CHAPTER 15

The Juridical Achievement of Alfonso X

Guardar Deue el Rey las Leyes como a su Honra e a su Fechura

Alfonso X of Castile, whom generations have acclaimed as el Sabio, the Wise or the Learned, holds a unique place among his fellow monarchs, not only as an eminent scholar and patron of scholars, but also as a great lawgiver in the tradition of Justinian. As a ruler over a complex cluster of kingdoms, each with its own customs and laws, he set out to create a common law or Libro de las leyes that would govern all his people and inspire in them a sense of unity transcending regional and provincial boundaries. Though not formally trained as a jurist, Alfonso X, following his father’s initiative, directed a company of jurists who created a comprehensive and systematic legal system. While the Fuero real was intended for the usage of the cities and towns of Castile and Extremadura, the Espéculo was kept in the royal court to serve as the standard by which every other law would be judged. This Libro de las leyes, known in its more extensive form as the Siete Partidas, was the king’s most significant juridical achievement. Aside from Justinian’s Code, the Partidas stands out as the greatest medieval monument of civil law.

The Libro de las leyes presents us with a panoramic view of thirteenth-century Castilian society in its multifaceted forms: political, religious, cultural, social, and economic. Through its pages the whole of humanity passes in review: kings, queens, and princes; courtiers, lords, and ladies; bishops, priests, monks, and nuns; knights, foot soldiers, and mariners; scholars, pilgrims, merchants, moneychangers, tradesmen, farmers, laborers, and shepherds; freemen, slaves, and freedmen; husbands and wives; parents and grandparents; women and children; sons and daughters; boys and girls; widows and orphans; gays and straights; Christians, Jews, and Muslims; judges, lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants, and witnesses; madmen, the halt, the lame, the blind, and the retarded; wastrels, gamblers, cheats, tricksters, frauds, thieves, robbers, and murderers; adulterers, fornicators, prostitutes, pimps, and madams; grave robbers, necromancers, and criminals of every stripe.

Alfonso X left an extraordinary cultural legacy, not only in the works of history, poetry, and science composed at his direction, but especially in his law codes. Choosing to present them in the vernacular, he shaped the language of law and enabled his people to readily understand it. In so doing, he tried to educate them in the law. As he stated “we make this book for the service of God and the common good (pro comunal) of the people” (SP 1, 1, pr.). Nevertheless, the Libro de las leyes did not please everyone, especially those who protested that it superseded ancient customs. That charge coupled with accusations that he violated the Code’s assurance that justice would be administered fairly and without prejudice ultimately led to his deposition. Notwithstanding the tragedy of his final years, by creating a common body of law for all his dominions, he gave governmental institutions a form and character that they would retain for many years after his death. One of the greatest kings of medieval Castile, his influence on the development of Spanish law and institutions was profound and lasting. Robert I. Burns remarked that “unlike other codes, [the Siete Partidas] is as much a work of literature as law, a catechism of philosophical-moral rumination and behavioral report, exhortative and genial. As a monument of wisdom literature it seems as admirable a construction of human genius as any Gothic cathedral.”1

The Influence of the Siete Partidas beyond Castile

Alfonso XI’s explicit declaration that the Siete Partidas should have the force of law guaranteed that the legal structure brought into being by Alfonso X would survive him. The subsequent compilations of Spanish law, namely, the Leyes de Toro of 1505 (art. 1),2 and the Recopilación de Leyes de estos reinos or Nueva Recopilación of 1567 (2, 1, 1),3 repeated that declaration, and the Novísima Recopilación of 18054 incorporated various laws from the Partidas. Thus the Siete Partidas became the foundation of the legal system of the medieval kingdom of Castile-León, and later of modern Spain and of all the countries of the Spanish-speaking world colonized by Spain from the sixteenth century onward.5

