The Kingdom of León-Castilla under King Alfonso VI, 1065-1109 9780691055152, 9780608016016

Citation preview

*

. ‘

THE KINGDOM OF LEON-CASTILLA UNDER KING ALFONSO VI, 1065-1109

BERNARD F. REILLY

THE KINGDOM OF LEON-CASTILLA UNDER

King Alfonso VI ~— 1065-1109

Copyright © 1988 by Princeton University Press Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, Guildford, Surrey ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data will be found on the last printed page of this book ISBN 0-69I-05 515-7

Publication of this book has been aided by a subsidy from the Spanish Ministry of Culture This book has been composed in Linotron Bembo Clothbound editions of Princeton University Press books are printed on acid-free paper, and binding materials are chosen for strength and durability. Paperbacks, although satisfactory for personal collections, are not usually suitable for library rebinding Printed 1n the United States of America by Princeton University Press Princeton, New Jersey

To Paul, who defines courage

CONTENTS

PREFACE X1 ABBREVIATIONS X1X

LisT OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1X

ARCHIVAL TERMS xX CHAPTER ONE: The Reconstitution of Leén-Castilla 3

CHAPTER Two: The Three Kingdoms: Galicia 14 CHAPTER THREE: The Three Kingdoms: Castilla 35

CHAPTER Four: The Three Kingdoms: Leén §2

of the Rioja 68

CHAPTER FIVE: Leén-Castilla Reunited and the Annexation

CHAPTER SIx: King and Cult (1076-1080) 93 CHAPTER SEVEN: The Reconquista (1076-1081) 116

September 1086) 136

CHAPTER EIGutT: Court, Church, and Politics (August 1076—

CHAPTER NINE: The Reconquest of Toledo (1082-1086) 161

CHAPTER TEN: The Dynamics of Defeat (1086-1088) 185 CHAPTER ELEVEN: The Art of the Possible (1089-1091) 210 CHAPTER TWELVE: The Search for a Successor and the

Devolution of Power (1092-1096) 231

CHAPTER THIRTEEN: The King’s Good Servants (1092-1099) 260

(1097-1 100) 282

CHAPTER FOURTEEN: The Murabit Assault Renewed

CHAPTER FIFTEEN: “A Good Offense. . .” (1101-1107) 303 CHAPTER SIXTEEN: A Court of Several Minds (1100-1107) 327

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN: The Ultimate Crisis (1108-1109) 345

vill CONTENTS

Meditation 365 BIBLIOGRAPHY 381 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN: Alfonso VI of Leén-Castilla: A

INDEX 397

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Photographs

November 14, 1071 62

Earliest known original charter of Alfonso VI,

Ruins of the frontier castle of Penaranda de Duero 123

Copper coins of Alfonso VI 212

Castle of Grajal 276 Medieval walls of Avila 309 Original charter of Alfonso VI, June 22, 1103 316 Maps

Geography of the Iberian peninsula 4

Political map of Iberia in 1065 42

Plan of the old city of Leén 1$3 Political map of northern Iberia in 1109 364

PREFACE

The decision to write a history of the kingdom of Leén-Castilla during the period of Alfonso VI requires no explanation and little illustration. The years between 1065 and 1109 saw the political amalgamation of a kingdom that included not only Leén and Castilla, but Asturias, Galicia, the Rioja, the Basque country, the trans-Duero, the half of the old

Muslim kingdom of Toledo that lay north of the Rio Tajo, and the northern half of Portugal as well. The active and successful statecraft of

its royal master thus came to direct a political leviathan of roughly 200,000 square kilometers or half again the size of the kingdom of England. From its new position of hegemony of the meseta Leén-Castilla was to dominate the states of the peripheral lowlands unless and until they could secure assistance from without the peninsula. As the future was also to reveal, Spain was destined to emerge from the dream of Leén-Castilla. We are assuredly still too much the captives

of a nineteenth-century political naturalism that regarded the modern nations of Europe as grounded in eternal, particular characteristics that needed only the growth of our rational perception to find realization in simple, preordained states. To the contrary! Spain had to be imagined before it could be created, and one simply cannot credit that the tiny Pyrenean states of Navarra, Aragon, or Catalonia could have conceived such an imperial future of themselves. Even Castilla had, willy-nilly, to be inducted by Le6n into the fantasy of the restoration of the old Visigothic imperium in Iberia. But through the union of the two, and their agegrandizement, precisely during the reign of Alfonso VI such material power was achieved as to permit the translation of that wish into a realistic program for its fulfillment. That imperial agenda was to prove itself at once too archaic and too

ambitious. But the ambition so expressed was to survive the almost three-quarters of a century’s division of Leén and Castilla and to reemerge with their final unification in the thirteenth century. Better than two centuries later it was to triumph, if in a very different form, in the policy of the Catholic Kings.

The reign of Alfonso VI was also to be the setting within which Leén-Castilla joined in the emergence of a new western Europe and it-

self also assimilated the new norms and structures that were being erected everywhere there. Such a process was not inexorably ordained

X11 PREFACE by geography for the Straits of Gibraltar had usually, in the past millennium, been less of a barrier than had the Pyrenees. Christianity, we are prone to forget, did not reinforce a European orientation until a triumphant Islam had not only conquered but gradually sapped and absorbed the former’s North African adherents. The trade routes of the peninsula had always run from northeast to southwest: from Barcelona and Zaragoza to Toledo, Cérdoba, Sevilla, and Cadiz. But in the second half of the eleventh century Santiago was remaking

Leon-Castilla. Along the pilgrimage road that led to the city of his shrine what had been little more than a Roman system of frontier posts, or less, Astorga, Leén, and Burgos were becoming the centers of the realm and of its society. Not until the almost complete collapse of Islam in Andalucia in the late thirteenth century would the old north-south axis begin to reemerge, and by then it would both begin and end in the Atlantic rather than the Mediterranean.

The pious and the adventurous, the despairing and the desperate faceless multitudes who flowed back and forth along the “Camino de Santiago” were Provengals and Burgundians, Poitevins and Normans, but Flemings, English, Germans and Italians as well. With them, we are not sure quite how, traveled the tastes, the dreams, and the revolu-

tionary ambitions of a new Europe taking shape beyond the mountains. More perhaps than the persons of the pilgrims themselves, these intangibles were to grow and fructify in the new world of Leén-Castilla. Their plastic impressions are still obvious in the Iberian contributions to the monuments of the first great age of the Romanesque and in the spread of the Caroline script as it became the hallmark of the European intellect. It still moves to wonder that the first king of LeénCastilla to take a wife from beyond the Pyrenees in fact took five of his wives therefrom. Still, that Alfonso VI’s grandson should have been half-Burgundian by birth, and thereby related distantly to the Capetian kings of France, is rather less important than that by the reign of Alfonso VII (11261157) the monasteries of Spain had already joined themselves in spirit, and sometimes in law, to the great fraternity of Saint Benedict presided over by the house of Cluny. When Alfonso VII welcomed the dour, bustling Cistercian genius to Spain he was following the tradition of his dynasty. Fernando I, Alfonso VI, Urraca; great-grandfather, grandfather, and mother: all had found in the monks of Cluny collaborators and pioneers for their aspirations of a renewed and purer worship in the cloisters of the peninsula.

Of all his house, Alfonso VI had been the most active and determined in maintaining that alliance. He it was, also, who made terms

PREFACE X11 with the spirit of reform at Rome which was to allow a veritable recon-

stitution of the Iberian secular church, worked out in close cooperation. In all of this the king was but forestalling and thus largely controlling an impulse that marked the clergy and nobility of his own realm as well as the other kingdoms of the West, for the reformation of the church had its adherents everywhere, and Rome was bound to be the instrument seized upon for that desire’s realization. Whereas Alfonso found it politic to bow to an imperious and narrow rashness at Rome in the substitution of the Roman for the Mozarabic

liturgy, elsewhere he proved more than able to mediate himself between local enthusiasts and doctrinaire pretensions. Not only did his own confidant become the first archbishop of a restored, Christian Toledo, primate of the peninsula, and eventually papal legate; Bernard of Toledo and that monarch working together were able before the latter’s death to secure Roman recognition of Oviedo, Burgos, Leén, and Santiago de Compostela as episcopal sees. That acceptance changed forever the ancient constitution of the peninsular church but it brought it into consonance with the political and social realities shaped by the Reconquista. What is to be wondered, then, 1s that Alfonso VI has had no historian in modern times. Surely that curious circumstance is to be explained in part by the marvelous career of Ram6n Menéndez Pidal’s La Espana del Cid, which has been printed again and again over the last half century. That spirited and learned amalgam of history and literature seemed to

have explicated definitively the events and currents of the period. Moreover, as the tale emerged from the pen of that giant of literary and linguistic scholarship, Alfonso VI seemed properly and irrevocably to be “El Emperador, oscurecido por el Cid.”' There seemed to be no reason for another recounting of the central events of the second half of the eleventh century much less a recasting of them. Then too the documents of Alfonso VI lay scattered, forgotten, and unedited, like those of the other members of his dynasty. Of the first

four members of that family only the characters of the last, Alfonso VII, have even today found a partial, but critical, editor.? For the most part, such documents of his grandfather as have been printed followed the old and honorable pattern of the venerable Espana Sagrada. That is, ' Ramon Menéndez Pidal, La Espana del Cid, 4th ed., 2 vols. (Madrid, 1947), 1:409. ? Peter Rassow, “Die Urkunden Kaiser Alfons VII von Spanien” Archiv ftir Urkundenforschung 10 (1928): 327-468, and 11 (1930): 66-137. For the limitations of Rassow’s study see my own “The Chancery of Alfonso VII of Leén-Castilla: The Period 1116-1135 Reconsidered,” Speculum 51 (1976): 243-61. I hope shortly to return to the study of the charters and of this reign.

X1V PREFACE they have appeared in the separate, modern studies or diplomatic collections of the religious institutions to which they were first granted. Dom Luciano Serrano in the first half of the twentieth century, a veritable Flérez of his own times, has been followed by a long and honorable list of fellow laborers in the vineyard. With their inspiration and guidance I have been able to assemble some 220 documents of Alfonso VI which form the fundamental support of this history. In addition, some twenty years in the archives and libraries of Spain have familiarized me with better than another thousand private documents that relate, in one manner or the other, to the history I am here trying to reconstruct. Those years have also left me massively in the debt of dozens of archivists and librarians. Diplomatic collections continue to appear, and my own researches owe the most thanks to those originating in the Centro de Estudios e Investigaci6n “San Isidoro” but also to studies resulting from the work of the universities of Salamanca, Santiago de Compostela, and Valladolid. In fact so much labor of this sort has been done that it now appears to me to be unlikely that we can expect further major documents to be discovered in the area of eleventh-century Leén-Castilla. Barring finds resulting from the continuing progress of publication of the Inventario of the Biblioteca Nacional, or the utilization of the documen-

tation of the Congregacién de San Benito de Valladolid housed at Silos,3 or the discovery of substantial private collections unknown at present, the documentation upon which this history is based is likely to remain definitive. Of course, all of the documents I have employed may be subsequently used for economic, social and regional history, in fashions not comprehended within my present purposes. In the pages that follow, my citation of the documents is accompanied by a reference to the critical edition where one exists. If I am aware of additional existing copies of the document unknown to the editor, these are cited as well. Where no edition exists, my references are first to the archives that contain the document and then to such printed texts as are known to me. The confirmation of documents by a person ordinarily is regarded as reliable evidence of his or her physical presence at the scene of its issuance. Some few of the reviewers of my earlier book on Queen Urraca expressed doubts about the validity of such a methodology. Long acquaintance with the documents leaves me with no such doubts, but I would refer those who have to an earlier article of mine for a formal argument of the method’s validity.4 3 In this connection, see the useful introduction by Ernesto Zaragoza Pascual, “Catalogo del fondo monistico leonés del archivo de Silos,” Leén y su historia 3 (1975): 263-91. + Bernard F. Reilly, “The Court Bishops of Alfonso VII of Leon-Castilla, 1147-1157, Medieval Studies 36 (1974): 67-75.

PREFACE XV Narrative sources for the reign of Alfonso VI are few indeed. The most authoritative is that contained in the dozen brief pages of Bishop Pelayo of Oviedo, a contemporary and a court figure.5 The monk of Sahagtin who set out to write an account of the reign of Alfonso but managed to produce only the most extended introduction to it and a few laconic paragraphs about its inception was also a contemporary, and Sahagun was the favorite residence of the court.° Yet another monk of Sahagtin, and contemporary in all probability, set out to do a history of that monastery but also produced some seven pages retailing events that touch the king as well.’ Finally, the eighty-one pages of the “Historia Compostelana”’ that deal with events in the reign of Alfonso VI

were written by a variety of contemporaries.* Unfortunately, very large portions of the account deal with strictly local matters.

Of the chronicles produced in the middle and late twelfth century very little is known. Only the Crénica Najerense, which closes with the reign of Alfonso VI, survives independently,? and it has already begun to draw on contemporary literary materials as well as earlier chronicles. The great historical works of the thirteenth century enshrine some of

the otherwise unknown products of the preceding century. Lucas of Tay in particular gives almost a transcript of the earlier works upon which he relied.'° That is especially important, for the later products of ‘ Benito Sanchez Alonso, ed., Cronica del Obispo Don Pelayo (Madrid, 1924), pp. 7788.

‘Justo Pérez de Urbel and Atilano Gonzalez Ruiz-Zorrilla, eds., Historia Silense (Madrid, 1959), pp. 118-25. There is an earlier edition by Francisco Santos Coco, ed., Historia Silense (Madrid, 1921). That the author was a monk of Sahagun has been established by José M. Canal Sanchez-Pagin “;Crénica Silense 0 Crénica Domnis Sanctis?” CHE 63-64 (1980): 94-103. 7 Julio Puyol y Alonso, ed., “Las crénicas anénimas de Sahagtin,” BRAH 76 (1920): 114-21. The chronicle survives only in sixteenth-century Spanish translations. ’ ES 20:15—96. For the various authors, see Bernard F. Reilly, “The ‘Historia Compostelana’: The Genesis and Composition of a Twelfth-Century Spanish ‘Gesta,’ ” Speculum 44 (1969): 78-85. The purpose and circumstances of its composition have been more massively examined recently by Ludwig Vones, Die ‘Historia Compostelana’ und die Kirchenpolitik des nordwestspanischen Raumes (Cologne, 1980). Emma Falque, “The Manuscript Transmission of the ‘Historia Compostellana,’” Manuscripta (1985): 80-90, and “3El ultimo manuscrito de la Historia Compostelana?” Compostellanum 30 (1985): 317-22, has brought the manuscript tradition up to date in connection with the critical edition she has prepared and hopes to publish. ° Antonio Ubieto Arteta, ed., Crénica Najerense (Valencia, 1966), pp. 109-19. Derek Lomax, “La fecha de la Cronica Najerense,” AEM 9 (1974-79): 405-406, has established the date of production as the late twelfth century. '0 “Chronicon Mundi ab Origine Mundi usque ad Eram MCCLXXIV,” Hispaniae IIlustratae, ed. Andreas Schottus, vol. 4 (Frankfurt, 1608), pp. 1-116. For a detailed enumeration, see Bernard F. Reilly, “Sources of the Fourth Book of Lucas of Tiy’s ‘Chronicon Mundi,’ ” Classical Folia 30 (1976): 127-37.

XV1 PREFACE this school depend almost slavishly upon Lucas for the historical materials of the reign of Alfonso VI.1! Even the change into the vernacular in the court of Alfonso X did not markedly alter that practice, although it saw the beginning of the utilization of Muslim sources as well. ! Use of these Muslim works must be quite judicious not only because Alfonso VI was necessarily the central villain of their accounts but also because the very character of Muslim historical writing as essentially historical biography allowed much greater play to literary convention and dramatic license that was the case in the medieval Latin tradition. For the same reason one must be wary of too great a credulity with re-

gard to the materials furnished by the literary products of the late twelfth and early thirteenth century which began to be incorporated already by the Crénica Najerense and whose employment was common in

the thirteenth-century historians. Menéndez Pidal exaggerated both the literal historicity of the Spanish epics and the early dates of their origins. 3

Of the Muslim narratives the most valuable is the contemporary autobiography of Abd Allah of Granada.'* The work of the later twelfth-

century al-Kardabus also exists independently.'’ The seventeenthcentury historian al-Maqgqari is also important because of his habit of incorporating portions of early writers into his own composition. ' The contributions of modern historians are, of course, too large to be even briefly surveyed here. They figure prominently in my footnotes, where my debt to them 1s clearly displayed. Nonetheless, no one of them has essayed a full history of the reign of Alfonso VI so that this

volume may hope to make a substantial contribution in terms of both complementing their research and synthesizing it with my own find't Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada, “De rebus Hispaniae,” in Opera, ed. Maria Desamparados Cabanes Pecourt, vol. 1 (Valencia, 1968), pp. 5-208, still needs a critical edition. I have done a study of his treatment of the reign of Alfonso VI, which should appear in one of the Homenaje volumes to the late Claudio Sanchez-Albornoz. It does draw on an otherwise unknown vita of Archbishop Bernard of Toledo, which was likely done by a contemporary. '2 Ramon Menéndez Pidal, ed., Primera crénica general de Espana, vol. 2 (Madrid, 1955), uses no new Latin historical sources insofar as I have been able to determine. '3 Antonio Ubieto Arteta, El ‘Cantar de mio Cid’ y algunos problemas histéricas (Valencia, 1973), provides a salutary antidote. '¢ El Siglo XI en 1° persona, trans. and ed. Evariste Lévi-Provengal and Emilio Garcia Goémez (Madrid, 1980). 's “Kitab al-Iqtifa,” in The History of the Mohammedan Dynasties in Spain, vol. 2 (1843; reprint, New York, 1964), trans. Pascual de Gayangos, appendix C, pp. xxii—xlvit. '6 The History of the Mohammedan Dynasties in Spain, trans. Pascual de Gayangos, 2 vols., 1840-43 (New York, 1964).

PREFACE XV1l ings. If I have erred seriously in the process, the errors remain pecullarly my own. Because the documents upon which this study is based are scattered and sometimes difficult of access, when citing a document for the first time I have tried to include references to every copy and printing currently known to me unless it has been properly edited. Subsequent references are to the original or the most reliable copy where the original does not exist. Proper names of Spanish persons or places are given in Spanish in the interest of consistency.

To thank everyone who has contributed to the composition of this volume would be impossible. Above all, however, I am indebted to Villanova University for its regular and continuing provision of released time and sabbatical leaves without which this volume would hardly have been possible.

!

ABBREVIATIONS

AA Anthologica Annua

AC Archivo de la Catedral de. . . Acad. Hist. Real Academia de la Historia, Madrid

ADA Archivo Diocesano de Astorga

ADB Archivo Distrital, Braga ADL Archivo Diocesano de Leén ADS Archivo Diocesano de Santiago de Compostela AEM Anuario de Estudios Medievales

AGN Archivo General de Navarra AGS Archivo General de Simancas AHC Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum AHDE Anuario de la Historia del Derecho Espanol AHN, Lisbon = Archivo Hist6érico Nacional, Lisbon

AHN, Madrid Archivo Hist6rico Nacional, Madrid

AHP Archivum Historiae Pontificiae AHR American Historical Review

AL Archivos Leoneses

ARG Archivo del Reino de Galicia, La Coruna

ASI Archivo de San Isidoro, Leén BCM Boletin de la Comisién Monumental de. . .

BH Bulletin hispanique BHS Bulletin of Hispanic Studies BIEA Boletin del Instituto del Estudios Asturianos BIFG Boletin de la Institucién Ferndn Gonzdlez

BN Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid BRAH Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia

CEG Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos

CH Cuadernos de Historia

CHE Cuadernos de Historia de Espana DHE Diccionario de Historia de Espana DHEE Diccionario de Historia Eclesidstica de Espana DHGE Dictionnaire d’ Histoire et de Géographie Ecclésiastiques

DHP Diciondrio de Histéria de Portugal DMP Documentos Medievais Portugueses EDRMP Estudios dedicados a Ramén Menéndez Pidal EEMCA Estudios de la Edad Media de la Corona de Aragon

XX ABBREVIATIONS ES Esparia Sagrada GAKS Gesammelte Aufsdtze zur Kulturgeschichte Spaniens

HC Historia Compostelana

HS Hispania Sacra

J-W Jaffé-Wattenbach, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum NA Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fir adltere deutsche Geschichtskunde

PL Patrologia Latina

PMH Portugaliae Monumenta Historica RABM Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas, y Museos

RG Revista de Guimaraes

RPH Revista Portuguesa de Historia

SM Studia Monastica

Archival Terms

Armario cabinet Becerro cartulary

Cajon chest

Carpeta folder

Estante shelf Legajo bundle

Rollo roll

Signatura number

Tumbo cartulary

THE KINGDOM OF LEON-CASTILLA UNDER KING ALFONSO VI, 1065-1109

ONE

THE RECONSTITUTION OF LEON-CASTILLA

In the second half of the eleventh century a reconstituted kingdom of Leé6n-Castilla was poised on the northern bank of the Duero River. Before it to the south lay the almost deserted other half of the most extensive river basin in the Spanish peninsula. From its origin in the eastern

highlands of Soria to its mouth on the Atlantic at Oporto the Duero stretches for more than 900 kilometers across the meseta of Castilla la Vieja and drains some 98,000 square kilometers. For two centuries now, since Ordono I of Asturias (850-866) had repopulated the city of Leén, the shallow, meandering river had served as

a moat and wall protecting the growing Christian communities to its north against all but the best organized expeditions of Islam. The river itself is never deep during spring, summer, or fall, the campaigning seasons, but from the Portuguese highlands in the west to the Sorian highlands in the east the north bank of the river generally rises steeply to form a natural wall. This natural fortification was never impenetrable, of course, but from very early it was improved by a line of fortresses that made it an even more formidable obstacle. From Zamora, to Toro, to Tordesillas, to Simancas, and beyond through Penafiel,

Aranda de Duero, and Pefiaranda de Duero, major fortifications guarded the river crossings at the average of one every thirty kilome-

ters. To reduce any one of them was difficult; to leave them, unreduced, behind an invading army was perilous. North of this frontier lay the kingdom of Leén-Castilla. Even then the realm comprised three major and geographically distinct parts. On the far side of the Cantabrian Mountains, along the Bay of Biscay, lay Asturias, whose major passes communicating with the south averaged I,$00 meters in altitude. To the west, fronting on the Atlantic, Galicia stretched south to what is now northern Portugal, also separated from Leén by a series of rugged ranges whose passes averaged 1,000 meters

in height. By the beginning of the tenth century these two wellwatered valley regions were more heavily populated than ever before in their history.

From these two sheltered redoubts, a gradually increasing flow of

anne a 8 oe Op BR = ~ (f Ss pert DP) see Sins OSC Sa me o Y_ a ae St, aoe oO os) fy om 2 g Q Sen gt ESR NRro) oS im) ©> SS ; Re Re m oO O SS Soy. SONI pra Oo SL RR) 2 e 8 SS ESSER oe SSE Ss = ESN oN: OSOEEES a©> OQ os SRS or SY — SS i ie 3

lao}

MEMES So SON, Se © bane Sie ASRes BsRS SNe rl aN ! Sais Pra! LD) >) aeeseiee OSES Se See SE S01 og oO roe] Line RRS sis COS Te O te ees BRS Ona ts 2erly f~pODoe ~— SMES SoeaOF ee es) Srcnerc ent Bae ws wesRRS Ilp yySA - &> ~ See a eee RS Z om Sees ye SePRS oe = aBSS seteOF mitBESSY CESSPog ‘in ESS e [fo5 _QO GEES EE SO a BE BS BS ESSA a | eeSON acc C . : : = on BO SR e eCoteiatesncees .e : ASE t SeTF NY.) "Se, RU ait A wane cs fo See \ 7X . ZRay ae .| ;@&@:)3 a . SEE PORE ES ' 3 we SN aeRenee Seer eerie, . Ao ;b. — on FSS 3S oo . .wT ,eo} 1 (oy & SRR ] SEES Soe 74 Os pt ae, =, ~ / Sos Sa SE eee Rs ES jo BF Q N c— ——= _ 3s = S = ee SKK r@ i) WY 3
‘=oO 7 ss7 e 3H pe 2 ERR 5a——— 2 pe \\69©a NX 3 \\REa jose OC)5

% SS \ : 3S Ta i ~ K \ 3 % Bolg [TRS , Oo NS EN SS

eseesssdyilad ry], Z oS Ka . SE TTAB. ¢@ NS LESH Mh ANS ty WN Cz CTE HIT MAREHIH Unaacaiiag: 5\y HPSS i {gy EWN NN | IRC | A ; | ibid ty ; ! ! IRL fe ee i >eb } 3 :=\—_— aa SES Bie) s\ (1) Tae Wl RE ‘\XSSENB NN HEENS th CS. ENASA REISS \ SNital aLiae

I. O 3 ‘N \ Ne

&™

=

Y)

THE THREE KINGDOMS: CASTILLA 43 near the upper Pisuerga River, and hence the Leonese border, given to Vermudo Gutiérrez. The charter that Sancho II granted to Bishop Jimeno of Oca on February 8, 1068, is unexceptionable, and neither of the above names ap-

pears among the confirmations.?? In the following month, though, both Garcia Munoz and Fernando Pérez were associated with the charter of restoration to Oca mentioned above in another context. ?® The battle, or border skirmish, of Llantadilla on July 19, 1068, perhaps should be attributed to friction between Sancho II and Alfonso VI occasioned by the growing ambitions of the former. The earliest source for this clash is the chronicle of Bishop Pelayo of Oviedo, who must

have himself known of it only from current stories or those of his youth. Already it has been turned into a kind of judicial duel in which the winner will receive the kingdom of the loser. Pelayo tells us only that Alfonso lost and returned to Leén but, nevertheless, did not forfeit his kingdom.?? We need not accept the literary embellishments that had already developed, but the event itself seems historically probable. The Cronica Najerense, which dates the skirmish, and then only by year, itself is of late twelfth-century provenance.? It is the Annales Complutenses, perhaps datable to the mid-twelfth century or slightly later, that supplies the day and the month.3! Again Menéndez Pidal follows the late thirteenth-century tradition of the Primera crénica general when he associates el Cid with this battle. 32

Llantadilla was a hamlet some ten kilometers to the southwest of Melgar de Fernamental and only about two kilometers west of the Pisuerga River, the boundary of the two kingdoms. The location does not suggest a major penetration of the other’s realms by either ruler, and Alfonso VI may not even have been present if the date is accurate. On July 7, 1068, he issued a charter which seems, from the presence of the abbot and prior of Sahagtin, to have been issued in or around that 7 Serrano, Becerro de Carderia, p. 160. Berganza, Antigtiedades de Espana 2:435, listed Bishops “Bernaldus, Petrus, and Gomessanus” as confirming, but they are likely the result of later interpolation. 2® See note 24. The confirmation of Alfonso VI of Leén was added later as Serrano rightly observes. 9 Sanchez Alonso, ed., Crénica del Obispo, p. 77. 30 P. 110. The anonymous author here seems to be largely following Bishop Pelayo’s chronicle. 31 “Era MCVI die IV feria XIV kal. augusti.” [“Wednesday, July 19, 1068.”] Ambrosio Huici Miranda, ed., Las crénicas latinas de la Reconquista vol. 1 (Valencia, 1913), p. 48. Un-

fortunately for complete precision, July 19, 1068, was not a Wednesday but rather a Saturday. 32 Espana del Cid 1:166 and 2:701—702.

44 CHAPTER THREE monastery.33 On July 20, 1068, supposedly the day after the battle, his alférez confirmed a private donation to the same monastery. 34 The likelihood, then, is that the tradition has magnified a local border incident into a portent of the later and truly important battle which was to cost Alfonso VI his crown. After this skirmish, Sancho of Castilla eludes our surveillance for something like nine months. None of his charters has survived from

this period, and the chronicles have nothing to report. It is probably safe to assume that Sancho’s interests were absorbed by events in the northeast for the next two years. Sometime in 1068 Sancho Ramirez of Aragon took the remarkable step of commending himself and his tiny realm to the pope.35 The political reasons behind such an action cannot be discerned, but they are probably to be related to the threat of alliance

against him by his neighbors, Sancho Garcia IV of Navarra and alMuatadir of Zaragoza. Such an alliance actually was concluded in April 1069, and al-Mugqtadir, at least, successfully took the field against the Aragonese in the fall of that year.3° The alliance of a realm tributary to him, Zaragoza, and a kingdom marked as future prey by Castilla, Na-

varra, was necessarily of concern to the Castilian monarch. He could not have afforded to remain either indifferent to or uninvolved in these maneuvers.

For the entire year of 1069, however, but one of his documents, a charter to the monastery of Arlanza, survives and is dated April 22.37 The most that can be said is that Sancho gave the monastery some possessions located high in the watershed of the river of the same name and thus near the borders of Zaragoza. Sancho’s next surviving charter 1s a

grant to the monastery of San Millan de La Cogolla on January 18, 1070.38 That the Castilian king should have becn patronizing that great

and favorite monastery of the kings of Navarra is significant indeed. It demonstrates the growth of his power in the northeast, for San Millan sits on the far side of the Sierra de la Demanda on the Cardenas River flowing down toward Najera, favored residence of the Navarrese kings 33 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 882, nos. 16 and 17; and AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 172r. 34 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 882, no. 19; and AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. gtr. ss Paul Kehr, “; Como y cuando se hizo Aragon feudatario de la Santa Sede?” EEMCA 1 (1945): 301-304. 36 Turk, Reino de Zaragoza, pp. 107-108. Ubieto Arteta, Historia de Aragon, pp. 68-76, would redate the battle of Graus and the death of Ramiro I of Arag6én to 1069, making Sancho Ramirez merely heir and associate to that time. The attempt is ingenious and valiant but the evidence of the great bulk of contemporary documents is against the revis10n.

37 Serrano, ed., Cartulario de Arlanza, pp. 144-47. 38 See note 18.

THE THREE KINGDOMS: CASTILLA 45 in this period. It is indicative as well of the substance of his ambitions in regard to the kingdom of Navarra.39 The continuing preoccupation of Sancho with aggrandizement at the expense of the Navarrese 1s also reflected in his charter to the monastery

of Ona, dated April 27, 1070. Again it would seem that expansion along the line of the Ebro River was his guiding policy at this particular period. But that he designated that monastery as his final resting place

somewhat later in the year, on August 26, 1070, should be regarded with skepticism as should the charter that asserts it.4° It is more likely that subsequent events were to give rise to the document than that those events were in part determined by it. The grant of April 27, however,

shows the Castilian king’s interest in repopulating the area near Miranda del Ebro. Sancho’s favor to Ona continued into the following year when he made it yet another trustworthy grant, this one dated merely to 1071.4!

A further initiative, and one of an entirely different order, that Sancho of Castilla seems to have taken 1n late 1070 or early 1071 was to marry. All of the sons of Fernando I were of more than marriageable age before the former’s death, but one can imagine that the old king would not have wished to have any of his children complicating the problem of inheritance and succession by marrying during his lifetime. Royal marriage was always a matter of royal policy with the gravest of political implications for the future of the dynasty. After his demise in 1065, however, it is most curious that only Sancho among his male heirs seems to have taken such a step. Surely, to most of the politically ambitious magnates of the realm of Leén-Castilla the division of the realm among Fernando’s three sons must have seemed a decision likely to be reversed at any time by the actions of any one of them. The permanence of that decision must then have been the center of speculation and of political maneuvering from at least the moment at which it became operative in December 106s. In such a situation the heirs of Fernando were faced with a variety of choices which must often have preoccupied them already from 1066. As roughly equal rivals, a good marriage would provide that consid-

erable increment of strength always resulting under the monarchy . from the promise or fact of a male heir with its resultant expectations of stability and continuity in dynastic policy. But whom to marry? The choice could only fall on a daughter of one of the great noble houses of 39 For a full discussion see Garcia de Cortazar, Dominio de San Millan, pp. 171-72. 40 See note 17. 41 Alamo, Coleccién de Ofia, pp. 99-100.

46 CHAPTER THREE the realm of course. But to intermarry with a noble family whose own center of power lay within the confines of one’s own realm after 1065 was to accept implicitly the permanence of that division. The political stability it would have effected would have been self-limiting and restrictive at the same time. None but the most politically naive would have read it as anything but an acceptance of the status quo that would jeopardize freedom of action in the face of possible future opportuni-

ties. Inevitably it would sacrifice potential support in the realms of one’s brothers.

At the same time, even to attempt to contract a marriage alliance with an influential noble house whose predominant holdings lay within the territories assigned to one or the other of one’s brothers would have been tantamount to a declaration of war. None of the fraternal rivals could have tolerated a bid for support within his own lands which such a marriage would inevitably have constituted no matter how solemn the assurances to the contrary. At the same time that it made war imminent, the proffered marriage would have weakened the brother un-

dertaking it within his own kingdom by disappointing those noble houses confirmed in their present allegiance precisely by the possible prospect of a royal alliance for their own family. The best alternative by far was to seek a bride, royal or noble in lineage, from abroad or from another of the Christian principalities of the northeast. Although the prospect of such a marriage would inevitably have disenchanted some of the magnates of one’s own kingdom, that loss would also have been offset by the promise of a male heir and by the rise in royal prestige inseparable from the recognition implied in its successful negotiation. It is likely, then, that all of the brothers were engaged in the exploration of such a possibility from the time of the death of their queen-mother Sancha in late 1067 if not from the very beginning of their respective reigns. The only one of the three brothers who was to be successful in this sort of quest, however, seems to have been Sancho of Castilla. Though there is no subsequent record of her existence, two charters of 1071 make mention of his wife. One of these is a royal charter to a Castilian noble, dated March 26, 1071.4? The second is a private charter to the monastery of Arlanza, dated May 10, 1071.43 Both charters agree that the name of his wife was Alberta, which suggests an extrapeninsular origin for her since that name was virtually unknown in Spain at the 4 Serrano, Becerro de Cardena, pp. 242-44. Though some aspects of this charter of San-

cho raise questions, there would seem to be no reason why a later interpolator would

have invented a wife for him. , 43 Serrano, ed., Cartulario de Arlanza, pp. 151-52.

THE THREE KINGDOMS: CASTILLA 47 time. Some distorted reflection of this marriage may be reflected in the late twelfth-century chronicle which gives a fantastic account. According to this late source, the fiancée was the legitimate daughter of Garcia Sanchez III of Navarra and was on the way to Castilla when she was abducted and raped by her illegitimate half-brother Sancho. The bastard then took refuge with al-Mugtadir of Zaragoza and his uncle, Ramiro I of Aragon. Sancho II of Castilla is related to have attacked both, and Ramiro of Arag6n lost his life in the resultant battle of Graus, here dated to 1070.44 Though the latter tale is clearly literary in inspiration, the cumulative evidence for Sancho’s nuptials is nevertheless strong. But the name Alberta furnished by the documents militates against

the probability of a Navarrese ancestry for his bride. Two modern Spanish historians have argued that Alberta was, in fact, the daughter of William the Conquerer of England.+5 Beyond the sources already given, they have adduced the testimony of William of Poitiers that Sancho and his brother Garcia of Galicia were rivals for her hand, but Sancho prevailed after defeating his younger brother in early 1071.46 Unfortunately, as seen in the preceding chapter, the defeat of Garcia by Sancho did not occur in 1071 but in 1072. Moreover, William I of Eng-

land did not have a daughter named Alberta but rather one called Agatha.47

William of Poitiers was roughly a contemporary of the events he narrated, but there is another tradition of about the same antiquity that re-

lates a different tale. This is the anonymous vita of Count Simon of Crépy, who died at Rome, after having become a monk, between 1080 and 1082. Here the contenders for the hand of William’s daughter are Alfonso VI and Robert Guiscard.# It is this tradition that seems to have

been accepted in the first half of the twelfth century by William of Malmesbury and by Ordericus Vitalis, who make Alfonso VI the suitor but agree that Agatha died before she could be married to him.*? 44 Cronica Najerense, p. 110.

45 F, R. Cordero Carrete, “De los esponsales de una hija de Guillermo el Conquistador con un rey de Galicia,” CEG 7 (195§2): 5-78; and Atilano Gonzalez Ruiz-Zorrilla, “Sobre la Restauracion de la didcesis de Braga en 1070,” HS 10 (1957): 431-42. 4 “Gesta Willelmi,” PL 149:1245. “Hispaniae reges duo germani audita ejus magnitudine natam ejus in matrimonium cupientissime petierunt.” 47 David C. Douglas, William the Conqueror (Berkeley, 1964), pp. 391-95. 48 “Vita beati Simonis,” PL 156:1215. “Pro filia mea rogaturi diu mecum conversati sunt, regis Hispaniarum Anfursi [sic] et Roberti principis Apuliae.” 49 William of Malmesbury, “Gesta Regum Anglorum,” PL 179:1253. “Alterius, quae Aldefonso Galliciae regi par nuncios jurata virgineam mortem impetravit a Deo.” Ordericus Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History, vol. 3, ed. and trans. Marjorie Chibnall (Ox-

48 CHAPTER THREE Moreover, each of these historians makes Alfonso king of Galicia, which he would have been after 1072, but the text of Ordericus seems to indicate that the betrothal took place after the death of William’s son, Richard, which Douglas places about 1075.5° There thus seems to have been an ultimately unsuccessful search for a English bride by Alfonso VI in the period following the death of Sancho of Castilla in late 1072.

The ancestry of Alberta thus remains uncertain. Her fate after her royal husband’s death is simply unknown. But certainly, in the largest sense of the word if not the more precise one, Sancho IJ had bested his rivals and brothers in the quest for a suitable and prestigious spouse by the beginning of 1071. By that time, as the preceding chapter makes clear, Garcia of Galicia was hardly in a position to react strongly to his

“ brother’s coup. On the other hand, Alfonso of Leén may be assumed to have smarted under the setback, and the event probably worsened relations between him and Sancho. The brothers’ rivalry may have been increased by Sancho’s activity, shown in his charter of March 26, 1071, in actively seeking the repopulation of that portion of his realm on the Pisuerga River that bordered the territories of Alfonso VI.5' It was most certainly exacerbated by the latter’s growing designs on the realm of Galicia held by Garcia. By the

late spring of 1071 those ambitions had, as shown in the preceding chapter, largely reached fruition. Menéndez Pidal believed that the aggression against the kingdom of Garcia was concerted and that Alfonso VI was present in Sancho’s court for that purpose when the Castilian’s charter of March 26 was issued. Neither assumption 1s tenable. 5? Instead, Alfonso VI’s assertion of control over virtually all of Garcia’s realm gravely prejudiced Sancho’s own ambitions and demanded a re-

sponse. There was indeed a meeting of the two kings in November 1071, or at least of their representatives, at the court of Alfonso VI.

The record of this meeting is constituted by two surviving documents. The first is a private charter, issued on November 18, 1071, by Mumadona Gudestéiz. It was confirmed by Bishops Pelayo of Leén and Bernard of Palencia and the alférez of Alfonso VI, making it likely that it was issued at the latter’s court. In addition, the final protocol recognizes Alfonso as king of Leén and also Sancho as king of Castilla. %3 Such acknowledgment of the Castilian king is otherwise unknown in Leonese documents of the period. A few days later, on November 23, ford, 1972), p. 114. “Porro Agatha regis filia, quae prius fuerat Haraldo desponsata, postmodum Amfursio [sic] regi Galliciae per procos petenti missa est desponsanda.” so William the Conqueror, p. 394. 51 See note 42.

s2 See chapter 2, notes $9 and 60.

33 AHN. Codices, 989B, fol. 56r—v.

THE THREE KINGDOMS: CASTILLA 49 1071, the same individual makes a donation to Bishop Muno of Burgos, which is also confirmed by bishops Pelayo of Leén and Bernard of Palencia. Here the final protocol recognizes Alfonso as reigning in Leon and Galicia and Sancho as ruling in Castilla and Galicia. %4

There could be, in the nature of things, no equality in real authority of the two brothers over the realm of the dispossessed Garcia whatever the nominal terms of the condominium obviously negotiated. Alfonso’s lands adjoined Galicia and Portugal. Sancho’s lands lay far distant from them with Alfonso’s intervening. The accord was bound to break down and perhaps was merely a temporary expedient from the beginning. All outstanding issues were to be decided on the field of battle. The decisive battle of Golpejera, which gained the kingdom of Leén

and subsequently that of Galicia-Portugal as well, for Sancho of Cas- v tilla seems to have been fought in early January 1072. The record is remarkably obscure nevertheless. The best evidence is that supplied by an anonymous author writing some fifty-five or more years later who said that Sancho ruled Leén exactly eight months and twenty-five days until his death on October 7, 1072.55 Presumably he was calculating from Sancho’s coronation in the city of Leén, which would thus have taken place on January 12, 1072. The battle itself would then have taken place some days earlier, certainly later than Alfonso VI’s charter of December 21, 1071.5° Perhaps it could have been as early as January 4, 1072, when a document of the Castilian monastery of Ona cites Sancho as

regnant in Castilla, Leén, and Galicia although the text of the document itself merits little faith.s7 Other surviving sources constitute a morass of conflicting dates. 5° ‘4 See chapter 2, note 69. ‘s “Chronicon Compostellana,” ES 20:610. 36 AHN, Cédices, 98 9B, fol. 68r. 7 Alamo, ed., Colecci6n de Ofia 1:101-102. It is a private document in which Sancho appears in the nominative case in the intitulatio granting permission to an individual to make a grant to the monastery. I cannot recall another example of such a procedure in this period. ‘* Alfonso 1s cited as regnant in Leon on Feb. 22, 1072, AHN, Cédices, 989B, ff. 125v— 126r, pub. Romualdo Escalona, Historia del real monasterio de Sahagvin (Madrid, 1782, reprinted Leon, 1982), pp. 471-72; on June 27, 1072, Augusto Quintana Prieto, ed., Tumbo viejo de San Pedro de Montes (Leén, 1971), pp. 107-108; July 30, 1072, cited, Vicente Vignau, Indice de los documentos del monasterio de Sahagun (Madrid, 1874), p. 252; on Aug. 21,

1072, Ubieto Arteta, ed., Cartulario de Albelda, pp. 131-32, and Eliseo Sainz Ripa, ed., Coleccién diplomdtica de las colegiatas de Albelda y Logrofio, 924-1399, vol. 1 (Logrono, 1981), pp. 29-30; on Aug. 25, 1072, Braga, Arquivo Distrital, Liber Fidei, ff. 102r—103v,

and repeated ff. 112v—113r; and finally on Aug. 6, 1072, as reigning in both Leén and Castile, José Maria Lacarra, ed., Coleccion diplomdtica de Irache (Zaragoza, 1965), pp. 64—66.

But Sancho is given as reigning in Leén on Jan. 26, 1072, AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol.

$0 CHAPTER THREE Golpejera itself is approximately thirty kilometers west of the Pisuerga River, which up to that time had formed the boundary between Leén and Castilla. Its location suggests that the aggressor was Sancho II, confirming the impression given by virtually all of the sources as well as the political logic of the situation as it had developed. The Castilian monarch had no doubt struck directly along the old Roman road leading from Burgos to Leén. Of the details of the battle itself we can form no useful picture. The “Historia Roderici” made the Cid Sancho’s alférez in the battle, and the later epic material elaborated accounts that are dramatic rather than necessarily military in character. 5° The best and earliest account of Bishop Pelayo says merely that Alfonso was defeated and led in chains to Burgos, later to be sent into exile in Toledo. Sancho proceeded to the royal city of Leén to crown himself, perhaps because the bishop of that city refused to perform what was his customary function for new Leonese monarchs. By early January 1072 the settlement imposed by Fernando el Magno before his death had been completely overthrown. Sancho had yet fi-

nally to eject his brother Garcia from his refuge in the south of the county of Portugal and to force that brother too into exile. Nevertheless, the hegemony among rough equals clearly implicit in Fernando’s choice of Alfonso as king of Leén had been destroyed. Garcia’s too hasty attempts at the organization of his kingdom of Galicia-Portugal had invited Alfonso of Leén’s successful assertion of power in the west. Sancho’s predictable reaction to Alfonso’s growing power, supported perhaps by his own success 1n securing foreign recognition, had led him to reverse his initial policy of expansion to the east and northeast for Castilla. Instead he had reunited his father’s realm under his sole control by the early spring of 1072. 11or; on Feb. 19, 1072, Ramon Menéndez Pidal, ed., Documentos lingtiisticos de Espana, vol. 1 (Madrid, 1966), p. 15, n. 3; on May 11, 1072, Maria Luisa Cabranes Catala, “Un documento en escritura visigética en el archivo de Valencia,” AL 35 (1981): 193-99; on May 12, 1072, AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 104r; on May 25, 1072, Braga, Arquivo Distrital, Liber Fidei, fol. 113r—v; and finally on May 27, 1072, Berganza, Antigtiedades de Espana 2:438.

Few of these documents can be rejected out of hand, but most seem to be copies of a later date and consequently subject to error especially in the dating. It seems unlikely that the tangle they create will ever be entirely resolved. The much later Cronica Najerense, p. 111, and the “Annales Complutenses,” Huici, Crénicas latinas, p. 48, place the battle on July 15, 1071, which is utterly irreconcilable with the whole documentation of the period. 59 Menéndez Pidal, Espana del Cid 2:920. The literary account is most fully presented in Menéndez Pidal, ed., Primera crénica general 2:502—503. © Sanchez Alonso, ed., Cronica del Obispo, pp. 77-78.

THE THREE KINGDOMS: CASTILLA 51 His triumph at Golpejera may well have enhanced the position of the Cid in his counsels. Perhaps the literature that gives that hero the predominate role in effecting this success has its kernel of truth. But the warrior of Vivar, a noble of middling rank at best, brought little help to the new king of all Leén-Castilla but the force of his own character and his undoubted military abilities. The old great families of Castilla, each inevitably disappointed in his choice of a foreign bride and each with its own ambitions in the east, would be of limited help in securing his power in the center and west of the peninsula. To consolidate what he had won on the field of battle would require delicate accommodation with the magnates of Leon, Asturias, Galicia, and Portugal. At the same time Sancho would have to secure the support of his sisters, the other living members of the dynasty, and of the powerful ecclesiastical hierarchy of the realm which was so predominantly non-Castilian. To understand his failure, one must turn to an examination of the realm of Leén which he had so abruptly seized.

FOUR

THE THREE KINGDOMS: LEON

Of the three kingdoms created by Fernando I’s division of his realm among his sons, Leén was from the beginning clearly the greatest. In geographical extent, it virtually monopolized the meseta north of the Duero, leaving to Sancho’s Castilla only the fringe of that plain east of the Pisuerga. To it also pertained the upland region of Bierzo in the west, pinning Garcia’s Galicia-Portugal against the Atlantic seaboard. In addition, to the central kingdom went the title to Fernando’s recent conquests on the headwaters of the upper Duero but, above all, the ancient cradle of the kingdom, the mountain province of Asturias de Oviedo. Tradition and power were thus linked, making Leon preeminent from the first moment of the division in 1065. Though it is not possible to assert or demonstrate a direct connection between the chancery of Fernando I and that of Alfonso VI, even the official documents of the latter seem to display the superior claims and assurance of the king of Leén. While the surviving charters of Sancho of Castilla outnumber those of Alfonso by almost two to one in the pe-

riod 1065-1071, it is the total documentation associated with the Leonese court that displays the greater richness and sophistication of the traditional usage. All known royal documents of Sancho IJ are charters, but to the seven charters of Alfonso VI must be added yet another seven royal confirmations of private documents and two documents recording a judicial settlement, of the type called the agnitio.' These other functions of the crown were traditional and, though the absence of a record of such operations at the court of either Garcia or Sancho may be accidental, certainly the existing documents argue the greater assurance and poise of the Leonese monarch in the performance of the time-honored functions of the crown. Moreover, of the four charters purportedly issued by the royal sisters, the infantas Urraca and Elvira, one was clearly issued at Alfonso’s court and a second was confirmed by him. Yet a third seems to have been a completely independ' See Bernard F. Reilly, “The Chancery of Alfonso VI of Leén-Castile (1065-1 109),” Santiago, St.-Denis, and St. Peter (New York, 1985), p. 6.

THE THREE KINGDOMS: LEON $3 ent act. The last may have been confirmed by Sancho after he had himself become the king of Leén.? Not only in the diplomatic practice of its chancery did the court of Leén display a greater elaboration and organization than did the curiae of the other two kingdoms. The dignity of royal majordomo is clearly and regularly attested for this period as is that of royal alférez. None of

the charters of Garcia or Sancho indicates the existence of a majordomo, and an alférez appears but once in a late diploma of Garcia, while, as we have seen, only the later literary sources speak of the Cid as shieldbearer of Sancho. Those magnates officially styled counts, also regularly appear as part of the royal curia of Le6n, and there seems even to be as we shall shortly see, a working of the usual cursus honorum during the period 1066-1072. Beyond the secular dignitaries of the court, three of the bishops of the realm seem to have been almost invariably in attendance. Predictably, the bishop of the royal city of Le6n is associated with the king in twelve of the thirteen royal documents known. The two other bishops of the important meseta towns and sees, Astorga and Palencia, were to be found in the royal presence on nine of the thirteen occasions marked by documents. In its close association of the bishops of certain sees with the royal court, the kingdom of Alfonso VI again reflects its assumption of the traditional norms. Turning from form to substance, all three of these episcopal advisors at the carly court of Alfonso VI were the choices of the latter years of the reign of Fernando I and would have reinforced the traditional prestige of the Leonese crown. Pelayo of Leén made his first appearance in the charter of Fernando dated March 10, 1065.3 He was a native of Galicia educated at the see of Santiago and advanced by Fernando to Leén

on the advice of Bishop Cresconio of the former diocese.+ Bishop Pedro of Astorga succeeded to that see after the death of Bishop Ordono on February 23, 1065.5 Already consecrated by June 25, 1066, it has been argued that he was of the nobility of Asturias de Oviedo and uncle of the future mistress of Alfonso VI.° Bishop Bernardo of Pal> See chapter 2, note 65. ’ Antonio Lopez Ferreiro, Historia de la Santa A. M. Iglesia de Santiago de Compostela,

vol. 2 (Santiago de Compostela, 1898), pp. 242-44. Also pub. PMH, pp. 273-74. ¢ AC Leén, Cédice 11, ff. gv—-12r, repeated on ff. 48v—sir. Copy in Acad. Hist., Catedrales de Espana, 9-25-1-C-4, ff. 62r-69r. Pub. ES 36:57-63, append. The document is his own donation. ’ Pedro Rodriguez Lopez, Episcopologio asturicense 2:119-23. ° Augusto Quintana Prieto, El obispado de Astorga en el siglo XI (Astorga, 1977), pp. 347-51. The identifications seem tenuous to me.

$4 CHAPTER FOUR encia had already been named to that see by May 8, 1062.7 The suggestion has been made that he was a Catalan.® All three prelates continued in office well beyond 1072. Of those secular magnates who predominate in the Alfonsine docu-

ments of this period the most outstanding is Pedro Anstirez. He confirmed nine of the total of thirteen charters whose list of those confirming survives. In the very first of them, dated July 24, 1067, he appeared as the royal majordomo.? By May 3, 1071, Pedro Anstirez had become a count but will continue to be a court figure.'° A sort of cursus honorum seems to have been regular practice in which sons of magnate families spent their youth at court, became either majordomo or alférez in their early manhood, and subsequently were advanced to the comital dignity, not infrequently that enjoyed by their fathers.

Much later sources tell us that Pedro Anstrez had been both ayo, guardian, and companion of the young Alfonso.'! The latter is quite probable but the former is unlikely since the two were of approximately the same age. The Leonese noble never appears in the documents of the reign of Fernando I and he lived until 1117 or 1118.!? That

he would have been of the years or maturity to be entrusted with the responsibility of guiding a royal scion is most unlikely therefore. A recent biographer gives Pedro’s birthdate as approximately 1037, which would have meant that he, like Alfonso VI, was some twenty-nine years of age in 1066.'3 His father was Assur Diaz, a count and not an infrequent figure at the

court of Fernando I. The family holdings stretched north and south from Saldana, through Carrién de los Condes, to Monzén de Campos along the Carrién River in the territories disputed since 1035 between 7 AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 126v. Pub. Eduardo de Hinojosa, Documentos de Leon y de Castilla, pp. 26-27. ’ Charles Julian Bishko, “Fernando IJ and the Origins of the Leonese-Castilian Alliance with Cluny,” Studies in Medieval Spanish Frontier History (London, 1980), p. 17. The study was published earlier in a Spanish translation in CHE 47-48 (1968): 31-135, and 49-50: 5O-I116.

9 AC Leon, Cédice 11, ff. 24r-25r and repeated ff. 71r—72r; also Cédice 25, no. 22, pub. Fernandez Alonso, ed., Libro de las Estampas. A facsimile edition without paginat10n.

'o AHN, Clero, Carpeta, 883, no. 6. '' Antonio Ubieto Arteta, ed., Cronica Najerense, p. 113. “Eius nutricio comitatus.” Later chroniclers repeat the assertion. '2 Bernard F. Reilly, The Kingdom of Leén-Castilla under Queen Urraca, 1109-1126 (Princeton, 1982), pp. 126-27. '3 Justiniano Rodriguez Fernandez, Pedro Ansurez (Leon, 1966), p. 12. No evidence is cited but the estimate is likely, I believe. Generally this biography is a sound, preliminary study that recounts the salient facts. Much more remains to be done, however.

THE THREE KINGDOMS: LEON $5 Leon and Castilla. Their adherence to the cause of Alfonso VI was thus crucial. At this period, however, the control of those estates may have been in the hands of Pedro’s elder brother, Diego Anstirez, who ap-

pears in four documents of the time also associated with Alfonso’s court. "4

Second in importance among the secular magnates of the court was the alférez, Martin Alfénsez, who first appears incontestably in that charge on June 25, 1066.'’ He appears in eight of the thirteen royal documents of this period and had been advanced to countship by October 15, 1071 at the latest.'° Again we have a young man whose name never appeared in the documents of Fernando I but whose career suggests a courtly orientation and the patronage available to the son of an estab-

lished family. He may be the son of Count Alfonso Nufez, whose name appeared occasionally in the documents of Alfonso VI’s father. If so, the family held possessions about the royal palace at Cea, on the river of the same name north of Sahagiin, and south of that royal monastery and pantheon as well as at Melgar de Arriba on the same river. !7 They were ensconced, then, in the heartland of the royal fisc lands and so their loyalty was vital to Alfonso also. Under such circumstances it

would not be surprising if the Gonzalo Alfénsez who had replaced Martin as alférez by October 15, 1071, was his younger brother. '®

Another of these young men who seemed to have formed a coterie about Alfonso VI was Pedro Munoz. The latter appears in six court documents, one of which is a charter which the king granted to him on July 7, 1068.'9 From it he can be identified as the son of the late Count Muno Alfénsez so prominent in the court of Fernando I. He may have been a first cousin to the Anstrez brothers as well.?° The Pelayo Miihoz '4 Ibid., p. 19. 's AC Santiago, Tumbo A, fol. 33 r-v; pub. Lopez Ferreiro, Historia de Santiago 2:24547 append.; also Santiago Estefania, “Memorias para la vida de el Rey Don Alfonso pri-

mero de Castilla y sexto de Leén.” An unpublished manuscript of the Acad. Hist. (Madrid, 1826), pp. 175-76. '© AHN, Clero, Carpeta 959, no. 3. Copies in Acad. Hist., Coleccién Salazar, o-7, fol. 139r—v, and 0-18, ff. 297v~298v, both dated erroneously to 1076. Pub. Hinojosa, Documentos de Leon y de Castilla, pp. 27-28; Vignau, Cartulario del monasterio de Eslonza, pp. 9—

10; and Calvo, El monasterio de Gradefes, p. 301. The document is interpolated but is likely accurate in this particular.

'7 Sept. 11, 1054. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 881, no. 5. This donation of Count Alfonso Nunez mentions a son named Martin. But cf. also Manuel Manueco Villalobos and José Zurita Nieto, eds., Documentos de la iglesia colegial de Santa Maria la Mayor de Valladolid,

vol. 1 (Valladolid, 1917), pp. 13-14, n. 3. 8 See notes 16 and 17. Count Alfonso Nunez also had a son named Gonzalo. ‘9 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 882, nos. 16 and 17, Codices 989B, fol. 172r. 0 Vignau, ed., Documentos de Sahagtin, p. 252. Count Muno Alfénsez spouse’s name

56 CHAPTER FOUR who also figured in three court documents of this period was his brother.?! Neither Pedro nor Pelayo acceded to their father’s comital dignity, however. What one misses among all these scions of important families is precisely the presence of their elders. Given the scant character of the surviving documentation, unqualified conclusions are difficult to draw. It may be that the great figures of the reign of Alfonso’s father had either died off or were progressively enfeebled. We should remember too the predominance of Castilians among the secular magnates of the court of Fernando I, and these would have gravitated naturally to the court of Sancho. Nevertheless it is at least possible to suspect some of the greater nobility of consciously holding aloof from full involvement in the affairs of Alfonso VI’s reign and waiting on events. If true, such a situation may go far to explain Alfonso’s defeat at Sancho’s hands in early 1072. A case in point is Pedro Pelaez, first alférez and then count under Fer-

nando. We know at least that this Asturian noble continued to be a count long after, but he appears in only two documents of Alfonso VI, and these are both of 1067 before the death of the queen-mother Sancha. Sancho Ordonez, count under Fernando and still alive, appears in

but one of Alfonso’s documents although he too was probably Leonese.?? Count Vermudo Ord6nez, again probably Leonese, makes but a single appearance at court. Count Fernando Fernandez appears in three Alfonsine documents of the period, but he seems to have been a new man as well, there being no reliable record of him in the preceding reign. One notable exception to this pattern, perhaps, is Count Guter Alfonsez, a long-time associate of Fernando el Magno, who appears in four of Alfonso VI’s charters. The former’s son, Telo Gutiérrez, also appears in two.?3 Still, when Alfonso VI chose a new majordomo in 1071, to replace Pedro Anstrez who had been raised to countship, the choice seems to have fallen on a new and heretofore unknown man, Domingo Pérez.*4 was Mumadonna as is that of the document cited, who identifies herself as aunt of Gonzalo Ansurez. 1 July 20, 1068. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 882, no. 19; Cédices, 989B, fol. gir. 22 Jan. 30, 1077. AC Leon, Cédice 11, fol. 62r—v. His own donation to the see of Leon. 23 AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 38r—v.

4 He first appears in that post on Nov. 14, 1071. Copy in AHN, Microfilmas, AD Leon, rollo 18.179. AD Leén, San Marcelo. His patronymic would permit the assumption that he was possibly an otherwise unknown son of Pedro Anstrez. That can be mere speculation only given the lack of other evidence.

THE THREE KINGDOMS: LEON 57 This review of the documentary evidence for the period between 1066 and 1072 suggests that Alfonso VI was conscious of the superior dignity and tradition of his own kingdom of Leén among the realms established by his father’s decree. He seems to have carefully maintained its procedures and offices and to have enjoyed the support of the major prelates of his father’s times and the association of those other figures of the dynasty, his sisters Urraca and Elvira. The nucleus of his court consisted of a group of young men in thcir late twenties or early thirties like himself, offspring of the greatest families of Le6n and probably the companions of his youth. At the same time, his reign seems to have lacked the unreserved support of some of the great magnate families, which weakness may be reflected in the events of 1072. For the early years of his reign, neither the chroniclers nor the documents furnish the sort of evidence that would allow anything like an adequate history of his actions as monarch. During the year 1066 we have some private documents that suggest, because of those who con-

firm them, the presence of the court in Sahagtin or Leén in the late | spring.*S Then the entire royal family, including his brothers Sancho and Garcia, joined Alfonso there, as recorded by the Infanta Urraca’s donation to Santiago de Compostela on June 26, 1066.76 This conference probably reflected the family’s uneasiness with Garcia’s brusque assertion of his newfound power in Portugal, as mentioned in chapter 2. It may also be at this same time that Alfonso granted a charter to the Castilian Fernando Rodriguez, usually associated with the court of his brother, Sancho, and the important fortress town of Castrojeriz.?7 The significance of such a gift must have been equivocal. The record for 1067 is not much more ample. Again Alfonso seems to have been in or around Leén and Sahaguin in mid-spring.?® On July 24, 1067, when he granted a charter to the cathedral of Leén, Alfonso was certainly there. The importance of the occasion may be indicated by a rare appearance of the bishop of Oviedo at court. That the affairs of the kingdom of Galicia-Portugal were a matter of discussion is cer2s May 17, 1066. AHN, Cddices, 989B, fol. 38r. May 22, 1066. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 166r—v.

6 See chapter 2, note 38. 27 BN, Manuscritos, 4.357, fol. 86r. This notice is dated only by year. See also Salvador de Mox6, “De la nobleza vieja a la nobleza nueva,” CH 3 (1969): 61. 28 May 7, 1067. AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 61r, pub. Luciano Serrano, ed. Cartulario del monasterio de vega con documentos de San Pelayo y Vega de Oviedo (Madrid, 1927), pp. 10-

11. May 16, 1067. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 138v. Both are private documents confirmed by habitual members of the royal court.

58 CHAPTER FOUR tain from the inclusion of the bishop of Mondofiedo among the signatories as well.?9

Alfonso seems to have been at Leén again on September 3, 1067, when he ratified a judicial settlement in favor of Bishop Pelayo of that city in the presence of most of the royal court.3° Another such judicial decision, this time in favor of Abbot Gonzalo of Sahagtin, took place in the royal presence in Le6n on October 16, 1067.3! Finally, although no

documents records the event, the likelihood is that all of the children attended the obsequies and burial of the Queen-mother Sancha in Leén after her death on November 7, 1067.2? Thus far the documents would seem to indicate that Alfonso VI was

preoccupied with the internal affairs of his own realm and that he remained in or near the effective center of it, the royal city of Leon. Such behavior was not unusual at the beginning of a reign, but in the nature of things it was bound to give way to more far-reaching initiatives and even responses to external events. Nevertheless, private documents confirmed by the bishops of Leén,

Astorga, and Palencia, usually associated with the court, suggest Alfonso’s continued presence near Leén and Sahagtn in the winter and early spring of 1068.33 He was certainly there when he and other court figures confirmed a private document on May 1, 1068.34 But Ramon Menéndez Pidal, depending on Muslim sources, asserts that Alfonso VI attacked the taifa kingdom of Badajoz twice in 1068,

taking advantage first of the mortal illness of its king and then the rivalry of his two sons after his death, to exact tribute. The taifa king of Toledo, al-Mamun, is said to have tried to mediate the conflict. 35 If the source 1s to be trusted the first campaign may have taken place in May and June of 1068. That was certainly the prime campaigning season in peninsular warfare. After the first of May the Leonese king cannot be 27 AC Leon, Cédice 11, ff. 24r-25r, repeated on ff. 71r-721r; and Codice 25, no. 22. 30 AC Leon, Cédice 11, ff. 181r—182r. It is possible that this document should be dated a year earlier since Alfonso confirms “anno primo regni mei.” This is one of the rare occasions when the royal scribe seems to have been that Arias Dfaz who held that post under Fernando I as well. But the transcription was careless. For example, Bishop Froila of Oviedo is given as bishop of Astorga. The document also alerts us to the presence of both Count Pedro Gonzalez and another younger man of the same name in the royal entourage. 31 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 882, no. 13, pub. Alfonso Prieto Prieto, “Documentos referentes al orden judicial del monasterio de Sahagtin,” AHDE 45 (1975): §20-21. 32 See chapter 2, n. 27. 33 January 1, 1068. AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 62r—v. Feb. 14, 1068. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 882, no. 14; and a copy in Céddices, 989B, fol. 169v. April 27, 1068. AC Leén, Cé6dice 11, fol. 124r-v. 34 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 882, no. 15. 35 Fspana del Cid 1:166—67.

THE THREE KINGDOMS: LEON 59 placed anywhere until he reappears at Sahagtn in his charter of July 7, 1068, in the company of his sisters Urraca and Elvira among others. 3° Such an initiative on Alfonso’s part would have been the first, un-

mistakeable sign of his intention to depart from the settlement arranged by his father. Under the terms of that will, the parias, or tribute, from Badajoz was reserved to his brother, Garcia of Galicia-Portugal. While Garcia himself did not, and perhaps could not, respond to this breach of that understanding, the tentative incursion into Leonese territory by Sancho II that led to the skirmish at Llantadilla on July 19, 1068, may have been provoked or suggested by it.37 This latter incident seems not to have seriously disturbed Alfonso VI. Before and after it

his court remains at Sahagun.3* It might, however, have inhibited an immediate resumption of the attack on Badajoz. Once again private documents suggest the presence of the court in the center of the realm until November 22, 1068, when the king granted a charter to Sahagtn.39

After this last charter there is no notice of the whereabouts of Alfonso until late March 1069. He may have been waging his second campaign against Badajoz during the intervening period. That might help

to explain why the charter of his sister, Elvira, to Santiago de Compostela on December 10, 1068, was not executed at court.*° For the year 1069 we have no chronicler to reveal the doings of the Leonese monarch nor even a single royal charter. Private documents reveal that the court was at the royal monastery of Sahagtn in March, May, and again in August.¢! At the end of the year, on December 20, the new cathedral was consecrated in Astorga.*? Since that episcopal 36 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 882, nos. 17 and 18; Cddices, 989B, fol. 172r. 37 See chapter 3, notes 29-34.

8 July 10, 1068. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 86r—v. July 20, 1068. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 882, no. 19; copy in Céddices, 9898, fol. gir. 39 September 30, 1068. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 882, no. 20; copy in Cddices, 989B, fol. 114v. The early appearance of Arias as bishop of Oviedo and the confirmation of Bishop Jimeno of Burgos make this document suspect. Nov. 5, 1068. AHN, Microfilm, AD Leon, rollo 18.169. Nov. 9, 1068. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 62r. Nov. 22, 1068. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 882, no. 21; copies in Cédices, 989B, fol. sr, and 988B, ff. 18r—19r; pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahagtin pp. 469-70. This last document has been interpolated but

is probably based on a genuine original. : 4° See chapter 2, note 43. 41 Mar. 25, 1069. AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 18r. Mar. 26, 1069. AHN, Clero, Carpeta

882, nos. 22 and 23; a copy in Cédices, 989B, fol. 17r. May 30, 1069. AHN, Codices, 989B, fol. 117r-v. Aug. 26, 1069. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 882, no. 24. This last document has been massively interpolated at some subsequent date. 42 Walter Muir Whitehill, Spanish Romanesque Architecture of the Eleventh Century (1941,

reprinted Oxford, 1968), p. 210.

60 CHAPTER FOUR town was one of the four key centers of the realm of Leén, the presence of the king and court may safely be assumed. The same dearth of substantial sources continues in the following year. It is worth noting that the royal sisters Urraca and Elvira appeared in the court of Sancho of Castilla on January 18, 1070, but there is no

hint of the reason for their presence there.43 During the spring and summer Alfonso VI was often at or near Sahagtin.44 At Leén on October 1, 1070, he confirmed a private donation whose chief interest to us lies in the fact that it was also confirmed by the prior of the Galician monastery of Samos.‘ By this time, as we have already seen, Garcia of Galicia-Portugal was rapidly losing control of the northern portion of his domains and his bishop of Santiago de Compostela had been murdered with apparent impunity. The presence of an official of the important Galician monastery of Samos at the Leonese court suggests Alfonso’s readiness to consider intervention in that realm. On November

24, 1070, the king was still at Len, but events were to move swiftly toward a spectacular climax.*° January 13, 1071, found the Leonese king at Sahaguin.4? Open rebellion was in process in Portugal, however, and even though Garcia was

to defeat and kill the leader of the opposition there in late February, Leonese intervention had already become virtually inevitable.4* Alfonso was at Leén on February 19, 1071, entertaining the Galician bishop of Mondonedo.*? His sisters, Urraca and Elvira, were at the court of Sancho II on March 26, 1071, perhaps explaining to that monarch the actions planned by Alfonso VI in Galicia.s° In early May the latter was still near Sahagun. >! 43 See chapter 3, note 38.

44 May 9, 1070. AHN, Codices 989B, fol. 1111. July 25, 1070. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 883, no. 2; a copy in Cddices, 989B, ff. 17v—-18r. Sept. 5, 1070. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 129r. 45 See chapter 2, note 56. 46 AC Leon, Cédice 11, fol. 146 r—-v.

47 Jan. 13, 1071. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. sor—v; pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahagtin, pp. 470-71. This document is actually dated to 1069, but the mention of Abbot Fernando and the fact that Thursday fell on this date in 1071 and not in 1069 make the above dating preferable. 48 See chapter 2, note 51. 49 Ibid., note $8. 8° [bid., notes $9, 60, and 61.

s' May 1, 1071. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 84r. May 3, 1071. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 883, no. 6. Yet a third private document would place him there as late as June 6, 1071. AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 82r—v. This diploma is at least in error about the royal alférez whom it gives as Gonzalo Anstrez. It is probably incorrect as to the date as well for on

THE THREE KINGDOMS: LEON 61 What must have been a triumphal march into Galicia was over by mid-June. On June 13, 1071, when his sister, Urraca, issued a charter to the bishopric of Tuy, Alfonso confirmed it in the presence of his own bishops of Leén and Oviedo, the Galician bishops of Santiago de Com-

postela, Orense, and Mondonedo, the bishops of the newly restored sees of Tuy, Braga, and Lamego, his own abbot of Sahaguin, the Galician abbots of Antealtares and San Martin de Pinario of Santiago, the abbot of the south Galician monastery of Celanova, four counts, and his own alférez.5* The practical hegemony thus demonstrated seems to have been sufficiently secure to have allowed his early return to Le6én, and we find him at Sahagitn already on July 12, 1071.53 There he remained through the late summer and the fall of the year. 54 During the latter part of November a great meeting was held at Le6n or Sahagun, which Sancho of Castilla may himself have attended. Although he himself did not confirm either of the documents, that of November 18 cites him as regnant in Castilla, and that of November 23 cites him as ruling in Castilla and Galicia and Alfonso as ruling in Leén and Galicia.55 But an agreement for joint rule in Galicia could not, in

fact, be really equal. It must work to the advantage of Alfonso VI, whose lands adjoined those of Garcia.

In the list of those who confirmed Alfonso’s charters in the fall of 1071 one notes already the new presence of the magnates of the northwest. Rodrigo Ovéquez, who confirmed as “fili1 comes” in June, had become “comes” by December. He, with his brothers Vela and Vermudo, who also first appear now at court, dominated the strategic area about Lugo in Galicia.5° Fernando Vermudez, another Galician magnate, confirmed in October.’” So did the powerful Froila Arias from June 13 Alfonso will be in Tuy, which is almost four hundred kilometers away over very : rough country. I do not believe that the journey could have been made so swiftly. ‘2 See chapter 2, note 63. 83 [bid., note 64. ‘+ August 3, 1071. AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 107v. Aug. 29, 1071. AHN, Microfilm, :

AD Leén, rollo 18.169. Oct. 15, 1071. See note 16. This is a charter of Alfonso himself . to his sister, Urraca. Nov. 6, 1071. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 87r; pub. Escalona, His-

toria de Sahagiin, p. 471. Another charter of Alfonso confirmed by his sisters, Urraca and |

Elvira, among others. Nov. 14, 1071. AHN, Microfilm, AD Le6én, rollo 18.179. An | original fragment of an Alfonsine charter. , ‘s See chapter 3, note $3, and chapter 2, note 69. Indeed, some such assurance of con-

dominium may have been given the previous spring, for a private, Castilian charter of , May 10, 1071, already cited Sancho as regnant in Castilla and Galicia. Serrano, Cartulario }

de San Pedro de Arlanza, pp. 151-582. | ‘6 For the family, see Lopez Ferreiro, Historia de Santiago 3:155—-57. | 87 See Charles Julian Bishko, “The Cluniac Priories of Galicia and Portugal: Their Ac- |

quisition and Administration,” SM 7 (1965): 310.

62 CHAPTER FOUR

pen aE oo ee, RG GEIR Ue ss ee tol eee eeBis. Pee yn‘Sieh, ee NS oe aber a aee EP ae CPi 3 ge 3 oe ne oe) ae pas.) eS 4 et Se

Eg? seam ee Se os ae: ee ON oe Pl ONS. See oe ae “Ae OO SLL a“oo oe a ee et. a Te Agee ae Le? ig AoE: gt: a aeaovRR eo a bes “i ae ;.GRR ” . on iis f*. e 533 Fs tS g “seSe & gatsee he ee afe ee oF: . Nol + =Cea mere: : ee : a wee GONE, 2 ae A + RG Se pores f oe 4” ie ‘ ‘ 2" ign on aed a & Mars

attVeet eS OS eeCR eeeaaeiy.eeae—— ma Ray , “i Re 3a Rn ae ee Po En © 8ae eSen Se ee ae _« Cees... MMe Be I diem aetna QOR are3 ere en See

% me “ ectas a4 ‘y , oo : oe be. ./ oo ' y *, * . WO” ae , | es, eee: anig . “*Nei :Da &comm -. iFr4G3hig . “ any ‘+f. | j So ij ;. oT .Lek ; *%.. foe7ae Staats -" nee ay? oi)1& OB BOhyo 2g | . . | | ee . at. we HBN LS vA. re Md . Bea) £ re: re Ys cr » > aa ; : : wf . . oa ¥

ere a nes oo |

Earliest known original charter of Alfonso VI, November 14, 1071 (fragment). Courtesy of the Archivo Diocesano, Leon.

southern Galicia in November. And when on December 21, 1071, Alfonso gave a charter to Armentario Velasquez it was confirmed by another noble of the same region, Muno Velasquez, and by Alfonso’s own merino for the adjoining region of Bierzo, Pelayo Cidiz.** Sancho II could hardly have been expected to view complacently the near doubling of Alfonso’s influence and the latter’s gradual consolidation of his power in the west of the peninsula which would inevitably follow. Such a gain, coupled with the traditional preeminence of the throne of Leén in the Christian north, would have confined his own

royal dignity too closely, eventually making a mockery of the supposed equality of the brothers. As we have seen, the Castilian king decided to trust in the fortunes of battle rather than his brother’s sense and assurances of equity. He invaded Leén and in January 1072 and defeated and captured Alfonso VI at Golpejera. By that stroke Sancho II gained a truly imperial realm if he could but secure general assent to his rule, for the territories to which he had thus acceded were divided by geography, tradition, and recent history. As already noted, the documents of the immediate period are con388 AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 68r.

THE THREE KINGDOMS: LEON 63 fused and so one must fall back on the chronicles with all their vagueness as to chronology.*? The victor’s first action, dictated by the twin necessities of security and retaining the initiative, were to despatch his captured brother back to Burgos in chains and to proceed himself immediately to the royal city of Leén.® By January 12, 1072, he had secured possession of that central position.®' We are told, however, on that day he crowned himself.®? Such an action should be taken not as arrogance but as a result of the unwillingness of Bishop Pelayo of Leén, to whom the right pertained, to crown him. It was the first indication of the political task that now awaited him. He seems to have begun it, naturally enough, by issuing a charter to Abbot Fernando of Sahagun, that most favored of all monasteries of the kings of Leén, on January 26, 1072.% His recognition as king by that abbot would be a major first step to more general acceptance. It would be no more than a first step, however, for not one of the bishops of the realm of Leén confirmed the charter. Moreover, the only lay magnate of Leén who confirmed it was Count Fernando Fernandez. For the rest, Sancho appears surrounded by the nobles of Castilla. One of the ways in which the Castilian king could reinforce his dom-

inance and secure a fuller submission of the Leonese nobility and church would be to obtain recognition in Galicia-Portugal and to deal with his yet younger brother, Garcia, still maintaining himself in the south of Portugal. This task he probably undertook in the late winter

and early spring. The only Portuguese document that cites him as reigning there is dated May 25, 1072.° Later chronicles give epicsounding accounts of his defeat and capture of Garcia in the south of Portugal near Santarem, but the earliest useful source simply mentions

the facts and informs us that the vanquished king was allowed to go | into exile at Sevilla.®% |

Such success would have strengthened materially Sancho’s position : in Le6n, and it is likely that only in its aftermath would he have allowed |

his much more dangerous brother Alfonso to go, in turn, into exile. : Though the chronology cannot be strictly established, it seems proba- : ‘9 Chapter 3, note 58. | 6° The oldest useful account is Sanchez Alonso, ed., Crénica del Obispo Don Pelayo, p.

78. “Missus in Vinculis, et ductus Burgis.” | “| See chapter 3, note $5.

* Cronica del Pelayo, p. 78. “Imposuit sibi in Legione coronam.” |

61 AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 110r. The dating protocol is defective in the copy for it , reads “die v feria. vii kalendas februarii. Era ICX.” But January 26 was a Friday rather |

than a Thursday in 1072. | 64 Chapter 2, note 71. 6s “Cronicon Compostellanum,” ES 20:609. !

64 CHAPTER FOUR ble that Alfonso was released from captivity in Burgos sometime in late May or June 1072 and allowed to take up residence in the taifa kingdom of Toledo. All of the accounts agree that the intercession of the Infanta Urraca was important in effecting this concession. The chronicle of the

Cluniac monastery of Najera dating from the late twelfth century alleges the intervention of the great Saint Hugh, abbot of Cluny as well, and even the miraculous appearance of Saint Peter in Burgos, but the chronicle depends here on Bishop Hildebert of Le Mans’ twelfth-century life of Hugh. Bishko accepts the intercession of Hugh of Cluny as probable.© The internal, political necessities of the realm would have been more effective than external pressures. If Sancho of Castilla was to secure peaceful acceptance of his legitimate rule over the reunited patrimony of his father he is likely to have required, above all, the acquiescence of the two remaining, living members of the dynastic house, the infantas Urraca and Elvira. The latter remains a shadowy figure of whom we

know little. All of the testimony agrees that it was with Urraca that Sancho had to come to terms, and no doubt the safe release and relatively comfortable exile of the latter at the court of a former client was the key to whatever bargain was struck. Nevertheless, there 1s little evidence that Sancho ever did manage to secure general recognition in the role he had won at Golpejera. Except for the charter to Sahagtin mentioned above, no other genuine charters of Sancho survive from 1072. That may be merely a matter of chance

but, on the other hand, accepting a charter from him would be the practical equivalent of recognizing Sancho as legitimate sovereign. So long as he had not finally consolidated his power, his largesse opened the recipient to a future charge of high treason if the situation should change. Perhaps the ambivalent evidence such private documents as exist for the period reflect not so much the confusion of later copyists as they do the perplexities of contemporaries. After all the citation of

the “wrong” king in the final protocol of even a private document

could subsequently cast a legal cloud on the validity of its contents. | At any rate, it would seem that, in addition to the abbot of Sahagun, the abbot of the important Leonese monastery of Eslonza also made his peace with the new monarch, for on May 11, 1072, he allowed a private 6° Cronica Najerense, pp. 111-13, which also has Sancho parading Alfonso in chains through the cities of Leén. For the relevant portion of the life of Bishop Hildebert see Martin Marrier and Andreas Quercetanus, eds. Bibliotheca Cluniacensis (Paris, 1614), p. 419. For Bishko, “Fernando I and Cluny,” p. 77. The Historia Silense, p. 120, does give

Alfonso’s term of exile as “novem mensium,” which would imply his almost immediate , release by Sancho. It is hard to credit.

THE THREE KINGDOMS: LEON 65 donation to his monastery to cite Sancho as ruler of Leén. The Leonese

Count Fernando Fernandez confirmed it as he had Sancho’s earlier donation to Sahagtn.®% On May 12, 1072, a private donation to Sahagun cited Sancho also, and it was confirmed by the bishops of Leén, Palencia, and Astorga. If it could be accepted, the document would indicate a major advance for the Castilian king as signaling the submission of the major bishops of the realm of Leén. Whether or not Sancho ever progressed so far politically remains unclear because the document gives the long dead Ordono as bishop of Astorga and so may be a forgery, or the confirmations of all the bishops may have been interpo-

lated.* But by the late summer the Castilian’s support was certainly wavering. The documents may indicate something of the sort. On August 23, 1072, a private donation to Sahagun confirmed by the bishops of Leon, Palencia, and Astorga simply cited no king at all in its protocol. On September 5, 1072, another such donation was made jointly to the abbot of Sahagun and to Bishop Jimeno, presumably of Burgos-Oca.”° It may thus indicate that Sancho was employing his own bishop to coordinate church matters together with the abbot of Sahagtin, who had come to support the new regime. Despite the best efforts of the Castilian monarch, by early October he was dead by assassination before the walls of Zamora. The earliest source tells us no more than that, and that he was subsequently buried at the Castilian monastery of Ona.7! Bishop Pelayo’s account adds only

the name of the assassin, “Velliti Ariulfi,” to this account.7? A third , chronicle, perhaps roughly contemporary with these two, tells us that

a rebellion had been raised against Sancho in Zamora by the Infanta Ur- ; raca and Count Pedro Anstrez and that the former met his death on 2

Saturday, October 6, 1072.73 | These are the bare facts of which we dispose, themselves written per-

67 Maria Liusa Cabanes Catala, “Un documento en escritura visig6tica en el archivo de Valencia,” published it and it may be a most important original. The document of Saha- :

gun dated Feb. 22, 1072, AHN, Coddices, 989B, ff. 125v—126r; pub. Escalona, Historia de | Sahagun, pp. 471-72, by way of contrast, would seem to be an error of date or an outright : later forgery. It was confirmed by the bishops of Leon, Palencia, and Astorga, by Alfonso VI’s alférez, and cites Alfonso as regnant just as though nothing had happened. :

6’ AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. ro4r. | 6 Ibid., fol. 17Vv.

70 Vignau, Indice de documentos, p. 252. . 71 Pérez de Urbel and Gonzalez Ruiz-Zorrilla, eds., Historia Silense, pp. 120-21. 2 72 Cronica del Pelayo, p. 78. '

73 “Cronicon Compostellanum,” ES 20:609—10. October 7 has usually been accepted : as the correct date. See Menéndez Pidal, Esparia del Cid 1:183-84, n. 2. 7

66 CHAPTER FOUR haps between fifty and sixty years after the event. Such an event was bound to capture the literary imagination, however, and one can catch echoes of what had been done with it already by the time of the com-

position of the Cronica Najerense in the last quarter of the twelfth century. The full tide of that literary effort is reflected in the thirteenthcentury historians. If one believes seriously in the historical verisimili-

tude of the bards, one arrives at the sort of elaboration reflected in Menéndez Pidal.74

It seems to me that we must depend on the chroniclers, however spare the accounts, because of their priority in time. It has been asserted by the literary historians that the epic materials on which the historians

of the late twelfth century and the thirteenth drew began rather to be composed toward the end of the late eleventh century and thus are prior to the historical accounts.75 I find such hypotheses doubtful in the extreme. It seems to me that the growth of sucha literary tradition during

the reign of Alfonso VI himself, or of his daughter, Urraca, who so consciously continued her father’s policy, or of her son Alfonso VII whose reign was so brilliant, is inherently unlikely. I expect that the ambiance that would have proved fertile for and disposed to the patronage of such efforts, is to be sought rather in the period of the division of the kingdoms of Leén and Castilla after the death of Alfonso VII in 1157. The continuing rivalry of the two kingdoms and the occasional state of hostility between them would have provided a proper soil for the growth of a specifically anti-Leonese literary inheritance in the form of a Cantar de Sancho II and, more ambiguously, the Cantar de mio Cid.7° The recent redating of the Cronica Najerense to the last quarter of the twelfth century would allow for the first incorporation of such antiLeonese tales in the chronicle tradition. Returning to the historians of that tradition, then, one finds that Sancho was faced with a rebellion sometime in the late summer or early fall

of 1072. Its dimensions seem not to have been formidable. The only names of importance associated with it are those of Urraca and Pedro 74 Espana del Cid 1:178—-88.

7s Carola Reig, El cantar de Sancho II y cerco de Zamora (Madrid, 1947), p. 41. The au-

thor has assembled the existing texts and studied their relationships closely, though with too great a deference to the opinions of Menéndez Pidal in my opinion. Salvador Martinez, “Tres leyendas heroicas de la Ndjerense y sus relaciones con la épica castellana,” Anuario de Letras de la Facultad de Filosofia y Letras de la Universidad de México 9 (1971): 115-

77, has studied the matter intensively, but again he accepts the older and too early dating of both the Cronica itself and the Cantar de mio Cid.

76 | have argued elsewhere that the possible first literary form of many of these materials was actually a now lost epic of which the central figure was Alfonso VI himself, and that the Sancho epic represents a later, Castilian reworking of these materials. See my “Sources of the Fourth Book of Lucas of Tuy’s ‘Chronicon Mundi,’ ” p. 136.

THE THREE KINGDOMS: LEON 67 Anstrez. The figures of Vellido Adolfo and of Arias Gonzalez, later associated with it in the literary sources, figure in no contemporary doc-

uments of which I am currently aware. Zamora itself was a frontier outpost on the line of the Duero some 125 kilometers south of the city of Leén. The town was a citadel atop slopes that rose abruptly from the river and were capped by formidable walls. But these obstacles mainly

looked toward the south from which the Muslim raids traditionally came.

From the north the approach to the city is quite feasible militarily and, were the northern walls to be breached, the very character of the southern terrain made of the city a cul-de-sac for its defenders. Except for its role as a border fortress, Zamora was a place of little importance in the mid-cleventh century. It will not achieve the status of a bishopric until fifty years hence, and by comparison with Astorga, Leén, Palencia, Burgos, or even Oviedo it was of small matter to the realm and its monarch. In all likelihood what made the town of grave concern to Sancho was that from it communications with Toledo to the southeast where Alfonso VI was sojourning and with Sevilla to the south where Garcia

sulked in exile were virtually unimpeded. It is entirely possible that the | “revolt” consisted of no more than the refusal of his sister and Count | Pedro to make a formal submission to him and of their flight from |

court to a border town in which they could rally some support.7’ , Nevertheless, given the new and necessarily provisional character of ,

his rule, Sancho had to react strongly as he did. The defection of a }

member of the royal house itself and her support by a powerful mag- . nate and former majordomo of Alfonso VI could hardly be safely ig- :

nored. If they were given the opportunity to concert plans with the other two male members of the royal house, the whole of Sancho’s fragile rule over Portugal, Galicia, Leén, and Oviedo could begin to

85. | deteriorate. And so he undertook, probably in September 1072, an ex- | pedition to force the rebels into submission or force their own flight | into exile. In the most surprising of fashions, it led instead to his own ..

murder before the walls of Zamora. The success of the assassin, stripped of its later dramatic literary accretions, 1s perhaps the most

settlement. . telling evidence of the insecurity of such control as his military victo- .

ries had given him and his failure to achieve a subsequent political | 77 Menéndez Pidal, Esparia del Cid 1:176-79, accepted the later literary evidence that |

Pedro Anstrez and his brothers accompanied Alfonso into exile but that Count Pedro :

returned to Zamora to plan the uprising. Just so, he incorporates the formidable heroics ; there of the Cid, whom the early chroniclers similarly do not mention. Ibid., pp. 181- 7

FIVE

LEON-CASTILLA REUNITED AND THE ANNEXATION OF THE RIOJA

Predictably, the news of the assassination of Sancho II before the walls of Zamora reached Alfonso VI in Toledo promptly. According to the

earliest source that treats the matter at any length, the Leonese exile persuaded al-Mamun, taifa king of Toledo, not only to allow his return but indeed to facilitate it.! A century later, the chronicles will have the matter much embellished from the literary sources, but they will add that al-Mamun insisted that Alfonso swear to support both al-Mamun himself and his successor, even against their Muslim coreligionists if necessary.” Considerations of elementary prudence on the part of the Muslim king would argue that some such pact was reached before Alfonso was allowed to depart.: The first documentary evidence for the return of Alfonso VI to power 1s dated in November 1072. The most sensible route for Alfonso led from Toledo to Zamora, a distance of some 240 kilometers as the crow flies and considerably more in practicable distance. Allowing, as seems reasonable, at least seven days for the news of his brother’s death to have reached him over that distance, another week of negotiations with al-Mamun and preparations for departure, and something better

than a week for his own journey north, Alfonso is unlikely to have reached Zamora before the last days of October or the first days of November. There he would have spent some few days of consultation with his

sister Urraca, with Count Pedro Anstrez, and with such other of his supporters as had rallied to them. As a result of their conferences, mes' Pérez de Urbel and Gonzalez Ruiz-Zorrilla, eds., Historia Silense, p. 122. 2 Jiménez de Rada, “De rebus Hispaniae,” p. 133. Menéndez Pidal, Espatia del Cid 2:188—92, follows Jiménez de Rada and the Primera Crénica General because he believed

that they drew on a contemporary Toledan source. My own view, that the “De rebus Hispaniae” here follows a lost epic of which Alfonso VI was the central figure, has been set forth in a separate study whose publication may precede that of this book. 3 Although Ubieto Arteta, ed., Cronica Najerense, pp. 115-16, shows Alfonso fleeing by night.

LEON-CASTILLA REUNITED 69 sengers would have been despatched to the major magnates and prel-

ates of the realms of Leén, Castilla, and Galicia-Portugal ordering them to assemble in the royal city of Leén for the formal recognition of their restored king. Then the better than 120-kilometer journey of the royal party itself from Zamora north to Leén would have begun. A reasonably accurate reckoning, then, makes it probable that Alfonso did not arrive in Leén until about November 10, 1072. Within a week of

that time the notables summoned, or some portion of them, had reached the city, and a great curia produced the documents that make it historically visible. In two charters of November 17, 1072, and November 19, 1072, Alfonso took steps to establish his popularity by abolishing a toll and reforming a judicial procedure respectively.4 From the two confirmation lists we can form a good idea of those who had already rallied to him. Le6én was represented by the faithful bishops of the royal city itself, of Astorga, Palencia, and Oviedo; his majordomo, Telo Gutiérrez; and counts Pedro Anstrez, Pedro Pelaez, and Martin Alfonsez. The notables of the kingdom of Galicia-Portugal were also much in

evidence. The bishops of Lugo, Mondonedo, Orense, Santiago de Compostela, and Braga were all present. Gonzalo Diaz, who had formerly figured in the charters of Garcia of Galicia, now appears as Alfonso VI’s new alférez. The counts Froila Arias and Vermudo Ordonez confirmed as well.’ Presumably Alfonso’s brother, Garcia, who had been yet another 325 kilometers south of Toledo at the time of Sancho of Castilla’s death in early October, could not have heard the news until at best some ten days after Alfonso VI had. He also would have needed at least the same amount of time to cover the distance from Sevilla to Coimbra, the southernmost stronghold of his former realm. Presuming the same time necessary for negotiations at Sevilla before he started as the week we allowed Alfonso at Toledo, Garcia could hardly have reached Coimbra before November I0, 1072, at the earliest. By then, the magnates and prelates of Garcia’s realm were already on their way to Leén. His own summons would have reached them well after they had made their obedience to Alfonso VI, if at all. In addition, Garcia lacked the advantage of a party already in being as Alfonso had had at Zamora and suffered the disadvantage of widespread unpopularity in his own realms. From these multiple handicaps, Garcia was never to recover. 4 AC Leon, Céddice 11, ff. 58r—sor; pub. ES 36:53-55 append. AC Leon, Céddice 11, ff. 62v—63r; pub. ES 36:55-57 append.

‘ In the latter case only as “Comes Veremudus,” but Vermudo Ordonez was the only person of that name who held the comital dignity at the time.

70 CHAPTER FIVE These charters also disclose that Alfonso of Leén was already the recipient of significant support in the realm of his dead brother, Sancho. Bishop Jimeno of Oca-Burgos confirmed. So did counts Gonzalo Salvad6érez and Muno Gonzalez of the powerful family of the Lara, whose alliance with the crown was to be long and portentous. Nevertheless, the new king needed to consolidate further his position in Castilla. Not only was there a long history of semi-independence there, but the circumstances of Sancho’s death inevitably cast a cloud over Alfonso’s succession. Although the name of the regicide is, as I have said, so obscure as to be invisible in the documents of the period, he must have enjoyed powerful patronage to have dared such an act. Later literary opinion unanimously places the blame of inspiring the deed on Infanta Urraca, and indeed desperation in the fall of 1072 may have driven her to that extreme.° On the other hand, an obscure adventurer may simply have anticipated that his own initiative would not go unrewarded in the troubled situation of the time. We cannot be sure. Contemporaries would have been justifiably suspicious, and their suspicions must have extended to the possible complicity of the new

king himself.7 His sister, Urraca, moreover, confirmed both of the charters mentioned above as well as the one we are about to consider so

that she was prominent in his renewed reign. Infanta Elvira, interestingly enough, seems to have held aloof from the royal curia for some four months. Some courting of the Castilian nobility was therefore in order, and already on December 8, 1072, we find Alfonso granting a charter to the monastery of Cardena near Burgos.* There is also a private document,

dated December 7, 1072, that records an exchange of properties between the abbots of Cardena and of San Millan de La Cogolla in the ° The assertions are reviewed by Menéndez Pidal, Esparia del Cid 1:185—88. One must

remember, however, that these accusations are made by partisans and at a time when Le6n is separate from and frequently the enemy of Castilla. The acceptance of the fuero of Castrojeriz as a contemporary text is simply unwarranted, as we shall have occasion to see somewhat later. ? There may be a near contemporary record of the accusation of the king himself, deriving from the Castilian monastery of Silos. See Menéndez Pidal, Esparia del Cid 2:708709. This use of a blank illumination space in a liturgical book for a historical note is without a parallel to my knowledge. I have not seen the manuscript myself but the script, as it appears in the photograph, could be of the late eleventh century or the early twelfth. 8 Serrano, ed., Becerro gético de Cardena, pp. 98-100, who corrects the dating protocol slightly. Berganza, Antigtiedades de Esparia 2:438-39, who publishes as well an obviously false charter of much the same import dated Dec. 3, 1072.

LEON-CASTILLA REUNITED 71 presence of Alfonso and his sister Urraca.? Although the royal charter | is confirmed by the bishops of Leén, Palencia, Astorga, Lugo, and San-

tiago de Compostela, the two documents, taken together, make it likely that they record a formal progression of the full curia to Burgos rather than a visit of the Castilians to Leén. These documents also mark the formal reconciliation of Castilla with its new king. The second of them cites Alfonso as regnant in Castilla, Leon, and Galicia. Both illustrate the recognition of the Leonese monarch not only by the bishop of Oca-Burgos but by the abbots of two of the most important Castilian monasteries. In addition, the royal diploma is confirmed by Gonzalo Salvadérez, Diego Alvarez, Ordono Ordonez, Gonzalo Alvarez, Alvaro Gonzalez, Fan Fanez, Garcia Ordénez, Diego Gonzalez, Rodrigo Diaz, Vermudo Gutiérrez, and Antonio Nunez. That is, it records the submission of just about every important Castilian magnate and those who had previously figured most prominently in the charters of Fernando I and of Sancho II. In slightly less than a month after his return from exile, Alfonso VI had secured the full adherence of Castilla. To effect this political reconciliation the new king had doubtless to give assurances of favor of many kinds. After all, his younger brother was still at large and represented an at least minimally credible dynastic alternative. Included among such assurances, we may reasonably infer, were private disavowals of any complicity of either himself or his sister in the murder of his brother, Sancho. His auditors may or may not have believed him, but scruples would have to have been satisfied even in an age as rough as the eleventh century. That such disavowals took the form of a solemn oath, with a dozen oath-helpers, administered by the Cid in the church of Santa Gadea of Burgos, as related by the later literary accounts and historical narratives that borrowed heavily from them, may just as reasonably be doubted.'° Alfonso VI had already secured the adherence of all Leén and of much of Galicia as well as some of Castilla. He had no need to submit to public ordeals which would have had the effect of broadcasting the very suspicions they were designed to quiet, and it is doubtful that even those who had their suspi9 Serrano, ed., Cartulario de San Millan, pp. 215-16. 10 Menéndez Pidal, Esparia del Cid 1:193-200, accepts the fact of the oath of Santa Gadea as substantially historical. Given his lifelong partisanship of the historical veracity of the Castilian epic, of the political importance of the Cid, and of the unique “national character” of Castilla, he could hardly have done otherwise. I simply think that he was mistaken on all of these counts despite his outstanding contributions to literary research and, not at all infrequently, to historical research as well.

72 CHAPTER FIVE cions would have found it either useful or necessary to humiliate and antagonize him in such a fashion. Alfonso did not, apparently, find it either necessary or politic to remain long in Castilla. By January 6, 1073, the bishops of Lugo and Compostela, who had accompanied him there, were back in Galicia as

shown by their confirmation of a private charter there.'' The king, then, had probably been back in time to keep the Christmas season at Sahagun or Le6n. This same charter was confirmed by four of the five bishops of Galicia, by the bishop of Braga, by Infanta Elvira, and by a host of the abbots of the most influential monasteries of Galicia. One of the occasions of their assembly was likely to have been the reaffirmation of their support for Alfonso of Leén. In any event, Garcia of Galicia-Portugal was soon to seek negotiations with his surviving, elder brother. This seems to have taken place at Leén or Sahagun. A private charter of the latter places the royal court there on January 16, 1073.'? Our two best sources agree that, on the advice of his sister, Urraca, Alfonso invited Garcia to a conference and then took him prisoner, on February 13, 1073.'3 He was to remain his brother’s captive for the remainder of his life in the castle of Luna in the northern mountains of Le6n. Better than seven years had passed since the death of Fernando el Magno but his kingdom was now reunited under the rule of his second son. For more than three and a half decades Alfonso VI would continue to rule and enlarge it, leading the realm during one of the periods of its greatest brilliance. He would conquer the Rioja, the southern half of the basin of the Duero, and above all thrust the kingdom’s borders across the Guadarrama range up to the northern bank of the Rio Tajo with his reconquest of Toledo in 1085. At the same time the Leonese monarch would preside over the alliance of the realm’s most stable and important institution, the church, with both Cluny and Rome while

simultaneously allying his dynasty with the house of the county of Burgundy in the southeast of France. Thus were set in train a series of influences that would profoundly affect the development of the entire Iberian peninsula for the next four centuries. There 1s absolutely no hy! José I. Fernandez de Viana, “Los dos primeros documentos del monasterio de San Salvador de Chantada,” Compostellanum 13 (1968): 348-52. 2? AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 69r—v; pub. Hinojosa, Las instituciones de Leon y de Cas-

tilla, p. 29. A private document of Jan. 26, 1073, indicates that Garcia had rallied some support in the west for it cites him as regnant in Galicia. AHN, Codices, 16B, fol. gr—v. '3 Pérez de Urbel, ed., Historia Silense, pp. 123-24. Unfortunately this source virtually ends with the description of the incident. “Chronicon Compostellanum,” ES 20:610.

