[12] Medieval Castilian monarchs pursued a twofold policy of conquest (reconquista) and colonization (repoblación) which placed towns and townspeople at the centre of their programmes to expand into formerly Muslim territory. It was men who inevitably undertook the capture and defence of the fortified settlements needed to incorporate the conquest permanently, but women were required to ensure their survival and persistence beyond the first generation of victorious soldiers and to establish and preserve the essence of community life. If medieval Spain was a society organized for war, as has been asserted, it was also a society organized for settlement which accompanied or speedily followed a military triumph. ⁽¹⁾ Indeed, the two often overlapped, but colonization was in its very nature a much longer operation that extended over decades, indeed several centuries, following a victory and the occupation of once Muslim or abandoned places. Moreover, achievements in one direction often drew men and women from other settlements as the new and highly privileged towns, especially royal towns, drained the human resources of older Christian communities. ⁽²⁾ Townsmen were immediately necessary to seize and defend territory against Muslim repossession, but townswomen were equally essential to the long-term success of the dual enterprise of expanding southward and colonizing permanently the Peninsula. Women therefore played indispensable roles as settlers, wives of colonizers, mothers of successive generations of defenders, and vital members of the new Hispanic communities.

The repeopling of medieval Castile was not a quiet, inevitably successful process of mass movement and settlement into well-protected areas well behind the lines of defence and danger. During the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries the colonization of the Duero basin was undertaken mainly by peasant families in small rural communities, often on the basis of the so-called presura by which [13] squatters moved into and took over uninhabited and non-productive no-man's land. The documents of the early Reconquest, including settlement charters from this region as well as monastic cartularies and episcopal collections from older districts in the northern tier of Christian states, show women as well as men settling, owning, buying, selling, exchanging and donating property in Galicia, Asturias, León and Old Castile. ⁽³⁾ Occasional documents mention women who actively defended royal privileges and exemptions given to communities in the north. ⁽⁴⁾ Here fortified towns developed at royal capitals, episcopal sees, monastic centres, and coastal ports, many of which prospered with the growth of the pilgrim traffic to Santiago de Compostela in the eleventh century. The fringes of Christian settlement to the south were defended, not always successfully, by towers and fortresses. During the eleventh century, however, the Reconquest was broadly militarized in drives to weaken the Muslim states. Larger and heavily fortified permanent settlements, especially in lands south of the Duero, the Extrema Durii of medieval documents, were needed to control and then incorporate additional territories. ⁽⁵⁾ The new settlements required large numbers of armed men, and rulers employed diverse and flexible strategies to attract them, especially by granting them exceptional privileges. In 974 the defenders of Castrojeriz southwest of Burgos were designated nobles (infanzones), and the misconduct of women there was declared to be the private business of the men and not a matter for scrutiny by royal officials. Across the Duero at Sepúlveda in 1076 male colonizers were exonerated from their past crimes, being granted this and other privileges in recognition of the need for defenders at this important citadel. They were heartily encouraged to bring women, even kidnapped women, and the town gave the couple sanctuary. At the same time the Riojan town of Nájera welcomed 'men but also women, clerics and even widows', showing the necessity for soldiers but also implying the lesser attraction to women of this strategic fortified town. ⁽⁶⁾ Whether they came voluntarily with their fathers and husbands, abducted by an outlaw, or alone; women clearly made desirable residents of such vital fortresses as these but, in the initial stages of occupation and often for some time afterward, men were the most sought after inhabitants and likely to outnumber women at a new town. Their very scarcity, however, accounts in part for the visibly greater attention given to women at the towns that were settled after the eleventh century.

[14] It is important to insist upon the continuing and omnipresent threat of defeat and setbacks throughout the period in which municipal customs were formulated and the fueros were being composed. The process of colonization was increasingly militarized after the annexation of Toledo in 1085 followed by the intervention of African re-enforcements to the Muslim enemy in Al-Andalus, by the Almoravids in 1086 and the Almohads in 1147. Each invasion brought protracted periods of savage warfare, seasonal and destructive, so that, even allowing for periodic truces, the settlement was inevitably stamped as the hazardous and mobilized activity of soldiers and limited numbers of women willing to risk their lives as well as the property they might colonize. Clearly women were not excluded from this process, but during the twelfth century the centre of the Peninsula with its vast plains and high mountains (the meseta) underwent what Julio González has called 'the triumph of the horse and the castle', and both fell more readily into the hands of men than of women. ⁽⁷⁾

Peninsular warfare was now characterized either by raids into enemy territory, aimed at the capture of booty, livestock and prisoners of both sexes, using scorched earth tactics destructive of settlements and crops, or by long sieges, with the taking and retaking of citadels whose seizure was intermittently but progressively more successful on the Christian side as the strength of each wave of African invaders weakened. The Almohads' decisive defeat at Las Navas de Tolosa in 1212, followed by a period of intensive settlement in the basins of the Tagus and Guadiana rivers, extending into the last quarter of the thirteenth century, meant a new security for colonizers, women especially. Nevertheless the military situation was only modified by Las Navas. The conquests of Fernando III in Andalusia were not effectively completed until 1248, and even then Castile was confronted with the necessity to defend, if not penetrate, a long border with Murcia and Granada supported by Moroccan allies. In view of the continued demand for soldiers and the need for able-bodied men to secure, plant and cultivate neglected and war-torn territory to produce the basic commodities for feeding town populations, it is manifest that men were more immediately functional in colonization projects between about 1075 and 1275, when municipal customs were formulated and written down. Under such conditions men plainly had more obvious means of advancement than women.

Townswomen did not participate in military expeditions, and [15] there is no evidence to show them actively engaged in defence, although they were certainly present when a town was attacked and surely helped in supportive tasks or in nursing the wounded. Protracted sieges by Christian armies doubtless summoned large numbers of prostitutes who, along with exceptionally adventurous women, must have constituted a sizable majority of the earliest female colonizers at a newly conquered town site. We simply do not know. The great fuero of Cuenca and most early thirteenth-century adaptations of this influential compilation explicitly exclude women and children from service in the town militia and from taking part in the division of the spoils that followed a successful raid into enemy territory. ⁽⁸⁾

At these towns a son might substitute for his father in a Muslim prison but neither a daughter nor any other woman could be sent south to replace a male hostage. Captivity was a possibility to be feared by any colonizer, but townsmen were notably anxious that 'Muslims should not lie with the Christian women' they captured. ⁽⁹⁾ According to a popular explanation recorded in all these fueros, more than honour was at stake for, 'as the sages confirm, Muslims would never attack Christians were it not for the bravery of the Christians who are with them and of the children of Christian women who are their wives'. ⁽¹⁰⁾ Warfare inevitably produced the exaltation of military virtues and masculine sentiments revealed in these passages and in the chronicles of the period. One reliable anonymous narrative describes the shrewd command of the Empress Berengaria at Toledo in 1139 when the garrison was caught unawares and ill-defended in the absence of Alfonso VII. She successfully averted a Muslim attack by concealing her few soldiers and shaming the besiegers' vanity, asking them what honour they could hope to win by taking the city from a woman. To make her point, she retired with her ladies to the summit of the castle, and the Muslims, beholding these non-combatants deliberately arrayed in finery and playing musical instruments, withdrew from the field. ⁽¹¹⁾

Ordinary women, however appreciated for their Christian blood or inherent virtues, were scarcely valuable for their military talents in the seizure and defence of town sites, to say nothing of the mobile combat waged by the militias of towns of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries with their units of mounted knights and footsoldiers. The presence of women in a town demanded special precautions for their safety, and communities close to theatres of military operations were not inevitably attractive to many women, although they doubtless [16] preferred settlement in a fortified town to open country. Unfortunately no statistical records survive to plot their relative numbers in the migrations of the Reconquest, but the appeal to women to move into towns was undoubtedly stronger once a settlement had successfully survived for some time behind the changing lines of battle and zones of endemic conflict. Almost from the beginning, however, women shared with men in the benefits of residence at a new municipal community.

Once a citadel had been captured or established as a beachhead, it assumed functions in addition to those of a military stronghold. Such a town was intended as a centre of permanent and cohesive population in conquered territory that had to be colonized to remain securely in the victors' hands and defended against both Muslim and peninsular Christian foes. An important female presence was thus highly desirable in building and maintaining well-rooted settlements. The vast projects of municipal colonization undertaken by or with the approval of the crown encouraged women to migrate into towns by extending to them as well as to men the fundamental privileges of residence at these settlements, especially by granting them the most basic of the widely and justly celebrated liberties of the Castilian townsmen. Among the major inducements to colonizers of both sexes were ownership and protection of property, justice administered by local officials and a town court, restricted taxes, guarantees against interference by outsiders in their affairs, and exemption from diverse seignorial obligations and exactions owed by rural tenants, which were unequivocably abolished on behalf of colonizers, most generously at royal towns. ⁽¹²⁾ Above all, these and other benefits were recorded in written documents, especially of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, whether short charters or the longer fueros extensos, which guaranteed the privileges embodied in the texts to the daughters and sons of colonizers, the women as well as men who succeeded the original settlers of a community in the rights first enjoyed by their mothers or fathers. Towns endeavoured to ensure protections for the female colonizers who sought the acquisition of a town resident's fundamental privileges to security of life and property and the transmission to descendants of both sexes of the specific rights conferred by fuero at a particular town. ⁽¹³⁾ At Ledesma in León the fuero was said to defend 'the strong and the weak, therefore men as women'. ⁽¹⁴⁾ At neighbouring Alba de Tormes nearly all the laws began with the phrase, 'Any man or woman of Alba' because most of them [17] referred to both. ⁽¹⁵⁾ Here as elsewhere in León and Castile women were as responsible as their fellow townsmen under a fuero although special legislation was directed to each sex in addition to that which applied to both. Nevertheless it is widely apparent that, in contrast to the early municipal charter of Castrojeriz, which had emphasized that women were secondary citizens to be disciplined privately by the men of that citadel, municipal custom came rapidly to regard townswomen as fully protected and accountable citizens in the communities they or their ancestors colonized alongside men. Many of their privileges, responsibilities and activities as citizens were the same, while others were of course exceedingly different.

