[In the following essay, Hernández explores the historical context in which Juan Ruiz wrote.]

The author of the Libro de buen amor [LBA] was an archpriest of Hita, in the archdeaconry of Guadalajara, diocese of Toledo; his name was Juan Ruiz and he lived during the first half of the fourteenth century. The previous sentence summarizes what has been taken for granted by most literary historians until now. No positive proof to support such a belief has ever been produced, hence the periodic doubts when either the name of Juan Ruiz has been assumed to have been a pseudonym, or the literary character of the narrator-protagonist has been claimed to be the only aspect of the work's authorship worthy of consideration. In 1979, Anthony N. Zahareas stated: “We know nothing about Juan Ruiz's life.”¹ He did not even bother to mention the unsupported claim of Emilio Sáez and José Trenchs, four years earlier, attributing the authorship of the LBA to a certain Juan Ruiz de Cisneros.²

The mention of a “venerabilis Johannes Roderici archipresbter de Fita” among the witnesses listed at the end of a ruling delivered by an ecclesiastical court circa 1330 finally permits us to be certain regarding the true identity of Juan Ruiz. I hasten to make clear, although that problem will not be considered here, that there is no connection between this Juan Ruiz and Juan Rodríguez de Cisneros. The object of this note is to publish and explain the document from which the Archpriest finally steps out of the shadows of unrecorded history to take his place in the Parnassus of Spanish letters.

We do not possess the original document but, rather, a copy which appears on the verso of the very first folio of a cartulary from the Cathedral of Toledo, called Liber priuilegiorum ecclesie Toletane, now preserved in the Archivo Histórico Nacional, Madrid [AHN].³ It is truly surprising that the document should have remained unnoticed by the many historians who have used the cartulary. It would have probably pleased the mischievous Archpriest that the solution to the problem of his historical identity should resemble that of the “Purloined Letter.”

The document reproduces the ruling handed down by magister Lorenzo, canon of Segovia, acting as arbiter in a dispute between the archbishop of Toledo and the confraternity (cofradía or cabildo) of the parish priests of Madrid regarding their respective jurisdictions in matters of ecclesiastical penance. The dispute had started many years prior to the time it was finally settled by the ruling of the canon of Segovia, and a brief survey of its history may help us to understand the nature of the conflict and the document witnessed by the Archpriest of Hita.⁴

On January 26, 1317, Gutierre Gómez, then archbishop of Toledo, wrote a stern letter to the priests of Madrid giving them nine days to recant their recent assumption of episcopal rights, whereby they had taken upon themselves to “oyr e judgar pleitos de sacrilegios e de poner sentencias de escomunion e de suspension [e de entre] dicho,” thereby usurping the “jurisdiçion de su arçobispo.”⁵ The clerics themselves would be excommunicated if they did not heed the archbishop's orders. Gutierre's messenger, Ferrán García, arrived in Madrid two days later with the missive. A meeting of all the clerics had been called at the parish church of San Nicolás, where Ferrán tried to read it publicly, but, once the Madrid priests learned the gist of the letter, they rushed excitedly out of the church, refusing to hear their archbishop's summons (“alboroçaronse e fueronse e non quisieron oyr leer la dicha carta”).

Gutierre Gómez tried unsuccessfully to suppress the rebellion during the following month of February, a task which became increasingly difficult when the city council (concejo) of Madrid threw its weight behind the priests and recognized the confraternity's authority in matters of ecclesiastical penance extending beyond the limits granted to parish priests under canon law. In his attempt to stamp out rebellion, the archbishop even tried to deny the legal existence of the cofradía of the Madrid clerics, since the sentences in question had been issued under its authority. The attack on their confraternity must have been particularly irksome to the madrileños, who could point to many similar clerical associations in Toledo, Talavera, Guadalajara, and even Hita, to mention only those within their own diocese. There is no indication, however, that the other confraternities were attempting to undermine the archiepiscopal authority by assuming penitential powers reserved to the prelate, particularly the right to excommunicate.⁶

