CHAPTER 12

Trade and Commerce

Regulating the Economy

Alfonso X was one of the first monarchs to enact legislation to protect the environment and conserve natural resources. Urging his people to take pride in their country and to improve it, he stressed their responsibility to cultivate the land, to develop pastures, mines, and other assets in an orderly way, to safeguard trees and vineyards, to facilitate transportation and communication by eliminating unnecessary obstructions, and to guarantee the safety of pilgrims and other travelers. Cities, towns, and castles should be well fortified with strong walls and towers kept in repair (SP 1, 24, 1–4; 2, 11, 1–3; 2, 12, pr.; 2, 20, 1–8; FR 4, 6, 1–6; 4, 23, 1–4).3

The king also articulated that program for economic development in the Cortes of Seville in 1252 and subsequent parliamentary assemblies. By reiterating and amplifying regulations in the municipal fueros, he hoped to protect animals, birds, fish, trees, and plants so they would flourish and contribute to the general prosperity. Quarrelsome neighbors were warned not to destroy fields or vineyards, cut down trees not their own, or set woods on fire. Lest agricultural production be impacted negatively, plowing animals could not be slaughtered or taken as pledges for repayment of debt. Hunting fowl and rabbits was restricted, and in order not to deplete the supply of food and hides, all hunting was prohibited from the beginning of Lent until Michaelmas.4

Merchants attending markets and fairs were obliged to be honest, to charge a just price, not to defraud their customers with false or imperfect wares, to use lawful weights and measures, and to travel established routes and pay tolls and customs duties (SP 5, 7, 1).5 However, Fernando III, objecting to their efforts to control commerce by forming associations, in July 1250 ordered the dissolution of confraternities or guilds in Santiago de Compostela. In November, during the Cortes of Seville, while approving religious or charitable associations, he prohibited “wicked confraternities” from having their own alcaldes.6

In the Cortes of Seville in 1252 (arts. 11, 14–16) and other assemblies, King Alfonso repeated his father’s condemnation of guilds formed without royal consent and ordered that their quarrels could only be adjudicated by judges whom he appointed.7 He reaffirmed that injunction in charters granted to several towns in 1255–56.8 Accusing guilds of fixing prices and measures, restricting membership to certain families, and boycotting those who refused to join their company, he banned all confraternities established without his authorization (SP 5, 7, 2).9 Nevertheless, he recognized the existence of guilds on several occasions. For example, he ordered a master craftsman who struck and killed his apprentice to be tried for homicide (FR 4, 17, 8). In 1253 he heard a dispute concerning the appointment of guild officials in Compostela,10 and in 1280 he ratified ordinances adopted in 1259 by the shoemakers’ guild of Burgos.11 He also confirmed the muleteers and merchants of Atienza, the textile workers of Seville, the textile workers and shopkeepers of Soria, and the blacksmiths of Burgos.12

Royal policy was dictated by a desire to maintain the untrammeled authority of the crown and to prevent the development of an autonomous mercantile jurisdiction. In forbidding merchants to fix prices and wages, the king did not intend that the principle of laissez-faire should govern the market, but rather reserved the power of regulation to himself. In the Cortes of Seville in 1252 (arts. 1–3, 7, 9–10, 17–18, 23–28) he established prices for Frisian cloth, shields, saddles, and harnesses, women’s silk headdresses, hides, shoes, horses and other livestock, and hawks and falcons. As complaints of the high cost of living and the shortage of goods persisted, he undertook a more extensive effort to control prices in the Assembly of Jerez in 1268. Prices for metals as well as domestic and imported cloth were usually higher in Andalucía (arts. 2–5). The price of mantles, tunics, gowns, and breeches, as well as shields, saddles, and harness had risen since 1252 (arts. 9–12). Hides of horses were reserved for shields and saddles and could not be used by shoemakers or scabbard makers (art. 13).13 The list of prices for livestock, fowl, rabbits, and fish was extensive (arts. 16–20, 23). Apparently for the first time wages were fixed for workingmen and women. Rates varied throughout the realm but seem to have been highest in Andalucía. As might be expected, women were paid less than men. If a laborer refused to work or to accept the stipulated wages, he would be forced to do so. Vagabonds were restrained, and beggars and robbers were given summary justice (arts. 32–34, 36). How effective this effort to control prices and wages was is uncertain, but the experience of other times suggests that it irritated many people. The Chronicle of Alfonso X commented that “everything increased in cost.” María del Carmen Carlé pointed out that between 1263 and 1294 prices of certain goods rose as much as 1,000 percent.14