A brief inspection of the most common medieval terms for townswomen as found primarily in Leonese and Castilian fueros extensos reveals well women's differential roles in the towns of the Reconquest. The vernacular labels of this composite social vocabulary designate primary categories of female inhabitants, clarify fundamental distinctions among a town's residents, and introduce many of the women we shall meet in other contexts. For the majority of women status was determined primarily by their relationship to property in a township. The formal distinctions here were fundamental. The basic settlement and residential unit was the so-called populated house (casa poblada), and if a woman owned her house, she was called neighbour or citizen. When she rented a house more-or-less indefinitely she was known as moradora, dweller, a more permanent resident than the transient boarder, for instance the muger de albergueria of some communities. Both the vecina and moradora were householders with diverse responsibilities as such: remanding and defending dependents and employees at the municipal court; disbursing fines and collecting damages on behalf of their property, dependent children or servants; paying fiscal dues. But in fact these duties of a householder, like the uniquely masculine obligation of military service, were formally undertaken by her husband when a woman married, so that even when the couple continued to reside in the house from which she derived status as vecina or moradora, her duties and her title were affected by her position as wife. She was sometimes designated as before, but usually she was now called mulier, muyller, muler, moyier, mugier, or muger de vecino, muger de morador. There was no comparable term for the husband of a householder since it was he who determined the title and assumed the duties even when the house belonged legally to his wife.

[18] When a woman lived inside the town proper, she was muger villana, an urban townswoman. Urban residence distinguished her from the muger aldeana living in a house in a village (aldea) within the outlying but interlocking alfoz. Either could be vecina or moradora depending upon whether she owned the property. The social status of village women and men was generally inferior to that of residents within the walls, as exemplified by the lower fines sometimes stipulated for assaulting villagers. The muger aldeana, although a country woman, was nevertheless privileged as a municipal resident and distinct from the occasional solariega, collaza or vassala, peasant women who were personally dependent upon a municipal landlord to whom they owed labour services and other personal obligations as well as rent. These rural dependents appear rarely in town records since most such women lived on the estates of aristocracy and church outside the boundaries of privileged townships.

Other common labels for women designated not residence but kin relationships: mother, daughter, niece, grandmother, stepmother and so forth, terms with masculine counterparts. More distinctive were titles signifying marital status, especially present and future. For some there were no masculine equivalents or the implications of the position were different, like the muger de vecino who might be referred to in this way although in fact she owned the house she inhabited with her husband.

A girl was frequently styled manceba en cabellos, girl with long hair. It was an approximate synonym for virgen although far more commonplace. There was no precise masculine equivalent for the term manceba en cabellos, a pubescent woman of marriageable age, although the analogous filio barragan was sometimes employed to designate a brave young warrior. In contrast to the manceba en cabellos was the muger de toca, woman with coif or head band. Usually the muger de toca had a husband, but sometimes the term indicated an unmarried older woman or a widow. Binding up the hair and covering it with a toca were visible signs of dignity in mature women. The daughter could be filia or fija emparentada, a parented girl, where the adjective, also applied to a son, denoted economic dependence on one or both parents. Children did not become fully adult at a fixed chronological age but were emancipated by marriage, joining a religious order, or gaining economic independence through inheritance, usually at twelve or fourteen for the orphan. Children remained 'parented' until one of these events occurred, a daughter sometimes longer than a son.

[19] There were several other names for an unmarried woman. She might be dubbed muger soltera, spinster or 'old maid' but, as in modern Spanish, a term devoid of negative connotations. It was less usual than reference to her simply as the parienta or relative of some other citizen with whom she resided or, if she lived alone, by giving her status as a householder. Sometimes she was a muger escosa, not to be confused with the muger esposa or novia, who was the betrothed but not yet fully married woman, also an important figure. The medieval term escosa, pertaining usually to cows, is comparable to the English 'dry' and designated a woman who did not lactate or one who could no longer nurse. Muger escosa, although not a pejorative epithet, is emphatically biological and indicated an unmarried woman who, unlike the muger en cabellos, might be past child-bearing age.

The most common names for the wife were muger de bendicion and muger velada. The terms referred to her sacramental marriage, bendicion to the blessing given by the priest at the wedding, velada to the customary veiling at the church. The latter did not mean that she always wore a veil, nor that she was protected or watched, as in the modern Spanish velar. The wife might also be called by the modern term muger casada, a housed woman. Muger maridada likewise was not unknown. The muger jurada or sworn woman indicated a lawful wife but usually one married clandestinely, the sworn oath alluding to a canonically valid marriage but somewhat irregular wedding. In relation to her husband a wife was su muger just as he was su marido. Although the husband was technically an omme de bendicion, velado, casado, maridado or jurado, it was seldom necessary to refer to him except as a man, and he was therefore usually called by a title showing status based on property, residence or profession.

Other terms for the wife included sennora de casa (Lat. domina domus) and madre de las campannas (materfamilias) to designate the leading female member of the populated house. She commanded the salaried servants of the house, especially the female housekeepers, nurses, and maids who worked in the establishment. These women, in addition to male employees, belonged juridically to the casa poblada, whether they lived in or out, and the householder, man or woman, had diverse responsibilities for them when they broke laws, owed money or otherwise involved the sennor or sennora de casa with other citizens. Domiciliary residence, however, conferred the status vecina or moradora only on the close relatives of the householder. Thus we find women called wives, daughters and nieces of vecinos and moradores. The resident niece was often mentioned to distinguish her high [20] position from that of the poor relative working for wages in the house of her aunt or uncle.

The widow was viuda, bibda or some other feminine variant of the masculine noun and was more commonly a householder than the muger soltera. She often had unique responsibilities both as a citizen and towards her late husband, which made her position somewhat different from that of the widower. Another important town resident was the barragana whose name derived from that adjective denoting valour in a young man. She was the domiciled mistress of a priest or, equally common, of a bachelor or even a married man. There was no masculine equivalent of the noun, although a woman's lover was referred to as her friend (amigo). Unlike the barragana, whose position was often comparable to that of wife and mother, the amigo had no official status, not to mention other possible hazards in his situation.

At many thirteenth-century towns we find the honorific titles duenna and donzella for the wives and daughters of caballeros villanos, those non-noble knights of the urban militia who, during the twelfth century, acquired special tax exemptions and other privileges in recognition of their invaluable aid as mounted warriors in service to the crown. Unlike townsmen who advanced into the ranks of this municipal elite, the women could not rely upon their military capabilities to be counted among the municipal gentry, but they, no less than their husbands and fathers, were a product of Reconquest society. The municipal duenna and donzeila were vecinas or women in the families of vecinos who were caballeios villanos. These women were distinct from the truly noble lady (the duenna fijadalgo and infanzona) who usually lived on a rural estate and claimed special prerogatives as a noble, as exemplified in regional Castilian customs formulated during the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. ⁽¹⁶⁾ If she resided in a town, however, the noblewoman had to obey local law like any other citizen since she was a member of upper classes considered potential and dangerous meddlers in the affairs of self-governing communities.

Like the rural noble, the nun (muger de orden, deo vota, sanctimonialis) was separately responsible under laws other than those of a town, in her case church discipline. Her activities and conduct were of slight interest to townsmen unless she was the daughter or relative of a local resident. In many towns there were significant minorities of Jewish and free Muslim women (the judia and mora) who, although town residents inseparably bound with others by the conditions of a town's fuero, were also subject to special municipal enactments, royal decrees [21] and the religious laws of their respective communities. The status of Jewish women was notably higher than that of most Muslims who appear in the fueros chiefly as slavewomen or captives awaiting ransom. A fuero's characteristically broad grant of protection and definition of access to privilege on behalf of colonizers and citizens, the women as well as men who settled or resided at a particular town, masked significant social, economic and religious differences within Castilian society as a whole. They were distnctions which no royal or municipal legislation, with its commonplace assertion of equality for all citizens under the law of a town, could entirely efface.

We shall encounter other distinctive terms for women in towns, adjectives descriptive of mugeres in particular situations, labels for women in singularly female professions, and opprobrious epithets, but the most common names for them defined a woman's rank in the fundamental unit of the populated house. The widest variety of titles referred to the domiciled wife and the daughter, with special terms used to designate female dignity and the domestic allegiance of women. Some of the gender-specific labels signify concern about the sexual condition and reproductive function of women. Above all, they show marriage to be a, if not the, central event in a woman's life. Most importantly, the medieval term mulier, muger or some other variant stood for both woman and wife.

