The armouries of the Spanish nobility

HISPANIC NOBLE ARMOURIES: FORMS, MEANINGS AND OVERVIEW

Covarrubias’s 1611 dictionary, the Tesoro de la lengua castellana, does not include the word “armoury”, strangely or perhaps significantly, but the Diccionario de autoridades in the eighteenth century (1726) offers us a very clear definition of the concept, as

la casa o sitio donde se colocan y ponen en custodia varias especies y suertes de armas: que por lo regular suele ser por ostentación, memoria y grandeza del príncipe o señor que la tiene¹ [The house or place where various species and types of arms are placed and kept in custody: which is usually due to ostentation, memory and greatness of the prince or lord who has it].

Although it is undoubtedly a partial definition, it is very useful to begin to frame the issue that brings us here. This definition highlights some uses and functions of these ensembles of weapons and, although it focuses on the premises, points out the ostentation of the privileged social situation of the aristocracy, and its mission to preserve and manifest the memory of the house and greatness of the lineage: arms as “eslabones de una ensoñada memoria caballeresca [links to a dreamy chivalric memory]” in the words of Bouza².

The arms appear in noble literature as a reflection of the noble house’s history and as an incentive to increase the lineage’s glory, as seen in texts such as those by Luis Zapata (1566) and Juan Benito Guardiola (1591)³. The arms signified heroic deeds of the noble knights, which were expected to be emulated and even surpassed by their descendants. Moreno de Vargas, in 1636, when speaking of the ancients, says that “no solo ponían en los zaguanes insignias y estatuas de sus familias, mas los despojos ganados a sus enemigos [not only did they put their families’ insignias and statues in the hallways, but also the spoils they won from their enemies]”, that is, coats of arms and images of ancestors, and trophies, adding “ansí mismo las banderas, armas y despojos [likewise, the flags, weapons, and spoils of war]”⁴, making all of them “recuerdo y representación de la nobleza, virtud, valor y hazañas de los difuntos, honrándolos […] y excitando a los vivos […] procurasen hazer hechos valerosos [a memory and representation of nobility, virtue, courage and exploits of the deceased, honoring them […] and exciting the living […] to try to do brave deeds]”⁵. It is the memory of the ancestors that gives lustre to the house and justifies its privileges, transforming the arms and trophies into the palpable evidence of their value and the family’s prestige, and, in so doing, encouraging their descendants to continue their feats.

The Countess of Aranda, who criticised the nobles’ lukewarmness and immorality in 1619, alludes to the inefficiency of the armouries in their function to encourage honour and acts of arms when she says:

Poco importa guardar en su Armería la espada y armas con que el abuelo hizo insignes hazañas el que no sabe vestir armas ni sacar la espada en las ocasiones de honra. Aquellos despojos son fiscales mudos, que tácitamente reprenden la ociosidad del nieto de tales abuelos, y los retratos de ellos son espejos, en que verán sus propias faltas⁶,

[It matters little to keep in his Armoury the sword and arms with which the grandfather made famous feats he who does not know how to wear arms or draw the sword on occasions of honour. Those spoils are silent prosecutors, who tacitly reprimand the idleness of the grandson of these grandparents, and their portraits are those mirrors, in which they will see their own faults],

but again she points out the functions attributed to the armouries. Saavedra Fajardo, in 1640, also alluded to the meaning of these ensembles of arms, criticising them especially when the nobleman is not educated and neglects letters, “habiéndose vuelto los museos en armerías, las garnachas en petos y espaldares, y las plumas en espadas [the museums having become armouries, robes into breastplates and backplates, and feathers into swords]”⁷.

The noble armouries were thus constituted as manifestations of the family’s history and importance, of its relations and influence in the circles of power, as well as a fundamental element to demonstrate the noble house’s antiquity and prestige, something essential for the lineage’s recognition. Often, they are also linked to other elements that build an image of the family and the lineage, in addition to being full of a symbolic, historical, political and genealogical significance. Of course, they were a fundamental element in the discourse of justification of inequality and privilege⁸. Noble armouries are, in this sense, one of the most significant elements of the symbolic use of a set of objects as part of a visual culture that structured social cleavages⁹.

