[168] For the women who repopulated medieval Castile a walled fortified town was a safer destination than settlement in open country. Even so women migrated more gradually, perhaps less willingly, than men during the Reconquest, and competition for available townswomen inevitably caused friction between men, particularly in a town's early years when it was least well provided with them. Colonizers were exhorted repeatedly to bring their wives and families to new communities or even encouraged to kidnap brides from their homes. These women needed protection from Muslims but also from abductors and other reprobates, especially since opportunities to acquire the privileges of municipal residence extended to hunted men and questionable characters from elsewhere. Harlots and trollops doubtless abounded in the wake of siege and conquest, but the most desirable daughters had to be kept out of reach, even if they did not always remain beyond the ambition, of some settlers. Many adventurers of course settled down to become cooperative and trustworthy neighbours, but established communities continued to attract the sort of man who, far from intending to remain permanently, looked for short term advantage and then quickly moved on or, failing to realize his hopes, sought a better chance somewhere else. Flourishing towns were, in any case, ideal places to go in search of female companions, and the virtuous and valuable, no matter how capable and self-reliant, had to be shielded from contemptible rogues.

Throughout the Reconquest municipal populations were infected with a high degree of social as well as geographical mobility, which promoted a competitive spirit among the colonizers and presented women with notable uncertainties. Towns remained officially hostile to entrenched class privilege, and their sometimes ill-defined measurements of a man's status, based on wealth, achievements and such intangibles as heroism, could cause discord. As settlements aged and [169] expanded, the relative prosperity of long implanted families, with their increasingly gentrified ways, deepened distinctions between men and women with a stake in maintaining their pre-eminence and others who continued to entertain aspirations they were not always able to realize as successfully as some among their neighbours. Cowardice, impotence and other unmanly traits could be exposed in even the most valorous and prestigious rival by challenging his ability to protect so choice, if not always delicate, a creature as a woman. Indignities to which a woman might be subjected disgraced her husband or family, especially the men responsible for her safety, and her dishonour demeaned both the woman and her protectors in the eyes of others. She herself might resort to uncompromising behaviour and so bring about a man's humiliation, but she could also easily become the focus of dispute, if not necessarily the cause of a rivalry, between men of the same community. Under such circumstances towns were bound to make keen efforts not only to safeguard innocent women but also to differentiate among them since some townswomen were regarded as belonging to better classes of victim than others.

If women remained vulnerable to the machinations of ambitious and competitive men, they were not themselves immune to the contentious spirit which possibilities for new wealth and personal advancement within a community presented to both insiders and outsiders. Apart from their taking sides in family quarrels that originated between men from different households, townswomen could nurse grievances of their own. Last year's bereft widow, seemingly harmless at the riverbank, might this year threaten to impose herself as a meddlesome stepmother, and a woman could hardly be expected to rejoice at the election of some frosty neighbour's husband as a magistrate. A showy wedding staged by a pretentious newcomer for one of her children was unlikely to endear her to her new neighbours, those with marriageable offspring in particular. Just as unsettling was the country girl or barmaid who took up residence as the barragana of a prospective son-in-law, especially when she postured assumingly as a townswoman of consequence. The humble beginnings of many settlers and of town residents who achieved local eminence later in life in no way disposed them to open their arms to all new arrivals. This was perhaps especially true among townswomen who had more subtle opportunities than men to disguise their backgrounds and make an ado about their newly acquired prominence in households of knights, clergy, long-time vecinos and other [170] community leaders. An upstart's success was surely undeserving of defense in the eyes of the municipal heiress or knight's daughter, even one of modest means. The close quarters of a town and the tasks women pursued from day to day brought them inevitably into trifling encounters that could pit one woman against another. Female as well as male detractors of townswomen were regularly prosecuted on the complaints of their female accusers, whether they had dared a relatively minor slander or resorted to more detrimental and outrageous behaviour. A variety of offences thus harmed, dishonoured and put an innocent woman to shame. They ranged from malicious allegations through a variety of physical abuse, of which rape was the most despicable. The municipal court provided a woman with means to redress her grievance by requiring her convicted assailant to compensate her with pecuniary damages suitable to the gravity of the injury and, for the more insufferable wrongs, undergo harsher punishments.⁽¹⁾

Loathsome insults aimed at persons of repute required the payment of damages, retraction of the affront, or both. The most ubiquitously contemptuous epithets for a man were colloquial equivalents of traitor, faithless one, liar, leper, cuckold and passive homosexual, the last sometimes referred to restrainedly as 'the unspeakable Castilian name'. ⁽²⁾ Most such insolence questioned his loyalty, reliability and aggressive masculinity. A woman was maligned primarily by casting aspersions on her sexual conduct or condition. In Castile the defamatory slurs were mainly three: whore (puta), hack horse (roçina) and leper (gafa). ⁽³⁾ Puta was the calumny most likely to slip the tongue, but the others were equally degrading. ⁽⁴⁾Roçina denoted a broken down nag good for absolutely nothing. ⁽⁵⁾Gafa, a possible libel also against a man, meant a pariah afflicted with the physical deformity, venereal disease and moral turpitude attributed to lepers in medieval times. ⁽⁶⁾ This derogatory trio could easily be supplemented by Madrid's 'daughter of a whore' or Alcalá's monaguera, perhaps meaning the barragana of a priest but also conceivably a trotaconventos, convent trotter or procuress of nuns. ⁽⁷⁾ A most ordinary way to denigrate a Leonese woman was to call her a 'blinder' (enceguladera, ceguladora) or one who blinded partially, hence a deceitful adulteress. ⁽⁸⁾ Ledesma admitted the longest run of amerciable slander, specifying as additional possibilities 'faithless one' (aleusa, often for men only), dishonest whore (puta falsa) and 'sorceress' or 'poisoner' (eruolera). Everywhere the spoken tongue surely outran a scribe's penchant to record the forbidden, salacious and mortifying invectives. ⁽⁹⁾

[171] Any of this slander blackened a woman's name, compromised her dignity and self esteem, and killed her reputation. The mere fact of having hurled the cutting epithets required the payment of damages, sometimes shared between the injured woman and municipal officials, but retraction of the utterances were also frequently necessary, and the offender had to vow that he or she knew them to be untrue before a semblance of amity could be restored. Women, whether married, widowed or single, were the immediately aggrieved parties whose slanderers were either men or other women. ⁽¹⁰⁾ Naturally the wife scorned and mortified as a 'blinder' implicated her husband's honour since her attacker insinuated that he was a worthless cuckold. At Soria it was stressed that any defamation of a wife was a means for one man to dishonour another. Ledesma combined León's blinding with the goat imagery of Castile in demanding an exorbitant fine and exile, the murder penalty, from the man who vaunted, in the most colloquially explicit terms, his possession of another man's wife, claiming to have blinded him or put horns on his head. ⁽¹¹⁾ Such public bragging brought the same harsh penalties in Castilian towns where, instead, a man might discover horns or bones laid surreptitiously at his doorstep to alert him to his wife's deception and inform him that for this or some other inadequacy he might as well be dead. ⁽¹²⁾ 'Adulteress' was a most serious accusation that transmitted dishonour from a wife to her husband, but all such smears abused any reputable woman, whether they were levelled by a man or a woman who, encountering a rival or other detested creature at the spring or another of a community's gathering places for townswomen, might not hesitate to express her animosity by withering the wretch with a name that branded her as promiscuous, morally corrupt and irremediably rotten, just the sort of truth that women might perhaps be expected to know about one another. At many towns anyone could beat a shameless harlot who had the effrontery to discredit respectable citizens of either sex, but she was evidently less in the habit of belittling men than denouncing decent women by branding them whores. ⁽¹³⁾

A woman's self esteem and reputation were plainly most vulnerable to remarks that raised doubts about her sexual behaviour and her past, and it was manifestly desirable for any self-respecting townswoman to distance herself as far as possible from the sluts and slatterns of her town. Modesty and probity were certainly in order, but they did not always succeed in warding off suggestive overtures from men. Obscene advances could be somewhat more costly to a [172] culprit than insults, but they seem to have been rarely mentionable, and not many towns even considered the possibilities. Uncovering a woman's leg or another part of her body was envisioned at Ledesma, where the offence drew the compensation of ten mrs. while a verbal insult called for just one. At Alcalá de Henares and Sepúlveda fines for fondling a woman's breasts or genitals were again quite low, although the convicted molester had to pay the highest damages to a wife, less to a widow and least to a single woman.⁽¹⁴⁾ At late thirteenth-century Sepúlveda, where these provocations were recorded abashedly and anachronistically in Latin, an aggrieved fijadalgo was further entitled to the traditional five hundred sueldos due a noble awarded many kinds of damages here. Any victim, however, also deserved additional satisfaction. She selected one of her male relatives to inflict the same uninvited caress on one of the molester's kinswomen. This talion punishment was legal here and elsewhere for a variety of personal affronts to town residents as well as the nobles they emulated, as at Soria where a man whose wife had been slandered verbally was allowed to insult the wife of her detractor. ⁽¹⁵⁾ At Sepúlveda the retributive fondling of the innocent wife or comparable kinswoman of the molester was mercifully to be carried out in such a way that no one would know her identity. Failure to comply with the penalties here subjected the culprit to exile under threat of being killed by the offended woman's relatives, an authorized vengeance for which any of them would be fined and banished unless the man had been formally convicted by the court. It was not unknown for women to be caught in the cross fire of this kind of retribution, probably also when it had not been authorized, but it seems plain that the woman pawed originally, like the one who was to be fondled without public knowledge, would have preferred to keep the matter to herself rather than lodge a formal complaint.

