Arbalest à Tillolles

[John Vernier]

It seems to me that if "bastard crossbow" referred to the size of the bow, there wouldn't be an obvious objection to repairing it. Could it be that this refers to the objectionable mixing of types of horn in the bow which was mentioned in an earlier section?

[ergosum]

The Norwegian King's Mirror ('200), Hals Talhoffer ('400), and I think Sir John Smythe ('500) all talk about spanning and shooting the crossbow from horseback. A new article by Jack Gassman called "The Use of the Crossbow in Medieval Cavalry" has some details but its in a very expensive volume from Brill. But I think there is a lot for English speakers to learn about medieval (pre 1450) crossbows in general and their role in combat in particular, most of the crossbow books focus on the 1450-1700 era when we have lots of surviving crossbows

Thanks for suggestions.

Justicars: I don't know enough about medieval Venice to know who these officials are

The iusticiarii from 1173 controlled products' prices, frauds, ...

What if the distinction between "wood" and "horn" bows is not about whether or not they are composites, but rather, whether or not those composites have a wooden core?

Not only the bows of crossbows de cornu had a wooden core but they were also covered by cortex (cortex of poplar or cherry tree).

Item, ballista veterem non potest conciare si cornum fractum est; si lectum vero mittatur totum, et etiam si aliud lectum non mittatur, illa ballista nichil valet et non debeat conçari

It's quite difficoult to understand what lectum means. Maybe is it the wooden core? An arab manual of xii century talks about 2 oak layers. So maybe the traduction is something like "if one wooden layer is broken/ruined (?) and even if the other wooden layer is ok, (...)". The problem is that in some following rules, it seems that "fustum" means wooden layer.

If that's right, then he may use other suitable horns, so long as he is upfront about it. Presumably, that means he can make or sell a bow which is made entirely or some other species of horn. Also that he can use more than one sort of horn within such a bow. He can not, however, mix other species in with ibex and call it an ibex bow.

I'm agree. The first and the forth rule were written in different time: at first crossbow makers could make bows with horn of steinbocks, hegoats, etcetera, then only with steinbock's horns.

beco: this seems to be a male cervid, possibly the same one as is mentioned in the French document from 1358. Domestic he-goat?

In nowdays Italian is becco or caprone, so a he-goat.

in tenet: this is gibberish ("in he/it holds").

Probably "tenet" is the tiller.

This introduces another difficult word, the bastard crossbow

"arcum unum de cornu bastardo de balista unius pedis"
We have to compare this rule with the rule before; so probably a "bastard crossbos" had a bow made from 2 type of horn (steinbock and he-goat).

[Sean M]

Tom, it looks like that online dictionary is translating du Cange's modern Latin dictionary of medieval Latin. I am tentatively using conciare = "repair", but that might change if my brain fog goes away long enough to work through TLIO.

I have been wondering if bastard means 'neither horn nor wood.' There are so many different ways to assemble a bow, and it might be that some were seen as untrustworthy or hard to repair. Its surprising that the European crossbows have no wooden core, just horn wrapped in sinew.

ergosum, what is the source for the "one bow of bastard horn for a crossbow of one foot"? That sounds like bastard could mean "different horns mixed together."

It could be that they wrote tener' "tiller" and Monticcolo printed tenet "he/it holds."

Looking back at this, I'm now seeing it in a slightly different light. I had thought that it meant that only ibex horn may be used, but now I see it more two prong rule about honesty in materials.

I think it means that the crossbow maker...
-- must state truly the types of horn that are used in the bow.
-- may not mix other sorts of horn in with ibex.

If that's right, then he may use other suitable horns, so long as he is upfront about it. Presumably, that means he can make or sell a bow which is made entirely or some other species of horn. Also that he can use more than one sort of horn within such a bow. He can not, however, mix other species in with ibex and call it an ibex bow.

Mac

It looks to me like the rules about materials are:
I. "I will accurately describe any crossbows which I make or sell, including what types of horn are in them"
I. "If I make a crossbow of steinbock horn, I will not put any other kinds of horn in it"
IIII. "I will not make a crossbow with he-goat horn, unless ..."