In the Fuero real (3, 10, 1) Alfonso X declared that weights and measures, guaranteed by municipal inspectors, should be true and equal for everyone. In 1257 he ordered Sepúlveda to observe these directives “until we give them the fuero,” that is, the Fuero real.15 The Partidas (7, 7, 7) ordered the destruction of false weights and measures. During the Cortes of Seville in 1261 (art. 36), he reminded the towns that he had sent them charters obliging them to maintain uniform weights and measures.16 As “our dominion is one,” he emphasized that weights and measures should also be uniform. Lest there be any confusion, he sent archetypes to each town and ordered the destruction of others. The measure for wheat was the cahíz (ar. qafiz) of Toledo containing twelve fanegas (ar. faniqa), each divided into twelve celemines (ar. zumniya), and each of those into twelve cuchares (lat. cochleare). The moyo (lat. modius) of Valladolid, containing sixteen cántaras (lat. cantharus), was the standard for wine, and for meat, the arrelde (ar. arrīṭl) of Burgos containing ten libras or pounds. The marco alfonsí, weighing eight ounces, was the standard for weights; a libra was two marcos. The arroba (ar. arrūb’) contained twenty-five libras. Four arrobas equaled a quintal or hundredweight. The measure for cloth was the vara (lat. vara), a stick or metal bar about two feet long. In the Assembly of Jerez in 1268 (art. 26), he repeated this ordinance.17 Hard pressed financially in later years, Alfonso X intensified the collection of fines for using false weights and measures, and in 1279 insisted that he would never yield this right.18

Commercial Activity

Alfonso X’s determination to control the economy was nowhere more evident than in the area of domestic trade. The right to a secure market was a royal benefit accorded to many towns.19 In the Cortes of Seville in 1252 (arts. 15–16), he curbed potential troublemakers such as itinerant hucksters. As free access to the market was essential, he ordered shopkeepers in Sahagún not to block the streets.20 In 1260 he gave the municipal council of Burgos control of the meat markets, except four tables belonging to the cathedral.21 In exchange for shops that were being razed, he granted Christian meat markets to the cathedral of Córdoba but reserved the right to the alcabala or sales tax.22 Lest a food shortage occur, he admonished the towns not to restrict the introduction of provisions from other communities.23 Nevertheless, in order to nurture the development of a municipal fair, he permitted Alba de Tormes to prohibit the sale of wine or grapes produced outside the municipal district.24

Unlike town markets where local products were sold at retail, foreign and domestic merchants gathered at fairs to sell goods wholesale.25 Realizing that fairs would foster population growth and prosperity, Alfonso X, while insisting that the establishment of new fairs required royal authorization, increased their number from six to twenty-five.26 Merchants, whether Christians, Jews, or Muslims, and their merchandise would be secure at the fair and throughout the realm. Exempted from local exactions, they could not be sued for debts contracted elsewhere or arrested for previous offenses, nor could their property be seized during the fair. However, they could be compelled to fulfill contracts and pay debts incurred during the fair. Anyone who plundered a merchant had to return the stolen merchandise, but if he could not be found, the municipal council where the crime occurred had to make restitution (SP 5, 7, 3–4). Fairs usually occurred around festival days. Benavente, for example, held an annual fair for fifteen days after Easter. Seville had two fairs annually, one during the fifteen days before and the fifteen days after the beginning of Lent, and the other at Michaelmas.27

The collection of tolls (portazgo) on goods in transit was a long-standing custom and a sign of royal sovereignty. Intent on facilitating the free flow of traffic, Alfonso X, in the Cortes of Seville in 1252 (art. 37), limited collection to stations established by Alfonso VIII and Alfonso IX and in Andalucía by Miramamolín, the Almohad caliph.28 In order to encourage attendance at fairs, he often granted exemption from portazgo. Monasteries and cathedrals were similarly favored.29 Several towns were exempted from portazgo throughout the realm, except in Toledo, Seville, and Murcia, where the royal almojarifazgo, a toll dating back to Muslim times, was collected.30 Seville, Car-mona, and other towns in Andalucía and Murcia received an exemption valid anywhere.31

In return for their personal security, the king argued that merchants should acknowledge his sovereignty by paying a toll of one-eighth the value of goods imported or exported. Items intended for personal or familial use and goods imported for the king were exempt, as were foreign envoys and scholars. Merchants had to give an accurate account of their imports or exports and pay duties. Anyone who attempted to avoid the toll would lose all his merchandise. Wherever the toll was collected from ancient times, the entire amount was the king’s, but where tolls were recently established he received two-thirds, and one-third was used to maintain town or castle walls. The right to collect it was auctioned off for a term of three years. Customs collectors were warned not to abuse a merchant, but to accept his sworn statement of his inventory; if they levied more than the appropriate duty, they had to reimburse the merchant double the amount (SP 5, 7, 5–9; LEst 201).

