[172]As with government and administration, the cortes mirrored changes wrought in the social and economic structure of Castile and León. With the expansion of the frontiers from the Tagus to the Guadalquivir came a variety of problems. A great Muslim population was uprooted and Christian settlers moved in from the north, often depopulating the places whence they came. The newcomers were not always as adept as their Muslim counterparts who abandoned their trades and their land. On discovering that the promise of quick riches was not fulfilled, many settlers returned to their former homes. Thus the initial repopulation of Andalusia was incomplete, and the final settlement, notable for the establishment of great estates, was postponed for many years.

These demographic changes resulted in inflation and a shortage of manufactured goods, neither of which was easily alleviated. The documentation of the cortes reveals an ever louder series of complaints of bad times, poverty, deserted villages and country areas, hunger, famine, [173] catastrophic harvests, and destruction wrought by climatic upheavals. Food production declined, with consequent scarcity and price rises-- disturbances reflected in the devaluation of the coinage. The shortage of food also led to a struggle for control of pasturage. Towns tried to define their municipal boundaries, quarreling with one another and with monasteries over pasturage rights. The concomitant rise of the sheepherding industry contributed to the decline of small sheepherders and intensified litigation over pasturage between the sheepmen and the towns. The uncertainties attending the minorities of Fernando IV and Alfonso XI resulted in a great increase in banditry. Thus when the Black Death struck in the middle of the fourteenth century, the kingdom was already in difficult straits, both socially and economically.⁽¹⁾

The Nobility

The nobles, whose wealth and power steadily increased, were becoming self-conscious and aggressive in defense of their interests. Thinking of themselves as the kings natural counselors and as the principal defenders of the realm, they demanded ever larger stipends (soldadas) in return for their services. Their distinctive juridical status was recognized by Alfonso X when he confirmed their fueros in the cortes of Burgos 1272, by Fernando IV at Palencia in 1311, and by Alfonso XI at Burgos in 1338.

Acceptance of knighthood as a separate order in society reflected the nobilitys awareness of its status as a privileged class. Alfonso X, who expounded the theory and practice of chivalry in the Partidas (II.21), emphasized the observance of rules and the general behavior of the nobility. Magnates who received land from the king were expected to receive knighthood; peasants and their sons were excluded. To encourage knights to maintain their status (especially those in the towns), the king promised 500 sueldos and other privileges to anyone whom he or his heir personally knighted. The kings interest was to enhance the warrior tradition because he needed the aid of the nobility in his wars and recognized that knighthood, with its implications of rank and status, could serve his purposes as well as theirs.⁽²⁾

At the same time, measures were enacted in the cortes of Seville 1252 (art. 4-6,1-13) and several times thereafter which curtailed extravagance in wedding celebrations, food, dress, and decorations.⁽³⁾ The [174] king hoped to check the presumption of the nobles lest they compete with his own luxurious state, but he also acknowledged that the expenditure of vast sums for such purposes would have a negative effect on the economy.

As the nobles derived substantial income from their lordships, they aggressively attempted to expand their territories. Not only did they gain by the distribution of lands in Andalusia, but they exploited their holdings in the more settled northern regions more profitably by granting short-term leases, reimposing long-forgotten tributes, and ousting tenants whenever it suited them. The competition for land was intense, and at Toledo 1273 the nobles objected to grants made to anyone other than a native of the realm.⁽⁴⁾ Those who participated in the hermandad at Carrión 1317 repeated this principle, warning the regents not to deprive any noble of his land or stipends without reason (art. 62-69).

The nobles also protested Alfonso XIs efforts to diminish their authority in their lordships by limiting their rights of justice and encouraging vassals to sue in the royal court. Despite objections to the appointment of royal officials in the lordship towns, Alfonso XI was reluctant to remove them or to agree to exclude royal merinos from the lordships. To the nobles further annoyance, Alfonso XI also insisted on reviewing grants of immunity, especially those given during the two minorities (Alcalá 1348, art. 3-5, 12-14, 16).

Tensions among the nobility were nowhere more evident than in the competition for those lordships known as behetrías. The inhabitants of those lands, situated mostly in Old Castile, were freemen who commended themselves to the protection of the great lords, but who could sever their ties at any moment without giving up ownership of their land. As the peasants restricted the selection of their lord to a certain family, this relationship tended to become hereditary. The bitter rivalry over these lands was emphasized when the rights of illegitimate sons to a share in the behetrías, unless specifically granted by the father, were rejected in the cortes of Burgos 1308 (art. 23) and at Palencia 1311 (art. 5).A complaint that nobles were claiming lands in León as behetrías, even though there were none there, also illustrates the rampant greed (León 1345, art. 7). With the intention of dividing the behetrías among the nobles as a means of resolving disputes over them, Pedro the Cruel (1350-1369) in 1351 caused a record to be drawn up of the extent of these lordships, and the obligations of the peasants to their lords and the crown.⁽⁵⁾

[175] While the nobles quarreled with one another for control of the behetrías, the towns protested about certain practices that they considered injurious to the crown or their own interests. Magnates, for example, were forbidden to excuse the men of the behetrías from customary payments owed to the king; the cortes believed that by insisting on these payments, royal service could be increased by more than 300 knights equipped with horses and arms.⁽⁶⁾ The establishment of markets in the behetrías and the appointment of judges and scribes in places where there had been none before also stirred opposition, because the towns were impoverished as a result (Medina del Campo 1305, art. 13 C).

In their own lands, the nobles ordinarily were entitled to hospitality and provisions, but they often abused this right. More than once they were admonished to observe these restrictions and not to take provisions from royal or ecclesiastical lands or from behetrías without paying for them.⁽⁷⁾ For their part, the nobles demanded that royal merinos pay for their provisions when visiting noble estates.⁽⁸⁾ At times the nobles did not wait for payment of funds assigned to them by the king from various sources, but helped themselves instead; to avert this problem, those who leased royal saltpits, customs duties in Andalusia, and other customary tributes were required to make disbursements within three months to the nobles who were entitled to them (Valladolid 1258, art. 10-11). Nobles allotted a share in the tercias reales were warned not to seize the goods of those who had already paid the tithe, but to wait until they were paid by the appropriate officials.⁽⁹⁾

The stipends given to the nobility were a major element in the royal budget, and, on occasion, the cause of contention among recipients. In return, the nobles were expected to render military service, but laxity prompted Alfonso XI to enact a series of laws on this subject at Burgos 1338 (art. 14-32). Royal vassals were required to serve in person--suitably armed and provided with horses wearing armor. For every 1,100 maravedís received, a noble had to bring a mounted soldier to the host; for every horseman, an additional footsoldier had to be provided. Horsemen had to have iron caps, breastplates, and thigh and leg armor, and their horses had to be valued at no less than 800 maravedís. Failure to serve was punishable by heavy fines and five years exile. The penalty for abandoning the host was death. Latecomers or soldiers not properly equipped would be fined. While the army was on a war footing, gambling and the sale of horses and arms were forbidden (Ordinance of Alcalá 1348, XXXI.1). Many of the nobles failed to take part in the siege [176] of Algeciras but nonetheless accepted stipends, and Alfonso XI ordered an inquest into the matter.⁽¹⁰⁾ When they pleaded later that they had been hard-pressed in recent years to maintain themselves and their horses and arms, he promised to make provision for them (Alcalá 1348, art. 17); he embarked on the siege of Gibraltar soon after, however, so it is unlikely that he had any intention of alleviating the burden of military service.