Damages for slander and molesting, where the latter was contemplated at all, were quite low, but penalties mounted for more serious blows, injuries and other kinds of physical abuse and symbolic assaults on a townswoman's honour. Any 'bodily outrages' (deshonras de cuerpo) committed against a man or woman were such grave matters that many town courts convened in special session to judge them, even on Sundays, market days and important fiestas, and during Lent, Pentecost and harvest seasons when routine court business was ordinarily suspended. Offenders were diversely accountable for blows with the open palm or fist, assault with forbidden [173] weapons, and injuries that drew blood, while their beleaguered victims were entitled to demand from their assailants compensation appropriate to the injury. Many towns scaled damages for cutting off fingers, knocking out teeth, breaking bones and mutilating other parts of the body. Abominable outrages suffered by a man of Cuenca, for example, included tonsuring his hair or grabbing the reins of his horse, both of which were disdainful of aristocratic and masculine prowess, while the cutting of a townsman's beard or his actual emasculation by castration warranted the exorbitant fine and banishment demanded from a convicted killer. ⁽¹⁶⁾

Beginning in the late eleventh century at Logroño and subsequently at other inland and coastal towns in the Rioja and Basque provinces, communities elaborated penalties for attacks on married men and women by members of the opposite sex. While Logroño amerced simple assault on an unmarried victim by a man or a woman at five sueldos, ten for aggravated assault drawing blood, a man was fined sixty for striking a married woman, as was a woman who hit a married man. Even more reprehensible was the woman who pulled any man's beard, hair or genitals. She had to pay a penalty equivalent to the price of her hand, partially in accordance with a law from Deuteronomy, or she was to be flogged. Adaptations of these customs changed numerous details concerning the fines and other particulars of these offences. At late eleventh-century Miranda de Ebro simple and aggravated assault on married men and women by a member of either sex brought particularly steep fines, while a man or woman who made a lascivious attack on a married man was fined nearly tenfold, the price of the hand set here at half the homicide fine of five hundred sueldos. This particular malefactor was imprisoned for a month for failure to pay and then flogged from one end of town to the other. Unlike Logroño's female offenders, these were said to be of either sex, and the harshest punishments were demanded only when the victim was a married man. ⁽¹⁷⁾ Other towns which later followed the customs of Logroño fined handsomely the man who struck a married woman. ⁽¹⁸⁾ At these communities and many others it was just as costly when a woman aimed a sally at a married man. Again more regrettable was the brazen hussy who grabbed any man's hair, beard or genitals. At most of these towns, and not as in Miranda, only a woman was envisioned as the culprit for this particular pass, her victim did not have to be married, and flogging was necessary only when she failed to pay the high indemnity. ⁽¹⁹⁾ Nevertheless, assault [174] against married persons of both sexes was being amerced at approximately six times the rate of assessments for attacks on the unmarried, excluding the high price of the imprudent feminine hand. Wedded couples could evidently anticipate more careful treatment from neighbours and visitors to their town. Despite the biblical allusion and possibly clerical tone, the discrepancies between married and unmarried victims seem less convincingly like official protection of the family than recognition of the need to discourage conduct that disturbed the peace. ⁽²⁰⁾ In this way citizens were being cautioned to behave soberly towards married persons, although lusty horseplay among the unmarried was perhaps tolerated. Openly lewd behaviour by violent, bawdy and forward women was most particularly condemned, but no less grave was the danger when a man dared to molest another's wife, especially since she might resort to a shamelessly provocative defense before her husband came to her rescue. Now and then towns drew attention to the disrespect shown by hitting a wife in her husband's presence or him in hers. ⁽²¹⁾ Spouses were particularly sensitive about the way they appeared in the presence of others, and it was vital that married persons be treated gingerly to prevent a third party from starting a street brawl by provoking jealousy or rage in a husband or his wife.

A few of those towns which adapted Logroño's customs and many others in the same region were concerned above all about the female aggressor who lunged at a married woman. Beginning in 1164 at Laguardia, the act of knocking off her toca or coif and of disarranging her hair were central to the injury. The fine was twice that owed for aggravated assault that drew blood and, as at most other towns with similar customs, the woman was convicted solely on the strength of testimony from two other women. ⁽²²⁾ At Ocón a woman was fined sixty sueldos for thus offending a wife but only two and a half when the victim was unmarried. ⁽²³⁾ Vitoria and the majority of communities which followed these precedents disregarded all but the married victim whose assailant was invariably said to be another woman. ⁽²⁴⁾ The act of uncovering a married woman's head and revealing her hair was a way for one woman to humiliate another, especially in northern Castile and Navarre. It is plain that townswomen did not necessarily hesitate to lash out at others they disliked with their hands as well as tongues.

To the south it was occasionally more serious when a man rather than a woman struck a townswoman, removed her coif or tousled her [175] hair. At twelfth-century Calatayud and Marañón the murder fine was called for when a man hit or dishevelled a married woman and, although Calatayud also protected unmarried victims, female assailants at both towns paid a comparatively small fine. At Marañón a man's mussing of a wife's hair was said to be part of the injury she sustained when he attempted to lie on top of her. ⁽²⁵⁾ Zorita de los Canes, Alcalá de Henares and Ledesma awarded any woman exorbitant damages when a man dared to wrestle her to the ground and pin her down as though he were going to rape her. ⁽²⁶⁾ Ledesma's fine for removing a woman's toca, as for exposing her leg or another part of her body, was quite small, but at Zamora considerable damages were required when any assailant threw a woman down or mussed her hair, excepting a servant girl or transient wench who did not have to be compensated. ⁽²⁷⁾ Uclés fined substantially any person who disarranged the hair of a married woman or widow, while Cuenca and many other towns levied progressively high fines for hitting any woman, knocking her down and pulling her hair, more steeply in some communities when it was yanked with both hands. ⁽²⁸⁾ To be cast to the ground was damaging to a woman's dignity but often most demeaning when engineered by a man, either when he feigned to rape her or uncovered her hair and caused it to fall from its fastening under her coif. When a woman married, she bound up her hair under her toca as a sign that she was a mature woman, no longer a girl with flowing locks (manceba en cabellos) and available to be courted and married. Certainly no one was at liberty to trifle with her. The toca was a taboo against which it was forbidden to trespass. It proclaimed that a woman was off-limits and not to be ill-used but to be shown the deference merited by a distinguished municipal wife. When a man removed a woman's coif or let down her hair, he assaulted her modesty and exposed her as defenseless and pregnable. When a woman inflicted comparable injury, she displayed contempt for one she no longer considered worthy of the respect and dignity townswomen assumed in securing their hair under their tocas.

It was indeed wretched for a woman, whether or not she was married, to be pushed to the ground and left lying in a dishevelled heap, especially when she had been manhandled into this distressing predicament or, even worse, threatened with rape. Such villainy was harshly punished, but so was other mistreatment of townswomen. At Cuenca and many other towns peeping toms at the bath house were offensive, but the man who pulled off a woman's clothes or simply [176] stole them from a bathing woman was deemed sufficiently reprehensible to merit the pecuniary penalty given a killer, provided she was not a prostitute.⁽²⁹⁾ Damages for cutting any woman's breasts were equally steep, and numerous towns saw a need to confront this atrocity, but the slasher usually deserved not only the maximum pecuniary penalty but also banishment, the dual penalty for a killing. ⁽³⁰⁾ At Cuenca and other towns the same deserts awaited those who dared to cut off a woman's skirts, either to expose her to ridicule or, at a few towns, to mutilate her buttocks. It was said, however, that her assailant was to be punished only when the alcaldes had not authorized the mistreatment. Similarly, at Brihuega any degradation of a woman, unspecified except for flogging, was prohibited and just as severely chastised, again barring official permission. ⁽³¹⁾ Since public flogging in particular was an acceptable punishment diversely meted out to adulterers, mistresses of married men, bawdy women and other troublemakers of both sexes, the clipping of a woman's skirts, never a legitimate penalty, was perhaps an indignity that groups of citizens sometimes inflicted on women they suspected of gross misbehaviour or, where the penalties for doing so were excessive, done surreptitiously by an individual who wanted to humiliate a woman. At many towns this was no mere prank but as damaging as a killing blow and thus a most risky course of action. Like theft of a woman's clothes, cutting her skirts took away the coverings of her body, made her appear immodest and put her to shame. She was stripped of her honour as well as her clothing, exposed as shameless and so judged in the court of public opinion rather than the town court. Municipal courts operated under rules of procedure which made it absolutely necessary at most communities for an aggrieved party to accuse an opponent in person in order to obtain a judgment. The business of initiating a suit was highly personalized and victim-oriented, and the failure of an offended citizen to lodge a complaint against an antagonist meant that there was no case to be tried. The shortcomings of this procedure, from the perspective of an individual who either wanted simply to get even with an overbearing neighbour or had dim prospects of redress through legal channels, plainly tempted town residents to humiliate obnoxious persons against whom they harboured accumulated grievances that were not invariably actionable in any law court. The punishments they inflicted were designed to cause the most injury and concealed if possible, as when horns were left at a house or a mockingly derisive song composed and sung in [177] public. ⁽³²⁾ Victims of anonymous or covert defamation perhaps merited scorn, but they were not necessarily blameworthy within the legal system of crime and punishment. A woman was plainly most vulnerable to ridicule and shame by attacking her reputation for modesty and chastity, which were appropriately questioned by exposing her body as well as by making a provocative pass at her hair or explicitly branding her as worthless as a whore. Filching a woman's clothes from the bath house or clipping her skirts on the sly were just as insidious as throwing her to the ground in public and threatening her with the treatment that only a shameless woman deserved.