The purposefully conjugal nature of municipal settlement was one of its outstanding characteristics. Permanent residence was a clear objective in the foundation of any town, and newcomers could be encouraged to 'make smoke', bringing their wives to found hearths and households and develop productive lands in a township. Sometimes they had to bring their possessions from their previous homes as a sign of commitment to remain in a place. ⁽¹⁷⁾ The customs of most important towns, however, defined a man's residence, his populated house (casa poblada) or best house (la meior moranza), as the dwelling in the town or village where his wife lived, with numerous references to their children as well. Sometimes other women residing in the house signified that it was the place a man belonged. Thus at thirteenth-century Teruel a daughter or female relative was recognized as an acceptable substitute when a man had no wife, but otherwise the house where his wife lived served to fix his abode for tax purposes. At Ledesma a bachelor who lived there was not an outsider but a resident subject to local taxes when his mother, female relative or barragana shared his dwelling. ⁽¹⁸⁾

The residence of a domiciled wife, however, gave proof of a man's [22] intention to reside permanently in a town, and her presence became the most secure pledge and measure of a man's allegiance to a particular community. Beginning in 1118 Toledo required a married man's wife and children to reside there as a condition for owning property at this exceptionally large and important city. Later Toledo's example passed the demand, along with its other legal traditions, to many other towns, especially in Andalusia. ⁽¹⁹⁾ Numerous other communities across the meseta made a married man's election to municipal office dependent upon the residence of his wife in the town.

To become a magistrate (alcalde), he must own a house inhabited by his wife and children, as well as a horse, the caballero's other necessary possession. ⁽²⁰⁾ At Toledo, Alcalá de Henares, Cuenca, Salamanca and other communities the married man's wife had to live in the town if he were to be considered eligible for diverse tax reductions, gain permission to enclose a meadow in the township, or exercise other grazing privileges essential to a Castilian townsman's prosperity. ⁽²¹⁾ At Plasencia in the Leonese Extremadura a married man who did not reside there for at least eight months of the year with his wife could not even bring suit in the town court. He was, in effect, a foreigner. ⁽²²⁾ Towns thus made conjugal domesticity not only highly desirable but also necessary for a man who wanted to enjoy the full municipal privileges offered at a particular town. The fueros express the demand for the wife's presence in terms that describe the properly 'housed' (casado) citizen as one who dwelt in a town as a married (i.e., casado) man. Of course a bachelor did not have to get married to be considered a fully privileged citizen. A domiciled wife (the muger casada), however, was the most visible and reliable sign of a man's intention to remain in a town and assume the fiscal, military and civil responsibilities that accompanied the privileges of residence there.

Annual residence requirements ranged from six months at Toledo and later at Soria to eight or nine at other towns. Absences and multiple residence were problems, especially by caballeros who were preferably full-time residents but were certainly expected to be on hand for the summer campaigning season. ⁽²³⁾ According to privilegios granted by Alfonso X to Madrid, Escalona and other towns in the middle of the thirteenth century, the caballero had to keep his wife and children in residence over seven or eight months of the winter as well. The caballero himself would not necessarily have to abandon itinerant habits for domestic life during this entire period, but it was important for him to be in town for major religious holidays and to take part in [23] community affairs apart from his military obligations. A bachelor's companions (companneros), literally those who shared his bread, were counted as acceptable substitutes for the domiciled family of a married man, but a wife and children in permanent residence remained the most reliable way for the king to identify the interests of men with the needs of the one particular community where the caballero could qualify for the royal tax exemptions now given not only to himself but also to his agricultural and household employees at his home town. ⁽²⁴⁾

The meseta was largely bleak plains country, and the townsman's  wife and horse were his two most valuable companions in this hard land. Ledesma excused a man from militia duty for a year following the death of either. At Coria, Cáceres and Usagre in the Leonese Extremadura only his wife's death released the townsman, while the illness of wife or horse freed him from active duty. Although at Plasencia the ailing horse alone deferred a man, at Salamanca he was granted compassionate leave when his wife was sick and he had no son or daughter of fifteen to look after her. ⁽²⁵⁾ Everywhere a healthy wife was an asset. She kept his house, raised their children, and looked out for his interests when he left town temporarily on manoeuvres, for range duty with the town's flocks and herds, or on some other business deemed unsafe or inappropriate for women. To obtain the privileges of citizenship and of living in a town, a man settled there with his wife if he had one. The town where she and their children lived was the only place where municipal privileges fell within his reach. If she lived anywhere but in the town where he aspired to become a townsman, her absence disqualified him.

The anonymous chronicle of about 1250 from the town of Ávila, unique for its record of a town's early history, describes briefly the desired and conventional practice of conjugal domesticity at a privileged settlement. This important town, whose fuero is partly known, was colonized by successive waves of settlers. The proud mountaineers who came there from Old Castile in the middle of the twelfth century, following an impressive exodus of most of the earlier inhabitants to Ciudad Rodrigo, transformed a mere fortified tower into a proper town by marrying and settling down. The newcomers, whose subsequent military exploits are the main subject of the chronicle, were careful to select their wives from among the daughters of the few nobles and knights remaining, or those who had come with their companions. They refused to marry women of the peasant and [24] artisan groups which had stayed, more assuredly a belief of the writer's generation than a policy of the twelfth-century colonizers. ⁽²⁶⁾ Although Ávila's early historian shows no interest in the details of domestic life, it is plain that he distinguished a town as a place where men and women married and raised their families, however discriminating a man might be in choosing a wife. He also reveals the strong temptation for settlers to move on to new prospects at another place when a brighter future beckoned them elsewhere. The allure of new opportunities was especially strong for men in the military classes, notably unmarried men, although the original knights of Ávila had left with their wives and daughters when they moved west to Ciudad Rodrigo. Many of the newcomers, however, were evidently bachelors, and a young knight or squire would characteristically obtain a horse before he found a wife. Horses were likely to be both cheaper and more plentiful than desirable brides, and a horse gave a man mobility and unforeseen opportunities, while a wife would tie him down with family obligations. To yoke a man in matrimony and prevent his moving on, it was necessary for communities to make marriage an attractive proposition for bachelors. Thus towns sometimes granted privileges expressly to the townsman who married, in contrast to withholding others from the man whose wife lived somewhere else. Castilian women played an important part in this carrot and stick policy of tethering men in conjugal and municipal domesticity.

From the late eleventh century royal fueros encouraged not only conjugal residence in towns but especially the marriages of bachelors. An inducement first appeared in 1074 when Alfonso VI colonized Palenzuela in Old Castile and excused bridegrooms from the labour obligations and taxes owed by other settlers. ⁽²⁷⁾ In 1109 Queen Urraca specified that the knights of León and Carrión who married were to be released for a year from military service and the tax paid in lieu of personal conscription. It is not without interest that this deferment in the bearing of arms is a truncated version of an Old Testament law declaring that a newly married man should not be liable for military service or any other public duty but ought to remain at home for a year and enjoy his wife. ⁽²⁸⁾ With the prestige of the customs of León behind the exemption, it is no surprise to find this provision at a number of Leonese communities of the twelfth and even thirteenth centuries. ⁽²⁹⁾ Not a few Castilian towns also endorsed it.

At twelfth-century Lara and other Castilian towns the [25] bridegroom's temporary exemption from dues or duties was bestowed in conjunction with numerous tax and other incentives to attract new settlers and increase the population. ⁽³⁰⁾ Guadalajara in the Alcarria specified in 1219 that its fiscal exemption for a bridegroom went to a man at his first marriage, while Alfambra in the Castilian-Aragonese Extremadura had earlier benefited the man when both he and his bride had never been married before. Teruel, in contrast, gave a year's exemption from municipal tax to any townsman who married a young girl, while Sepúlveda later granted a conscription deferment to the knight or squire who married. When in 1274 the Master and chapter of the Order of Santiago extended the fuero of Sepúlveda to Segura de León in modern Badajoz province, the bachelor's marital deferment was included along with other enticements to new colonizers. Anyone with four married sons and daughters enjoyed a life-time exemption from all municipal taxes. ⁽³¹⁾

In the new towns of the Reconquest men and women were everywhere encouraged to take up residence, marry, have children, and settle in municipal dwellings permanently and domestically. The exemptions for the bridegroom reveal a desire to encourage a man to marry by accommodating him temporarily at some cost to the community but with the expectation that he would then stay in town with his bride and become a solid citizen. She could be a local woman or one from outside the town. He could be a resident or a newcomer who married a local woman. At many towns a bridegroom would also benefit from limits placed on the cost of the wedding when he married a municipal daughter, expenses that were further reduced when his bride was a villager or widow of the town. Later we shall look closely at these possibilities, but here the ceilings are important as measures designed to make marriage attractive to both a town's bachelors and new colonizers who married local women.

It is not only in terms of such specific accommodation of the bridegroom that towns undertook to promote local marriage as a desirable proposition for the sons of townsmen and new arrivals. No less powerful is the manner in which Castilian municipal law invested townswomen with rights to inherit and acquire property. Since the ownership of property was the basis for full citizenship and privileged status for a townsman, a woman's position as an heiress or future legatee of lands and other wealth might increase perceptibly her desirability as a wife. To be eligible for the most extensive privileges of living in a town, a man would have to own his house. Alternatively, [26] his wife could own the house. The formation of households depended as much upon women as men. This will become plain if we examine the fundamental principles of inheritance and the highly advantageous position of Castilian women in the devolution of both real estate and movable goods.