The existence of at least 115 manuscripts containing the complete or partial text of the Partidas suggests its utility in the Middle Ages. The editions of the Siete Partidas by Alonso Díaz de Montalvo in 1491, by Gregorio López in 1555 (with an extensive gloss), and by the Real Academia de la Historia in 1807 also attest to the ongoing interest in the Code by lawyers and the courts. In 1555 Carlos I sanctioned the usage of López’s edition as the official version to be used not only in Spain, but also in Latin America and the Philippines. In 1818 Fernando VII gave royal approval to the Academia’s version, but in 1860 the Spanish Supreme Court declared that when there was a discrepancy between the López and Academia editions, the former should be preferred. In his introduction to Scott’s translation, Charles Sumner Lobingier declared that the Siete Partidas had “the widest territorial force ever enjoyed by any law book” and that it was an “outstanding landmark” of both Spanish and world law.6

The Partidas also had a profound impact on the other peninsular kingdoms in the Middle Ages as a result of partial translations into Portuguese, Catalan, and Galician. José Domingues remarked that the Siete Partidas “left a unique and indispensable mark on Portugal that centuries have not been able to erase.” He concluded that the Partidas were first received in Portugal in the reign of Dinis (1279–1325), who cited its laws on at least four occasions (1295, 1305, 1309, and one undated). His son Afonso IV (1325–57) also cited a law from the Partidas in 1325. As Dinis was Alfonso X’s grandson, it seems reasonable to believe that he would commission a Portuguese translation of the Partidas as a sixteenth-century tradition suggested. Thus far, only the complete texts of the First and Third Partidas and thirty-four fragments of others (except the Fourth) are known.7 The Third Partida was copied from an earlier version in the summer of 1341. In the fifteenth century Afonso V enacted the Ordenações that, while supplanting the Partidas, also utilized many of its laws, especially those concerning military organization, the functions of procurators, commerce, the role of guardians, treason, counterfeiting, and the like.8

Not surprisingly, the Partidas were known in the Crown of Aragón in the thirteenth century. Various authors have remarked that the treatment of knighthood in the Partidas (2, 21) influenced Ramon Llull’s Catalan treatise on chivalry, the Llibre de l’orde de cavalleria composed around 1274–76.9 During the second half of the fourteenth century, Pedro IV of Aragón apparently intended to make the Partidas the fundamental law of his dominions and directed his protonotary “trasladar en nostra lenguatge per tal que… fessem ordenar semblants leyes les quals propriament poguessen esser dites nostres” (to translate [the Partidas] into our language… so that we might ordain similar laws that could properly be called ours).10 Sometime before 1365 the First and Second Partidas were translated into Catalan, but no more. Nevertheless, Pedro IV’s Tractat de cavalleria, written in 1383, translated the discussion of knighthood in the Partidas (2, 21, 1–25). At the end of the fourteenth century, a partial translation of title 18 of the Second Partida, concerning the custody of castles, was made.11

The Siete Partidas also formed part of the legal corpus of the countries of Latin America belonging to the Spanish Empire, but when they declared their independence early in the nineteenth century they had to decide whether to continue following Spanish law. For instance, when Mexico became independent of Spain in 1821, a table recording the precedence of various bodies of law then in force gave sixth place to the Fuero real and Fuero Juzgo and eighth place to the Partidas. In 1857 the Mexican Congress ruled that when the law was uncertain recourse should be made to the Spanish fueros and the Partidas.12 In a similar table of precedence enacted in Colombia in 1825 the Partidas occupied fifth place. In Chile the Partidas were in use until the codification begun in 1857 and completed in 1907. That was also true of Brazil until the adoption of the Civil Code in 1918. The substance of many laws in the Partidas was also incorporated into the new law codes of Peru. In 1848 the Congress of Ecuador allotted fifth place in the table of precedence to the Partidas. These and other examples illustrate Bernardino Bravo Lira’s comment: “The Partidas are the juridical corpus that has had the longest and broadest application in Hispanic America.”13

In the same way the Partidas formed part of the law of those territories of the United States that were once part of Spain’s overseas dominions. References to the Partidas in court cases in Texas, California, and Louisiana illustrate its influence in the nineteenth century and even in the twentieth. Recognizing the significance of this code for American justice, the American Bar Association authorized Samuel Parsons Scott to translate the entire Siete Partidas. Though ready for publication as early as 1913, for various reasons his translation was not printed until 1931.14

