum is not uniquely Portuguese. In trying to ascertain the exact meaning of mosequins, it soon became clear that moseques and mosequins (in Castilian and Catalan), musekins or musekyns (in Middle English and Middle French), musisen or museisen (in Middle German), musysen or mauwschischen (in Old Polish), musacchini (in Italian) and musachinum (in Medieval Latin) all refer to the same piece or pieces, yet no single source and no single language (with one possible exception) seems to be able to provide an accurate definition of what these pieces actually are or how they were used. Therefore, my objective in this article will be to piece together and decipher what these mosequins/musekins might have been, what they were made of, and how they were worn. For that purpose, I will make use of several print sources as well as iconographical and archaeological sources from all across Europe, bringing all of them together in a cohesive whole to perhaps provide a clear(er) answer to this mystery. 1. Conflicting definitions Though the question has puzzled many researchers in recent times, few have addressed the issue outright. Thom Richardson’s work on the Tower of London’s armoury includes plenty of mentions of musekins in the Tower’s arsenals between 1338 and 1353, after which they disappear from the records. The author fails to identify what they are, given his sources, pointing instead to their presence in a French poem, a 1336 regulation for the men-at-arms of Hainaut, and an issuance of military equipment to Richard Fitzalan, earl of Arundel (all of which will be looked at in more detail below). The Hainaut regulation is also mentioned in Claude Gaier’s L’industrie et le Commerce des Armes dans les Anciennes Principautes de Liege, as are some of the contents of a late 13th century list of tarifs du peage from Peronne ; in both instances, the word musekins appears highlighted in guillemets but no explanation is provided regarding to what they might be. Mario Barroca, too, highlights the mosequins in his transcription of the 1359 list of arms and armour (see note 4), whilst remaining otherwise silent on the subject. THE ELUSIVE MUSEKIN—INTERPRETING A MYSTERIOUS PIECE OF MEDIEVAL ARMOUR 3 For the first attempt at an explanation, we have to go back to the 18th century scholars of the Accademia della Crusca. According to their assessment, published in Valbonnais’ Histoire de Dauphine and in Du Cange’s Glossarium ad scriptores mediæ et infimæ latinitatis, musachinum (the Latin form of musekin) were ‘parte di armatura di dosso, della quale s‘eperduto l‘uso’. No reasoning for this is given in either source; the Glossarium simply points to an unclear entry in a 1334 inven- tory in the Histoire,which reads ‘Item pro arnense uno de malla de aczario sine Musachinis et collario cum paro uno de caligis unc. v.’. In spite of its lack of clarity, the Accademia’s definition has enjoyed a long, successful career: Jean-Baptiste de Roquefort included it in his Glossaire de La Langue Romane ; it was still alive and well in 1889, when it was employed in the Calendar of Wills to explain the pair de musekyns in Roll 79 ; and E. de Moriame was still using it in 1913 to explain away the several musekins presented in his ‘Armes et armuriers tournaisiens’. Mart ı de Rıquer, the eminent Catalan hoplologist, struggled with the term in 1968, finding it hard to reconcile the Accademia’s definition (via Llu ıs Faraudo de Saint-Germain ) and the many instances of musequıs in Catalan documentation. Few scholars have hitherto challenged this definition. One of the first to do so was renowned arms and armour collector Samuel Rush Meyrick, in “A Glossary of such Military terms of the Middle Ages as are either not explained, or not fully so, in this Work” included at the end of the third volume of his monumental ACritical Inquiry Into Antient Armour. In it, he presented two different views on what musa- chinum might be. The first is an ipsis verbis reiteration of the Accademia’s opinion, lifted complete with the example in the Histoire. The second is Meyrick’sown: in his understanding, musachinum was meant for ‘( … ) the chignon or nape of the neck, and, as it is mentioned with the collar, probably as a protection for that part worn at the same time, and consisted of two circular bands of steel which encircled such part of the neck’. A wrong yet perhaps understandable assertion; as was Victor Gay’s later confusion with the decorative element called musequin or muffle in French, meaning a carved lion’sface—which led to the corresponding entry in the Glossaire archeologique reading: ‘Armure en formedemuffledelion, qui parait avoir recou- vert les epaules’. This meaning, which as we shall see the sources do not support, was also taken up by Lionello Boccia in his dictionary Armi difensive dal Medioevo all’EtaModerna,B.M.Alfieri in his entry on Defensive Armaments for the Enciclopedia dell’ Arte Medievale, referring to small lion-like rondels on the arms of Sir John de Creke’s monumental brass; and by Bruno Mugnai in reference to a knight from the Obbizi family (no. 11 in the book), depicted with lion-shaped knee cops. And let us not forget Friar Santa Rosa de Viterbo, the original transcriber of Vasco de Sousa’s will in the first edition of his Elucidario, in 1798. He too tried his hand at defining mosequins but, sadly for us, seems to have paid little attention to context, and preferred to err on the side of linguistic similarity: mosequins, he thought, were 4 A. CONDUTO OLIVEIRA nothing more than misspelt borzeguins —a type of Iberian footwear from the Late Middle Ages. 2. Materials and use The vast majority of sources are mum regarding the particulars of musekins, but some information can still be gleamed from a careful analysis of our patchwork of documentation. Chief amongst this is the material musekins were commonly made of: mail. Musekins were included in several large commissions of mail bought in 1338 in preparation for Edward III’s invasion of France (the first stage of what would become the Hundred Years’ War). From ‘makers from Maastricht, John, Gerard, Courand and Reginald’ came a single pair of musekins, along with one pair of short sleeves and an assorted number of sleeves and paunces, aventails, collars and haubergeons ; another Flemish mail-maker, Terence of Middelburg, furnished the English arsenal with 5 pairs of musekins, alongside 2 full haubergeons and a good number of mail collars and aventails. Musekins are a constant fixture in the inven- tories of theTower armouries upto1353, andthey are invariably listedalongside other mailitems.Elsewhere, ‘a loriga of Milanese mail together with «faldas y man- gas, mosequins, golorones, calcas, capatos of Milanese mail and further a ventaille and a cervelliere»’ was ordered by Pedro IV of Aragon in August 1337, as part of a larger consignment of Italian-made pieces of armour. The Hainaut regulations of 1336 also include musekins in a comprehensive list of mail pieces that a lord should receive upon the death of a man-at-arms: if said man-at-arms had no ‘haubier ne haubregon’, they state, the lord should ‘avoir lespanset les manches, le barbiere, les musekins, les cauchons et les wans de mail, s‘il y sont; car autre armure ke ly homs a d‘armure de mail, ne puet li sires avoir ne demander’. Mail was not the only mater- ial used for musekins—at least one source mentions musekins ‘of jazerant’ —, but it was clearly the rule. Material is far from only information we can draw from the sources. The organ- isational logic behind most of these inventories means that armaments are often listed and grouped in sequence according to the portion