1Among the French illuminated manuscripts in the Biblioteca Nacional de España (BNE) in Madrid is a little studied early sixteenth-century heraldic treatise associated with the name of Frederick of Aragon (1451-1504), last king of Naples1. Turning its pages, one is faced with an astounding collection of shields teaming with colours, metals and shapes: this wide range of charges, initially geometric, turns into a visual inventory of the natural and man-made world, from lions to planets, garments to architectural constructions, ships to household objects. Heraldry appears to have been a pretext for producing a lavish picture book, a dizzying catalogue of heraldic permutations. This paper will investigate the manuscript’s content, function and production, and place it in the context of Frederick’s library, during his lifetime and beyond, tracing its trajectory from the last king of Naples to King Philip IV of Spain (r. 1621-1665).

“All manner of arms”

2The volume, enclosed in a 17^th-century gold-stamped brown leather binding, comprises 76 parchment leaves and is of modest dimensions (19 × 13 cm)2. A frontispiece (f. 10v; Fig. 8.1) provides the title of the work:

“Here begins all manner of arms and terms to make and compose coats of arms, put in order by The very high and excellent prince The King Don Frederick of aragon King of Sicily etc.”3_.

3These words, traced in gold on a purple ground, are enclosed in a plain gold frame, in turn surrounded by a Renaissance architectural structure standing out against the parchment painted black. The crowned arms of Frederick of Aragon adorn the lunette above the entablature. This frontispiece, however, does not feature at the beginning of the manuscript, but on the reverse of folio 104. It is preceded by an introduction in French on heraldic tinctures and their symbolic meaning, establishing relationships between them and the ages of man, the virtues, planets, gems, humours, elements and days of the week. Yet, only six pages are covered in writing in this first section, with the final five lines on folio 6 recto; eight more pages follow, ruled but empty: a first inkling that this manuscript was left unfinished. The frontispiece thus marks the beginning of the pictorial component of the treatise, 67 leaves with nine shields per page illustrating the different terms, ordinaries (geometric figures used in heraldry) and categories of charges that can be used and combined to compose heraldic arms. These amount to a remarkable total of 1090 finely painted shields5.

4Rubrics introduce the main sections and each shield is numbered, but this numbering does not refer to any index. Indeed, none of the shields has been blazoned, i.e. described in the codified heraldic language. Unlike in most other heraldic works, the descriptions were not intended to go on the same page as the shields, thus leaving the images to speak for themselves and resulting in a powerful and unmediated visual display. Blazoning 1090 shields would have required much work, and more leaves than the few pages left blank in the front of the volume, so the descriptions would probably have featured at the end, had the manuscript been completed. All the shields appear however to be complete. Some have been left blank at the end of each section, but the fact that they are not numbered suggests that they were left unpainted on purpose6. This would have allowed the owner of the manuscript to add further examples later, as was common in armorials and treatises.

5The initial page, facing the frontispiece, presents the heraldic tinctures in three trilogies: three colours, three metals and three furs (ff. 10v-11r; Fig. 8.1). This categorisation visually echoes the introduction, which begins with the following rubric: “To compose and make all manner of arms ix sorts of material are needed, that is to say three metals three colours and three furs.” (f. 3r)7. The nine tinctures are followed by the ordinaries, each headed by a rubric: the chief, the point, the pale, the fess, the bend, the chevron, the cross, the saltire, the bend sinister, the baston, the traverse, the gyron (Fig. 8.2)8. Traces of teething problems can be observed in the first section dedicated to the “chief”, with several noticeable corrections seemingly made at the time of making (up to f. 14v; Fig. 8.2)9. After the ordinaries come the non-geometric charges, starting with the lions and eagles, heraldic beasts par excellence. The following section, headed “Terms for birds and venomous beasts and several other terms”10 runs to the end of the book, and is in fact a catch-all category, wide-ranging in its scope, beginning with animals, but moving on to a variety of objects (ff. 53v-77v). The organisation of its 426 shields is often inconsistent. Charges are suddenly interrupted on f. 62 to give way to fourteen shields with geometrical combinations (shields vii^xx viii to viii^xx ii), and animals are not all gathered together but occur in several instalments (Figs. 8.3 and 8.4). Strangely, the whole section starts with only three shields on its first page which is otherwise filled with six unnumbered blank shields (f. 53v; Fig. 8.3), setting apart three animals: the griffin, the ostrich and St Mark’s lion (shields i-iii)11. The sequence, ignoring two rows of blank shields in the lower part of f. 53v, continues across the opening onto f. 54r with various birds. Three unnumbered blank shields also occur on f. 56v between the snails and the horse, this time possibly marking a transition between the insects/reptiles/snails and the quadrupeds. The numbering then runs up to CCC xxxviii (f. 72v), and, in the middle of a page, starts again from the beginning to form a last sequence of 88 shields numbered i to iiii^xx viii. The reason for this cannot be readily understood from a shift in the content of the shields which, at this point, is rather miscellaneous and no longer dictated by the need to illustrate a particular term or charge. The artist may have turned to a different model for this last set of shields. Changes of plan and amendments at the time of making are also revealed by the irregular quire structure, betraying the insertion of several singletons, in quires III, IV, VII and XI12. In several cases, these singletons are covered in blank shields, in order to provide extra space to add further examples13.