By March of 1317 Gutierre Gómez had excommunicated the parish priests of Madrid, giving them a taste of their own medicine. It was also a last attempt to stem the tide of rebellion that was spreading through their district, as exemplified by the clerics of Pinto, who had also joined the Madrid priests. The confraternity was not silenced by this measure and at once demanded the right of appeal to the papal court, which the archbishop's was forced to grant, not without first branding the appeal as frivolous and empty: “appelationes […] sicut inanibus et friuolis non deferimus apostolos tunc refutatorios eis concedimus percipiendo.” Even the city council of Madrid, showing its support for the priests, demanded the same right before the archiepiscopal court of Toledo, having the effrontery to request that the concession of appeal be given in the form of letters patent, lest the prelate attempt to trick them: “los apostolos […] vayan abiertos, para que sepa el dicho conçeio que es lo que ua en ellos.”⁷ Once the apostolos, the right to appeal, had been granted, canon law allowed a year, or two if a just impediment existed, for those who had demanded it to present their case to the papal curia. Until then the sentence handed down by the archbishop could not come into force.

The madrileños, having succeeded in frustrating the archbishop's orders, do not seem to have been in any hurry to present their case to the higher court. In July and August of 1318 the priests of Madrid and Pinto obtained new apostolos refutatorios much to the chagrin of Gutierre Gómez who could see through the Fabian tactics of his rebellious clerics. Gutierre would in fact die towards the end of the summer of 1319 leaving the problem unresolved. However, since the Madrid priests did not present their case to the papal court within the prescribed time, they eventually became excommunicated automatically.

We do not know the state of the conflict during the pontificate of archbishop Juan de Aragón (1319-1328), since no records survive related to the matter. The archbishop's horrified comments about the state of the Toledan church and the affairs of Castile during the minority of Alfonso XI are well known.⁸ The Catalan prelate would finally flee the see of Toledo and find refuge in Tarragona after a fictitious promotion to the office of Patriarch of Alexandria. Before that, however, he tried to reform his church through several synods, displaying a degree of activity in this field which was quite new in Toledo. Of particular interest is the synod of 1323. Its last canon contains a list of sins that could be punished by excommunication and which were declared to be exclusively reserved for the archbishop's jurisdiction. Parish priests were further warned not to intervene in cases “ubicumque difficultas aut ambiguitas inciderit propter nouitatem casus vel insipientiam sacerdotis, seu ubi sit sollemnis penitencia iniungenda,” a warning which the Madrid priests should have taken to heart. The third canon of the 1326 synod may have also given food for thought to the same priests. It established that clerics who remained excommunicated for more than thirty days would lose their benefices for two months.⁹ But Juan de Aragón did not stay long enough in his diocese to enforce these regulations. His departure for the kingdom of Aragón at the end of that same year of 1326, never to return again to Toledo, may have encouraged the confraternity of Madrid not to submit to the penitential jurisdiction of its absent archbishop.

Gimeno de Luna was designated primate by John XXII two years later, on the 17th of August of 1328. But the final impulse to end the irregular situation of Madrid clerics may have come directly from the king. Alfonso XI initiated a deliberate campaign to restore law and order in his kingdom in the spring of 1329. After giving some unequivocal examples of his court's severity, such as the execution of Garci Laso's murderers in Soria, he called the Cortes to Madrid in order to lay down new laws which would facilitate his reform.¹⁰

One of the requests made by the representatives of the cities in the Cortes of 1329 was the reduction of the monetary penance imposed on the excommunicated since, they claimed, “con cobdiçia de leuar la pena, los clerigos se atreven a poner maliçiosamente sentençias en las gentes por muchas maneras.” Excommunicated persons who did not obtain absolution within 30 days were required to pay a fine of 60 maravedis [mrs.] each day after this deadline until such time as their situation was regularized. The king abolished this fine, which had been in force since 1314, imposing instead a maximum penalty of 100 mrs. for the first year. After that time, a fine of 1000 mrs. would be payable to the Crown, an undisclosed amount to the Church, and “el cuerpo que este a la mi mercet.” (Obviously, the control of these fines must have been one of the causes of the Madrid rebellion of 1317, and the support given to the clerics by the concejo must have been based on a certain expectation of leniency from their own kind.) The king also included a clause in his decrees that must have alarmed the recalcitrant madrileños. The new penalties would be applicable also to those “descomulgados que non apellaren, o apellaren e non siguieren la apellaçion,” which was precisely the case of the confraternity of the Madrid parish priests.¹¹ The appointment of Juan Garcfa Palomeque, “guarda mayor del rey,” as Crown collector of fines payable by the excommunicated and his recorded activities as such during 1331 and 1332 shows the king's determination to carry out the reforms approved by the Madrid Cortes of 1329. The confraternity had clearly run out of time.