Lest one's neighbours mistake appearances and unfavourable opinion for fact, those who devised nasty slurs against an innocent townswoman or abused her more severely could not go unpunished. When her dignity and inviolability were impugned, she was demolished socially if not also injured physically. Her assailant had to be suitably and publicly chastised, although perhaps not always with as drastic a punishment as she and her male protectors would have meted out personally. It was risky at any time to meddle with a townswoman, whether or not she had a husband or a male relative to come to her defense. A community's concern for the well being of its female citizenry was essential, but it was always helpful when a woman could count on an influential man to take a personal interest in her welfare. A husband, relative or the public officials charged with looking out for a widow's interests at some towns were not the only available defenders. Both male and female employees were under the protection of the families that hired them, and their employers represented them in most of their dealings with other citizens. At Extremaduran towns, for example, a man intervened to take part of the compensation when the wife or daughter of one of his employees had been raped, implying an earlier interest in the case. It was further stated here that the employer suffered the outrage when blows were directed at his servants, slaves or even livestock, and he would intervene to see that their and his antagonist was punished. ⁽³³⁾ Anyone who offended a woman who worked in the household of a prosperous and prestigious municipal family would have to reckon with her employer for mistreating her. Although her job may have helped to forestall harassment from neighbours and even command their respect, it did not necessarily ward off all imminent dangers.

At Cuenca and many other towns it was said that a male worker, always expected to persevere loyally in the interests of his employer, [178] most offended the latter by seducing any of the women who lived or worked in the same household. ⁽³⁴⁾ The forbidden objects of the employee's attentions included the employer's wife, daughters and female servants, but any others under his protection were off-limits. At Plasencia, for example, a barragana was named. Sexual escapades with the women of a house were an extreme form of rebellion amounting, it was said, to the worker's theft of his employer's property. ⁽³⁵⁾

The most serious offence was, of course, sexual relations with the employer's wife, equated with treason, and the penalty was instantaneous and legalized murder, necessarily of both when they were apprehended in the act, as in all cases of a wife's adultery detected in flagrante. If the husband failed to catch them and could only produce witnesses to a past event, he might still avenge the humiliation by killing the man without penalty but, lacking witnesses, the suspect was allowed to prove his innocence by battle ordeal and, if exonerated, the employer would have to reinstate him. For dallying with a daughter, the worker was dismissed without wages and exiled, provided witnesses testified to his guilt, but again he could prove his innocence in a duel. There was usually no imperative to kill the daughter like the wife, except at Llanes or Soria where, in accordance with the Fuero Real, any girl's lover apprehended under her roof was an intruder who, together with the girl, could be killed without penalty by her father, brothers or another male relative to expunge the disgrace, a revival of Visigothic conceptions of vengeance on this matter. ⁽³⁶⁾ At those other towns the worker who had debauched the housekeeper or a servant girl usually simply lost his job and back pay, and he could prove his innocence, not by the demanding duel, but by oath or witnesses who supported his denial of wrongdoing. This was a relatively minor infringement of discipline but not to be condoned.

More hazardous were intimacies with a nurse. They merited the homicide fine and banishment, and the employee had to fight a duel to prove his declaration of innocence if suspected. The gravity of his predicament did not lie exclusively in the liberties he took with the nurse but in the belief that her breast milk could be contaminated by coitus, said to be a frequent cause of death in infants. This conviction was not a popular invention of folk myth but, like the Partidas' description of the admirable qualities of the nurse, rooted in learned medical tradition that again went back to Avicenna, Maimonides, Soranus and even Pliny. The physicians cited diet, indigestion and [179] sexual intercourse among the causes of insufficient or contaminated breast milk. ⁽³⁷⁾ For whatever reason her milk had poisoned the child, the nurse would be punished, as would a fellow worker who had been her sexual partner. Even if the man was innocent and reinstated after winning the duel, she was still subject to the homicide fine and exile whenever her allegedly impure breast milk caused the infant's death. She was not punished for unchastity, nor were any other female servants, but she was held responsible when the infant died because of it. ⁽³⁸⁾

The peccadillos of female servants, unlike those of wife and daughter, did not humiliate the master, but he took offence at his male servants' presumption in availing themselves of any women under his protection. Lower-class men did not shrink from competing for sexual favours from women forbidden to them, but it was dangerous to do so. Agricultural labourers were evidently a particularly hazardous threat. Towards the end of the thirteenth century the crown determined that Cuenca's different penalties for a hired hand's usurpation of an employer's wife and daughter were far too lenient. A labourer who made a successful pass at either of them deserved public execution, a fitting desert for such a nefariously brazen man now considered much too base to merit honourable vengeance taken by an offended man who was his social superior. ⁽³⁹⁾

Domestic service represented a certain occupational hazard to a woman's chastity. While male co-workers' fears of losing their positions or worse perhaps deterred them from familiarities that compromised women who worked for the same family, there was still the possibility that a female servant would have to withstand advances from the master or his sons. A nameless single woman in thirteenth-century Old Castile, a domiciled domestic, brought suit in a local court against her employer Martin Ferrandes for having raped her one night in his house. He fled in fear of being killed by her avenging relatives and appealed to the royal court where he found himself among his peers. Martin was a regional governor (adelantado) with a distinguished royal appointment which was evidently his sole defense on appeal. The higher justices threw out the case and advised others never to consider another one like it, presumably on the grounds of the woman's impertinent charge. ⁽⁴⁰⁾ The possibility of overt or indirect coercion exercised by an employer could arise for a female domestic, a woman who depended upon his higher social status to scare off others, especially her male colleagues whose approaches he [180] regarded as invasions of his authority and property. It was widely believed, however, that lower-class men did not for that reason shrink from fleecing their betters of even the premium women of a household.

Although royal justices acquitted Martin Ferrandes of ravishing his servant, thirteenth-century kings endeavoured to prosecute rapists to the fullest extent of royal law. In 1274, at the Cortes of Zamora, rape joined arson, murder of a man under surety, treason, treachery and other kinds of dishonourable conduct by nobles as offences which the crown claimed to monopolize. This list drew from diverse reservations of royal jurisdiction dating back into the previous century, as monarchs sought to maintain their prerogatives to prosecute certain types of offender. ⁽⁴¹⁾ The acts of the eleventh-century Council of Coyanza reveal that Fernando I expected to enforce earlier royal policy to punish rapists and abductors, and at the end of the century Alfonso VI's town of Miranda de Ebro in the north ordered them put to death summarily by the king's representative there. The death penalty for rape was adopted at Toledo in 1118 and soon after at Escalona, explicitly by hanging. ⁽⁴²⁾ In 1129 the reform Council of Palencia, introducing peace legislation into Castile after the troubled reign of Queen Urraca, placed women, clergy, pilgrims and other travelers under its protection and ordered their assailants to be shut up in monasteries or exiled from the kingdom. ⁽⁴³⁾ Crown rather than Church, however, led the way in the pursuit of rapists, and by the reign of Fernando III the Castilian nobility acknowledged that royal officials (merinos) were entitled to enter their lands to investigate the crime under special inquest procedures. ⁽⁴⁴⁾ A much-copied legal precedent from this time and region points to death by hanging as the royal penalty of choice for a convicted rapist. ⁽⁴⁵⁾ By 1226 Alfonso IX of León was ordering his merinos into Santa Cristina in pursuit of rapists, thieves, traitors and criminals who had committed offences on the public roads, a reversal of this town's privileges of 1062 when rapist-abductors and murderers had been granted asylum here. ⁽⁴⁶⁾ There were compelling reasons, however, for a man accused of raping a townswoman to expect that he would not be tried or sentenced in either an episcopal or a royal court.

Kings delegated to their merinos and adelantados broad authority to administer royal rights and justice in administrative districts, and in lordships and towns within them, but law enforcement at many late twelfth-century towns was assigned solely to local justices and [181] magistrates (judices, alcaldes). Whenever crimes were committed within these communities, royal agents with their inquests and death penalties were frequently barred from taking action. Jurisdiction was a cornerstone of municipal privilege, and townsmen guarded jealously their prerogatives to try and punish criminals themselves. Local officials followed local precedents in determining when a townswoman had been raped, regulated the manner in which her assailant was to be convicted or acquitted, and meted out appropriate penalties to the guilty. Some towns, especially in León, allowed appeals to the royal court when the victim or the convicted rapist sought to overturn a local verdict. Appellate jurisdiction was a possible avenue of royal intervention at Salamanca, Ledesma, Alba de Tormes and other Leonese towns. ⁽⁴⁷⁾ Nearby at Plasencia, however, only a killing and a suit over property or an inheritance could be appealed to the king because Plasencia, with its fundamentally Castilian customs, was wary of recognizing even royal review of verdicts handed down by its judiciary, once the town assembly had confirmed them. Soria explicitly disallowed appeal from a rape verdict in the middle of the thirteenth century and, somewhat later, Sepúlveda recognized reluctantly that the alcaldes were obligated to honour a litigant's request for one. ⁽⁴⁸⁾ The slowness with which the crown established its claims to investigate and try men accused of raping townswomen or, in Castile, even to reconsider the findings of municipal courts, contributed to the perpetuation of highly divergent ways of prosecuting and punishing this most atrocious outrage against a woman. This particular crime, however, posed a cluster of problems for, despite the dreadfulness of the deplorable deed, there still remained manifest difficulties in accepting a victim's interpretation of her predicament, questions about appropriate punishments for rapists of some victims and, finally, problems arising from rape's traditional and continuing association with abduction.