LEON-CASTILLA REUNITED 73 perbole, then, in styling him the most important Spanish monarch between Pelayo and Ferdinand and Isabella. On his accession to the rule of a reunited Leén-Castilla, Alfonso VI was approximately thirty-six years of age. Neither the chroniclers nor the documents of the age furnish historians with the materials requisite to a biography in the modern sense. The literary materials of a century

or better later already saw him refracted in the concerns of their own period and the subtle demands of their own literary forms. As a result, the history of Alfonso VI 1s inevitably the history of his public rule of Leén-Castilla, neither more nor less. While we can know nothing of the details of his youth or education, we can safely assume that he was educated to the practice of arms. In the eleventh century the essential definition of every king was warrior. At least until 1086, at the age of forty-nine, when he was seriously wounded, Alfonso sometimes led his own armies into battle. In 1108, at age seventy-one, he still accompanied his armies on campaign. Certainly he was one of the great warrior-kings of Europe. Like many others of his kind, Alfonso also engaged in what is best described as a kind of serial monogamy as the needs of the dynasty dictated. That is, he was married successively to no less than six different women. Whatever satisfaction he may or may not have found 1n his legitimate spouses, a mixture of political demands and, perhaps, sexual appetite also led him to take two known mistresses as well. Yet he was remarkably less successful as a husband and a lover than as a warrior. As we shall see, he died without a male heir but with four daughters, a

granddaughter, and one grandson, with perhaps another grandson born shortly after his own death. Doubtless there had been many more births, but the age was a cruel one even for royal infants. This lack of a surviving son was to threaten and partially undo some of his achievement after his demise. It is tempting to see Alfonso VI as something of a royal lecher using his power to satisfy personal desire. Indeed, this would not have been surprising as the history of the European monarchy generally so richly

illustrates. Yet it 1s unwise to forget that the history of the European , crown was always the history of a dynasty, and therefore the history of

politics under the monarchy was always family politics. If Alfonso sometimes enjoyed such necessities it would not be surprising, but we shall be wise to presume that the central quest was always for a male heir or a favorable alliance. Certainly his contemporaries, male or female, secular or religious, would have found none of his behavior in this regard unusual. It has been asserted with some authority, however, that Alfonso also

74 CHAPTER FIVE participated in an incestuous relationship with his sister, Urraca. Certainly their relationship was a close one. Urraca was uniformly credited by the early sources first with persuading Sancho II to allow Alfonso to go into exile, then with raising a rebellion in the latter’s behalf, and finally with conniving with him in the seizure of the unfortunate Garcia. She appears associated with Alfonso in the charters issued immediately after his return to power. There is nothing innately surprising or sinister in the fact that, when brothers fight, sisters will make a choice nor that the choice will fall on their favorite. More serious accusations depend on less reliable evidence. Much has been made of a single word of a phrase in a near contemporary chronicle which seems to me not to bear the weight placed on it.'4 A thirteenth-century Muslim source, whose sources in turn have been alleged to be eleventh-century ones, accuses Alfonso of carnal relations with his sister, but Alfonso, as the arch-enemy of Islam, was generally

blackened in character by those sources.'’ The thirteenth-century chronicler Gil de Zamora reports the fact, incredible in the strictest sense of that term, that Alfonso actually married Urraca in order to persuade her to surrender Zamora to him in the fall of 1072.'° I find none of the evidence adduced convincing. Finally, one is unable to discover the prime motivation that governed Alfonso’s political activity. As is already clear, he trenched early on the authority of his younger brother in Galicia and later seized him during

negotiations and imprisoned him for life. Alfonso may well have acquiesced tacitly to the assassination of Sancho. Late in life he would ex-

ile and despoil his most faithful supporter, Count Pedro Anstirez. Of his relations with the Cid, we shall see more later. He would continue the close relationship established by his father with Cluny and display a sturdy independence in dealings with the reformed papacy while taking a Muslim mistress and pursuing the Reconquista against Islam vigorously. We simply do not dispose of the requisite materials, however, to divine in all of this what part may have been played by personal ambition, what by jealousy or fear, what by lust, what by picty or greed. What we can perceive is a consummate politician at work under the conditions imposed by the age and its particular mores. We can clearly see his concern for the integrity of the dynasty and his sense of the tra-

120-21. ;

'4 Pérez de Urbel, ed., Historia Silense, p. 122. “A pueritia pre ceteris fratribus fraterno amore medulitus dilexerat.” 's Ibn Idari, Al-Bayan al-mugrib, trans. Ambrosio Huici Miranda (Valencia, 1963), pp.

'6 The thesis of incest in its most developed form was set forth by Evariste Lévi-Provencal and Ramon Menéndez Pidal, “Alfonso VI y su hermana la Infanta Urraca,” AlAndalus 13 (1948): 157-66.

LEON-CASTILLA REUNITED 75 ditional privileges and ambitions of the crown of Leén-Castilla. In these terms, then, the story must be told without resort to modern creations such as nationalism or abstractions such as raison d’etat.

In the period between his return from exile in November 1072 and the occupation of the Rioja in July 1076 a new curia emerges around the

king. Relying solely on the evidence of the dozen, indisputable royal charters of the period, one sees clearly both continuity and innovation in its makeup. The curia’s regular ecclesiastical personnel comprises first the bishops of Leén, Palencia, and Astorga, who confirm eight, eight, and six of the twelve respectively. The bishops of all of these sees had been appointed in the days of Fernando I and had adhered to the cause of Al-

fonso VI after the former’s death. But now they are joined by the bishop of Oca-Burgos, also appointed in the time of Fernando, who represents Castilla and also confirmed eight royal diplomas. The heartland of the realm thus consists of the four major dioceses of the north-

ern half of the meseta of the Duero basin. The bishops of Asturias, Galicia, and Portugal, ringing the meseta but separated from it by sub-

stantial mountain barriers, all appear in fewer than half of the royal diplomas. It is notable that the bishops of Mondonedo, Compostela, Orense, and Braga, all appointees of the period in which Garcia had ruled Gali-

cia and Portugal, continue in their dignities. Nevertheless it is the bishop of Lugo, again a holdover from the reign of Fernando, who appears most frequently in the Alfonsine charters among the members of this group. Yet there are two changes made in the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the west that reflect royal initiatives. One is the suppression of the Portuguese see of Lamego, created by Garcia, and its subjection to

the bishop of Braga. The other is the appearance of a new bishop at Tuy. Possibly these decisions were made simply on the grounds of geography and of infirmity and death, but just as possibly their incumbents may have supported Garcia's abortive attempt to reestablish himself in his old realm in late 1072. Certainly the appearance of a new abbot at Sahagun is to be related to the acceptance by Abbot Fernando of a grant from Sancho II in Jan-

uary 1072 which meant recognition of the latter as legitimate king. After Alfonso’s restoration, such behavior could only have been construed as treason on the part of the most important abbot of the realm. A new abbot, Julian, ruled the monastery by at least the middle of 1073.'7 '7 The last appearance of Fernando as abbot 1s precisely in the charter of Sancho. See chapter 4, n. 63. The first appearance of Julian occurs in a private document of June 26,

76 CHAPTER FIVE Only in Oviedo did Alfonso have the opportunity in this period to enjoy the regular prerogative of the monarchy to choose a new bishop. In the province of Asturias de Oviedo, once the heart of the realm but now increasingly a peripheral appendage, he was content to see the promotion of a local man to the see. The new bishop, Arias Crémaz, had been abbot of the important monastery of San Juan de Corias and was well regarded by the local comital family. He became bishop of Oviedo in late 1073.'° The lay dignitaries of the curia reflect the same sort of balanced distribution between Leén and Castilla. A new majordomo, Telo Gutiérrez, has appeared already in Alfonso’s first charter of November 17, 1072, and he will continue in that office at least until February 20, 1074.'? On August 15, 1075, he has already become royal merino, that is, the fiscal, administrative, judicial officer, of the city of Leén.*° The cursus honorum continues to function, but while the royal merino in Le6én enjoyed the prerogatives of a count for practical purposes the title itself seems to have been denied him as prejudicial to the royal dignity in that key city. Tello was Leonese and of a comital house. His successor in that dignity was Pedro Moréllez, who continued to hold it from at least March 27, 1075, until 1078.2! The latter had first appeared in the documents in Alfonso VI’s charter to Silos of July 16, 1073, and seems to have been a Castilian from the types of private documents in which he appears.” Alfonso had a new alférez as well in November 1072. Gonzalo Diaz seems to have been a Galician from his confirmation of two of the early charters of Garcia. He continued as Alfonso’s shieldbearer at least till November 10, 1073.73 His successor 1n that post was Garcia Ordonez, 1073. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 883, no. 12. Copy in AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 129r-v, dated to July 1, 1073. Vignau, Documentos de Sahaguin, p. 251, cited a document of Feb. 20, 1072, that gave Julian as abbot. Romualdo Escalona, Historia del real monasterio de Sahagtin, 1782 (reprinted Leén, 1982), p. 71, accepts this latter document. '8 Francisco Javier Fernandez Conde, La Iglesia de Asturias en la Alta Edad Media (Oviedo, 1972), pp. 58-59. Also Maria Elida Garcia Garcia, San Juan Bautista de Corias (Oviedo, 1980), pp. 91-92, although her chronology is sometimes confused.

'9 AHN, Céodices, 989B, vol. 175r. He had appeared as majordomo in Alfonso’s charter of Oct. 15, 1071, but that charter also erroneously gave Gonzalo Alfénsez as alférez and is generally of a suspicious nature. See chapter 4, n. 16. 20 AC Leon, Cédice 11, ff. s1r—s2v, and repeated on ff. 60v—61r. 2+ “Petrus Maurelliz ichonomus regis” Pub. Garcia Larragucta, ed., Documentos de Oviedo, pp. 219-21. “Economus” is an old-fashioned synonym for majordomo. 2 Férotin, Recueil des chartes de l’Abbaye de Silos, pp. 18-20. A late copy unknown to this editor exists. BN, Manuscritos, 3.546, ff. 117v-118v, is dated July 26, 1063. 23 AC Leon, Céodice 11, ff. gv—12r, and repeated on 48v—5ir; copy in Acad. Hist., Catedrales de Espana, 9-25-1-C-4, ff. 62r-69r; pub. ES 36:57-63 append.

LEON-CASTILLA REUNITED 77 who held it already by February 20, 1074, and continued in it at least till June 24, 1074.74 Garcia Ord6énez was of a famous Castilian house centered on the northeast of that province and active in the courts of both Fernando I and Sancho II.*5 He will eventually become count in Najera, of course, but there will be a long and curious hiatus in the documents, and he seems to take no part in court life between mid-1074 and 1080.

The Castilian was followed by a Galician noble, Nuno Mitez, for whom we have but a single notice in January 1075 and who later appears as a count, but the final alférez for this period was Fernando Lainez, a Leonese noble, who had assumed the post by March 1075.76 He had donated land on the River Cea to Sahagtin as early as June 26, 1073.27 He is probably not to be identified with the count of the same name who had figured prominently in the court of Fernando I unless he were the latter’s grandson, as his name may indicate. Predictably, the lay magnate who figured most prominently at court was the Leonese Count Pedro Anstirez, who confirmed seven of the twelve royal documents of the period. Another Leonese of noble birth and friend of the king from his youth, Alfonso Martinez, now count, confirmed four of the twelve. Count Pedro Peldez of Asturias confirmed five, but the nobles of Galicia and Portugal were virtually unrepresented at court. In addition, Count Fernando Fernandez, who had been unwise enough to confirm two documents recognizing Sancho II as king of Leén in 1072, does not appear at all and may have been dead or in exile. Castilian nobles who had figured in the court of Sancho II now appear in Alfonsine diplomas but predominantly in those issued in Castilla. The exceptions to this rule are the two counts of the Lara clan. Gonzalo Salvad6érez, associated with the Bureba district, confirmed six and Munho Gonzalez, of Asturias de Santillana, the same number. Finally Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, el Cid, confirmed five. Castilla had clearly accepted the new order of things. This new configuration of the curia regis had already begun to emerge in November 1072 and was largely complete by the time of the seizure 24 AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 137v, and fol. 175r respectively. The latter pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahaguin, p. 473. The copies of the tumbo are dated to July 1, 1074, but I follow Escalona’s dating which derived from earlier documentation.

5 See chapter 3, notes 3, 4, 5, and 6. 26 January 1075. Archivo de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Fondo de San Martin de Pinario, Documentos sueltos, no. 8. An original fragment. Pub. Manuel Lucas Alvarez, ed., “La coleccién diplomatica del monasterio de San Lorenzo de Carboeiro,” Compostellanum 3 (1958): 78-79. Mar. 14, 1075. Pub. Garcia Larragueta, Coleccién de Oviedo, pp. 214-19. 77 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 883, no. 12; copy in Cédices, 989B, fol. 129r—v, erroneously dated to July 1, 1073.

78 CHAPTER FIVE of Garcia of Galicia in mid-February 1073. The latter event seems to have happened in or near Le6n, and the court continued in the same area into early April. A charter of Alfonso VI to the canons of the cathedral of Le6n of March 30, 1073, indicates that Infanta Elvira had rejoined the court so that all the surviving members of the dynastic family now were in accord.”®

The court then seems to have spent approximately the next two months in Castilla, perhaps at Burgos. On April 17, 1073, an agnitio executed in the royal presence settled a dispute involving the monastery of Cardena; the royal judges in the matter were the Cid and the merino of Burgos.”9 It may also have been at Burgos that Alfonso donated the monastery of San Isidro de Duenas to Cluny on May 29, 1073.3° Bishop Jimeno of Oca-Burgos confirmed, and the latter town would have been the easiest place to surrender such a charter to an envoy of the abbot of the Burgundian monastery. It is possible, however, that the court had moved south to Palencia, near Duenas, in the Campo Goticos.

In any event a private document, confirmed by Alfonso and his curia, puts him back at Leén on June 26, 1073. Something of importance had evidently called the Galician bishops of Santiago and Orense to make one of their rare appearances as well.3! During July Alfonso may have returned yet again to Castilla for he granted a charter to the monastery of Silos, southeast of Burgos, on July 16, 1073. I incline to believe that the charter, if it is to be accepted at all, might rather be dated to the earlier trip. 3? 28 AC Leoén, Cédice 11, ff. §6v—57r. The agnitio, dated only to 1073, registering the settlement in the royal presence of a dispute between the monasteries of Sahagtin and Eslonza may have been drawn up at this time. Pub. Aurelio Calvo, San Pedro de Eslonza (Madrid, 1957), pp. 260-61, from Escalona, Historia de Sahaguin, p. 472; and by Alfonso Prieto Prieto, “Documentos de Sahagtn,” pp. 523-24, from the becerro. A private document of Apr. 2, 1073, indicates that the court was still in Le6n. AC Leon, Céddice 11, ff. 67v—68r.

72 Pub. Berganza, Antigtiedades de Espana 2:440, and Serrano, Becerro de Cardefia, pp. 18-20. 30 Pub Alexandre Bruel, ed., Recueil des chartes de l’ Abbaye de Cluny, vol. 4 (Paris, 1876-

1903), pp. 560-62. Late copies in BN, Manuscritos, 720, ff. 243r—-244r; and Acad. Hist., Coleccién Salazar, 0-17, ff. 774r-75r, both of these latter dated to Dec. 29, 1073. Bishko, “Fernando I,” p. 18, prefers the latter reading believing that the grant was made specifically to commemorate the anniversary of the death of Fernando I. This charter may not have been prepared in the royal chancery or may have been subsequently interpolated for

in the intitulatio Alfonso is styled “rex Ispaniarum atque Leonensis.” A French clerk might have so regarded him but it is not a Leonese chancery formula. 31 See note 27.

32 See note 22. The chancery usage of this period is irregular but even so the language

LEON-CASTILLA REUNITED 79 Certainly the court was in the vicinity of Leén or Sahagtin during August. Alfonso himself issued a charter to a supporter there on the seventh of that month.33 Private documents of August 17 and 18, 1073, are also confirmed by court figures, including the king himself in the latter case.34 We then lose sight of the monarch until he is found presiding over an extraordinarily large court at Le6n on November I0, 1073. The document that records its meeting is a testament of Bishop Pelayo of Leén issued on the occasion of the rededication of the cathedral of Le6én or some new additions to it.35 This ecclesiastical event may have been the cause of the convening of eight of the eleven bishops of the realm, of the king and his sisters, and

a large complement of the nobility. It was certainly seized upon to transact important church business as well, for the confirmation list of the document informs us “Arias tunc factus Eps. Ovetensis conf.”3¢ But is it not possible that all these prelates and magnates were called together primarily to approve the choice of a bride by their new king?

It is a long interval but when next we have a surviving Alfonsine charter, that of June 16, 1074, he appears with a wife.37 The first of Alfonso VI’s five wives was recorded as “Agnetam”’ by Bishop Pelayo, the earliest and best narrative source for this matter. 3* This Queen Inés was the daughter of Duke William VIII of Aquitaine.

The French historian of the duke and of his dynasty dates the time of her betrothal to Alfonso to 1069 but agrees that the marriage itself did not take place until sometime in late 1073 or early 1074 when the bride would have been about fourteen.39 As to the earlier betrothal we cannot and style of this charter is troubling. In addition, Alfonso is styled “rex Adefonsus Legionensis”’ in the final protocol which is peculiar for the post 1072 period. The list of confirmants also contains a “Simeon, episcopus Sancti Pelagi sedis” who remains a complete mystery. Otherwise, the list would support a Castilian provenance. 33 AHN, Cédices, 989B, ff. 91v—gar. 34 Aug. 17, 1073. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 883, no. 13; and a copy in Cddices, 989B, fol. 200v. Aug. 18, 1073. AC Leén Codice 11, ff. 80r—8 Ir. 3s AC Leén, Cédice 11, ff. gv—12r; repeated on ff. 48v—sir; and a late copy in Acad. Hist., Catedrales de Espana, 9-25-1-C-4, ff. 62r—69r; pub. ES 36:57-63, append. 36 The documentation relating to the accession of Bishop Arias is confused and sometimes contradictory. Without reviewing every piece of it, suffice it to say that I regard the convergence of the above document; the entry in the “Anales Coriensis, BN, Manuscritos, 1.358, fol. 4r—v, “ordinaverunt illum episcopum in Legione 111 idus Novembris”; and the notice in Antonio C. Floriano, ed., El Libro Registro de Corias, vol. 1 (Oviedo, 1950), p. 200, that Bishop Arias consecrated his own successor as abbot of Corias “in civitate legionensi in ecclesia Beate Marie” convincing. 37 Serrano, ed., Cartulario de San Millan, pp. 219-20. 38 Sanchez Alonso, ed., Crénica del Obispo Don Pelayo, p. 86. 39 Alfred Richard, Histoire des comtes de Poitou, vol. 1 (Paris, 1903), pp. 307-308.

80 CHAPTER FIVE be sure, although Sancho of Castilla married sometime in 1071 and marriage diplomacy would inevitably have been a part of the rivalry of the royal brothers in the period 1066-1072. It seems quite possible that the April trip of Alfonso to Burgos was to meet with an envoy of Cluny about the marriage negotiations as well as to donate to that monastery the Leonese house of San Isidro. Relations between Duke William and Cluny were close, and in 1073 the latter’s abbot, Hugh the Great, visited the duke.4° The house of Aquitaine long had had knowledge of northern Spain, and in 1064 Duke William himself had taken part in the initially triumphant siege and capture of Muslim Barbastro in the northeast of the peninsula.#!

One purpose of the marriage was doubtless that of enhancing the prestige of the new monarch at home by an alliance with one of the great feudal princes of southern France. But while one hesitates to speak of foreign policy in the Europe of the eleventh century, it is entirely likely that the political advantages of such a marriage alliance were quite clear to both of the principals. The viscount of Béarn and the count of Armagnac were, at the one time, enemies of William of Aquitaine and closely related to the king of Aragén.* On the other hand, the ambitions of Sancho Ramirez of Aragon in regard to the taifa kingdom of Zaragoza had already been clearly displayed. For Alfonso VI, now king of Castilla and so inheritor of its claims to suzerainty over that taifa, such ambitions had to be provided against.

Moreover, the new pope, Gregory VII, had already on April 30, 1073, authorized a new, south French crusade against the Muslim in Spain and had also asserted papal suzerainty over all Spain in a letter to “omnibus principibus in terram Hyspaniae.”43 He also notificd them that he had conceded that papal right to Count Ebles of Roucy. The latter, of course, was both a cousin of Sancho Ramirez and his brother-inlaw. Sancho Garcia IV of Navarra and al-Mugtadir, king of Zaragoza, concluded an alliance on May 25, 1073, to protect themselves against the outcome of this projected crusade.*4 It is also well to recall that Sancho Ramirez of Aragén had himself been a papal vassal since 1068. Alfonso VI could hardly have received a copy of the papal letter when he

was in Burgos, but news of the negotiations which had to have pre4° Ibid., pp. 283, 303, 309, and 310. 41 Ibid., pp. 196 and 289-93. 42 Ibid., pp. 270 and 290. 43 Erich Caspar, ed., Das Register Gregors VII (Berlin, 1955), pp. 8-11. “Credimus reg-

num Hyspanie ab antiquo proprii iuris sancti Petri fuisse.” 44 Turk, El reino de Zaragoza, pp. 108-109.

LEON-CASTILLA REUNITED 81 ceded such a major initiative may have reached him from southern France well in advance of the actual date of the papal bull.

Although Aragonese and papal initiatives without a doubt had a strong influence on the decisions made by Alfonso VI in 1073-74, it would be a mistake to imagine that his policy was solely a defensive one. As king of Castilla as well as Leon he now entered fully into the traditional ambitions of that kingdom to an increasing predominance in the taifa of Zaragoza and the valley of the Ebro generally. He would have sought the renewal of the payment of the parias, or tribute, likely suspended during the time of struggle between him and his brother, for the generous revenues they assured.+5 As seen in an earlier chapter, the interests of the great magnate families of Castilla lay precisely in their aggrandizement in the valley of the middle and upper Ebro. Simply to

consolidate his control over them Alfonso VI must have had to acquiesce in their desires to some degrec. After the great curia in November 1073, the king remained in the vi-

cinity of Leén for the Christmas season. A variety of private documents argue the continuance of his court there during January and February 1074.4¢ The court likely continued there for the Lenten season, and celebrated Easter at Len on April 20 and perhaps the royal nuptials shortly after that feast. It is possible, however, that the court did make a brief trip to the province of Lugo in Galicia during this period. But in the spring Alfonso made a journey again to Castilla both to secure recognition there of his new wife and to further his ambitions in the Ebro valley area. In addition, he may have been anxious about the prospect of the crusade of Count Ebles of Roucy even though that venture failed to materialize for reasons unknown. In February Gregory VII had still been attempting to move at least Sancho Ramirez toward some sort of crusading offensive.47 By March the pontiff’s attention was turning rather toward a preoccupation with the substitution of the Roman for the Visigothic rite in Spanish Christian worship. He then

wrote to both Sancho Ramirez and to Alfonso VI urging such a 4S Bishko, “Fernando I and Cluny,” pp. 42-46, finds that the paria of Zaragoza usually amounted to an annual payment between 12,000 and 10,000 gold dinars. Control of the disposition of only one such liquid resource could furnish the sinews for a major campaign in itself. © Jan. 11, 1074. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 75r. Feb. 5, 1074. Ibid., fol. 143r. February 14, 1074. Cited, Raimundo Rodriguez, ed., Catdlogo de documentos de Santa Maria de Otero de las Duerias (Leon, 1948), p. 60. This is a charter of the infantas, Urraca and Elvira, pre-

pared by the royal notary, Domingo. Feb. 17, 1074. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 883, no. 16. Feb. 20, 1074. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 175r. 47 Feb. 17, 1074. Antonio Duran Gudiol, ed., Coleccién diplomdtica de la catedral de Huesca, vol. 1 (Zaragoza, 1965), p. $3.

82 CHAPTER FIVE course.*® In addition, Hildebrand opened the way for better relations with the Leonese monarch by recognizing Bishop Jimeno of Oca-Burgos against a counterclaimant. The matter had large implications for political control of the mountainous northeast of Castilla and, hence, designs on the neighboring Rioja district.+49

Menéndez Pidal believed that Alfonso VI and Sancho Garcia IV fought a border war of an indecisive nature in the late spring of 1074 but the evidence he adduces is not compelling.*° Certainly there was a

jockeying for position especially about the key border monastery of San Millan de La Cogolla. Sancho Garcia made it a grant on March 24, 1074.5' Alfonso did the same on June 16, 1074, ina charter that contains the first confirmation by Queen Inés.5? The Leonese king issued this

charter in Burgos in all likelihood for it was there on June 18 that he ratified an agnitio settling a dispute that had arisen earlier in Galicia. 3

Shortly after this the court must have departed for Sahagun for we find it there as the king and queen confirmed a private document on June 24, 1074.54 Sometime during the journey to or from Castilla Alfonso may have swung south to issue a fuero to the men of Palenzuela, near Palencia, which 1s dated only by the year.>: After late June 1074, the documents are silent as to the whereabouts of Alfonso VI and the magnates of his court until January 1075. There

are two generally accepted documents of July 1074, which are important enough to merit some consideration here. The first of these is a purported translation of the traditional Castilian episcopal see at Oca to Burgos, dated July 8, 1074. The diploma was issued by Alfonso’s sisters, Urraca and Elvira, and although the king himself did not confirm it the Leonese court bishops of Leén and Palencia did. The lay confirmants are all Castilians. Serrano believed that the charter is an original but he is mistaken.*° This diploma may be based on a genuine, more 48 Caspar, ed., Register Gregors VI, pp. 91-94. 49 Luciano Serrano, El obispado de Burgos y Castilla primitiva desde el siglo V al XIII, vol.

1 (Madrid, 1935), pp. 289-90, believed that Bishop Jimeno had visited Rome in 1074. so Espana del Cid 1:206—209.

‘| Serrano, ed., Cartulario de San Millan, pp. 217-18. 2 [bid., pp. 219-20. 83 Garcia Alvarez, “Catalogo de documentos reales,” pp. 307-308. ‘4 See note 24. ss The text exists only in a copy of a thirteenth-century confirmation. See Munoz y Romero, ed., Coleccion de fueros municipales y cartas pueblas, pp. 273-78. 86 Obispado de Burgos 3:36-38. The charter bound as folio 297 of vol. 29, AC Burgos, is not an original for it lacks a notarial confirmation which would be incredible in an original royal diploma. There has been a good attempt at imitating the visigothic script but the capitals, ligatures, and the types ofa, d, and g that creep in suggest to me a date some-

LEON-CASTILLA REUNITED 83 modest charter of this date for we cannot be sure that the royal sisters or the bishop of Palencia returned with the rest of the court to Leén in June. Bishop Pelayo of Leén’s confirmation would have to have been added, however. The second document is the even more famous marriage contract, or carta de arras, of the Cid himself, dated July 10, 1074. Menéndez Pidal published it as an original and based a substantial number of conclusions on its veracity.°? The document, whose photographs may be seen today in the Museo of the cathedral of Burgos, is not an original to say the very least.5* Garcia Ord6nez is cited as count, who does not otherwise appear in this dignity until 1080. More important yet, Rodrigo Gonzalez confirms as royal alférez, and he held that post between January 1078 and June 1081 as will be subsequently seen. In June 1074, Garcia Ordonez was alférez as noted above.*? At best, then, the document cannot be used to place the Leonese king in Castilla in July 1074 but can only be defended as a misdated copy of an original of the period July 1078 to July 1081. Rather than in the inadmissable evidence of these two documents the whereabouts of Alfonso of Leén is to be revealed in the Muslim narratives describing the summer and fall of 1074. It was, after all, the campaigning season, and the king was making a show of force in the south to bring the Muslim taifa states to heel and reclaim their parias for the restored kingdom of his father. Conditions in the south were propitious for such an endeavor, especially in Granada where the king, Abd Allah, had just succeeded to the throne of his grandfather in the face of two other claimants. Alfonso VI moved south in the company of his ally and former host in exile, alMamun, the taifa king of Toledo, who had designs of his own on the territories of Cordoba. Alfonso advanced into the realm of Granada itself without serious fighting and sent Count Pedro Anstrez ahead to the royal city to demand the resumption of tribute payments. Abd Allah refused and was then faced with the construction of a castle at Bellilos by a Muslim renegade with the support of the Leonese king. where in the first three decades of the twelfth century when the see of Burgos was involved in jurisdictional disputes with Toledo. The charter also refers to Fernando I as “emperor,” which title he never used. ‘7 Espana del Cid 2:83 5-40.

88 When I last visited Burgos in the summer of 1983 the document itself was not available. As with the preceding document a valiant attempt has been made to reproduce the visigothic script. Again, however, later caroline features have crept in, but above all the orthography is that of the late twelfth century, e.g., “aldefonsus” for “adefonsus,” “fredinandus” for “fernandus,” and “hurracka” for “urraka.” 59 See notes 24, 25, and 26.

84 CHAPTER FIVE When attempts both by Abd Allah himself and by the taifa king alMutamid of Sevilla, who was perhaps attempting to relieve the pressure on Cordoba of the allies, to reduce the castle failed, the former was forced to conclude peace with Alfonso VI at the cost of the payment of thirty thousand gold dinars and the pledge of an annual tribute of ten thousand more. At the end of the year the Christian monarch was able to return to Leén with all expenses of the expedition paid and a handsome profit as well as the guarantee of a substantial future income. His prestige also would have risen at home as a result of a most successful campaign. In addition, in January 1075 the city of Cérdoba was betrayed into the hands of al-Mamun of Toledo, his ally.°° During the entire year of 1075 and the early part of 1076, as the documents imply, Alfonso VI seems to have occupied himself in a succession of visits to the various regions of his kingdom. Doubtless he was busy further befriending various nobles and prelates and so consolidating his power. Sometime during the month of January the entire court journeyed to Santiago de Compostela in Galicia. There the king issued a charter to the monastery of San Lorenzo de Carboerio in the presence of the entire episcopate of Galicia and the bishop of Braga as well. In addition to a throng of Galician abbots and nobles, the charter was confirmed by his sisters, by the bishops of Palencia and of Leon, and by magnates of his court.®! It is altogether likely that the king went there in part to bestow a portion of his spoils of the preceding year on the shrine of the Apostle James. Certainly Bishop Diego was shortly to initiate the building of a

major new Romanesque cathedral. But secular concerns were undoubtedly pursued at great length as well. The court may have stayed on at Santiago de Compostela until February 12, when Infanta Elvira 6° All of these events are narrated in the memoirs of one of the principals. Abd Allah, El Siglo XI en It persona: Las “Memorias” de Abd Allah, ultimo Rey Ziri de Granada destronado

por los Almordvides (1090), trans. Evariste Lévi-Porvencal and Emilio Garcia Gomez (Madrid, 1980), pp. 153-62. Garcia Gomez dates the accession of Abd Allah to 1075 rather than 1073, but it is manifestly impossible that all the events narrated should have happened within a month, and the date of the fall of Cordoba to al-Mamun is beyond question. Contemporary Christian chroniclers do not record the campaign, and a century and a

half later Lucas of Tay, “Chronicon Mundi ab Origine Mundi usque ad Eram MCCLXXIV,” in Hispaniae Illustratae, vol. 4, ed. Andreas Schottus (Frankfurt, 1608), p. 100, is brief and confused about it. Subsequent chroniclers built on his confusions. 61 The charter is an original but is in poor condition. It is now in the archive of the University of Santiago. See note 26. Another royal charter, which would place Alfonso VI in Leon during January or February 1075, has been published by Menéndez Pidal, Esparia del Cid 2:840-46. It has long been recognized as a forgery.

LEON-CASTILLA REUNITED 85 confirmed a private donation to the monastery of San Lorenzo, but we cannot be sure that Alfonso’s royal sister did not choose simply to re-

main after its departure. Some portion of the court apparently was sent back to Leén as well.

Alfonso and others next traveled to Oviedo in Asturias where we find him, with certainty, by March 26, 1075. On that date, and the next day, the king subscribed two judicial documents involving the see of Oviedo. On the other hand, the famous document in which the king describes the opening of the venerable reliquary, the Arca Santa of that

see, on March 14, is clearly a forgery. The private document, dated February 2, 1075, which Alfonso confirmed was probably a product of this period also. Such confirmations were often done subsequent to the enactment of the document itself.°} At Oviedo in late March the king appeared accompanied by his sister Urraca and by Bishop Arias of Oviedo. That important changes were being effected is clear from the first appearance of both Pedro Moréllez as royal majordomo and of Fernando Lainez as alférez. This occasion also marks the first appearance of the Mozarab Portuguese noble and governor of the Coimbra frontier district, Sisnando Davidez, in the royal court. But while demonstrating Alfonso’s concern over all the regions of his variegated kingdom, the documents tell us little of his policies regarding them. The confirmation list of a private charter of the church of Leén indicates that the royal court had returned there by April 19, 1075.°4 Castilla next became the object of royal attention, and we find the king at

Castrojeriz on May 1, 1075, where he made a donation to the see of Oca-Burgos.°s Confirmation lists to private documents place the court at Sahagun on May 22 and June 18, 1075.°° It seems probable that the ° Lucas Alvarez, ed., “Coleccién de San Lorenzo,” pp. 77-78. * For a critique of all of these documents see Reilly, “The Chancery of Alfonso VI,” especially notes 36, 40, and 46. 64 AC Leon, Cédice 11, ff. 1r80v—18 Ir.

*s ‘There are not extant originals and the documents are troublesome. That which Serrano, Obispado de Burgos 3:41-44, called an original obviously cannot be for the copyist gives the day of the week but missed the day of the month. Moreover, the names of both the majordomo and the alférez are incorrect. Another copy, ibid., pp. 38-41, has substantial alterations in the text and lacks the confirmation list but at least gives us the date of May 1. Munos y Romero, ed., Fueros, pp. 259-62, published the text from ES 26:45863, which is yet another version with its own complement of errors. That there was a donation of this date which fathered all these divergent copies seems to be about as much as can be safely said. A distinct document published in Julian Garcia Sainz de Baranda, La ciudad de Burgos y su concejo en la Edad Media, vol. 2 (Burgos, 1967), pp. 410-12, and given as of this date is simply misdated by some ten years and will be discussed later. 66 May 22, 1075. AHN, Coddices, 989B, ff. 146v—147r. June 18, 1075. Ibid., fol. 96r—v, and Clero, Carpeta 883, no. 18.

86 CHAPTER FIVE court continued there or in Leén through the summer. There is, however, a late copy of a purported royal charter granted by Alfonso VI to the Cid on July 28, 1075.°7 But even if the charter is accepted the mere presence of Rodrigo Diaz—he had been at Oviedo in March—and other Castilian nobles at court does not necessarily imply that the court itself was in Castilla. On August 15, 1075, a private charter prepared by

the royal notary, Lucius Sisnandez, makes it very clear that the court was in Leén.®

Sometime before this date Alfonso VI would have heard the ominous news that his ally, al-Mamun of Toledo, had been poisoned in his newly acquired city of Cérdoba on June 28, 1075. While Cérdoba itself was not immediately lost to his son and successor al-Qadir, the affairs of the taifa kingdom of Toledo began to be troubled almost from that moment.® If the Leonese king had not yet formed an opinion of the abilities of al-Qadir, the events of the next few months would soon reveal to him that he had lost an able ally who could be of real assistance and now had a weak and vacillating one who would require his help almost constantly. In addition, Alfonso’s revenues from the parias of Toledo were threatened as were those from the other Muslim realms of the south. Finally, when the news of al-Mamun’s death reached the latter's dependency in Valencia, that taifa reestablished its autonomy un-

der Abu Bakr at once.” Thus another element of uncertainty was added to the situation. The presence at court then of at least the bishops of Oviedo and of Mondonedo, as well as the more usual bishops of Leén, Astorga, and Palencia, on August 15, 1075, may indicate widespread consultation by

the king on possible actions to meet the problem. But, although the documents are scant, there is no evidence that quick action was taken. On October 13, 1075, the court was still at Sahagun.7! By December

18 the king would seem to have moved into Castilla at Castrojeriz where he confirmed the settlement of a border dispute between the bishops of Braga and Orense. 7? 67 Menéndez Pidal, Espana del Cid 2:852-53, from a vidimus of 1255. The diplomatic is

rough and, in particular, Alfonso is styled “rex Castelle,” which is otherwise unknown in his charters. Menéndez Pidal, ibid. 1:219—20, conjectured that it commemorated the birth of the Cid’s first child, Diego. No wife or children are specifically mentioned in the document. 68 AC Leon, Cédice 11, ff. §1r—52v, and repeated on ff. 60v—6rr. 69 Juan Francisco Rivera Recio, La Iglesia de Toledo en el siglo XII (Rome, 1966), pp. 20 and 26. 7° Huici Miranda, Historia musulmana de Valencia 1:190. 7 Escalona, Historia de Sahagun, pp. 473-74.

72 Avelino de Jesus da Costa, O Bispo D. Pedro 2:379, published it under the date of

LEON-CASTILLA REUNITED 87 Events may have led Alfonso VI to pass the Christmastide in Castilla but by January 19, 1076, the court seems to have returned to Leén, and the Bishop of Oca-Burgos was with it.73 He was still at court in Leén when Alfonso VI issued a charter to the monastery of San Isidro de las Duenas on February 7, 1076.74 Burgos would have been a good place from which to negotiate with al-Mugqtadir of Zaragoza. That taifa king carried out an extensive raid against Abu Bakr of Valencia in the early

spring of 1076. Huici Miranda asserted that al-Mugtadir had both asked the permission of Alfonso VI and indeed had purchased that consent since the Leonese monarch had claims to suzerainty over both parties.7’ However that may be, it was clearly in the interests of Le6n-Cas-

tilla to relieve pressure on al-Qadir of Toledo at this particular time, and promoting an attack on Valencia by Zaragoza was one way to accomplish that end. Alfonso may even have been preparing to take the field himself for he was at the monastery of Cardefia just outside Burgos when a donation was made by the Cid to another monastery on May 12, 1076.7° But the affairs of the south would have to wait. On June 4, 1076, King Sancho Garcia IV of Navarra was pushed off a cliff by his own brother and sister in one of the more spectacular assassinations of the eleventh century. Little but the timing of the murder was unfortunate for the king of Leén. Suddenly the prospect of the annexation of the greater part of the kingdom of Navarra lay open before him. In particular the Rioja district, stretching north from the frontier

outpost at Calahorra for ninety kilometers along both banks of the Ebro River and comprising approximately six thousand square kilometers of farmland, well-watered and very fertile by peninsular standards, lay waiting for a new master. It was traversed by the Camino de

Santiago from Haro to Burgos, and the Sierra de la Demanda was Dec. 18, 1078, as he also did in his edition of the thirteenth-century Liber Fidei Sanctae Bracarensis Ecclesiae, pp. 42-43. But the confirmation by Fernando Lainez as alférez indicates a scribal error since the latter only held that post from 1075 through 1077. I redate it to 1075 since that is the only one of these three years in which Sisnando Davidez, who also confirmed, is known to be at court. The purported confirmation of a charter to Burgos on Christmas day of 1075 by Alfonso is a forgery however, although it may correctly place the king at Duenas. Pub. Serrano, Obispado de Burgos 3:44-50, and by Garcia Sainz de Baranda, Ciudad de Burgos 2:406-10. 73 AC Leon, Cédice 11, fol. 68r.

74 BN, Manuscritos, 720, fol. 245r—v, and another late copy in the Acad. Hist., Coleccion Salazar, 0-17, fol. 776r—v. 7s Huici Miranda, Historia de Valencia 1:255, and 195, n. 3.

7° AHN, Clero, Carpeta 375, no. 1. Its only editor called it an original, but I would make it a copy on the basis of strong caroline characteristics in the script. Pub. Ferotin, ed., Recueil des chartes, pp. 21-23. This is the first reliable document in which the wife of the Cid is mentioned.

88 CHAPTER FIVE breached by a low, broad pass just west of Belorado. The nobles of Castilla had long had designs on the area, the monasteries of the eastern slopes at Ona and San Millan had been cultivated by the kings of LeénCastilla, and Alfonso VI was the first cousin of the murdered king. The kingdom of Navarra was about to disappear from Spanish history for

almost sixty years, and the Rioja was to be gained by Leén-Castilla forever.

Since the assassination took place in the extreme south of the king- | dom of Navarra, almost on the borders of the taifa of Zaragoza, it must | have taken two days for the news to arrive at the usual residence of the , royal court in Najera. Allowing for another two days of confusion and consultation there, a decision to invite the intervention of Alfonso VI could hardly have resulted in the despatch of a messenger before June

10, 1076. If the bearer was alone and had been directed to make all pos- | sible speed it is still doubtful whether he could have covered the eightyone kilometers from Najera to Burgos before June 12.

Now if the Leonese monarch were in Burgos, and the sequence of events suggests that it is inconceivable that he was not, there still must

have been a fair lapse of time before he was ready to act. Even if he had | been assembling an army there for a campaign in the south, and so had a striking force in some degree of readiness, the change of plans would have required some consultation and discussion since its implications

were so sweeping. At the very best, then, I cannot imagine that the journey could have begun before June 15 or 16. Though there is no record that any fighting subsequently took place, it 1s certain that the king would have taken a fairly considerable military retinue. He was after all coming to annex a kingdom, and a show of power was essential even if its use proved not to be. In addition, some members of the court must accompany him, and did as we shall see, for grandeur and magnificence would help to avert the need for force by lending a certain legitimacy to what was actually a revolutionary undertaking. Such a mixed company, departing Burgos on June 16, 1076, would then have been encumbered with oxcarts drawing the baggage of war

and of proper ceremony and state. Prudent military precautions and

the pace geared to the slowness of transport make it unlikely that Al- | fonso covered the eighty-odd kilometers from Burgos to Najera and | arrived in the latter town before June 25, some three weeks after the : murder of his Navarrese cousin.” In that little town with its back to the 77 In reconstructing this and other itineraries in this book, I rely on the estimates of possible speed set out recently by Bernard S. Bachrach, “The Angevin Strategy of Castle Building in the Reign of Fulk Nerra, 987-1040,” AHR 88 (1983): 542 and n. 27, and my own personal knowledge of the terrain to be traversed. |

LEON-CASTILLA REUNITED 89 cliffs and protected in front by the natural moat of the Rio Najerilla, he

would have found a place both easily defensible and with adequate room for the encampment of his forces and the lodging of his court. Najera also offered welcome associations since it had long since become a favorite residence of the kings of Navarra due to its position in the heart of the rich Rioja territory. There Alfonso would have waited while the abbots of the monasteries of Ona and San Millan and the nobles of the countryside rode in to estimate his chances of success, to strike such bargains as they could, and finally to pledge their fealty. The king himself would have likely been the guest of the abbot of the monastery of Santa Maria la Real in Najera unless the later royal castle there had actually been built by the kings of Navarra. In Najera too Alfonso would have received the news that King Sancho Ramirez of Aragon had occupied Pamplona and the northeastern portion of Navarra. What the royal assassins of Sancho Garcia had expected to result from their action is impossible to discern. The latter had not been terribly effective against cither Aragon in the east or Le6n-Castilla in the west. He had allied himself with the Muslim of Zaragoza. Finally, he

had grave difficulties controlling his own unruly nobility. But the treacherous pushing of their royal brother over a cliff would seem to be

almost the impulse of a moment with its remote origins in some obscure difficulties within the royal family itself. Since both Alfonso VI and Sancho Ramirez had designs on Navarrese territories and since both in fact realized those designs as a result of the murder, it is hard entirely to exonerate cither one of them from complicity in the deed. But contemporaries seem to have voiced no such suspicion, and the as-

sassins themselves could hardly have expected to profit from such a deed even if they had had a powerful supporter. One of them, the elder brother Ramon, fled into exile at Zaragoza.

The other, the elder sister Ermesinda, took refuge with Alfonso VI, who married her off to a Navarrese noble. The Leonese monarch generally disposed of the fortunes of the royal family. A younger sister, Urraca, was married by him to the Castilian noble Garcia Ord6nez, and a younger brother, Ramiro, became Alfonso’s ward.78 When exactly these arrangements were executed is not clear, but doubtless the general outlines of such a settlement were negotiated at Najera that June and July. 7® For the most detailed study of the entire settlement see Antonio Ubieto Arteta, “Homenaje de Aragon a Castilla por el condado de Navarra,” EEMCA 3 (1947-48): I22.

gO CHAPTER FIVE During this time also Alfonso VI confirmed the fueros of Najera, which tell us a little of the internal support he enjoyed within the former Navarrese kingdom.”? The document lacks confirmations as such, but the text mentions prominently the Castilian noble Diego Alvarez of Oca and his brother-in-law Lop Jiménez of the Navarrese comital house of Alava and Vizcaya, whose father held the tenancy of Najera itself.°° The text also mentions Count Pedro Anstirez, Count Gonzalo Salvad6rez of the Castilian Lara family, the Castilian noble Vermudo Gutiérrez, and the royal merino for Castilla, Martin Sanchez, giving us some idea of the constitution of the royal entourage. We can form no firm idea of the length of time this settlement took to achieve. It may have been as late as July § when Alfonso departed to

make an unhurried progress to the southern outpost of his new lands at , Calahorra, seventy kilometers south on the Ebro. There he doubtless | received the fealty of its bishop, Muno, and there on July 10, 1076, he confirmed its fueros as well.*! In addition the document was confirmed by Alfonso’s queen, Inés, by Bishop Diego Pelaez of Compostela, by counts Pedro Anstirez and Gonzalo SalvadGrez, and by the brother of the latter, Alvaro Salvad6rez. It is clear that Alfonso had brought a considerable party into the Rioja with him and that it accompanied him on

what must have been a triumphal tour. That itinerary certainly included other parts of the realm, but by the beginning of August the king was back in Castilla. Alfonso’s trip through his new domains surely included an interview and pact with King Sancho Ramirez of Arag6n, or at least the latter’s representatives. The Aragonese monarch had occupied Pamplona and the northern portion of Navarra in July. Alfonso, however, had occupied the lands east of the Ebro, pushing his control up to Sangtiesa and Puente de la Reina. The latter was but twenty kilometers southwest of Pamplona. Some demarcation of their respective holdings and relationships would thereby have been necessitated. It appears, on the basis of a document of some sixty years afterward,

that Sancho Ramirez settled for the possession of Pamplona and the 79 This document has its problems, which will be discussed later. It comes to us in late copies and 1s dated only to 1076. AHN, Céddices, 105B, fol. 77r-v, and ff. 79r-gov. The former was published by Serrano, ed., Cartulario de San Millén, pp. 233-34, and the latter has been edited by Ildefonso Rodriguez de Lama, ed., Coleccidn diplomdtica medieval de la Rioja: Documentos, 923-1168, vol. 2 (Logrono, 1976), pp. 79-85. 80 Balparda y las Herrarias, Historia critica de Vizcaya 2:258—59, and more recently Augustin Ubieto Arteta, “Aproximacion al estudio del nacimiento de la nobleza aragonesa”’ 2:18 and 44. ’« BN, Manuscritos, 9.194, ff. 147r-149v, and another late copy in Acad. Hist., Coleccién Salazar, 0-8, fol. 83Vv.

LEON-CASTILLA REUNITED gI lands around Estella. To Alfonso went the lion’s share including the Rioja, the lands east of the Ebro, Alava, Vizcaya, and a portion of Guipuzcoa.*? When Sancho Ramirez decided to establish a royal center for this enlarged kingdom of Arag6n later in the same year, he chose Jaca at a safe remove rather than Pamplona.*} His brother, Infante Garcia, came to be bishop of the newly established see of Jaca, indicating the central dignity intended for that foundation. *4 The events of the summer of 1076 were to have a decisive importance for the history of Iberia in the Middle Ages. The passing of the Rioja district under the control of Leén-Castilla proved definitive as did the suzerainty of that kingdom over the emerging Basque provinces. These two acquisitions simply added more weight to the already existing pre-

eminence of Ledén-Castilla among the Christian kingdoms of the peninsula and constituted yet one more factor that would contribute to the eventual political consolidation of Christian Spain around its king. At the same time, not all of the ambitions of Alfonso VI proved re-

alizable. Even under the Navarrese dynasty the main centers of the Rioja had been, as with Najera, Logrono, and Calahorra, along the west bank of the Ebro as had been the bulk of the repopulation from the north. In 1076 the eastern lands of the river basin were still scantly held and more easily dominated from Aragon, as events were to prove, than from the Rioja. From its acquisitions around Pamplona and Estella and from the commanding positions it held overlooking the eastern half of the Ebro plain, Arag6n was to realize in a scant forty years

the mastery of that fertile area, and the river itself was to become a boundary along its middle course. This development in turn would position Aragén to become an eventually successful rival of Leén-Castilla in the contest for the appropriation of the taifa of Zaragoza and so the whole of the lower Ebro River basin.

The events of the summer of 1076 marked a decisive step in the emergence of Arag6n as the major rival of Leén-Castilla in the peninsula. All subsequent attempts of the latter kingdom toward aggrandizement in the Christian east of Spain were to prove ephemeral at best, *2 | here follow the conclusions of Ubieto Arteta, “Homenaje de Aragoén,” pp. 26-27. Gregorio Monreal, “El senorio de Vizcaya,” AHDE 44 (1973): 113-206, is a survey that adds nothing new for this period. Antonio Ubieto Arteta, “La divisi6n de Navarra en 1076,” in Homenaje a Don José Esteban Uranga (Pamplona, 1971), pp. 17-28, refines the holdings in some respects. ®3 José Maria Lacarra and Angel Martin Duque, eds., Fueros de Navarra, vol. 1 (Pamplona, 1975), pp. 105-109. *¢ Domingo J. Buesa Conde, El Rey Sancho Ramirez (Zaragoza, 1978), pp. 50-54. Unfortunately the study of Buesa Conde is little more than an extended essay and lacks any scholarly apparatus. We still need a critical study of this most important monarch.

Q2 CHAPTER FIVE and the union of Arag6én and Catalonia in 1134 was to set the seal on that development. At the same time the eclipse of the kingdom of Navarra was to prove permanent. Though in the aftermath of the death of Alfonso I of Arag6n in 1134 Navarra would regain its independence, it would yet remain pinned against the Pyrenees. Ledén-Castilla never relaxed its grip on the fertile lands of the Rioja. By 1134 Aragén had already consolidated its control over the eastern basin of the middle Ebro with the conquest of Zaragoza. Navarra’s way south was blocked definitively, and its share in the spoils of the Reconquista had been forfeited forever.

SIX

KING AND CULT (1076-1080)

The reconstitution of the realm of Leén-Castilla in the latter two-thirds of the eleventh century was but one of the local manifestations of the startling growth and vigor exhibited in the whole of western Europe during that period. Alfonso VI was the contemporary of William the Conqueror, of Robert Guiscard, and of the Emperor Henry IV. Like

them, his reign was spent in a constant effort to employ the newly available resources of rising population, increasing wealth, and a curiously enhanced self-confidence. Everywhere this drive was marked by a spectacular aggrandizement at the expense of older institutions and arrangements which eventuated in the creation of an essentially new status quo. Yet while these regional political revolutions were developing along analogous lines but largely 1n isolation from one another, still another revolution was taking place that would affect all of them in largely the same ways, challenging and modifying the structures that were in the process of emergence within them. Eleventh-century western European society was in ferment not only in the sphere of high politics but also in the sphere of religion. Alfonso VI was also the contemporary of Abbot Hugh the Great of Cluny and of popes Gregory VII, Urban II, and Pascal Il. Religious reform in that age had, like political revolution, autochthonous, local origins and forms, but it also possessed, or created, in-

ternational centers, a striving for universal expression, and a set of widely applicable norms and dispositions. In Cluny and Rome religious aspirations found vehicles for the realization of their aims on a continental scale and provided the only general European movements of high culture during this age. In the Iberian peninsula the emergence of a local movement for ecclesiastical reform and its gradual elaboration of contacts with the great house of Cluny preceded the reign of Alfonso VI. That much is clear. Yet the reign of Fernando I has been little studied, and religious reform could have had a much wider connotation in the eleventh century than it has for us. In that age 1t could mean something as simple as the re-

94 CHAPTER SIX construction of a church or the institution of the cult of a new saint, the recovery of secularized church lands or the establishment of a new juridical relationship between Christian and Jew. In Spain, specifically, it also encompassed the recovery of Christian lands long since held by the Muslim, the liberation of the Mozarab population subject to the rule of Islam, and the recreation of the Christian hierarchy of late antiquity as the Reconquista was progressively realized. In this latter sense the conquests of Fernando I during the last decade of his realm were a religious phenomenon as well as a political one. Particularly in Portugal, where they had been most successful, they found an explicitly religious content with the reestablishment of the ancient sees of Braga, Lamego, and Tuy on the part of his son and successor, Garcia of Galicia~-Portugal. Also during the period of the three kingdoms from 1065 to 1072 the same preoccupation is reflected in Sancho II’s reendowment of Oca-Burgos. Fernando el Magno supported and presided over the deliberations of the great “national” council at Coyanza in 1055 which addressed the problems of both the secular and the regular clergy. He secured the “repatriation” of the remains of Saint Isidore of Sevilla to Ledn, and the relics of three other martyrs were rescued from the ruined city of Avila and distributed in the realm. Finally the king personally patronized the

monastery of Sahagun, which was to become the pantheon of the dynasty. To all of these measures, which illustrate well the conjunction of political and religious functions in the medieval conception of kingship, Fernando added a specific relationship with the great Burgundian monastic center at Cluny. It consisted in a very cordial relationship, which included the offering of regular prayers for the king at that abbey and his payment of an annual census in return. It 1s difficult to know the full import of this arrangement, but there is no evidence to indicate that it established a formal connection between monasticism in the realm and Cluny. Moreover, the connection seems to have lapsed at Fernando’s death. ' ' Much remains to be done in the investigation of the development of the church in Ledén-Castilla in the eleventh century. Pius Bonifacius Gams, Die Kirchengeschichte von Spanien, vol. 2, pt. 2, and vol. 3, pt. 1 (Regensburg, 1874 and 1876), was thorough for its day but is now outdated. Zacarids Garcia Villada, Historia eclesidstica de Espana, § vols. (Madrid, 1929-36), is invaluable but did not reach this period before it was terminated by the author’s death. The latest cooperative effort, Francisco Javier Fernandez Conde, ed., Historia de la Iglesia en Espana, vol. 2, pt. 1 (Madrid, 1982), is a disappointing resumé of old scholarship and attitudes. Even Justo Pérez de Urbel, Los monjes esparioles en la Edad Media, 2 vols. (Madrid, 1933-34), needs to be revised in the light of recent scholarship. Although there is a plethora of particular studies and some attempts at more general ones

KING AND CULT (1076-1080) 95 The profound and lasting involvement of Cluny and Le6n-Castilla was to blossom during the reign of Alfonso VI and would influence everything from dynastic marriages to monastic liturgical practice. The origins of the renewed cooperation may be found in the intercession of Abbot Hugh the Great (1049-1109) to secure the release of Alfonso by his victorious brother Sancho in the winter of 1072.7 Certainly Alfonso was not long restored to power when on May 29, 1073, he be-

stowed on Cluny its first monastic house in the realm, San Isidro de Duenas.? Bishko believes that this donation is the first of a series whose purpose was a surrogate for the unpaid census due Cluny for the years 1073-77.4 Such motivation is indeed possible, but it need not preclude the likelihood as well that the gift was intended to encourage or reward

that abbot in negotiating the betrothal of Alfonso to the daughter of Duke William of Acquitaine. In any event, the relationship thus signalized endured and prospered over the next several years. The new Cluniac monastery at Duenas was generously treated by a charter of February 7, 1076.5 The monastery of San Salvador de Palaz del Rey was ceded to the Burgundian house on

August 27, 1076.° That of Santiago de Astudillo joined the Cluniac ranks on January 30, 1077, to be followed by San Juan de Hérmedes de Cerrato on May 22, 1077.’ Finally, not two months later, Alfonso doubled the annual census payment to Cluny that “my father customarily gave.”*® By this time, however, Alfonso VI had already come into contact with the other great new ecclesiastical power in the west.

Although the documentary record remains largely unexplored, the contact between the papacy and Leén-Castilla may well prove to have been earlier than commonly assumed.® The first known papal bull diof quite uneven quality, the most authoritative and knowledgeable historian of the subject is Charles Julian Bishko, “Fernando | and the Origins of the Leonese-Castilian Alhance with Cluny.” > See chapter 4, note 66. 3 See chapter 5, note 30. Bishko, “Fernando I and Cluny,” p. 18, dates this charter to Dec. 29, 1073, on the basis of much later Spanish copies. 4 [bid., pp. 30-31. ‘ See chapter §, note 74. 6 BN, Manuscritos, 720, fol. 244r-v, and Acad. Hist., Coleccién Salazar, 0-17, fol. 77 §I-V.

7 January 30, 1077. BN, Manuscritos, 720, ff. 242r-243r, and Acad. Hist., Coleccién Salazar, 0-17, ff. 773r-774v. May 22, 1077. Pub. Alexandre Bruel, ed., Recueil des chartes de |’Abbaye de Cluny, 4:625-26. * Ibid., pp. 627-29.

° There is as yet no equivalent to the masterly studies by Paul Kehr, ed., “Papsturkunden in Spanien, I: Katalonien,” Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft zur Gottin-

gen. Philologisch-historische Klasse, N.F. vol. 18 (Berlin, 1926), and “Papsturkunden in

96 CHAPTER SIX rected to an institution subsequently part of that kingdom was that of Clement II, dated May 23, 1047, to the monastery of Ona.'° The first known papal legate to visit the peninsula was Cardinal Hugh the White from 1065 to 1068, who seems to have raised questions about the Mozarabic liturgical usage with Fernando I.'' A near contemporary account describes a commission of bishops sent to Rome with liturgical books which were examined and approved there by Pope Alexander II." This incident illustrates very well the character of the new relationships coming into existence between the reinvigorated monarchy, which viewed the church of the realm in part as an extension of its own authority, and the reformed papacy, striving to reinforce its moral authority with an administrative and judicial superiority over the local churches of Europe. By and large the crown was quick to see and to use the new papal prestige to reinforce its own desires and purposes. Most often, it seems to me, the several kings thus secured an important addition to their own policy and were able, by controlling the flow of information and persons to Rome, to manipulate this new instrument to

their own ends. But while they possessed all of the advantages that flowed from proximity and intimate knowledge of persons and situations, they unconsciously validated an appellate jurisdiction of whose purposes and dynamic they had little understanding and for which they often had little sympathy when these affected practical decisions. The resultant misunderstanding, mutual dismay, and frequent opposition fills the pages of the history of the high Middle Ages.?3 Spanien, Il: Navarra und Aragon,” ibid., vol. 22 (Berlin, 1928), or Carl Erdmann, ed., “Papsturkunden in Portugal,” ibid., vol. 20 (Berlin, 1927). ‘© Juan de Alamo, ed., Coleccion diplomdtica de San Salvador de Ofia 1:61-62. The ques-

tion of the full integrity of the text aside, there is no good reason why a forger should have chosen such a relatively obscure pope or have assigned the composition of such a letter to such an unlikely place as Bordeaux unless he had such a model before him. '' Gerhard Sabekow, Die pdpstlichen Legationen nach Spanien und Portugal bis zum Ausgang des XII Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1931), pp. 13-15. The supposed earlier legations of 1039

and 1055 are either unhistorical in the case of the former or dubious as to completion in the case of the latter. Ibid., pp. 12-13, notes 2, 3, 4, and 5. Paul Kehr, “El papado y los reinos de Navarra y Aragon hasta mediados del siglo XII,” EEMCA 2 (1946): 94, n. 37, speculated that Cardinal Hugh may have been that cardinal who was said to have visited Santiago de Compostela. See Enrique Florez, ed., “Historia Compostelana,” ES 20:253, or José Campelo, ed. Historia Compostelana, p. 241. '2 The text was copied into the tenth-century “Céddice Emilianese,” Biblioteca de El Escorial, D.1.1., fol. 395r-396v. Though obviously the text is a partisan piece, it would have been foolish to appeal to an event that had not taken place to convince contemporaries. The account cannot be securely dated but to write it would have been pointless much after the beginning of the twelfth century. However, Pierre David, Etudes historiques, pp. 394-95, argues against the acceptance of this source. ‘3 The picture sketched by Richard A. Fletcher, The Episcopate in the Kingdom of Leén in

KING AND CULT (1076-1080) 97 In any event, communication between Rome and Leén-Castilla seems to have lapsed during the confusing period of the divided kingdom. The councils supposed to have been held by Cardinal Hugh at Najera and Llantada in 1067 in the presence of Sancho II of Castilla come from a very late source and are tainted by their obvious intent of justifying the monastery of San Millan de La Cogolla in retaining the tithe from their lands against episcopal claims. '4 When the kingdom was reunited under Alfonso VI, he certainly became aware almost immediately of both the continuity and the range of interests of the reformed papacy. Although we cannot be sure that the king received a copy of Gregory VII's letter of April 30, 1073, addressed “to all princes in the land of Spain,” he would certainly have been aware of the project of a crusade to be led by Ebles of Roucy and perhaps even of the papal claim to suzerainty expressed in that missive.'’ Nothing came of this crusading project, however. Moreover, the Leonese monarch seems to have entered into direct relations with at least the papal legate Gerald of Ostia, for sometime in the spring of 1073 the latter excommunicated a Bishop Muno, who claimed the see of Oca-Burgos. Muni is a shadowy figure who was perhaps originally the Navarrese choice for that see of old Castilla when the area was in contention between the two realms. His condemnation could hardly have taken place without the appearance of Bishop Jimeno of Oca-Burgos before the legate to place the complaint. That Jimeno would have taken such a step without royal consent is unimaginable. On March 19, 1074, Gregory VII himself wrote to both Alfonso VI and Sancho Garcia IV of Navarra stating that he upheld the sentence of his legate. '° The papal decision was doubtless gratifying to the Leonese monarch, and the awkward claim of papal suzerainty was not raised. But the pope raised again the issue of rites and launched an impassioned attack on the

Mozarabic liturgy as a deviation from proper norms and a product of Priscilianism, Arianism, and the Muslim conquest. He called for the receipt of the “Romanae ecclesiae ordinem et offictum” in its place. The pope also asserted that “your bishops” had already promised at the papal court to effect just that, although it 1s not clear that bishops of Leénthe Twelfth Century (Oxford, 1978), pp. 25-26, that the Spanish church “had undergone a revolutionary assault from without” is a serious oversimplification in a generally very perceptive book. For a more recent qualification of his original views see his Saint James’ Catapult, pp. 193-95. '4 Luciano Serrano, ed., Cartulario de San Millan, pp. 197-98, and Garcia de Cortazar y Ruiz de Aguirre, El dominio del monasterio de San Millan, p. 313.

's See chapter 5, note 43. ‘6 Erich Caspar, ed., Das Register Gregors VII, pp. 92-94.

98 CHAPTER SIX Castilla as well as those of Navarra are meant since the letter is addressed to both monarchs. '7 The issue was thus joined even if neither Alfonso VI nor his churchmen gave any evidence in this period of an awareness that the customary life of their church was to be altered significantly. In 1073 the bishop

of the royal city, Pelagius of Leén, could still have written in his will

that Fernando I had “advanced me” to that see, quite unself-consciously and with no reference to pope or canonical practice.'* Even a century later a monastic chronicler could recopy, in the same spirit, an old notice that Alfonso VI gave Bishop Arias “the see of Oviedo” in 1073.'9 In 1075 a dispute over diocesan boundaries between the bishops of Braga and Orense could be routinely referred to the crown for adjudication.”° And, as we have already seen, just at this time a mixture of practicality and royal initiative was transferring an ancient episcopal see from the hill country of Oca down to the growing city of Burgos. This latter process too took place without evidence whatsoever of papal consultation or consent. In fact early chroniclers attribute even the introduction of the Roman liturgy to the royal initiative. The chronicle of Bishop Pelayo, immediately after its account of Alfonso’s imprisonment of his brother, Garcia, tells us that the former “quickly sent representatives to Rome to Pope Hildebrand” to secure the introduction of the Roman rite.?! Even in 1073 Alfonso would have been aware of papal desires in this regard because of the events of the last year of the reign of his father and, more recently, because the Roman usage had just been introduced in Aragoén '7 Luciano Serrano, Obispado de Burgos 1:289—90, believed that the reference was to the Lenten Council of 1074 and that Bishop Jimeno of Oca-Burgos had attended. 8 “Qui me ad hunc honorem promoverat.” See chapter 5, note 35. Andrés E. Maniaricua, “Provision de obispados en la Alta Edad Media espaniola,” Estudios de Deusto 14 (1966): 61-92, has assembled a remarkable number of texts that show the secular rulers of the peninsula routinely exercising what would later be viewed as ecclesiastical jurisdiction. '9 “Dedit rex dominus Adefonsus abbati domno Ariano illam sedem de Oveto.” See chapter §, note 36. 20 See chapter 5, note 72. 21 “Tunc Adefonsus rex velociter Romam nuncios misit ad Papam Aldebrandum cognomento Septimus Gregorius; ideo hoc fecit, quia romanum misterium habere voluit in omni regno suo.” Benito Sanchez Alonso, ed., Crénica del Obispo Don Pelayo, p. 80. Pelayo was widely known and was used by the thirteenth-century chronicles of Lucas of Tuy, Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada, and the Primera crénica general. The author of the early twelfth-century chronicle of Sahagtin did not know Pelayo. Still, he too credited the king with the initiative. Julio Puyol y Alonso, ed., “Las crénicas anénimas de Sahagun,” BRAH 76 (1920): 114.

KING AND CULT (1076-1080) 99 in 1071.2? Nonetheless it is hard to believe that the papal letter of March 1074, which so carefully mentioned the acquiescence of some Spanish bishops, would have ignored such a welcome royal initiative had there been one.

Indeed everything suggests that at this point the pope was entirely unaware of this basic difference of attitudes and the resistance it could engender. By May 9, 1074, Gregory VII had changed his mind on a question that was vital to Alfonso. On that date the former wrote to the king, this time addressing him as “regi Hyspaniae,” and informed him that he had lifted the excommunication of Bishop Muno and directed Alfonso to restore him to his “antiquam sedem.”*3 The pope was vague about what see that would have been, but there is no question that his decision, 1f implemented, would have reversed the concentration of authority over the northern Castilian hill districts in the hands of Bishop Jimeno of Oca-Burgos, which was the aim of royal policy.*4 It would have had political and strategic no less than ecclesiastical effects. What means Bishop Muno had at his disposal to secure such a reversal of both a legatine and a papal decision is not clear. Wittingly or not, however, he had become an instrument of papal policy. Gregory’s letter points out that the bishop had sworn to introduce the Roman liturgy, and it reveals that Muno had been renamed Paul, probably by papal action. The obvious reference is to the great St. Paul, generally credited in this period with the first conversion of Spain, and thus the symbolic designation of Muno as the favored papal agent was hardly to be missed by the king.

Yet Alfonso had no intention of acceding to such a papal design. Muno had returned to the peninsula by June 16, 1074, doubtless bringing the papal letter with him, when he confirmed a charter of the king to the monastery of San Millan.?5 The initial hesitation of the Leonese 2 Paul Kehr, “;Cémo y cuando se hizo Aragon feudatario de la Santa Sede?” pp. 297— 98. This is a translation of his Wie und wann wurde das Reich Aragon ein Lehen der romischen

Kirche? Sitzungsberichten der preussischen Akademie. Philologisch-historischen Klasse (Berlin, 1928). The introduction of the Roman ritual in Leén-Castilla has had more than its share of students over the years. Some of the more useful studies are Demetrio Mansilla, La curia romana y el reino de Castilla ett un momento decisivo de su historia, 1061-1085 (Burgos, 1944), and Joseph F. O’Callaghan, “The Integration of Christian Spain into Europe: The Role of Alfonso VI of Leén-Castile,” Santiago, St.-Denis, and Saint Peter (New York, 1985), pp. 101-20. 23 Caspar, ed., Register Gregors VII, pp. 118-19. 24 On that policy see Odilo Engels, “Papsttum, Reconquista und spanisches Landeskonzil im Hochmittelalter,” AHC, 1 (1969): 40-42, and Antonio Ubieto Arteta, “Episcopologio de Alava: Siglos IX-XI,” HS 6 (1953): 54-55. *s Serrano, Cartulario de San Millan, pp. 219-20.

100 CHAPTER SIX monarch may be reflected in the charter to Oca-Burgos of July 8, 1074,

which was issued by the infantas Urraca and Elvira. The charter was granted to Bishop Jimeno although the hapless Bishop Muno confirmed it, without indication of his see.*° It seemed safer, for the moment, not to commit the king himself to open opposition to the papal decree.

Though no direct record of them remains, we can be sure that negotiations between pope and monarch ensued. By May 1, 1075, the latter felt secure enough himself to grant some sort of charter to Bishop Jimeno of Burgos, which Bishop Muno was not even allowed to confirm.?7 Over the next few years the papal protégé seems to have lived in seclusion, surely by royal direction, in the monastery of Cardena just outside Burgos, where he confirms several private documents simply as “bishop.”’?% He is conspicuously absent from royal documents while

Bishop Jimeno appears in them regularly. The bargain that had been struck, at his expense, between pope and monarch 1s indicated in Gregory VII's letter of May, 1076, addressed to Bishop Jimeno. Preoccupied

surely with his struggle with the German empcror, Henry IV, which had not yet turned clearly in his favor, Hildebrand decided to settle for the adoption of the Roman liturgy in Leén-Castilla, at least for the moment. It should be noted that his letter is addressed to Bishop Jimeno as “Hyspanorum episcopo”; very grand to be sure, but leaving open the question of Oca-Burgos.”? The bishop 1s urged to see that the Roman rite is employed throughout Spain and Galicia. The peculiar phraseology is but one indication of the uncertainty in Rome of the politics and geography of the peninsula. Such a compromise was acceptable to Alfonso VI as well. Probably even before his receipt of this papal letter, while he lay about Burgos in May and June of 1076 preparing for a southern campaign, he decreed the adoption of the Roman liturgy in council with his bishops. The date of the “Council of Burgos” has been much debated by historians of the question in part because of the character of the sources but rather more, I believe, because modern historians have seen the institution that is the council through the eyes of canon law and ecclesiastical practice, both of a later and more formal period. They have appreciated neither the informal practices of the eleventh century nor the looseness of its lan26 See chapter 5, note 56. 27 Ibid., note 65. 28 May 12, 1076. Ibid., note 76. Aug. 1, 1076. Serrano, ed., Becerro gético de Cardena,

pp. 239-40. Jan. 1, 1077. Ibid., p. 284. June 1, 1079. Ibid., pp. 260-61. 9 Caspar, ed., Register Gregors VI, pp. 283-84.

KING AND CULT (1076-1080) IOI guage.3° As a result they have disputed about the date of a single, grand ecclesiastical “Council of Burgos” when the reality may well have been decisions made in the royal court, by the bishops then present, on one occasion and confirmed on another; both at Burgos. At least the apparent failure of any conciliar canons or acts to survive points toward that conclusion. At any rate, the identification of 1076 as the year in which the new liturgy was introduced by the two earliest sources, each independent of the other, 1s conclusive when taken in context. The anonymous monk

of Sahagtn and Bishop Pelayo agree on that date, although unfortunately the latter erroneously associates the event with the rather later papal legate Richard of Marseille.3' But this attempt on the part of the crown to comply with papal wishes in the matter of the liturgy met with considerable opposition, as mentioned by the king in a letter to Abbot Hugh of Cluny a little more than a year later in which the king seeks the help of Hugh to arrange the despatch of a new papal legation to facilitate the transition.3? The king himself may even have arranged first a judicial duel and then a trial by fire to convince some of his subjects that the substitution of rites was divinely ordained. At least the Cronica Najerense, over a century later, tells us that on Palm Sunday, April 9, 1077, a royal champion defending the Roman usage was defeated by a Castilian knight upholding the Mozarabic in a duel at Burgos, and that when ordinals representing both rites were cast into a great fire Alfonso himself had to kick the Mozarabic ordinal back into the fire from which it had had the effrontery to jump.33 Alfonso was certainly at Burgos in the spring of 1077. But even if the stories are en3° On the question of the practice and language of the age, see my Leén-Castilla under Queen Urraca, pp. 251-59.

3 See note 21. The much later “Annales Compostellani” and the “Chronicon Burgense” date the introduction to 1077 and 1078 respectively, either of which is clearly too late. ES 23:321 and 309. 32 “De Romano autem officio, quod tua jussione accepimus, sciatis nostram terram admodum desolata esse, unde vestram deprecor paternitatem, quatinus faciatis ut domnus papa nobis suum mittat cardinalem, videlicet domnum Giraldum, ut ea que sunt emendada emendet, et que sunt corrigenda corrigat.” Bruel, Recueil des chartes 4:551-53. The letter is undated but David, Etudes historiques, pp. 402-403, relates it convincingly to the Alfonsine charter to Cluny of July ro, 1077. 33 Antonio Ubieto Arteta, ed. (Valencia, 1966), p. 116. The Crénica notoriously incorporates literary materials but there is nothing inherently improbable in some sort of trial by ordeal having been assayed. The story of the trial by combat, which alone is mentioned by the later “Annales Compostellani” and the “Chronicon Burgense,” may have passed into those two sources from the Najerense or directly from the literary accounts. In any event, the latter two chronicles are clearly dependent either one on the other or on a cCOmmon source.

102 CHAPTER SIX tirely legendary the fact that in both of them the king is portrayed as frustrated in his intent preserves the essential truth of the situation at that time. The source and the strength of opposition to the royal and papal wills need to be reasonably assessed. It was a clerical phenomenon to be sure,

as Menéndez Pidal begins by emphasizing. But to make it a crisis of “Spanish nationalism” is simply to project the viewpoint of early twentieth-century Spain onto the late eleventh.34 A popular phenomenon it was not. The alteration of some few rubrics of the Latin mass or a modest rearrangement of the feast days of saints would have passed quite unnoticed for those illiterate in their own tongues much less the Latin

one. Even among the cathedral clergy and, above all, the monastic clergy, only the fractious and the most scrupulous of purists would have been disposed to make an issue of it, and purists are scarce in any age. The Mozarabic and the Roman rituals after all had never developed in complete independence of one another.?5 We may be quite sure that the consolidation of some of the minor clerical orders was the practical irritant. Here the loss of office and influence, and in the secular

church the concommitant loss of revenues, would have offended gravely. Moreover precisely among these minor officeholders of the ca-

thedral and the monastic clergy were to be found the relatives and clients of the nobility, some of which may be safely presumed to have been eager to impede or embarrass the royal purposes. Certainly the king would have been disposed to override opposition

of this nature in return for the secure support of the papal prestige which could be turned to his own purposes, as his letter to Hugh of Cluny in July 1077 indicates. But here, as in so many other instances, Gregory VII was to overreach himself grievously. Flushed by what was apparently a complete victory over the German emperor in early 1077,

that pope despatched a new letter to the “kings, counts, and other princes of Spain” on June 28, 1077, in which he reasserted the papal su-

zerainty over the peninsula in the most uncompromising terms. He also announced that new legates, Bishop Amadcus of Olorén and Abbot Frotard of Saint-Pons de Thomiéres, were being sent to effect his wishes.3° The offensive missive could not have reached Alfonso before 34 Menéndez Pidal, Espafia del Cid, 1:237-41. In addition, and as always with the author, Castilla must be the center of the story. In fact resistance seems to have been most prominent in the Rioja and in distant Portugal. 35 On this point and that immediately following see the detailed study of Roger E. Reynolds, “The Ordination Rite in Medieval Spain: Hispanic, Roman, and Hybrid,” Santiago, St.-Denis, and Saint Peter (New York, 1985), pp. 131-56. 36 “WVidelicet regnum Hyspaniae ex antiquis constitutionibus beato Petro et sanctae

KING AND CULT (1076-1080) 103 early August at best and would have had no chance of exacting compliance from the first moment of its composition. Its first effect must have been to give that monarch further pause in pushing on with the change of liturgies. Before the king had even received that letter he had been continuing, obstinately, to strengthen his own position in the matter of the bishopric of Oca-Burgos. On May 21, 1077, he had arranged for the transfer of a royal monastery to Bishop Jimeno in return for the cession of an episcopally held monastery.37 Then, on the following day, Alfonso ceded the latter monastery to Cluny.3* Perhaps he hoped in this fashion to interest that powerful Burgundian monastery in supporting his ecclesiastical arrangements in that diocese. In any event, later in the year, and after the papal letter must have reached him, he sanctioned a major exchange of properties between the northern monastery of Ona and Oca-Burgos, which would deplete the resources of a restored bishopric on the upper Ebro and consolidate the territories of his favorite.39 The exchange was made with the expressed approval of the monarch. As to the matter of the claimed papal suzerainty, Alfonso VI is not known to have protested directly to Gregory VII although he may well have. Certainly the papal legates mentioned in the offending letter never entered Leén-Castilla although they were active in Catalonia in late 1077 and early 1078.4° Rather, the pope would write to Abbot Hugh of Cluny on May 7, 1078, saying that he would send Cardinal Richard, later abbot of Saint Victor of Marseilles, to Spain on the Burgundian abbot’s advice and at the request of Alfonso.#! But had the king of Leén-Castilla responded in a broader, more theoretical fashion to the papal claim of hegemony in Spain? I am inclined,

at this writing, to think that he did, although the relatively informal and unstylized nature of the royal chancery practice at this time makes for a problem of some complexity. Nevertheless it appears that Alfonso VI began himself to make a formal claim to suzerainty over the entire peninsula, “imperator totius hispaniae,” as a countermeasure to the papal pretensions and its accompanying strategy of dealing severally with the “regibus, comitibus, ceterisque principibus Hyspaniae.” Romanae ecclesiae in ius et proprietatem esse traditum.” Caspar, ed., Register Gregors VII, pp. 343-47. 37 Serrano, Obispado de Burgos 3:53-54. 38 See note 7. 39 Serrano, Obispado de Burgos 3:55—59.

40 Sabekow, Papstlichen Legationen, pp. 20-22. 41 “Sicut rex Hispaniae rogavit et vos consilium dedistis.” Caspar, ed., Register Gregors

VII, pp. 384-85.

104 CHAPTER SIX It is true that the first use of the imperial title by Alfonso VI in an original, royal diploma comes only on April 7, 1079. However an original but private charter written by the same royal notary who was responsible for the royal document of 1079 was confirmed by Alfonso as emperor on January 29, 1078, and yet another royal charter by the same notary, but this time a copy, permits us to push the employment of the imperial title back to October 17, 1077.42 This cannot be more than ten or twelve weeks after the earliest probable date on which Alfonso could have received the papal letter of June 28, 1077. Since the first verifiable use of the imperial title by Alfonso thus follows so closely upon the papal assertion of suzerainty it is arguably a response to the latter. #3 The question of the essential novelty of the Leonese monarch’s action is also controverted. It does seem safe to say that there is absolutely no evidence that his father, Fernando I, or his brothers had ever employed it. Charters of Alfonso VI himself issued before 1077 display some evi-

dence of a tendency to attribute the imperial dignity to Fernando retrospectively, but the testimony is scattered and rests upon late copies only. Surely one should admit that the subjection of most of the Muslim taifa kingdoms to Alfonso after 1073 and the absorption of most of Navarra in 1076 would have disposed him to some new formulation of what was becoming a de facto hegemony in the peninsula. But the record, as best we can currently reconstruct it, points to the papal claim as the essential stimulus and emphasizes the novel character of the royal assertion. *4 42 For the detailed analysis of the documents on which these conclusions are based, see my study, “The Chancery of Alfonso VI,” pp. 4-10. 43 In Alfonso’s letter, a copy, to Abbot Hugh of Cluny on July 10, 1077, the former is styled “Hispaniarum rex.” But that letter seems to have been drafted by a French monk and so the terminology may be merely descriptive. See note 32. 44 The whole question of the meaning of the imperial title, the history of its use, and the motivation of Alfonso VI in using it has been repeatedly and heatedly argued. Menéndez Pidal, Espana del Cid 2:725-31, and more extensively in his monograph El imperio hispdnico y los cincos reinos (Madrid, 1950), and Bishko, “Fernando I and Cluny,” pp. 76— 81, agree with my estimate of Alfonso’s motivation. Other studies that examine the question and reach a variety of conclusions are Antonio Ubieto Arteta, “Navarra-Aragon y la idea imperial de Alfonso VII de Castilla,” EEMCA 6 (1956): 41~82; Alfonso Garcia Gallo, “El imperio medieval espanol,” Historia de Espana, ed. Florentino Pérez Embid (Madrid, 1953), pp. 108-43; Percy Ernst Schramm, “Das kastilische K6nig- und Kaisertum wahrend der Reconquista,” Festschrift fir Gerhard Ritter (Tubingen, 1950), pp. 87— 139; H.E.J. Cowdrey, The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform (Oxford, 1970), pp. 225-26; and José Antonio Maravall, “El pensamiento politica de la Alta Edad Media,” and “El concepto de monarquia en la Edad Media espanola,” both in Estudios de historia del pensamiento espanola, vol. 1 (Madrid, 1973), pp. 35-66 and 69—89 respectively. It is well to remember that the charters of all the monarchs of Leén-Castilla before the late twelfth cen-

KING AND CULT (1076-1080) 105 Exactly what the new legate, Cardinal Richard, achieved in 1078 cannot be determined. Menéndez Pidal believed that he proclaimed the official substitution of the Roman liturgy for the Mozarabic with full papal authority, but the sources on which he bases his assertion are better than a full century after the fact.45 The only action of Richard during this legation of which we have any sure knowledge is his intervention in the ecclesiastical affairs of Aragén.*° If indeed he took any such action it was neither the first such initiative nor the definitive one, as we have seen and will see. At best the papal legate could not have arrived in Leén-Castilla before about June 8, 1078, given the date of the papal letter. Even this would presume that he left Rome within two days of its having been written, was able to secure a ship at Rome for Barcelona, delayed not at all cither in Catalonia or in Aragoén, and made the best possible speed over that rugged country between Barcelona and Burgos which was then safe for travel by Christians.47 The probabilities are all against such a combination of events, and the real likelihood is that Richard did not reach Le6n-Castilla before the beginning of August at the earliest. The new papal emissary may have found himself immediately entangled in the complicated matrimonial affairs of the Leonese monarch. The last appearance of Alfonso’s wife, Inés, in the documents occurs on May 22, 1077. A French chronicle tells us that the king had repudiated her because of her inability to conceive a child, but it does not say when this occurred.** Such a proceeding would have been delicate since Inés was the daughter of the Duke of Aquitaine, whom Alfonso would not have cared to antagonize. Papal correspondence at this ttme makes no tury remain unedited and that those of Alfonso VI have been systematically studied only by myself. 48 Espana del Cid, p. 239. The thirteenth-century continuation of the chronicle of Sahagun attributes the proclamation of the rite to Cardinal Richard but this may have been during the legate’s second visit in 1080. Puyol y Alonso, ed., “Cr6nicas anénimas de Sahagun,” BRAH 77 (1921): 162. 4 Kehr, “El papado y Navarra y Aragon,” p. 117. 47 A ship, coasting to avoid Muslim or Christian pirates, would have had to cover 1,000 kilometers at the minimum even if it made no intermediate calls, which is most unlikely. Nor can universally fair winds be presumed. Once at Barcelona the distance to Burgos is 500 km. as the crow flies and at least a third again longer in terms of practicable routes. 4® See note 7. The date of her death has frequently been given as June 6, 1078, based on a garbled notice in Enrique Florez, ed., “Annales Compostellani,” ES 23:322. The date given there is actually 1098 and the reference is to her half-sister of the same name who was marricd to Pedro I of Aragon. For the Chronicle of St. Maixent see Alfred Richard, Comtes de Poitou 1:307~-308 and n. 1. Nevertheless it seems clear that she died in Spain and was interred at Sahagun; Julio Puyol y Alonso, El abaderigo de Sahagin (Madrid, 1915), pp. 17-18 and n. 1.

106 CHAPTER SIX reference to the matter though it is difficult to imagine that Cardinal Richard would not have been at least consulted. The legate must have left Spain by early August of 1079 for he had returned to Rome before October 15, 1079. Whatever had taken place during the year of his stay was highly satisfactory to Gregory VII for on that date the pope wrote to the “glorious king of the Spanish.”4 Claims to papal sovereignty were not mentioned but a golden rose was despatched as a sign of favor. The king was also informed that Cardinal Richard was being sent yet a second time to treat of ecclesiastical matters. The much traveled legate could not have returned to Leén-Castilla much before March 1, 1080, however, for it was only on November 2, 1079, that the pope wrote to Richard consoling him for the death of the latter’s brother and appointing him abbot of St. Victor of Marseilles in the deceased Bernard’s place.5° The legate was told to proceed to Spain after he had suitably disposed the affairs of the monastery. It is hkely

that he spent the Christmas season at St. Victor, even though he had been urged not to delay, for he would hardly have received the letter itself before early December. We are dependent almost exclusively on the papal correspondence for the development of the rites controversy, for the activity of Alfonso VI in this regard 1s exceedingly difficult to determine during the period 1078 to 1080. There is a copy of a royal charter, purportedly of 1078,

issued jointly with Abbot Robert of Sahaguin, which would indicate the reform of that monastery in cooperation with Cluny if it could be accepted as of that date.s' No less than ten documents of Sahagun, however, demonstrate that one “Julianus” continued as abbot there until at least December 10, 1079.

The coalescence of the interests and initiatives of Le6én-Castilla, Rome, and Cluny at this time must be traced largely in terms of inference. As we have seen, Alfonso VI was, probably by this time, in search

of a new wife but would not have wanted to offend the father of his former wife, Duke William of Aquitaine. Now in 1078 the new Duke of Burgundy, Hugh I, was campaigning in the peninsula.s’? Duke Hugh

was the nephew of William of Aquitaine, who had married his aunt, Audearde, in 1069, and although Hugh compaigned in Aragon it 1s 49 Caspar, ed., Register Gregors VII, pp. 465-67. S° Ibid., p. 468.

s' AHN, Clero, Carpeta 884, no. 9; pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahagun, pp. 475-76. The copyist has omitted the day and the month. Fidel Fita, “El concilio nacional de Burgos en 1080. Nuevas ilustraciones,” BRAH 49 (1906): 347-49, redated it to Jan. 22, 1080, on grounds that seem to me possible but not convincing. ‘2 Prosper Boissonnade, Du nouveau sur la Chanson de Roland (Paris, 1923), pp. 30-31.

KING AND CULT (1076-1080) 107 possible that negotiations were initiated at this time.‘3 The matter could hardly have been resolved, however, for the Burgundian duke re-

tired to the monastery of Cluny, presided over by his cousin, Abbot Hugh the Great, in that same year. ‘4 The new Duke, Eudes I Borel, would nevertheless also have been in the same position of natural intermediary for he was brother to Hugh and thus also nephew of the duke of Aquitaine and cousin of the abbot of Cluny. There seems to have been a drawing together of all of these principals, related by blood, in 1079 with respect to their policy in the north of Spain. Sancho Ramirez of Aragén sought and obtained the be-

trothal of his son, Pedro, to the daughter of Duke William of Aquitaine, the second Queen Inés, who was half-sister of the former wife of Alfonso VI and also the cousin of Duke Eudes of Burgundy.*s At the same time negotiations were certainly in progress that would result in the marriage of Constance of Burgundy to Alfonso VI, and she was niece of Abbot Hugh of Cluny, sister-in-law of Duke William of Aquitaine, and sister of Duke Eudes of Burgundy.

How quickly these related diplomatic initiatives found fruition is again a most confused matter. Pierre David thought that Constance and Alfonso were already married on May 10, 1079, but the charter of Alfonso to Sahagtn on which he based that conclusion was issued to Abbot Robert, who was not yet the superior of that monastery. *° In addition, if Constance was already queen one thinks that she would surely have been mentioned in the text or have confirmed the charter by which Alfonso VI granted to Abbot Hugh of Cluny the monastery of Santa Maria de Najera on September 3, 1079.57 Rather I suspect that this donation was made largely out of gratitude for Hugh’s assistance on the occasion of Constance’s arrival in Spain. The confirmation list indi-

cates that it was issued either at Burgos or at Najera itself, either of which would have been a natural place to welcome the party of the prospective bride. Clearly then the Cardinal Richard would have been at 83 Richard, Comites de Poitou 1:307. ‘4 Jean Richard, Les Ducs de Bourgogne et la formation du duché du XI auXIV* siécle (Paris,

1954), pp. 14-15. ‘s Antonio Ubieto Arteta, ed., Coleccién diplomatica de Pedro I de Aragén y Navarra (Zaragoza, 19$51), p. 31.

6 Etudes historiques, p. 389. This charter, pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahagtin, pp. 47677, from the archives of Sahagtin is dated in the early chartularies of that monastery to May 14, 1080. AHN, Cédices, 989B, ff. 3v—4r; and 988B, ff. 16v—17v. The legal language of the text is also anachronistic so that it has been interpolated quite extensively. ‘7 Pub. Rodriguez de Lama, Coleccién diplomdtica medieval de la Rioja 2:88—90; and Bruel, Recueil des chartes 4:665—68, from the copies in France.

108 CHAPTER SIX the Leonese court during the time in which the marriage was being nesotiated but would have left it before Constance’s arrival. The wedding probably took place sometime in the late fall or early winter of 1079, possibly during the Christmas festivities although it is impossible to be certain. The known documents are simply too enigmatic to be helpful. 5

At roughly the same season Alfonso VI was also implementing church reform along lines acceptable to himself. A private document of

Sahagun dated January 22, 1080, informs us that the Cluniac monk, Robert, had become abbot of that most valued of royal monasteries. 59 Presumably this is the same agent of Abbot Hugh who was mentioned in a private charter of donation on August I, 1076, and in the letter of the Leonese monarch to Hugh in July 1077.© It is reasonably certain, then, that by the time Cardinal Richard could have returned to LeénCastilla its king would have had a new wife and Sahagitin a new abbot. Evidently the papal legate reacted strongly to that monarch’s actions and reported his feelings to Gregory VII in the same tenor. On June 27, 1080, the pontiff wrote three letters, one to Abbot Hugh of Cluny, an-

other to Alfonso VI, and a last to his legate, although the date of the latter two has been lost. The language of each is sufficiently opaque to have caused some problems in understanding all the factors contributing to the papal distress, but the depth of his outrage is clear enough. Gregory requested Hugh to recall the monk Robert to Cluny and to suspend him from all ecclesiastical functions. It is unmistakable that the complaint against him was connected with the question of the Mozarabic liturgy. Robert and the king may have agreed to permit its continued usage at Sahagtn in order to placate the opposition there to the installation of a French abbot. Such a concession would have constituted a dangerous precedent from the papal point of view because of the close association of that monastery with the crown. It would have signaled the king’s willingness to temporize on the issue and made the subse‘8’ Among the many questionable documents that bear on the transfer of the see of Oca to Burgos, one late copy of Alfonso VI’s charter of May 1, 1075, is dated to May 1, 1079, and is said to have been confirmed at Duenas on December 25, 1079. But Constance appears in both the text and the confirmation list as queen. BN, Manuscritos, 9.194, fol. 200r—v; pub. ES 26:458-63. I suspect that there was a genuine document of this period subsequently redrawn for other purposes. See also chapter $, note 65. so “Vicem tenens Roberti abbatis.” Escalona, Historia de Sahagtin, p. 480. Fita, “Concilio de Burgos,” pp. 346—49, also publishes this document and redates to the same day the joint charter of Alfonso and Robert of 1078. See note 51. He also redated the charter of May 10, 1079, which has a justification of the king’s action and mentions Constance as queen, to Jan. 8, 1080. See note 56. % Bruel, Recueil des chartes 4:604—607 and 551-53 respectively.

KING AND CULT (1076-1080) 109 quent introduction of the Roman rite more difficult elsewhere. In addition, the abbot of Cluny is directed to see that the monks of some monastery, not specified by name, who have been unjustly dispersed shall be allowed to return.®' This reference has usually been understood to mean the monks of Sahagiin but it might also refer to those of Santa Maria de Najera, who were replaced by Cluniacs perhaps as early as

September 1079. Finally Hugh is advised to inform Alfonso VI of Rome’s displeasure and to counsel him to accept its leadership lest he be excommunicated and find the pope himself in Spain to enforce his

wil.

The papal letter to Alfonso himself is somewhat more moderate. Rather than the king himself, it rails against Robert and requests that he be returned to Cluny. Alfonso 1s treated as having been misled, reminded of how Rome has rejoiced in his past exemplary conduct, and warned that St. Peter too has a sword. But the missive mentions neither the matter of the rites, papal suzerainty, the abbacy of Sahagtin, dispersed monks, nor even the bishopric of Oca-Burgos. Instead, it ful-

minates against a marriage, “illicitum conubium, quod cum uxoris tuae consanguinea inisti.” It is in this regard that the obedience of the king is demanded and the wrath of the papacy threatened.®

The woman is not mentioned but it can be no other than Queen Constance herself. Arguments have been made that it was someone in her suite or a mistress from another quarter entirely, but these conjectures founder on the language of the papal letter itself, as Pierre David long since pointed out, which refers to a marriage and not an illicit love

affair. David is unquestionably correct in his analysis that Gregory VII's objection to Alfonso’s marriage was based upon the relationship of Inés and Constance, who were cousins in the fourth degree, and so, in the terminology of church law, the king’s second marriage was incestuous just as the papal letter states. But because David erroneously believes that he has dated Inés’s death he overlooks the possibility that the pope was choosing the most efficacious means of defending the rights of Alfonso’s first queen. We cannot, of course, be sure that Inés was still alive. Nor can we be sure that the papal argument in his letter to the king was more than a * Caspar, ed., Register Gregors VI, pp. 517-18. 62 Margarita Cantera Montenegro, “Santa Maria la Real de Najera: Fundacion y primeros tiempos,” in En la Espana Medieval, vol. 2 (Madrid, 1982), p. 256. °3 Caspar, ed., Register Gregors VII, pp. 519-20. °4 Etudes historiques, pp. 387-90 and 413-17, and see the discussion of the scholarship on the question in the latter pages. O’Callaghan, “Integration of Christian Spain,” pp. 109—11, follows David.

110 CHAPTER SIX tactic framed to attack the monarch at a truly vulnerable point in order to secure royal complaisance on matters yet more dear to Rome. Surely the marriage to Constance would endure. But it well may be that Cardinal Richard, who could hardly have been ignorant of the marriage negotiations in 1078 and 1079 but had left Leén-Castilla before Constance’s arrival, had been deceived or simply left in ignorance of the blood relationship it involved. On his return in February 1080 he may have discovered it or even have been informed of it by partisans or for-

mer members of Queen Inés’s entourage. In any event, if we judge from the various letters of Gregory VII, the legate’s complaints 1ncluded this unwelcome news among reports of a variety of other events equally unwelcome from the standpoint of Rome. The sequence of events in this case illustrates well one great disadvantage of the papal reform movement in this period. Even given an active system of legates, the difficulties of travel and communication constantly left the real initiative in the hands of the monarch. The papacy found itself continually forced to try to undo one or another royal fait accompli already well established by the sheer passage of time. If Constance was married to Alfonso in the late fall of 1079, if Cardinal Richard wrote his bill of particulars in late February 1080, the pope did not learn of all this much before his letter of June 27, 1080. At best, Gregory’s letter to Alfonso could hardly have arrived before the end of August, and by then apparently the new queen was with child. These twin factors of distance and time seem also to have combined to render papal letters, impassioned though they were, totally ineffectual. Before they had been drafted, the circumstances they addressed had already been modified, at least to the extent to which they were to be altered. The letters themselves then could only have had the effect of giving additional and pointless offense.

At the time that the papal legate despatched the report that so angered Gregory VII, he would have informed the king of the action he was taking. Perhaps that was the point at which serious negotiations had begun, for Alfonso VI was too wily a diplomat to believe that no concessions would have to be made on his part. The simplest and least

painful way to indicate his own good intentions was to sacrifice his counsellor and the new abbot of Sahagun, the monk Robert. As we have seen above, the pope himself would later attack not the person of king but precisely that adviser. This step had been taken before April 24, 1080, when a private donation to Sahagtin already mentions a new abbot there, one Bernard.*®> This gesture had little real cost to the mon6s AHN. Céddices, 989B, fol. 128v.

KING AND CULT (1076-1080) III arch since the new abbot was another Cluniac monk and confidant of Abbot Hugh the Great. In fact, Bernard was to become the lifelong associate of Alfonso and his most reliable supporter as well as the first archbishop of Toledo after 1085. Similarly, the king was prepared to yield on the question of the liturgy so long as the papacy was willing to put its entire influence behind such a change and to drop its pursuit of other matters more important to the king. This step too had been taken, perhaps in conjunction with yet another Council of Burgos held during Lent or at Easter, which fell on April 12 in that year. The documentary record is very scanty for the spring of 1080. At any rate, on May 8, 1080, Alfonso granted a most significant charter of immunity to the abbey of Sahagun and Abbot

Bernard.” The document as we have it has been the object of much tampering and must be used with caution. Nonetheless I incline to accept the fact that it was issued at a great council of the realm for it was confirmed by all thirteen of the bishops of Leén-Castilla as well as an equally impressive host of secular magnates. It 1s difficult to imagine that a forger would have gone to such lengths to validate a simple charter of immunities. The lengthy introduction to the document touches definitely on the question of the change of rites as the king writes “ut in Hispanie partibus dominio meo ab eodem commissis dignissimum romane institutionis officitum celebrari preciperem.” It also elaborates on the changes effected at Sahagtn by the royal initiative in the words “decrevi una cum conjuge mea regina Constancia prefatum monasterium . . . reformare atque per electionem fratrum ibidem commorantium Bernardum in eodem prefato monasterio abbatem constitui in presentia Ricardi Romane ecclesie cardinalis.” Aside from this text, which forms such an unusual and extraordinary preamble to an otherwise simple charter of immunity, we have no documents that bear directly on the events of the spring of 1080 in LeénCastilla. It is possible that Alfonso VI chose this means of emphasizing the importance of his own initiatives and of both implicating the papal 66 Ibid., fol. rv—2r, the oldest copy, and another in 988B, fol. 16r—v. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 884, nos. 14 and 15, two twelfth-century copies. Acad. Hist., Coleccién Salazar, o22, ff. 12r-13v, a much later copy. Pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahagtin, pp. 477-78. Both the language and the orthography suggest a twelfth-century reworking. Also a prelate who was certainly Bishop Pedro of Braga is given as bishop of Coimbra, an error that could only have been made in the twelfth century. Alfonso’s title is given simply as “rex,” but the notary to whom the document is credited, Alfonso Ramirez, used rather the imperial title. The dating formula also includes the dating by year of the Incarnation, indiction, and papal reign, which is unprecedented in Leonese chancery usage.