The potential for violence among the nobility was great and increased during the early fourteenth century. The nobles often resolved their quarrels by armed combat, but the crown consistently attempted to have them adjudicated in the royal court. Alfonso X pledged to do justice to anyone who dishonored a noble or a member of his family, and enabled any man who received a defiance to bring the suit before the royal court (Seville 1253, art. 32, 8 L). During the royal minorities, the nobles were reputed as malefactors of the worst sort, who had to be admonished to seek redress in court rather than in plundering, burning, and killing.⁽¹¹⁾ Fernando IV obtained their promise not to harbor criminals or thwart royal officials trying to do justice. They also acknowledged the principle of due process and were assured of the security of their households (Palencia 1311, art. 3, 8-9).⁽¹²⁾

In hope of suppressing feuds among the nobles, Alfonso XI promulgated a general pardon for all assaults and injuries, with a few exceptions; he also persuaded them to place their castles under his protection. They were assured further of the kings justice in cases of murder, bodily injury, and inheritance; any challenges still outstanding would also be settled in his court. Otherwise, no one was permitted to defy another until the king attempted to do justice, or had neglected to do so for a year (Burgos 1338, art. 1-5, 9-12).⁽¹³⁾ Nobles might be executed or sent into exile as punishment for crimes, but they could not be tortured or imprisoned for debt (Burgos 1345, art. 14).

The hostility that the nobility vented against the crown and other social classes was prompted by legal, social and economic changes that were perceived as threats. The nobles quarrel with Alfonso X, the crisis of the succession, and the troubles of the two minorities all contributed to their transformation into an unruly force restrained only with difficulty. The cuadernos are replete with references to the nobles criminal behavior: arson, plunder, murder, burning of crops, and seizure of illegal tributes. Alfonso XI regulated their legal rights and procedures [177] and diverted their energy to the reconquest, but these measures served only to postpone the inevitable confrontation that came in the reign of Pedro the Cruel.

The Clergy

Equally myopic and determined to defend their privileged status, the clergy had less power with which to bend the crown to their will. Although the king occasionally pledged to uphold ecclesiastical liberties, as the self-proclaimed champion of Christendom against the infidels he was always able to deny the clergy the full freedom they craved. Of paramount interest to them were episcopal elections, church property, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction.⁽¹⁴⁾

The prelates objected that pressure put on cathedral chapters made free episcopal elections impossible, and that their rights in the collation of benefices had also been denied. Alfonso XI reminded them that even though he was entitled to authorize elections, they often neglected to ask him to do so.⁽¹⁵⁾ The cortes of Madrid 1329 (art. 80) complained of papal provisions to foreigners, but protests from whatever source do not seem to have altered either royal or papal policies in this regard. Nor does it appear that Alfonso Xs renunciation of the jus spolii (the goods of deceased prelates) at Valladolid 1255 was observed by his successors,⁽¹⁶⁾ as the prelates complained later.⁽¹⁷⁾ The absenteeism implied in the appointment of foreigners had already drawn the fire of the cortes of Valladolid 1295 (art. 2), which demanded that prelates and other clerics serving in the royal court should reside in their bishoprics, churches, or monasteries.

The tithe constituted one of the principal mainstays of ecclesiastical income. The prelates were pleased, therefore, when Alfonso X (at Valladolid 1255) stressed the obligation of everyone to pay it; his insistence that the crown was also entitled to a third was less well received.⁽¹⁸⁾ Collection of the tithe and the distribution of shares between royal and ecclesiastical officials were continual sources of friction.⁽¹⁹⁾

The prelates were also anxious to secure confirmation of their lordships and the exclusion of royal officials therefrom.⁽²⁰⁾ Questions concerning the continuing growth of ecclesiastical lands were prominent, as well, because the crown was under pressure to recover royal domain acquired by the church. The church, conversely, demanded the [178] restoration of properties wrongfully taken by others; to this end, royal officials were instructed to carry out inquests (Valladolid 1325, art. 7, 16, 22 P). Protests against the acquisition of church lands by nobles, either by purchase or by outright seizure, were made several times.⁽²¹⁾ Nobles were castigated for plundering church lands, seizing animals, extorting money from peasants, taking illegal pledges, lodging in hospitals intended for the indigent and infirm, erecting strongholds on church lands without permission, demanding hospitality and provisions, imposing tributes on churches and monasteries, and seizing revenues from church property intended for the crown.⁽²²⁾

Surely the most contentious issue involving the clergy was ecclesiastical jurisdiction. As the townsmen pointed ou t repeatedly, it was a threat to royal sovereignty when an entire class of citizens was entitledto be judged in courts wholly removed from royal control.⁽²³⁾ Although the Partidas (I.6.56-61) attempted to distinguish between spiritual and temporal cases, considerable ambiguity remained.⁽²⁴⁾ Because of continuing conflicts over royal and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the cortes of Alcalá 1348 (art. 38) asked Alfonso XI to declare which pleas should be heard by church courts and which by secular courts. He agreed to this request, but there is no evidence that he carried it out or that the Ordinance of Alcalá resolved the problem. Both prelates and townsmen, meanwhile, reacted to the difficulties created by the existence of two separate forms of jurisdiction.

The clergy protested that they were summoned by laymen before secular judges, and that inquests concerning their activities were carried out by laymen; clerics thus accused of crime were then tried in secular courts.⁽²⁵⁾ The usual practice was that a cleric, upon being arrested by royal officials, would be turned over to the bishop for trial, which the townsmen objected to (Valladolid 1325, art. 33). Alfonso XI agreed that criminous clerics were entitled to be tried by the church, but he reminded the prelates that they should take seriously their obligation to punish as appropriate (Valladolid 1325, art. 21 P). The complicated nature of this issue was pointed out by the assembly of León 1345 (art. 9). Persons who had not received orders but who called themselves clerics committed crimes for which they were duly apprehended, tried, and convicted in secular courts; the ecclesiastical authorities demanded that they be handed over to the church, and secular judges who refused to comply were excommunicated. According to the townsmen, the church failed to punish the guilty, thereby diminishing the kings jurisdiction.⁽²⁶⁾

[179] The negligence of public officials in lending support to the church also drew fire from the prelates. Public officials often ignored ecclesiastical censures directed against individuals, or demanded that they be lifted, instead of requiring the person under the ban to seek absolution or be fined.⁽²⁷⁾ Royal officials were also instructed to carry out inquests concerning crimes committed against the clergy, especially in the case of nobles who took yantar from ecclesiastical vassals (Valladolid 1325, art. 3, 16 P). Nobles and others engaged in litigation with the clergy were advised to take pledges only in accordance with proper legal procedures and not on their own authority.⁽²⁸⁾

Laymen, on the other hand, complained of being summoned to church courts. They argued that they ought not to be summoned before an ecclesiastical judge in any matter pertaining to temporal jurisdiction, especially cases concerning property rights and inheritances.⁽²⁹⁾ The practice of summoning laymen to Rome in temporal suits that should be adjudicated in the royal court was also condemned (Zamora 1301, art. 21). Laymen also protested the use of ecclesiastical censures to compel obedience. Alfonso X enacted an ordinance in his cortes (though it is unknown when he did so) forbidding the clergy to interfere with temporal jurisdiction or to excommunicate anyone to force obedience to royal charters. Bishops claiming to be aggrieved were instructed to seek redress from the king. Should they refuse to lift the sentence of excommunication when he asked them to, he would force them to comply by seizing their goods.⁽³⁰⁾

The intrusion of ecclesiastical notaries into temporal matters was also denounced. Cathedral clergy were forbidden to serve as public scribes except in ecclesiastical matters because the "kings jurisdiction and sovereignty is lost thereby" (Burgos 1315, art. 51). Inasmuch as clerics could testify only in church courts, they were forbidden to draw up contracts involving laymen. Alfonso XI stipulated that the crown would appoint scribes in cathedral churches who would be laymen and thus punishable in body and goods if they failed in their responsibilities.⁽³¹⁾ Notaries appointed by prelates without royal consent, or claiming to have imperial authorization, were forbidden to function (Madrid 1329, art. 29, 60).

