Diversity in Christian Spain.
Christian Spain itself was far from being a unit; rather diversity was the rule. The northwest followed the Visigothic tradition, while the north centre and northeast, especially Navarre and Catalonia, while retaining much of the Visigothic institutions came into frequent contact with French peoples, who gave a new turn to their civilization. Within each section, too, there were many complex differences between one region and another. Hence the institutions of the principal areas may be taken separately.
Kingdoms of Asturias, León, and Castile
Social classes in the Christian northwest.
Social inequality increased in this period, due to a decline in wealth and to an accentuation of the hazards of life. The higher nobility attained to vast privileges and authority, although less than in other parts of Christian Europe. They were often, but not always, allowed to conquer lands for themselves, rule their own estates with almost absolute authority, leave the king’s service for that of another monarch, and be free from taxation. The social prestige of the nobles was weakened, however, through the king’s right to grant titles of nobility. The king might also deprive a noble created by himself of his titles and lands. Most of the nobility of the lower grades were in fact retainers of the greater nobles or of the king, usually rendering military service in return for protection. This state of dependence was called encomienda (commendation),—a term used centuries later to cover the virtual enslavement of the American Indians. Small landed proprietors and free agricultural and industrial laborers placed themselves in similar relations to the great nobles, so that the latter were about the only really free class of the time. These civilian dependents gave produce, tribute, or personal service to the lord. The various grades of servitude, from serfs attached to a piece of land and enjoying at least some of the products of their labor down to individuals held in personal slavery, continued to exist. In general the servile classes advanced in about the same degree that the freemen fell back; many of them came together to form an intermediate class in which some rights—for example, to own property and to change one’s habitation freely within the same seigniorial territory—were enjoyed.
The political system.
The king’s power was complete enough in theory to merit being called absolute, for in him rested supreme legislative, judicial, and administrative authority over the realm as a whole. In fact the royal authority did not extend equally over all the land. On his own properties and usually in conquered regions the king was indeed an absolute monarch, but as concerned the lands of the nobles and the church there were important limitations on his authority. On their estates the nobles enjoyed rights of an economic nature and also those of a sovereign, with almost as much power in theory and in fact as the king had in theory over all the land. They raised troops at will, and fought with one another and even against the king; they had judicial authority over most of the cases arising within their lands; and they collected taxes for themselves. The protection which they owed to all on their estates was not very faithfully accorded, but on the contrary they oppressed not only their own dependents but also those of other lords,—a practice which was a fruitful cause of private war. The nobles, too, were veritable highwaymen, robbing travellers, business men, and pilgrims, and contributing more than any other class to the lawlessness of the times. Bishops and abbots occupied a position similar to that of the great nobles. The church had acquired estates through gifts of individuals and grants of the king, and the same rights and duties attached to them as in the case of the nobles. Thus, for example, great churchmen raised troops, which at times they commanded themselves. The royal power was still further limited in fact, because of the necessity of relying upon nobles or churchmen to govern distant lands or to hold other posts of an administrative and even of a judicial nature. The rulers of administrative districts were the counts (condes) appointed by the king, and these individuals often gave him considerable trouble,—as witness the uprisings (at length successful) of the counts of Castile. The very necessities of civil strife obliged the kings to yield privileges to one set of nobles in order to get their aid against another. Nevertheless, great as was the nobles’ authority, it was not so excessive as elsewhere in western Europe. Feudalism, the essence of which was the grant of lands in perpetuity with rights of sovereignty attached, in return for which the grantee owed fealty and some form of service, perhaps military, to the grantor, did not exist in its fullness in northwestern Spain. By special grants the king might agree to refrain from exercising his sovereign privileges, but in such cases certain limitations were usually expressed. When judicial authority was conferred on a noble, some attributes were retained,—for example, the trial of crimes of murder and the right of appeal to the royal authority from the cases in seigniorial courts. Again, when the lords made laws for their territories they did so by special grant of the king, who frequently intervened to change the seigniorial statutes or to enact others of his own. The difference from European feudalism, however, was perhaps more juridical than actual.
Rise of the free towns.
One element appeared in this period which was to prove a great limitation on seigniorial authority, and was to be an aid to the king in the establishment of internal good order and unity. This was the plebeian town. The most important type of this class was the villa, or concejo, which originated in the tenth century. The villas were founded on lands conquered by the kings, and were usually in frontier districts exposed to the enemy. On this account special privileges were granted in order to induce people to settle there. Anybody who could contrive to reach a villa was declared free, even if of servile grade before. All citizens were not equal, however; there were varying grades of rank, though all were free. The villas were exempted from many duties to the state,—often from the payment of taxes. They were also withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the counts, and were granted much political authority. Each villa received its own fuero, or charter, by a special grant, with the result that there was a great variety in the terms of different charters, although certain of them tended to become the types which were imitated in subsequent grants. As a general rule the government of a villa was in the hands of the assembly of citizens, in which local laws were enacted and judges and administrative officers elected. These rights, added to a long line of exemptions, made veritable political entities of the villas, which were independent of all but the king, and were in great measure not subject to him. The villa extended beyond its own walls to include neighboring rural districts as well. The rise of the villas on royal lands compelled the nobility and the clergy to form similar settlements in order to attract people to their territories or to avoid uprisings of their dependents, although these towns did not achieve rights equal to those of the villas.
Diversity and primitive character of the law.