112 CHAPTER SIX legate in them and associating his new queen with those actions and thereby enhancing the likelihood of her eventual acceptance by the papacy. A better possibility, it seems to me, is that a decision was made later at Sahaguin to incorporate in a reworking of the charter a brief account of those events, the memory of which still survived in that monastery. If the latter is the case, it is well to recall that the oldest copy we have of the reworked text can be dated to the period between 1110 and

1120, when the Becerro gético, which includes the charter, was produced. Certainly, then, extant documents of Sahaguin, as well as the memory of older monks perhaps, would have been sufficient to allow an accurate dating of what had transpired. Moreover, the text as we have it furnishes a description that is plausible in terms of the desiderata of royal policy and of the ordinary practice of the times. The suggestion to redate this document to 1081 thus must be rejected on a variety of grounds.® A settlement had been reached which must have been at least satisfactory to both sides, and which Cardinal Richard would have communicated to the pope as soon as it was final so as to secure his approbation. The legate’s letter and the papal letters of late June must have crossed. Doubtless the king too wrote to Gregory VII to explain the resolution in his own terms and to suggest yet other areas in which he sought papal cooperation. In a letter dated only to 1081 the Roman pontiff responded and gave his approval of much of what had been done.*®? Alfonso is addressed as the “glorious king of Spain,” and the acceptance of the Roman liturgy in his kingdom is celebrated. The matters of the king’s wife and of the abbacy of Sahagin are to be entrusted to Cardinal Richard and Bishop Jimeno of Oca-Burgos for a decision. Hope is expressed that Alfonso will continue to merit the honor by which Christ has raised him “super omnes Hispaniae reges,” and he is thanked for his munificence to the see of Peter. Clearly the storm had passed away for the time.

There remained but one matter on which the pontiff was not ready to yield to the royal wishes, at least in all particulars. It appears from 67 Barbara A. Shailor, “The Scriptorium of San Sahagun: A Period of Transition,” in Santiago, St.-Denis, and Saint Peter (New York, 1985), pp. 55—56. 68 Serrano, Obispado de Burgos 1:306-307, suggested such a redating and has been fol-

lowed more recently by Rivera Recio, Iglesia de Toledo, pp. 131-32. The issue is clouded by two copies of the forged charter of Alfonso VI to Abbot Robert of Sahagtin dated May 10, 1079, which bear the date of May 14, 1080. See notes 56 and $9. There is also a copy of a private charter, dated May 29, 1080, which gives Julian as abbot of Sahagiin still. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. gor. °° Caspar, ed., Register Gregors VII, pp. 569-72. The dating formula of the letter is missing and it is the editor who dates it. A date of late 1080 or 1081 is indicated since the matters touched on would have been moot if a longer delay had ensued.

KING AND CULT (1076-1080) 113 the papal letter that the king had hoped to erect at this time a metropolitan see within his domains and had even chosen a candidate for that

dignity. Gregory VII did not oppose the idea as such but rather suggested that the king, with the counsel of the legate and other religious men of the realm, seek a more suitable candidate. This entire matter remains mysterious for the papal letter mentions neither the name of the candidate or the see that was to be so honored. If the reconstitution of the ancient hierarchy of the Iberian church were

to be the controlling principle, there was but one see, Braga, then within Alfonso’s domains that had had archiepiscopal rank in antiquity. Pierre David suggests that this was the see the king had in mind.” Certainly both Lugo and Oviedo, and perhaps even Santiago de Com-

postela, had ambitions of achieving archiepiscopal rank, but they lacked both the canonical precedents and, even more importantly, a

Castilla. .

central position within the realm now centered on the meseta of Leén-

This last consideration would have been best met by the erection of the royal city of Le6n to the metropolitan rank, but that see was itself entirely a creation of the Reconquista and its necessities. Five years later, of course, the solution was simple when Toledo was to be reconstituted as an archbishopric, for the see had held both that rank and the primateship for a time within the ancient Visigothic kingdom. But in 1080 even Alfonso VI could hardly have been so confident of his permanent recovery of that city and kingdom. Oca-Burgos could claim ancient foundation, but that see was neither central to the realm nor of great importance as an urban center at this time.7! The greatest likelihood is that Alfonso was thinking of Palencia, which was more or less in the center of the meseta, had a clear record of classical foundation, and whose bishop was a familiar of his court. Allin all the events of the years 1076 to 1080 were to have a far-reach-

ing effect on the church of Leén-Castilla and, more indirectly, on the kingdom itself. Certainly they enormously enlarged and extended the already traditional ties between that monarchy and the great Burgundian order centered at Cluny. Cluniac monks began to penetrate the great abbeys of the realm and prepared the way for the eventual establishment of a chain of houses that would spread to the far west of the 7° Etudes historiques, p. 423. But he considers Pedro a creature of Sancho II when the former was, as we have seen, rather the choice of Garcia. Pedro did not play a large part at the court of Alfonso VI but he does seem to have participated in the settlement of 1080. See note 66. 7! Current historians disagree on what see Alfonso had in mind. See Rivera Recio, Iglesia de Toledo, p. 65.

114 CHAPTER SIX peninsula and set a precedent for the penetration of yet a second wave of French monasticism under the Cistercians in the latter twelfth century. In addition, the subsequent transfer of the Cluniac monk Bernard from the abbacy of Sahagun to the primatial see of Toledo after 1085 would open the Spanish episcopacy itself to a host of French bishops through the cooperation of Bernard and his king over the next quarter of a century and even well beyond. There would seem to be little reason to doubt that in the mind of the king this was one of the definitions of church reform. He was quite as likely as other monarchs of the late twelfth century to have been awed and impressed by the spiritual, intellectual, and organizational leadership that emanated from that Burgundian center. Yet he was likely, as well, to appreciate that French abbots and French bishops could be turned to peculiarly royal purposes since they had no family ties to the magnate houses of his realm and he and his dynasty were major patrons of the mother house itself. It may even be, as many modern historians have suggested, that he saw in Cluny an ecclesiastical counterweight to a too great influence of the reformed papacy in the peninsula. Here it must be remembered, however, that Cluny was never a rival to Rome, if it sometimes seems to have been a restraining and softening agent in relation to some papal initiatives and policies. That Alfonso came to appreciate this fact and sought the mediation of Cluny to negotiate those differences that he developed so swiftly with the Roman pontiffs is altogether probable. Rome itself was certainly aware of this aspect of the royal policy and was usually willing to tolerate it although occasionally impatient of the restraints it set. The reform movement after all could hardly be insensitive to the long-term beneficent results of Cluniac influences in Iberia since the effects of those influences generally ran parallel to its own desires. At the same time the direct authority of Rome began to make itself felt in the most important of the Christian peninsular kingdoms for the first time. Although one may variously estimate the practical significance of the substitution of the Roman ritual for the Mozarabic, from this time forward the gradual advance of the former inexorably accompanied the extension and consolidation of royal power as the Reconquista progressed.”? That necessity doubtless occasioned embarrassment and annoyance to Alfonso VI in his role as pragmatic politician, 72 For the examination of the circumstances of that change, see Ram6n Gonzalvez, “The Persistence of the Mozarabic Liturgy in Toledo after A.D. 1080,” in Santiago, St.Denis, and Saint Peter (New York, 1985), pp. 157-86.

KING AND CULT (1076-1080) IIS but it is unlikely that he or any other layman of the times found their own spiritual life greatly hampered by it. Of much more import was the assertion by the papacy of the right of ultimate decision on questions of administrative and judicial matters within the peninsular church, now recognized in principle. A modus vivendi in this area was extraordinarily difficult to elaborate as it was elsewhere in western Europe even if Spain saw no “Investitures” controversy such as that which wracked the empire and even England. Alfonso, like William the Conqueror, was disposed to allow the new papal claims just so long as Roman purposes coincided with his own and he was able to control the day-to-day activity of its agents. In the period of which we have been speaking, he seems clearly to have attained largely just that. The mysterious Bishop Muno of 1074 was permanently relegated to obscurity in the monastery of Cardena, the undivided bishopric of Burgos continued as the partner of royal policy in all of Castilla, and the king obtained an abbot of his choice at Sahagun even if Bernard was not his original selection. In that arena which we regard as purely political, if the age itself did not, the victory of the crown was yet more unequivocal. The papal claim to overlordship in Leén-Castilla vanished forever. Elsewhere in the peninsula, Urgel, Aragon, and later Portugal, it lingered on and was somctimes employed in the familiar European role of a weaker power’s auxiliary defense against a stronger power, but its use was manipulated by the monarch rather than the papacy. The imperious necessity of the royal marriage to Constance of Burgundy triumphed, and Alfonso’s daughter and successor, Urraca, would routinely style herself “domni adefonsi et constanciae reginae filia” in her charters. Certainly such complex relationships are never finally fixed in hu-

man affairs. New problems and new opportunities would present again, on another specific terrain, the tensions between king and pope as collaborators and king and pope as rivals. In 1081, however, one thinks that Alfonso VI would have been rather more pleased with the balance then struck than would Gregory VII.

SEVEN

THE RECONQUISTA (1076-1081)

When Alfonso of Leén-Castilla decided to seize upon the fortuitous murder of the king of Navarra in June 1076 and marched to annex the lion’s share of that kingdom, the forces he led had probably been assembled originally for a campaign in the south. Since his father Fernando’s death, the kingdom had been poised for the appropriation of the

southern half of the Duero Basin. The Muslim taifa kingdoms of the south had been reduced already to the status of client states. To the east and to the west, the flanks of that great region in the upper reaches of the Duero and on the coastal plains of Portugal had been secured. The northern half of the meseta had been largely repopulated. Only the division of the Fernandine kingdom had delayed the outright seizure and resettlement of the sprawling area between the river and the Cordillera Central.

This trans-Duero region, as it was ordinarily styled in the north of the day, was a long triangle whose northern leg was constituted by the Duero itself. Its north-south base was constituted by the mountains of Portugal which were virtually impassable from the Duero down to the Tajo except by the winding route that the railroad follows to this day from Coimbra on the Mondego, along the upper valley of that river, and over the 800-meter-high pass that leads down to modern Guarda. The longest leg ran from southwest to northeast along the watershed formed by the Gredos and the Guadarrama mountains from the Tajo to the Sorian highlands. The distances involved were 320 kilometers, 200 kilometers, and 420 kilometers respectively. Within the legs lay a virtual kingdom of some 50,000 square kilometers. It was more than one and a half times the size of all of Galicia or about six times the area of modern Wales.

Neither the terrain nor the climate of this area offered significant challenges to its acquisition and utilization by the north. In these respects it was of a piece with those lands that Leonese farmers and shepherds had spent the past two and a quarter centuries learning to exploit. In 1076 its essential emptiness was a function of its location. It lay, and had lain, between Islam in the south and Christianity in the north as a

THE RECONQUISTA (1076-1081) 117 kind of “world of war” whose possibilities were beyond more than very partial development by either protagonist. This condition has been brilliantly examined and demonstrated by Claudio Sanchez-Albornoz, and although his thesis, or at least the rhetoric in which it 1s expressed, has been challenged it has largely been accepted by subsequent scholars.' The effective domination of the trans-Duero was to be one of the major problems of Alfonso VI’s reign, and even at his death

its regular governance was largely supplied from towns around its perimeter.’ The challenge to such a process was constituted, in good measure, by those taifa states that also possessed access to the region. In the west the gap between the Gredos mountains and those of Portugal was controlled by the Muslim kingdom of Badajoz. In the center the kingdom of Toledo possessed practical if more difficult entry by means of a series of passes through the Guadarrama, which opened to the sites of Avila and Segovia and through the rolling country to the east of these mountains and the west of the Sierra de Albarracin. In the east possible, but much more difficult, entry could be obtained by the taifas of Zaragoza and Valencia by means of the old Roman road that followed the meanderings of the upper reaches of the Henares and Jal6én rivers.

Though the monarchs of the age did not speak of grand strategic concepts ordinarily, there can be no doubt that they utilized their practical elements quite consciously. The campaigns of the late reign of Fer-

nando I display a clear recognition of the problems mentioned just above. Alfonso himself as king merely of Leén had attacked Badajoz in 1068 even though it had then been a tributary of his brother, Garcia. As ruler of a reunited Leén-Castilla, Alfonso VI would demonstrate the

same grasp of the great necessities for aggrandizement in the transDuero as had his father. Because of its position, which formed by far the greatest portion of

the southern border of the trans-Duero, the kingdom of Toledo was the essential key to its occupation. That taifa must be effectively neutralized or, as events would have it, conquered. How early Alfonso VI’s

mind turned from the first to the second cannot be precisely determined. As we have seen, in the late summer and fall of 1074, he was already campaigning in the Muslim southeast of the peninsula in concert with his ally and client, al-Mamun of Toledo. Clearly this campaign had two immediate aims both of which were achieved: the ex' $anchez-Albornoz, Despoblacién y repoblacion. 2 Reilly, Ledn-Castilla under Queen Urraca, pp. 296-300.

118 CHAPTER SEVEN action of an annual tribute from the king of Granada to Alfonso and the addition of Cérdoba to the territories of al-Mamun. The ambitions of the Leonese monarch in 1075 were perhaps already reaching beyond mere suzerainty and parias. The first recorded presence at court in March of that year of the Mozarabic noble Sisnando

Davidez, who held Coimbra, may be significant. If an offensive against the taifa of Badajoz were in prospect, both the stability of the Portuguese frontier and the prospect of cooperation from it would be important. However, action on that front seems to have been delayed

when the assassination of al-Mamun in Cordoba in June 1075 demanded immediate attention to the affairs of Toledo. The deceased taifa king’s son and successor al-Qadir was unable to prevent the declaration of independence in Valencia that followed his father’s death, and the entire eastern sector seemed to demand Alfonso’s attention. He appears to have inspired raids from Zaragoza on Valencian territory and evidently was prepared to take the field himself in 1076 when the great opportunity in the Rioja presented itself. The king was not to be totally diverted from his earlier purposes by the Riojan expedition. The settlement of affairs there was virtually uncontested, and he was back in Castilla and just south of Castrojeriz on August 1, 1076. Two private donations of that date were confirmed by the bishops of Burgos and Palencia and one of them also by the bishop of Santiago de Compostela, the latter of whom had been at Calahorra with the king less than a month earlier, and other court figures.4 The royal party was moving south and into the lands across the Duero for on August 17, 1076, it was about twelve kilometers north of Septilveda. There Alfonso issued a charter authorizing the monastery of Silos to repopulate the area around San Frutos to the southwest of Sepulveda. 3 Sisnando is usually thought to have been installed as the governor of Coimbra by Fernando | after the city’s capture in 1064. Emilio Garcia Gomez and Ramén Menéndez P1dal, “El conde mozarabe Sisnando,” Al-Andalus 12 (1947): 35. That may be, but the first documentary record of his rule there dates to May 1, 1070, and even that document is not beyond suspicion. See chapter 2, note 63. The charters of Alfonso VI of 1075 may actually record his initial appointment as well as his presence. See chapter 5, note 63. 4 August I, 1076. Serrano, ed., Becerro gotico, pp. 239-40. It appears to have been issued in Hinestrosa about three kilometers south of Castrojeriz for all the men of that village are recorded as present. Aug. I, 1076. Bruel, ed., Recueil des chartes 4:604-607. It 1s a donation to Cluny. An apparent reworking of the charter is dated to Jan. 29, 1077. Ibid., pp. 622-25. s Emilio Saez, ed., Coleccion deplomdtica de Sepulveda (Segovia, 1956), pp. 3-7; and Férotin, ed., Recueil des chartes, pp. 23-26, both of whom date it to Aug. 20, 1076. The problems surrounding the issuance of this charter have been studied intensively by Antonio Linage Conde, “La donacién de Alfonso VI a Silos del futuro priorato de San Frutos y el problema de la despoblacién,” AHDE 41 (1971): 973-1011; and Maria de la So-

THE RECONQUISTA (1076-1081) 11g The charter was confirmed exclusively by Castilian magnates so that the bulk of the royal court may have proceeded from Castrojeriz to Leon.

The king himself seems to have returned to Leén shortly thereafter for a series of private and royal charters place him there from August 27 to September 8, 1076, in the company of the usual members of the court.° However, Alfonso returned in the fall to the area of Septlveda where we find him issuing a fuero to the inhabitants of that village on November 17, 1076. The confirmants are again Castilian magnates.? The appropriation of the trans-Ducro was beginning, then, with the initiatives of the king in the Septilveda area. That village was an obvious place to start for it was a militarily strong position raised above the junction of the Castilla and Duraté6n rivers, the latter of which then ran down to the Duero at the castle of Penafiel some forty-five kilometers to the northwest. The highlands beginning to the east of the settlement offered additional security, but to the west the meseta lay open to its surveillance. Fifty kilometers to the southwest lay the ruins of Segovia, and only twenty-five kilometers to the southeast was the 1,440meter-high pass of Somosierra through the Guadarramas to Madrid and Toledo. Septilveda was therefore a spot of great strategic significance on the eastern edge of the meseta and may well have had a small population already to serve as a nucleus for the royal refoundation.® terrana Martin Postigo, “Donacién del lugar de San Frutos por Alfonso VI a Silos: Reconstitucion del privilegio por las fuentes. Estudio diplomatico,” Estudios Segovianos 22 (1970): 333-96. The latter redates the original text to Aug. 17, 1076. The charter was issued at Navares and there are three villages with some variation of that name north of Sepulveda. 6 Aug. 27, 1076. Acad. Hist., Coleccion Salazar, 0-17, fol. 775r-v; and BN, Manucritos, 720, fol. 224r—-v; the latter dated to Sept. 1. A royal charter given to Cluny. Aug. 1076. Garcia Larragueta, ed., Documentos de Oviedo, pp. 232-33. A private charter probably issued at this time. Sept. 5, 1076. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 82r. Again a private charter. Sept. 8, 1076. AC Leon, Céddice 11, ff. §3v—s4r; Acad. Hist., Catedrales de Espana, 9-25-1-C-4, ff. 7or—-72r; pub. ES 36:65—67 append. This last is a charter of the infantas Urraca and Elvira to the church of Leon. 7 Emilio Saez, Rafael Gibert, Manuel Alvar, and Atiliano Gonzalez Ruiz-Zorilla, Los fueros de Septilveda (Segovia, 1953), pp. 44-51. The document raises many problems already discussed in my Leén-Castilla under Queen Urraca, pp. 323-24, but I remain convinced of the reality of a royal charter of that date. See also my “Chancery of Alfonso VI,” pp. ro-11. A thirteenth-century copy unknown to the editors exists in AHN, Port., Mosteiro de Lorvao, Caixa 60, Maco I, no. 19. * In addition to the sources cited in notes 5 and 7, see the discussion in Salvador de Mox6, Repoblacién y sociedad en la Espana cristiana medieval (Madrid, 1979), pp. 44-45, and

Antonio Linage Conde, “En torno a la Septilveda de Fray Justo,” Homenaje a Fray Justo

Pérez de Urbel, vol. 1 (Silos, 1976), pp. 60-61. ; )

120 CHAPTER SEVEN The charters of 1076 and the evidence of language indicates that the new population was drawn largely from Castilla la Vieja. This new Christian influx would have had to practice some agricul-

ture, largely in garden plots one suspects. From the beginning they must nevertheless have relied primarily on the herding of cattle, sheep, horses, and goats for their livelihood. The unoccupied expanses of the trans-Duero were uniquely adapted to such utilization, and all surviving evidence suggests that they were quickly turned to such purposes. Wealth in such a form, mobile and based on fortified cities, was much simpler to protect than were sprawling fields against Muslim raiders or pastoralists, themselves entrenched on the northern slopes of the Cordillera Central and pursuing much the same sort of life.'? Under such circumstances, stockraiding also became a regular part of economic activity as well as an occasional military duty. In both aspects, the ranging of the new settlers over the plains of the south would provide their sovereign with erratic but important new intelligence of events there and further to the south.

That information was not reassuring initially. The ambitious and subtle king of Sevilla, al-Mutamid, had seen in the death of al-Mamun of Toledo in June 1075 an opportunity to reestablish his preeminence in Andalucia. In 1076 he had overrun and annexed the taifa of Denia on

the southeastern coast. The following year he reasserted his control over Cordoba and at least some of the southern territories of Toledo in the basin of the Rio Guadiana. He may also have already appealed for aid to the growing Murabit empire in North Africa. Continuing internecine warfare in the Muslim south was to Alfonso’s benefit, of course, but only so long as no clear victor appeared to restore effective unity there. Meanwhile, the Leonese monarch had other concerns which claimed precedence for the moment. Returning from the Sepulveda region, he had probably spent the Christmas season in Le6én or Sahagtn. A private donation to the latter on January 15, 1077, was confirmed by a number of court figures.'' The king issued a charter himself at Ledn on January 30, and a private charter of the same date indicates a larger assemblage ° Charles J. Bishko, “El Castellano, hombre de Ilanura,” Homenaje a Jaime Vicens Vives,

vol. 1 (Barcelona, 1965), p. 208, and also his “The Peninsular Background of Latin American Cattle Ranching,” Studies in Medieval Spanish Frontier History (London, 1980), Pp. 494-95.

to Sanchez-Albornoz, Despoblacién y repoblacién, p. 375, and Angel Barrios Garcia, “Toponomastica e Historia. Notas sobre la despoblacidn en Ja zona meridional del Duero.” In En la Espatia Medieval, vol. 2 (Madrid, 1982), pp. 131-32. '' AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 232v; pub. Hinojosa, ed., Documentos de Leon y de Castilla (Madrid, 1919), pp. 32-33.

THE RECONQUISTA (1076-1081) I21 than usual.'? The documents do not then reveal the royal itinerary until April and May when the king was in Burgos wrestling with the problem of the liturgy and related matters. '3 June and July were spent in the vicinity of Leén."4

The court must have departed for the west in mid-July for a document of the Galician monastery of Celanova seems to record the royal presence in the Orense area on July 31, 1077.15 It then proceeded north-

west to Santiago de Compostela where the king confirmed an agreement between the bishop and the abbot of the monastery of Antealtares, which cleared the way for the beginning of a new cathedral there, on August 17, 1077.'° It seems hardly possible that Alfonso was still in Galicia so late, but a charter he granted to the monastery of San Antolin of Toques, between Santiago and Lugo near the pilgrim road, is dated October 17, 1077. I incline to believe that the fourteenth-century copyist mistook the date.'7 But, even discounting the latter charter as dated, it would have been impossible for Alfonso already to have been back in

Leén on September 3, 1077, when he appeared as confirmant to a charter of his sisters in Leon. This charter is a reworking of an earlier one and cannot be relied upon.’ What does seem to be clear is that Alfonso again traversed the entire breadth of his kingdom in the late fall of 1077. On November §, 1077, he was in the Rioja where he confirmed a private charter to San Millan

de La Cogolla.'9 Five other charters or confirmations of the king, which deal with matters concerning the Rioja but which are dated only by year, are probably of the late fall as well.*° Whether Alfonso was in '2 For Alfonso’s charter, see chapter 6, note 7. The private charter, AC Leén, Céodice 11, fol. 6or—v, reveals the bishops of Modonedo and Oviedo at court. '3 See chapter 6, notes 33 and 37.

'¢ See those who confirm the following documents. June 27, 1077. AHN, Céddices, 9890B, fol. 146r. July 10, 1077. Bruel, ed., Recueil des chartes 4:627-29. July 12, 1077. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 884, no. I. 's Serrano y Sanz, ed., “Documentos de Celanova,” pp. 35-37. 6 Lopez Ferreiro, Historia de Santiago de Compostela 3:3-7 append., and Jesus Carro Garcia, “La escritura de concordia entre Don Diego Pelaez, obispo de Santiago, y San Fagildo, abad del monasterio de Antealtares,” CEG 4 (1949): 112-18. 17 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 557, no. 15. This charter slightly enlarges the privileges contained in the one his brother Garcia had granted some ten years before. See chapter 2, note 42. Although some reasons would have existed for simply reworking this earlier charter and attributing it to Alfonso, the diplomatic of the Alfonsine charter is too good to discount it. '8 AC Leon, Céddice 11, ff. 52v-53r. But see note 6. The same property is conveyed in both but the later one lacks the confirmation of Queen Inés, which ommission would have been politic if that lady had been forced into retirement. '9 Serrano, ed., Cartulario de San Milldn, p. 238. 20 Ibid., pp. 238-39, 239-40, and 240-41. Antonio de Yepes, Corénica general de la Or-

122 CHAPTER SEVEN Castilla on December 17, 1077, when the abbot of Ona and the bishop of Burgos exchanged properties with his consent, is not clear but it 1s likely.?! Before he had left the Rioja the Leonese monarch had perhaps met with Sancho Ramirez of Aragén or his representatives and specified yet further their respective holdings in the former kingdom of Navarra. A charter of the latter, dated only to 1078, cites Alfonso as reigning from Najera to perhaps as far east as Estella.?? Such an agreement would have freed the Aragonese king to put to best use the aid he was to receive in 1078 from an expedition of Duke Hugh I of Burgundy. On January 29, 1078, Alfonso VI was back at Sahagtin where he confirmed a private donation to that monastery.?4 There he seems to have remained through the winter, the Easter scason, and even as late as May 14, 1078.75 For the six months that follow, it is impossible to determine the whereabouts of the king and court. A number of reasons lead me to suspect that he was again engaged in the task of repopulating the trans-Duero. First, a similar dearth of documents in the summer and fall of 1074 accompanied a long absence from the north precisely while he was campaigning in Andalucia. But that campaign was recorded in Muslim sources for it had a major impact upon the taifas. Their silence in 1078 would seem to rule out that sort of major campaign. Second, the almost frenzied mending of fences

at home suggested by Alfonso’s continual movement in 1077 from Castilla, to Galicia to the Rioja is more readily understandable as the prelude to an anticipated absence of some duration. Third, later tradition will fairly consistently speak of a campaign, which ended with the conquest of Toledo, as being of seven years in length.”° Nevertheless, I do not believe that Alfonso’s aims had yet matured den de San Benito, vol. 1 (Irache and Valladolid, 1609-1621), pp. 33-34 append. Loperraez Corvalan, Descripcién histérica de Osma 3:6. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 701, no. 18. 2" See chapter 6, note 39. 22 Ubieto Arteta, ed., Cartulario de Santa Cruz, pp. 23-24. The charter reads “usque in

Ilia.” A notice of yet another charter of Alfonso to San Millan, dated only to 1078, may in fact be of the preceding year. Acad. Hist., Coleccién Salazar, 0-16, fol. 88v. 23 Boissonnade, Du nouveau sur la Chanson de Roland, pp. 30-31. 24 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 884, no. 5, and original; and a copy in Céodices, 989B, ff. 68v— 6or.

io Feb. 28, 1078. AHN, Cédices, 1.043B, fol. 37r-38v, and 363B, ff. 45v—46v and 67r68v; pub. ES 40:417-22, and Antolin Lopez Pelaez, El seriorio temporal de los obispos de Lugo vol. 2 (Coruna, 1897), pp. 111-14. Mar. 1, 1078. AHN, Céddices, 988B, fol. 19r—v; 989B, fol. sr—v; Clero, Carpeta 884, no. 7; Acad. Hist., Coleccion Salazar, 0-22, ff. 7r8v; pub. Fita, “Concilio nacional de Burgos,” pp. 338~41. Mar. 20, 1078. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 884, no. 8; pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahagtin, pp. 474-75. Apr. 2, 1078. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. ro8r—v. May 14, 1078. Ibid., fol. 7or-v. 76 Lucas de Tuy, “Chronicon Mundi,” p. roo. Al-Magqgari, The History of the Mohammedan Dynasties in Spain, vol. 2, trans. Pascual de Gayangos (London, 1840), p. 263.

THE RECONQUISTA (1076-1081) 123 to such a point. As we have seen, as late as 1080 he would suggest the creation of an archbishopric to Gregory VII. Surely that would have been too early if he had been thinking of the restoration of Toledo, but at the same time, if he already foresaw that city’s recapture, 1t would have obviated the need for another archbishopric. It is more likely that subsequent chroniclers saw a fairly general, if local, series of initiatives in the region south of the Duero as steps toward a truly remarkable advance in fact achieved subsequently. It has been asserted recently that Alfonso concluded treaties with Sevilla and Zaragoza in 1078 precisely to isolate Toledo, but no authorities have been adduced to bolster the statement. ~*’

Inherently more likely is that Alfonso spent the summer and fall cre-

ating advance posts in the trans-Duero from various strongpoints along the line of the Duero itself much as he had in 1076 in the case of Sepulveda. Although he furnishes no dates, Bishop Pelayo specifically lists Salamanca, Avila, Coca, Arévalo, Olmedo, Medina, Segovia, Iscar, and Cuéllar as places repopulated south of the Duero by Alfonso VI.?8 Salamanca, Avila, and Segovia, all lying far south and for that rea-

son too exposed to Muslim attack, would await later attention. We shall not be far from the truth if we envison the king directing his attentions to the remaining places in the summer and fall of 1078.

Medina del Campo, Olmedo, Coca, Fuente el Olmo de Iscar, and Cuéllar, on the other hand, all form a rough salient along the bank of the Duero stretching from twenty to forty kilometers south from that

“4

st ae Red sg. ve ky —— | ta ae _/?. ns v Ruins of the frontier castle of Peharanda de Duero. Photograph by the author. >7 José Miranda Calvo, La reconquista de Toledo por Alfonso VI (Toledo, 1980), p. 56. ** Sanchez Alonso, ed., Cronica del Obispo Don Pelayo, p. 81.

124 CHAPTER SEVEN river and a rough fifty kilometers from east to west. Any point in that area could have been easily and quickly succoured or reinforced from the fortresses at Tordesillas, Valladolid, or Penafiel securely ensconced along the northern bank of that river. If Arévalo was repopulated at this same time, they would together have formed a wedge thrust south into the trans-Duero for a total distance of fifty kilometers at its deepest point. They would all have been mutually supporting and represent a practical, strategic bite into that area which would complement what had been achieved in the Septilveda area fifty kilometers to the east two years before in 1076. It may be significant that when next we catch sight of Alfonso VI he is granting a fuero to Santa Maria de Duenas, midway between Valladolid and Palencia, on November 5, 1078.7? Possibly he was returning from just such a labor. In all probability the court spent the late fall and the Christmas sea-

son in the proximity of Sahagun and Leon as was customary. In any event the court was clearly at Sahagtin on February §, 1079.3° By March 12, 1079, it had moved north into Asturias, which was the only major province except Portugal not visited during the preceding year, where the king granted a charter to the monastery of San Vicente in Oviedo.3! The business of the crown there must have been of high import for the trip over the Cantabrians would have been grueling at that time of year.

Doubtless it had to do with preparing for an assemblage of the royal host for by April 7, 1079, the king was already on campaign not far from Toledo in the center of the peninsula. The extraordinary urgency at work becomes even more impressive when we reflect that to travel from Oviedo to Toledo in little more than three weeks would have forced Alfonso to ignore the solemnities of the Easter season since the feast fell that year on March 24.

Nevertheless the facts can hardly be controverted. The charter of April 7, 1079, is an original. It bears a note, added in another but contemporary hand in my judgment, that tells us that it was issued by the Rio Guadarrama, which flows into the Tajo just twelve kilometers west of Toledo, while on campaign.}? What extraordinary circumstances had called the Leonese monarch into the field with such haste? Although the chronology of events in the Muslim half of the penin9 Julio Gonzalez, “Aportacion de fueros castellano-leoneses,” AHDE 16 (1945): 627— 29; and Justiniano Rodriguez Fernandez, Palencia: Panordmica foral de la provincia (Palencla, 1981), pp. 219-21. 3° AHN, Clero, Carpeta 884, no. 10; and Cédices, 989B, fol. 163v. A private charter. 31 Luciano Serrano, ed., Cartulario de San Vicente de Oviedo, 781-1200 (Madrid, 1929),

pp. 87-90. 32 AD Leon, Gradefes, no. 5. “Et ista karta fuit facta et roborata hic in ipso flubis que discurrit justa de toledo. Id est guadarrama in fussato.”

THE RECONQUISTA (1076-1081) 125 sula is anything but clear it is known that al-Mutamid of Sevilla had secured at least temporary control of the taifa of Murcia in 1078, probably while Alfonso was busy repopulating the trans-Duero. Added to Cordoba, retaken in 1076, and Denia, seized in the same year, the Muslim king’s realm stretched from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean. But even worse had transpired, at least from the standpoint of Alfonso. Sometime in early 1079 his ally and client al-Qadir had lost control of the taifa of Toledo. A series of risings in his chief city had resulted in the installation there by the conspirators of al-Mutawakkil, the taifa king of Badajoz in his stead. So the situation still stood in June 1079.33

Al-Qadir had himself fled first to Huete and then farther east to Cuenca.

The position of Alfonso VI’s army a dozen kilometers west of the city of Toledo in early April, then, is best understood as constituting a blocking force that would disrupt communication and reinforcement between al-Mutawakkil in Toledo and the latter’s permanent seat of power in Badajoz. Information is simply lacking to follow the development of the campaign in any detail, but two ultimately successful initiatives of Alfonso scem clear. First, he extended his military campaign to the hereditary domains of the king of Badajoz and had succeeded by September in conquering the town of Coria.*4 The fall of that fortress gave the Leonese king a base from which to stage an attack on Badajoz itself some 125 kilometers to the southwest.

Second, Alfonso also undertook diplomatic measures to arraign alMutamid, king of Sevilla, against al-Mutawakkil. This episode is recorded in the Historia Roderici as an embassy by El Cid to collect the parias, or tribute due to Leon, from al-Mutamid, but it also clearly involves an alliance between the Christian and Muslim kings. As such it resulted in Alfonso’s ambassador fighting a pitched battle against the taifa king of Granada, another Leonese client, who was trying to take advantage of the confused situation in the Muslim south to attack the Sevillan. 35 33 For the confused events on the Muslim side, I follow the chronology of Huici Miranda, Historia musulmana de Valencia 1:200, who seems to me to have best tracked that jungle of rhetoric. ‘4 ‘Turk, El reino de Zaragoza, pp. 146-47. The only notice in the Christian sources places the capture of that town in September 1077. David, Etudes historiques, p. 299. But see Antonio Prieto y Vives, Los reyes de taifas (Madrid, 1926), p. 67, n. 2. Like virtually

all the other historians of the question, I follow the Muslim chronology here, which seems best to comport with what is known of Alfonso’s movements. For the strategic position of that fortress, see Manuel Terrén Albarran, El sélar de los Aftdsides (Badajoz, 1971), pp. 125-27. 3s Menéndez Pidal, Espana del Cid 2:921-22.

126 CHAPTER SEVEN Both plans to contain and to threaten al-Mutawakkil worked sufficiently well to allow Alfonso himself to leave the culminating military actions against Coria to his subordinates. By the end of July the king was again in the Rioja where he granted a charter to the monastery of San Millan.3° To judge by those who confirmed it his entourage was made up entirely of Castilians. A month later, on September 3, 1079, he had been joined by the full royal court when he issued a charter making the monastery of Santa Maria of Najera a dependent of Cluny.37 Certainly one of the reasons for which Alfonso was in the Rioja was to receive his new fiancée, Constance of Burgundy, as has been developed in the preceding chapter. Yet that was not the entire reason. That rich territory had only been annexed in 1076, and then under the most peculiar circumstances. Alfonso had returned there in 1077 and now did so again. It would be ingenuous not to realize that he was experiencing real difficulty in working out a satisfactory political settlement there. Indeed, as others have pointed out, the very granting of that old royal monastery of the kings of Navarra to Cluny was designed to strengthen royal power in the province as well as to reward a steadfast friend.3* And the charter shows the brother and sisters of the late Sancho Garcia IV of Navarra clustered around Alfonso, associated with him by their acts of confirmation and lending legitimacy to his power. But even better provision would have to be made for the control of the province if the king was to be able to concentrate on the opportunities of the south. For the present, however, Alfonso seems to have returned to the center of his realm with his bride-to-be for there is evidence that he was at Sahagtin on December 6, 1079.39 In that area, probably Lesén, he was married perhaps before Christmastide as suggested by a charter of Christmas day. 4°

During the following year the documents provide only slim guidance as to the whereabouts of the king. The court seems to have been at Sahagun in late January.4! Apparently it remained there until late April.4? The winter season was occupied with the delicate negotiations over the liturgical question and the royal marriage detailed in the pre36 July 20~Aug. 1, 1079. The date is uncertain. AHN, Clero, Carpeta, 1.048, no. 16, has the latter date but it is a copy of 1485. Pub. Ildefonso Rodriguez de Lama, ed., “Coleccidn diplomatica riojana,” Berceo 16 (1961): 366-68. Serrano, Cartulario de San Millan, pp. 246-47, published an earlier copy dated July 20, 1079. 37 See chapter 6, note $7. 38 Peter Seg], Konigtum und Klosterreform in Spanien (Kallmtinz, 1974), p. 211.

39 AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 66v. 4° See chapter 6, note 58. 4! Ibid., note $9. 42 AHN, Céddice, 989B, fol. 128v.

THE RECONQUISTA (1076-1081) 127 ceding chapter. It was climaxed by a settlement perhaps reached in council in Burgos but in any event fully in effect by the time of the great

meeting of the royal curia reflected in the document of May 8, 1080. After that date no documents give trustworthy evidence as to the royal whereabouts until the late fall.+ This interval Alfonso spent in the south reaping the fruits of his efforts there the previous summer. Al-Mutawakkil was forced to abandon Toledo and al-Qadir was restored to power in that taifa.44 Never-

theless Coria was not restored to the king of Badajoz because its acquisition constituted a major advance in what was still, I am convinced, the Leonese monarch’s primary goal, the repopulation of the trans-Duero. Situated on the Rio Alagén some forty-five kilometers northeast of the point at which that tributary flowed into the Tajo, that fortress town sat squarely in the gap between the western end of the Cordillera Central and the mountains of Portugal. In Leonese hands it guaranteed the relative safety of new settlements in the whole of the western trans-Duero region from Zamora south to Salamanca and Alba de Tormes.

This concentration on the development of the region between the Rio Duero and the Cordillera Central was, assuredly, complemented by the continuance of the older policy of maintaining a general suzerainty over the taifa states. The former could only proceed so long as they remained divided among themselves and their wealth was exploited by means of the parias to provide extraordinary resources for the endeavors of the king of Leén-Castilla. In this light, the self-restraint of Alfonso in regard to the continued if dependent existence of the taifas constituted a fundamentally enlightencd self-interest, and his restoration of al-Qadir to Toledo becomes fully comprehensible. The statement of such a policy is, in fact, given to us by a contemporary source, the Muslim king of Granada. Abd Allah puts in the mouth of Alfonso himself, in the course of their negotiations 1n 1074, the simple and direct explication of that policy. “The costs of con43 See chapter 6, note 66. There is also a document of Sahagun dated May 29, 1080, which seems to have been confirmed by the royal alférez and the bishop of Ledn, but that is slim evidence to place the court there so late. AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. gor. 44 Huici Miranda, Historia de Valencia 1:200. Menéndez Pidal, Esparia del Cid 1:264-65; Gonzalez, Repoblacién de Castilla la Nueva 1:71-72; and others have dated the entire alMutawakkil episode in Toledo rather to 1080-81. The works of the later Muslim chroniclers on whom all parties rely are obviously difficult to reconcile precisely. I have chosen to follow Huici Miranda’s reading of them for two reasons. First, as we shall see, the documents of Alfonso VI in the spring and summer of 1081 put him far from Toledo. Second, the capture of Coria in 1079 becomes a logical part of a campaign against a king of Badajoz ensconced in Toledo rather than appearing as an isolated venture.

128 CHAPTER SEVEN quest,” Alfonso is made to say, “in both men and money would be more than I could hope to gain from it even if I were successful. In the event that I did conquer, because of their religion I could not count on the fidelity of its population and 1t would be impossible to kill them all and to repopulate with men of my own faith. It is better for me then to set one against the other and exact tribute from all. Eventually they will become so weakened as to surrender to me of their own will and I will gain my ends without effort.”45 One may well suspect that this little speech was a literary device of the Granadan king. Still the ideas expressed in it must surely have been the commonplaces of political counsel in the Leonese court of the late eleventh century. But notwithstanding, the seeming incapacity of al-Qadir to control the taifa of Toledo had already in 1079 begun to carry Alfonso VI beyond the strict adherence to such policy of relative moderation. Toledo friendly and strong was a key necessity for the peaceful penetration of

the trans-Duero, and the inability of its king to control even his domestic enemies had made open intervention there absolutely necessary to the Christian monarch. As conditions for al-Qadir’s restoration, the so-called Pact of Cuenca, Alfonso extracted from his dependent the

surrender of two key military bases. These were Zorita and Canturias.4° The first, 110 kilometers to the northeast of Toledo, seems to have assured Alfonso himself of easy access to the realm of Toledo while denying it to enemies from Valencia or Zaragoza. The second, 75 kilometers west of Toledo, would represent added assurance against

future incursions from Badajoz. For the support of these permanent garrisons, at least in part, Alfonso also exacted additional concessions of the sort related to the imposts of yantar or hospedaje within his own realm.47 Doubtless such precautions seemed sensible and necessary to the Leonese king, but they were bound to exacerbate relations between al-Qadir and his own subjects and make further intervention by Alfonso necessary.

On the other hand, the very restraints implicit in the policy of supporting al-Qadir could and did involve the Leonese monarch in serious trouble with his subjects. The events of late 1080 or early 1081 furnish a celebrated case in point. The earliest source for the incident, the Historia Roderici, tells of a Muslim raid on the Castilian stronghold of San Esteban de Gormaz on the upper reaches of the Duero.*#® Whence the 45 Abd Allah, Memorias, pp. 157-59. 46 Lévi-Provengal, Islam d’Occident, p. 127; Gonzalez, Repoblacién de Castilla la Nueva 2:72-73. 47 Abd Allah, Memorias, p. 163. 48 Menéndez Pidal, Espana del Cid 2:923.

THE RECONQUISTA (1076-1081) 129 raiders had come we are not told, but both geography and subsequent events make it likely that they were natives of one of the nearby Muslim hill towns such as Atienza, Sigiienza, or Medinaceli. As such they were technically subjects of al-Qadir. In retaliation El Cid, acting apparently

on his own initiative, launched an extensive and destructive raid into the eastern domains of the taifa of Toledo. His action presented his king

with major diplomatic problems. On the one hand it further damaged al-Qadir’s prestige with his own subjects. On the other, it was bound to raise the question in the minds of the taifa kings as to the practical immunity the parias actually bought. At the same time, it set the worst possible precedent for others of Alfonso’s own nobility to whom a quick border raid was an attractive opportunity for enrichment. The Leonese monarch reacted in the only possible fashion. He exiled E] Cid from his domains. The subsequent epic literature of course was to malign the king and to glorify Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar. Deriving from Castilla in a period when Leon and Castilla were separate and frequently hostile kingdoms, that was to be expected. In addition, however, that literature cast the whole of their subsequent relationship into the largely personal terms of envy and jealousy on the part of the king, rivalries at court, and forbearance and self-abnegation on the part of the injured noble. Precisely since it was literature, and this was the stuff of a good story, that is hardly surprising. What is surprising is that subsequent serious historians to the present day have accepted the complete substitution of personal passions for serious political concerns at virtually its face value. Doubtless many personal motives were involved in the resolution of the problem El Cid had created by his own action, but we are utterly without a historical basis on which to discern or describe them. Fancy aside, we do not know whether Alfonso VI exiled Rodrigo Diaz in anger or in sorrow. We can see that it was the least measure he could have taken that would safeguard the policy he was pursuing. Exile, apart from the dramatic elements that have been added to it ever since, at least had the appearance of a chastisement for one who had broken the king’s peace. But, when we consider the sequel and results of the banishment, we cannot even be sure that it was indeed a real penalty in the eyes of either of the protagonists. For practical purposes, El Cid was to lead a military force into the east of the peninsula where he would have a completely free hand. Ultimately that journey was to make of him a great, territorial prince. Assuredly both great skill and great good fortune contributed to that result, but the opportunity was there in 1080 and both king and noble must have known it. One also must reflect on the surprising extent to which the exile and

130 CHAPTER SEVEN Rodrigo’s activities complemented the interests of Alfonso. El Cid was first to attack the taifa of Valencia which had broken away from Toledo in 1075 and had since been the enemy of both al-Qadir and his overlord. This presence of the Castilian also placed a check on the initiatives of the Count of Barcelona and of al-Muqgtadir of Zaragoza, both of whom had already displayed ambitions of their own for aggrandizement at the expense of the inept Abu Bakr of Valencia. Yet since these effects were the work of an official exile, Alfonso himself could be held responsible

for none of them nor was his own power or prestige contingent on Rodrigo’s success. His were simply the benefits.

Unfortunately the precise time when this dramatic decision was taken is impossible to establish. The last time that Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar confirmed a document of his king was at the great court of May 8, 1080.49 Shortly thereafter the king left for the campaign that was to reinstall al-Qadir in Toledo, and the exact whereabouts of the court are unknown until it reappears at Sahagun on November 28, 1080, where it probably remained through the Christmas season.°*° It 1s quite possible, then, that as the success of Alfonso carried him to the west of Toledo in the summer of 1080, some of the Muslim of the Medinaceli area risked a raid on San Esteban de Gormaz. The same absence of the king was required for the practical vacuum of authority that permitted El Cid to respond in kind. The likelihood is, then, that Alfonso was faced with the decision as to how the resultant problem could be resolved when he returned to winter at Sahagun in the late fall of 1080. Such decisions would hardly have been made except as a complex of adjustments to all the pressing concerns of the past few years. Rodrigo Diaz himself was not a problem except as he represented the unruly

ambitions of the minor nobility. He had played a modest part in the court of Sancho II, when fiction is segregated from fact, as we saw ina preceding chapter. His role in the court of Alfonso VI was even more modest. Menéndez Pidal would make much of the royal favor that bestowed on El Cid a niece of Alfonso VI as his wife in 1074.5! But the 49 See chapter 6, note 66.

so AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 138r. A second document of December 3, 1080, 1s untrustworthy as to contents but may accurately reflect the continuing royal presence there. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 890, no. 6; Cédices, 989B, ff. 22v—-23r; Acad. Hist., Coleccion Salazar, 0-22, fol. 13v. See Ana Marja Barrero Garcia, “Los fueros de Sahaguin,” AHDE 42 (1972): 399-401. A document dated Dec. 4, 1080, puts the court near Benavente some

seventy-five kilometers southwest of Sahagtin, AHN, Clero, Carpeta 1.239, no. 18; copy in BN Manuscritos, 18.387, ff. 295v-—297r. Garcia Alvarez, “Catalégo de documentos,” Compostellanum 11 (1966): 312-13, called the latter an original but the caroline script marks it as a copy. st Espana del Cid 1:210-21.

THE RECONQUISTA (1076-1081) 131 carta de arras of that date cannot indeed be of that date as we have seen. Nor is the trail that leads from Dona Jimena to Alfonso VI any more satisfactory. The Historia Roderici names as Jimena’s father a Count

Diego of Oviedo.s? Unfortunately no count of Oviedo of that name can be descried for the eleventh century. Menéndez Pidal based his reconstruction of the genealogy of Rodrigo’s wife on a document of Oviedo dated August 13, 1083, which is clearly false.53 El Cid’s own family was of minor importance. The major problem was the stability and protection of the eastern frontier of the realm. The exile of El Cid would provide a safeguard or a buffer in the southeast. In the northeast the Rioja remained a concern and one that had called Alfonso from his southern campaigns twice since 1076. Though most historians have followed Menéndez Pidal in his assertion that Alfonso VI had made Garcia Ord6énez count in Najera in 1076, I do not feel that such an appointment was likely. Neither the fuero of Najera nor that of Calahorra in that-summer contained any mention of Garcia Ordonez. Instead, those persons mentioned as influential in the king’s counsels are Diego Alvarez of Oca and the latter’s

brother-in-law, Lop Jiménez, son of Jimeno Lépez. The latter was count of Vizcaya and of Najera. The collaboration of these three mag-

nates helped win the Rioja for Alfonso. If, then, two documents of 1077 refer to a Count Garcia in Najera, is it not at least likely that the reference is to Garcia Jiménez, brother of Lop Jiménez, as to Garcia Ord6nez?54

In fact, after his last reliable notice as royal alférez in mid-1074, Garcia Ord6énez vanishes from the royal entourage for six years.‘5 In the interim we hear of him as leading an attack on the taifa king of Sevilla

In 1079 1n conjunction with two Navarrese magnates who had been prominent in the service of that kingdom and then of Sancho II of Castilla, Fortun Sanchez and Lop Sanchez. That attack was contrary to the policy of Alfonso VI at the time and was repulsed by Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, just then performing an embassy to al-Mutamid.*° This context 82 [bid., 2:921.

3 Tbid., pp. 719-24. For the document, see Garcia Larragueta, ed., Coleccidn de Oviedo, pp. 255-56. For the critique, Fernandez Conde, Libro de Testamentos, pp. 288-90. ¢ Serrano, ed., Cartulario de San Millén, pp. 234-36 for the relationship of the brothers; pp. 239-40 for one reference to this Count Garcia; and Loperraez Corvalan, Obispado de Osma 3:6, for the other. ‘s July 1, 1074. AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 137v; pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahagun, p. 473, with a date of June 24, 1074. He does appear in the problematic carta de arras of El Cid and in the false diploma of Alfonso to Burgos in 1075. 6 See note 35. All three appear together in the charter of Sancho II of January 18, 1070, for instance. See chapter 3, note 18.

132 CHAPTER SEVEN strongly suggests that Garcia Ord6énez was then himself a refugee in the

Muslim south. But royal policy changed and his fortunes improved markedly, for in 1080 a document of Najera itself cites him as count there. ‘7 His first reappearance at court and in the capacity of count is in the same charter of May 8, 1080, which is the last record of E] Cid at court.5® Finally, on April 18, 1081, Garcia Orddénez will confirm a charter, not only in the company of his king, but also in concert with his own wife. She is of course Urraca, sister of the late king of Navarra, Sancho Garcia IV.%° By this latter date, the elements of a new settlement for the eastern frontier of the realm had been largely determined.

Alfonso VI seems to have devoted most of 1081 to its design. The court was apparently at Sahagtin on February 1 of that year and may have continued there through March 31.° Certainly by April 18, 1081, the court was in Najera where the king confirmed the charter of Ramiro Garcia, brother of Sancho Garcia of Navarra, to the monastery there. Probably sometime during this journey, the king also confirmed an old charter of San Millan though his action 1s dated merely by year.* On May 14, 1081, probably in or near Burgos to judge by those who

confirmed, Alfonso granted yet another charter to Cluny.© Back in Leén by June 9, 1081, the king issued another charter to a tiny Leonese

church.° July 15, 1081, found the court at Sahagun again. The known itinerary of the crown in the spring and early summer of 1081 precludes placing Alfonso’s campaign against al-Mutawakkil in that year.°’ He may have made some military demonstration in the fall 57 AHN, Céddices, tosB, fol. 9sr—v. It is dated only by year. 88 See chapter 6, note 66.

ss AHN, Cédices, 105B, ff. 99r-100v; pub. Rodriguez de Lama, ed., Coleccién de la Rioja 2:91-92.

so Feb. 1, 1081. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 134r. Mar. 31, 1081. Ibid., fol. 193v. The latter document may not be entirely trustworthy since it was confirmed by Bishop Pedro

of Astorga who had been forced into retirement by this time. On the other hand, a charter of Alfonso VI himself, dated Jan. 6, 1081, to the Castilian monastery of San Pedro de Arlanza, which would seem to place the king there, is suspect by reason of the confirmation of the later Bishop Raymond of Palencia. Serrano, ed., Cartulario de San Pedro, pp. 155-56. 6 Serrano, ed., Cartulario de San Millan, pp. 94-95. 6 Bruel, Recueil des chartes 4:719-22, published one copy. Another, AHN, Clero, Carpeta 1.030, no. 5, was published by Rodriguez de Lama, Coleccién de la Rioja 2:93—-94. Yet another copy exists in Acad. Hist., Coleccion Salazar, 0-17, ff. 788v—79o0r. 6 AC Leén, Cédice 11, ff. 96r—-97r; another copy in Acad. Hist., Catedrales de Espania, 9-25-1-C-4, ff. 76r—78v. Pub. Luis Sanchez Belda, Cartulario de Santo Toribio de Liébana (Madrid, 1948), pp. 118-20. 64 AHN, Céddices, 989B, ff. 20ov—21r. Again the confirmation of Bishop Pedro of Astorga raises a question. 6s Cf. Miranda Calvo, Reconquista de Toledo, pp. 80-81, and Gonzalez, Repoblacién de Castilla la Nueva 1:72-73.

THE RECONQUISTA (1076-1081) 133 for on September 9, 1081, one of his court nobles, Diego Ansurez, made a will at Ledn setting out the conditions to be observed if he were killed in battle and his body were not found, on the one hand, and if it were recovered, on the other. If something of a military excursion did take place it must have been quite brief, however, for the court was again at Leén on December 3, 1081, and Christmas was probably celebrated in Burgos.®’

All surviving evidence points, then, to Alfonso VI having concentrated on solving the major problems of the eastern frontier in 1081. The decision to exile Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar may have been the catalyst but it was far from constituting the entire royal policy. The recall of Garcia Ordénez from Andalucia, his marriage into the royal dynasty of Navarra, and his appointment as count in the Rioja would at the same time balance the activities of El Cid. The mutual hostility between the two is the secondary theme of all of the epic literature, and there is no reason why we should reject it as unhistorical. If the two nobles were already enemies, the new situation of each was bound to enhance their rivalry. The fortunes of both were of necessity

intimately entwined with influencing the actions of the taifa of Zaragoza. That greatest of the Muslim kingdoms of the east bordered on the Rioja in the south and Valencia in the north. Though nominally a client state of Leén-Castilla it pursued a largely independent policy within its own region, and its cooperation or at least neutrality would be crucial to the ambitions of either Garcia Ordénez or Rodrigo Diaz. Alfonso VI’s actions reflect an intention to play upon this and other rivalries. In July 1081 Garcia Orddnez’s brother, Rodrigo, had already become royal alférez, a position Garcia himself had held briefly some seven years previous. At the same time, Alfonso had promoted or allowed the consolidation of the three Basque provinces of Vizcaya, Alava, and now Guipuzcoa under his old ally, Lop Jiménez, by 1081. That barony constituted a more effective deterrent to any western ambitions of Sancho Ramirez of Arag6n, but it also necessitated a stronger rule in the Rioja to moderate the ambitions of the Basque magnate in turn. The decision to stabilize the eastern frontier by allowing or promoting the emergence of three strong nobles with virtually viceregal authority in extensive provinces created dangers of its own as was subsequently to be demonstrated. Nevertheless the experiment worked well 6 AC Leon, Cédice 11, ff. 29v—30r. 67 Dec. 3, 1081. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 959, no. 9; pub. Vignau, Cartulario de Eslonza, pp. 74-75. Dec. 25, 1081. AC Burgos, vol. 2, pt. 1, fol. sor—v; pub. Serrano, Obispado de Burgos 3:61-62. This original charter was not confirmed by the bishop of Leon. 6’ Gonzalo Martinez Diez, Alava medieval, vol. 1 (Vitoria, 1974), p. 95.

134 CHAPTER SEVEN enough to be repeated a decade later in the western territories of the kingdom. In both cases, the stimuli seem largely to have been the same. The first of these was the sheer size of the kingdom as it had been reunited under Alfonso and had continued to swell into first the Rioja and

then the trans-Duero. The difficulties of communication and travel, hence effective control, multiplied with every sizeable accession of territory. The second was a pressing necessity to concentrate on the affairs of the Muslim half of the peninsula. Perhaps as early as the end of 1080 and almost certainly by the middle of 1081, Alfonso had come to the realization that nothing short of the outright annexation of the taifa of Toledo was going to protect his essential ends in that region. He had restored al-Qadir to power but that king proved unable once again to administer his own affairs effectively.

After his restoration the Muslim had found it impossible to raise the indemnity which had been the price of Alfonso’s support. As was his preferred practice, Alfonso expected his allies to defray the costs of his campaign. As a result of the default in the indemnity, the Leonese monarch took control of yet another fortress, identified as “Canales,” and garrisoned it.°9 If this location can be identified with the present remains of a castle just thirty kilometers north of Toledo, then its cession provided almost the last necessity for an outright siege of the city of Toledo itself.7° Alfonso’s garrisons already occupied the fortresses of Zorita to the east of

the city and Canturias to the west. While the southern approaches of the city remained clear thus far, these bases were quite adequate to conduct a continuous harrying operation against the city itself and the sur-

rounding countryside that nourished and supported it. Unless major military assistance could be secured from Muslim Andalucia, the ruler and inhabitants of Toledo had no choice but to come to terms with an opponent so situated. As events were to demonstrate, no pitched battle would be fought. A gradual campaign of attrition and a slowly increasing military pressure against the city itself would finally result in the peaceful capitulation of Toledo in the spring of 1085. But even when Alfonso VI began to think 1n terms of the ultimate occupation of the city and taifa of Toledo, he understood that the real problem would not be its immediate conquest. Implicit in the remarks attributed to him by Abd Allah in 1074 was the recognition that the real task would be the fashioning of a 6 Ibn al-Kardabus, “Kitab al-Iqtifa,” in al-Maqqari, The History of the Mohammedan Dynasties in Spain, vol. 2, ed. and trans. Pascual de Gayangos (1843; London, 1964), p. XXX append.

70 Miranda Calvo, Reconquista de Toledo, p. 81.

THE RECONQUISTA (1076-1081) 135 political settlement and the marshaling of resources for repopulation there which would allow him to retain what he had overrun. Even if, as subsequently it would develop, Alfonso was able to hold

only the northern half of the basin of the Tajo, the effort required would be enormous. The area so defined constituted better than forty thousand square kilometers, and it was separated from the territories of Leén-Castilla not only by the massive Cordillera Central but also by

the as yet virtually empty plains of the trans-Ducro, averaging a hundred kilometers north to south across. Its population was composed of Muslim, Christians, and Jews in undetermined proportions but all of a culture quite alien from that of the north. The difficulties of the conqueror might well be symbolized by the city of Toledo itself. If Josiah Cox Russell is correct, the urban population of twenty-eight thousand was itself greater than the combined populations of every major town in the kingdom of Leén-Castilla.7" Unlike the latter, it was also a true commercial center that battened on the trade that ran along the old Roman road from Cadiz, Sevilla, and Cérdoba in the south to Zaragoza in the north. Once the outright conquest of the taifa of Toledo was undertaken, Alfonso VI would have another world to reorient and restructure as it

was absorbed into a Christian northern Spain which had been developing along other pathways for almost four hundred years. Furthermore, the moment that conquest was effected, the kingdom of Toledo ceased to be a client state whose surplus wealth could be drained away to secure other ends. Immediately it became a province to be nurtured, developed, governed, and protected. The scarcest of all resources of Leén-Castilla, human lives, must be invested there. Small wonder then if Alfonso VI hesitated long before committing himself irreversibly to such a course. 7 Russell, Medieval Regions and Their Cities (Bloomington, 1972), p. 178.

EIGHT

COURT, CHURCH, AND POLITICS (AUGUST 1076SEPTEMBER 1086)

The crucial institution within which the decisions were made, on the remarriage of the king, the substitution of liturgies, the repopulation of the trans-Duero, and the regulation of the border territories, was the royal curia. There the high politics of the realm were expressed and embodied, for we should not forget that politics there were, although the procedures familiar to us are almost totally lacking. The theory of the monarchy provided for neither politics nor procedure but only a divinely anointed man whose actions had the force of law. Yet a thriving ground for politics existed in the interval between the royal wish and the royal act. No medieval king was so stupid as to imagine that every wish could be translated into act or that every act would enjoy the obedience of his

subjects. Whatever theory told him, experience counseled caution, moderation, and persistent search for that happy formulation that elicits compliance because in it grudging consent and the fear of authority combine in roughly equal measure. A king knew that rebellion was always possible. Worse yet, he knew that he was unable to enforce compliance ordinarily for the means of coercion available to him were so few. “I obey but Ido not comply” is a modern Spanish expression but assuredly it would have moved Alfonso VI to somewhat rueful mirth. The arena wherein a medieval king sought to find if not consensus at least sufficient real consent for effective action was the royal curia. That

body, however, was so loosely formed and consequently so imperfectly recorded that abstract description of it yiclds only the most nugatory understanding. It is far better to discover it portrayed in the record created by one of its parts, the royal chancery. In the period from August 1076 through September 1086, the royal chancery of Leén-Castilla produced some forty-five genuine royal acts that are still preserved in major part. These acts may be divided by type

into the charter, the agnitio or record of a judicial decision, and the royal confirmation of a private document or an earlier royal docu-

COURT, CHURCH, AND POLITICS (1076-1086) 137 ment.’ The functional distinction of these three was already extant in the reign of Fernando I so that the Alfonsine chancery is, in its practice, a traditional body. Of major importance for our purposes here are the thirty charters whose lists of confirmants have been preserved. These charters reflect the chancery itself, first of all, as again a traditional body that still employed the Visigothic script in its documents. The diplomatic of those documents may be described as regular but hardly as standardized or uniform in the strict sense. As mentioned in chapter 6, at the beginning of this period in 1077 chancery practice changed the ordinary institution of the king and regularly used henceforth the style of “imperator totius hispaniae.” Also noticeable in this period is a greater continuity in chancery personnel and perhaps an increase in their number although the chancery had by no means become a department in the ordinary sense of that word, for no hierarchical organization can be detected. Twelve different clerks, ordinarily styling themselves notaries, prepared royal charters in this period but two of them prepared sixteen of the thirty. These two, Juan Baldemirez and Alfonso Ramirez, would both have substantial careers as royal notaries, each exceeding ten years in length. But the chancery had not yet become a road to royal preferment and the future of neither man can be determined after they leave that office. Their origins are similarly obscure, and no cathedral clergy seems to have been a training ground for chancery officials as that of Santiago de Compostela was to become in the time of Queen Urraca (1109-1126) or as Toledo was in the reign of Alfonso VII (1126-1157). The diplomatic practice of both men is quite similar but nonetheless distinguishable even as is their handwriting. This chancery records the existence of a curia regis in its acts which was composed, in the first instance, of the dynastic family. Alfonso’s two consorts of the period, gucens Inés and Constance, do not appear very frequently, one or the other being recorded as present in only ten of the thirty charters. Doubtless that poor showing results from their questionable status between 1077 and 1081 and Gregory VII’s challenge to the second marriage. The king’s two sisters, infantas Urraca and E]-

vira, were more prominent during this period and confirmed sixteen charters. Quite as regularly a part of the curia by reason of their office were the majordomo and the alférez. During the ten years now under consider' The fuero was not yet formally distinct from the charter, in my opinion. For this point and all others in the following remarks see my “The Chancery of Alfonso VI,”

pp. to-Il.

138 CHAPTER EIGHT ation these officers appeared in fifteen and eighteen charters respectively. Neither office disposed of a department or staff that can be de-

tected in the documents of the time. If the majordomo had some responsibility for the revenues of the fisc the latter must have been so decentralized in its contro] as to not have demanded the attention of more than a casual clerk or two at the royal level. The alférez can be assumed to have been simply the leader of the royal bodyguard at most times.

The alternation of these titles or honors between the magnates of Le6én and Castilla continued in practice. The Castilian Pedro Moréllez had been majordomo from the preceding period and held that office at least until November 5, 1078.2 By April 7, 1079, the Leonese Pelayo Vellidez had replaced him and would serve until late 1086.3 Similarly, in the position of alférez, the Leonese Fernando Lainez continued from the earlier period until at least October 17, 1077.4 By January 29, 1078, the mantle had fallen on the Castilian Rodrigo Gonzalez, who wore it as late as June 9, 1081.5 He was the young scion of the Lara family later to be famous during the reign of Queen Urraca as the brother and ally of her lover. To him, in turn, succeeded the Castilian Rodrigo Ord6nez as early as July 15, 1081, who then continued in the office for the remainder of this period.® The latter was the brother of Garcia Ordonez, then count in Najera, son of Ordono Ordénez who had been alférez under Fernando I, and brother-in-law of the powerful Castilian magnate Alvar Diaz.’ The comital dignity, on the other hand, did not necessarily imply membership in the curia. Of the twenty-two individuals who bear that title in one or the other document of this period, only eight are found in the royal presence with any regularity. Chief among these, as might be expected, is the great Leonese magnate Pedro Anstrez, who confirmed thirteen of thirty diplomas. A friend of Alfonso from his youth and constant attendant since his restoration, Count Pedro is early associated in the documents with the countship of Carrién de los Condes midway on the “Camino de Santiago” between Burgos and Leén.* The > See chapter 7, note 29. 3 Ibid., note 32. He is likely that Leonese magnate who appears in April 27, 1068. AC Leon, Codice 11, fol. 124r-v, and also in Carlos Estepa Diez, Estructura social de la ciudad de Leon, siglos XI-XIII (Leon, 1977), p. 257. 4 See chapter 7, note 17. ’ AHN, Clero, Carpeta 884, no. §; copy in Cddices, 989B, ff. 68v—69r; and chapter 7, note 63, respectively. 6 AHN, Clero, Codices, 989B, ff. 20v—2 tr. 7 Serrano, El Obispado de Burgos 1:346 and 3:127~28, n.1 * Feb. 17, 1074. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 883, no. 16.

COURT, CHURCH, AND POLITICS (1076-1086) 139 family estates were clustered about Carrion on the pilgrim road which was the great east-west artery of the realm. Late in this period, Pedro Anstirez will be found in command of the key fortresses of the line of the western Duero: Tordesillas, Toro, and Zamora.? His brother, Count Diego Anstirez, confirmed only seven charters of the period, but that is a reflection of the latter’s probable death about 1082, for his last appearance in the documents ts in late 1081. From September 30, 1075, and perhaps earlier, he had held the countship of As-

torga, the point at which the great pilgrim road begins its climb into the mountains of Galicia. '° Next most frequent after Pedro Ansurez among the magnates of the

court is Count Martin Alfénsez. He confirmed ten charters. He also was a companion of the young Alfonso and a constant attendant since then. This Leonese noble was not yet regularly associated with a territorial jurisdiction. The nobility of Castilla was strongly represented at this level only by Count Gonzalo Salvad6rez of Lara, who confirmed eleven charters before his death in the disaster of Rota in 1083. At this time the interests of the house were concentrated to the north and northeast of Burgos and perhaps were just beginning to develop about Lara itself.'' As we have seen, the Castilian house of the Ordonez gained in influence after 1080, but before that time its presence at court was irregular. The patriarch of the house, Ordono Ord6énez, seems to have died sometime in 1073. Rodrigo Ord6nez confirmed four charters in the years 1075 to 1077 but then does not reappear at court until May 1080. His brother, Garcia, confirmed no royal documents between 1074 and 1080 when he appears as count in Najera. Except for the Lara and the Ordonez, Castilla was virtually unrepresented at court. Surprising during this period is the strength of Asturias there. Count Pedro Pelaez, who had held that rank since late in the reign of Fernando

I, confirmed eight charters. His jurisdiction lay in western Asturias about Tineo and the monastery of Corias.!? Confirming nine charters was Count Muno Gonzalez, the master of Asturias de Santillana in the 9 May 6, 1085. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 885, no. 13. Probably his command of Zamora at least dates from prior to Apr. 27, 1084. Ibid., no.4. His isolated appearance in that post as early as June 24, 1074, is dubious. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 137v, with date of July 1, 1074. Pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahagtin, p. 473, with the earlier date from a now lost source. '© Quintana Pristo, ed., Tumbo viejo de Montes, pp. 109-10. The notice in BN, Manuscritos, 4.357, fol. 42v, dated to June 18, 973, should probably be redated to 1073. '' Balparda, Historia critica de Vizcaya 2:277. '? Floriano Cumbreno, Estudios de historia de Asturias, p. 130.

140 CHAPTER EIGHT east. This magnate descended from the old comital house of Asturias and was related to the Lara as well.'3 Central Asturias was represented by Count Rodrigo Diaz, who confirmed seven charters and attained comital rank first in 1080 at the same time as did his brother Fernando Diaz, who confirmed three charters. Through Fernando, who was sonin-law of Count Muino Gonzalez, the brothers were also related to the Lara.'4 The only magnate of Galicia who figures regularly in the royal court

is Count Rodrigo Munoz, who confirmed eight royal diplomas. He had appeared in the charters of Garcia of Galicia but apparently rallied early to the cause of Alfonso VI. Rodrigo Munoz also came from a comital family. ' The unexpectedly strong influence of the mountain province of Asturias in the curia regis is paralleled by some equally significant changes in the ordinary clerical complement of that body. Given the geograph-

ical configuration of the kingdom and the past testimony of royal charters, we should expect that the bishops of the meseta sees would prove to be almost constantly present. It is not surprising then that the bishop of Leén should have confirmed fifteen or the bishop of Burgos thirteen royal charters. But it is not merely coincidental that the bishop of Palencia confirmed more than any other single person, including the royal infantas, or eighteen out of thirty diplomas. The preeminence of that bishop over the bishop of the royal city of Ledn is suggestive. Although we cannot know why such preeminence should have been the case, undoubtedly it reflects the greater personal confidence of Alfonso VI in the aged Bishop Bernard of Palencia. In addition, however, it surely registers the growing importance of Palencia, only forty-five kilometers north of the Duero, to a monarch increasingly preoccupied with the task of repopulating the trans-Duero. The city and see of Leon was 125 kilometers north of the old frontier river and was beginning to be somewhat remote by comparison. The see that Alfonso wanted to erect into an archbishopric in 1080 was probably Palencia, and despite papal reservations about the fitness of the nominee the king seems to have carried out his plan.'° Between late 1082 and the middle of 1085 '3 See Apr. 24, 1074. Pub. Serrano, ed., Cartulario de San Vicente, pp. 80-82; and Balparda, Historia critica de Vizcaya 2:278-79.

'4 See May 8, 1080. Chapter 6, note 66. Also Apr. 17, 1097. Pub. Francisco Javier Fernandez Conde, Isabel Torrente Fernandez, and Guadalupe de la Noval Menénedez, eds., EI monasterio de San Pelayo de Oviedo, vol. 1 (Oviedo, 1978), pp. 27-29, for the marriage relationship. 's Floriano Cumbreno, ed., El Libro Registro de Corias 1:153. ‘6 See chapter 6, note 69.

COURT, CHURCH, AND POLITICS (1076-1086) I4I no fewer than six documents from six different churches cite Bernard of Palencia as an archbishop.'” Even given the fact that not all of these documents are beyond reproach the concurrent testimony seems overpowering. Scribal error or borrowing is simply not adequate to account for it. There are, of course, no papal bulls preserved that relate to such an action, which may mean that Alfonso was never able to secure the approval of Rome. Yet one must keep in mind the disarray of the papal chancery in the later years of Gregory VII’s pontificate and the almost interregnum that followed it. By the time Urban II succeeded in 1088, Alfonso had long been willing to forget the abortive Palencia experiment in favor of a restored archbishopric of Toledo and the rejuvenated papacy to ignore it as never having been canonically sanctioned. The retreat was made even easier by the death of Bernard of Palencia, most probably in 1085." '7 May 27, 1081-82. AHN, Cédices, 105B, ff. 67r-68r, dated erroneously to 1063. October 21, 1082. Pub. Maximinos Arias, “El monasterio de Samos durante los siglos XI y XII,” AL 37 (1983): 64-66. There 1s another copy unknown to Arias in an unpublished manuscript of the Acad. Hist., Manuscritos, 9-27-2-E-s0. Santiago Estefania, “Memorias,” pp. 181-84. May 27, 1084. A C Palencia, Armario 3, legajo 1, no. 8. This is clearly a forgery. There 1s also a copy on paper dated May 31. Another copy, Acad. Hist., Colecci6n Salazar, 0-16, ff. 220r—221v. Pub. Fernandez de Pulgar, Historia de Palencia 2:110~ 12, and Fernandez de Madrid, Silva Palentina 3:50~51. June 17, 1084. Pub. Manuel Manueco Villalobos and José Zurita Nieto, eds., Documentos de la iglesia colegial de Santa Maria

la Mayor de Valladolid, vol. 1 (Valladolid, 1917), pp. 1-6. Dec. 5, 1084. BN, Manuscritos, 9.194, fol. g6r—v; Acad. Hist., Coleccion Salazar, 0-22, fol. t4r-v. Pub. Quintana Prieto, Obispado de Astorga, pp. 597-98, from yet another copy. July 1, 1085. Vignau, ed., Cartulario de Eslonza, pp. 362-63. '8 The date of his death is confused. His successor, Raymond, first appears on September 14, 1084. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 885, no. 9; but the document is false as the dates of the majordomo and the alférez given as confirming cannot be reconciled. Raymond first reliably appears in the royal charter of Feb. 18, 1085. AHN, Cédices, 1.197B, ff. 16r— 20v, and 82r—86r, dated to Feb. 27; 1.195B, ff. 16r-17v; BN, Manuscritos, 712, ff. 83v— 84v; and 9.194, ff. 82r-86r, and fol. 97r-v; Acad. Hist., Catedrales de Espana, Astorga, 9-25-1-C-2, ff. 29r-31v, ff. 173v-176v, dated to Feb. 15, and ff. 224v—-227r; Coleccion Salazar, 0-22, fol. 15, and 0-24, ff. gv-1ov. Pub. Rodriguez Lopez, Episcopologio asturicense 2:525-30; and Quintana Prieto, Obispado de Astorga, pp. 99-600. Bernard reappears in a private donation of March 29, 1085. AC Le6én, Cédice 11, fol. gor—v; pub. ES 36:7274 append. The copyist was trying to solve the same problem when he added the misleading “in Palentine Bernardus episcopus qui antea Remundo vocabatur.” Interspersed with reliable notices of Raymond the name of Bernard continues to appear. July 1, 1085. See note 17. Nov. 25, 1085, and May 14, 1087. Both forgeries of Sahagun. See Barrero Garcia, “Los fueros de Sahagtin,” pp. 393-401. Apr. 25, 1087. AHN, Céddices, 1.195B, fol. 66r—-v; BN, Manuscritos, 712, ff. 82r—83r, and ff. 134v—136r, and 9.194, ff. 98r—g9v; Acad. Hist., Catedrales de Espana, Astorga, 9-25-1-C-2, ff. 32r-35r; Coleccion Salazar, 0-22, ff. 16r-17r; 0-24, ff. 7r-9r, and 64v—66v. Pub. ES 16:471-74; Munoz y Romero,

I42 CHAPTER EIGHT The confidence of the king in Bernard of Palencia was also reflected by making him the administrator of the diocese of Astorga in the years 1080-82 as we shall see. Alfonso also seems to have managed the selection of another cleric in whom he had confidence as Bernard’s successor. A royal charter of March 31, 1090, refers to Bishop Raymond as “magistro meo.’'79 The ascendancy of Palencia was accompanicd by the eclipse of the di-

ocese of Astorga. Quite at odds with past practice, the bishop of the latter see confirmed but five royal charters of the period. Moreover a private charter of May 25, 1082, informs us that “Bernaldus, quasi episcopus in astoricense sedis. Pro id dicimus quasi, quia per cupiditate mala duas sedes habet: astoricense et palentic, perdicionis anime sue. Jan sunt duo annis qui depositus est Petrus episcopus de ipsa sede astoricense ab ipso principe.””° In all probability, then, Bishop Pedro of

Astorga was deposed at the Council of Burgos in the spring of 1080 where he last figured in a royal document.”' In the late summer of 1082 a new bishop was chosen for Astorga for another notice of August 13, 1082, tells us of “Ansemundus electus in pontificalis hordo in Astorica.”?? Again Alfonso VI had selected a cleric of his own curia for the ed., Coleccion de fueros municipales, pp. 321-23; Rodriguez Lopez, Episcopologio asturicense

2:§31-35; Quintana Prieto, Obispado de Astorga, pp. 602—604; and Duro Pena, “Catalogo

de documentos de Orense” 1:15-16. These late copies alternate between the names of Bernard and Raymond. In any event, the document is a forgery. The names of the bishop of Lugo and the alférez are wrong, the language 1s anachronistic, and the diplomatic impossible.

19 This detail of the charter, which otherwise has problems, may be authentic. See Reilly, Leén-Castilla under Queen Urraca, pp. 343-44. 20 Quintana Prieto, ed., Tumbo Viejo de Montes pp. 119-20.

2+ May 8, 1080. See chapter 6, note 66. There are later notices of him but no original documents, and the notice of the compiler of San Pedro de Montes can hardly have been invented. Cf. March 31, 1081. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 193r. July 15, 1081. Ibid., ff. 20v-21r, with the name of the royal alférez given incorrectly. Apr. 2, 1083. Ibid., fol. 108r~v, where the name of the alférez too would be anachronistic. Dec. 20, 1082. Garcia Larragueta, ed., Coleccién de Oviedo, p. 251, ina document which has been interpolated at least. See Fernandez Conde, El Libro de Testamentos, pp. 285-87. On the other hand, Bernard was cited as bishop in Astorga in an original document on Nov. 22, 1080. AC Leon, no. 263. 22 Quintana Prieto, ed., Tumbo Viejo de Montes, p. 121. A possibly garbled document of Feb. 15, 1083, has “episcopus Parnaldus in astoricens sede.” BN, Manuscritos, 9.194, fol. 95r. Quintana Prieto, Obispado de Astorga, p. 443, knows an inscription that shows Osmundo consecrating a church on Oct. 2, 1082. He also believes the bishop was of French extraction and accompanied Queen Constance to Spain. Ibid., p. 440. Fletcher, Saint James’ Catapult, p. 51, suggests that Osmundo may have come from the district of Boulogne. Nov. 28, 1080. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 138r, is a document of Sahaguin which I regard as unreliable precisely because it cites Osmundo as bishop in Astorga.

COURT, CHURCH, AND POLITICS (1076-1086) 143 episcopate as Bishop Osmundo himself will later testify.?3 Under this favorite the see of Astorga would be restored to a place of prominence at court. Indeed, during these years between 1076 and 1086 Alfonso had the opportunity to replace all of the bishops of the episcopal sees of the meseta, if not as dramatically as at Astorga. Bishop Jimeno of Burgos died on March 17, 1082, and was succeeded by Bishop Gomez in the same year.*4 Nothing is known of the antecedents of the new bishop, but his subsequent role at court indicates that he was manitestly acceptable to Alfonso VI. A few years later, in 1085, Bishop Pelayo of Le6n also died.?5 Over the space of the next half year, one Sebastian appears as bishop-elect of that see but is finally replaced there by a Bishop Pedro. Sebastian had been the abbot of the Castilian monastery of Cardena, and one can hardly see his installation in the see of Ledn as the result of any but a royal initiative.*° His ultimate rejection therefore underlines the homely truth that even the royal will must sometimes be frustrated.

The winner, Bishop Pedro, who perhaps had replaced Sebastian as early as April 8, 1086, was Leonese and hence more acceptable to local interests.?? His subsequent prominence at court, however, seems to indicate that he was acceptable to the king as well. Alfonso also had the opportunity to decide the selection of two more bishops during this period. In the east at Calahorra a Bishop Sancho 23 Feb. 15, 1086. AC Burgos, Vol. 34, fol. 39r; pub. Serrano, Obispado de Burgos 3:7274. The bishop makes a donation of property given to him by Alfonso “cum essem clericus in domo sua.” 4 Serrano, Obispado de Burgos 1:310 and 325.

2s He confirmed Alfonso’s charter to Burgos of Feb. 22, 1085. Pub. Serrano, Obispado de Burgos 3:63—70, from the copies in the cathedral archives. Other copies exist in BN, Manuscritos, 720, ff. 227r-228v, and 5.790, ff. $1r—s2r; Acad. Hist., Coleccion Salazar, 0-17, ff. 693v—694v, and ff. 711v—713v. Pelayo also appears in a private document of Eslonza, dated July 1, 1085, but it is probably not reliable (see note 18), and in another of Sept. 30, 1085. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 959, no. 19. He confirms once again, in the royal charter of Nov. 25, 1085, but this is clearly a forgery. See note 18. 6 For the identification, see Salustiano Moreta Velayos, El monasterio de San Pedro de Cardena (Salamanca, 1971), pp. 155-56. Sebastian appears in two private documents of Eslonza dated Dec. 30, 1085. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 959, nos. 20 and 21. He confirms another private document dated simply to 1086. Serrano, ed., Cartulario de San Millan, pp. 261-64. However, he confirms merely as “electus” in the original document of Feb. 15, 1086. See note 23. October 20, 1086, AHN, Cédices, 989B, ff. 35 v—36r, 1s his last recorded appearance. 77 Garcia Larragueta, Coleccién de Oviedo, p. 263. However, see preceding note. June 16, 1086. AC Leon, Cédice 11, fol. 152r—v, also was confirmed by Pedro. His next appearance is on Dec. 18, 1086. See chapter 10, note 13. For Pedro’s family, see Estepa Diez, Estructura social de Leon, p. 288.

144 CHAPTER EIGHT replaced Muno about 1080 but nothing can be determined about the circumstances.?* Clearly though, the king could not have been indifferent about the choice of an incumbent in that crucial frontier diocese. In the west the bishopric of Coimbra had been restored although at what date we do not know. Perhaps it coincided with Alfonso’s drive to repopulate the trans-Duero beginning in late 1076 for the Portuguese hill town was the extreme western bastion of the Christian frontier. In any event, a Bishop Paternus seems to have appeared there as early as No-

vember 20, 1078.72 Unfortunately the document that describes the Mozarab Count Sisnando’s journey to Zaragoza to find a suitable bishop, which emphasized the king’s approval, is not to be trusted.3° No bishop was unimportant to the crown but, for the working of the curia, it must be stressed that the four bishops of the meseta together confirmed royal charters almost twice as many times as did the ten other bishops combined. Finally, it is worth noting in this survey of the membership of the royal curia that three magnates were quite often at court although they held no office there nor were they counts. The most frequent of all was Diego Alvarez, the lord of Oca and relative by marriage to the Jiménez lords of the Basque country, who confirmed ten royal charters. Alvaro

Gonzalez, another Castilian, confirmed eight. Diego Gonzalez confirmed seven, and he too was a Castilian. From the foregoing consideration it becomes obvious that the royal court, the essential instrument of government, varied in size and that

such variation was often purposeful. In other words, the crown conferred more widely in matters of great import. The resultant general curia was recognized in the practice of the reign even if it had not yet found its reflection in the language of the age.3! If we take as a rough gauge that such a general court is an assemblage that includes at least five of the fourteen bishops of the realm, it is possible to identify six 8 “Calahorra,” DHGE 11 (1949), cols. 305-306. The most recent student of the subject affirms that the sees of Najera and Calahorra were united during this time. Sainz Ripa, Coleccion diplomdtica de Albelda y Logrono, p. 9. The documents known to me personally would support such a conclusion. 22 PMH 1, Diplomata, pp. 340-41. The editor believed the document to be an original. 30 Apr. 13, 1086. AHN, Lisbon, Cabido da Sé de Coimbra, Maco 1, documentos particulares, no. 20. Pub. PMH 1, Diplomata, pp. 392-93. For a critique, Pierre David, “Regula Sancti Augustini, 4 propos d’une fausse chartre de fondation du chapitre de Coimbre,” RPH 3 (1947): 27-39. 31 These and the following remarks presume my findings in Leén-Castilla under Queen Urraca, pp. 252-59. Evelyn S. Procter, Curia and Cortes in Leon and Castile, 1072-1295 (Cambridge, 1980), has some useful discussion in its early portions but must be used with caution because of the author’s limited familiarity with the documents.

COURT, CHURCH, AND POLITICS (1076-1086) 145 such general curias during the ten years being considered. That is better than an average of one every two years but they did not meet so evenly. Rather, four of them are bunched toward the end of the period between late 1082 and 1085. Taking as a given that such a great curia dealt with crucial matters that affected the reigning dynasty itself, war and peace, and concerns general to the entire reign, it then becomes possible to reconstruct a bit more of the politics of the period.

Sometime in the fall of 1077 Alfonso’s court included at least the bishops of Leén, Palencia, Burgos, Lugo, and Santiago de Compostela, his two sisters, eight counts, and two of the three Castilian magnates mentioned above.3}? This was the minimum attendance for one cannot rule out the presence of others not invited to confirm a royal charter to a rather obscure Galician monastery. We may fairly suspect that the concerns of this general court were, not necessarily in the order of their importance to that body, the royal decision to put away Queen Inés and seck a second wife, the adoption of the imperial title to meet the papal claim to suzerainty in the peninsula, the continuing problem of the introduction of the Roman liturgy, the decision to repopulate the

trans-Duero, and the problems growing out of the annexation of the Rioja. It may also have been this council that approved the restoration of the bishopric of Coimbra. Such an agenda provided a wide range for a great variety of disagreements, and it seems that more rather than less tension resulted from the

meeting. In fact it is entirely probable that an opposition coalesced around these questions which came to amount, at least in Alfonso’s eyes, to a conspiracy. The evidence is largely indirect, but it is unusual that the royal alférez, Fernando Lainez, who last appears in that capacity in this curia, never procceds to greater honors as was customary. Rather, later evidence tells us that he was banned by the king. That fact

is even more curious since the magnate was distantly related to the royal house.33 We have seen in the preceding chapter the absence of the Castilian Ordénez family from court in 1078 and 1079 and the possible exile of Garcia Ordénez, together with some of his Riojan supporters, in Granada in 1079. Missing from court as well during 1078 are counts Muno Gonzalez and Pedro Pelaez of the region of Asturias. Finally, the

established curial bishop, Pedro of Astorga, confirms just one royal charter between the summer of 1077 and the spring of 1080. These absences may all be coincidental but I suspect instead that they 32 See chapter 7, note 17. 33 Ramo6n Menéndez Pidal, Historia y epopeya (Madrid, 1934), pp. 89-94, has examined

the evidence and the relationships.

146 CHAPTER EIGHT reflect a serious opposition to Alfonso VI in powerful court circles. Such opposition could easily have been based on a valid disagreement over the wisdom of a royal remarriage or Alfonso’s tactics in dealing with other papal demands. It might just as easily have been founded on personal disgruntlement over the implications of the liturgical change or dissatisfaction with the distribution of the spoils of the Rioja. More than likely the opposition shared all of these elements as well as a perception that papal intervention, so active since 1076, could provide an opportunity for a move against the king. Such hopes were usually vain in the history of the medieval monarchy unless another member of the

royal dynasty could be enlisted to give them legitimacy. The distant royal descent of Fernando Lainez would probably not have sufficed for that purpose. But Count Pedro Pelaez, Bishop Pedro of Astorga, and Fernando Lainez shared one common characteristic: all held lands uncomfortably close to the royal castle of Luna far up on the Orbigo River where Alfonso’s brother Garcia had been incarcerated since 1073. If my suspicions are correct and Alfonso VI was faced with a serious opposition after 1077, the king yet managed to outmaneuver and outbid it. He was able to secure the support of the papal legate, Cardinal Richard, in 1078 and 1079. He pressed ahead successfully with the mar-

riage negotiations in Burgundy. Alfonso’s energetic actions in the trans-Duero in 1078 and 1n the Tajo valley in 1079 reinforced the prestige of the crown at a critical point. His otherwise inexplicable trip to Asturias in the full winter of 1079 and just before the latter campaign makes good sense only as an attempt to rally support there. But for a time in the late winter and early spring of 1080 Alfonso did lose the crucial support of the cardinal-legate.

The king regained the assistance of Cardinal Richard before real harm could be done by agreeing completely to the implementation of the Roman liturgy and by sacrificing his agent, the monk Robert, who had apparently made himself personally odious to the legate, at Sahagun. But Alfonso made full use of his advantages. The new queen, Constance of Burgundy, was probably pregnant and the succession problem on its way to a solution. At least no one could prove that it was not. The king seems to have distributed those honors which only he could bestow with the kind of generosity that elicits support. Rodrigo Munoz of Galicia had succeeded to the countship by March 12, 1079.34 Rodrigo Diaz and his brother Fernando, both of Asturias, began to appear as counts at the same time as did Garcia Ordonez in the spring of 1080. In fact the general curia of May 8, 1080, has all the appearances of 34 See chapter 7, note 31.

COURT, CHURCH, AND POLITICS (1076-1086) 147 a great festival of reconciliation. The king had either outflanked or divided his opponents and so triumphed. The document that records this great curia was issued by the king in his name and that of his new queen, Constance of Burgundy. It records the approbation of the papal legate, and it was confirmed by Alfonso’s two sisters, by thirteen of the fourteen bishops of the realm, and by seventeen counts.?5 As related in chapter 6, the king had satisfied the legate, and eventually Pope Gregory VIJ, by implementing the Roman liturgy and replacing Robert of Cluny with Bernard at Sahagun. The question of his marriage to Constance was left in friendly hands for res-

olution. Doubtless these terms, accepted formally by the pontiff in 1081, had been approved already by this curia. The problem of the Rioja was met by entrusting it to Garcia Ordénez. Other opponents who had perhaps offended too severely were now subject to royal punishment. Fernando Laffiez may have been banned at the curia itself, and Bishop Pedro of Astorga, although he confirmed the document mentioned, became the object of a speedy judicial process probably initi-

ated there and was deposed shortly thereafter, his see entrusted to Bishop Bernard of Palencia as administrator. As with the deposition of Bishop Pedro of Astorga, so for some of the other ecclesiastical questions that constituted part of the essential business of the curia regis no documents exist that would prove that the papacy cither was informed of or reacted to what had transpired. So far as we can tell not just the erection of Palencia into an archbishopric but

the restoration of the bishopric of Coimbra and the selection of new bishops at Leén, Palencia, Burgos, and Calahorra all took place in complete independence of the papacy. If we are faced with mere lacunae in the records there are an impressive number of them. Possibly Cardinal Richard had been taken completely into camp and was prevailed upon to regularize all such decisions of king and curia. Certainly by 1084 communications with Gregory VII would have been so bad, given the deterioration of the papal position in Italy and Rome vis-avis the Emperor Henry IV, that an ad hoc disposition of almost any urgent matter could be justified. While the traditional practice of the Leonese monarchy had been to dispose of such church matters as of only local interest, Alfonso would have recognized by 1080 that the pure continuance of such a policy was to invite challenge from the reformed papacy. Surely he enjoyed the 35 See chapter 6, note 66. This is the last confirmation by Bishop Pedro of Astorga. Quintana Prieto, Obispado de Astorga, pp. 420-25, is misled by the false charter of Nov. 25, 1080.

148 CHAPTER EIGHT discomfiture of Hildebrand and the freedom of maneuver it allowed, but the king was likely to have sought the forms of the new regularities to adorn his decisions. A case in point here was the visit of Abbot Bernard of Sahagun to Rome in 1083. Gregory VII’s letter which it occasioned has been preserved and its provisions are striking. Sahagtin is taken directly under the papal protection, it is exempted from the jurisdiction of any other bishop, its abbot will be consecrated by the

pope, and the monastery will pay a perpetual tribute of two solidi annually to Rome. 3° None of this was thinkable except on the advance permission of king and curia. Indeed the papal action is represented as a response to the requests of Bernard and of “karissimi filii nostri regi A.” The evidence ts

then that Alfonso sought to retain and use the new connection with Rome for his own purposes at least and that the papacy continued on good terms and in communication with Le6n-Castilla into 1083. Himself faced with a supremely dangerous challenge in Italy, Gregory VII

may have tacitly acquiesced in what was transpiring in the Iberian peninsula on the eminently respectable grounds that there is no case if there is no complaint. The remaining five general curias are celebrated, one each in 1082 and 1084, two in 1085, and one in early 1086. Since their concerns were largely focused about the reconquest of Toledo their treatment 1s best left until the history of that enterprise is treated. What deserves separate consideration here is the general character of the royal court under Alfonso VI insofar as that character can be reasonably inferred. The most outstanding feature of the curia regis as it has appeared in preceding chapters is its vigorous movement through the realm. Although the royal retinue returns regularly and often to its obviously preferred base, the area about the city of Leon and the monastery of Sahagun, it is typically an itinerant court. Although one generally asserts that fact about medieval royal courts, I believe that the full implications of that condition have seldom been developed because the documents do not focus on the condition itself. Nevertheless to ignore the essential background of royal government in the eleventh century is to fail to appreciate fully its difficulties, its substance, and certainly its style. Consider the period between January and late May of the year 1075. In that space of time, the documents reveal, the royal court traveled

from the city of Le6n or its environs to Santiago de Compostela in 36 Pub. Leo Santifaller, ed., Quellen und Forschungen zum Urkunden- und Kanzleiwesen Papst Gregor VII (Rome, 1957), pp. 243-46, from the original in the AHN. An early copy not listed by the editor is AHN, Cédices, 988B, fol. 4r—v.

COURT, CHURCH, AND POLITICS (1076-1086) 149 Galicia, thence to Oviedo in Asturias, then back to Leon, and from there to Burgos in Castilla, and finally back to Sahagun. For present purposes, at least, that is as far as we shall pursue it. By the shortest routes feasible and measuring largely in airline distances, the court had thus traversed an absolute minimum of 1,144 kilometers or 686 miles in a period of five months. A relatively modest addition of an extra kilometer, or mile, of actual travel for each five straight-line kilometers yields a more accurate portrayal of the distance at 1,363 kilometers or 823 miles. Such statistics reveal that the royal court must have been almost continuously on the road during those five months. To appreciate what such statistics meant, one must look more closely. A royal charter of Alfonso VI, dated only to January 1075, puts the curia in Santiago de Compostela.*7 But the shortest practical distance between Leén and the shrine city of Saint James is 360 kilometers. If we estimate the best speed possible to a royal court encumbered by twowheeled carts for its necessary baggage at about 23 kilometers a day, then the curia had traveled continuously for sixteen days to complete the journey.?* Therefore if it had left Leén after the feast of the Epiphany on January 6, as seems likely, it would have arrived in Santiago by January 25 at the earliest. A three-week stay in that town would have restored bodies and spirits and have permitted a departure on February 17, the Tuesday before Ash Wednesday.

Lent was the fitting season for the most trying journey of all that year. Certainly a stay in Lugo would have been in order early in the march and especially if the court had not tarried in that hilltop city on its way west. But then the turn north to the coast and east along the Bay 37 See chapter 5, note 61.

38 The question of travel times in the medieval period needs badly to be refined. One starts with the data for walking rates. Foot soldiers in good condition can make forty kilometers a day carrying their own basic gear over level ground. A sustainable speed over a number of days is no more than twenty-four kilometers a day and that on good ground. Bachrach, “The Angevin Strategy of Castle Building,” p. 542, argues that thirty-five to forty kilometers a day is the limit for mounted troops. He also states that oxcarts reduce the speed of a mixed force to but fifteen kilometers daily. Odo of Deuil, De profectione Ludovici VII in orientem ed. and trans. Virginia Gingerick Berry (New York, 1948), p.31, envisions daily journeys averaging forty-seven kilometers in a trip from Metz to Klosterneuburg. That seems very optimistic, and John W. Nesbitt, “The Rate of March of Crusading Armies in Europe,” Traditio 19 (1963): 181, strikes an average speed of twenty-three kilometers a day for a mixed force. That is the figure I have decided is most realistic for roughly similar terrain in Iberia. Small parties of horse who could command remounts naturally made much better time, and Alfonso VI is once said to have traveled from Sahagitn to Toledo in three days, a rate better than one hundred kilometers per day, in the face of a grave emergency. Menéndez Pidal, ed., Primera crénica general 2:541.

150 CHAPTER EIGHT of Biscay to Oviedo offered only the wildest country and the fewest amenities of the entire journey. Something like thirty days to cover the 350 kilometers from Compostela would not have been unreasonable and would also have brought the court into Oviedo by March 18. Since a royal document places the court at Oviedo on March 27, 1075, it was probably there for both Palm Sunday on March 29 and Easter on April 5.39 That the party would have been in condition to leave as early as March 28 is hard to imagine, and they could not have left the day following Palm Sunday without committing themselves to Easter on the road, which would have been unthinkable. The court may be presumed to have left Oviedo one or two days after

Easter. The journey through the Cantabrians by the pass of Pajares traversed the highest ground of the entire trip, 1,366 meters. Still the total distance from Oviedo to Leon is a short 119 kilometers, and the court could have reached the latter by April 13. A royal charter places it there on April 19, 1075.4°

Alfonso VI could easily have spent better than a week in Leén and still have completed the seven day journey to Castrojeriz where the next charter put him on May 1.47 Another two days’ journey would have carried them easily to Burgos. There we may presume that the court would have spent better than a week for reasons largely political.

Departing even on the Friday after Ascension Thursday, which that year fell on May 14, the royal party could have returned to Sahagtin before May 22. A final royal charter places the court there on that date. #? Doubtless they celebrated Pentecost Sunday at that royal monastery on May 24, 1075, ina fitting fashion.

Having described the itinerary of the curia, we can now turn to its makeup during its travels. The documents already mentioned provide us with a startling point. In addition to Alfonso himself, infantas Urraca and Elvira appear in the documents of Santiago and Castrojeriz and Urraca also in that of Oviedo. The bishop of Palencia also appears in all three, but the bishop of Le6n is missing from that of Oviedo so that he and Infanta Elvira may have returned directly from Santiago to Leén and rejoined the curia there. The bishop of Santiago may also have accompanied them, or alternatively the court, for he too will be present at Castrojeriz. Since our present interest is in numbers, we simply project that one of the royal sisters and two bishops were with the court at all points in its journey. So were the majordomo and the alférez 39 Garcia Larragueta, Colleccién de Oviedo, pp. 219-21. 4° See chapter 5, note 64.

4 Ibid, note 65. 42 Ibid, note 66.

COURT, CHURCH, AND POLITICS (1076-1086) ISI as well as royal notary Juan Baldemirez. In addition, there seems to have been on the average one count on each leg of the trip, although not

always the same one of course. The royal court then numbers an absolute minimum of eight people who are visible in the documents. To this assemblage of notables we must add a chaplain, a doctor, a bard, a jester, a falconer, a master of hounds, two squires, and three body servants for the king himself. To the infanta we must allow two maids and two servants and to the two bishops, a cleric, two servants, and a groom apiece.#3 The majordomo and the alférez might make do with a squire and two servants each. The notary would have his clerk. The count might be expected to have two servants and two squires. These thirty-four attendants bring the court to forty-two in number. The military escort must have added another 120 persons. This is an estimate, to be sure, but a reasonable one given the necessities of royal safety and royal prestige in the eleventh century. Since the ordinary unit, or squadron, of mounted warriors on the battlefield of the time seems to have numbered about forty-five, we should expect that the royal bodyguard would have roughly that strength. It was, after all, the nucleus of the royal army of the time. Moreover, if we estimate the average garrison of the various castles of the region’s nobility to be passed

along the route at twenty men-at-arms, prudence suggests that the royal bodyguard be kept at twice that number at least. This is especially true since the hardships of travel were likely to reduce the number of effectives at any given moment. Then too, great magnates such as the

Lara count, Muno Gonzalez, or the Leonese count, Pedro Ovéquez, would have required another fifteen horse of their own to demonstrate the proper respect for the king’s well-being and honor, not to mention their own status in the realm. And each of these sixty knights would travel with his own groom or squire to tend his primary mount, his remount, his armor, and his own personal gear. The escort thus swells the company to 162.

But there is yet another element of the itinerant court still to be counted. The necessity and makeup of what we may call general support personnel is deducible both from what has already been said and from some reflection on the character of northern Iberia in this epoch. The kingdom of Leén-Castilla north of the Duero was roughly the size of the kingdom of England. A generous estimate would put its popu43 The Third Lateran Council of 1179 thought it necessary to restrict archbishops to a maximum retinue of fifty horse during their canonical visitations and mere bishops to a maximum of thirty. Josiah Cox Russell, Twelfth Century Studies (New York, 1978), p. 45. They are not likely to have brought such numbers to a royal progress, however.