Although imports from northern Europe, Morocco, and the East were welcomed, the king seriously limited foreign trade by prohibiting the export of certain products—the so-called cosas vedadas.32 Castile was at an economic disadvantage because she had little to offer her neighbors other than raw materials.33 Acknowledging the need for “an abundance of livestock,” Alfonso X, in the Cortes of Seville in 1252 (arts. 19–21) and again at Valladolid in 1258 (art. 12) and Seville in 1261 (art. 19), forbade the export of horses, hides, seeds, silk, mercury, cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, hawks, falcons, and other items. Anyone exporting cosas vedadas without permission committed “a very great madness” (E 4, 12, 57) and would lose everything (SP 5, 7, 5; LEst 204). Nevertheless, royal charters authorizing exports were available for a fee (E 4, 2, 57; SP 3, 20, 10). The charter had to identify the merchant, the number of horses or other products being exported, and whether permission was valid for a year or longer (SP 3, 13, 20). In the Assembly of Jerez in 1268 (arts. 14, 21–25) the king again prohibited the export of cosas vedadas and, in order to avoid an unfavorable balance of trade, required merchants to import as much as they exported. Masters of foreign ships had to be informed of these regulations and see that they were observed. Customs stations were established at Santander, Laredo, Castro Urdiales, San Sebastián, and Fuenterrabía on the Bay of Biscay; at Avilés, Ribadeo, Vivero, Betanzos, La Coruña, Santa María, Cedeira, Ferrol, Bayona, La Guardia, Pontevedra, Padrón, and Noya in Asturias and Galicia; at Seville, Jerez, Huelva, Cádiz, and Vejer in Andalucía; and at Cartagena, Alicante, and Elche in Murcia.34

Reacting negatively to royal policy, the nobles in the Cortes of Burgos in 1272 demanded that Alfonso X abolish customs duties and that the list of prohibited exports should be no greater than in his father’s reign. He rejected both demands, and though he promised at Almagro in 1273 to cease collection of customs duties after six years, he never did so. In 1276 he authorized Zag de la Maleha to collect fines for exporting banned items,35 and in 1277, he forbade the export of gold and silver and the dineros prietos, a strong coinage. Merchants and pilgrims traveling to Compostela, however, could take out fifty sueldos prietos twice a year. His gold coin could be exported because it could be used to acquire silver needed to mint billon. Anyone leaving the kingdom was permitted to take out only as much money as he brought in. Prelates and nobles had to ask royal permission to take out silver, but in order to encourage the importation of gold, silver, or other coinages, they were exempted from customs duties. Two years later Pedro III of Aragón complained that the prohibition of the export “of almost all merchandise” was injurious to both realms and diminished Castile’s potential revenues.36

In his closing years Alfonso X, needing money to oppose the Moroccan invasion, assiduously fined violators of the export regulations. Seeking to appease angry merchants who presented their grievances at Burgos in February 1281, he pledged that they would have to pay customs duties only once at the port of entry or exit. They would be exempt from local tolls and customs duties on their personal belongings and would be liable to seizure for payment only of personal debts, but not for debts or taxes owed by the towns where they resided. Imports had still to be balanced against exports, and the ban on the export of prohibited products was repeated. Two days later, he exempted them from portazgo on their persons anywhere in the kingdom. They were particularly irritated because he had ordered an inquest to determine whether they were exporting forbidden goods or violating the principle of balancing exports and imports in the ports on the Bay of Biscay. In return for a servicio of one hundred thousand maravedís and a chancery fee of one thousand, payable in the first coinage of his reign (“la moneda de la primera guerra de Granada”), he pardoned them for previous violations.37

Ever since the twelfth century popes had censured Christians who traded with the enemy. Similarly, Alfonso X forbade anyone to sell weapons, wheat, barley, rye, oil, and other foodstuffs to enemies of the faith, “when they are making war against us.” Envoys traveling to the royal court, however, were allowed to purchase food and drink for their sustenance. Anyone violating this law would be deprived of his property, and his person would be at the king’s mercy, because aiding the enemies of the faith was “a form of treason” (SP 5, 5, 22). Those who did so during wartime and were captured by pirates or otherwise injured were reminded that that was their own fault (SP 5, 9, 13). When these laws were written, the king was preparing his African crusade, which was aborted in the spring of 1264 by the Mudéjar revolt. Although the submission of the emir of Granada three years later marked the end of the uprising, the threat of Islam remained throughout the reign. This law therefore was solidly grounded in reality.