6The illuminator excels at depicting animals: the beautifully executed creatures seem ready to jump from the page, their feathers rustling, their eye twinkling (Figs. 8.3-8.5 and 8.7). Realism and attention to detail bring this bestiary to life and allow one to identify the species depicted: from the woodpecker, the swan and the grouse, to the genet, the hedgehog and the turtle. The peregrine falcon even has a vervel attached to its leg, a small ring that allowed the hunter to keep the falcon on a lead (f. 55v)14. Some exotic animals, such as the camel and dromedary, are anatomically accurate while the black elephant’s fanciful treatment is testimony to the fact that the artist probably had never seen one (f. 57r). Humour occasionally seeps in, as when the wolf surreptitiously follows the sheep, from one shield to the next, thus hinting at a narrative (ff. 57v-58r; Fig. 8.5). After the animals come a multitude of charges arranged broadly by type, such as weapons and tools, fish, animal and human heads including a pair of red babies, garments, shoes, hunting accessories, architectural constructions, purses, ships, flowers and fruits, celestial bodies and everything in between (Figs. 8.5 and 8.7).

7Even with more text, this book’s main appeal would still have resided in its numerous jewel-like coats of arms. Its function must have been more to feast the eye than to teach the terms of heraldry. Basic representational rules are ignored, with the sole aim of producing a catalogue of arms ever more vivid and extravagant (e.g. ff. 72v-73, 76v-77; Fig. 8.6). A coat of arms is conceived as a series of superimposed planes, starting with the background until one reaches the plane closest to the viewer. When blazoning, the description proceeds in this order and one cannot go back and forth between planes. On shield vi of ff. 72v-73, the composition is so intricate that it is not possible to understand what is on the surface and what is in the background: the coat of arms is not arranged in a succession of planes, which renders it “unblazonable”. Similarly, blazon lxx on ff. 76v-77 seems to be a wall made of multi-coloured stones, and is impossible to describe from a furthest to a closest plane, with no preeminent colour or metal to guide us (Fig. 8.6). As Claire Boudreau noted, many shields betray the author’s lack of familiarity with heraldic rules, as well as his fertile imagination: “[the author] complements his inventory of charges with extravagant figures which can only have been borne out of his imagination. In the ‘chief’ chapter, for instance, he has made up over one-third of the examples. The unreal aspect of the shields is even more obvious in the ‘point’ chapter where most of the shields show his lack of familiarity with the usual composition of coats of arms”15. Boudreau remarked that the author must have been familiar with the treatise known as the Traité du Jouvencel16, as he followed the same organisation of the colours, metals, and furs in three groups of three (Fig. 8.1). Three colours: azure, gules and vert; three metals: or, argent and copper represented by purpure; three furs: ermine, vair and sable. The Traité du Jouvencel, which survives in three copies17, was probably originally written in the second half of the 15^th century and was the first treatise to adopt this classification as opposed to that of two metals (or and argent), five colours (azure, gules, vert, sable and purpure), and two furs (ermine and vair). Boudreau went on to observe that the Madrid treatise, like the Traité du Jouvencel, exemplifies a late medieval trend bringing heraldic theory to its limits: “a dream-inducing theorisation of the coat of arms”18.

Made in Tours

8The presence of the arms of Frederick of Aragon in the entablature indicates that the Madrid manuscript was executed under the king’s patronage, but the title suggests that he also played a part in the classification of the coats of arms that follow. Indeed, we are told that “all manner of arms and terms to make and compose coats of arms” were “put in order” by the king (f. 10v, Fig. 8.1). The location of the title-page, after the incomplete introduction, would indicate that he was not the author of the preceding text, but that his involvement must have been specifically with the visual side of the treatise. The style of the frontispiece as well as that of the more figurative shields, the palette employed, but also the type of bastarda script with dark red ruling and rubrics, all point to a Tours origin. The manuscript must therefore have been made for Frederick when he and his wife went into exile in Touraine, after Naples fell into the hands of Louis XII and his troops in August 1501 thanks to a secret alliance with Ferdinand the Catholic. Two other volumes made for Frederick share this link to Tours. One is the Hours of Frederick of Aragon, written by an Italian hand, probably in Naples, but later illuminated by Jean Bourdichon, official painter to Louis XII and one of his assistants, the Master of Claude de France19, in collaboration with Giovanni Todeschino, the Neapolitan court painter who had joined the king in exile (Paris, BnF, Latin 10532)20. The other is a book of offices entitled Officia Octo, composed by Frederick’s chaplain Leonardo Corvino (London, British Library, Ms Additional 21591). Its frontispiece (f. 2v), as was noted by Teresa D’Urso, Maxence Hermant and Gennaro Toscano, is very close to that of the Madrid treatise (compare Figs. 8.1 and 8.8)21. The date of 1500 appearing at the end of the lengthy title in the London volume should be understood as the date of composition of the text, rather than that of the manuscript, as it cannot predate the king’s forced departure from Naples22.

9In 1984, François Avril saw in the Officia Octo a collaboration between Giovanni Todeschino and Jean Bourdichon23. More recently, Teresa D’Urso has favoured an attribution to the Master of Claude de France (fl. c. 1498-c. 1520)24. Like Avril, I would see in the contrast between the austere architectural frontispiece and the exuberant Italianate border on the facing page the intervention of two artists: Jean Bourdichon on the left and the Master of Claude de France on the right. The attribution to two different hands is supported by the fact that the frontispiece is painted on a singleton added at the beginning of the first quire25. Typical of Bourdichon is the use of parchment painted black to make the structure stand out. I would also attribute to him Frederick’s coat of arms on folio 3r, which seems superimposed onto the wreath.

