3
The King and the Estates
of the Realm



The Estates of the Realm
[41] The cortes of medieval Castile-León ordinarily consisted of prelates, nobles, and representatives of the towns, assembled upon the kings summons to treat with him the business that he set before them. Alfonso García Gallo defined the cortes as a "reunion of the king with the elements of the community that enjoyed political power." Contemporaries described those elements as estates or orders of men constituting society. The three estates, described in the Siete Partidas (11.2 1) and in Juan Manuels Libro de los estados, were the nobles, who defended the realm, the clergy, who prayed for divine protection, and the workers, who cultivated the fields or labored in the towns.(1) The king was obliged to love, honor, and guard his people, "each one in his estate," just as they were bound to love, honor and obey him. The king and "all the men of the realm" formed a single body, of which he was the head and they were the members (Espéculo, II.1.1.4; Partidas, II.10.1.3, II.1.5).
Medieval sources do not speak of the summoning of estates, nor do[42] they use the term brazo (literally, an arm, or a branch of the body politic), although modern authors often do. José Manuel Pérez Prendes rejected the idea that the prelates and nobles attended the cortes as brazos in representation of the clergy and nobility in general, but Julio Valdeón maintained that the nobles and clergy each belonged to a separate estate with a defined juridical status and that they were present in the cortes as such.(2) Conscious of their status and its attendant rights and privileges, the prelates and nobles virtually represented all the people in their respective estates and had the power to bind them to any decisions. The cuadernos issued in response to the petitions of prelates nobles, or townsmen give evidence that each estate functioned as a unit in the cortes.
When the king stood before the cortes, he believed that "all the men of the realm," according to their distinctive functions and rights, were assembled before him and that theirconsent was tantamount to the consent of the entire kingdom.(3)
Plenary, Regional, and Particular Assemblies
Some royal assemblies were identified as cortes, others as ayuntamientos, and still others were given no specific designation. The word cortes, the plural of the vernacular cort (a translation of the Latin curia), was used in two thirteenth-century poems, the Cantar de mío Cid (lines 3129-3131) and the Poema de Fernán González (verses 564--568),to describe extraordinary assemblies, chiefly of nobles.(4) Referring to "my cortes" held at Toledo in 1254, Alfonso X also spoke of that assembly as a curia generalis attended by his brothers, the archbishops, bishops, barons, and nobles of his curia, and the procurators of cities and towns sent by their communities. This is the best evidence of what the king understood the cortes to be. For this reason, I believe that any assembly of prelates, nobles, and townsmen that was summoned by the king may be called a cortes, even though the texts do not always name them as such.(5)
From a geographic standpoint, the cortes were either plenary or regional. Participants in the former were prelates, nobles, and representatives of the towns of Castile, León, and Extremadura. References to the presence of "all the men of the realms," or "all the towns of all the realms," emphasize their plenary character. At times, Andalusia, Galicia, [43] the kingdom of Toledo, and Murcia were also mentioned. In the broadest sense, Castile included not only Old Castile, the district around Burgos, but also all those areas subsequently conquered by the kings of Castile--the kingdom of Toledo, Extremadura (south of the Duero around Segovia and Ávila), Andalusia, and Murcia. Included in León were Galicia, Asturias, León proper, and Leonese Extremadura (around Salamanca and Zamora).(6) When the texts cite León and Extremadura, the latter usually indicated Castilian Extremadura; Leonese Extremadura was included in the kingdom of León. When only Castile and León are cited, I believe that a plenary cortes, including all the regions mentioned above, was convened.
Most of the cortes of Alfonso X and Sancho IV seem to have been plenary. So too were those of Fernando IV, but enmity between the Castilians and Leonese resulted in the occasional convocation of regional cortes. During the minority of Alfonso XI, the plenary cortes were often divided and regional assemblies were convened; once he came of age, he summoned only three plenary cortes.
Regional (or provincial) cortes included the prelates, nobles, and townsmen from one or two kingdoms, but not from all. No explicit reference to regional cortes in the reigns of Alfonso X and Sancho IV has been encountered, but the existence of separate cuadernos for Castile and León suggested to Antonio Ballesteros that Alfonso X held the Castilian cortes at Seville in October 1252 and the Leonese cortes in February 1253.(7) It seems more likely, however, that a plenary cortes was held in the fall, but that the preparation of the cuadernos extended into the new year. Foreign and domestic challenges to Fernando IV resulted in the convocation of the cortes of Castile (and probably Extremadura) at Cuéllar in 1297, and at Burgos in 1301 and 1302; the cortes of León met at Zamora in 1301, and in the next year the cortes of León, Extremadura, and the kingdom of Toledo assembled at Medina del Campo. After the Castilians protested at Burgos 1301 (art. 23), the king explained to the cortes of Medina del Campo 1302 (art. 6)that he held separate cortes because he wished to "avoid the conflicts and recriminations that could arise"; but he promised that "when I wish to assemble the cortes I shall do so with all the men of my kingdom together." These exchanges suggest that ordinarily the king convened the entire realm, rather than its separate parts. Due to rampant factionalism, a regional cortes for Castile was held at Valladolid in 1318 [44] and another for León, Extremadura, and the kingdom of Toledo at Medina del Campo.
On attaining his majority, Alfonso XI preferred to convene assemblies of varied composition, some of which he called ayuntamientos. The distinction between cortes and ayuntamiento (a word that first appears in fourteenth century documents) apparently depended on the degree to which the estates of the realm were thought to be fully present. An ayuntamiento was limited either in personnel or in geographic representation; in other words, if only some prelates, nobles, and townsmen took part, or if only one of the estates were in attendance, or if the participants came from only one region, the meeting would probably be called an ayuntamiento. Thus Alfonso XI summoned some prelates, magnates, and procurators of some cities to the ayuntamientos at Alcalá, Burgos, and León in 1345. On the other hand, no specific name was given to the assemblies of some bishops, nobles, and townsmen at Burgos, León, Zamora, and Ávila in 1342.