A rape victim's formal complaint to a municipal court, like other grave denunciations of personal injury, required her to identify her assailant and to follow established procedures if she hoped to have him convicted. From the strictly legal standpoint, her complaint constituted actual proof that the defendant or defendants had raped her, or it was regarded as an allegation. Towns differed as to whether a man who denied the charge then attempted to absolve himself from guilt or sought to prevent a conviction that established it. ⁽⁴⁹⁾ Whatever the legal standing of the victim's complaint, he could prove his [182] innocence with a fairly uniform system of oaths taken by himself and usually eleven other men, by fighting a duel, or by calling for an inquest to be carried out by local officials, to establish the truth. A woman had to follow diverse procedural requirements in presenting her proof or accusation, and municipal courts construed the legal effect of a woman's charge differently. This difference, however, had no bearing on the final outcome of the trial, nor did it mean that her complaint was taken more lightly in some towns than others. The justices at Salamanca and Plasencia, among other towns, were invested with authority to hold without bond accused rapists, thieves, murderers and other suspected evildoers pending trial. ⁽⁵⁰⁾ At Ledesma a man who threw a woman to the ground and threatened to rape her was punished just as harshly as if he actually had. ⁽⁵¹⁾ Rapists were invariably classed among the worst kinds of men who came before the bar of municipal justice, but their conviction was nonetheless fraught with uncertainty.

The extreme measures not infrequently required of a rape victim to institute a complaint were consistent with popular abhorrence of the crime as the worst atrocity a woman had to fear from men. She initiated the proceedings but not through the pledging system of accountability used primarily for property disputes, and not by denouncing the man in a special session of the town assembly, as was frequently necessary when a killing or other irreparable but manifest outrage had been committed in a town. Initially only the victim knew of the deed, and she alone could take the steps necessary to press the charge. Although rape was not unheard of as committed within a populated town, the crime was thought far more likely to have occurred out in the alfoz where a woman could easily be set upon by the side of the road, at a mill, in a wood or in some other deserted or isolated spot. There it was virtually impossible for someone to come along to prevent the attack or even help the victim afterward and perhaps catch a glimpse of the departing rapist. ⁽⁵²⁾ Most important, the absence of witnesses added to a woman's difficulties when she attempted to have the man indicted and tried. It was stressed at twelfth-century Balbás that a victim of assault in the countryside was to run directly to the justices before she went home. An immediate outcry was imperative if her complaint was to be taken seriously, but even more so when she had been attacked in a house or within the centre of Balbás. Then she was also expected to chase the man, now with help from others, one supposes. Many communities besides [183] Balbás required the victim to raise the hue and cry (apellido, clamo, haro) immediately afterwards. At Sepúlveda, for example, the victim was to approach the town walls, loudly proclaiming her affliction. She should then proceed to the gate of the castle where she summoned the alcaldes and the chief judge, lamenting her violation and calling out the name of her assailant. ⁽⁵³⁾ Such publicity was less a call for help than an alert to the citizenry that a vicious criminal had just struck and was still at large. Barring the need to proceed directly to the authorities in her town, the victim was often required to go to the nearest dwellings. The inhabitants could later testify that she had complained without delay since a woman was sometimes given a few days, three at most, to lodge a formal complaint. At Guadalajara and Valfermoso de las Monjas a woman needed corroboration from three persons if she had been raped in town but only two when it had happened in the countryside. These were not witnesses to the assault but persons to whom she ran, not just for help, but because their assistance was vital later when they would testify to having seen her pitiable condition immediately afterwards or whenever she was able to escape from the rapist. ⁽⁵⁴⁾

Publicity was a major condition of the validity of the charge, whether or not the alcaldes became involved at once, but the victim also had to comply with other demands. Virgins in particular were obliged to show signs of 'corruption', frequently established in an examination conducted by other women, as at Brihuega. ⁽⁵⁵⁾ Self-inflicted scratches on the victim's cheeks, with and without the hue and cry, were commonplace requirements at most late twelfth- and thirteenth-century communities. They constituted an important distinction between a woman who had been raped or merely abducted. These facial lacerations were commonly sufficient to certify the woman's charge when the matter came to trial, provided she also presented sworn testimony from persons who either supported the reliability of her oath or had seen her just after the assault. The scratches were absolutely necessary at numerous towns and more widely required than the hue and cry. All across the peninsula, from Aragón and Navarre through Castile and León into Portugal, a woman who had recently been raped was identified from her clawed face. ⁽⁵⁶⁾ At Soria, for example, just as soon as a victim had broken free of her assailant, she was to scratch her cheeks, run promptly to the nearest inhabitants and identify the man or men she would then formally charge within three days. The facial scratches were [183] self-inflicted injuries, secondary but essential evidence that the woman had been assaulted. Fingernail scratches were explicitly and tellingly excluded from a list of physical injuries for which any woman was to be compensated in Old Castile. ⁽⁵⁷⁾ Clawing her cheeks, a rape victim made the customary sign of a woman in mourning, but now she grieved for the loss of her chastity and her honour. Equally pathetic was the demonstration expected of a rape victim in Old Castile but nevertheless necessary unless she were a violated virgin who could be inspected for signs of corruption. Raising the hue and cry at the first settlement she reached to announce her distress and, if possible, the name of her assailant, she had to cast aside her toca, symbol of a wife's or widow's inviolability, and then show her humiliation by groveling on the ground. ⁽⁵⁸⁾ All these were desperate measures for a woman to take, but they were essential if her complaint were to be given credence. A medieval Castilian woman tore her face when she suffered deep torment, and a rape victim doubtless scratched her cheeks instinctively in reaction to the misfortune that had befallen her. A woman might, nevertheless, forgo tearing her face to hide the dreadful fact or to maintain that, although forcibly abducted, she had managed to escape without being violated. The veracity of a woman who accused a man of raping her but failed to claw her face was highly questionable and, in the experience of townsmen, there might be grounds for dismissing her complaint.

The need for a woman to refrain from delay in pressing the charge and the other requirements for making a public spectacle of herself were degrading for the distraught victim, but they could also act as deterrents against accusing a guiltless man. The chance to get her hands on the high damages which numerous towns demanded from a rapist might be incentive enough for some woman to push fraudulently for conviction. The condemned man might then also be banished or even executed, thus allowing his accuser to gratify revenge or spite as well as greed. Twelfth-century Marañón raised the possibility that a man charged with the crime might wish to accuse the woman's supporters of lying. ⁽⁵⁹⁾ Prostitutes were notoriously regarded as untrustworthy as well as shameless and, although twelfth-century Toledo and Escalona decreed the death penalty for the rapist-abductor of any woman, good or bad, many communities, especially those with Castilian customs, refused to fine or otherwise punish a man who had raped a harlot. ⁽⁶⁰⁾ At Coria, where a prostitute could not hope for compensation, the alcaldes were further advised to [185] consider whether any woman who presses the complaint, although not a public whore, had nonetheless expected to be paid by the defendant or perhaps yielded unwillingly. ⁽⁶¹⁾ Not to be overlooked was the possibility that the plaintiff, like Potiphar's wife, may have been spurned by the man she accused. At twelfth-century Peralta in the northeast a woman's contention that she had been raped was to be dismissed if it were revealed that she and the defendant had ever been lovers. ⁽⁶²⁾

At Soria a woman who enteres a false complaint against a man or several men was punished with a high fine or jailed for failure to pay, about half of what she might have obtained from a man by winning his conviction. It was further maintained here that abductors of men as well as women ought to be prosecuted since a man was sometimes seized to make him marry a woman 'whom he ought to marry'. ⁽⁶³⁾ A girl and her family might readily consider matrimony as a way to erase the humiliation of her seduction and abandonment, even if they had to force her lover into marriage at knife point or under threat of prosecuting him for forcible rape. Just as a woman conspired to elope with a man whom she then married illegally, might she not also willingly submit to him and only afterward, once her hopes for a wedding had been dashed, insist that she had been taken by force?

The possibility of marriage as a solution to a rape victim's difficulties was widely contemplated in the northeast. Beginning in the eleventh century at Jaca in Aragon it was said that unmarried town residents were not to be punished for mutually agreeable fornication. Although a man was perhaps morally bound to marry a willing sex partner, he was indeed legally obligated when the court determined that he had forcibly raped her. ⁽⁶⁴⁾ Subsequent adaptations of Jaca's customs introduced the alternative of compensating the woman financially instead of marrying her or, another and more popular requirement, finding her a husband of suitable social status. Twelfth- and thirteenth-century versions of these duties became increasing insistent that class differences had to be considered in obliging a man to marry the woman he had ravished. The rapist of a lower-class victim had merely to find a compliant bridegroom as his replacement. So did the ravisher of a woman higher in status than himself, but this particular surrogate was doubtless a more formidable quarry. At San Sebastián the socially appropriate substitute husband was to be approved by the alcaldes, not just by the victim's family which, nonetheless, was entitled to avenge the wrong and kill [186] the criminal if he failed to produce an acceptable bridegroom. The need to prevent misalliance increasingly took precedence over the attempt to salvage a rape victim's honour by obligating the rapist to marry her himself and so efface the humiliation he had caused. These customs, widely influential in Aragon and Navarre, were concerned to shield women from marrying beneath them, but they were also designed to give upper-class men the opportunity to find appropriate husbands for their lower-class victims and so avoid marrying women who were socially unfit to become their wives. Clearly, however, a rapist was under the legal obligation, one way or another, to make an honest woman of one he had ravished against her will. ⁽⁶⁵⁾