10Who was responsible for the illumination of the Madrid manuscript? D’Urso attributed it to Jean Bourdichon26, and Maxence Hermant and Gennaro Toscano to the Master of Claude de France, though in cautious terms27. I would argue for an attribution to Jean Bourdichon and assistants. Although attributing geometrical figures is a perilous exercise, the presence in the treatise of numerous animals, a few human heads and figures, and a wide range of objects, provides more clues to help identify the artist. The queen whose head adorns a shield on f. 64r (Fig. 8.7) seems to be the sister of the female figures painted by Bourdichon and does not have the juvenile doll-like face of the Master of Claude de France’s women. Furthermore, the monumental vocabulary of the frontispiece set against the black parchment is similar, though less three-dimensional, to that of Officia Octo in the treatment of the mouldings, the simple gilt frame enclosed in the larger structure and the composite capitals with the same three stacked “orders”. The thin gold filigree decoration on a green panel in the Madrid manuscript is identical to that found along the bottom register of the entablature as well as on the base panel in the London manuscript. Although the quality of the craftsmanship is overwhelmingly high, it falters slightly on certain folios devoted to shields with geometrical figures, betraying the presence of less expert hands (see in particular in quire III).

11As official painter to four successive French kings – Louis XI, Charles VIII, Louis XII and Francis I – Bourdichon was commissioned numerous works of a heraldic nature, often ephemeral, such as standards and other decorations on the occasion of feasts, banquets and official entrances, etc. Although over fifty references to this type of activity are associated with the name of Jean Bourdichon in the royal accounts, little evidence of this work has survived. As a consequence, this aspect of his production has been largely overlooked, but Nicholas Herman has recently put forward a number of manuscripts where he sees the hand of the court painter28. Most of these new attributions consist of heraldic frontispieces that were added to older manuscripts when they were acquired by Charles VIII or Louis XII. Bourdichon also painted the elaborate heraldic page in the Hours of Frederick of Aragon (Paris, BnF, Latin 10532, p. 388), so it makes sense that Frederick turned to him for the illustration of his heraldic treatise. They had known each other for some time, as Bourdichon had, in 1491, painted a portrait of Charlotte, the daughter of Frederick and his first wife, Anne de Savoie, niece of King Louis XI29. After the fall of Naples in August 1501, Frederick conducted lengthy negotiations with Louis XII and eventually obtained the county of Maine and an annual pension, in return for surrendering his rights to the throne of Naples30. This agreement was reached in Blois where Frederick remained from 26 December 1501 to 27 May 1502 when he accompanied the French king to Italy. According to a letter of Iacopo d’Atri, Frederick only arrived in Tours in early March 1503 to settle there with his small court31. Toutes manières d’armoiries and Officia octo must therefore be dated to the short period between Frederick’s arrival in Tours in early March 1503 and his death at Montils du Plessis-les-Tours on 9 November 1504. The completion of the treatise may have then been interrupted by the Neapolitan king’s demise.

From France to Spain

12The examination of a few surviving inventories can improve our understanding of the place of heraldry in Frederick’s library, as well as the likely fate of the manuscript after his death. Louis XII and his troops seized part of the library of the kings of Naples, when they took the city in 150132. A large proportion of the remaining books was sold by Frederick of Aragon and his wife Isabella del Balzo to Cardinal Georges d’Amboise, but also to King Louis XII (for which there is documentary evidence, but no surviving inventory), when they came to live in exile in France. Georges d’Amboise acquired Italian humanist manuscripts from Frederick to enrich his Renaissance library at Gaillon and, unsurprisingly, no heraldic work is listed as part of the prelate’s purchase, made c. 1503-433. On the other hand, such works appear in four later inventories that cast an intermittent light on what happened to the rest of the collection after the king’s death (see Annex 2 for full transcriptions of the relevant entries)34. These inventories mention a handful of heraldic manuscripts, reflecting an interest in these matters on Frederick’s part, though not sufficient to confirm the active role that he may have played in the classification of the shields in the Madrid manuscript. Interestingly, most heraldic manuscripts encountered in these inventories are said to be written in the French language, possibly indicating that the king became interested in the subject once in exile.

13The first inventory (M2) dates from 1523 and was drawn up in Ferrara where Isabella had come to live in 1508 at the court of Alfonso d’Este to whom she was related; it lists ten books that Isabella gave as presents to a number of people named in each entry35. Four of these books, including a succinctly described “brasone de arme” went to Francesco Cantelmo (d. 1528), who had worked as an ambassador for the d’Este family36. The second relevant inventory (V) lists books sent in 1527 by Isabella to her eldest son, Ferdinand, Duke of Calabria who, named viceroy of Valencia by Charles V in 1526, was finally able to settle there with his wife, Germaine de Foix, widow of Ferdinand of Aragon. One “Regule de blasonar de arme” in French appears as item 285 among these books37. Some chests seem to have been left behind and were rediscovered in 1529 (Inventory D) and may only have been sent to Valencia after Isabella’s death in 1533: they contained two heraldic manuscripts38. The first one (’L.276’)39 is described as “miniato de piú arme”, but other details indicate it cannot be our manuscript40. The second volume mentioned in Inventory D (’L.277’) was written to honour Frederick’s memory after his death.