When the king met individual estates, that gathering might be called an ayuntamiento or nothing at all. Meetings with the prelates took place at Valladolid in 1255, Peñafiel 1275, Medina del Campo 1291, Palencia 1311, Medina del Campo 1316 (ayuntamiento) and 1326, and Madrid 1337. The king and the nobles gathered at Almagro in 1273 (ayuntamiento), Palencia 1311, Valladolid 1336, and Burgos 1338. Royal assemblies of towns were more numerous: Segovia 1256 and Seville 1264 (Extremadura); Ávíla 1273 (León and Extremadura); Alcalá 1275 (Castile and Extremadura); an ayuntamiento at Coca and Olmedo in 1303 (Extremadura); Burgos (Castile) 1336; Zamora (León) 1336; an ayuntamiento at Madrid in 1339 and another at Llerena in 1340.
Other assemblies not convened by the king, usually gatherings of the hermandades in time of crisis, often had a decisive impact, for instance the meetings at Valladolid in 1282 and 1295, Burgos in 1315, and the ayuntamiento of Carrión in 1317.
The Royal Family
As the kings court, the cortes came into being legally only when he or regents acting in his name summoned it. Infante Sanchos assembly at Valladolid in 1282, though called a cortes by various sources, was quite irregular. Juridically it was not a cortes generales, as Alfonso X [45] pointed out, because he had not summoned it, nor had he authorized his son to do so. Nor were the assemblies at Benavente, Sahagún, and Cuéllar in January and February 1313 meetings of the cortes, but rather meetings of the hermandades of León, León and Castile, and Extremadura, respectively. Even if they had been summoned by Infantes Juan or Pedro, each of whom attended at least one meeting, neither prince had yet been recognized as regent, and so could not have issued a summons in the kings name. Nor did the king or the regents summon the assembly of Carrión in 1317.(8)
Although the royal summons was essential, the king did not have to be physically present at every session of the cortes; kings of adult age probably were, but when Alfonso XI resided at Ávila and then at Valladolid during his minority, he seems not to have attended the cortes of Palencia 1313, Burgos 1315, or Medina del Campo 1318. Stirred by the irregularity of this situation, the cortes of Medina del Campo 1318 r (art. 1) demanded that future cortes meet wherever the king was. This was a protest not only against the kings absence, but also against the division of the cortes, whose power rested in its joint sessions. The cortes was held in 1321 and 1322 in Valladolid, where the king lived, but thereafter each of the regents convened assemblies of his respective adherents in different places without regard to the kings presence.
The king ordinarily determined when the cortes would meet and the nature of the business to be transacted, guided the proceedings, and brought them to a close; however, the regents performed these functions during the two minorities.
The queen may have attended the opening and closing ceremonies, but there is little evidence of her participation in the cortes; nor did the cuadernos refer to her as one whose counsel was sought. Two queens, however, did have exceptional influence. The Extremaduran towns at Seville in 1264 asked Queen Violante to intercede with Alfonso X, who later appointed her to look into the grievances of the prelates and townsmen (Burgos 1272). In 1273 she persuaded the nobles to come to terms at Almagro. A. woman of considerable intelligence and diplomatic skill, Queen Violante became disenchanted with her husband in his later years and gave her support to Sancho at Valladolid in 1282 and at Burgos in 1283.
Maria de Molina, a woman of similar gifts, convinced her husband, Sancho IV, to grant the petitions of the towns in the cortes of [46] Valladolid 1293. Named regent for Fernando IV, she induced the cortes to acknowledge him and to remain steadfast in its support. Constanza of Portugal, Fernando IVs wife, was present in the cortes only at Medina del Campo 1305; she could not compete with her mother-in-law for influence. Constanzas death in 1313 halted any influence in Alfonso XIs minority. Thereafter Maria de Molina had custody of the king until she died in 132 1. Alone among the contenders for power, she seems to have been willing to rely on the good judgment of the cortes to rally behind the monarchy in time of crisis.
Alfonso XI never mentioned his wife, Maria of Portugal, or their children in any of his cuadernos. They record more frequently that the king took counsel with his uncles, brothers, or sons, though not all of them played outstanding roles.(9) Alfonso Xs brother Manuel (d. 1283) was perhaps his closest counselor until Manuel decided to support Sancho at Valladolid in 1282. Another brother, Fadrique, served with Queen Violante as the kings emissary to the nobles in 1273, but for some unknown reason was executed in 1276. A third brother, Felipe, was the principal leader of the nobles opposing the king in the cortes of Burgos 1272. The kings first-born son, Fernando de la Cerda, was appointed regent in the cortes of Burgos 1274 with Fadriques support. He settled the grievances of the clergy at Peñafiel in 1275, but died soon after. The king then relied heavily on his second son, Sancho, who was acknowledged as heir to the throne in the cortes of Burgos 1276 and given greater responsibilities at Segovia 1278, but their relationship collapsed at Valladolid in 1282. Alfonso Xs younger sons, Jaime (d. 1284), Pedro (d. 1283), and Juan, after initially adhering to Sanchos rebellion, returned to their allegiance.
