CHAPTER 5

Defender of the Faith

El Rey es Defendedor e Amparador de la Fe

As a thirteenth-century Christian ruling over a largely Christian population, Alfonso X assumed that Christianity was true and that all good-thinking people would adhere to it.1 At that time the notion of separation of church and state was unknown. Believing that one of his fundamental duties was to defend the Christian faith, he reminded his Christian people of their obligation to follow church teachings and to acknowledge the pope’s spiritual supremacy. As Jews and Muslims did not accept Christianity, he permitted them to worship freely and to be governed by their own laws. Although the Castilian bishops might be pleased by his defense of Christianity, they chafed under his domination and protested to Pope Nicholas III who called him to account.²

The articles of the Christian faith summarized in the Espéculo (1, 2–3) were compressed into a lengthy paragraph in the Fuero real (1, 1). Utilizing Gratian’s Decretum, the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council, and Pope Gregory IX’s Decretales, the First Partida discussed the entire range of theological, structural, and canonical issues (SP 1, 3–24).³ The text, generally written in the third person, emphasizes the authority of the church rather than that of the king.⁴ The inclusion of this religious content in the Partidas suggests Alfonso X’s conception of the unity of the law and of society and his obligation to guarantee observance of the church’s mandates.

The Setenario, an incomplete revision of the Partidas compiled during his last years, attempted to show that Christianity was superior to other religions.5 Proposing that all wisdom, science, and knowledge is one in God, the book argued that God is revealed in the seven liberal arts, the planets and stars, the signs of the zodiac, the articles of the creed, and the seven sacraments.⁶ The Setenario (104) also includes a vernacular rendition of the canon of the mass.⁷

The substance of the First Partida applied to the universal church. Therefore, attention will be directed only to laws referring specifically to Spain and embodying royal enactments, namely, the obligation to observe the Christian faith, reverence for the Eucharist, and the protection of pilgrims. Issues in contention between the king and the bishops will also be considered.

The Christian Faith, the Eucharist, and Pilgrims

Acknowledging that law has its origin in God, Alfonso X briefly explained the doctrine of the Trinity (E 1, 2; FR 1, 1). In stating that the three persons are but one God, he rejected the Muslim charge that Christians were polytheists. Salvation was restricted to those who accepted the articles of the faith (SP 1, 3, pr., 1; Setenario, 42). The ancient doctrine “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (there is no salvation outside the church), voiced by the Fourth Lateran Council,⁸ found expression in the Espéculo (1, 2, pr.; 1, 3, 1; PPBM 1, 2, 1) and in the prologue to the First Partida (SPGL 1, 3, 1). The official interpretation of that principle emphasizes that those not visibly members of the church are not denied salvation; nor, indeed, is every Christian guaranteed salvation merely by virtue of membership in the church.⁹ The king, however, condemned as a heretic who could not be saved anyone who did not accept the articles of the faith (E 1, 2, 1; FR 1, 1; PPBM 1, 2, 2; SPGL 1, 3, pr.).

Heretics were dismissed as madmen who perverted Christ’s teachings. There were two principal heresies: any doctrine differing from the true faith taught by the Church of Rome; and the denial of an afterlife of rewards and punishments. The adherents of those heresies were worse than wild beasts and brought great harm to the kingdom, but if an accused heretic, persuaded by kind words and good arguments, repented, he should be pardoned. Otherwise, he should be handed over to a secular judge for imposition of the civil penalty for heresy. Depending on the extent of his participation, he could be burned at the stake, banished, imprisoned, fined, or whipped (SP 7, 26, 1–2).

The principal heresy of the time was Catharism, then widespread in southern France.¹⁰ The Cathars may have disseminated their opinions along the pilgrimage route to Santiago de Compostela, but evidence of their existence in Castile is scanty. Bishop Lucas of Túy denounced them, but the accuracy of his account has been questioned.11 Bishop Tello of Palencia imprisoned several heretics and appealed to Fernando III, who banned them and confiscated their property. Arguing that their property belonged to him as lord of the city, the bishop complained to Gregory IX, who upheld his position in 1236. He also ordered the bishop to absolve repentant heretics who could not afford the journey to Rome to obtain absolution. Furthermore, he confirmed the royal edict banishing heretics. When a citizen of Burgos, visiting Rome, expressed concern about his salvation because he had maintained contact with heretics, though he was not one of them, the pope directed Bishop Mauricio to absolve him.¹²

A heretic could not hold any public office, and his will, sales, or donations were void; but his Catholic children could inherit his property. The church acquired the estate of a cleric guilty of heresy. A man who knowingly allowed heretics to use his house would lose it. Anyone sheltering heretics would be excommunicated. A nobleman would suffer confiscation and exile. Persons of lower rank would be penalized as the king saw fit. There is little evidence, however, that heresy was a serious issue or that Alfonso X ever punished a heretic.¹³ Nevertheless, his law condemning certain heretics to death by fire was the first law of its kind enacted in Castile and provided a legal foundation for the punishment of heretics in later centuries (SP 7, 26, 2–6).