The prelates were generally ineffective in persuading the king to defend their liberties. They might have had better success if they had sought alliance with the nobility or the townsmen, but they seem to have nurtured active hostility toward both groups. Left in an isolated [180] state, they could be put off with promises or ignored. No king worthy of his crown could accede fully to their demands concerning episcopal elections, the tithe, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction because they impinged on his sovereignty. Although irritated, the prelates lacked the resources to compel the king to do their bidding; aside from sporadic challenges, they submitted to the authority of the crown.

The Jews

Unlike the clergy and nobility, the Jews were not summoned to the cortes or given a voice in the election of urban representatives. Laws enacted in the cortes, however, often referred to the Jews (and the Moors), emphasizing their minority status and the desire of the Christians to maintain their separate identities. Much of the restrictive legislation enacted by the first Christian emperors was incorporated into the Visigothic Code and then found its way into the codes of Alfonso X.⁽³²⁾

Aside from objections to the presence of Jews in the royal household and to their serving as tax farmers or collectors (see Chapter 8),⁽³³⁾ the cortes regulated questions of conversion, cohabitation, dress, litigation, debt, and usury. Jews were forbidden to become Moors and vice versa, but no ordinance was made in the cortes concerning the conversion of Christians to Judaism or Islam.⁽³⁴⁾ Christian women were prohibited from living with Jews or Moors and from acting as nurses to their children. Jews and Moors were not permitted to use Christian names. So that Christians might recognize them (and presumably keep their distance), Jews and Moors were obliged to wear distinctive garb and forbidden to wear certain colors, namely yellow, green, and red, as well as white or gilded shoes, and other adornments of gold and silver.  In addition, Moors had to wear their hair in a certain fashion.⁽³⁵⁾ Urged by the cortes of Palencia 1313 to require Jews to wear a yellow badge on their breasts and shoulders as in France, Infante Juan demurred, saying only that he would do what seemed best (art. 26 J).

The acquisition of property by Jews or Moors and their efforts to avoid payment of taxes also aroused strong feelings. On the grounds that royal revenue would be diminished, Sancho IV required Jews and Moors who had acquired estates formerly owned by Christians to sell them within the year, or suffer confiscation. They were only permitted to own the houses in which they lived with their families.⁽³⁶⁾

The Jewish and Moorish communities (aljamas) were obliged to pay [181] an annual tribute to the crown, but from time to time individuals tried to escape payment. Thus, Alfonso X forbade anyone to exempt the Moors (Seville 1252, art. 41). Claiming that the Jewish aljamas had paid Alfonso X and Sancho IV 6,000 maravedís daily (2,190,000 annually), the cortes of Valladolid 1312 (art. 102) lamented that the sum had now declined to one fifth of that, or 1,200 maravedís daily (438,000 annually). More than five thousand of the richest Jews were said to be excused from payment, so that the burden fell on poor Jews who were subject to sales taxes, and foreigners who borrowed money at interest. The cortes urged the king to eliminate exemptions and provide for a more equitable distribution of the tax burden. The cortes of Palencia 1313 (art. 32-33 J) also insisted that no Jew, regardless of his rank or privileged status, should be exempt from tribute. As a further means of restricting exemption, the cortes of Valladolid 1322 (art. 60) declared that the "Jews belong to the king" and required them to dwell in royal towns (rather than on the estates of the nobles), and to continue paying taxes with their respective aljamas (León 1345, art. 16).

The area of greatest friction between Christians and Jews was commerce, especially moneylending. No Jew was allowed to act for a Christian in a commercial transaction or vice versa.⁽³⁷⁾ When a Christian borrowed money from a Jew, only documents prepared by a Christian scribe had any legal validity.⁽³⁸⁾ Alfonso X fixed the rate of interest at 33 1/3 % in the cortes of Valladolid 1258, and limited the term of the loan to four years (art. 29-30).⁽³⁹⁾ Each of his successors confirmed his ordinance, until Alfonso XI went so far as to forbid lending money at interest by Christians, Muslims, and Jews (Ordinance of Alcalá, XXIII.1-2).⁽⁴⁰⁾ Sancho IV extended the term in which payment might be made from four to six years, and confirmed his fathers ordinance concerning pawnbroking, although the text quoted is not identifiable with any of the enactments of the cortes of Alfonso X.⁽⁴¹⁾

Fernando IV rejected the proposal of the cortes of Valladolid 1299 (art. 13 L) to reduce the term of liability to four years. In fact, in view of Jewish complaints of difficulties in collecting debts because of the civil war, he extended the term from six to nine years (Valladolid 1300, art. 18). Debts contracted in the future, however, would be payable within six years (Zamora 1301, art. 10).⁽⁴²⁾ The extension to nine years was terminated on the feast of St. John in 1302 (Medina del Campo 1302, art. 10).

Several times thereafter, the townsmen, alleging their impoverished [182] condition, appealed to Alfonso XI to excuse them from as much as a third to a half of their debts to the Jews, and to postpone the term of payment (without interest accruing) for as much as three years. Pointing out that the Jews were also having difficulties meeting their obligations to him, and therefore needed to collect outstanding debts, he agreed only to a reduction of one quarter of the debt and a postponement of one year.⁽⁴³⁾

Inevitably, debt became a cause of litigation between Christians and Jews. The latter wanted to use their own officials to compel the recalcitrant to pay, but the townsmen were adamant in insisting that the ordinary municipal judges should have jurisdiction. Sancho IV declared that Jews, while retaining their own law, would not be permitted to have their own judges, but would be justiciable by royal judges appointed in each town (Palencia 1286, art. 15). This principle was repeated in numerous subsequent meetings of the cortes.⁽⁴⁴⁾ Forbidden to have their own scribes, the Jews had to employ the ordinary public scribes of the towns.⁽⁴⁵⁾ In all pleas, civil and criminal, the testimony of two Christians of good repute was admissible against Jews or Moors.⁽⁴⁶⁾ Jews and Moors could be required to swear oaths whose wording was specified by Alfonso X.⁽⁴⁷⁾ Fines would be levied in accordance with local fueros and not the privileges of the Jews or Moors.⁽⁴⁸⁾ In sum, the weight of the law greatly favored the Christians.

The regulations imposed on the Jews by the king and the cortes were based on the proposition that they not only adhered to distinctive theological tenets and forms of worship but also rightfully observed their own law. As contact with their Christian neighbors was unavoidable, conflicts were sure to arise, posing the problem of whose law should be administered. The Christian majority believed that they ought to prevail, and the legislation reflects their view. Even so, it is worth noting that successive monarchs did not overly trouble themselves about enforcing laws intended to maintain the strict separation of different religions. Yet when royal authority was at stake, as in questions of usury, debt, and litigation, they acted to uphold their own advantage. The crowns pragmatic policy prompted the critic, Alvaro Pelayo, to complain that monarchs entrusted their affairs to the Jews and gave them authority over Christians.⁽⁴⁹⁾ While wealthier Jews might have benefited from their apparent access to the king, the circumstances of poorer Jews were not much different from those of Christians. As the latter were beginning to feel hard-pressed economically, they vented [183] their hostility indiscriminately against all the Jews, as is evident from the cuadernos.