14Ferdinand, at his death in 1550 bequeathed his vast library to the monastery of San Miguel de Los Reyes, which he intended as his final resting place and that of his family. The books were inventoried and three heraldic manuscripts are described among them41. Some of these may of course be the same as the ones described in inventories V or D, but the uneven level of detail from one inventory to the other makes such identifications difficult. One could also argue that, as the 1550 inventory was drawn up much later, 629 and 630 could have been purchased or commissioned by Ferdinand rather than by his father, although the fact that they are written in French would argue against this. Ferdinand’s wife, Germaine of Foix, was French, but heraldry was a typically male pursuit, and this certainly also explains why Isabella gave away one of the heraldic works in 1523. Entry 628 in this last inventory is of particular interest: “Book […] entirely written and historiated by hand, with characters in colours, on parchment, on the composition of all manner of arms, shields and colours, directed to the Most Serene King Frederick […]”42. This could indeed be the Madrid treatise, as the description stresses the colourful nature of the book, and the phrasing “all manner of arms” repeats word for word the title used on the frontispiece of our manuscript. This entry indicates that the original binding may have been of black velvet with silver clasps, as opposed to the current 17^th-century gold-stamped brown leather. Whether one accepts this identification or not, the book was certainly brought by Isabella to Ferrara in 1511 and later sent to Spain to enrich Ferdinand’s library, like Officia Octo, which features in the 1527 inventory43. Out of the 795 books Ferdinand gave to San Miguel de los Reyes, only 233 were accounted for at the dissolution of the monastery in the 1830s when they were transferred to the Biblioteca Universitaria de Valencia. Toutes manières d’armoiries could thus have been among the volumes that vanished from the monastic library.

The fate of the manuscript in the 17^th century

15By 1659, the book had reached Madrid: a note in Spanish added on its front flyleaf states that, in that year, it was presented to King Philip IV of Spain by Jules Chifflet (also spelt Chiflet)44. Jules Chifflet (1615-1676) was born to an influential family in Burgundy, a region at the time ruled by the Spanish king. He was the second son of Jean-Jacques Chifflet (1588-1660), doctor of the king of Spain but also eminent antiquary and historian45. Jules Chifflet studied law in Louvain and Dole and, following in his father’s footsteps, became a prolific historian. He was named Chaplain of Honour at the court of Spain and, in 1648, Philip IV made him Chancellor of the Golden Fleece, the prestigious order founded in 1430 by Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy46. Like his father, he was therefore well versed in heraldic matters and the Chifflet archive, now in the Bibliothèque Municipale in Besançon, bears witness to this interest. Frederick’s treatise would thus have appealed to him and it is not surprising to find it in his hands. The note at the beginning of the manuscript extols the beauty of the animals enclosed in the treatise, and explains that Chifflet gave the book to the king when he left Madrid in 1659 to take up his position as a clerical counsellor in the Parliament of Dole in Burgundy where, since 1657, he already held the position of abbot of Balerne.

16Jules Chifflet was, however, so fascinated by this manuscript that he made a complete copy of it, now in the Bibliothèque Ste Geneviève in Paris (Ms 524; figs 9-11)47. In this manuscript entitled Traité de l’art de blasonner toutes manières d’armoiries, mis en ordre par le roy Don Frideric [III] d’Arragon, roy de Naples, he reproduced all the shields using brown ink on paper, adopting the conventions used in print to translate the tinctures into black and white (Figs. 8.9 and 8.10)48. To remedy the absence of textual descriptions in the original, Chifflet drew the shields on the rectos and, on the opposite page, attempted to blazon them. He did not succeed in translating them all into words, undoubtedly because of the already mentioned unblazonable character of so many of them. Given the large number of shields, this must have taken some time, which may also explain some gaps, to which Chifflet may have intended to return. On f. 99v, for instance, he leaves four shields unblazoned, although they do not present particular difficulties (ix^xx vi to ix^xx ix; f. 64r in the original; see Figs. 8.7 and 8.9). On the other hand, the fanciful last shields of the treatise certainly presented the herald with a challenge, and no description is provided from ff. 113v-127 (ff. 71r-77v in the original)49. Chifflet seems to have been particularly impressed by the depiction of animals and copied them with great care, as can be seen for instance with the horse and the unicorn (f. 100r; Fig. 8.9). Traces of under-drawing indicate that he first drew the shields in pencil before using ink50.

17Chifflet’s views on this manuscript are known thanks to a long preface in French, which he wrote in the opening pages of this copy (Fig. 8.10)51. This text is extremely informative, conveying his feelings upon seeing the manuscript for the first time: “I began to turn its pages and admire it, so great was the art everywhere, especially where birds and other animals are represented” (f. IIIr). Curiously, he does not comment on the liberties that the author took with heraldic rules, but he laments the absence of blazoning “thanks to which one would have learnt a multitude of terms which are unknown to us” (f. IIIv). He also provides precious details as to where and how he came across this beautiful book. This account leads us into the palace of Philip IV, where Chifflet, wandering into the apartments of the king’s Great Majordomo, Don Manuel de Moura, found the book by his bedside. Manuel de Moura y Corte Real (1590-1651), second marquis of Castelo Rodrigo, was a Portuguese aristocrat, the son of Don Cristóbal de Moura who had been the favourite and chief counsellor of Philip II (r. 1556-98). After several lengthy missions away from the court, in Lisbon, Rome, Regensburg, Vienna and Brussels, he returned to Madrid in 1648, and was named Great Majordomo by Philip IV in June 1649. This position made him one of the most powerful men in the royal palace and at court52. Having coveted such a post for most of his life, he did not enjoy it for long, as he died on 28 January 1651. The episode recounted by Chifflet therefore took place between June 1649 and January 1651. We also learn that the marquis of Castelo Rodrigo had been given the book by the Marquis of Malpica, who did not care much for it, having bought it cheaply, “only four Reales debillon, which equal to less than twenty soles” (f. IIIr)53. Baltasar Barroso de Rivera (c. 1606-69), another eminent member of the king’s household, held this title at the time54.