[tiredWeasel]

Tom B. posted the manuscript in another thread - and this picture shows a clear view of a spanning belt (front and back):


It doesn't show a hook but a "slotted tab" (my words fail me...) on a chain(?).

Also a T-toggle.

[ergosum]

Its surprising that the European crossbows have no wooden core, just horn wrapped in sinew

European crossbows have a wooden core. Survived composed bows are made also with wood and if you see the list of material posted by Zanetto, you can find also "bowstaves".

ergosum, what is the source for the "one bow of bastard horn for a crossbow of one foot"? That sounds like bastard could mean "different horns mixed together

http://www.accademiapontaniana.it/wp-co ... gioina.pdf p.179. The whole document is very interesting (there are several references to lameriae with or without faldae. It seems that the mail skirt is normally connected to pairs of plates). A crossbow is "bastard" because it has a "bastard bow".

There are so many different ways to assemble a bow

From the rules of crossbows of Venice, it seems there are 3 typology of bows: a wooden bow, a bow made with 2 or 3 wooden stave and sinews,a composite bow made of wood, horns and sinews.

It looks to me like the rules about materials are:
I. "I will accurately describe any crossbows which I make or sell, including what types of horn are in them"
I. "If I make a crossbow of steinbock horn, I will not put any other kinds of horn in it"
IIII. "I will not make a crossbow with he-goat horn, unless ..."

Be careful. Rules 1 and 4 say different things (at first is possibile to made bows with steinbock but also with different horns, then crossbow makers were obliged to use only steinbock for the bows). Is it strange? Nope. The two rules were written in different moments. The rules of the arts, but also the rules of towns and of societates populi, were written year after year in the same book (often adding sheets). Only when a completely new redaction of rules was made, the different (and sometimes conflicting) rules were "harmonised". In northern Italy of xiii-xiv century the redaction of rules often hade a political meaning.

[Sean M]

I am waiting for Holger Richter's book on horn crossbows with the diagrams.

Be careful. Rules 1 and 4 say different things (at first is possibile to made bows with steinbock but also with different horns, then crossbow makers were obliged to use only steinbock for the bows). Is it strange? Nope. The two rules were written in different moments. The rules of the arts, but also the rules of towns and of societates populi, were written year after year in the same book (often adding sheets). Only when a completely new redaction of rules was made, the different (and sometimes conflicting) rules were "harmonised". In northern Italy of xiii-xiv century the redaction of rules often hade a political meaning.

Chapter I allows bows of either steinbock horn or some combination of "other horns" as long as the horn is called by its proper name. Chapter IIII forbids one "other horn" among many.

After Chapter IIII was added, crossbow-makers can make crossbows as long as they do not: i) mix steinbock horn with other horns, iv) use he-goat horn except in tenet, or v) have a 'bastard' bow. We do not know what other horns crossbow-makers used, but they were all still allowed. If someone offered them some water buffalo from India, they could use that as long as they called it by its right name.

[Sean M]

Stefano Palmieri (ed.), I Registri della Cancelleria Angioina: Riconstruiti da Riccardo Filangieri con la Collaborazione degli Archivisti Napoletani. Vol. L 1267-1295 (Arte Tipografica Editrice: Napoli, 2010)

Could you tell us more about this series? Are they re-publishing documents which were published before the Nazis burned the archives of Naples?

For this thread, the most important part is that document 423 on pages 178 uses similar but not identical vocabulary for crossbows as the Venetian rule, and is roughly contemporary but from a different part of Italy with different spoken languages and scribal traditions.

[Sean M]

VII. Anno Domini millesimo .CCCIIII., indicione tercia, die .XXIIII. februarii, tempore dominorum Marini Busenago, Phylipi {start of page 173} de Fontana et Andree Marcello iusticiariorum veterum, ordinatum fuit et firmatum per eosdem quod a modo aliquis balisterius non audeat vel presumat ponere vel poni facere aliquo modo vel ingenio aliquam clavem vel stapham de carevana in aliquo {start of page 174} balisto, sub pena soldorum .V. pro qualibet stapha et totidem pro clavi posita vel positis in balisto, contrafacienti. et nichilominus soluta pena teneatur magister dicti balisti ipsam clavem et stapham removere a balisto, retinendo ipsas in se, et alias bonas ponere ad suas expensas.