In his later years, Alfonso X pleaded with non-Christians to acknowledge the truth of Christianity, the only true religion (Setenario, 37). In his will of November 1283, in language reminiscent of the First Partida, he expressed his personal faith. “Knowing that a man cannot be saved in any other way than by our Catholic faith,” he declared his belief in the Trinity, Mary, the mother of Jesus, “who assumed human flesh to save us,” and all the other church teachings. Fearful of divine judgment on account of his sins, he called on Mary, his advocate, St. Clement, on whose feast day (23 November) he was born, St. Ildefonse, whose name he bore, and Santiago, his lord and defender, to intercede for him, so that the angels would carry his soul to his Lord Jesus.¹⁴

While believing the articles of the faith, “a complete Christian” should also receive the sacraments (SP 1, 4, pr.). The Espéculo (1, 3, 3–5) allocated only a short paragraph to the sacraments and declared that anyone who did not accept them and all the teachings of the church should be punished as a heretic. The Fuero real omitted the sacraments entirely. The First Partida discussed only six of the seven; to avoid repetition the sacrament of marriage was placed in the Fourth Partida (1–12). The First Partida’s account of the sacraments is almost encyclopedic, but there is no need to discuss it in detail. There are, however, several laws that reflect the peculiar situation of Christian Spain. References to the baptism of Jews or Muslims (SP 1, 4, 5–6), royal anointing (SP 1, 4, 13), and possible treason by a royal confessor (SP 1, 4, 35) can best be discussed in other chapters. The sudden appearance of the words mando, or nos don Alfonso rey, or mandamos signals the incorporation into the Partidas of laws enacted apart from it.

One example concerns the proper behavior of Christians, Jews, and Muslims when a priest carried the Eucharist through the streets to the sick. After noting that canon law required Christians to kneel as the priest passed by, the king commanded everyone to accompany him to the end of the street. Anyone on horseback should dismount. Jews and Muslims, though nonbelievers, should kneel. If not, they would be arrested and imprisoned for three days. This law was enacted to safeguard Jews and Muslims from wrongful arrest and unjust punishment. The law did not apply to foreigners who were unaware of it (PPBM 1, 4, 59–61; SP 1, 4, 61–63).

This law coincides with an enactment in the cuaderno of the Cortes of Seville given to Talavera on 12 October 1252.15 Sr. D. Rafael Gómez Díaz, the distinguished municipal archivist, informed me, however, that the cuaderno could not be found in the local archive.¹⁶ Nor does the text in question appear in the other known cuadernos of the Cortes of 1252.¹⁷ I have illustrated the concurrence of the texts elsewhere.¹⁸

The twelfth and thirteenth centuries witnessed a parade of pilgrims to Santiago de Compostela, purportedly the last resting place of the Apostle James. Their influx promoted the prosperity of Compostela and other towns on the camino de Santiago, but it also raised several legal issues.¹⁹

The Espéculo refers only incidentally to pilgrims, stating that they could not be summoned to court or deprived of their property during their absence (4, 6, 17; 5, 5, 15). However, one of the missing books probably contained the substance of the title on pilgrims in the Fuero real (4, 23, 1–4). In language reminiscent of a law enacted in 1228 by his grandfather, Alfonso IX of León,²⁰ the king guaranteed the security of pilgrims. Allowed to lodge safely wherever they wished and to purchase necessities, they were protected against anyone attempting to cheat them by using false weights and measures.²¹ A pilgrim could draw up his will, and after his death his goods would be delivered to his heirs. Should he die intestate, local judges should use a portion of his property for his burial; the king would dispose of the remainder.²² Judges who failed to punish innkeepers or others who injured pilgrims would pay twice the damages to the pilgrim and other legal costs. The fazañas record several instances of the abuse of pilgrims (LFC 265, 273–74). Unscrupulous toll gatherers reportedly extorted money from them at the frontier.²³ In a constitution granted to the archbishopric of Compostela in 1254, Alfonso X reiterated the rights accorded to pilgrims in the Fuero real.24

Pilgrimage was treated more amply in the Partidas (1, 24, 1–4), though not in PPBM. The Partidas distinguished between the romero who traveled to Rome and the pelerín who visited the Holy Sepulcher or Compostela. Among other shrines was Sainte Marie de Rocamadour in Languedoc often mentioned in the Cantigas de Santa Maria (SP 1, 8, 7). As pilgrims set out to serve God and honor the saints, or to fulfill a vow, or perform a penance, they were urged to make their pilgrimage with great devotion, not engaging in commerce, and traveling in company for protection. The substance of the Fuero real guaranteeing their safety and their rights was repeated (SP 5, 8, 27; 6, 1, 30–32), with two notable additions. First, should anyone seize a pilgrim’s property during his absence, his relatives, friends, and neighbors could demand restitution, even though they did not have a letter of procuration authorizing them to act on his behalf. Secondly, no action could be taken against his property and no toll or other duty could be levied on his animals or goods (SP 1, 24, 3; E 4, 6, 17).