The issue of noble armouries, and specifically the Hispanic ones, has been scarcely discussed, although in recent times some progress has been made in this field, and historiography today offers some data and interpretations. The search for information for a process of analysis and explanation of the phenomenon has indicated several things to us. As happens on other occasions when studying any aspect of the past, we only have very partial information about what must have existed. Furthermore, during the development of the investigations within the framework of the project on the armouries, we have found ourselves quite limited, because we depend heavily on the degree of conservation and access to the basic sources. For example, by seeing if the noble houses have kept archives, and in some cases this has happened very partially, or not at all. When we have sources, for example for primary descriptive information (inventories), we depend on their characteristics. When they are notarial documents, which constitute the majority of sources about these armouries, the information they offer is very generic, and they hardly give us specific references about the origin or meaning of the objects. When it comes to records or documents made by and for the use of the noble house itself, a minority of available sources, sometimes they reflect origins, antiquity, meanings, uses, etc., and they provide us with an appreciable amount of information about the pieces, although sometimes that information is manipulated by the legend or by the desire to stand out. When it comes to other documents and sources, these are so brief that they hardly provide us with data of interest. Fortunately, today we have an important mass of information on different Spanish houses and armouries, which allow us to have a fairly accurate view of the matter.

First, it is verified that the armouries were something that concerned only men. That is, they were a specifically masculine field and the documents reflect this fact well. In the sources there are hardly any cases of arms linked to women. This is logical based on the social role of both genders, although the ladies of the houses sometimes in their role as heads of the lineage, were involved in linking the armouries to the “mayorazgo” (entailed estate), and even in their reorganisation and conservation, as we can see in the cases of the 6^th Duchess of the Infantado, related to the management, organisation and connection to the entailed estate of the armoury of her house, that of the Countess of Benavente Manuela López de Zúñiga, or in that of María Manrique in the case of the funeral armoury of the “Gran Capitán” Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba.

As for the issue of whether the arms really belong to a collecting phenomenon, we find various categories of nobles involved and various types of sets. One category is the gathering of groups of arms with prestigious roles and appreciation for certain specimens, and another is the possession of items for different utilitarian purposes, and even for current use in the performance of noble activities. Everything indicates that the different types and categories of nobles had their arms and armour, usually as accessories for their activities and social function, among which was hunting, tournaments and “alardes [displays]”¹⁰ and, in general, as part of the clothing and class image¹¹. Some noblemen, although not in a significant number, seem to have collected specimens approaching the modern sense of what we understand by collecting: gathering unique weapons for pleasure and knowledge. Especially in the world of swords, a true expert and knowledgeable field can be appreciated, as in the case of the 4^th Duke of the Infantado, who had a very special relationship with his swords, and an erudite knowledge of them, having noted the names of the swordsmiths, and the linkage of mastership and discipleship among several of them¹². In many other cases, it is clearly seen that certain swords were owned based on the prestige of their manufacturer or place of manufacture. Also, certain firearms and other objects of war may be included in the very select range of items collected for special reasons¹³. We can find in records of private chambers, true sets of select specimens, in a behaviour linked to expertise, which became an important part of noble culture. One of those cases is the one that Carducho cites about the knight of the Order of Santiago Gerónimo Funes. Speaking of the paintings, he comments:

Porque tuvo el Príncipe de Gales noticia dellos, fue a verlos a su casa, al qual le presentó ocho, los que el Príncipe escogió con algunas espadas, montantes, ballestas, arcabuzes de lo mejor que labraron los mas primorosos Artifices destas armas, asi en España, como fuera della, porque siempre se preció de lo mas escogido de todo aquello que fuere de un virtuoso cauallero¹⁴.

[Because the Prince of Wales had news of them, he went to see them at his house, to whom he presented eight, which the Prince chose with some of the best swords, longswords, crossbows, arquebuses made by the most exquisite Artificers of these arms, both in Spain, as well as outside of it, because he always prized himself of the most select of all that was of a virtuous gentleman].

In the case of the armouries, a vision related to the exaltation of power and privilege predominates. Sometimes defining features of the phenomenon of collecting can be found in them, but their meaning went beyond this area. In addition, the possibility of using the pieces was never abandoned, which could be hunting, related to parades and tournaments, even for military purposes or for lending to the king. We found loans to relatives, some who even left receipts. Some noblemen who went to war took weapons from the family armoury, as the Duke of the Infantado did in the mid-seventeenth century¹⁵. It is recorded that the kings requested elements from armouries to arm the troops in times of military difficulties, as occurred in the emergency of the siege of Fuenterrabía by the French, the war in Catalonia or Portugal, during the reign of Philip IV, but also in the eighteenth century. That is why the formation of armouries, although it can be placed within the study of collecting, goes beyond what it implies. The armoury of the lineage, of the noble house, represented something more than mere collecting. It was a manifestation of something more transcendent, and that surpassed the individual to become part of the noble title itself.

The highest nobles, with the oldest and most prestigious houses, assembled armouries in the strict sense of the term, as large and important as possible based on their aristocratic level and resources. Other, less important, nobles or those with less prominent families or possibilities, carried away by the rise of the phenomenon, joined the trend and created medium- or small-sized armouries. There were others who knew how to take advantage of a status of importance for political reasons, to join the group of creators of armouries of a certain level. It is noticeable that there is a desire for differentiation, that the creation and possession of an armoury manifested the category of the house, especially when the need to distance itself from the “nobleza nueva [new nobility]” arose.