7th. In the Year of the Lord 1304, third indiction, 24th day of February, in the time of Lords Justicars of Elders Marino Busenago, Philipo de Fontana and Andrea Marcello, it was ordained and established by them that no crossbow-maker shall dare or presume to put or have put in any way or nature any trigger or stirrup from a caravan in any arbalest, on pain of 5 soldi from the counterfeiter for each stirrup and the same for each trigger placed or ordered to be placed in any arbalest. And in addition, after having paid the penalty the master of the aforesaid arbalest shall be held to remove that same trigger and stirrup from the arbalest, keeping them for himself, and place other good ones at his own expense.

1304: this might be February 1305 in our calendar depending on when the year started in Venice at this date (1 January was not a popular choice in the middle ages)

indiction: this has to do with one of those dating cycles which got medieval chronographers excited, as far as I am concerned we had a better system in Nebuchadnezzar's day and this is all nonsense amongst the barbarians beyond the sea

caravana this gets into one of my pet peeves as an academic, which is that as we realized that understanding the past is hard we often retreated into comfortable niches and end up telling stories which imply that the little bit of the world we are most comfortable with was important and cut off from the rest of the world. Medieval Venetians didn't necessarily feel doing business with Egyptians or Turks was any stranger than doing business with stinking Genoese or slippery Greeks. (And France was fashionable, but not exactly a major centre of armour production, so relying so heavily on documents from France and England to understand armour would be like historians in the year 3000 focusing on documents from Sweden to understand the early IT industry). Just because most of us can't read Arabic or Turkish does not mean that sources from places that spoke Arabic or Turkish are not relevant.

[Sean M]

VIII. Item, quod aliquis magister balisterius non audeat ponere vel poni facere aliquam nucem in aliquo balisto que non habeat refollum reveditum in vivo nucis de subtus, sub pena soldorum .X. pro quolibet balisto in quo dictus ordo servatus non fuerit et pro qualibet vice contrafacienti. et nichilominus soluta pena teneatur dictus magister ipsam nucem extrahere et aliam bonam ponere ad suas expensas.

8th item: that no master crossbow-maker shall dare to put or have put any nut in any arbalest which does not have a sear fastened (refollum reveditum) in the quick of the nut from below, on pain of 10 soldi from the counterfitter for every arbalest in which the aforesaid ordinance has not been respected, and for every offense. And in addition to paying the penalty, the said master shall be held to take out that nut and put in another good one at his own expense.

On the topic of draw weights, they think the steel sear is an absolute necessity, whereas Iolo, making mostly toy bows for target shooting and SCA heavy fighting, thought they were a 'nice to have.' So all their crossbows were putting serious strain on the nut when the trigger was pulled.

vice: in this context I think this means "offense"

"take out that nut": the crossbow-makers were clearly wiser than some modern lawmakers who have not noticed that at scale, a fine can be just another business expense and if can be profitable to eat it and go on doing what you were already doing. There was an armourer in 16th century Augsburg or Nurnberg who may have been doing that, the city kept fining him for importing armour from nowhere in particular, stamping it with his mark and the city mark, and exporting it for a higher price (so were the fines just the city's way of claiming a slice of the pie)?

[Sean M]

VIIII. Insuper, quod quilibet predictorum debeat laborare sive plicare omnem fustem de balisto cum sepone et non cum aqua, {start of page 175} sub pena soldorum .XX. pro quolibet fusto sive arcu et pro qualibet vice contrafacienti.

9th: In addition, that each of the aforesaid ought to work or fold every stave (fustis) of an arbalest with soap (sepone) and not with water, on pain of 20 soldi for each stave or bow and for every offense (vice) from the counterfitter.

Since I never made a bow, I got nothing. Monticcuoli has some marginal notes which I will try to read when my brain fog is less bad.

One reason my brain fog is bad today is that I have been unemployed for a while and getting work where I am living is a bit complicated due to the terms of my residence permit. I know its not customary on the AA, but I have a patreon and a paypal dot me.

[Mac]

VIIII. Insuper, quod quilibet predictorum debeat laborare sive plicare omnem fustem de balisto cum sepone et non cum aqua, {start of page 175} sub pena soldorum .XX. pro quolibet fusto sive arcu et pro qualibet vice contrafacienti.