Returning from a long exile in Italy, Alfonso Xs brother Enrique became regent for Fernando IV, but once the king came of age, his influence declined and he died in 1304.(10) Alfonso Xs son Juan challenged Fernando IVs rights to the throne, but after submitting in 1300, he eventually gained ascendancy over him. Recognized as regent by the cortes of Palencia 1313, Juan shared power with Maria de Molina and her son Pedro until both Juan and Pedro died in 1319. Juans son, Juan the one-eyed, and Pedros brother, Felipe, were admitted to the regency at that point, and they participated in the cortes of Valladolid in 1321 and 1322. Juan Manuel, a nephew of Alfonso X, claimed the regency from 1322 to 1325 and continued to play a major role in affairs until his death in 1348.(11)
Royal Vassals
[47] Besides members of the royal family, it is likely that some of those listed in royal privileges as the kings vassals also attended the cortes. When Ibn al-Ahmar, king of Granada, became a vassal of Fernando III in 1246, he promised "to come to his cortes every year," but the silence of the documentation suggests that ordinarily he did not do so. Yet he renewed his vassalage in the cortes of Toledo 1254, when according to the Anonymous of Sahagún, Alfonso X was "much preoccupied with his vassals, the Moabite and Moorish kings"--probably a reference also to Ibn Mahfúz, king of Niebla, and Ibn Hûd, king of Murcia. In 1259 Alfonso X remarked that he sought "the counsel of the king of Granada" concerning his imperial quest, but perhaps not in the cortes. The appearance of Muhammad IIs name among the witnesses confirming the cuaderno of the cortes of Medina del Campo 1305 is not necessarily proof of his presence, since these lists were stereotyped, but neither is there evidence, as Colmeiro suggested, that he was represented by a procurator.(12)
The Royal Council
The cuadernos do not record the participation of the kings council, nor do they cite any of the legists, but the Castigos e documentos attributed to Sancho IV noted that when the king convened his cortes "all his servants and intimates came with him."(13) Occasionally the king also mentioned "other good men who were with me." Some cuadernos (Medina del Campo 1302, 1305, Valladolid 1307, and Burgos 1315) referred to magnates and prelates who, by virtue of holding the chief offices of state, belonged to the royal council. Juan Núñez de Lara, the mayordomo mayor and adelantado mayor, and Diego López de Haro, the alferez mayor, were cited in several cortes of Fernando IV. Others included Pero Ponce, mayordomo mayor, Archbishop Gonzalo of Toledo, chancellor of Castile, and Bishop Alfonso of Astorga, notary for León. In Alfonso XIs cortes of Valladolid 1325, Álvaro Núñez de Osorio, mayordomo mayor, Garcilaso de la Vega, justicia mayor, and Yûsuf of Ecija, almojarife mayor, were mentioned. Roy Pérez, Fernando IVs tutor and the master of Calatrava, appeared in the cortes of Valladolid 1295. At the end of each cuaderno the names of the royal notaries and scribes who prepared the document were recorded.
[48] Whether mentioned specifically or not, the council surely influenced the kings decision to summon the cortes and helped to determine the agenda. The chancery staff and fiscal agents assured the smooth functioning of the cortes, including the preparation of documents and statements of the kings revenues.
The Prelates
Members of the ecclesiastical estate regularly attended the cortes. There are frequent references to prelates, a term that surely meant the archbishops and bishops, the kings chief spiritual counselors, but probably did not include the abbots or the masters of the military orders.(14)
By the middle of the thirteenth century there were twenty-eight episcopal sees in the kingdom of Castile-León. These included the three archbishoprics of Toledo (the primatial see), Santiago de Compostela, and Seville. Thirteen sees were situated in the kingdom of León: Santiago, Astorga, Badajoz, Ciudad Rodrigo, Coria, León, Lugo, Mondoñedo, Orense, Oviedo, Salamanca, Túy, and Zamora. In Old Castile there were four bishoprics: Burgos, Calahorra, Palencia, and Osma. Two sees, Ávila and Segovia, lay in Extremadura. In the kingdom of Toledo there were four: Toledo, Cuenca, Plasencia, and Sigüenza. Andalusia also had four: Seville, Cádiz, Córdoba, and Jaén. Murcia had only one: Cartagena. All twenty-eight archbishops and bishops could have attended any plenary session of the cortes, but the number was probably smaller when the cortes was limited to Castile, León, or Extremadura.
All archbishops and bishops were probably summoned to the cortes, and were expected to attend unless detained by illness or some other legitimate excuse.(15) Aside from general references to archbishops and bishops, individual bishops who held offices at court were cited either in the cuadernos or in royal charters issued during the cortes. Other evidence is insufficient to show that all the bishops eligible to attend were actually present in a given cortes.(16) Because of their moral influence and their status as royal vassals who often held important lordships or offices of state, the bishops participation was essential.
The masters of the peninsular military orders of Calatrava, Santiago, and Alcántara often attended the cortes, as did the heads of [49] the Orders of the Temple, the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, and the Holy Sepulchre, which had been established in the Holy Land. The Order of Santa Maria de Cartagena (created by Alfonso X, but soon absorbed by Santiago) also appeared briefly. The masters were summoned because they governed extensive lordships (mainly between the Tagus and the Guadalquivir Rivers), and their knights formed the vanguard of royal armies.(17)
The attendance of abbots of monasteries was less frequent. Cited for the first time in the cortes of Seville 1261, the greatest number of abbots seems to have assembled at Valladolid in 1282. Thirty-nine Benedictine, Cistercian, and Premonstratensian abbots concluded a pact of brotherhood, and twenty-seven pledged their support to Infante Sancho.(18) Abbots also took part in the cortes of Valladolid 1295 and Medina del Campo 1305. Alfonso XI replied to the petitions of Castilian abbots and abbesses in the cortes of Valladolid 1322, but it is not certain that they were actually there. Abbots, priors, and their procurators were last cited in the ordinances given to prelates in the cortes of Burgos 1315 and Valladolid 1325.
There is no satisfactory way of determining which abbots were summoned. Unlike the bishops and the masters, abbots did not figure as witnesses to royal privileges. Perhaps only a few houses were summoned, such as those with important lordships or those that received copies of the cuadernos, like Aguilar de Campóo (Valladolid 1293), Oña (Valladolid 1322, 1325), Sahagún, and Celanova (Valladolid 1325). At any rate, the participation of abbots seems to have been exceptional.
Representatives of the lower clergy, though not mentioned in the cuadernos, were occasionally summoned as well. Several secular clergy and Franciscan and Dominican friars were appointed to a commission in the cortes of Burgos 1272 to prepare a response to the demands of the nobles and the clergy. Clerics, acting as procurators for their respective cathedral chapters (and sometimes for their bishops), were also present at Burgos 1277 and Valladolid 1282 and 1295,(19) though it seems unlikely that these lower clergy were summoned very regularly.
