The Cortes of Castile-León
1188-1350

Joseph F. O'Callaghan

Preface


[ix] My interest in the cortes was first awakened while I was preparing A History of Medieval Spain. As I quickly discovered, Spanish historiography has only recently begun to give due attention to this topic, and in the English speaking world, only a handful of studies has been published in the last seventy years. An international congress, meeting in Burgos in October 1986, was the first concerted attempt by a body of scholars to explore the impact of the cortes of Castile and León on medieval and modern Spanish society.
My initial inquires, meanwhile, lcd me to conclude that a full-scale history of the cortes of Castile-León from the late twelfth century to the middle of the fourteenth was in order. My expectation is that this will stimulate further inquiry into many of the issues discussed, and a more intensive search for pertinent documentation.
I am very much indebted to the many librarians, archivists, and others who responded to my queries and supplied me with microfilm or xerox copies of numerous texts. I must especially acknowledge the kindness [x] of Professor Angus MacKay of the University of Edinburgh, who offered me a microfilm copy of texts in the Archives municipales of Nantes, France. I wish also to express my warm appreciation to Professor Teofilo Ruiz of Brooklyn College, who read my manuscript and gave me much needed counsel.
I am grateful to the Program for Cultural Cooperation Between Spains Ministry of Culture and United States Universities for aiding the publication of this book.


Introduction


[1] The cortes of Castile-León, brought into being out of the unique conditions of life in the Iberian peninsula, exemplified a phenomenon characteristic of Western Europe in the High Middle Ages: the development of representative and parliamentary institutions. From the thirteenth century onward, parliamentary assemblies of one type or another came into existence in England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, Italy, Poland, Hungary, and Spain. Even before the close of the thirteenth century, the cortes had emerged in all the Christian states of Spain, namely Castile, León, Portugal, Aragón, Catalonia, Valencia, and Navarre. In this respect, Spain, as an integral part of Europe, shared a common European experience.(1)
Spain holds a special place in the history of medieval representative government because the appearance of urban representatives in the cortes antedated similar developments elsewhere. Townsmen were summoned to the royal council of León as early as 1188, and by the second half of the thirteenth century they were participating actively, [2] along with bishops and nobles, in meetings of the cortes of Castile-León held nearly every two years. In the Crown of Aragón three separate parliamentary assemblies were convened for Catalonia, Aragón, and Valencia, as early as 1225, 1227, and 1283, respectively. The first cortes of Navarre may have taken place in 1253, while the earliest recorded cortes in Portugal was held in 1254. The English parliament, on the other hand, was still in its infancy. The initial admission of the commons to parliament is usually dated from Simon de Montforts summon to the knights of the shire and the burgesses of the towns in 1265. All the estates of the realm took part in Edward Is so-called Model Parliament of 1295, but parliament did not achieve its characteristic organization until the early fourteenth century. Philip IV's convocation of the Estates in 1302 is traditionally cited as marking the beginning of French representative institutions, but they did not reach maturity until well into the fourteenth century.(2)
Representative assemblies had certain traits in common, but each one also had its distinctive characteristics. Thus, whereas the English parliament, consisting of two houses of lords and commons, was a single assembly for the entire realm, the prelates, nobles, and townsmen in the cortes of Castile-León remained separate entities. From time to time the monarch also convoked the cortes of Castile and León separately, or convened other limited assemblies of the three estates. In this respect, the parliamentary history of Castile-León bears a closer resemblance to that of France, where the king summoned the three estates to separate assemblies for Languedoil and Languedoc, and where provincial assemblies were also common.
On the other hand, assemblies of hermandades -- associationsof towns organized in response to the uncertainties of the times -- were unique to Castile-León. Although not summoned by the king, they often had a powerful influence upon royal policy. Their close relationship with the cortes was such that the history of the cortes cannot be understood without taking them into account.(3)
In spite of the current surge of interest in the concept of representation and the growth of representative assemblies, the study of the medieval cortes as an early exemplar of these developments has not received the attention that it deserves. The triumph of monarchical absolutism under the Habsburgs and the Bourbons did not encourage serious inquiry into the medieval cortes, but the upheaval caused by the French Revolution, the convocation of the Cortes of Cádiz, and the adoption [3] of the Constitution of 1812 sparked a debate on the nature and functions of parliamentary institutions.