Women were the beneficiaries of a strong legal background providing for partible inheritance among all heiresses and heirs of the same degree, with preference for women in a closer relationship to the deceased relative. The substantial enhancement of their rights to inherit both real property and movable goods that evolved in the Peninsula during the Visigothic period is enshrined in the maxim asserting that a woman ought to be recognized in all matters of inheritance (Quod in omnem hereditatem femina accepi debeat). It refers not only to a daughter but to women in all remote and collateral lines. ⁽³²⁾ After the eighth-century Muslim invasion, the Visigothic Code remained influential as a legal reference, especially in the kingdom of
León and then in the central Tagus Valley. About 1240 it was translated as the Fuero Juzgo, and its authority spread with Toledan customs into Andalusia. Alfonso X's Fuero Real of 1256 drew from the Code, influenced provisions in the fuero of Soria, and was extended by the king to other Castilian towns, some of whose customs conflicted with Visigothic and other new principles promoted by the crown. ⁽³³⁾ The Code's axioms on female inheritance, however, were not at issue, which explains why charter collections beginning in the early years of the Reconquest consistently show women alone and as members of families actively engaged in every kind of property transaction.

The municipal Leonese and Castilian daughter inherited separately from her mother and father, another legacy of Visigothic law, so that property usually devolved to subsequent generations of women and men in bifurcated streams. Barring a widowed parent's retention of conjugal property, the daughter and son thus inherited twice, with consanguineal and uterine siblings sharing inheritances after the death of each parent. Both as heiresses of municipal property and as individuals capable of transmitting it to their children or to other heirs, medieval women were a formidable presence in the property structure of the towns where the ownership of property was the fundamental basis for full and privileged membership.

The descendants of town residents, whether women or men, were mandatory heirs, and partible inheritance irrespective of children's sex, age or order of birth was invariably the first rule of devolution. ⁽³⁴⁾ [27] When a resident died, neighbours could even be required to search out daughters and sons who lived elsewhere to give them their shares of parents' goods. Whether actual division was postponed until both had died or, more efficiently, took place after the death of each, every daughter and son would receive a per capita interest in the land and movables of mother and father, while grandchildren divided their deceased parent's share. Apart from certain exceptions, it was highly illegal to prefer one child, especially a male child, over another in inheritance. ⁽³⁵⁾

Since advances on a child's share were commonly bestowed at marriage, the married heir or heiress frequently had to return or evaluate parental wedding gifts at the time of partition which would first occur when children divided family property with a surviving parent, often on the occasion of the latter's remarriage. The reintegration of parental marriage gifts or their value was the traditional mechanism for assuring an equitable and final redistribution of a parent's property among all the children. ⁽³⁶⁾ Although marriage gifts from parents rarely included land for a municipal son or daughter, as opposed to children of the nobility, a married child would still have to account for the clothing, bedding, dishes and other household goods given by parents when a couple wed. Nevertheless every townswoman retained an interest in the real property of her parents, and a married daughter laid claim to her share of their fields, meadows, vineyards, gardens, houses, corrals, mills and other urban real estate when she eventually divided the inheritance with her brothers and sisters. No towns recognized a customary marriage portion or dowry bestowed upon a marrying daughter, especially as a settlement given in lieu of further parental inheritance and a mechanism that would enable parents to favour brothers or even unmarried daughters who stayed at home. Instead inheritance was repeatedly proclaimed to be equal in each generation, and custom acknowledged no readily available means for brothers or other male relatives to cheat women out of their expected shares of family property, whether they married or not. ⁽³⁷⁾

A few exceptions to the principle of equality, highly beneficial to women, remain to be noted. Some communities permitted a limited degree of preference in inheritance which at times may have worked somewhat to the disadvantage of daughters. Under Visigothic law a parent or grandparent was permitted to give a child or grandchild up to a third of heritable property. This optional preference system [28] (meyora), available wherever the Code held sway, first appears as a possibility for Castilian town residents at Soria where the meyora was limited to a quarter and to children, not grandchildren, in accordance with the Fuero Real which Soria followed in this case. ⁽³⁸⁾ Such a system could be useful in planning the future of a large family and, depending upon family resources, it might occasionally bestow upon one child, or in some places a grandchild, the family dwelling and outright leadership of the domestic group. A few Castilian towns also permitted small fixed legacies (mandas) for a grandchild, much more rarely for a child and usually as a reward for one who had done special favours for the deceased. This was an even more limited possibility for conferring advantage, and it was acknowledged as exceptional. ⁽³⁹⁾ Parents could also draw up guidelines for equitable partition of their town property among their children, conceivably a means for circumventing the demand for equality, but the evidence is only notarial formulas from Cuenca and other towns which belaboured the axiom of absolute equality and stressed the illegality of favouring one child at the expense of others. ⁽⁴⁰⁾ None of these optional mechanisms available to modify the principle whereby daughters and sons were to inherit equal interests in all the property of their parents possessed the efficiency of a will similar to a Roman testament, instituting heirs and revocable at the wishes of the testator, to benefit one child and exclude others. Not until 1285 when Sancho IV explicitly modified the fuero of Cuenca to allow a parent to favour (meyorar) one child over another by means of a will, is there any sign that it was a legally permissible procedure here. Unfortunately we do not know the extent to which wills might then have been used to favour sons over daughters, but until the late thirteenth century custom remained widely committed to the partible principle which protected the interests of women. ⁽⁴¹⁾ The customary will (lingua, manila, testamentum) was primarily an eleemosynary instrument, usually a witnessed oral procedure, and even when a man or woman left property for the soul, this was ordinarily limited in quantity and kind. A fifth of movable property was a commonplace maximum, although this could rise to as much as a half, provided there were no children to consider. ⁽⁴²⁾ Land was not acceptable as a charitable bequest since municipal real estate was expected to remain with the daughters, sons and other relatives of town residents and stay out of the hands of religious corporations, including those entered by a man or woman of a town. ⁽⁴³⁾ The bulk of any town resident's property was intended for children, and for daughters no less abundantly than sons.

[29] The most significant exception to the principle of equality in inheritance for children of both sexes related to the disposition of a father's horse and military gear. These normally went to his son or closest male relative. Several towns as well as aristocratic customs designated the eldest son. ⁽⁴⁴⁾ At Alcalá de Henares, Brihuega and Fuentes de la Alcarria horse and arms went to sons, a mother's clothing to daughters. ⁽⁴⁵⁾ The sex-linked goods are scarcely comparable since the former were the means for a man to obtain special privileges as a caballero, including fiscal advantages but also the chance to assume a position of leadership in community affairs by becoming a magistrate (alcalde)of his town. When marriage property was divided, horses, arms, helmets, shields, cots, tents and related goods were usually set aside as property not subject to distribution. It normally went to widowers while widows were excluded. At Salamanca and Ledesma, for example, a dead wife's relatives could claim no part, while a man could make a charitable bequest of his mount and arms to a man who was not necessarily even a relative. Coria and other towns also recognized this legacy as a pious gift when a man had no son to inherit his equipment. ⁽⁴⁶⁾ The decidedly agnatic preference is functional, but it also demonstrates the need to keep such valuable items at the disposal of a town's militia. Exclusion of women from this inheritance must have arisen not only from their inability to use the masculine perquisites but also from the possibilities of a daughter's departure at marriage, a widow's remarriage to a man who was not a local citizen, and the residence of a widow's male relatives outside the town. At late thirteenth-century Sepúlveda, under more settled conditions, a daughter could inherit horses and arms when a man had no sons, and military equipment was subject to claims within maternal and paternal lines. Here now a widow could claim a share of military gear as part of conjugal property, as was also true at Soria when the household had more than enough equipment for one soldier. ⁽⁴⁷⁾ Nevertheless, the privileges based on the possession of a horse and arms tended to descend from fathers to sons, or even to men outside a family, but to local men. The equipment rarely passed through women to benefit their husbands and sons, an important differential to the advantage of male heirs, but this patrilineal preference stands in marked contrast to the other rules of inheritance, which allowed slight opportunity for favouring a son over a daughter in the devolution of other movables and real property.

Most children had unchallengeable claims to inherit property from their parents. A few towns permitted fathers and mothers to disinherit [30] their children for rebellion, assault, dissipation, drunkenness, theft, gambling, refusing to ransom a parent from captivity, and other reasons but, for the most part, all children could expect to inherit a share of their parents' wealth. ⁽⁴⁸⁾ This was partly a consequence of the wide responsibilities of children to assume productive functions in the municipal household. At Cuenca and other communities their duties were defined at length, and the term potestas parentum,derived from the ancient patria potestas of Roman law, was employed to encompass traditional obligations of children and parents towards one another. Children had to contribute their outside earnings to the family's income until they married. Since they owned no property of their own, they could not make bequests for their souls or enter into other financial commitments. Parents were responsible for paying judicial fines incurred by a child not yet emancipated by marriage or, another possibility, by the acquisition of an inheritance when one parent had died. Here parents could not disavow responsibility for the actions of 'perverse' offspring nor disinherit a child except for physical assault on mother or father. Under usual circumstances, then, children could count on an equitable share of parents' property, daughters as well as sons. ⁽⁴⁹⁾

It was universally recognized, however, that a daughter's marriage without family consent was grounds for disinheritance. Later we shall look closely at this ubiquitous custom, but here it is important to notice that her family's approval of a townswoman's marriage went hand in hand with her ability to inherit property, especially when towns, as a matter of policy, made marriage to townswomen attractive to men. Barring other flagrant forms of disobedience which usually required public disavowal of the child by her father or mother, a daughter was automatically admitted to inheritance along with her brothers, thus giving to every municipal daughter a share of the real and movable property of both parents. Through her ability to inherit real property the municipal daughter was placed at the very centre of the colonization process. Partible inheritance, like the financial incentives extended to bridegrooms, encouraged the establishment of new households and population growth. The daughters of a vecina or vecino were invaluable magnets for newcomers, men whom towns were anxious to attract and domesticate. A new arrival could acquire a stake in a town through marriage to a municipal daughter. Initially disadvantaged by not owning property himself, he could redress his position by the acquisition of wealth founded on [31] booty, especially livestock. Service in the local militia would give the man a share of the spoils, as well as gain the respect of prospective in-laws, and he could translate his new fortune into more animals and a house in the town where he hoped to marry. Once married, the couple might initially live with the bride's family, although towns bestowed their broadest privileges upon couples who eventually occupied houses of their own. An ambitious man seeking the privileges of living in a town would benefit immeasurably by marrying a woman with local connections, whether or not she had as yet become an heiress to property there.