The Economy

The cortes had much to say about the state of the economy because both the king and the estates tried to direct the course of development to their respective, and sometimes common, advantage. The economy was still fundamentally agricultural and pastoral, but the livestock industry underwent an extraordinary expansion as pasturage opened in the south. The annexation of the major southern cities also contributed to the rapid development of overseas trade, radiating from Seville and the Mediterranean coast where the Genoese had been given a favored position by Fernando III, and from the Bay of Biscay where the towns organized the hermandad de las marismas to further their opportunities. The growth of commerce made it possible for the mercantile class to gain in wealth, power, and influence.⁽⁵⁰⁾

As the basic wealth of the realm was derived from the land, Alfonso X enacted several measures in the cortes to protect the environment so that plant and animal life could flourish. No one was permitted to take the eggs of hawks or falcons or to remove the birds from their nests while they were hatching or caring for their young. Hunting partridges, hares, and rabbits was restricted, and all hunting was prohibited from the beginning of Lent until Michaelmas. The kings principal concern here may have been to maintain hunting preserves, but the general good was also served if care was taken not to deplete the supply of food and hides too rapidly. The prohibition against cutting down, burning, or injuring someone elses trees emphasized the importance of woodland as a source of firewood and building material for houses, ships, and the like. Anyone found setting fire to woods would be cast into the flames and have his goods confiscated. Fisheries were also protected by laws forbidding anyone to take salmon eggs or kill fish by poisoning streams.⁽⁵¹⁾

Salt

The uses of salt--one of the most important elements in the economy and a major source of revenue for the crown--were many and varied. Valuable to the human diet, salt was used to season food, [184] preserve fish and meat, feed livestock, and tan hides. Salt was a product much in demand both within and without the peninsula, and it appears that the supply was insufficient for the needs of the people of Castile and León. Significant deposits were located in the provinces of Álava, Guipúzcoa, Guadalajara, and Cuenca. The salt pits most often mentioned by the cortes were at Atienza (Guadalajara), Añana (Álava), Rosio, and Poza (Burgos).⁽⁵²⁾

As monopolies of the crown, the salt pits were usually leased, and portions of the royal revenue derived from them were assigned to the nobility. Alfonso X maintained the royal monopoly by forbidding anyone to establish a private salt depot; he fixed the price at which salt could be sold and prohibited its export (presumably because of the lack of sufficient quantities for domestic use).⁽⁵³⁾ Any merchant selling contraband salt ran the risk of fines and confiscation, but overzealous inspectors who intruded into private homes in search of salt purchased contrary to regulations were reprimanded (Valladolid 1322, art. 47).

In his effort to raise revenues for the defense of the frontier and the maintenance of his fleet, Alfonso XI enacted an ordinance concerning salt in the assembly of Burgos 1338. The produce of salt pits belonging to persons other than the king, and all imported salt, could be sold only  to royal agents, who in turn would sell it at prices fixed by the king.⁽⁵⁴⁾ The assembly of Madrid 1339 asked the king to enforce the first ordinance he had made concerning salt (whether this referred to the ordinance of 1338 or to another is uncertain); but he decided to review it and perhaps modify it, to improve procedures for distribution, and to control private efforts to circumvent the regulations (art. 25-26). Complaints about the inconvenience of many salt depots were presented in the assembly of Alcalá 1345. The king explained that he wished to facilitate inspections and to establish depots where there already was an abundance of salt, but he promised to reconsider the matter (art. 13).

The continuing search for contraband salt irritated the cortes of Alcalá 1348, so much so that the king agreed that anyone found with only half a fanega (less than a bushel) would not have to pay a fine (art. 25). When they objected that people were often forced to accept and to pay for more than they could consume, the king admitted that they should not be required to do so (art. 49).

Alfonso XI, in effect, tightened control over the use and distribution of this essential product, assigning quantities for purchase by each town [185] and appointing inspectors to catch those who tried to buy or sell it privately. Despite the pleas of the cortes, the financial benefit to the crown was such that Alfonso XI refused to modify the regulations in any significant way.

The Mesta

The crown also profited from the expansion of the sheepherding industry, perhaps the most significant economic development of the period, The reconquest, which had extended the frontier from the Tagus river to the Guadalquivir within a century and a half, opened up the lands of La Mancha, Extremadura, and Andalusia to pasturage. Great flocks of sheep owned by the king, nobles, monasteries, and towns annually traversed the sheepwalks extending from León, Logroño, and Soria to the rich pasturage lands of the south. As more land was made available for pasturage, the number of sheep increased, to the immense profit of the sheepowners.

From the late thirteenth century, tensions steadily mounted between the sheepowners and the towns and military orders through whose lands the flocks passed. In order to protect their interests the sheepmen organized an association known as the Mesta. Alfonso X, perhaps hoping to reduce dependence on foreign imports by developing a Castilian woolen industry, granted several major privileges to the Mesta.⁽⁵⁵⁾

The issues in conflict were the sheepwalks themselves, the use of pasturage en route, the imposition of tolls, and the procedures for resolving disputes. In the cortes of Seville 1252, Alfonso X affirmed the right of sheepmen to use streams and traditional sheepwalks. Because the enclosure of pasturage thwarted the sheepmen, he allowed pastures already enclosed to remain so, but commanded new enclosures to be made only in an orderly manner (art. 31, 33). The townsmen argued that the sheep inevitably damaged vineyards and fields, and they insisted that the animals be confined to the usual sheepwalks--La Leonesa, La Segoviana, and La Mancha de Montearagón.⁽⁵⁶⁾ They also deliberately tried to obstruct the sheepwalks by settling villages or planting vineyards and orchards in the way. Alfonso XI condemned this but also required the sheepmen to keep away from settled or planted areas (Madrid 1339, art. 32).

As the flocks made their way, the towns tried to levy a variety of tolls [186] on them. Alfonso X fixed the amount of the pasturage toll (montazgo) for cattle, sheep, and pigs, and forbade the imposition of more than one toll in a given municipal district or domain of a military order.⁽⁵⁷⁾ Other tolls (ronda, asadura, castellería) were due only where customary.⁽⁵⁸⁾

To manage the affairs of the Mesta, the crown appointed an official known as the entregador de los pastores de la Mesta. As the townsmen were unwilling to be judged by him alone, Sancho IV allowed municipal judges to sit together with him in disputes between the towns and the Mesta, and to restrain the sheepmen from exceeding their judicial authority (Valladolid 1293, art. 7 LEM). Two years later the Andalusian hermandad refused to submit to the jurisdiction of the entregador because the office had not existed in the time of Fernando III.⁽⁵⁹⁾ Continuing abuses led the cortes of Valladolid 1307 (art. 19) to ask that the office be abolished for good and that local judges be permitted to adjudicate suits involving shepherds. Although this demand was repeated at Palencia 1313 (art. 38 J, 40 M), the crown preferred to maintain the arrangement established by Sancho IV.⁽⁶⁰⁾

The migration of flocks benefited the crown so much that it has been suggested that Alfonso X, aware of the revenue potential, organized the Mesta. The royal servicio de los ganados was levied as early as 1269 and roused the nobility to insist on its abolition at Toledo 1273. The king, nevertheless, continued to collect it. The cortes later required that it not be levied on flocks remaining within a municipal district or on livestock taken to markets or fairs.⁽⁶¹⁾ By seizing the local montazgo over the protests of the towns, Alfonso XI laid the basis for the later royal tax known as servicio y montazgo, thereby shaping royal policy for generations to come (Alcalá 1345, art. 11).