A century earlier a partial translation of the Partidas was completed in Louisiana. Originally colonized by France, Louisiana was ceded to Spain in 1762, returned to France in 1800, and sold to the United States in 1803. During that time Spanish law, including the Partidas, was applicable in Louisiana and continued to be so under American rule. Given that fact, the desirability of an English translation of the Partidas became evident and prompted Louis Moreau-Lislet and Henry Carleton in 1818 to translate certain titles relating to promises, obligations, sales, and exchanges (SP 5, 5–6, 11). At the direction of the Louisiana legislature, the two jurists published a more complete translation in 1820.15 As their concern was the laws currently applicable in Louisiana, they did not include the Second Partida, which deals primarily with the king, and that part of the First Partida relating to canon law. The legislature ordered distribution of the translation to all the state courts, as well as governors of other states and the president of the United States. After publication of the translation, citation of the Partidas in the Louisiana courts increased a hundredfold. The translation was also used in the neighboring state of Texas.16

Robert I. Burns summarized the work of several scholars concerning the influence of the Partidas in the western states.17 Oftentimes controversy arose over the differing application of Spanish law and English common law introduced by English-speaking settlers in the former Spanish colonies. In Texas English common law was adopted in 1840, but Spanish law concerning the property rights of private parties continued in force. That became an issue in 1995 when private parties holding land titles from the Spanish crown disputed the state of Texas’s claim to ownership of an extensive coastal area. In resolving the issue the Texas General Land Office turned to Spanish legal sources and upheld the validity of titles granted by the Spanish crown. A similar issue arose when California and the City of Los Angeles, alleging an easement, sued to acquire rights to coastal lands held by the Summa Corporation. The matter eventually reached the US Supreme Court. In his ruling in 1984, Chief Justice William Rehnquist rejected the claim of an easement and in the footnotes to his decision cited “the expert testimony” of the Siete Partidas offered at trial. The Partidas (3, 28, 1–8) emphasized that the sea, the seashore, rivers, and harbors are open to everyone and not the property of any individual. The Partidas was also cited in resolving claims to water rights.18 Whereas the Partidas (2, 15, 5; 3, 28, 11) asserted that mines pertained to royal sovereignty and should not be alienated to anyone, large mining corporations sought to override the public interest and to encourage privatization of mineral rights. In the mid-nineteenth century, California rejected the principle laid down by the Partidas and allowed private bodies to exploit these resources. Arizona and Texas did the same.19

Joseph W. McKnight pointed to the influence of the Partidas on family law. For example, Texas accepted the rules for adoption outlined in the Partidas (4, 7, 7–8) but unknown to English common law. Both Texas and California also acknowledged the principle of communal property. Unlike English common law, the Partidas (4, 11, 17) recognized a wife’s right to her own property and her right to share equally with her husband in whatever property they acquired together. McKnight also noted that the Partidas (5, 13, 4–5) banned the seizure of a debtor’s livestock, farm equipment, and slaves, and a knight’s horse and arms, as all these were necessary for one’s livelihood. Those laws protected homesteaders in Texas from the seizure of their property for debt.20 King Alfonso’s influence on American law was acknowledged in 1950 when a marble relief of el Rey Sabio was included among twenty-three lawgivers honored in the chamber of the House of Representatives in the US Capitol.

This very brief overview suggests something of the ongoing influence of the Siete Partidas in those states once subject to Spanish rule. An extensive search of case law will undoubtedly produce further evidence, but that is a task for others to pursue.

The Lessons of el Rex Magister

The study of law and justice in thirteenth-century Castile has an inherent interest, as I hope that the foregoing pages have made clear. Nevertheless, I have always believed that knowing and understanding the past is essential to knowing and understanding the present. As I mentioned in chapter 1, Francisco Márquez Villanueva hailed Alfonso X as el Rex Magister, the Teacher King.21 Thus, we may ask: What lessons can el Rex Magister teach us about the practice of government? What can his Libro de las leyes teach us about our contemporary society? With full awareness of changes wrought by time and circumstance that distinguish the twenty-first century from the thirteenth, I believe that el Sabio, the Learned King, can offer us several lessons.