A woman's family might easily prefer that she marry a local man. In the closely knit communities of medieval Castile it was important for townsmen to have reliable neighbours, and a marriage that linked two local families would extend their circle of friends to trust and depend upon. Marriage between the daughter and son of two families was a reliable way to obtain neighbourly support in judicial, financial, agricultural, military and other municipal activities. A man could, through competitive violence, become the enemigo of other townsmen, a personal enemy subject to exile under threat of vengeful retribution by the kinsmen of a murdered or seriously injured town resident. At Sepúlveda assistance from the husbands of living female relatives was expected in exacting vengeance when municipal law prescribed enemistad for serious crimes, meaning banishment under threat of legal execution by one's enemies. ⁽⁵⁰⁾ Allies were also necessary to support a resident's oath in the town court, whether to file a complaint or prove the innocence of an accusation. The town of Medinaceli named the son-in-law and the aristocratic Fuero Viejo recognized the importance of any in-laws in litigation. ⁽⁵¹⁾ Friends could stand as sureties for loans and provide short-term credit with which to plant a crop, ransom a relative held by the Muslims, or pay judicial fines. The bonds of residence and neighbourliness, so vital to townspeople in their relations with outsiders, would thus be strengthened in the kinship ties established by a daughter's marriage to a local man of whom her family approved.

The contributions of a son-in-law were sometimes explicitly acknowledged, whatever his origin. At Salamanca a man who served as farm manager for his father-in-law was excused from taxes, while the widow of Ledesma was considered poor and tax-exempt if she had neither son nor son-in-law to work her property. ⁽⁵²⁾ Here a son-in-law supported by his wife's father could replace the latter in the militia [32] when there was no son, nephew or other male relative in the older man's house to serve for him. Although many towns specified that only a son or nephew was a permitted substitute for the aging soldier, conceivably a resident son-in-law would also be acceptable. ⁽⁵³⁾ Everywhere a sister's husband could make important contributions to fraternal agrarian activities in sharing heavy farm work and the many tasks of livestock management. Even prosperous town residents owned relatively limited tracts of municipal real estate, with their wealth frequently measured in large numbers of sheep and cattle. The actual partition of any holdings, as opposed to joint or shared interest in family property, was not necessarily desirable, notably in respect to the all-important casa poblada of a deceased parent. Indeed, children in the same generation could choose not to divide family property after the death of one or both parents so as to keep the patrimony intact. ⁽⁵⁴⁾ Inheritance by a daughter or sister would be eminently desirable in attracting an industrious brother-in-law to share the burdens of town residents' ordinary tasks, while her departure at marriage meant the loss of essential domestic labour in the household. If she were one in a large family, her brothers might wish her to marry an established townsman or even a man who did not plan to take up permanent residence, perhaps in the hope of getting their hands on her share of family property. To do so, they would have to buy her out once actual division had taken place. Given the diverse possibilities of a family's size in relation to its municipal wealth in any one generation, it was eminently desirable to give a woman's family maximum control over her marriage and to decide on the basis of group interest when a daughter should marry a local man, a worthy immigrant, or one who could be counted upon to take her to live elsewhere. The last of these was rarely a laudable objective in the eyes of a town's founding fathers, but whether the couple stayed in her home town or moved away after marriage, the municipal heiress was a highly desirable catch for a man, especially for one who sought the privileges of living in a town.

In assessing the position of the municipal heiress, it is important to stress that her death without children meant that her parents, siblings or cousins, not her husband, were first claimants on the family property she inherited. Their claims were effected through the widely recognized principle of troncalidad whereby inherited land and sometimes other goods would revert to her mother's or father's side. ⁽⁵⁵⁾ Her kinsmen thus maintained an abiding interest in the woman after [33] her marriage and in the births and deaths of her children. She herself could exercise claims on family property, which were effected by invoking customary rules requiring a town resident to offer inherited property, especially land, to relatives of one side or the other before selling it. ⁽⁵⁶⁾ At some towns a relative could recover, at its price, family property already sold to someone else. ⁽⁵⁷⁾ Such provisions, together with the separation of maternal from paternal goods and ascendant and collateral inheritance in the absence of descendants, protected carefully the interests of relatives, notably siblings and close cousins, in the family property of town residents. The benefits accrued especially to local residents of both sexes, and they appear most practical in Castile as permitting orderly devolution in a highly mobile society and with minimum stress on the municipal property structures established by the elder, living and resident generation in a town. Thus a relative who already lived in a community or pledged to move there was sometimes preferred as an heir over outsiders with equally valid family claims to municipal property. ⁽⁵⁸⁾ Such modifications of family inheritance show how the broad interests of individual local citizens, women as well as men, could take precedence over those of families. A townswoman who married and moved away did not necessarily surrender her rights to property at her home town, nor to other property in the families of either of her parents. A legacy or the chance to purchase or recover family wealth would give a couple alternatives when their plans did not work out somewhere else, not a negligible consideration to be weighed by the prospective husband of a municipal daughter, and by her relatives whose attachments to the woman after her marriage remained unbroken, whether through affection or self interest.

All these legal principles had obvious utility in an expanding society where the migrations feeding new settlements came from older regions whose stability depended upon keeping the younger generation, attracting newcomers, or both. It seems evident that it was easier to hold women and that men were by and large the more, mobile sex. Men were immediately more necessary as conquerors and colonizers but less inclined than women to settle down permanently. Conversely, the women of medieval Castile were not invariably infected by the surplus ambition that drove men on the quest for the fame and fortune which the Reconquest consistently offered. Although highly desirable colonizers, women, especially those with children, were understandably hesitant to pull up stakes and try their [34] luck in country that was not only unknown but also highly dangerous. They were in short supply in the early stages of a settlement, whether one of the eleventh or thirteenth century. Even years after a town's foundation or capture, towns repeatedly enjoined married men to bring their wives and children as a sign that the men were committed to stay permanently and therefore qualify for the privileges of living in a town. Thus not a few wives must have delayed abandoning their previous homes for good and lagged in joining their husbands at a new place. It is not impossible that some of those wives, whose presence the founders and leading citizens of a town so strongly desired, had been left behind deliberately. A solid and dependable man, however, was expected eventually to move his wife and children to the town where he settled and desired to claim privileges as a full-fledged citizen. The married women of a town signified permanence and stability, assured the continuity of community life during the absences of men, and embodied hopes for a settlement's future.

No small part of a town's aspirations rested with the municipal daughters, women who enjoyed positions of esteem in the ranks of a town's inhabitants. Second and later generations of townswomen inherited municipal property and the privileges of a permanent resident. They also lived among family, friends, neighbours and relatives who would look out for their interests. The daughters of a town's founding fathers had wider personal attachments and greater material security than their mothers who moved there, and a privileged municipal daughter lost leverage when she emigrated from her town at marriage, as was expected of a woman when she married a man who did not live or settle there. Since her husband would have more immediate ways than she to make his mark in another community, the daughter might reasonably ponder with care a proposal from a man who planned to take her away from home. Her parents and neighbours were likely to take a dim view of her departure, and they might even oppose it. Reconquest towns, with their overriding concerns about permanent settlement, population growth and orderly development, anticipated marriage as the certain future of a townswoman, but it was widely hoped that a daughter and her new husband would stay safely in the bride's home town. Municipal daughters were highly valued as wives, either for bachelors already in residence or worthy newcomers who would assume and share family and community responsibilities. Ideally daughters would attract reliable and capable husbands who remained in [35] demand at every community. Marriage to a municipal daughter was of considerable advantage to a man, notably to one who aspired to the privileges of living in a town. The intrinsic magnetic appeal of a municipal bride was obviously not to be ignored in the selection of suitors by the family of a townswoman whose prospective marriage gave rise to so many expectations. We must, then, as fundamental to our understanding of the roles of bride and wife, consider the position of townswomen in the marriage relationship and how, in a period when the very institution of marriage was a centre of controversy and debate in canon law and theology, the municipal daughter became a wife.

1. E Lourie, 'A society organized for war: Medieval Spain', Past and Present 35 (1966), 64-76.

2. J. González, 'Reconquista y repoblación de Castilla, León, Extremadura y Andalucía (siglos XI a XIII)', La Reconquista y la repoblación del país, ed. J. M. Lacarra, et al. (Saragossa, 1951), pp. 163-206, idem, Repoblación de Castilla la Neuva (2 vols., Madrid, 1975), vol. I, pp. 108-32, 150-226, 297-364; idem, Repartimiento de Sevilla, Estudio y edición (2 vols., Madrid, 1951), vol. I, pp. 5-91; L. C. Kofman de Guarrochena and M. I. Carzolio de Rossi, 'Acerca de la demografia astur-leonesa y castellana en la alta edad media', CHE 47-8 (1968), 136-70.

3. Sánchez Albornoz, Despoblación y repoblación del valle del Duero (Buenos Aires, 1966), pp. 245-52; 284-7; 333-7; J. Guallart, 'Documentos para el estudio de la condición jurídica de la mujer leonesa hace mil años', CHE 6 (1946), 154-71, A. C. Floriano, Diplomática española del periodo astur, 718-910 (2 vols., Oviedo, 195 1-4), passim.