In spite of the hostility of the towns to the Mesta, many urban knights appear to have been among those who profited from the ownership of flocks. Municipal objections rested primarily on the fact that the Mesta transcended local control, but there was also an awareness that the expansion of sheepraising was detrimental to agriculture and other aspects of the economy. These protests were usually overridden, however, by the crowns recognition that the migration of flocks was a major source of revenue and that the Mesta was a useful way of controling the sheepmen.

Trade

[187] Just as the crown regulated sheepraising, it attempted to control and profit from the growth of internal and external trade. The bulk of internal trade was carried on in local weekly markets, but annual fairs held in some of the more important towns attracted merchants from a broader region. Domestic production tended to be limited to the necessities of a given town and its district--cereals, wine, fish, salt, and cloth. The rise of the Mesta gave impetus to the development of the textile industry, especially in towns along the sheepwalks, but most of the products were consumed locally. Foreign trade along the Bay of Biscay, the Mediterranean, and the land borders with the peninsular states involved the export of raw materials such as wool and iron and the import of luxury goods.⁽⁶²⁾

Not surprisingly, mercantile activities were the subject of extensive regulations enacted in the cortes. Both Fernando III and Alfonso X forbade merchants and artisans to conspire to fix prices, ordering them to sell their wares freely on the open market.⁽⁶³⁾ Considering the economic ills afflicting Castile, Alfonso VIII, in a curia held at Toledo in 1207, established prices for different types of cloth, animals, hides, and armor. Alfonso X updated these prices in the cortes of Seville 1252 and the assembly of Jerez 1268.⁽⁶⁴⁾ Wages were also set at certain levels and workmen were required to accept them (Jerez 1268, art. 32- 34). In the cortes of Seville 1250, Fernando III prohibited the organization of confraternities or other associations of merchants, unless they were of a strictly spiritual or social character. Repeating this, Alfonso X also forbade judges other than those appointed by the crown or chosen according to the municipal fueros to adjudicate disputes involving merchants.⁽⁶⁵⁾ In all of this, royal policy was dictated not by economic theory but by a desire to maintain the untrammeled authority of the crown and to prevent the development of an autonomous mercantile jurisdiction. If prices and wages were to be fixed, the king would do it, not the merchants. Although it might have been argued that guilds would have a beneficial effect on the economy, the potential challenge that they represented to royal power determined that they should be prohibited. The ban was also a means by which the urban knights restrained the merchants and artisans from gaining power in the towns.⁽⁶⁶⁾

As merchants went about their business, they often encountered [188] threats to their safety and other obstacles. As it was in the interest of the crown to maintain order, the Partidas (V.7.4) extended royal protection to merchants and their goods. During the royal minorities, however, merchants often complained of being assaulted and robbed on the way to fairs. Foreign merchants were said to be reluctant to enter the kingdom unless they were guaranteed security and freedom to travel without interference or petty harassment by local authorities and without having to pay customs duties except at the assigned customs posts.⁽⁶⁷⁾ Spanish merchants traveling abroad were also sometimes attacked and deprived of their goods by lords in southern France and ships from Bayonne.⁽⁶⁸⁾ It was partly on this account that the Vizcayan towns organized the hermandad de las marismas in 1296.⁽⁶⁹⁾ The protection of merchants was perceived primarily as a function of royal jurisdiction, but there was also a realization that such protection would be beneficial to the economy.

Tolls such as portazgo were an impediment to internal trade, though an important source of revenue for the crown and local communities. Alfonso X stipulated that they should be levied only where customary, but numerous exemptions were granted--usually for goods and merchandise carried anywhere in the realm except Toledo, Seville, and Murcia.⁽⁷⁰⁾ Alfonso XI revoked all exemptions given since the death of his father (Madrid 1329, art. 64), but later, in response to complaints that new tolls were being levied, he confirmed all exemptions granted by Sancho IV, by Fernando IV during his majority, and by himself after 1329. No general exemption was given.⁽⁷¹⁾

The exchange of goods was facilitated by Alfonso Xs ordinance providing for uniform weights and measures. Anyone using false weights and measures was subject to heavy fines; to guard against this, municipal officials were ordered to check all weights and measures each week. Alfonso XI modified his predecessors ordinance, but maintained the principle of uniformity.⁽⁷²⁾

The need for an acceptable medium of exchange was also fundamental for commerce, but the kings manipulated the coinage to their own advantage. The concession of moneda, first recorded in the curia of Benavente in 1202, was a device to ensure the maintenance of an intact coinage for at least seven years. Occasionally the cortes obtained guarantees that the coinage would not be modified. Alfonso X promised not to alter the money coined at the beginning of his reign (dineros alfonsís) [189] and also established equivalences with other monies in circulation (Jerez 1268, art. 12). At Valladolid in 1282 Infante Sancho pledged not to change the coinage, and once he became king he declared that for the rest of his life he would not change the money then being minted.⁽⁷³⁾ The diversity of coins in circulation was such that Fernando IV pledged to take greater care in the issuance of new money⁽⁷⁴⁾ and to stop the widespread circulation of counterfeit coinage. For this purpose, he promulgated an ordinance in the cortes of Burgos 1302 that provided for the appointment of two inspectors in each town.⁽⁷⁵⁾ The problem of false coinage continued, however, so that the Castilians proposed that no new coinage be issued until the rest was exhausted and prices were able to return to a more normal level (Medina del Campo 1305, art. 3 C). This idea, however, does not seem to have been accepted.

Foreign Trade

Castile and León produced only limited quantities of goods for export, but foreign trade was also restricted by royal prohibitions against the export of certain goods (cosas vedadas). The list of items was established by Alfonso VIII of Castile in the curia of Toledo 1207, and by Alfonso IX of León at an uncertain date, and was repeated in the cortes of Seville 1252. Items included horses, mares, hides, cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, hawks, and falcons. The reasoning behind this regulation was to assure an abundance of livestock in the realm, not only for cavalry, military transport, and hunting, but also to encourage the development of cattle- and sheepraising. A merchant was permitted, however, to take a mule laden with merchandise out of the kingdom.⁽⁷⁶⁾ The ban on the export of horses and livestock was made operative for ten years in the cortes of Seville 1261 (art. 15), chiefly because of the projected campaign against the Moors, but it never seems to have been allowed to lapse.

Exports were regulated in much greater detail at Jerez 1268. The lists of prohibited goods drawn up in 1252 and 1258 were repeated with some additions--gold, silver, silk, raw wool, wheat, wine, and foodstuffs (art. 14). Gold and silver were added probably because they represented intrinsic wealth, while the other items were necessary to provide adequate food and clothing. The nobles at Toledo 1273 demanded that the list be restricted to those articles forbidden in the [190] reign of Fernando III, but the ban on certain exports was reiterated in subsequent cortes, and some other items were added, such as coins, rabbit skins, and wax.⁽⁷⁷⁾ Pedro III of Aragón complained to Alfonso X in 1279 that the prohibition of the export "of almost all merchandise" was injurious to the merchants of both realms and diminished Castiles potential revenues.⁽⁷⁸⁾

Some relaxation of trade restrictions was approved by Alfonso XI, who agreed that, inasmuch as he allowed the Navarrese and Aragonese to export wheat and livestock from his kingdom, his own subjects should be able to do so as well (Madrid 1339, art. 5). He was adamant, however, in opposing the export of horses, especially by the nobles, who had greater need of them for service against the Moors; anyone who violated the ban would be executed (Burgos 1338, art. 13). Some years later, the Castilians, pointing to a great mortality rate among livestock and the consequent hardship on the people, proposed that the export of wheat and meat be forbidden until conditions improved, but that the export of horses should be allowed so men would be encouraged to raise them. Alfonso XI strongly objected, declaring that he would be especially hard bit if any great need for horses arose (Burgos 1345, art. 1, 6). Three years later, noting that his laws discouraged men from raising the horses be required for his wars, he changed his mind and enacted an ordinance intended to stimulate breeding. While the export of colts under four years and of mares was absolutely forbidden, other horses could be shipped abroad, subject to the royal tenth of their value, payable at the usual customs posts (Alcalá 1348, art. 56, 59).⁽⁷⁹⁾ Thus, in order to meet his military requirements, he had to allow the nobles and others to profit from the export of horses.