Maritime Law

As merchant shipping expanded, Alfonso X composed a brief code of maritime law, whose relation to the Rôles of Oléron and the ancient Rhodian Sea Law has been observed.38 A typical chancery charter stated that the shipmaster Jordán chartered his ship, the Buenaventura, to Alemán, a merchant, and promised to transport him and so many hundredweight of wax and so many bales of hides from Seville to La Rochelle on the west coast of France. Jordán guaranteed that the ship was properly equipped with sails, yards, masts, cables, and anchors; a crew of sixty, namely, two pilots, forty mariners, ten marines armed with crossbows, and four servants; and a small boat carrying sufficient provisions. The itinerary included stops at Lisbon, Ribadeo or La Coruña in Galicia, or Santander on the Bay of Biscay, where Jordán would pick up his partners and any merchandise that Alemán might have there. Within eight days of reaching La Rochelle, Alemán had to pay two hundred marks of silver. The ship would be loaded in March so that it could sail from Seville on 1 April, if the weather permitted. The penalty for each infraction of the contract was one hundred marks (SP 3, 18, 77).

This example, probably based on an actual charter, suggests that the shipmaster Giordano was one of the many Genoese settled in Seville and that Alemán may have been German as his name indicates.39 The Buonaventura, to give it its Italian name, was a large sailing vessel with a full crew and an auxiliary boat, and carried a cargo of raw materials. A form of international maritime law would come into play if either party violated the charter. As illustrated in the Cantigas de Santa Maria, the nave had a high prow and even higher stern, with a castle or superstructure for cabins. There were two masts with triangular lateen sails with a crow’s nest atop each mast, and a side paddle for steering.40

The responsibility for a voyage rested primarily with pilots, masters, and owners. They had to prepare the ship, ensuring that it was properly caulked and that sails, masts, ropes, yards, anchors, and oars were in order. Experienced crewmen, especially navigators who could safely guide the ship through troublesome seas, had to be recruited. A scribe had to keep a log recording everything brought on board. Arms, biscuits, other foods, and fresh water were essential. Agreements between shipmasters, owners, and merchants had to be scrupulously observed. If anyone committed a crime during the voyage, he should be arrested and, on reaching port, presented to the local judge for trial and punishment. Masters and owners could scourge obstreperous crew-members but had to be careful not to kill or maim them (SP 5, 9, pr., 1–2).

Sometimes it was necessary to save the ship from disaster by throwing merchandise overboard. As that served the common good, each merchant had to contribute proportionally to make up the loss suffered by those whose property was cast into the sea. The apportionment outlined in the Alfonsine Codes was based on the shipowner’s estimate of the value of the vessel and the value, rather than the weight, of each one’s goods, so a merchant carrying gems, gold, or money had to share with everyone else. If the master ordered a mast cut down and thrown overboard to save the ship, the merchants had to make up the loss, but if the mast was broken by lightning or wind, the owner had to pay for it. If the ship was driven aground, merchants were bound to compensate for the loss only if they instructed the master to let it take its course. If the owners recovered their property that fell overboard during a storm, they had to assist the others in making up their loss, as a matter of the common good. Despite contrary custom, ownership of property or pieces of a ship washed up on shore belonged to the original owners and not to those who found it. If a master, fearing that his heavily laden ship might not be able to enter a port’s shallow waters, transferred some material to smaller boats and they were lost, all the merchants had to share proportionally in the loss. A master who, contrary to the wishes of the merchants, chose to brave the hazards of sailing between 11 November and 10 March or to pass by a place held by an enemy would be responsible for any loss incurred (SP 5, 9, 3–9; FR 4, 24, 1–2).

If a shipowner, in the absence of the master or contrary to his directions, wrecked his ship, he would be responsible for loss of the cargo (SP 5, 8, 13). A greedy master who deliberately took his ship into dangerous waters so that he could wreck it and seize the goods of merchants should be tried by a local judge and, upon conviction, sentenced to death. Fishermen and others sometimes set fires on shore at nighttime to lure ships into perilous areas where they would be wrecked and plundered. If that charge was proved, the culprits had to pay four times the value of the merchandise and were subjected to bodily punishment. Corsairs, a grave hazard of the sea, after seizing a ship, often released it, the merchants, and their goods in exchange for money. In that case each man had to bear a proportionate share of the expense; even a man with no belongings had to pay for his freedom. Occasionally, corsairs were plundered by other Christians, but the original owners, if they were sailing to or from a Christian country, retained their right to the goods taken from them. The reason for that was “porque de las mercadurias que traen los mercadores se aprouecha la tierra dellas comunalmente” (because the realm benefits in common from merchandise brought in by merchants) (SP 5, 9, 13). However, if they were trading with the enemy, contrary to the king’s command, whoever stole their property could keep it. Anyone who liberated a pleasure craft seized by the enemy in time of war was entitled to whatever property was on board. Judges in seafaring communities had to resolve such disputes expeditiously so that merchants and ships would not be delayed unnecessarily. While listening to witnesses, judges should give particular credence to the ship’s log (SP 5, 9, 10–14).