4. FZadornín, Berbeja, y Barrio, MC, pp. 31, 32; FNave de Albura, ibid., p. 59; Cartulario de San Millán de la Cogolla, ed. L. Serrano (Madrid, 1930), pp. 59, 91.

5. L. García de Valdeavellano, Orígenes de la burguesía en la España medieval (Madrid, 1969); L. Vázquez de Parga, J. M. Lacarra and J. Uría Riú, Las peregrinaciones a Santiago de Compostela, (3 vols., Madrid, 1948-9), vol. I, pp 255-79, 465-97; M. Defourneaux, Les Français en Espagne au X^e el XII^e siècles (Paris, 1949), ch. 4, esp. pp. 247-55; Sánchez Albornoz, España, un enigma histórico, 4th edn rev. (2 vols., Barcelona, 1973), vol. 2, pp. 113-23; Lacarra, 'Les villes frontières dans l'Espagne des XI^e et XII^e siècles', Le Moyen Age 69 (1963), 205-22; M. del C. Carlé, Del concejo medieval castellano-leonés (Buenos Aires, 1968), pp. 197-225.

6. FCastrojeriz, MC, p. 37, and the revealing additions of ante 1126, ibid., p. 44; FLSepúlveda 17, ed. E. Sáez, R. Gibert, M. Alvar and A. G. Ruiz-Zorilla, Los fueros de Sepúlveda (Segovia, 1953), p. 47; FNájera, MC, p. 287.

7. Repoblación, vol. 2, p. 26; C.J. Bishko, 'The Spanish and Portuguese Reconquest, 1095-1492', A history of the crusades, vol. 3: The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, ed. H. W. Hazard and K. M. Setton (Madison, 1975), pp. 396-432, and the references cited there; repr. in Studies in monastic frontier history (London, 1980).

8. FCuenca 30.6 (after 1177, perhaps 1189-1214, reworked c. 1250), ed. R. Ureña y Smenjaud, Fuero de Cuenca: Formas primitiva y sistemática, texto latino, castellano y adaptación del fuero de Iznatoraf (Madrid, 1935); hereafter I cite FCuenca by the capítulos and leyes of Ureña's Latin forma sistemática; see the briefer edition of G. H. Allen, Forum Conche, Fuero de Cuenca: The Latin text of the municipal charter and laws of the city of Cuenca, Spain, University Studies, University of Cincinnati, 2nd ser., vol. 5 nos. 1 and 4 (2 vols., Cincinnati, 1909-10). FIznatoraf 646 (c. 1240), ed. Ureña, Fuero de Cuenca. FAlarcón 598 (after 1184), ed. J. Roudil, Les fueros d'Alcaraz et d'Alarcón, Bibliothèque Française et Romaine, sér. Textes et Documents (2 vols., Paris, 1968), with variants from FAlcázar de San Juan (after 1241). FAlcaraz 10.6 (after 1213), ibid. FBaeza 675 (c. 1227), ed. idem, El fuero de Baeza, Publicaciones del Instituto de Estudios Hispánicos, Portugueses e Ibéroamericanos de la Universidad Estatal, Utrecht, vol. 5 (The Hague, 1962); the Paris ms (cap. 696) seems to admit that women and children might serve but should take no share of spoils, ed. idem, 'El manuscrito español 8331 de la Biblioteca del Arsenal de Paris', Vox Romanica 20 (1963), 127-74, 219-380. FZorita 614 (c. 1218), ed. Ureña, Fuero de Zorita de los Canes, según el códice 247 de la Biblioteca Nacional (siglo XIII al XIV) y sus relaciones con el fuero latino de Cuenca y el romanceado de Alcázar, MHE, vol. 44 (Madrid, 1911). FBéjar 899 (late thirteenth century), ed. J. Gutiérrez Cuadrado, Fuero de Béjar (siglo XIII), Acta Salamanticensia, Filosofía y Letras, vol. 86 (Salamanca, 1974); or ed. S. Martín Lázaro, 'Fuero castellano de Béjar (siglo XIII)', Revista de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales 8 (1926), 105-244 (sep pr., Madrid, 1926). FPlasencia 497 (c. 1221, with later additions), ed. J. Benavides Checa, El fuero de Plasencia (Rome, 1896). The provision appears in Fuero sobre el fecho de las cabalgadas 62 (after 1213), MHE, vol. 2 (Madrid, 1851), p. 477; it is missing from FLTeruel (after 1174, perhaps 1177-84), ed. J. Caruana Gómez de Barreda, El fuero latino de Teruel (Teruel:, 1974); or Forum Turolij, ed. F. Aznar y Navarro, Colección de Documentos para el Estudio de la Historia de Aragón, vol. 2 (Saragossa, 1905); and the Romance FTeruel (before 1250), ed. M. Gorosch, El fuero de Teruel según los mss. 1-4 de la Sociedad Económica Turolense de Amigos del País y 802 de la Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid, Leges Hispanicae Medii Aevi, vol. 1 (Stockholm, 1950). I have usually shortened citations from FTeruel to its Romance version and omitted comparable passages from its derivations at Santa María de Albarracín, ed. A. and I. González Palencia, 'El fuero latino de Albarracín (fragmentos)', AHDE 8 (1931) pp. 415-95; ed. G. Tilander, 'El fuero latino de Albarracín', RFE 20 (1933), 278-87; ed. C. Riba y García, Carta de población de la ciudad de Santa María de Albarracín según el códice romanceado de Castiel existente en la Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid, Colección de Documentos para el Estudio de la Historia de Aragón, vol. 10 (Saragossa, 1915).

9. FBéjar 280. Other towns which adopted these customs include Huete, Moya, Villaescusa de Haro, Consuegra and Úbeda, generally with fewer changes than FPlasencia. On all these texts cf. Caruana Gómez, 'La prioridad cronológica del fuero del Teruel sobre él de Cuenca', AHDE 7 (1955), 719-97; J. Martínez Gijón, 'La familia del fuero de Cuenca: Estado de una investigación científica', Atti del II Congresso Internazionale, Venezia 18-20 settembre 1967, Societá Italiano del Diritto (Florence, 1971), pp. 415-39; and A. M. Barrero García, El fuero de Teruel, Su historia, proceso deformación y reconstrucción crítica de sus fuentes (Madrid, 1979).

10. FCuenca 10.39; FIznatoraf 217, 218; FAlarcón 206; FAlcaraz 3.113; FBaeza 220, 221; FZorita 221; FBéjar 277-80; FLTeruel 345; FTeruel 453, 454; FPlasencia 487; but cf. A. M Guilarte, 'Cinco textos del fuero de Cuenca a propósito de la "potestas parentum" ', Homenaje a Don Ramón Carande, ed. L. de Urquijo (2 vols., Madrid, 1963), vol. 2, pp 196-200. C. Verlinden, L'Esclavage dans l'Europe médieval, vol. I. Péninsule ibérique-France (Bruges, 1955), pp. 172-80, 552-6, 588-9.

11. Chronica Adefonsi Imperatoris, c. 150, ed. L. Sánchez Belda (Madrid, 1950), pp. 116-17.

12. Sánchez Albornoz, 'The frontier and Castilian liberties', in The New World looks at its history, ed. A. Lewis and T. F. McGann (Austin, 1963), pp. 27-46, repr. as 'La frontera y las libertades de los castellanos', in Investigaciones y documentos sobre las instituciones hispanas (Santiago, Chile, 1970), pp. 537-59; Gibert, 'Libertades urbanas y rurales en León y Castilla durante la edad media', Les Libertés urbaines et rurales du XI^e au XIV^e siècle, Collection Histoire, vol. 19 (Paris, 1968), pp. 187-218; idem, El concejo de Madrid: Su organisación en los siglos XII a XV (Madrid, 1949), pp. 37-44; Carlé, Del concejo, pp. 81-90.

13. Settlement privileges explicitly naming women include FVallunquera (1102), ed. González, 'Aportación de fueros castellano-leoneses', AHDE 16 (1945), 630; FFunes (1120), MC, p. 426, charter of exchange (1134), HD, pp. 58-9; FSalinas de Anaña (1148), LLN, vol. 4, p. 113; FGuipúzcoa, Alfonso VIII, vol. 3, p. 224, FIbrillos (1214), ibid., p. 651; FVilanova II (1215), HD, p. 109; carta de behetría (1228), ibid., p. 136; charters, ed. G. Martínez Díez, 'Fueros locales en el territorio de la provincia de Santander', AHDE 46 (1976), 600-1, 604-5. Texts explicitly naming daughters as heirs to town property and privilege include the confirmation charter to Ávila (1181), Alfonso VIII, vol. 2, p. 628; and FBelbimbre (1187), ibid., p. 817.

14. FLedesma 2 (1161?, reworked c. 1250), ed. A. Castro and F. de Onís, Fueros leoneses de Zamora, Salamanca, Ledesma y Alba de Tormes, vol. I [unicum] Textos (Madrid, 1916). Cf. FReal (1252-5), in Los códigos españoles concordados y anotados, 2nd edn (12 vols., Madrid, La Publicidad, 1847-73), vol. I, 349 (Prologue).