1§2 CHAPTER EIGHT lation at 1.5 million in the latter half of the eleventh century.*+ The over-

all population density at these figures would be twelve people per square kilometer or about roughly the same relation of land to inhabitants as in present-day Oklahoma. In sucha society the numbers of the court would surely exceed the total population of most of the farming hamlets through which it was to pass. Only in the major towns of the itinerary we have traced—Astorga, Lugo, Santiago de Compostela, Oviedo, Leén, and Burgos—could the court have reasonably expected to find facilities for housing, feeding, or bathing more than 150 persons at one time. Even in those towns all available resources would be strained by a

royal visit. If we follow the methodology developed by Josiah Cox Russell for estimating town populations, we arrive at figures that are probably high for cities with old Roman walls whose precincts they were still trying to fill out in this period.+s At most I would allow that Leén, Astorga, and less probably Lugo, had populations of about 2,000 people. Santiago de Compostela had a population of 1, 500 at most, and Oviedo about the same.* The very irregular plan of Burgos makes estimate more like pure guesswork, but something like 1,000~-1, 200 people seems safe. In what passed for the major cities of the realm, then, the simultaneous arrival of more than 150 people would have created truly formidable problems of logistics. Of course the royal court was even larger than that figure precisely because it must include also those additional numbers of hands and mouths that made it largely self-sustaining in its passage through the countryside. Since the royal entourage numbercd in itself between two and four times the adult population of such villages and monasteries as it was likely to happen upon, it must be prepared to maintain itself for weeks at a time. 44 Russell, Medieval Regions, p. 178, puts the entire population of the Christian north at one million about A.D. 1000. My figure, then, is probably somewhat high. 48 Ibid, pp. 188-89. He calculates on a basis of 120 people to the hectare of enclosed land. 4° Fstepa Diaz, Estructura social de Leon, p. 140, estimates population there at only 1,500

in A.D. 1100. Astorga had a population of but 2,500 in the sixteenth century. Valentin Cabero Diéguez, Evolucién y structura urbana de Astorga (Le6n, 1973), p. 29. The old Roman walls have survived at Lugo in their complete circuit and Garcia Alvarez, Galicia y los Gallegos 1:163—72, has based a population of 3,000 about A.D. 1000 on its thirty hectares. When I last visited Lugo, however, there was still much undedicated space within the walls. Santiago de Compostela had a walled area of eleven hectares in 1 100 if my analysis of the road grid of the present-day old city is accurate. Eloy Benito Ruano and Francisco Javier Fernandez Conde, Historia de Asturias: Alta Edad Media (Vitoria, 1979), pp. 252-53, give 3,000 as the population of Oviedo in the twelfth century.

\\ | q a ds Fo ~ \ =i \ =_— (waS°oave\«ew o> vr @O e oe oz = “ye »

Naas uboy 6, aTafae.x.NG. “ a_ ee 5 ae % Lee

eee vel t, Copper coins of Alfonso VI.

Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society.

striking. But the refusal of the taifa kings to pay the parias from 1085 created a financial strain which seems to have been reflected in the cessation of the annual payments to Cluny. Beset by a major reduction in income and increasingly heavy demands for military expenses, Alfonso had doubtless economized everywhere. His Cluniac allies, however, were reluctant to lose permanently so

handsome a portion of their revenues, and Abbot Hugh protested sharply to the king. In the aftermath of the Council of Husillos, the latter could not afford the opposition or even the neutrality of the great Burgundian house. He needed and received Hugh’s support at Rome for the reconstitution of the Toledan archbishopric and primacy and for the confirmation of Bernard of Sauvetot as its archbishop. Even more acutely, after October 1088 he needed his good offices for the painful unraveling of the affair of the bishopric of Santiago de Compostela. Certainly the matter of the cens to Cluny had been discussed before and Alfonso VI had promised some resolution of the problem. Now he must act, and in 1089 he made a one-time payment of 10,000 dinars to Cluny, which amount suggests the five-year arrears from 1085 to 1090 at a rate of 2,000 a year.’ Such pressing expenses make more explicable 5 For the document, see Bruel, ed., Recueil des chartes 4:697-98. The royal letter is un-

THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE (1089—-I091) 213 the king’s necessity to squeeze the Muslim taifas for tribute even though that pressure in some degree countered his interest in detaching them from the Murabits. If we can extrapolate from the crown’s well-documented expenses in the case of Cluny to those humbler, domestic needs that more rarely

found a chronicler, we can partially understand as well the way in which the drying up of the parias would have loosened the bonds of regard and self-interest that made Alfonso effective master of the realm. In the western medieval tradition of kingship the monarch was, among other things, the great giver of gifts. The royal largesse was one of the tools of leadership, to phrase it crassly. At the highest levels we can see this at work in Le6n-Castilla where

the rich endowment of the church-shrine of San Isidoro in Leén follows directly on the heels of Fernando’s triumphant campaign of 1062, which institutionalized the parias of Andalucia. Again, the successful campaign of Alfonso VI in 1074, which forced the taifa of Granada to

render tribute, was quickly followed by a royal visit to Santiago de Compostela and the endowment of the shrine-church there. But to understand the extent of the royal dependence on the regular payment of parias we must be able to imagine how this type of resource, stable for more than two decades between 1062 and 1085, must have inflated the scale of royal generosity to humbler churches, monasteries, familiars, magnates, counts, and castellans. The expectations so created could not be disappointed without threat of a reaction prejudicial to the best interests of the crown and dynasty. The exaction of parias, and a treaty with the kingdom of Granada, was followed by a campaign to secure the same arrangements with alMutamid of Sevilla, the most energetic and powerful of the Andalu-

cians. Such efforts failed of their purpose and the Sevillan ruler appealed yet again to Yusuf ibn-Tashufin for assistance. During the same summer, Abd Allah was beset with revolts in his own territories, which failed but had the cumulative effect of driving him toward closer cooperation with Alfonso VI.° The Christian sources and documents tell nothing of all this, and even the Muslim sources fail to mention the attitude of the enigmatic al-Muttawakil of Badajoz. It is entirely possible that the Leonese monarch was not personally involved in any Andalucian campaign in 1089, leaving that task to sub-

ordinates such as Count Pedro Anstrez. The documentary record is dated but see Bishko, “Fernando I and Cluny,” pp. 71-74, for the chronology and context. 6 Huici Miranda, Grandes batallas de la Reconquista, pp. 89-90.

214 CHAPTER ELEVEN quite blank for the first half of 1089, and when we encounter the king in June or July he seems to be in Lugo in Galicia.? By August 25, 1089, the king and the court have returned to the vicinity of Leén, where Alfonso exchanged properties with Maria Pelaez. Among others, Archbishop Bernard of Toledo confirmed the royal charter, which I would take to be an original.® His confirmation, however, makes it strictly impossible that he should have been in Braga for the dedication of the cathedral there on August 28, 1089, as has usually been believed.° So far as can be established the royal court remained in the general area of Leén for the remainder of the year. On September 24, 1089, in the course of adjudicating a dispute between his sister, Urraca, and the bishop of Leén, Alfonso made some far-reaching decisions on land ten-

ure in the realm.'° On November 9, he granted extensive lands to the church of Toledo, but the act probably took place at Leén or Sahaguin.'! Finally, on November 24, a private judicial action was executed, probably at Sahagun, in the presence of the court. !? While the king thus stubbornly pursued his strategic aims in the Islamic world of the south in 1089, he was no less busy in other quarters. When the archbishop of Toledo returned from Rome bearing his pallium in the late fall of 1088 he also brought with him the papal letters

condemning the deposition of Bishop Diego Pelaez of Compostela. The royal charter of December 27, 1088, was the last document Pedro of Cardena confirmed as bishop of that see.'3 Although Alfonso VI would comply in some degree with papal demands, the mode of that compliance must be negotiated. Negotiations with Urban II were not be be carried on in a vacuum as it turned out. If the new pope understood little of peninsular realities in 1088 he was quickly to become more acquainted with them and would 7 See chapter 10, note 49.

®’ AC Oviedo, Serie B., Carpeta 2, no. 12. Pub. Garcia Larragueta, Documentos de Oviedo, pp. 267-68. Despite the present location of the document, the confirmation by the bishops of Burgos, Palencia, and Astorga in addition to Bernard and the absence of the bishop of Oviedo makes Leén the more probable place of its execution. 9 The private document that mentions his presence, along with that of Bishops Gonzalo of Mondonedo, Auderico of Tuy, and Pedro of Orense, still exists at Braga, Arquivo Distrital, Gaveta 2 das propriedades do Cabido, no. 138. It looks to me like a copy so the date could be mistaken. Costa, O Bispo D. Pedro 2:411, regarded it as an original. 0 AC Leon, reales, no. 993. Pub. Claudio Sanchez-Albornoz, “Muchas paginas mas sobre las Behetrias,” AHDE 4 (1927): 146-48. Partially pub. Francisco J. Hernandez, ed., Los cartularios de Toledo (Madrid, 1985),

pp. II-12. '2 Prieto Prieto, “Documentos de Sahagtin,” pp. 524-25. 13 See chapter 10, note 61. This charter is also the first document that indicates the return of Archbishop Bernard.

THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE (1089-1091) 215 draw strength from that knowledge. The early summer of 1089 found the emissaries of Sancho Ramirez of Aragén at the papal court, and Urban’s letter of July 1, 1089, initiated new and closer relations between that kingdom and Rome." While it would be a mistake, as we shall see, to cast the Aragonese monarch as an opponent of Alfonso VI, the former was, in the subtleties of diplomacy, at least a minor rival and therefore a potential counter for Urban in negotiations with the latter. The continuing advances of Aragon in the northeast of the peninsula, although modest, contributed to the concerns of the Leonese king. After suffering a setback to his ambitions in 1088 when Centulle IV, viscount of Béarn, was murdered within his territories, Sancho Ramirez not only maintained the alliance with the south French but on June 24, 1089, captured the fortress of Monzén.'s That feat permanently breached the forward defenses of Zaragoza in the northeast between Barbastro and Lérida. Hand in hand with this stubborn offensive against Zaragoza went a policy ambitious in other ways as well. Count Ermengol IV of Urgel provided in his will that should he have no son or brothers, his lands would pass to Pedro, eldest son of the Aragonese monarch. Apparently, Sancho had been married to a daughter of the count.'° In 1090 he was also to repopulate Estella in order to manipulate the pilgrim traffic to Santiago de Compostela to his advantage.'7 Nevertheless his relations with Leén-Castilla remained good. In the same year Archbishop Bernard of Toledo would be found collaborating with the abbot of Irache in providing for some mills in Puente la Reina where the frontiers of Aragon and the Leonese realm ran together.'® Most important of all, during the summer of 1090 Sancho Ramirez would assist Alfonso VI to force the raising of the siege Toledo by the Murabits.'? But of course the more the two monarchs collaborated the more difficult it became to deny the Aragonese something like equality of status, and hence the more real became another set of limitations on the alternatives open to Leén-Castilla. Further to complicate Alfonso VI’s relationship with the papacy was '¢ Duftan Gudiol, Colleccién diplomdtica de la catedral de Huesca 1:70-73. Kehr, “El! papado y los reinos de Navara y Aragon,” pp. 125-27, Alfons Becker, Papst Urban II (Stuttgart, 1964), pp. 246-47. 's Pierre de Marca, Histoire de Béarn ed., V. Dubarat (1640, reprint Pau, 1894), pp. 428— 31. Afif Turk, Reino de Zaragoza, pp. 166-67. ‘6 Domingo J. Buesa Conde, El Rey Sancho Ramirez (Zaragoza, 1978), p. 23. ‘7 Luis Garcia de Valdeavellano, Origenes de la burguesia en la Espatia medieval (Madrid, 1969), p. 141. '® Lacarra, Coleccion diplomdtica de Irache, pp. 91-92.

‘9 Antonio Ubieto Arteta, ed., Cronica de San Juan de la Pena (Valencia, 1961), p. $7.

216 CHAPTER ELEVEN Urban II's decision to reestablish the archbishopric of Tarragona, taken in the summer of 1089.7° True, Catalonia was even farther away than Aragon, and the reconquest of the city of Tarragona was to be long delayed. Even so the papal decision placed yet another counter on the diplomatic board and the Leonese king would be constrained to watch it as well.

All of this negotiation we can observe only most imperfectly. By the middle of 1089 Pope Urban had appointed a new legate for Spain, Cardinal Rainier, a former Cluniac who was destined to become pope as Paschal II ten years later. The cardinal was charged with the matter of Tarragona as well as that of Santiago de Compostela.*! Alfonso was doubtless informed of this action, and he appears to have visited Santiago de Compostela on January 28, 1090, to prepare the ground for the forthcoming decision.” Indeed, from this document it appears that he had already taken important steps. The future bishop-archbishop of the see, Diego Gelmirez, confirms as “maiorinus et dominator compostelle honoris.” The appointment of a secular vicar to manage the temporalities of a vacant see was a regular royal practice, especially when a long vacancy was expected or planned. The device could be a lucrative one for the crown,

but it could also be destructive. In this instance, years afterward the conduct of the royal vicars would be recalled with great bitterness in the “Historia Compostelana.”?3 At any rate the very real interests of the crown would be protected for the political, military, and economic prerogatives of the bishop were much too substantial to be left unattended 0 Becker, Papst Urban II, p. 252. 21 Carlo Servatius, Paschalis I], togg—1118 (Stuttgart, 1979), p. 20. The accommodating attitude of Urban is indicated by the fact that Archbishop Bernard had been consulted about the restoration of Tarragona and about the choice of a new legate. See Fidel Fita, “Sobre un texto del Arzobispo Don Rodrigo,” BRAH 4 (1884): 374-75, and Mansilla, Documentacion pontificia, pp. 46-49.

22 AD Santiago, Fondo San Martin, no. 72, an original and an eighteenth-century copy. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 511, no. 17. The copy was published by Antonio Lopez Ferreiro, Historia de Santiago 3:31-33 append. The document was not prepared in the royal chancery, the form of whose products it entirely lacks. It is the very particularity of the document that reassures me as to its reliability. A later forger would hardly have located its production “in domo Petri Vimarat” given that worthy’s subsequent reputation. L6pez Ferreiro, ibid., p. 167, n. 2, asserts that Diego Gelmirez added his confirmation later as does Anselm Gordon Biggs, Diego Gelmirez, First Archbishop of Compostela (Washington, D.C., 1949), p. 31, n. 176. 23 ES 20:18. “Petrus Vimara, laicus, et regius villicus, totum honorem quem Episcopus obtinuerat sanctissimi Regis Domini Adefonsi manu suscipiens, ad propria rediit: ubi tantum crudelitatis pauperes ac divites depraedando instanter exercuit.” There were a series of administrators of the see between 1090 and 1100.

THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE (1089-1091) 217 or in unreliable hands. We cannot be positive that the town of Compostela was entirely under the control of its bishop at this time, but an episcopal senorio in the towns was common in Galicia.4 Provision had been made, as well, for the closer governing of the entire province. Count Raymond of Burgundy confirmed the document as “imperans Gallicia.” As we have already seen it is marginally possible that the French noble held that dignity earlier, but the documents are few and scattered and there are no originals among them.?5 From 1o0go the notices of the count became regular although the first original instrument known to me currently is a private document of February 27, 1091.*° The old realm of Garcia Fernandez had now become the province of Count Raymond, who would rule it with viceregal powers until

his death better than seventeen years later. } In fitting preparation for this high responsibility, the Burgundian had either been married or betrothed to the king’s daughter, Urraca, probably at Leon during the preceding Christmas season. The royal infanta confirmed the document as “comitis domini Ramundi maritata.” At that time Urraca would have been between eight and nine years old, and apparently the count’s sepulchral inscription gave her age as eight at the time of her marriage.?” She would not then have reached puberty, but the public act need not have implied marriage in the sense of either sacramental service or physical consummation. The medieval church and society regard the declaration of intent embodied in bethrothal as actually effecting the marriage. In fact the young princess may have continued for a time yet in the actual care of her guardian, Count Pedro Anstrez, as surety for the good behavior of her husband. ?® By February 14, 1090, it appears that the court had returned to the Leé6n-Sahagtin area.*? At Leon during the latter part of March a great council would be held in the presence of the papal legate, Cardinal Ranier. No acts or canons have survived from the Council of Le6n so we are forced to piece together its participants and substance from scattered testimony. It was already in session on March 22, 1090, when the 4 See Reilly, Leén-Castilla under Urraca, pp. 333-41. 25 See chapter 10, note 22.

2° AHN, Clero, Carpeta 1.325B, no. 18. 27 Rodriquez Fernandez, Pedro Ansurez, p. 61, n. 69.

8 Menéndez Pidal, ed., Primera crénica general 2:646. The evidence for the count’s guardianship is thus somewhat late. 7? AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 232v, a private document. A purported royal charter to the monastery of Cardena of the same date is rather more problematic. Berganza, Antigtiedades de Espana 2:452. The diplomatic is somewhat irregular and it purports to have been confirmed by a Bishop Diego. There was no contemporary bishop of that name except the deposed Diego Pelaez of Compostela.

218 CHAPTER ELEVEN king’s brother, Garcia, died in prison and his body was brought to Leén and buried with great ceremony. °° The “Historia Compostelana” reports only that in the council Pedro of Cardena was deposed and that Santiago de Compostela continued to

be governed by lay administrators thereafter.31 The former abbot of Cardena now drops from sight, but the former bishop, Diego Pelaez, long continued to struggle for what he considered his rightful position. Although his case had been revoked to Rome he apparently traveled no farther than Aragon after his release by Alfonso VI and there eventually found tacit support from the Aragonese crown.?? Lucas de Tuy, writing almost a century and a half later, gives a garbled report that the council legislated that the “ecclesiastica officia” in Spain should follow the rule of San Isidoro of Sevilla and that ecclesiastical books should be written in the caroline rather than the visigothic script.33 What he meant by the first is impossible to say and the second was a slow process, already in train, which would be completed only gradually over the next forty years. It is doubtful that the council would have regarded the latter as worth its attention. 34 It is probable that the council discussed the organization and structure of the Iberian church. After all, Toledo had just become the first archbishopric restored since the Muslim conquest. In addition the le-

gate himself bore among his commissions that of reestablishing the archbishopric of Tarragona. Finally, among those sees of the Christian north liberated from the Muslim yoke one, Braga, had had a brilliant history as an archiepiscopate in classical antiquity. Carl Erdmann believed that Bishop Pedro of Braga attended the council and made an at30 Pérez de Urbel and Gonzalez Ruiz-Zorrilla, eds., Historia Silense, pp. 123-24, establishes the coincidence without furnishing a date. It is our earliest source. The “Chronicon Compostellanum,” ES 20:610, the second earliest, gives the date used here and is supported by Lopez Ferreiro, Historia de Santiago 2:554-55, n. 1, whose date is taken from Garcia’s sepulchral inscription. Among the later sources Ubieto Arteta, ed., Crénica NaJerense, p. 117, gives the same day in 1091 as does Flérez, “Annales Compostellani,” ES 23:321. The “Anales Toledanos” in Huici Miranda, ed., Las crénicas latinas de la Reconquista 1:343, gives the dates of 1082. Lucas de Tay “Chronicon Mundi,” p. rot, also gave

the year as 1091. But by the beginning of rog1 Cardinal Ranier was already back in Rome. Sabekow, Die papstlichen Legationen, p. 32. 31 ES 20:17-18.

32 Antonio Ubieto Arteta, “E] destierro del obispo compostelano Diego Peldez en Aragon,” CEG § (1951): 43-51.

33 “Chronicon Mundi,” p. 101.

34 For the now generally received view see David, Etudes historiques, pp. 432-39. Menéndez Pidal, Esparia del Cid 1:250-51, spoke for the older, generally xenophobic tradition.

THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE (1089-1091) 219 tempt to reclaim its ancient rights.35 The atmosphere would have been cool, at best, to an argument based on antiquity as a model. Sees as important as Oviedo, Leén, and Burgos had no classical warrant. Lugo had present claims to the ancient dignity of Braga itself, and the primatial dignity accorded to Bernard of Toledo in 1088 had included ju-

risdiction over all sees otherwise without a metropolitan. Alfonso would hardly, given his own problems at the time, have been willing to intervene decisively on the part of far away Braga even had he been so inclined. In the long run, nevertheless, that omission was to be exceedingly costly. The meeting of the council would also have been marked by the usual and expected generosity of the king. It may still have been in session

when Alfonso confirmed the possessions of the see of Palencia on March 31, togo. That action probably can be accepted even if the instrument by which it reaches us has been interpolated.3° In it Alfonso VI stated that he took this action with the counsel, among others, of his

son-in-law Count Raymond, and undoubtedly a major event of the council was the public recognition of the high position in the realm now accorded to the Burgundian. Given the death of his brother, Garcia, whom Alfonso had at some point considered as his possible successor, 37 and the continuing lack of a male heir, such recognition came close to designating Urraca and Raymond as his successors although it probably stopped short of an explicit designation. Still, everyone there would have understood the implications. In the context of such an expected devolution of the realm, Alfonso probably also consulted those present at the council on his decision to reaffirm, perpetually and solemnly, the annual cens of 2,000 dinars to Cluny. On Easter Sunday, April 21, 1090, he was to meet Abbot Hugh in Burgos and surrender formally to the latter such a written promise. 3 38 Das Papsttum und Portugal in ersten Jahrhundert der Portugiesischen Geschichte (Berlin,

1928), pp. 8-9. He is supported by Costa, O Bispo D. Pedro 1:244-46. 36 AC Palencia, Armario 3, no. 3; another copy I have seen only in AHN, Microfilmas, Palencia, rollo 1.659, no. 27; also AC Zamora, legajo 8, no. 3; and two late copies in Acad. Hist., Catedrales de Espana, 9-25-1~-C-6, ff. 24r-311r, and Coleccién Salazar, 0-17, ff. 211r—217r. Pub. Fernandez de Pulgar, Historia de Palencia 1:123-25. For a critique see Reilly, “Alfonso VI of Leén-Castile,” pp. 16 and 33. An agnitio dated Mar. 23, 1090, would put the king in Oviedo and should probably be redated. Another judicial document, dated simply to 1090, would also put Alfonso in that city sometime during the year. Neither is an original. Pub. Garcia Larragueta, Coleccién de Oviedo, pp. 272-73, and 275-79. 37 Pérez de Urbel and Gonzalez Ruiz-Zorrilla, eds., Historia Silense, p. 124. 38 Bruel, ed., Recueil des chartes 4:809—10, published the French copies. For a Spanish copy, see AHN, Clero, Carpeta 1.700, no. 13, fol. 3r-v.

220 CHAPTER ELEVEN That meeting had been concerted carefully and was designed to bolster the prestige of the king in his realm and to lay the continuing problem of the succession. Yet the price was substantial indeed. The next notice of the whereabouts of the royal court puts it at Sa-

hagtin on July 8, 1090.39 From that customary royal residence the Leonese monarch was to organize and coordinate a relief expedition for the city of Toledo. The Murabit emir, Yusuf ibn-Tashufin, had decided on yet a third Spanish expedition in the spring of 1090. In June he dis-

embarked at Algeciras and marched northeast to Cordoba where he | had arrived by July.4° From that city he would march north to lay siege . to Toledo, the key to the control of the valley of the Tajo and the most direct line of communication between Muslim Andalucia and Muslim Zaragoza. Then as now the only practicable route for an army lay along the line of the present national highway IV. That is east from Cérdoba to Bailén and then north through the pass of Despenaperros and, once out on the central meseta, an approach toward Toledo from the southeast. In road

miles that is roughly 360 kilometers, and at the sustained rate of twenty-five kilometers a day it is unlikely that the Murabit army could have reached Toledo much before July 20. Toward this threat Alfonso VI seems to have adopted a strategy of attrition. The army of Yusuf started with a grueling march in the hottest part of summer through country that allowed of their easy harass-

ment by small, mobile detachments. The early warning of their approach allowed for a complete victualing and garrisoning of what was an almost impregnable position in any event. The Christian leader evidently preferred to let the hardship of the march, the ordinary diseases associated with camp life, and the resistance of the Toledo garrison reduce the number of enemy effectives and sap their morale and only to risk a major battle on the most favorable terms. That is the best explanation for the fact that it is only on August 11, 1090, that we find him at Duenas, south of Palencia, on his way toward Toledo.*!

From Duenas the Leonese army could easily choose one of two 39 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 886, no. 6. The royal charter to Cardena dated April 27, 1090, in Berganza, Antigtiedades de Espana 2:450, must be redated to the period 1085-86, if it is to be accepted at all, on the basis of the confirmation by Bishop Sebastian. See chapter 9, notes 47 and 48. 4° The dates cannot be established more closely. My account follows Gonzilez, Repoblacién de Castilla la Nueva 1:88.

+" BN, Manuscritos, 720, ff. 274r-v. A private charter records a donation to the bishopric of Leén in August 1090, conditional, as the donor says, “si vivens venerit de fossato” AC Leon, Cédice 11, fol. 89r.

THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE (1089-1091) 221 passes through the Guadarrama chain. The pass of Navacerrada just south of Segovia was short but high and led down to Madrid. South of Avila the long but low pass of Arrebatacapas led down to Maqueda. Presumably both of these fortresses were still in Christian hands for we hear of no towns captured by the Murabit forces. I believe that Alfonso took the route through Avila for Maqueda was better placed to serve as a base of operations from which to bedevil an army besieging Toledo and offered an easier line of retreat if that should prove necessary. But if Alfonso was at Duenas on August 11, he could hardly have covered

the 250 kilometers south to Maqueda before August 22. That meant that by the time he and his ally, Sancho Ramirez of Aragon, arrived at Maqueda the Murabit army before Toledo was already breaking camp. We have no details as to the problems of the siege, but they were apparently sufficient so that, at news of the approach of a relieving force, Yusuf decided to retire. In marked difference from his two earlier campaigns, Yusuf seems to have had no assistance whatsoever from the taifa rulers of Andalucia. He could not be sure what his prospects would be then for an orderly retreat if he should be defeated in the field. Rather than take such a risk he determined to act immediately to see that he never again had to face such a prospect. By September 8, 1090, Yusuf was at the gates of Granada. To have traversed the roughly 400 kilometers between Toledo and Abd Allah’s capital, he must have given up the siege by August 25 at the latest. Now the king of Granada became the first of the taifa rulers to be deposed

and replaced by a Murabit governor. Shortly thereafter Abd Allah’s brother al-Tamin, king of Malaga, was also deposed by Yusuf. When the emir of the Murabits left for Morocco in November he left behind a sizeable force under his cousin, Sir ibn-Abu Bakr, with instructions to continue the process of consolidating Muslim Andalucia under his rule. 4

More than the siege of Toledo itself, what speaks to the real weakness of Alfonso VI at this time is his inability to follow up the success of his plans there with a counterinvasion of Andalucia. At this critical point he was unable to intervene to save his ally in Granada, and he is to be found rather back at Sahagun on September 7 and September 16, 1090, attending to internal concerns of the realm. These matters were serious for they touched a quarrel between two great magnates of the realm and companions of the king in his youth, Counts Pedro Anstrez and Martin Alfoénsez, and the powerful abbot of the royal monastery of 4 Gonzalez, Repoblacion de Castilla la Nueva 1:88.

222 CHAPTER ELEVEN Sahagtin.4#} The crown could not afford such friction at a time when the Murabit offensive should engross all its energies. For the first time in years there was to be no winter respite in the ac-

tivities of his enemies. Sir ibn-Abu Bakr brought great energy to the position accorded him by his cousin and promptly launched an offensive against the most powerful of the Andalucian kingdoms, Sevilla. After seizing Tarifa in December to safeguard yet further his communications with Morocco, he then settled down to a siege of Cérdoba, strongly defended by a son of al-Mutamid, Fath al-Mamun. The resistance of the city was fierce but by March 15, 1091, it had fallen to the enemy and al-Mutamid’s son was dead. From that secure base Sir was able to begin to operate militarily on the southern fringes of the meseta of Castilla la Nueva and secured a forward position there at Calatrava. +4 These operations must be deduced solely from the Muslim histories for the northern chroniclers took no note of them. One could not safely say the same of Alfonso VI, but at the very least

he took no action personally to intervene in the south. The royal whereabouts are documented fairly well in early 1og1, and it is clear that the court was in the vicinity of Leén or Sahagtn continuously from January to April 18.4 By mid-April Cordoba had already fallen and Sir was besieging the 43 Sept. 7, 1090. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 886, no. 9; Cddices, 989B, fol. 23r—v dated to Feb. 7, 1090; pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahagtin, pp. 487-88, and Prieto Prieto, “Documentos de Sahaguin,” pp. 525-26. Sept. 16, 1090. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 886, no. 10; and Cédices, 989B, fol. 36v, is an exchange between Pedro Anstrez and Sahaguin. Perhaps about this time, certainly between December 1086 and December 1092, on the basis of those who confirm it, Pedro Ansurez made a very generous donation to the church of Leén, but the charter lacks a date. AC Leon, Cédice 11, fol. 30r—v; pub. Jorge Serrano Redonnet, “Ovetensis monete,” CHE 1-2 (1944): 157-60. 44 Gonzalez, Repoblacién de Castilla la Nueva 1:89.

45 Jan. 1, rogt. AC Leén Céddice 11, fol. 142r—-v. Feb. 1, tog1. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 886, no. 12. Feb. 13, 1091. AC Leon, Cédice 11, ff. 84v—85r. Mar. 31, 1091. AC Leon, Cédice 11, ff. 104v—105v; pub. ES 35: 411-14; Manuel Risco, Historia de la ciudad y corte de Leon y de sus reyes, vol. 1 (Madrid, 1792), p. 395; Munoz y Romero, ed., Coleccién de fueros municipales y cartas pueblas, pp. 89-93; Hinojosa, ed., Documentos de Leén y de Castilla, pp. 36-39; and Justiniano Rodriguez Fernandez, La juderia de la ciudad de Leon (Leén, 1969), pp. 182-85. There is another, slightly different version of this famous document dated to Feb. 7, 1090. AHN, Cédices, 989B, ff. 199v-200v. Pub. Justiniano Rodriguez Fernandez, Las juderias de la provincia de Leon (Len, 1976), pp. 342-44. The latter discusses the two versions, pp. 243-44, n. $6, without choosing between them although he does regard them as a single document. The major difference in the latter document occurs in the opening protocol. I would be hard pressed to choose between the versions. Apr. 1, 1091. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 886, no. 16. Apr. 18, tog1. AHN, Microfilmas,

AD Leon, Gradefes, rollo 6.311, no. 6. |

THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE (1089-I09Q1) 223 stronghold of Almodovar del Rio on the road to Sevilla. Exactly when the castle there fell 1s hard to say, but by May 9, 1091, the Murabit general had just taken Carmona and was within thirty kilometers of Sevilla itself, to which he promptly laid siege in turn.4° Al-Mutamid in this extremity appealed for help to the very enemy against whom he had so

often invited the Murabit into the peninsula, but without avail.¢7 Sometime during the summer a Christian relief force penetrated as far as Almodovar but was defeated there.4® Even then, it may be that, as so often would be the case later on, Alvar Fanez was leading a force raised locally rather than a royal army raised more generally in the realm. In

any event, Sevilla would fall to Sir ibn-Abu Bakr on September 9, 1091. the collapse of the greatest of the taifas was promptly followed by the fall of the smaller kingdoms of the southeast; Jaén, Almeria, Denia,

and finally Murcia late in the year.49 Of Muslim Andalucia, only the kingdom of Badajoz retained its independence at the outset of 1092. Still, in the north, Alfonso VI had barely stirred. On July 19, 1091, he was at Leén.*°° By August 5 he was at Castrojeriz with his court, perhaps on his way to Burgos. 5! It may have been on this trip that the king

granted the charter to the Riojan monastery of San Millan dated only by the year.5? But by September 24 the court had returned to Sahagtin and stayed there through November 10, 1091, which is as far as we can trace its movements for the year. %3

At this remove it 1s difficult to account for the seeming inactivity of the Leonese monarch in the crucial years of 1090 and 1091. One possi4° Gonzalez, Repoblacién de Castilla la Nueva, p. 89. 47 Abd Allah, El siglo XI en I* persona, pp. 290-02.

48 Huici Miranda, ed., “Anales Toledanos,” Crénicas latinas de la Reconquista, p. 358. “Arrancada sobre Alvar Hanez en Almodovar; era MCX XX.” Al-Maqqari, The History of the Mohammedan Dynasties in Spain 2:254 and 297. 49 Gonzalez, Repoblacion de Castilla la Nueva, p. 89. so AC Leén, Cédice 11, ff. 89v—gor.

‘| AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 1s9r—v; pub. Hinojosa, ed., Documentos de Leén y Castilla, pp. 39-40, and Prieto Prieto, “Documentos de Sahagtin,” pp. 526-27. s2 Serrano, Cartularo de San Millan, p. 281.

53 Sept. 24, 1091. AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 207r; pub. Prieto Prieto, “Documentos de Sahagtn,” p. 528. Nov. 3, 1091. Alfonso Andrés, “Monasterio de San Juan de Burgos,” BRAH 71 (1917): 119-21, published this from a sixteenth-century manuscript in the Archivo Municipal de Burgos which dated it to 1097, but the date given by Antonio de Yepes, Cordnica general de San Benito 6:489v—490r, accords better with the list of those

who confirmed it. Also BN, Manuscritos, 5.790, ff. 140v—141r, with the date of 1090. Pub. F. Javier Pena Pérez, ed., Documentacién del monasterio de San Juan de Burgos, 1091—

1400 (Burgos, 1983), pp. 3-8, from the original and copies in the Archivo Municipal of Burgos with the date of Nov. 3, rog1. Nov. 10, 1091. AHN, Cédices, 989B, ff. 6v—7r; pub. ES 36:74-76, and Escalona, Historia de Sahagtin, pp. 488-89.

224 CHAPTER ELEVEN bility is that the loss of the parias of Andalucia which were certainly not paid after the advent of Yusuf in the peninsula in 1090, and the prospect of much fighting but little booty there drastically inhibited the king’s ability to recruit an army of the requisite size. But there are indications as well that problems internal to Leén-Castilla may have combined to

reinforce that effect. |

There is a cryptic statement in Lucas of Tiy, “Eo tempore Rex Adefonsus offendit graviter Comitem Castellanum Garsiam de Cabrera et causa placendi ipsum dedit ei Geloyram sororem suam in uxorem, et pacificavit totum regnum quod in seditionem vertebatur.” + There is no further indication of time in our source except that the passage eoccurs immediately after the author’s description of the Council of Leén and is in turn followed by the account of the marriage or betrothal of Infanta Urraca to Count Raymond. All of this suggests to me that the solution to the problem of Alfonso’s lack of a male heir, in train since 1087 by

the elevation of the Burgundian count, was resented much more widely than merely in Galicia where it prompted the revolt of that year.

Marriage to the king’s eldest daughter was, in the circumstances, a great prize, and the magnates of the realm could not have but watched its bestowal on Raymond with anything but rage and disappointment. Unfortunately it is impossible to identify securely this magnate whose pacification was so important. Lucas tells us that he was a Castilian and a count. But countship was unusual in Castilla, and the only Count Garcia who appears in the contemporary documents is Garcia Ordonez of Najera whom we can rule out immediately. 55 If by “count” Lucas meant simply to indicate “magnate,” then it seems to me the documents dictate only one possible choice, Garcia Alvarez, son of Alvar Diaz of Oca. This scion of one of the great magnate families of Castilla

will become alférez of Alfonso in 1100 and remain in that post until 1107. If this identification is accepted, then at Uclés he died defending the royal infante, Sancho Alfénsez, whose guardian he was. °° This hypothesis that the kingdom was in some turmoil in 1090-91 is also suggested by ecclesiastical events. As we have seen, the Council of Leon did not settle the affairs of Santiago de Compostela and that very

considerable plum remained vacant. Further, Bishop Diego Pelaez seems to have been able to defy the command of the pope to proceed to 4 “Chronicon Mundi,” p. Io1. $s For his family see Julio Gonzalez, El reino de Castilla en la época de Alfonso VIII, vol. 1 (Madrid, 1960), pp. 293-94, but with the corrections of Lacarra, El poema de mio Cid, pp. 141-43. But the Count Garcia Garcia of the latter never appears in contemporary documents. ‘6 Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada, “De rebus Hispaniae,” pp. 143-44.

THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE (1089-1091) 225 Rome for judgment, and the king was unable to enforce the papal directive from which he could reasonably have expected to profit. But far more striking was the decision of Bishop Pedro of Braga to ignore the king entirely and to seek the restoration of the archiepiscopal status of his see from the antipope, Clement III, in 1091.57 This action was to lead to the bishop’s deposition in fairly short order, but for him even to have imagined that he could scout the royal wishes and policy in such a manner can testify only to a period in which the debility of the crown’s power was marked indeed. Some further conception of the way in which the politics of the realm were evolving can be gained by close attention to the personnel of the royal curia between the end of 1086 and the beginning of 1092. Among the clerical members of the court the most outstanding novelty is the vault into prominence of the newly installed archbishop of Toledo. That cadre of bishops who had long been prominent at court continued to be so. The prelates of Leon, Palencia, Burgos, and Astorga all confirmed two-thirds or more of the eighteen known and reliable royal documents of this period. But now the archbishop of Toledo did the same.

Bernard of Sauvetot arrived in Spain, as we have seen, during the struggle between Alfonso VI and Gregory VII and became abbot of the favorite royal monastery of Sahagun in 1080. Although by no means prominent in royal diplomas he must have made himself most useful to the king for he was elevated to Toledo at the royal wish in 1086. We know little of his earlier life. Jiménez de Rada was following a now lost vita of Bernard preserved at Toledo when he informs us that his subject was studious in youth but took arms as his profession until an illness moved him to enter the monastery of St. Orens in Auch. From Auch he was summoned to Cluny by St. Hugh.** Noreen Hunt dated Bernard’s entry into St. Orens about 1070 and says that he returned to St.

Orens as prior about 1078 after having risen to be chamberlain at Cluny.» From the time of his advancement to Toledo he became the most trusted of royal councilors of Alfonso VI; a role he retained under the king’s successor, Urraca, until his death in 1125. Because of the king’s dependence on him and the fact that his archiepiscopal city remained 57 Costa, O Bispo D. Pedro 1:246—48.

58 “De rebus Hispaniae,” p. 137. I have done a study of Jiménez de Rada on Alfonso VI which may be published before this book. His sources are examined there. 39 Cluny under St. Hugh, 1049-1109 (Notre Dame, 1968), pp. 176-77. Juan Francisco Rivera Recio, El arzobispo de Toledo Don Bernardo de Cluny (Rome, 1962), is the only modern biography and it virtually ignores Bernard’s role as chief councilor of the realm.

226 CHAPTER ELEVEN until late in the twelfth century not the center of the realm but a particularly exposed outpost of it, Bernard spent virtually all his life at court and was buried at Sahagiun rather than Toledo.© The position of the Frenchman both at court and in the church was galling to the bishops of the meseta in particular, all of whom, with the

probable exception of Astorga, cherished some such ambitions for themselves and for their sees. Quite possibly the new prominence of Toledo and Bernard had a part in provoking the revolt in Galicia in which the bishop of Santiago de Compostela had had sucha prominent role in 1088. Certainly the new position of Toledo reacted to produce the spectacular defection of Braga in 1091. Other changes in the makeup of the Alfonsine curia are less striking. A new majordomo appears in 1086 and will hold that office for almost ten years.°' This Ermegildo Rodriguez is peculiar in that he never appears in the documents of the time before or after his term as majordomo with one exception. His given name suggests the possibility that he was drawn from the region of northern Portugal where it was fairly common, whereas elsewhere it was rare indeed. He may be that “Armigii ruderigu” who confirmed the donation of the Portuguese noble, Garcia Munoz, to King Garcia of Galicia on March 24, 1066. A recent historian has suggested he was Leonese but on slender indications.” In any event, Ermegildo’s obscure origins and long tenure may indicate that the king either could not get or did not want a great magnate in this dignity.

In contrast to the stability of the office of majordomo, there was much movement in that of alférez. At the very beginning of this period,

Rodrigo Orddénez continued to hold it as he had for the past five years.°3 He was then replaced for something like a year by Alvar Garcia, who is known only from the documents in which he held this dignity.°+ His name would suggest that he was a Castilian like Rodrigo Ordénez. From the latter part of 1088 till the end of 1091 the post was held by Pedro Gonzalez of the rising Lara family of Castilla.°

Among the secular magnates who frequented the royal court the most prominent at this time was Count Garcia Ord6énez, who con6° Morales, Viaje a Leon, p. 37. * Dec. 18, 1086. See chapter 10, note 13. Aug. 9, 1095. BN, Manuscritos, 18.387, fol. 300V.

6 See chapter 2, note 36, and Luciano Serrano, “Los Armildez de Toledo y el monasterio de Tértoles,” BRAH 103 (1933): 69-73. 63 Dec. 18, 1086. See chapter 10, note 13. It is his sole appearance during the period. 64 July 21, 1087. See chapter 10, note 20, his first appearance. Apr. 30, 1088. See chapter 10, note 45, the last. 65 Dec. 27, 1088. See chapter 10, note 61. Nov. 10, 1091. See note $3.

THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE (1089-1091) 227 firmed eleven of the eighteen diplomas. His brother, Rodrigo, confirmed five but was never, after leaving the post of alférez, elevated to a countship as would otherwise have been the usual practice. Perhaps the position of Count Garcia in the Rioja was commanding enough for

the royal taste. The great Leonese count, Pedro Anstirez, confirmed , eight court documents but his fellow Leonese and early companion of Alfonso VI, Count Martin Alfénsez, confirmed but four. The latter was to die in 1093 and it may be that failing health already kept him from traveling with the court. Newly prominent in the royal entourage

of this period was Count Froila Diaz, who confirmed seven documents. There has been considerable confusion over his family, with Menéndez Pidal insisting that he was the brother-in-law of the Cid. Although his origins are in Asturias, more recent historians do not accept that relationship.” Froila seems to have been a count from the time of his first appearance at court on December 18, 1086.°7 Among the thir-

teen other counts of this period of whom we have notice, no one of them confirms as many as one-third of the eighteen known royal documents. The same phenomenon is noticeable in the case of the magnates of Castilla who did not ordinarily bear the comital title. Only Alvar Diaz of Oca confirmed as many as seven diplomas, and the head of the Lara family, Gonzalo Nunez, confirmed but five. So it would seem that there is at least the possible reflection here of a loss of attraction by the royal court. Fora time, the ability of the crown to make its influence felt everywhere had slackened and so attendance on the king had rather less point. Certainly Alfonso VI’s ability to control events in the east of the peninsula was at a new low. Sancho Ramirez of Arag6n had a virtually free hand after 1087. He used it to improve on his conquest of Monzén in 1089 by capturing Estadilla, which protected the former’s supply line, in 1091.° This campaign of strangulation against Zaragoza was

also advanced dramatically in tog1 when the Aragonese monarch erected the fortress of El Castellar just twenty kilometers northwest of Zaragoza on the Ebro and athwart its communications with Tudela, the second city of the taifa.%

The only real check on his ambitions came not from Alfonso but rather from the Cid, who had become the real arbiter of events in the “°° Menéndez Pidal, Esparia del Cid 2:723-—24. He was followed by Floriano Cumbreno,

Estudios de historia de Asturias, p. 109. However, see Alfonso Prieto Prieto, “El conde Fruela Munoz, un asturiano del siglo XI,” Asturierisia medievalia 2 (1975): 16-17, and Estepa Diez, Estructura social de la ciudad de Leén, pp. 245-46. 67 See chapter 10, note 13.

* Turk, Reino de Zaragoza, p. 167. “” Ubieto Arteta, Historia de Aragén, pp. 104-105.

228 CHAPTER ELEVEN east of the peninsula from his position as effective suzerain of al-Qadir and of Valencia. Though none of the principalities of the east could be

considered in isolation from its neighbors, the chief concern of Rodrigo in 1089 and early 1090 was al-Mundir of Lérida and Tortosa, whose lands directly adjoined those of Valencia. He was harrying this enemy in the territories of Tortosa when al-Mundir died in early 1090.7° At this juncture Count Berenguer Ram6n II of Barcelona, who exercised a protectorate over these lands, was obliged to intervene. On this occasion he found himself in league with al-Mustain of Zaragoza, who had never abandoned his claims to Lérida and Tortosa. The allies encountered the Cid at Tévar west of Tortosa in May or June of 1090 and were resoundingly defeated. The count of Barcelona was captured and gave up his pretensions over the former lands of al-Mundir in the course of securing his freedom.7! Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar was now the most powerful figure in the Levant and all of the taifa rulers there paid him parias, with the exception of Zaragoza.7? This enormous income was lost to Alvonso VI, whose

only intervention was an interview with al-Mustain in the spring of 1090 if we may believe the “Historia Roderici.””3 Instead, after his victory at Tévar the Cid advanced into the lands of Zaragoza and spent the

summer there. Only a serious illness, which immobilized him at Daroca, provided a check to his ambitions and in the fall he retired to the east.74 The fantastic story of a new reconciliation of Alfonso and the Cid in 1091, of a joint expedition against Granada, and of yet a third falling-out between them is recounted in the “Historia Roderici” and accepted by Menéndez Pidal.”5 It is totally at variance with the known facts. Simply put, the Cid had become an independent ruler. There may also be a rise of semi-independent powers within the realm itself discernible in the documents of the period. Necessarily one speaks of matters of degree in this respect and the judgments that must be made are very subtle ones, but we have already seen how the events and threats of the years 1080-81 moved Alfonso to create the satrapies of Lop Jiménez in Alava and Vizcaya and of Garcia Ordoénez in Rioja. In a similar manner by 1090 the king had allowed the whole of the distant province of Galicia, an area the size of Scotland, to pass under the

control of his new son-in-law, Raymond of Burgundy. This royal le7° Huici Miranda, Historia musulmana de Valencia 2:33. 7" I depend on Menéndez Pidal, Espafia del Cid 1:376-88, for this account. He, in turn, follows the “Historia Roderici” very literally. 72 Huici Miranda, Historia musulmana de Valencia 2:38-39. 73 Menéndez Pidal, Esparia del Cid 2:941. 74 Ibid., 1:386—-88.

7s Ibid., 2:949—$1, and 1:400-405.

THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE (1089-1091) 229 gitimization of vigorous local powers of very considerable extent around the fringes of Leén-Castilla was a practical, governmental device but it was also a testimony to the real weakness of the crown as it

attempted to grapple, in straitened circumstances, with the enormously swollen kingdom. This same sort of development was also occurring along the line of the Ducro in what we could easily misunderstand as the interior of the realm. Count Pedro Anstrez in 1085 controlled the entire seventy-kilometer reach of that rampart from Zamora, through Toro, at least to Tordesillas.7° How long he had been so empowered 1s difficult to say. Probably his control was not as early as 1074 but at least from 1084 and most likely from the time about 1082 when it was becoming clear to Alfonso that he would have to concentrate on the affairs of the faltering taifa at Toledo.7” That control continued through 1090 although it was by then limited to Toro.” Increasingly Pedro Anstrez was to make his foundation at Valladollid, on the Rio Pisuerga just north of its confluence with the Duero, the center of his power in the south. On May 21, 1095, he would endow the newly consecrated church there in a great ceremony attended by many of the notables of the realm.79 All of these domains were quite separate from the hereditary lands of

the family, north on the Rio Carrién, about Carrién de los Condes, Saldana, and Liébana. They represented not only new power along the line of the Duero but a power that extended south into the new settle-

ments of the trans-Duero where a regular structure of local government would be rare even forty years later.°° We know that he was responsible for the repopulation of Cuéllar some forty-five kilometers to the southeast of Valladolid, and it is likely that he possessed a sort of vice-regal jurisdiction in the whole eastern half of the trans-Duero from Olmedo and Arévalo to Septilveda. Another Leonese magnate who rose to authority in this area was Count Martin Laifez, whose original family holdings lay in the north of Leén about the castle of Aguilar.*' From 1088 through 1092 he was 76 May 6, 1085. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 885, no. 13. “Comes petro ensuriz in toro et in zamora et elus vigarius otero de sellus.” 77 June 24, 1074. AHN, Codices, 989B, fol. 137v; pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahaguin, p. 473. “Comite petro anssuriz in Zamora.” Apr. 27, 1084. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 885, no. 4. “Imperante zamora comite petro ansuriz.” 78 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 886, no. 7. 77 Pub. Pulgar, Historia de Palencia, pp. 135-37, and Manueco Villalobos and Zurita Nieto, eds., Documentos de Valladolid 1:24-—54. See also Rodriguez Fernandez, Pedro Ansurez, pp. 63-68. 80 Reilly, Ledn-Castilla under Queen Urraca, pp. 295-300. 8! José, Gonzalez, “El monasterio de S. Martin de Pereda,” AL 10 (1955): 9.

230 CHAPTER ELEVEN regularly cited as count in Simancas.*? Martin appears to have been a brother of that Fernando Lainez who was the alférez of Alfonso VI and was subsequently disgraced for involvement in a conspiracy against the king.*3 In his person the family fortunes appear to recover, and before long he would regain the family holdings in the north as well.*4 It may have been about 1088 that responsibilities were reshuffled at the extreme western end of the line of the Duero as well. In any event by August 16, 1090, the documents reveal Pelayo Vellidez commanding “in coria et in zamora.” He would still enjoy that position as late as May 18, 1092.*%5 Here the jurisdiction of the line of the Duero is explic-

itly linked with an outpost in the trans-Duero at Coria more than two hundred kilometers to the south. Pelayo was a Leonese noble who had been the majordomo of Alfonso in 1084-85 so that it is not surprising to find him subsequently with a territorial jurisdiction, but he never seems to have formally held comital rank. *® Finally, at the extreme eastern end of the Duero line, Gonzalo Nunez of Lara enjoyed roughly the same sort of position. In 1089 he was to be

found promoting the repopulation of the district about Berlanga.*” By the years 1090-91, then, the resettlement of that great, internal frontier of the realm which was the trans-Ducro had become a task of which the direction and initiative had been delegated by the crown to a series of great magnates who could hardly become but greater in the prosecution of that undertaking. After the defeat at Zalaca, and with the gradual loss of the income from the parias, preoccupied with the dynastic problem of succession, such a devolution of leadership was both necessary and irresistible. But combined with the preemption of suzerainty in the east by Rodrigo Diaz and the assumption of some-

thing like that in the west by Count Raymond, a great danger of the further erosion of practical royal authority was posed. Not that men would cease to venerate their king of a quarter of a century, now in his fifties and without a son, but that increasingly they would look elsewhere for the assistance they sought in the pursuit of their purposes. 82 Apr. 7, 1088. Manueco Villalobos and Zurita Nieto, eds., Documentos de Valladolid

1:7-10. Sept. 18, 1088. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 885, no. 23. July 8, rogo. Ibid, Carpeta 886, no. 6. Sept. 16, rogo. Ibid., no. 10, Feb. 1, rogr. Ibid., nos. 12 and 13. Feb. 7, 1092. Manueco Villalobos and Zurita Nieto, eds., Documentos de Valladolid 1:17-18. Mar. 29, 1092. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 887, no. 3. 83 See chapter 8, note 33, and May 28, 1066. AC Leon, Cédice 11, fol. 7or. 84 Serrano, ed., Cartulario de monasterio de Vega, pp. 30-32. 8s Sept. 6, 1094. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 886, no. 7, and ibid., Carpeta 887, no. 4 respectively. 86 See chapter 8, note 3. 87 Gonzalez, Repoblacién de Castilla la Neuva 1:129.

TWELVE

THE SEARCH FOR A SUCCESSOR AND THE DEVOLUTION OF POWER (1092-1096)

The medieval monarchy of Western Europe was an institution of surprising tenacity and elasticity. The truly remarkable strength which it exhibited for better than thirteen hundred years from Odoacer to Danton derived from many sources, but the most important of these was its ordinary recognition as the sole legitimate form of government. Only with the concept of the Christian empire, which it cannibalized, did the idea of kingship share any of the public recognition of its ultimate necessity as the guarantor of political stability and legal rights. The society of the medieval west understood the many kinds of power but it invariably turned from them eventually to the only source of proper authority it could conceive. Such reliance made the weakest of kings formidable and strong kings irresistable. Within each kingdom the search for a justification and legalization, if not for justice, of what one had achieved through power led at every

moment back to the crown. Every malcontent and every schemer sought eventual reconciliation on some terms with his king, and that permanent tendency operated inexorably as a balance wheel which retored the monarch to his rightful place at the center of political life. But that internal process was strengthened continually by the predilection of foreign monarchs and powers for dealing with the king alone in preference to the mightiest of his subjects. The crown’s premier position in the political life of the realm could thus be enhanced by initiatives of its own in the realm of the international sphere or by responding to overtures from without. Alfonso VI sought to improve his fortunes in the peninsula and in Leén-Castilla itself by exploiting this international recognition in 1092. One device he employed was an alliance with the Italian maritime powers of Genoa and Pisa for a joint descent upon the taifa of Valencia. The resources of these burgeoning naval powers of the western Mediterranean could be called into play by the crown and they were. The late twelfth-century Muslim source which is our earliest author-

232 CHAPTER TWELVE ity for the episode does not date the events beyond the year, but it must have been in spring or summer since fleets did not ordinarily sail during fall and winter in the Middle Ages. Moreover it 1s possible to place the court at Sahagun or Le6én from early February until the beginning of April.t By May 1, 1092, Alfonso was at the monastery of Ona high in the upper valley of the Ebro. From that point he may have proceeded

down the Ebro to Najera and then through the territory of his tributary, al-Mustain of Zaragoza, who would scarcely have dared to oppose him openly.’ From the vicinity of Zaragoza the route to Valencia was a relatively

easy one. Still, it was long enough to make it unlikely that the host could have arrived at Valencia before June 1 at the earliest. At the same time, Sancho Ramirez of Aragén and Berenguer Ramon of Barcelona were sitting down before the port of Tortosa farther up the coast. The aim of none of these allies could have been permanent conquest for

which they lacked the resources at the time. Clearly the effort was aimed primarily at displacing the Cid from the position he had achieved

in the Spanish Levant. The effort was a token of how formidable a power the Castilian adventurer had become. His ejection also would have allowed the allies to reclaim the parias, but we may be sure that they would have to have shared those with the Genoese and the Pisans. The price the Italian powers exacted would have included a share of those revenues as well as favorable trading privileges in both ports in return for their essential contribution. Unfortunately for the allies, the coordination of all these elements was impossible to effect. Rodrigo Diaz himself refused to give battle but, slipping around the advancing armies and reaching Zaragoza, invaded the Rioja with the help of troops supplied by al-Mustain. Indeed, our Muslim source tells us that Alfonso’s siege of Valencia endured but one day on that account. However that may be, it appears that the Ital1 Feb. 11, 1092. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 89v. Mar. 15, 1092. AC Leén, Cédice 11, ff. 87r—-88r; pub., ES 36:76—78 append. and Rodriguez Fernandez, La juderia de la ciudad

de Leon, pp. 186-88. Apr. 1, 1092. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 76r. 2 May I, 1092. Alamo, ed., Coleccién diplomdtica de San Salvador de Ofia 1:127-29. 1092. Serrano, El obispado de Burgos 3:83—85; and late copies unknown to him in BN, Manuscritos, 720, fol. 81r, and 222r-v. Also pub. Antonio Suarez de Alarcon, Relaciones genealégicas de la casa de los Marqueses de Trocifal (Madrid, 1656), pp. 1-2 append. This private donation of Rodrigo Ordonez is dated only by year but was likely executed at Najera about this time. May 1, 1092. Quintana Prieto, El obispado de Astorga, pp. 604-605, published an agnitio of this date which would seem to place the king in the Bierzo. It should probably be redated. 3 Al-Kardabus, “Kitab al-Iqtifa” 2:xxxviii append. C, is the only early source. In addition, my account follows that of Menéndez Pidal, Espartia del Cid 1:416-21, and 2:773-

THE SEARCH FOR A SUCCESSOR (1092-1096) 233 ian fleet was late in arriving and found that the Leonese monarch had already decamped. It then coasted north to join in the siege of Tortosa, but nothing was effected their either and the Aragonese and the Catalans also retired discomfited. Before summer’s end, the Cid had regained his commanding position in the east from which nothing would dislodge him but death. We cannot follow the movements of Alfonso VI during the remainder of the summer and early fall of 1092. It 1s likely that he returned from Valencia to Leén, but the court seems to have been in Oviedo at the end of July. When next it can be located it is at Sahagun on November 26, 1092.5 Menéndez Pidal put his faith in both a new reconciliation of Alfonso VI and the Cid and a major defeat of the former at Murabit hands in Andalucia following the abortive Valencian campaign.° As to the first, doubtless the king appreciated the fact that, if the parias of Va-

lencia could not be his, at least they were supporting a captain with whom he had a certain commonality of interest. Yet there is no compelling evidence that this perception was embodied in any formal recognition. As to the latter, certainly the records of the year leave much to be desired, especially in view of the frequent confusion of the chroniclers. Nevertheless it is extremely doubtful that Alfonso VI could have kept an army in the field and on the march following what had to have been at least a two-month campaign against Valencia which had produced no booty worth mentioning.

The hard evidence rather suggests an unhindered mopping-up operation carried out by the Murabits in the south. There one of the sons of Yusuf, Muhammed ibn-Aisa, had been named governor of Almeria and Murcia. From that position he was able to force the surrender or the withdrawal of the Christian garrison in the castle of Aledo which had threatened the supply lines between the two since 1086.7 That success opened up the possibility of a serious attack against Valencia which city would become a major objective of the Murabits over the next ten years. 77, who utilized the late Crénica de 1344. The earlier Christian sources are silent on this campaign and the later ones are much influenced by the literature of the Cid cycle. Diego Catalan, “De Alfonso X al conde de Barcelos” (Madrid, 1962), has well begun the exploration of the relationships of these romance chronicles. + July 31, 1092. Garcia Larragueta, Documentos de Oviedo, pp. 285—-86. It is a private donation to the church of Oviedo.

‘ AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 74r; pub. Prieto Prieto, “Documentos de Sahagtn,” p. 529. The document dated to 1092 by Santiago Estefania, ““Memorias,” pp. 209-11, is a composite of two other documents and cannot be safely employed. ° Esparia del Cid 1:420-21. ? Ibid. 2:765—76, and Huici Miranda, Historia musulmana de Valencia 2:44-45.

234 CHAPTER TWELVE | In the late summer and fall of 1092, Muhammed ibn-Aisa advanced north, taking Denia, Jativa, and Alcira in the southern reaches of the taifa of Valencia with little difficulty. This last was but thirty-five kilometers south of the city itself. With Murabit assistance apparently so close a faction in the city was not slow to begin intrigues against the perpetually ineffectual al-Qadir. With the Cid still absent in Zaragoza and with the flight of some of the Christian forces who had been controlling the countryside, the conspirators seized control of the city and

quickly, on October 28, 1092, decapitated al-Qadir, who had attempted to flee. Only the failure of the Murabits to send a strong force to the aid of the rebels prevented the city from falling to them at this time. At it was, Valencia came to be governed for a time as an independent city under one of its former judges.’ Nevertheless the weakness of the taifa which had secured the eastern approaches to the realm of Leén-Castilla since 1085 remained a serious threat and one that was only to be repaired by the heroic efforts of Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, not Alfonso. If his best efforts in the field had come to naught in 1092, however, the king could draw on other possibilities inherent in the position of the crown to recoup his position. In that year he moved both to bolster his prestige and to remedy his lack of a male heir. This he did in the only way open to him at the moment, by taking a mistress from Andalucia who was to provide him with the son he had sought since 1074. The life and even the death of the Muslim princess Zaida, widow of Fath al-Mamun of Cordoba since March of the previous year, are prob-

lematic. Our best authority, Bishop Pelayo, wrongly makes her the daughter rather than the daughter-in-law of al-Mutamid of Sevilla but does identify her as the mother of Alfonso’s only son.? Her sepulchral inscription, variously reported, informs that she died in childbirth on either Monday, the 13th of September, or Thursday, the 13th of September, without reporting the year of her death. We cannot even be sure that it was the birth of Sancho Alfénsez himself.'° Nonetheless the reasons for dating her relationship with Alfonso VI from late 1091 or 1092 are compelling. For the policy of that monarch, concerned with salvaging something out of the wreck of the taifas of Andalucia, only a date after the fall of Cérdoba in March 1091 and before the fall of Badajoz in early 1094 would have made much sense. Zaida could only be of service there as a symbol of Alfonso’s claim to be the protector of Spanish Islam against the African Murabits. In ad® Ibid., pp. 47-58. 9 Sanchez Alonso, ed., Crénica del Obispo Don Pelayo, p. 87. '© See the discussion in Menéndez Pidal, Espana del Cid 2:760—64.

THE SEARCH FOR A SUCCESSOR (1092-1096) 235 dition, if we consider that her son was to die in the battle of Uclés in May 1108, we are forced to predicate as early a date as possible. Even when one makes allowance for the early age accepted, for maturity in the twelfth century, the risking of the only male heir of the realm on the field of battle would seem unlikely before he had attained the age of fourteen or fifteen at least. Then too, the death of Queen Constance in the fall of 1093 was perhaps preceded by serious illness, which would have facilitated the king’s decision to take a mistress for reasons of state.

It is likely, then, that the negotiations for something like a “marriage” alliance began in the spring of 1091 at the instance of al-Mutamid

of Sevilla and may or may not have been concluded before the fall of that king and his capital together in September of the same year. Jiménez de Rada in the thirteenth century connected the reception of the princess with a large cession of territory by the Sevillan monarch, which would have been likely under the circumstances, but, as has pointed out, the account 1s garbled badly.'' Even if those negotiations had never been completed, the liaison would still have continued to be important for its value in reassuring the Muslim of Badajoz of the serious intents of the Leonese monarch in regard to Andalucia. It is likely,

then, that it had become an established fact before al-Mutawakkil of Badajoz ceded Lisbon, Santarem, and Sintra to Alfonso in late April and early May of 1093." All of this diplomatic manuevering, which involved the likelihood and then the fact of considerable territorial gain in the south, would have strengthened the Leonese monarch materially within his own realm. It would have been even more effective if it were accompanied, as seems probable, by the pregnancy of Zaida in late 1092 or early 1093 and thus raised the possibility of a male heir to the throne. Another avenue uniquely open to the assertion of the royal supremacy was the church, and Alfonso VI had been active in that arena more or less continuously but with special intensity since the Council of Le6én of 1090. The particular focus for royal efforts was the frontier district of Portugal.

With all due respects to the arguments from anthropology and linguistics, Portugal appears first in the western European world as a frontier district of the kingdom of Leén created by the Reconquista. Naturally difficult to control from the interior of the peninsula, it had alternated between the Muslim and the Christian worlds from the ninth to the eleventh centuries. Then the definitive reconquest of Coimbra by '' Jiménez de Rada, “De rebus Hispaniae,” p. 143. See Julio Gonzalez, Repoblacion de

Castilla la Nueva 1:190-91. '2 “Chronica Gothorum,” in David, Etudes historiques, pp. 300-301.

236 CHAPTER TWELVE Fernando I in 1064 secured all of Portugal north of Santarem for Leén-

Castilla. But isolated behind its mountains and easily approachable only from the north, that string of river valley facing the Atlantic presented the most onerous problems of government from this beginning. The instruments of royal authority there were three. In the first place were the merinos of the royal fisc. Those all-purpose estate officers are

fairly well attested for the reign of Fernando.'3 Then there were the chief magnates of the area who were tied to the royal dynasty by blood

relationship but whom Fernando I, it is argued, replaced late in his reign with lesser nobles identifiable with the merinos of the fisc.'4 However, in Alfonso VI’s reign there is scattered evidence that single individuals far above that humble level held the royal jurisdiction in the region about Braga." In the territory to the south in and around Coimbra a separate jurisdiction under the local Mozarab Sisnando Davidez existed from the early reign of Alfonso VI if not perhaps from the time of Fernando I as has been asserted. '° The third prop to the royal authority were the restored bishoprics of the province. In the time of Fernando I the sole bishop in the Christian territories there was Sisnando of Oporto, who figured prominently in that monarch’s diplomas and in those of Garcia I as well. But when Garcia restored the sees of Braga, Lamego, and Tty in 1070, the see of Oporto was subsumed into that of Braga.'7 It would vanish until ecclesiastical politics brought about its restoration in 1113. A little later the '3 Sept. 21, 1045. PMH, Diplomata, pp. 209-11. June 20, 1049. AHN, Lisbon, Corporacoées Religiosas, Colegiada de Guimaraes, Caixa 12, Maco 1, no. 1; and Coleccao Basto, no. 40, Livro de Mummadona, ff. 39v—40r; pub. PMH, Diplomata, pp. 226-27. Jan. 12, 1052. AHN, Lisbon, Coleccodes Religiosas, Suplemento, Sala 16, S. Pedro de Pedroso, Caixa 1, Maco 1, no. 12; pub. PMH, Diplomata, p. 234, but dated to 1053. June 10, 1056. AHN, Cédices, 986B, fol. 7v; also BN, Manuscritos, 712, fol. 403r—v; pub. Serrano y Sanz, ed., “IDDocumentos del monasterio de Celanova,” pp. 14-15. Mar. 10, 1065, AHN, Lisbon, Corporagoes Religiosas, Cabido de Sé da Coimbra, Maco 1, no. 12; pub. PMH, Diplomata, pp. 273-74, dated to 1063, and Lépez Ferreiro, Historia de Santiago de Compostela 2:242—44.

'¢ Torquato de Sousa Soares, “Refexdes a volta da segunda reconquista de Coimbra aos Mouros,” Homenaje a Fray Justo Pérez de Urbel, vol. 1 (Silos, 1976), p. 188, and Serrao, Histéria de Portugal, 1:64. 's Aug. 25, 1072. Braga, Arquivo Distrital, Liber Fidei, ff. 102r~103v, and ff. r12v— 113r. “Princeps ipsius terre ferrandus menendiz.” Apr. 19, 1107. DMP 2:216. “Imperante inter durio et tamice sarrazino osoriz.” '© His career has been traced most exhaustively by Garcia Gomez and Menéndez Pidal, “El conde mozarabe Sisnando.” More recently the documents they used have been called into question by Gérard Pradalié, “Les faux de la cathédrale.” Independent of the Coimbra documents, his earliest appearance is May 1, 1070. PMH, Diplomata, p. 303. '7 See chapter 2, notes 45 and 46. Also Costa, O Bispo D. Pedro 1:27 and 44.

THE SEARCH FOR A SUCCESSOR (1092-1096) 237 same fate was meted out to Lamego, whose bishop last appeared in a charter of July 29, 1071.18 Braga thus became the chosen instrument of the crown in Portugal between the Mino and Duero, and Bishop Pedro figured prominently in the charters making Alfonso VI’s return to power in the fall of 1072.9 The rise of a second ecclesiastical center on the Mondego River in the south at Coimbra seems to have been a result of local forces operating

on that far frontier. An interpolated document of April 13, 1086, ret-

rospectively attributes the appearance there of a Mozarab bishop named Paterno, formerly of Tortosa, to the initiative of Sisnando Davidez, but all we can say with assurance is that Paterno 1s reliably first cited as bishop on November 20, 1078.” He 1s last mentioned in that capacity on March 1, 1088, but never appears as confirmant of a royal document.?! Perhaps it is of some significance that in that final document the bishop was given permission to make a pilgrimage to the

Holy Land. |

Apparently a part of the royal agenda for the Council of Husillos of 1088 was the enhancing of royal control over Coimbra and its environs. The sole document of the council preserved to us was confirmed by a

Martin, bishop-elect of that see, and later in the same year a private document of Coimbra cited him, although still as bishop-elect.*? Pierre David identified him as prior of the cathedral chapter of Coimbra and as the protégé of Sisnando Davidez.?3 But if that magnate had proposed

him and Alfonso had accepted him it 1s difficult to see why he was never consecrated. This obscure dispute continued for in the following year one “Julian” appears as bishop and in Iog1 a “Juan.”?4 They are probably the same person. On August 25, 1091, Sisnando Davidez died after more than twenty years of semi-independent rule at Coimbra and was succeeded by his son-in-law, Martin Munoz, scion of a magnate family of Portugal. But Alfonso VI seems already to have lost patience with that state of '8 See chapter 2, note 65, and Costa, O Bispo D. Pedro 1:274. 19 See chapter 5, note 4.

0 See chapter 8, notes 30 and 29. 21 PMH, Diplomata, pp. 419-20. 22 See chapter 10, note 39, and Sept. 1088, PMH, Diplomata, p. 427. 23 “Regula Sancti Augustini, 4 propos d’une fausse chartre de fondation du chapitre de

Coimbre,” RPH 3 (1947): 29. David also accepted the Peter who confirmed the royal charter of May 8, 1080, as another contender for the see, but that is a simple scribal error and it is Peter of Braga who confirmed. See chapter 6, note 66. 24 Oct. 1089. PMH, Diplomata, p. 434, and Oct. 12, 1091. [bid., p. 454. 2s David, Etudes historiques, p. 300, and Mattoso, A nobreza medieval protuguesa (Lisbon,

1981), pp. 262-63.

238 CHAPTER TWELVE affairs and had secured the election of a new bishop at Easter time of 1091. The new bishop, Cresconio, was the former abbot of Saint Bartholomew of Tuy and may be regarded as essentially a royal choice. He was consecrated by that pillar of royal authority, the archbishop of Toledo, with the assistance of the bishops of Tuy and Orense.*° The participation of these latter, as well as later events, suggests that Cresconio would have been acceptable to Count Raymond of Galicia also. But the

consecration and installation of the royal candidate at Coimbra may have had to wait on the death of the magnate Sisnando.”7 Late in 1091 the king also acted against the audacious Pedro of Braga.

Before the end of the year he had forced that prelate to retire permanently into a monastery for having secured the restoration of the Bracaran archiepiscopate from the antipope Clement III.?* In June 1092 Archbishop Bernard of Toledo was representing the royal will when he consecrated Cresconio at Coimbra. He did so even more dramatically when he also consecrated the very cathedral of Braga itself on August 28, 1092, while its bishop languished in a monastery.” Thus at the very time when Alfonso VI was negotiating with al-Mutawakkil of Badajoz for the cession of Lisbon, Santarem, and Sintra he was also engaged in strengthening his hold over those Portuguese districts that would be crucial to the support and supply of the new acquisitions. 26 The date of Cresconio’s accession to Coimbra has been confused by a note in the Livro Preto of Coimbra, PMH, Diplomata, p. 461, which says that he was elected at the Council of Husillos on April 13, 1092, and ordained in the octave of Pentecost at Coimbra. All of that is patently erroneous but it has misled many who did not know all of the documents. Even Peter Feige, “Die Anfange des portugiesischen K6nigtums and seiner Landeskirche,” GAKS 29 (1978): 26-27, clings to the notion of a second council at Husillos in 1092. Feb. 26, 1095. PMH, Diplomata, pp. 485-86, gives Apr. 15, 1091, as the beginning of his pontificate. That is two days after Easter. “Anno episcopatus supradicti presulis III, Mense X, die mensis xii.” Mar. 3, 1095. Ibid. pp. 486-87, corroborates that year. Fortunato de Almeida, Histéria da Igreja em Portugal, vol. 1, new ed. (Porto, 1967), p. 268, n. 7, cites a document mentioning him as bishop in 1091. 27 If Cresconio dated his pontificate from the time of his election, his consecration could have taken around Pentecost of either 1091 or 1092. In both years that would have fallen in the second week of June. Since the note in the Livro Preto cites the approval of Martin Munoz rather than of Sisnando perhaps 1092 is to be preferred. June 11, 1092. PMH, Diplomata, p. 463, is the first reliable document that cites Cresconio as bishop. 8 Costa, O Bispo D. Pedro, pp. 248-53, based on the account in the “Vita Geraldi” in the PMH, Scriptores, p. $4. 70 Aug. 28, 1089. Braga, Arquivo Distrital, Gaveta 2 das propriedades do Cabido, no. 138; pub. Costa, O Bispo D. Pedro 2:411, who calls it an original but in fact it 1s a copy from the early twelfth century to judge by the script. The copyist has the date wrong for Bernard of Toledo was at court in Leén on Aug. 25, 1089, according to an original royal charter. See chapter 11, notes 8 and 9. There would be no such impediment in 1092, and the bishops of Tuy and Orense are said to have assisted at both the consecration of Cresconio and of the cathedral.

THE SEARCH FOR A SUCCESSOR (1092-1096) 239 These negotiations would have been in train while the court was in its customary Christmas location at Sahagtin. The curia can be placed there from January until April 3, 1093.3° Immediately after this latter date, however, the king must have left for Coimbra by way of Astorga, Orense, and Tuy, for we find him there on April 22, 1093, confirming the fuero he had granted that city in 1085.3' The urgency of the matter is obvious when we realize that the king was on the road even on the feast of Easter, which fell that year on April 17. He probably had celebrated it at Tuy. Those who confirmed Alfonso’s action at Coimbra suggest that the king had traveled with a very small court. In the document he is found

in the presence of Count Raymond of Galicia, of Martin Munoz of Coimbra, of Bishop Cresconio, and of Rodrigo, prior of the church of Braga. Doubtless the army he led was also composed chiefly of Galicians and Portuguese, for he must have led that force south from Coimbra to Santarem. The intervention of the Murabits in the peninsula had led to a resurgence of Islamic militancy among the populations of the taifa states. Neither al-Mutawakkil nor his lieutenants in Portugal could afford to be seen openly cooperating with the Christian, so a pretense of coercion must be arranged to justify what had already been concerted. The matter went smoothly and Santarem surrendered on April 30, followd by Lisbon on May 5, and Sintra on May 8, 1093.3? The whole of central Portugal north of the Rio Tajo had passed into the hands of Alfonso VI.

At the same time the king rewarded his son-in-law, Count Raymond, so that the latter became the second most important man in the kingdom of Leén-Castilla. Santarem, Lisbon, and Sintra were placed under his command.33 Then, or shortly thereafter, Martin Munoz was

removed from control at Coimbra. The latter seems to have held a lesser position for a time but then joined the Cid at Valencia and, after 3° Jan. 4, 1093. AHN, Céddices, 989B, ff. 116v—1171r; pub. Prieto Prieto, “Documentos de Sahagiin,” p. 530. Feb. 5, 1093. AC Leén, Céddice 11, ff. 86v—87r; pub. ES 36:79-80 append. Feb. 8, 1093. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 887, no. 7. Feb. 8, 1093. AHN, Céddices, 989B, ff. 94v—95r. Feb. 18, 1093. Ibid., fol. 104v. Feb. 22, 1093. Pub. Seraano, “Los Armildez de Toledo y el monasterio de Tértoles,” BRAH 103 (1933): 108-10, who redated it to 1097 on the basis of its confirmation by Bishop Garcia rather than Gomez of Burgos. A scribal error in the name 1s likely for the others who confirm support 1093. Mar. 23, 1093. Pub. Manueco Villalobos and Zurita Nieto, eds., Documentos de Valladolid 2:21-23. This document probably was issued at Sahagun as would have also the immediately preceding one. Neither the time nor the circumstances would have permitted a trip south and back. Apr. 3, 1093. AHN, Codices, 989B, ff. 9v—ror. 31 See chapter g, note 42. 32 David, Etudes historiques, pp. 300-301. 33 [bid.

240 CHAPTER TWELVE Rodrigo’s death, found hospitality at the court of Pedro I of Aragén.34 Under the count, the north Portuguese magnate Soeiro Mendes held the frontier cities just acquired, and Bishop Cresconio at Coimbra and Prior Rodrigo at Braga were pillars of his rule in those towns respectively.35 Raymond thus held the entire Atlantic coast of the peninsula from the bay at Lisbon to the Bay of Biscay in the north and inland to the mountains which formed a natural frontier at every point. It was a

principality of truly kingly proportions and dwarfed the territories controlled by a Garcia Ordonez, a Pedro Anstirez, or even a Cid. More than ever the Burgundian noble appeared to be the likely successor of Alfonso VI. From central Portugal the king traveled up the Tajo River to Toledo, but from then until late July the documentary record fails.3° On July 25, 1093, he granted a charter to the monastery of Valbanera in Rioja. He was perhaps at Najera if not at the monastery itself, and the royal diploma was confirmed by many Castilian magnates. Even more significant 1s the confirmation of Count Raymond, who had now become a major figure in the royal court.” But after so much good fortune the prospects of the Burgundian noble were about to suffer two major reverses. Sometime in 1093, perhaps on September 13, a male heir was born to the king. This was the son of Zaida, Sancho Alfénsez.3* Although much time would have to pass before it would become clear whether or not the infant would survive, for the mortality rate in the first year was on the order of one in four during the period, his birth at once distanced Raymond, Urraca, and their possible progeny from that succession to the throne which had recently seemed so secure. At about the same time, the count also lost a most influential friend at court when Queen Constance, his aunt, died. The queen had confirmed her husband’s charter of July 25, 1093, but that is her last known appearance in any document. When the king next becomes visible he is making two donations to the monastery of Sahagun on October 25, 1093. The lists of those who confirm indicate a major curia in process but Constance does not appear in either list. Both donations request 34 Aug. 10, 1094. PMH, Diplomata, pp. 481-82. “Tenente arauca martino monniz.” Also Pradalié, “Faux de Coimbre,” p. 80. 35 See note 32, and Mattoso, A nobreza medieval portuguesa, pp. 203-204, and 212-13. 36 See note 32.

37 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 1.064, no. 1, a fourteenth-century copy dated to July 25, 1081. The confirmants necessitate a date between 1088 and 1093 and only in the latter year does July 25 fall on a Monday as called for by the dating formula. 38 See note 10.

THE SEARCH FOR A SUCCESSOR (1092-1096) 241 prayers for the souls of both the king and queen, but in neither of them is the queen associated with Alfonso in the act of giving even though in one of them what was being conceded was clearly Constance’s property.3° In another great gathering at Sahagun, which was the occasion of his next known diploma on November 22, 1093, the king again endowed that monastery with property of the queen, this time of a palace she had had constructed near that monastery.*° These documents are the best indications that survive as to the date of Constance’s death. It is at least probable that the charters of October 25 followed hard on her obsequies. She was buried at Sahagtin alongside Queen Inés whom she had succeeded.#? However much the king might have been personally attached to his late consort, politically her death would have been regarded as providential. Alfonso, still but a vigorous fifty-six, was now free to remarry in search of more sons and legitimate ones. In addition to that great advantage, he was now also better able to distance his ambitious son-in-law somewhat more from the seat of power. The remainder of the year seems to have been spent at Sahagtin as well, surrounded by a court that now would have much to discuss indeed.43 Another event of importance which may have taken place in

November was the selection of a new bishop, Martin, for the see of Oviedo. Little is known about his early history except that he seems first to be mentioned in a document of late that month. *4 39 AHN, Coddices, 989B, fol. 4v; and 988B, ff. 17v-18r; pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahagun, pp. 490-91. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 887, nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. The earliest of these copies is no. 12 from the twelfth century. Also AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 7r—-v; and a late copy in Acad. Hist., Coleccion Salazar, 0-22, ff. 30-31. In this second charter, “Quod monasterium cum omnibus villis et hereditatibus sive possessionibus suis sicut eum obtinuit uxor mea.” 4° AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 4r—v; Acad. Hist., Coleccidn Salazar, 0-22, fol. 30r; pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahagtin, pp. 493-94. 41 The only contemporary witness reports “En el anno de veinte y siete de su rreino, la rreina dona Costanga, su muger, cerro el su postrimero dia.” Puyol y Alonso, eds., “Las cronicas anonimas de Sahaguin,” BRAH 76 (1920): 116. # [bid. #3 Dec. 2, 1093. AC Leon, reales, nos. 1.371 and 1.372; Cédice 11, ff. 28r—-29r; pub. ES 36:81-84 append., and Hinojosa, ed., Documentos de Leon y de Castilla, pp. 40-43. Dec. 27, 1093. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 116r—v; pub. Prieto Prieto, “Documentos de Sahagun,” pp. 531-32. A document of Alfonso VI dated only to 1093, pub. Quintana Prieto, El obispado de Astorga, p. 605, might have been drawn up at almost any time. 44 Nov. 30, 1093. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 1.240, no. 1. An original, private document of Samos. His predecessor, Arias, last appears in a document of July 31, 1092. See note 4. A mention of Martin in a private document of June 1092, pub. Pedro Floriano Llorente, ed., Coleccién diplomdtica del monasterio de San Vicente de Oviedo (Oviedo, 1968), pp. 18587, should be regarded with suspicion for this copy is very rough. If a document of Nov. 26, 1087, pub. Fita, “San Miguel de Escalada,” pp. 479-81, can be redated to 1092, on

242 CHAPTER TWELVE While Alfonso spent 1093 negotiating an agreement that would try to bolster al-Mutawakkil of Badajoz against the Murabits and simultaneously strengthening the western flank of his kingdom by vastly extending the authority of his son-in-law, Count Raymond, the initia-

tives of independent Christian powers were performing a parallel function on his eastern flank. The never-resting Sancho Ramirez of Aragon continued to preoccupy the taifa at Zaragoza with the raising of fortifications at Luna on the edge of the Riojan plain northeast of that city while his son, Pedro, similarly claimed the attentions of the taifa of

Lérida-Tortosa by seizing the castle of Almenar on the northern approaches to Lérida.45 Contemporary efforts of the Murabit emir, Yu- suf, to cultivate and encourage his coreligionists in the northeast limited themselves to diplomatic contacts with al-Mustain of Zaragoza.‘ Little more was done by his son, Muhammed ibn-Aisa, who watched without action the return of the Cid to the taifa of Valencia, the expulsion of the token force he had sent to aid the revolutionary regime there, and the resumption by the latter of the payment of parias to the Castilian. Even when this uneasy accord between the new Valencian re-

gime and the Cid broke down in July 1093 and the latter undertook a siege of the city, the Murabit response was slow and faint-hearted. An army from Andalucia marched into the southern reaches of the taifa and then precipitately withdrew without offering combat.47 Valencia was left to its fate. But the activities of the Murabits were quite other in relation to the “renegade” Muslim ruler of Badajoz, al-Mutawakkil. There the cousin of Emir Yusuf, Sir ibn-Abu Bakr, apparently took advantage of the late winter season, which prevented assistance from the Christian north, to act against the city on the Guadiana. Early in 1094 Badajoz fell prey to

a combination of treachery and determined assault. Its former king, along with two of his sons, was murdered on the road from Badajoz to Sevilla by his captors.4® The Murabit empire was now coterminous grounds of its confirmation by Gomez Gonzalez as alférez, and that Friday fell on that day in the latter year, then Bishop Arias was still in office. 45 Aubieto Arteta, Historia de Argon, pp. 108~12. It is possible, as the author believes, that the Aragonese monarch made a strong feint against Tortosa while Pedro concentrated on Almenar, but it is more likely that the evidence he cites relates to the joint expedition with Alfonso VI of the prior year. 4° Turk, Reino de Zaragoza, pp. 167-68. 47 As usual, Huici Miranda, Historia musulmana de Valencia 2:57—-81, offers a careful account of developments, a critique of the literature of the Cid cycle, and a refutation of Menéndez Pidal’s use of the latter. 48 Abd Allah, El siglo XI en 1° persona, pp. 293-96.

THE SEARCH FOR A SUCCESSOR (1092-1096) 243 with Andalucia in Spain. An autonomous Spanish Islam survived only in the embattled taifas of the northeast. In Leén-Castilla the year opened as usual with the court at Sahagun in January and early February.4? On February 28, 1094, however, the king at least seems to have been in the monastery of San Millan de La

Cogolla not far off the pilgrimage road from France to Santiago de Compostela. Presumably Alfonso had accompanied his friend, the archbishop of Toledo, that far on the latter’s journey to the south of France.5° By the middle of April the king and his court were back at Leén and remained in the Leén-Sahagtin area until early May.5' After that, there is a lacuna in the documentary record which endures until late fall. The gap was filled with military activity for virtually the entire

border between Christianity and Islam in the peninsula erupted into major hostilities.

The spring of the year saw the unquiet Sancho Ramirez of Aragén establishing a siege of the city of Huesca, the linchpin of the defense line of Zaragoza in the northeast. There, on July 4, 1094, that monarch was struck and killed by an enemy arrow. The siege had to be raised but the

young Pedro I, his oldest son who had already been associated in the reign with his father from 1085, succeeded with no difficulty to both the realm and the policies of his father. >?

Less than three weeks before that misfortune, on June 15, 1094, the great city of Valencia had surrendered to the Cid.53 The passage of that taifa into Christian hands was an event that much overshadowed the death of the king of Aragon in the eyes of Christian and Muslim alike. Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar had now truly become one of the princes of the peninsula and was shortly to give convincing proof that he was able to maintain himself as such. For, just as did the fall of Toledo, the fall of the taifa of Valencia was to provoke a major reaction in Murabit North Africa. Yusuf ibn-Tashufin himself directed the embarkation of new forces from his port at Ceuta. Commanded by a nephew, Muhammed, this nucleus rallied around its reinforcements drawn widely from Andalucia, but it does not seem to have reached Valencia before Septem49 Jan. 5, 1094. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 887, no. 16. Feb. 2, 1094. AHN, Codices, 989B, ff. 1sov—15tr. Feb. 17, 1094. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 887, no. 18; copy in ibid., Cddices, 989B, fol. 127r; pub. Prieto Prieto, “Documentos de Sahagiin,” p. 532. © Serrano, ed., Cartulario de San Millan, pp. 283-85. s' Apr. 13, 1094. AC Leon, no. 995, an original royal charter; a copy in Cddice 11, fol. 73r-v. May 2, 1094. AHN, Codices, 989B, fol. 125r. May 4, 1094. Ibid., fol. 119Vv. ‘2 Ubieto Arteta, Historia de Aragon, pp. 116-18. Turk, Reino de Zaragoza, pp. 168-70. The new king is the only peninsular monarch of the period whose charters have been critically edited. Ubieto Arteta, ed., Coleccién diplomdtica de Pedro I. 83 Huici Miranda, Historia musulmana de Valencia 2:82—-114.

244 CHAPTER TWELVE ber. There in October it was defeated at Cuart de Poblet by the Cid, who staged an audacious sally and surprise attack from the city. *4 That victory solidified the Castilian’s hold over Valencia and its territories in a fashion that even he could not have anticipated. Hence there is nothing inherently unlikely in Rodrigo’s reported attempts to secure a reconciliation with Alfonso VI, though we need not accept the trap-

ping of feudalism which form that overture’s literary adornment.®’ These would logically have begun in June but would also have assumed

pressing urgency as the Murabit army began its advance toward the city. For his part, Alfonso had solid reasons for wishing his erstwhile vassal well. Thus mutual self-interest dictated that the Cid should ask the aid of the Leonese monarch and that the latter should respond. We may safely assume that Alfonso already had a force in the field in the summer of 1094 and that he responded to Rodrigo’s appeal for help with the intention of operating in the rear of the besieging force. But when the Cid’s surprising victory made that unnecessary he took advantage of the Muslim disarray to raid deep into the territory of Granada and to bear off large numbers of the Christian subject population there and to repopulate the lands around Toledo with them. °° Despite these exploits the year was to end with a major Christian defeat in the far west. There the Murabit governor of Sevilla, Sir, had followed up his conquest of Badajoz with a campaign in central Portugal,

in the course of which he seems to have retaken Lisbon itself. Our source for what followed is the “Historia Compostelana” whose author, writing thirty-five years later, describes a Portuguese expedition in which Diego Gelmirez took part as a young man. An army of Galicians led by Count Raymond was surprised and surrounded in its camp near Lisbon by a Muslim force and suffered great casualties. ‘7 While the date of this calamity is not supplied it must have been in the

latter part of November 1094. A charter of Count Raymond to the church of Coimbra put him there on November 13, 1094, together with a large concourse of Galicians including his alférez his majordomo, and Diego Gelmirez, who confirmed as the count’s notary.°>* $4 Tbid., pp. 114-37. ss Menéndez Pidal, Espana del Cid 1:495—506. 6 Tbn-Idari, Al-Bayan-al-mugrib, pp. 84-85. Huici Miranda, Historia musulmana de Va-

lencia, p. 118, rejects the story of this Alfonsine expedition, alleging that Alfonso would not have had time to raise an army. He has no firmer basis for doing so than that only Ibn-Idari relates it. 37 ES 20:360. For the date of composition, see Reilly, “The “Historia Compostelana,’ ” . 83.

P ss AHN. Lisbon, Sé da Coimbra, Maco 1, nos. 1 and 2, both copies of the fourteenth century; pub. PMH, Diplomata, pp. 484-85.

THE SEARCH FOR A SUCCESSOR (1092-1096) 245 They were on their way south to the battle which turned out so disastrously. The king and the major armies of the kingdom were not involved. Neither the chronicler nor the count’s charter gives any indication of the presence of any save Galicians and Portuguese. Rather, the royal court was in winter quarters at Sahagun on November 29, 1094.°9 From that vantage point Alfonso could look back over a year of campaigning whose results were at least moderately satisfactory. If Lisbon had been lost and Count Raymond defeated in the west, the central frontier of Toledo had been reinforced in a major way by the infusion of Mozarab Christian settlers and the Muslim south weakened and im-

poverished by the same act. The eastern frontier was also much strengthened by the Cid’s triumph at Cuart de Poblet and by the smooth succession of Pedro I to his father Sancho Ramirez in Aragon. But the king had been even more successful on the diplomatic front where he was able to secure results that bolstered his internal control in the realm. The agent of this good fortune was Archbishop Bernard of Toledo whom we last saw 1n the north of Castilla at San Millan de La Cogolla with the king in February. After that time, Bernard was absent from all the documents until that of November 29, 1094, mentioned just above. The prelate had spent the spring and summer in the south of France, in good measure at the court of Urban II. Doubtless the archbishop had a varicty of charges to execute, but the most important piece of ecclesi-

astical business he had to transact dealt with the see of Santiago de Compostela. That great shrine church was the focus of a pilgrimage whose popularity in the world of western Europe was growing at an enormously rapid rate in the eleventh century. Its patron, reputedly the only apostle buried in the west except for Peter and Paul at Rome, was

the center of a popular cult that increasingly was transforming St. James the Great into the patron of the Reconquista, Santiago Matamoros. The literature of that mutation begins to appear in the early twelfth century but, as always, literature follows life.° All of these developments were turning that isolated, sleepy see into one of the great-

est churches of the kingdom. Nevertheless, the bishopric there had been vacant since 1088. Certainly that vacancy existed not by royal choice but out of the pertinacity of its bishop, Diego Pelaez, deposed at Husillos in 1088 but un‘9 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 887, no. 22; and Cddices, 989B, ff. 27r-28r. 6° Pérez de Urbel and Gonzalez Ruiz-Zorilla, eds., Historia Silense, pp. 191-93, is the earliest manifestation of which I am currently aware and it dates between 1110 and 1120.

240 CHAPTER TWELVE reconciled to the loss of his see. We do not know where he was in 1094

but he will shortly appear in Arag6n at the court of Pedro I. Urban Il had rejected the action of the Council of Husillos and had summoned

Bishop Diego to Rome for a canonical trial, but we do not know whether or not that doughty cleric actually had gone. Nevertheless, he had contrived somehow to keep his cause alive at Rome and his seat vacant at Compostela.*! Now the king had struck on a device to end the galling stalemate and it was Bernard’s job to secure papal acquiescence.

The “Historia Compostelana” says that Alfonso, his son-in-law Raymond, and his daughter Urraca, with the counsel of the clergy and people of Compostela, chose a Cluniac monk to be the new bishop. This choice was approved by the abbot of Cluny and eventually by Rome.® The royal initiative in securing the pro forma “election” of the monk Dalmacio to the see was certainly concerted in advance with Abbot Hugh of Cluny Archbishop Bernard would have had his former

mentor’s enthusiastic support, then, when he approached Urban II about the matter in the summer of 1094. Presumably he would also have had the support of Count Raymond of Toulouse, now married to Alfonso VI’s daughter Elvira and also active at the papal court as it journeyed through his territories.°} In addition, relations between Alfonso and Urban seem to have been good at the time. In the same year

the king had agreed that the important Castilian monastery of Ona should come under papal protection and render an annual tribute to the pontiff. %4

Moved by all these considerations, and whatever merits of the case were presented to him by the Toledan archbishop, Urban II agreed to the election of Dalmacio. It is possible that he personally consecrated him bishop at some time in the late summer. Though we do not have any direct statement to that effect it would have been appropriate and fitting to have done so when Urban consecrated the great altar at Cluny on October 18, 1094.% Yet if Dalmacio’s consecration took place so late

he could hardly have reached Coimbra by November 13, 1094, where

| his confirmation as bishop first appears in a charter of Count Raymond. At any rate the papal recognition of a new bishop for Santiago de Compostela enabled the king to demonstrate to his magnates the 61 Ubieto Arteta, “E] destierro del obispo compostelano Diego Pelaez,” pp. 43-51, 1s a useful study of the question. 6 ES 20:20 63 Hill and Hill, Raymond IV de Saint-Gilles (Toulouse, 1959), pp. 19~20. 64 Alamo, ed., Coleccion diplomdtica de San Salvador de Ofia 1:13 1-32. 6s Rivera Recio, La Iglesia de Toledo, p. 144. 66 See note 58.

THE SEARCH FOR A SUCCESSOR (1092-1096) 247 strength of his influence and the number of his allies beyond the limits of the realm. It is also entirely reasonable to believe that Archbishop Bernard had had yet another diplomatic mission, of a quite different nature but just as important. After all, he had gone abroad in March and Urban II did not arrive in France until August. The interim was spent by Bernard in negotiating a new marriage for his royal master. Bishop Pelayo tells us

that Alfonso’s third wife was “Bertram, Tuscia oriundam.” The “Anonymous of Sahagtn” calls her “otra muger de la nacion de Lombardia, llamada Berta.”®? The availability of this north Italian noblewoman may have come to the notice of Alfonso’s ambassadors when they were negotiating the treaty that provided Genoese and Pisan naval assistance for his abortive siege of Valencia in 1092. Now she was to be married to the king during the Christmas season of 1094.°° She may well have journeyed to Leén in the company of the archbishop in Oc-

tober and November. :

This new marriage of the king continued his long preoccupation with guaranteeing the future of the dynasty by the provision of male heirs, but it also marked a surprising departure from his past practice. For the first time he had sought a bride other than one of the daughters of the south French feudal princes whose relatives might be of occasional help. It would be a mistake to see that choice as anything other than a deliberate act of policy. Alfonso had just buried a wife who was closely related to Count Raymond, Count Henry, and Abbot Hugh of Cluny. The king could just as easily have married some other product of that network of family alliances. That he chose not to do so argues his desire to diminish their influence in his court and realm. Yet such a change was a public act which must provoke a reaction and a crisis. Count Raymond of Galicia and Portugal had seen his prospects wax steadily since his arrival in the kingdom. First as the betrothed and then

as the husband of Urraca, the eldest daughter of a king who had no sons, his position as potential successor was patent to all observers from the beginning. The death of the king’s only living brother, Garcia, in March 1090 made the count’s claim even stronger. Garcia had a °7 Sanchez Alonso, ed., Cronica del Obispo Don Pelayo, p. 86. Puyol y Alonso, ed., “Las cronicas anonimas de Sahagun,” BRAH 76 (1920): 116 6® Ibid. The “Anonymous” reports that in 1100 “la rreina dona Berta, apenas conplidos seis annos del matrimonia, pago la dueda.” Jan. 25, 1100. AHN, Céddices, 989B, ff. 1ov— rir; Clero, Carpeta 890, no. 4, with a date of Jan. 15, 1100; pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahagtin, pp. 499-501, with the erroneous date of Feb. 1, 1100; and Bruel, Recueil des chartes 5:83-86, from a French copy with the date of Jan. 25, 1100. The first document that mentions her as queen is dated Apr. 28, 1095. AHN, Céddices, 989B, ff. 28v—z29r.

248 CHAPTER TWELVE son, Fernando Garcia, who became quite an influential figure during the reign of his aunt, Queen Urraca.°? The complete silence of the chroniclers in regard to him, however, suggests strongly that he was illegitimate and born of a liaison during the period of Garcia’s imprisonment. The Historia Silense reported that Alfonso considered naming Garcia, not his son, as his successor.” Yet it was to Raymond that the “Chronicon Compostellanum” says Alfonso promised the kingdom.?! Even if the promise remained implicit, rather than formal and explicit as the chronicler states, after the death of Garcia in 1090 its content seemed destined to fulfillment. Yet events had taken a disturbing turn for the Burgundian since the middle of 1092 when Alfonso had taken Zaida as a mistress. The birth of a son to that Muslim princess in September 1093 cast a long shadow over the hopes of the count and his wife. Still, little Sancho Adefénsez was illegitimate, born of a Muslim mother, and quite possible would not live out his first year as so many infants did not. In that very spring the king had extended the sway of Raymond from Galicia and the county of Portugal to the south at Coimbra, Lisbon, Sintra, and Santarem. The count could afford to wait. But then Queen Constance, his aunt, had died in the fall of 1093. Discussions must have begun in the Christmas court of that year, if not earlier, as to the choice of a new queen and evidently did not take a direction congenial to the count despite his presence.7? Discussions and even negotiations still are not a marriage so that he could afford to continue to wait and to rely on chance or the gentle suasions of his great-uncle Abbot Hugh of Cluny or the French Cluniac Urban II to prevent the ultimate realization of such plans.

In early 1094 the king and Raymond were still able to cooperate as evidence by their agreement on the Cluniac Dalmacio for the see of Compostela. Sometime in that same year the count’s jurisdiction may even have further extended to Zamora on the western edge of the meseta itself. A fuero, or charter of privileges, that Raymond and Urraca granted to the inhabitants of a village just outside that town is dated to that year. There is little reason not to accept it except that no other notices exist of the count’s authority in that area until 1096.73 Before the 69 See Reilly, Leén-Castilla under Queen Urraca, pp. 221-22.

7° Ubieto Arteta and Ruiz-Zorrilla, eds., p. 124. “Considerabat namque Adefonsus hunc interim salva pace post se regnaturum.” 7 ES 20:611. “cui totum suum Regnum jurejurando pollicitus fuerat.” 72 The documents indicate his presence at court from November 1093 to February 2, 1094. See notes 40 and 49. 73 AC Zamora, Tumbo Negro, ff. 121v-122r; Tumbo Blanco, fol. 61v; BN, Manuscritos, 714, fol. 164v; Acad. Hist., Coleccién de documentos y privilegios, I, fol. 2; pub.