To the south and west in Castile and León a convicted rapist was not legally compelled to marry his victim, nor was he expected to find her a socially acceptable husband. At several towns, nevertheless, it is plain that marriage to a rape victim was a way to avoid punishment and for a woman and her family to erase the humiliating disgrace. At Alcalá de Henares charges would be dropped when a woman and her family agreed to a church wedding, even though the woman had previously escaped, come running to town with her cheeks scratched, and made a formal complaint to the court. Brihuega permitted the same resolution, provided all the parties concurred, but here negotiations were evidently begun before a daughter filed a formal charge. At Soria, too, vacating the complaint after reaching an agreement to wed was an alternative to a trial but, again, all had to consent, especially the man who was not to be coerced into matrimony against his will. ⁽⁶⁶⁾ At Alba de Tormes spokesmen for the victim could choose to quash her charge, either before a final verdict was handed down or afterwards, by refusing to appeal an adverse ruling, perhaps on the basis of a matrimonial accommodation. ⁽⁶⁷⁾

Although the marriage resolution was never legally obligatory for a man in Castile, it was plainly a way out of a difficult situation, both for an apprehended rapist who stood to be convicted and a ravished girl. Whether the immediate benefit to the woman and her family was sufficiently compelling to overlook the disadvantages of this unattractive man as son-in-law depended essentially upon his other shortcomings and her parents' willingness to tolerate them. Her family's rejection was taken for granted at Salamanca and Ledesma where a girl's elopement, with its resulting penalty of disinheritance, was evidently her only hope of rectifying her position. Certainly it was necessary to prevent prized municipal daughters from fleeing to men [187] who coerced them into matrimony by seduction or rape. The man who did so was an abductor and referred to as the 'rapist' of a woman's family at Plasencia and other towns. ⁽⁶⁸⁾ Just as important, from a community's point of view, was the need to prevent a man from being shanghaied into an inappropriate marriage to a girl who was socially beneath him, even though he had raped her, or so she said. If true, she was of course due compensation, but he could not be expected to marry her. These possibilities and the uncertain outcomes made it imperative to contemplate various punishments for convicted rapists, which depended less upon the violent nature of the criminal's act than upon characteristics of the victim alone.

Beginning in the late eleventh century towns punished convicted rapists, or men who had forcibly abducted any women of a community, just as they did killers. The men were subjected to enormous pecuniary penalties of which at least part went to the victim, with other portions reserved for the king, municipal officials, or perhaps the upkeep of the town's walls and other public works. ⁽⁶⁹⁾ Naturally when a woman eloped, or it was later determined that she wished to remain with a man who had abducted, seduced or raped her, her family and not the woman, now disinherited, benefitted financially. It became commonplace for an abductor or rapist to be banished as an outlaw as well as fined, but he was probably wise to leave town in any case lest he fall afoul of the victim's supporters. ⁽⁷⁰⁾ When the criminal was a stranger, townsmen negotiated with community leaders at the man's home, if he had one, to bring him to account through the medianedo system of intermunicipal parleys, or they dealt with his lord or employer. Foreign criminals, however, remained elusive game when it came to collecting damages, above all when they got away. The uniform death penalty for abductors or rapists at Miranda de Ebro and Toledo was not widely popular at first, but it was assigned to rapists at Escalona and Medinaceli in the twelfth century and, in the next, at Guadalajara, Madrid and Plasencia where, at the end of the century, it replaced earlier customary penalties. Capital punishment, more characteristic of Roman than customary law, was in any case impractical as long as a culprit might rather easily disappear and had the good sense not to return to the scene of his crime. Moreover, it was never specified at those towns which favoured capital punishment that an executed rapist's property, if any, went to his abused victim rather than his surviving family. Pecuniary penalties, coupled with the possibility [188] that relatives or neighbours might legally kill the incautious outlaw, were some consolation for a rape victim, always assuming that the man had any goods to be confiscated. At thirteenth-century Brihuega, where the death penalty was also preferred for any convicted rapist, the woman could still collect high damages from the man who managed to escape. ⁽⁷¹⁾

Many twelfth- and thirteenth-century towns fixed the penalties to match the status of the victim. At Cuenca and numerous other communities assault on a nun carried the harshest punishment: death if the man were caught but, when he escaped, the noblewoman's high compensation of five hundred sueldos. ⁽⁷²⁾ At the bottom of the ladder was the prostitute whose attacker suffered no penalties, but also very low here was a Muslim woman, whether free or a slavewoman who belonged to another citizen. The rapist gave her twenty mrs., a tenth of the penalty for raping a municipal daughter. The sum was styled arras, but it was not a wedding endowment. Apart from reparation to the woman, it served as a pledge in the potential interest of the rapist in the event she gave birth to a child afterwards, and he wished to ransom it from her owner. ⁽⁷³⁾

Quite a few Leonese towns required only modest awards whenever an unmarried victim was not a woman in the family of a property owner. At Alba de Tormes the usual penalty was cut by two-thirds, at Coria to one-fifteenth, and at Cáceres and Usagre to a thirtieth. At Plasencia the fine for raping an unmarried woman from a village outside of town was a quarter of the fine when the victim lived inside the walls. These limitations reflected the low status of the women within their communities. ⁽⁷⁴⁾

Social distinctions were also made at Zamora where the abductor of a municipal virgin or widow was fined 100 mrs. and exiled, as was also demanded when a man tried to assert illegally that he and a local girl had married clandestinely. ⁽⁷⁵⁾ The rapist of a virgin was sentenced to be hanged but, if he had merely seduced her, it was said that he had to give her certain 'rights' (derechuras) comparable to those of her mother or closest female relative. The award here was compensation for seduction but evidently in terms of an appropriate wedding endowment as a measure of suitable pecuniary compensation. It is unlikely that the man had considered marrying this woman, for not far distant at Villavicencio it was said that when a knight, squire or man from the town did not marry a woman whom he had abducted, he was to be banished if he had also failed to give her the 'right' (derecto) of 'her best grandmother'.

[189] Even if the seducer rejected the girl at Zamora as unsuitable to become his wife, there were other women here who were even less worthy but nevertheless entitled to compensation for seduction and rape. It was pointed out as a notable benefaction that serving wenches and transients of the town, having no family 'rights' to endowment, were to be given gifts by their seducers instead: a dress, girdle, slippers and the esteemed toca. If the woman already possessed a toca, this was unnecessary, but whether she did or not, forcible rape merited additional payments: a so-called 'de-widowing' (desuilgadura), evidently meaning a deflowering fee, of thirty sueldos plus small amounts for each injury. ⁽⁷⁶⁾ The award stands in contrast to the penalty of hanging for the rapist of a young townswoman here, the girl who, if merely seduced, was to receive the 'rights' of her mother. Although she may have been regarded by the seducer or rapist as insufficiently distinguished for him to marry, she was nevertheless a girl from a respectable municipal family whom the socially superior man could not treat as a nobody. Whether the seducer or rapist of a townswoman, here or at any other community, was manifestly inferior or someone of importance, he still deserved in principle the same penalty at a woman's town, perhaps an overly optimistic expectation of townsmen's ability to dispense justice evenhandedly.

Apart from social distinctions between rapist and victim, appropriate punishments for raping wives and daughters were significantly different at many towns. The widow, although rarely mentioned, was more frequently classed with the daughter than the wife. ⁽⁷⁷⁾ A victimized wife was the gravest of matters, as will become plain if we look closely at the penalties for rape at several towns. At Cuenca, for example, an abductor or rapist of an unmarried woman had to pay an exorbitant fine and was banished as an outlaw, but when the woman was a wife he was to be burned to death, the most awesome form of execution which left no body for Christian burial and was quite rare here for a male criminal. ⁽⁷⁸⁾ Plasencia observed this distinction between the daughter and wife until the end of the thirteenth century when it adopted the uniform death penalty, and it was followed at Coria and other towns in Extremadura but with hanging rather than burning for the rapist of a wife. This harsher punishment for the wife's attacker is dimly perceptible at Brihuega. Pecuniary reparations from a man's attachable property were in order when the criminal had vanished, but the captured rapist was to be executed, whether the victim was a wife, virgin or 'corrupted' unmarried woman, a widow or spinster but not the virgin who [190] was to be examined. The rapist of a Muslim woman escaped execution and drew a small fine, a tenth as large as that levied when the assailant of an unmarried woman escaped. When the victim was a citizen's wife, however, the alternative pecuniary penalty of the successful fugitive was twice that required for raping an unmarried woman. At Alfambra the rapist of a daughter or wife was fined and banished, but a man was sentenced to be hanged for running away with another's wife. Here the bigamists were envisioned as absconding with some of the husband's property, and the patrimonial embarrassment may have been a factor in the additional severity toward the wife's abductor. At Soria, where the influence of Visigothic law caused an abductor's penalties to multiply when he had also raped his victim, the fine doubled for ravishing a girl, but he was sentenced to death and confiscation of all his property when she was a wife. Any of the fixed penalties also doubled when he managed to escape. At Ledesma abduction of the daughter merited a considerably higher fine than forcible rape of an unmarried woman, showing again the gravity with which abduction continued to be regarded. Once more the death penalty occurs solely for the rapist of a wife and, most significantly, she was obliged neither to scratch her face nor pronounce prescribed words of accusation, as an unmarried woman had to do. These requirements were omitted for a wife and explicitly in order to spare her husband the humiliation. ⁽⁷⁹⁾ Certainly at towns where no mention was made of a victimized wife, as was the case at quite a few towns, deliberate concealment of the crime must have been contemplated as a most desirable objective. No doubt this was also true for many girls.