Promotion of the Common Good

First is the recognition that government exists to foster the pro comunal, the common good of everyone. Alfonso X proclaimed that the Libro de las leyes was intended “to serve God and the common good of the people,” that the legislator ought “to love justice and the common good,” that laws “contrary to the grand common good” ought to be repealed, and that the ruler “should always uphold the common good of his people rather than of himself” (SP 1, 1, pr., 11, 16–18; 2, 1, 9). Today we live in a highly polarized society that pits one group against another and places a premium on individual rights. As a consequence, the idea of the common good has been shunted aside. Until we again acknowledge that the pursuit of the common good is the foundation for a peaceful, orderly, prosperous, and just society, we are likely to live in contention with one another as each of us seeks to further our own interest to the detriment of everyone else. The danger of excessive polarization is that it can tear apart the body politic. When the ruler uses his office for his own benefit rather than that of his people, or when he disparages any element among his people, whom he is obliged to love and protect, or when his people, who are bound to honor and obey him (SP 2, 10, 2), express their contempt for him, the unity of the body politic that exists to promote the common good will be shredded, perhaps irreparably.

Preservation of the Rule of Law

A truly just society must be founded on the rule of law that aims to enable everyone to live in peace and justice. In accordance with the Libro de las leyes, judges were directed to administer justice promptly and evenhandedly, with good sense and wisdom. Their task was to implement this principle: “Iustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius suum cuique tribuendi” (Justice is the constant and perpetual will to render to each one his right) (D 1, 1, 10 pr.; Inst. 1, 1). Alfonso X emphasized the ruler’s responsibility to see that justice is done to everyone: “El Rey es puesto en la tierra en lugar de Dios para conplir la justicia e dar a cada uno su derecho” (The king is placed on earth in the place of God to do justice and to render to each one his due) (SP 2, 1, 5). While that notion is accepted in theory today, marginalized groups in our society (Native Americans, blacks, gays, women, among others) frequently believe that they do not receive their full measure of justice. The harassment or killing of black men by law enforcement officers is often seen as a violation of this principle and has given rise to the Black Lives Matter movement. If justice is to be the hallmark of our society, discrimination of this kind must be ended. Even more far-reaching is the threat to the rule of law about which many have expressed grave concern. Indeed, in May 2018 the vice president of the United States revealed his distorted sense of the rule of law when he extolled as “a tireless champion of strong borders and of the rule of law” a sheriff who brutalized immigrants and, on that account, was convicted of criminal contempt of court.22 We have also witnessed, at the highest level of government, the denigration of judges and attacks on the integrity and honesty of national officers constitutionally responsible for the administration of justice. If that should continue, the people’s trust in the judicial system and their expectation of securing their just due in court will suffer grievous harm. We must be able to believe, as Alfonso X stated, that judges and other officers engaged in the administration of justice are honest persons of upright character whose sole intent is to discover the truth and render judgment without fear or favor. Should any judge or public official abuse his office, he should of course be held accountable (SP 2, 9, 28; 7, 1, 11).

Protection of the Environment

At a time when climate change and global warming are becoming an everyday reality, Alfonso X’s counsel for caring for the environment ought to prompt us to act conscientiously in using the riches provided by our world. Committed to fostering economic growth, the king enacted measures safeguarding natural resources such as animals, birds, fish, plants, and trees, and encouraging the conscientious utilization of mineral resources and of land suitable for farming and pasturage. The development of roads, waterways, and bridges and the removal of obstructions to passage overland or by water 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 (SP 2, 11, 1–3; 2, 12, pr.; 2, 20, 1–8). Sharing a common love of country, king and people had to further the good estate of the realm by working together to improve the land and exploit its resources responsibly. By doing so, the kingdom would become a pleasing and attractive place to live. Today our environment (and our health) is threatened by potential disasters caused by our own doing, for example, oil spills, the rupture of oil pipelines, air pollution (smog) caused by burning fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide into the air we breathe, and the consequent depletion of the ozone layer. As of April 2018, 195 nations have subscribed to the Paris Agreement to combat climate change, but the American government in 2017 announced its intention to withdraw from that pact by 2020. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is dismantling many regulations intended to shield the environment from further pollution.