9th: In addition, that each of the aforesaid ought to work or fold every stave (fustis) of an arbalest with soap (sepone) and not with water, on pain of 20 soldi for each stave or bow and for every offense (vice) from the counterfitter.

This is a surprise! The only operations where I have seen soap used instead of water is in the preparation of sinew... but that's a bit of a stretch in this context.

Mac

[Mac]

VIII. Item, quod aliquis magister balisterius non audeat ponere vel poni facere aliquam nucem in aliquo balisto que non habeat refollum reveditum in vivo nucis de subtus, sub pena soldorum .X. pro quolibet balisto in quo dictus ordo servatus non fuerit et pro qualibet vice contrafacienti. et nichilominus soluta pena teneatur dictus magister ipsam nucem extrahere et aliam bonam ponere ad suas expensas.

8th item: that no master crossbow-maker shall dare to put or have put any nut in any arbalest which does not have a sear fastened (refollum reveditum) in the quick of the nut from below, on pain of 10 soldi from the counterfitter for every arbalest in which the aforesaid ordinance has not been respected, and for every offense. And in addition to paying the penalty, the said master shall be held to take out that nut and put in another good one at his own expense.

In this context, I think we can translate " reveditum" as "riveted". All the examples I have seen pics of are fastened by having a sort of tang that gets peened up into either the space between the fingers of the nut or the floor notch where the string is captured.

On the topic of draw weights, they think the steel sear is an absolute necessity, whereas Iolo, making mostly toy bows for target shooting and SCA heavy fighting, thought they were a 'nice to have.' So all their crossbows were putting serious strain on the nut when the trigger was pulled.

vice: in this context I think this means "offense"

I have found that even wimpy little 150# bows really need the steel reinforcement. At the very last instant of contact between trigger and nut, all of the "weight" of the bow is concentrated on a very small area. Those two surfaces, or rather the arrises, will tend to deform and round over unless they are quite hard.

Mac

[Mac]

VII. Anno Domini millesimo .CCCIIII., indicione tercia, die .XXIIII. februarii, tempore dominorum Marini Busenago, Phylipi {start of page 173} de Fontana et Andree Marcello iusticiariorum veterum, ordinatum fuit et firmatum per eosdem quod a modo aliquis balisterius non audeat vel presumat ponere vel poni facere aliquo modo vel ingenio aliquam clavem vel stapham de carevana in aliquo {start of page 174} balisto, sub pena soldorum .V. pro qualibet stapha et totidem pro clavi posita vel positis in balisto, contrafacienti. et nichilominus soluta pena teneatur magister dicti balisti ipsam clavem et stapham removere a balisto, retinendo ipsas in se, et alias bonas ponere ad suas expensas.

7th. In the Year of the Lord 1304, third indiction, 24th day of February, in the time of Lords Justicars of Elders Marino Busenago, Philipo de Fontana and Andrea Marcello, it was ordained and established by them that no crossbow-maker shall dare or presume to put or have put in any way or nature any trigger or stirrup from a caravan in any arbalest, on pain of 5 soldi from the counterfeiter for each stirrup and the same for each trigger placed or ordered to be placed in any arbalest. And in addition, after having paid the penalty the master of the aforesaid arbalest shall be held to remove that same trigger and stirrup from the arbalest, keeping them for himself, and place other good ones at his own expense.

Can we really be talking about parts that are imported from the East? I would not expect such a trade to be profitable for works in iron. Perhaps I'm just not understanding the economics.

Mac

[Mac]

One reason my brain fog is bad today is that I have been unemployed for a while and getting work where I am living is a bit complicated due to the terms of my residence permit. I know its not customary on the AA, but I have a patreon and a paypal dot me.

I sent a few soldi to help support the translator.

Mac

[Sean M]

Thanks Mac!

Can we really be talking about parts that are imported from the East? I would not expect such a trade to be profitable for works in iron. Perhaps I'm just not understanding the economics.