A husband's humiliation contributed to the harsher penalties commonly meted out to the rapists of married women, but no less important was the old association of rape with abduction. The two crimes were often so similar in conception, terminology and punishment as to be almost indistinguishable. Once he had shown that a woman's husband or family was incapable of preventing her physical removal in order to abuse her sexually, the criminal had succeeded in tarnishing their reputations as guardians of a vulnerable woman. Abduction no less than forcible rape achieved this, and abduction was therefore a most serious matter indeed. Abduction, however, was practiced, not always illegally and not invariably without the woman's complicity, by the adventurers who colonized towns during the Reconquest. Girls ran away to marry men of whom their families [191] disapproved, or they fled to men who had seduced them, although they sometimes paid dearly for this rebellion. Marriage to a seducer or rapist who had not vanished with a municipal daughter was a way to efface this stain on the victim and her family, but the matrimonial resolution required that all the parties be in agreement that this particular marriage was a suitable alternative to the disgrace. The disadvantages of misalliance could take precedence over the salvaging of a girl's reputation. So long as there remained a possibility that the couple might disappear and so spare the woman's family an ignominious son-in-law, or that matrimony might be arranged to erase the fact of the girl's disgrace, it was desirable to leave open to question her assertion that a man had indeed raped her and then of course to spare his life so that he could marry her. The crime, always a difficult charge to press and more difficult to prove, remained particularly elusive in a society where the heroic seducer and abductor, although widely despised, was at times tolerated and, in some circles, doubtless admired. He was a man against whom preventive measures could not be too effective but an adversary with whom no municipal family relished an open confrontation. Even if his trial procured a rape conviction, it necessarily left them with a girl who had admitted her own ruination. The impossibility of the matrimonial resolution in the case of a wife brought the capital penalty when she had been assaulted, but it was preferable to conceal the outrage if at all possible. For similar reasons a daughter who valued her future might easily refrain from humiliating herself by initiating the complaint. Only when a woman had made a point of calling attention to her deplorable condition after she had been attacked was it inescapably necessary to prosecute this crime.

From the verbal insult to the forcible violation of her body, all the outrages committed against a townswoman represented assaults on her reputation for chastity and modesty. A woman's honour was rooted above all in her inaccessibility. When this was doubted or abused, her self-respect was gravely impaired. She took pride in her dedication to upright behaviour and her ability to avoid all suspicion that she was anything but unapproachable. It was particularly important for self-respecting women to set themselves apart from those of easy virtue, and persons who contemplated trying to class a reputable townswoman among the shameless women of her community were well advised to proceed cautiously. Improprieties were deplorable, costly and dangerous, for a virtuous woman was indeed a [192] prize, especially for the townsman who was fortunate enough to have married such a woman. This did not mean that others did not covet his good fortune. A woman could become a vulnerable target in the competitive relations between the men of a town. Townswomen were by no means frail and passive creatures unable to defend themselves, but a woman's capability, when mortified, to spread the stain of her dishonour to those responsible for keeping her out of harm's way and, above all, for shielding her safely from male aggression, required a good deal of caution on her part. When a man forcibly robbed a woman of her honour, she made the customary signs of a woman in mourning, for then she felt herself diminished and no longer able to command respect as a person of known and esteemed virtue. The virtuous and irreproachable woman was indeed a force to be reckoned with in her dealings with the men and other women of her town. We should, however, consider those others from whom the reputable woman sought to keep her distance and who, deplorably, achieved prominence in municipal society by failing to follow her admirable example.

1. E.g., FEscalona 33 (1226): 'Et si aliquam mulierem nullum hominem avirtaverit, aut fecerit verecundia, unde habeant suas gentes malum nomen, et potuerit afirmare cum duos homines legales et siant bono testimonio, et illo homine sit suspensus; illa mulier, si non potuerit afirmare, veniat illo homine et juret cum duos homines qui sint legales, et sit solutus'. R. Serra Ruiz, Honor, honra e injuria en el derecho español (Murcia, 1969), pp. 9-20, 65-74, 99-109, 127-41, 175-90, 225-39; Caro Baroja, 'Honour and shame, A historical account of several conflicts', in Honour and shame: The values of Mediterranean society, ed. J. G. Peristiany (Chicago, 1966; repr. 1974), pp. 79-137; Sánchez Albornoz, España, un enigma, vol. 1, pp. 615-62; Castro, De la edad conflictiva, Crisis del la cultura española en el siglo XVII, 3^rd edn rev. (Madrid, 1972), 47-133; less convincing is idem, The Spaniards: An introduction to their history (Berkeley, 1971), pp. 262-5. Pitt-Rivers, 'Honour and Social Status', Honour and shame, ed. Peristiany, pp. 19-77.

2. FMedinaceli, MC, p. 437, provides a representative list. Cf. FUclés 186, 45 and FSoria 546, as FReal 4.9.2. Serra Ruiz, Honor, pp. 31--141.

3. E.g., FCuenca 11.29; FIznatoraf 251, 252; FAlarcón 237; FAlcaraz 4.29; FBaeza 252; FZorita 253; FBéjar 323, 324; FTeruel 481, 482, 321.

4. It is the only such slur in FSilos 44(1135), eel. Férotin, Recueil des chartes de l'Abbaye de Silos (Paris, 1897), pp. 63-66; FValfermoso, CD, p. 118; and FViejo 2.1.9 ('puta sabida'). Covarrubias, Tesoro, p. 889.

5. FCuenca 11.29, et fora alia. FUclés 46. FPlasencia 70. FAlcalá 112. FZorita (1180), Alfonso VIII, vol. 2, p. 575. FLedesma 188, with the longest run of possibilities. Covarrubias, Tesoro, p. 912. Corominas (Diccionario crítico, vol. 4, p. 47) admits 'Rocinante' as derivative.

6. The 'leprosa' of FCuenca 11.29 becomes 'gafa' in FIznatoraf 251; FAlcaraz 4.29; FBaeza 252; FBéjar 323; and FPlasencia 70, as also FCoria 183; FCáceres 187; FUsagre 189. It becomes 'malata' in FCuenca, Cod. Val. 2.1.24; FAlarcón 237; FZorita 253; FBéjar 356 (for a man); and FMedinaceli, MC, p. 437. For gafa, see Covarrubias, Tesoro, p. 619; O. Macri ('Alcune aggiunte al dizionario de Joan Corominas', RFE 40 (1956), 164), citing Berceo, Duelo 177, suggests 'poisonous'. For malata, see the eighth-century gloss from San Millán, ed. M. de Artigas, 'Fragmento de un glosario latino', RFE 1 (1914), 251, 266; the 'malada' of FZamora 20, 36 and 64 is a serving wench. S. N. Brody, The disease of the soul, Leprosy in medieval literature (Ithaca, 1974), pp. 52-9, 107-46.

7. FMadrid 28. FAlcalá 112 (with 'puta' and 'rozina'). For the first meaning, see Corominas, Diccionario crítico, vol. 3, p. 423, s.v. monaguesa, and Castro, The Spaniards, p. 308. I am indebted to Prof. A. M. Forcadas for an informative correspondence on possible meanings of monaguera.

8. FLedesma 188. FCoria 183; FCáceres 186; FUsagre 189. Cegulo is the Castilian cornudo in the Leonese FAvilés-Oviedo 15, FLlanes 18, and FLedesma 184, from LL caeculus, one who is a bit blind (Bonilla, El fuero de Llanes, p. 50).

9. FLedesma 188. Short FViguera 10; FLa Novenera 10 ('palabra de mortificamiento'). FSoria 481; FReal 4.3.2. The crown levied fines for unmentionable insults under Enrique III about 1400 ('Dos ordenamientos sobre las penas pecuniarias para la Cámara del Rey (Alfonso XI y Enrique III)', ed. J. Cerdá Ruiz-Funes, AHDE 18 (1947), 469).

10. E.g., FMilmanda, Alfonso IX, vol. 2, p. 182. FParga, ibid., pp.649-50. FAlcalá 112. By FViguera 65 a woman lost her tongue for insulting a man but, cap. 24, was not penalized for saying a 'palavra mala' to another woman.

11. FSoria 481; FReal 4.3.2; and cf. the short FViguera 10; FLa Novenera 10. FSilos, above, n. 4. FLedesma 185, 186, 188.

12. FCuenca 13.8; FIznatoraf 320; FAlarcón 299; FAlcaraz 4.95; FBaeza 3.9; FZorita 314; FBéjar 403; FTeruel 522, 523. FBrihuega, p. 153. Cf. LF 260. For horns and bones, see, e.g., FAlarcón 128 and 289, with fines of five and ten mrs. respectively, but only two for an oral insult, plus exile if it were not withdrawn, as necessarily for boasting (cap. 237, 261).

13. E.g., FMedinaceli, MC, p. 440. FGuadalajara 39. FBrihuega, p. 145. FAlcalá 114. FCuenca 11.29, et fora alia. FSepúlveda 235.

14. FLedesma 183, 188. FAlcalá 85-88. FSepúlveda 186; cf. Gibert, Los fueros de Sepúlveda, p. 510; see above, Ch. 3, n. 2. For a fazaña describing severe injuries sustained by a wife who chanced to encounter her husband's adversary, see LF 258.

15. FSoria 481; FReal 4.3.2. Also allowed by FViejo 1.5.12 and other regional texts for various offences; this emjenda is permitted by FSepúlveda 58 for pulling or cutting a man's beard or maiming his chin.

16. E.g., FCuenca 12.4-19.

17. FLogroño (1095), MC, p. 337; ed. Martinez Díez, 'Fueros de la Rioja', p. 413 ('Et si se levare nulla muliere per sua lozania'). FMiranda 21. Cf. Deut. 25.11, 12. Lacarra, 'Notas para la formación de las familias de fueros de Navarra', AHDE 10 (1933) 227-32.

18. In addition to FLogroño, FVitoria (1181), LLN, vol. 4, p. 429; FNavarrete (1195), Alfonso VIII, vol. 3, p. 126; FSanto Domingo de la Calzada (1207), ibid., p. 405; FFrias (before 1214), ibid., p. 642; FMedina de Pomar (before 1214), ibid., p. 647; FBriones (1256), ed. Martinez Díez, 'Fueros de la Rioja', p. 446. The last two and FVitoria envision an assailant of either sex.