The line between the honest merchantman and the corsair or pirate was often clouded, as mariners engaged in legitimate trade while also attacking enemy shipping. CSM 379 related the story of Catalan corsairs driven to Seville by a storm reportedly caused by the Virgin Mary; there they surrendered their booty to the king and entered his service. CSM 379 may be dated around December 1281 when the king offered tributary exemptions to corsairs settling in El Puerto de Santa María, provided that they sold at auction whatever goods they seized from his enemies. Corsairs resident elsewhere would enjoy similar privileges if the goods they offered for sale were not taken from the king’s friends, whether Moors or Christians.41

Mercantile Companies

Merchants often formed companies or partnerships.42 A mercantile company was an association of two or more merchants seeking their mutual profit through buying and selling, exchanging, or renting and leasing property for a fixed term or for life. A company could be established in two ways. First, the partners in a company with a general purpose agreed to hold their property in common and to share profits and losses equally. Second, a company might be organized to engage in one kind of traffic, for example, the sale of wine or cloth. Profits and losses should be shared equally, unless some other arrangement was made. For example, if one partner endowed with better business acumen took the lead, he might be entitled to a greater share. A so-called Leonine contract (societas leonina) whereby one had all the profits and none of the losses or vice versa was invalid.43 Also invalid was a company in which one party deceived another or unlawfully claimed a greater share of the profits. A company organized for criminal purposes was illegal, and the partners had to make restitution of any profits. A partner who caused any damage or loss had to bear that burden. A contract stating that the partners would share profits from an inheritance (without identifying the benefactor) would be binding; but if the benefactor was named, without his consent, it would not be valid because someone, anxious to secure the inheritance, might attempt to take his life. No one under fourteen or mentally ill could form a company, and a judge could release anyone under twenty-five from his obligations if he was fraudulently persuaded to enter a company (SP 5, 10, pr., 1–9).

A chancery formula recorded that Pedro de la Rochela and don Arberat formed a company for ten years to buy cloth and sell it in the rua de los francos— the street of the French in Seville, not far from the cathedral. Each one invested one thousand maravedís and pledged to share the profits, injuries, and losses; if either violated the pact, he would be fined one thousand maravedís (SP 3, 18, 78). Both men were probably French: Pedro or Pierre was from La Rochelle, and Arbérats is a town in the southwest corner of France.

A company could be dissolved for several reasons: a partner’s death, unless it was agreed that the survivor should continue it; a partner’s banishment for life or civil death; the surrender of his property to his colleague by a partner burdened by debt; the death or loss of the property for which the company was formed; or the sacralization of property, for example, a house transformed into a church or a plaza into a cemetery. A company might also be terminated if one of the members declared his desire to leave; if he did so before the expiration date he had to make good any damage or loss caused by his departure. If he withdrew so that he would not have to share some expected gain, as for example, an inheritance, he would be bound to give his partners their rightful share and compensation for any loss or damage. When the company was dissolved all its assets and liabilities should be apportioned among the members according to the company’s original charter. A company might be prematurely ended if an obnoxious member could not be tolerated by the others, if the king or a municipal council sent a member on a mission or appointed him to an office, if a member failed to abide by the terms of the charter, or if circumstances such as shipwreck made it impossible to continue (SP 5, 10, 10–14).

If a partner controlling the company’s property gave a portion to one or two others, leaving nothing for the rest, everything had to be redistributed. Should a partner be unable to pay a debt owed to another member of the company, a judge could allow him to retain sufficient funds to live on but could require him to give security to pay in full when possible. Any expense incurred by a partner on behalf of the company had to be paid from common funds. Should a partner use any of the company’s property without the knowledge of the others, he and his heirs were bound to return it, lest they be accused of stealing (SP 5, 10, 15–17).