15. E.g., FAlba 2 (1140, revised 1279, ed. Castro and de Onís, Fueros leoneses): 'Los alcaldes de Alba e el iuez non prendan omne nin anenguna muler su cuerpo, nin nenguna cosa de su auer...', showing the basic protection of municipal law against arbitrary seizure of persons and property. Other fueros characteristically use terms like homines, omes or omnes to refer to both sexes, as explained in Partidas 7.33.6, ed. Real Academia de la Historia (3 vols, Madrid, 1807), 'On the meaning and significance of other obscure words', where 'man' is said to refer to both sexes.

16. The earliest, also containing customs and precedents from several towns, is LF (before 1250). Deveysas que an los sennores en sus vasallos, ed. García Gallo, 'Textos de derecho territorial castellano', AHDE 13 (1936-7), 317-32; PON, ibid, pp. 332-69, POL, ibid., pp. 370-88; Fuero Antiguo, ibid., pp. 388-96, El Fuero Viejo de Castilla (early fourteenth century), Los códigos españoles, vol. I, pp. 219-99; Sánchez, 'Para la historia de la redacción del antiguo derecho territorial castellano', AHDE 6 (1929), 260-328. For nobles as urban and rural residents, see Carié, 'La ciudad y su contorno en León y Castilla (siglos x-xiii)', AEM 8 (1972-3), 72-7.

17. FFresnillo 8 (1104), HD, p. 47 FCornudilla 6 (1187), ibid., p. 87 FCelaperlata 4 (1200), ibid., p. 100.

18. FTeruel 7, 15. FLedesma 362.

19. FToledo (1118), HD, pp. 366; FToledo 36 (c. 1166), ed. García Gallo, 'Los fueros de Toledo', AHDE 45 (1975), 473-83; FCórdoba-Cartagena (1241, 1246), ed. F Casal Martínez, El fuero de Córdoba concedido a la ciudad de Cartagena (Cartagena, 1971), p. 34; FCarmona 19 (1252), MM, pp. 539-46; FLorca (1271), ed. J. M. Campoy, Fuero de Lorca otorgado por Alfonso X, 2nd edn (Toledo, 1913), pp 1-2, 9.

20. FDaroca (1142), MC, p.536 FMolina (1152-6), pp. 63-4, and (1272), pp. 153-4, ed. M. Sancho Izquierdo, El fuero de Molina de Aragón (Madrid, 1916). FBrihuega (c. 1240), ed. J. Catalina García López, El fuero de Brihuega (Madrid, 1877), p. 186, FFuentes 108 (1280-98), ed. Vázguez de Parga, 'Fuero de Fuentes de la Alcarria', AHDE 18 (1947), 348-98. FCoria 380 (before 1227), ed. Sáez and J. Maldonado y Fernández del Toreo, El fuero de Coria (Madrid, 1949). FLedesma 262. For the horse, e.g., FGuadalajara 51 (1219), ed. H. Keniston, Fuero de Guadalajara, Elliott Monographs, 16 (Princeton and Paris, 1924; repr. New York, 1965), FAlcalá 45, 46 (before 1247), ed. Sánchez, Fueros castellanos de Soria y Alcalá de Henares (Madrid, 1919);Fsoria 42, 43, 71 (after 1272), ibid.; FUclés 95 (c. 1250), ed. F. Fita, 'El fuero de Uclés', BRAH 14 (1889), 302-38.

21. Privilegio to Toledo (1137), MC, pp. 376-7 (or 1178?, ed. García Gallo, 'Los fueros de Toledo', p. 484) FAlcalá 47, 258, 263, 272; and cf. cap 6, 7, 78, 79. FCuenca 42.5, FIznatoraf 865; FBaeza 902; FZorita 933. FSalamanca 184 (reworked c. 1250, ed. Castro and de Onís, Fueros leoneses); Barrero García, 'El fuero breve de Salamanca, sus redacciones', AHDE 50 (1980), 439-67.

22. FPlasencia 684. Gibert, 'La condición de los extranjeros en le antiguo derecho español', L'Etranger, Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin pour l'Histoire comparative des Institutions, vol. 10 (Brussels, 1958), pp. 158-68.

23. FMolina, p. 154. FPlasencia 684. FLedesma 262. FSoria 270, 271. FToledo (1118), MC, p. 364; FToledo 12, 13 (c. 1166), FEscalona 7 (1130), ed. García Gallo, 'Los fueros de Toledo', pp. 464-7; FLorca, pp. 5-6; cf. FSevilla, MM, p. 513.

24. Privilegios to Treviño (1254), MHE, vol. I, pp. 52-3; Buitrago (1256), ibid., pp. 93-4; Peñafiel (1256), ibid., pp. 97-8; Escalona (1261), ibid., p. 178; charter to Sepúlveda (1201), ed. Sáez, Los fueros de Sepúlveda, Ap. 7, p. 185 charter amending FMadrid (1262), ND, p. 169.

25. FLedesma 386. FCoria 281, 324; FCáceres 270, 333 (after 1231), and FUsagre 288, 353 (after 1242), ed. Ureña and A. Bonilla y San Martín, Fuero de Usagre (siglo XIII) anotado con las variantes del de Cáceres, Biblioteca Jurídica Española anterior al Siglo XIX, vol. I (Madrid, 1907), following this edition's numbering of FCáceres in preference to that of P. Lumbreras Valiente, Los fueros municipales de Cáceres, Su derecho público (Cáceres, 1974). FPlasencia 529. FSalamanca 189. For a husband's deferment at childbirth in thirteenth-century Navarre, see FEstella 2.69.2, ed. Lacarra and A J Martín Duque, Fueros derivados de Jaca, vol. I: Estella-San Sebastián (Pamplona, 1969), p. 145. FViguera 266, ed. J. M. Ramos y Loscertales, Fuero de Vigueray Val de Funes (edición crítica), Acta Salamanticensia, Filosofía y Letras, vol. 7 (Salamanca, 1956). FLa Novenera 211, ed. G. Tilander, Los fueros de la Novenera, Leges Hispanicae Medii Aevi, vol. 2 (Stockholm, 1951); Gibert, 'El derecho medieval de la Novenera', AHDE 21-2 (1951-2), 1169-221.

26. Crónica de la población de Ávila, ed. A. Hernández Segura, Textos Medievales, vol. 20 (Valencia, 1966), pp. 23, 27. R. Blasco, 'El problema del fuero de Ávila', RABM 60 (1954), 7-32.

27. FPalenzuela (1074), MC, p. 274. Cf. FMelgar de Suso (950?), ibid., p. 27. Exemption for the first year of residence was also common.

28. Ibid., p. 98. Deut. 24.5. D. M. Feldman, Marital relations, birth control, and abortion in Jewish law (New York, 1974), pp. 34-45, 71-2.

29. FSan Miguel de Escalada (1173), HD, p. 81. FBenavente (addition of 1187), ed. González, 'Fuero de Benavente de 1167', Hispania 2 (1942), 626; García Gallo, 'Los fueros de Benavente', AHDE 41 (1971), 1143-91. FSalvaleón 9 (1254), ND, p. 159.

30. FLara (1135), MC, p. 521. As FPalenzuela, FSan Juan de Cella (1209), ed. González, Alfonso VIII, vol. 3, p. 497; FVillaverde (before 1214), ibid., p. 638.

31. FGuadalajara 110, 111. FAlfambra 54 (1174-6), ed. M. Albareda y Herrera (Madrid, 1926) FLTeruel 10; FTeruel 9. FSepúlveda 237 (c. 1300), ed. Sáez, Los fueros de Sepúlveda; FSegura de León 9, 10, ibid., Ap. 14, pp 200-1.

32. LV and FJuzgo 4.2.1, 9, 10 (Los códigos, vol. I, pp. 95-204). G. Sicard, 'Recherches sur les dévolutions fractionnées du patrimoine successoral dans le droit du Bas Empire et la législation wisigothique', Annales de la Faculté de Droit de Toulouse 3 (1955), 127-31, 149-57; A. D'Ors, El código de Eurico, Estudios Visigóticos, vol. 2 (Rome and Madrid, 1960), pp. 10-11, 248-74; P. D. King, Law and society in the Visigothic kingdom, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd ser., vol 5 (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 222-50.

33. Sánchez Albornoz, 'Documentos sobre el "Juicio del Libro" durante el siglo X', AHDE i (1924), 382-90; García Gallo, 'Los fueros de Toledo', pp. 450-8;'M. L. Alonso, 'La perduración del Fuero Juzgo y el derecho de los castellanos de Toledo', AHDE 48 (1978), 335-77. For grants of FReal by Alfonso X to towns, some with customs dommnated by Castilian principles, see García Gallo, 'El "Libro de las Leyes" de Alfonso el Sabio, del Especulo a las Partidas', AHDE 21-2 (1951-2), 406-10, 448-550; idem, 'Nuevas observaciones sobre la obra legislativa de Alfonso X', AHDE 46 (1976), 609-70; Martínez Díez, 'El Fuero Real y el fuero de Soria', AHDE 39 (1969), 543-62.

34. G. Braga da Cruz, O Direito de troncalidade e o régime jurídico de patrimonio familiar (2 vols., Braga, 1941-7), vol. 2, pp. 292-368; G. de Valdeavellano, La comunidad patrimonial de la familia en el derecho español medieval (Salamanca, 1956), repr. in his Estudios medievales de derecho privado (Seville, 1977), pp. 295-321; J. Lalinde Abadía, 'La sucesión filial en el derecho visigodo', AHDE 32 (1962), 113-30.