Pilgrims, then and now, seeking souvenirs, found them in abundance in the cathedral plaza. The cathedral profited from the sale of metal shells, the symbol of St. James, but other entrepreneurs sought to gain from this trade. Although several popes forbade pilgrims to buy or carry shells not made in Compostela, and prohibited their manufacture outside the city, that did not deter anyone.²⁵ In 1260 Alfonso X ordered the towns on the camino de Santiago to be alert to anyone daring to “make representations of Santiago out of tin or lead and sell them to pilgrims.”²⁶ Whether that proved to be an effective deterrent seems unlikely.

The Challenge of the Bishops

The bishops had little reason to quarrel with the king’s explanation of the faith, but they protested his actions concerning other issues. They did so during the Cortes of Burgos in 1272, so angering him that he threatened to expel them from the realm, but as he was eager to seek Gregory X’s recognition of his imperial status, he designated Fernando de la Cerda to attend to their complaints.²⁷ Meeting him at Peñafiel in April 1275, they listed their grievances, which were likely identical to those presented in the Cortes. They will be discussed below.²⁸

Evidently still dissatisfied, the bishops appealed to Pope Nicholas III, who, on 23 March 1279, chastised the king for his illicit exactions from the clergy, his seizure of church property, and intrusion into ecclesiastical jurisdiction. In order to convey the gravity of the situation, he dispatched his legate, Bishop Pietro of Rieti, to urge the king to amend his ways.29 A Memoriale secretum given to the legate specified seven principal concerns: (1) the tercias; (2) custody of vacant churches and monasteries; (3) harassment of Archbishop Gonzalo Gómez of Compostela and (4) Bishop Martín Fernández of León, both of whom had been driven into exile; (5) grievances detailed in several subheadings; (6) ecclesiastical liberties in Portugal; and (7) oppression of the king’s subjects.³⁰ Subsumed under article 5 were assorted accusations: ignoring or violating royal privileges given to the church; abusing papal privileges granted to the king; establishing on his own authority a new religious order (the Order of Santa María de España, founded in 1273 and merged with the Order of Santiago in 1280);³¹ preventing the publication of papal or episcopal indulgences; forbidding the bishops to meet in council or appeal to the pope; forbidding the clergy to take money out of the kingdom for necessary expenses, thereby effectively preventing them from traveling abroad for study or other purposes; and appointing Jews to positions of authority over Christians, a reference to Jewish tax collectors (Memoriale, art. 5, E, G, H, I, K, N). An article (M) that did not appear in the original Memoriale alleged that ignorant and vulgar persons were intruded into ecclesiastical offices, illicit marriages were contracted, and astronomers and augurs were consulted, a charge implying that the king was not entirely orthodox.³²

Informed of the legate’s mission in May, Alfonso X on 29 July asked Infante Sancho to consult prelates and other good men. A document restating and expanding somewhat the articles in the Memoriale (except 6–7), and accompanied by a partial Castilian translation and responses, probably represents the thinking of Sancho and his counselors concerning articles 1, 2, and parts of 5A. The main issues were royal seizure of ecclesiastical revenues, custody of vacant churches, episcopal elections, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the church’s right to acquire property.³³ The Memoriale and the text sent to Sancho, together with his replies, do not provide supporting evidence for most of the charges. Even so, other sources reveal that there were substantial grounds for accusing the king of maltreating churchmen, interfering with ecclesiastical jurisdiction, restricting the church’s property rights, and utilizing its resources as though they were his own. Perhaps in order to stir up popular support, Alfonso X authorized Sancho, who had little useful advice to give, to summon the Castilian towns to Valladolid in October 1279. The meeting was postponed to Salamanca in November, and thence to Badajoz, where the king evidently met the municipal representatives in February 1280.³⁴ The outcome is unknown, but it is likely that the townsmen, who had only disdain for ecclesiastical privileges, supported royal policy. Possibly at this time, in accordance with Nicholas III’s wishes, Alfonso X encouraged his grandson Dinis, the new king of Portugal, to treat the church there more kindly than his father had done. In the long run, the legate’s mission was unsuccessful and ended with Nicholas III’s death in August 1280. His successor Martin IV was disinclined to pressure the king.35