of the body they cover and protect. Both Portuguese sources list musekins after bracers (‘brac¸aes’), for example, followed by gauntlets in Sousa’s will and pairs of plates in Evora’sregulations. William of Grantham’s 1350 will has a pair of musekins listed after a pair of plates, but before a pair of bracers, whereas the 1369 Codice degli stipendiari della repubblica di Firenze has its musekins (musacchini) after armour for the thighs (cosciali) but before bracers (bracciali)as well. Musekins are consistently paired with arm defences, and it is therefore only logical to conclude that they are pieces of mail armour for the arms, worn alongside bracers of some description. Other sources explicitly confirm this reasoning. One of the sur- viving rolls of the Norwich city militia, which detail all the equipment presented by militiamen for service at some point between 1355–1370, lists ‘2 paria [bracers] THE ELUSIVE MUSEKIN—INTERPRETING A MYSTERIOUS PIECE OF MEDIEVAL ARMOUR 5 cum 2 paribus de Musekyns’ belonging toa certainRichard (‘Ric’us) of Byteryng— and does it under the heading ‘Bras’,or ‘Arms’. A few decades later, in 1386, the tax collector Guillem de Sora from Zaragoza would receive ‘CCCl flor[ins]’ from the merchant Johan de Mont for ‘C parels de gancellets, XVIII parells de brazalls, un parel de moceguins’. Even Boccacio, in describing how Florio armed Ascalione in Filocolo, tells us that Florio ‘gli ebbearmato lebraccia di be’ bracciali e musac- 47 48 chini’. Furthermore, musekins in inventories are almost invariably recorded in the plural or explicitly in pairs, which corroborates their use as protection for limbs. This exercise can be done in reverse by excluding known pieces—i.e. what muse- kins cannot be, or cannot cover, according to the available sources. Hainaut’smen- at-arms were required to possess either a hauberk and chausses (covering the entire torso, arms and possibly the head and hands as well) or a haubergeon, mail coif or standard (to the same effect). If they had neither, they were required to own, amongst other items which cover several areas of the torso and legs, mail sleeves and gauntlets (wans). Musekins shouldn’t beabletocover theentirearm andshoulder, as this area would be covered by sleeves —alongside which musekins are often listed. They also cannot cover the hands, since these are covered by mail gauntlets. That musekins are not meant for the hands is also confirmed by Sousa’s will, for example, which lists steel gauntlets (luvas d’ac¸o) along with the musekins. 3. One possible identification? The 14th century has long been recognised as a century of revolution in armour- making—‘no period in the progress of military science and knightly equipment so interesting’, in the words of the amateur John Hewitt. At the turn of the century, mail defences were as universal as they had been during the previous eight centuries of the Middle Ages ; by the last decades of the period, mail had lost its role as the outermost layer protecting a warrior’s body, and in quite a few cases had been rele- gated to an auxiliary role, to cover any gaps left uncovered by iron or steel plate. Some of the best visual sources we have of this entire process of change and evolu- tion are funerary monuments of armoured knights, including effigies and brasses. As mail gave way to plate, these monuments recorded, sometimes with minute precision, how new pieces and solutions were adopted, altered, kept, or discarded. Though not all of these sources were created equal—archaisms and mimetic conventions are pit- falls that can beset even the best of researchers—andneedto be taken on a case by case basis, they nonetheless yield some important clues regarding this process of change—including one hypothesis for what musekins might be. One of the more interesting trends seen in these monuments during the later 13th century and the first half of the 14th century is that of short mail sleeves which reach slightly below the elbow. These sleeves are shown with either nothing underneath (bar whatever garments the warrior may be wearing) or paired with several types of 6 A. CONDUTO OLIVEIRA 56 57 forearm protection: vambraces of plate, very often, but also scale and, more importantly, mail. These pieces of mail for the lower arm turn up in funerary monu- ments all across Europe: a sampling includes the monument to Pierre de Villemetrie 58 59 (ca. 1340) ; the effigy of an unknown knight (ca. 1325) in Salerno Cathedral ;the damaged tombstone of Bernardino dei Baranzoni (ca. 1345) in Modena, Italy; and the tombstone of Sir Pierre Leiaune (ca. 1343) in Nicosia, Cyprus; to name but a few. The overlap between sleeve and forearm mail creates an effect often referred to as ‘double mail’ by modern students of arms and armour, i.e., the simultaneous use of two layers of mail garments. This trend is also shown in other visual sources, such as manuscript miniatures (an example of them in Figure 1), albeit to a much lesser degree. 14th century art tends to prefer regular full sleeves; three-quarter sleeves are much rarer, and rarer still are unequivocal depictions of potential mail vambraces worn beneath them. In spite of their rarity, could these be our mysterious musekins? All criteria are apparently met: these are unknown pieces of mail for the arm that can be worn FIGURE 1. Detail from Gouvernement des princes (Besanc¸on BM MS.434), ca. 1372 # Bibliotheque nationale de France (2023). The warrior on the right shows a stretch of mail covering the forearm between his gauntlet and mail sleeve, contrasting with the plate (?) forearm of the warrior on the left. THE ELUSIVE MUSEKIN—INTERPRETING A MYSTERIOUS PIECE OF MEDIEVAL ARMOUR 7 alongside hauberks (and even alongside sleeves), as well as bracers and gauntlets. Andat least one suchpiece may have surviveduptothe present day: Amongst the many pieces of armour found in the mass graves of the 1361 battle of Wisby there were three mail sleeves found separate from any other mail defences: two partial 63 64 sleeves, (B XVIII, B XIX) and a full sleeve (A 38). All three cover the ulna and the radius; but only the A38 sleeve seems to be a finished piece onto itself, as ‘it appears that the rows of links were finished off near the elbow’. If this assessment is accurate, then the A38 could be a prime candidate for what we can see in the above-mentioned effigies and pieces of art. The A38 sleeve shows no obvious methods of attachment. How, then, would such sleeves have been fastened around the forearm? The most likely method was sewing or tying them to whatever garments—gambesonsorpourpoints—were worn beneath one’s martial equipment. That would conform with an interesting passage in Tilemann Elhen von Wolfhagen’s Limburger Chronik, in which the author describes how men of the Holy Roman Empire—‘herren, ritter unde 68 69 knechte’ —, were usually accoutred in the 1350s. According to von Wolfhagen, for a man to be properly attired ’dieunderwamsehattenenge armen, undein dem gewerb waren sie benehet und behaft mit stucken von panzern, daz nante man musisen’. Gewerb,which means ‘business’ or ‘trade’, reads as a mistake in this context ; it is more likely that the intended word here was another, possibly Gewebe, meaning ‘fabric’. Bearing in mind the inherent risk in assuming an error and its subsequent correction, in modern English an approximate translation of this passage would read: ‘The clothes worn underneath [armour] are to have nar- row sleeves, and on the fabric are sewn and fastened pieces of mail, which are called musisen’. The text is unclear regarding what these ‘pieces of mail’ actually are; it almost seems to point to patches of mail, gussets or voiders of some sort. Indeed, another possible alternative for Gewerb, because of its surrounding grammatical context, is Gewelb, meaning ‘vault’—perhaps a euphemism for the armpits or the elbow. This alternative, though always a possibility, is unlikely, given the information provided in inventories such as William Rothwell’s receipt from Robert Mildenhall in 1353, in which musekins and gussets appear listed separately. Arming garments with tight or narrow sleeves, especially forearms, are indeed quite common in art throughout the 14th century (Figure 2), which would fit both with von Wolfhagen’s description and the meaning of musekins proposed above. If Thordeman’s estimations about the A38 sleeve are correct, it would end pre- cisely at the elbow joint, where the ulna and radius meet, to which it would have to be fastened. In this way, firmly fixed to the purposefully ‘narrow sleeves’ of a gambe- son or pourpoint, it would have been easy to dress a haubergeon, stand-alone sleeves or even plate over them—an idea posited by Thordeman himself. 