Alfonso X, in the assembly of Jerez 1268, required that goods for export be brought to certain towns where royal officials would inspect each merchants manifest to prevent the shipment of any forbidden articles. Merchants were also required to import as much as they exported and to give sureties that they would do so. Customs officials had to inform the masters of foreign ships of these regulations and see that they were observed.⁽⁸⁰⁾ On several occasions thereafter, merchants were assured that they would not be troubled on the highways or at markets and fairs by a search for prohibited goods, but that this would be done only at the customs posts.⁽⁸¹⁾ Alfonso X refused to abolish customs duties altogether, as the nobles demanded at Burgos 1272, but be did promise [191] (albeit falsely) to stop collection after six years.⁽⁸²⁾ Customs duties were obviously an important source of revenue, and he was determined to collect them as efficiently as possible. Yet his attempt to achieve a balance of trade by requiring imports to equal exports probably was never successful.

Those found exporting prohibited goods could be punished by confiscation, fines, and exile.⁽⁸³⁾ As with so many other sources of revenue, the crown leased the collection of fines to tax farmers, authorizing them to conduct inquests to identify violators. The use of a closed inquest for this purpose was prohibited in the cortes of Valladolid 1298 (art. 11), but that prohibition was not always observed. In later years, those who exported contraband goods were pardoned by the king at the request of the cortes.⁽⁸⁴⁾

The data found in the cuadernos reveal a society largely dependent on pasturage and the production of raw materials rather than finished goods. Internal needs consumed much of what was produced, leaving smaller amounts for export. The lists of goods whose export was forbidden (cosas vedadas) emphasized the scarcity of goods. The aristocracy, nevertheless, had a desire for finer clothes, weapons, food, and luxury items, and sought to obtain them from abroad. The resulting imbalance of trade suggested by the texts thwarted any attempt by the crown or the cortes to strengthen the economy. Castilian society was poor rather than rich, and its economy was limited in its development. Poverty and starvation were the lot of many in times of poor harvests, or worse yet, when the factions contending for power destroyed crops. The effects of such devastation lingered on for many years.

A European Perspective

In the neighboring kingdoms, similar social and economic issues required the attention of the king and the estates. The acquisition of property by the church was a continuing source of tension in Portugal, prompting King Dinis to take restrictive measures in the cortes of Lisbon 1285. Edward Is Statute of Mortmain 1279 attempted to achieve the same result, just as he tried to limit ecclesiastical jurisdiction by means of Circumspecte agatis in 1285. Papal provisions and appeals to Rome were regulated by the Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire enacted by Edward IIIs parliament in 1351 and 1353, [192] respectively. Taxation of the clergy and ecclesiastical jurisdiction were at the root of Philip IVs quarrel with the papacy, causing him to seek popular support by assembling the Estates of Languedoil in 1302.⁽⁸⁵⁾

In the corts of Barcelona 1283, Pedro III considered a wide range of social and economic problems, including the conversion of Saracens and Jews, Jaime Is constitution on usury, the freedom of merchants, and rejection of a salt tax. The Statute of Acton Burnell 1283 promulgated by Edward I was the first of many measures dealing with the activities of merchants in England. The economic consequences of the Black Death resulted in the enactment of the Statute of Laborers by parliament in 135l--its intent was similar to that of the Ordenamiento de menestrales enacted by Pedro the Cruel in the cortes of Valladolid 1351.⁽⁸⁶⁾

1. Julio Valdeón Baruque, Los conflictos sociales en el reino de Castilla en los siglos XIV y XV (Madrid 197S); Teófilo Ruíz, "Expansion et changement: La conquéte de Seville et la société castillane (1248-1350)," Annales: Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations 34 (1979): 548-565.

2. Seville 1253, art. 22 L; Valladolid 1258, art. 23-25; Seville 1261, art. 7-9; Sevílle 1264, art. 11-13, 15.

3. Valladolid 1258, art. 13-15, 44-46; Seville 1261, art. 9-12, 22, 27; Jerez 1268, art. 6,13, 37, 40; Burgos 1338, art. 33-43; Madrid 1339, art. 18; Alcalá 1348, art. 30, 86-131.

4. CAX, 40, pp. 30-31; Salvador de Moxó, "Los señoríos: En torno a una problemática para el estudio del regimen señorial," Hispania 24 (1964): 185- 236, 399-430; "La nobleza castellana en el siglo XIV," AEM 7 (1970-1971): 494-510; "De la nobleza vieja a la nobleza nueva: La transformación nobiliaria en la baja edad media," Cuadernos de Historia 3 (1969): 1-210.

5. Sánchez Albornoz, "Las Behetrías," Estudios, 9-316; Martínez Díez, Libro Becerro de las Behetrías de Castilla, 3 vols. (Madrid 1981); Bartolomé Clavero, "Behetrías, 1255-1356: Crisis de la institución de señorío y de la formación de un derecho regional de Castilla," AHDE, 44 (1974): 201-342.

6. Valladolid 1258, art. 21; Seville 1261, art. 6.

7. Seville 1253, art. 14, 20 L; Valladolid 1258, art. 19-20; Seville 1261, art. 4-6; Valladolid 1293, art. 21 C; 1299, art. 10-12 G; 1307, art. 27; Burgos 1308, art. 26; Palencia 1311, art. 1,7; 1313, art. 8J, 29M; Burgos 1315, art. 7; Valladolid 1322, art. 27; Ordinance of Alcalá, XXXII.3; Fuero viejo, I.8.9.

8. Palencia 1311, art. 6; Alcalá 1348, art. 6.

9. Valladolid 1298, art. 8; also 1293, art. 8; 1325, art. 8 P; CAX, 40, pp. 30-31.

10. Alcalá 1345, art. 5; León 1345, art. 19.

11. Zamora 1301, art. 31; Valladolid 1307, art. 36; Ordinance of Alcalá, XXXII.l-2.

12. Burgos 1315, art. 14; Carrión 1317, art. 70; Valladolid 1322, art. 4.

13. Ordinance of Alcalá, XXIX, XXXII; Fuero viejo, I.5.1-18.

14. OCallaghan, "The Eccíesiastical Estate in the Cortes of León-Castile, 1252-1350," CHR 67 (1981): 185-213, and "Alfonso X and the Castilian Church," Thought 60 (1985): 417-429.

15. Valladolid 1295, art. 3 P; Ordinance of Alcalá 1348, XXXII.58; Partidas, I.5.18; Gaibrois, Sancho IV, III, no. 208, pp. cxxv-cxxvii.

16. Mingüella, Sigüenza, I, no. 209, pp. 572-574; Martín, Salamanca, no. 261, pp. 350-352; Loperráez, Osma, III, no. 58, pp. 81-83; also González, Alfonso VIII, II, no. 344, pp. 583-584; Alfonso IX, II, nos. 84-85, 221, pp. 125- 129, 306-308; Fernando III, III, no. 372, pp. 428-429; Fuero real, I.5.2.