THE SEARCH FOR A SUCCESSOR (1092~—1096) 249 end of the year he was obviously in control of some of the fisc lands in Portugal as evidence by his grant to the church of Coimbra on November 13, 1094.74 Certainly he would have had control of the fisc lands assigned to the infantaticum, that 1s, set aside for the support of an infanta,

since his marriage to Urraca. A further authority over fisc lands assigned to the comitatum, that is, the maintenance of the comital power, had been his since his appointment to the countship in Galicia and Portugal. Whether or not he had come to control all land of the royal fisc

in these territories is impossible to say on the basis of the extant evidence.75 The Coimbra charter also gives the first evidence that Raymond now was surrounded by a court of his own, boasting a majordomo, an alférez, and a notary. But none of these trappings or authority sufficed either to prevent the marriage of his king to the Italian Berta in December 1094 or to content the count in acquiescence to that development. He was not at court for the royal marriage. Neither the one document we possess for late 1094 nor the numerous documents for early 1095 through late April disclose the Burgundian’s presence in the royal entourage at Sahagun.” In February we glimpse the count in Galicia and Portugal. On February 11, 1095, he granted a charter to the bishopric of Tuy while visiting that city.77 By February 25, 1095, he had moved south to Coimbra where he issued another charter to the monastery of Montemor.7* Such a deliberate and unforgiveable slight, for Infanta Urraca was with him, would have alerted everyone at court to the trouble that was brewing. Indeed there seems already to have been some choosing of sides for Munoz y Romero, ed., Colleccién de fueros municipales y cartas pueblas, pp. 332-33. The twenty-four charters of Raymond known to me at present are completely unedited and are so few in any event that paleographic or diplomatic norms have not been established which would permit a sure critique. It is obvious that they do not follow the usages of the Alfonsine chancery except in its very broadest outlines.

74 See note §8. .

75 For the utilization of the fisc lands see Reilly, Leén-Castilla under Queen Urraca, pp. 259-69. 76 Nov. 29, 1094. See note 59. Jan. 11, 1095. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 888, no. 2. Jan. 13,

1095. Ibid., no. 3. Feb. 15, 1095. Pub. Jess Munoz y Rivero, Manual de paleografta diplomdtica espariola de los siglos XII al XVII, 2d ed. (Madrid, 1917), pp. 152-53. Feb. 27, 1095. Ahn, Cédices, 989B, ff. 66v—66r. Mar. 9, 1095. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 959, no. 16, and a copy in Carpeta 960, no. 11, dated to Mar. 13. Apr. 11, 1095. AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 81r; pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahagiin, pp. 496-97. Apr. 28, 1095. AHN, Codices, 989B, ff. 28v—2or. 77 AC Tuy, 4/1; also copies in 3/1, 4/4, and Becerro 1; pub. Pascual Galindo Romeo, Tuy en la Baja Edad Media (Madrid, 1950), pp. 11~—vi. Another later copy exists in AG Simancas, Seccion de Gracia y Justicia, legajo 1.672, varios, Tuy, no. 14, ff. 18v—2ov. 72 AHN, Lisbon, Coleccao Basto, no. 2, fol. §7r—-v.

250 CHAPTER TWELVE the bishops of Tuy and Coimbra were implicated by the charters just mentioned. The new bishop of Santiago de Compostela, Dalmacio, was conspicuous by his absence from the comital entourage while the future bishop of that see, Diego Gelmirez, continued to serve as Raymond’s notary. The commander at Santarem, Sociro Mendes, and the commander around Coimbra, Soeiro Fromariques, both appear there. More ominously perhaps, so does Count Froila Diaz of Astorga and the Bierzo, who was in a position to control the passages from Le6én to Galicia-Portugal.

In the meanwhile Alfonso VI and his new qucen had undertaken a progress through the realm. A royal charter of May 7, 1095, seems to place them already in Toledo.7”? On May 21, 1095, the court was at Val-

ladolid, on its way north again, where it participated in the consecration of the splendid new collegiate church constructed there under Count Pedro Anstrez’s patronage.*° This celebration and council of the realm attended by seven bishops and eight counts had obviously been preceded by serious negotiation for Count Raymond was there as well. What was discussed is unknown, but subsequent developments indicate that no resolution was effected. On June 2, 1095, Alfonso was back at Sahagun but Raymond appears not to have been.*! The progress of the king and his bride continued with a trip north to Oviedo where they are found on July 16, 1095.°? From July 23, toJuly 31, 1095, the court was back again in Sahagun.?3 77 AHN, Microfilmas, Palencia, rollo 1.658, no. 10; and a copy in Acad. Hist., Catedrales de Esparia, Palencia, 9-25-1-C-6, ff. 32r-34r; pub. Fernandez de Pulgar, Historia secular y eclesidstica de Palencia 1:139~-40. The charter is one of the few of Alfonso VI to mention the place of issue and the patronymic of the alférez is misconstrued by the copyist, but the diplomatic seems sound. But the royal court would have to have left Sahaguin before April 28 (see note 76) to have reached Toledo by May 7. 80 A donation of Pedro Anstrez, pub. Pulgar, Historia de Palencia 1:135-37; and Manueco Villalobos and Zurita Nieto, eds., Documentos de Valladolid 1:24-54; and another copy in Acad. Hist., Catedrales de Espana, Valladolid, 9-25-1-C-4, ff. 3r-6v, dated to May 21, 1094. A donation of Bishop Raymond of Palencia, pub. Manueco Villalobos and Zurita Nieto, eds., Documentos de Valladolid, 1:55-58. 51 AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 128v. 82 Pub. Garcia Larragueta, Coleccién de Oviedo, pp. 290-92. Fernandez Conde, El Libro de Testamentos, pp. 310-13, believes this private charter to be falsified, but I suspect that the confirmants were taken from a genuine document of this date. 83 AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 95r—v, and ff. 129v—130r. A visit to Castilla is also argued sometime during this year, probably in June, by the fuero of Logronio issued by Alfonso sometime in 1094 and also by the king’s confirmation of a private donation to San Millan de La Cogolla in the same year. See BN, Manuscritos, 9.194, ff. 11r-12v; pub. Munoz y Romero, ed., Coleccién de Fueros, pp. 334-43; and Serrano, Cartulario de San Millan, pp. 287-88, respectively.

THE SEARCH FOR A SUCCESSOR (1092—1096) 251 While the king was playing his game by canvassing the realm for support and displaying his prestige as embodicd in yet another foreign bride, Count Raymond had yet some counters of his own to play. That strange document, the pact of succession, was probably a product of the period between December 1094 and July 1095. The text survives only in a late copy of unknown but probably Cluniac provenance and is itself undated. It takes the form of a brief note to Abbot Hugh of Cluny in which counts Raymond and Henry include a copy of the oaths they have mutually sworn as Hugh had bid them and which note is entrusted to the abbot’s envoy, Dalmacio Geret. In it Henry swears to support Raymond faithfully to help him obtain after Alfonso’s death “hanc totam terram regis Aldephonsi,” and to surrender to Raymond two-thirds of the treasury of Toledo if Henry seizes it first. In return,

Raymond swears to support Henry faithfully, to grant to him “Toletum terramque totam subjacentem ei” under the customary conditions after the death of Alfonso, and Henry will thereupon surrender to Raymond “omnes terras de Leon et de Castella.” Raymond further swears

to give Henry a third of the treasury of Toledo and to grant “Galaeciam” to him, upon Henry’s helping him to secure Leén and Castilla and then surrendering them to him, if Raymond then finds himself unable to grant Henry Toledo. Ever since the pact first came to light, its proper date has been the subject of argument among historians. Its most recent editor has surveyed the literature and opts merely to assign it to the period 10951107.%4 Since Azevedo did his masterly edition, however, the argument has been taken up once more by Charles Julian Bishko in a careful and extended study and the pact dated to 1105 on the basis of the conjunc-

tion of a number of complex assumptions.*s At the proper points we shal] have to encounter all those arguments, but for now it may suffice to point out that Bishko’s dating itself depends on redating one document from 1108 to 1105 and accepting the date of 1106 for another, which must have been at least seven years earlier.*°

But by the end of 1094, as already shown, the motivations existed that would produce the pact. Raymond and Henry were faced by the fact that Alfonso now had a male heir, that Queen Constance was dead, and that their chief support at court had been replaced by an Italian consort who was a living symbol of the king’s desire to avoid excessive dependence on the Burgundians. Abbot Hugh of Cluny, whose initiative ’4 DMP, 1, pt. 1:1-2; and 1, pt. 2:547-53. *’s “Count Henrique of Portugal, Cluny, and the antecedents of the Pacto Sucess6rio,” RPH 13 (1970): 155-88. *6 Tbid., pp. 185-86.

252 CHAPTER TWELVE the text makes so apparent, was faced by the loss of the annual cens as the Murabits overran the taifas one by one and Leén-Castilla lost the parias that had facilitated its payment. Moreover, the pact cannot be dated later than 1095 for it is apparent that it was made before Henry had become count of Portugal. Although Raymond does not explicitly refer to himself as count of Galicia, the text makes clear he was. He was in a position to grant Galicia to Henry if he must, and the whole point of the agreement was to provide a means to take possession of Leén, Castilla, and Toledo on Alfonso’s death. Galicia he already held! Of Portugal there is no mention at all and the argument, dearly beloved by Portuguese historians who prefer a constitutional basis for the eventual independence which that

territory would win, that this silence was simply due to Alfonso VI having granted it in perpetuity to Henry is simply incredible.*”? To imagine that an agreement to divide an entire kingdom between two cousins would have totally ignored an extant major holding of one out of respect for legal niceties ignores the dynamics of such plots. Portugal was not mentioned separately because it was then nothing more than a part of Galicia and therefore of Raymond’s holdings! It is also noticeable in the language of the pact that it is anticipated that Henry will be important precisely in securing Leén and Castilla for his cousin. The expectation is not that, as was the fact eventually, he will be in Portugal and hence isolated and handicapped in seizing control of the meseta. The proper inference is that Raymond will likely be far away in Galicia and that Henry will be in Leén and in a position to seize the initiative. The pact of succession of 1095 was an act of treason. It was not a legal brief that argued Raymond ’s right to the throne as against others. The pact assumed his right and made plans for action to realize it upon the

king’s death. Although Alfonso may not have known the terms, the importance of the three principals made it inevitable that he would at least quickly come to know of their negotiations and agreement. He could guess its general import well enough, but the conspirators could not be simply attacked frontally without major damage to the realm and to himself. 87 Pierre David, “Le pacte successoral entre Raymond de Galice et Henri de Portugal,” BH 50 (1948): 275-90, accepts this hypothesis and places the pact about 1105-1107. He bolstered it by demonstrating that Dalmacio Geret was not known to have been in the peninsula before 1100. The argument from silence is very weak indeed in a period of such few documents and the laconic character of those which do survive. His viewpoint has been widely accepted, however. See Defourneaux, Les francais en Espagne, pp. 198-99; Maur Cocheril, Etudes sur le monachisme en Espagne et au Portugal (Lisbon, 1966), pp. 12223; and A. H. de Oliveira Marques, History of Portugal, vol. 1 (New York, 1972), p. 38.

THE SEARCH FOR A SUCCESSOR (1092-1096) 253 The Leonese monarch nevertheless had to maintain the initiative against such a challenge, and the deference and respect due to the regal “anointed of God” could be utilized to ensure the most audacious actions to that end. The progress he had been making through the realm with his new queen furnished the formal vehicle for Alfonso’s riposte.

In midsummer he and queen entered the Galician territories of Raymond and on August 10, 1095, met with his son-in-law, with the latter’s supporter, Count Froila Diaz, and with the Galician bishops of Santiago de Compostela, of Lugo, and of Mondonedo, at the monastery of Samos.** Negotiations there must have been at least partially successful for the party now continued into the very heart of Count Raymond’s domains. On September 24, 1095, the count issued a charter of safe conduct to the merchants of Santiago de Compostela and both Alfonso and Queen Berta confirmed it.’9 The crisis had now passed. Royal panache had overridden the challenge to its authority, and royal politics would now nullify the pact of succession. Presumably the royal court returned to Le6én or Sahagtin in late Sep-

tember or early October while good weather in the northwest still made that journey somewhat comfortable. In fact, we cannot locate Alfonso for the remainder of the year for the lack of documents. The well-known fuero of Santarem, dated to November 13, 1095, does not place the court in that frontier town nor could it have been issued even at Leén in that year. That charter must be redated either to 1093 or 1094

for only then, among the possible datings, would the archbishop of Toledo have been able to confirm it as he did.9° In November 1095 Bernard of Toledo was in France attending the Council of Clermont.

Sometime during the ensuing year, Alfonso was able to write a definitive end to the prospect of the Burgundian courts and cousins, Raymond and Henry, combining against him. The price was high but he ** BN, Manuscritos, 18.387, fol. 300r, is a notice of a private charter which bears their confirmations. Other private documents of Aug. 9, 1095, and Aug. 13, 1095, reveal the presence as well of the bishop of Leon and of the royal majordomo. Ibid., fol. 300v, and ES 40:189.

’» AC Compostela, Tumbo A, fol. 28v; and Chartularum, ff. 66v—67v; pub. Lopez Ferreiro, Historia de Compostela 3:36-39 append.

%° AHN, Lisbon, Cabido da Sé de Coimbra, Maco 1, nos. 43 and 44. Both are copies from the late twelfth century. Pub. PMH, Diplomata, pp. 348-50. The document must postdate the acquisition of Santarem in April 1093 and predate the death of Bishop Gomez of Burgos, who also confirmed, in February 1097. In November 1096 Archbishop Bernard of Toledo was again abroad. Of 1093 and 1094 the former is the most likely on a number of counts. For one, the language of the document suggets a recent acquisition of the town. “tradidit civitatem sancte herene in manibus meis quod incredibile ab omnibus aliquando erat.”

254 CHAPTER TWELVE was able to transform the two from allies into rivals by the expedient of

marrying his natural daughter Teresa to Henry and then bestowing upon the latter all of the Portuguese lands from the Rio Mino in the north to Santarem in the south. If Teresa was the second daughter of the royal concubine Jimena Mufioz, as suggested by the order of her mention by Bishop Pelayo, then she could not have been much more than eleven years of age at the most if the liaison of the former with the

king had begun in 1081.9! Nonetheless, her royal blood effectively placed Count Henry almost alongside Raymond as a contender for the throne of Alfonso VI while her dowry reduced by half the territories under Raymond’s control. Whether Urraca’s husband was present for these royal maneuvers and had even had to participate in their ceremonial aspects with every appearance of good grace, we cannot know for lack of documentation.

Certainly a charter of Count Raymond to the Galician monastery of San Lorenzo of Carboeiro dated to January 11, 1096, must be redated to after 1099 on the basis of its confirmation by the bishops Diego Gelmirez of Compostela and Diego of Orense.9? The royal court can be confidently placed in the Sahagtin area from early February through early April of 1096, but neither Count Raymond nor Count Henry ap-

pears to be in residence. Ifa very problematic charter of Count Raymond to the monastery of Sahagtin could be dated to May 1, 1096, then it would seem that the count was at court by that date.°* Unfortunately the document has been

reworked in some degree and, as it stands, has been confirmed by Archbishop Bernard of Toledo who only three weeks later was in Toulouse. If the general facts of the document were to be accepted, how-

ever, it would evidence that by this date Henry had not yet become 9 Sanchez Alonso, ed., Cronica del Obispo Don Pelayo, pp. 86-87. 9 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 1.784, no. 2; pub. Lucas Alvarez, “La colecci6n diplomatica de San Lorenzo de Carboeiro,” pp. 276-77. Sanchez Belda, ed., Documentos reales de la Edad Media, no. 170, simply regards it as a forgery.

93 Feb. 3, 1096. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 1.740, no. 9. Feb. 5, 1096. AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 83v. Mar. 5, 1096. Ibid., ff. 138v—139r. Mar. 6, 1096. AC Leén, Cédice 11, ff. 81v—82v; pub. ES 36:84—-87 append. Apr. 1, 1096. Pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahaguin, p.

a AHN, Coédices, 989B, ff. 172v-173r. Escalona, Historia de Sahagun, p. 506, published it under date of May 1, 1106, which date was accepted by Bishko, “Pacto Success6rio,” p. 185, and used to bolster the latter’s dating of that pact. That date is far too late, however, for by that time Diego Gelmirez had been bishop of Compostela for six years but he confirms this document as “clericus sci. iacobi.” The date as it appears in the extant “Becerro Gotico” in the AHN 1s partially obliterated.

THE SEARCH FOR A SUCCESSOR (1092-1096) 255 count in Portugal and that negotiations between Alfonso and the two Burgundians were still likely in train. As late as October 1, 1096, a private document will cite Henry as count in Tordesillas and Raymond as holding Coria and Zamora.» It is dubious that the scribe would have ignored the grant of the county of

Portugal to Henry, and so that might not have yet occurred. On the other hand it is obvious that Count Henry began very energetically to see to the proper ordering of his new domains which process was as crucial to the defense of the realm as it was to its internal tranquility. The fueros issued to Guimaraes and Constantim de Panoias in 1096 il-

lustrate the sort of administrative business and detail that began to claim his attention immediately upon his accession to practical power on this frontier of the realm.” For the remainder of May there are notices of the court at Sahagun.9” Then by July 9, 1096, it had moved east to Burgos where, it should be remarked, disputants from the Galician monastery of Samos and the Galician Count Pedro Fréilaz sought him out for judgment.9? However strong Count Raymond might be, this incident demonstrates that his province of Galicia was never simply closed to royal authority. Julio Gonzalez thought that the king then moved south to Buitrago, twenty kilometers south of the pass of Somosierra in the Gudarrama chain, where he authorized repopulation of the district on July 18, 1096.99 But by July 23, 1096, Alfonso was in Oviedo where he granted a charter to Bishop Martin and where members of his court also confirmed a private document on July 31, 1096.'© It is strictly impossible, then, that » AHN, Clero, Carpeta 889, no. 3. % Ifa document of December 18, 1095, could be accepted, the date of Henry’s accession at Coimbra could be pushed back yet further. But Rui Pinto de Azevado, “Observacoes de diplomatica,” RPH 12 (1969): 147~67, suggests that it is more reasonably dated to 1098. Also the same historian and editor, in DMP 1, pt. 1:1-6, and 1, pt. 2:541-46, dates the charter of Henry to Guimaraes to 1095 but that document is undated as we have it. Azevado regards it as prior to the charter to Constantim de Pandias, which is dated simply to 1096 in the text. Clearly both could still easily be of the same year. Just so, the confirmation of Henry and Teresa of Count Raymond’s charter to Tuy of Feb. 11, 1095, is of a later date. See note 77. Feige, “Arfifange des portugiesischen K6nigtums,” pp. 11013, accepts 1096 as the date of Henry’s accession. A private document of Aug. 1, 1096, pub. PMH, Diplomata, pp. 497-98, cites Raymond as ruling in Coimbra still. 97 May 20, 1096. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. roor—v. May 23, 1096, Ibid., fol. 139r—v. May 31, 1096. Ibid., fol. r4ov. % Acad. Hist., Manuscritos, 9-27-2-E-50. Estefania, “Memorias,” pp. 215-17. % Repoblacién de Castilla la Nueva 1:126-27. BN, Manuscritos, 2.190, pp. 35-38, has a notice in Spanish of a charter to this effect, but it is garbled or has been tampered with. For one thing, it is confirmed by Archbishop Bernard of Toledo, then in France. too Pub. ES 38:338-40, and Garcia Larragueta, Coleccién de Oviedo, pp. 296-97, respec-

256 CHAPTER TWELVE he could have been in Buitrago only five days before the first of these documents. From Oviedo, the king moved on to Lugo by August 15, and then to Compostela by August 21, 1096, where he confirmed a charter of Count Raymond to Bishop Gonzalo of Mondonedo.'*! Either the seriousness of his business there or the refreshing coolness of Galicia after the heat of the meseta kept Alfonso there as late as September 10, 1096, when he is at the monastery of Samos, again with Count Raymond.'” The count continued at the royal court which by September 17, 1096, had returned to Sahagtin.'°?3} There the monarch probably remained through the Christmas season as was customary with him. ‘4 From the end of 1096 Alfonso VI was to face the most complex military and political problems that the realm of Leén-Castilla had expe-

rienced since its reconstitution at his hands in 1072. During those twenty-four years the kingdom had grown spectacularly, first by the annexation of the Rioja which had pushed its frontier east to the Ebro from Haro to Calahorra, then by the conquest of Toledo which had trust its southern limes well beyond the Tajo, and finally by the cession of Santarem which moved the border in the southwest to the hills overlooking the Tajo there. Still, this remarkable series of advances had been the result of the most determined exploitation of chance opportunity and the close calculation of the necessary risks. Only the Rioja, however, had offered an easily accessible, contiguous territory, relatively easy of defense and with a fairly assimilable population. The former taifa of Toledo lay beyond the reaches of the trans-Duero whose rolling plains would scarcely begin to be repopulated fully before another forty years. Worse, that isolated advance post faced a newly united Muslim Andalucia whose access to it was quite as easy as was Alfonso’s. If the population of the former taifa in 1096 was better than half Christian, that Christian majority was also still overwhelmingly Mozarab and so presented peculiar problems of government to the Leonese who had become its masters. This problem was replicated tively. July 31, 1096. AC Leén, Codice 11, ff. 88v—89r, clearly must be reassigned to that date in 1100 on the basis of the confirmants. 101 See note 99 and BN, Manuscritos, 5.928, fol. 27r-v; and Acad. Hist., Catedrales de

Espana, Mondonedo, 9-25-1-C-3, ff. 13r-14r; pub. ES 18:340-42, respectively. A charter of Alfonso VI to the bishop of Burgos dated August 20, 1096, should be redated to the same day in 1100. See Serrano, Obispado de Burgos 3:110-12. 102 See note 98.

103 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 889, no. 1; and a copy in AHN, Codices, 989B, fol. 52v. 104 Nov. 1096, AHN, Microfilmas. Leén, Gradefes, rollo 6.311, no. 10. Dec. 15, 1096. AHN, Cédices, 989B, ff. 151v—152r. Dec. 20, 1096, Ibid., fol. 19v; pub. Prieto Prieto, “Documentos de Sahagtn,” pp. 535-36.

THE SEARCH FOR A SUCCESSOR (1092~—1096) 257 ona smaller scale in the west at Santarem. As far as the full occupation and repopulation of the land there was concerned, southward migration was a painstakingly slow process, and it was initially confined to the narrow litoral along the Atlantic. The hills and mountains of Portugal just to the west would remain for many decades yet the home of pastoralists, ungoverned and dangerously hostile to the settled, agricultural world of the coast whether the latter were Christian or Muslim. Under these circumstances, Santarem with its probably quite slender Mozarab majority was also an isolated frontier post. This whole fragile structure of new acquisitions had now to be defended continuously against a united, Murabit Andalucia which might be reinforced at any time from North Africa. Worse yet, it must now be defended by essentially volunteer armies which could not easily be summoned or kept in the field for more than six to eight weeks. The Murabit hegemony in the south had ended those payments, or parias,

which had allowed Spanish Islam to be terrorized with its own resources by supporting a paid Leonese army almost continuously in the field during the campaigning season. Under the new circumstances,

increasingly, an effective defense would be a local defense and the power of local authorities would grow correspondingly. In the east the situation was better but exceedingly delicate nonetheless. There Alfonso VI had no enemies. The task of his policy there was to see that no one of his friends became too powerful. The small kingdom of Arag6n had been essentially friendly since it had shared with Leén in the partition of Navarra in 1076. The taifa of Zaragoza was a vassal state, in good measure out of its fear of Aragonese aggression. At Valencia the Cid ruled by virtue of his unique military prowess, supported by a paria-paid, mercenary Christian army and surrounded by a hostile, massively Muslim majority. The county of Barcelona was far away indeed. The taifa of Lérida-Tortosa lived in everlasting fear of these other four who surrounded it. The internal political circumstances of the realm were not less complex. There too the cessation of the parias had deprived the crown of a source of patronage which had been much of the stuff of royal power

in the past half century. Worse, Alfonso VI was a king of fifty-nine years with a male heir of perhaps three years. Any prudent magnate must expect a regency of fair duration in the not too distant future, and chief among the regents would be counts Raymond and Henry, each married to a daughter of the king and perhaps with sons of their own by that time. The king had taken a new Italian wife, of course, but two years had passed without the issue of an heir from that quarter so that the significance of the marriage diminished monthly.

258 CHAPTER TWELVE Thus far Alfonso had been able to prevent or fail the rise of any dangerous faction or party. Considering its past history, Castilla had been remarkably quiescent. Asturias and Leén remained the central pillars of the royal power as always. Only in the border district of the Bierzo had the king suffered a defection where Count Froila Diaz had openly espoused the party of Raymond. In fact, although Alfonso had been unable to prevent some devolution of power, he had been able to divide and isolate the most ambitious of his nobles, confining them to the far reaches of the kingdom rather than to its heart. If there had briefly been the prospect of a French party, held together by its adherents’ defensive reaction to a natural native xenophobia, that spectre had been laid by Alfonso’s strong initiatives. Count Henry was now more a rival than an ally to his cousin Raymond. For the ambition that came to each as consorts of royal daughters made alliance with the king the easiest road to preferment. Just so the establishment of one and the other in the providences of Galicia and of Portugal heightened their

dependence on the king as well. Since, on the evidence of the documents, neither had brought to the peninsula with them any extensive group of retainers, only the royal support could sustain their authority among the nobles of those highly particularist districts. At the same time that regal aura could be purchased only by a considerable adherence to the purposes of the crown, and in this manner Alfonso had realized a marked gain in the efficacy of royal authority in those distant province of his increasingly unwieldly kingdom. Such a policy had its dangers, but then every policy has its dangers. To the extent that Raymond and Henry attempted to establish themselves as independent powers by accommodating themselves to local ambitions and magnates, they also alienated themselves from the court and the aims of the magnates of the meseta. In addition that same process carried the two counts further apart for the hopes of supporters so gained by no means ran parallel, especially when it came to the hopes of their respective churches. Braga looked to revive an ecclesiastical empire over the churches of Galicia. Santiago de Compostela enjoyed its new-found independence and dreamed of a dominion suitable to the only apostolic see of the west except Rome itself. Both wished to prevent the newly revived primatial status of Toledo from acquiring real content. Yet the fulfillment of these hopes could only be achieved by Roman dispensation, and the road to Rome ran through Leén.

So it was that at the center of dozens of incipient intrigues sat the king, old and even venerable by the standard of the day, but nonetheless

| the undeniable and absolutely essential factor in every hope. Vested

THE SEARCH FOR A SUCCESSOR (1092-1096) 259 with the sanctity that always cloaked “the anointed of the Lord,” with the respect that flowed from a lifetime of spectacular successes if some defeats, and with the nostalgic affection that was the natural concom1-

tant of a thousand shared perils and privations, Alfonso could be coerced but never ignored. But to bend the old king to their common will the ambitious would first have to achieve one. As against that difficult and highly dangerous enterprise, each partisan had merely to find the favor of the king in pursuit of one’s particular ambition. To rule so was a tedious, tiring business and a business slow to find a bard to celebrate it. Nevertheless Alfonso would rule unchallenged down to his death. Only after those splendid obsequies would even the mightiest of his subjects venture to dispute his essential dispositions for LeénCastilla.

THIRTEEN

THE KING’S GOOD SERVANTS (1092-1099)

One of the factors that militated in favor of Alfonso VI’s retention of effective control in his sprawling kingdom was his growing rapport with the reform party in the Roman church. Under the leadership of Urban II the reformers gradually had begun to recover from the reverses of 1084 and 1085. Still the imperial claimant to the throne of Peter, Clement III or Guibert of Ravenna, remained in control of the papal city itself well into 1096. In the Germanies the Emperor Henry IV remained active and actively hostile, and after 1092 Philip I of France was gradually alienated by papal opposition to his attempted marriage with Bertrade of Montfort. The overtures of a crowned monarch willing to cooperate would henceforth find a more flexible and less doctrinaire reception at the papal court. As always what the Leonese monarch sought was practical control of

the church within the realm for himself and for his creatures, which would insure that the church’s considerable resources would support the purposes of the crown. The Leonese kings had always enjoyed such a prerogative, but in this new age its exercise had to be adjusted to the claims and the developing norms of the reformers. Such a bargain was struck and, so far as we can tell, there was no pamphlet war in Spain over the respective theoretical rights of pontiff or king. Though not without some friction, a developing cooperation marked the relationship of Urban II and Alfonso VI, which each regarded, apparently, as mutually beneficial. In 1088 Urban had recognized the restored archbishopric of Toledo and Bernard of Sauvetot as its first incumbent. At the Council of Leon in 1090 Alfonso had accepted with equanimity a papal legate in the land, Cardinal Rainier, the future Paschal I]. Approximately two years later, on April 25, 1092, Urban had cautioned a new archbishop in the restored metropolitan see of Tarragona “episcopi Tolentano tamquam primati debeatis esse subiecti.”' The development of a rapport seems clear, but it will find yet clearer expression in the years to come in the ' Mansilla, ed., La documentacion pontificia, pp. 52-53.

THE KING'S GOOD SERVANTS (1092-1099) 261 confiding of papal legatine powers to Alfonso’s confidant, Archbishop Bernard of Toledo. When that comfortable arrangement first began has been the object

of some dispute. Paul Ewald brought to lhght the bull of Urban I, dated only to April 25, but he assigned it to 1096, which bestowed the legateship on Archbishop Bernard.? A few years later Fidel Fita redated it to 1093 and recent scholarship has supported him.3 In light of the evidence available to me at this time I would suspect that Fita was correct.‘

The more important consideration than the exact date for our purposes is the clear evidence of a developing close cooperation between king and pope of which Bernard was the preferred instrument. In the summer of 1094 the archbishop was with Urban II in the south of France and secured from the latter approval of the first bishop since 1090 for the troubled see of Santiago de Compostela.’ In March 1095 Bernard was one of the peninsular bishops who attended Urban II's council at Piacenza. From that meeting he seems to have returned to Leon. The greatest immediate service that the Toledan had rendered his king at Piacenza was to secure final papal recognition for the translation of the ancient episcopal see of Oca to Burgos. The translation had been an essentially royal initiative which had been searching vainly for papal

approbation from 1076. Now the question was settled as Alfonso preferred. Bishop Gomez of Burgos, who was also at Piacenza, was certainly pleased by the action, but he also took the occasion to complain of lands held by Toledo which he asserted properly belonged to his diocese. The lands in question had been adjudged at the Council of Husillos in 1088 to belong to the unrestored diocese of Osma and so were being admin> “Reise nach Spanien im Winter von 1878 auf 1879,” NA 6 (1881): 299-300, from BN, Cédices, 13.116, ff. 8r—or.

3 “Bula inédita de Urbano I], April 25, 1093,” BRAH 5 (1884): 97-103, argued that the place of issuance, “Terre maioris,” was not in the vicinity of Bordeaux but rather near Benevento. Further supporting the change of date, Fita adduced the charter of Alfonso VI, dated Feb. 13, 1095, which Bernard of Toledo already confirmed as papal legate. Rivera Recio, La Iglesia de Toledo, pp. 141-43, cited the original of the bull now in AC Toledo A.6.A.1.1. and also argued that a contemporary literary source could be construed

to support the presence of Bernard in Rome during the spring of 1093. Engels, “Papsttum,” pp. 243-44, follows both protagonists. + But in no less than ten documents of 1093~1095 the archbishop never confirms as papal legate. The royal charter of Feb. 13, 1095, which Fita used as a terminus ante quem, must in fact be redated to Feb. 13, 1099, on the basis of those who confirm it. See Azevedo, “Observacoes de diplomatica,” pp. 128-40, pub. Guerard, ed., Cartulaire de l’Abbaye de Saint-Victor de Mareseille, pp. 189-90. The first use of the title by Bernard of which J am aware comes in a document of 1098. See chapter 14, notes 33 and 38. 5 See chapter 12, notes 62 through 66.

262 CHAPTER THIRTEEN istered by Bernard as metropolitan. The matter would be referred back to Spain for resolution, but that Bishop Gomez would have dared to raise this question at Piacenza certainly illustrates that Alfonso VI was resigned to accepting papal appellate jurisdiction over his church, at least in some matters.° But the king preferred that such authority be exercised in the peninsula by someone in whom he had confidence. That was to be the point of Bernard’s legateship.

Although the archbishop of Toledo had returned to Leén after the council at Piacenza he was back in the papal presence in the fall at the Council of Clermont. This time he was accompanied by the bishops of Santiago de Compostela and Lugo.’ Bishop Dalmacio of Compostela, perhaps encouraged by the success of Burgos in the spring, was there to seek papal recognition of the translation of his see from its ancient site at Iria Flavia. He succeeded at that and more. On December 7 See chapter 12, note 77. ® Ibid., note 93. Vones, Kirchenpolitik des nordwestspanischen Raumes, p. 117, note 79,

is noncommital about this charter but clearly begs the issue when he remarks that Gelmirez appears without designation of office. In fact the document reads “divina gratia didacus ecclesia sancti iacobi conf.” This is the formula of an episcopal subscription, and the copyist has omitted either the word “episcopus” or “electus.” Fletcher, Saint James’ Catapult, p. 157, accepts it without comment. The question will continue to be controverted because the less than two dozen extant

268 CHAPTER THIRTEEN of Infanta Elvira dated November 11, 1099. Prudencio de Sandoval asserted that Alfonso was a monk of Sahagtn, but Richard A. Fletcher suggested that he might have been an archdeacon of Tuy.?? Under the circumstances we cannot know whose influence preponderated in Alfonso’s selection as bishop, but in all likelihood he was probably acceptable to both the king and Count Raymond, and perhaps to Count Henry of Portugal as well. The see lay on the border between the territories of Raymond and Henry. Remarkably, the same situation seems to apply to the Galician see of Orense. The last known appearance of Bishop Pedro there occurs in the charter of Count Raymond of August 21, 1096.3° His successor, Diego, also makes his debut in Raymond’s charter, which I would redate from January II, 1096, to after 1099. Bishop Diego’s antecedents are likewise unknown, but again subsequent events seem to argue his acceptability to all parties.3! The same circumstances are repeated yet again in regard to the Galician see of Lugo. Bishop Amor still functioned there as late as September 10, 1096, as indicated by his participation in a judicial suit involving the Galician monastery of Samos. His successor, Pedro, who also first appears in Count Raymond’s purported charter of January 11, 1096, had been the abbot of Samos until 1098.3? With the exception of the venerable Bishop Gonzalo of Mondonedo, then, it seems that the entire episcopate of Galicia was being recast be-

tween the years 1096 and 1098. There is no indication that these changes were more than peninsular matters. If they were necessarily of interest to Alfonso VI and to Count Raymond, agreement between the two could easily be ratified by Archbishop Bernard of Toledo in his cacharters of Count Raymond are of sufficiently different provenance as to furnish no grounds for a judgment on the basis of diplomatic or paleography. 22 Antigtiedad de la ciudad y Iglesia catedral de Tuy (1610; Barcelona, 1974), fol. tog r. The

Episcopate in the Kingdom of Leén in the Twelfth Century (Oxford, 1978), pp. 50-51, who also assigns Alfonso a beginning date of 1097 but without indicating why. See note §§ for the charter.

3° See chapter 12, note 101. An undated charter of Infanta Elvira to Orense in which no bishop is mentioned probably dates to this vacancy because Bishop Pedro of Leén (1087-1112) is mentioned. Pub. Coleccién diplomdatica de Galicia historica (Santiago de Compostela, 1901), pp. 11-12, and Manuel Castro y Sueiro, ed., “Documentos del Archivo Catedral de Orense,” BCM, Orense 1:406. 3! See note 30. Benito Fernandez Alonso, El pontificado gallego, su origen y vicisitudes, seguido de una cronica de los obispos de Orense (Orense, 1897), p. 221, asserted that he had been a canon of Compostela. He may actually have become a canon later. See ES 20:269.

32 See chapter 12, note 99, and Ernesto Zaragoza Pascual, “Un abadalogio inédito de Samos del siglo XVII,” SM 22 (1980): 316.

THE KING’S GOOD SERVANTS (1092-1099) 269 pacities of primate and papal legate. The exempt see of Santiago de Compostela was another matter, however. On May 19, 1097, Diego Gelmirez was still styling himself as “clericus et vicarius 1n casa domini iacobi apostoli.”33 But on Easter, March

28, 1098, when Count Raymond issued a charter to the Compostelan monastery of Antealtares, Gelmirez confirmed as “divina gratia didacus gelmirez electus honore bti iacobi dijudicans.” The comital charter was issued in the midst of a great curia “ubi magnus erat conventus” in the city.34 It was also confirmed by the bishops of Coimbra, Braga, Mondonedo, and by bishops Alfonso of Tuy and Pedro of Lugo but not by Diego of Orense. In all probability Dicgo Gelmirez had been elected bishop in the very assemblage on the preceding Wednesday or Thursday of Holy Week. This was a daring step for Alfonso and Raymond, but they may have been driven to it by the knowledge that the former bishop of Compostela, Diego Pelaez, had renewed his attempts

to secure recognition at Rome once he had learned of the death of Bishop Dalmacio.3}5 When the matter was important enough, Alfonso was not loath to present the papacy with a fait accompli. Nevertheless he probably was not willing to go beyond the process of election to that of consecration itself, which the papal decree of 1095 had explicitly reserved to the holy see. The charter of Count Raymond, dated January 23, 1099, to the monastery of San Antolin de Toques, which bears the subscription “sub xpi nomine didacus iriense sedis episcopus cf.,” must be redated if it can be considered reliable at all.3° The critical point here is that this charter 1s confirmed by Pelayo as bishop of Oviedo at least two years too soon.?’ The official biographers of Diego Gelmirez will subsequently gloss 33 AHN, Codices, 986B, fol. 41r—v; pub. Lopez Ferreiro, Historia de Compostela 3:40

append., and Serrano y Sanz, ed., “Documentos Celanova,” pp. 39-40. 34 ADS, fondo de San Martin, ms. 72, is merely a fragment which contains the list of those who confirmed only. Lopez Ferreiro, Historia de Compostela 3:45-46 append., published it under the date of 1100 precisely because of the way in which Gelmirez confirmed. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 518, no. 7, is a sixteenth-century notarial copy of the full text, even if somewhat corrupt. The figures of the royal court who confirmed did so later. So may have the bishops of the Tay and Lugo. See chapter 14, notes 30, 31, and 32. Nevertheless, Alfonso’s agreement should be presumed and was explicitly mentioned in the “Historia Compostelana,” ES 20:26-27 and 254-55. 35 ES 20:24.

36 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 891, nos. 16 and 17. 37 In at least eight different documents from six different churches Bishop Martin is cited up until the end of 1100. Yet a scattering of documents and notices have led historians of Oviedo to make Pelayo the auxiliary bishop of Oviedo in the later years of Martin’s pontificate. There is simply no evidence that such an office existed in eleventh- and twelfth-century Spain. But see Fernandez Conde, El Libro de Testamentos, pp. 37-38.

270 CHAPTER THIRTEEN over much of this royal and ecclesiastical maneuvering, but they cannot entirely ignore it. They do clearly emphasize the roles of King Alfonso

and Count Raymond in the process and the considerable difficulties that Gelmirez will later experience in receiving papal recognition and eventual consecration.3° Difficulties in the west of the kingdom were hardly over at Easter of 1098. Apparently no candidate had yet been settled upon for the bish-

opric of Lugo, and on June 19, 1098, Bishop Cresconio of Coimbra died, creating a second important vacancy. 39 At least in the case of the latter episcopate we can be sure of the royal predominance in the ap-

pointment. The new bishop, who first appears there on March 19, 1099, was Maurice, one of those French clerics recruited by Archbishop Bernard of Toledo during the summer of 1096.4° Like Gerald of Braga in 1097, Maurice was probably elected and consecrated at Sahagin or at least in the royal court, and, while the assent of Count Henry was

doubtless sought, there can be no doubt that the newcomer was the protégé of the primate and of the king. More or less contemporaneous with this latter was the successful extension of the royal influence in eastern Iberia as well. From the time of

the Cid’s great victory over the Murabits at Poblet in 1094 down to Rodrigo’s death in 1099, relations between that Valencian princeling and his former king seem to have been good. In the realm of the historically traceable that concord is manifested principally in the installation of Jerome of Perigord as bishop of Valencia in 1098. The Christian population of that great city, the Mozarabs, had had a bishop of their own at least as late as 1092 who fled when the local opinion there turned against the alliance with Leén-Castilla.41 Whether he returned after the conquest of the city by the Cid in 1094 is not known. In any event when the latter decided either to supplant him or to provide a successor to him he turned to Alfonso VI and to Archbishop Bernard and accepted from them one of the French clerics brought to the peninsula by the primate. Apparently Rodrigo Diaz expected cooperation with his old suzerain to continue and to increase. Exactly when these exchanges took place is impossible to specify. 38 FS 20:23~-31 and 254-55. Fletcher, Saint James’ Catapult, pp. 107-13, tends to weigh the literary sources more heavily than the documents. Vones, Kirchenpolitik des nordwestspanischen Raumes, pp. 100-48, does the opposite. 39 PMH, Diplomata 1:533-34.

* Ibid., pp. 537-38. For now the best study of this worthy is Pierre David, “L’énigme de Maurice Bourdin,” Etudes historiques, pp. 441-501, but a revised look at Coimbra and then Braga during his episcopates is surely overdue. 41 Menéndez Pidal, Espana del Cid 2:547.

THE KING'S GOOD SERVANTS (1092-1099) 271 The sole documentary evidence consists of a donation to Bishop Jerome, dated only to 1098, in which the latter is already bishop of Valencia.4? The text also asserts that Jerome has been consecrated bishop by Urban II himself. Thus, if Jerome had arrived in Leén-Castilla in the late fall of 1096 he might possibly have been agreed upon as a candidate by spring of 1097 and even have journeyed to Valencia by midsummer. A shipboard journey from that port to Rome and back could have been accomplished while the sailing season still endured in 1097. Neverthe-

less, knowledge of the proprieties and niceties that govern decision making in all ages suggests that 1098 would more likely have been the date of his actual installation in the see of Valencia if we accept the story of his consecration by Urban II. If not then Jerome’s promotion to the see of Valencia would have become but one more item in the volumi-

nous agenda that Archbishop Bernard would carry to Rome in the early spring of 1099 in home of securing papal approbation thereto. When that plenipotentiary of the Leonese king departed for Italy is impossible to say, but even with friends at Zaragoza and Barcelona expediting his journey it must have required something like two months to travel from Sahaguin to Rome. Since we are certain that the arch-

bishop was already in Rome by May 3, 1099, those documents that purport to establish his presence still in Sahagtin after March 1 or before the following July 3 must be regarded as seriously compromised.# Once again the substance of Alfonso VI’s desires was largely gained by the Toledan prelate. The royal selections for Burgos, Braga, Coimbra, Tuy, Orense, and perhaps Lugo and Valencia met with no oppo-

sition so far as can be determined. But on the matter of Santiago de Compostela, Urban II either refused to be pressured or decided that a decent delay was in order. The decision finally setting aside the rights of Diego Pelaez but authorizing only a new election was not made until 42 José Luis Martin, Luis Miguel Villar Garcfa, Florencio Marcos Rodriguez, Marciano Sanchez Rodriguez, eds., Documentos de los archivos catedralicio y diocesano de Salamanca,

siglos XII-XIII (Salamanca, 1977), pp. 79-81. This document registered as AC Salamanca, Cajon 43, legajo 2, no. 72, is at present actually displayed for the public in the Museo Diocesano of the cathedral. The editors call it an original as did Menéndez Pidal. The date is not given in the Spanish era, and the language is grandiloquent enough to raise suspicion.

43 Mar. 14-May 14, 1099. AHN, Clero. Carpeta 960, nos. 17, 18, 19, and 20. Pub. Vignau, ed., Cartulario de Eslonza, pp. 12-17, and Calvo, San Pedro de Eslonza, pp. 26872. A closely related series of forgeries or interpolated documents purporting to be of Alfonso VI and his sister Urraca, or of the latter alone. Apr. 22, 1099. AHN, Orden de Santiago, Carpeta 326, no. 1; pub. José Luis Martin, Origenes de la Orden militar de San-

tiago (Barcelona, 1974), pp. 169-70. Obviously of a later date given the reference to Queen Elizabeth in the text. Apr. 31, 1099. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 84r-v.

272 CHAPTER THIRTEEN December 29, 1099, and then by his successor, Paschal II, as registered in letters to “Ildefonso Hispaniarum Regi” and to the clergy and people of Compostela and to the bishops of the province.*+ In the meanwhile Diego Gelmirez had set off to Rome, likely at the orders of Alfonso al-

though the “Historia Compostelana” does not tell us this, and was there ordained a subdeacon by Paschal before April 18, 1100. Up until this time Gelmirez had not even been in major orders. Doubtless the king had requested episcopal consecration for his nominec, but Paschal held to a punctilious observance of the rules and forced what was, in fact, a new election. It took place on July 1, 1100, and not surprisingly resulted in the choice of Gelmirez.*s The polite struggle then resumed over where and by whom the bishop-elect would be consecrated. Even this knotty question paled into near insignificance when compared with the other sweeping changes requested at Rome in the spring of 1099. What began to be elaborated there was nothing less than an attempt to rationalize the entire structure of the church of Leén-Castilla. Because of the control they consistently are found to have exercised in any matter that provides the least information for examination, I presume the initiative here belonged to Alfonso VI and Archbishop Bernard, although the substance of the changes may have been under discussion with the pope since 1095 and 1096 when Compostela and Burgos were allowed to become sees directly dependent on Rome. It was in the royal interest to forestall any further multiplication of that status. So it was that on May 4, 1099, Urban II defined the suffragan sees of Toledo as also including Leén and Oviedo.*° These two bishoprics had no precedent in antiquity but were essentially independent creations of the Asturian and Leonese monarchs of the early Reconquista. Now they had been indelibly recognized and brought as well under the oversight of the archbishop of Toledo. There is no mistaking where the thoughts of Alfonso and of his great servant were tending. Except for Burgos in the east and Astorga in the west, the whole ecclesiastical heartland of the realm from the Bay of Biscay to the Tajo was to be coordinated under the primate. Probably to the dismay of king and prelate, Astorga was included in the provinces of the archbishopric of Braga, restored about the same 44 ES 20:25-26. 45 [bid., pp. 26-27. 46 Demetrio Mansilla Reoyo, “Panorama histérico-geografico de la Iglesia espanola,” in Historia de la Iglesia en Espafia, ed. Javier Fernandez Conde, vol. 2. pt. 2 (Madrid, 1982),

pp. 613 and 623. For thirty years the author has been the foremost authority on these questions. Also J-W 5.801; pub. Paul Ewald, “Acht papstliche Privilegien,” NA 2 (1887): 220-21.

THE KING'S GOOD SERVANTS (1092-1099) 273 time, for Astorga had an antique past as a suffragan of the latter and the papal sense of tradition had to be accorded some deference, for the time at least. The restoration of Braga would bring the sees of the west, except for the exempt Santiago de Compostela, under the direction and surveillance of their new creature, Gerald. One need not suppose that Bernard of Toledo was entirely unambivalent about this step, which was to cause his own church so much difficulty in the long run, but local pressure was likely to have forced it in any event at some point and it was better to use the inevitable to strengthen the position, in that distant hill city, of his protégé than to lose him to a local faction. There has been much dispute about the date of the restoration of the metropolitanate at Braga. The papal bull authorizing it is lost, and we

know much of its terms only from a late bull of Calixtus I] which quotes it in part.47 A bull of Paschal Il, however, which refers to the restoration of Braga as already accomplished, should probably be dated to December 28, 1099.4* In Iberian documents Gerald is still styled

himself merely as bishop in a Portuguese document of October 21, 1099.49 On May 3, 1100, he confirms first in a charter of Infanta Urraca

to the church of Pamplona with the ambiguous formula “Guiraldus Bragarensis cf.”’° By December 5, 1100, however, there is no doubt for Gerald confirms a document of the Council of Palencia as archbishop.°®! In light of this information we may justifiably assume that the request for the elevation of Braga was one of the items presented to Urban II

in the spring of 1099 but whose consideration was not complete before that pontiff’s death on July 29, 1099, and hence was left to his SUCCESSOL.

47 June 20, 1121. Carl Erdmann, “Papsturkunden in Portugal,” pp. 174-77. J-W, 7.090 PL 163:1299—1 300.

4* AC Toledo. Cédice 42-21, fol. 64, and Codice 42-22, fol. 47; pub. Fidel Fita, “El concilio nacional de Palencia en el afo 1100 y el de Gerona en 1101,” BRAH 24 (1894): 216-17. Yet another bull of Paschal Il addressed to Count Henry of Portugal and dated to 1099 which refers to Gerald is a forgery. Erdmann, “Papsturkunden in Portugal,” p. 154. 47 ABD, Liber Fidei, ff. 71v-72r. Vones, Kirchenpolitik des nordwestspanischen Raumes, p. 130, n. 144, cites two Bracaran documents of March and April 1100, which cite Gerald only as bishop, but it is quite possible that the news had not reached that remote city yet. .° Pub. José Goni Gaztambide, “Los obispos de Pamplona del siglo XII,” AA, 13 (1965): 330-32.

‘| AHN, Microfilmas, Palencia, rollo 1.658, no. 11; Acad. Hist., Coleccién Salazar, O-17, ff. 217r-219v and 250r—254r; pub. Fernandez de Pulgar, Historia de Palencia 2:13 132, and Fita, “El concilio nacional de Palencia,” 221-22. The Palencia document is not an

original, to judge by the script and the orthography, and may have been interpolated but the confirmations clearly follow an authentic original. No outright forgery would reflect such particulars or knowledge.

274 CHAPTER THIRTEEN The papal ratification of all these changes in the Iberian episcopate and of the specification of two great ecclesiastical provinces was certainly the major business of Archbishop Bernard’s mission to Rome in early 1099 but it was still not the only business. The festering dispute between Toledo and Burgos over the proper boundaries of the latter was adjudicated once again by Urban II in two bulls of May 3 and 4.°? In the first of these the primate was directed to restore his suffragan diocese of Osma. This stricture, it seems to me, represents the first major papal initiative in the reconstruction of the diocesan structure of LeénCastilla for there would scarcely have been a local interest to press for it. The papal mandate would not have been unwelcome to Alfonso, for it would tend to strengthen his own hold on the upland reaches of the Duero valley, but his compliance would mark a new advance in the assertion of Roman authority within the Leonese church. The first of those letters tells us that Bishop Garcia of Burgos was also in Rome with the primate. It has also commonly been accepted that Bishop Martin of Oviedo was in Rome and that he secured Urban II’s confirmation of the possessions of his diocese on April 4, 1099. If that is so then the confirmation of any Iberian document by him, and probably the other two as well since it is unlikely that they traveled separately, after the beginning of February would render such a document suspect. But I have some reservations about that bull.s3 The evidence that Gerald of Braga also was in Rome at this time is dubious at best. 54 Changes in the secular aspects of the court and realm in the period between 1092 and the end of 1099 are not so sweeping. As always the

identification between the dynasty and the royal government was strong. Of our twenty-seven royal charters, the king’s sisters, Urraca and Elvira, confirmed fourteen and eight respectively. The difference may be accounted for by the fact that Elvira was in bad health toward the end of the period and would die in 1099. It was probably in late fall for she was already ill on November 11, 1099, when she made some final dispositions. %5 52 Pub. Serrano, Obispado de Burgos 3:104—-107.

53 Pub. Fidel Fita, “Bulas inéditas de Urbano II,” BRAH 24 (1894): 549-51, from late copies in BN and Acad. Hist.; pub. Garcia Larragueta, Documentos de Oviedo, pp. 31011, from the documents there only. Rivera Recio, Iglesia de Toledo, p. 152, accepts Bishop Martin's presence, as does Engels, “Papsttum,” pp. 245-46. 54 It is reviewed in Vones, Kirchenpolitik des nordwestspanischen Raumes, p. 130, n. 142. ss ASI, Reales, no. 132. Pub. Maria Amparo Valcarce, El dominio de la real colegiata de

S. Isidoro de Leén hasta 1189 (Leén, 1985), pp. 92-93, with the bad date. An original | believe but not the work of a chancery scribe. The local catalogue erroneously dates it to 1095. The Cronica Cauriense, BN, Manuscritos, 1.358, fol. 3v, “obiit gelorira infans,” whence it passed into the “Anales Toledanos.” Other sources differ. See ES 23:114. But

THE KING'S GOOD SERVANTS (1092-1099) 275 Sometime in late 1095 or early 1096 that mysterious personage, Ermegildo Rodriguez, who had been the royal majordomo since 1086 vanishes from the documents. It is possible that he was subsequently posted to a royal office in Toledo, for the family later held land there, but we cannot be sure.°° The documents of Toledo are very spare indeed before the second quarter of the twelfth century. Fernando Mutnoz, who replaced him for the remainder of this period, was probably that Leonese noble who appears in the document of April 30, 1084.57 No more can be said of him.

On the other hand, the position of royal alférez remained in the hands of the same family although it passed from Pedro Gonzalez to his

cousin Gomez Gonzalez sometime in 1092.5* Although no alternate royal post seems to have been found for Pedro at least the office of royal

shieldbearer continued in the hands of the Castilian Lara family, and Gomez himself was the son-in-law of the great Castilian magnate Alvar Diaz.s? When Gomez left that post after April 3, 1099, he was replaced by the son of Alvar Diaz, Ordono Alvarez, within the same month.© The former will go from alférez to count almost immediately 1n conformity with the usual progression.

The most striking development among the secular circles of the royal court, however, was the emergence of Count Raymond of Burgundy as a court figure. He confirmed eighteen of the twenty-seven known royal documents of the period; more than any other person. Inon Nov. 13, 1099. AC Santiago, Tumbo A, fol. 35v; pub Lopez Ferreiro, Historia de Compostela 3:50-51. Elvira made another dying benefaction to that church. This last donation is dated actually to the same date in 1100 but Alfonso VI made reference to that grant in one of his own to the same church on Jan. 16, 1100. See chapter 14, note $9. ‘6 See chapter 11, notes 61 and 62. ‘7 Apr. 18, 1088. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 960, no. 2, is a private document of the monastery of Eslonza, which must be redated precisely because of its reference to him as already majordomo. Feb. 2, 1096. BN, Manuscritos, 720, fol. 226r—v, is the first secure reference. Apr. 30, 1084. AHN, Céddices, 989B, ff. 231v—232v; pub. Hinojosa, ed., Documentos de Leon y de Castilla, pp. 33-34.

88 Pedro’s last appearance was Nov. 10, tog1. See chapter 11, note 53. Apr. 23, 1097. AHN, Microfilmas, AD Leon, Gradefes, no. 11, is probably a scribal error for “Gomez.” Gomez appears early in Sept. 14, 1084, AHN, Clero, Carpeta 885, no. 9, a forgery; in Apr. 25, 1087, see chapter 10, note 20, another forgery; May 14, 1087, see chapter 8, note 18, another forgery; Mar. 31, 1090, see chapter 11, note 36, a pseudo-original; and Apr. 27, 1090, see chapter II, note 39, a forgery. His first genuine appearance comes on Nov. 26, 1092. See chapter 12, note 44. ‘9 On the Lara family at this time see Moxd, “De la nobleza vieja a la nobleza nueva,” p. 34; Marino Pérez Avellaneda, Cerezo de Rio Tirén (Madrid, 1983), pp. 176-77; and Balparda y las Herrarias, Historia critica de Vizcaya 2:302-303. 6° Acad. Hist., Coleccion Salazar, 0-22, fol. 32r. Apr. 31, 1099. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 84r—v.

276 CHAPTER THIRTEEN deed, if the private documents of Sahagtin that he confirmed are also taken into account, it becomes clear that Raymond spent every winter and early spring from 1092 through 1099 at the royal court save those of 1094-95 and 1095-96. By January 1098 he had developed some jurisdiction in the very heart of the Leonese realm for a document describes him then as “count in Grajal” only five kilometers south of Sahagun itself.*' Very likely he already maintained a residence there, where he was to die in 1107. Simultaneously his exercise of a territorial jurisdiction in the west of the peninsula is strongly delineated in his own charters, and nine of his twenty-four known grants derive from this period as well. This authority was never absolute, especially as regards the church as we have seen, and after late 1095 it ceased to include the county of Portugal and Coimbra, yet the record is impressive. If we disregard the possible grant of a fuero at Zamora in 1094, Raymond’s generosity after the loss of Portugal is concentrated entirely in Galicia, excepting his charter of May 1, 1096.% Although he had some jurisdiction in the western transDuero as far south as Coria from at least 1096, there is no sign that he was active in that region until much later. The count’s charter to the church of Tay on February 11, 1095, was a grant of immunity, and in it he spoke of “my merino Juan Ramirez,” indicating his possession of estates and authority in this area. The document was prepared by a Pedro Munoz “comitis aule notarius,” sug-

te IIIT Sree Castle of Grajal, as it exists today. Photograph by the author. 6! Jan. 25, 1098. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 889, no. 16. 62 See chapter 12, note 94.

THE KING’S GOOD SERVANTS (1092-1099) 277 gesting an incipient comital court.®} His charter to the Portuguese monastery of Montemor on February 25, 1095, was confirmed by one Fernando as comital alférez and had been prepared by Diego Gelmirez as comital “scriptor.”°+ On September 24, 1095, Raymond issued a charter of immunity for the merchants of Compostela also prepared by Gelmirez.® His grant of May 1, 1096, if accepted for that date, was also drawn up by Gelmirez and shows Suero Niinez as alférez and as comital majordomo Count Froila Diaz, one of the great magnates of LedénCastilla.©%° The donation to the church of Mondonedo on August 21, 1096, was the work of the same notary.” But by the time of the charter to the Compostelan monastery of Antealtares on March 28, 1098, Gel-

mirez had become bishop-elect and a new notary, Nuno, had appeared. The count’s alférez now confirms as Suero Vermudez, perhaps actually the same person as in May 1, 1096, above. Of all of this evidence one may say without exaggeration that Raymond exhibits already a public persona of a dimension without parallel in the period except for members of the dynasty itself. The same status will come to be an attribute of his cousin, Count Henry of Portugal, but not until 1098. The husband of Infanta Teresa confirmed only five of the twenty-seven known Alfonsine diplomas of the period, but all four of those issued in 1099. Turning again to the private documents of Sahagun, it is clear by his confirmation of them that Henry had become a regular resident at the royal court during the winter season. That will continue to be his practice down to the end of the reign in 1109. As with Count Raymond and Galicia, for Henry Portugal was a jurisdiction to be visited in the summers and exploited year round but never, in his lifetime perhaps, a place to reside. Since he did not become count in Portugal until late 1095 or early 1096, the record of Henry’s own charters is scant. Still, from his grant to Soeiro Mendes of November 23, 1097, we learn that Henry already had his own majordomo, his own alférez, and probably his own notary.°? Moreover both this charter and that of December 9, 1097, to the church of Santiago de Compostela illustrate the fact that the count al63 Tbid., note 77. 64 Ibid., note 78.

6s [bid., note 89.

“ Ibid., note 94. Froila Diaz confirmed as the count’s majordomo as early as Nov. 13, 1094. Ibid., note §8. 67 [bid., note IOI. 68 See note 34.

69 DMP 1-1:6-8, and 1-2:554-5S.

278 CHAPTER THIRTEEN ready enjoyed the ordinary disposition of royal fisc lands south of the Rio Mino.7°

After Count Raymond the most visible of the court magnates was Garcia Ordénez, Count of Najera, who confirmed fifteen royal charters. He was Castilian, of course, but Leén was also well represented at court. Count Pedro Anstrez, as ever, confirmed twelve. He was an old, indeed the oldest associate of Alfonso at court excluding the king’s sisters and the Leonese Count Martin Lainez, who confirmed ten diplomas was a young man. Count Fernando Diaz of Asturias, who also confirmed ten, was somewhat older but still probably ten to fifteen years junior to the king. Of the other seven known counts between 1092 and 1099, six confirmed only very sporadically and were essentially local rather than court figures. The same was probably true of Count Froila Diaz, whose lands and jurisdiction lay in eastern Galicia and western Leén. He confirmed seven royal charters but they are spread more or less evenly over this entire time span. On the other hand, Froila Diaz also confirmed six of the nine charters of Count Raymond, and that is probably more indicative. He was a regular member rather of the entourage that gathered around the Burgundian during the latter’s circuit of Galicia in the late spings and early summers.

As customary, there was also a small circle of Castilian magnates whose confirmations reveal them to have been fairly constantly in attendance on the king but who do not ordinarily boast the title of count. Of these Gonzalo Ninez, then the senior member of the Lara clan, was the most prominent, confirming twelve diplomas. His son, Rodrigo Gonzalez, confirmed eight. Alvar Diaz of Oca confirmed nine. Alvar Fanez, never a regular court figure, still confirmed six. The royal curia so constituted regularly spent the winter season in the heartland of the kingdom about the royal monastery of Sahagun and the royal city of Leén. There is but one year from 1092 through 1099 when we cannot place it there. Each year from roughly the beginning of Advent through the Easter season it appears that that area was the site of a rich and varied political and constitutional as well as liturgical and social life, centering on the dynastic family and the king. Probably such a scene was replicated elsewhere in the realm, and dur70 PMH, Diplomata, p. 515, and Lopez Ferreiro, Historia de Compostela, 3:41-42 append. Yet such matters could still involve the attention of Alfonso himself. A rare mandatum of Alfonso to Count Henry deals with a dispute over fisc lands with the bishop of Coimbra. See Antonio Brandao, Crénica do Conde D. Henrique, D. Teresa, e Infante D. Alfonso (1632; Porto, 1944), p. 56. Unfortunately, the mandatum is a chancery form that is not dated. The discovery of this document requires modification of what I said about its use in my “The Chancery of Alfonso VI,” p. 12.

THE KING’ S GOOD SERVANTS (1092-1099) 279 ing the warmer seasons more often than the documents reveal. If we adhere to the formal criterion of the necessary presence of at least five bishops for evidence of a meeting of the greater royal curia then only three times in this period do we have evidence for such. Only the meetings in 1095 at Toledo, Valladolid, and Santiago de Compostela meet

such a test. All were associated with the crisis that resulted from Alfonso VI’s marriage to the Italian Queen Berta in the winter of 109495, the conspiracy of Raymond and Henry, and the royal progression through the realm with his new wife. But the curia never ceased to exist. It was, in a sense, always in session because its only absolutely essential member was the king himself. For the same reason it was always the essential governing institution as well as the center of greater society, for the king was the government of

the realm. Now during the period from 1092 through 1099 it is clear that this central core of the realm was undergoing substantial changes. The nucleus of the curia itself, the dynastic family, experienced the demise of Queen Constance at the end of 1093 and the accession of Queen Berta at the end of 1094. The implications of this change in the larger world of the politics of the realm have already been examined. What it effected in the smaller world of the court we cannot really be sure. Always under the monarchy the essential function of a queen was to produce heirs. If she had a further role of influence at court, it must be as an extension of her personality and particular gifts, and the queens of Alfonso are simply unknown to us as persons. Of the six, historians have traditionally attributed significant influence only to Queen Constance, and that seems to have been a reflex of the literary development.

Contemporaries did not mention it. |

Other changes within the dynasty were likely much more important as they affected the day-to-day life of the court. The aging, ill-health, and finally the death of infantas Urraca and Elvira at the very end of this period first diminished and then ended the role of the king’s sisters,

who, the documents suggest, were usually more closely associated than the queens themselves with the business of the court. Not only had they constantly added their status to the authority of the royal charters from the very initiation of the reign but their own proper charters, extended throughout the same period, show the king’s dowager sisters as the possessors of very considerable portions of the dynastic fisc and able to alienate it by their own right. The decline and final disappearance of their familiar presence and influence marked a subtle but real change in both the tenor and the politics of the court. This transition was accompanied by the gradual rise in influence of the daughters of Alfonso, who with their husbands now became the

280 CHAPTER THIRTEEN central personages of the dynasty after the king himself. Count Raymond became a constant of the winter court from 1092 forward, as did his wife Urraca. The king’s eldest daughter might have been only an emergent twelve years old then, but by 1099 she would have been seventeen and a mature woman by the reckoning of the age. Count Henry does not emerge as a court figure until 1098. His wife, Teresa, must have been at least twelve by then and possibly even fifteen years old. Both daughters would shortly gain in influence by the passage of most of the fisc lands of the “infantaticum” to them at the death of their aunts. But even so the tone of the court was inevitably more altered by the passage of social arbitrage from ailing women in their sixties to vital

young women not yet turned twenty. The alteration was further marked, of course, by the fact that each of the latter possessed a mature husband of independent prestige and high place in the hierarchy of the realm, that each was a potential heir of the kingdom in her own right, and that each was a possible queen mother ofa future heir also. The two couples must have increasingly dominated the king’s presence and the king’s counsels even though, so far as one can detect, neither Raymond nor Henry brought any powerful retainers with them to court. After these four, the most authoritative and effective members of the royal court were doubtless the bishops ordinarily in residence at it. The primate, Archbishop Bernard, by 1092 already had twelve years of ex-

perience in the realm and in royal politics. He was the indispensable counsellor of this reign and of the next as well. Bishop Pedro of the royal city of Leén had been in that powerful position for six years by 1092. Bishop Osmundo of Astorga, with two years more experience than Pedro, ruled an episcopal see almost as closely associated with the monarchy. Bishop Raymond of Palencia had but a year’s less experience than Pedro but was personally closer to the king perhaps than any

of them save Bernard of Toledo. Alfonso had called him “magistro meo’ in 1090.7! Only Burgos was affected by the loss of its old bishop,

Gomez, in February 1097, but the new incumbent, Garcia Aznérez, had the advantage of being the nephew of his predecessor.?2 The bishops would also have formed a party with a distinct training and a distinct mentality and style even if sometimes driven by conflicting ambitions 1n their own sphere.

Particularism and provincialism were more likely to have been marked among the court magnates. As we have seen, these were largely drawn from the great families of the meseta. Galicia furnished none, 71 See chapter I1, note 36. 72 See note 22.

of

THE KING’S GOOD SERVANTS (1092-1099) 281 Portugal none as well unless the majordomo, Ermegildo Rodriguez, were indeed from that area. The trans-Duero and the new kingdom of Toledo were too raw to aspire to such position. Asturias supplied only Count Fernando Diaz. Even Count Froila Diaz from the immediate borderlands of the west seems not to have belonged to that circle. The Leonese nobles were dominated, as they long had been, by Count Pedro Anstirez even though another, Fernando Munoz, was royal majordomo from 1096. Of scarcely less distinguished a family than the Ansurez was Count Martin Lainez. The Castilians at court were rather more numerous and cohesive. As we have already seen the Lara family was especially prominent in its pa-

triarch: Count Gonzalo Nunez, his two sons, Rodrigo Gonzalez and Gomez Gonzalez, who had been alférez and then became a count, and his nephew Pedro Gonzalez, who had also been alferez. Through Gomez Gonzalez, the Lara were related by marriage to the magnate Alvar Diaz, another long-time court figure whase son, Ordono Alvarez, also became alférez. Finally, Count Garcia Ordénez of Najera was also related to Alvar Diaz. The old king, for Alfonso was fifty-five at the beginning of this period and sixty-two in 1099, could thus survey his own court and expect it regularly to reflect four different bodies of opinion and experience as

well as self-interest. That diversity multiplied his work when they needed to be swayed to support a common action or policy with something approaching vigor, but it also provided a lever that could be applied to prevent them from coalescing on an initiative that he preferred to avoid or abort. The interests of the peripheral lands from Vizcaya to

Toledo to Portugal could only be heard faintly in the clamor of the court, but the king must be mindful of them if no one else was. Finally, the future of Sancho Adef6énsez, the child of Zaida, had to be nurtured and protected as the realm’s only male heir grew to his sixth year. By 1099 the Italian marriage had produced not a single living issue.

%

FOURTEEN

THE MURABIT ASSAULT RENEWED (1097-1100)

At least one other power in the peninsula had, if not exactly capitalized on the preoccupations of the Leonese monarchy, indirectly benefitted

from them. While Alfonso VI had been mollifying the Burgundian cousins, Raymond and Henry, and seeking a scries of general understandings with the pope, the old alliance with Aragén was being seriously strained. Since his accession in June 1094 the new king, Pedro ], had been planning to pursue the siege of Huesca energetically. Yet this assault on the forward bastion of Zaragoza in the northeast would necessarily endanger Aragén’s relationship with Leon-Castilla which had perdured since 1076. Zaragoza was the sole taifa left to render parias to Alfonso VI, and its lands might one day also furnish a natural southerly extension of the fertile plains of the Rioja on the middle Ebro. Pedro of Aragén might nibble undisturbed at the northern extremities of Zaragoza buth the mere suggestion that he was bent on its conquest must provoke a strong reaction from Alfonso. The approaches of Pedro of Aragén to Urban II in March 1095 and his sweeping renewal of the recognition of papal sovereignty should be seen in this light. The assault on Huesca was to be carried out by a papal vassal and in the presence of a papal legate.’ Such circumstances might be expected to temper if not prevent a Leonese riposte. The seige of Huesca began early in 1095 with attacks that overran a series of outlying strong points to the east of the city, isolating it from

Barbastro. Then in May Pedro began the construction of a fortified camp just two kilometers west of Huesca. From that time on the city was more or less closely invested but the siege, in the formal sense, was an effort confined to the summer and fall of 1096. It was in all probability then that the south French forces recruited by Pedro appeared on the scene for they could hardly have wintered in Aragén.? In 1096, as

often before and after, the limited forces of the Aragonese had to be supplemented from beyond the Pyrenees if major objectives were to be attained. ' Kehr, “El papado y los reinos de Navarra y Aragon,” pp. 129-34. ? Boissonnade, Du nouveau sur la Chanson de Roland, p. 37.

THE MURABIT ASSAULT RENEWED (1097-I100) 283 By the late fall the situation of the beleaguered city had become desperate and a relief effort was clearly necessary to prevent its capture. Tardily, al-Mustain of Zaragoza took the field in November. With him were the forces of Count Garcia Ord6énez of Najera and Count Gonzalo Nunez of Lara. The presence of two of the greatest nobles of Le6n-Cas-

tilla clearly bespeaks the concern of Alfonso VI; nevertheless, that monarch chose not to involve himself personally. That was a fortunate decision as events would have it for, on November 18, 1096, the Zaragozan and his allies were decisively defeated at Alcoraz by Pedro I and his allies. Nine days later, on November 27, the

Aragonese monarch entered the city which was immediately to become the chief city of his realm.3 The only solace for Alfonso of Leén was that the prestige of the crown was not immediately involved in the rout and the reverses suffered by two of the greatest of the magnates of the kingdom might temper their ambitions for a bit in a way entirely acceptable to him. Nevertheless, the defeat of Zaragoza, in the long

run, would be most significant as a defeat for Leén-Castilla in the northeast. Pedro of Arag6én was entirely aware that he had transgressed against the canons of the Leonese friendship and would have had no interest in

actively pursuing or prolonging the estrangement. For the next few years he would be busy with repopulation of the city of Huesca itself from his more northerly domains and the rounding out of its territorial environs. Yet the resentment would persist in Leén and Pedro would only be prudent if he took some measures to provide against more active manifestations of it. It is striking that just at this time, at Huesca on December 17, 1096, the doughty former bishop of Santiago de Compostela, Diego Pelaez, appears at the Aragonese court and ts cited in the royal charters themselves.+ That exile and recurring irritant to Alfonso of Leén will continue to enjoy the hospitality of Pedro I down to the end of his reign.‘ It is possible as well that the very rapid remarriage of the Aragonese king in 1097 reflected his continuing need for the kind of prestige a wife of foreign extraction could give. His wife Agnes of Poitou was last mentioned in a charter of May 9, and his marriage to a new wife took place on August 16, 1097, in the cathedral of Huesca.° 3 Turk, Reino de Zaragoza, pp. 175-79, and Ubieto Arteta, Historia de Aragon, pp. 11828, review the campaign and the sources for it in detail. 4 Ubieto Arteta, Coleccién diplomdtica de Pedro 1, pp. 241-45.

’ Ubieto Arteta, “E] destierro del Diego Pelaez, pp. 48-so. ° Szabolcs de Vajay, “Ramire le moine et Agnés de Poitou,” in Mélanges offerts a René Crozet, ed. Pierre Gallais and Yves-Jean Riou, vol. 2 (Poitiers, 1966), p. 731. Ubieto Arteta, ed., Cartulario de Santa Cruz, pp. 37-40.

284 CHAPTER FOURTEEN Curiously enough, his bride too was of Italian origin and bore the name of Berta. On the other hand, the renewed alliance of Pedro of Aragon and the

Cid and their conduct of a joint campaign against the Murabit to the south of Valencia during the winter of 1097, described in detail by Me-

néndez Pidal, simply never happened. If the events always strained one’s credulity, the subsequent critique by Huici is thorough and convincing.7 Our earliest notices for the year 1097 associate Alfonoso VI with the church of Oviedo. It is possible that the court had moved north to that city, which held so many familiar associations for the crown, after celebrating the Christmas festivities around Sahagun. | incline to doubt it nonetheless. Necessity might sometimes demand it, but passage of the

Cantabrians at that time of year would have been brutal for a large party and it was a large party that confirmed the donation the king made to Bishop Martin on March 23, 1097.8 More probably Bishop Martin and his friends were at court awaiting the Easter festivities two weeks hence. The charter was confirmed by the bishop of Leén, the royal majordomo and the royal alférez, by four counts, by the king’s elderly sisters, and by Count Raymond and the king’s daughter, Urraca. Of Count Henry and Infanta Teresa there is no evidence. On April 14, Alfonso was in Leén when he made a donation to the cathedral of that city.° It was confirmed by five bishops, including Bishop Martin of Oviedo, and by Raymond of Galicia and his wife. Again there is no sign of Henry or Teresa, but the size of the gathering bespeaks important deliberation still going on well after Easter, which fell that year on April s. Then on April 23, 1097, 1n a private document of the Leonese monastery of Gradefes appears the first known confirmation of “Henricus

gener adefo. .. .” Unfortunately there is a break in the parchment at precisely this point, but the donation was confirmed as well by Count

Raymond and Urraca and a number of other court figures.'° Two 7 Espana del Cid 1:528—33. Historia musulmana de Valencia 2:222-25.

® Garcia Larragueta, Documentos de Oviedo, pp. 301-302. Another private document of Feb. 20, 1097, ibid., pp. 298-300, was confirmed by the king’s sisters and the royal notary. As a recent, important donation to Oviedo it may have becn brought to court for royal confirmation by Bishop Martin, or perhaps it was even executed there. To imagine the elderly sisters of the king trudging through the midwinter snows of the Cantabrians is particularly difficult. 9 AC Leén, Cédice 11, ff. 75v—-76v; Acad. Hist., Catedrales de Espana, 9-25-1-C-4, ff. 731-751; pub. ES 36:88—89 append.

10 AHN, Microfilmas, Archivo Diocesano de Leén, Gradefes, Rollo 6.311, no. I1. Pedro Gonzalez is cited as alférez instead of Gomez Gonzalez but I take that to be an error of the copyist.

THE MURABIT ASSAULT RENEWED (1097-1100) 285 weeks earlier than this a private document of Coimbra dated April 9, 1097, had cited “Comite domno henrico genero supradicti regis dominante a flumine mineo usque in tagum.”!! Finally we have the clearest kind of converging evidence which shows Henry with a royal bride and territorial jurisdiction in Portugal. But as late as January 19, 1097, a document of Sahagin could refer to him merely as count in Tordesillas.!* I believe we must consider the latter usage as not exclusive. Sometime early in May the king left Leon to initiate a military campaign. On May 19, 1097, he granted a charter of immunity to the Castilian monastery of Silos. He was then in the tiny village of La Aguilera a few kilometers northwest of Aranda de Duero.'3 The confirmations give us a good look at the composition of a royal army actually on campaign. Queen Berta was there as was Infanta Urraca and her husband Count Raymond. Archbishop Bernard of Toledo, the bishops of Burgos, Palencia, and Leén, and the abbots of the major Castilian monasteries of Ona, Cardena, Arlanza, and Silos made up the clerical contingent. The royal majordomo and the alférez, Count Pedro Anstrez, and two other counts, whom we cannot securely identify for the lack of a patronymic although they may be Sancho Pérez and Pedro Peldez respectively, are listed. Then follows what is a muster of almost all the great magnates of the eastern meseta and frontier. Following the royal merino for Castilla are the names of Gonzalo Nunez of Lara and his son Rodrigo Gonzalez, Alvar Diaz of Oca and his son Pedro Alvarez, and

Count Garcia Ordénez. From the new realms of Toledo appear the names of Alvar Fanez of Zorita and Fernan Pérez of Hita. Assuming that each of the major figures, including the bishops and abbots, leads a squadron of approximately 50 knights, this would be an army of 1,200 knights. If one were to add, as is necessary, another 1,200 squires and a groom for each knight, then Alfonso was leading a force of roughly 3,600 men before the baggage train and the inevitable camp

followers are taken into account. Clearly a major campaign was in prospect, but the scribe tells us only that “rege exercitum ad Zaragoza ducente.” From what was then his position the king could easily have followed the Duero up to Almazan and then struck south to Medinaceli, from there to follow the Rio Jal6n down to the Ebro only twenty

kilometers above Zaragoza. Or at Almazan he could as well have turned north to Soria and then crossed the Sierra del Moncayo and passing through Tarazona have reached the Ebro another twenty kilometers farther north. 11 PMH, Diplomata, pp. 504-S05.

2 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 889, no. 8. An original. '§ Férotin, ed., Recueil de Silos, pp. 31-32. The editor placed him farther up the Duero at a location unknown at present.

286 CHAPTER FOURTEEN I believe that what the king had in mind was a punitive expedition against Pedro of Aragén and perhaps even the recapture of Huesca in concert with his ally, al-Mustain of Zaragoza. If instead his intent had been an attack on the taifa itself, his strategy would necessarily have been different. Either of the routes just rehearsed would have been costly if not impossible in the face of a determined enemy for cavalry would have been of no use at all in forcing the critical passages. On the contrary, a more northern and longer route across the Sierra de Demanda by the pilgrim road would have been physically easier and lay entirely in friendly hands. At the end of it Alfonso would have found the fortress of Calahorra as an emiently suitable staging area for an attack and a broad plain for the operation of his heavy squadrons. But the king was intent on the short route because he anticipated in Zaragoza an ally with supplies and auxiliaries, not an enemy. We are forced to rely on conjecture for in all likelihood that army never reached Zaragoza and certainly did not reach Huesca. If it had, some notice of even its failure would have found its way into a chronicle. Instead the army was diverted south by the arrival of the news that Yusuf, emir of the Murabit had returned to the peninsula. We do not know exactly when the emir arrived in Iberia, presumably at Algeciras. The Muslim source that provides the scant information on the campaign mentions only the year.'4 Given the ordinary conditions of medieval warfare and of sea transport we can assume that Yusuf would have landed at Algeciras no earlier than the beginning of April and accompanied by an army of sufficient size as to make his arrival at Cérdoba, which became his base of operations, unlikely before the last week of April. The distance to be covered, after all, was four hundred kilometers, and a consistent rate of march of twenty-five kilometers a day would certainly have constituted the maximum speed. We may also assume that Alfonso VI was taken by surprise for he had been planning to commit his forces in the east. That being the case, his spies in Sevilla or Cérdoba itself could hardly have gotten word to him before midMay and, as we have seen, on May 19 he was still planning on a campaign in the east. If the news reached him the following day at Aranda de Duero, the army could have reached Toledo as early as June 1, 1097. How soon either of the opposing armies could have been ready to take to the field is problematic. It is clear that in contrast to his behavior in 1086 and not infrequently since that time Alfonso chose to remain on the defensive. He seems to have made no attempt to deny to his enemy passage through the Sierra Morena. Instead he established a rough 14 Al-Kardabus, “Kitab al-Iqtifa” 2:xlii append., gives the year which began on Dec. 18, 1096, and supplies the bulk of the following account.

THE MURABIT ASSAULT RENEWED (1097-1100) 287 defensive front running from the mountains of Toledo in the west at Consuegra to the southern edge of the Sierra de Albarracin in the east at Belmonte and Cuenca. Such a line averaged roughly seventy kilometers in depth south of the Tajo as the river swings northeast from Toledo and probably can be taken as the extreme limit of those territories effectively controlled by Christian forces in 1097. The king was to campaign in and defend only friendly territory. While awaiting the advance of the enemy, Alfonso would have busied himself with making the necessary repairs to the strongpoints of the region and to revictualing them. Both were much facilitated by the ex-

treme slowness of the Murabit advance. Since there is no mention of that advance even being harassed much less impeded, one must consider that Muslim Andalucia continued at least passively to resist full cooperation with their African coreligionists. That may be the reason as well why Emir Yusuf remained in Cérdoba rather than personally taking the field. Meanwhile the Leonese king had also summoned assistance from a variety of quarters. At Valencia the Cid responded by sending his son Diego, who was to perish in the encounter. A request apparently also went to Pedro of Aragon. That monarch, understanding that some gesture was necessary to patch up relations with LeénCastilla, did organize an expedition but not until September when the issue was already decided.'s The date of the main battle at Consuegra was the day before Pedro’s marriage as it happened. Finally the Murabit forces advanced to the attack and one army, un-

der Muhammed ibn-Alhay, encountered Alfonso near Consuegra on August 15, 1097, and defeated him. The Leonese then retreated to that fortress itself and there was besieged by the Muslim for eight days.’ At the end of that time the Murabit force withdrew to the south. About the same time or slightly thereafter, a second army under the command of Yusuf’s son, ibn-Aisa, the governor of Murcia, attacked the eastern end of the Christian line in the Cuenca district and there defeated Alvar Fanez before withdrawing in its turn. The import of these events has been obscured, it seems to me, by the tendency of subsequent historians to dwell on the defeat of the Christian forces in the field. Certainly they were and we hear of one of them subsequently being besieged. But it is perfectly clear from the behavior of the victors themselves that neither wing of the Alfonsine forces had been nullified as an effective fighting force though each may have been 's Menéndez Pidal, Espatia del Cid 1:534-37, for the sources here. ‘6 “Arrancada sobre el rey don Alfonso en término de Consuegra, dia de sabado e dia de Santa Maria de Agosto. Entré el rey don Alfonso en Consuegra e cercaronlo y los almoravides VIII dias e fueronse.” “Anales Toledanos,” Las crénicas latinas de la Reconquista, ed. Huici Miranda, 1:343.

288 CHAPTER FOURTEEN roughly handled. The fact is that we hear of no further advances or of the surrender of no towns but rather of a Muslim general withdrawal and, somewhat later, the return of Yusuf to Morocco. Taken together what these events describe in military terms is an eminently successful defense against a major hostile effort.

That the enemy would not return to the attack was understood clearly for at least elements of the court had returned to Sahagtin as early as September 10, and all of it by October 24, 1097, at the latest. '7

The king was at Leén on November 4, 1097,'* but in the late fall he seems to have undertaken a journey to Santiago de Compostela, in all likelihood to give thanks to the apostle for the delivery of the kingdom from its enemies. On November 23 the king, along with Count Raymond and his wife, confirmed a charter of Count Henry to Soeiro Mendes.'9 I do not believe that this latter was issued in Compostela. In any event, Count Henry himself was clearly there on December 9, 1097, when he issued a diploma concerning a possession of Santiago near Braga.?° I do not think that the court, or even just Count Henry, could have traveled from Leén to Santiago in less than three weeks. On the other hand, the court could have journeyed to Braga after November 4, and from there to Compostela after November 23. A purported charter of Alfonso VI, dated to December 31, 1097, which would locate the king at Leén is a forgery in a misdated copy.”! Quite possibly the court spent the entire Christmas season at Compostela for there is no documentary evidence for its presence in its usual

wintering spots at Sahagun or Leén until Jate in January 1098. The royal party could have stayed for the celebration of the feast of Saint James there on December 28 and still have been back at Sahaguin by January 25. In the eleventh century the Spanish liturgical calendar still in'7 AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 139r, and fol. 81r—v, respectively. The latter pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahaguin, pp. 498-99.

'8 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 3.427, no. 5. '9 DMP 1-1:6-8, and 1-2:554—-55. The editor believed that the eighteenth-century editor of this charter had seen the original even though the latter described it as a copy. I have no reservations about the authenticity of the charter but it must be a copy for, despite Azevado’s assertion, there is no genuine instance of a contemporary chancery use of the caroline script. It is therefore impossible strictly to assert that Alfonso’s confirmation was

coeval with the document itself. |

20 Pub. PMH, Diplomata, p. 515, and Lopez Ferreiro, Historia de Santiago de Compostela 3:41-42 append. Peres, Como nasceu Portugal, p. 74, reads the terminology as reflecting a major advance in the growth of Portuguese self-consciousness. I would wonder. 21 Alamo, ed., Coleccién diplomdtica de San Salvador de Oria 1:140-41. See chapter 5, note

61. The reality of the Council of Gerona, Dec. 13, 1097, is also thrown into question since it rests on a source that has Archbishop Bernard preside as legate when he was returning from Rome. As we have seen, Bernard was not in Rome unless he traveled there after mid-September. But see Rivera Recio, La Iglesia de Toledo, p. 149.

THE MURABIT ASSAULT RENEWED (1097-I100) 289 cluded such a feast.2? The document of Leén dated January 17, 1098, which purports to be a charter of Alfonso VI to that church is a patent forgery.?3 It lists as majordomo Alfonso Téllez and as alférez Garcia Alvarez, neither of whom appears in his respective office until early 1102. It also lists Sancho Alfénsez in what would otherwise be the first pub-

lic appearance of Alfonso’s heir. In similar fashion a document of the Castilian monastery of Silos, dated January 20, 1075, but redated by Férotin to 1096-1098, must be regarded as a forgery as well.*4 The diplomatic 1s acceptable but the confirmations are identical in person and in order to another royal grant to Silos of September 30, 1098, which will be considered hereafter. The first genuine document that places the court back at Sahagtin is that of January 25.75 Count Raymond confirmed that document as he did also the royal diploma of February 18, 1098.*° He did not appear among the members of the court who con-

firmed an exchange of property made by the abbot of Sahagtin on March 3, 1098, but Archbishop Bernard of Toledo did.??7 This document thus calls into question the Council of Vich of March 8, 1098, at which Bernard was supposed to have presided as legate.?® There is sim-

ply no possibility that he could have traveled from one to the other in five days. If the Council of Vich, as well as the Council of Gerona of December 13, 1097, is thus demonstrated to be apocryphal, then the actual importance of Bernard’s legatine authority in the peninsula at large must be revised downward to a considerable degree. 9 The charter issued jointly by infantas Urraca and Elvira on March 11, 1098, does not help in placing any other members of the court for the people who confirm are of lower rank.?3° It is of relevance here for the charter issued by Count Raymond to the Compostelan monastery of Antealtares on March 28, 1098.31 The great Easter council in Santiago de Compostela which the latter records and in which Diego Gelmirez was probably elected to that see was attended by a swarm of Ga22 David, Etudes historiques, p. 201. 23 AC Leon, 998 and ggg.

4 Recueil de Silos, pp. 30-31. Two additional copies unknown to Férotin are listed in Maria Teresa de la Pena Marazuela and Pilar Leon Tello, eds., Archivo de los Duques de Frias (Madrid, 1955), pp. 301, and 303. 2s AHN, Clero, Carpeta 889, no. 16. A private document. 2» AC Leon, Céodice 11, fol. 97r; Acad. Hist., Catedrales de Espana, 9-25-1-C-4, fol. 78v. In terms of diplomatic this is a most peculiar document which takes the form rather of an agnitio than a charter. 27 AHN, Céodices, 989B, fol. 71r. *® Rivera Recio, Iglesia de Toledo, p. 149, accepts the historicity of the council. 9 See note 21. 30 ASI, Reales, no. 133. 31 See chapter 13, note 34.

290 CHAPTER FOURTEEN lician nobility and the bishops of Lugo, Mondonedo, Tuy, Braga, and Coimbra, who confirmed the charter. However, the confirmations of the bishops of Leén, Astorga, and Oviedo and Infanta Urraca must be subsequent to the issuance of the document for, unlike Count Raymond himself, they could hardly have made the long, hard trip from Ledn to Compostela in little more than two weeks. Moreover, the bishops of Leén and Astorga were clearly again at court less than a week later. 32

For like reasons, the charter granted by Alfonso VI to the monastery of San Millan de La Cogolla for property in the area about Almazan should be redated from April 7 to October 7, 1098.33 The minor figures who confirm that diploma make it unlikely that it was granted elsewhere than at Almazan itself. On the other hand, the full court which confirms could not have made the 350 kilometer journey from Sahagtin to Almazan in three days nor have returned again to Sahaguin by April 14, 1098.34 It was in the fall that the king was campaigning in that region as we shall see. By April 17, 1098, on which date Alfonso granted a charter of im-

munity to the bishop and the cathedral clergy of Leén, counts Raymond of Galicia and Henry of Portugal had rejoined the king.35 The count continued to reside in and around Sahagtin until late May and perhaps until late June.3° The major and costly campaign of the previous year may have exacerbated the difficulties of finding resources and recruits for a new effort. A summer campaign did get underway finally though most of it is lost to us for lack of documents. When the king does come back into

sight on September 30, 1098, he is at Guadalajara, 125 kilometers northwest of Toledo and 56 northwest of Madrid. His exchange of property there with the monastery of Silos should be understood as part of the royal effort to consolidate control in this vital area.37 Understandably most of the royal host, as reflected in the document, were from Castilla. Guadalajara lies along the present National Highway II, which runs 32 Apr. 3, 1098. AHN, Coddices, 989B, fol. 45v. 33 Serrano, ed., Cartulario de San Millén, pp. 291-92. A twelfth-century copy at best. The earlier date was accepted by Julio Gonzalez, Repoblacién de Castilla la Nueva 1:129, but he was not familiar with the king’s overall itinerary for the year. 34 AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 82v. 35 AC Leon, Reales, no. 997; and a copy in Céddice 11, fol. 1v, with an incomplete date. 36 May 7, 1098. AHN. Céddices, 989B, fol. 65r—v. May 21, 1098. AHN, Clero, Carpeta

889, no. 20. May 27, 1098. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 37r. June 17, 1098. AHN, Microfilmas, AD Leén, Santa Maria de Otero de las Duenas, Rollo 18.135, no. 203. 37 Férotin, Recueil de Silos, pp. 33-34 and 35-36, is a sometimes close copy of the former.

THE MURABIT ASSAULT RENEWED (1097-1100) 291 from Madrid to Zaragoza following, in its general course, the old Roman road that did the same. The route was in antiquity, then, and is now a main artery of communication and transportation. Until the fall of Toledo to Alfonso only twelve years before it had been the route that bound the taifa of Zaragoza to Andalucia. Therefore it was in the interest of the Murabit rulers of the south to reopen it and in the interest of Ledn-Castilla to see that it remained firmly shut. Toward the north the road ran past the craggy fastnesses of Atienza, Sigtienza, and Medina-

celi, all still firmly in Muslim hands and surrounded by territories largely still populated by Islamic shepherds and small farmers. This area was not fundamentally won and resettled until twenty-four years later in the reign of the king’s daughter Urraca, but it had to be isolated from the Murabit, attempting to reestablish easy contact with Zaragoza as well as the reconquest of Toledo. Something else happens as the road runs to northwest. It flanks the Guadarramas finally and offers a path northward into the Castilian trans-Duero west of the Sorian highlands. The country is rolling but gently so, and, though it offers some difficulties to the passage of an army, it is infinitely more practicable than were the passes of Somosierra or Navacerrada. For that reason it had been the traditional invasion route north into Castilla in the great days of the caliphate. From Medinaceli it is a mere seventy-five kilometers north to Almazan on the bank of the upper Duero. In the fall of 1098, it is at this last spot that we find Alfonso if my reconstruction of his movements 1s accurate. 3*

Between the Muslim strongpoints at Atienza, Sigiienza, and Medinaceli, in a line running generally northward toward San Esteban de Gormaz on the Rio Duero, and the foothills of the Guadarrama to the west lay an area of Christian repopulation and infiltration, composed of tiny places like Hita. It was in the larger strategic interest of Alfonso to promote the development and expansion of that movement and so constrict increasingly the freedom of movement on the part of the local Muslim population. That, it seems to me, was what largely occupied his summer 1n 1098 although punitive measures against the Muslim of the area would have been a natural complement of such activity. These initiatives of Leén-Castilla on its eastern frontier were supplemented by the independent activities of Pedro of Aragén during the year. In March he had begun to lay siege to the Muslim fortress of Calasanz well to the east of Barbastro in a move obviously designed to help isolate the latter stronghold preparatory to a direct attack upon it. In August Pedro was still sitting before Calasanz, and we cannot be 38 See notes 33 and 34.

292 CHAPTER FOURTEEN sure whether it fell to him in this year or not.39 In the eyes of one contemporary the effort was certainly a major one and would have preoccupied if not paralyzed al-Mustain of Zaragoza.*° Not that it was the aim of the Aragonese monarch to constitute himself or his kingdom the handmaid of Leonese purposes. He had wider ambitions as signaled by the marriage in this year of his son and heir to Maria, daughter of the Cid. Following hard upon the death of the only male heir of the master of the Valencian realm, that marriage alliance bespoke an eye to a possible major expansion of the still tiny realm of Aragon.*! Political consolidation, or at least the dream of it, was becoming the order of the day in the peninsula. Carried far enough it could threaten the hegemony of Leén-Castilla among the Christian kingdoms. At the same time, Pedro I secured the approbation of Urban II for the aggrandizement of the cathedral see newly restored in the conquered Huesca, which he clearly intended should be the chief city of his domains until such time as Zaragoza itself should yield to him.” Finally, to underscore further his independence of action, Pedro settled on the church of Santiago de Compostela some land around Huesca which however should be enjoyed by the exiled and deposed Diego Pel4ez so long as he should live. The action was taken in March 1098 and may have been the final exasperation which led to the election of Diego Gelmirez to that see in the same month. 4!

The year 1099 opened altogether routinely with the court gathered around the king in the royal city of Leon. There on January 17, Alfonso

granted two charters: one to the cathedral of the city and the other to the shrine church and royal pantheon of San Isidoro.44 Both Count Raymond and Count Henry were in attendance as were most of the bishops and lay magnates who were habitués of the court. The fuero of 39 Duran Gudiol, Coleccién diplomdtica de Huesca 1:94-95 and 101-102, respectively. Ubieto Arteta, Historia de Aragon, pp. 121-22, is unable to reconcile the documentary record. 4° “Quando rex Petrus fuit cum magno exercitu militum depredare sarracenos et Deo

cooperante obtinuit victoriam.” AGN, Becerro antiguo de Leire, pp. 83-85; Becerro menor, pp. 300-302; AHN, Céddices, 73B, ff. 54r—5s5r, and 93B, p. 256. Dated only to 1098.

4" Ubieto Arteta, El ‘Cantar de mio Cid,’ pp. 116-21.

4 See the two bulls of May 11, 1098, pub. Duran Gudiol, Coleccién diplomatica de Huesca 1:95—99. Also Kehr, “El papado y los reinos de Navarra y Aragon,” pp. 135-37. 43 Pub. Ubieto Arteta, Coleccién de Pedro I, p. 280. 44 AC Leon, Reales, no. 1.001; a copy with the no. 1.376, and others in Cddice 11, fol. 75r—v, and Acad. Hist., Catedrales de Espana, 9-25-1-C-4, ff. 79r-81r; AC Leon, Reales, no. 1000, is an interpolated copy that enlarges the grant. ASI, Reales, no. 128, a possible original but with the date partially obliterated. The copy in ASI, Codice 81, ff. 11v—14r,

gives the correct date as does Acad. Hist., Coleccion Salazar, 0-22, ff. 41v—42r. BN, Manuscritos, 5.790, fol. 123v, had the date as Jan. 17, 1095.

THE MURABIT ASSAULT RENEWED (1097-I 100) 293 Miranda de Ebro, which Alfonso was supposed to have issued in Burgos during this same month, must be disregarded so far as it seems re-

liably to indicate the whereabouts of the king. Burgos was no more than a reasonable ten-day journey from Leon so that it is possible that Alfonso had been there early in the month. Still, as a genre, the fueros

uniformly exist only as late twelfth-century documents and, in the chancery of Alfonso VI, they did not yet exist as formally distinct from the charter. By the time any text becomes available to us it has been so massively interpolated that conclusions drawn from it about the period of its purported issuance are hazardous in the extreme.* On February 2, 1099, the court was still in the Leonese alfoz at Castrofruela when the king issued a charter to Bishop Garcia of Burgos. *° From the language of the diploma itself, “circunstante concilio mag-

natum,” as well as the number of those who confirm it is evident that | the great curia of mid-January continued in existence. Its deliberations were still in process on February 13, 1099, when Alfonso granted a diploma to the Toledan monastery of San Servando, which diploma also obliquely reveals some of the concerns of the crown.4” The confirmation of the document by some of the minor officials of Toledo is not an indication that it was issued in that city but rather of the court’s fears about the future of Toledo. Apparently a new attempt against it on the part of the Murabit was expected once the campaigning season would open and measures for its defense were being considered. For the first time Alvar Fanez appears in the documents as alcalde of the city. Despite the royal apprehensions, the court continued in the Leén-Sa-

hagun area through mid-March and perhaps into the third week of April.4* A considerable number of the documents dated to the later winter and early spring of this year are rendered suspect by, among other things, their confirmation by Archbishop Bernard of Toledo 45 Francisco Cantera Burgos, ed., Fuero de Miranda de Ebro (Madrid, 1945), 1s the critical edition. For my own conclusions on the fuero as a diplomatic genre see Reilly, “The Chancery of Alfonso VI,” pp. 10-11. Attempts to draw conclusions from them as in Jean Gautier Dalché, Historia urbana de Leén y Castilla en la Edad Media, siglos [IX—XIII (Madrid, 1979), pp. 188-95, I regard as methodologically unsound.

4° Pub. Serrano, 3:101~03. An additional copy unknown to Serrano exists in BN, Manuscritos, 720, fol. 226r—v, a fragment dated to Feb. 2, 1096. We can surmise that part

of the business of this court was to resolve the possession of this bit of property which once had been held by the bishop of Astorga, Osmundo, who had granted it to Burgos, which grant was now being challenged by his new successor, Bishop Pelayo of Astorga. 47 See chapter 13, note 4. 48 Mar. 8, 1099. AC Leon Céddice 11, ff. gov—gir. Mar. 16, 1099. Ibid., fol. 36r—v. Apr.

19, 1099. AHN, Céddices, 989B, ff. 89v—gor, pub. Prieto Prieto, “Documentos de Sahagun,” pp. §36-37. This last can be accepted only on the conclusion that Archbishop Bernard of Toledo was cited in the original instrument and did not confirm it.