The Election of Bishops

The king’s attempt to control episcopal elections was a continuing irritant.³⁶ With a notable modification, he accepted the Fourth Lateran Council’s regulation of the electoral procedure (canons 23–24). When a see fell vacant, the cathedral canons had to request his authorization to conduct a free election. Although he might propose his own candidate, he promised not to coerce the electors, unless he believed that they would elect someone harmful to him or his kingdom. He enjoyed these rights “porque es defendedor et amparador de la fe, et de las eglesias, et de los que las sirven, et de sus bienes e otrossí porque es sennor natural de la tierra ó son fundadas las eglesias” (because he is the defender and protector of the faith and of the churches and of those who serve them and of their goods and also because he is the natural lord of the land where the churches are founded).³⁷ Once the election was completed, the pope should be notified (PPBM 1, 5, 18, 26).³⁸ Although that law does not appear in the Montalvo, López, or Academia editions, they provide an alternate text stating that according to the ancient custom of Spain, the cathedral chapter had to notify the king in writing of an episcopal vacancy and ask his permission to hold a free election. Meanwhile, he would assume responsibility for the diocesan temporalities and surrender them to the newly elected bishop. The kings of Spain possessed those rights because they conquered the land from the Moors, transforming mosques into churches, substituting Jesus’s name for Muḥammad’s, founding new churches where there had previously been none, and endowing others. For whatever temporal goods he held of the king, the new bishop had to do homage, and he was admonished not to burden his diocese with debt, lest he be unable to meet commitments to the papacy or the king (PPBM 1, 5, 16–17, 28; SP 1, 5, 17–25, 29).

The right to conduct a free election was limited in practice by the intrusion of the king and the pope. As a means of providing for his younger sons, and of rewarding clerics for faithful service, the king often nominated his candidate. The canons usually accepted him and the pope confirmed him, but he could reserve a disputed election. Ambitious clerics soon realized that royal service was a sure path to ecclesiastical advancement, and the king expected that once promoted to an episcopal see, they would be docile servants.

The king endeavored to place suitable candidates in the three archiepiscopal sees. Fernando III named his sons Felipe (1249–58) and Sancho (1252–61) to the archbishoprics of Seville and Toledo respectively, but Felipe was never consecrated.39 After Felipe’s resignation, Alfonso X secured the election of Remondo (1259–86), bishop of Segovia.⁴⁰ Following the death of Sancho I of Toledo, the king persuaded Pope Clement IV to designate Jaime I’s son, Sancho II, in 1266.⁴¹ When Sancho was killed by the Marinids in 1275, the king nominated Fernando de Covarrubias, but Nicholas III reserved the election. In 1280 he appointed Gonzalo García de Gudiel, the royal notary for Castile, who, on the king’s initiative, had previously been elected as bishop of Cuenca, and then as bishop of Burgos.⁴² Fernando de Covarrubias was given the bishopric of Burgos.⁴³ On the death of Juan Arias, archbishop of Compostela (1237–66), the canons refused to elect the royal notary for León, Juan Alfonso, and the see remained vacant until Gregory X appointed Gonzalo Gómez in 1272.⁴⁴ After Gonzalo’s death in 1281, Martin IV reserved the appointment, but the see remained vacant for five more years.⁴⁵ Nomination to a bishopric was often a reward for service in the royal court. Both Suero Pérez, bishop of Zamora (1255–86), and Martín Fernández, bishop of León (1254–89), served as notaries for León.⁴⁶ In 1279 Bishop Martín was exiled for protesting the king’s treatment of the church (Memoriale, art. 4, B″).⁴⁷ Fernando, notary for Castile, was elected bishop of Palencia in 1256 and was succeeded in 1266 by another notary, Juan Alfonso, illegitimate son of the king’s uncle Alfonso de Molina.⁴⁸ Pedro Lorenzo and Agustín, elected respectively bishops of Cuenca and Osma, had also served the king.⁴⁹ Pedro Fernández, the royal chaplain, was bishop of Astorga, and Fernando, the royal physician, was bishop of Coria, and Fray Pedro Gallego, the king’s confessor, was bishop of Cartagena. Although García Martínez, another royal servant, was elected to succeed him, Nicholas III nullified the election in 1278, naming Diego Martínez instead.⁵⁰ Lope Pérez, elected bishop of Córdoba in 1252, was a royal servant, and his successor, Fernando de Mesa, elected in 1257, was the king’s chaplain.⁵¹ Fernando Velázquez, formerly the royal procurator, was bishop of Segovia (1265–78).⁵² A disputed election in Sigüenza prompted Alfonso X to banish several canons, probably because they opposed his candidate Andrés, elected in 1261. Martín Gómez, named by Gregory X in 1275, probably owed his election to the king’s intercession.⁵³ With papal permission the king filled benefices with subordinate clerks of the royal court.⁵⁴ Thus, while conserving his own resources, he was able to provide his faithful servants with an income from the church.

Despite royal–papal collaboration, Nicholas III objected in 1279 that the king nominated his own candidates for bishoprics and other ecclesiastical offices and used threats to impose them. Sancho’s suggestion that this ought not to be done in the future changed nothing (Memoriale, art. 5, C).55 As a consequence of the king’s intrusion of his own candidates, from 1272 to the end of the reign, the number of vacant sees ranged from a minimum of four to a maximum of ten. Salamanca appears to have been vacant throughout that time and Ávila for at least eight years. Although tension among the pope, the king, and the cathedral canons was a principal factor, Alfonso X may have deliberately tried to gain financial advantage by allowing sees to remain vacant.