Mac

I need to read Peter Spufford's "Power and Profit: The Merchant in Medieval Europe" but I wonder if this could be one of those things like every rinky-dink town of a thousand people having someone who makes knives and axes, but Cologne or Sheffield or Solingen making them better and cheaper. The trigger and stirrup are such basic blacksmith's work (I guess you might want to harden the end of the trigger) but the word carevana is sure suggestive.

By the 14th century it was worthwhile to import a shipload of cotton from the Black Sea, sail it to Venice, haul it on cart and donkey-back over the Reschenpass or the Brenner, and have it spun and woven north of the Alps just to avoid the high cost of labour in Italy.

But my medieval reading has mostly been 'in the weeds' of sources for textiles and arms and armour, not stepping back to look at the big picture.

[Sean M]

We are past the midpoint of the meaty part of the rule! And I have Holger Richter's book on horn crossbows.

X. Item, quod aliquis predictorum non debeat colorare aliquem tenerium de balisto sive mutare eum de suo colore proprio antequam ipsum vendat, sub pena soldorum .V. pro quolibet tenerio et pro qualibet vice contrafacienti; verum quod hoc licite facere possit postquam fuerit venditum, ad voluntatem emptoris.

10th item: that none of the aforesaid shall colour any tiller (tenerius) of an arbalest or change it from its own proper colour before he sells it, on pain of 5 soldi for each tiller and for every offense from the counterfitter; nevertheless, this may be done rightfully after it has been sold, on the desire of the buyer.

Comment: I think the cutlers' rules from England have similar rules against disguising other woods as box

Venice is pretty humid so does a basic treatment in oil to stop the wood expanding and contracting count as 'colouring'? When does colouring become something which the painters' guild has exclusive rights to perform? (I think the shield makers and the painters sometimes got into fights about this).

. . .

XI. Item, quod non debeat fieri per aliquem predictorum aliqua corda, nec ponere in balisto, nisi fuerit de spago comuni vel de tam bono vel meliori, et de canipo et non de lino, sub pena soldorum .V. pro qualibet corda et pro qualibet vice contrafacienti.

11th item: that no string (corda) shall be made by any of the aforesaid, nor put on an arbalest, unless it is of common twine (spago comuni) or something as good or better, and of hemp not of linen, on pain of 5 soldi for each string and for every offense from the counterfitter.

Comment: what are your experiences with hemp and linen crossbow strings? Is today's common string any good for this purpose? Were they waxing them as the legend has it so they would not get loose in the rain?

[John Vernier]

Venice is pretty humid so does a basic treatment in oil to stop the wood expanding and contracting count as 'colouring'?
. . .
Comment: what are your experiences with hemp and linen crossbow strings? Is today's common string any good for this purpose?

Oiling, and even varnishing wood doesn't stop expansion and contraction, it only slows the process somewhat, so it isn't essential, although it helps the wood to not get dirty, and prevents water which might get splashed on the surface from absorbing immediately. A surface finish will however make it more difficult to color the wood later.

There is an interesting historical shoemaking forum, the Crispin Colloquy (http://www.thehcc.org/forum/ ), which I read occasionally. It's even quieter than this forum. Their discussions about shoe thread include the fact that well processed hemp can have a staple length of well over a meter, linen somewhat less, but also that no commercial threads even approach this quality or strength because modern spinning machines are designed to work with shorter staple lengths.

[Sean M]

John, I think the quality of modern linen and hemp really varies a lot, there is some which is 'cottonized' (broken up to have short staples which machines designed for short-staple cotton can process) and some which is much stronger. It is very hard to find technical information about staple lengths if you are buying retail, so I think there are lots of myths based on what people's local suppliers are willing to sell them. I get some of my linen from a factory in Lithuania whose machines were made in the 1920s, but their linen is not really 'nice' compared to good sheeting.

If we are imagining them selling the crossbows with bare wood, that is a very different expectation than modern customers in terms of how 'dead' the whole system is. Hunting crossbows could be pretty fancy in the 15th/16th/17th century and I wonder if there was any decoration when these rules were being written.

Edit: I want to cross-post this to https://thearbalistguild.forumotion.com/ but I am waiting for a mod to confirm my registration. If anyone here has a membership there, feel free to post the link and/or my ongoing translation!