18Chifflet made this careful copy of the manuscript when it was still part of the library of the Marquis of Castelo Rodrigo, as he writes in a few lines that he later cancelled to record the fact that he had presented it in 1659 to King Philip IV (ff. IIIv-IVr). These crossed-out lines state that the original manuscript is kept in the library of the “Marquis of Castel Rodrigo, Ambassador of Spain at the Imperial court and presently named Viceroy of Sardinia, worthy heir of the virtues and high offices of his father.” So by the time Chifflet wrote this preface, his friend Don Manuel de Moura had died and the title of Marquis of Castelo Rodrigo had passed on to his son, Francisco de Moura, Viceroy of Sardinia from 1657 to 1661. This allows us to establish that Chifflet made his copy between 1657 and 1659. Francisco, aware of Chifflet’s fascination with the manuscript since the time of his father, eventually gave it to him. The beauty of the book and its royal provenance then compelled Chifflet to present it as a gift to King Philip IV in 1659, as he explains: “This work, not only for its art, as it would be difficult to find a hand or brush that could surpass it today, but also for its author, is and remains a cabinet piece for a Great King.” (f. IIIr)

19In this preface, he at first asserts that the king of Naples was not only the author and mastermind behind the manuscript, but also that he was undoubtedly responsible for the manuscript’s execution (f. IIIr), although he contradicts himself on the next page, saying “Yet I could not say if this Book on the art of the Blazon is by the hand and brush of King Frederick himself” (f. IIIv). In a last section on f. IVr which was added later (the ink is of a different colour and the handwriting shakier), he returns to his first impression, stating: “one must believe that the work comprised in this volume, by me presented to the King and here copied, is by none other than King Frederick since the original bears it [his name?], and his arms featuring at the beginning clearly show that he was from the Royal house of ARAGON.” Chifflet goes on to compare Frederick to René of Anjou, to whom the execution of several manuscripts was attributed at this time, as he was said to have been a skilled painter55. He even proposes anachronistically to make Frederick the author of some of the works traditionally attributed to King René.

20A 17^th-century print of the family tree of the kings of Naples was pasted in at the end of the volume (Fig. 8.11)56. Entitled “LOS REIES DE NAPOLES”, it is signed “Diego de Astor” in the bottom left corner and measures about 31 by 43 cm57. De Astor (c. 1609-c. 1650) was a Flemish engraver and contemporary of Chifflet who was also in the service of the kings of Spain. Several similar genealogical trees by De Astor have survived, such as a Genealogy of the Archdukes of Austria and of the Dukes of Bavaria published in Diego de Guzmán, Reyna Catolica. Vida y muerte de D Margarita de Austria Reyna de Espanna (1617)58, and a Genealogy of the Dukes of Milan (c. 1617), which survives as a loose print in the Biblioteca Nacional de España59. Juan Bautista Labaña60’s manuscript work Selva Real. Tablas históricas y genealógicas de varios soberanos de Europa now in the library of the Real Academia de Historia is described as having “16 trees […] drawn and engraved by Diego de Astor”61. These include a tree of the kings of Naples as part of item 7, but I have not been able to check whether it is identical to the one pasted at the end of Chifflet’s manuscript62. Incidentally, this brings us back to Manuel de Moura y Corte Real who, passionate about genealogy, supported Labaña’s work and, after his death in 1624, “sighed a thousand times for the late Juan Bautista Lavaña, for he said that, with him, had died the light drawing [of the genealogical trees]”63. Moving in the same circles, Chifflet could have obtained the print directly from Moura, Labaña, or De Astor. He appropriately pasted this tree of the kings of Naples at the end of his copy of Frederick’s treatise: almost lost in its leaves is the name of ‘D. Fadrique’ between his two queens, ‘D. Isabel’ and ‘D. Anna’.

21 This research not only sheds a new light on Frederick’s interest in heraldry, but also highlights the importance of the work of the scholars, historians and antiquarians of the modern period. These sources, often in unpublished manuscript form, contain a wealth of information. In the present case, Chifflet’s copy and its revealing preface reflect the gaze and perspective of a 17^th-century historian on a book made in the previous century. But it offers more than this, as he brings into his discussion a number of other prestigious heraldic manuscripts, which he has seen or heard about. Comparing René of Anjou and Frederick of Aragon, he mentions a copy of René’s Le mortifiement de vaine plaisance in the library of the Dukes of Brabant in Brussels, stating that it is bound with the illuminated chronicles of several wise philosophers (f. IIIv). This would seem to correspond to a manuscript now in Paris (BnF, Français 19039), the only surviving copy bound with Guillaume de Tignonville’s Les croniques de plusieurs saiges philosophes, though Chifflet’s memory may not be entirely reliable as it is unlikely this manuscript would have once been part of the library of the dukes of Brabant. It was copied by “Jehan Coppre, prebtre de Varroingnes, au commandement de monsieur de Flagy, en miliare l’an xv^c et xiiii” (f. 285) and by 1599 belonged to a certain “M. de Hornes” (f. 1r) and to a “Gab[riel] Meurier” who added an index to it in 1623 (f. 286r-v)64. Chifflet must have seen this copy,and confused it with another one executed for Philip the Good and/or Isabella of Portugal (now Brussels, Koninklijke Bibliothek/Bibliothèque Royale, Ms 10308). He also writes about a famous copy of King René’s Livre des Tournois in those terms:

“In the Cabinet of the Infanta Isabella Princess of the Low Countries, was found the Book of Tournaments [Livre des Tournois] by him composed, written and richly illuminated, translated since into Castilian by Don Hiacynthe de Herrera65, gentleman of the bedchamber and Librarian of the Infant Cardinal, and sent to the King in Spain, who keeps both the original and the translation in his private library.” (f. IIIv)

22The most famous copy of this text was and still is the one that is now in the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris and which, for centuries, was attributed to René himself66. This must therefore be the manuscript that Chifflet is referring to. If we accept this hypothesis and trust his testimony, we can add two more names to the long list of fortunate owners of this manuscript: the Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia (1566-1633), ruler of the Low Countries from 1598 until 1633, and King Philip IV (d. 1665)67. Conveniently, this period fits into a gap in the known provenance of this manuscript, between Mary of Luxemburg, countess of Bourbon-Vendôme (d. 1547) and Louis Nicolas Fouquet, count of Vaux (d. 1705)68.