8 A. CONDUTO OLIVEIRA FIGURE 2. Detail from the Tres belles Heures de Notre-Dame (BNF Nouvelle acquisition latine 3011–3174), ca. 1375–1400 # Bibliotheque nationale de France (2023). One of the soldiers holding Christ wears a gambeson with loose sleeves which become narrow and tight at the forearm. Yet there are other, better hypotheses which we must consider. 4. A better hypothesis: Castilian musequies and Italian musacchini Unlike other European nations, where references to musekins seemingly dry up at the end of the 14th century, in Castile they abound throughout the 15th century and beyond. They appear in chronicles, pieces of royal legislation, inventories, even poetry. Consider, for example, the Memorial de Diversas Hazana ~ s: Cron ica de Enrique IV of 15th century historian Mosen Diego de Valera. At one point, Valera tells us that King Enrique IV of Castile (1425–1474) went to Cambil and THE ELUSIVE MUSEKIN—INTERPRETING A MYSTERIOUS PIECE OF MEDIEVAL ARMOUR 9 ( … ) llevo consigo a la reyna, la qual yba en una hacanea muy guarnida, y con ella diez donzellas en la misma forma, de las quales las vnas lleuauan musequies muy febridos, y las otras guardabrac¸os y plumas altas sobre los tocados, y las otras llebauan almex ıas e almayzares, a demostrar las vnas ser de la capitan ıa de los hombres de armas, y las otras de los ginetes ( … ). This description, which Diana Penaz Flores has rightly pointed out ‘recuerda a la de las Amazonas’, fits with a number of 15th century depictions of armoured women, a good number of which show them wearing little beyond vambraces (Figure 3 by way of example). If the queen’s ladies followed this topos, relegating armour to the arms (with any other pieces, if any, covered by their dresses and tunics), it must be logically assumed that musekins afforded them a level of coverage and protection at least comparable to that of the ‘guardabrac¸os’ worn by the other women—a hard task for a small mail sleeve covering just the forearm. This equivalence between musekins and larger FIGURE 3. Detail from the De Claris mulieribus (BNF Franc¸ais 598), ca. 1403 # Bibliotheque nationale de France (2023). 10 A. CONDUTO OLIVEIRA pieces of plate armour for the arms is made more explicit in other sources, including additions to the 1411 Burgos Ordinances. One such addition determines that within the city or its environs no-one should be allowed to wear ‘bacinetes ni bra- c¸ales o musequis’, amongst other pieces of armour—musekins being at least par- tially similar in performance to bracers. Short forearm sleeves are also hard to tally with other mentions of musequis.The Cro nica de Don Pedro Nino ~ tells us of one of Nino ~ ’s forays against English forces in 1406, during which the blows traded between warriors were so strong some could be seen to ‘soltar las corazas de los bacinetes, e desguarnecer brazales, emuse- quies’ —a difficultfeat if they were tight forearm sleeves. Furthermore, some sources tell us that musekins could have been attached directly to other pieces of armour: while short forearm sleeves could remain a potentially valid explanation for the ‘armadura de brac¸os tranc¸ado con sus museques’ in the 1454 Castilian inventory known as the El libro de la camara del conde, mi seno ~ r, they would certainly not fit with the ‘corazas guarnecidas de terciopelo azul con sus musequies o sangraderas de malla’ from a 1487 inventory quoted by JoseAlmirante. Castilian (and later, Spanish) sources also maintain the clear distinction between musekins and voiders or gussets, though at times they point to some similarities or a complementarity between the two pieces. Juan Lorenzo Palmireno’s El Estudioso Cortesano includes ‘Caparazon , Gocetes, Grevas, Musequies, Corazas, Quijotes ( … )’ in the list of arms of a 16th century knight, and Cristo bal Suarez de Figueroa’s 17th century poem Espana ~ Defendida reads at one point: ‘Visten sus bravos duen ~os capacetes,/gorjales, grebas, faldas, y crestones,/manoplas, musequ ıes, y gocetes,/y celadas en vez de morrïones’. An ordinance from 1495 meant to stand- ardise the equipment worn by infantrymen across the newly united kingdoms of Spain tells ‘todoslos que moran en lasciudadesy villas francasy exentas’ to own, amongst other options, ‘yunos gocetes e musequies’. These sources are what seemingly led Seraf ınMar ıa de Sotto, the third Count of Clonard, to first put forward the notion of musekins as ‘una ancha manga de cota de malla, adherida a la coraza y que llegaba hasta la articulacion del brazo’. Musequies were already employed in 16th century documentation to refer to wide upper sleeves in clothing, but in the field of Military History Du Cange’s definition had supplanted any other notions—at least outside of Spain. To Clonard, musekins were a specific type of mail sleeve, attachable to other pieces of armour, worn on their own to protect the shoulder or worn over a plate upper cannon for the same effect. Does his hypothesis hold water with all other non- Castilian sources? It easily explains many artistic depictions, from effigies to brasses to paintings, including the ones mentioned or shown above, which depict loose mail sleeves worn over tight mail forearms. It also explains the simultaneous occur- rence of musekins and sleeves (of which Figure 1 is a good example)—not the former under the latter, but the other way around. And though it seems strange to us to read of mail sleeves worn over mail voiders, it must be recalled that having two layers of THE ELUSIVE MUSEKIN—INTERPRETING A MYSTERIOUS PIECE OF MEDIEVAL ARMOUR 11 FIGURE 4. Brigandine, probably Italian, ca. 1540–1550. Metropolitan Museum of Art, accession number 14.25.1531. mail was not that at all infrequent, and that the armpits were a particularly vital area formedieval warriorsto cover. The Limburg Chronicle’s ‘fabric’ offers no clue as to where these pieces might be located on the body, and they’re as apt as the shoulder as anywhere else along the arm; elsewise, no source listed directly contradicts the oversleeve hypothesis. In fact, if we bear in mind how other types of mail sleeve were constructed—with a section extending over the shoulders, shoulder blades, and part of the pectoral muscles —Clonard’s definition even vindicates Du Cange and his followers somewhat, as musekins would have had to cover a portion (albeit a small one) of their wearer’s upper torso, front and back. However, at least one Italian source forces us to cast some the above-mentioned references in a new light. Amongst the hundreds of orders for armour included in the documentation of