Document: 1335 Count of Hainaut Ordinance (Malines/Mechelen)

[Ernst]

N.B. Consider cliff's more detailed and fuller explanation further down the thread:

Thanks for posting this interesting document, but I'm afraid you've misunderstood what it is all about-- which is understandable since the Old French is rather difficult. As the first part (which your transcript does not include) shows, it addresses the question of what items of equipment should go to a vassal's lord when the vassal dies.

A numer of authors refer to this as the 1336 Hainaut (ancient spelling Hainault) Ordinance. The source gives the date 11 mars 1336 below the title, but the final lines give the actual date 4 May 1335 rather than 6 March 1336. The error seems to have been repeated in multiple references to the document. Bertus informs me this is known as the 1336 Ordonnance of Mechelen in Flemish, but there may be two separate regulations in place.

Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=gBFQA ... ES&f=false

1335 Count of Hainaut Ordinance aka Malines (FR) or Mechelen (FL) Ordinance


ORDONNANCE SUR LES FIEFS LIGES
Ordinance of the Fief's Lords

Premiers, se uns homs a cheval d’armes k'il tiengne en non de cheval d'armes ou ronchi pour iestre sups armes, li sires le doit avoir; mais s'il a palefroit ou ronchi qu'il ne tiengne en non de cheval d'armes ou que sus n'ait estet armés, li sires ne le doit mies avoir.
First, If one horseman of arms that it fits has no warhorse (has lost it in action?) but a rouncey in need of arms, the Lord must supply them; but if he has a palfry or rouncey and doesn't take a warhorse, or have the arms of his estate, the Lord does not have to provide them.

Item, de l'armure qui à le liegie appertient li sires doit avoir le haubierch, s'il i est, et les cauches avoech, se elles y sont.
Item, of the armor which appertains to a Lord, he must have a hauberk, and if he has it, the chausses to go with it.

Item, s'il n'y a haubierch et il y ait haubregon, li Sires doit le haubregon avoir et le coiffe, se elle y est, les cauches de maille et les wans de maille, s'il i sont, et se coiffe n'y a, il doit avoir le barbière.
Item, if he had a hauberk and now has a haubergeon, the Lord who has the haubergeon must have a coif, then also, the chausses of mail and mail gauntlets, if he has no coif, he must have a “beard” (aventail).

Item, s'il n'y a ne haubierch ne haubregon, li Sires doit avoir les pans et les manches le barbière, les musekins et les cauchons et les wans de maille, s'il y sont; car autre armure ke li homs a d'armure de maille ne puet li sires avoir ne demander.
Item, if there was no hauberk nor haubergeon, the Lords must have a paunce and sleeves, the aventail, the musekins and chaussons, and mail gauntlets, if documented; because other armor of mail which the man of arms doesn’t have, he only has to ask of his Lord (to provide).

Et se li homs liéges n'a keval tel que dessus est devisez, li sires ne doit avoir que LX solz de blans pour le lieget tant seullement.
And if the Lord’s man loses his horse such as above and it is undone (in his service), the Liege must have 60 sols of silver for his liegeman, as compensation.

A cest acort et à che conseil donner ensi que devisé est furent Comme hommes monseigneur le comte de Haynnau, avoech Gérart dit Sausset d'Aisne, adont bailliu de Haynnau, messire de Liny, messire d'Enghien, messire Gérars d'Enghien, castellains de Mons et sires de Havrech. Jehans de Barbenchon, adont abbés de Bonne-Espérance, messire Wistasses, sires de Vertaing, messire Florens de Biaumont, sires de Beaumont, messire Ostes d,Arbre, chevalier, messire Pieres de Herninsart, Aoustins li Taye, Obierz de Hauchin, Gérars d'Escaussines, Coteron de Hourle, Gilles li Bamoneres, prévos de Mons, Willammes de Somaing, frères Jehans de Carnières, commanderes d'Avesnes les Seckes, Henris dou mareshirel, Jehans de le Glisoelle, prouvos de Biaumont, Colart Lukes, Villains du Marquiet, Jehan Despiennes, Mahieu de Mainsencouture, Gillemans d'Estainquerque, Jaquemart de Laire, Andrieus Pauwaige, Jehans Auwequitte, adont clers de laditte court, et pluiseurs autres.
To this agreement, and giving council and affirmation were the men: My Lord, the Count of Hainaut....(all of the witnesses)...and several others.

Ce fu fait en laditte court lendemain du my-quaresme en l'an mil troix cens trente-chieneq.
This was done by my hand the day after court, May fourth,of the year 1335.

[Gustovic]

Bloody musekins, popping up once again.

Perhaps the sleeves were short, going to the elbow, and the musekins cover the forearm?