Like the English politicians of the seventeenth century, Francisco Martínez Marina looked to the medieval past for precedents to justify his belief that the cortes, representing the three estates and jointly exercising legislative power with the king, was a manifestation of popular sovereignty and a necessary safeguard of liberty.(4) Manuel Colmeiro took issue with him, arguing that the cortes was essentially a consultative body always subordinate to the royal will.(5) Pointing to the failure of previous authors to demonstrate the chronological progression of the cortes, Wladimir Piskorski systematically treated its organization and competence but did not touch upon the problem of its origins. Although the merits of bis study are indisputable, it is now dated.(6)
Twentieth-century Spanish historians, mirroring the crisis of the Civil War, tended to divide into two camps. Claudio Sánchez Albornoz saw the cortes as an expression of what he perceived to be the democratic character of the towns forged as a result of life on the frontier.(7) Others assumed a more conservative stance, stressing that the functions of the cortes were limited and that it was not a real restraint on royal authority.(8)
In a challenging essay treating the organization and functions of the cortes from the earliest period until well into modern times, José Mancel Pérez Prendes insisted that it was an instrument of the crown, that the king was always at liberty to summon it, to determine its business, and to act without it, if he chose to do so. Rejecting the idea that it was an assembly of the estates of the realm, he emphasized that the fundamental reason for summoning anyone to it was the general obligation of all subjects to give counsel to the king.(9) Evelyn Procter, in a most valuable contribution to the history of the cortes, focused on the transitional era from the late eleventh through the early thirteenth centuries. Describing the evolution of the cortes from the curia regis, she also discussed its composition and functions in the second half of the thirteenth century.(10)
These preparatory studies, provocative interpretations, and works of synthesis have greatly enlarged our understanding of the cortes. Nevertheless, these older histories reflect two principal deficiencies. First, they were based almost entirely on the documentary collection published in the nineteenth century by the Real Academia de la Historia. Second, by treating the subject in broad periods from the twelfth to [4] the sixteenth centuries, or from the twelfth to the nineteenth, they were unable to illustrate variations due to specific historical circumstances. As a consequence, they tended to see the cortes as a static institution endowed with a peculiar permanency and immutability of character.
Historians, in addition, still have a tendency to use the term cortes in a rather casual manner. Aside from the loose and anachronistic reference in earlier centuries to a cortes as any assembly held by the Visigothic and Asturian kings, one still finds historians declaring uncritically that the cortes was held on such and such an occasion, for example, at Zamora in 1274, or at Carrión in 1317. An examination of the evidence in these and other cases leads to a contrary conclusion.
With the expectation of revealing the multifaceted character of the cortes and of the many other types of public assemblies held in Castile-León, 1 have undertaken a more comprehensive and systematic study, utilizing a wide range of narrative and documentary sources, both published and unpublished. By limiting the chronological scope to the period from Alfonso IXs summoning of representatives of the towns to his council in 1188, to the death of Alfonso XI in 1350, the transition from curia regis to cortes and the functioning of the cortes as a mature institution for a fulí century can be amply illustrated.
This study begins with a discussion of the formative period from the late twelfth century to the middle of the thirteenth, and then of the century from 1252 to 1350, when the cortes attained the fullness of its development. The beginning of the cortes can be traced to the reigns of Fernando II (1157--1188) and Alfonso IX (1188--1230) of León; Sancho III (1157--1158), Alfonso VIII (1158--1214), and Enrique I (1214-- 1217) of Castile; and Fernando III (1217--1252), king first of Castile and, after 1230, of both Castile and León. During these reigns representatives of the towns were summoned to join the bishops and nobles in the royal court. In the succeeding century when Alfonso X (1252-- 1284), Sancho IV (1284--1295), Fernando IV (1295--1312), and Alfonso XI (1312--1350) ruled both Castile and León, the cortes assumed a certain regularity as an assembly of prelates, nobles, and urban representatives convened by the king at fairly frequent intervais. By placing the cortes in the perspective of contemporary events, one can better understand the circumstances that brought it into existence and the vicissitudes it endured during successive reigns.