the Fondo Datini is a 1363 listing for assorted pieces meant to be taken by Toro di Berto from Teri to Milan. The list is extensive, and includes ‘50 paia di musacchini’ of well-polished steel, 25 of which ‘a chodoli di 3 pezzi’ and the other half ‘a chodoli d‘un pezzo forniti di veluto’. Thesourceleaves littleroom for doubt: these particular musacchini were made (at least partially) of steel plates (cho- doli) arranged in a sequence; and they could be covered in fabric (velvet, in this par- ticular instance) or left plain. Contrasting these characteristics with the essential facts already listed above—that musekins were meant for the upper arm; that they could be worn with arm 12 A. CONDUTO OLIVEIRA harnesses, and mail voiders or gussets; and that they afforded similar protection to pauldrons—point towards spaudlers of some description, single pieces of steel or sev- eral lames (usually two or three) strapped and/or riveted together to cover the shoul- der. The use of chodoli instead of other terms for lame or plate (such as piastre) almost suggests a long but narrow sequence of spaudler lames, such as the ones often seen paired with some forms of Kastenbrust-style harnesses. Indeed, if we keep in mind the possibility of a fabric covering for both mail (see note 36) and steel or iron musekins, we might even be looking at a potential name for the many brigandine ‘sleeves’ and/or spaudlers in Central and Western European records and art—especially, it should be noted, Flemish and Iberian art—,perhaps even for the shoulder protections featured on some 16th century brigandines (Figure 4). Musekins as either a special form of spaudlers (plain or fabric-covered) or brigand- ine sleeves are a tantalisingly good solution for a substantial portion of the aforemen- tioned Castilian and Spanish sources, from the mosequies worn by the entourage of the Queen of Castile, to Pero Nino ~’sfoeshaving theirmusekinshacked off by blows, to the 1454 arm harness ‘tranc¸ado con sus museques’, i.e. assembled with its attend- ing spaudlers. Voiders and spaudlers (‘gocetes e musequies’) prescribed together are also a more common pairing than a double layer of mail at the armpits. Yet a final, precise identification eludes us. 5. Conclusion ( … ) El gorjal tengo en ocana ~ los musequies en requena lo canones ~ en saldana ~ las guardas en alemana ~ las manoplas en Ximena. Did Vasco de Sousa leave his son his mail sleeves then, or something else entirely? When Cola di Rienzo was captured in 1354 were his ‘musacchini inaorati’ gilded mail, or gilded steel? In short, are musekins mail oversleeves for the top of the arm, or are they a peculiar type of spaudler? According to the sources, they might be both. From the middle of the 14th century onwards, at least in Italy and the Iberian Peninsula, the meaning of musekin seems to have shifted somewhat, and split into two: whilst some sources continue pointing to mail oversleeves, others point towards more mysterious pieces—made of mail or of steel—which covered the shoulder and the uppermost portion of the arm. It is unclear when and how this shift in meaning occurred. The 1363 inventory felt the need to stress exactly how these specific muse- kins were made, perhaps because they were seen as a novelty, introduced from abroad. If they were indeed a peculiar type of spaudlers, they would have been rela- tively new in 1360s Italy, whilst in England they had been in use for quite some THE ELUSIVE MUSEKIN—INTERPRETING A MYSTERIOUS PIECE OF MEDIEVAL ARMOUR 13 time. Whatever the case, Luciana Frangioni records this shift in her work on the Fondo Datini: according to her, the musachini of steel mail mentioned in the Fondo’s documentation become ‘nel XVI secolo… uno spallacio di piastra’. Without more specific details, this is as close an identification as can be made: from their earliest mentions to their final occurrences, musekins were meant to cover the shoulders and the upper arm. Whatever their specific form, whatever the materi- als they were made of, the notion of musekin seems to have been tied to their loca- tion on the body more than anything else. In that regard, ‘musekin’ would function like the word ‘gorjal’ in medieval Portuguese and Castilian, which in period could referto piecesof eithermail orof plate meant to safeguard the throat. Almost three and a half centuries stand between the musekins in Claude Gaier’s 1290 ‘vidimus’ and the musekins in the first edition of Suarez de Figueroa’s Espana Defendida from 1612. It is surprising that such relatively long-lived pieces of late medieval and early modern armament, such seemingly ubiquitous ones at that, man- aged to fall between the cracks of history and elude definitive identification for so long. As with so many facets of medieval existence, it is likely that their pervasiveness worked against them. After all, why spend time describing something well known to all and sundry? This process of identification (such as it is) was only made possible by piecing together and cross-referencing a wide array of sources, as well as contrasting differ- ent hypotheses put forward over time. It could be argued that there is almost as much value in a well-researched but wrong assertion as there is in a right one, hence the exploration of the forearm sleeve hypothesis. Although the mystery behind these pieces seems to have been solved—to a limited extent—some questions still remain. What is the etymology behind the term? Can musekins be accurately identified in period art and records, and split into mail musekins and plate musekins? Were there significant variations in the meaning of the term from region to region, and how do we account for the disappearance of musekins, in name at least, from most European records after the first half of the 14th century, in spite of their permanence in some regions? It is possible that other words, such as spaudler in English or mangote or espaldecete in Portuguese, replaced older terms, a common phenomenon in medieval 106 107 Europe. It is also possible that the term was retained close to its place of origin. These questions warrant further research, which can only be solved by first tugging at one tangible end of this peculiar ball of yarn—or, in this case, at the lower edges of musekins, whatever their specific configuration might be. Acknowledgements No historian is, nor should they try to be, an island. The author would there- fore like to thank several people without whom this article would not have been possible.First and foremost, Augusto Boer Bront and Santiago de la Pena ~ Miravalles, who provided hints towards crucial sources which allowed 14 A. CONDUTO OLIVEIRA rethinking the entire nature of musekins, when the author had almost aban- doned his search; Keith Dowen, whose kindness and friendship went far beyond reading a first draft and contributing a wealth of notes and recommendations; Christopher Retsch, whose depth of knowledge was only matched by his kind- ness in sharing it; Callum Tostevin-Hall, for his keen interest and advice on the topic; and Fabrice Cognot for also giving the finished draft a read.Additionally, the author would be remiss if he failed to acknowledge and thank the extraor- dinary efforts of the participants of the internet forum The Armour Archive— and of its members Ernst and Bertus Brokamp in particular—who in recent years have worked hard to crack this mystery. Their discussions on the topic, backed by a trove of good sources, spurred me to delve even further into the matter. do equipamento das forc¸as crist~as,’ in Pera Notes Guerrejar – Armamento Medieval no Espac¸o Since that there are no other records of this