Welcoming the Stranger

Alfonso X understood that the elimination of unnecessary obstacles would not only facilitate commercial interchange between different regions of the realm and of the known world, but would also contribute to the general prosperity. For that reason he welcomed pilgrims from northern Europe and guaranteed their safety and security. He knew that they brought economic benefits to residents of the towns along the camino de Santiago (SP 1, 24, 1–4; 5, 8, 27; 6, 1, 30–32). So too, he realized that merchants, whether Christians, Jews, or Muslims, bringing goods from other countries also contributed to the economic well-being of his realm. However, he was not a proponent of free trade, and he regulated mercantile activity, so much so that Pedro III of Aragón complained that the king’s prohibition of the export “of almost all merchandise” was injurious to merchants of both realms and diminished Castile’s potential revenues.23 Recently, the president of the United States has railed against trade agreements with other countries that are supposedly detrimental to American interests and has spoken of the possibility of engaging in a trade war. Like Pedro III in the thirteenth century, many twenty-first-century economists have questioned the wisdom of creating unnecessary impediments to free trade. The president has also repeatedly warned of the need to erect an expensive, partial wall on our southern frontier and to impose a ban on travel from certain Islamic countries in order to curb the influx of criminals and terrorists. The frontiers of thirteenth-century Castile were far more fluid, and it is surely likely that criminals crossed them to do mischief, as did Moorish raiders seeking plunder. Castles and other fortifications protected the frontier, but still King Alfonso welcomed strangers who came in peace to his kingdom, in the expectation that they would contribute to the general prosperity.

Acceptance of the Other

Ethnic and religious differences have often served to drive peoples apart. Those differences were especially marked in medieval Spain, a society that was not officially pluralistic. The king and his government were professedly Christian and did not admit the equality of all religions before the law. Only Christians could fully participate in public life. Fenced about by many legal and social barriers, Jews and Muslims could not be wholly integrated into a self-proclaimed Christian society, unless they were willing to abandon their religion and accept Christianity. Despite those restraints, Jews and Muslims were able to live side by side with their Christian neighbors and engage them in the many ordinary interactions of daily life. Living in their own communities, they were permitted to worship freely and to govern themselves, so long as they did not challenge the king’s authority. Many Jews served the king as physicians, tax farmers, and tax collectors, despite the canonical prohibition against allowing them to have authority over Christians. The king’s attraction to Islamic culture prompted him to sponsor the translation of Arabic texts, especially those of a scientific nature, and he established a studium generale or university in Seville where Latin and Arabic would be taught. As he regarded Muslims as less trustworthy than Jews, he expelled the Muslims from the frontier towns following the Mudéjar revolt in 1264. In his later years, as his imperial ambitions were thwarted and the Marinids invaded the kingdom, and his physical woes intensified, he became increasingly hostile to both Muslims and Jews. Unlike ancient and medieval countries, the United States, and most other countries, does not acknowledge any official religion. However, from time to time someone will proclaim that the United States is a Christian nation, thereby ignoring the millions of non-Christian citizens and forgetting that the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from enacting a law establishing a state religion or restricting the free exercise of religion. Others, even at the highest level of government, loudly decry the threat of Islam to our civilization and the possibility that sharia, or Islamic law, will supplant our Constitution. Statements of this sort betray an ignorance of American history and also of Islam and Islamic law. Medieval Spain was home for many centuries to the greatest concentration of Jews and Muslims in Western Europe. In spite of the limitations placed on them, sporadic outbursts of violence against them, and their ultimate expulsion, the history of medieval Spain, for the most part, is the history of the peaceful coexistence of people belonging to the three religions. Coexistence and religious tolerance have also been characteristic of American society for centuries, and though the threat of terrorism is real, that should not lead to a blind condemnation of Islam whose faithful adherents stop whatever they are doing five times a day to offer prayers in praise of their Creator.