[John Vernier]

Sean, I'm sure you are right about the variable quality of modern fibers. I have been intrigued about using hemp for sewing shoes in part because it is reputedly much more resistant to rot than linen. As there is beginning to be a small amount of hemp grown in the US again on a demonstration or experimental basis, I hope eventually to get ahold of some raw long fiber to play with, but I don't know when that will be possible.

I would guess that fancier crossbows, and most luxury goods of high quality, would rarely have been built on spec, but would have been ordered to suit the taste and purse of a particular buyer. If someone from a different guild were needed to apply the finish, that would be probably one of several specialists who would be involved in building a luxury crossbow. I wonder if guild regulations might have been enforced with different levels of laxity for the carriage trade (or gondola trade?) as opposed to utility weapons made for the common sort.

[Mac]

As I understand the wording, the rules don't prohibit applying a finish, per se. They seem only to specify that the wood must not be colored to look like a wood that it is not. That is to say, you can't stain birch and sell it as pear.

Mac

[Sean M]

What do we know about the woods used for tillers? The Met thinks that Ulrich V's tiller is European hornbeam, de Cosson just said "a light, close-grained wood, apparently beech." Holger Richterthinks that one in hte Stadtmuseum Köln is of "fruit tree wood" (Obstbaumholz, I don't know if nut trees like walnut count).

The Venetians were doing a lot of their shooting at sea and on beaches, and I wonder how that affected their choices.

[John Vernier]

Proper wood identification is one of those tasks which is often not done as carefully as one might want it to be, and old misinformation just sticks around, so I'm always a bit cautious about wood IDs from museums (and even more so auction houses) (I know of one museum with a whole room full of 18th-century mahogany furniture, every piece of which is identified as walnut). That said, I'd like to think the Met, with their major firearms collection, know what they are talking about. Hornbeam and beech are widely used european utility woods, used for hard-wearing tools like planes and mallets, and would seem to be a good choice for tillers, though they aren't particularly "fancy" in appearance. In my experience beech is fairly easy to identify and if it were commonly used I would think it would be mentioned as such.

I think fruitwood usually means cherry, apple, or pear, all of the Rosaceae family, which can really be hard to differentiate by naked eye. I know I have seen several crossbows identified as cherry, though I don't know if those IDs are precise or just mean "fruitwood." Walnut has a very different grain and pore pattern and shouldn't be easily confused with the fruitwoods (to be fair to the museum I mentioned above, it can look similar to mahogany although there are tells).

I need to look through the books I have and see what idenitifcations are given. I just received a copy of Richter's book too so I'm trying to keep up. Are any types of wood called out in the Venetian regulations or other documents you have studied?

[Sean M]

I can't think of any other sources which is why I asked. Iolo seems to like cherry, dark American walnut, and oak (only for tillers that he does not have to shape too much) but I imagine that comes down to what he can get in Texas for SCA-jun prices.

[Mac]

For what it's worth, my preferred wood is hard maple. That's clearly not an option in Europe, but it's practically a weed in the North East US. It's very strong, and takes a smooth finish.

I used pear on my first crossbow. It was nice to work with and seemed strong enough, but it's not easy to find.

Oak would not be on my list of acceptable woods. It is rough feeling, and a bit splintery in thin sections.

[Bertus Brokamp]

I remember reading an entry in the late 14th century purchase accounts of the city of Deventer, where pear is mentioned. Of course now I can't find it.

-edit- I found it. It was in the 1361-1362 purchase accounts of lord Jan van Blois. Jan is preparing for a campaign and has one of his servants and a crossbowmaker buy a pear tree to make 'zuilhout' from. Zuil = column = tiller. Hout = wood.

[Mac]

I remember reading an entry in the late 14th century purchase accounts of the city of Deventer, where pear is mentioned. Of course now I can't find it.

-edit- I found it. It was in the 1361-1362 purchase accounts of lord Jan van Blois. Jan is preparing for a campaign and has one of his servants and a crossbowmaker buy a pear tree to make 'zuilhout' from. Zuil = column = tiller. Hout = wood.

Thanks, Bertus!

Mac

[Sean M]

Yes, thank you, every scrap of information is useful!