Church Property

The church’s acquisition of property was a persistent source of tension. Bishops and abbots were forbidden to alienate ecclesiastical property without the consent of their chapters. As security against future losses, when a new bishop was installed an inventory of charters, property, credits, and debits should be prepared. The king occupied diocesan temporalities during an episcopal vacancy to safeguard them from unscrupulous persons (FR 1, 5, 1–5).⁵⁶ During the seven-year vacancy following the death of Archbishop Juan Arias of Compostela in 1266, Alfonso “took the church under his protection” and occupied its temporal possessions.⁵⁷ The Council of Brihuega, convened by Archbishop Sancho II of Toledo in 1267, vainly protested the king’s use of the revenues of vacant sees.⁵⁸ As his precursors had done,⁵⁹ Alfonso X, in October 1255, renounced the jus spolii or right to reserve the personal property of a deceased bishop,⁶⁰ and in 1274 he directed Burgos to return property taken during an episcopal vacancy.⁶¹ As an alternative to royal custody of vacant churches, a practice opposed by the bishops (Memoriale, art. 2), Sancho proposed that the king have lifetime use of the mesa episcopal, revenues intended for the bishop’s support. The deceased bishop’s goods should be used to pay his debts or left to his successor (art. B).⁶²

Like his predecessors, Alfonso X feared the loss of revenue if the church acquired royal domain lands. During the Curia of Nájera in 1184, Alfonso VIII forbade the alienation of royal lands to the church and nobility, as both were exempt from taxation.⁶³ Alfonso IX, in the Curias of León in 1188 and Benavente in 1228, issued similar prohibitions.⁶⁴ Likewise, in 1254 Alfonso X commanded Badajoz not to permit churches to obtain tributary property. In the same year, however, he allowed his uncle Alfonso de Molina to sell land to the Order of Calatrava, despite the royal ban on transferring property to religious orders.65 The king ordered an inquest in Ledesma in 1258 to recover royal lands.⁶⁶ Fernando de la Cerda in 1275 condemned the seizure of church lands by nobles and others, on the pretext that they belonged to the crown.⁶⁷ Three years later, the king ordered an inquest concerning royal estates acquired by the church and church lands incorporated into the royal domain.⁶⁸ The Leyes del estilo (ley 231), after mentioning the Curias of Nájera and Benavente, recorded that Alfonso X prohibited ecclesiastical institutions from obtaining royal lands and directed David Mascarán to execute the inquest in the kingdom of León.⁶⁹ Responding to the bishops’ complaint in 1279, Sancho, after citing the Curia of Nájera, proposed that no tribute would be demanded if the church acquired previously exempt property. Tributary land already held by the church would remain unchanged. Future purchases, however, could only be made with the king’s permission and would be subject to tribute (Memoriale, art. 5, F). Perceiving the church’s accumulation of property as a threat to royal power, Alfonso X endeavored to curb future acquisitions by insisting on his right to give consent and to levy tribute on lands newly acquired by the church.

Jurisdictional Disputes

Conflicts between ecclesiastical and secular jurisdiction were also common. The church claimed jurisdiction over clerics, church property, tithes, marriage, legitimacy, excommunication, perjury, and usury. Temporal pleas concerned movable and immovable property; men, money, and animals; agreements, contracts, and exchanges. The bishop ordinarily resolved temporal cases between clerics, but a secular judge would adjudicate suits between clerics and laypersons. A bishop could not be compelled to appear before a secular judge, unless so ordered by the king (PPBM 1, 5, 31; 1, 6, 59, 75–85; SP 1, 5, 65; 1, 6, 48, 56–62).

Clerics were forbidden to act as judges in secular pleas, to serve as royal justices, to sue in secular court, or to participate in inquests concerning lay-people (SP 3, 4, 4; 3, 17, 4). However, they could argue their own cases or those of the church (FR 1, 9, 2). In 1278 Alfonso X explained that clerics could not act in secular pleas as advocates, counselors, or judges because the Fuero real did not include canon law, and by introducing it clerics prolonged litigation.⁷⁰ However, in a secular court clerics could defend church property, the rights of orphans, the mentally disabled, and spendthrifts. A bishop having temporal jurisdiction could exercise it, and if he believed that a secular judge was negligent, he could call that to the king’s attention (PPBM 1, 6, 59; SP 1, 6, 48). Attempting to delineate the boundaries between competing jurisdictions, Alfonso X declared that temporal appeals should be brought to him rather than a bishop, but the latter could hear spiritual appeals, “as we said in the sixth book” of the Espéculo (5, 14, 11). The sixth book is not extant, but its substance was likely incorporated into the Partidas. In 1255 the king confirmed the right of the bishop of Sigüenza to hear appeals from municipal judges; but rather than allow a further appeal to the archbishop, he asserted his own authority as a final judge of appeals.71 Upholding the temporal jurisdiction of the bishop of Zamora in 1271, the king directed his judges not to oust judges appointed by the bishop. In the next year he commanded the municipal council not to protect murderers and other criminals condemned by ecclesiastical authorities, nor to try them again.⁷²