35. FMiranda 9 (1099), ed. F. Cantera Burgos, Fuero de Miranda de Ebro (Madrid, 1945), pp. 45, 67; or in AHDE 14 (1942-3), 461-86. FDaroca, MC, p. 542. FCuenca 10.27; FIznatoraf 204; FAlarcón 195 FAlcaraz 3.101; FBaeza 208, FZorita 211; FBéjar 259; FTeruel 442; FPlasencia 478. FSoria 330 FBrihuega, p. 166; FFuentes 108. FBelbimbre (1187), Alfonso VIII, vol. 2, p. 819. Martínez Gijón, 'La comunidad hereditaria y la partición en el derecho medieval español', AHDE 27-8 (1957-8), 221-303; J. García González, 'La mañería', AHDE 21-2 (1951-2), 224-99, F. T. Valiente, 'La sucesión de quién muere sin parientes y sin disponer de sus bienes', AHDE 36 (1966), 204-23.

36. LV and FJuzgo 4.5.3. FDaroca, MC, p. 542. FCuenca 10.22; FIznatoraf 199; FAlarcón 190; FAlcaraz 3.96; FBaeza 203; FZorita 206; FBéjar 255, FTeruel 438; FPlasencia 477. FAlcalá 75, 76. FSoria 330, 331. FBrihuega, p. 155. FValfermoso de las Monjas (1189), CD, pp. 123-4. LF 125; FViejo 5.3.6; cf. FViejo 4.1.8, 11 and FZamora 9. The marriage gift (don) permitted a child in the northeast was evidently not deductible from eventual inheritance; see FJaca 249, ed. M. Molho, El fuero de Jaca, Edición crítica, Fuentes para la Historia del Pirineo, vol. I (Saragossa, 1964), FEstella 2.12.5, FSan Sebastián 3.6.5.

37. For the dowry above the Pyrenees, see P. Ourliac and J. de Malafosse, Histoire du droit privé (3 vols., Paris, 1968), vol. 3, pp. 246-8, 279-86, 369-72; Ourliac, 'Las costumbres del sudoeste de Francia', AHDE 23 (1953), 413-15; J. Lafon, Régimes matrimoniaux et mutations sociales, Les Epoux de Bordelais, 1450-1550 (Paris, 1972), pp. 45-58, 98-104, 175-91, 291-308; J. Poumaréde, Les Successions dans le sud-ouest de la France au moyen âge (Paris, 1972), pp. 129-30, 155-7, 160-81.

38. LV and FJuzgo 4.5.1. FSorza 316, 306; FReal 3.5.9.

39. FDaroca, MC, p. 542. FAlfambra 40. FTeruel 420. FBrihuega, p. 167; FFuentes 109. FSoira 330. LF 125 (exclusive of 'the best houses') FAlcalá 268 forbids such gifts. FPampliega (1209), Alfonso VIII, vol. 3, p 466. Otero, 'La meyora del nieto', AHDE 31 (1961), 389-400.

40. FCuenca 10.10; FIznatoraf 187; FBaeza 191; FZorita 194; FAlcaraz 384; FBéjar 238; FTeruel 430; FPlasencia 465. Division is by lots in FViejo 5.3.4.

41. Meyoría 12, ed. Ureña, Fuero de Cuenca, p. 841, where the new practice is referred to as mayorar. Sánchez Albornoz, Ruina y estinctión del municipio romano en España e instituciones que le reemplazen (Buenos Aires, 1943), pp. 101-2, repr. in Estudios visigodos (Rome, 1971); cf. J. Bastier, 'Le testament en Catalogne du IX^e au XII^e siècle, une survivance wisigothique', RHD 50 (1972), 373-417; García Gallo, 'Del testamento romano al medieval, Las lineas de su evolución en España', AHDE 47 (1977), 425-97; Poumaréde, Les Successions, pp. 68-81.

42. LV and FJuzgo 4.5.1. FReal 3.5.10. LF 208, 276; FViejo 5.2.1, 6. All limit donations for the soul to one-fifth when there were children, a fact that produced numerous restrictions on the alienation of property under Visigothic law. Cf. FAvilés 23, 24 (1155) and FOviedo, pp. 125-6 (1145?), both ed. A. Fernández Guerra y Orbe, El fuero de Avilés (Madrid, 1865), as well as FSalamanca 7, FLedesma 31 and FSoria 322. G. de Valdeavellano, 'La cuota de libre disposición en el derecho hereditario de León y Castilla en la alta edad media (notas y documentos)', AHDE 9 (1932), 129-79, repr. in Estudios, pp. 323-63; J. A. Infantes Florida, 'San Agustín y la cuota de libre disposición, Interpretación de Graciano', AHDE 30 (1960), 89-112.

43. E.g., FCuenca 2.2. FPlasencia 23. FCoria 315. FSoria 322. FSepúlveda 24.

44. FAlba 143. FCoria 69, 70, FCáceres 78; FUsagre 78, 79 FGuadalajara 52 (1219), to which cf. the carta puebla of 1133, CD, p. 119. FToledo (1118), MC, p. 364; FToledo 9 (c. 1166), FEscalona 5. F Viejo 5.2.4.

45. FAlcalá 268. FBrihuega, p. 183; FFuentes 192.

46. FSalamanca 32, 33; FLedesma 8, 9. FCoria 6, 70, et fora alia. FZamora 40 (1208, ed. Castro and de Onis, Fueros leoneses) where the lord bishop takes a dead man's horse and gear; at other towns a saddle horse is explicitly withheld from the intestate man's obligatory gift of other livestock for his soul (e.g., FCuenca 9.9, et fora alia, FBrihuega, p. 166 and FFuentes 105). Differently, by FSanta María de la Vega 14 (1217, ND, pp. 111-13) a plough horse is taken as a death duty when a man leaves no son, or wife pregnant with a male child. Maldonado, Herencias en favor del alma en el derecho español (Madrid, 1944), pp. 37-44; M. E. González de Fauve, 'El nuptio en los reinos occidentales de España (siglos X-XIV)', CHE 57-8(1973), 280-321.

47. FSepúlveda 66. FSoria 338. Cf. FViejo 5.2.4.

48. LV and FJuzgo 4.5.1. FDaroca, MC, p. 543. FZamora 5, 24. FSoria 364, 365. Cf. FAlcalá 269: FCuenca 10.3, 7, 38; FIznatbraf 180, 184, 220; FAlarcón 173, 177, 178, 208, FAlcaraz 3.77, 81, 115; FBaeza 184, 188, 223; FZorita 187, 191, 223; FBéjar 228, 231, 283; FTeruel 423, 427, 457; FPlasencia 489, adding enemistad. For reinstatement of a child or grandchild disinherited in anger, see FToledo (1118), MC, p. 365; FToledo 18 (c. 1166); cf. FEscalona 10.

49. FCuenca 10.4, 32, 40: FIznatoraf 181, 209, 219; FAlarcón 174, 199, 207; FAlcaraz 3.78, 106, 114; FBaeza 185,213,222; FZorita 188,215,222; FBéjar 229, 265, 281, 282; FTeruel 424, 447, 455, 456; FPlasencia 461, 481, 488. FSoria 347 omits the need to pay the child's fines Martínez Gijón, 'Cinco textos', pp. 195-218.

50. FSepúlveda 50.

51. FMedinaceli (c. 1180), MC, p. 438; García Gallo, 'Los fueros de Medinaceli', AHDE 31 (1961), 9-16. FViejo 3.2.7.

52. FSalamanca 329. FLedesma 326.

53. FLedesma 278, to which cf., inter fora alia, FCuenca 30.4 and FAlcalá 61, 62.

54. E.g., FTeruel 461. FPlasencia 491. FSepúlveda 237.

55. FSepúlveda 61 (by antonomasia, the principle of troncalidad: 'la raiz torne a la raiz', 'la herencia a la herencia'). FMolina, p. 76 FCuenca 1071; FIznatoraf 178; FAlarcón 170; FAlcaraz 3.75 FBaeza 182; FZorita 185, FBéjar 225, FTeruel 237; FPlasencia 476. FSalamanca 207; FLedesma 135, 261. FCáceres 89; FUsagre 90. LF 93. FViejo 1.9.3, 4.1.3, 4.3.5, 4.4.1, 5.2.1 FReal 3.10.13. For practical purposes, kin referred to grandparents, children and grandchildren (e.g., FZamora 7) although several fueros mention the fictive seventh degree of LV 4.1.1-7 (e g., FLUclés 1 (1179), ed. Sáez, Los fueros de Sepúlveda, pp. 178-83). Braga da Cruz, O Direito, vol. I, pp. 1-20, 139-292; vol. 2, pp. 292-368; G. de Valdeavellano, La comunidad, pp. 25-33; D'Ors, El código, pp. 248-53; P Meréa, 'Sobre a chamada "reserva hcreditária"', Estudos de Direito hispánico medieval (2 vols., Coimbra, 1952-3), vol. 2, pp. 75-81; Ourliac, 'Le Retrait lignager dans le sud-ouest de la France', RHD 34. (1952), 328-55; Sicard, 'Recherches', pp. 117-31, 151-9.

56. FCuenca 32.4; FIznatoraf 718, 719; FAlarcón 661, 662; FAlcaraz 11.4, 5; FBaeza 747, 748, FZorita 689-91; FBéjar 992-5; FTeruel 309, 310; FPlasencia 386. Falcalá 33, 280. FBrihuega, p. 156. FZamora 8.

57. Prior offer combined with right of retraction in FCoria 77; FCáceres 84; FUsagre 85. FSalamanca 203, FLedesma 130.

58. FCastrotorafe (1178), MC, p. 484. FAlcalá 60, 280. FPlasencia 21 FSepúlveda 246. Cf. FCuenca 10.2; FTeruel 422.