Armouries were ensembles of weapons, situated in places of special significance, with their own entity, and named as such in documents and records. A specific sense of arrangement and deployment is noted in them, normally with the harnesses and suits of armour placed on shelves or supporting structures, or in cabinets, etc., as was the case with other types of arms. Sometimes these were displayed hanging on walls and ceilings, sometimes forming panoplies, although we also found them stored in chests. We even find more elaborate elements, sometimes even mannequins (of people or horses)¹⁶. These armouries were displayed in specific halls and, if possible, as part of the “escenografías palaciegas [palace scenographies]” alongside paintings, tapestries, furniture, silver and gold tableware and other elements. They demonstrated the prestige of the lineage and its position in the noble ranks, showing its importance, antiquity and fame, and on many occasions they are linked to the family library¹⁷, as in the case of Constable Juan Fernández de Velasco (1613) and in the exemplary case of the Infantado, or are combined with the gallery of portraits of the family and ancestors, and sometimes even with the noble house’s archive¹⁸.

The large armouries were usually located in palaces or castles of the villages or towns of noble property and jurisdiction or of traditional entailment with the lineage, the so-called “casas solariegas”, or manor houses¹⁹. They were installed in halls of buildings that were representative of the family and important to the lineage, and this is undoubtedly a characteristic of these sets. However, on a few occasions we can find similar groups of arms in the residence in the capital city, in what are called courtly armouries, specific sets of weapons with a similar meaning to the dynastic ones, but limited in their significance. Normally it was the main castle-palace, although sometimes an alternative one was used specifically for the deployment of the armoury exclusively or combined with other elements of a symbolic order, as in the case of the Infantado. Therefore, the location in familiar buildings endowed the armoury with an increase of meaning linked to the lineage. Nonetheless, it also meant that the armouries were far from the places of political operation, such as the court, which partially deprived them of an expository use of great pretensions and direct propaganda capacity, which court sets did have. It gives the impression that the armouries were used to be seen above all as something purely symbolic that was known especially by word of mouth, although it could be shown to distinguished travellers and visitors, by the lord himself if he lived on his lands and not at court, or by his administrators if he no longer inhabited the building. We have some references related to these visits, but they are not very abundant, and when the court became the obligatory residence of the nobles who stood out politically and socially, these are testimonials²⁰. We know that the 5^th Duke of the Infantado personally showed his armoury to the historian Esteban de Garibay²¹, and on another occasion to the court on the way to Zaragoza in 1585, and that Rodrigo Méndez Silva visited the Benavente armoury in 1645²². Perhaps part of the explanation is that, being far away, they were safe from creditors and bankruptcy proceedings. In the eighteenth century, in some cases, the transfer of the family armoury to the court became effective.

These armouries, as in the cases of the Infantado, Béjar and the Constable of Castile, relied on a staff specifically hired to work in them, at least until the middle of the seventeenth century. The so-called “armeros [armourers]” were the primary components of these staffs; they were in charge of fixing and maintaining the weapons and keeping them in good condition²³. These were normally specialists, and had tools specific to their work in the armoury itself. After this time period, one most commonly found other hired personnel, such as custodians and guards, and a greater carelessness and, sometimes, negligence is generally noted.

On occasion, the armouries ended up being linked as a group to the entailed estate or “mayorazgo”, which made them, like land and other properties, inalienable as well as symbolically an inherent part of the noble title itself. We found several documented cases, although surely there were more. The 6^th Duchess of the Infantado, Ana de Mendoza, connected her family’s armoury to the entailed estate between 1624 and 1633²⁴; the 1^st Duke of Lerma did the same in his 1617 will and the Constable of Castile linked his armoury and his library together in 1613; the Dukes of Béjar did the same late in 1718²⁵. There are more examples, such as that of the Marquis of Leganés²⁶. In 1550, the Count of Monterrey connected several “cosas de guerra [items of war]” such as a gilt Moorish sword, rich “jaeces [harness]” for horses, forty-five harnesses “de seguir [for war]”, various tents, two harnesses “de justa real [for royal jousting]”, four more “de justa de guerra [for war jousting]”, 110 infantry corselets with their morions, 600 pikes, etc. to the “mayorazgo”²⁷. Although there is no mention of an armoury per se, it is a very eloquent bringing together of a set. At times, we have been able to verify links to the entailed estate of a part of the armouries or of various arms with a special value. Known cases of specific arms linked to the “mayorazgo” are those of the sword of the 2nd Count of Tendilla, a papal rapier linked in 1515²⁸, or the arms and clothing of the King of Granada Boabdil, imprisoned in Lucena in 1483, trophies linked to the Marquises of Comares “mayorazgo”²⁹. We also know of the case of the grandfather’s sword that linked to the entailed estate the 7th Duke of Medina Sidonia³⁰, among other examples. In 1575 the Duke of Alba did the same with two swords and the artillery that formed part of the Alba de Tormes armoury³¹.