The ecclesiastical estate often functioned as a unit in defense of the rights of the church. In return for the bishops consent to a tax, Alfonso X made concessions to them at Valladolid in October 1255. They adopted an aggressive attitude in the cortes of Burgos 1272, presenting demands "such as other kings were not accustomed to grant." The king [50] became so angry that he threatened to expel them from the realm, but he agreed to consider their grievances. The results were probably embodied in the accord reached at Peñafiel in April 1275 by Infante Fernando. Several bishops and numerous abbots joined Infante Sancho at Valladolid in 1282, but Bishops Fernando of Burgos and Juan of Palencia protested.(20)
Although it is unclear whether the prelates assembled at Medina del Campo in the fall of 1291 confronted Sancho IV, it is apparent that they did agree to a tax. Archbishop Gonzalo of Toledo protested that actions were taken in the cortes of Valladolid 1295 without his counsel and that privileges were issued wrongly indicating that the prelates had given consent. Despite this, Fernando IV enacted an ordinance in the cortes in response to the bishops petitions. The bishops in the Council of Peñafiel 1302 threatened to use the ecclesiastical penalty of the interdict against the king if he violated their privileges.
Forming an hermandad in the Council of Salamanca in October 1310, Archbishop Rodrigo of Compostela and fourteen bishops agreed to meet each year to consider the well-being of the church. The bishops compelled Fernando IV to confirm their rights at Palencia in March 1311 and to promise not to tax them without first obtaining their consent in the cortes. At Zamora in July, Archbishops Rodrigo of Compostela and Aymón of Braga, with twelve bishops from León and Portugal, affirmed their hermandad in defense of the church.(21)
Archbishops Rodrigo of Compostela, Gutierre of Toledo, and Fernando of Seville, together with nine other bishops, formed an hermandad at Valladolid in April 1314 to demand that the regents for Alfonso XI confirm the liberties of the church, which they did in the cortes of Burgos 1315. The regents also agreed at Medina del Campo in April 1316 to postpone any attempt to recover royal lands acquired by the church until the king came of age. After enacting an ordinance concerning clerical grievances in the cortes of Valladolid 1325, Alfonso XI, in return for the bishops consent to a tax at Medina del Campo 1326, renewed the agreement on royal lands made by the regents ten years before. The bishops do not appear to have challenged him thereafter.(22)
Despite opinions to the contrary, the bishops and other members of the clergy who attended these assemblies had a strong sense of belonging to an estate with distinctive rights and privileges.(23) In times of crisis, [51] they demanded redress, protection, and acknowledgment of ecclesiastical liberties, but for the most part they remained submissive to royal authority.
The Nobility
From the earliest times the magnates were the kings chief collaborators.(24) In nearly every cortes until the middle of the fourteenth century, the presence of these ricos hombres was recorded. Alfonso X, who summoned the barones et optimates nostrae curiae to the cortes of Toledo 1254, emphasized that the king ought to love and honor them, "because they are the nobility and honor of his cortes and of his kingdoms" (Partidas, II.10.1).
Among members of the aristocracy, the magnates were the most prominent by birth, lineage, wealth, and power and, as royal vassals, owed counsel and military service in return for stipends (soldadas). From their numbers were selected the alferez, the mayordomo mayor, and the provincial governors. Their cohesiveness, based on common interests and intermarriage, and their tendency to entail their estates for the benefit of the oldest son--thereby concentrating wealth in a small number of families while providing for the younger sons in the military orders or the church--enabled them to become an ever more formidable challenge to the monarchy.
Pérez Prendes argues that the basis for the summons given to the magnates was the general duty of all subjects to counsel the king when required. While this is true, it is also true, as Sánchez Albornoz points out, that contemporaries emphasized their feudal obligation to give counsel as royal vassals.(25)
Whereas Gama Barros states that the magnates attended the cortes by reason of a personal right and effectively represented the nobility, Colmeiro and Pérez Prendes insist that no one had such a right and that the king was free to summon whomever he wished.(26) No claim to a personal right to be summoned has been found in the documents of this period, but the repeated appearance of the same people and families in the kings court and cortes suggests that attendance by the magnates tended to become, tacitly at least, hereditary right or privilege. Juan Manuel, an active politician in this epoch, declared that the king ran the risk of offending people by failing to summon those who thought they [52] should be consulted in important matters, even though their advice might generally be known to be worthless.(27) Thus although there was a practical reason to summon all the magnates--to avoid stirring up jealousy or hostility--the implementation of many decisions taken in the cortes did require their positive collaboration.
Although the cuadernos usually refer to the magnates generally, citing only a few outstanding men by name, at times the chronicles also mention individuals. The twenty or twenty-five magnates who regularly witnessed royal privileges probably were those who were usually called to the cortes. Besides the Laras and the Haros, the list of distinguished families who were also recorded as attending includes Aguilar, Arana, Asturias, Cameros, Castañeda, Castro, Cisneros, Finojosa, Guzman, Manrique, Manzanedo, Mendoza, Meneses, Osórez, Ponce, Roa, Salcedo, Saldaña, Sarmiento, Villalobos, and Villamayor.
Members of the lower nobility, that is, the infanzones and the caballeros fijosdalgo, also participated in the cortes. The former group was a class of nobles in between the magnates and the knights.(28) Piskorski is probably correct in saying that only the infanzones and knights holding directly from the king were summoned. It is apparent, on the other hand, that the magnates were accompanied to the cortes of Burgos 1272 by infanzones and knights who were their vassals. There is no way of knowing their numbers, but 102 knights swore to abide by the terms of the hermandad at the cortes of Burgos 1315. Squires were present at the hermandad of Carrión in 1317 but were not mentioned again until the reign of Enrique II.(29)
In only a few instances did the magnates take concerted action to defend their interests in the assemblies of this period. Confronting Alfonso X in September 1272, they insisted that he confirm his agreements in the cortes of Burgos. While the principal leaders went into exile, Alfonso X made concessions to the more moderate among them at Almagro in February 1273; these were recorded at Toledo in March.(30)
With the support of Infantes Juan and Pedro, the magnates tried to resolve differences with Fernando IV at Palencia in October 1311. No doubt to enhance the authority of the compromise they worked out, the text was included in the cuaderno published at the cortes of Valladolid in the following year. Alfonso XI, in an assembly at Burgos in April 1338, tried to curb rivalries and antagonisms among the nobility by regulating their feuds, their military obligations, and the dress appropriate to [53] their rank. Provisions of a similar nature were included in the Ordinance of Alcalá enacted in the cortes of 1348.(31)
Representatives of the Towns
As the chronicles, cuadernos, and royal charters testify, the largest element in the cortes was the municipal representatives. Principal cities such as Burgos, León, Valladolid, and Toledo, were surely summoned to all plenary cortes as well as to cortes and other assemblies for their respective regions. Towns in which royal assemblies were held were presumably represented: Alcalá de Henares, Avila, Burgos, Cuéllar, Haro, Jerez, León, Madrid, Medina del Campo, Palencia, Segovia, Seville, Toledo, Valladolid, and Zamora. Yet it is unlikely that Llerena, a town held in lordship by the Order of Santiago, was represented in the assembly held there in 1340.