Portugu^es, coord. by Jo~ao Gouveia Monteiro Vasco de Sousa, it is unclear whether he was an and Mario Barroca (Palmela: C^amara acontiado, whose wealth required him to serve Municipal de Palmela, 2000), p. 67. as a man-at-arms in times of war, or a knight. It must be noted that there is a possibility that Regarding these distinctions, and recruitment in Santa Rosa de Viterbo didn’t account for the Portugal during the late Middle Ages, see, for use of the Spanish Era in almost all Portuguese example, J. G. Monteiro, ‘Organizac¸~ao e documents written before 1420/1422, in which Formac¸~ao Militares,’ in Nova Historia Militar case 38 years would have to be subtracted from de Portugal, 1, coord. by Manuel Themudo 1359 to convert it to the year 1321 AD. Barata and Nuno Severiano Teixeira (Rio de The added R was either a mistake by the Mouro: C ırculo de Leitores, 2003), pp. original scribe or by Viterbo himself, as we 192–197. shall come to see. ‘Brac¸aes’,or ‘brac¸ais’ in contemporary ‘Cuisses and greaves and bracers and musekins Portuguese spelling, can stand for a complete and pairs of plates and war hats and bascinets arm harness as well as for either of its two [and] other armour’ [my own translation]. In main components (rerebraces and vambraces), M. Barros and M. Santos, O Livro das Posturas much like ‘bracer’ in English. See J. G. Antigas da Cidade de Evora (Evora: CIDEHUS, Monteiro, A Guerra em Portugal nos finais da 2018) <https://books.openedition.org/cidehus/ Idade Media (Lisboa: Editorial Not ıcias, 1998), 3296> [accessed 22 February 2023], no page p. 535. numbers available. 3 8 ‘Caneleiras’ can stand for both greaves and See note 5. If given in the Spanish Era, 1418 schynbalds. See Monteiro, A Guerra em would correspond to 1380 AD. Portugal, p. 536. ‘A pair of cuisses and greaves and bracers, and ‘( … ) The horse of said Vasco de Sousa, his a musekin, and a pollaxe, and a sextuma, and father, and a sword, and a spear, and a horse's two thirds of a tent, with their fittings’ [my mail barding, and two pairs of plates, and a own translation].Originally published under the helm with its camail [aventail], and bracers, entry for ‘Bracelloens’ in Santa Rosa de and musekins, and gloves of steel, and a pair of Viterbo, p. 39. The meaning of ‘sextuma’ has cuisses, and old leather greaves, and a shield, also been lost to time. and of solerets one pair’ [my own translation]. A. Nowakowski, Arms and Armour in the Originally published under the entry for Medieval Teutonic Orders State in Prussia ‘Camalho’, in J. Santa Rosa de Viterbo, (Lodz: Oficyna Naukowa, 1994), p. 75. Elucidario das Palavras, Termos e Frases que T. Richardson, The Tower Armoury in the em Portugal Antigamente se Usaram e que Hoje Fourteenth Century (Leeds: Royal Armouries, Regularmente se Ignoram, 2 (Lisboa/Porto: 2016), pp. 24–25; pp. 37–39. Livraria Civilizac¸ao, 1966), p. 64 (first edition In his study’s accompanying glossary, from 1798); also in M. Barroca, ‘Armamento Richardson simply states that they’re ‘rare body medieval portugu^es – Notas sobre a evoluc¸~ao defences of mail. The part of the body they THE ELUSIVE MUSEKIN—INTERPRETING A MYSTERIOUS PIECE OF MEDIEVAL ARMOUR 15 were intended to protect is unknown’,in Humbert II of Viennois’ treasury between 1333 Richardson, p. 235. and 1336, in Valbonnais, pp. 271–285. 13 22 Studied at length in S. Taylor, ‘In defense of J.B. de Roquefort, Glossaire de La Langue larceny: A fourteenth-century French ironic Romane, vol. 2 (Paris: Chez B. Wareeoncle, encomium,’ Neophilologus, 65 (1981), Libraire, quai des Augustins, n. 13, 1808), 358–365. p. 222. Richardson, p. 33, n. 28. R. Sharpe, Calendar of Wills Proved and C. Gaier, L ‘industrie et le commerce des armes Enrolled in the Court of Husting, Part 1, 1258– dans les anciennes principautes belges, du XIIIe 1358 (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, a la fin du XVe siecle (Paris: Societed’Edition 1889), p. 649. «Les Belles Letres», 1973), p. 84. Sharpe, p. 649. Gaier, p. 157. The transcription of the original E. Moriame, ‘Armes et armuriers tournaisiens,’ document is included in J. Finot, Etude Bulletin de l’Academie Royale d’Archeologie de historique sur les relations commerciales entre la Belgique, 1 (1913), 101–102. France et la Flandre au moyen-age (Paris: L. Saint-Germain, ‘Consideracions entorn d ' un Alphonse Picard et fils, Editeurs, 1894), pp. pla de glossari raonat de la llengua catalana 161–178. medieval,’ in Miscellanea Fabra, ed. by Joan About the Accademia and its role in studying Coromines (Buenos Aires: Imprenta i Casa and preserving the Italian language, see a brief Editora "Coni", 1943), p. 162. summary in F. Yates, ‘The Italian Academies,’ in 27 In its newest edition, M. R ıquer, L’Arnes del Renaissance and Reform: the Italian Cavaller – Armes I Armadures Catalanes Contribution, ed. By J. N. Hillgarth and J. B. Medievales (Barcelona: La Magrana, 2011), p. Trapp (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 290 (first edition from 1968). 1983), pp. 18–20. 28 One of the earliest serious scholars of arms and ‘Musachino’ in J. Valbonnais, J., Histoire de armour. For an overview of his life and work, Dauphine et des princes qui ont porte le nom de see R. Lowe, Sir Samuel Meyrick and Goodrich dauphins, 1 (Geneve: chez Fabri & Barrillot, Court (Eardisley: Logaston Press, 2003). 1722) p. 290. The glossary can be found in S. R. Meyrick, A ‘Musachinum’ in C. Du Cange, Glossarium ad Critical Inquiry Into Antient Armour, as it scriptores mediae et infimae latinitatis, vol. 4 Existed in Europe, vol. 3 (London: Printed for (Paris: sub Oliva Caroli Osmont, 1733), p. R. Jennings, 1824). Unlike the rest of the work, 1109. This version of Du Cange’s opus magnum its pages are all unnumbered. was expanded by the Benedictine monks Maur Meyrick, ibid. Dantine and Pierre Carpentier. Regarding these ‘Armour in the form of a lion's muzzle, which monks, and their work on Du Cange’s work, appears to have covered the shoulders’ [my own see J. Boulliot, Biographie ardennaise, 1 (Paris: translation], in V. Gay, Glossaire archeologique Chez l’Editeur, Rue de L’Arbre-Sec, n 9, 1830), du Moyen Age et de la Renaissance, vol. 2 pp. 210–217, particularly the footnote on (Paris: Editions Auguste Picard, 1928), p. 155. p. 211. Gay’s definition is all the more understandable ‘A piece of armour for the back, the [exact] use when one considers the existence of so-called of which has been lost’ [my own translation]. I ‘Lion Armours’, such as the G.50 harness from have been unable to track down where exactly the Musee de l’Armee or the II.89 harness from the Accademia’s assertion was first published. the Royal Armouries, Leeds—16th century The first three editions of the Vocabolario degli ensembles heavily decorated with lion heads, Accademici della Crusca—1612, 1623, and including on the shoulders. For an overview of 1691—do not contain any mention of the term; both these harnesses, see J. Godoy and S. Pyhrr, neither does the Accademia’s modern search Heroic Armor of the Italian Renaissance: index which includes all five editions of the Filippo Negroli and His Contemporaries (New Vocabulario (Accademici della Crusca, York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1998), pp. ‘Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca,’ 304–308 and pp. 309–316, respectively. For the <http://www.lessicografia.it/ricerca_libera.jsp> symbolism of the lion and its use in armour, see [accessed February 24, 2023]. It is possible that Godoy and Pyhrr, p. 92. Valbonnais contacted them directly for the L. Boccia, V. Boccia, and N. Masserano, 2: glossary in his Histoire, though no records of Armi difensive dal Medioevo all'Eta Moderna. their communication have survived. (Firenze: Centro Di, 1982), plate 32, entry Valbonnais, p. 278. This entry is part of an ‘extractum computi’ of the expenses of no. 59. 