The prelates complained at Peñafiel in 1275 that although clerics should be tried in church courts, they were hailed before secular judges, and that secular officials often ignored ecclesiastical censures and, in order to have them lifted, seized church property. Fernando de la Cerda ratified the clergy’s right to be tried only in ecclesiastical tribunals, and he directed public officials to observe judgments rendered by ecclesiastical authorities.⁷³ He also confirmed his father’s charter of 1258 forbidding secular officials to arrest clerics without the consent of the bishop of Zamora, and his charter of 1264 upholding the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts.⁷⁴

The quarrel over ecclesiastical jurisdiction was perhaps no more intense than in Santiago de Compostela, where the townspeople, seeking greater autonomy, challenged the archbishop’s lordship. Although Fernando III resolved many disputed issues in 1250,⁷⁵ litigation was brought before Alfonso X in 1253, 1261, 1263, and 1264. He prohibited the archbishop from summoning to his court suits already initiated in the municipal court and forbade clerical judges to hear criminal cases. As judgment had to be rendered according to municipal usages and the Libro de León (the Fuero Juzgo), clerical advocates were barred from citing Roman and canon law. He also affirmed the right of appeal to his court.⁷⁶

When the king demanded in 1273 that Gonzalo Gómez, the newly appointed archbishop, pledge homage and fealty, the latter refused, arguing that none of his predecessors had done so, and he accused the king of usurping ecclesiastical jurisdiction. In 1278 Nicholas III chastised the king for persecuting the archbishop and sending an army to subject to royal authority tenants of various districts in the Tierra de Santiago.⁷⁷ As Alfonso X ignored these admonitions, in 1279 the pope accused him of impeding the archbishop in the exercise of his lordship and of attempting to reserve to himself appointment of the pertiguero mayor, an archiepiscopal official (Memoriale, art. 3, B′).⁷⁸ Despite those complaints, the king forced the archbishop into exile in 1279.

Among the injustices cited by Nicholas III in 1279, clerics were summoned before secular tribunals, arrested, imprisoned, and even sentenced to death. Without being summoned, they were subject to secret inquests and punished without being convicted or having confessed (Memoriale, art. 5, E).79 The bishop of Burgos objected in 1278 that royal officials failed to summon the clergy and their vassals to testify in closed inquests concerning the export of prohibited goods. Although the king admonished his officials, the practice of closed inquests seems to have continued.⁸⁰ Sancho saw no possibility of resolving this to the king’s advantage, other than to say that a cleric caught in a criminal act and degraded by his bishop could be punished by a secular judge. He acknowledged ecclesiastical jurisdiction over property intended for the church’s use (Memoriale, art. 5, E). The king was also charged with usurping jurisdiction over wills and the crime of usury. By requiring prelates to affix their seals to blank charters, he compelled them to testify to matters that they had not seen nor heard (Memoriale, art. 5, L).⁸¹

Given Alfonso X’s efforts to codify the laws and minimize legal differences, it is not surprising that he should attempt to limit ecclesiastical jurisdiction. As a king claiming to have no temporal superior, he could hardly tolerate the existence of a separate legal system over which he had no control. From his point of view, it was imperative to impose restraints on that system, without necessarily repudiating it.

The church used excommunication and interdict to compel obedience and expected the civil power to enforce that judgment (SP 1, 6, 59). The king ordered royal officials to aid the bishops in punishing those who violated churches or cemeteries (FR 1, 5, 7) and assured the bishops in 1255 that any sentence of excommunication imposed on those who failed to pay tithes would be upheld.⁸² The Partidas included an extensive summary of the canon law concerning excommunication (PPBM 1, 9, 1–57; SP 1, 9, 1–38).

At times, however, Alfonso X perceived excommunication as a special irritant. Early in his reign he enacted a law prohibiting the excommunication of his officials if they neglected to defend ecclesiastical privileges. Although that law is not extant, Fernando IV, in the Cortes of Zamora in 1301 (art. 11), reported that his grandfather, having assembled his Cortes (probably at Valladolid in 1258), determined that in cases of temporal jurisdiction, the prelates should not excommunicate royal officials who failed to safeguard ecclesiastical privileges. If the clergy felt aggrieved, they should complain to the king. If, on the contrary, a prelate refused to lift an ecclesiastical censure at the king’s request, royal officials were authorized to enforce compliance by taking pledges of church property. Although the prelates protested to the pope, Alexander IV in 1259 declared that only he could excommunicate the king or members of his family.83 On the other hand, the king, in 1275, ordered municipal judges in Seville to enforce the rulings of the archiepiscopal court and in 1277 directed the city council to arrest anyone excommunicated for more than thirty days and surrender him to the archbishop for punishment and absolution.⁸⁴