The number of towns summoned would depend on whether the cortes was plenary or regional. Royal statements that all the towns, or some of them, attended, are useful only in emphasizing the kings attempt to consult broadly or to curtail participation. Three lists of towns are helpful in this regard. First, the list of fifty Castilian towns that swore to uphold the marriage of Infanta Berenguela and Conrad of Hohenstaufen that had been arranged in the curia of San Esteban de Gormaz in 1187, may give some indication of the chancerys list of towns that were to be summoned to a royal assembly. Only one of those towns do not appear in subsequent lists of towns attending the cortes. Fourteen of the twenty-eight towns assigned as Berenguela's dowry later participated in the cortes.(32)
Second, thirty-three Leonese and Galician towns, represented by sixty-three personeros, formed an hermandad in July 1295 during the cortes of Valladolid. At the same time twenty-three towns from Extremadura, represented by forty-seven personeros, concluded an hermandad with ten towns from the archbishopric of Toledo, represented by twenty-one personeros. Sixty-four Castilian towns, represented by 117 personeros, adhered to this pact. Thus a total of 130 towns represented by 248 personeros joined the hermandad and presumably took part in the cortes of l295.(33)
Third, during the cortes of Burgos 1315 a similar hermandad was orgamzed by one hundred towns from Castile, León, Extremadura, and [54] the kingdom of Toledo, represented by 201 procurators. Forty-two Castilian towns sent seventy representatives; fifteen Extremaduran towns sent fifty-two representatives; twelve towns of the kingdom of Toledo sent twenty-four; and thirty-one Leonese towns sent fifty-six.(34)
Combining the lists of 1295 and 1315, and avoiding any duplication, we have a total of 170 towns (seventy-eight from Castile, twenty-one from Extremadura, eighteen from Toledo, and forty-five from León). If we add ten Andalusian and Murcian towns known to have participated in the cortes, we have 180 towns attending the cortes on various occasions.
Some towns probably took part more frequently than others, for example, Burgos, Valladolid, León, Plasencia, Madrid, Segovia, Astorga, Palencia, Toledo, Medina del Campo, Cuéllar, Talavera, Carrión, Sepúlveda, Ávila, Zamora, Avilés, Arévalo, Alcalá de Henares, Belorado, Buitrago, Guadalajara, Haro, Logroño, Olmedo, Sahagún, Soria, Salamanca, Oviedo, Alba de Tormes, and Lugo. Many towns cited only once or twice may also have been summoned regularly, while every town that belonged to the hermandad may not have been summoned to every meeting.
The geographical distribution of towns represented in the cortes was very uneven. Few Galician towns attended. The Asturian towns taking part in the cortes were concentrated along the coast and in the vicinity of Oviedo. The towns of León and Leonese Extremadura can be plotted on a straight line from León to Salamanca, with Badajoz and Jerez de los Caballeros quite isolated farther south. Several Castilian towns belonging to the hermandad de las marismas along the Bay of Biscay participated in the cortes, as did many others stretching along the Ebro river, or located in the vicinity of Burgos, Palencia, and Valladolid. Towns from Castilian Extremadura and the kingdom of Toledo attending the cortes were spread generally throughout that area, but did not extend much south of Toledo itself. Given the number of towns in Andalusia and Murcia, it is surprising that only Seville, Córdoba, Ecija, Niebla, Murcia, Muía, and Lorca took part in the cortes.
Few towns held in lordship seem to have attended the cortes. As the Galician bishops often had lordship of their cities, this probably explains the paucity of Galician representation. In the vast area from the Tagus to the Guadalquivir, held in large part by the archbishop of Toledo or by the military orders, only Cáceres, Trujillo, and Villarreal [55] seem to have participated. Piskorski is no doubt correct in contending that all cities and towns were summoned or were eligible to be summoned, provided they were independent of every lord and possessed their own municipal organization in direct dependence upon the king, but there is also evidence of some exceptions.(35)
Several seigneurial towns were among the fifty swearing to maintain the accord reached at San Esteban de Gormaz in 1187. Alfonso X summoned Orense, whose bishop was its lord, to render homage to his daughter in 1256 and to Sancho in 1278. Seigneurial towns also participated in the hermandades of 1295 (Palencia, Sigüenza, Uceda, Talamanca, Lugo, Brihuega, Alcalá) and 1315 (Palencia, Buitrago, Lugo, Sahagún, Orense, Oña, Santo Domingo de Silos). The fact that some received cuadernos (Palencia 1295, 1301, 1302; Buitrago 1305; Illescas 1302) suggests that they may have been summoned to the cortes. Palencia (1283, 1286, 1313) and Alcalá (1345, 1348) were the sites of meetings of the cortes or other assemblies. In 1331 Alfonso XI required Sigüenza to attend his cortes whenever he convened it, and in 1347 summoned Santiago de Compostela to the cortes of Alcalá. In each case, the bishop was lord. Hilda Grassotti concludes that the exceptional circumstances of the royal minorities resulted in the convocation of some seigneurial towns, but the evidence is not limited to those years. As several towns were episcopal sees held in lordship (Santiago, Palencia, Sigüenza, Lugo, Orense), or seigneurial towns held by bishops (Buitrago, Alcalá, Talamanca, Uceda, Brihuega, Illescas) or by monasteries (Oña, Sahagún, Santo Domingo de Silos), one might argue that in summoning them, the king wished to make the point that the crowns authority was preeminent. If he wished to summon seigneurial towns, he could, and did, but the data are insufficient to prove that this was undertaken regularly.(36)
Recognizing that conclusions about the number of towns represented at any given cortes are tentative without a definitive list of those who were summoned, the following figures may be suggested. A plenary cortes including towns from Castile, León, Extremadura, Toledo, Andalusia, and Murcia may have had as many as 180 towns in attendance, perhaps even 200. In the two instances when the cortes for Old Castile was held separately from León, Extremadura, and Toledo (Burgos and Medina del Campo 1302, and Valladolid and Medina del Campo 1318), the Castilian cortes might have included as many as seventy-eight [56] towns, and the other cortes ninety-two. These figures probably represent the maximum number of towns present in any assembly; more than likely there were fewer.