16 A. CONDUTO OLIVEIRA B. Alfieri, ‘Armamento Difensivo,’ in between layers of fabric. On jazerant, see, for Enciclopedia dell' Arte Medievale (Roma: example, R. Moffat, Medieval Arms and Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1991), in Armour: A Sourcebook. Volume I: The Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana fondata da Fourteenth Century (Woodbridge: The Boydell Giovanni Treccani S.p.A. <https://www.treccani. Press, 2022), p. 258, and Richardson, p. 235. ‘To John de Gonewardby tenements in the it/enciclopedia/istituto-della-enciclopedia- italiana/> [accessed 23 February 2023]. parish of S. Mary de Vaucherche ( … ) also to Mugnai, no page number given. the same his best aketon, a pair of plates, a pair Under the same entry for ‘Bracelloens’ as note of musekyns and a pair of Bracers, one aventail, no. 9. a bacinet with timbrer, a pisan, a pair of Regarding borzeguins in Portuguese, or jambers, a pair of quissers covered with linen- borcegu ıes in Spanish, see A. Oliveira, A. and I. cloth (cum panno de camaca), and a pair of Fernandes, ‘Of ıcios e mesteres vimaranenses nos iron gauntlets ( … )’ in Sharpe, pp. 648–649. seculos XV e XVI,’ Revista de Guimaraes, In E. Ricotti, Storia delle compagnie di ventura 113/114 (2004), 182 and C. Bernis Madrazo, in Italia, vol. 2 (Torino: G.Pomba E C., 1845), Trajes y modas en la Espana ~ de los Reyes p. 515. Catolicos II – Los Hombres (Madrid: Instituto W. Hudson, W., ‘Norwich Militia in the Diego Velazquez del Consejo Superior de Fourteenth Century,’ Norfolk Archaeology, or, Investigaciones Cient ıficas, 1979), pp. 31–32 Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to the Antiquities and p. 62; respectively. of the County of Norfolk, 14 (1901), 263–320. 37 45 Richardson, p. 24. Hudson, 319. 38 46 Richardson, p. 25. ’50 pairs of gauntlets, 18 pairs of bracers, one ‘Skirt and sleeves, musekins, collars, chausses, pair of musekins’ [my own translation]. Sora’s shoes ( … )’ [my own translation], in A. Bruhn notebook for tax and duties collected between de Hoffmeyer, Arms and Armour in Spain: A May and August 1386 is kept in the Archivo de short survey, vol. II (Madrid: Instituto de la Corona de Aragon, Real Patrimonio, Maestre Estudios sobre Armas Antiguas/Consejo Racional (Ms. 2908/3), and can be read Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1982), ~ transcribed in its entirety in J. Munoz, p. 236. In spite of Hoffmeyer’s somewhat ‘Zaragoza, centro de abastecimiento de ambiguous phrasing, all items listed are made of mercaderes castellanos a finales del siglo XIV,’ mail. Aragon en la Edad Media, 13 (1997), 140–154. 40 47 ‘( … ) the sleeves, the collars, the musekins, the ‘With his arms clad in bracers and musekins’ chausses and the gauntlets of mail, if there are [my own translation]. In G, Boccacio, Il some; for armour other than mail that men Filocolo (Bari: Laterza, 1938), p. 126. might have, lords cannot demand or get ’ [my The single musekin in the 1418 Portuguese own translation, with special input from Fabrice inventory transcribed by Santa Rosa de Viterbo Cognot]. In C. Faider, Coutume des pays et is the only exception I found to this rule. It comte de Hainaut (I. Bruxelles: Fr. Gobbaerts, could be argued, given the ‘two thirds of a tent’ Imprimeur du Roi, 1883), p. 29 apud F. included in the same inventory, that the Ganshof, ‘Armature (Galbert de Bruges, ch. musekin was a spare or a remaining part of a 106, ed. Pirenne, p. 152)’, Archivum Latinitatis pair. Medii Aevi, XVI-II (1941), 190. A, Nowakowski, Uzbrojenie Wojski ‘Item, ij paires de musekins de jaserant’, Krzyzackich w prusach w XIVw I na poczatku included in a 1357 inventory of arms belonging XVw (Lodz: Ossolineum, 1980), p. 92. to Guillaume III of Bavaria, Count of Hainaut. As Thom Richardson points out, the regulations See A. Lacroix, ‘Inventaire de l’armurerie de seem to suggest ‘that the difference between a Guillaume III, comte de Hainaut, qui existait au hauberk and a habergeon in the early–mid- ch^ateau de Mons, en 1358,’ Annales du Cercle fourteenth century might be that the hauberk Archeologique de Mons, IX (1869), 147. The had an integral coif for the head and mufflers next entry in the inventory lists ‘iiij paires for the hands, as the habergeon requires these d'autres fier et une piecette de deliet fier’. Other defences separately’, in Richardson, p. 33. pieces of mail in the Count’s arsenal, such as Richardson, pp. 31–32. manches (sleeves) and barbieres (aventails) are Many of which mentioned above, including the also made of both ‘jaserant’ and different references in notes 37, 38, and 39. qualities of iron or steel (‘fier’ for regular iron, J. Hewitt, Ancient Armour and Weapons in ‘deliet fier’ for fine iron). Jazerant is a type of Europe, vol. II (Oxford/London: J. Henry and J. armour construction that uses mail sandwiched Parker, 1860), p. 1. THE ELUSIVE MUSEKIN—INTERPRETING A MYSTERIOUS PIECE OF MEDIEVAL ARMOUR 17 54 61 K. Dowen, ‘The Introduction and Development F. Greenhill, Incised Effigial Slabs: A study of of Plate Armour in Medieval Western Europe c. engraved stone memorials in Latin 1250–1350,’ Fasciculi Archaeologiae Historicae, Christendom, c.1100 to c.1700 (London: Faber XXX (2017), 19. & Faber, 1976), plate 67b. 55 62 This dichotomy between plate and mail is not In spite of this modern usage of the term, from as straightforward as some authors, such as sources such as the French inventories Claude Blair, have assumed. As Tobias Capwell mentioned by C. ffoulkes, The Armourer and put it: ‘The problem with this idea is that it His Craft from the XIth to the XVIth Century implies that, as the use of plate armour (Mineola: Dover Publications, 1988), p. 45 increased, the use of mail decreased; it conjures (reprint of the first edition from 1912) it seems images of one form of protection being taken that historically ‘double mail’ was a method of up because it was superior, while the other was construction—likely a denser weave of mail, discarded because it had been rendered obsolete. such as the one seen on some mail collars—and This is not what actually happened. ( … ) The not a conjugation of different pieces. story of the evolution of armour was not one of In common grave 2. See B. Thordeman, Armour transition from mail to plate, but rather of the from the Battle of Wisby, 1361. Vol. 1 ever-increasing reinforcement of defences; new (Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie Och forms of plate armour were added to augment Antikvitets Akademnien, 1939), p. 110. existing mail and textile armour, which was In common grave 1. See Thordeman, pp. itself adjusted to work well with the new 109–110. augmentations’, in T. Capwell, ‘Mail and the Thordeman, p. 110. Knight in Renaissance Italy. Part I,’ Armi Another very similar piece was found in Antiche – Bollettino dell’Accademia di San Sweden—object no. 21399 at the Marcian (2017), 10–11. Glimmingehus—, although very loose, with As is the case with the monumental brasses of circa 40 cm in circumference. The object’s data Sir John Creke (ca. 1325), Sir John d'Abernoun sheet can be found online at <http://mis. III (ca. 1327), Sir Hugh Hastings (ca. 1347) in historiska.se/mis/sok/fid.asp?fid=117789&page= 2&in=1> [accessed 24 February 2023]. England, or Henri VI, Count of Salm (ca. Regarding von Wolfhagen and the Chronik, see 1350), in Belgium. Some of these vambraces do not fully enclose the lower arm, and are shown for example H. Maibach,‘Tileman Elhen von with mail underneath. Wolfhagen. Anmerkungen zu Leben und Werk For example, the English brasses of Sir John de des bekannten Limburger Chronisten,’ in Northwode (ca. 1330) in Kent or the effigy of Limburg im Fluss der Zeit. Schlaglichter aus Sir Roger de Salaman (ca. 1344) in Horley. 