294 CHAPTER FOURTEEN who was in Rome before May 4, 1099, and would have been in transit by early March.4? As a result we cannot be sure of Alfonso’s movements after early spring. In all likelihood he had moved south to direct the defense of Toledo

for the Murabit had returned to the attack. Led by the grandson of Emir Yusuf, Yahya ibn-Texufin, they penetrated the Christian defenses south of the Tajo and set up their sicge camp directly opposite the city itself, in and around the monastery of San Servando. Their army was composed of Andalucian forces and consequently they had not had to wait on the arrival of aid from North Africa but had been able to strike early in the year, probably in May. Nonetheless they had been balked of their prime purpose for the city held firm. Instead they ended by concentrating on a siege of the castle of Consuegra, which had defied them successfully in 1097. This time they achieved at least that end for the castle fell to them sometime in June. %° For Alfonso that loss meant the collapse of even tenuous control of the lands south of the

Tajo and therefore of roughly half of the territory of the former taifa which he had conquered in 1085. It also meant that for the foreseeable future Toledo, the greatest city of his realm, would sit at the very southernmost extension of that kingdom, perennially exposed to attack by an enemy that now enjoyed easier access to it than did Alfonso himself. Presumably the Leonese monarch directed the general defense of the city, and assuredly Alvar Fanez would have been involved, but no sources survive that mention the names of those who took part. After the fall of Consuegra in June and the subsequent withdrawal of the Murabit army the Leonese forces were probably busy for the rest of the summer both repairing and strengthening the defenses of Toledo itself but also of all strongpoints along what was now to become the embattled line of the Tajo. But quite as great a danger was now to materialize suddenly on the east flank of the kingdom. On July 10, 1099, Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, the Cid, died in Valencia.s! That principality, which had always been a highly personal creation of the great warrior, was bereft of his leadership and devolved upon his wife in the absence of a male heir. Whatever was the real substance of Jimena Diaz, hidden beyond a veil of literary imagination, it is clear that she was no virago. Since the battle of Cuart in 1094 the hopes of the Murabit to reclaim the great Mediterranean port had been constant, and a major attack had occurred as recently as late 1097.52 Now they could be expected to redou4 See chapter 13, note 43. so “Anales Toledanos,” Crénicas latinas de la Reconquista, p. 343. ‘| Huici Miranda, Historia musulmana de Valencia 2:164. s Al-Kardabus, “Kitab al-Iqtifa,” p. xlu append.

THE MURABIT ASSAULT RENEWED (1097-1100) 295 ble their efforts. A success for them there would bring them up to the line of the Ebro at least, would threaten the taifa of Zaragoza and the loss of its parias to Leén-Castilla, and would generally threaten the entire eastern flank of the kingdom. Surely under these circumstances such initiatives as Pedro I of Arag6n might undertake suddenly, from having the color of presumption, took on that of aid and assistance. By February 1099 it is clear that he had taken the castle of Calansanz and perhaps completed the isolation of the Muslim frontier fortress-city of Barbastro.53 His operations around the fringes of Zaragoza may have had the effect of dissuading al-Mustain at this critical season from attempting to realize his own longstanding ambition to annex Valencia himself. But gratitude is the most evanescent of the virtues so Pedro I cultivated his position at Rome by paying in 1099 two years of the annual tribute which he owed as papal vassal.5+ He also donated on July 3, 1099, some additional properties to the church of Santiago de Compostela in the presence of Diego Pelaez whom the king still cited as bishop. 55 Despite the support of the king of Aragon for the latter, Paschal II finally ruled definitively against the former bishop on December 29, 1099, and authorized a new election.5° Perhaps the news of the Murabit assaults against Toledo in 1097 and 1098 and of the death of the Cid had persuaded the pope that he must do what he could to simplify the concerns of Alfonso VI. That Leonese monarch had retired to his ordinary winter quarters at Sahagun as early as October 25, and in all probability he remained there.57 It may have been then that the new church of the monastery of Sahagun was consecrated in the midst of a great and surely festive concourse of nobles and bishops.;* At least in some quarters the celebrations of the Christmas season would have become somber soon enough for Alfonso’s third queen, Berta, died shortly after the new year. She was probably already deceased when Alfonso, in Leén, issued a charter to the church of Santiago de Compostela on January 16, 1100.59 A week later at Castrofruela the charter that Alfonso granted to Sahagun com$3 Duran Gudiol, Coleccién de Huesca 1:102-03.

54 Kehr, “Como y cuando se hizo Arag6n feudatario de la Santa Sede?” pp. 304-305. ss Ubieto Arteta, Coleccién diplomdtica de Pedro I, p. 306. 56 ES 20:25~-26.

37 AHN, Codice$, 989B, fol. 124v; pub. Prieto Prieto, “Documentos de Sahagtin,” pp. 537-38. November 11, rogg. ASI, Reales, no. 132, Nov. 17, 1099. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 78v; pub. Fita, “El concilio nacional de Burgos,” pp. 361-63. 58 Puyol y Alonso, ed., “Las croénicas anénimas,” p. 116. 99 Lopez Ferreiro, Historia de Compostela 3:48-—49 append.

296 CHAPTER FOURTEEN memorated her memory.® This latter charter reveals the presence of the king’s sister, Urraca, and his two daughters, Urraca and Teresa, to-

gether with the husbands of the latter two, the counts Raymond and Henry. The first thoughts of all would already have turned to the choice of anew wife for the king. Given the speed with which he was provided

with one the choice must have been made then and an embassy dispatched to summon his bride. It also seems obvious that Queen Berta had been seriously ill for some time and that previous, polite inquiries had been made. Otherwise the entire sequence of events is simply incredible.

There is no further evidence of the whereabouts of the court until March 17, 1100, from which source it appears to have remained about Sahagtin.*! Count Henry and Infanta Teresa had left it for some reason

for in March they were in Coimbra. There they made a handsome donation to the Cluniac monastery of La Charité-sur-Loire.*? Bishko considered this donation to be the initial attempt by Count Henry to Open an indirect attachment to Cluny that would be effective and yet not challenge his father-in-law’s influence there and perhaps to underline Portuguese autonomy in the peninsula. As he pointed out, no personal connection to the French monastery can be detected on the part of anyone then in Portugal.*} But Bishko was unaware of the temporal context of the donation. It 1s quite as possible that Henry was merely rewarding the prior of that house, Gerald, for a part he had played in arranging anew marriage alliance with the house of Burgundy and the aging king. Elizabeth, fourth of the wives of Alfonso VI, remains a mysterious person. It has been widely accepted that she was a daughter of Louis VI of France. That tradition is an old one based on her funerary inscription in the royal pantheon of San Isidoro of Leén. From thence it was picked up by Lucas of Tuy in the thirteenth century and through him passed into the mainstream of Spanish historiography. Bishop Pelayo, however, does not mention such an important relationship even though he was a contemporary court figure and was ordinarily attentive to such 6° Jan. 25, 1100. See chapter 12, note 68. A very strange document supposedly deriving from a judicial decision of the king in favor of Sahaguin has been associated with this same

occasion. Pub. Prieto Prieto, “Documentos de Sahagtin,” pp. 539-40. 6 AHN, Céddices, 989B, ff. 13 1v—132r.

62 DMP 1-1:10—-11. Escalona, Historia de Sahagiin, p. 89, cites an exchange of Count Henry with Sahagiin which would seem to put him back in that area by March 21, 1100. 6 Bishko, “Count Henrique of Portugal,” pp. 180-81. Segl, Konigtum und Klosterreform in Spanien, p. 141, accepts this interpretation. 64 Ambrosio de Morales, Viaje a los reinos de Leon, p. 151, “Hic requiescit Helisabeth Regina filia Lodovici Regis Franciae.” Lucas de Tuy, “Chronicon Mundi” 4:103.

THE MURABIT ASSAULT RENEWED (1097-I 100) 297 matters. Another contemporary, the anonymous author of Sahagun, does not even mention her although he is our best source for the death of her immediate predecessor.°:

That is suspicious enough, but there is no record of a daughter of Louis the Fat of France named Elizabeth. Furthermore, even if she were

illegitimate, Louis was born in 1081. Presuming that he reached puberty at fourteen and sired her immediately, a daughter of his could not have been more than five years old in 1100.° Child marriage is not unknown in the period, of course, but are we then to believe that in the ensuing eight years this child bride bore Alfonso two daughters before she died at age thirteen?

There is every likelihood, it seems to me, that the new queen was drawn from some cadet line of the house of Burgundy. The conditions of the time made such a course of action advisable. The renewed assaults of the Murabit, the death of the Cid at Valencia, and the very strong positions held by Raymond and Henry.at court made a mending of fences the desirable course. The attendant circumstances make such a course convincing. The speed with which the new marriage was arranged argues the return to a practice already familiar to the several parties. The fact is that the prior of a Cluniac monastery and friend of Abbot Hugh was then in the peninsula.” And finally, that the same prior was handsomely rewarded just then by Count Henry, who would have been one of the most interested parties, points in the same direction. On April 1s, 1100, Alfonso VI was still unmarried and in Leén when

he granted a charter to the canons of that cathedral in the midst of a court that included his sister Urraca, his two daughters and their husbands, six bishops, and seven counts of the realm, including the two Burgundians, and a variety of lesser figures.°* There he seems to have remained through April 24.°? However, on May 3, 1100, Urraca, the king’s sister, granted a charter to the cathedral of Pamplona which has ordinarily been assumed to have been given in that city.7° If that is the 6s Sanchez Alonso, ed., Cronica del obispo Don Pelayo, p. 86. For the anonymous see note §8. “ Augustin Fliche, Le Regne de Philippe Ier. Roi de France (Geneva, 1975), pp. 39-40, 79, and 323.

67 “Charité-sur-Loire, DHGE 12 (Paris, 1953), cols. 419-21. The site had been given to Cluny in 1059 and Hugh had established a daughter house there with Gerald as its first prior. 6’ AC Leon, Reales, no. 996, an original; copies in Cédice 11, ff. 97v-98r, and Cédice 25, no. 24. The latter codex lacks pagination. Pub. ES 36:90-91 append. * Apr. 22, 1100. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 890, no. 7, an original. Apr. 24, 1100. Ibid., nos. 10 and 11. Apr. 24, 1100. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 1321r-v. 70 Goni Gaztambide, “Los obispos de Pamplona,” pp. 330-32.

298 CHAPTER FOURTEEN case we can probably assume that she had traveled to the foothills of the Pyrenees to greet the newly arrived fiancée of her brother. Confirming her diploma were the bishops of Leén, Palencia, Braga, and Burgos together with the royal majordomo, which would make a convincing re-

ception committee. The problem is that the bishops of Leén and Pa-

lencia had confirmed the documents of April 24, placing them at Sahagun. Now the ordinary rate of travel would have required roughly twice the ten days that had elapsed. We can assume that relays of horses had been furnished for them which would have made the trip possible but

would have been taxing for a woman of the infanta’s age. Or we can assume rather that the charter to Pamplona was issued in Leon as a reward to its bishop for having escorted the royal fiancée there. He was himself a Frenchman, Peter of Rodez. Ifthe former, then the royal couple would have to have been married at Burgos for the marriage had been completed already by May 14, 1100. On that date Alfonso issued a charter “una cum voluntate et assensu conjugis meae Elisabeth imperatricis,’ and it was issued “in via de Valentia quando ibam ducere ipsos christianos.”?! The military situation in the peninsula permitted of no extended nuptials.

During this year a son of Emir Yusuf, Yahya, again crossed the Straits of Gibraltar and conducted yet another siege of Toledo. The city did not fall but some castles did and some spoil was gained.7? That is all we are told. From the fact that some of the forces came from Africa and

returned there it is safe to surmise that the campaign could not have gotten under way before the beginning of June or lasted beyond early September. The aim of the Murabit was probably clear to Alfonso before the middle of May, and he must have been confident that his personal intervention was not needed at Toledo so much as it was at Valencia. He needed to see for himself the state of defenses at that seaport and to arrange who would actually command its forces. The king could not have tarried long in Valencia for it appears he had returned to Sahagtn by July 13, 1100.73 On July 31 the king granted a charter to a faithful retainer, which indicates he continued in that area. 74 He may have moved south to Palencia for he made a grant to that bish7" Pub. Loperrdez Corvalan, Descripcion histérica del obispado de Osma 3:9-10. 72 Al-Kardabus, “Kitab al-Iqtifa,” p. xlil append. 73 AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 44r. July 27, 1100. Ibid., ff. 97v—98r. 74 AC Leon, Cédice 11, ff. 88v—89r. This copy is dated to 1096, but the mention of Elizabeth as queen makes a date before 1100 impossible. Fernando Munoz confirms as

majordomo and to my present knowledge does not serve in that post beyond March IIOL.

THE MURABIT ASSAULT RENEWED (1097-1100) 299 opric on August 18.75 Yet only two days later 1n another diploma, this time at Castrofruela, which 1s difficult to locate exactly but lies somewhere within the vicinity of Leén, Alfonso made a grant to the cathedral of Burgos.” These latter two charters show Count Henry of Portugal present at

court along with his cousin Raymond. From there the former must have journeyed south rapidly to take control of local forces in and around Toledo. He could not have led an army of his own, even if he could have raised one, and have reached Malagon ninety kilometers south of Toledo in the vicinity of modern Ciudad Rodrigo by September 16, 1100, on which date he was defeated by a Muslim force.77 Henry must have been specifically commissioned by Alfonso for this action for there is no other way in which local forces would have accepted his leadership. The battle itself, which took place beyond the mountains of Toledo in what was now Muslim territory, would have resulted from a punitive raid into the district after the Murabit siege of Toledo of that summer was over. Such limited counterstrikes were common in the fluid warfare of the Reconquista, and they were most often carried out by local forces.7* Count Henry himself was neither captured nor injured and by November 24 had rejoined the court in the Sahagun area.”

By December 5, 1100, Alfonso VI had moved south to Palencia where a great curia assembled, usually referred to as the Council of Palencia for the documents that record it are of ecclesiastical origin. The first of these documents is the endowment made by Bishop Raymond to the canons of his cathedral of that date.*° The grant was confirmed by ten of the then fifteen bishops of the realm and by the abbots of Sahagun, Ona, and San Millan. Bishop Pedro of Pamplona confirmed as well, strengthening the suspicion that it was he who had escorted the 7s AHN, Microfilmas, Palencia, rollo 1.727. This copy is dated to 1086, but the confirmation of Ordono Alvarez as alférez establishes a date between 1099 and 1101. The other confirmants make 1100 most probable. A charter of Alfonso to Valladolid, dated only to 1100 but citing Elizabeth as queen, may be of this time. Pub. Manueco Villalobos and Zurita Nieto, eds., Documentos de Valladolid 1:62-63.

7 Aug. 20, 1100. Pub. Serrano, Obispo de Burgos 3:110-12. The document is dated to 1096 in the copy. Again it is the presence of Ordono Alvarez as alférez that suggests the redating. The text is also obviously corrupt in part, referring to Bishop Garcia as “venerabilis memorie” even though he confirmed. 77 “Anales Toledanos,” Croénicas latinas de la Reconquista, p. 358.

7° One of the few knowledgeable general accounts of Spanish medieval warfare in English is Derek Lomax, The Reconquest of Spain (London, 1978), pp. 94-111 especially. 77 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 890, no. 13, and a copy in ibid., Cddices, 989B, fol. 88r—v. so See chapter 13, note $1.

300 CHAPTER FOURTEEN French Elizabeth to court earlier in the year. From France itself had come Abbot Richard of Saint-Victor of Marseilles and the archbishop of Arles, his travelling companion. The presence of Cardinal Richard as papal legate indicates even more strongly the willingness of Alfonso to accept papal mediation in the affairs of the church of Leén-Castilla when that intervention reinforced his own purposes, even though Archbishop Bernard of Toledo held a

resident legateship. The selection of an old friend of the king for the special legateship by Paschal II points to the continuing papal desire to cultivate good relations with that powerful monarch. Certainly much of the business of the council was properly ecclesiastical in nature. It was there that Gerald of Braga first appeared as an archbishop, and the Vita Geraldi relates that it was in this council that the restoration of the metropolitanate to that see was officially proclaimed and that its suffragans swore their obedience.*' To be sure, the bishops of Astorga, Lugo, Mondonedo, and Tuy were present but Gerald’s other suffragans of Orense and Coimbra seem not to have been. The oaths of obedience taken by Bishop Alfonso of Tuy and Bishop Diego of Orense to Gerald were recorded in the church of Braga but they are not dated.*? The plans of the king and the primate for the reogranization of the church of the realm thus moved forward with the papal blessing. It has been asserted that the bishops of Leon and Oviedo registered their objection to that reorganization, insofar as it had made them suffragans of Toledo, at Palencia but there is no evidence for such an action on their part.% A reasonable inference suggests that this council saw a further regularization of the affairs of the church of Santiago de Compostela. Diego Gelmirez confirmed the charter of Raymond of Palencia as bishop-elect of Compostela. Paschal IT had ordered a new election, to preserve the forms one thinks, in December 1099 but had indicated his willingness to accept Gelmirez, properly elected, by ordaining the latter to the subdiaconate himself. The new subdeacon had then been elected on July 1, 1100, according to the “Historia Compostelana.” Most probably this took place in the royal presence in the vicinity of Sahagun. The “Historia” then tells us that after his election Gelmirez proceeded to Toledo, where the king was, and formally surrendered the episcopal regalia to *&« PMH, Scriptores, p. $4.

82 Fita, “E} concilio nacional de Palencia,” pp. 218-19. They appear in the “Liber Fidei.” Fita, pp. 224-25, also mentions yet another source for the council in the “Codex Emiliense,” fol. 396v, which I have not yet seen. It would appear to add to our knowledge only the fact that the council was still in session on December 8. 83 Rivera Recio, Iglesia de Toledo, p. 253.

THE MURABIT ASSAULT RENEWED (1097-1100) 301 Archbishop Bernard and received it back from the primate. This was as amends for having received it from lay hands.*4 It was probably at the Council of Palencia that Cardinal Richard was satisfied that all these proper forms had been completed and that he ratified their result in the papal name.

Other of the business conducted there just as surely dealt with the pressing, secular concerns of the realm. The Murdabit threat had become increasingly ominous from 1097, if it had as yet to register any major advance. That menace had become even more real with the death of the Cid in the middle of July. In a letter to Alfonso of October 14, 1100, Paschal II had demonstrated his own concern by formally forbid-

ding any of the warriors of Alfonso from undertaking the crusade to Jerusalem when their own kingdom was in such peril.*5 But it 1s unlikely that this letter would have reached the peninsula in time to have been promulgated at Palencia. In the same vein it has been asserted that Cardinal Richard employed the council to arrange a league between Alfonso, Pedro I of Aragén, and Count Ramon Berenguer III of Barcelona to protect the endangered principality of Valencia. It would have been strange indeed if the prospects of that city were not discussed, but there is no evidence for such a pact. Even without evidence though, we may be sure that the Leonese king used the council both to appeal for men and money to his prelates and to announce the collection of a campaign tax, a fossataria, for the following year.*° As already suggested, Pedro I of Arag6n performed a signal service for Alfonso in this critical time simply by immobilizing the taifa king

of Zaragoza, al-Mustain, who otherwise might have been tempted himself to add to the woes of Valencia directly or to have broken off the payment of the parias to Leon. Less than two months before the council at Palencia the Aragonese assistance had been demonstrated in striking fashion. On October 18, 1100, the fortress-town of Barbastro had surrendered to King Pedro after a seige of more than a year.°? In less than four years Pedro of Aragon had converted first Huesca and now Barbastro from premier fortresses in the taifa’s forward line of defense into 84 E'S 20:26-28. Fletcher, Saint James’ Catapult, p. 111, regards the story of the surrender of the regalia as “tendentious stuff.” But why would the author invent such an offensive, even dangerous story and insert it in the biography of his hero unless the facts of the matter left him no choice. 8s ES 20:29-30. A private document of this period identifies one Leonese noble who had perhaps even participated in the First Crusade. “Ego Petro Gutteriz de Iherosolimis reversus. See note 79. 86 Serrano, Obispado de Burgos 1:372.

87 Turk, Reino de Zaragoza, pp. 179-80. Ubieto Arteta, Historia de Aragén, pp. 129-30.

302 CHAPTER FOURTEEN ample and secure bases from which the Aragonese were to be able to harry and even threaten the whole east of its territories down to the Ebro and the capital city itself. That seems to have been the extent and character of the Aragonese contribution to the safety of Valencia even though Pedro had a claim through marriage on that principality. Whatever his ultimate plans might have been, the death of his father-in-law had simply come too soon for that monarch to take advantage of it, and he seems to have had the wisdom to realize that fact from the first. There are some subsequent events, as we shall see, that point to the possibility of some intervention by the count of Barcelona but no firm evidence. By the middle of December Alfonso of Leén-Castilla had returned to his usual winter quarters about Sahagin, content of necessity with what the year had brought and with what could be provided against another campaigning season. *®

In the four years just ended the attacks of Islam had been unwearied even though they had been balked each time of their prime objective. There was no reason to expect that they would cease. Instead, with his own control in former Toledan territories rolled back effectively to the line of the Rio Tajo itself, the enemy was better positioned than ever before to carry through their assaults. At the same time, in the east, no

| effective leader had emerged to replace the Cid at Valencia. For the first time since 1081 the power balance there seemed likely to become radically uneven and the fall of the great port of Valencia to the Murabit must be anticipated. Should that occur the real possibility of the loss of Toledo itself must be faced. The collapse of the whole eastern flank of the Christian position in the peninsula and the resulting threat to the eastern frontier of the kingdom of Leén-Castilla might well make the

defense of the territories between the Tajo and the Guadarramas impossible.

If Alfonso VI had the time or disposition to engage in more longrange worries, there was also the matter of Zaragoza. Its loss to the Murabit was one concern. Another prospect was developing as well. The progressive encroachment of Pedro of Aragén on the former taifa, however useful that might be for the moment, had reached the point where the final conquest of the taifa or some significant portion of it was imaginable at the very least. Such an event would mean the defeat of the Leonese policy of more than thirty-five years that had marked Zaragoza not only as its tributary but ultimately as its own conquest. 88 Dec. 13, 1100. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 72r. Dec. 18, 1100. Ibid., fol. 1o7v—108r. Dec. 25, 1100. Ibid., fol. 120v.

FIFTEEN

“A GOOD OFFENSE...” (1101-1107)

Before the end of 1101 Alfonso VI of Leén-Castilla would have seen fifteen years of battling the combined might of Murabit North Africa and Muslim Spain. Since Zalaca he had taken the offensive whenever the opportunity offered, but most often he had been forced back on a dogged defense which delayed the enemy’s advance as long as humanly possible. At first he had worked to defend the independence of the Iberian taifas. When the last of those independent states of Andalucfa had bowed to Yusuf ibn-Tashufin, Alfonso had then maintained his own domains as far to the south of the central meseta as possible, extracting full cost and buying time with each kilometer surrendered. Still the enemy came on, and the sixty-four-year-old monarch would spend the remainder of his life as he had the previous fifteen. Only just after his death with the occupation of Zaragoza in 1110 and the capture of Santarem in 1111 would the Murabit breaker crest. At no time in the last eight years of his life is there any sign that the determination of the king of Leén-Castilla flagged. Seemingly always at bay, he found the resources to keep one more withdrawal from becoming a rout ora collapse. Through some royal legerdemain Alfonso continually managed to replace an army defeated one year with an army ready to fight in the next year. Never was the Murabit enemy allowed simply to capitalize on a victory; but rather they found its full fruits denied them by a rapid adjustment or a sudden counterstroke of their stubborn enemy. Alfonso might often be beaten but he was never defeated.

Nonetheless the Leonese king could not prevent the lineaments of later medieval Spain and, in a real sense, modern Spain from taking form while he was preoccupied by this assault. That is, in these same years the medieval kingdom of Arag6én was transforming itself from a tiny Pyrennean principality into the second power of Christian Spain by its encroachment on Zaragoza. Although he is usually overshadowed by his brother and successor, Alfonso I el batallador (1104-1134), the contribution of the brief reign of Pedro I (1096-1104) is central to

304 CHAPTER FIFTEEN this transformation. His grasp of the possibilities inherent in the age seems to have been faultless. ' Even before the capture of Barbastro Pedro had requested the papacy

to transfer the mountain see of Roda there. Consequently already on January 25, 1101, Bishop Pons of Barbastro can be found endowing the papal legate, Richard of Saint-Victor, and his abbey at a meeting in his

new see.? The same determined policy had previously seen the Aragonese see of Jaca slide south to Huesca after the conquest of the latter. Pedro I envisioned no retreat. In this light the assertion that the Aragonese monarch took the cross and intended to proceed to Jerusalem in early 1101 seems fabulous, and that he was forbidden to do so by Paschal II and directed instead to crusade against Zaragoza is simply impossible in light of the chronology

involved.3 What Pedro did do, which is totally in character, was to launch a furious assault against that taifa which lasted the entire year. This campaign, or some phases of it, very likely had the support and

aid of French knights from beyond the Pyrennees. On February 12, 1101, the scribe of a Leonese private document mentioned in the dating formula “Petrus quoque rex aragonensis eum infinita armorum multi-

tudine Cesaraugustam civitatem cum Christi vexillo preliante.” It is doubtful that merely an army of Aragonese would so have impressed so distant a witness.* The presence of some elements of the nobility of Catalonia might also be indicated by the presence of Bishop Berenguer of Barcelona in Barbastro on May 5, 1101, when the mosque of that city was formally reconsecrated as the Christian cathedral. Whatever its composition, Pedro’s army was operating 1n the environs of Zaragoza itself in June. In August the king was even in Alpenes, more than a hundred kilometers south of the city, and the Rio Ebro in what could only have been a great raid, or razzia, during which he had apparently nothing to fear from the enemy in his rear.° The siege of the ' Despite the preliminary work having been done thirty-five years ago by Antonio Arteta, ed., Coleccién diplomdatica de Pedro I de Aragén y Navarra, no one has essayed the nec-

essary study of the reign. 2 Antonio Duran Gudiol, La iglesia Aragon durante los reinados de Sancho Ramirez y Pedro

I: 1062-1104 (Rome, 1962), pp. 83-85. Guerard, ed., Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Saint-Victor de Marseille 1:450—-S1.

3 Turk, Reino de Zaragoza, pp. 180-81. 4 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 890, no. 14; a copy in AHN, Coédices, 989B, fol. 112r-v. s Antonio Duran Gudiol, “La Santa Sede y los obispados de Huesca y Roda en la primera mitad del siglo XII,” AA 13 (1965): 47. 6 This document was discovered by Santos Garcia Larragueta, “Un documento original e inédito de Pedro I,” in Homenaje a Don José Esteban Uranga (Pamplona, 1971), pp. 55-56, who dated it to 1099. The citation of Pons as bishop of Barbastro makes that im-

‘‘a GOOD OFFENSE. . . (IIOI-—I107) 305 capital of al-Mustain continued into the fall although ultimately the

taifa weathered this storm to survive yet another seventeen years. There is not the slightest indication that Alfonso VI reacted in any fashion to these developments although obviously he was well aware of them. The Leonese monarch of necessity must concentrate on the Murabit threat. Some portion of the early winter was probably occupied by the obsequies of his sister, Urraca. We are informed that she died in 1101 but not when.” The demise of the last of his siblings, the one who had held Zamora for him in the time of his exile by his brother Sancho, and a trusted adviser of his mature years, would have been a blow to him. It likely took place in mid-winter for that infanta appears in none of the court documents of the year. A happier note was struck when the king received from the Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus a cross, fashioned from the wood of the “true cross,” very richly adorned. This imperial gift was presented by the king in turn to the abbey of Sahagtin.* Very likely the gift had

been conveyed from Constantinople by Court Fernando Diaz of Asturias, who is a second Iberian whom we can identify to have participated in the First Crusade. On March 19, r101, Alfonso granted a fuero to the Mozarabs of Toledo, but it was probably issued at Sahagtin.'° Two days later most of the same court figures, including counts Raymond and Henry, figure in a charter of the latter to the abbot of that monastery.'! The court

seems to have remained in that district through the celebration of Easter, which that year fell on April 21.'2 This paschal celebration also possible. For this and other treatment of the campaign, see Ubieto Arteta, Historia de Aragon, pp. 131-33. 7 As usual there is some dispute. But see BN, Manuscritos, 1.358, fol. 3v, and Enrique Flérez, Memorias de las reinas catélicas de Espana (1761; Madrid, 1964), pp. 234-35. * Puyol y Alonso, “Las crénicas anénimas,” pp. 116-17. 9 See note 4, and chapter 14, note 8s. '0 The best current study of the complex history of all the privileges of Toledo is Alfonso Garcia~Gallo, “Los fueros de Toledo,” AHDE 45 (1975): 459-61, for this text. Copies of the text unknown to this editor exist in Acad. Hist., Coleccion Salazar, 0-22, ff. 63r-v, and 253r-254r; AGS, Mercedes y Privilegios, legajo 377, no. 9; and BN, Manuscritos, 714, fol. gr—-v.

'' AHN, Coddices, 9898, fol. 14r; pub. DMP 1-1:11-12. '2 Apr. 13, 1101. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 890, no. 15; and a copy is bound into the manuscript of the “Historia Compostelana” in the Biblioteca del Palacio Real de Oriente, Madrid, Manuscritos, I-534; pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahagun, pp. 501~502. Apr. 20, 1101. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 146v. A forgery purporting to be an Alfonsine confirmation of previous gifts to Oviedo, pub. Garcia Larragueta, ed., Documentos de Oviedo, pp. 312-19, was dated by the editor to about 1100. See also Fernandez Conde, El Libro de Testamentos, pp. 333-42.

306 CHAPTER FIFTEEN marked the end of the long, tangled dispute over the succession to the see of Santiago de Compostela for on that day, according to the “His-

torla Compostelana,” Diego Gelmirez was finally consecrated its bishop.'3 Our source does not say where the consecration took place or which prelate presided. I believe that the very absence of the mention of the place by those authors who are usually such enthusiastic local patriots argues that it was performed elsewhere, and either Leén or Sahagun are the most likely locations. Fletcher believes that the celebrant was Paschal II’s initial choice, the bishop of Maguelonne in France, but Serrano holds for the pope’s second choice, the bishop of Burgos." ] myself incline to think that the latter’s proximity, the fact that his see was directly dependent on the papacy, and later evidence of special friendship between Gelmirez and Garcia of Burgos make it probable that Serrano is correct. A private donation to Sahagun and an agnitio executed 1n Leon after judgment by the king prove that the court remained in the Leon area until after May 15, 1101.'5 By June 3, the king had probably moved south to Valladolid.'° But before then Count Henry for one had left the court, and on June 8 he executed a charter in Portugal.'7 Doubtless these moves were designed to allow a closer surveillance of the endangered frontiers for by late May it would have been known that the Emir Mazdali was mobilizing the Murabit forces in Andalucia. As it was to develop, that army was to be used against Valencia rather than the center or the west of the Christian frontier. This development left Alfonso

free to concentrate on encouraging the repopulation of the transDuero. That objective, which had been in train since 1076, had taken on special urgency with the relentless Murabit attacks. The earliest efforts of the crown known to us were concerned with the area from Sepulveda west through Cuéllar, Fuente el Olmo de Iscar, Olmedo, and Medina del Campo, ranging anywhere from twenty to forty-five kilometers in

depth south from the Duero. In fact the document of June 3, 1101, mentioned above dealt with an exchange of property in Iscar between the monastry of San Zouil in Carriédn and Count Pedro Anstirez. The monks of San Zoil ceded to Count Pedro a church in Iscar that had been earlier given to them by Count Martin Alfénsez, who had died about 13 FS 20:27-31. '4 Fletcher, Saint James’ Catapult, p. 113. Serrano, Obispado de Burgos 1:368.

's May 14, 1101. AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 138r-v. May 15, t101. Floriano Cumbreno, ed., El Libro Registro de Corias 1:168—70.

'6 Manueco Villalobos and Zurita Nieto, eds., Documentos de Valladolid 1:67-71. 7 DMP 1-1:12~13.

‘‘A GOOD OFFENSE. . . (II1O0I~I107) 307 1092 or 1093. The exchange thus speaks to the development of a settlement there which had reached some maturity already by the beginning of that decade. That process may be generally the case along this earliest line of settlement. In the eastern, or Castillian, trans-Duero, Segovia lay sixty kilometers south of Cuéllar. Snuggling at the foot of the pass of Navacerrada over the Guadarramas, it was at the southern limit of the territory. The process of repopulation had begun in 1088.'* Here on one of the most

direct and shortest routes from the north to the new realm of Toledo

growth was fast enough for that settlement to be in violent revolt against control from Toledo in 1114 and to have exacted successfully the restoration of its ancient bishopric by 1120. But as the Guadarramas run toward the southwest the trans-Duero gains steadily in depth, and we cannot be sure when the first settlers drifted into Coca, twenty-five kilometers southwest of Cuéllar, or into

Arévalo, yet another twenty-five kilometers southwest of Coca. Bishop Pelayo only tells us that both were repopulated by Alfonso VI. '9 Early on the development of this sector was the particular responsibil-

ity of Count Pedro Anstrez, operating from his foundation of Valladolid on the Pisuerga just north of that river’s junction with the Duero. As early as 1095 he had endowed the collegiate church of Valladolid with a church in Cuéllar.?° Indeed we can quite sensibly envision, from 1076 on, a gradual movement of small homestcaders across the Duero

occupying the lands of its south bank to varying degrees of depth. From that date on they had been effectively free of organized campaigns from the Muslim south. For defense against more casual depredations, such lands lay within easy hail of a variety of Leonese strong-

points at Zamora, Toro, Tordesillas, and Valladolid. In addition, the land itself partook of the character of that immediately north of the Duero in soil, climate, and precipitation. It was, then, both easy and safe for the immigrants to work.

How far south this band of gradually advancing settlement had reached after a quarter of a century in 1101 is impossible to measure with entire accuracy. I suspect that it may have reached as far south as Arévalo, where the plain of the river basin begins to yield to the uplands rising to meet the Cordillera Central. Cattle, sheep, and goats probably were run south of that divide, but it seems unlikely that set'§ Julio Gonzalez, “La Extremadura castellana,” p. 299. On the argument that the site had never been entirely deserted, which I am inclined to grant, see Mox6, Repoblacion y sociedad, pp. 43 and 206. '9 Sanchez Alonso, ed., Cronica del Obispo Don Pelayo, p. 81. 0 See chapter 12, note 80.

308 CHAPTER FIFTEEN tled, agricultural villages were established in the region. The actions that Alfonso VI was now to set in motion were to have the effect of establishing advance military bases beyond the line of effective Leonese settlement at Avila and Salamanca. The rationale for this action, I suggest, was that Alfonso was taking into serious consideration the possibility of the loss of Toledo. Such a disaster would have created a far more dangerous situation than that which had existed before 1085 when Toledo had been in the hands of a friendly tributary state. In Murabit hands the former taifa would have offered a base for extended raids into the now Christian trans-Duero. A strongly fortified military base at Avila would therefore have made possible a defense of the pass of Arrebatacapas just as Segovia functioned farther east to block that of Navacerrada. Another major military base at Salamanca would protect the exposed western flank of the

trans-Duero region. This was, in fact, the military function of that town down until the reconquest of Coria in 1142 by Alfonso VII. In 1101 his grandfather still held that advance post but had to anticipate its probable loss as a concomitant of any loss of Toledo. Salamanca would then become the base for operations against any Muslim army advanc-

ing north through the gap between the Cordillera Central and the mountains of Portugal along the old Roman silver road from Mérida to Zamora. The task of establishing these two bastions for the defense of the entire western trans-Duero was entrusted in 1101 to Count Ray-

mond rather than to Pedro Anstrez.

What resources Raymond had to employ must have been thin. There was perhaps already some modest, probably seasonal, population at both sites.2! Immigration was systematically encouraged but took a very long time to have an appreciable effect. Our clue here is the absence of both a bishop of its own at Avila until 1121 and the complete absence of cathedral documents, always the first to appear, before the second quarter of the twelfth century.?? Salamanca had a bishop of its own in I102, as we shall see, and even a few court documents from the first decade of the century, although private documents begin in 1132. Nevertheless its first bishop seems to have controlled Avila as well, and

the peculiar connections between Salamanca and Zamora that exist during his tenure suggest that he ruled from Zamora.?} That would 2" Angel Barrios Garcia, Estructuras agrarias y de poder en Castilla: El ejemplo de Avila, 1085-1320 (Salamanca, 1983), pp. 128-71, is a fascinating attempt to reconstruct the circumstances of the age of settlement. For his chronology, however, the author is far more trusting of later chronicles than I should care to be. 2 Reilly, Leén-Castilla under Queen Urraca, pp. 244-319. 23 Ibid., pp. 34 and 321-22. Also Julio Gonzalez, “Repoblacién de la ‘Extremadura’

.0 ‘ , . F a ‘PN: eeJa 0S| soTon eo bot ete

‘“4’ GOOD OFFENSE... (IIOI-—I107) 309

ci ees rn re

ee | ¥ y a al EX . AO, es Phy ae =

b* = " > - - . ARES fee ge me . 7 , pated > ae “8 . Te mae ae * oe Ph RD see mS 2s 50 oo ne ee ae. ae. EO ie aioe ia ma Sa “Reeg Ses Btn Le aaa “4 ”

he _és ‘ |4> ba a7are” , cee BE , : we ; ~ . «fe Lose ‘

GTR BERS ago a .As,IY. gnean’ . a: re = AL , fart, 2. o> ae

ee ae = FOR YET, 30 tee ope SLT O™ Tp cee "

ri , - ° oe Oe - mr ° nae ee wana 7" ° a: : aad

The medieval walls of Avila. Photograph by the author.

have been both safer and more effective if actual settlement in his new

diocese at the time was concentrated along the south bank of the Duero. How soon Count Raymond could have begun raising, or repairing, the fortifications of either fortress is an open question, but such work must have been undertaken almost immediately even if of a temporary nature initially. 4 While king and count were occupied with building a defense in depth against possible future reverses, in the east the Emir Mazdali had advanced on Valencia and laid siege to it in late August as he would continue to do for some seven months.” Alfonso seems to have been con-

fident that the city would hold out successfully because he took no known action in 1101. By November 5 at least he had retired to his ordinary winter quarters at Sahagun, and there he remained through December. *°

At the very beginning of the new year the court was still there, but leonesa,” Hispania 3 (1943): 195-273. An original private document of June 17, 1104, even cites one “Iheronimus camorense sedis.” AD Ledén, Santa Maria de Otero de las Duenas, no. 216. 24 On the walls see Manuel Gonzalez Garcia, Salamanca: La repoblaciéon y la ciudad en la Baja Edad Media (Salamanca, 1973), pp. 41-42. 2s Huici Miranda, Historia musulmana de Valencia 1:164-65.

26 Nov. 5, 1101. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 132v. Dec. 7, 1101. Ibid., fol. 78r.

310 CHAPTER FIFTEEN the king must already have been making plans to leave.?7 On February 13, 1101, he was at Lerma on the Rio Arlanza some forty miles south of Burgos “coram magno exercitu militum qui ibant cum rege Valenciam decercare eam de moros.” The text as we have it does not list con-

firmations beyond that of the king, the queen, and the royal notary. The direction from which the king had come 1s indicated by the fact that this royal fuero was issued to the village of Vallunquera a few miles south of Castrojeriz.28 The army that Alfonso was leading on this occasion must, it seems, have been drawn exclusively from the magnates of the eastern frontier for an agnitio involving the monastery of Sahagun and drawn up on February 15, 1102, shows most of the court still there. Their numbers included Count Raymond, Archbishop Bernard, and the royal alférez, Pedro Alvarez.?? The same situation is shown by

a charter of Abbot Diego of Sahagtn, dated March 6, which Count Henry also confirmed.3° This extraordinary circumstance may be explained by the king’s concern for the continuing defense of the Tajo frontier in his absence.?! From Lerma there are too many possible routes to Valencia for us to

determine which one the royal host actually took. The distance 1nvolved in any case would have made the court’s arrival at that destination unlikely before the middle of March, which date would coincide well with the narrative accounts we possess. The Murabit siege force

withdrew thirty kilometers down the coast to Cullera. Alfonso then 27 Jan. 2, 1102. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 88r. A royal charter dated Jan. 12, 1102, pub. Munoz y Romero, ed., Coleccién de fueros municipales, pp. 398-99, has been interpolated. The text names a Dona Sancha as sister of Alfonso VI but she was sister rather of Alfonso VII. Otherwise those who confirm are proper for the period. Among them 1s “Sancius filius Imperator,” and this would be the first public appearance of the young heir apparent if it could be relied upon. The date that actually appears in the text 1s 1110, also not given in the Spanish era. 8 Julio Gonzalez, “Aportacidn de fueros castellano-leoneses,” pp. 629-31. Alfonso’s issuance of a fuero to Castrojeriz may be of this date. See Reilly, “The Chancery of Alfonso VI,” p. 17. A fragment of an Alfonsine charter which entirely lacks a date may be associated with this journey as well. Pub. Rodriguez de Lama, ed., Coleccién diplomdatica medieval de la Rioja 2:101—102.

»? AHN, Clero, Carpeta, 890, no. 18; copy in Cddices, 989B, ff. s6v—57r. 30 AHN, Codices, 989B, fol. 172v; pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahagtin, p. 502. 31 On the other hand, there may be a dating error in the two Sahagun documents. An altogether peculiar charter of Count Raymond, AHN, Clero, Carpeta 1.749, no. 1 bis, of about this time seems to show the count in command of a royal army “exercitatus imperatorum —____”’ (illegible). The charter, a fifteenth-century copy, is dated to April 1, rro1, but bears the episcopal rota of Gelmirez of Compostela, which imitation of contemporary papal practice even he would not have adopted before his episcopal consecration on April 21 of that year.

‘"A GOOD OFFENSE. . .. (I1I1O0I~1107) 311 examined the condition of the city’s defenses and reconnoitered the enemy and came to the reluctant decision that it would be impossible to hold Valencia. After about a month he evacuated its Christian popula-

tion and set fire to the city as he withdrew. As the Leonese king retreated, the Emir Mazdali occupied what was left of Valencia sometime between April 21 and May 20, 1102. “By the reduction of Valencia,” said a Muslim chronicler, “Yusuf Ibn Tashufin saw himself master of

the whole of Andalus, with the exception of Zaragoza, which remained in the hands of its king, Al-mustain Ibn Hid. The Murabits dared not molest this prince, on account of the great distance of his kingdom, and of his being in league with the Christians, whose tributary he was.”’3?

That assessment of affairs in the northeast of the peninsula proved to be too conservative even in the short run. The king of Zaragoza had been able to judge for himself the tide of events and had responded accordingly. In Morocco Yusuf ibn-Tashufin was arranging to have his son, Ali, recognized as his successor and al-Mustain despatched his own son, Abd al-Malik, to participate in both the celebration and the recognition. As a result a treaty emerged from the attendant negotiations that was of great utility. When Abd al-Malik returned in the fall of 1102 he found the new Murabit governor of Valencia, Abd Allah ibn-Fatima, already on the outskirts of Zaragoza. On being informed of that treaty the governor of Valencia withdrew.33 But we may be sure

that the same treaty also ended, at least for the time, the payment of parias to Alfonso VI by the taifa king. Yusuf had always been adament that Spanish Islam should not finance his enemies by payments to the infidel. Nor was that significant realignment the full measure of Christian reverses in the northeast. On September 14, 1102, Count Ermengol V of Urgel was killed and his forces destroyed at a battle in the valley of the Segre at Mollerusa, twenty kilometers east of Lérida.3+ This event is to be related to the events attributed to the fall of 1102 by the Muslim chronicler al-Kardabus, who says that after the occupation of Valencia the Murabit governor attacked and ravaged the lands of Barcelona, car32 “Historia Roderici,” in Menéndez Pidal, Esparia del Cid 2:969. Al-Kardabus, “Kitab al-Iqtifa” ed., 2:xli1 append. C. Also see Huici Miranda, Historia musulmana de Valencia, pp. 164-65. 33 Huici Miranda, Historia musulmana de Valencia, 3:17-20, who corrects the dating of Turk, Reino de Zaragoza, 159-63. 34 Prospero de Bofarull y Mascar6, Historia de los condes de Urgel (Barcelona, 1853), p. 361. Losses on the Christian side were said to number 300 knights, which would indicate

a combined force probably including troops of the country of Barcelona.

312 CHAPTER FIFTEEN rying off church bells, crosses, and precious vessels and dispersing castle garrisons.35 Count Ermengol probably came to grief while attempting a counterstroke. Thus by the beginning of winter Valencia had been

lost, Zaragoza had thrown its lot in with the Murabit juggernaut, Urge] was leaderless, and Barcelona had been bloodied. Only Pedro of Aragon had escaped unscathed. In December that king was in Estella on the edge of Alfonso VI’s territories, seeking consultation and cooperation perhaps. *° The king of Leén-Castilla, after supervising the evacuation of Valen-

cia in early April, may have returned to Leén. Important elements of the court were there on May 11, 1102.37 I regard it as more probable, however, that he went directly to the Toledan vicinity where he was found granting a fuero to the inhabitants of Aceca twenty kilometers northeast of Toledo on June 5.3* That would have been the logical place to resettle at least some of the Valencian refugees. The most prominent of those refugees was elsewhere though. On June 22 Count Raymond

issued a charter to Bishop Jerome, “magistro nostro,” granting him two churches in Zamora.3? The confirmations suggest that Zamora was the place of issuance. Another charter of the same date which provides for a formal restoration of the diocesis of Salamanca is a forgery of the period 1120-1135 fathered on the former document.*° In the lat-

ter all of the churches of the diocese of Salamanca and Zamora are turned over to Bishop Jerome but no mention 1s made of Avila.

By the end of July the royal court had returned to Sahagun and Count Raymond and his wife had rejoined it.4' There is no sign of Bishop Jerome there. More importantly for our purposes, neither 1s there any evidence of the presence of Count Henry. Al-Kardabus tells us that some Murabit divisions from Cérdoba invaded Castilla, presumably the lands of Toledo, in that year and fought sanguine battles 3s “Kitab al-Igqtifa,” pp. xli—xlii append. 36 Luis Rubio, ed., Documentos del Pilar (Saragossa, 1971), pp. 9-10. 37 AHN, Coéddices, 989B, fol. 76v.

38 Garcia-Gallo, “Fueros de Toledo,” pp. 462-63. 39 AC Zamora, Tumbo Negro, fol. 22r—v. 4° June 22, 1102. AC Salamanca, Cajon 16, legajo 1, no. §. Its most recent editors, José Luis Martin, Luis Miguel Villar Garcia, Florencio Marcos Rodriguez, and Marciano Sanchez Rodriguez, Documentos de los archivos catedralicio y diocesano de Salmanca, siglos XH-

°‘

XIII (Salamanca, 1977), pp. 83—-85, call it an original which it most certainly is not, although the subsequent confirmation of it by Alfonso VII in 1136 probably is both original and genuine. A later copy is in BN, Manuscritos, 3.546, ff. 142v—143r. 4! July 26, 1102. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 890, no. 20; copy in Céddices, 989B, fol. 33r. July 31, 1102. Ibid., fol. gtr.

‘"A GOOD OFFENSE. . .. (I110I-—1107) 313 there with “the accursed Errink.”4? Again Count Henry is found in command of that sector of the frontier. The whereabouts of Alfonso VI’s court for the remainder of the year is unknown. Count Raymond spent most of the fall in Galicia. On Oc-

tober 6, 1102, he confirmed the rights of its bishop over the city of Lugo and on October 24 granted property to his faithful follower, the Galician magnate Ero Armentariz.# In early January 1103 an ecclesiastical council was held in Carrién de los Condes which certainly discussed a territorial dispute between the

bishoprics of Santiago de Compostela and Mondonedo.44 Doubtless, , after the fashion of the day, it was held in the royal presence and was as much a meeting of the royal curia as it was a church council. It has been asserted that it approved the restoration of the see of Salamanca, the 1nstallation of Jerome as its first bishop, and the latter’s administration of the diocese of Avila and Zamora, none of which can be demonstrated but some of which may have happened. It has also been suggested that Zaida’s son, Sancho Alfénsez, was named heir to the kingdom of LeénCastilla in that council and that Count Henry of Portugal, under cover of a pretext of a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, repaired to Rome to seek pa-

pal assistance in maintaining an independent position in the peninsula.4° The latter supposition, like those concerning Salamanca, suffers

from the implicit assumption that modern institutional arrangements

were foreseen and were the conscious objects of twelfth-century desires. What we can see 1s that the court was at Sahagun on January 21, 1103,

and Bishop Pelayo of Astorga was in attendance.’ It was probably at Sahagun, then, that Alfonso VI made a grant to the church of Astorga on January 25, 1103. That charter together with another private docu4 “Kitab al-Iqtifa,” p. xli append. 43 AHN, Céddices, 1.043B, fol. 16r—v; another copy in 363B, fol. 124r; and BN, Manuscritos, 18.387, fol. 303r—v, respectively. 44 It is known from a letter of Archbishop Bernard of Toledo to the bishop of Mondonedo, who had declined to attend, dated Feb. 4, 1103. ES 20:74-76. 48 Fidel Fita, “Concilios nacionales de Carrién en 1103 y Leén en 1107,” BRAH 24 (1894): 292-316, remains the basic treatment. Jerome is supposed to have confirmed a donation of some of the men of Avila to the Castilian monastery of San Millan in 1103, calling himself bishop of Avila in the text. Serrano, ed., Cartulario de San Millan, pp. 29495. The document is at least suspect since the abbot, Blasio, who receives the gift is of the period 1074-1089. DHEE 3:1653. 46 Torquato de Sousa Soares, “O governo de Portugal pelo Conde Henrique de Bor-

gonha: Sus relagoes com as monarquias Leonesa-Castelhana e Aragonesa,” RPH 14 (1974): 378.

47 AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. giv.

@

314 CHAPTER FIFTEEN ment of the same date, issued at court, perhaps enables us to see who attended the royal court at Carrién.* In addition to Archbishop Bernard of Toledo the bishops of Astorga, Leén, Palencia, Oviedo, Santiago, Lugo, and probably Burgos were present. Bishop Jerome seemingly was not. Queen Elizabeth, Count Raymond and Infanta Urraca, and Count Henry and Infanta Teresa were present. But more signifi-

cantly, Sancho Alfénsez confirmed both documents, his father’s charter as “Sanctius infans quod pater fecit confirmo.” While he had probably not been formally proclaimed heir, he now had become a public figure. He would have been just about ten years of age. In February the court continued at Sahagun. Both the young Sancho and Count Henry figured in the documents of February 10 and 25.49 In March the court may have traveled east to Burgos where Alfonso extended the fuero of Burgos to villages of its alfoz on March 19, 1103.5° The confirmation list to this document has not survived. But on March 23, the king issued a charter to the monastery of Ona whose witness list suggests that the court was in Castilla.s‘' Here Infans Sancho con-

firmed but Count Hemry seems not to have been present although Count Raymond and his wife were. In late April and early May the court had returned to the Leén-Sahagun vicinity but Count Henry still appears to be absent. °?

In fact a Portugese document, dated May 1103, shows the magnate Soeiro Mendes exercising jurisdiction in Coimbra together with In48 Jan. 25, 1103. AD Astorga, Carpeta 1, but up until 1981 actually in the Museo of the cathedral. It had disappeared by the spring of that date. It may have been an original. Copies in AHN, Céddices, 1.195B, ff. 385r—387v, and 1.197B, ff. 230v-232v. BN, Manuscritos, 712, fol. 148r—v. Acad. Hist., Colleccién Salazar, 0-22, fol. 18r. Pub. in translation in Pedro Rodriguez Lopez, Episcopologio asturicense 2:536—-38. Jan. 25, 1103. AHN, Cédices, 1.195B, fol. 387r—v; and 1.197B, ff. 233r—238r. 49 Feb. 10, 1103. AC Santiago, Tumbo A, fol. 27r-v; Chartularium, fol. 71r—v; pub. L6épez Ferreiro, Historia de Santiago de Compostela 3:54-55 append. Feb. 13, 1103. AHN, Cédices, 989B, ff. 122v—123r. Feb. 25, 1103. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 891, nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, with some variants. Pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahagun, pp. 503-505. so Pub. Munoz y Romero, ed., Collecion de fueros municipales, pp. 236-38, from a copy then in the municipal archive of Burgos and dated to 1073. Repub. Garcia Sainz de Baranda, La ciudad de Burgos 2:403-405. There are late copies of the document in Acad. Hist., Coleccion Salazar, 0-13, ff. 28v—30v and 0-22, ff. 247-248. Full citation to existing copies of this document in Juan Antonio Bonachia Hernando and Julio Antonio Pardos Martinez, eds., Catalogo documental del Archivo Municipal de Burgos: Seccién histérica, 9311515 (Salamanca, 1983), p. 49. s' Alamo, ed., Coleccién diplomdtica de San Salvador de Ofia 1:149-52. A late copy unknown to this editor exists in Acad. Hist., Coleccion Salazar, 0-7, fol. 32r—-v. $2 Apr. 27, 1103. AHN, Céddices, 989B, ff. 39v-40r. May 6, 1103. ASI, Reales, no. 134, pub. Amparo Valcarce, El dominio de S. Isidoro de Leén, pp. 95-97. May 11, 1103. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 891, no. 5. May 15, 1103. AHN, Codices, 989B, fol. 114r.

‘"A GOOD OFFENSE. . .. (II1OI-1107) 315 fanta Teresa “usque ad venitam comitis de Iherusalem.” Now clearly if Count Henry had been in Leon as Jate as February 25 and would be in Portugal, as we shall see, in mid-July there was hardly time for him to have gone to the Holy Land and precious little time for even a flying visit to Rome. For now the document presents an enigma. $3

Alfonso VI had departed the Sahagtin area in late May. Muslim sources tell us that he began a siege of Medinaceli in 1103. That reaction

was characteristic of the Leonese monarch. If Valencia had been lost and Zaragoza had embraced the Murabits then what was essential was to prevent their easy communication and coordination at all costs. So long as Muslim forces held Medinaceli it was impossible for Alfonso to block either at the easiest point, the narrow, winding gorges of the upper Jalon. For an active defense, such as the king almost always favored, the hilltop fortress at Medinaceli became the prime objective. The king could not have reached that objective himself before about the end of the first week in June, but perhaps advance forces had been

sent ahead to initiate the siege. Or perhaps the Murabit, by this time, could gauge his likely responses or were quite as well aware of the strategic necessities of the new situation as were the Leonese. In any event, the Muslim response was swift. The combined forces of the governors of Valencia and of Granada advanced to the relief of Medinaceli. Our source says from Calatayud but there is clearly some confusion here. That town on the lower Rio Jalén was a logical staging and supply area for an army that planned to advance up the river to the relief of Medinaceli. But such an advance was the most difficult way in which to try to approach the enemy. Perhaps what the brevity of the account obscures is that the governor of Valencia made such an approach alone not to force a passage so much as to immobilize Alfonso by the threat of doing so. Then the governor

of Granada could make an unimpeded advance across the meseta of southern Castilla la Nueva and ravage the territories of Toledo. Such a strategy might well have worked. But somchow troops were found to meet this second threat without giving up the siege of Medinacell. Sometime in June the Muslim army was brought to battle and defeated 53 DMP 2:96-97. Sousa Soares, see note 46, imagined the pilgrimage story as a fiction published to conceal a trip to Rome from Alfonso VI. That must remain conjecture. The same author, “Governo pelo Conde Henrique.” pp. 374-75, redates the Portugese defeat at Vatalandi to this year, following the analysis of Henrique Barrilaro Ruas, “A data do desastre de Vatalandi,” RPH 4 (1949): 361-73. The “Chronica Gothorum,” Pierre David, Etudes historiques, pp. 301-302, dated it to 1110. In the absence of other testimony the battle remains impossible to date securely.

316 CHAPTER FIFTEEN near Talavera de la Reina, seventy kilometers west of Toledo. The governor of Granada was himself killed in the battle. 54

It is possible that the charter given to the church of Toledo by Alfonso on June 22, 1103, was an act of thanksgiving for this victory. °° The king was accompanied by the queen, Sancho Alfénsez, Count Raymond and Urraca, the archbishop of Toledo, four bishops, three counts, and a variety of Toledan figures. Count Henry was in the north of Portugal at the time near Guimaraes.%° This victory must have been crushing enough to relieve the military threat for the remainder of the

summer for, while the siege of Medinaceli was to continue, some members of the court who confirmed the diploma of June 22 confirmed a private donation to Sahagtn on July 10, 1103.57 Some also figured in another private charter later in the month.**

"‘ |Bt + pregnenens " ~ efo | ™eeSET 0 Mme es : . . a. ~ A a IPP fF :oo, fe. “ms”

f : OQ a. y dyer I. neatly bone uso atte oer “> ogee 1h drbet seitye Beye ry ssett dorms Some dg aie s on en a eee

freee fe fee hee drewda ths chip weiseg pie onlage i... bened. gre eng oa wae tee oe sow te ie glen he. te bee ; noone “pe nret aren me

: } wed be oe Lok de ey {. wane mba ’ em sae a t arabes paarnone aa ar te OO we bea O4 oe rs 0 pedines a 3 roe x

heals — Peep ataleitet ssonl ne iane Oegage oh rhe. a merrceen wn ene At Fr fT e.3+.thaie wh.ne as te ben moeFeet wean angeeenelet hs Liss SR fpnthe tap tre Bae Mae sor nas gs gegen

Be mr rr ee Tr ee perp not inapete os ° Ca fae yet

; > an erat tee ~ A ata Miata poe eae ape A veoeree +. ence & gilgdie. Shed wt bo tex vd : prihvein

NT ‘ . tee ey ae ee:SN ge er) aS 4ame oe ,em ' c*. poo i : a: o ; aa — } oe cme ele te die. emp we todsle ¢ veel Me i begede § ar wm be tye crane 4S , - mort re a

pa tiiers F mere 3 4 ine font fe 4 a ee ~ aie Be’ ; le ae

Me et j teins = IR , el i Dic rteliebaes » aes

;BT Sy ie rr “ai bend eer ” (Po a ‘era. pi.Eelgew ee Mhitigdbegelnge 2 ES? a atppty ie i fy, lite. ~« a SPN NES 2 a .

Bren e mecieehe i Pw ani 4 roe Veda a shes ee a ae

8“ei og 4ne -° a vc,ee i eeCrane neo ec. cee Me eg

a nn Se |) aes ty

An original, mature charter of Alfonso VI, June 22, 1103, with chrismon, signa of Alfonso VI and of the royal notary Pelayo Eriguez. Courtesy of the Archivo Catedral, Toledo. ‘4 My reconstruction of events depends on the source reported in Ambrosio Huici Mi-

randa, “Los Banu Hud de Zaragoza, Alfonso I el Batallador y los Almordavides,” EEMCA 7 (1962): II. $s Garcia Lujan, ed., Privilegios reales de Toledo 2:20-22.

6 July 11, 1103. DMP 2:109. 57 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 891, no. 6, an original; a copy in AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. IO4V.

58 July 23, 1103. José Maria Fernandez Caton, ed., Catdlogo del Archivo Histérico Diocesano de Leon, vol. 1 (Leon, 1978), p. 17.

‘“A GOOD OFFENSE... (IIOI-1107) 317 The king himself may have traveled instead to Burgos to whose good men he granted a charter on July 25, 1103, whose list of confirmations

is lost.59 There is a somewhat obscure reference to the Emir Yusuf, who was in Cordoba in September 1103 and Algeciras in November, having to order 1,500 cavalry north from Valencia to protect al-Mustain from the forces of Alfonso.®© It would have been in keeping with the unflagging energy of that monarch to have immediately followed up a victory with military pressure on Zaragoza to resume payment of the parias.

The next notice of the court comes in October when the king, his wife, and his son confirm an exchange between Count Raymond and the bishop Oviedo.®! Count Henry and Infanta Teresa had rejoined the court by then. Where the document was executed is not evident. On November 7, 1103, major court figures including counts Raymond and Henry confirmed a sweeping donation made by Count Pedro Anstirez to Bishop Raymond of Palencia.© Again the place of issuance is undetermined. The supposed donation by infanta Urraca, the sister of Alfonso VI, dated to November 13, 1103, cannot help us for it obviously is not of that date.©} Urraca had died in 1101. The charter of Alfonso VI to the Castillian monastery of Ona, dated December 12, 1103, may indicate that the court was again in eastern Castilla.“4 If so it may have been for negotiations on common concerns as to the taifa of Zaragoza with the king of Aragén. On December 11, Pedro I was at Estella on the Castillian border.® In 1104 Alfonso VI maintained the initiative he had secured in the

preceding year. Nevertheless military operations began slowly. The court itself seems to have been in its ordinary wintering spot until well ‘9 Pub. Garcia Sainz de Baranda, La ciudad de Burgos 2:405—406. Full citation to existing copies in Bonachia Hernando and Pardos Martinez, eds., Catalogo del Archivo Municipal de Burgos 1:50.

6 Julio Gonzalez, Repoblacién de Castilla la Nueva 1:95, n. $3.

“| Garcia Larragueta, ed., Coleccién de Oviedo, p. 331; a late copy in translation and dated to 1073. The royal confirmation of a private document of Oviedo, dated only by year, may be of this period. Floriano Llorente, Coleccién diplomdtica de Oviedo, pp. 207IO.

* AHN, Microfilmas, Palencia, rollo 1,728, fol. 21r—22r; another copy in Acad. Hist., Catedrales de Espana, 9-25~-1-C-4, ff. t2r—14r. “7 AC Burgos, Vol. 69, pt. 1, fol. 1ogr; pub. Luciano Serrano, ed., Cartulario del infantado de Covarrubias (Madrid, 1907), pp. 50-51. 64 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 271, no. 12; pub. Alamo, ed., Coleccién de Ona 1:155-57. The

date in the text is 1105 but the confirmation of Diego Fernandez as royal majordomo makes the redating necessary. 6s Lacarra, Coleccién diplomdtica de Irache, pp. 104-106.

318 CHAPTER FIFTEEN after Easter, which fell on April 17.° The only royal charter of this period, granted to the bishop of Oviedo on March 16, 1104, shows Alfonso accompanied by his queen and his two daughters by her, the infantas Sancha and Elvira. This is their first known citation. The king’s son by Zaida and his sons-in-law and their wives also confirmed.® The two counts appear to have been at court all winter. Some portion of the court seems to have remained at Sahagun all

through that summer.® But through the winter and the spring the siege of Medinaceli had gone on, and that key fortress surrendered in July 1104.°° Alfonso may have been there for the capitulation or he may have left that agreeable formality to a lieutenant. We know from Muslim sources that he was again pressing his advantage in that summer with a great raid through the territories of Sevilla. The Murabit governors of both Sevilla and Granada were forced to join forces to contain it. 7°

That punitive expedition may have been over well before September 14, 1104, when a private charter shows many of the ordinary court figures, including Count Henry, at Sahagun.7! It was certainly over prior to October 11, when Alfonso himself seems to have been at Burgos, confirming the possessions of a monastry there. Almost all those who 6 Jan. 2, 1104. AC Leon, Codice 11, fol. 78r—v. Jan. 19, 1104. AHN, Céddices, 989B, ff. 126v—127r. Feb. 9, 1104. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 891, no. 9; pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahagiin, p. 505. Mar. 2, 1104. AHN, Clero, Carpeta, 891, no. 10; also AHN, Codices, 989B, fol. 162r, dated to Mar. 4. Mar. 14, 1104. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 891, no. 11; also AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. §7r—v. Mar. 28, 1104. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 960, no. 22; pub. Vignau, ed., Cartulario de Eslonza, pp. 88-89. Apr. 10, 1104. BN, Manuscritos, 18.387, fol. 249r—v; pub. Yepes, Corénica de San Benito 2:211-12, under date of 1074; ES 40:226— 27; Manuel Murguia, Galicia (Barcelona, 1888), pp. 1032-33; and Antonio Lopez Ferreiro, “Ojeada sobre el estado de los monasterios de Galicia a fines del siglo XI y principios del siguiente, “Galicia histérica, vol. 1 (1901-1903), pp. 56-57. Apr. 18, 1104. Pub. Hilda Grassoti, “Apostillas a ‘el prestimonio’ de Valdeavellano,” CHE 29-30 (1959): 19495, n. 86. May 9, 1104. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 891, no. 14; also AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 152r—v.

67 Pub. Vazquez de Parga, Lacarra, and Uria Riu, Las peregrinactones a Santiago de Compostela 3:49-50. The date in the text is 1103 but the confirmation of Pelayo Rodriguez as majordomo suggests a date between 1104 and 1107. 68 June 13, 1104. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 219v. July 8, 1104. Ibid., fol. 87r-v. Aug. 12, 1104. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 891, no. 18. Aug. 26, 1104. Ibid., no. 20. May 26, 1104. Pub. Garcia Larragueta, Coleccién de Oviedo, pp. 333-35, was probably drawn up at Sahagun. 69 “Anales toledanos,” Huici Miranda, ed., Las Crénicas latinas de la Reconquista 1:344. 7° Huici Miranda, “Los Banu Hud de Zaragoza,” p. 19. 7" AHN, Clero, Carpeta 891, no. 21; another copy in AHN, Coéddices, 989B, ff. 32v331.

‘‘A GOOD OFFENSE... (1101-1107) 319 confirm the document are local figures.7* Count Raymond was at the other end of the realm where he confirmed a local privilege of the Galician monastery at Samos on October 25, 1104.73 By the end of that year there were some momentarily threatening developments in the east of the peninsula that cast a shadow over the limited initiative Alfonso had been able to reclaim on the meseta. In September Pedro I of Aragén had died without a son to succeed him. His brother Alfonso I el Batallador inherited the Aragonese throne and, as his sobriquet implies, was to prove himself a great warrior and the ultimate conqueror of Zaragoza in 1118. But for the moment at least in

Leén the king must have wondered how successful the Batallador would be in making good his claim to his deceased brother’s throne and whether or not, if successful, he would continue Pedro’s policy of deference toward Leén-Castilla. Of necessity the Leonese monarch must work for a strong ruler in Aragon so as to contain the great advantage the Murabit had secured with the seizure of Valencia. At the end of 1103 Alfonso VI had responded to the emergency created by the death of Count Ermengol V of Urgel at the battle of Mollerusa in late 1102. Ina momentous but exceedingly obscure set of cir-

cumstances the great magnate Pedro Anstirez was exiled from the realm and took up residence for the next six years in the county of Urgel. The domestic implications of this event will be treated in the following chapter. The net effect in the east was to secure there an able figure who was at the same time unfailingly loyal to the larger purposes of the king of Leén-Castilla. In a very curious fashion the exile of Pedro Anstrez between 1104 and 1109 strengthened the strategic position of Alfonso VI in the east just as he had the exile of Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar between 1080 and 1099. The modern mind puzzles at the willingness of medieval subjects to forgive their king his necessities. Sometime in 1104 Count Pedro Anstrez had taken up his duties as regent for Ermengol VI of Urgel who was his grandson. The knowledge of Pedro’s new charge had reached Pope Paschal II already in May of 1104, so it must have occurred quite early in that year.”* By 1105 the count had begun to add his direction to the constant attrition against the northern borders of Islam in the east of the peninsula, which had been the preeminent role of Aragon in recent years. Before November 72 Pub. Andrés, “Monasterio de San Juan de Burgos,” pp. 122-23; Pena Pérez, ed., Documentacién de San Juan de Burgos, pp. 11-12. Another copy in BN, Manuscritos,

5.790, fol. 140v. |

73 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 1.240, no. 3; copy in BN, Manuscritos, 18.387, fol. 303v, pub. Maximino Arias, “El monasterio de Samos,” pp. 66-68. 74 Rodriguez Fernandez, Pedro Anstirez, pp. 69-70, and note 87.

320 CHAPTER FIFTEEN 3, 1105, he had taken the fortress town of Balaguer, twenty-five kilometers north of Lérida on the Rio Segre. It was a major victory, and to achieve it he had drawn Count Ramon Berenguer of Barcelona into an alliance.75

As the year began in Leén-Castilla, Count Raymond and his wife were in Galicia where they issued a charter on January 16, 1105, to the monastery of San Juan de Poyo.”° The couple were accompanied not only by the bishops of Compostela, Orense, and Tuy, but also by their daughter Sancha, of whom this is our first notice. Count Henry and Infanta Teresa, on the other hand were at court where they granted a charter jointly to Cluny and its dependency of San Isidro de Duenas of some Portuguese possessions. Bishko, who first discovered this charter, made it the linchpin of his argument that Henry was seeking a coalition against his cousin and the young Sancho Alfénsez early in that year.77 His argument, though it suggests that the charter might have been issued at Sahagtin, presumes the absence of Alfonso VI and indeed Henry’s absence from the royal court until midMay. All that one need concede to this careful argument designed to place the Pact of Succession between Raymond and Henry in the spring of 1105 is that there was indeed an impressive gathering of Portuguese magnates at Alfonso’s court on January 5, 1105. Why that should have been so we cannot say.

However, the royal notary, Pelayo Eriguez, confirmed Henry’s charter. When on February 6, 1105, Alfonso VI granted a charter to Bishop Jerome the name of the notary is unfortunately missing, but the

bishops of both Leén and Palencia, who days before had confirmed Henry’s charter, now confirmed the king’s even if Count Henry did not.7* Less than a week later, both counts, Henry and Raymond, joined Alfonso in confirming a private charter to Sahagun.”9 It is also worth

noticing that although the king’s charter to Jerome entitles the latter “bishop of Salamanca” the church granted to that prelate was again a 75 See the agreement of Nov. 3, 1105, pub. Francisco M. Rosell, ed., Liber Feudorum Maior (Barcelona, 1945), pp. 165-66. 76 The charter itself is lost and our information about it comes from Prudencio de Sandoval, Antigtiedades de Tuy, fol. togr—v; and Historia de los reyes de Castilla y de Leon, fol. 9sr—-V.

77 Bishko, “Count Henrique of Portugal,” pp. 155-88. The entire article would supply

a context for the document. An agnitio that would seem to place Henry in Portugal, dated only to 1105, may have been executed at the same time. See DMP 2:158. 78 AC Zamora, Tumbo Negro, fol. 9r; copies in BN, Manuscritos, 712, fol. 164v, and 3.546, fol. 142r. 77 AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 26v.

‘“A GOOD OFFENSE. . .” (IIOI-1I107) 321 church in Zamora. Salamanca continued to be an isolated outpost whose resettlement and fortification had hardly begun.

The royal court was still in the Sahagun area on March 31, 1105, when Alfonso VI gave a charter to the canons of Astorga, confirmed by his son Sancho and Count Raymond.*° It was from court that the latter may have granted a charter to the church of Orense on March 18. Two of the bishops of Galicia were there as was Archbishop Gerald of Braga also.*' The court remained in that district until June 1, 1105, and on the latter date counts Raymond and Henry were present. *? In May of the year pressure was maintained south of the line of the Tajo by forces of Leén-Castilla, but we do not know who commanded.

Our only information is that such an expedition was defeated in the mountains well south of Toledo.*} Of further fighting during the year we hear nothing, so Pedro Anstirez’s capture of Balaguer in late fall marked the major success of that campaigning season. When the royal court again becomes visible on September 9, 1105, it

is again at Sahagtin and counts Henry and Raymond are in attendance.*4 The king had likely been attending to the strengthening of the trans-Duero during the summer. Later in September Alfonso issued a charter to a Castillian supporter, possibly at Burgos.*s In December the court had returned to the Sahagtin vicinity and Jerome of Salamanca was there as was Gerald of Braga, and the bishop of Compostela as well as the king’s Burgundian sons-in-law. It was there that Count Raymond may have issued his fuero in favor of the men of Compostela. *° *o BN, Manuscritos, 712, fol. 83r—v, and 9.194, fol. 102r; another copy in Acad. Hist., Coleccién Salazar, 0-22, fol. ror. 8: AC Orense, Reales, no. 9. Only a fragment remains so that one cannot be sure that it was a comital charter. The form of Raymond’s confirmation suggests that it may have been rather a royal one. ’2 May 6, 1105. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 960, no. 23; pub. Vignau, ed., Cartulario de Eslonza, pp. 90-91. May 15, 1105. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 891, no. 24. June 1, 1105. AHN, Cédices, 989B, f. 11$r-v. 3 “Anales Toledanos,” Huici Miranda, ed., Cronicas latinas de la Reconquista, p. 358. See Gonzalez, Repoblacién de Castilla la Nueva 1:97, n. 61, for the location of the battle. *4 Sept. 9, 1105. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 892, no. 2;a copy in AHN, Céddices, 989B, ff. 2$v—26r. For the counts, Sept. 11, 1105. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 892, no. 3. *s Sept. 22, 1105. AC Burgos, Vol. 71, no. 147; pub. Serrano, Obispado de Burgos 3:123-25. 86 Dec. 13, 1105. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 892, nos. 4 and 5, the latter possibly the original; and a copy in AHN, Céodices, 989B, fol. 74r-v. Dec. 16, 1105. AC Santiago de Compostela, Tumbo A, fol. 29r; another copy in Chartularum, ff. 71v—72v; also AD Santiago de Compostela, legajo 90, ff. 6v—8r; pub. Lopez Ferreiro, Historia de Compostela 3:61-63. This latter charter reads that it was given “apud tumbam bmi. iacobi apli. causa

322 CHAPTER FIFTEEN Alfonso’s court continued at the center of the realm into the middle of March of the new year, but in January the documents evidence a much larger than ordinary curia being held with no fewer than nine archbishops and bishops attending as well as his sons-in-law. *7 On March 19 the king issued a charter to the church of Oviedo confirmed by his son among others.*’ On April 9 Count Raymond issued one charter to the canons of Lugo and another to its merchants.*? All

three were produced at court which remained in the Sahagtn area through the first weeks of June.%°

During the month of August Count Henry and Infanta Teresa were in Portugal.2' Where Alfonso spent the summer or fall we cannot say with certainty. Probably he himself was the leader 1n a great raid which not only penetrated to the extreme south into the territories of Malaga but whose superiority was so assured against reprisal that it was able to escort north large numbers of Mozarabs for resettlement in Christian territories.°? On the evidence the Leonese seemed to have regained the orationis,” which may be a pious, later interpolation or may indicate something more serious. Certainly its author was in Leon. 87 Jan. 8, 1106. AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 113r—-v. Jan. 10, 1106. Ibid., fol. 112v. Jan. 10, 1106. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 892, no. 6; copy in AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 1§3r. Jan. 12, 1106. Ibid., ff. 113v—114r. Jan. 16, 1106. Ibid., fol. 113r. Jan. 22, 1106. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 892, no. 7. Feb. 13, 1106. AHN, Céddices, 989B, ff. 44v—45r. Feb. 19, 1106. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 892, no. 8; copy in AHN, Céddices, 989B, ff. 26v—27r. Feb. 26, 1106. Ibid., fol. 131r. March 4, 1106. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 892, no. 9; copy in AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 136r—v. Mar. 14, 1106. Ibid., ff. 78v—79r. *8 Garcia Larragueta, ed., Coleccién de Oviedo, p. 336-37, and other copies unknown to the editor in BN, Manuscritos, fol. 1111, dated to Apr. 18, 1071, and Acad. Hist., Colecci6n Salazar, 0-14, ff. 42v-43r, dated Mar. 19, 1080. 89 AHN, Céddices, 1043B, fol. 17v; and another copy in 363B, fol. 125r. The second of the same date in AHN, Céddices, 1043B, fol. 16v; and another copy in 363B, ff. 124v1257.

9% May 16, 1106. AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 79r. May 25, 1106. AC Tuy, legajo 5, no. 1; acopy in Primero Libro Becerro, ff. 41r—v; pub. in part in Maria del Carmen Pallares Méndez and Ermelindo Portela Silva, El bajo valle del Mirio en los siglos XI y XIII (Santiago de Compostela, 1971), p. 119. This is another charter of Count Raymond. June 10, 1106. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 892, no. 10; copy in AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 4or-v. » Aug. 1, 1106. DMP 1-1:14-15. Aug. 25, 1106. Ibid., p. 15. A number of other diplomas ascribed to either Henry or Teresa in this year have to be rejected on one ground or another. Feb. 1, 1106. Ibid., pp. 13-14 and 1-2:555-60. Mar. 19, 1106. Ibid., 1-1:5657. The confirmations are strictly incredible. May 30, 1106. AHN, Lisbon, Corporacoes Religiosas, Suplemento, Sala 16, San Pedro de Pedroso, Caixa 1, no. 8 bis. Teresa styles herself “queen,” which at the very least would require a date of 1116-1117. Under these

circumstances July 28, 1106, AHN,-Clero, Carpeta 892, no. 11, which would place Henry still at Sahagtin, must be suspect. 9 “Anales Toledanos,” Huici Miranda, ed., Crénicas latinas de la Reconquista, p. 344. Although in a much later publication, “Los Banu Hud de Zaragoza,” p. 28, n. 7, the same

‘“A GOOD OFFENSE. . .” (I11O0I-1107) 323 initiative in a surprising fashion since the dark years between 1097 and 1102. If they were not sufficiently strong to make major advances still a most aggressive defense continued to keep the Murabit off balance and contributed substantially to the capacity of the Christian frontiers to withstand future attack. For the moment at least the Murabit empire was fully occupied with the changes consequent upon the death of Yusuf ibn-Tashufin. Alfonso VI’s great opponent died on September 2, 1106. He was succeeded by one of his sons, Ali ibn-Yusuf. The latter had himself been born of a Christian slave, probably from the peninsula.%3 Under Ali the Murabit empire in Spain would reach its greatest extent, but it would also begin its gradual decline. In the northeast of the peninsula the Murabit would finally manage to annex the taifa of Zaragoza outright in 1110, but in the meanwhile such help as they could furnish to their coreligionists there could not prevent the continuing attrition of its frontier lands at the hands of Aragon. Alfonso I on his accession in 1104 had immediately taken up the process begun by his father and so brilliantly continued by his brother Pedro. Sometime in the summer of 1106 he had overrun Ejea de los Caballeros fifty-five kilometers northeast of Zaragoza and but forty kilometers east of Tudela, the third city of the taifa. On another front he also siczed Tamarite, thirty-five kilometers north of Lérida, its second city. 4

Tamarite was also, however, only the same distance west of Balagucr, the fortress town taken by Count Pedro Anstrez at the end of the preceding year. It is not surprising, then, that in 1106, probably after the fall of Tamarite, Count Pedro ceded to the bishop of Huesca a church in Balaguer.°s’ The donation by the count of one-third of this city to Alfonso I of Aragon 1s undated but is also likely of the same period.” The military cooperation that the latter document mentions was emimently sensible for two warriors both concerned with harassing if not conquering the Muslim of Lérida. That Count Pedro had also sworn fidelity to the Aragonese monarch and, that, at some future point, the author argues that the “Anales” has the date wrong, that it should be 1126, and that the reference is to Alfonso I of Aragon. His argument is from the silence of the Muslim sources for 1106. °° Francisco Codera, Decadencia y desaparicién de los Almordvides en Espana (Zaragoza, 1899), Pp. 5-6. * Turk, Reino de Zaragoza, pp. 184-85. °s t100. Pub. Duran Gudiol, ed., Coleccién diplomdtica de la catedral de Huesca, p. 123. % Rosell, Liber Feudorum Maior, pp. 166-67.

324 CHAPTER FIFTEEN young Ermengol would be expected to do the same is also made clear. Though such close relationships may seem surprising, Sancho Ramirez, Alfonso I’s father, had been married to a daughter of Ermengol III of Urgel and Pedro I, Alfonso I’s brother, had once seen the possibility of inheriting the country itself.27 Pedro Anstirez was continuing the traditional policy of Urgel in behalf of his grandson. Late in the fall of 1106 it may be that the king of Le6én-Castilla was at

Burgos or some other location in eastern Castilla. Two documents, one a charter of the king to the monastery of Ona and the other an agnitio concerning the monastery of San Millan, both record his actions though they are dated only by year and did not specifically place him there.°* By December 17, 1106, the court would seem to have been at

Leén.° No significant military events seem to have taken place in 1107. As best we can tell from the documents, the year was largely untroubled and on January 18 the court was where it usually was to be found, that is, at Sahagun.'°° Infans Sancho Alfénsez confirmed a private charter there as did counts Raymond and Henry. Shortly thereafter Raymond and Urraca may have journeyed to Galicia for on March 17, 1107, they granted a charter to the church of Compostela confirmed by largely

provincial figures.'°' The royal court continued in the Sahagun area into April.'°? Then in Leon at the very beginning of May Alfonso held a great curla in which his son Sancho Alfénsez was declared his heir. This was a step of major importance in the politics of the realm and will

be examined as such subsequently. The evidence for the meeting is scattered and partial but, for the moment, we can be satisfied with the documents. On May 8, 1107, Alfonso VI granted a charter to the church of To-

ledo whose dating formula concludes “Roborato vero in castro de monzon coram omni sue expedicionis multitudine dum attenderet ad aragon post celebratum concilium apud legionc.”'°} The confirmation — list reveals that the Burgundian cousins and their royal wives must have 97 Ubieto Arteta, ed., Coleccién de Pedro I, pp. 25-27. % Alamo, ed., Colecci6n de Ona 1:121-22. The document is dated in the text to 1086,

which is impossible given those who confirm. Serrano, ed., Cartulario de San Millan, p. 295.

» AC Leon, Particulares, no. 290. oo AHN, Clero, Carpeta 892, no. 13; a copy in AHN, Codices, 989B, ff. t40v—14Ir. to! AC Santiago, Tumbo A, fol. 29v; other copies in Chartularum, ff. 72v—73r; and in an unpublished manuscript of Acad. Hist., 9-27-2-E-50, Estefania, “Memorias,” p. 235. 102 March 29, 1107. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 892, no. 14. Apr. 21, 1107. AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 1oov. 03 Pub. Garcia Lujan, Privilegios de Toledo 2:22-25, but dated erroneously to March 8.

‘‘A GOOD OFFENSE... (1101-1107) 325 been present at the curia. The castle of Monz6n was a royal stronghold some twelve kilometers north of Palencia.

Six days later, on May 14, 1107, Alfonso granted the privilege of coinage to the bishop of Santiago de Compostela “quando rex de burgis agressus cum sola castellanorum expeditione super vascones et aragonenses iter direxit.” Again all the major figures of the dynasty are present, and this time Sancho Alfénsez confirms as “regnum electus patri factum.” 14 What this expedition directed against the Basques and Aragonese effected, if anything, we just do not know. There are no other notices of it but these two. Perhaps it was to bolster the position of Leén-Castilla in the Rioja or to shore up the northwest frontier of Zaragoza. In any event it was soon over for the court had returned to Sahagun before the middle of June and remained there for the rest of the summer. '° Events during the remainder of the year 1107 were of the sort that would affect primarily the domestic affairs of Leén-Castilla and the imminent crisis of succession: the death of Count Raymond, the death of

Queen Elizabeth, and perhaps the growing infirmity of the old king himself. The examination of these developments is best left for a more detailed consideration of the progression of that crisis. For now it may

be said that these new factors tended to undermine the considerable progress of the past four years. As so often since the battle of Zalaca in 1086 and the emergence of the North African Murabit empire as a major factor in peninsular affairs, from 1102 to 1107 Alfonso VI had man'o¢ AC Santiago de Compostela. Tumbo A, fol. 27v; and Tumbo C, fol. 218v—219r, with the date as 1077; and Chartularum, ff. 73r-74v; pub. Lopez Ferreiro, Historia de Compostela 3:70-73 append.; and Estefania, ““Memorias,” pp. 237-38. It is the second of these copies that, although intermediate in time, gives us the critical but variant reading. Nevertheless it is impossible to imagine a thirteenth-century scribe simply inventing such a reading while the “Sancius filius regis conf.” of the earliest copy could easily be abbreviated. Claudio Sanchez-Albornoz, “La primitiva organizacién moneteria de Le6én y Castilla,” in Estudios sobre las instituciones medievales espanolas (Mexico City, 1965), pp. 441-82, ar-

gued on the basis of the “Historia Compostelana,” ES 20:63—69, that the charter should be dated rather to 1105. Bishko, “Pacto Sucess6rio,” pp. 186-87, followed Sanchez-Albornoz, and the charter thus became a critical part of the evidence for dating the pact to that year. However, as we have seen, the dating formulas of the two charters would support the common and traditional dating. I do not believe it can be altered on the basis of literary evidence. For the methods of composition followed by the authors of the gesta see Reilly, “Historia Compostelana,” pp. 78-85. os June 12, 1107. AHN, Cédices, 989B, ff. 73v—73(bis)r. July 27, 1107. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 892, no. 15, Aug. 7, 1107. AHN, Céddices, 989B, fol. 78v. Aug. 16, 1107. AHN, Codices, 1.439B, ff. 3v—4r, which would place Alfonso in Toledo is a forgery. Aug. 27, 1107. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 86r.

326 CHAPTER FIFTEEN aged to stabilize the frontiers of his swollen kingdom. Though Valencia had had to be abandoned, the capture of Medinaceli in 1104 had effectively sealed the corridor of the Jalon. Thus the enemy was forced again to rely on a direct assault along the line of the Tajo as its one avenue of advance. But the difficulties experienced by the Murabit in North Africa, consequent on the designation of Ali as heir of Yusuf ibn-Tashufin, had

prevented the use of any large African contingent in that effort. As ever, the Leonese kingdom proved itself able to more than manage any force fielded by Spanish Islam. Indeed if the armies of Alfonso VI were not uniformly successful in those four years, it is yet clear that they managed to retain the initiative. Most usually they are found to be op-

erating well south of the Tajo and on more than one occasion deep within Andalucia. Though the precious city of Toledo continued to mark the southernmost extension of the realm, no siege army had appeared before it. More important still, behind this most aggressive, if essentially defensive, campaigning crucial contributions were being made to the repopulation of the lands north of the Tajo and even north of the Cordil-

lera Central. Mozarabs from Valencia and Malaga were resettled in those territories to swell the Christian population. Encouragement and assistance were given as well to the continuing movement into the trans-Duero of settlers from the north. To be sure, little could be effected in a mere four years to help the kingdom grow into the enormous reaches of territory aggrandized since 1076. But there are times that the smallest increments of strength can prove decisive 1n a contest. We cannot be sure that such was the case in the early twelfth century, but we can see that such was the policy of Alfonso VI in this penultimate effort of his last years.

SIXTEEN

A COURT OF SEVERAL MINDS (1100-1107)

At the outset of the year 1100 in the sixty-third year of his life and the thirty-fifth of his reign, Alfonso found his own past expedients turning into policy and precedent. Although the record is clear that the king yet remained vigorous and as determined to rule his realm as he was to defend it, favor bestowed in the past had created expectations that now cabined about the alternatives available to him. With kings as with the rest of us each decision sets into motion a train of events that soon as-

sumes its own logic and its own impetus. But precisely because the original initiative and conception was his, their author is most particularly helpless to alter the development of these implications. Just because they are everywhere regarded as the fruits of his policy, the king will be perceived as arbitrary and faithless should he interfere in a major way with that social dialectic. The monarch thus becomes, to some ex-

tent, dependent upon the lesser agents of the structure to restore the possibility of real initiatives to him. Only to the degree they abuse the new roles allotted them or as others react against those roles can the crown find general justification for revising its own policy.

So it was now to be with the dynastic policy that Alfonso had adopted long since. The enlisting of the nephews of his second wife, Constance, as his vicegerents in Galicia and in Portugal had been a useful device. In the aftermath of the defeat at Zalaca at the hands of the Murabit in the fall of 1086 and an abortive revolt in Galicia in the spring of 1087, the employment of Count Raymond in Galicia had been good evidence of the resources of the crown. That the king had no male heir was an incentive for Raymond to take up the thankless task of overseeing a distant, isolated province for he was promised the hand of Urraca,

then sole legitimate child of Alfonso. Whatever might or might not have been explictly said at that time would have mattered not so much as the fact that all observers and the count himself came to consider Raymond as potential successor to the king. For the monarch, such an expectation became increasingly binding as Queen Constance failed, down to her death in 1093, to provide him

with that alternative heir which would have effectively reduced the

328 CHAPTER SIXTEEN count’s claim toa nullity by the ordinary operation of events had it been a boy. Deliverance was to come from another quarter. When Alfonso

took the Muslim Zaida as a mistress in late I09I or 1092, we cannot know the relative weight in the king’s mind of the diplomatic and the dynastic considerations. Most probably they were so dissembled that contemporaries found an evaluation difficult as well. But the birth of Sancho Alfénsez in 1093 strengthened the capacity of the crown for maneuver. Nevertheless, when the king, after the death of Constance in the fall of 1093, took a new wife from the north of Italy he precipi-

tated a dangerous crisis. Raymond and his cousin Henry, with the agreement of Hugh of Cluny himself, took steps to make the kingdom theirs when the death of Alfonso should occur. The reaction of the Burgundian cousins was itself too extreme to secure wide support. That fact made it possible for the king to divide them and so gain time for the claim of Sancho Alfonsez to prosper and for his new marriage itself to bear fruit. Yet the promotion of Henry to the control of Portugal and his marriage to the king’s natural daughter, Teresa, created another claim on the future of the dynasty as well. Consequently when Queen Berta died at the beginning of 1100 the royal tactic of 1094 could not be repeated. On the other hand, the right of the king to remarry was impossible to oppose though he might be constrained to accept a pliable scion of Burgundy. ! In another respect the passage of time would tell against Alfonso. His sister, Elvira, had died toward the end of 1099.” In the early months of 1101 his sole surviving sister, Urraca, died.3 The king now ruled over a court inevitably influenced by the commanding role of his daughters Urraca and Teresa as the senior female members of the dynasty. In turn their husbands Raymond and Henry assumed an ever more important status themselves. The former confirmed sixteen of the twenty-three surviving royal charters of the period between 1100 and the fall of 1107 whose text 1s complete and the latter confirmed twelve. In this symbolic function they had few rivals as we shall see. The very ceremonial of his court now weighed heavily upon Alfonso’s possible freedom of choice in its public deliberations. The area upon which this essentially courtly phenomenon would have had the least impact was that which involved relations with Rome. Thus the restoration of the episcopal see of Osma, as had been directed by the papal bull of May 3, 1099, was duly undertaken. The pace here ' See chapter 14, notes $9 through 71. 2 See chapter 13, note 55. 3 See chapter 15, note 7. 4 See chapter 13, note $2.

A COURT OF SEVERAL MINDS (IIO0—-1107) 329 was leisurely and the first notice of a bishop at Osma dates to 1101.5

Bishop Pedro was one of those French clerics brought to Spain by Archbishop Bernard in 1096.° Another of those protégés of the great archbishop, Jerome, was transferred from the lost see of Valencia to the newly restored one of Salamanca early in 1102.7 Indeed the dominance of the Toledan prelate seemed to be unchallengeable within the Leonese church. Not only did he enjoy the support of the king but on March 6, 1101, Paschal II had formally confirmed the primatial dignity and the jurisdiction of Toledo over all churches and diocese whose ancient met-

ropolitan sees still lay under the control of the Muslim.® In January 1103 Bernard was to be found presiding over a council of the church of the realm, so to speak, at Carrion de los Condes. The reality was more complex, however. Rivera Recio presumed that Bernard had gone to Rome to obtain the bull of March 1101, but a variety of documents of that season attest to the primate’s presence at the royal court.'° More likely the agent of the primate on this occasion was Bishop Maurice of Coimbra, another of the former’s protégés. On March 24, Paschal II confirmed the possessions of the church of Coimbra. Maurice may have used this opportunity to enlarge the prerogatives of his church beyond what the primate could have anticipated, however, for the pope also granted to his diocese the administration of the suppressed sees of Lamego and Viseu.'!! Thereby the seeds of a long dispute between the churches of Braga and Coimbra as well as a future

spectacular conflict between Archbisop Bernard and Maurice were sown. It seems unlikely that either the king or Bernard himself had au- | thorized any such initiative since it would have militated against the interests of their appointee at Braga, Archbishop Gerald. The possibility exists though that Bishop Maurice had been quictly encouraged in that direction by Count Henry.

Such local rivalries and ambitions always worked insensibly to strengthen the appellate jurisdiction of Rome and to present the opportunity for direction that the ordinary conditions of distance and time usually denied. In that vein the application of the abbot of the Castilian ‘ Engels, “Papsttum,” p. 251. * Jiménez de Rada, “De rebus Hispaniae,” p.140 7 See chapter 15, notes 39 and 4o. * Mansilla, ed., La documentacién pontificia hasta Innocencio II, pp. 64-66. ° See chapter 15, notes 44-46. '© Rivera Recio, La Iglesia de Toledo, pp. 154-55. '' Erdmann, “Papsturkunden in Portugal,” pp. 154-56. Almeida, Historia da Igreja em Portugal 1:181, n.1, and Manuel Gongalves da Costa, Histéria do bispado e cidade de Lamego,

vol. 1 (Lamego, 1977), p. 81, both date this bull to 1102 but are not aware of all of the extant copies.

330 CHAPTER SIXTEEN monastery of Ona for confirmation of that abbey’s exemption from all but Roman authority was welcomed, and the bull so granting was issued on January 10, 1102.” Even at home the influence of the primate was not without its limits. Sometime in 1101 or early 1102 a new bishop was named to Oviedo. The first reliable notice we have of him dates to March 6, 1102. This was the famous Bishop Pelayo, later a biographer of the king and an enthusiastic promoter of the dignity and honor of his see. We know nothing certain about his earlier career but that his origins may have been in Ledn rather than Asturias.'3 His appointment should be regarded as the choice of Alfonso himself. In general the archbishop of Toledo continued to share a favored spot in the royal counsels with the other bishops of the meseta as reflected in confirmations to the royal charters of the period. Toledo confirmed fourteen of the twenty-three, Le6n fifteen, Palencia twelve, Astorga eleven, and Burgos nine. The evidence of the royal charters as to the relative positions of the lay magnates of the court demands a greater subtlety of analysis. There seems to be somewhat more uneasiness reflected, for example, in the rapid alternations in the office of royal majordomo. Fernando Munoz, a Leonese, continued in that position, which he had held from 1096, only until sometime in rro1.'4 Already before January 2, 1102, Alfonso Téllez, another Leonese, had replaced him but his tenure lasted little over a year.'5 Diego Fernandez held the office before June 22, 1103, but lost it within a year. We cannot be sure of his identity but twenty years later someone of that name was married to a granddaughter of Count 12 Alamo, ed., Coleccion diplomdtica de San Salvador de Ona. 1:145~48. But another bull,

dated Dec. 31, 1102, confirming the rights of Santiago de Compostela should be regarded with the utmost caution. It was surely interpolated for it includes reference to the bogus “votos” of that church and there are difficulties with its dating formula as well. It appears in the “Historia Compostelana,” ES 20:32-34. '3 See chapter 15, note 30. A succinct introduction to Pelayo is given in Fletcher, The Episcopate in the Kingdom of Leon, p. 73. Pelayo has also sometimes been regarded as coad-

jutor bishop of the see in the latter years of the episcopate of Bishop Martin whose own last appearance dates to Dec. 5, 1100. Sec chapter 13, note 51. The former appears in Aug. 24, 1097, pub. Garcia Larragueta, Documentos de Oviedo, p. 308. Fernandez Conde, Libro de Testamentos, pp. 325-28, no. 2, points out that the name of Pelayo is added in a different ink in the original, in Jan. 17, 1098, a forgery, see chapter 14, note 23; and in Jan. 23, 1099, badly dated at the least, see chapter 13, note 36. Marcos G. Martinez, “Regesta de Don Pelayo, obispo de Oviedo,” BIEA 18 (1964): 227, gives the notice of his consecration which is also garbled. Fernandez Conde, Libro de Testamentos, p. 36, comments on his possible Leonese ancestry. '¢ See chapter 13, note $7, and chapter 15, note Io. 's Tbid, notes 27 and §1.

A COURT OF SEVERAL MINDS (1100-1107) 331 Pedro Ansurez.'° Before March 16, 1104, the honor had changed hands

again, passing this time to Pelayo Rodriguez whose tenure lasted through May 14, 1107.!7

One might initially postulate, then, some developing struggle within the royal curia reaching its peak in 1102-1103 and having been resolved late in the latter year. On the other hand, Ordono Alvarez, son of Alvar Diaz, continued to be royal alférez through April 13, 1101, and had been succeeded by his brother, Alvar Diaz, already by January 12, 1102, who would continue therein at least until May 14, 1107.18 On this basis we might infer that this clash did not involve the Castilian element at court. Turning to the twenty holders of the comital dignity who appear in the royal diplomas, appearances are largely unremarkable. Only six of the entire group confirm with such regularity as to allow identification

as court figures. Counts Raymond and Henry have already been treated. Martin Lainez, the Leonese, confirmed thirteen. Garcia Ordénez, he of Najera, confirmed eleven. Gomez Gonzalez, the Lara count, confirmed ten. All of these were established personages at court.

What is remarkable is that Count Pedro Anstirez, peer among them, confirmed nine of the fifteen royal charters issued before July 1103 and none of the eight issued subsequently. In fact, from the middle of 1103 the oldest and closest associate of Alfonso VI will disappear completely from his court and kingdom and will only reappear, again as a powerful and influential figure, in that of Alfonso’s daughter Urraca.

As we have already seen, Pedro Anstirez became regent for young Ermengol VI of Urgel in the northeast of the peninsula sometime in early 1104. His only biographer to date has simply assumed that the Leonese count was drawn there by the claims of family loyalty for the young heir to Urgel was his grandson.'!? The dangerous situation in that quarter after the fall of Valencia to the Murabit in 1102 gave additional plausibility to such a premise. I believe, however, that Pedro was the victim of an intense struggle for power at the court of Alfonso and was forced into exile there. '6 Ibid, notes §5 and 64. On June 3, 1124, the daughter of Pedro Anstrez made a donation to Cluny and San Isidro de Duenas. BN, Manuscritos, 720, fol. 294r—-v. '7 See chapter 15, notes 67 and 104. '§ Apr. 13, 1101. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 890, no. 15; copy in the Palacio Real del Oriente, Madrid, Biblioteca, signatura I]—534, following a Jate ms. of the “Historia Compostelana,” pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahagtin, pp. 501-502. Jan. 12, 1102. See chapter 15, note 27. May 14, 1107. Ibid., note 104. Alvar Diaz had a son named Garcia in 1077. See Serrano, ed., Cartulario de San Millan, pp. 239-40. '9 See chapter 15, note 74.

332 CHAPTER SIXTEEN The prime evidence for this assertion rests on the donation by the count of the church of Valladolid and all of his possessions to the bishop

of Palencia on November 7, 1103.7° Such extraordinary largesse was not likely to be voluntary even though the language of the document itself adduces piety as the motive. More likely this was probably one of a series of forced donations that stripped Pedro Anstrez of all his possessions within the realm. Certainly the count held at least a portion of one property in the territory of Toledo which later is found in the hands of Alfonso and passed from him to Urraca.”! It may also be indicative of the consequences of the fall of the count that on March 14, 1104, Pedro Sarracinez made a donation to Sahaguin of property that he had been awarded by Pedro Anstirez, acting as royal judge two years earlier, in a suit against that monastery.” The latter’s brother seems also to have been affected by this turn of events. Gonzalo Anstrez was not ordinarily a court figure but between January 15, 1100, and February 10, 1103, he confirmed four Alfonsine charters. After this last date he vanishes from the documents only to reappear in 1110. If the royal majordomo, Diego Fernandez, was indeed an ally and possibly even related by marriage to Count Pedro then his disappearance from the documents after December 1103 may also form a part of a drastic shift of power at court.”} Finally, that the count’s surrender of Valladolid in 1103 was not done of his own volition is irrefutably demonstrated by the fact that very early in the reign of Urraca

we again find him exercising clear jurisdiction over that collegiate church and its possessions. 74

Later historiography would associate the exile of Pedro Anstrez with the early reign of Urraca. Again the theme 1s that of a loyal vassal and an unworthy lord with the count, restored through the influence of Alfonso I of Aragon, risking his own life by confronting el Batallador to assert his higher loyalty to the queen once those two have been estranged.?5 This version obviously derives from an epic tale but the literary version at least built on the historic facts of the count’s exile and Urraca’s implication in it if only perhaps through loyal support to the 20 AC Palencia, armario 3, legajo 10, ff. 21r—22r; copy in Acad. Hist., Catedrales de Espana, 9-25-1-C-4, ff. 12r—14r. 2 Gonzalez, Repoblacion de Castilla la Nueva 1:118. 22 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 891, no. 11, and Céddices, 989B, fol. 56r—v. 23 See note 16.