19. In addition to FLogroño and the texts cited in n. 18, FAntoñana (1182), LLN, vol. 4, p. 285; FBernedo (1182), ibid., pp. 289-90; FCorres 11 (1256), ed. Martinez Díez, 'Alava: Dessarollo de las villas y fueros municipales (siglos XII-XIV)', AHDE 41 (1971), 1132; FSanta Cruz de Campezo (1256), ibid., p. 1137. By Fvitoria and FBernedo, however, only a husband is a victim of the lascivious assault; by FMedina redemption is of her house, not her hand.

20. Cf. Cantera Burgos, Fuero de Miranda de Ebro, p. 119, and Serra Ruiz, Honor, pp. 38-9.

21. FMiranda 34 (1099). FEncisa (1129), MC, p. 473. FIbrillos (before 1214), Alfonso VIII, vol. 3, p. 653.

22. FLaguardia (1164), LLN, vol. 4, p. 175; FSan Vicente de la Sonsierra (1172), ed. Martinez Díez, 'Fueros de la Rioja', p. 423; FArganzón (1191), Alfonso VIII, vol. 3, p. 33; FLabraza (1196), LLN, vol. 4, p. 342.

23. FOcón (1174), ed. Martinez Diez, 'Fueros de la Rioja', p. 426.

24. FVitoria (1181), LLN, vol. 4, p. 279. FAntoñana (1182), ibid., p. 285; FBernedo (1182), ibid., pp. 289-90; FTreviño (1254), MHE, vol. I, pp. 45-6. FCorres (1256), ed. Martinez Díez, 'Alava: Desarollo de las villas y fueros', p. 1132; FSanta Cruz de Campezo (1256), ibid., p. 1136; FBriones (1256), ed. idem, 'Fueros de la Rioja', p. 446. Also FGeneral de Yavarra 5.1.10, although not as an offence necessarily committed by another woman; and FMendaria, ed. Lacarra, 'Documentos para la historia de las instituciones navarras', AHDE 11 (1934), 493.

25. FCalatayud 39, 50 (1131); FMarañón (1134), MC, p. 497. FCetina (1150s), ed. S. A. Garcia Larragueta, 'Fueros y cartas pueblas otorgadas por Templarios y Hospitalarios', AHDE 24 (1954), 590, 591. Cf. FViguera 24, 25 and esp. cap. 64; short FViguera 20 and FLa Novenera 20; FAguero 20 (1224), HD, p. 129.

26. FZorita (1180), Alfonso VIII, vol. 2, p. 575. FAlcalá 9. FLedesma 190, 191.

27. FLedesma 183. FZamora 20. Cf. FEspinosa, ed. Gonzalez, 'Aportación de fueros castellano-leoneses', p. 640.

28. FEUclés 13. FCuenca 11.30, 31, et fora alia, including FPlasencia 71, 75 and FTeruel 483, to which cf. FZorita (1180), Alfonso VIII, vol. 2, p. 575. For the sensitive matter of a woman's hair, see Serra Ruiz, Honor, p. 40; and for the comparably grave pulling or cutting of a man's hair and beard, e.g., FPlasencia 87, 94; FTeruel 499, 503. FBrihuega, pp. 149, 151. FAlcalá 24. FSepúlveda 58.

29. FCuenca 11.32; FIznatoraf 254; FAlarcón 240; FAIcaraz 4.32; FBaeza 255; FZorita 256; FBéjar 328; FTeruel 321; FPlasencia 73.

30. FCuenca 11.33; FIznatoraf 255; FAlarcón 241; FAlcaraz 4.33; FBaeza 256; FZorita 257; FBéjar 329; FTeruel 484; FPlasencia 89. FBrihuega, p. 145. FCoria 46; FCáceres 52; FUsagre 49.

31. FBrihuega, pp. 145-6. FCuenca 11.34; FIznatoraf 256; FAlcaraz 4.36; FBaeza 256; FBéjar 330; FPlasencia 90. But mutilation of the buttocks is indicated by FZorita 258 and FAlarcón 242. See the fourteenth-century Romancero tradicional, vol. 2, p. 75, quoted by L. A. Sponsler, Women in the medieval Spanish epic and lyric traditions (Lexington, 1975), p. 37.

32. E.g., FAlarcón 128 and 289, with fines of five and ten mrs. respectively.

33. E.g., FCoria 120, 122, 169, 170. Cf. FCoria 128; FCáceres 136; FUsagre 137.

34. FCuenca 38.1-5; FIznatoraf 802-6; FAlarcón 742-6; FAlcaraz 11.98-102; FZorita 772-5; FTeruel 702-6; FPlasencia 404-8.

35. FPlasencia 404; cap. 415 repeats the danger of the Jabourer to an employer's wife. See K. Thomas, 'The double standard', Journal of the History of Ideas 20 (1959), 195-216; but cf. Pitt-Rivers, The fate of Schechem or the politics of sex: Essays in the anthropology of the Mediterranean (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 74-5, 78, 80.

36. FLlanes 25. FSoria 541; FReal 4.7.6. Cf. LV and FJuzgo 3.4.5.

37. Soranus, Gynecology 2.12 (pp. 92-3); 2.15 (p. 103); Avicenna, A treatise, ch. 708 (pp. 369-70); Maimonides, The code, p. 246; Pliny, Natural history, trans. H. Rackham, Loeb Classical Library (11 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1942; repr. 1969), 7.16, vol. 2, pp. 548-51.

38. FCuenca 38.4, 11.51; FIznatoraf 895, 293; FAlarcón 745, 259; FAlcaraz 11.101,4.52; FBaeza 842, 273; FTeruel 705, 40; FPlasencia 404, 72; partial provisions in FZorita 775 and FBéjar 254.

39. FPlasencia 415. Mejoría (1285), ed. Ureña, Fuero de Cuenca, p. 847; and cf. FCuenca 38.2, 3.

40. LF 3. Gibert ('El contrato', p. 45 n.) admits the possibility of a 'uso desaguisado' but agrees essentially with Orlandis ('Sobre el concepto', p. 115) that dismissal of the case resulted from the man's juridical responsibility for his employees.

41. A. Iglesia Ferreirós, 'Las Cortes de Zamora de 1274 y los casos de corte', AHDE 41 (1971), 945-71. For one such list, see LF 117, including rape, murder of a man against an oath of safety and a crime committed on a public road. For the last, see Gibert, 'La paz del camino en el derecho medieval español', AHDE 27-8 (1957-8), 831-52; thus FLa Novenera 58 and short FViguera 60 show a steep 1000 sueldo fine for rape on a public road, but this is exceptional.

42. Conc. of Coyanza (1055), c. 8, ed. Garcia Gallo, 'El concilio de Coyanza', pp. 616-19. FMiranda 24 (1099). FToledo (1118), MC, p. 366; FEscalona 14 (1130).

43. Conc. of Palencia (1129), c. 12, TC, vol. 3, p. 258; Serrano, El obispado, vol. 1, pp. 407-13. The episcopal peace of Conc. of Santiago (1124) names nuns only and lacks sanctions (TC, vol. 3, p. 253); cf. above, Ch. 4, n. 10.

44. LF 117; but inquest conducted by a local, not a royal, merino in cap. 14. PON 73; POL 10; FAntiguo 3; FViejo 2.2.3. For royal inquest in cases other than rape, see Procter, 'The judicial use of pesquisa in Leon and Castile, 1157-1369', The English Historical Review, Supplement 2 (London, 1966), pp. 20-35.

45. LF 303 (a man from Castro Urdiales); FViejo 2.2.2 and other texts, with amputation of his hand for mutilating the woman with it. LF 105 shows blinding as a royal penalty; cap. 188, FViejo 2.2.1 and the other compilations indicate that a man was liable to execution at the king's discretion following an abducted woman's choice to return to her family after the medianedo parley.

46. Cf. FSanta Cristina of 1062 (MC, p. 222) and 1226 (Alfonso IX, vol. 2, pp. 584, 600). See this monarch's reservation of the same four offences in lands of the Order of Santiago in Cáceres, Villafáfila and Castrotoraf, HD, p. 85. FDaroca (1142, MC, p. 535) reserves to the king's jurisdiction rape, homicide and violating the peace of a man's house by surrounding it, but this precedent did not proceed further in the towns, either in Aragon or Castile; V. Garcia de Diego, 'Historia judicial de Aragón en los siglos VIII al XII', AHDE 11 (1934), 121; Orlandis, 'La paz de la casa en el derecho español de la alta edad media', AHDE 15 (1944), 107-16.

47. FSalamanca 88; FLedesma 140. FAlba 18 (abduction), 21 (rape). FCoria 65; FCáceres 73; FUsagre 73.

48. FPlasencia 157; cf. cap. 12, 161, 688-90. FSoria 70; cf. cap. 122, 67-9. FSepúlveda 51, 33. For the binding  fuero and supplementary judgment (albedrío) by the justices, see, e.g., FCuenca 24.4, 5; Garcia Gallo, Manual de historia del derecho español, 5th edn (2 vols., Madrid, 1973), vol. I, pp. 194-6.

49. Merêa, 'Sobre o regime da prova nas demandas de mulher forçada', História e Direito, Escritos dispersos (Coimbra, 1967), pp. 151-62. For the possibility of gang rape, e.g., FCuenca 11.26, FEUclés 11, FSoria 531, 532; FPlasencia 66, 747. For accomplices in abduction, FSoria 534, 536, 538.