Annex 1. Content of Madrid, BNE, Mss/1467

23190 × 130 mm. i-ii (paper; numbered 1-2) + 76 ff. (parchment; numbered 3-78) + iii-iv (paper; unnumbered); text block: 158 × 96 mm, 23 lines (ff. 3-10). Collation69: I⁸ (ff. 3-10v), II⁶ (ff. 11-16v), III^{8 (+1-1)} (2 is an added singleton and 4 is missing, ff. 17-24v), IV⁶⁺² (2 and 5 are added singletons, ff. 25-32v), V⁶ (ff. 33-38v), VI⁶ (ff. 39-44v), VII⁶⁺¹ (7 is an added singleton, ff. 45-51v), VIII⁶ (ff. 52-57v), IX⁸ (ff. 58-65v), X⁸ (ff. 66-73v), XI⁴⁺¹ (5 is an added singleton, ff. 74-78v).

24ff. 3r-6r: introduction, rubric (f. 3r): Pour co[m]poser et faire toutes manières darmes fault ix espèce de matière cest /assavoir troys métaulx troys couleurs et troys pennes. Et premièrement. ff. 6v-10r: ruled, no text. f. 10v: frontispiece; inscription in gold: Cy co[m]ence tout[es] manières darmoiries et d[e] t[er]mes do[n]t on peut faire et co[m]poser armes mises par ordre par Le très hault et excellent prince Le Roy don federich daragon Roy de Secille etc.

25ff. 11r-78v: section with painted coats of arms.

Annex 2. Entries mentioning heraldic works in inventories drawn after Frederick’s death

26An armorial linked to the king has survived through a copy made in 1651 by Jules Chifflet which he entitled Noms et armes des Princes du Royaume de FRANCE tirés du livre de Blasons mis par ordre en un livre du Roy Frideric de Sicile, dont j’ay veu l’original75. In the same manuscript (f. 3r-v), another list of the arms of various kings is given the following title: Blasons des Armes de divers princes qui sont à la fin du Livre de Frédéric Roy de Naples. He may have copied these excerpts from the manuscripts described as 629 or 630 in the 1550 inventory.

Annex 3. Transcript of the inscription added to Toutes Manières d’armoiries (Madrid, BNE, Mss/1467, f. 1r)

“Este libro lo compuso el Señor Rey Don Fadri-
que, que un tiempo lo fue de Napoles: y lo dize
ansi el titulo, consus armas. Estava a la sazón
sin duda retrahido en Francia. Lo primoroso del
Arte, que se puede veer en los escudos de los animales,
no iguala los misterios que ay en los terminos, de
lo poco en el escrito; porque los han ignorado los mas
curiosos Reyes de armas de nuestro Siglo.
Presentólo a la Magestad del Señor Rey Don
PHILIPE Quarto, que Dios guarde, su mas Hu-
milde y mas reconocido Capellan, y Chanciller
desu Insigne Orden del Tuson de oro.
Julio Chiflecio Abad Commendatario perpe-
tuo de Balerne; al tiempo de despedirse desus
Reales pies, para retirarse a Borgoña patria suya;
Y en ella continuar su servicio en el puesto de
Oydor Ecclesiastico en el Parlamento Supremo de
Dola; en el año de MDCLIX.”

Annex 4. Shields not blazoned by Chifflet in TRAITÉ De l’Art de Blasonner toutes manières d’armoiries mis par ordre par le Roy Don Frideric d’Arragon Roy de Naples (Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, Ms 524)

Annex 5. Full transcript of the preface by Jules Chifflet to the TRAITÉ De l’Art de Blasonner toutes manières d’armoiries mis par ordre par le Roy Don Frideric d’Arragon Roy de Naples (Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, Ms 524, ff. III recto – IV recto)

All underlined parts were underlined by the author in the manuscript; the same applies to crossed-out words or sections. The accents have been normalised.

III recto

PREFACE

Du chancelier de l’ordre de la Toison d’or sur le traité suyvant de Frédéric Roy de Naples

27Je n’avois jamais ouy parler de cet ouvrage ni que le Roy Frédéric se fust diverti autrefois à telles choses lorsque pour [sic] un matin entrant en la galerie du Quartier du Grand Maistre devers le Parc, en cette Cour et Palais de Madrid78, en absence de Monsieur le Marquis de Castelrodrigo, Don Manuel de Moura cortereal, qui alors occupait cette charge, je trouvay l’original en beau vélin et richement enluminé sur un siège auprès de son lit. Je m’en metins à le feuilleter et admirer, tant l’art estoit grand partout, principalement où sont représentés les oiseaux et autres animaux. Depuis ce seigneur retournant du quartier du Roy, que Dieu conserve, lequel alors estoit malade, à l’extrémité, à peine en pusmes nous parler, Son Excellence me disant que nostre bon Maistre estoit en grand danger ; mais comme dès lors cette crainte passa, Dieu ayant renvoyé la santé à Sa Majesté, je l’entretins fort de l’autheur et du subjet de ce livre, et luy voyant que je l’estimois beaucoup, il me dit que le Marquis de Malpica le luy avoit donné, et que celuici n’en faisoit pas grand cas, de quoy je descouvris depuis la cause, une fois que ce dernier seigneur qui estoit maistre d’hostel eut ordre de me communiquer les funérailles de certain Prince qui se devoient faire en la chapelle Royale, par ce qu’il m’asseura l’avoir acheté, si j’ay bonne memoire, seulement quatre Réaux debillon, qui ne sont pas vingt sols.