And also, are chausons maille brayettes? Since I guess they are shorter than proper chausses.

[Ernst]

Perhaps the sleeves were short, going to the elbow, and the musekins cover the forearm?

And also, are chausons maille brayettes? Since I guess they are shorter than proper chausses.

Sort of, since they have neither hauberks or haubergeons. It's my current thinking on the musekins, a mail "vambrace" to offer additional protection to the forearm beyond an aketon. The chaussons seem to be shorter, possibly covering the calf but not the thigh.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=176830

[Bertus Brokamp]

Google books only lets me see the title of the book, which is "Coutumes de la ville de Malines". And Malines is the French name for the Flemish town of Mechelen.
But apparantly the author / compiler decided to put something in there about Hainault as well.

Oh and silly nitpicking me: The Bavarians only came into play in the mid 14th century in this region. Before that the coat of arms of the counts of Holland & Hainault looked like this (quartered the red lion of Holland and the black lion from Hainault):
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_II ... n_Arms.svg

[Ernst]

Not nit-picking at all. The Bavarians show up after 1345, if I see it correctly? So I changed the arms.

Looking at the index in the linked source, I think this is the only Ordinance with a similar date, though I have yet to check all of the others for requirements for arms.

[Ernst]

I have adjusted the title of the document to be more accurate.

[Ernst]

Item, s'il n'y a haubierch et il y ait haubregon, li Sires doit le haubregon avoir et le coiffe, se elle y est, les cauches de maille et les wans de maille, s'il i sont, et se coiffe n'y a, il doit avoir le barbière.
Item, if he had a hauberk and now has a haubergeon, the Lord who has the haubergeon must have a coif, then also, the chausses of mail and mail gauntlets, if he has no coif, he must have a “beard” (aventail).

This passage makes me pause. For a long time, if we saw mail sleeves and a mail skirt coming from beneath a pair of plates or surcoat, we presumed it was a shirt, but now we realize it could be sleeves and a paunce.

Likewise, separate coifs sometimes are easy to spot, but I am reminded of the Wisby finds. In several of those, the square front panel, so common in German and Scandinavian coifs, were still in situ tucked beneath the pair of plates. It could as easily be tucked beneath a haubergeon neckline. The rounded mantles on the surviving coifs in the RA and Edinburgh are surprisingly short.


Separate mail gloves can be easy to spot, especially if they have a wide, flared cuff.
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/search/ ... untlets%22

I'm still trying to decide what the artist is trying to show us here. A cuffless mail glove worn beneath a sleeve, which is then closed by belt or thong over it seems like a plausible explanation.

BNF Français 152 fo097v-mufflers.jpg (96.76 KiB) Viewed 641 times

BNF Français 152 fo350r-mufflers.jpg (78.43 KiB) Viewed 641 times

[clifford rogers]

Thanks for posting this interesting document, but I'm afraid you've misunderstood what it is all about-- which is understandable since the Old French is rather difficult. As the first part (which your transcript does not include) shows, it addresses the question of what items of equipment should go to a vassal's lord when the vassal dies.

I'd translate the first item, for example, as follows: "First, if the man [vassal] has a horse of arms [warhorse] which he keeps under the name of a horse of arms, or a rouncy ?on which he rides/??jousts armed? then the lord should have it; but if he has a palfrey or a rouncy which he does not keep under the name of a horse of arms, or on which he has not ridden armed [i.e. in full armor], the lord is not entitled to it."

Then in summary:
The lord should have the vassal's hauberk and chauces. If there is no hauberk, but instead a haubergeon, the lord should have that and the coif, chauses, and "wans" [?gauntlets] of mail; if there is no coif, then he should have the "barbiere" [?normally the mail piece the covers the chin and throat and is normally attached to a coif, though I don't see the logic of having one of those but not a coif, and it doesn't fit with what follows]

If there is no hauberk or haubergeon, the lord should have the "pans" [?flap] and the sleeves of the barbiere, the musekins and the chauces and gauntlets of mail, if such there be; for any other armor that the man has of mail armor the lord should not have it or ask it.

And if the vassal does not have a horse of the sorts indicated above, the lord should not have more than 60 sous only from the liegeman.


Also, the date given by the editor is correct. The document says the day after mid-Lent [Sunday, the fourth Sunday in Lent] in "1335," but the year in Hainault did not change until Easter, so from Jan. - Easter 1336 (by our reckoning) would be written as 1335.

Cliff

[Ernst]

Thanks Cliff!

I had seen your post earlier, but was rather busy and failed to respond to it. One of the reasons I post these on the Archive with the link to the source documents is to get feedback from those who know more than I do. Hopefully I'll get to a stopping point on some other proect so that I can go back and add the missing context passages, and examine the translation again.