In 1279 Nicholas III accused the king of forbidding bishops to render judgments or to use the power of excommunication, except in case of violation of churches, assault on the clergy, and nonpayment of tithes. The king also demanded that prelates revoke censures, that interdicts not be observed, and that the exception of excommunication (barring excommunicates from testifying) be disallowed in his court (Memoriale, art. 5, L).⁸⁵ Secular judges, however, continued to disregard excommunication, and the fourteenth-century Cortes complained that bishops abused its use.⁸⁶

Taxation, Tithes, and Tercias

The church was exempt from taxation except in certain circumstances. For example, if a cleric died intestate, and without heirs, the church would inherit his property but would have to continue paying taxes on any part of his estate subject to tribute. Justifying his right to taxation, the king cited Jesus’s admonition when presented with the coin of the tribute: “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God” (Mt 22:20–22; Mk 12:17). Moreover, “according to the usage and custom of Spain,” he had a right to tax church property, although he had not previously done so (PPBM 1, 6, 65; SP 1, 6, 53). Clerics also had to contribute to the construction of new bridges and the upkeep of old ones (SP 1, 6, 54). Royal taxation annoyed the bishops, but priests were also subjected to irritating episcopal taxation. When he was making war against the “enemies of the faith” or for some other just reason, the king commanded the bishops not to tax the churches or their priests, lest he be blamed for oppressing them (SP 1, 2, 14).

Churchmen had reason to be pleased in 1253 when the king extended Alfonso IX’s exemption of cathedral clergy from moneda forera, a tax payable every seven years in return for his promise not to alter the coinage.⁸⁷ Two years later, however, he asked the prelates to grant a special tax or servicio, to pay his father’s debt to the papacy. In the future he pledged not to demand it as a matter of right but to accept it only as their freewill offering.⁸⁸ Although they consented, he failed to pay the debt, which was still owed in September 1263.⁸⁹

When the bishops protested the continuous taxation of clerical estates in 1275, Fernando de la Cerda temporarily placated them by confirming royal tax exemptions granted to them.90 Yet when Gregory X authorized collection of the decima, or tenth of ecclesiastical revenue, for six years to oppose the Marinids, their hostility resurfaced.⁹¹ If that were not enough, the king asked them in the Cortes of Burgos in 1276 for a servicio to repel the intruders, promising not to levy it again as a matter of right but only with their consent. To allay their resentment, in the Cortes of Burgos 1277 he exempted cathedral chapters from payment of a new tax.⁹² Nevertheless, the archbishop of Compostela in 1279 objected that frequent tax levies greatly damaged the church (Memoriale, art. 3). Although Sancho admitted that the king was wrong to tax them (Memoriale, art. 5, D, P),⁹³ the bishops learned that he never yielded his claims to their resources and that whenever he granted them a concession, he insisted on something significant in return. Together with the rest of Europe, they discovered that extraordinary taxation was a novelty from which there was no escape.

The tithe, theoretically a tenth of every Christian’s income, was a principal source of ecclesiastical revenue, payable by everyone. The payment of tithes on transhumant sheep migrating twice yearly, from northern to southern pastures and back again, was complicated. If the sheep passed the year on their lord’s estate, the tithe was due to his parish church, but if they spent the year in another bishopric, it was payable to that bishop. It would be divided equally if the sheep divided the year between two dioceses. Shepherds tried to defraud the bishops by pasturing sheep during the day in one bishopric and crossing into another at night. As tithe collectors sometimes demanded more than they were entitled to, men appointed by the bishops had to list the animals taken and give a schedule to the collector and the chief shepherd (PPBM 1, 21, 1–14; SP 1, 20, 1–11). During the Cortes of Seville in 1261 townsmen complained that the tithe was collected twice as flocks passed from the archbishopric of Toledo into the archbishopric of Seville and that fully grown sheep and cows were taken rather than lambs and calves. Ordering observance of the law in the Partidas, the king declared that shepherds who presented a list of animals already taken would not have to pay the tithe again.⁹⁴ That statement contradicts the idea that the Partidas did not have the force of law until 1348.

When the Extremaduran towns complained in 1264 about the tithe, Alfonso commanded royal and ecclesiastical officials to take their respective shares at the same time and to avoid any unnecessary inconvenience.⁹⁵ An agreement between the bishop-elect of Cartagena and the municipal council of Lorca in 1275 illustrates the practical application of the law. For every ten animals, one was owed as a tithe; if there were more, a monetary tithe of varying amount was imposed. A scribe recorded the tithes collected at the gates of each town, as was done in Toledo, Seville, and Córdoba.96 As the tithe was an important source of royal income, the king upheld the church’s right to it, issuing charters to the archbishop of Seville, and the bishops of Córdoba,⁹⁷ Salamanca,⁹⁸ Burgos, Valladolid, Ávila, and Cartagena.⁹⁹