The number and status of urban representatives must now be considered. Fernando III declared in the cortes of Seville 1250 that whenever a town sent representatives to his court, either in response to his summons or on its own initiative, it should send no more than three or four, unless he explicitly asked for more.(37) In the cortes of Valladolid 1258 (art. 8) and Seville 1261 (art. 13), Alfonso X limited the number of representatives to two. While these texts are primarily concerned with litigation in the royal court, the king probably intended to apply similar limitations in the cortes. The hermandad of 1284, for example, specified that whenever the king wished "to hold cortes," each town should send two good men, the same number that would be sent to meetings of the hermandad.(38) There are, however, occasional examples of three, four, or more representatives from a single town. Burgos, for instance, sent seven representatives to the cortes of Valladolid 1295 and four to the cortes of Burgos 1315. Most towns sent two in 1315, but Ávila had sixteen--an obvious exception. If two is taken as the usual number, there could have been as many as 360 representatives in a plenary cortes of 180 towns. For the Castilian cortes of Burgos 1302, the number could have been 156, and for the cortes of León, Toledo, and Extremadura held at Medina del Campo in the same year, 184. These figures, of course, are speculative, but they do suggest the size of the urban contingent in the cortes.
Who were these representatives and what was their status? In the third quarter of the thirteenth century the term used most often to designate them was good men (omnes bonos), that is, honest, God-fearing men who abided by the law. The term does not always mean townsmen, but might also be used to refer to nobles or officials of the kings court. Early in the fourteenth century personero (the legal equivalent of procurator)(39) was often used interchangeably with procurador, but by the reign of Alfonso XI the latter had become customary.(40)
Representatives came to the cortes with proctorial letters. Alfonso X instructed the towns to send to the cortes of Seville 1281 their "procurators with personerías complidas to grant all that should be decided before him." As yet no letter specifically appointing procurators to serve in the cortes has been found, but the Partidas (III. 18.98) included [57] a letter of the town council of Seville, appointing its personero "to demand and to respond" in litigation, and promising to accept "as firm and stable" whatever he did in its name. Several other letters exist in which towns named personeros to represent them in court or to act otherwise for them. Letters naming procurators for the cortes certainly must have been composed in the same form.(41)
In 1295, for example, Lorca appointed three "special and general procurators and legitimate personeros," giving them "all our power fully" to adhere to the Murcian hermandad and pledging to observe whatever tbey agreed to. Salamanca, in 1304, gaye full power to "two sufficient and abundant procurators" to swear to uphold the peace between Castile and Aragón. Not only in these instances, but surely also in the cortes, procurators were expected to have full power (plena potestas, poder cumplido) to bind their constituents in advance by whatever actions they might take. The crowns insistence on full powers was a safeguard against the possibility that a town might attempt later to repudiate its representatives.(42)
The letters of procuration, other than stating that the representatives were appointed by the municipal council, do not indicate how these represenratives were chosen and seldom mention their social rank or official capacity. In the cortes of Seville 1250, Fernando III ordered that representatives should be suitable knights chosen from the town council. The hermandad of Medina del Campo in 1284 provided that the two good men sent by each town to the cortes should be "the best, the most competent, men above suspicion, who fear God and love the well-being of the realm." The hermandad of Valladolid in 1295 also determined to send "the best men of the place."(43)
Besides the knights, men of lesser rank also attended the cortes. Alfonso X sought the counsel of merchants and other good men at Jerez in 1268. Four knights from the chief cities, together with six good men from their dependent villages and smaller towns, were summoned to the cortes of Seville 1281; two knights, two good men, and four taxpayers (pecheros) would be summoned from the smaller towns. Several towns were represented in the hermandad of Valladolid in 1295 by their alcaldes, while others sent their scribes to the cortes of Burgos 1315.(44) Most often procurators seem to have been members of the knightly class, who represented the interests of the urban aristocracy rather than of the simple freemen.(45)
[58] In the cortes of Seville 1250, Fernando III required the towns to compensate their representatives by paying them one half a maravedí a day for the journey as far as Toledo, and one maravedí if they had to continue as far as Seville. Each man was entitled to bring three animals, whose value would be determined prior to the journey so the owner could be compensated if any of them died en route. Alfonso X repeated these instructions in 1256 and again in the cortes of Seville 1261.(46)
Abundant evidence shows that the towns perceived themselves as a distinctive element in society with common interests that set them apart from the nobility and the clergy. In addition to forming hermandades in defense of their rights, the towns took advantage of the cortes to bring their concerns to the kings attention. Their petitions reveal a continuing opposition to encroachments on municipal liberties by royal officials, nobles, and clergy. They also became aware that the king would be more amenable to their demands for reform when he needed their consent to taxation.
A European Perspective
The concept of estates eventually gave rise to various types of parliamentary assemblies in other countries. The federative character of the Crown of Aragón resulted in the convocation of separate assemblies in the states of Aragón, Catalonia, and Valencia, but not Majorca. Occasionally, as at Monzon in 1289, a general cortes was convened for all the constituent states of the Crown of Aragón, but that did not become customary.