Next the details of the organization and functioning of the cortes must be examined. Among many questions to be considered are these: [5] What was the cortes? What were the different types of parliamentary assemblies? To what extent were the estates of the realm, or "all the men of the realm," believed to be present in the cortes? Could the cortes exist without the summons and presence of the king? Who were the prelates, nobles, and townsmen who attended? What were the methods of summons, the frequency of assembly, the preferred sites, the provision for lodging and security, and the procedures followed while the assembly was in session?
One must also ask what the cortes did. Did the king expect counsel and consent when he dealt with "the greater affairs of the realm"? Was the cortes always summoned to acknowledge a new king or the heir to the throne? What was its role in regulating regencies? Did it actively participate in foreign affairs? Was its consent necessary for legislation? Did ordinances enacted by the king in the cortes have the force of law? Was the consent of the cortes always required for extraordinary taxes? Did it attempt to place conditions on tax levies or to control collection and disbursement? What influence did it have on royal administration, especially on the chancery, the royal court, and territorial offlcials? How did it reflect relations among social classes, especially between Christians and Jews? Did it seek to pursue a consistent policy with respect to economic issues?
In carrying out this inquiry one must avoid the trap of reading back into earlier centuries ideas current in the modern age. This can only lead to a distorted perception of the cortes. Although there are limitations to the ability to see the cortes as its contemporaries did, this ought to be the goal. One must begin with the realization that the cortes was the kings court and, as such, subject to his control. Once in session, however, it often displayed a mind of its own and was not always willing to follow the kings lead. The cortes did not possess the great power and authority that Martínez Marina attributed to it, but neither was it always a docile and passive instrument of royal policy. If modern preconceptions can be kept at a distance, it ought to be possible to achieve a reasonably sound understanding of the nature of the medieval cortes. The first task is to appreciate the cortes for its own sake and to assess its impact upon government and society in the century of its mature growth. Once that has been accomplished, one will be able to judge the extent to which the cortes may have influenced modern ideas of representative government.
Every historical investigation must begin with an evaluation of the [6] sources. In this instance, the sources shed abundant light upon many of the questions raised above, but they are scanty in number and do not permit many complete answers. They can be grouped as follows: ordinances; royal charters and private letters; narratives; and theoretical and literary treatises.
The most valuable documentary sources are the ordinances drawn up by the chancery, often on the basis of petitions presented in the assembly, and promulgated by the king at the conclusion of the cortes. The ordinances consisted usually of several sheets of parchment or paper bound together in bookiets called cuadernos. Copies were given to the participants to carry home as a record of what was done. Copies retained by the chancery are regrettably no longer extant, due to the destruction of the royal archives. Scholars have been forced, therefore, to seek the originals in cathedral, monastic, noble, and municipal archives. After conducting an intensive search a century ago, the Real Academia de la Historia published a collection of cuadernos.(11) Since then a additional cuadernos have been found, though at times they have been mistakenly identified as local privileges. A new edition of the cuadernos, collating all known manuscripts in conformity with modern standards, is desirable, but it must be a collaborative venture, necessitating a new and more extensive search of the archives.(12)
Other royal documents provide much supplementary information. Charters of the late twelfth century often bear a notation that the king was celebrating a curia, though the practice of noting such events was abandoned in the reign of Fernando III. Royal privileges also contain witness lists of bishops and nobles who most likely were summoned whenever the cortes met. Many charters also mention that the cortes was being held, or that specific actions were taken while it was in session, and some even record the names of municipal representatives. Private charters also occasionally mention the cortes.