17. Valladolid 1295, art. 1-2 P; 1325, art. 32 P.

18. Martín, Salamanca, nos. 255, 262, pp. 341-342, 352-354; MHE, I, nos. 34-3 5, pp. 70-75; Menéndez. Pidal, Documentos, no. 228, pp. 299-300.

19. Seville 1252, art. 44; Seville 1264, art. 1-2; Valladolid 1298, art. 8; 1325, art. 8 P; Madrid 1339, art. 3; Alcalá 1345, art. 10; 1348, art. 20-21, 24.

20. Burgos 1315, art. 8-9 P; Valladolid 1325, art. 2,23,37-38 P.

21. Peñafiel 1275, art. 4; Palencia 1313, art.44M; Burgos 1315, art. 14P; Valladolid 1325, art. 15, 27, 31 P.

22. Burgos 1315, art. 2,4,10-13 P; Valladolid 1322, art. 2; 1325, art. 3-6, 10-11,14, 18-19, 24, 30 P.

23. Zamora 1301, art. 11; Valladolid 1307, art. 34; Burgos 1315, art. 52; Medina del Campo 1318, art. 2; Valladolid 1322, art. 94; 1325, art. 20, 33; León 1345, art. 10.

24. León 1188, art. 5; González, Alfonso IX, II, no. 11, p. 24. Espéculo, I.14.11, stated that spirítual and temporal pleas were distinguished in Book VI, but it is not extant.

25. Peñafiel 1275, art. 1,5; Valladolid 1295, art. 4 P; Burgos 1315, art. 7-8 P; 1325, art. 21, 33 P; Gaibrois Sancho IV, III, nos. 20, 330-340, pp. xiii-xiv, ccx-ccxvx.

26. Muñoz, Fueros, 371-372; Demetrio Mansilla, Iglesia castellano-leonesa y curia romana en los tiempos del Rey San Fernando (Madrid 1945), no. 26, p. 303; MHE, I, no. 129, pp. 288-289; Sánchez, Libro de los Fueros de Castiella, no. 224, p.118.

27. Peñafiel 1275, art. 2; Valladolid 1325, art. 9,35 P; Madrid 1329, art. 61; Alcalá 1348, art. 26.

28. Burgos 1315, art. 3 P; Valladolid 1325, art. 10, 17, 25-26 P.

29. Valladolid 1299, art. 8 C; 1307, art. 34; Burgos 1315, art. 52; Medina del Campo 1318, art. 3; Valladolid 1322, art. 92; Madrid 1329, art. 58; Burgos 1345, art. 18; Alcalá 1348, art. 39.

30. Zamora 1301, art. 11; also Valladolid 1299, art. 9 L; 1307, art. 24.

31. Burgos 1315, art. 51, 53; Valladolid 1322, art. 93, 95; 1325, art. 23, 28; Madrid 1329, art. 59.

32. Fuero Juzgo, XII.2-3; Fuero real, IV. 2; Partidas, VII.24

33. Medina del Campo 1305, art. 8 E, 9 CL; Palencia 1313, art. 31 J, 25 M; Medina del Campo 1318, art. 4; Madrid 1329, art. 37.

34. Seville 1252, art. 19; 1253, art. 68 L; Fuero real, IV.1.

35. Seville 1252, art. 40-41; 1253, art. 63-64 L; Valladolid 1258, art. 26-27, 38; Seville l26l, art.25, 29-30; Jerez l268, art.7-8,29-31,38; Palencia 1313, art. 27, 29, 34-35J, 42 M; Burgos 1315, art. 24; Valladolid 1322, art. 54.

36. Valladolid 1293, art. 22 M, 23 LE, 26 C; Cuéllar 1297, art. 6; Valladolid 1300, art. 20; Madrid 1329, art. 57.

37. Jerez 1268, art. 29; Burgos 1315, art. 25; Valladolid 1322, art. 55.

38. Palencia 1313, art. 28 M; Valladolid 1322, art. 61; Madrid 1329, art. 53.

39. Seville 1261, art. 16; Jerez 1268, art. 29, 44; José Amador de los Ríos, Historia de los Judíos en España (Madrid 1960), 913; Leyes nuevas, in Opúsculos legales, 181; Fuero real, IV.2.5-6.

40. Valladolid 1293, art. 21 LEM, 23 C; Zamora 1301, art. 10; Valladolid 1307, art. 28; 1312, art. 100; Palencia 1313, art. 25, 30J; Burgos 1315, art. 26, 29; Valladolid 1322, art. 56, 58; 1325, art. 14-15; Madrid 1329, art. 55; León 1345, art. 11; also Alcalá 1348, art. 2,54.

41. Valladolid 1293, art. 20, 22 M, 21, 23 LE, 23-24, 26 C.

42. Medina del Campo 1305, art. 12; Burgos 1315, art. 4; Carrión 1317, art. 31; Medina del Campo 1318, art. 5; Madrid 1329, art. 55; Alcalá 1345, art. 4, 9; 1348, art. 22; Ordinance of Alcalá, IX.2.

43. Burgos 1315, art. 27-28; Carrión 1317, art. 30; Valladolid 1322, art. 57; 1325, art. 14; 1325, art. 29 P; Madrid 1339, art. 13; Alcalá 1345, art. 4; Burgos 1345, art. 5; León 1345, art. 22; Alcalá 1348, art. 18, 55; Ordinance of Alcalá, XXIII.

44. Valladolid 1293, art. 12, 25 C, 21 M, 22 LE; 1299, art. 11-12 L; 1300, art. 10; Burgos 1301, art. 18; Zamora 1301, art. 9; Valladolid 1307, art. 18, 28; Burgos 1308, art. 28; Palencia 1313, art. 22, 30J; Burgos 1315, art. 30; Valladolid 1322, art. 59; Madrid 1329, art. 44, 56; 1339, art. 8; Fuero real, III.20.1; Gaibrois, Sancho IV, III, nos. 343-344, pp. ccxviii-ccxix.

45. Valladolid 1300, art. 14; Burgos 1301, art. 17.

46. Palencia 1313, art. 28J, 27 M; Burgos 1315, art. 23 A; Valladolid 1322, art. 43; Madrid 1329, art. 54; 1339, art. 21.

47. Valladolid 1258, art. 22-27; Jerez 1268, art. 45-47; Espéculo, V.11.15- 17; also Seville 1252, art. 59; 1253, art. 61.

48. Palencia 1313, art. 27 M; Burgos 1315, art. 23 A; Valladolid 1322, art. 53.

49. Alvaro Pelayo, Speculum regum, 128.

50. Charles Dufourcq and Jean Gautier-Dalché, Historia económica y social de la España cristiana en la edad media (Barcelona 1983).

51. Seville 1252, art. 21-22, 29-31, 39; 1253, art. 45-46, 54-55, 64 L; Valladolid 1258, art. 34-35, 41-43; Seville 1261, art. 19-21;Jerez 1268, art. 17, 20, 39; Fuero real, IV.5.11.

52. Miguel Gual Camarena, "Para un mapa de la sal hispana en la edad media," Homenaje a Jaime Vicens Vives (Barcelona 1965-1967), I, 483-497.

53. Haro 1288, art. 16; Medina del Campo 1302, art. 13 E; Palencia 1313, art. 16, 44J; Burgos 1315, art. 16, 38; Medina del Campo 1318, art. 19; Valladolid 1322, art. 31, 45-46.