XII. Preterea, quod quilibet magister debeat fecere suum signum proprium in balistis, tam in arcu quam in tenerio, prout signatum est ad camaram iusticiariorum, nec aliquis audeat contrafacere signum alicuius, sub pena soldorum .V. pro quolibet arcu et tenerio non signato(2).

12th: Additionally, that every master ought to make his own proper sign on crossbows, on the bow as well as on the tiller, just as the sign is at the chamber of justicars, nor shall anyone dare to counterfit anyone else's sign, on pain of 5 soldi for each bow and tiller not signed.

Notes

I wonder if we still have any of these registers of signs in Italy, Italian notaries kept everything. Datini sometimes refers to the marks of people he wants his suppliers to buy from, or his suppliers describe the marks on product they are sending.

We see the justicars again.

XIII. Item, quod aliquis predictorum non audeat ligare vel ligari facere aliquem arcum rotundum in aliquo tenerio nisi colaverit vel innervaverit ipsi arcui unum scanellum bene et diligenter, sub pena soldorum .V. pro quolibet arcu et pro qualibet vice contrafacienti.


13th item: That none of the aforesaid shall dare to bind or have bound any round bow in any tiller unless he has coloured glued it or sinewed the same bow one scanellum well and diligently, on pain of 5 soldi for each bow and for each offense from the counterfitter.

Notes

Latin nerd alert: We are back to the mix of present subjunctive and future perfect

scanellum may be the same word as "chanel" or "canal" http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/CANELLUS M. has an Italian note which I don't have the energy to work through yet. What could this mean? Maybe the place in the tiller which takes the bow?

My understanding is that rounder bows are fussier to set firmly in the tiller than flatter bows, they want to rotate and mess up the relationship between the string and the tiller. I would expect that "binding" is lashing the bow to the tiller. Iolo calls that binding the "bridle."

I may have time for chapter 14 later this weekend.

[Mac]

The regulation about marking the work is pretty straightforward, but XIII is very puzzling.

It's certainly tempting to interpret rotundum as referring to bows of round (ish) section, but it might also be about the overall shape of the bow. They might be referring to reflexed bows.

The next part of XIII is even less certain. Inervaverit sounds like it's about sinew alright: but is colaverit really about coloring?

I imagine that if scanalum is about a channel or channels, then it might refer to the interlocking grooves lock the horn elements together. This would certainly be a place where the authorities might want to insist on good work.

This pics shows some well fitted and glued grooves.


This pic (from the same bow section) shows one of the things that can go wrong is the grooves are not cut diligently. We can see from the intrusion of glue into the damaged areas that some of the peeks had broken off during construction.


Mac

[Sean M]

While we think about that, here is one more chapter. Chapter 13 did make me wish I could see the original manuscript and make sure all the verbs in the transcription are the verbs in the original.

XIIII. Insuper, non audeat aliquis predictorum innervare vel innervare facere aliquem arcum nisi fuerit de duobus vel tribus fustis, nec in testis vel in aliquo alio loco preter scanellum, nisi primo ipsum vendiderit, sub pena soldorum .X. pro quolibet arcu et pro qualibet vice contrafacienti; verum quod postquam venditum fuerit, innervari possit ad voluntatem ementis.

14th: In addition, that none of the aforesaid shall dare to sinew (innervare) or have sinewed any bow unless it is of two or three staves, neither in heads or in any other place besides the scanellum, unless he has sold it already, on pain of 10 soldi for every bow and for every offense from the counterfitter; but certainly, after it has been sold, it may be sinewed as the buyer wishes.

Note

I am just starting to work through Holger Richter's book, but my understanding is that many of these horn bows are not built like the bows I know. The bows I know have a wooden spine, a horn belly (facing the archer) and a sinew back (facing the target) [Richeter pp. 33, 46, 51]. Some of the bows he examined bows have a horn spine, a sinew back, and sometimes thin pieces of wood flanking the spine or between spine and belly or spine and back. The one which Mr. John Clements dissected for Baron de Cosson was built like this.

A bow with two staves could be one where the horn spine is between two layers of wood, but I don't know what a bow with three staves would be like.

I read something somewhere about good woods being less prone to take a set than horn, and the wood in some bows being more there to nudge the horn back into its 'strung but not drawn' position than to store energy.