As in Castile, the cortes of Portugal and Catalonia consisted of the bishops, nobles, and representatives of the towns. In Aragón, however, the barons and knights were organized separately, thereby creating four estates. With the intention of weakening the nobility, unsuccessful attempts were made in Catalonia and Valencia to divide them into two groups. Given the much smaller size of the other kingdoms, the number of towns represented was less than in Castile. About a dozen towns in Aragón, Catalonia, and Portugal sent their procurators (usually two or three in number) to the cortes.
In England, in view of the greater unity of the realm and its more compact size, a single parliament came into existence. By the reign of Edward III the lower clergy had dropped out, and the knights of the [59] shires assembled with the burgesses of the towns to form the House of Commons, while the bishops, abbots, and barons formed the House of Lords. The kings of France, on the other hand, were only beginning to extend their authority over the complex of diverse provinces constituting their realm. Thus instead of one assembly embracing the entire kingdom, provincial assemblies of prelates, nobles, and towns came into being. In the reign of Philip VI, the assemblies of the estates of the great circumscriptions of Languedoil and Languedoc (usually meeting in Paris and Toulouse, respectively) began to take shape.
Now, it is time to look again at the Castilian cortes from the time that the king summoned it into being until it was brought to a conclusion.

Notes for Chapter 3 1. Alfonso García Gallo, Manual de historia del derecho español, 3rd ed. (Madrid 1967), I, 692, 811-812; Diego García de Campos, Planeta (Madrid 1943), ed. Manuel Alonso, 410; Juan Manuel, Libro de los estados (Oxford 1974), ed. R. B. Tate and I. R. Macpherson, I, 50, 84, 93, pp. 87-89, 168, 193-197; Sancho IV, Castigos e documentos (Bloomington 1952), ed. Agapito Rey, 10-12, pp. 81, 86, 89, 91; Luciana de Stefano, La sociedad estamental de la baja edad media española a la luz de la literatura de la época (Caracas 1964); José Antonio Maravall, "La sociedad estamental castellana y la obra de don Juan Manuel," in his Estudios, 451-472.
2. Pérez Prendes, Cortes, 73-76; Valdeón, "Las cortes," xii-xviii.
3. Piskorski, 13; Lucas of Túy, Crónica, 103, p. 450; Espéculo, prologue and II.1.5; Medina del Campo 1302 (art. 6 E, 8 L).
4. El Contar de mío Cid, 4th ed. (Madrid 1954), ed. Ramón Menéndez Pídal, III, 1142; Poema de Fernán González (Madrid 1966), ed. Alonso Zamora Vicente, 166-168, 220; Giménez Soler, Juan Manuel, 673 -674.
5. Madrid, BN 13094, fol. 143; MFIII, 314-318; Ballesteros, Alfonso X, 90; Piskorski, no. 1, pp. 196- 197; Anónimo de Sahagún, 74-76, pp. 360-362.
6. Julio González, "Repoblación de la Extremadura leonesa," Hispania 3 (1945): 195-273, and "La Extremadura castellana al mediar del siglo XIII," Hispania 34 (1974): 236-474; Emilio Mitre Fernández, "La actual Extremadura en las cortes castellanas de la baja edad media," Principe de Viana 47 (1986): 555-564.
7. Ballesteros, "Las Cortes de 1252," 120-121.
8. CAX, 76, p. 61; Ballesteros, Alfonso X, 995-996; Ruíz de la Peña, "Hermandad leonesa," 139-164; CAXI, 1-2, pp. 174-175; CLC, I,299-329; Colmeiro, 1, 218; Piskorski, 19.
9. Ballesteros, "Las Cortes de 1252," 122-123; CLC, I, 54 (Valladolid 1258), 64 (Jerez 1268).
10. Benavides, MFIV, I, 307-320.
11. Giménez Soler, Don Juan Manuel, Biografía y estudio crítico (Madrid 1932).
12. Primera Crónica general, ch. 1070, vol. II, p. 746; Anónimo de Sahagún, 74-75,p. 360; Mingüella, Sigüenza, I, no. 225, pp. 599-601; CLC, I,178; Colmeiro, I, 16.
13. Castigos e documentos, BAE, LI, ch. 40, p. 164.
14. Juan Manuel, Libro de los estados, II, prologue, ch. 45-50, pp. 213-216. General citations of prelates: Jerez 1268, Burgos 1272, Peñafiel 1275, Burgos 1276, Valladolid 1282, Haro 1288, Medina dcl Campo 1291, Valladolid 1293, 1295, Cuéllar 1297, Medina del Campo 1302, 1305, Palencia 1311, Valladolid 1312, Burgos 1315, Medina del Campo 1316, Carrión 1317, Valladolid 1322, 1325, Madrid 1329, 1337, Alcalá 1348.
15. Piskorski, 29-33; Colmeiro, I,18.
16. Citation of archbishops: Toledo 1254, Valladolid 1258, Toledo 1259, Seville 1261, Valladolid 1325. Bishops: Seville 1252, Toledo 1254, Valladolid 1258, Toledo 1259, Seville 1261, Burgos 1269, Valladolid 1282, Madrid 1309, Medina del Campo 1318, Valladolid 1325.
17. Citation of orders or masters: Seville 1252, 1261, Segovia 1278, Valladolid 1282, 1293, 1295, 1298, Medina del Campo 1305, Valladolid 1325, Madrid 1329.
18. MHE, II, nos. 202-203, pp. 67-70.
19. CAX, 26, p. 23; Escudero de la Peña, "Súplica," 58-59; Quintana Prieto, Tumbo viejo de San Pedro de Montes, no. 374, pp. 481 -482; CLC, I, 133.
20. MHE, I, nos. 34-35, 37, pp. 70-75, 77-79 (Valladolid 1255), and II, nos. 198, 203, pp. 59-63, 68-70 (Valladolid 1282); CAX, 26, p. 23 (Burgos 1272); Menéndez Pidal, Documentos, no. 229, pp. 300-302 (Peñafiel 1275).