28Ce que je raconte naifvement afin qu’on scache comme ce livre fust trouvé, et que les choses les plus curieuses tombans en mains de personnes ignorantes, perdent incontinent leur pris. Cet ouvrage non seulement pour son art, qui aurait peine de trouver une main ou pinceau, qui le puisse surpasser aujourdhuy, mais encore à raison de son autheur estoit et est encore une pièce de cabinet pour un Grand Roy, neéantmoins il n’est tombé en mains de personne qui en fist cas, sinon au bout de plus d’un siècle. D’abord dans l’original, le titre enseigne son lecteur à l’ouvrir avec respect, parce que dans un portail surmonté des armes du Roy en la mesme forme qu’elles sont audevant de cette copie, se voyant en belles lettres dorées gothiques en langue françoise les lignes suyvantes.

29Cy commence toutes manières d’armoiries et de termes, dont on peut faire et composer armes, mises par ordre par le Très-hault et Excellent Prince le Roy Don Federich d’Aragon Roy de Secille etc.

30Au moyen de quoy il conste evidemment qu’il en est autheur: et d’ailleurs je pense que tout autre queluy n’eust pas fait les frais requis à un si grand travail non plus qu’un autre plus occupé que luy n’eust pas voulu sans doute y entendre. Il semble que c’estoit une curiosité réservée aux Princes du sang des Roys des deux Siciles, d’estre addonnés à la miniature, parce que non seulement ce Frédéric Roy de Naples de la maison d’Arragon, mais de plus auparavant luy René Duc d’Anjou qui se maintenoit aussi Roy de la mesme Couronne, l’y plût si fort que l’histoire porte que lors mesme qu’on luy donna la nouvelle de la perte du Royaume de Naples, il/

III verso

31il [sic] peignoit une perdris79, laquelle il ne voulut pas laisser imparfaite et l’acheva. Un curieux provençal m’a autrefois raconté que le mesme René lequel estoit aussi Comte de Provence, se délectoit si fort à la miniature que de sa main il peignoit les armes au milieu des Patentes de ceux auxquels il donnoit un annoblissement, et qu’en Provence il conste de cela dans plusieurs familles. Dans le Cabinet de l’Infante Isabelle Princesse des Païs Bas, fut trouvé le livre des Tournois par luy composé, escrit et richement enluminé, depuis traduit en Espagnol par Don Hiacynthe de Herrera, aide de chambre et Bibliothécaire du Cardinal Infant et envoyé au Roy en Espagne, qui conserve l’original et la version en sa Bibliothèque particulière.

32Je nesçaurois pourtant dire si ce Livre de l’art du Blason est de la main propre et du pinceau du Roy Frédéric; mais il se peut faire, attendu qu’il eut grand loisir après ses disgraces, et desqueles Roys Ferdinand le Catholique et Louis XII Roy de France, eurent partagé son royaume. Il est néantmoins vraisemblable que ce fut de sa retraite en France qu’il l’ordonna, puisque l’escriture qui est en ce traité est toute en françois. Il y finit ses jours, et y logea ses enfans, entre autres une fille en la maison de Laval80, qui depuis estant tombée en quenouille en celle de la Trémoille81 a donné prétexte au Prince de Talmont d’à présent, de prendre de son authorité, le titre de Prince de Tarante et de prétendre traitement de souverain, ce qui enfin a esté cause que le Cardinal Massarin l’ait fait mettre en prison82.

33En tout cas, la curiosité de ce Prince et Roy Frédéric nesçsaurait estre blasmée pendant son loisir, puisque d’autres l’ont eu pareillement, et ont enrichi leurs Bibliothèques de plusieurs bordures d’armoiries des familles nobles et illustres de leurs Estats, voire des Estrangers. Nos Roys, outre ceux qu’ils conservaient très soigneusement en la leur particulière, ont en celle de Saint Laurent le Royal de l’Escurial, trois grands volumes de cette espèce, et un en particulier de tous les escus timbrés de la Noblesse de l’Empire très bien enluminés et rescueillis par le Cardinal Othon Truchses Evesque d’Augsbourg83, qui en fit présent au Roy Philippe II. Le Roy Don Manuel de Portugal fit ramasser et peindre en bel ordre les armes aussi timbrées des Maisons nobles de son Royaume, du livre desquelles, j’ai veu quelques copies en cette Cour de Madrid faites très exactement. Enfin le Duc Charles Emanuel de Savoye fit aussi […] de toutes parts des armes des maisons de cette qualité, tant de ses estats que de dehors, et les fit peindre curieusement en quatorze volumes qui se voyent en la Bibliothèque des Ducs ses successeurs.

34Seulement il est à regretter qu’en ce présent ouvrage du Roy Frédéric, manque le blason particulier de chaque escu, au moyen de quoy on aurait appris une infinité de termes que nous ignorons ainsi qu’il est aysé de juger par le petit discours qui suit immédiatement cette préface, et qui commence pour composer et voir par les titres généraux des pieces différentes, qui se verront en leur lieu, et qui sont pareillement tirés de l’original, qui est gardé en la Bibliothèque du [Marquis de Castel Rodrigo Ambassadeur d’Espagne à la cour Impériale et présentement nommé Viceroy de Sardaigne, digne héritier

IV recto

35des vertus et hauts emplois de Monsieur son père.]

36The section in square brackets above was later crossed out to replace it with:

37Roy Philippe IV auquel je le présentay en l’an 1659 comme à moy laissé par ledit Marquis de Castelrodrigo.