The Qualities of a Political Leader

King Alfonso’s disquisition on the role of the king and the qualities that he ought to possess can be read with profit by any modern political leader. Above all the ruler ought to be a person of outstanding character and ability who understands that his primary obligation is to serve the common good. Ideally, the ruler and his people should be bound by mutual love and respect. Counseled by learned and intelligent persons, he ought to love and honor all his people, no matter their social condition, to protect them, to foster love and unity among them, and to do justice impartially by giving to each one his due. Should he love and honor his people, he would enjoy their esteem, but if he acted abusively or unjustly, or sought to fill his own pockets at the expense of his people, he would lose their love and his ability to govern (SP 2, 2, 1–4, 9; 2, 3, 1–5).

As he often conveyed his ideas and directives verbally, the ruler, before speaking, should carefully consider what he wished to say and then choose his words deliberately, because once they left his mouth they could not be recalled. Not rushing, but clearly enunciating every word so as not to be misunderstood, he should speak in a reasonable and calm manner. He ought not to speak loudly except when circumstances required that he do so. Guarding his tongue, he should not be long-winded, lest he reveal matters best kept secret. Always abiding by the truth, he should never consciously utter a falsehood, because when people discover that he is a habitual liar, they will not believe him when he speaks the truth. As the use of bad language corrupts good habits, he ought not to indulge in foolish and harmful talk or blaspheme. Nor should he brag, but let his good works speak for themselves. He should never praise anyone excessively, wantonly insult anyone, or defame an innocent person. He should watch his tongue in the presence of his enemies, lest they use his words against him, and he ought not to speak over much, lest he unwittingly reveal his secrets. Poorly chosen words expressed in a disjointed manner will expose a ruler’s intellectual shortcomings (SP 2, 4, 1–5).

The cultivation of good habits and the practice of the virtues of prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice would enable the ruler to live honorably and justly and set an example for his people. Guided by the principle of moderation, he should avoid excess in eating and drinking. Always conscious of his position, he should not have sexual intercourse with indecent women. Should he beget illegitimate children, he would bring shame and dishonor upon himself, his family, and his country. Maintaining a patient and serene demeanor, he should strive not to be swayed by rage, anger, or hatred that would interfere with his ability to discover the truth and justice. By giving in to anger and acting hastily, he might violate the law and cause unnecessary harm. A wise ruler was a literate man conversant with the saberes, those areas of knowledge useful for the business of government. The wisdom gained from books would assist him in making his own judgments and free him from overdependence on his counselors. He would also be better able to assess their capabilities (SP 2, 5, 1–21).

Those words, written in the thirteenth century, can be easily transposed to the twenty-first century to describe the current president of the United States. Unlike Alfonso X, who professed his love for his people and declared his responsibility to govern justly so they might live in peace and harmony, the president seems to take pleasure in sowing division in the body politic by setting one group against another. He seems unwilling or incapable of repairing that divide and offering a unifying purpose to the people. Not only that, but he evidently has little or no knowledge of how our government works and shows little interest in doing the necessary study to overcome that deficit. He refuses to become familiar with the saberes and seems incapable of reading anything other than a few paragraphs. His principal aides have questioned his mental acuity. Treating the government as a family business, as an opportunity for personal enrichment, he has surrounded himself with persons whose qualifications for office are often minimal or nonexistent, and who, like him, are prepared to use their offices to gain further riches. We have become accustomed to a president who demeans and debases anyone who questions him or fails to display sufficient loyalty to him. We know that he routinely denies responsibility for his actions, that he lies without hesitation, that he is given to outbursts of rage, that he speaks in hyperbole, without thinking of the consequences of his remarks, that he is often incoherent, that he boasts that his accomplishments are greater than those of his predecessors, that he requires the adulation of huge crowds, and that his private life has become a public scandal.