The two major narrative sources for the formative era are the De rebus Hispaniae of Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada, Archbishop of Toledo (d. 1247), and the Latin Chronicle of the Kings of Castile, perhaps by Bishop Juan of Osma (d. 1246). Both are contemporary accounts providing useful data about various royal assemblies, but they end soon after the capture of Córdoba in 1236. The Estoria de Espanna reported the remaining years of Fernando IIIs reign, but with scant attention to extraordinary meetings of the royal court.(13)
A series of official chronicles presents the history of the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. Fernán Sánchez de Valladolid, the chancellor of Alfonso XI, is the probable author of three chronicles of the reigns of Alfonso X, Sancho IV, and Fernando IV. The early chapters of the Chronicle of Alfonso X are a confusing chronological jumble, but the author is more confident in his discussion of the last fourteen years, when he seems to have had access to a contemporary account of events as well as to chancery documents. The chronicle seems biased against Alfonso X and favorable to his rebellious son, Sancho. The Chronicle of Sancho IV is a comparatively straightforward account, generally supportive of the king. Even more detailed is the Chronicle of Fernando IV which is decidedly partial to Maria de Molina, who sought to preserve her sons rights to the throne. Fernán Sánchez also appears to have written a Chronicle of Alfonso XI, based on ample use of royal documentation but extending only to the fall of Algeciras in 1344. The Poema de Alfonso XI, fulsome in its praise of the king, is also useful for references to the cortes.(14)
The Chronicle of Jofre de Loaysa (d. 1307/1310), archdeacon of Toledo, briefly touches the last years of Fernando III but more thoroughly treats Alfonso X and Sancho IV; it concludes in 1305 in the middle of the reign of Fernando IV. Although comparatively short, it offers precise information about some meetings of the cortes.(15)
Several treatises contain interesting comments on royal policy and the kings relations with his subjects. The Franciscan Juan Gil de Zamora (d. after 1318), in his Liber de preconiis Hispaniae, (written for the instruction of Infante Sancho), made veiled criticisms of Alfonso X. Alfonso Xs nephew, Juan Manuel (1282--1348), who played an active role in the reigns of Fernando IV and Alfonso XI, described contemporary society in his Libro de los estados but did not discuss the cortes. His letters are also a valuable source of information. Lastly, Álvaro Pelayo (d. 1353), a canon lawyer and bishop of Silves, dedicated his Speculum regis to Alfonso XI, though he occasionally castigated the king for his oppression of the people.(16)
Despite the paucity of sources and the inadequacies of those that do exist, the essential characteristics of the cortes, from the time it first emerged in the late twelfth century through the century of maturity, can be clearly delineated.

Notes for the Introduction 1. Antonio Marongiu, Medieval Parliaments: A Comparative Study, tr. S. J. Woolf (London 1968); Luis Gonzalez Anton, Las Cortes de Aragón (Zaragoza, 1978), and Las Uniones aragonesas y las Cortes del reino, 1283-1301, 2 vols. (Madrid 1975); Jose Coroleu and José Pella y Forgas, Las Cortes catalanas, 2d ed. (Barcelona 1876); Paulo Merea, 0 Poder real e as Cortes (Coimbra 1923).
2. G. O. Sayles, The King's Parliament of England (New York 1974); Thomas Bisson, "The General Assemblies of Philip the Fair: Their Character Reconsidered," Studia Gratiana 15 (1972): 537-564.
3. Luis Suárez Fernández, "Evolución histórica de las hermandades castellanas," CHE 11 (1951): 5-78.
4. Francisco Martínez Marina, Teoría de las Cortes o grandes juntas nacionales de los reinos de León y Castilla, 3 vols. (Madrid 1813; reprinted in BAE, CCXLX-CCXX, Madrid 1968). I will cite the BAE edition.
5. Manuel Colmeiro, Introducción a las Cortes de los antiguos reinos de León y Castilla, 2 vols. (Madrid 1883-1884); Roger B. Merriman, "The Cortes of the Spanish Kingdoms in the Later Middle Ages," AHR 16 (1911): 476-495. Now, outdated is Juan Sempere, Histoire des Cortes d'Espagne (Bordeaux 1815), and Resumen de las antiguas Cortes de España (Madrid 1834).