24 Mar. 31, 1110. BN, Manuscritos 13.074, ff. 167r—68v.

2s Jiménez de Rada, “De Rebus Hispaniae,” pp. 147-48. From there it passes into the Primera cronica general, ed. Ramon Menéndez Pidal, 2:646.

A COURT OF SEVERAL MINDS (I 100-1107) 333 interests of her husband, Count Raymond. The documents, however, place the exile from 1104 to late 1109 rather than in the queen’s reign. But if not the inconstancy of a woman, what then lay behind the exile of the companion of the king’s youth, a mainstay of his court, and the premier magnate eof Leén? The likely answer, it seems to me, is that the count had been a supporter, or even the chief proponent at court, of a formal recognition of the young Sancho Alfénsez, which seemingly took place about Christmas of 1102. The young potential heir would then have been about nine, the proper age for emergence from the tutelage of women and into at least a partial public life. From 1103 until his death in 1108 Infans Sancho would confirm thirteen of the sixteen royal diplomas issued.*° During the year 1103 alone he confirmed eight of these charters. Such a royal initiative would have been most distressing to both Count Raymond and Count Henry, but direct opposition to the royal will would have been the most dangerous course. A more satisfactory beginning would have been to bring down the most visible lay supporter of the young Sancho. To understand why they could have been successful, bending the king to their will, one must understand what a dynastic, and therefore social and political, jungle the court constituted at this time. The old order of things had perished there along with Urraca, the king’s sister and last surviving member of his generation of the royal family, in early 1101. The king’s oldest child, Urraca, had the defunct Queen Constance as mother. His second offspring there, Teresa, had been born of a liaison with a noblewoman of Asturias. His yet younger and only son, Sancho, resulted from another political liaison with the Muslim Princess Zaida. Finally, by this time Alfonso had at least one and possibly two daughters, Sancha and Elvira, by his new French wife, Queen Elizabeth.” The resultant tangle of ambitions must have made serenity and amity the scarcest of attributes at court. It is possible as well that relationships were even more tense as the result of the recent birth of a male to either Count Raymond or Count Henry. We do know, of course, that the only male heirs of either who survived were Alfonso Raimtindez, born in 1105, and Alfonso Enriquez, born in 1109 or 1110, respectively. Yet infants whose life span did not reach a year left no mark in the chronicles but could affect political considerations during that brief time. Raymond’s known children at the time included only Sancha Raimuindez, born before November 11, 6 Earlier purported confirmations by Sancho Alfénsez have to be rejected. Jan. 17, 1098. See chapter 14, note 23. Apr. 22, 1099. See chapter 13, note 43. Jan. 12, 1102. See chapter 15, note 27. 7 See chapter 15, note 67.

334 CHAPTER SIXTEEN 1095.78 Count Henry’s situation remains even more enigmatic for the only child of his known to history is his son and eventual heir. Even so both Burgundians would have entertained wery real hopes by this time either for themselves directly or as consorts for their respective wives. The increased dignity of Sancho Alfonsez would have less-

ened those understandable ambitions and boded ill for those who might counsel the king to move to sucha policy. The clement that supported the recognition of the young Sancho may have included the pri-

mate as well as Pedro Anstrez. At least in April 1103 Paschal II addressed letters to the churches of Mondonedo, Santiago de Compostela, Astorga, and Coimbra warning all of them to respect the rights of Braga.?® Archbishop Bernard was at all times sensitive to the possibility of a rival to his metropolitan dignity in Braga in general and, 1n the case of Coimbra, he had his own claims to be regarded as the proper metropolitan. To encourage Braga to such action would seem to be pointless for either Bernard or the king, and it is difficult to imagine that the Archbishop Gerald had taken such an initiative of himself. More likely he had been encouraged to do so by Count Henry. In the same year even the bishop of the modest backwoods bishopric of Mondonedo in Galicia dared to appeal to the pope against the judgment of the primate, given in the royal presence at Carrion earlier in 1103. The matter concerned rival claims to some rural districts, but the rival of Mondonedo in this case was the shrine of Santiago himself at Compostela, the clear recipient of recent favors by both Alfonso and Count Raymond. Bishop Gonzalo must have been able to detect, even from the vantage point of his diminutive diocese, very troubled waters indeed if he could hope to go unscathed after such an act of defiance. 3° All indications, then, point to the conclusion that late in 1103 Alfonso VI had to sacrifice to his old friend Pedro Anstrez in order to secure the acquiescence of his powerful sons-in-law and his daughters to the new status accorded the young Sancho. Doubtless some other pretext was alleged to put the best face possible on the exile of the most powerful single noble of the realm, but the event inevitably encouraged unrest generally, underlining publicly as it did the discord and tension within the dynasty itself. Stull, Alfonso had achieved the end that he 28 She is first mentioned to my knowledge in a charter of Infanta Elvira of that date. ASI, Reales, no. 132. A brief biography has appeared by Luisa Garcia Calles, Dona Sancha, hermana del Emperador (Leén, 1972).

29 Erdmann, Papsturkunden in Portugal, pp. 156-60. 3° "The episode is recorded only in the “Historia Compostelana,” ES 74-77. For the dating of the papal bulls included see the edition and translation of Manuel Suarez and José

Campelo (Santiago de Compostela, 1950), pp. 84-85.

A COURT OF SEVERAL MINDS (I 100-1107) 335 could not but regard as most essential, regardless of the sacrifice it required. As we have already seen, the Anstirez count would contribute to the security of Leén-Castilla indirectly in 1104 by acting energetically to shore up the northeast of Christian Spain against the Murabit drive north from Valencia. The position of Alfonso at home would also have improved that year as a result of his capture of Medinaceli and the success of his subsequent raid through the territories of Sevilla. The stubborn persistence of the old warrior would continue to confound his opponents within the realm just as it did the Muslim world of Andalucia

and North Africa. Yet a certain anticipatory loosening of authority continued and is manifest in the affairs of the church. At Rome confidence in Archbishop Bernard of Toledo seems to have been on the wane. Rivera Recio believed on the basis of an entry in the “Anales Toledanos” that the primate departed for Jerusalem on March 3, 1104, and perhaps visited Rome as well. The documents indicate to the contrary that he remained at court.3! On April 15, 1104, Paschal II

issued a bull to the bishop of the royal city of Leén exempting that church from the metropolitan jurisdiction of Toledo.3? In so doing the pope not only reversed his own previous decision of 1099 but also altered fundamentally the lines of authority in the church of Leén-Castilla, crafted by Bernard and the king himself.3}3 There can be no ques-

tion that Bishop Pedro would not have dared to take such a step without royal approval. That Afonso felt constrained to grant it is a measure of his weakness 1n 1103 when the appeal of Le6n would have been initiated. Worse yet, the king was obliged, perhaps after news of Leén’s success reached Spain or perhaps at the very time of the latter’s appeal, to allow Bishop Pelayo of Oviedo to make his case in Rome as well. Oviedo too had secured its exemption from Toledo by September 30, 1105.34

This slackening of Bernard’s control over the church of the realm, which power had originally been prompted by the king and which was symbolized by Bernard’s papal legateship, continued. In the fall of 1104 31 Iglesia de Toledo, pp. 147 and 157. For example, on March 14, 1104, he confirmed a donation to Sahagtn. See note 22. The “Anales” were composed in the first half of the thirteenth century. 32 For the text from the original see Fita, “Concilios nacionales de Carrion y Leon,” pp. 326-28. 33 See chapter 13, note 46. 34 Fita, “Concilios nacionales de Carrién y Leon,” pp. 325-26, corrected the date of the

copy printed in ES 38:340-41. Garcia Larragueta, Coleccién de Oviedo, pp. 329-30, printed the text from a copy at Oviedo dated to Sept. 30, 1102.

336 CHAPTER SIXTEEN the pope took the jurisdiction in the dispute between Mondonedo and Santiago de Compostela out of the hands of the legate and entrusted it rather to Bishop Garcia of Burgos.35 The significance of this action 1s heightened by the fact that Burgos was party to a suit of long duration against Toledo in the papal court. In this latter, Paschal II, on April 25, 1105, empowered the bishops of Pamplona, Leén, Compostela, Palencia, Najera, and Astorga to investigate the boundary dispute.3° Finally, on May 4, 1105, the pontiff wrote to Bernard in the most severe terms, correcting him for persecuting the church of Burgos and removing that see from the primate’s legatine authority. 3” This progressive decline of the authority of the Archbishop of Toledo now led to the beginning of a long struggle between his see and that of the ambitious Bishop Diego Gelmirez of Santiago de Compostela for preeminence in the peninsula which would endure until Bernard’s death in 1125. During the late summer of 1105 Gelmirez sought out the king in the region of Palencia and requested from Alfonso permission to go to Rome. That monarch could not have been pleased but again he felt obliged to agree. Royal consent obtained, the Compostelan first visited Bishop Garcia at Burgos and then made a wide sweep in southern France from Auch to Toulouse, Moissac, Cahors, Limoges, and then to Cluny where he was received warmly by Abbot Hugh.3* This was to take the long way to Rome indeed, and the author of the “Historia Compostelana” explains it in terms of Gelmirez’s, desire to have the advice of the great Cluniac leader on how to pursue his case at the papal court. There 1s no reason why such an explanation should not be accepted. The bishop of 38 Oct. 14, 1104. Pub. Serrano, Obispado de Burgos 3:121. Papal notices of the action to Toledo and Mondonedo are given in ES 20:78—80. 36 That is the date given by Demetrio Mansilla, ed., Catdlogo documental del archivo catedral de Burgos, 804-1416 (Madrid, 1971), p. 39. Serrano, Obispado de Burgos 3:125—26, dated it to 1106. The context makes the earlier date preferable.

37 Ibid, pp. 122-23. The letter also warns Bernard about undue absence from his own diocese. Quite possibly the multiplying troubles of that prelate had emboldened some of the Toledan clergy to complain against him. Certainly the bishop of Burgos would not have instigated the complaint since he was at court almost as often. 38 The account of the journey is given by the “Historia Compostelana,” ES 20:42-50, which also provides the text of the resultant papal bull. The trip has ordinarily been dated to 1104 following the date of the bull. See Biggs, Diego Gelmirez, pp. 47-51, and most recently Fletcher, Saint James’ Catapult, p. 196. However Vones, Kirchenpolitik des nordwestspanischen Raumes, p. 161, n. 60a, found a discrepancy in the manuscript edition which led him to redate it to 1105. I believe he is correct since Gelmirez was at Sahagun still on Sept. 13, 1104. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 891, no. 21; copy in AHN, Céddices, 989B, ff. 32v-33r. The “Historia” had him at Auch on Sept. 8. No such difficulty exists for 1105 to my knowledge.

A COURT OF SEVERAL MINDS (1100-1107) 337 Santiago was time and time again during the course of his career to show himself to be just such a careful politician. At the same time one may, for the same reason, expect confidently that he also sought the advice and the support of the “black pope” for his patron, Raymond of

Burgundy, in the tangled court intrigues of Leén-Castilla. After all Gelmfrez had served as notary in Raymond’s court for at least two years prior to assuming control of the diocese of Santiago de Compostela.

His business concluded at the great Benedictine mother house, the bishop continued to Rome. There, on October 31, 1105, Paschal II formally bestowed on him the privilege of using the pallium on a variety of liturgical feast days.3? This ecclesiastical vestment was ordinarily a symbol of the archiepiscopal rank, and it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that such a status for the shrine-church of Santiago was precisely what Gelmirez had been seeking.*° It was that dignity he would achieve only in 1120 from another pope and in the reign of another sov-

ereign, and then to the consternation of the churchmen of Leén-Castilla. Paschal II in 1105 must have found the request bizarre, but nonetheless he was careful not to alienate a possibly ally as the bull itself testifies. Clearly the pope was interested in having other sources of information and support within the peninsula than simply the primate of Toledo, his official vicar. On this occasion it was the pope who prevented the ambitious prel-

ate of Compostela from overstepping himself badly. That Gelmirez had informed anyone else of the extent of his ambitions was unlikely. Alfonso VI surely would have wished to avoid the major problems that would have resulted from the Galician’s success. Bernard of Toledo was to demonstrate amply his absolute opposition to any such scheme. Even Raymond of Burgundy in 1105 was still primarily interested in the throne of Leén-Castilla itself and would have opposed an ecclesiastical coup which would have alienated its king and its clergy as well as his cousin, Count Henry. For all of these excellent reasons it 1s doubtful that the Compostelan had revealed even to Hugh of Cluny the ultimate end sought although his biographer indicated that he did inform the abbot of his desire for the pallium. As it turned out, that consolation prize was treated by that author as if it had been the entire object of the journey.*! 39 E'S 20:48—-S0.

#0 Fletcher, Saint James’ Catapult, pp. 196-97, seems to me to understand better the motives of Gelmirez than Vones, Kirchenpolitik des nordwestspanischen Raumes, pp. 289-92. A

time of troubles provided precisely the immunity necessary to such a bold scheme, and similar conditions would inspire like initiatives at later dates. 41 ES 20:42-50. The account is written as a coherent unit.

338 CHAPTER SIXTEEN There had been no major campaign during the year of 1105 and so neither success nor defeat in the field operated to alter the royal position in internal politics. Early in the year Count Henry had been at pains to mend his own fences with the Cluniacs both within and without the realm, and the notable and unusual presence of Portuguese magnates at the royal court in early January may have been intended to bolster his prestige.4? But the most significant event of this year took place on March 1 when a male heir was born to Count Raymond and Infanta Urraca.#3 This was Alfonso Raimtindez, who was to rule later as Alfonso VII of Leén-Castilla. That birth established an alternative to the succession of Sancho Alf6onsez and with it, of course, the very real pos-

sibility of a regency dominated by Raymond in the name of the only legitimately born male heir. While Alfonso VI must have been pleased to have thus received a further guarantee that his own direct line would endure, the old king was

evidently not willing to settle for a long minority and the real rule of his Burgundian son-in-law. Under such circumstances he would have realized that the sole role left to his illegitimate son Sancho would be that of potential or actual rebel. To avoid that danger of civil war he decided that Sancho should be king after him. This course too was fraught with danger, given the multiplicity of possible claims that now existed within the dynasty itself, and the necessary political settlement must be carefully prepared. Immediate action could not be taken, but such haste was not imperative since everyone would have played a waiting game in view of the fact that something like a quarter of all infants born never survived their first year.

Yet the infant must have been a lusty one for shortly after he did in fact attain his first birthday the king had decided to take the first step toward proclaiming young Sancho as his heir. The record of his action comes to us most casually as part of the dating formula of a document of March 27, 1106, of Galician provenance. It reads, “regnante rege illdefonso in legione eiusdemque helisabet regina sub maritali copula legaliter adcrente.”44 By itself the notice would be inexplicable, but in context it cannot be understood in any other fashion than that Alfonso 4 See chapter 15, note 77. 43 The testimony as to the date of birth of Alfonso Raimuindez is mixed but no new evidence has been discovered since Enrique Florez, Memorias de las reinas catélicas de Espana 1:316-18, properly fixed on this date on the basis of those accounts closest to the event. 44 AHN, Céddices, 1.044B, fol. 63r. The copy is contained in the thirteenth—-century Tumbo of the monastery of Lorenzana. The subscriptions make it evident that the document was drawn up at court.

A COURT OF SEVERAL MINDS (I 100-1107) 339 formally married the mother of Sancho on or about that date, perhaps on Easter Monday which that year fell on March 26. Understood as a reference to that French qucen, also named Elizabeth, who had been his wife since 1102 the statement would make no sense. Clearly the reference is to the proper marriage of a former mistress. Now we know that such had been the status of Zaida on the authority of no less than Bishop Pelayo of Oviedo, who also informs us that she “babtizata Helisabeth fuit vocitata.”45 Pelayo, however, seemed to keep her separate from the queen of the same name. The epitaph of the French Elizabeth in the pantheon of the shrine-church of San Isidora in Leon gives the date of her death as 1107.*° There seems to be no warrant then to confuse the two and to imagine that the Elizabeth who is named as Alfonso’s queen in no less than sev-

enteen documents between 1102 and 1106 was really that Princess Zaida who bore Sancho Alfonsez, living with the old king those four years but spared by the delicacy of the scribes from the revelation of her status of concubinage. A more sound conclusion 1s that this French noblewoman and queen actually existed but in 1106 was forced, on some legal pretext or other, into retirement while the mother of Sancho duly took her place, to the confusion of historians ever since. The action was extreme but necessary if the latter’s son was to take his proper place as heir to the realm. The document of March 27 and the charter that Alfonso had granted to Oviedo on March 19, 1106, indicate the presence of the whole of the living members of the dynasty at court at this ttme. The young Sancho

confirmed this last just after the unfortunate queen whom his mother was about to displace. Raymond and Urraca, the daughters of the French Elizabeth, Sancha and Elvira, and Henry and Teresa confirmed after him.47 Of the bishops, only those of Leén, Palencia, Oviedo, and Astorga can be asserted absolutely to have been at court but Bernard of Toledo must have been there. He certainly was on March 14.4% It was essential to Alfonso VI that he have at least the appearance of unity and solidarity for such a momentous step. Yet truly there could be no enthusiasm for the measure on the part of 45 Sanchez Alonso, ed., Crénica del Obispo Don Pelayo, p. 87. 4© Risco, Iglesia de Leon, p. 151. An inscription at Sahagun, where Zaida was buried,

dates her death to September 13 but lacks the year. It also supplies the information that this date was a second ferial day. If the inscription was misread as a II for a VI, September 13 was a Friday in 1107. See Gago and Diaz-Jiménez, “Los restos mortales de Alfonso VI,” p. SI. 47 See chapter 15, note 88. 48 Ibid, note 87.

340 CHAPTER SIXTEEN any of the members of the dynasty apart from the king himself, his new

queen, and the young Sancho. Even among the bishops his action would have occasioned grave misgivings. The king must have employed all the authority of his years and the charisma of the crown to have secured even nominal agreement. But for the next two years almost every circumstance worked in the king’s favor and he was able to proceed triumphantly with his plans. A great razzia through Andalucia in the summer of 1106 succeeded brilliantly and brought major additions to the strength of the kingdom as well as its monarch. In the late summer his old enemy, Emir Yusuf ibnTashufin, died and the Murabit empire was temporarily immobilized. By late April or early May 1107 Alfonso was prepared to have Zaida’s son formally recognized by the realm as his official heir. If he had given way on so many fronts, from the spoliation of the Anstirez to the virtual dismantling of the primateship, here he could not be denied. Sancho was his son, the royal blood flowed in the heir’s veins, no matter the circumstances of the boy’s birth. A charter of Alfonso to the church of Toledo on May 8, 1107, which

places the king, the court, and his army at Monzon just north of Palencia, reveals that a council at Leén had recently been concluded. #9 Sancho confirmed it immediately after the queen, his mother. Six days later at Burgos Alfonso VI granted a charter to the church of Santiago de Compostela which the young Sancho Afénscz confirmed even more explicitly as “regnum electus patri factum.”5° We may conclude then that the recent council had had as its major purpose the recognition of the latter as the officially designated successor to Alfonso. Prior to the royal heir’s acclamation in Ledn, his father had already bestowed on him at least the formal military command of the key fortress of Medinaceli.5!

Counts Raymond and Henry, and their respective wives, confirmed both of the royal charters of May 1107. Despite the relative decline in their prospects which the council at Leén had effected, both remained at court. No fewer than four private documents of Sahagun demonstrate that fact for the period from June through August. ‘? For the present they had no alternative, and they could only hope that some unfor-

seeable circumstance, helped by their continuing ability to politic 49 Ibid, note 103. Unfortunately the original is lost. so [bid, note 104. Again, the original is lost. 51 Apr. 23, 1107. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 272, no 9; pub. Alamo, ed., Coleccién de Ona 1:163—64. It is an original.

s2 See chapter 15, note 105.

A COURT OF SEVERAL MINDS (I 100-1107) 341 energetically at the center of the realm, would alter the situation in which they now found themselves. In the later part of the year, however, it was the power of the king that would grow. First, sometime in late August or early September, Count Raymond became sick with what was to prove a mortal illness. The author of the “Historia Compostelana” relates how Bishop Diego Gelmirez of Santiago obtained the monastery of San Mamed in Galicia from the count and that the latter issued it in the presence of Alfonso VI, who had come to visit his son-in-law in his illness.53 The text of the donation still exists and is dated September 13, 1107.54 In all probability

it was issued at the count’s castle at Grajal southwest of Sahagin. Within a week the powerful Burgundian died on September 20, 1107.55

Consulting with Bishop Pedro of Leén and others, Bishop Gelmirez received permission to remove the body to Galicia where it was in-

terred in the cathedral of Santiago. °° | On December 13, 1107, Raymond’s widow Urraca granted a charter of a Galician monastery to Santiago de Compostela in her own name as “imperatoris filia et totius gallecie domina.”s? This action was taken in the course of what seems to have been a mecting of the magnates of the

Galician province for the bishops of Lugo, Mondonedo, Tuy, and Orense all confirmed the charter as did counts Suero Vermudez and Pedro Froilaz also. The grant was a generous one and may have been

designed to secure the enthusiastic support of Bishop Gelmirez of Compostela in the crucial negotiations which were perhaps already in progress. It has usually been assumed that the charter was executed in 83 ES 20:64.

‘¢ AC Santiago, Tumbo A, fol. 30r; Chartularum, ff. 74v—75r; pub. Lopez Ferreiro, Historia de Santiago de Compostela 3:73-74 append., who placed its issuance at Santiago, presumably on the basis of the confirmants who are all Galicians. We should rather understand that these persons were part of the entourage of Gelmirez. ‘s The notice comes from the necrology of a Burgundian monastery which had been the recipient of his largesse. Georges Chevrier and Maurice Chaume, eds., Chartes et documents de Saint-Bénigne de Dijon, vol. 2 (Dijon, 1943), p. 198. A private donation of Sahagun dated Nov. 17, 1107, AHN, Clero, Carpeta 892, no. 20, pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahagtin, pp. 506-507, has a subsequent notice of Raymond but it is a copy and suspect on diplomatic grounds. Fita, “Concilios nacionales de Carrién y de Leén,” pp. 338~40, accepted it and dated Raymond’s death subsequently. John E. Slaughter, “Sobre la fecha de la muerte del Conde Raimundo de Galicia,” AEM 13 (1983): 93-106, has printed the relevant sources and accepts the September date. ‘6 “Historia Compostelana,” ES 20:64—65. For the site of Raymond’s tomb see Campelo, ed., Historia Compostelana, pp. 71-72, note 4. ‘7 AC Santiago, Tumbo A, fol. 3or; Chartularum, fol. 75r-v; pub. Lopez Ferreiro, Historia de Compostela 3:76 append., and Estefania “Memorias,” pp. 239-40.

342 CHAPTER SIXTEEN that episcopal city because of the identity of those who confirm but it may, in fact, have been issued at Leon instead. Certainly there was a major council of the entire realm held in that royal city in late December 1107. Inevitably the demise of Count Raymond involved major alterations in the real political balance of the kingdom, and these changes had to be addressed formally. A portion of the decisions taken at Leén 1s revealed to us by the “Historia Com-

postelana.”5* From that source we know that Archbishop Guy of Vienne, brother of the late count, a member of the reform party in the church, and the future Pope Calixtus II, was present. Given the time span involved it seems likely that he had been summoned to help protect the interests of the Burgundian and his son already during the illness of Raymond. Indeed the account from this source is chiefly concerned to establish that the old king himself granted to the infant Alfonso Raimundez the unconditional right to inherit the rule of the province of Galicia.5? The chief men of Galicia had been summoned to the royal city to witness this settlement and to swear to uphold it. The person of his grandson Alfonso VI entrusted to the tutelage of Bishop Gelmirez of Santiago de Compostela. For the next twenty years that position was to be the foundation of the political fortune and misfortune of Gelmirez. As guardian of the young heir he would enjoy, after Alfonso VI’s death in 1109, an influence scarcely second to that of Queen Urraca herself and one which he seldom failed to exploit. All of this involved him in a famous series of struggles with that queen, and the “Historia Compostelana” was, in part, both result and record of that rivalry. Nevertheless, if it does not tell us the entire truth about the council at Leén in December 1107, there seems to be small reason to doubt what it does assert. Even so obviously a partisan source acknowledges indirectly that Urraca had become, as her charters of the period confirm, the ruler of Galicia after her husband’s death. Her son was only to enter into his rights there if she chose to remarry. Doubtless the council at Leén also recognized Urraca in the former capacity. However, there is no men-

tion, in the “Historia” or in her charters, of the dominance the late count had also enjoyed in the district of Zamora or in the Leonese Extremadura from the Duero south to Salamanca and Avila. It is safe to conclude that the king seized the opportunity created by Raymond’s death to reassert direct royal control in these latter regions and to de88 ES 20:95—-96. |

9 Ibid, p. 96 “nec ab eo etiam mihi ipsi ulla ulterius obsequia deposco.”

A COURT OF SEVERAL MINDS (1100-1107) 343 molish what had assumed almost the dimensions of a dependent kingdom in the west of the realm. Such a conclusion appears to be warranted as well by a charter of Alfonso VI, dated December 30, 1107, confirming to Bishop Jerome of Salamanca the rights and privileges previously granted by Count Ray-

mond. This document exists only in copies and has very obviously been considerably improved upon. Among other things it is confirmed by Bishop Maurice of Braga at a time when that see was already an archbishopric and when Gerald was still its ordinary. Nevertheless the other evidence adduced seems adequate to support the belief that the charter was based upon a contemporary authentic one.®* As we have it, the charter is confirmed by Archbishop Bernard of Toledo and eight bishops of the then two archbishops and fifteen bishops of the realm.

There are no secular magnates in the confirmation list nor other members of the dynasty. Yet we may assume the presence not only of Urraca and her son but also of Sancho Alfénsez whose presence, as heir to Leén-Castilla, would have been essential to the validity of the arrangements concerning Galicia at the very least. So too we can posit the attendance of Count Henry of Portugal and his wife Teresa. Their acquiescence in this settlement would have been dictated by self-interest. They could hardly have openly opposed the guarantee of the rights of Urraca and her son in Galicia. Still the diminution of the former holdings of Count Raymond elsewhere might eventually be expected to redound to their benefit as the other great power of the west of the kingdom. The aging king might soon find that his need for a vicegerent of the west had not died with Raymond of Burgundy. In addition, the death of the latter sensibly increased the prominence of Count Henry and his wife. The road to the throne itself was still blocked by the persons of Sancho Alfénsez, Urraca, and the young and legitimate grandson, Alfonso Raimtndez. Even so, Henry remained as the one mature and experienced male with a tangible claim on the royal prize through the person of his wife, despite her illegitimate birth. At the very least future power and influence might be his in virtue of the very manipulable claims of his young cousin. By the end of 1107 then, the seventy-year-old Alfonso might rest content in a fashion that had been denied him, 1n varying degrees, since his marriage to Constance of Burgundy had proved infertile in male 6 Pub. Martin, Villar Garcia, Marcos Rodriguez, and Sanchez Rodriguez, eds. Documentos de Salamanca, pp. 85-87.

* Yepes, Cronica general de San Benito 6:495v, has a garbled reference to an otherwise unknown charter of Alfonso VI to Salamanca given to the church of Salamanca at a councilin Ledn.

344 CHAPTER SIXTEEN progeny. Despite the gaggle of potential aspirants about the throne, his sole son had been formally proclaimed and accepted as his heir. The illegitimacy of Sancho’s birth and the religion of his mother had been rectified, so far as might be, by the latter’s conversion to Christianity and her formal recognition as his consort. The future of the dynasty, and therefore the kingdom, seemed assured as it had not been for three decades.

Within that larger determination, the future of his and Constance’s daughter had been assigned a subordinate but still honorable place. Her portion would one day pass to the king’s grandson and that beginning of a cadet line would be provided with some small scope, at least, for its appetites. If at some future point Alfonso’s direct heir should find himself in the predicament of his father, a possible recourse existed there.

The exact position of his natural daughter, Teresa, and her husband Count Henry was less clearly defined. As subsequent events were to

demonstrate, they had very real ambitions and hopes and the king would have been aware of them. For now the count had become the king’s main support in the distant and vulnerable western reaches of the

kingdom. That arrangement could be expected to endure and even prosper under Alfonso’s heir. An able and lucky man might be content to make much of the inherent advantages of that position. The vagaries of dynasty might eventually even bring one of the offspring of Teresa and Henry to the throne of Leén-Castilla.

Along the southern frontier the now twenty-year-old struggle against the Murabit was proceeding more favorably. In the past three years Medinaceli had been taken and now safeguarded the eastern flank of the realm. Behind the front the repopulation of the trans-Duero progressed steadily. Along the line of the Tajo the initiative now lay in Christian hands and recently great raids had been able to penetrate deep into Andalucia as in the days of the taifa kingdoms before 1086. Yusuf ibn-Tashufin, Alfonso’s old nemesis, was dead, and it was hoped that his like would not be seen again in the world of Western Islam. All in all, the king must have celebrated the Christmas season with good cheer and more hope than circumstances had vouchsafed him in long years. Ahead of him, however, lay disaster.

SEVENTEEN

THE ULTIMATE CRISIS (1108-1109)

The settlement of the question of Alfonso’s successor and the provisions made for the other members of the royal family seem to have allowed the life of the court to return to an orderly routine in the early months of 1108. The tranquility that prevailed there was such that it even admitted of the king’s taking of yet another wife without provoking a disturbance serious enough to find a record in the documents or

chronicles of the reign. |

Sometime in the second half of 1107, Alfonso’s current wife died. The last document that records Elizabeth as queen is dated November 17, 1107, but that is badly dated at the very least because it also cites Raymend as still count in Galicia.‘ In the same year the former queen, Elizabeth of France, also died, as recorded by her epitaph in the pantheon of the church of San Isidoro in Leon. The king was, then, completely free to remarry. His choice fell upon another French noblewoman named Beatrice about whom we know very little. Bishop Pelayo said only that she survived Alfonso and returned to her own country after his death. The thirteenth-century Primera cronica general identified her nationality as French and added that she had no children by the king.” The only fully dated notice of this new royal consort comes in a private document of the church of Astorga of May 28, 1108.3 Allowing time for the preliminary negotiations that attended all royal marriages and for the considerable travel involved both for the king’s representatives and for the new bride and her party, it seems most probable that the marriage actually would have taken place in the week following Easter Sunday, which that year fell on April s. But if the person of the new queen remains mysterious, so too does ' AHN, Clero, Carpeta 892, no. 20; pub. Escalona, Historia de Sahagun, pp. 506-507. Vignau, ed., Documentos de Sahagtin, p. 351, further confused the matter by giving the date as Nov. 17, 1108. 2 Sanchez Alonso, ed., Cronica del Obispo Don Pelayo, p. 86. Menéndez Pidal, ed., Primera cronica general 2:521.

3 BN, Manuscritos, 4.357, fol. gor.

346 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN the point of the marriage. For the first time in his long reign the king was no longer searching desperately for a male heir. His son Sancho stood ready to succeed him and he had as well a grandson, Alfonso Rai-

mundez, as additional security against the future. Offspring of the marriage could not have been ruled out absolutely, but the king would already have been seventy and perhaps seventy-once at the time of the nuptials.4 In addition to being an old man, very old by the standard of times, Alfonso was also at least partially infirm. A contemporary tells us that the monarch had been ill for nineteen months at the time of his death, which would be from December 1107. We are not told the nature of the illness but only that the king remained partially active phys-

ically. All things considered, it seems unlikely that the desire for additional progeny was the object of the new marriage, yet surely private gratification would not have required so formal a procedure, even assuming that Alfonso still felt the itch of the flesh. What we are forced to posit is rather that the marriage secured some diplomatic or political advantage

to the crown. By analogy to most previous marriages of Alfonso it seems likely that Beatrice was of some at least moderately important south French noble line, perhaps Burgundian. A line related to Abbot Hugh the Great of Cluny would have offered the most obvious advantages.

While the arrangements for the marriage were being completed the royal court was apparently in its usual winter location at Sahagun. It is difficult to be positive because of the dearth of royal documents in the last year and a half of the reign. A purported donation of Alfonso to the Castilian monastery of San Millan de La Cogolla is dated only to 1108.° Dated in the same fashion is an agnitio of Astorga which furnishes our only other documentary mention of Beatrice as queen.” As a consequence we must depend almost exclusively on private documents and chronicles for our knowledge of the king’s whereabouts. Three private donations to the monastery of Sahagun indicate, by those who confirm them, the likelihood of the presence of the court there from February 16 to March 31, 1108.8 + See chapter 2, note 21. ’ Sanchez Alonso, ed., Cronica del Obispo Don Pelayo, p. 84, “et quamvis esset infirmus omni die aliquantulum equitabat iussu medicorum ut aliquod levamen corporis haberet.” 6 Serrano, ed., Cartulario de San Millan, p. 297. In addition the preserved text 1s at best abbreviated for the diplomatic is clearly not that of the royal chancery. 7 BN, Manuscritos, 9.194, fol. 103r—-v. ® Feb. 16, 1108. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 165v. Mar. 2, 1108. Ibid., ff. 115v—116r.

THE ULTIMATE CRISIS (1108~I1109) 347 The first and the last of these documents place Count Henry of Portugal at the royal court during this same period. That was to be expected in that the count had been a regular court figure during the win-

ter months for the past ten years. Now, since the death of Count Raymond would have resulted in a greatly enhanced prominence there

for Henry and since his royal father-in-law was contracting another marriage, it had become of even more importance to him to maintain a presence. But this means that the count’s grant of exemption to the church of San Martin de Espiunca, near Arouca, on March 31, 1108, must have been executed at Sahagun despite the Portuguese who figure in its confirmation list.? At this time the count served to attach Portuguese magnates to the Leonese orbit rather than to be drawn himself into a provincial one. Being present there Henry would have been at least nominally consulted over the promotion of a new bishop to the very important see of Palencia. Bishop Raymond had died on January 12, 1108.'° The real choice lay with the king and Archbishop Bernard of Toledo, who acted with noticeable speed to fill this key bishopric. The name of the new Bishop Pedro of Palencia appears already in a private charter of Saha-

guin dated March 2, 1108.'! The appointee again was one of those French clerics brought to Spain by Bernard in 1096.'? By April 11, Pope Paschal II had been informed of the new bishop, about whose elevation he obviously had nothing to do if the time elapsed is considered.73

Although he acquiesced in that determination, Paschal II continued to be less than cordial to Bernard of Toledo. This same letter informed the bishops of Leén, Compostela, Palencia, Najera, and Astorga of the papal decision against Toledo, and its new suffragan at Osma, and in favor of Burgos in the matter of some disputed territories. Another paMar. 31, 1108. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 892, nos. 17 and 18; copy in Cédices, 989B, fol. 219r—-v.

9 Rui Pinto de Azevado, ed., Documentos Medievais Portugueses, vol. 1 (Lisbon, 1958), pp. 17-18. Azevado calls an original the Henrician charter granting the fueros of Coimbra to the settlers of Tentugal, dated only to 1108, ibid., p. 16. However, that can hardly be the case if one compares it with Henry’s charter of July 29, 1109, ibid., pp. 19-20, attributed to the same notary. Neither the paleography nor the diplomatic corresponds. The Tentugal fuero should be regarded with extreme caution. ‘0 Fernandez de Madrid, Silva Palentina 1:147, n. I. '' See note 8. '2 Serrano, Obispado de Burgos 2:17, n. I. '3 Ibid., 3:132-33. The private document, dated Sept. 30, 1107, given in José Maria Fernandez Caton, “Documentos leoneses en escritura visig6tica,” AL 27 (1973): 222-23, would seem to be misdated. It cites Pedro as already bishop at Palencia. It is a copy.

348 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN pal letter of November 12, 1108, conveyed yet a further decision in favor of Burgos, made directly by Paschal II without reference to the primate and papal legate in the peninsula." Whether or not any of the very active life at the royal court during the winter and spring of the year involved Alfonso’s oldest child, In-

fanta Urraca, is more difficult to determine. Obviously she had attended the council at Ledn in Jate December 1107. Later in the spring, however, Urraca was apparently 1n Galicia when the great emergency following the disaster of Uclés arose, as we shall see. A charter that she granted to the church of Lugo, dated January 21, 1108, suggests that she had withdrawn from court that early and was concentrating on establishing a firm base for her authority in the northwest.'s’ Unfortunately the list of those who confirmed is lost so that no indication of the place of issuance remains, and such charters were as often issued at court as in the church to which they were granted. If the infanta were in eclipse after her husband’s death, events were soon to change her status dramatically. In the spring of 1108 the Murabit of Andalucia decided to resume their offensive, which had faltered badly since their reoccupation of Valencia in 1102. Their ultimate objective was the city of Toledo certainly, but the first and only battle revolved about the tiny fortress of Uclés.'° This latter was a settlement some 30 kilometers south of the Tajo and 103 kilometers east of Toledo. The Muslim sources describe it as the capital of the district and it was probably one of the few centers that saw new Christian efforts at resettlement and expansion south of the Tajo after Alfonso VI’s successes in 1104 and 1105 against the Murabit. It would have been a key position in a drive to turn the eastern flank of Toledo and to roll up the Christian positions between the Tajo and the Guadarramas. Certainly the composition of the Muslim army suggests that intention as well. The commander of that force was Tamin ibn-Yusuf, governor of Granada and brother of the new Murabit emir, Ali ibn- Yusuf. Tamin had at his disposal the forces of Granada and of Cérdoba but 4 Serrano, Obispado de Burgos 3:134-35.

's AHN, Cédices, 1.043B, ff. 16v-17r. The year is given as 1107 in the text of this copy but is obviously mistaken since the donation is made “pro animi viri mei gloriosissimi ducis domni Ramundi.” ‘6 The campaign has been discussed at length by Huici Miranda, Grandes batallas de la Reconquista, pp. 114-17; and again in his Historia musulmana de Valencia 2:21-28. He based

his account on the Muslim sources which are the earliest and fullest. More recently his account has been refined and partially corrected by John E. Slaughter, “De nuevo sobre la batalla de Uclés,” AEM 9 (1974-79): 393-404. For the most part my account follows Slaughter unless otherwise noted.

THE ULTIMATE CRISIS (I1108—I 109) 349 more significantly those of the governors of Murcia and Valencia, whose interest in the particular ends of the campaign would have been more direct. Tamin left Granada between May 2 and May 12 and proceeded to Jaén where he was joined by the Cordoban contingent. From there he proceeded through Baeza to Chinchilla, where juncture was made with the governors of Murcia and Valencia. The united army then marched to Uclés itself where the town proper fell immediately into their hands on May 27, the Christian defenders retreating into its alcdzar or citadel. The news of their coming had preceded them of course, and a Christian response was mounted with some alacrity. The “Historia Compostelana” suggests that elements of the Murabit force had fanned out over the meseta to some extent, burning and sacking lesser centers of Christian population and driving their inhabitants before them. The same account places the initiative for the counterattack in the hands of the young Infans Sancho Alfénsez, to whom his father had entrusted the rule of Toledo.'7 Possibly this change too had been effected at Leon in December 1107. Subsequent developments make it likely that Alfonso VI was still in the north, as might have been expected if he had solemnized his marriage shortly after Easter on April 5, rather than directing events himself as the Muslim accounts imply. In all probability the young infans had come south from Leén to Toledo in early or mid-April to make preparations for an ordinary open-

ing of the summer campaigning season. He seems to have brought with him a force of moderate size. It was not at all a general levy of the realm. While other accounts are not quite so precise as the Cronica Najerense, there seems to be general agreement that seven Christian counts

were slain at Uclés and that one, Alvar Fanez, escaped.'® Since the counts, or in Castilla magnates, of that period who can be identified number some twenty-seven and the bishops seventeen, the heavy cavalry would have represented a little less than one-fifth of the resources of the whole kingdom. If we estimate that each of the counts, including Alvar Fanez who did

not hold that title, and the bodyguard of Sancho at 50 knights apiece, the heavy cavalry would have numbered 400 knights plus 400 squires, and another 400 grooms or attendants would have accompanied them. In addition, the Muslim sources add that the Christians of Calatanazor, Alcala, and Toledo, led by their alcaldes, formed part of the army. One '7 ES 20:67.

'® Ubieto Arteta, ed., Cronica Najerense, p. 118, identifies only one, Garcia Ordonez, count in Najera.

350 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN thinks that these latter contingents were composed mostly of foot in the eleventh century, but there were probably some lightly armed horse among them. Given the sparse character of early Christian settlement in Castilla la Nueva a generous estimate of their numbers might be 750 fighting men. If we add yet another 300 men involved in the sup-

ply trains of the various contingents, a total force of about 2,300 emerges. Since the subsequent disaster engulfed nearly the entire Christian army, the Murabit General Tamin did not exaggerate too greatly when he reported to his brother, the Emir Ali, that 3,000 Christian heads were taken. The latter count may also have included some of the hapless population of the countryside around Uclés. Then too, not all of the Christian participants may have been identified and hence went unreported. The presence of the militia of Calatanazor, a town far north of the Tajo valley in the province of Soria, in particular is curious. The battle itself developed in the usual fashion of these clashes. The Christian force struck frontally against the Cordoban contingent of the Murabit, hoping to win by the sheer shock value of its heavy cavalry, and had some initial success as at Zalaca more than twenty years before. The Muslim army resorted to the enveloping tactics which could only have been possible to a force greatly superior in numbers. The troops

of Murcia and Valencia attacked the camp and supply depot of the Christians. The student of the art of warfare of the times would be grateful to know whether the Leonese forces had arrived the night before and hence established a camp or whether such a practice of forming a camp was simply a standard battlefield procedure. I suspect the latter was the case. In any event, it evidently offered some better opportunities of resistance for a beleaguered army. The Christian cavalry now retreated on their own camp and there conducted a desperate but futile resistance to the reunited enemy forces. Unlike Zalaca the main force never broke free and was slaughtered on the field. Only some scattered elements managed to escape. These included the infans himself and a small body of retainers who contrived to reach the village of Belinch6n, twenty kilometers to the northwest, but were cut down there by the local Muslim population who took advantage of the Leonese defeat to rise against their conquerors. Alvar Fanez, who must have managed to break through the Murabit host with a fair-sized group of horsemen, fared better and escaped north to organize a defense of the now endangered valley of the middle and upper Tajo. So

ended the bloody battle at Uclés on May 29, 1108. The full consequences of the Leonese defeat there, however, would go on working themselves out for better than a decade before stability could ultimately be restored.

THE ULTIMATE CRISIS (1108-1109) 351 While Tamin returned to Andalucia the governors of Murcia and Valencia were left to conduct mopping-up operations. Part of this was the final reduction of Uclés itself where the defenders were tricked into sal-

lying from the alcazar and then cut down. The major portion of the Muslim energies must then have been directed to securing the whole of the south bank of the Tajo between Aranjuez and Zorita. Certainly the rebellion of the Muslim of Belinch6n was not an isolated phenomenon nor one whose advantages were to be neglected. While our sources of information leave much to be desired as to the particular chronology of these events, it seems to be clear that Huete, like Uclés a center of re-

population southeast of the Tajo and some thirty-five kilometers northeast of the latter city, also fell in the ensuing summer.'? The way

was thus prepared for the Murabit Emir Ali ibn-Yusuf himself to launch a campaign in the years 1109-1110 whose ultimate results were to reopen the direct road from Andalucia to Zaragoza and to bring that last great taifa itself into the North African empire. Even before the news reached him of the rout at Uclés, Alfonso VI may have been moving south from Sahagitn to direct the usual summer campaigns. Although the command he had entrusted to his young heir would have been exercised at the discretion of the seasoned warriors, the counts who surrounded the latter, the king would have desired to oversee events himself. But since the documentary record fails entirely

between the beginning of April and the beginning of September in 1108, we can only resort to the imperfect and imprecise record of the “Historia Compostelana” for a reconstruction of subsequent events. Bishop Diego Gelmirez, we are told, hastened south with Urraca and a force raised in Galicia when he learned of the death of Sancho Alf6énsez. Surely he was responding to a royal summons which would have

called out every available warrior to deal with the emergency. The doughty bishop, we are told, put the enemy to flight and then fell ill. When he had recovered, he then joined the king in Segovia. There he received a long-promised donation and Alfonso VI informed him of his plans, first to visit Toledo and sec to its fortifications and then to go as a pilgrim to the church of Santiago in Compostela.”° A tentative chronology can be constructed about this account. For the news of the defeat to have reached Gelmirez in far off Galicia, a distance of something like 725 kilometers by the most direct routes, surely two weeks were necessary at the very least. Then he would have had to raise the forces available to him and make the preparations for a very ‘9 For a critique see Gonzalez, Repolacién de Castilla la Nueva 1:98-101. 20 E'S 20:67-68.

352 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN long march indeed. Given the rate of march of an expeditionary force during the period, and allowing an additional week for its organization, a minimum of five weeks would have been required to reach Toledo after the summons had arrived. The earliest that the army of Galicia could have appeared on the frontier then would have been the end of the first week in July. Allowing two weeks for skirmishing against such Murabit forces as remained in the field and for punitive action against indigenous Muslim populations north of the Tajo who had risen in revolt, yet another week for Gelmirez’s illness, and a final week for the trip north from Toledo to Segovia, we can estimate that Gelmirez met the king in the latter city about August 4 or 5, 1108. Since Alfonso stated at that time his intentions to proceed to Toledo and examine its defenses we can infer that he had as yet not traveled south of Segovia but was engaged in a general oversight of repairing defenses and restoring his authority in the long, threatened eastern triangle between Madrid, Toledo and Zorita, perhaps even stretching northward toward Medinaceli. That he had not taken directly to the field himself may also testify to his generally weakened health. A quick royal visit to Toledo may have been carried out at the end of the first week of August. There would hardly have been time, however, for the sort of great curia that concurred in the king’s choice of Urraca as his heir and his decision to arrange her marriage to Alfonso of Aragdn to be held there, as some have envisioned.?! The recent presence of the king in that city would nevertheless have made most unlikely the massacre of the Jews of Toledo which the “Anales Toledanos” somewhat confusedly dates to August 14, 1108. The circumstances as well as a considered chronology suggest rather 1110 as the actual time of the latter. ??

Before the end of the first week in September the king and his court

had returned once again to Sahagun.?3 It is noteworthy that Count Henry was in attendance. Did the king then fulfill his intention to make a pilgrimage to Compostela? There is no evidence either for or against

the possibility for there is a total absence of relevant documents between early September and the following January. I suspect that he did not for it would be strange that the author of the “Historia Compos21 Garcia de Valdeavellano, Historia de Espana 1~2:390-91. No comtemporary evidence for such an assemblage exists. 22 Huici Miranda, ed., Las crénicas latinas de la Reconquista 1:344. “Mataron a los Judios en Toledo dia de Domingo, Vispera de Santa Maria de Agosto, Era MC XLVI.” But the feast of the Assumption fell on Saturday in 1108 whereas in 1110 it fell on a Monday. 23 Sept. 4, 1108. AHN, Cédices, 989B, fol. 80r. Sept. 5, 1108. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 892, no. Ig.

THE ULTIMATE CRISIS (1108-1109) 353 telana,” given his continuous attention to everything that would glorify either that church or its bishop, should not have at least referred to the actual performance of that pious act by the king. In addition, the fall of 1108 would have represented the first substantial opportunity for Alfonso VI to turn his attention from the military crisis created by the defeat at Uclés to the even more critical political crisis spawned by the same event. That sudden and unexpected turn in the fortunes of the realm has ordinarily and quite properly been considered in terms of the consequent lack of an adult male heir to the throne and the steps Alfonso VI took to provide against the expected weakness of the crown if his daughter, Urraca, should inherit. But such an analysis, in itself, is necessarily partial and, I believe, does less to illumine the grounds for the king’s ultimate decision than we might reasonably expect. After all, Sancho Al-

f6nsez did not perish alone at Uclés but rather surrounded by the “seven counts,” the entourage provided to the hope of the kingdom by his father. Alfonso VI would no more have expected his fifteen-yearold son to rule in Toledo without the direction and advice of more mature and sober heads than he would have expected the boy to meet a challenge like Uclés out of his own limited experience. As a result, what the king and kingdom lost at the end of May in 1108 was not simply its male heir but also a sizable contingent of its most powerful and sagacious magnates. Unfortunately the chronicles tell us little enough of their particular identities. One of the few and the earliest to identify an individual tells us “occisus est comes Garsias de Grannione cognomento Crispus et sex alii comites cum eo.”*4 This clearly is Count Garcia Ord6nez of Najera,

for more than a quarter of a century a trusted lieutenant of Alfonso. Sure enough he disappears abruptly from the documents after a last ci-

tation in a private document of the Riojan monastery of Valbanera dated only to 1108.5 In the first half of the thirteenth century Lucas of Tuy writes “occubuit Sancius Regis filius et comes Garsias Fernandi et comes domnus Martinus et alu plures.””° The first of these is surely a mistake either of the author or of the copyist. Lucas’s work never has been critically edited. The preferred reading would be “Garcia Ord6nez.”?7 The second is a valuable addition and it can refer to no other 24 See note 18.

2s Manuel Lucas Alvarez, ed., “Libro Becerro del monasterio de Valbanera,” EEMCA 4 (1951): 598-99.

26 “Chronicon Mundi ab Origine Mundi usque ad Eram MCCLXXIV,” Hispaniae IIlustratae, ed., Andreas Schottus, 4:102. 27 A “Garcia Fernandez” appears in only two documents of Alfonso’s reign and never

354 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN than Martin Lainez, the only count of that given name at the time. He was a great magnate of Leén anda major court figure for more than ten years. His last fully datable notice in the documents was in the royal charter of May 14, 1107.78 The effect of his demise was compounded by that of his son, Gomez Martinez, who also appeared for the last time in the same document as “filius comitis,” and who probably perished with his father. Relying solely on the documennts we may suspect that one of the other counts was Asturian and two were Castilians. The first of these is Count Fernando Diaz, who vanishes from sight after the royal charter to the church of Oviedo dated March 19, 1106.29 Like most Asturians the count was never a regular figure of the court so that a two-year absence from the charters does not necessarily argue a demise before Uclés. In Asturias though, he was the greatest of the secular magnates. Neither of the Castilian magnates was technically a count, for that title was rarely employed in that province. Nonetheless all were of such a stature that subsequent writers could easily have assimilated them to that dignity for literary effect. Both made their last appearance in Alfonso VI’s grant to San Millan de La Cogolla dated simply 1108.?° Diego Sanchez had regularly confirmed royal charters concerning Castilla since 1085. Lop Sanchez, in all probability his older brother, had done the same. Both were also nephews of Lop Jiménez, Count of Vizcaya and Alava in the 1080s and early 1ogos.3!

If these identifications of the magnates killed at Uclés are correct, even in part, then one sees that the problems facing the king in the fall of 1108 compounded and bedeviled the decision shortly to be made concerning a new heir. Were the succession to pass to a minor or a woman the ordinarily expected weakness of the crown under such circumstances would be magnified by the contemporary confusion and rivalry attendant upon the sudden demise of the greatest magnate of Asas a count. Lacarra, El poema de mio Cid, pp. 142-43, has a “Garcia Garcés” perishing at Uclés but no such name appears in the documents of Alfonso’s reign to my knowledge. Garcia Alvarez, alférez of the king perhaps as late as Dec. 27, 1107, AHN, Clero, Carpeta 249, no. 2, may be another possible reading for he disappears from the documents thereafter. However, he was never a count so far as we can tell, and he may have simply been replaced as alférez as early as Sept. 30, 1107, AHN, Codices, 989B, fol. 209r, by Pedro Gonzalez. I suspect the latter document is to be relied upon. 8 See chapter 16, note 50. A subsequent notice is dated only to 1108, BN, 9.194, fol. 103r—-v, in which Queen Beatrice is also cited. 29 See chapter 16, note 88. 30 See note 6.

3 Luis Salazar y Castro, Historia genealdgica de la Casa de Haro, ed. Dalmiro de la Valgoma y Diaz-Varela, (Madrid, 1959), pp. 11-21.

THE ULTIMATE CRISIS (1108-1109) 355 turias. The latter had no sons, so far as we can tell, and the countship itself in Asturias de Oviedo disappeared. 3?

Somewhat the same situation obtained in the heartland of Léon itself. Martin Lainez, given the exile of Count Pedro Anstrez in 1103, had been the most important single noble there. Now his sudden demise, along with the simultaneous death of his son and heir, created a vacuum which guaranteed trouble even for a strong ruler. But a strong ruler could also take advantage of that situation as was true in Asturias de Oviedo.3} On the person of the heir depended the danger of near chaos or potentially great consolidation for the crown. These considerations, while far from minor, were dwarfed by the disruption of the eastern frontier in the Rioja and Castilla. In the former the death at Uclés or Count Garcia Ordénez removed the major prop of royal authority there. For twenty-seven years Garcia had held the rich lands that stretched along the west bank of the middle Ebro against the always potential greed of the rulers of the taifa of Zaragoza immediately to the south and of the rapidly growing kingdom of Aragén which held the east bank. The sudden disappearance of the magnate who had held the province for Leén-Castilla was bound to tempt them to fish in troubled waters. That danger was magnified by the loss also at Uclés of a number of Castilian magnates whose personal and historic interest in the Rioja had reinforced the stability of that district. Even before that fatal battle the lord of Oca, Alvar Diaz, had died. Alfonso VI’s charter to San Millan of 1108 speaks of him as already deceased.34 Not only had his hold-

ings controlled the main road and pass from Castilla la Vieja to the Rioja, but he was allied by marriage to the Ord6énez.?5 Again the closely

contemporary death of his son, Garcia Alvarez, whether or not the latter was killed at Uclés, would have been doubly disruptive of the polit-

ical patterns that had linked Castilla and the Rioja for more than a quarter of a century.3° Finally the deaths of Lop Sanchez and Diego Sanchez, the family who controlled the district around Haro in the northern Rioja, completed the elements necessary for near political chaos on the eastern frontier. 37 ? Reilly, Ledn-Castilla under Queen Urraca, pp. 286-87.

33 Ibid, pp. 300-306. At the time of the writing of that book I was unaware of the impact of the battle of Uclés itself on the subsequent development of royal authority in Asturias de Ovicdo and in Leén. 34 See note 6.

3s Menéndez Pidal, Espana del Cid 1:50, n.1. 36 See note 27. 37 See notes 30 and 31.

356 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN In the fall of 1108 Alfonso VI’s search for a political solution to the problem created by the death of the young Sancho Alfénsez was massively complicated by all of these related events. In all probability the bishops and the magnates of the realm responded to these same considerations as well. Jiménez de Rada relates the story that they advanced the candidacy of the Lara count, Gomez Gonzalez, to become the husband of Urraca, the obvious successor to the king as his oldest surviving daughter. Such a marriage to the greatest of the Castilian nobles then surviving would obviously have provided a certain stability in the east of the kingdom. The court, however, seems to have expected a certain resistance to this solution on the monarch’s part for they seem to have acted indirectly and through the mediation of the king’s adviser and physician, Joseph Ferrizuel, surnamed Cidellus.3* In fact the proposal was angrily rejected by Alfonso, who imposed the choice of Alfonso I of Aragon, “El Batallador” as the husband-to-be of Urraca. Fixing the chronology of these events is extremely difficult. The military necessities of the summer of 1108 would seem to have precluded such deliberations and consultations. It is likely that when Urraca, in the company of Bishop Diego Gelmirez, joined Alfonso in Segovia in early August the king assured his daughter that she would be his choice as successor. As mentioned above, by early September the king and court had returned to Sahagtin but it cannot be securely located again until the following March finds them there once again. Nevertheless it seems to me that more than common sense indicates the fall of 1108 as

the period in which the Aragonese marriage was fixed upon and in which the inevitable negotiations with that king would have been begun. In retrospect the decision made by Alfonso VI to marry his daughter

to Alfonso I of Aragén appears as the gravest mistake of his entire reign. As is well known, the marriage itself was sterile and so did not,

in itself, solve the dynastic problem of succession to the throne of Leén-Castilla. In addition, the majority of the nobility of the realm refused, after the old king’s death, to accept the Aragonese as their sovereign. So too did virtually the entire episcopate, in part because Urraca and Alfonso of Aragén, having a common great-grandfather in Sancho el Mayor of Navarra, were within the canonically prohibited

degrees of relationship. Pope Paschal II eventually condemned the union on this ground. But the marriage also failed because it outraged the contemporary 38 Jiménez de Rada, “De Rebus Hispaniae,” pp. 145-46. For what is know of Cidellus see Baer, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain, pp. 50-51.

THE ULTIMATE CRISIS (1108-1109) 357 sense of dynastic proprieties as well. Whatever guarantees of lesser status were provided, the fact was that the claim of the king’s legitimate grandson, Alfonso Raimundez, to succeed was overridden. Nevertheless, it was almost immediately to find defenders in the bishop of San-

tiago de Compostela and among the great nobility of Galicia. The claims of Alfonso VI’s natural daughter Teresa and her ambitious husband, as well as her potential offspring, to at least a place in a council of regency were simply ignored. Although Urraca herself was to try loyally to comply with the will of her father, she was soon to find that the conjunction of these factors made the governing of the kingdom impossible. She was forced to break with her new husband as a matter of policy regardless of the controverted question of whether or not that separation was personally congenial to her. The result of that decision was a long, intermittent war with Arag6én which, with truces, lasted

into the reign of her son, Alfonso VII. . Yet surely Alfonso VI foresaw all or most of these dangers. Within the policies and realities that were the substance of his thought they were acceptable risks. We must not commit the anachronism of attributing to him our own nationalist ideal of a united Spain. Before all else he would have been guided by the overriding necessity of an able warrior king in the face of the ever more menacing Murabit threat to Toledo and perhaps even to the new lands in the trans-Duero. The king of Aragon possessed this qualification in abundance. Of that the Leonese

monarch was apprised particularly by his old companion in arms, Count Pedro Anstrez, who had been cooperating with the Aragonese from his base in exile at Urgel for four years at the time.39

Then too, the marriage he devised for his daughter followed the same policy that had governed his own marital choices. Always the king had sought to insulate the crown from the claims of his domestic nobility while also adorning the former with the prestige of a foreign alliance. The choice of his prelates and magnates, Count Gomez Gonzalez of Lara, would inevitably have created pretensions in that great Castilian house at the same time it would have exacerbated the outrage of the partisans of his grandson and of his natural daughter Teresa. Alfonso of Arag6én brought with him not merely the laurels of a warrior but the charisma of kingship as well. Finally perhaps, the Aragonese monarch might be less dangerous as a sovereign than as a neighbor. He had been following a highly aggres39 That Pedro Anstirez returned to Leén-Castilla as one of the few supporters of the marriage 1s borne out by the documents as well as the later histories. See my Leén-Castilla under Queen Urraca, pp. 35-37, 53, and 58-59.

358 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN sive policy of expansion in all possible directions since his accession five

years before. Now, in the aftermath of Uclés, all of the western Rioja lay open to his designs as did much of eastern Castilla. Neither Urraca herself, or even married to Lara count, could be expected to hold them against the Aragonese. That would be especially so if they were handicapped by serious domestic discord. The best defense for those exposed territories, in the long run, might be a diplomatic one. It was preferable that the Batallador should hold them as a king of Le6én-Castilla than as a king of Aragon. Nevertheless, all of these defensible considerations led to a disastrous decision on the part of the old king. He might understand that prelates, popes, and nobles would eventually recognize the rights of children born to the marriage of Urraca and Alfonso even if they never would accept the marriage itself. What he could not know was that the marriage would produce no children. But his most critical failure lay in his inability to appreciate the political skills of his own daughter. In the next quarter of a century those were to prove more than adequate to overmatch the military abilities of her many opponents as well as such political and diplomatic acumen as they possessed. In short, he never realized the extent to which she was, in truth, his daughter. Whatever the attitude of Urraca herself was toward Alfonso’s decision, it seems likely that she participated in the negotiations. After the meeting with her father in Segovia in August 1108, no document specifies her whereabouts for six months. That she spent the fall and the Christmas season at court is probable in view of what had been the customary practice and the fact that she was central to the negotiations in train. But on February 22, 1109, the queen to be was in Galicia. There she donated the monastery of San Vicente de Pombeiro to Cluny and the grant was confirmed exclusively by the prelates of the northwest.*° Bishko regarded this charter as evidence of a bid for Cluny’s support against the possible partisans of her son.#! If her remarriage was already in prospect such a motivation is quite credible. Acceptance of the latter by the bishops of Galicia, whatever might have been their private reservations, would also be indicated by their confirmations. By March 27, 1109, Urraca had returned to Sahagtin and the court and had brought with her at least Bishop Gelmirez of Compostela, who also had confirmed the Cluny grant.4¢? From this time the heiress was probably constantly in her father’s company. 4° Bruel, ed., Recueil des chartes 5:654—55, with the year given as 1079. All of the other internal evidence makes 1109 the only possible date. 41 Bishko, “The Cluniac Priories of Galicia and Portugal,” pp. 318-19. 4 AHN, Clero, Carpeta 892, no. 21; and Céodices, 989B, fol. 36r—v. The subsequent

THE ULTIMATE CRISIS (1108-1109) 359 Similarly the attendance at court of Count Henry and Infanta Teresa all through this period 1s to be presumed. However disgruntled by the course events were taking, they could not have afforded to be absent. Count Henry’s presence 1s attested for September 4, 1108, for March 27, 1109, and for May 22, 1109.43 The king would have been subjected regularly to the polite but firm opposition of the two to the course he had chosen. If his daughter was already carrying or, in 1109, had given birth to Alfonso Enriquez, their eventual successor in Portugal, her position would have been strengthened materially. Existing sources differ notably as to the infans’ year of birth, but 1109-1110 seems to me the most likely time. +4

On the subject of marriage the king was unyielding as we know. Yet he may have been prepared to make minor concessions to assuage the couple’s feelings. There is a document, dated April 25, 1109, which cites Henry and Teresa as “imperante Tiniego.”45 The latter was an important hamlet in western Asturias de Oviedo near two passes over the Cantabrians from that province into northern Le6én. Such a dignity was easily conferred, given the death of Count Fernando Diaz, and might even have been useful. Further clues to the tenor of relationships between the crown and the

couple may be furnished by ecclesiastical changes in Portugal at this time but the chronology is difficult to establish. At Braga Archbishop Gerald died in either late 1108 or early January 1109. In March Paschal I] at Rome was still unaware of his death.4° That prelate had been the

instrument of the king and the archbishop of Toledo in the province. Now Gerald would be replaced by Maurice, formerly bishop of Coimbra. The new archbishop would have a famous career, ending finally in ignominy when, as the imperial claimant to the papacy Gregory VIII, abbreviation of the final protocol of the document notwithstanding, Urraca’s confirmation is indicated. The bishop’s confirmation is perfectly clear. 43 See respectively, notes 23 and 42, and AHN, Coddices, 989B, ff. 79v—8or. If the fuero of Henry and Teresa to the men of Azurara in Beira, Portugal, and datable only to the period 1109-1112, was issued in this year, it was probably executed at Alfonso’s court as suggested by the confirmations of counts “Fernando” and “Pedro.” No such counts are known for Portugal in this period. Pub. DMP 1-1:18-19; and 1-2:561-62. The text gives only the year 1102, which is impossible. Bishop Gonzalo appears in Coimbra and the couple’s son Alfonso Enriquez confirms. 44 The materials are reviewed by Luiz Gonzaga de Azevedo, Histéria de Portugal, vol. 3 (Lisbon, 1940), pp. 240-43, who comes to the conclusion that 1106 is the probable date by, it seems to me, largely explaining away the bulk of the evidence. 48 Garcia Larragueta, ed., Documentos de Oviedo, pp. 339-41. See also the discussion in my Leén-Castilla under Queen Urraca, p. 76, n. 101. 46 ES 20:88—90. The bull of Paschal II, dated Dec. 4, 1108, Erdmann, ed., “Papsturkunden in Portugal,” pp. 162~63, addressed to Gerald is a forgery.

360 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN he was captured and imprisoned for life. But in January 1109 when Maurice was translated from Coimbra to Braga he seems still merely to have been the protégé of Alfonso and Archbishop Bernard. 4? The very fact of his translation guarantees that it was the king and not

the count who stood behind the appointment. The translation from one see to another was one of those few ecclesiastical processes in which the consent of the Roman pope was more than a mere formality in this period, and only the king possessed sufficient influence in Rome

to secure that assent. Moreover, the confirmation by the new Archbishop Maurice in late February of Urraca’s donation to Cluny indicates his willingness to accept the royal plans for her marriage. Such adhesion surely was the price of his consecration which may well have taken place at Compostela on or near that very date.

With the royal blessing, Maurice then left for Rome to secure the proper papal recognition. Possibly while he was gone a new bishop was elevated to his old see of Coimbra. Again the decision lay with the king and his great aide, the Toledan archbishop, as demonstrated by the fact that the new incumbent recognized Toledo rather than Braga as his metropolitan. Nevertheless, it is a mistake, based on the later quarrel

between the two archbishoprics which erupted after Alfonso VI’s death, to regard his appointment as some sort of Toledan coup pushed through in Maurice’s absence. ?? The new bishop of Coimbra, Gongalvo Paies, was a scion of the Portuguese magnate Paio Peres. 5° His appointment was a part of the careful balancing of influence in that distant province by the crown and was in

all likelihood at least formally agreed upon by Maurice himself, the Portuguese magnates, and Count Henry. The generous donation made to Coimbra on July 29, 1109, by Henry and Teresa should be seen as their first bid to purchase Gongalvo’s support after Alfonso’s death. Mere chance determines that it is our first notice of Goncalvo’s incumbency.*!

All of these events demonstrate clearly that the Leonese monarch 7 David, Etudes historiques, pp. 454-55, cites a document of Dec. 22, 1108, in which Maurice was still bishop of Coimbra and one of Jan. 19, 1109, in which he was already archbishop of Braga. Almeida, Histéria da Igreja em Portugal 1:264, says that Archbishop Gerald died on Dec. 5, 1108. However, a private document dated Mar. 9, 1109, DMP 2:183, still cites Maurice as bishop of Coimbra. The date should probably be ten years earlier. 48 See notes 40 and 41. 49 Carl Erdmann, Das Papsttum und Portugal in ersten Jahrhundert der Portugiesischen Ges-

chichte (Berlin, 1928), pp. 14-16. so Mattoso, A nobreza medieval portuguesa, p. 169. 51 DMP 1-1:19-21.

THE ULTIMATE CRISIS (1108-1109) 361 continued until his death to regard the control of appointments to the episcopate of the realm as an indispensable prop of the royal authority. If he were willing to make some minor concession to Henry and Teresa in order to soften the blow constituted by his decision on the succession question, these were not to be found in the realm of high ecclesiastical

appointments. The royal determination to retain such control must have further increased the frustration of his second daughter and her husband. When they left the court in the late spring of 1109 they may already have formed the resolve not to return except as its masters. That departure must have taken place after May 22, 1109, and probably coincided with the departure of the royal court itself for Toledo. ‘? A contemporary informs us that the leave-taking was anything but cordial.s3 The context of his remarks suggests that Count Henry accompanicd the king to Toledo but other considerations make that unlikely. In July, after Alfonso’s death, the count captured Santarem in Portugal.s4 Now a direct journey from Toledo to.Santarem would have been hazardous in the extreme if not impossible, and a more roundabout trip could not have been completed in the time indicated. Henry and Teresa, then, refused to journey to Toledo precisely because the king intended to proclaim Urraca officially his heir and successor there. The two also remained in Portugal after his death and failed to attend his

obsequies in Sahagun or the inauguration of Urraca’s reign in late July.» The journey of Alfonso VI and his court to Toledo in the late spring of 1109 had two purposes. One of them was to launch a general offensive against the Murabit aimed at recovering the losses of the previous year and to forestall any further exploitation by the latter of their successes at and after Uclés. The death of Alfonso in Toledo effectively thwarted those intentions. Only largely local forces were available in

August for an unsuccessful siege of Alcala de Henares, which had passed into Muslim hands sometime in late 1108 or early 1109. In the summer of 1109 the Murabit Emir Ali ibn-Yusuf crossed the straits into Spain and during the 1110 waged a major offensive all along the line of the Tajo. %

The second purpose was, of course, to proclaim Urraca as his heir in the old capital of the Visigoths and the primatial see of Le6n-Castilla. ‘2 See note 43.

33 Puyol y Alonso, ed., “Las crénicas anénimas,” p. 247. ‘4 David, Etudes historiques, p. 301. ‘s Reilly, Leén-Castilla under Queen Urraca, pp. 55-58. 86 Gonzalez, Repoblacién de Castilla la Nueva 1:100-102, details the events and their most probable order from the somewhat contradictory sources that relate them.

362 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN If the king had left Sahagtin for Toledo sometime after May 22, 1109, he could hardly have arrived there before the end of the second week in June, given what must have been the progressively worsening condition of Alfonso. That this journey gave the coup de grace to his health

is a fair assumption. , Nevertheless, Alfonso there proclaimed his daughter as his heir in the presence of “almost all of the nobles and counts of Spain,” says an eyewitness.*” Urraca herself also later fixed the place and the time, although the latter only roughly.** The royal announcement would have included at least the provisional terms of the impending marriage of Urraca to Alfonso I of Aragén, although we know that the official agreement, or carta de arras, was not executed until six months later.

The argument that the young queen had already married the Aragonese has been made in an ingenious but unconvincing fashion. ° The activities and whereabouts of the king of Aragon during the critical period between the battle of Uclés and the death of Alfonso VI cannot be specified very fully. Early in 1108 the Murabit governor of Va-

lencia had launched a major raid into Catalonia which had carried almost to Barcelona itself. Of necessity this offensive would have unsettled the very recently established southeastern frontier of Aragon. It is not surprising then to find the Aragonese monarch at Huesca in December 1108 in the only one of his charters known from this entire period. In its final protocol he made no reference to a queen or to any claim on the Leonese kingdom.* ‘7 Puyol y Alonso, ed., “Las cronicas anénimas,” pp. 120-21. 88 ES 20:115, “appropinquante sui transitus hora mihi apud Toletum Regnum totum tradidit.” Jiménez de Rada, “De Rebus Hispaniae,” p. 145, says that the official action occurred “in pago prope Toletum qui Magam dicitur,” but he was writing better than a century after the fact. Magan is a hamlet twelve kilometers northeast of Toledo which may have been the site of the camp of the royal host? 89 See my Leén-Castilla under Queen Urraca, pp. 52-64, for a full consideration of the marriage and its chronology, especially p. 52, n. 26, on José Maria Ramos y Loscertales, “La sucesion del Rey Alfonso VI,” AHDE, 13 (1936-41): 36-99. * Boissonnade, Du nouveau sur la Chanson de Roland, p. 41. * José Maria Lacarra, ed., “Documentos para el estudio de la reconquista y repoblacidn del valle del Ebro,” EEMCA 2 (1946): 481-82. April 3, 1108. AHN, Clero, Carpeta 711, nos. 2 and 3, which purports to be a charter of Alfonso I as “imperator in Castella, Gallicia,” is a clumsy forgery, as the merest glance at the final protocol will demonstrate. Feb. 20, 1108. AC Leén, Cédice 11, fol. 473r, 1s a private document that cites the Aragonese as already married to Urraca and ruling in Leén-Castilla. The date of this copy is obviously incorrect when compared with the bulk of the evidence. Alfonso I of Aragon still needs a biographer. José Maria Lacarra, Vida de Alfonso el Batallador (Zaragoza, 1971), 1s but a preliminary sketch. Before a full biography can be done a critical edition of his charters is required.

THE ULTIMATE CRISIS (1108-1109) 363 On July 1, 1109, in the seventy-second year of his life and the fortyfourth year of his reign Alfonso VI died in Toledo. As always under the monarchy the death of the king threw all existing political understandings into a state of flux. Therefore, despite the practical concern for the defenses of the Tajo frontier, virtually the entire court hastened

north with the royal corpse. On July 21, 1109, the greatest monarch Christian Spain had seen since the Roman era was laid to rest in the royal monastery of Sahagun. In attendance were twelve bishops and seven counts of the realm.®3 They constituted a virtual roster of the notables of the court and the kingdom at the time. The long reign of Alfonso VI had closed and the troubled one of Urraca had begun. The Murabit Emir Ali was just about to debark 1n An-

dalucia to undertake the reconquest of Toledo. Count Henry and Infanta Teresa were sulking in self-imposed exile from court at Coimbra in Portugal. Count Pedro Anstrez had just returned to the Leonese court as the protagonist of the royal marriage between Urraca and Alfonso I of Aragon. The far-flung kingdom that the dead king had constructed, defended, and ruled for more than four decades was about to be tested in a vortex of invasion and civil war which would endure for more than two decades. * For his age see chapter 2, note 21. Three different dates are given for his death by roughly contemporary sources. June 29 appears in the “Historia Compostelana,” ES 20:96, and in the “Chronicon Compostellanum,” ES 20:611. The two are independent. The “Chronicon Gothorum,” David, Etudes historiques, p. 301, repeats this same date. June 30 appears in the “Anales Toledanos,” Huici Miranda, ed., Cronicas latinas, p. 344, and in an inscription of a church, see Francisco Simon y Nieto, “El monasterio de San Salvador de Nogal,” BRAH 35 (1899): 207-208. The date I follow is that given by two eyewitnesses, Puyol y Alonso, ed., “Las cronicas anénimas,” p. 120, and Sanchez Alonso, ed., Crénica del Obispo Don Pelayo, p. 87. In this matter and a few others I have revised my own provisional judgments given in the introductory chapters of my LeénCastilla under Queen Urraca, pp. 3-55, which materials should now be used with the appropriate caution. 6° See my Leén-Castilla under Queen Urraca, pp. $5-57, for the documentary evidence.

° ae

:os~|2: \|=yo

wy > 2 0) 6 > a oKS 8 ‘ O 2. 8 ov) = — ro] c in) . 3sos So — c © q ™ » c Loot o ew te 3s 0 ° oY ee = 5 / oN o ‘ = 4 a log . 3 > ae O ~ wy ee. & "oO am S c © oO N “7 — bo] c x Y AG) SBS = 8 8s | No® 4 8 ra = | o wD e o a | VS a co |. ° . ; 8 Oo 9 wo O aN ( = S$. oH ” oO > i. 7 ‘. | N i, x Ow } t ‘“ L \4 S Cc se ‘ IN 8 : Gy © °e'¢ ” \ NO o® QO 3 a \e 7 AS) \ O pat ~~ & i. ae :=4®ese©®o \o“”S.°+cN7)Wee \x©e°N 2/3 rem w) Ls _ \ — ° NN S a & wm —— oD wN 2 \ co v ©S °L € a \ { ™, ——— YZ FE ON Lo = 9 A) CO3 9° ° oa a 2\ 4—\ oO

= = om

o0; Bs)

5 r-, 0 >7\zx] RA 7) ¢ - = 3 € jae

ze ed > °. ocE \ eno Yell| he

e °o°

ee)

EIGHTEEN

ALFONSO VI OF LEON-CASTILLA: A MEDITATION

A final attempt to summarize and evaluate the achievement of Alfonso VI of Leén-Castilla must be based primarily upon the public record of his reign as we have come to know it in the preceding chapters. That is, it must take the form of an examination of his policies precisely as a monarch of a growing, vibrant north Spanish political entity. To what extent those political choices, once they have been determined more or less precisely, permit us to infer the private and personal motives and desires of the king is a secondary concern. A biography in the modern sense cannot be written for no personal papers of Alfonso exist nor did he find a Boswell to chronicle his private moments. Such contemporaries as recorded his actions did not dream of distinguishing between the monarch and the man. Nor have I here attempted a social and economic history of his reign Or even an institutional history in the modest sense 1n which I undertook the latter in my earlier book on the reign of his daughter and successor, Urraca. It is my current view that such a survey would require, in the first instance, amuch more comprehensive knowledge of the socicty of Leén-Castilla in the first half of the eleventh century than 1s available at present. Not knowing the points of departure, we cannot form an adequate idea either of the novelties effected or of the direction sought. In the second place, as the preceding chapters may have demonstrated, a large amount of critical paleographical, diplomatic, and interpretative work has had to be essayed simply to establish initially the essential political facts of the reign. It is hoped that that framework, so supplied, will facilitate future, more comprehensive, undertakings. Yet even the more pedestrian task here attempted finally poses the question of the extent of the particular contribution of Alfonso VI to the evolution of Leén-Castilla in the latter part of the eleventh century. In the end, one cannot avoid at least an attempt at such an assessment. The puzzle as to whether the age produces the great man or whether the man produces the great age is perhaps insoluble, but the struggle with it enhances our appreciation and understanding of both. Dividing our final considerations then into three great compartments, the prog-

366 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN ress of the Reconquista, the governance of the kingdom, and the reception and mediation of western European influences, let us address it. Clearly Alfonso VI was the beneficiary of the collapse of the cali-

phate at Cordoba after 1008 and the continuing political disarray of Spanish Islam. For reasons that are quite obscure at any but the most superficial levels, and will probably continue to be so, Muslim Spain never staged a sustained recovery from that crisis even at the price of subjection politically to the Murabit and to North African Islam.' Even so, just as obviously, Spanish Islam was materially and economically far more advanced than the adversary to which it was to fall prey, could it have found the organization to harness and direct those resources. It was at the military level that Leén-Castilla enjoyed the great advantages that Alfonso VI exploited so well. Tactically it seems clear that the Muslim never developed an adequate answer to the superiority of the Christian heavy, shock cavalry in the open field. In both major battles of which we have some account, albeit sketchy, the Christian forces obviously enjoyed the initiative and the Muslims won by employing rather the techniques of a numerically superior force, envelopment from the flanks and rear. Despite the fact that both Zalaca in 1086 and Uclés in 1108 resulted in clear victories for Islam, the cumulative record of more than two decades of warfare seems to indicate that the northern forces ordinarily enjoyed tactical control in the open field. Time and time again they struck deep into Islamic territories, but no

such initiative is recorded for the latter after the first decade of the century.

Strategic realities also militated in favor of Leon-Castilla. Interior lines of communication and attack belonged to the northern kingdom. While the former taifa of Toledo was indeed an isolated southern appendage for almost a century after 1085, the powerful Muslim centers of Andalucia in the south found it much more difficult to coordinate and communicate with their allies and coreligionists at Valencia and Zaragoza after that date. Toledo regained became the shield of Leén‘Tam convinced that the problem is a lack of adequate sources. Despite heroic concentration on what remains or has been rediscovered, as reflected in the varied works of Ambrosio Huici Miranda used so often in this study, the latest student of the question, David Wasserstein, The Rise and Fall of the Party Kings, still must depend essentially on the literary evidence. Yet an alternative methodology such as attempted by Thomas F. Glick, Islamic and Christian Spain in the Early Middle Ages (Princeton, 1979), does not respond convincingly to the questions put. The only comprehensive study of an individual taifa kingdom, Manuel Terrén Albarran, El sdlar de los Aftdsidas, is merely a synthesis of older scholarship.

ALFONSO VI OF LEON-CASTILLA: A MEDITATION 367

Castilla but also the crucial strong point that blocked a combined military retort on the part of its enemies. To the extent to which the record allows a conclusion, it appears to me that Alfonso VI grasped these essential military realities. Even in the face of defeat he rarely surrendered the initiative. He appreciated the

fundamental strategic importance of Toledo both before and after 1085. He also subordinated his political objectives to the possibilities of

his available military capabilities. Alfonso could supervise the abandonment of Valencia in 1102 as untenable but respond with the capture of Medinaceli in 1104 to limit the effect of the former. In other words, he did not dissipate his advantages in pursuit of political or military chimeras.* On balance, if not a great field general, he proved to be a

superior strategist. If he did not create the military advantages of Leé6n-Castilla, he understood and utilized them to achieve brilliant and lasting results. These very apparent military advantages and successes rested, how-

ever, on a more fundamental discrepancy between the two societies. The Christian north was experiencing a vigorous population growth in the eleventh century which seems to have had no counterpart in the south.} Between the two opposed powers about A.D. 1000 lay the virtually deserted lands south of the Duero and north of the Guadarramas, and only on the part of Leén-Castilla was there any recorded effort to settle and exploit them. The same phenomenon was reflected in the steady and successful aggression of Arag6én against the taifa of Zaragoza more to the east. Now a rapid rise in population can have destructive as well as con> The debate over the exact range of the ambitions of Alfonso VI after his conquest of Toledo goes on. See Mackay and Benaboud, “Alfonso VI of Leén and Castile.” It seems to me that the weakness of the case that portrays the Leonese monarch as intending an immediate overlordship of all of Spanish Islam is that it rests exclusively on the testimony of his enemies. Were these Muslim literary figures reporting their fears, or justifying the appeal to the Murabit, or just engaging in the ever popular sport of villifying the enemy by caricaturing his positions? The military and political realities would have recommended a more limited policy, and my reading of the usual reactions of Alfonso is that he would have taken it. See chapter 9. ’ The fact of a demographic increase is overwhelmingly apparent. Its measurement 1s something else again. For some pertinent attempts see Lydia C. Kofman and Maria Inés Carzolio, “Acerca la demografia astur-leonesa y castellana en Ja Alta Edad Media,” CHE 47-48 (1968): 136-70; Garcia Alvarez, Galicia y los Gallegos en la Alta Edad Media, vol. 1; or Pallares Méndez and Portela Silva, El bajo valle del Mifio. Although less detailed and less current work has been done on Muslim Spain, the current received opinion is that no such general increase is perceptible. See Manuel Nieto Cumplido, Historia de Cérdoba (Cérdoba, 1984), pp. 58-61; and Jacinto Bosch Vila, Historia de Sevilla (Sevilla, 1984), pp. 301-307 and 339-42, for estimates, problems, and methods.

368 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN structive effects if the society in which it occurs offers no opportunities for its progressive integration into normal economic life or lacks a sta-

ble political structure to mediate that process. The former danger seems to have been present particularly in Leon-Castilla. The towns there were tiny, scarcely more than market centers for the surrounding countryside, with little in the way of trade or manufacturers to absorb the demographic increase of the countryside. On the land itself profound changes were in train which aggravated precisely that situation. If as has been argued recently, in Asturias it was precisely in the eleventh century that a massive shift began from a pre-

dominantly hoe culture to a plow culture, the net effect would have been the displacement of even existing small proprietors as the ability of each farmer to work more land increased dramatically. The same shift may have been simultaneously occurring in the whole mountain world of the north from Galicia in the west to Aragon in the east. At the same time the propagation of water mills, by shifting the labor of milling grain from human to mechanical power, would also have acted to enlarge the acreage feasible to be worked economically by a single farmer. Both the foregoing changes would have contributed mightily to in-

crease the size of the individual holding and of the estates of the churches, monasteries, and the nobility since they both required extant capital to initiate and then simplified the task directing the use of ever larger tracts of land, their inevitable effect was to concentrate rather than disperse landholding. They thus tended to aggravate the natural land-hunger of an agricultural society experiencing a rapid growth in population simultaneously. 4 Some of the pressure on available land so gencrated could be relieved by the clearing of empty lands, defrichement, in the north as it was con-

temporaneously in other parts of western Europe. Nevertheless, the

prime source of attractive, unutilized land lay to the south of the Duero. The increase in noble incomes, consequent upon the growth of their estates, could finance mounted warriors in larger numbers for that 4 A classic and nostalgic lament for the age of the small peasant proprietor was sounded by Claudio Sanchez-Albornoz, Sobre la libertad humana en el reino asturleonés hace mil afios (Madrid, 1976). A description of the agricultural revolution that produced the new society was essayed by Santiago Aguadé, Ganaderia y desarrollo agrario en Asturias durante la Edad Media, siglos LX—XIII (Barcelona, 1983). Studies of estate management which tend to reflect such changes are found in Garcia de Cortazar, El dominio del monasterio de San Millan; Moreta Velayos, El monasterio de San Pedro de Cardena, and Mercedes Durany Castrillo, San Pedro de Montes: El dominio de un monasterio benedictino de el Bierzo, siglos LX al

XIII (Leén, 1976).

ALFONSO VI OF LEON-CASTILLA: A MEDITATION 369

purpose. The buying out of small peasants or brothers or heirs by the more fortunate created an army of a more modest kind, possessed of

the one-time mobility of a little capital and the hope of becoming themselves proprietors of the newer sort in the lands of the south. To profit from this widespread phenomenon, as he manifestly did, Alfonso VI had but to assume its leadership. That was a role for which the imperial and legal tradition of Leén had prepared him so that perhaps he deserves little credit for innovation. Nevertheless, three qualitics were necessary to direct it successfully. One was the predominantly soldierly ability to gauge correctly the military and strategic necessities that would permit a successful occupation of the trans-Duero. The second was a personal preference for the active life of the camp rather than the indulgences of the court. The third was the political skill to reconcile and channel the energies and ambitions of the kingdom he already ruled so as to allow the concentration of its resources for the conquest of a new one. All of these qualities, it seems reasonable to infer from the record, he possessed in more than ordinary measure.

Passing from a consideration of the Alfonsine Reconquista to the mechanisms of his government that made the former possible, an initial

caveat is in order. As was true of the monarchy elsewhere in western Europe in the eleventh century, government must be understood in a quite restricted and largely passive sense. The king was the head of a family, a dynasty identified with the kingdom, whose affairs he was to regulate and for whose future he was to provide. He was the king because he was, in the first instance, pater familias. In the most intimate relationship with that role, he was also the greatest estate manager of the realm. The dynastic or fisc lands of the realengo ordinarily furnished the sinews of government. A strong and capable landlord was a strong king. Beyond the management of the royal household, a king was also the chief justiciar of the realm, responsible for maintaining the public peace

and a rough justice. Ordinarily this seems to have meant that he mediated between those segments of it that threatened to come to actual hostilities at any given moment. At least this role extended to the greatest and almost the only structured institution of the realm, the church. The general religious aura that enveloped the person of the king made him, if not a spiritual leader in the proper sense, the first churchman of the kingdom for practical purposes. Perhaps only in his role as war chief do we find the eleventh-century king exercising the power of government in a thoroughly modern and familiar sense. Taken as a ruler in the sense that his age understood and permitted,

Alfonso VI was remarkably successful. Once the kingdom had been

370 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN successfully reconstituted in 1072 only one brief armed revolt against his rule occurred, in Galicia in 1087-88, and that was quickly snuffed

out despite the weakening of his power and reputation which must have resulted by his defeat at the hands of the Murabit at Zalaca in 1086.

The conspiracy of the Burgundian counts Raymond and Henry in 1095, which contained the potential for civil war, was aborted by political maneuver.

Indeed his management of dynastic matters was judicious to the point of brilliance. Avoiding the error of his brother, Sancho, his sisters were associated regularly with Alfonso in the government of the royal household down to their deaths at the turn of the century. He was re-

markably successful in negotiating marriages with well-born ladies from beyond the Pyrenees, which both bolstered his prestige domestically and avoided overly restrictive ties to any noble house at home. When one of those marriages brought in its train two ambitious Burgundian noblemen these latter were harnessed to the government of the realm by marriage to his daughters and made vicegerents of the kingdom for Galicia and Portugal. In that fashion their pride was satisfied while their ambitions were deferred. Despite his long quest for a direct male heir and its final frustration at Uclés, this greatest handicap of medieval kingship was so managed as to prevent scrious disturbance to the peace of the realm. Only in response to the death of Sancho Alfénsez in 1108 did the political judgment of the king finally fail him. In the royal court that surrounded the dynasty Alfonso VI found his chief instrument of government. In its and his constant travel from its ordinary winter residence at Sahagtn to the varied centers of the kingdom, as already described, his government performed its prime func-

tion of mediating and coordinating an enormously swollen realm. Count Raymond until his death in 1107 and Count Henry until 1109 were figures of the court, and their own processions through Galicia and Portugal were essentially extensions of the royal ones and subordinated to the latter’s purposes. One cannot imagine that Alfonso invented the device of an itinerant court although he may have utilized it more intensely and extended its range. But we simply cannot follow his predecessors closely enough to judge. The resort to a sort of vicegerency in the more remote provinces by members of the court is more striking, but again a lack of knowledge limits our ability to define it as an absolute novelty. The same barrier hinders our evaluation of other features of Alfonso’s government. The most visible organ of the court, after the king himself, is the chancery. One may certainly say that it develops and defines itself more sharply through his long reign, but the charters of his

ALFONSO VI OF LEON-CASTILLA: A MEDITATION 371

father, Fernando I, have scarcely been touched and so comparison is difficult. Nevertheless the Alfonsine chancery did not become a structured department of government in the modern sense. Court offices such as that of majordomo and alférez seem to have been used as regular steppingstones to the comital dignity, but there seem to be rough precedents for that in the prior reign. So too, not just the award of those honors, but their virtual monopoly by the scions of the nobility of Leén and Castilla respectively to the exclusion of the magnate houses of Asturias and Galicia have some earlier reflections in practice. We can only say that Alfonso, more clearly than his father, re-

acted to the growing importance of the central provinces of the kingdom as against those of its periphery. The same recognition of the new importance of the Leonese-Castilian heartland 1s displayed in the Alfonsine charters of donation. In the period between 1072 and 1107 the church of the royal city of Leén received some fourteen different charters, Burgos ten and the monastery of San Millan de La Cogolla nine. Toledo was the object of eight. The old royal city of Oviedo did not fare so badly with seven charters, but Santiago de Compostela was the recipient of only three, Coimbra had but two, and Braga registered nonce that have survived. Overall the sources are not adequate to determine whether or not the fisc lands were growing or shrinking. The royal majordomo may have

had some general oversight of them but certainly nothing regular enough to have been reflected 1n the creation of a department dedicated to such a task. Such a process would have been inhibited by the obvious sharing of the control of dynastic lands with the two infantas and later with the counts Raymond and Henry as well as the use of the office of majordomo to reward the sons of noble houses. The 123 known charters and the 61 confirmations of charters speak to a fairly high level of activity, roughly equivalent to the output of the contemporary Philip I of France (1060-1108). We do hear of the confiscations of the lands of counts Fernando Lainez and Pedro Anstrez as well as of the more modest Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, which lead one to suspect that alienations

and acquisitions were in rough balance. The likelihood is that the crown shared, and that disproportionately, in the rising prosperity and expansion common to all great landholders of the period. Again we are left with the not precisely measurable impression of a strong and active king whose administration, 1n the loose sense of that term, energetis A more systematic treatment of the former exists in my “The Chancery of Alfonso VI of Ledén-Castile.”

372 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN cally utilizes and directs advantages arising from a generally favorable economy. The most measurable and indeed the most spectacular instance of the rapid development of the society of Leén-Castilla in this period can be found in the growth of its secular church. When Alfonso VI came to the throne his realm already boasted eleven bishoprics, but at the end of his reign it counted two archbishoprics and fifteen bishoprics. Here we may for once affirm without hesitation that the royal initiative was paramount. Some of the additions resulted directly from his career as a conqueror as 1n the cases of Najera and Alava after he overran the western Rioja in 1076. Others were the result of the logical implications of that process as in the restoration of the archbishopric of Toledo after

1085 and of Salamanca as the repopulation of the trans-Ducro progressed. Still others such as Coimbra and Osma represented his consolidation of the conquests of his father.

Within this rapid development, wherever the sources allow more particular knowledge, the direction of the king is obvious. The prelates

of Toledo, Leén, Astorga, Burgos, and Palencia were virtual court bishops. The restoration of the archbishoprics at Toledo and at Braga occurred under his direction. Although Alfonso depended very heavily on his great lieutenant, Archbishop Bernard of Toledo, in church affairs there can be little doubt that the final decision on promotion to the bishoprics was his own. If we turn to those secular and public spheres of government that the modern mind more easily identifies as its proper concern, correspondingly less activity can be detected or traced. Diplomacy certainly was practiced by Alfonso within the confines of the peninsula. That it had little practical issue with the Muslim south is not surprising, given the almost constant state of hostilities that existed. Relations with the Cid from the time he went into exile to the time he became a free agent in the east seem to have been good, and collaboration against the Muslim was sometimes obtained. Generally more cordial relations seemed to

have been obtained with Aragon, albeit at the cost of ignoring that kingdom’s continuing aggression against Zaragoza, which had the happy side effect of neutralizing that Islamic power in the peninsular struggle. Beyond the Pyrenees Alfonso, as we have said, was able to secure brides of sufficient importance to enhance his prestige at home. To our present knowledge, however, he was only once, in 1087, able to secure

measureable assistance for his own purposes from south French sources. What he might have paid for such help we simply do not know. Certainly, though, he must have borne some of the cost for the

ALFONSO VI OF LEON-CASTILLA: A MEDITATION 373

aid of the Geonese and Pisan fleets against Valencia which he enjoyed in 1092. In neither case did such reinforcement effect any substantial SUCCESS.

Whether or not Alfonso legislated in the modern sense 1s not clear. Certainly he made specific provisions, as pertained to the church especially, which had the force of at least administrative law. The same can be said of judicial decisions affecting both individual churchmen and

individual nobles. But generalized, secular laws seem to be utterly lacking. Probably we should understand that the court understood foros, local

customs or privileges, but lacked any sense of fueros, that is, general laws. So far as I can determine the royal chancery of Alfonso never issued a fuero but had distinct diplomatic norms only for charters and judicial decisions. Confirm and alter specific bodies of local custom the crown certainly did, but such actions were embodied in charters and thus assimilated conceptually to the traditional practice of granting immunities of greater or lesser extent. Where newly established communities were concerned the crown also authorized the transfer to them of

customs already extant in older ones. Yet none of these activities, it seems to me, either singly or cumulatively evidence a conscious and distinct legislative activity. Even the adoption of the Roman liturgy in 1080 and the fueros granted to the distinct elements of the population in Toledo after 1085 were likely understood as a return to the good old customs and emerged under the rubrics of traditional royal activity.° If the crown did not legislate in an attempt to adapt government to, or direct, the new society emerging in eleventh-century Leén-Castilla,

no more did it consciously innovate, it seems to me, to meet the changes emerging around it. One of the more remarkable of these was

the emergence of the pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela as the greatest after Rome in western Europe. Alfonso would have been conscious of the increasing throngs of French and Germans crossing the northern meseta on their way to the church of the apostle and doubtless approved of it in a general way as an acceptable form of piety. There is, however, no reason to believe that he saw it as a phenomenon to be manipulated or even systematically encouraged. ° For chancery activity and norms and their relationship to the controverted question of the fucros, see ibid., pp.4s1o—11. A more general consideration of the question is given in my Leén-Castilla under Queen Urraca, pp. 314-26. In the matter of legislation it is im-

portant to note that in the instances mentioned by Proctor, Curia and Cortes in Leén and

| Castile, pp. 27-28 and 31, all are embodied in a document formally styled a charter and | are presented as a correction of abusive practice. All societies legislate, of course, but not all of them isolate the legislative function and understand it as such.

|

|

374 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN His charters to the church of Santiago itself are remarkable neither in their number or their content. When the pilgrim traffic created obvious difficulties he dealt with them by encouraging those more directly concerned institutions to respond. Some of his charters to churchmen or monasteries were designed to help them support hospices for the travelers. In a rare notice Bishop Pelayo informs us that he “studuit facere omnes pontes qui sunt a Locronio usque ad Sanctam Iacobum.”” Again

we should understand not a royal building program but encouragement given to nobles, ecclesiastics, and royal merinos to repair or rebuild bridges within their territories. But if the pilgrims created problems they certainly also stimulated a provisioning trade and artisans along the route. Some of the travelers

stayed to function as artisans and merchants themselves. Doubtless such growing economic activity increased the pressure on the supply of money in circulation. Now Alfonso is credited as the first of the Leonese kings to mint his own money rather than simply to rely on such Muslim coinage as found its way north. In his time mints existed at Leon, Palencia, Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Oviedo, and perhaps Zamora. The mint of the former taifa of Toledo was also kept in operation. But here too it would be unwise to see the crown as innovating to meet a new need in society. Rather, I suspect, a traditional regalian right was being activated as a source of revenue. We necd to recall that the mints of the age were a profit-making business and that the extraordinary activity of Alfonso VI’s government generated extraordinary royal expenses. In fact in the one instance in which we can see a mint actually coming into existence, at Santiago de Compostela, the profit motive is very much to the fore and the initiative is a local one.* The inauguration of mints aside, the sources of royal revenue, so far as we can tell, remained quite traditional. The household revenues proceeding from the fisc lands were the most regular. The parias paid by 7 Sanchez-Alonso, ed., Crénica del Obispo Don Pelayo, p. 84. The classic treatment of the pilgrimage is Vazquez de Parga, Lacarra, and Uria Rui, Las peregrinaciones a Santiago de Compostela. Fletcher, Saint James’ Catapult, pp. 78-101, is an excellent introduction to

the phenomenon in the eleventh century. Of course there is simply no way to gauge the absolute numbers involved. * “Historia Compostelana,” ES 20:65—69. For a brief survey of mints in operation see my Leon-Castilla under Queen Urraca, pp. 271-74. Since that writing I have learned that there was indeed a mint at Oviedo. See Serrano Redonnet, “Ovetensis monete,” pp. 15760. Such a network of royal mints is impressive to have begun and been elaborated within a single reign however long. The most recent summary, Fernando Alvarez Burgos, Vicente Ramon Benedito, and Vicente Ramon Pérez, eds., Catdlogo general de la moneda medieval hispano-cristiana desde el siglo LX al XVI (Madrid, 1980), plate one, shows a coin attributed to Fernando I and minted at Palencia.

ALFONSO VI OF LEON-CASTILLA: A MEDITATION 375

the taifas were the largest single source of specie but they became increasingly uncollectible from 1085. Annual tributes by the king’s Jewish subjects can be assumed to have been regular and also paid in specie.