The tithe was divided into three parts: one for the bishop, one for the clergy, and the third for the fabrica or upkeep of churches.¹⁰⁰ Known as the tercias, the last was usually two-ninths of the total. In 1246 Innocent IV was the first pope to approve use of the tercias for the reconquest.¹⁰¹ After the fall of Seville in 1248, the bishops probably hoped that Alfonso X would yield the tercias, but in the Cortes of Seville in 1252 (art. 44) he postponed a decision. Soon after he enacted a law concerning the tithe in the Fuero real (1, 5, 4). Recalling that J esus upheld Caesar’s claim to the tribute, he affirmed the church’s right to the tithe but noted that it could also be used for the service of kings and their kingdom. In order to curb deception, once the harvest was gathered, terceros or royal tithe collectors and ecclesiastical representatives were authorized to take their respective shares.¹⁰² Failure to pay the tithe was punishable by excommunication and a fine to be shared equally by the king and the bishop. Thus, while consistent payment of the tithe would benefit the clergy, it would also fill the royal coffers. In the Cortes of Toledo in 1254, the king required Jews and Muslims to pay tithes on property acquired from Christians so the church would not lose income.¹⁰³ His citation of “my posturas” clearly refers to the law enacted in the Fuero real, which he reiterated in charters issued to several municipalities in 1255.¹⁰⁴

When the king appealed for help to suppress the Mudéjar revolt, Clement IV, in 1265, granted him the decima, provided that he forsake “that most vile robbery,” the tercias. Despite the possibility of being relieved of the hated tercias, the bishops were distressed by the imposition of this new financial burden.¹⁰⁵ Of course the king did not abandon the tercias. Between 1271 and 1274 the bishop of Cuenca paid ten thousand maravedís to the king,¹⁰⁶ and in 1277 Isaac and Mayr Abenxuxén contracted to collect the tercias and pay the king seventy thousand maravedís.¹⁰⁷ When Gregory X authorized the decima for six years in 1275, he demanded that the king give up the tercias, but Nicholas III protested four years later that he had not done so.¹⁰⁸ Replying to the accusation that papal authorization to take the tercias had lapsed (Memoriale, art. 1), Sancho proposed a compromise that would allow the king to retain the tercias for life (art. A).¹⁰⁹ Nothing came of that. Though the prelates groaned that they were impoverished by the tercias, the decima, and the servicios that they approved in the Cortes, the king continued to exploit their resources.

Que el Poder Temporal e Espiritual, que Viene Todo de Dios, Se Acuerde en Uno

Alfonso X, presenting himself as a loyal son of the church, declared “que el poder temporal e espiritual, que viene todo de Dios, se acuerde en uno” (that the temporal and spiritual powers, that both come from God, should accord with one another) (FR 1, 5, 4). For that reason he incorporated the substance of canon law in the First Partida. Although he recognized his obligation to defend the church, and accepted the spiritual supremacy of the pope, he intended to dominate the church and expected its leaders to be submissive to his will. He acknowledged that episcopal elections should be free but, with papal acquiescence, filled the principal sees with loyal servitors. Asserting his orthodoxy, he affirmed church teachings and, insisting that there was no salvation outside the church, admonished Muslims, Jews, and heretics to accept Christianity. Although heresy was not widespread, he declared that heretics should be burned to death, thereby providing the Spanish Inquisition of a later date with a legal justification for executing them. As a faithful Christian, he also extended his protection to pilgrims, a source of revenue for his kingdom and everyone on the pilgrimage routes. Though he consistently confirmed the property holdings of bishops and monasteries, he attempted to prevent them from acquiring lands of the royal domain, lest his revenues be diminished. His claim to the spoils of a deceased bishop, his exclusion of clerics from any role in secular courts, his efforts to limit ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and his objection to the bishops’ use of excommunication, especially of royal officials, proved to be ongoing vexations. Arguing that he and his predecessors had founded or restored bishoprics and monasteries, he believed that, when necessary, he could dispose of the church’s temporal resources. The bishops protested not only his appropriation of the tercias, but also his imposition of extraordinary levies. As their grievances accumulated, they appealed to Nicholas III. Although the king was attentive to papal admonitions, he seems not to have changed his policies.

Eventually, many bishops supported Sancho’s rebellion in 1282. Meeting in Valladolid, the abbots of monasteries formed an hermandad or brotherhood in defense of their privileges. The bishops of Astorga, Zamora, Mondoñedo, Túy, Badajoz, and Coria also entered an hermandad with twenty-five Leonese monasteries to support Sancho.110 Bishops Fernando of Burgos and Juan of Palencia, however, protested the actions taken against the king.¹¹¹ During the ensuing civil war, the archbishop of Seville and the bishops of Burgos, Ávila, Cádiz, and Oviedo remained loyal to him,¹¹² but others backed Sancho or remained neutral. In 1283 the bishops of Astorga and Zamora renewed their pact with the monasteries, but urged Sancho to seek peace.113 The civil war continued, however, until the king’s death in 1284. Despite the challenge of the bishops, royal ascendancy over the church was unchanged, as King Alfonso’s immediate successors continued to follow his policies.