6. Wadimir Piskorski, Las Cortes de Castilla en el período de tránsito de la edad media a la moderna, tr. Claudio Sánchez Albornoz (Barcelona 1930; reprint Barcelona: Ediciones Albir 1977).
7. Claudio Sanchez Albornoz, Espana, un enigma histórico (Buenos Aires, 1962),II,90-92, and La Curia regia portuguesa. Siglos XII y XIII (Madrid 1920);Nilda Guglielmi, "La curia regia en León y Castilla," CHE 23-24 (1955): 116-267; 28 (1958): 43 - 101.Ismael García Ramila's "Las Cortes de Castilla.Origenes y vicisitudes," RABM 46 (1925): 84-99,262-278, is only a sketch.
8. Julio Valdeón, "Las Cortes medievales castellano-leonesas en la historiografia reciente," in Piskorski (reprint 1977), v-xxxv.
9. José Manuel Pérez Prendes, Cortes de Castilla (Barcelona1974), and "Cortes de Castilla y Cortes de Cádiz," Revista de Estudios politicos 126 (1962): 321-431; Julio Valdeón Baruque, "Las Cortes castellanas en el siglo XIV," AEM 7 (1970-1971): 633-644.
10. Evelyn S. Procter, Curia and Cortes in León-Castile, 1072-1295 (Cambridge 1980).
11. Cortes de los antiguos reinos de León y Castilla, ed. Real Academia de la Historia, 5 vols.(Madrid 1861-1903).Abbreviated as CLC. Due to limitationsof space I cannot cite all the manuscripts and editions of cuadernos that I have seen, but I hope to publish a separate listing.
12. I usually cite the exemplar in CLC. The name of the place where the cortes was held will be given, followed by the date and the number of the article in the printed edition, e.g., Valladolid 1258, art. 1. In order to distinguish among cuadernos drawn up in the same cortes but given to different regions, the initial letter of the region will be used: C for Castile, L for León, E for Extremadura, A for Andalusia, and M for Murcia. Thus, the citation Medina del Campo 1305,art. 1 CLEM, would refer to art. 1 in four separate cuadernos given to Castile, León, Extremadura, and Murcia, respectively. The general cuaderno of the cortes of Valladolid 1299 willbe identified by the letter G. The cuadernos published separately in the cortes of Palencia 1313by Infante Juan and his rivals, Maria de Molina and Infante Pedro, will be distinguished by the letters J for Juan and M for Maria, as follows: Palencia 1313, art. 1 J, 3 M. Cuadernos given to the prelates will be identified by the letter P, e.g., Valladolid 1295,art. 1 P.
13. Rodrigo Jimé6nez de Rada, De rebus Hispaniae, in Opera, ed. Francisco Lorenzana (Madrid 1793; reprint Valencia: Anubar 1968); Chronique latine des rois de Castille, ed. Georges Cirot (Bordeaux 1913); Primera Crdnica general, ed.Ramón Menéndez Pidal, 2 vols.(Madrid 1955).
14. Cayetano Rosell, Crónicas de los reyes de Castilla, in BAE, LXVI (Madrid, 1953); Gran Crónica de Alfonso XI, ed. Diego Catalan Menéndez Pidal, 2 vols. (Madrid 1977); Poema de Alfonso XI, ed. Yo Ten Cate (Madrid 1955).
15. Jofre de Loaysa, Crónica de los reyes de Castilla, Fernando III, Alfonso X, Sancho IV y Fernando IV, 1248-1305, ed. and tr. Antonio García Martínez(Murcia 1961).
16. Juan Gil de Zamora, De preconiis Hispaniae, ed. Manuel de Castro y Castro (Madrid 1955); Juan Manuel, Libro de los estados, ed. R. B. Tate and I. R. Macpherson (New York 1974);Andrés Giménez Soler, Don Juan Manuel. Biografía y estudio critico (Madrid 1932);Álvaro Pelayo (Alvaro Pais), Espelho dos Reis, ed. and tr. Miguel Pinto de Meneses (Lisbon 1955).


The Cortes of Castile-Leon, 1188-1350