Punch: Punch (38.1860)

82

PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.

[February 25, 1860.

PUNCH’S BOOK OF BRITISH COSTUMES.

ANGLO-SAXON WARRIOR. FROM THE BEST AUTHO-
RITIES. BEING EXTREMELY RUDE IN THE ORIGINAL,
THE FIGURE HAS BEEN PUT INTO CORRECT DRAWING.

CHAPTER IV.—THE ANGLO-SAXON PERIOD—(Continued).

roceeding with the mili-
tary costume of the
Saxons, and having shown
in our last chapter what
they wore to shield their
heads, we may now de-
scribe the weapons which
were used to break them.
Of these, one of the most
striking was the double-
edged long broad-sword,
an arm which was gene-
rally wielded with both
hands, and which, from
the great muscular ex-
ertion it required, gave
rise to the expression of
“ More power to your
elbow! ” It was with
this weapon, we read,
that at the Battle of Caer-
bardon, King Arthur
killed above four hundred
men with his own hand;
but we doubt if any arm
would have sufficed for
such a feat, and though
perhaps King Arthur
may have said he drew
his long sword, we rather
think it was his long
bow which he really drew
there.*

Another formidable wea-
pon which was wielded by
the Saxons was an axe with a long handle, which they called a bill.
This bill was somewhat like a lawyer’s in its length, and was thereby
well adapted to make short work of an enemy. Bob Wace, the
Norman poet, says—

“ fRg contrgcmm onnc ^astgnge’s
2KIerc sotclgc cuttc up hue ge 13gl: ”

—though Bill, the Conqueror, lie adds, got the better of his name-
sake. Although the weapon was unwieldy, the Saxons were expert in
wielding it; and whether through their superior muscular development,
or whether they nad less Opposition to contend with, there is no doubt
they succeeded in carrying their bills far more easily than Ministers
nowadays do theirs.

For the still further comfort and enjoyment of their enemies, the
Saxons armed themselves with daggers, javelins and spears ; of which
latter some were barbed and others broad and leaf-shaped. Of the
barbed ones Asser saith, that their use was “ trulye barb-arous ; ” but
the others may have possibly been used with some politeness. We
can imagine civil Saxons saying, “By your leaf! ” when they parried
the home-thrust of the spear of an assailant.

Although, as every schoolboy knows, the Saxons owed their name
to the Scythic tribe, Sacassani, called otherwise Saxones, stupid people
Pave persisted in deriving it from Seax, a word meaning a curved
dagger, which tradition says they wore. To support this foolish
notion^ these ninnies turn to Nennius, or as we rather should call
him, Ninnius; and quote from him a speech, which he reports to have
been made by the chairman at a certain public dinner at Stonehenge,
which there is reason to believe was an apocryphal repast. Ninnius
says this dinner was turned into a tea-fight by the chairman, Mr. Hen-
gist, jumping on the table, and shouting “ Take your Seaxes!” as a
signal to the Saxons; who, having hid those weapons in the pockets of
their hraccse, drew them forth forthwith, and bagged about three
hundred of their Ancient British guests. Of course, if this story were
proved true, it might be cited as a proof that the Saxons used the
seax; but, as the proof wants proving, we don’t believe they did, for
any donkey knows better than to pin his faith upon the tale of
Nenniass.

Another name for the Seax was, we learn, the Sica; and the Vene-
rable Bede has told another story of it, which, for aught we know,
may be as mythical as that which has been told. According to the

* The sword which is here mentioned may perhaps have been the one which, the
poets say, Kino Arthur christened his “Excalibar:” and with such a name as
this, there really is no saying what a blade might not accomplish. We have, how-
ever, looked to the latest of authorities, and as the Idylls of the King contain no
mention of the feat, we incline to think the tale has not a leg to stand upon.

Venerable, King Edwin, of Northumbria, was attacked by an assassin
sent by Cwiciielm (pronounced Switch’em) who had been made, or
else had made himself, the King oe Wessex. The assassin gained an
audience on pretence of having a message to deliver to King Edwin,
and when that monarch graciously asked what he had to say, the,
ruffian made a poke at him with a poisoned sica, exclaiming with a bad
pun as he did so, “ I’ll male' sicca ! ” * An attendant “ thegn ” named

FROM A VERY CURIOUS SAXON MS. IN THE POSSESSION OF MR. PUNCH.

Lilla, seeing the king’s danger, would have used his shield to save
him; hut unluckily his shield had gone that morning to be mended,
and all Lilla could do was to fling himself between bis monarch and
the murderer, and nobly throw away his life to save that, of his king.
Persons who sing songs may perhaps have heard it stated that “ Lilla’s
a lady” but in the Anglo-Saxon time Lilla was a man; and whatever
were the rank or station of a “thegn,” this story goes to prove that
Lilla was a noble man.

We come now to the costume of the civil Anglo-Saxons, having done
with the uncivil ones, called otherwise the military. And here the
reader will no doubt be somewhat startled when we tell him, that
having carefully got up some mountains of MSS., and waded through
whole oceans of books upon the subject, we are driven to conclude that
for nearly four whole centuries hut little change, or none, was noticed
in the fashions! A fact so extraordinary of course needs the strongest
proof, but there is evidence collateral, besides direct, to cite for it.
According to Moneaucon, the Franks kept to one fashion during just
as long a period, and springing like the Saxons from an oriental source,
they too showed an oriental liking for old raiment. Eor the sake
though of the cleanly reputation of our ancestors, we trust they did
not further prove their oriental origin by adopting in their persons the
practice of the Persians. We are told, these Eastern people not
merely handed down their fashions to their children, but they left their
wardrobes as heirlooms to them also; so that sons not only stood in
their fathers’ shoes, but wore the gaiters of their grandfathers, and
their great-great-grandfathers’ great coats. Babies, when they grew
big enough, put on their parents’ pinafores; and the identical same
garments descended to descendants, and were handed down as long as
they would hang together. It is therefore not unlikely that the raiment
of a Persian, in its ultimate threadbariness, bore somewhat of resem-
blance to the garment of the Irishman, which was not made of cloth,
sure, but of holes just stitched together.

But, however long deferred, changes, like Reform Bills, must be
made at last; and accordingly, we find, the Saxons when they alteied
their religion, changed their raiment, and when they conformed to
Christian doctrines they put on Christian dress.

One of the chief novelties in the dress worn by civilians from the
Eighth to the Tenth century was, that for the first time then our
ancestors wore shirts. We learn from Edingartus that they were
made of linen; but whether they were starched or not he quite omits
to tell us, nor does he say if they were mostly worn with buttons or
with studs. Conjecturing the former, we would ask the feeling reader
to drop the tear of pity to the memory of him, who was the first to feel
the agony of finding that his dress shirt had been sent home with a

* The Venerable Bede omits to mention this remark, which the reader of Scotch
history may doubtless recollect is therein said to have been used at a somewhat
later period. But of course this is no proof that the words were not made use of at
the time of which we write, and, for aught we know, the Scotchman may have
been a plagiarist.