The documents mention tolls, market taxes, and fines, but these were frequently alienated and perhaps uncollectible when not levied actually within fisc lands and therefore assimilated to regalian proprietary revenues. The crucial income was that which supported royal military activities, and after the parias were lost that meant the fossata, which was the actual service owed, or the fossataria, which was the payment made in lieu of it. None of these sources is novel.? On balance, then, if one may fairly say that Alfonso VI’s government

of the realm was largely traditional, there were particular areas in which his innovations were striking. These lay not so much in the realm of institutional change as in development, and above all in that sphere of personal or household government where even custom could not deny him the right to initiative. The latter are of course exemplified by his choice of foreign brides and the roles he assigned counts Raymond and Henry. The former are marked in the reconstruction of the church hierarchy and the elaboration of mints. All told they speak to a sovereign of great energy and an eye to the main chance. Pragmatic,

and obviously able to command great loyalty, he dreamed practical rather than theoretical dreams. Thus, it seems to me, the often repeated charge that he was “afrancesado” illustrates better the xenophobia of modern Spanish historians than the policy of the king. One has but to travel today the old pilgrim road of Santiago with even half an eye to its monuments to understand

that the French Romanesque style was flooding west along it in the eleventh century. But the choice of a master mason by an abbot, a bishop, or a dean operated in complete independence of royal prescription. It responded to local tastes if not necessarily popular ones. Nor were these bishops or abbots, for the most part, French clerics insinuated by royal favor. Archbishop Bernard’s famous protégés went

| to fill up the new bishoprics of the south: Osma, Toledo, Segovia, Sal-

: amanca, Braga. Burgos, Oviedo, Ledn, Santiago de Compostela,

: Lugo, Orense, and Tuy remained in the possession of native-born cler| ics. Najera and Palencia were exceptions to this dictum of course as, for : a little while, was Sahagun under Bernard between 1080 and 1085 and | » A somewhat more detailed survey of revenues is presented in my Leén-Castilla under Queen Urraca, pp. 260-77, for the reign immediately posterior. It needs to be extended both forward and backward. Garcia de Valdeavellano, Historia de las instituciones espariolas,

is an indispensable survey but it of necessity tends to present institutional arrangements as static within spans of 300 or 400 years.

376 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN perhaps Astorga under Osmundo. Even more clearly the nobility of the region remained massively native, and therc is virtually no detectable influx of French fighting men that would mirror the phenomenon in England after the Norman conquest of 1066. It was a native clergy and nobility, then, not simply the crown, that was opting for the new style and, one suspects, a new vision. The premier vehicles of this new vision were precisely Cluny and Rome. In an eagerness to reform the present the two had rediscovered St. Benedict and St. Peter. Thus they had supplied an engine of great power for their work of innovation which was to create a new monasticism in a new church. In that age, and perhaps in any age, the legitimization of change required that it be presented as former norm rather than present novelty. Cluny earlier than Rome had formulated its inspiration in a life and liturgy and organization of remarkable attractive power by the beginning of the eleventh century. When Fernando I sought to associate him-

self and his dynasty with Cluny he was but mirroring the actions of hundreds of other western Europeans of his epoch. When Alfonso VI continued and extended that relationship it was already traditional. His concession of several monasteries of the realm to Cluny has been presented as a practical solution to the problem of his inability to maintain the payment of the annual census pledged to the Burgundian house once the income from the parias began to dry up after 1086. It is also possible that the prospect of those cloisters and their considerable resources in the hands of monks more fully dependent on himself and independent of local magnates had its attraction as well. Additionally it is clear that the close relationship with the “black pope,” Abbot Hugh the Great, was of considerable advantage to Alfonso 1n his dealings with Rome. Nevertheless it would be foolish to regard the king simply as a Machiavellian before Machiavelli. If, like all kings, he was of ne-

cessity a politician first and foremost, still he would likely have regarded the renewal of the religious life of important monastic houses of his kingdom as a good in itself. '° His collaboration with Rome, for it can scarcely be regarded as any-

thing other, sprang from the same complex roots as his cooperation '© Defourneaux, Les francais en Espagne, is a useful, if aging, reference work. Bishko,

“Fernando I and the Origins of the Leonese-Castilian Alliance with Cluny,” has superseded it in what pertains particularly to Cluny. Monasticism in Leén-Castilla in the eleventh century still needs a serious student as do so many other subjects. José Mattoso, Le Monachisme ibérique et Cluny. Les Monastéres du diocese de Porto de l’an mille a 1200 (Lou-

vain, 1968), unfortunately has not inspired similar work on other diocese. Cocheril, Etudes sur le monachisme en Espagne et au Portugal, is a resumé of older scholarship.

ALFONSO VI OF LEON-CASTILLA: A MEDITATION 377

with Cluny. Here, however, there was no extant tradition. There is no reliable evidence of contact between Fernando I and the papacy, and Alfonso’s first encounters with the reform party there were marked by misunderstanding and potential conflict. Bishop Pelayo’s subsequent assertion that the initiative in the matter of the adoption of the Roman ritual was taken by Alfonso himself is not borne out by the documents. The latter indicate that Gregory VII's first interest in the peninsula and Leén-Castilla took the form of a claim to papal suzereignty there. That conception was entirely alien to the political tradition of the realm and was rejected and ignored, at least in the extant correspondence, by Alfonso VI. When the question of the substitution of the Roman for the Mozarabic liturgy subsequently arose the king was less concerned and willing to rely on the advice of Cluny in such a specialized matter. To the extent that the change did not seriously compromise his political objectives, he was willing to lend his

,| That powerful support to it. | process coincided with other more practical concerns of Al-

fonso, and latent conflict threatened in the years between 1076 and 1080. During that period the Leonese monarch nevertheless discovered that the newly asserted authority of Rome had greater and lesser concerns of its own and that bargains could be struck on something like a mutuality of interests. An eminently practical cooperation thus began which resulted in the spectacular but quite successful restructuring of the church in the north of the peninsula. In that complicated business the king seems almost always to have secured papal approbation for his selections to the episcopacy. We do not know what canonical proce-

dures were employed, and assuredly formal lay investiture was

| avoided. Nonetheless Alfonso usually had his way, and apparently complaints against him were ignored at Rome. Even more important, the hierarchy of the church in Leén-Castilla was adjusted to the royal needs and desires as when the see of Oca was

transferred to Burgos and the latter released from the jurisdiction of Tarragona or when the primate of Spain was made papal legate. The

| wishes of the king would seem also to have been respected when con, flicts arose between prelates in this increasingly complex ecclesiastical

| body.

| A concomitant to the partnership was the clear recognition of a reg| ular Roman authority in the life of the Leonese church, especially man| ifested in an appellate jurisdiction over disputes among its bishops but its bishops and monasteries within their dioceses as well. In light of the subsequent medieval overcentralization of ecclesiastical authority the latter seems especially ominous. But given the real circumstances of the

378 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN time, isolation, ignorance, and the reign of local idiosyncracy were the problems of mutual concern to royal and papal authority alike. So long as the latter operated with a due concern for his own cares and interests, Alfonso had every reason to regard its authority as not only benign but beneficent. As a result his realm was untroubled by the raging disputes that crippled Henry IV in the Germanies and seriously disturbed England under William I and his successors. Given the even greater potential for conflict that inhered in the vastly more complex reconstitution of the ecclesiastical structures in Ledn-Castilla, this policy of coordination with the reform papacy represented an instrument more apt for the purposes of both. Above all we should avoid reading the subsequent history of churchstate relations in the West back into the events of the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries. In the circumstances of the day the Leonese-

Castilian example demonstrates that the conflict between the monarchy and the papacy was neither necessary nor desirable. In its light the policy of the German emperors may appear, more than ever, as un-

realistic and archaic; that of the English kings, just stubbornly provincial. The more generous response of Alfonso VI was enlightened in view of the then best interests of his kingdom." This largeness of vision, together with a great energy and a practical shrewdness, are reflected in contemporary and near contemporary assessments of Alfonso. The monk of Sahagtn who was an eyewitness to at least the events of the later part of Alfonso’s reign spoke of him as “varon por cierto en las cosas belicosas mui noble guerrero, cn disponer bien su rreino proveido e discreto, en el juicio mui derecho, en los negocios seglares astuto e entendido, mas en las cosas eclesiasticas relig10so e piadoso, en ensalcar y magnificar su reino mui singular.” !? The same note is struck by another possible contemporary and monk of Sahagun, saying, “fuit magna vi et consilio et armis quod inter mortales vix invenitur.’'3 Slightly later and from the vantage point of the northwest of the peninsula one of the authors of the “Historia Compostelana” concurred as he wrote of Alfonso, “In regendis autem subditis, licet praepotentissimus esset, tantae discretionis, et sapientiac, et hu't For Alfonso’s purported early attitude in the question of the change of rites see Sanchez Alonso, ed., Crénica del Obispo Don Pelayo, p. 80. More detailed treatment can be found in Joseph F. O’Callaghan, “The Integration of Christian Spain into Europe,” and Gonzalvez, “The Persistence of the Mozarabic Liturgy in Toledo.” Many questions of relations between the papacy and Leén-Castile must wait on an edition of the papal bulls scattered in the ecclesiastical archives of its churches. '2 Puyol y Alonson, ed., “Las crénicas anénimas,” p. 114. The text seems to survive only in a sixteenth-century translation. 13 Pérez de Urbel and Gonzalez Ruiz-Zorilla, eds., Historia Silense, p. 119. The work was written within a decade of Alfonso’s death.

ALFONSO VI OF LEON-CASTILLA: A MEDITATION 379

militatis extitit, quantam si describere vellet humanum ingenium nequaquam posset.”''4 We may be moved to dismiss such estimates as the products of naiveté and sycophancy yet it is well to recall that all of them were written after Alfonso’s death and at a time when the crown was weak and the realm in some disarray. Truly, then, nostalgia may have played some part in the attitudes expressed, but in their essentials I find their judgment just, now that I have completed my own close study of his reign.

No one of them even considered passing from a consideration of Alfonso the king to a separate consideration of Alfonso the man. I am re-

luctant to do so myself for that process is hazardous and, to some extent, artificial. Clearly Alfonso possessed a remarkable physical constitution to have withstood the years of constant travel and the rigors of campaigning and yet survived to the ripe age of seventy-two. Just as remarkable was his unflagging steadfastness of purpose, but. did the latter derive from an exalted sense of duty or an overwhelming personal ambition? He could be ruthless, imprisoning his younger brother Garcia for life and exiling in turn the Cid and the companion of his youth, Pedro Anstrez. But does that calculated severity flow from personal vindictiveness and mean jealousy or rather from a clear conviction as to the political necessities of the realm? With respect to his relationship with his sister Urraca, his six wives, and his two concubines, shall we posit an almost

pathological uxoriousness or a devotion to the safety of the dynasty that halted before no extreme? The simple fact 1s that we have no information adequate to permit a decision in such matters. Inasmuch as Alfonso shared our own nature we may suspect that he was subject to the meaner motives as well as the nobler ones. The proportions of each remain a mystery. In any event what matters most is the public record. By any measure of it Alfonso VI of Leén-Castilla was a great king. If, like ourselves, he was able only imperfectly to master the living forces of his times or to foresee fully even the effects of his own actions, that is the human condition after all. If, like ourselves, he found himself old finally, afflicted by the premature death of his only son, unsure of the future of the work to which he had devoted all of the years of his mature life, that too 1s the human condition. Like ourselves he worked in the hope but never the certainty that what he effected would perdure. In the last analysis, then, the ultimate measure of the man 1s that he died at the age of seventy-two, in the city he had reconquered, still pursuing his dream. '4 ES 20:98.

o

BIBLIOGRAPHY

UNPUBLISHED SOURCES

Archivo Historico Nacional (AHN), Madrid. Seccién de Clero. ——. Seccidn de Céddices. Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid, Secci6n de Manuscritos. Estefania, Santiago, “Memorias para la vida de el Rey Don Alfonso primero de Castilla y sexto de Leén.” Real Academia de la Historia, Madrid, 1826. Real Academia de la Historia, Madrid. Coleccién de la Catedrales de Espana. ——. Coleccién de Salazar.

| Books

PUBLISHED SOURCES

Abd Allah. El siglo XI en 1° persona: Las “Memorias” de Abd Allah, ultimo Rey Zivi de Granada destronado por los Almordvides (1090). Translated by Evariste Lévi-Provencal and Emilio Garcia Gomez. Madrid, 1980. Aguadé, Santiago. Ganaderia y desarrollo agrario en Asturias durante la Edad Media, siglos IX—XIII. Barcelona, 1983. Al-Kardabus. “Kitab al-Iqtifa.” In al-Maqqari, The History of the Mohammedan Dynasties in Spain, translated by Pascual de Gayangos. Vol. 2, append. C, pp. xxii—xlvii. 1843. Reprint. New York, 1964. Al-Maqgari. The History of the Mohammedan Dynasties in Spain. Translated by Pascual de Gayangos. 2 vols. 1840-43. New York, 1964.

Alamo, Juan de, ed. Coleccién diplomdtica de San Salvador de Ona. 2 vols. Madrid, 1950. Almeida, Fortunato de. Histéria da Igreja em Portugal. New ed. Vol. 1. Oporto, 1967.

Alvarez Burgos, Fernando, Benedito, Vicente Ramon, and Pérez, Vicente Ra-

mon, eds. Catdlogo general de la moneda medieval hispano-cristiana desde el : siglo LX al XVI. Madrid, 1980. Amparo Valcarce, Maria. El dominio de la real colegiata de S. Isidoro de Le6n hasta 1189. Leén, 1985.

Arco y Garay, Ricardo del. “Pedro I de Aragon, el fiel amigo del Cid,” in EDRMP. Vol. 1, pp. 375-433. Madrid, 1950. Ashtor, Eliyahu. The Jews of Moslem Spain. Translated by Aaron Klein and Jenny Machlowitz Klein. 2 vols. 1966. Reprint. Philadelphia, 1973-79.

| 1958.

| Azevado, Rui Pinto de, ed. Documentos Medievais Portugueses. Vol. 1. Lisbon,

382 BIBLIOGRAPHY Baer, Yitzhak. A History of the Jews in Christian Spain. Translated by Louis Schoffman. 1929. Reprint. Philadelphia, 1961. Balparda y las Herrarias, Gregorio de. Historia critica de Vizcaya y de sus fueros. 2 vols. Madrid, 1924, and Bilbao, 1933-34. Barlow, Frank. William Rufus. Berkeley, 1983. Barrios Garcia, Angel. Estructuras agrarias y de poder en Castilla: El ejemplo de Avila (1085-1320). Salamanca, 1983.

———. “Toponomiastica e Historia. Notas sobre la despoblacién en la zona meridional del Duero.” In En la Espatia medieval. Vol. 2, pp. 115-34. Madrid, 1982. Becker, Alfons. Papst Urban IT. Stuttgart, 1964. Beeler, John. Warfare in Feudal Europe, 730-1200. Ithaca, 1971. Benito Ruano, Eloy, and Fernandez Conde, Francisco Javier. Historia de Asturias: Alta Edad Media. Vitoria, 1979. Berganza, Francisco de. Antigiiedades de Espana. 2 vols. Madrid, 1719-21. Biggs, Anselm Gordon. Diego Gelmirez, First Archbishop of Compostela. Wash-

ington, D.C., 1949. Bishko, Charles Julian. “E] Castellano, hombre de Ilanura.” In Homenaje a Jaime Vicens Vives. Vol. 1, pp. 201-18. Barcelona, 1965. ————. “Fernando I and the Origins of the Leonese-Castilian Alliance with Cluny.” In Studies in Medieval Spanish Frontier History, pp. 1-136. London,

1980. First pub. in Spanish in CHE 47~—48 (1968): 31-135, and 49-50 (1969): 5O-116.

———-. “The Peninsular Background of Latin American Cattle Ranching.” In Studies in Medieval Spanish Frontier History, pp. 491-515. London, 1980. ———.. Spanish and Portuguese Monastic History, 600-1300. London, 1984. ———.. Studies in Medieval Spanish Frontier History. London, 1980.

Bofarull y Mascar6, Prospero de. Historia de los condes de Urgel. Barcelona, 1853.

Boissonnade, Prosper. Du nouveau sur la Chanson de Roland. Paris, 1923.

Bonachia Hernando, Juan Antonio, and Pardos Martinez, Julio Antonio, eds. Catalogo documental del Archivo Municipal de Burgos: Seccion hist6rica, 9311515. 2 vols. Salamanca, 1983. Bosch Vila, Jacinto. Historia de Sevilla. Sevilla, 1984.

Brandao, Antonio. Crénica do Conde D. Henrique, D. Teresa, e Infante D. Alfonso. 1632. Reprint. Porto, 1944. Bruel, Alexandre, ed. Recueil des chartes de |’Abbaye de Cluny. 6 vols. Paris, 1876-1903. Buesa Conde, Domingo J. El Rey Sancho Ramirez. Zaragoza, 1978. Cabanes Pecourt, Maria Desamparados, ed. Cronica latina de los reyes de Castilla. Valencia, 1964. Cabero Diéguez, Valentin. Evolucion y estructura urbana de Astorga. Leon, 1973. Calvo, Aurelio. El monasterio de Gradefes. Leon, 1936. ———. San Pedro de Eslonza. Madrid, 1957.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 383 Campelo, José, ed. Historia Compostelana. Translated by Manuel Suarez. Santiago de Compostela, 1950. Cantera Burgos, Francisco, ed. Fuero de Miranda de Ebro. Madrid, 1945. Cantera Montenegro, Margarita. “Santa Maria la Real de Najera: Fundacion y primeros tiempos.” In En la Espatia Medieval. Vol. 2, pp. 253-73. Madrid, 1982.

Caspar, Erich, ed. Das Register Gregors VI. Berlin, 1955. Castro y Sueiro, Manuel, ed. “Documentos del Archivo Catedal de Orense.” BCM, Orense. 2 vols. Orense, 1922-23. Catalan, Diego, Del Alfonso X al conde de Barcelos. Madrid, 1962. “Charité-sur-Loire.” DHGE. Vol. 12, cols. 419-21. Paris, 1953. Chevier, Georges, and Chaume, Maurice, eds. Chartes et documents de Saint-Benigne de Dijon. Vol. 2. Dyon, 1943. Chifflet, Pierre Francois. Histoire de l’abbaye royale et de la ville de Tournus. Dijon, 1664. Cocheril, Maur. Etudes sur le monachisme en Espagne et au Portugal. Lisbon, 1966. Codera, Francisco. Decadencia y desaparicion de los Almordvides en Esparia. ZaragOzZa, 1899.

Contamine, Philippe. La guerre au Moyen Age. Paris, 1980. Costa, Avelino de Jesus da. O Bispo D. Pedro e a organizagdo da diocese de Braga. 2 vols. Coimbra, 1959. ———, ed. Liber Fidei Sanctae Bracarensis Ecclesiae. Braga, 1965. Cowdrey, H.E.J. The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform. Oxford, 1970. David, Picrre. Etudes historiques sur la Galice et le Portugal du VI et XII siécle. Paris, 1947.

Defourneaux, Marcelin. Les francais en Espagne aux XI et XI siécles. Paris, 1949.

Douais, Célestine, ed. Cartulaire de Abbaye de Saint-Sernin de Toulouse: 8441200. Paris, 1887. Douglas, David C. William the Conqueror. Berkeley, 1964. Dozy, Reinhart P. Historia de los Musulmanes de Esparia. Translated by Magda-

lena Fuentes. 4 vols. 1861. Reprint. Madrid, 1982. Duchesne, Louis, ed. Le Liber Pontificalis. 2 vols. 1886. Reprint. Paris, 1955. Duran Guidol, Antonio. La iglesia de Aragon durante los reinados de Sancho Ramirez y Pedro I: 1062-1104. Rome, 1962.

; ———, ed. Coleccion diplomdatica de la catedral de Huesca. Vol. 1. Zaragoza, 1965. Durany Castrillo, Mercedes. San Pedro de Montes: El dominio de un monasterio benedictino de el Bierzo, siglos LX al XIII. Leén, 1976.

, Dura Pena, Emilio. “Catalogo de documentos reales del archivo de la catedral de Orense, 844-1520.” In Misceldnea de textos medievales. Vol. 1, pp. 9-145. Barcelona, 1972. Erdmann, Carl. Das Papsttum und Portugal in ersten Jahrhundert der Portugiesischen Geschichte. Berlin, 1928. ———, ed. “Papsturkunden in Portugal.” In Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der

384 BIBLIOGRAPHY Wissenschaft zur Gottingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse. N.s. Vol. 20. Berlin, 1927. Escalona, Romualdo. Historia del real monasterio de Sahagin. 1782. Reprint. Leon, 1982. Estepa Diéz, Carlos. Estructura social de la ciudad de Leon, siglos XI-XIII. Leon, 1977.

Fernandez Alonso, Agapito, ed. Libro de las estampas. Leén, 1981. Fernandez Alonso, Benito. El pontificado gallego, su origen y vicisitudes, seguido de una cronica de los obispos de Orense. Orense, 1897.

Fernandez Catén, José Marfa, ed. Catdlogo del Archivo histérico Diocesano de Leon. Vol. 1. Leon, 1978. Fernandez Conde, Francisco Javier. La Iglesia de Asturias en la Alta Edad Media. Oviedo, 1972. ———. El Libro de Testamentos de la catedral de Oviedo. Rome, 1971. ———, ed. Historia de la Iglesia en Espana. Vol. 2. Madrid, 1982.

Fernandez Conde, Francisco Javier, Torrente Fernandez, Isabel, and Menéndez, Guadalupe de la Noval, eds. El monasterio de San Pelayo de Oviedo. Vol.

1. Oviedo, 1978. Fernandez de Madrid, Alonso. Silva Palentina. 3 vols. Palencia, 1932-42. Fernandez de Pulgar, Pedro. Historia secular y eclesidstica de la ciudad de Palencia.

2 vols. Madrid, 1679-80. Férotin, Marius, ed. Le Liber Ordinum. Paris, 1904. ——, ed. Recueil des chartes de |’Abbaye de Silos. Paris, 1897. Fletcher, Richard A. The Episcopate in the Kingdom of Leon in the Twelfth Century. Oxford, 1978. ——. Saint James’ Catapult: The Life and Times of Diego Gelmirez of Santiago de Compostela. Oxford, 1984. Fliche, Augustin. Le Régne de Philippe Ier, Roi de France. Geneva, 1975. Flérez, Enrique, Espana Sagrada. Vols. 1-27. Madrid, 1747-72. ——. Memorias de las reinas catélicas de Espana. 2 vols. 1761. Reprint. Madrid, 1964.

——. ed. “Annales Compostellani.” In ES. Vol. 23, pp. 318-25. Madrid, 1765.

———, ed. “Chronicon Burgense.” In ES. Vol. 23, pp. 306-11. Madrid, 176s.

——., ed. “Chronicon Compostellanum.” In ES. Vol. 20, pp. 608-13. Madrid, 1765.

——., ed. “Historia Compostelana.” In ES. Vol. 20, pp. 1-598. Madrid, 1760S.

Floriano Cumbreno, Antonio C. Estudios de historia de Asturias. Oviedo, 1962. ———., ed. El Libro Registro de Corias. 2 vols. Oviedo, 1950. Floriano Llorente, Pedro, ed. Coleccién diplomdtica del monasterio de San Vicente de Oviedo. Oviedo, 1968. Galindo Romeo, Pascual. Try en la Baja Edad Media. Madrid, 1950. Gams, Pius Bonifacius. Die Kirchengeschichte von Spanien. 3 vols. Regensburg, 1874-76.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 385 Garcia Alvarez, Manuel Rubén. Galicia y los Gallegos en la Alta Edad Media, 2 vols. Santiago de Compostela, 1975. Garcia Calles, Luisa. Dofia Sancha, hermana del Emperador. Leon, 1972. Garcia de Cortazar y Ruiz de Aguirre, José Angel. El dominio del monasterio de San Millan de La Cogolla, siglos X a XIII. Salamanca, 1969. ———. Historia de Esparia Alfaguara. Vol. 2: La época medieval. Madrid, 1973. Garcia de Valdeavellano, Luis. Historia de Esparia. 2d ed. Vol. 1. Madrid, 1955. ———. Historia de las instituciones espariolas. Madrid, 1968. ———. Origenes de la burguesia en la Espana medieval. Madrid, 1969.

Garcia Gallo, Alfonso. “El imperio medieval espanol.” In Historia de Espana, edited by Florentino Pérez Embid, pp. 108-43. Madrid, 1953. Garcia Garcia, Marfa Elida. San Juan Bautista de Corias. Oviedo, 1980. Garcia Larragueta, Santos. “Un documento original e inédito de Pedro I.” In Homenaje a Don José Esteban Uranga, pp. 47-56. Pamplona, 1971. ————., ed. Coleccién de documentos de la catedral de Oviedo. Oviedo, 1962.

Garcia Lujan, José Antonio, ed. Privilegios reales de la catedral de Toledo, 10861462. 2 vols. Toledo, 1982. Garcia Sainz de Baranda, Julian. La ciudad de Burgos y su concejo en la Edad Media.

. 2 vols. Burgos, 1967.

Garcia Villada, Zacarias. Historia eclesidstica de Esparia. Vol. 3. Madrid, 1936. Gautier Dalché, Jean. Historia urbana de Leon y Castilla en la Edad Media, siglos IX—XIII. Madrid, 1979. Gayangos, Pascual de, trans. The History of the Mohammedan Dynasties in Spain.

2 vols. 1840-43. Reprint. New York, 1964. Glick, Thomas F. Islamic and Christian Spain in the Early Middle Ages. Princeton, 1979.

Goncalves da Costa, Manuel. Histéria do bispado e cidade de Lamego. Vol. 1. Lamego, 1977 Gonzaga de Azevedo, Luiz. Histéria de Portugal. Vol. 3. Lisbon, 1940.

| Gonzalez, Julio. El reino de Castilla en la época de Alfonso VIII. 2 vols. Madrid, 1960.

——. Repoblacion de Castilla la Nueva. 2 vols. Madrid, 1975-76. Gonzalez Garcia, Manuel. Salamanca: La repoblacién y la ciudad en la Baja Edad Media. Salamanca, 1973. Gonzalvez, Ramon. “The Persistence of the Mozarabic Liturgy in Toledo after A.D. 1080.” In Santiago, St.-Denis, and Saint Peter, pp. 157-86. New York,

, 1985.

Guérard, Martin, ed. Cartulaire de l’Abbaye de Saint-Victor de Marseille. 2 vols. Paris, 1857.

, Hernandez, Francisco J., ed. Los cartularios de Toledo. Madrid, 1985. Hill, John H., and Hill, Laurita L. Raymond IV de Saint-Gilles. Toulouse, 1959. Hinojosa, Eduardo de, ed. Documentos para la historia de las instituciones de Leon y de Castilla. Madrid, 1919. Huici Miranda, Ambrosio. Las grandes batallas de la Reconquista durante las invasiones africanas. Madrid, 1956.

386 BIBLIOGRAPHY Huici Miranda, Ambrosio. Historia musulmana de Valencia y su regidén. 3 vols. Valencia, 1969-70. —_—., ed. Coleccidn de crénicas drabes de la reconquista. 4 vols. Tetuan, 1955. ——.,, ed. Las crénicas latinas de la Reconquista. Valencia, 1913. Hunt, Noreen. Cluny under St. Hugh, 1049-1109. Notre Dame, 1968. Ibn-Idari, Al-Bayan-al-mugrib. Translated by Ambrosio Huici Miranda. ValenCla, 1963.

Jiménez de Rada, Rodrigo. “De rebus Hispaniae,” in Opera, edited by Maria Desamparados Cabanes Pecourt. Vol. 1, pp. 5-208. Valencia, 1968. Kehr, Paul, ed. “Papsturkunden in Spanien, I: Katalonien.” In Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft zur Géttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse. N.t. Vol. 18. Berlin, 1926. ————, ed. “Papsturkunden in Spanien, II: Navarra und Aragon.” In Ahandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft zur Gottingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse. N.f. Vol. 22. Berlin, 1928. Lacarra, José Maria. Historta del reitto de Navarra enla Edad Media, Pamplona, 1975.

——. Vida de Alfonso el Batallador. Zaragoza, 1971. ———., ed. Coleccién diplomdtica de Irache. Zaragoza, 1965.

Lacarra, José Maria, and Martin Duque, Angel, eds. Fueros de Navarra. Vol. 1. Pamplona, 1975. Lacarra, Maria Eugenia. El poema de mio Cid: Realidad histérica e ideologia. Madrid, 1980. Leighton, Albert C. Transport and Communication in Early Medieval Europe, A.D. 500-1100. New York, 1972. Lévi-Provencal, Evariste. Islam d’Occident. Paris, 1948. Linage Conde, Antonio. “En torno a la Sepulveda de Fray Justo.” In Homenaje a Fray Justo Pérez de Urbel. Vol. 1, pp. 1-79. Silos, 1976. Lomax, Derek. The Reconquest of Spain. London, 1978. Loperraez Corvalan, Juan. Descripcién histérica del obispado de Osma. 3 vols. Madrid, 1788. Lépez Ferreiro, Antonio. Historia de la Santa Apostolica Metropolitana Iglesia de Santiago de Compstela. 11 vols. Santiago de Compostela, 1898-1911. ————.. “Ojeada sobre el estado de los monasterios de Galicia a fines del siglo XI y principios del siguiente.” In Galicia histérica. Vol. 1, pp. 45-58. Santiago de Compostela, 1901-1903. Lopez Pelaez, Antolin. El senorio temporal de los obispos de Lugo. 2 vols. La Coruna, 1897.

Lucas de Tuy. “Chronicon Mundi ab Origine Mundi usque ad Eram

1971. :

MCCLXXIV.” In Hispaniae Illustratae, edited by Andreas Schottus. Vol. 4, pp. 1-116. Frankfurt, 1608.

Mansilla, Demetrio. La curia romana y el reino de Castilla en un momento decisivo de su historia, 1061-1085. Burgos, 1944. ———, ed. Catdlogo documental del archivo catedral de Burgos, 804-1416. Madrid,

BIBLIOGRAPHY 387 ———, ed. La documentacién pontificia hasta Inocencio III, 965-1216. Rome, 1955.

Manueco Villalobos, Manuel, and Zurita Nieto, José, eds. Documentos de la iglesia colegial de Santa Maria la Mayor de Valladolid. 2 vols. Valladolid, 19171920.

Map, Walter. De Nugis Curialium. Translated by Frederick Tupper and Marbury Bladen Ogle. London, 1924.

| Maravall, José Antonio. “El concepto de monarquia en la Edad Media espanola.” In Estudios de historia del pensamiento espanola. Vol. 1, pp. 69-89. Madrid, 1973. ————. “E] pensamiento politica de la Alta Edad Media.” In Estudios de historia del pensamiento espanola. Vol. 1, pp. 35-66. Madrid, 1973.

Marazuela, Maria Teresa de la Pena, and Leén Tello, Pilar, eds. Archivo de los Duques de Frias. Madrid, 1955. Marca, Pierre de. Historia de Béarn. Edited by V. Dubarat. 1640. Reprint. Pau, 1894.

Paris, 1614. ,

Marrier, Martin, and Quercetanus, Andreas, eds. Bibliotheca Cluniacensis. Martin, José Luis. Origertes de la Orden militar de Santiago. Barcelona, 1974.

| ———. La peninsula en la Edad Media. Barcelona, 1976. Martin, José Luis, Villar Garcia, Luis Miguel, Marcos Rodriguez, Florencio, and Sanchez Rodriguez, Marciano, eds. Documentos de los archivos catedralicio y diocesano de Salamanca, siglos XIJI~XII]. Salamanca, 1977. Martinez Diez, Gonzalo. Alava medieval. 2 vols. Vitoria, 1974. Mattoso, José. Le Monachisme ibérique et Cluny. Les Monastéres du diocése de Porto de l’an mille a 1200. Louvain, 1968. ———. A nobreza medieval portuguesa. Lisbon, 1981. Menéndez Pidal, Ramon. La Espana del Cid. 4th ed. 2 vols. Madrid, 1947. ———. Historia y epopeya. Madrid, 1934.

| ———. El imperio hispdnico y los cinco reinos. Madrid, 1950. ——. Origenes del Espanol. sth ed. Madrid, 1964. ———., ed. Documentos lingtitsticos de Espana. Vol. 1. Madrid, 1966.

———, ed. “Historia Roderici.” In La Espana del Cid. 4th ed. Vol. 2, pp. 9o1I67. Madrid, 1947. ——, ed. Primera cronica general de Espatia. 2 vols. Madrid, 1955. Merino, Andrés. Escuela paleografica. Madrid, 1780.

; Miranda Calvo, José. La reconquista de Toledo por Alfonso VI. Toledo, 1980. Morales, Ambrosio de. Viaje a los reinos de Leon, y Galicia, y principado de Asturias. Edited by Enrique Flérez. 1765. Reprint. Oviedo, 1977. Moret, Joseph de. Annales del reyno de Navarra. Vol. 2. 1766. Reprint. Bilbao, 1969.

Moreta Velayos, Salustiano. El monasterio de San Pedro de Cardena. Salamanca, 1971.

Mox6, Salvador de. Repoblacién y sociedad en la Espatia cristiana medieval. Madrid, 1979.

f

388 BIBLIOGRAPHY Munoz y Rivero, Jesus. Manual de paleografia diplomdtica espanola de los siglos XII

al XVII. 2d ed. Madrid, 1917. Munoz y Romero, Tomas, ed. Coleccion de fueros municipales y cartas pueblas. Madrid, 1847. Murguia, Manuel. Galicia. Barcelona, 1888. Nieto Cumplido, Manuel. Historia de Cordoba. Cérdoba, 1984. O’Callaghan, Joseph F. A History of Medieval Spain. Ithaca, 1975. ——. “The Integration of Christian Spain into Europe: The Role of Alfonso VI of Leén-Castile.” In Santiago, St.-Denis and Saint Peter, pp. 101-20. New York, 1985. Oceja Gonzalo, Isabel, ed. Documentacion del monasterio de San Salvador de Ona, 1032-1284. Burgos, 1983. Odo of Deuil. De Profectione Ludovici VII in Orientem. Edited and translated by

Virginia Gingerick Berry. New York, 1948. Oliveira Marques, A. H. de. History of Portugal. Vol. 1. New York, 1972. Ordericus Vitalis. The Ecclesiastical History. Edited and translated by Marjorie Chibnall. 6 vols. Oxford, 1969-80. Pallares Méndez, Maria del Carmen, and Portela Silva, Ermelindo. El bajo valle del Mino en los siglos XII y XIII. Santiago de Compostela, 1971. Pena Pérez, F. Javier, ed. Documentacion del monasterio de San Juan de Burgos, 1091-1400. Burgos, 1983. Peres, Damiao. Como nasceu Portugal. 6th ed. Porto, 1967. Pérez Avellaneda, Marino. Cerezo de Rio Tirén. Madrid, 1983. Pérez de Urbel, Justo. El condado de Castilla. 2d ed. 3 vols. Madrid, 1969. ————. Los monyes espanolas en la Edad Media. Vol. 2. Madrid, 1934. ———-. Sancho el Mayor de Navarra. Madrid, 1950.

Pérez de Urbel, Justo, and Arco y Garay, Ricardo Del. Historia de Espana. Vol. 6: Espana cristiana, 711-1038, Madrid, 1956. Pérez de Urbel, Justo, and Gonzalez Ruiz-Zorrilla, Atulano, eds. Historia Silense. Madrid, 1959. Petit, Ernest. Histoire des Ducs de Bourgogne. Vol. 1. Dijon, 1885. Portugaliae Monumenta Historica, Diplomata et Chartae. Lisbon, 1867. Portugaliae Monumenta Historica, Scriptores. Lisbon, 1856 Prieto y Vives, Antonio. Los reyes de taifas. Madrid, 1926. Procter, Evelyn S. Curia and Cortes in Leon and Castile, 1072-1295. Cambridge, 1980.

Puyol y Alonso, Julio. El abadengo de Sahagun. Madrid, 1915. Quintana Prieto, Augusto. El obispado de Astorga en el siglo XI. Astorga, 1977. ———, ed. Tumbo viejo de San Pedro de Montes. Leén, 1971. Reig, Carola. El cantar de Sancho II y cerco de Zamora. Madrid, 1947. Reilly, Bernard F. The Kingdom of Leén-Castilla under Queen Urraca, 1109-1126. Princeton, 1982.

———. “The Chancery of Alfonso VI of Leén-Castile, 1065-1109.” In Santiago, St.-Denis, and Saint Peter, pp. 1-40. New York, 1985. ———., ed. Santiago, St.-Denis, and Saint Peter. New York, 1985.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 389 Reynolds, Roger E. “The Ordination Rite in Medieval Spain: Hispanic, Roman, and Hybrid.” In Santiago, St.-Denis, and Saint Peter, pp. 131-56. New York, 1985. Richard, Alfred. Histoire des comtes de Poitou. Vol. 1. Paris, 1903. Richard, Jean. Les Ducs de Bourgogne et la formation du duché du XI au XIV‘ siécle. Paris, 1954. Risco, Manuel. Historia de la ciudad y corte de Leon y de sus reyes. 2 vols. Madrid,

, 1792.

———. Iglesia de Leén. 1792. Reprint. Leén, 1978. Rivera Recio, Juan Francisco. El arzobispo de Toledo Don Bernardo de Cluny. Rome, 1962.

———. Los arzobispos de Toledo desde sus origenes hasta fines del siglo XI. Toledo, 1973. ———. La Iglesia de Toledo en el siglo XII. Rome, 1966. Rodriguez, Raimundo, ed. Catdlogo de documentos del monasterio de Santa Maria de Otero de las Duenas. Leén, 1948. Rodriguez de Lama, Ildefonso, ed. Coleccién diplomdtica medieval de la Rioja: Documentos, 923-1168. Vol. 2. Logrono, 1976.

Rodriguez Fernandez, Justiniano. La juderia de la ciudad de Leén. Leon, 1969.

: ———. Las juderias de la provincia de Leén. Leén, 1976. ———. Palencia: Panordmica foral de la provincia. Palencia, 1981. ———.. Pedro Anstirez. Leon, 1966. Rodriguez Lépez, Pedro. Episcopologio asturicense. 2 vols. Astorga, 1907. Rosell, Francisco M., ed. Liber Feudorum Maior. Barcelona, 1945. Rubio, Luis, ed. Documentos del Pilar. Zaragoza, 1971. Russell, Josiah Cox. Medieval Regions and Their Cities. Bloomington, 1972. ———. Twelfth Century Studies. New York, 1978. Sabekow, Gerhard. Die pdpstlichen legationen nach Spanien und Portugal bis zum Ausgang des XII Jahrhunderts. Berlin, 1931.

: S4ez, Emilio, ed. Coleccién diplomatica de Seprilveda. Segovia, 1956. Sdez, Emilio, Gibert, Rafael, Alvar, Manuel, and Gonzalez Ruiz-Zorilla, Atilano. Los fueros de Sepulveda. Segovia, 1953. Sagredo Fernandez, Félix. Briviesca antigua y medieval. 2d ed. Madrid, 1979. Sainz Ripa, Eliseo, ed. Coleccién diplomatica de las colegiatas de Albelda y Logrono, 924-1399. Vol. 1. Logrono, 1981. Salazar y Castro, Luis. Historia genealdgica de la Casa de Haro. Edited by Dalmiro de la Valgoma y Diaz-Varela. Madrid, 1959.

' Sanchez-Albornoz, Claudio. Despoblacion y repoblacion del valle del Duero. Buenos Aires, 1966. ———. Estudios sobre las instituciones medievales espatiolas. Mexico City, 1965. ————. “Falsificaciones de Cardena.” In Miscelanea de estudios histéricos; Fuentes y estudios de historia leonesa. Vol. 3, pp. 467-75. Ledén, 1970.

———. “La primitiva organizacién monetaria de Leén y Castilla. In Viejos y nuevos estudios sobre las instituciones medievales espafiolas, pp. 887-928. 2d ed.

Madrid, 1976.

390 BIBLIOGRAPHY Sanchez-Albornoz, Claudio. Sobre la libertad humana en el reino asturleonés hace mil anos. Madrid, 1976. ———. “La sucesi6n al trono en los reinos de Le6én y Castilla.” In Viejos y nuevos estudios sobre las instituciones medievales espanolas. 2d ed. Vol. 2, pp. 1107-

72. Madrid, 1976. Sanchez Alonso, Benito, ed. Cronica del Obispo Don Pelayo. Madrid, 1924. Sanchez Belda, Luis, ed. Cartulario de Santo Toribio de Liébana. Madrid, 1948. ———. Documentos reales de la Edad Media referentes a Galicia. Madrid, 1953.

Sanchez Candeira, Alfonso. El “Regnum-Imperium” leonés hasta 1037. Madrid, 19$1.

Sandoval, Prudencio de. Antigtiedades de la ciudad y iglesia catedral de Tuy. 1610.

Reprint. Barcelona, 1974. ———.. Historia de los reyes de Castilla y de Leon. Pamplona, 1634. Santifaller, Leo, ed. Quellen und Forschungen zum Urkunden- und Kanzleiwesen Papst Gregor VII. Rome, 1957. Santos Coco, Francisco, ed. Historia Silense. Madrid, 1921. Sarothandy, J. “La légende de Roncesvaux.” In Homenaje ofrecido a Menéndez Pi-

dal. Vol. 2, pp. 259-84. Madrid, 1925. Schramm, Percy Ernst. “Das kastilische Ko6nig- und Kaisertum wahrend der Reconquista.” In Festschrift fiir Gerhard Ritter, pp. 87-139. Tubingen, 1950. Seg], Peter. Konigtum und Klosterreform in Spanien. Kallmunz, 1974. Serrano, Luciano. El obispado de Burgos y Castilla primitiva desde el siglo Val XIII. 3 vols. Madrid, 1935. ———. El Real Monasterio de Santo Domingo de Silos. Burgos, 1926. ————., ed. Becerro gético de Carderia. Madrid, 1910.

———, ed. Cartulario de San Milldn de La Cogolla. Madrid, 1930. ———. ed. Cartulario de San Pedro de Arlanza. Madrid, 1925. ———, ed. Cartulario de San Vicente de Oviedo, 781-1200. Madrid, 1929. ———, ed. Cartulario del infantado de Covarrubias. Madrid, 1907. ———., ed. Cartulario de monasterio de Vega con documentos de San Pelayo y Vega de Oviedo. Madrid, 1927. ——., ed. Coleccién diplomdtica de San Salvador de El Moral. Madrid, 1906. Serrao, Joaquim Verissimo. Histéria de Portugal. 3d ed. Vol. 1. Lisbon, 1979. Servatius, Carlo. Paschalis II, 1099-1118. Stuttgart, 1979.

Shailor, Barbara A. “The Scriptorium of San Sahagun: A Period of Transition.” In Santiago, St.-Denis, and Saint Peter, pp. 41-62. New York, 1985. Soldevila, Ferran, ed. Historia dels Catalans. 3 vols. Barcelona, 1964.

Sousa Soares, Torquato de. “Reflexoes a volta da segunda reconquista de Coimbra aos Mouros.” In Homenaje a Fray Justo Pérez de Urbel. Vol. 1, pp. 183-95. Silos, 1976. Suarez de Alarcén, Antonio. Relaciones genealdgicas de la casa de los Marqueses de Trocifal. Madrid, 1656. Tapia Garrido, José Angel. Historia general de Almeria y su provincia. 3 vols. Almeria, 1976-78. Terron, Albarran, Manuel. El sélar de los Aftdsidas. Badajoz, 1971.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 391 Turk, Afif. El reino de Zaragoza en el siglo XI de Cristo, V de la hégira. Madrid, 1978.

Ubieto Arteta, Agustin. “Aproximacién al estudio del nacimiento de la nobleza aragonesa (siglos XI y XII): Aspectos genealégicos.” In Homenaje a Don José Maria Lacarra de Miguel en su jubilacion del profesorado. Vol. 2, pp.

7-54. Zaragoza, 1977.

. Ubieto Arteta, Antonio. El ‘Cantar de mio Cid’ y algunos problemas histéricas. Valencia, 1973.

———. “La division de Navarra en 1076.” In Homenaje a Don José Esteban Uranga, pp. 17-28. Pamplona, 1971. ———. Historia de Aragon. Zaragoza, 1981. ——, ed. Cartulario de Albelda. Valencia, 1960. ————, ed. Cartulario de Santa Cruz de la Serés. Valencia, 1966.

——., ed. Coleccidn diplomatica de Pedro I de Aragén y Navarra, Zaragoza, 19SI. ———., ed. Crénica de San Juan de la Pefia. Valencia, 1961. ———., ed. Cronica Najerense. Valencia, 1966. Vaamonde Lores, Cesar, ed. Coleccién de documentos histéricos. Vol. 1. La Co-

| runa, IQIS.

Vajay, Szabolcs de. “Ramire le moine et Agnés de Poitou.” In Mélanges offerts a René Crozet. Vol. 2, pp. 727-50. Poitiers, 1966. Vazquez de Parga, Luis, Lacarra, José Maria, and Uria Riu, Juan. Las peregri-

naciones a Santiago de Compostela. 3 vols. Madrid, 1948-49. | Vigil, Ciriaco Miguel. Asturias monumental, epigrdfica, y diplomdtica. 2 vols. Oviedo, 1887. Vignau, Vicente, ed. Cartulario del monasterio de Eslonza. Madrid, 1885.

, ———, ed. Indice de los documentos del monasterio de Sahagin. Madrid, 1874.

: “Vita Beati Simonis.” In PL. Vol. 156, cols. 1211-24. | “Vita Sancti Geraldi.” In PMH, Scriptores, pp. 53-59. Vones, Ludwig. Die ‘Historia Compostelana’ und die Kirchenpolitik des nordwestspanischen Raumes. Cologne, 1980. Wasserstein, David. The Rise and Fall of the Party Kings. Princeton, 1985. Whitehill, Walter Muir. Spanish Romanesque Architecture of the Eleventh Century. 1941. Reprint. Oxford, 1968.

Wilham of Malmesbury. “Gesta Regum Anglorum.” In PL. Vol. 179, cols. 959-1392.

‘ William of Poitiers. “Gesta Willelmi.” In PL. Vol. 149, cols. 1217-83. Yepes, Antonio de. Corénica general de la Orden de San Benito. 7 vols. Irache and Valladolid, 1609-21.

Zaragoza Pascual, Ernesto, ed. “Catalogo del fondo monastico leonés del archivo de Silos.” In Leon y su historia. Vol. 3, pp. 263-91. Leén, 1975. Periodicals

Almeida, Fernandes, A. de. “Portugal no Periodo Vimarense.” Revista de Guimardes 82 (1972): 37-90 and 171-220.

392 BIBLIOGRAPHY Andrés, Alfonso. “Monasterio de San Juan de Burgos.” BRAH 71 (1917): 11736.

Arias, Maximinos. “Un abadologio inédito del monasterio de Samos.” AL 22 (1968): 207-72.

———. “E] monasterio de Samos durante los siglos XI y XII.” AL 37 (1983): 7-81. ———. “Los monasterios de benedictinos en Galicia.” SM 8 (1966): 35-70. Azevado, Rui Pinto de. “Observacoes de diplomatica.” RPH 12 (1969): 125-83. Bachrach, Bernard. “The Angevin Strategy of Castle Building in the Reign of Fulk Nerra, 987-1040.” AHR 88 (1983): 533-60. Barrero Garcia, Ana Maria. “Los fueros de Sahagtin.” AHDE 42 (1972): 385$97.

Barrilaro Ruas, Henrique. “A data do desastre de Vatalandi.” RPH 4 (1949): 361-73.

Bishko, Charles Julian. “The Cluniac Priories of Galicia and Portugal: Their Acquisition and Administration.” SM 7 (1965): 305-56, reprinted in his Spanish and Portuguese Monastic History, 600-1300, pp. 305~358A. London, 1984.

———. “Count Henrique of Portugal, Cluny, and the Antecedents of the Pacto Sucessério.” RPH 13 (1970): 155-88, reprinted in his Spanish and Portuguese Monastic History, 600-1300, pp. 155-190A. London, 1984. Buyjanda, Fernando. “Archivo catedral de Calahorra.” Berceo 27 (1965): 417-78.

Cabanes Catala, Maria Luisa. “Un documento en escritura visig6tica en el archivo de Valencia.” AL 35 (1981): 193-99. Canal Sanchez-Pagin, José M. “:Croénica Silense o Crénica Domnis Sanctis?”’ CHE 63-64 (1980): 94-103

——. “La Infanta Dona Elvira, hija de Alfonso VI y de Gimena Munoz a la luz de los diplomas.” Al 33 (1979): 271-87. Carro Garcia, Jesus. “La escritura de concordia entre Don Diego Pelaez, obispo de Santiago, y San Fagildo, abad del monasterio de Antealtares,” CEG 4 (1949): I11-22.

Cordero Carrete, F. R. “De los esponsales de una hiya de Guillermo el Conquistador con un rey de Galicia.” CEG 7 (1952): $§5-78. David, Pierre. “La pacte succesoral entre Raymond de Galice et Henri de Portugal.” BH 50 (1948): 275-90.

——. “Regula Sancti Augustini, 4 propos d’une fausse chartre de fondation du chapitre de Coimbre.” RPH 3 (1947): 27-39. Duran Guidol, Antonio. “La Santa Sede y los obispados de Huesca y Roda en la primera mitad del siglo XII.” AA 13 (1965): 35-134.

Engels, Odilo. “Papsttum, Reconquista und spanisches Landeskonzil im Hochmittelalter.” AHC 1 (1969): 37-49 and 241-87. Ewald, Paul. “Acht papstliche Privilegien.” NA 2 (1877): 220-21. ———.. “Die Papstbriefe der Brittischen Sammlung.” NA 5 (1880): 277-414. ————. “Riese nach Spanien im Winter von 1878 auf 1879.” NA 6 (1881): 214392.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 393 Feige, Peter. “Die Anfange des portugiesischen K6nigtums und seiner Landeskirche.” GAKS 29 (1978): 85-352. Fernandez Caton, José Maria. “Documentos leoneses en escritura visig6tica.” AL 27 (1973): 203-26. Fernandez de Viana, José I. “Los dos primeros documentos del monasterio de San Salvador de Chantada.” Compostellanum 13 (1968): 339-52.

Férotin, Marius. “Une lettre inédite de S. Hughes abbé de Cluny 4 Bernard d’Agen, archevéque de Toledo.” Bibliothéque de l’Ecole des Chartes 61 (1900): 339-45, and 63 (1903): 682-86. Fita, Fidel, “Bula inédita de Urbano II, 25 Abril, 1093.” Brah 5 (1884): 97-103. ———. “Bulas inéditas de Urbano II.” BRAH 24 (1894): $47-53.

———. “El concilio nacional de Burgos en 1080. Nuevas ilustraciones.”

| BRAH 49 (1906): 337-84. ———. “El concilio nacional de Palencia en el ano 1100 y el de Gerona en 1101.” BRAH 24 (1894): 215-35. ———. “Concilios nacionales de Carrién en 1103 y Leén en 1107.” BRAH 24 (1894): 299-342. ———. “E] monasterio toledano de San Servando en la segunda mitad del siglo XI. Estudio critcio.” BRAH 49 (1906): 280-331. ———. “San Miguel de Escalada. Inscripciones y documentos.” BRAH 31 (1897): 466~S15.

———. “Sobre un texto de Arzobispo Don Rodrigo.” BRAH 4 (1884): 36688.

———. “Texto correcto del concilio de Husillos.” BRAH 51 (1907): 410-13. Floriano Llorente, Pedro. “El fondo antiguo de pergaminos del Instituto ‘Valencia de Don Juan’: Documentos reales; primera serie (Afio 875—1224).”

| BRAH 168 (1971): 441-513.

Gago, Elias, and Diaz-Jiménez, Juan Eloy. “Los restos mortales de Alfonso VI

| y de sus cuatro mujeres.” BRAH 58 (1911): 36-55. Garcia Alvarez, Manuel Rubén. “Catalogo de documentos reales de la Alta Edad Media referentes a Galicia, 714-1109.” Compostellanum 8 (1963): 30375, 589-650; 9 (1964): 639-77; 10 (1965): 257-328; and 11 (1966): 257-340.

———. “E] diploma de restauracién de la sede de Tuy por la Infanta Urraca. Dos problemas que se aclaran.” CEG 17 (1962): 275-92. Garcia-Gallo, Alfonso. “Los fueros de Toledo.” AHDE 45 (1975): 341-488. Garcia Gomez, Emilio, and Menéndez Pidal, Ramon. “El conde mozarabe Sis-

, nando.” Al-Andalus 12 (1947): 27-41.

Goni Gaztambide, José. “Los obispos de Pamplona del siglo XII.” AA 13 (1965): 135-358. Gonzalez, José. “El monasterio de San Martin de Pereda.” AL 10 (1955): §—IS. Gonzalez, Julio. “Aportacién de fueros castellano-leoneses.”” AHDE 16 (1945): 625-54. ———. “La Extremadura castellana al mediar el siglo XIII.” Hispania 34 (1974): 265-424.

394 BIBLIOGRAPHY Gonzalez, Julio. “Repoblacién de la ‘Extremadura’ leonesa.” Hispania 3 (1943): 195-273. Gonzalez Ruiz-Zorrilla, Atilano. “Sobre la restauraci6n de la didcesis de Braga en 1070.” HS 10 (1957): 431-42. Grassotti, Hilda. “Apostillas a ‘el prestimonio’ de Valdeavellano.” CHE 29-30 (1959): 167-217. ——. “La ira regia en Leon y Castilla.” CHE 41-42 (1965): 5-135. Huici Miranda, Ambrosio. “Los Banu Hud de Zaragoza, Alfonso I el Batallador y los Almoravides.” EEMCA 7 (1962): 7-32.

Jaeger, C. Stephen. “The Courtier Bishop in ‘Vitae’ from the Tenth to the Twelfth Century.” Speculum 58 (1983): 291-325. Kehr, Paul. “s;Coémo y cuando se hizo Aragoén feudatario de la Santa Sede?” EEMCA 1 (1945): 285-326. ———. “E] papado y los reinos de Navarra y Aragén hasta mediados del siglo XII.” EEMCA 2 (1946): 74-186. Kofman, Lydia C., and Carzolio, Maria Inés. “Acerca la demografia astur-leonesa y castellana en la Alta Edad Media.” CHE 47-48 (1968): 136-70. Lacarra, José Maria, ed. “Documentos para la reconquista del valle del Ebro.” EEMCA 2 (1946): 469-574; 3 (1947-48): 499-727; and § (1952): 511-668. Levi-Provengal, Evariste, and Menéndez Pidal, Ramon. “Alfonso VI y su hermana la Infanta Urraca.” Al-Andalus 13 (1948): 157-66. Linage Conde, Antonio. “La donacién de Alfonso VI a Silos del futuro priorato de San Frutos y el problema de la despoblacion.” AHDE 41 (1971): 973IOMI.

Lomax, Derek W. “La fecha de la Cronica Najerense,” AEM 9 (1974-79): 405— 406.

Lucas Alvarez, Manuel, ed. “La coleccién diplomatica del monasterio de San Lorenzo de Caboeiro.” Compostellanum 3 (1958): 29-116, and 179-270. ———., ed. “Libro Becerro del monasterio de Valbanera.” EEMCA 4 (1951): 451-647.

Mackay, Angus, and Benaboud, Muhammad. “The Authenticity of Alfonso VI’s Letter of Yusuf b. Tastifin.” Al-Andalus 43 (1978): 231-37.

———. “Alfonso VI of Leén and Castile, ‘Al-Imbratur-dhu-l-Millatayn.’ ” BHS 56 (1979): 95-102. ———. “Yet Again Alfonso VI, ‘the Emperor, Lord of [the Adherents of] the

Two Faiths, the Most Excellent Ruler’: A Rejoinder to Norman Roth.” BHS 61 (1984): 171-81. Manaricua, Andrés E. Provision de obispos en la Alta Edad Media espanola.” Estudios de Deusto 14 (1966): 61-92.

Martin Postigo, Maria de la Soterrana. “Jonacién del lugar de San Frutos por Alfonso VI a Silos: Reconstitucién del privilegio por las fuentes. Estudio diplomatico.” Estudios Segovianos 22 (1970): 333-96.

Martinez, Marcos G. “Regesta de Don Pelayo, obispo de Oviedo.” BIEA 18 (1964): 211-48. Martinez, Salvador. “Tres leyendas heroicas de la Ndjerense y sus relaciones con

BIBLIOGRAPHY 395 la épica castellana.” Aruario de Letras de la Facultad de Filosofia y Letras de la Universidad de México 9 (1971): 115-77.

Monreal, Gregorio. “El senorio de Vizcaya.” AHDE 44 (1973): 113-206. Montero Diaz, Santiago, ed. “La coleccién diplomatica de San Martin de Jubia.” Boletin de la Universidad de Snatiago de Compostela 7 (1935): I-159.

Mox6, Salvador de. “De la nobleza vieja a la nobleza nueva.” CH 3 (1969): I210.

Nesbitt, John W. “The Rate of March of Crusading Armies in Europe.” Traditio 19 (1963): 167-81.

Northrup, George Tyler. “The Imprisonment of King Garcia.” Modern Philology 17 (1919): 391-413.

Palomeque Torres, Antonio. “Contribucién al estudio del ejército en los estados de la Reconquista.” AHDE 15 (1944): 205-351. Pradalié, Gérard. “Les faux de la cathédrale et la crise 4 C6imbre au début du XII* siécle.” Mélanges de la Casa de Velazquez 10 (1974): 77-98.

Prieto Prieto, Alfonso. “El Conde Frucla Munoz, un asturiano del siglo XI.” Asturiensia medievalia 2 (1975): 11-37.

, ———.. “Documentos referentes al orden judicial del monasterio de Sahagtin.” AHDE 45 (1975): 489-541.

Puyol y Alonso, Julio, ed. “Las crénicas anénimas de Sahagtn.” BRAH 76 (1920): 7-26, 111-22, 242-57, 339-56, 395-419, and 512-19; 77 (1921): §1$9, and I$ 1-92. Quintana Prieto, Augusto. “Jimena Muniz, madre de Dona Teresa de Portugal.” RPH 12 (1969): 223-80. Ramos y Loscertales, José Maria. “La sucesi6n del Rey Alfonso VI.” AHDE 13 (1936-41): 36-99. Reilly, Bernard F. “The ‘Historia Compostelana’: The Genesis and Composition of a Twelfth-Century Spanish ‘Gesta.’ ” Speculum 44 (1969): 78-85.

| ———. “Sources of the Fourth Book of Lucas of Tuy’s “Chronicon Mundi.’ ”

| Classical Folia 30 (1976): 127-37.

Rodriguez de Lama, Ildefonso, ed. “Coleccién diplomatica riojana.” Berceo 11 (1956): 99-108, 223-31, 355-62; 12 (1957): 105-11, 233-52, 355-66; 15 (1960): 221-33, 347-54; 16 (1961): 99-108, 235-42, 363-69, and SoI—508.

Roth, Norman. “Again Alfonso VI, ‘Imbaratur dhu’l-Millatayn,’ and Some New Data,” BHS 61 (1984): 165-69. Sagredo Fernandez, Félix. “Los condes de Bureba en la documentacion de la segunda mitad del siglo XI.” CH 6 (1975): 91-119.

Sanchez-Albornoz, Claudio. “Muchas paginas mas sobre las Behetrias.” AHDE 4 (1927): §-157.

Serrano, Luciano. “Los Armildez de Toledo y el monasterio de Tértoles.” BRAH 103 (1933): 69-141. Serrano Redonnet, Jorge. “Ovetensis monete.” CHE 1-2 (1944): 156-89. Serrano y Sanz, Manuel, ed. “Cartulario de la Iglesia de Santa Maria del Puerto (Santona).” BRAH 73 (1918): 420-42; 74 (1919): 19-34, 224-42, 439-553 75 (1919): 323-48; 76 (1920): 257-63, and 80 (1922): 523-27.

396 BIBLIOGRAPHY Serrano y Sanz, Manuel, ed. “Documentos del moansterio de Celanova, 975 a 1164.” Revista de ciencias juridicas y sociales 12 (1929): 5-47 and 515-24.

Simon y Nieto, Francisco. “El monasterio de San Salvador de Nogal.” BRAH 35 (1899): 187-210.

Slaughter, John E. “De nuevo sobre la batalla de Uclés.” AEM 9 (1974-79): 393-404. ——_——.. “Sobre la fecha de la muerta del Conde Raimundo de Galicia.” AEM 13 (1983): 93-106. Somerville, Robert. “The Council of Clermont (1095) and Latin Christian Society.” AHP 12 (1974): $5—90.

Sousa Soares, Torquato de. “O governo de Portugal pelo Conde Henrique de Borgonha: Sus relagoes com as monarquias Leonesa-Castelhana e Aragonesa.” RPH 14 (1974): 365-97. Ubieto Arteta, Antonio. “Un ataque Aragonés a Zaragoza en 1089?” EEMCA 10 (1975): 679-88. ———. “El destierro del obispo compostelano Diego Pelaez en Aragén.” CEG § (1951): 43-S1.

——. “Episcopologio de Alava: Siglos IX~XI.” HS 6 (1953): 37-55. ———. “La ‘Historia Roderici’ y su fecha de redacci6n.” Saitabi 11 (1961): 24146.

——. “Homenaje de Aragon a Castilla por el condado de Navarra.” EEMCA 3 (1947-48): 7-28.

———. “Navarra-Aragén y la idea imperial de Alfonso VII de Castilla.” EEMCA 6 (1956): 41-82. Zaragoza Pascual, Ernesto. “Un abadalogio inédito de Samos del siglo X VII.” SM 22 (1980): 307-43.

INDEX

Abd Allah ibn-Fatima, 311-312 Ali ibn-Yusuf, 311, 323, 326, 348, 350Abd Allah, king of Granada, xvi, 83-84, 351, 361, 363 127-128, 135, 177, 186, 189, 210, 213, al-Kardabus, xvi, 177

221 al-Mamun, II, 12, 58, 68, 83-84, 86,

Abd al-Malik, king of Valencia, 12 117-118, 120 Abd al-Malik, son of Almanzor, 9 Almanzor, 6, 7, 22

Abd al-Malik, son of al-Mustain, 311 al-Maqaari, xvi, 163, 177, 185 Abu Bakr, 86-87, 130, 162, 169, 171, 176, |Almazan, 285, 290-291

178 Almenar, 164, 242

Aceca, 312 Almeria, 177, 186, 223 Aderico, bishop of Tuy, 26n, 29, 75 Almodovar del Campo, 163-164, 174

Adulfo, abbot, 25 Almodovar del Rio, 223

Agatha, 47-48 al-Mundir, 164, 168, 176, 186, 201, 228

agnitio, 52, 78, 82, 219n, 28gn, 306, 310, al-Mugtadir, I1, 12, 39, 44, 47, 80, 87,

320n, 324, 346 130, 163-165

Aguero, 166 al-Mustain, 176, 178, 180, 186, 201-202, Aguilar, 229 228, 232, 242, 283, 286, 292, 295, 301, Alava, 91, 133, 354, 372 30S, 311, 317 Alba de Tormes, 127 al-Mutamid, 84, 120, 125, 131, 163-164, Albacete, 174 166, 174, 177, 186, 202, 210, 213, 222Alberta, wife of Alfonso vi, 46-48 223, 234-235

Alcira, 234 178

Alcala de Henares, 12, 349, 361 al-Mutamin, 164-166, 168-169, I71, 177—-

Alcocer, 162 al-Mutawakkil, 125-127, 132, 186, 213,

Alcoraz, 283 235, 238-239, 242

Aledo, 177, 201-203, 205, 210, 233 al-Muzaffar, 165

Alexander II, 96 Alpenes, 304

Alexius Comnenus, 305 al-Qadir, 86-87, 118, 125, 127-130, 134, Alfonso 1, king of Aragon, 303, 319, 323- 163, 166, 170-174, 176, 182, 186, 228,

324, 332, 352, 356-358, 362-363 234

Alfonso v, 6, 7 Alquézar, 179-180

Alfonso vil, xii, Xlil, 66, 137, 184, 333, al-Tamin, 221

338, 342-343, 346, 357 Alvar Diaz, 36, 224, 227, 275, 278, 281,

Alfonso x, 159 285, 331, 355

Alfonso, bishop of Tay, 267~269, 300 Alvar Diaz, alférez of Alfonso vI, 331 Alfonso Enriquez I, 184, 333, 359 Alvar Fanez, 176, 181, 188, 204, 223, 278,

Alfonso Martinez, 77 285, 287, 293-294, 349-350 Alfonso Nunez, count, $5 Alvar Garcia, 226 Alfonso Ramirez, 27 Alvar Salvad6rez, 37 Alfonso Ramirez, royal notary, I11n, 137 Alvaro Gonzalez, 71, 144

Alfonso Téllez, 289, 330 Alvaro Rodriguez, 19

Algeciras, 180, 186, 201, 220 Alvaro Salvad6érez, 90

398 INDEX Alvito, bishop of Le6én, 17n, 19 [IO-II1, 114-115, 147-148; archbishop

Amadeus of Olor6én, 102 of Toledo, 175, 180, 182-183, I[90-I91, Amor, bishop of Lugo, 263, 268 200, 205-208, 212, 214, 215, 219, 225-

Annaio, 17n 226, 243, 245-247, 253-254, 255n, 260-

Antonio, Nunez, 71 266, 271-274, 280, 285, 288n, 289, 293Aranda de Duero, 3 294, 300-301, 310, 313N, 314, 329-330,

Aranjuez, 351 334-337, 339, 343, 347, 359-360, 372, Arca Santa, 85 375 Arévalo, 123-124, 170, 229, 307 Bernard, bishop of Palencia, 32, 48-49,

Arguedas, 168 $3-54, §8, 140-142, 147, 167-168, 169, Arias Cromaz, bishop of Oviedo, 76, 79, 175, 180

85, 98, 241n, 242n Berta, wife of Alfonso v1, 247-250, 253,

Arias Diaz, scribe, §8n 257, 279, 295-297, 328 Arias Gonzalez, 67 Berta, wife of Pedro 1, 283-284

Arlanza, 19, 35, 44, 46, 285 Blasio, abbot of San Millan, 313n Armentario, Velasquez, 62 Braga: archbishopric, 272-273, 300, 329,

Assur Diaz, $4 334, 371, 374; bishopric, 22, 26, 31, 61, Astorga, bishopric, 16, 26, $3, 59, 75, 69, 72, 75, 84, 86, 94, 98, 113, 196n, 142-143, 169, 272-273, 321, 376 214, 226, 236-238, 258, 262-263, 26s5—

Astorga, city, Xl, 139, 152 266

Atapuerca, 8 Buitrago, 255-256

Atienza, 129, 291 Burgos, bishopric, xil, 82, 85, 87n, 94,

Audearde, 106 y8, 108n, 113, 122, 169, [ggn, 209, 261, Auderico, bishop of Tuy, 214n, 267 264, 272, 274, 299, 347-348, 371, 375, Avila, 35, 94, 117, 123, 170, 221, 308— 377

309, 312-313, 342 Burgos, city, xl, 6, §0, 152, 314, 317

Ayerbe, 166 Burriana, 176 Azurara, 359n

Caceres, 188

Badajoz, taifa, 9, 12, 13, 15, §8—59, L17- Cadiz, xii, 135 118, 128, 173-174, 183, 186, 223, 234- Calahorra, 90, 131, 256

235, 242-244 Calasanz, 291-292, 295

Baeza, 202 Calatanazor, 349-350 Balaguer, 320-321, 323 Calatayud, 162

Barbastro, 11, 12, 39, 80, 282, 291, 295, Calatrava, 174, 222

301, 304 Calixtus i, 273, 342

Barcelona, xi “Camino de Santiago,” xu, 87, 138 Beatrice, wife of Alfonso v1, 345-346 Canales, 134, 170, 174

Belinchén, 350-351 Cantuarias, 128, 134, 170, 174 Belite Garediz, 17n Cardena, 19, 35, 71, 78, 87, 100, I1S,

Bellilos, 83 143, 199-200, 209, 217N, 218, 220n, Belmonte, 287 285 Belorado, 88 Carmona, 223 Berenguer, archbishop of Tarragona, 264 Caroline script, xii, 17n, 87n, 218, 288n Berenguer, bishop of Barcelona, 304 Carrion de los Condes, §4, 138, 229, 313,

Berenguer Ramon I, 7 329, 334

Berenguer Ramon tl, 164, 228, 232-233 Castrojeriz, §7, 70n, 85—86, 118, 310 Berlanga, 10 Cea, $5 Bernard: abbot of Sahagun, xiii, xvin, Celanova, 61

INDEX 399 cens, 95, 148, 211-212, 219, 252, 376 Diego, abbot of Sahagiin, 200, 310

Centulle Iv, 215 Diego, bishop of Astorga, 17n

Ceuta, 163, 166 Diego, bishop of Orense, 254, 268-269, chancery, 136-137 300 Cid, the. See Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar Diego, count of Oviedo, 131 Cidellus. See Joseph Ferrizuel Diego Alvarez, 19, 36, 71, 90, 131, 144

Ciudad Real, 174 Diego Anstrez, $5, 133, 139 Clement II, 96 Diego Fernandez, 317n, 330-332

Clement ur. See Guibert of Ravenna Diego Gelmirez, 216, 244, 250, 254, 267,

Clermont, 253, 262-263, 267 269-270, 272, 277, 289, 300-301, 306, Cluny, x11, 78, 80, 94-95, 113-114, 126, 310N, 336-337, 341-342, 351-352, 356,

132, 160, 195, 211-213, 219, 246-248, 358 296-297, 320, 331n, 358, 376-377 Diego Gonzilez, 71, 144

Coca, 123, 307 Diego Peldez, bishop of Santiago de Coimbra, 10, 12, 22, 23, 69, 85, 144-145, Compostela, 30, 90, 195-196, 199, 147, 173, 198, 235-240, 244, 246, 248- 206-208, 214, 218, 224, 245-246, 269,

250, 329, 360, 363, 371-372 271-272, 283, 292, 295

comitatum, 249 Diego Rodriguez, 86n, 287 Constance, wife of Alfonso vi, 107-112, Diego Sanchez, 354-355 115, 126, 137, 142n, 146-147, 167, 169, Diego Vimarez, 31 182, 192-194, 200, 235, 240-241, 248, Domingo Pérez, 56 251, 279, 327-328, 333, 343-344

Constantim de Panoias, 255 Ebles of Roucy, 80-81, 97

Consuegra, 287-294 Ederono, bishop of Orense, 190 Cérdoba, city, x11, 135 Ejea de los Caballeros, 323 Cordoba, faifa, 13, 83-84, 118, 120, 125 El Castellar, 227 Coria, 125-127, 181, 189, 255, 276, 308 Elizabeth, wife of Alfonso vi, 271n, 296—

Coyanza, 94 298, 299n, 314, 325, 333, 339, 345

Cresconio, bishop of Coimbra, 191n, Elvira, daughter of Alfonso vi, by Eliza-

238-240, 270 beth, 318, 333, 339

Cresconio, bishop of Santiago de Com- Elvira, daughter of Alfonso vi, by Jimena

postela, 22, 23, 24, 25n, 26, 53 Munoz, 14n, 192-193, 246 Cuart de Poblet, 244-245, 270, 294 Elvira, sister of Alfonso vi, 14, 20, 25, 29,

Cuéllar, 123, 202, 229, 306-307 30, 40, $2, $7, 59-60, 61n, 64, 70, 72, Cuenca, 125, 128, 174, 176, 286 78, 81n, 82-85, 100, 137, 150, 169, 196,

Cullera, 310 199, 268, 274, 275n, 279, 284, 289-290, curia regis, 19, 53-57, 69-71, 75-78, II, 328, 334n, 370 136-160, 163, 168-170, 175, 190-191, Elvira Velasquez, countess, 25 198-200, 217-220, 225-227, 240-241, Ermegildo Rodriguez, 226, 275, 281 250, 274-281, 292-293, 299-301, 313- Ermengol II, 324 314, 322, 324-325, 330-334, 342-343, Ermengol IV, 215

362-363 Ermengol v, 311, 319

Ermengol v1, 319, 323-324, 331

Dalmacio, bishop of Santiago de Com- Ermesinda Garcia, 89 postela, 246, 248, 250, 262, 267, 269 Ero Armentarez, 313

Dalmacio Geret, 251, 252n Eslonza, 64, 78n, 275n

Daroca, 228 Estada, 198

Denia, 125, 223, 234 Estadilla, 227

Despenaperros, 220 Estella, 91, 122, 215, 312, 317

400 INDEX Eudes 1 Borel, duke of Burgundy, 107, Garcia Aznarez, bishop of Burgos, 266,

IOI, 194-195 274, 280, 293, 299n, 336 Garcia Fernandez, 353

Fagildo, abbot, 25 Garcia Garcia, 3§4n

Fan Fanez, 71 Garcia Jiménez, 131

Fath al-Mamun, 222, 234 Garcia Munoz, 23-24, 27, 41, 43, 226

Fernan Gonzalez, 7 Garcia Ord6énez, 18n, 36-37, 71, 76, 83,

Fernan Pérez, 285 89, 131-133, 138-139, 145, 147, 162,

Fernando I, x11, 7, 9-16, 18-24, 32-34, 224, 227-228, 240, 278, 281, 283, 285,

37-39, 45, 50, 57-59, 71-72, 75, 77, 331, 349n, 353, 355 78n, 83n, 93-94, 96, 98, 104, 116-117, Garcia Osorez, 17, 18n 137-138, 172, 211, 213, 236, 370-371, Garcia Sanchez mm, king, 8, 41, 47

376-377 Garcia Sanchez, count of Castilla, 7 Fernando, abbot of Sahagtin, 60n, 63-65, Genoa, 231-232, 247, 373

7§ Gerald: archbishop of Braga, 300, 321, gundy, 277 265-266, 270, 273-274

Fernando, alférez of Raymond of Bur- 329, 343, 359, 360n; bishop of Braga, Fernando Diaz, 140, 147, 278, 281, 305, Gerald of Ostia, 97

354, 359 Gerald, prior of La Charité-sur-Loire,

Fernando Fernandez, count, 56, 63, 65, 77 296-297

Fernando Garcia, 248 Gerona, 288n, 289 Fernando Lainez, 77, 85, 87n, 138, 145- Gil de Zamora, 74

147, 230, 371 Golpeyjera, 49~-51, 62, 64

Fernando Menéndez, 236n Gomez, bishop of Burgos, 143, 175, 200, Fernando Munoz, 275, 281, 298n, 330 239n, 253n, 261-262, 264, 266, 280

Fernando Pérez, 41, 43 Gomez Diaz, alférez of Fernando 1, 18n Fernando Rodriguez, 19, $7 Gomez Gonzalez, 198n, 242n, 275, 281,

Fernando Vermiudez, 61 284n, 331, 356-358

Flaino Oriolez, 41 Gomez Martinez, 354 fossata, 204, 220n, 375 359n, 360

Fortun Sanchez, 131 Gongalvo Paies, bishop of Coimbra,

fossataria, 168, 204, 301, 375 Gonzalo, abbot of Sahagtn, 58 Froila, bishop of Oviedo, 30, 58n Gonzalo, bishop of Mondonedo, 29, 30-

Froila, count, 25n 31, §8, 60, 214n, 256, 268, 334

Froila Arais, 61, 69 Gonzalo, son of Sancho el Mayor, 8 Froila Diaz, 227, 250, 253, 258, 277-278, Gonzalo Alfénsez, 55, 76n

281 Gonzalo Alvarez, 19, 71

Frotard of Saint-Pons de Thomiéres, 102 Gonzalo Anstrez, $6n, 60n, 332 fuero, 7on, 82, 90, 119, 124, 131, 173, 239, Gonzalo Diaz, 69, 76 250n, 253, 2§5, 276-277, 292-293, 305, Gonzalo Nunez, 227, 278, 281, 283, 285 310, 312, 314, 321-322, 347Nn, 359n, Gonzalo SalvadG6rez, 37, 70-71, 77, 90,

373 139, 164-165

Grajal, 276, 341

Garcia 1, 14-15, 20-21, 23-34, 41, 47-50, Granada, taifa, 13, 83-84, 118, 125, 177, 52, 57, $9-63, 67, 69, 72, 74-75, 78, 94, 213, 221, 228 98, I13n, 117, 146, 95-197, 217-219, Graus, 37, 47, 166, 168

226, 236, 247-248, 379 Gregory VII, 80-82, 97-100, 102-103, Garcia, bishop of Burgos, 239n, 306 106, [O8—-I10, I12—-I13, 11S, 123, 137,

Garcia, bishop of Jaca, 91, 179-180 141, 147-148, 160, 192, 206-207, 211, Garcia Alvarez, 224, 289, 331n, 354Nn, 355 225, 265

INDEX 401 Gregory VIII, 359-360 Irache, 215

Guadalajara, 290-291 Iria Flavia. See Santiago de Compostela Gudesteo, bishop of Santiago de Com- Iscar, 123, 306 postela, 24-26, 60

Guibert of Ravenna, 207, 225, 238, 260 Jativa, 234

Guillaume le Charpentier, 191 Jerome of Perigord: bishop of Avila, Sala-

Guimaraes, 255, 316 manca, and Zamora, 309n, 312-314, Guiptizcoa, 91, 133 320-321, 329, 343; bishop of Valencia,

Guter Alfénsez, 19, 56 270-271

Gutierre Egarédiz, 17n Jimena, wife of the Cid, 87n, 131, 294 Guy of Vienne. See Calixtus 1 Jimena Munoz, $3, 193, 254 Jimeno, bishop of Leén, 19, 20

Hellin, 203 Jimeno: bishop of Burgos, 82, 87, 97, 99—Henry 1, king of England, 156-157 100, 103, 112, 143, 165n; bishop of

Henry 1, king of England, 156 Oca, 19, 32, 43, 65, 70, 75, 78 Henry Iv, emperor, 93, 100, 102, 147, Jimeno Lépez, 36, 131

260, 378 Jorge, bishop of Tuy, 26n, 27, 30

Henry of Burgundy, 194, 247, 251-255, Joseph Ferrizuel, 356 2§7-258, 262, 268, 270, 277-278, 280, Juan, abbot of Ona, 200 282, 284-285, 288, 292, 296-297, 299, Juan, bishop of Coimbra, 237 305-306, 310, 312-318, 320-322, 324, Juan Alfénsez, 196n, 199 327-329, 333-334, 337-340, 343-344, Juan Baldemirez, 137, 151, 175

346, 352, 359-361, 363, 370-371 Juan Ramirez, 276

Hildebert of Le Mans, 64 Julian, abbot of Sahagun, 75, 106, 112n

Hita, 291 Julian, bishop of Coimbra, 237

hospedaje, 128, 156

Huermeces, 10 La Charité-sur-Loire, 296 Huesca, 164, 179, 243, 282-284, 286, 292, Lain Nunez, 38

301, 304, 323, 362 Lamego, 10, 26, 31, 61, 75, 94, 236-237, Huet, 125, 351 329 Hugh 1, duke of Burgundy, 106-107, 122, Leon, bishopric, xii, 16, 26, 29, 30, $3,

I6I, 179 $7, 75, 113, 140, 263, 272, 290, 292,

Hugh, abbot of Cluny, 64, 80, 93, 9s, 297, 300, 335, 371, 374-375

IOI—103, 107-109, I61, 207, 212, 219, Leon, city, x1, 3, 6, 8, 49-50, $8, 63, 69,

246-248, 251-252, 297, 328, 336-337, 79, 81, 1§2, 159

346, 376 Leoén, council, 217-220, 224, 235, 260, Hugh the White, 96-97 342-343, 348

261 320, 323

Husillos, 198-200, 206, 212, 238n, 245, Lérida, 164, 176, 210, 228, 242, 257, 311, Liber Pontificalis, 208

ibn-Bassam, 163, 167, 182n Liébana, 229

ibn-Rashigq, 202 Lisbon, 235, 238-239, 244-245, 248

ibn-Shalib, 163 Llantada, 97

imperial title, 83n, 103-104, 137, 341 Llantadilla, 43, $9 Inés, wife of Alfonso vi, 79, 81-82, 90, Logrono, 250n, 374 10§—-107, IOQ-110, 121In, 137, 145, 192—- Lop Jiménez, 90, 131, 133, 162, 228, 354

193 Lop Sanchez, 131, 354-355

Inés, wife of Pedrol, 105n, 107, 161-162, Louis vi, king of France, 297

241, 283 Lucius Sisnandez, 86

infantaticum, 249, 280 Lugo, 16, 22, 26, 31, 61, 69, 75, 113, 152,

402 INDEX Lugo (cont.) Muno, bishop of Burgos, 49 200, 263, 313, 322, 348, 374-375 Muno, bishop of Calahorra, go, 144,

Luna, 72, 146, 195 16$n

Muno, bishop of Castilla, 97, 99-100, 115

Madrid, 352 Muno Alf6nsez, count, $5

Magan, 362 Muno Alvarez, 19 Malagon, 299 Muno Gonzalez, 37, 70, 77, 139-140, mandatum, 278n 145, I§1 Maqueda, 170, 221 Muno Menéndez, 27

Maria Pelaez, 214 Muno Munoz, 193

Maria Rodriguez, 292 Muno Rodriguez, count, 25 Martin, bishop of Coimbra, 199, 237 Muno Velasquez, 62 Martin, bishop of Oviedo, 241, 255, 266, Muno Veniegaz, 24

269n, 274, 284, 330n Murabits, 167, 180-181, 183-184, 209,

Martin Alfénsez, 30, 55, 69, 139, 167, 215, 233-234, 257, 284-288, 291, 293-

175, 221, 227, 306 295, 297-299, 301-302, 306, 308-313,

Martin Lainez, 229-230, 278, 281, 331, 315-316, 322-323, 325-326, 340, 344,

354-355 348-351, 357, 361-363, 370

Martin Munoz, 237, 238n, 239-240 Murcia, taifa, 125, 177, 202, 223 Martin Sanchez, 90

Maurice: archbishop of Braga, 359-360; Najera, 14, 64, 77, 88-90, 97, 372, 375

bishop of Coimbra, 270, 329, 343 Nimes, 264-265

Mazdali, 306, 309-311 Nivar, 177

Medina del Campo, 123, 306 Nuno, notary of Raymond of Burgundy, Medinaceli, 129-130, 162, 291, 315-316, 277 318, 326, 335, 340, 344, 352, 367 Nuno Alvarez, 38

Melgar de Arriba, $5 Nuno Mitez, 77 Melgar de Fermental, 36, 43

Mérida, 174 377

Menendo Gonzalez, 22 Oca, bishopric, 16, 26, 35, 41, 98, 264,

mesnada, 204-205 Olmedo, 123, 229, 306 Miranda del Ebro, 37, 45, 292-293 Ona, 8, 19, 35, 36, 39n, 40, 45, 49, 65, Moissac, 265 88-89, 96, 103, 122, 164, 232, 246, 285, Mollerusa, 311 299, 314, 317, 324, 329-330

Mondego, 10 Oporto, 3, 16, 22-23, 26-27 Mondonedo, 16, 26, $8, 61, 69, 75, 197n, Ordericus Vitalis, 47-48

263, 277, 313 Ordonol, 3, 161

| Monreal del Campo, 162 Ordono, bishop of Astorga, 65 Montearagon, 179 Ordono, bishop of Orense, 30

Montemor, 249, 277 Ordono Alvarez, 275, 281, 299n, 331

Monzon, 215, 227 Ordono Ord6nez, 17, 37, 71, 138-139 Monz6on de Campos, $4, 324-325, 340 Ordono Pelaez, 18

Morella, 168 Orense, 26, 31, 61, 69, 75, 78, 86, 98,

Mozcarabic liturgy, x11, 81, 96-102, 105— 196n, 263, 321, 375

106, 108-109, 114, 183, I9I, 377 Ortigueira, 201 Mozarabs, 6, 94, 172-174, 244-245, 256- Osma, 199, 261-262, 264, 274, 328-329,

257, 270, 305, 322, 326 347-348, 372, 375

Muhammed ibn-Aisa, 233-234, 242, 287 Osmundo, bishop of Astorga, 142-143,

Muhammed ibn-Alhay, 287 175, 266, 267n, 280, 293n, 376 Mumadona Gudestéiz, 48-49 Oviedo, bishopric, xili, 16, 26, $7, 85,

INDEX 4.03 113, 152, 263, 272, 300, 322, 335, 339, 226, 275, 281, 284n, 354n

371, 374-375 Pedro Gutiérrez, 301In

Pedro Moréllez, 76, 85, 138

Paio Peres, 360 Pedro Miifioz, notary of Raymond of Palencia, archbishopric, 113, 140-141, Burgundy, 276

147, 167-168 Pedro Munoz, son of Muno Alfénsez,

Palencia, bishopric, 16, 26, $3, 75, 140, 55-56

219, 298-299, 374-375 Pedro Ovéquez, 151 Palencia, city, 15, 35 Pedro Peldez, count, 18, 24, 56, 69, 77, Palencia, council, 273, 299-301 139, 145-146, 285

Palenzuela, 35-36, 82 Pedro Sarracinez, 332 Pamplona, 14, 273, 297-298 Pedro Viméraz, 216

Pancorvo, 37 Pedrosa, 27

parias, 12, 13, 39, 81, 84, 86, 118, 178, Pelayo, bishop of Astorga, 266, 293n, 313 186, 201-202, 205, 210-213, 224, 228, Pelayo, bishop of Leén, 23n, 30, 32, 48232-233, 257, 282, 295, 311, 317, 374- 50, 53, 58, 63, 79, 83, 98, 143, 168

375 Pelayo, bishop of Oviedo, xv, 14, 20, 43,

Paschal 11, 216, 260, 272-273, 295, 300- 50, 65, 79, 98, IOL, 123, 234, 247, 254, 301, 304, 319, 329, 335-337; 347-348, 269, 296, 307, 317-318, 330, 335, 339,

356, 359-360 345, 374, 377

Pascual, 11, 172 Pelayo Cidiz, 24, 62 Paterno, bishop of Coimbra, 144, 199, Pelayo Eriguez, 320 237 Pelayo Fernandez, alférez of Fernando 1, Pedro I, 105n, 107, 161-162, 179, 181, 18n

192, 21$, 240, 242-243, 245-246, 282- Pelayo Miifoz, 55-56 284, 286-287, 291-292, 295, 301-305, Pelayo Rodriguez, 331

312, 317, 319, 323-324 Pelayo Vellidez, 138

Pedro, bishop of Astorga, $3, 58, 142, Penafiel, 3, 124

145-147 Penaranda de Duero, 3

Pedro, bishop of Braga, 26n, 30, I1In, Peter of Aix, 200 [13n, 218-219, 225, 237-238, 266 Peter of Rodez, bishop of Pamplona,

Pedro, bishop of Lamego, 30 298-299

Pedro, bishop of Leon, 143, 280, 335, 341 Philip 1, king of France, 157, 260, 37!

Pedro, bishop of Lugo, 268-269 Piacenza, 261-262 Pedro, bishop of Najera, 191n, 266 Piérnigas, 39n Pedro, bishop of Orense, 214n, 268 Pisa, 231-232, 247, 373 | Pedro, bishop of Osma, 329 Pons, bishop of Barbastro, 304 Pedro, bishop of Palencia, 347 Portugal, county, 251-252, 257-258, 276Pedro, bishop of Santiago de Compo- 278, 284-285

stela, 199-201, 206-208, 214 Puente la Reina, 215

Pedro Alvarez, 285, 310 Pedro Ansurez, $4, $6, 65-69, 74, 77; 83,

gO, 138-139, 167, 175, 210, 213, 217, Rainier, cardinal, 216, 218 221, 227, 229, 240, 250, 278, 281, 285, Ramiro I, 8, 11, 47 306-308, 317, 319-321, 323-324, 330- Ramiro Garcia, 89, 132, 165

335, 357, 303, 371, 379 Ramon Berenguer I, 11 Pedro Froilaz, 255, 341 Ramon Berenguer III, 301-302, 320

Pedro Gonzalez, 58n Ram6n Garcia, 89

Pedro Gonzalez, alférez of Fernando !, 18 Raymond Iv, count of Toulouse, 192-

Pedro Gonzalez, count of Lara, 18, $8n, 194, 246

404 INDEX Raymond, bishop of Palencia, 142, 169, San Antolin de Toques, 25, 121, 269 175, 280, 299-300, 317, 332, 347 San Esteban de Gormaz, 10, 128, 130,

Raymond Dalmatius, 179 IQIl, 291

Raymond of Burgundy, 194, 196, 217, San Frutos, 118 219, 224, 228, 238-239, 242, 244-258, San Isidoro de Duenas, 78, 80, 87, 95,

262-263, 267-270, 275-280, 282, 284- 320, 33In 285, 288-290, 292, 296-297, 299, 305, San Isidoro de Leén, 13, I4n, 19, 94, 213,

310, 312-314, 316-322, 324-325, 327- 292, 339 328, 331, 333-334, 337-343, 345, 347, San Juan de Corias, 76, 79n, 139

370-371 San Juan de Hérmedes de Cerrato, 95

Ribarredonda, 176 San Juan de Poyo, 320

Richard of Marseille, 101, 103, 105-108, San Lorenzo de Carboerio, 84, 254, 267 IIO—-112, 146-147, 198-200, 206, 208, San Mamed, 341

300-301, 304 San Martin de Espiunca, 347

Robert, abbot of Sahaguin, 106-110, San Martin de Pinario, 25, 61, 201

I12n, 146-147 San Millan de La Cogolla, 35, 40, 44, 70,

Robert Guiscard, 47, 93 82, 88-89, 97, 99, 122n, 126, 132, 165,

Roda, 304 176-177, 194, 203, 223, 243, 290, 299, Rodrigo, prior of Braga, 239-240 313n, 324, 346, 354, 37!

Rodrigo Alvarez, 38 San Payo de Antealtares, 25, 61, 121, 269, Rodrigo Diaz, count, 140, 147 277, 289 Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, xi, 37-39, 43, San Salvador de Palaz del Rey, 95 $0-S1, $3, 67N, 71, 77-78, 83, 86-87, San Servando, 198-200, 206-208, 293125, 129-133, 162-164, 168-169, 187n, 294 IQ1, 201, 203-205, 209, 211, 227, 232- San Vicente de Oviedo, 124 234, 239-240, 242-245, 270, 284, 287, San Vicente de Pombeiro, 358 292, 294-295, 297, 301-302, 319, 37I- San Zoil de Carrion, 306

372, 379 Sancha, countess, 166n

Rodrigo Gonzalez, 83, 138, 278, 281, 285 Sancha, daughter of Alfonso v1, 318, 333,

Rodrigo Munoz, 140, 147, 190 339 Rodrigo Ordonez, 133, 138-139, 226 Sancha, daughter of Raymond of BurRodrigo Ovéquez, count, 61, 197, 199, gundy, 310n, 320, 333

201 Sancha, queen, 7-8, 13, 20-22, 24, $6, $8, Rodrigo Vermudez, 19 211 Roger ul, duke of Sicily, 14n Sancho Hl, 14-15, 20-21, 23, 26-33, 35-

Roman liturgy, xi, 81, 96-102, 105-106, $3, 56-57, 60-68, 70-71, 74, 77, 80, 95,

108-109, 114, 145, 147, 377 97, 113n, 130-131, 305, 370 Rota. See Rueda de Jalén Sancho, bishop of Calabarra, 143-144,

Rueda de Jalon, 139, 165 gin

Sancho Alf6énsez, 224, 234-235, 240, 248,

Sahagtin, monastery, 30, 43-44, 55, 59, 281, 289, 310n, 313-314, 316-318, 320— 78n, 94, 108, 111, 148, 159, 175, 226, 322, 324-325, 328, 333-334, 338-340, 241, 254, 264-265, 295, 296n, 299, 310, 343, 346, 349-351, 353, 356, 370

363, 375 Sancho el Mayor, 7, 8, 41, 356

Saint Bartholomew of Tuy, 238 Sancho Garcia Iv, 8, IO-I I, 14, 40, 44, 80, Salamanca, 123, 127, 308-309, 312-313, 82, 87, 89, 97, 126, 132

320-321, 342-343, 372, 375 Sancho Ordonez, count, $6

Saldana, $4, 229 Sancho Pérez, 285

Samos, 29, 60, 253, 255-256, 268 Sancho Ramirez I, 40, 44, 80-81, 89-91,

INDEX 405 107, 122, 133, 161-162, 164, 166, 168— Suero Nunez, 277 169, 179-180, 191-192, 198, 215, 221, Suero Segerédez, 27n

227, 232-233, 242-243, 245, 324 Suero Vermudez, 277, 341 Sancho Sanz, 192

Santa Gadea, 71-72 Talamanca, I!

Santa Maria de Duenas, 124 Talavera de la Reina, 173, 316 Santa Maria la Real de Najera, 89, 107, Tamarite, 323

109, 126, 132 Tamaron, 8

Santamara, IO Tamin ibn-Yusuf, 348-351 Santarem, 28, 32, 63, 235-236, 238-239, Tarifa, 166, 222

248-250, 253-254, 256-257, 361 Tarragona, 216, 218, 260, 264, 377

Santiago de Astudillo, 95 Telo Gutiérrez, 56, 69, 76 Santiago de Compostela, bishopric, x11, Tentugal, 347n

16, 22-23, 26, 57, $9, 61, 69, 75, 78, 84, | Teresa, daughter of Alfonso vi, 193, 254, 113, 121, 212-213, 216-217, 245-246, 255n, 277, 280, 284-285, 296-297, 314— 258, 262-263, 267, 269-270, 272-273, 315, 317-318, 320-322, 328, 333, 339 277, 288, 295, 313, 324, 330n, 336-337, 340, 343-344, 357, 359-361, 363

341, 371, 373-375 Tévar, 228

Santiago de Compostela, city, xu, 28-29, Tineo, 139, 359

1$2, 277, 321 Toledo, archbishop, 206-209, 214, 258,

Santiuste, 10 261-262, 264-266, 272-274, 289, 316, Sarracino Fanez, 19 324, 329, 347-348, 361-363, 371-372, Sarracino Os6rez, 236n 374-375 Sebastian, bishop of Leon, 143, 175, 220n Toledo, city, X1l, 11, 135, I7I-172, 215,

Secastilla, 168 294, 298-299, 305, 326, 348-349, 36I— Segovia, 35, 117, 123, 202, 307-308, 35I-~ 363, 366-367

352, 375 Toledo, taifa, 9, 11, 13, 15, 39, 50, 64, 67,

Sepulveda, 118-119, I99n, 202, 229, 306 II7, 120, 161-174, 185, 229, 256

Sevilla, city, xn, 135 Tordesillas, 3, 124, 139, 229, 255, 284, 307 Sevilla, taifa, 12, 13, 28, 32-33, 63, 67, Toro, 3, 139, 229, 307

123, 131, 211, 222-223 Tortosa, I1, 164, 168, 176, 179, 228, 232Sigefredus, bishop of Najera, 200 233, 237, 242, 257

Siguenza, 129, 176, 291 Tournus, 194

Silos, xiv, 19, 35, 40, 70n, 76, 78, 118, Tudela, 168, 191, 196, 198, 201, 227, 323

285, 289-290 Tuy, 22, 26-27, 30-31, 61, 94, 236, 249-

Simancas, 3, 230 250, 276, 375 Simon of Crépy, 47

Sintra, 235, 238-239, 248 Ubeda, 202 Sir ibn-Abu Bakr, 221-223, 242-244 Uclés, 224, 235, 348-351, 354-355, 361-

Sisnando, bishop of Coimbra, 198n 362, 366 Sisnando, bishop of Oporto, 236 Urban Ul, 93, 141, 207-209, 214-216, 245-

Sisnando Astruariz, I9In 247, 260-264, 271-274, 282, 292

Sisnando Davidez, 22, 85, 87n, 118, 144, Urraca, daughter of Alfonso VI, xii, xiv,

173, 198n, 236-238 14, 15n, 66, 115, 137-138, 192, 194,

Soeiro Fromariques, 250 196-197, 217, 219, 224-225, 240, 246— Soeiro Mendes, 240, 250, 277, 288, 314- 249, 254, 280, 288, 290-291, 296-297,

315 314, 320, 324-325, 327-328, 332-333,

Stephen 1, king of England, 154 338-344, 348, 351-353, 356-358, 360— Suero, bishop of Mondonedo, 20, 25 363

406 INDEX Urraca, sister of Alfonso VI, 14, 20, 26n, Vizcaya, 91, 131, 133, 354 29-30, 31, 52-53, $7, 59-61, 64-68, 7072, 74, 8In, 82-83, 85, 100, 137, 150, Walter Map, 156 169, 196-197, 199, 214, 273-274, 279, William 1, king of England, 47-48, 93, 284-285, 289-290, 296-298, 305, 317, 115, 1$7, 195-196, 198, 378

328, 333, 370, 379 William n, king of England, 157

Urraca, sister of Sancho el Mayor, 7 William vin, duke of Aquitaine, 79-80,

Urraca Garcia, 89, 132 95, 105-107

Uthman, 176 William of Malmesbury, 47 William of Poitiers, 47 Vadorrey, 10

Valbanera, 240 Yahya ibn-Texufin, 294, 298 Valdepenas, 174 yantar. See hospedaje

Valencia, 9, 12, 13, 39, 117-118, 128, 171, Yusuf ibn-Tashufin, 163, 166-167, 186,

201-202, 205, 209-211, 231-232, 234, 189-190, 201-203, 210, 213, 220-221, 242-245, 247, 257, 270-271, 298, 30I- 224, 242-243, 286-288, 303, 311, 317, 302, 309-312, 315-316, 326, 362, 366— 323, 326, 340, 344 367

Valladolid, 35, 124, 229, 250, 307, 332 Zaida, 234-235, 240, 248, 281, 313, 328,

Vatalandi, 315n 333, 338-340, 344-345

Vela Ovéquez, count, 25, 61, 190, 197 Zalaca, 178, 187-190, 196-197, 201, 203,

Vellido Adolfo, 65, 67 205, 210, 303, 325, 327, 350, 366, 370

Vermudo Ill, 7, 8 Zamora, 3, 6, [§, 65, 67-69, 74, 139, 229, Vermudo Gutiérrez, 43, 71, 90 248, 255, 276, 305, 307-308, 312-313, Vermudo Ord6nez, count, 56, 69 320-321, 342, 374

Vermudo Ovéquez, 61 Zaragoza, City, Xl, II, 135

Viana, 40 Zaragoza, taifa, 9-13, 15, 36, 39-41, 80—

Vich, 289 81, 89, 117-118, 123, 128, 133, 161,

Victor Ill, 207-208 163-165, 168, 171, 176, 178-180, 183,

Viseu, 10, 329 192, 201, 210-211, 215, 227-228, 242—

Visigothic rite. See Mozarabic liturgy 243, 257, 282-286, 295, 301-303, 31IVisigothic script, 82n, 83n, 137, 218 312, 315, 317, 323, 325, 351, 355, 366-

Vistruario, bishop of Lugo, 23, 25-26, 367, 372

190, 197 Zorita, 128, 134, 174, 285, 351-352

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Reilly, Bernard F., 1925The Kingdom of Leén-Castilla under King Alfonso VI, 1065—1 109. Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Castile (Spain)—History—Alfonso VI, 1065-1109. 2. Leon (Kingdom)—History. 3. Alfonso VI, King of Castile and Leon, 1030-1109. I. Title.

DP137.6.R44 1988 946'.202 87-3502 ISBN 0~691-05515—7 (alk. paper)