50. FSalamanca 116, 165; FLedesma 64, 105, 106. FPlasencia 690. Cf. FCoria 319 FCáceres 303; FUsagre 322.

51. FLedesma 190, 191, and above, n. 26.

52. FBalbás, MC, pp. 515-16. FGuadalajara 74. FValfermoso, CD, p. 119. FAlcalá 9. FSoria 532. FSepúlveda 51. For possible locations, FPeralta, MC, p. 547. FAlfambra 44, and cf. cap. 12. FAlba 21. FLedesma 190. FViguera 39. FLa Novenera 58; short FViguera 60. FEJaca 78; ms B 250.

53. FBalbás, MC, pp. 515-16. FSepúlveda 51. FÁvila-Evora, ed. Blasco, 'El problema', p. 20. FSan Juan de Cella, Alfonso VIII, vol. 3, p. 499. FViejo 2.2.3. G. de Valdeavellano, 'El "apellido": notas sobre el procedimiento "in fragranti" en el derecho español medieval', CHE 7 (1947), 67-105; repr. in Estudios, pp. 61-92; Merêa, 'Sobre o Regime', pp. 152-3. The manquadra or so-called 'malice' oath was sometimes required of the victim, as FGuadalajara 74, FSepúlveda 51, FSoria 532, FCoria 65, FLedesma 191, FAlba 54; Garcia Gonzalez, 'El juramento de manquadra', AHDE 25 (1955), 211-55.

54. FGuadalajara 74. FValfermoso, CD, p. 119. Cf. FAlcalá 9 and FPalencia 37.

55. FBrihuega, pp. 138-9 (three inspectors). By LF 14 the wife of an alcalde and other 'good women' examine her. For 'corruption', see also FBalbás, MC, p. 515, and FCáceres 73; FUsagre 73.

56. FCuenca 11.26; Cod. Val. 2.1.21; FIznatoraf 248; FAlarcón 234; FAlcaraz 4.26; FBaeza 249; FZorita 250; FBéjar 320; FTeruel 476; FPlasencia 69, and cf. cap. 67. FValfermoso, CD, p. 119. FGuadalajara 74. FAlcalá 9. FSoria 232. FCáceres 73; FUsagre 73. FViguera 39. FAlba 21. FSalamanca 212. FLedesma 191. FSan Juan de Cella, Alfonso VIII, vol. 3, p. 499. FEJaca 78 and ms B 250. In Portugal, FFresno, PMH, pt I, vol. 1, p. 379; FOrrio, ibid., p. 425; FSancta Cruce, ibid., p. 602; d'Aguiar, 'Aforciamento', p. 78.

57. LF 5. FSoria 532. Self-infliction is explicit also in FViguera 39 and FEJaca 78 and ms B 250.

58. FViejo 2.2.3.

59. FMarañón, MC, p. 496. Cf. FAlba 3 where the complainants suspected of greed are the relatives of an abducted daughter.

60. For early twelfth-century Toledo ('mala si fuerit aut bono'), see above, n. 42, with later versions in FToledo 31; FEscalona 14; FLorca, p. 8. FZorita 253 calls for a 1 mr. fine, but elsewhere there was no penalty: FMolina, pp. 125-6 (1154), 148 (c. 1250), 153 (1273). FAlfambra 12. FCuenca 11.29; FIznatoraf 252; FAlarcón 237; FAlcaraz 4.29; FBaeza 252; FBéjar 324; FTeruel 482; FPlasencia 70. FCoria 65; FCáceres 73; FUsagre 73.

61. FCoria 65; FCáceres 73; FUsagre 73.

62. FPeralta (1144), MC, p. 547. Cf. FCoria 65, et fora alia, above, n. 60. A bad reputation was a possibility by FViguera 39.

63. FSoria 533, 536.

64. FLJaca 12 (1063). The abolition of fornicio, evidently a seignorial tax on illegal fornication with a female tenant, is not unknown elsewhere: e.g., FValpuesta (804), MC, p. 15; FJávila (941), ibid., p.25; FSan Zadornín (955) ibid., pp. 31, 32; FSanta Maria de Rezmondo (969), ibid., p. 34; FNave de Albura (1012), ibid., p. 58; FLara (1135), ibid., p.523; FSilos (1135), ed. Férotin, Recueil, p.65; FVillavaruz de Rioseco 2 (1181), HD, p. 82; FGuipúzcoa (1208), Alfonso VIII, vol. 3, p. 225.

65. Conf. of FJaca (1137), MC, p. 242; Compilación privada de derecho aragonés 30; FEJaca 78; ms B 250; FEstella 1.6.1-8; FSan Sebastián 1.4.7. Versions in Usatges de Barcelona 108, ed. R. d'Abadal i de Vinyals and F. Valls i Taberner, Usatges de Barcelona (Barcelona, 1913); FGeneral de Navarra 4.3.3; Fueros de Aragón 307.

66. FAlcalá 9. FBrihuega, p. 138. FSoria 536. FAlba 18.

67. FSalamanca 212; FLedesma 138, as opposed to cap. 191.

68. FPlasencia 66. Similarly, FCuenca 11.24, et fora alia (abduction), as opposed to a formal rape complaint in cap. 11.26, et fora alia.

69. FPalenzuela (1074), MC, p. 276; FSan Juan de Celia (1209), Alfonso VIII, vol. 3, p. 499; FVillaverde (before 1214), ibid., pp. 639-40, all for rape. FLara (1135), MC, p. 515, rape. FBalbás (1135), ibid., p. 519, rape. FPozuelo de Campos 18 (1157?), HD, p. 66, abduction. FAlhóndiga 6 (1170), ibid., p. 75, abduction. FLPalencia 37 (1181); FPalencia 36, rape. FSanta Maria de Cortes (1182), CD, pp. 114-15. FHaro (1187), Alfonso VIII, vol. 2, p. 805, rape. FIbrillos (before 1214), ibid., vol. 3, p. 651, rape. FÁvila-Evora, ed. Blasco, 'El problema', p. 20, rape, but enemistad also for abduction, p. 30.

70. FFresnillo 11 (1104), HD, p. 47, rape. FCalatayud (1131), MC, p. 460, rape. FMarañón (1134), ibid., p. 496, rape. FDaroca (1142), ibid., p. 537, rape. FMolina, pp. 125-6 (1154), 148 (c. 1250), 153 (1273), rape or abduction. FMadrigal (1168), LLN, vol. 4, p. 181, rape. FLUclés 11 (1179); FEUclés 11, rape or abduction. FZorita (1180), Alfonso VIII, vol. 2, pp. 572, 575, rape or abduction; but FEZorita 248-50, death penalty. FValfermoso (1189), CD, p. 119, rape. FAlcalá 9, rape; cap. 15, abduction. FSepúlveda 35, abduction; cap. 51, rape. FSalamanca 212; FLedesma 138, rape or abduction; but cf. FLedesma 190, 191. FAlba 3, abduction; cap. 19-21 rape.

71. FMiranda 24 (1099), rape or abduction. FToledo (1118), MC, p. 366 and FToledo 31 (c. 1166), abduction. FEscalona 14 (1130) and 33 (1226), rape, above n. 1. FLorca, p. 8 (1271), rape or abduction. FEZorita 248-50 (1218), rape or abduction. FGuadalajara 73 (1219), rape. FBrihuega, pp. 138-9 (1237-40), rape or abduction. FMadrid 110.1 (c. 1250), rape. FPlasencia 747 (addition of 1286), rape.

72. FCuenca 11.27; FIznatoraf 321, 249; FAlarcón 235; FAlcaraz 4.27; FBaeza 250; FBejar 321; FTeruel 478; FZorita 251. But by FPlasencia 67, the same fine and exile as for a vecina or daughter of a vecino.

73. FCuenca 11.22, 23; FIznatoraf 245; FAlarcón 231; FAlcaraz 4.22, 23; FBaeza 246; FZorita 246, 247; FBéjar 316, 317. FTeruel 474, 475 and FPlasencia 64, 65 do not qualify the payment as arras. FBrihuega, p. 168 and FFuentes 115 clarify that the bastard otherwise belonged to the woman's owner; rape of a free Muslim is still a minor offence here (FBrihuega, p. 139).

74. FAlba 18, 20; but for abduction the payment is only one-third less. FCoria 51; FCáceres 56; FUsagre 54. FPlasencia 67, 69.

75. FZamora 33, 35.

76. FZamora 36. FVillavicencio (1221), MC, pp. 179-80 ('la meior avola que ovo'). For seduction, see also FCastroverde (1202), Alfonso IX, vol. 3, p. 229; FParga (1220), ed. Gonzalez, 'Aportación de fueros castellano-leoneses', p. 651, explicitly exempting the seducer of a paid servant, even a relative; FLlanes 24 (1228).

77. FAlba 18, 19. FSalamanca 212; FLedesma 138. FBrihuega, pp. 138-9. But by FYanguas (1200, Alfonso VIII, vol. 3, p. 225) the penalty for the rapist of the daughter is death but of the widow only 20 sueldos after 100 days' enslavement.

78. FCuenca 11.25, 26; FIznatoraf 247, 248; FAlarcón 233, 234; FAlcaraz 4.25, 26; FBaeza 248, 249 FZorita 248-50; FBéjar 319, 320; FTeruel 476, 477; FPlasencia 66, 747. FYanguas (Alfonso VIII, vol. 3, p. 225), burning after a year's enslavement. Death for the daughter's assailant in FZorita, FYanguas, FZamora 36, and the texts cited above, n. 71.

79. FCoria 51; FCáceres 56; FUsagre 54. FBrihuega, pp. 138-9, although abduction of the wife did not bring the double fine (p. 144). FAlfambra 12, 43, 44. FSoria 53, 531, 534 (FReal 4.10.3), 535. FLedesma 138, 190, 191. Partidas 7.20 retains many older conceptions of rape and its appropriate prosecution, but virgins rank among other victims.