21. CSIV 8, p. 86 (Medina del Campo 1291); CLC, I,133-135 (Valladolid 1295); Sánchez Herrero, Concilios, no. 1, PP. 165-172 (Peñafiel 1302); MFIV, II, nos. 22 (Valladolid 1295), 197, 203 (Peñafiel 1302), 531 (Salamanca 1310), 541, 543-544, 546 (Palencia 1311), 554 (Zamora 1311), pp.40, 279-281, 285-291,770-773, 789-790, 793-799, 800-805, 816; Suárez Fernández, "Hermandades," no. 6, pp. 57-58 (Zamora 1311).
22. CLC, I, 293-299 (Burgos 1315), 369-373 (Valladolid 1322), 388-400 (Valladolid 1325); Suárez Fernández, "Hermandades," no. 7, pp. 58-60 (hermandad of 1314); Uhieto Arteta, Cuéllar, no. 71, pp. 156-158 (Medina del Campo 1316); Pereda Llarena, Burgos 1294-1316, no. 491, pp. 360-363; López Ferreiro, Historia, V, no. 61, pp. 175- 176, and VI, nos. 14-15, pp. 61- 72 (Medina del Campo 1326).
23. OCallaghan, "The Eccíesiastical Estate in the Cortes of León-Castile, 1252-1350," CHR 67(1981): 185-213; Ana Arranz Guzman, "Clero y Cortes castellanas: Participación y diferencias interestamentales," En la España medieval. Homenaje al Prof esor Salvador de Moxó (Madrid 1986), II, 49-58.
24. Juan Manuel, Libro de los estados, I, 89, pp. 181-184.
25. Sánchez Albornoz, España, II, 56-74; Pérez Prendes, Cortes, 15-42, 73-75.
26. Henrique da Gama Barros, Hístória da administraçâo pública em Portugal nos séculos XII a XV, 2d ed. (Lisbon 1945-1954), ed. Torquato de Sousa Soares, I,575; Colmeiro, I,17; Pérez Prendes, Cortes, 73-74.
27. Juan Manuel, Libro de los estados, I, 18, pp. 34-35; Pérez Prendes, Cortes, 75.
28. Partidas, II.11.1; Juan Manuel, Libro de los estados, I, 90, p. 84, and Libro del caballero e del escudero, BAE, LI (1952): 234-264; Partidas, II, 21; María Isabel Pérez de Tudela y Velasco, Infanzones y caballeros. Su proyección en la esfera nobiliaria castellana-leonesa (Madrid 1979).
29. Citation of infanzones: Almagro 1273, Valladolid 1293, Burgos and Zamora 1301, Medina del Campo and Burgos 1302, Medina del Campo 1305, Valladolid 1307, Palencia 1313, Valladolid 1325, Madrid 1329, Burgos 1338. Caballeros: Seville 1250, 1261, Burgos 1272, Almagro 1273, Valladolid 1298, Burgos and Zamora 1301, Medina del Campo and Burgos 1302, Medina del Campo 1305, Valladolid 1307, 1325, Madrid 1329, Burgos 1338. Piskorski, 26; CAX, 36, p. 39; CLC, I, 261-262, 300.
30. CAX, 47, p. 35 (Burgos 1272); CLC, I, 85-86 (Almagro 1273).
31. CFIV 17, p. 238; MFIV, II, nos. 510, 560,736-737,822-823 (Palencia 1311); CLC, I,207-208 (Palencia 1311), 443-456 (Burgos 1338), 543-574 (Alcalá 1348).
32. González, Alfonso VIII, II, nos. 471, 499, pp. 807-808, 857-863; OCallaghan, "Beginnings," 1512- 1513.
33. MFIV , II, no. 4, pp. 7-13 (León and Galicia); Valdeavellano, "Carta de hermandad," 57-76 (Extremadura and Castile).
34. CLC, I,267-271.
35. Piskorski, 35; Procter, Curia, 161.
36. Hilda Grassotti, "Concejos de señorío en las cortes de Castilla," in her Estudios medievales españoles (Madrid 1981), 329-346; López Ferreiro, Fueros, 597; Mingüella, Sigüenza, II, no. 69, p. 488.
37. González, Fernando III, III, no. 809, pp. 387-389.
38. Martín, Salamanca, no. 395, pp. 494-496.
39. Espéculo, IV.8; Fuero real, I.7.6; I. 10.12; Leyes del estilo, 11-17; Partidas, III.2.13; III.5; III.18.98.
40. Procter, "The Towns of León and Castile as Suitors before the Kings Court" EHR 74 (1959): 1-22; Carlé, "Boni homines y hombres buenos," CHE 39-40 (1964): 133-168; Post, "Roman Law," 61-90; Gama Barros, História, III, 178-181.
41. CAX, 75, p. 59; Ubieto Arteta, Cuéllar, no. 22, p. 66; CODOM, II, nos. 81, 85, pp. 74-77; Miguel Vigil, Oviedo, nos. 64, 92-93, 100, 121, pp. 103, 143-145,158-159, 202; Gaibrois, Sancho IV , III, no. 306, pp. cxciii-cxiv.
42. CODOM, III, nos. 111, 113, pp. 109-111, 116-117; MFIV, II, nos. 27, 31, 302, 307, 318, pp. 45, 52, 450, 454-455, 464-465; Post, "Plena Potestas," 91-162.
43. González, Fernando III, III, no. 809, pp. 387-389; Martín, Salamanca, no. 395, pp. 494-496; MFIV , II, nos. 3-4, pp. 3-13.
44. CLC, I, 64; CAX, 75, p. 59; Teofilo Ruíz, "Prosopografia burgalesa: Sarracín y Bonifaz," Boletín de la Institución Fernán González 54 (1975): 467-499.
45. Pérez Prendes, Cortes, 80-81.
46. González, Fernando III, III, no. 809, pp. 387-389; Amando Represa Rodríguez, "Notas para el estudio de la ciudad de Segovia en los siglos XII- XIV," Estudios Segovianos 1(1949): 290-294; MHE, I1, no. 86, pp. 187-191.