1100 Jahren Stadtgeschichte, ed. by Der Salaman’s effigy is particularly interesting Magistrat de Kreisstadt Limburg an der Lahn because it seems to depict one outer layer of (Limburg a. d. Lahn: Vereinsdruckerei, 2010), mail juxtaposed over a layer of scale around the pp. 113–127. wrist. ‘Lord, knight, and noble servants’ [my own Formerly in the Abbey of Notre-Dame de la translation, with kind input by Christopher Victoire and now unfortunately lost, but Retsch], in Die Limburger Chronik des reproduced in detail in two ink on paper Tilemann Elhen von Wolfhagen. Monumenta drawings by Louis Boudan, including one full Germaniae Historica, Deutsche Chroniken und body drawing of the knight, kept at the andere Geschichtsbucher € des Mittelalters, ed. by Bibliotheque nationale de France, Reserve OA- A. Wyss, 4–1 (Hannover: Hannsche 11-Fol (<https://www.collecta.fr/image.php?id= Buchhandlung, 1883), p. 39. 6886,pierre-de-villemetrie-chevalier> [accessed Immediately after this passage, von Wolfhagen 24 February 2023]) and a drawing of the tomb gives the date of 1351 (‘1000 druhondert unde at the Bodleyan Library, Gough drawings 51 jahr’), firmly establishing a timeframe for his Gaignieres 13 (<https://www.collecta.fr/image. observations. In Wyss, ibid. Wyss, ibid. php?id=13611,tombeau-de-pierre-de-villemetrie- Though it must be noted that every edition of chevalier-mort-au-mois-de-septembre-1340-dans- le-cloitre-de-l-abbaye-de-notre-dame-de-la- the Chronik’s original text I have been able to victoire> [accessed 24 February 2023]). consult, from Johann Faust’s 1617 edition (J. D. Nicolle, Arms and Armour of the Crusading Faust, ed., Fasti Limpurgensis. Das ist eine Era 1050–1350, vol. 1 (London: Greenhill wohlbeschriebene Chronick von der Stadt und Books, 1999), p. 502. den Herren zu Limpurg auff der Lahn Nicolle, p. 474. (Heidelberg: Gotthard Bogelin, 1617)), to 18 A. CONDUTO OLIVEIRA Vogel’s (C. Vogel, ed., Die Limburger Chronik showing that they were of the captaincy of men- (Marburg: Krieger und Compagnie, 1828) at-arms, and the others, of [the captaincy of] <https://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/id/PPN518206289? the ginetes’ [my own translation]. D. Valera, tify=f%22panX%22:0.532,%22panY%22:0. Memorial de diversas hazanas. ~ Cronica de 721,%22view%22:%22info%22,%22zoom%22:0. Enrique IV (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1941), cap. 328g> [accessed 24 February 2023]) and Rossel’s XIII, p. 45. ‘Guardabrac¸o’ can mean both (K. Rossel, ed., Die Limburger Chronik des spaudler and pauldron, though more usually Johannes (Wiesbaden: W. Roth, 1860)), up to pauldron—essentially, any piece of armour Gottfried Zedler’s edition from 1930 (G. Zedler, which covered the shoulders and the upper ed., Die Limburger Chronik des Tilemann Elhen portion of the arm. See J. Almirante Y von Wolfhagen (Limburg an der Lahn: Verlag der Torroella, Diccionario militar: etimologico, Limburger Vereinsdruckerei GmbH, 1930), historico, tecnologico, con dos vocabularios consistently includes the word Gewerb. frances y aleman (Madrid: Imprenta y Litograf ıa Regarding the many meanings of panzer as del Deposito de la Guerra, 1869), p. 568. mail, see C. Retsch, ‘Sprechendes Metall? Die ‘Evokes that of that Amazons’ [my own Rustung € als Objekt und Bedeutungstr€ager in translation]. In D. Flores, ‘>Escudos sin armas? Gesellschaft und Kunst des Participacion de las mujeres de la dinast ıa Sp€atmittelalters‘(PhD diss., Otto-Friedrich- Trastamara en el escenario belico castellano,’ Universit€at Bamberg, 2020), pp. 55–58, an Roda da Fortuna. Revista Eletronica ^ sobre excerpt of which the author very kindly Antiguidade e Medievo, Extra 1–1 (2014) provided me for this article. <https://www.revistarodadafortuna.com/2014-1- Johann Georg Scherz’s Glossarium Germanicum 1> [accessed 23 February 2023], p. 486. Medii Aevi Potissimum Dialecti Suevicae Regarding the Ordinances and their additions, tantalisingly puts forward ‘Mus’ as mail rings, see for example J. Hernando, ‘Crisis municipal, and ‘museisen’ and ‘musenier’ as synonyms of violencia y oligarquias en burgos a comienzos mail, ‘lorica’. As habitual at the time, little to del siglo XV,’ in La Pen ınsula Iberica en la era de los descubrimientos (1391–1492): actas III no background research is given or justification provided. See J. Scherz, Glossarium Jornadas Hispano-Portuguesas de Historia Germanicum Medii Aevi Potissimum Dialecti Medieval, 2 (2), coord. by Isabel Romero- Suevicae, 2 ([n.l.]: Lorenz et Schuler, 1784), pp. Camacho, Antonio Claret Garcıa Martınez and 1083–1084. Manuel Gonzalez Jimenez (Sevilla: Junta de Voiders and gussets are strips of mail used to Andaluc ıa, Consejer ıa de Cultura, 1997), pp. cover gaps and joints left exposed by plate 1081–1095. armour. See Richardson, p. 235 and p. 237, ‘Bascinets nor arm harness or musekins’ [my respectively. translation]. In Hernando, p. 1089, note 22. 75 84 I am indebted to Cristopher Retsch for his G. Gamez, Cronica de Don Pedro Nino, ~ conde utterly invaluable help and ideas regarding the de Buelna (Madrid: Imprenta de Don Antonio possible alternatives to gewerb in the de Sancha, 1782). This chronicle, also known as aforementioned passage. El Victorial, was written by Gutierre D ıaz de Richardson, p. 39. Games, Nino ~ ’s squire, between 1435–1448. Thordeman, p. 110. Translated into English by Joan Evans as G. Mosen Diego de Valera (†1488) was a Castilian Gamez, The Unconquered Knight: A Chronicle nobleman, a Humanist scholar, historian, and of the Deeds of Don Pero Nino, ~ Count of translator. About his life and work, see C. Buelna, trans. by Joan Evans (First Person Garc ıa, ed., Mosen Diego de Valera - entre las Singular. Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2004). armas y las letras (Suffolk: Boydell & Brewer Gamez, Cronica de Don Pedro Nino ~ , p. 156; Ltd., 2014). translated as ‘there might you have seen helmets On Enrique, see for example J. Mart ın, Enrique torn from breastplates, and arm and leg pieces IV de Castilla : Rey de Navarra, Pr ıncipe de stripped off from some’ in Gamez, The Cataluna ~ m (Hondarribia: Nerea, 2002). Unconquered Knight, p. 176. 80 86 ‘[the King] took with him the queen, who rode ‘Arm armour assembled with its musekins’ [my on a well-dressed hackney, and with her rode own translation]. In F. Galvez, ‘El libro de la ten maidens much the same, of whom some camara del conde, mi senor: una fuente para el wore burnished musekins, and the others wore estudio del lujo en la corte de los condes de pauldrons and tall feathers on their headdresses, Plasencia a mediados del siglo XV (1453– and the others wore almexies [tunics] and 1455),’ Historia, Instituciones y Documentos, almayzares [Moorish garments], the ones 41 (2014) <https://revistascientificas.us.es/index. THE ELUSIVE MUSEKIN—INTERPRETING A MYSTERIOUS PIECE OF MEDIEVAL ARMOUR 19 php/HID/article/view/4060> [accessed 23 Knights of the Portuguese Saint Vincent Panels, February 2023], 99–145. Tranc¸ado (tranzado in for example, from ca. 1475 (Lisbon, Museu Modern Castilian) means assembled from many Nacional de Arte Antiga); or the effigy of an parts. unknown Spanish knight, from ca. 1500, in the ‘Brigandine lined in blue velvet with its Princeton University Art Museum. Italian art of musekins or sangraderas of mail’ [my own the 15th century also frequently shows translation]. In Almirante Y Torroella, p. 296. shoulders protected by mail alone, whilst the In J. Palmireno, El Estudioso Cortesano (Alcala rest of the arm is covered by plate. de Henares: [n.p.], 1587). Unfortunately the By way of example, the short mail sleeves no. original volume includes no page numbers. 