An autocrat with little understanding or respect for the law, he might give heed to King Alfonso’s admonition that the ruler must obey the law: “Guardar deue el rey las leyes como a su honra e a su fechura porque recibe poder e razón para fazer justicia” (The king should observe the laws just as he would his honor and his handiwork, because he is given power and reason to do justice). Should he neglect to do so, his commands and his laws will be scorned. That statement reflects the principle Digna vox asserting that the law is the foundation of the prince’s authority, and on that account, he should obey it (C 1, 14, 4). In a remarkably prescient passage, the king went on to say that no one is above the law: “E desto nunguno puede ser escusado por razon de creencia ni de linage ni de poder, ni de honra, ni avn por demostrarse por vil en su vida o en sus fechos” (No one can be excused from this [obedience to the law] by reason of belief, lineage, power, or honor, not even if he shows himself to be vile in his life and actions) (SP 1, 1, 16). Threatened by an ongoing investigation into his conduct, our president has claimed that, while he has done nothing wrong, he has the right to pardon himself. Should he do so, that would be tantamount to acting as judge in his own case, an idea rejected by laws everywhere. King Alfonso explicitly declared: “Dezimos que ningun judgador no puede nin deue oyr ni librar pleyto sobre cosa suya o que a el pertenezca, porque non deue vn ome tener logar de dos, assi como de juez e demandador” (We state that no judge can or ought to hear or decide a case concerning his own business or a matter in which he has an interest, because no man should take the place of two, namely, as the judge and the plaintiff) (SP 3, 4, 10). Once again words written more than seven hundred years ago resonate in modern ears.

Unaware or careless of the honor and majesty associated with the exalted office that he holds, our president has inflicted great injury upon it. The task of restoring respect for the presidency after his departure will be an onerous one. His fate is yet to be determined, but the inexorable march of the law may yet call him to account. He might learn a lesson from King Alfonso whose tyrannical behavior cost him his kingship.

A Lawful King Brought Down by the Law

By contrast with our president, el Rey Sabio will always be known as a king who revered the law. Again and again he proclaimed his responsibility to enact just laws that would guarantee the rights of every person and enable everyone to live in peace and justice. In time, however, people objected that his new laws ran counter to traditional customs. Although he attempted to placate his opponents by confirming the customs of the nobility and the traditional fueros of the townspeople, he did not abandon the ideas, principles, and aspirations embodied in the Siete Partidas and the Fuero real. Sadly, however, in the last decade of his reign recurrent illness (apparently a cancer affecting his face and forcing his eye to protrude and producing excruciating pain) made him increasingly irascible and caused him to act more and more arbitrarily. His execution of his brother Fadrique and Simón Ruiz de los Cameros in 1277 without any semblance of a trial, and the execution in 1280 of Zag de la Maleha, a Jew who had long served him faithfully as a tax collector, led to the accusation that he denied due process of law to his subjects. The complaint about “false inquests” in the Cortes of Seville in 1281 gave credence to the notion that he no longer maintained his people in “justice, peace, and law.” Thus, having lost the love of his people, in the spring of 1282 his son Sancho and the estates of the realm gathered at Valladolid deprived Alfonso X of royal authority. That proceeding echoed in the late fourteenth century when a royal councilor remarked that the Assembly of Valladolid “with the consent of and at the request of the kingdom,” declared that “the sword of justice should be removed from [the king’s] hand because he did not use it well, because he killed Infante Don Fadrique… and Don Simón de los Cameros without giving them a hearing (sin ser oídos).”24 In effect, guaranteeing due process of law to everyone was a ruler’s essential obligation. Whether any of the participants were aware of it or not, the judgment rendered by the Assembly of Valladolid implicitly affirmed the lex regia whereby the Roman people conferred on the prince their authority and power (D 1, 4, 1). Although Alfonso X claimed to rule by the grace of God, the action taken by the estates intimated that the people, having received power and authority from God, conceded it to the king upon his acclamation and his pledge to uphold the law. Then, finding that he was in violation of his oath to maintain the law and render justice to everyone, the people reclaimed that power and authority. Despite the fidelity of Seville and Murcia, Alfonso X had only a faint hold on his other dominions in the two years before his death at Seville on 4 April 1284. It is a great irony that a king who spoke so eloquently about justice and the law should be brought down by his failure to preserve it.