Money and Moneylending

The need for an acceptable medium of exchange was fundamental but proved to be a most difficult task. In the first half of the thirteenth century, the basic coins in circulation were the dineros burgaleses in Castile and the leoneses in León. Made of billon, an alloy of silver and copper, they were calculated at a ratio of ninety burgaleses or ninety-six leoneses to the gold maravedí, a money of account. As this was a stable coinage, Fernando III maintained it after the union of the kingdoms in 1230. Jean Gautier-Dalché and James Todesca have demonstrated the errors concerning coinage in the Chronicle of Alfonso X.44

Despite the misstatements of the Chronicle, Alfonso X did not alter the coinage until more than a decade after his accession. When he levied moneda forera in the Cortes of Valladolid in 1258, he probably promised to maintain the coinage intact for seven years, but as circumstances changed he had to issue new coinages on three different occasions.45 Sometime after the Mudéjar revolt in 1264, but before 1268, he minted the dineros alfonsís, the first coinage common to Castile and León. That coinage was usually known as the moneda de la guerra (or de la primera guerra) or blancas (still later, blanquillas). The dinero alfonsí bore the legend ALFONSUS REX CASTELLE ET LEGIONIS on the obverse, and castles and lions quartered on the reverse. Although there were ninety dineros alfonsís to the maravedí, the new money had less purchasing power than the burgaleses or leoneses. Nevertheless, by replacing a stronger money with a weaker one, the king secured the resources necessary to suppress the Mudéjars.46 The rise in prices resulting from this effective devaluation prompted the Assembly of Jerez in 1268 (arts. 1–2) to ask the king to guarantee a stable coinage by confirming the dineros alfonsís for life. Equivalences were also fixed for other moneys, such as the gold dobla (an imitation of an Almohad coin) worth three maravedís, and the gold maravedí alfonsí (of Alfonso VIII) worth two maravedís.47

Nevertheless, a demand for a stronger coinage was soon heard, perhaps in the Cortes of Burgos in 1269. After taking counsel with “men wise in the matter of money,” the king coined the dineros prietos, so-called because of their dark color, and pledged to maintain this coinage for life. The prieto was six times greater than the dinero alfonsí, as fifteen dineros prietos (in contrast to ninety dineros alfonsís) equaled one maravedí. The prieto showed a castle and lion on opposite sides of the coin; the legend ALF REX CASTELLE appeared on the obverse and ET LEGIONIS on the reverse.48

Alfonso X also coined a gold maravedí, recorded for the first time on 15 June 1272. Although he set its value at ten maravedís de la moneda de la guerra, the “many good men knowledgeable in coinage” whom he consulted warned that it was worth much more. Sellers, on the contrary, believing that the gold maravedí chico (as it was called) was of lesser value, refused to accept it. This prompted the nobles in 1272 to accuse the king of falsifying the money.49

Meanwhile, dissatisfaction with the dineros prietos became apparent because only a few, due to the silver shortage, could be minted. As comparatively strong coins, they tended to be hoarded or taken out of the kingdom, and so Alfonso X asked the emir of Granada to pay most of his tribute in silver.50 In order to mount an effective counteroffensive against the Marinids, the Cortes of Burgos in 1277 asked him to mint a “more common” money, cheaper and more plentiful. However, as he had sworn not to alter the dineros prietos, prelates and nobles, on 9 May 1277, asked Pope John XXI to absolve him from his oath.51 The papal response is unknown but was probably affirmative, as the king issued a third billon coinage, the moneda nueva (also called blancas and dineros alfonsís). Though it had a legal value equal to the prieto, it was greatly debased. The moneda nueva had the legend MONETA CASTELLE and a castle on the obverse and ET LEGIONIS and a lion on the reverse. It seems strange that the king did not put his name on it, especially as in the Setenario (43–44) he noted that the coinage was identified in this way.52

As the silver shortage continued, the supply of moneda nueva, a weakened billon coinage, was insufficient to meet the kingdom’s needs. The war against the Moors strained the king’s resources, leading him to propose to the Cortes of Seville in 1281 the minting of two new moneys, one silver and one copper, instead of imposing a new tax. The Cortes acquiesced, “more out of fear than love,” but soon asked Sancho to persuade him “not to circulate this copper money.”53

Shortly after Sancho assumed control of the government, the Assembly of Valladolid in 1282 asked him to reestablish the coinages used in previous reigns. After consulting knowledgeable men, on 19 May 1282 he ordered the minting of burgaleses and pepiones (half burgaleses) in Burgos, leoneses in León, and salamanqueses in Salamanca and promised never to change them. However, when Burgos expressed its preference for Alfonso X’s coinage, Sancho warned the city not to interfere with the minting of the new money.54

Alfonso X hoped to curb prices and inflation by creating a sound, stable, and abundant coinage, but his three billon coinages, the dineros alfonsís of 1264, the prietos of 1271, and the moneda nueva of 1277, failed to achieve that goal, mainly because of the chronic silver shortage. Royal monetary policy consequently remained a major source of controversy until the end of the reign.