27.183.31 and 27.183.29 from the ‘Their brave masters wear war hats,/standards, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; the greaves, faulds and crests,/gauntlets, musekins, III.1427 and 1428 sleeves from the Royal and gussets,/and sallets instead of morions’ [my Armouries, Leeds; or the 1982.3040a-b sleeves own translation]. In C. Suarez de Figueroa, from the Art Institute of Chicago, all of which Espana ~ defendida, poema heroico , ed. by include large sections that cover a substantial Enrique Suarez Figaredo ([n.d.]:[n.p.], 2006) part of the torso, in order to be properly <https://users.pfw.edu/jehle/CERVANTE/ fastened to an arming garment. othertxts/Suarez_Figaredo_EspanaDefendida. For an overview of Francesco di Marco Datini’s pdf> [accessed 24 February 2023], p. 127. (1335–1410) archive, its history and agents, see Archivo General de Simancas, Cedulas, leg. 2, L. Frangioni, Milano Fine Trecento – Il no. 78–79, transcribed in M. Carretero, carteggio Milanese dell’Archivio Datini di Prato, ‘Recopilacion de las Ordenanzas Militares de vol. 1 (Firenze: Opus Libri Edizioni, 1994). los Austrias,' Revista de Historia Militar, 112 ‘50 paia di musacchini di ferro traversati alla (2017), 256–259. guisa le 25 paia a chodoli di 3 pezzi e gli altri a ‘A wide mail sleeve, fastened to the brigandine chodoli d'un pezzo forniti di veluto di chi me and which reached the joint of the arm’ [my lavora’ (‘50 pairs of musekins of burnished steel translation]. In Conde de Clonard, Historia of which 25 pairs [are made] with chodoli of 3 organica de las armas de infanteria y caballeria pieces and others of single-piece chodoli covered espanolas ~ desde la creacion del ejercito in velvet from someone who works for me’ [my permanente hasta el dia, 1 (Madrid: Imprenta own translation, with the kind help of Augusto de D. B. Gonzalez, 1851), p. 432. Clonard Boer Bront]). In L. Frangioni, Chiedere e ottenere. mentions a trio of sources—‘la Cronicas de Don L'approvvigionamento di prodotti di successo Pedro Nino, Conde de Buelna, cap. 26, pag. della bottega Datini di Avignone nel XIV secolo 106. La de Don Enrique IV, escrita por (Firenze: Opus Libri Edizioni, 2002), p. 154. Palencia, y un Inventario del Duque D. Alvaro Chodoli, the plural of chodolo or ‘little tail’,is de Zu niga, ~ que existe en el Archivo del Duque derived from the word choda (‘tail’ or ‘end’). de Bejar’—but otherwise fails to illustrate his See C. Blair, European Armour: circa 1066 to reasoning. 1700 (London: B. T. Batsford Ltd., 1979), pp. ‘Debemos entender por musequi la parte de la 44–45. manga que cubre desde el hombro hasta el Brigandine sleeves are recorded in several 15th codo’ (‘By musekin we mean the part of the century inventories, under names such as sleeve from the shoulder to the elbow’ [my ‘mangote’ in Portuguese and ‘sleeve’ in English. translation]). C. Madrazo, Indumentaria See A. Oliveira, A. (2021). ‘”Uma pec¸a muito espanola ~ en tiempos de Carlos V (Madrid: preciosa de significado ainda desconhecido”: Instituto Diego Velazquez, 1962), p. 58, notes Decifrar o termo gibanete,’ Medievalista,31 28 and 29, as well as pp. 38–39; and Madrazo, (2021), 325. <https://medievalista.iem.fcsh.unl. Trajes y modas, pp. 109–110. pt/index.php/medievalista/article/view/467> Clonard's definition was later taken up by [accessed on 23 February 2023]. Almirante’s Diccionario militar (Almirante Y ‘The gorget I keep in Ocana/the ~ musekins in Torroella, p. 819), and expanded by Enrique de Requena/the vambraces in Saldana/ ~ The Leguina in his influential Glosario de voces de reinforces in Germany/The gauntlets in armerıa (E. Leguina, Glosario de voces de Ximena’, part of the poeam ‘Coplas q hizo el armerıa (Madrid: Librerıa de Felipe Rodrıguez, copero a un aparato de guerra’, in H. Castillo, 1912), p. 660–661). Cancionero general (Sevilla: en las casas de Iberian art in particular include several good Juan Cronberger, 1540), fol. CLXXVI. examples of 15th and 16th century mail sleeves According to the 1357 Cronica dell'Anonimo worn over arm harnesses: see the Panel of the Romano, Rienzo stood captured by the crowd 20 A. CONDUTO OLIVEIRA ‘in iuppariello de seta verde, colli musacchini Boccia and J. Gelli, in Frangioni, Milano Fine inaurati, colle caize de biada, a muodo de Trecento, p. 287, footnote 1365. barone’ (‘In a green silk jupon, tightly waisted, The ‘mus-‘in ‘musekin’ could be connected to arm muscles, specifically the biceps. Apart with his gilded musacchini, with his azure hose, in the manner of a baron’ [my own from Johann Scherz’s assertion that ‘mus’ translation]). Anonimo Romano, Cronica. means mail ring, there is a well-established (Milan: Adelphi, 2007), p. 197. connection in Latin between the words ‘mouse’ Gabriele D'Annunzio, perhaps labouring under and ‘muscle’, both derived from the same root similar antagonistic notions of what word—‘mus’; a connection which was musacchini could be, was cautious when taking subsequently taken up by many European up this information in his own description of languages (see, for example, E. Gamillscheg, Cola at that critical moment: ‘( … ) sol col ‘Etymologische Miszellen,’ Romanistisches giubbetto verde che avea sotto l’arme e con le Jahrbuch, 3 (1950), 291–292). Dr. Retsch calze vermiglie: erangli rimasti agli omeri i provided interesting clues towards a possible musacchini, il cosciale alla destra coscia, una German origin of the term, though pursuing mezza falda su l’anca’, or in English: ‘( … ) them would be worthy of its own paper. wearing naught but the green cotehardie he I have had the opportunity to show how wore under his armour, and his crimson hose: solhas, the 14th century Portuguese term for the musekins remained over his humerus,a both pairs of plates and brigandines, was cuysse on his right thigh, a half-fauld sat on replaced during the 15th century by gibanete, his hip’ [my translation], in G. D’Annunzio, La which was itself replaced at the end of the Vita di Cola di Rienzo (Milano: Fratelli Treves 15th century by the Castillian loanword Editori, 1913), p. 167. courac¸a. See Oliveira, 317–350. 103 107 They can already be seen, in an initial form, on Jose Almirante suggested that musequi could the effigy of Sir John de Creke in 1325. be derived from the Arabic musaka, meaning ‘In the 16th century … spaudlers of plate’ [my ‘bracelet’ (see Almirante Y Torroella, p. 819). own translation]. In Frangioni, Milano Fine Though the influence of Arabic loanwords in Trecento, p. 273. No sources are presented to the Castilian language could go some way support this assertion, however. Curiously towards explaining the long life of the term enough, Frangioni contradicts herself by musequi compared to other regions, I have making use of Gay’s definition of musekins, via been unable to explore this hypothesis further. Funding This paper was funded by National Funds under an individual PhD grant from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (2021.04826.BD). ORCID Antonio Conduto Oliveira http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0631-0643 Correspondence to: Anto nio Conduto Oliveira. Email: anton.stark.esq@gmail.com
Journal
Arms & Armour
– Taylor & Francis
Published: Jan 2, 2023
Keywords: musekins; medieval armour; interdisciplinarity; evolution; linguistic research