Regarding typologies, although in Álvaro Soler’s chapter this subject appears much more developed, we find, first of all, armouries properly said. These were the large ones, belonging to high aristocratic houses, sometimes of an enormous size, a fact that shows the existence of a certain competition between them. We also found medium-sized armouries, belonging to noble houses that, for various reasons, could not or did not want to have such large armouries, a fact that, however, did not affect their symbolic meaning, quality or selection of their content. There are also small ones, usually belonging to nobles who sought to have that symbol of prestige of their lineage, but who did not have the economic means or sociopolitical influence comparable to the great houses. Many of them were also located in lineage buildings. Among all of them we can also distinguish those that are of ancient formation, which could have arms from the ancestors in a good number, normally belonging to powerful houses since the Middle Ages, and those of recent formation, gathered at a certain moment, for social and political reasons, and perhaps thanks to the fact that one of the members of the lineage had reached relevant positions due to his military performance, or for being “valido [favourite of the king]” or belonging to the government then in power. This category did not generally have old family weapons, but the creators of the ensemble used to make large, bulk, purchases and had important specimens obtained by the influence of their positions and by political and power relationships, as evidenced by the cases of the Duke of Lerma or the Marquis of Leganés.

Some of the medium and small armouries were brought together because their owner had played a role in an outstanding military event, allowing him to gather a good quantity, or better, quality, of prestigious pieces, and that were often trophies won in battle. According to the criteria of the most important, these could be installed in palaces in the rural possessions of the lineage, such as that of the Marquis of Santa Cruz in his El Viso palace, or displayed in the court, like the collections of prestigious arms, although contrary to these, more than in private rooms, they seem to have been deployed in halls on purpose for their exhibition and eventual shows to illustrious visitors. One example is that of the Count of Priego in 1579 that we will see later.

Regarding their chronology and evolution³², armouries as these symbolic groups of arms, seem to have been born and formed in the second half of the sixteenth century, mostly since 1570, although the general trend seems to have intensified around 1600, with exceptions. Although we found large ensembles from before the middle of the sixteenth century, everything seems to indicate that these were sets of arms for personal use or arsenals to equip private retinues and armies. It would be about military armouries, whose raison d’être was limited by the political action of a Monarchy that no longer viewed the direct warlike power of the nobility positively, especially during Philip II’s reign³³. Perhaps the aforementioned linking of arms to the entailed estate of the Count of Monterrey in 1550 points to the first formation of an armoury of a symbolic nature, although we cannot be sure. Perhaps the ensemble of arms, very abundant and of quality that the Duke of Calabria, of the royal house of Naples/Aragon, bequeathed to the convent of San Miguel de los Reyes in Valencia in the same year, formed an armoury of the house, although the name “armería” was not used to refer to it in the descriptive source. Surely these are first examples and it seems that they are exceptional cases. Surely one of the precursors was the Count of Benavente, very aware of what was done in the Habsburg context. He seems to have started what would later become an armoury in the strict sense, around 1540.

Afterwards, the armouries, now with that name, and with the characteristics of the symbolic order that we have been analysing, appear to have been established beginning around 1570, as is the case with that of the Duke of the Infantado or that of Benavente. Of course, some of the most famous ones do not appear until the end of the century, such as that of Medinaceli, or until at the beginning of the seventeenth century, such as the Constable of Castile’s or Duke of Lerma’s. In earlier ensembles, arms are usually registered with other objects and groups of goods, and they are not cited as “armerías” until the second half of the sixteenth century. The data seems to indicate a clear coincidence with the tacit ban of private noble armies and with the fact that Philip II definitively organised Madrid’s royal armoury in its own building and thus providing new meaning to the royal collection in 1562. This fact seems to have motivated the emulation of the nobility and the competition between the houses³⁴, although some nobles may have predated it in some ways, surely based on what they saw in Europe, and what Charles V himself manifested with his attitudes.

The phenomenon of armouries seems to have peaked around 1600 and to have remained important until the central years of the seventeenth century, although we can find as early as 1626, references as Fernández Navarrete’s, who noted:

No ha muchos años que en todas las casas de los nobles se acostumbraua a tener cantidad de arneses, picas y arcabuzes, con que en ellos, y en sus hijos se despertauan los espíritus militares heredados de sus passados. Ya todo este varonil aparato ha cessado con las costosas alhajas de que se adornan; o por mejor decir se afean las casas³⁵.