I thought that innervare "to sinew" was placing the tennons on the back of the bow. That would be covered over in something waterproof before the bow was finished and ready to be bound into the tiller. But who would buy an incomplete bow? Sometimes the spine, belly, and back are wrapped in a layer of long sinew aren't they?

In a few days I will talk about what M. says about the scanellum.

[Mac]

Sean,

Please remind me about the date of these regulations. I went back and looked at the earlier posts, but I must have a blind spot about it.

Thanks!
Mac

[Sean M]

This clause has to be after 24 February 1304 (1305?) because clause 7 was written then, and I think one of the later chapters is dated 1308, so sometime in that 1304-1308 time frame. The earlier clauses are sometime in the 13th century.

Are any of the earlier crossbows in art shaped more like a Turkish bow with recurved tips? The surviving horn bows I have seen seem to be more simple curves but I am not an expert on any kind of crossbow.

[John Vernier]

The next part of XIII is even less certain. Inervaverit sounds like it's about sinew alright: but is colaverit really about coloring?
Mac

Colaverit is probably about glue. In French glue is colle, the Petit Robert dictionary dates a reference to the noun to 1268, the verb coller to 1320. Modern Italian colla, collare.

I have very little latin, but my wife who is a classicist tells me it is probably from conferro, contulli, collatum. The usage as glue or glueing doesn't appear in the online classical dictionary but it could well be a medieval usage.

[Sean M]

Du Cange does have Latin COLARE = Latin Glutinare "to glue" = French Coler "to glue, stick"

Then colaverit would be the perfect subjunctive or future perfect indicative active, and we would have

13th item: That none of the aforesaid shall dare to bind or have bound any round bow in any tiller unless he has glued or sinewed the same bow one scanellum well and dilligently, on pain of 5 soldi for each bow and for each offense from the counterfitter.

My brain is only about 60% there this morning I will come back.

[Sean M]

Here is what Monticolo had to say in 1896. He had probably never seen a crossbow of horn outside a museum, but he was a native speaker of Italian.

XIII. unum scanellum bene et diligenter: Sembra che l'arco rotondo venisse saldato al teniere mediante un cuneo di legno duro, <<scanellum>>. Lo <<scanellum>> era incollato o legato all'arco sul quale posava. Non è chiaro il modo col quale l'arco era legato al teniere nelle balestre delle quali tratta questo capitolare. In tutti i modi era necessario che l'arco fosse assai bene saldato all'estremità del teniere, perchè potesse resistere al contraccolpo quando la noce era lasciata libera.
...
Non so se la parola <<traffitta>> del capitolo XV significhi appunto una simile divisione del teniere alla sua estremità superiore o la scanalatura del medesimo, nella quale si poneva il giavellotto per dargli la direzione.


It appears that the round bow was fastened to the tiller by means of a wedge of hard wood, <<scanellum>>. The <<scanellum>> was stuck/glued or bound to the bow upon which it was placed. The way in which the bow was bound to the tiller of the crossbow of the type which is treated in this capitulary is not clear. In all the ways it was necessary that the bow was well fastened to the end of the tiller, so that it could resist the counter-blow when the nut was let free.
...
I do not know whether the term <<traffitta>> of chapter 15 indicates a similar division of the tiller at its upper end or the grove (scanalatura) along the middle, in which one placed the bolt to take aim.

[Mac]

This clause has to be after 24 February 1304 (1305?) because clause 7 was written then, and I think one of the later chapters is dated 1308, so sometime in that 1304-1308 time frame. The earlier clauses are sometime in the 13th century.

Are any of the earlier crossbows in art shaped more like a Turkish bow with recurved tips? The surviving horn bows I have seen seem to be more simple curves but I am not an expert on any kind of crossbow.

It's really not very clear how bows of c.1300 were constructed. To the best of my knowledge, we have no survivors from that period. The artwork may provide clues, but only if we already know what was in use and how to identify it.

My impression, in general is that the bows of this period are thicker and shorter than what would be possible with wood alone. That may or may not be correct, of course.

The black nocks on these bows might be horn tips on a yew bow; like what was done in longbows. Then again, they might be the exposed horn of a composite bow, like the one in Cologne.







Mac