Prior to the thirteenth century, the extension of credit was evident in agricultural communities. Landed proprietors often lent their tenants livestock or seed to plant wheat or vineyards, but if they could not pay the expected return, the owner confiscated their holdings. By Alfonso X’s time, as a consequence of the growth of towns and the increasing use of money, credit was more frequently associated with mercantile operations.55

As the church condemned the taking of interest or usury, moneylending was generally conducted by Jews, and to a lesser extent by Muslims.56 As one might imagine, this caused great friction among the different religious communities. Responding to a chorus of protest against excessive rates of interest, Alfonso X in the Cortes of Seville in 1252 and in the Fuero real (4, 2, 6) fixed the annual rate that a Jew could charge at “tres por cuatro” (three for four). That would be a yearly rate at 33⅓ percent.57 In 1260 he confirmed the right of Jews and Moors to charge that rate but forbade Christians to lend money at interest.58 During the Assembly of Jerez in 1268 (arts. 29, 44) he reduced the rate to “quatro por cinco” (four for five) or 25 percent and again forbade Christians to take interest. Today that rate would be considered usurious, but the lender’s risks were far greater than they are now. No Jew could act for a Christian in a commercial transaction, and a Christian scribe had to prepare documents when a Christian borrowed money from a Jew. Needing money to oppose the Marinid invasion, the king took advantage of the condemnation of Christian usurers by the Council of Lyons in 1274, ordered inquests to identify them, and fined them. Several towns paid substantial sums “for the affair of the frontier” to be quit of any further trouble on this account.59

The Mesta

The pasturage of sheep and the production of raw wool was a significant aspect of the economy. Neighboring towns often quarreled over the use of pastures.60 However, as the frontiers were pushed steadily southward, the annual migration of sheep from winter to summer pastures extended over ever-lengthening distances caused greater conflicts. Sheep owners, determined to protect their interests, organized a guild or Mesta between 1230 and 1265.61

In the Cortes of Seville in 1252 (arts. 31–33, 41) the king allowed municipalities or military orders to levy only one toll (montazgo) in their pastures, and the tithe only once where customary. Sheep could use streams and traditional sheepwalks (cañadas), and no one could enclose previously open pastures.62 Animals could be pastured in open fields for a day or two, but not in vineyards; trees could not be cut down or fruit taken.63 Anyone altering a brand and replacing it with his own would be charged with robbery (FR 4, 6, 4–5; 4, 13, 10).

During the Cortes of Seville in 1261, when the sheepmen protested that their flocks had to pay more than one tithe as they moved from the archdiocese of Toledo into that of Seville, the king, while assuring the church of its just due, effected a compromise that would not subject the sheep to a double tithe.64 The sheep owners also asked the king to relieve them of the municipal toll, offering in return an annual servicio, as follows: one hundred out of every one thousand sheep or goats; three out of every one thousand cows; twenty sueldos de pepiones for every one hundred pigs, and two sueldos de pepiones for every mare, nag, or other animal. This effectively transferred the right of levying montazgo from the municipalities to the king.65

As towns continued to demand the toll, the sheep owners objected at Badajoz in 1267, and the king again prohibited anyone other than the military orders to take montazgo, except for the royal servicio already mentioned. This was probably the beginning of one part of the tax later referred to as servicio y montazgo. The other part, the servicio, likely came about two years later. During the meeting at Badajoz, Alfonso X agreed to appoint two royal officials, later known as alcaldes entregadores, in each of five districts to guard the sheepwalks, to resolve disputes with local farmers, to amend all injuries, and to recover pledges unjustly taken from shepherds. For that purpose, they had to convene three annual mestas or assemblies and to render accounts either in Lent or at Martinmas. In exchange, the sheep owners offered the king another servicio as follows: a half maravedí for every one thousand sheep and goats, three maravedís for every one thousand cows, and five maravedís for every one hundred pigs.66 The realization that transhumant livestock could be a substantial source of revenue led Alfonso X to impose the servicio de los ganados in the Cortes of Burgos in 1269. Seven years later he authorized collection of arrears of this tax owing since 1269.67