38Il ne faut nullement douter qu’il y auroit une infinité de singularités au blason de tels escus, et que les termes choqueroient plusieurs abus et erreurs, introduites par quelques hérauds. Mais pour supléer à ce défaut, tout ainsi que jay eu la curiosité de prendre copie de cet ouvrage, j’ay pris aussi la peine de blasonner les escus en termes héraldiques, dont on use à présent. Change of ink. The following was added later, after the original manuscript was given to Philip IV. Mais auparavant que d’achever cet advertissement, je me sens obligé à dire qu’autre chose et toute distincte doit avoir esté celle dont parle François de la Croix du Maine en sa Bibliothèque imprimée à Paris l’an 1584 où il discourt des ouvrages du Roy René d’Anjou, dont j’ai parlé ci dessus, quand il dit: Il a composé un livre du Blason d’armoiries, toutes lesquelles choses il a peintes et enluminées de sa main et les a présenté au Roy de France très chrestien Louys XI mais elles ne sont encore imprimées84. J’ai déjà touché ci dessus ce qui est de son livre des Tournois, et j’adjousteray que dans la Bibliothèque des Ducs de Brabant au Palais de Bruxelles, s’y trouve de plus cet autre ouvrage Le mortifiement de vaine plaisance enrichy de figures, fait et composé par René Roy de Sicile, Duc d’Anjou, par luy mandé et intitulé à Jean Archevesque de Tours, lequel Traité fut fait en 1455. Voire dans le mesme volume se rencontrent les chroniques enluminées de plusieurs Sages Philosophes qui semblent estre du mesme autheur. Mais nonobstant cela il n’y a pas seulement lieu de penser que l’ouvrage compris en ce volume, par moy presenté au Roy et ici copié, soit d’autre que du Roy FRÉDÉRIC puisque l’original le porte, et que ses armes mises audevant font voir clairement qu’il estoit de la maison Royale d’ARRAGON: [il ?] peut estre que la Croix du Maine en ayant ouy parler ait attribué à René d’Anjou ce qui est propre à Frédéric d’Arragon, car tous les deux se sont appellés Roys de SICILE. Oultre que le Roy René se plaisoit plus aux joustes et aux Tournois, comme dit expressement Jean Bourdigne en sa chronique d’Anjou en l’an 1469, que Louys XI estant à Tours et y estant visité par le mesme Roy René et par sa femme la Reyne Jeanne de Laval, il les avoit festoyé et reçu avec Joustes et Tournois, monsmeries et tels esbattements, parcequ’il scavoit que le Roy de Sicile (René susdit) les aimoit85. Il estoit peintre mesme au naturel et Michel des montagnes au 2. livre de ses Essais, chap. 17, nous apprend qu’estant à Barleduc, il vit présenter au Roy de France François 2 un portrait de René fait par luy mesme. Pour moy je me tiens à l’original et veux croire qu’on attribue au Roy René plus qu’il n’y en a eu: sa dignité Royale peut estre cause qu’on le fait autheur de plusieurs choses auxquelles jamais il n’a pensé.

Bibliography

Illustrations

Fig. 8.1 Toutes manières d’armoiries, Madrid, BNE, Mss/1467, ff. 10v-11r : « Frontispiece », c. 1503-1504, Tours.

Fig. 8.2 Toutes manières d’armoiries, Madrid, BNE, Mss/1467, ff. 12v-13r : « ‘Chief’ section », c. 1503-1504, Tours.

Fig. 8.3 Toutes manières d’armoiries, Madrid, BNE, Mss/1467, ff. 53v-54r : « Beginning of ‘Terme doyseaux et bestes venimeuses et plusieurs autres t[er]mes’ », c. 1503-1504, Tours.

Fig. 8.4 Toutes manières d’armoiries, Madrid, BNE, Mss/1467, ff. 62v-63r : « Geometrical charges in the middle of animals section », c. 1503-1504, Tours.

Fig. 8.5 Toutes manières d’armoiries, Madrid, BNE, Mss/1467, ff. 57v-58r : « Animals and pieces of armour », c. 1503-1504, Tours.

Fig. 8.6 Toutes manières d’armoiries, Madrid, BNE, Mss/1467, ff. 76v-77 r : « Complex geometrical charges », c. 1503-1504, Tours.

Fig. 8.7 Toutes manières d’armoiries, Madrid, BNE, Mss/1467, ff. 63v-64 r : « Animals and human charges », c. 1503-1504, Tours.

Fig. 8.8 Leonardo Corvino, Officia Octo, London, British Library, Ms Additional 21591, ff. 2v-3r : « Frontispiece », c. 1503-1504, Tours.

Fig. 8.9 Traité de l’art de blasonner toutes manières d’armoiries, mis en ordre par le roy Don Frideric [III] d’Arragon, roy de Naples (copy written and drawn by Jules Chifflet), Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, Ms 524, f. 100r : « Animals and human charges », Madrid (?), between 1657 and 1659.

Fig. 8.10 Traité de l’art de blasonner toutes manières d’armoiries, mis en ordre par le roy Don Frideric [III] d’Arragon, roy de Naples (copy written and drawn by Jules Chifflet), Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, Ms 524, f. IIIr : « Preface », Madrid (?), between 1657 and 1659.

Fig. 8.11 Diego de Astor, ‘Los Reies de Napoles’, Madrid, c. 1617, line engraving, c. 31 x 43 cm, in Traité de l’art de blasonner toutes manières d’armoiries, mis en ordre par le roy Don Frideric [III] d’Arragon, roy de Naples (copy written and drawn by Jules Chifflet), Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, Ms 524, pasted at the end of the manuscript.