54. González Crespo, Alfonso XI, no. 257, pp. 434-439.

55. Julius Klein, "Los privilegios de la Mesta de 1273 y 1278," BRAH 64 (1914): 202-2 19, and The Mesta: A Study in Spanish Economic History, 1273- 1836 (Cambridge 1920); Charles J. Bishko, "The Castilian as Plainsman: The Medieval Ranching Frontier in La Mancha and Extremadura," "The Andalusian Municipal Mestas in the l4th-l6th Centuries: Adininistrative and Social Aspects," and "The Peninsular Background of Latín American Cattle Ranchíng," in his Studies in Medieval Spanish Frontier History (London 1980).

56. Valladolid 1258, art. 40; Medina del Campo 1302, art. 7 L; Palencia 1313, art. 45 M; Burgos 1315, art. 32; Medina del Campo 1318, art. 14; Valladolid 1322, art. 62; Fuero real, IV.6.4-5.

57. Seville 1252, art. 32, 43; 1253, art. 56, 66 L; Valladolid 1258, art. 31; Zamora 1301, art. 34; CAX, 40, pp. 30-31.

58. Valladolid 1258, art. 32; 1293, art. 10 LEM; 1299, art. 9 E, 10 L; Palencia 1313, art. 35 M; Burgos 1315, art. 43; Madrid 1329, art. 63.

59. Nieto Cumplido, Regionalismo, no. 23, pp. 169-176.

60. Medina del Campo 1302, art. 7 L; Palencia 1313, art. 38J, 40M; Burgos 1315, art. 33; Madrid 1339, art. 32; Alcalá 1348, art. 42.

61. MHE, I, no. 140, p. 314; CAX, 40, pp. 30-31; Valladolid 1293, art. 8 LEM; Zamora 1301, art. 33; Medina del Campo 1302, art. 7 L; Valladolid 1307, art. 19; Medina del Campo 1318, art. 16; Valladolid 1322, art. 64; Madrid 1339, art. 4,38; Alcalá 1345, art. 7; 1348, art. 43; Nieto Cumplido, Regionalismo, no. 23, pp. 169-176; Ubieto Arteta, Cuéllar, no. 84, pp. 122-123.

62. CarIé, "Mercaderes en Castilla, 1252-1512," CHE 21-22 (1954): 146-328; Luis G. de Valdeavellano, El mercado: Apuntes para su estudio en León y Castilla durante la edad media, 2d ed. (Seville 1975).

63. Seville 1250, Gonzalez, Fernando III, III, no. 909, pp. 3 87-389; Seville 1252, art. 11; 1253, art. 35 L; Valladolid 1258, art. 28, 37; Seville 1261, art. 24; Jerez 1268, art. 27; Partidas, V.7.2.

64. Francisco Hernández plans to publish the text of 1207; CAX, 5, p. 6; Seville 1252, art. 1-3, 7-10, 17-18, 23-28; Jerez 1268, art. 2-5, 9-13, 15-16, 18-20; Carlé "El precio de la vida en Castilla del Rey Sabio al Emplazado," CHE 15(1951): 132-156.

65. Seville 1250, González, Fernando III, III, no. 909, pp. 287-389; 1252, art. 14; 1253, art. 38 L; Valladolid 1258, art. 28, 36; Seville 1261, art. 23;Jerez 1268, art. 41.

66. OCallaghan, "Paths to Ruin: The Economic and Financial Policies of Alfonso the Learned," in Robert I. Burns, ed., The Worlds of Alfonso the Learned and James the Conqueror (Princeton 1985), 41-67.

67. Valladolid 1293, art. 4 C, 10 LEM; 1300, art. 9, 28; Medina del Campo 1305, art. 18 C; Valladolid 1307, art. 32 (Vitoria); 1322, art. 86; Fuero real, IV.6.1-3.

68. Burgos 1345, art. 10, 15; León 1345, art. 6; Alcalá 1348, art. 51.

69. MFIV, II, no. 57, pp. 81-85; Francisco Morales Belda, La hermandad de las marismas (Barcelona 1973).

70. Seville 1252, art. 37; 1253, art. 61 L; Valladolid 1258, art. 33; Seville 1261, art. 21; Zamora 1301, art. 32; Burgos 1315, art. 42; Valladolid 1322, art. 42; Partidas, V.7.5.

71. Burgos 1345, art. 17; León 1345, art. 23, 25.

72. Seville 1261, art. 31; Jerez 1268, art. 26; Fuero real, III.10.1; Ordinance of Alcalá, XXIV.55; AM León, no. 6; Ureña, Fuero de Cuenca, 867-868.

73. Palencia 1286, art. 3; Haro 1288, art. 19; CSIV, 3, p. 73.

74. Cuéllar 1297, art. 2; Zamora 1301, art. 22-23.

75. CLC, I,165-169; Medina del Campo 1302, art. 22 L; Albis Heiss, Descripción general de las monedas hispano-cristianas, 3 vols. (Zaragoza, n.d.); Octavio Gil Farrés, Historia de la moneda española (Granada 1968).

76. Francisco Hernández plans to publish the text of 1207; Seville 1252, art. 19-21; 1253, art. 43-44 L; Valladolid 1258, art. 12, 41; Seville 1261, art. 15; Espéculo, IV.12.57; Leyes del Estilo, 204 in Opúsculos legales, II, 320; Sánchez, Libro de los Fueros de Castilla, no. 138, p. 72.

77. CAX, 25, 40, 47, pp. 2 1-22, 30-31, 35; Haro 1288, art. 19, 24; Valladolid 1300, art. 10, 23; Burgos 1302, art. 1; Valladolid 1307, art. 24; Palencia 1313, art. 17 J, 34 M; Burgos 1315, art. 17; Carrión 1317, art. 47; Valladolid 1322, art. 43.

78. MHE, II, no. 163, pp. 7-8. Wendy R. Childs, Anglo-Castilian Trade in the Later Middle Ages (Manchester 1978); Teófilo Ruíz, "Castilian Merchants in England, 1248-1350," in William Jordan, Bruce McNab, and Teófilo Ruíz, eds., Order and Innovation: Essays in Honor of Joseph R. Strayer (Princeton 1976), 173- 186.

79. Yves Renouard, "Un sujet de recherches: lexportation des chevaux de la péninsule íbérique en France et en Angleterre au moyen áge," Homenaje a Jaime Vicens Vives, I, 571-577.

80. Jerez 1268, art. 2 1-25; also Burgos 1301, art. 14.

81. Valladolid 1300, art. 23, 28; Burgos 1301, art. 11; Medina del Campo 1305, art. 18 C; Valladolid 1312, art. 94; Palencia 1313, art. 4J, 34 M; Carrión 1317, art. 22; Valladolid 1322, art. 43; Madrid 1339, art. 4; Alcalá 1348, art. 72.

82. CAX, 25,40,47, pp.21-22, 30-31, 35; CLC, I,85-86;MHE, I, no. 140, p. 321; also Burgos 1301, art. 20; León 1345, art. 18.

83. Jerez 1268, art. 24; Burgos 1301, art. 12; Alcalá 1348, art. 59.

84. Valladolid 1312, art. 74, 86, 104-105; 1322, art. 44; Madrid 1329, art. 65; Alcalá 1345, art. 6.

85. Livermore, A New History of Portugal, 84; William Stubbs, Select Charters and Other Illustrations of English Constitutional History, 9th ed. (Oxford 1913), 451-452; Statutes of the Realm, I, 53-54,317-318,329; Strayer, Philip IV, 237-277.

86. Cortes de ... Cataluña, I, 140-145; Statutes of the Realm, I, 53-54, 311; CLC, II, 75-124.