The sheep owners presented numerous complaints during the Cortes of Burgos in 1272. As the towns persisted in trying to collect montazgo, the king reiterated the ban established in 1261. Again he restricted the military orders to the imposition of this toll only once throughout their jurisdiction, and the church to only one tithe. The crown gained by reserving a third of all fines for damages done by migratory sheep and by seizing all lost and unclaimed animals. In order to facilitate transhumance, the sheepwalks would be widened again as in the twelfth century. In wooded areas shepherds were permitted to cut down branches or even trees to open the way. Local farmers were responsible for protecting their own fields from possible damage by the sheep.68 Objecting to Alfonso X’s attempt to profit from transhumant sheep, the magnates in 1273 demanded that the montazgo be levied as in Fernando III’s time—that is, that the right of the towns to collect it be reinstated—and that the servicio de los ganados should not be collected at all. Although the king consented initially, these demands do not seem to have been included in the final settlement.69

In the fall of 1273 Alfonso X granted four charters to “the council of the Mesta of the shepherds.” Although Julius Klein hailed this as the foundation of the Mesta, Charles Julian Bishko pointed out that it was already in existence.70 The king reminded his entregadores to attend three annual mestas, to punish wrongdoers, and to protect the shepherds and their flocks. He also confirmed the shepherds’ right to cut paths through woodland and to use wood for cooking and other necessities. Shepherds were exempted from tolls on their clothing and food, and—so that the number of “horses and mules in my realm might increase”—on mares and their foals, and other animals traveling with the flocks. The king also modified his earlier ban on the municipal montazgo by permitting towns that had levied it in his father’s reign to continue doing so, at the rate of two head per ten thousand.71

As trouble between sheepmen and towns continued, the king confirmed his charters of 1272, warning towns not to prevent shepherds from purchasing needed food supplies. In response to complaints in 1278, he ordered his entregadores to open blocked sheepwalks and enclosed pastures, levy appropriate fines, punish murderers and robbers, and hear all suits involving shepherds.72 Charters guaranteeing secure pasturage to monasteries and cathedrals throughout the realm also reflect the tension between sheep owners and towns.73

The organization of the Mesta was prompted by the sheep owners’ need to defend their interests, but Alfonso X also recognized it as an opportunity to tap new sources of revenue. He stood to profit not only from heavy fines imposed on those who violated the rights of the sheep-men, but also from the servicio de los ganados and the montazgo that became a regular item in his budget.

Por que Seades Mas Ricos et Mas Abondados

Through economic policies developed in the Cortes and in several privileges, Alfonso X made a concerted effort to raise his kingdom to a greater level of prosperity. His hope was “por que seades mas ricos et mas abondados” (that you may be richer and more prosperous) and thus able to render him greater service (S eville 1252, pr.). Committed to fostering economic growth, he enacted measures safeguarding natural resources and encouraging the responsible exploitation of mineral resources and of land suitable for farming and pasturage. The development of roads, waterways, and bridges was intended to overcome barriers separating communities, to promote domestic trade and facilitate pilgrimage, and, in the broadest sense, to create a spirit of unity among his people that would serve the common good.

As trade and commerce flourished and merchants and artisans became prominent members of urban communities, the king asserted control over their activities. Thus, he banned guilds and confraternities, other than those with a spiritual purpose, and opposed their efforts to limit their membership or to fix prices, a right that he claimed for himself. Indeed, he established prices for a wide range of products and made the first attempt to fix wages. As a means of creating wealth, he encouraged towns to hold regular markets and increased the number of fairs where foreign and domestic merchants could exchange their wares in a secure environment. Moreover, he regulated the formation, operation, and dissolution of mercantile companies and detailed the responsibilities of shipmasters and merchants in his code of maritime law.

While the king recognized the importance of welcoming imported goods, he also established customs duties as a source of revenue. As a means of conserving essential resources, he elaborated a long list of cosas vedadas that could not be exported and required merchants to balance imports and exports equally. In order to ease commercial transactions he standardized weights and measures and attempted, without success, to develop a stable coinage. He determined interest rates chargeable by Jewish moneylenders and profited from fines on Christian usurers. He also asserted jurisdiction over disputes between the Mesta and local communities and garnered income from the servicio y montazgo levied on flocks.

Alfonso X’s ambitious political and cultural enterprises necessitated the expenditure of abundant sums and the careful husbanding of resources. However, despite his efforts, the high cost of living was never brought under control, and as he depleted his ordinary revenues, he became dependent on extraordinary income. At the Cortes of Burgos in 1272 the nobles challenged his economic policies, but his refusal to change and his continued demand for new taxes, his imposition of fines, and his proposed alteration of the coinage aroused intense discontent and ultimately contributed to his downfall.