The resolutions of the Cortes were published in August of 1329. There is evidence to indicate that relations between Toledo and Madrid had not improved during the following month, when Vasco Ferrández, dean of the cathedral and iuris ciuilis doctor, visited Madrid demanding a legacy bequeathed to his church four years earlier. But the Damocles' sword of the king's justice must have forced the clerics of Madrid to abandon their delaying tactics and to seek a compromise towards the end of 1329. The fact that they had a new archbishop, who had not had time to take a firm stand on the issue, may have facilitated the final solution, when both parties accepted magister Lorenzo of Segovia as arbitrator.

The hearing was held in Alcalá de Henares, whose archpriest, Alvaro Ruiz, represented the archbishop's interests and where Gimeno Pérez and Gonzalo Pérez acted as lawyers for the cofradía. Lorenzo's ruling may be divided into three separate sections. The first recognizes the legal status of the confraternity and, in consequence, its right to use a seal and to have its own funds (archam comunem). The second describes the jurisidictional limits of the confraternity affirming, above all, the supremacy of the archbishop.

There are, however, some concessions given to the clerics. Every two years they would be allowed to nominate two members of their confraternity to act as ecclesiastical judges of Madrid. Once the nominations had been approved by the archbishop, they would be empowered to hear the following cases:

• A). Sacrilege punishable with a fine of up to 1800 mrs.; if a greater sum was involved, the cases would be judged by the archbishop's court. Although excommunication is not mentioned, it seems to be implied, since it was the penalty for sacrilege. In this case, Toledo would be responsible for, and profit from dealing with, recalcitrant sinners who remained excommunicated beyond the period of a year, in which case 1000 mrs. would be payable to the Crown, as established by the 1329 Cortes, and the rest to the Church.
• B). Civil litigation among ecclesiastics, included those of lowest rank, the coronados, who were allowed to marry.
• C). Civil litigation between ecclesiastics and laymen when clerics were the accused. This clause was a consequence, in part, of the principle that no churchman could be brought to trial in a civil court, a principle that the national council of 1322 had endorsed in its third canon, De foro competenti.¹²

The Madrid clerics were, however, forbidden to deal with spiritual conflicts, with the exception of matters of sacrilege included in the first clause. They were therefore denied the right to absolve any of the sins included in the list of 1323, since these came under archiepiscopal jurisdiction.

The third section of magister Lorenzo's ruling emphasizes the jurisdictional limits of the biennially appointed judges of Madrid and makes provisions for their replacement in cases of sickness or death. As arbitration judge, he ends by pointing out that it is his prerogative to be the sole interpreter of his own ruling.

Thus ended, early in 1330, the conflict between Madrid and the archbishop of Toledo. The appointment of the Madrid ecclesiastical judges continued until the sixteenth century, when new steps were taken to reinforce the independence of the local clergy.¹³ But that is another story. We shall now turn our attention to the archpriest of Hita who had been spectator and witness of that trial.

“The venerable Juan Ruiz, archpriest of Hita” is the first of the eight witnesses named at the end of the decision given in Alcalá de Henares. This is the first and so far the only time that his name and his title appear together in a historical document, thereby confirming the partially autobiographical character of the LBA. The episodes of the book in which he portrays himself as protagonist may be completely fictitious or based on earlier literary models, but the use of both his real name and ecclesiastical rank point to his desire to be perceived as the flesh and blood protagonist. The LBA seems to echo some of the historical data related to the Archpriest that have been described here. His presence in Alcalá during the trial should come as no surprise to the readers of LBA (“Fija, mucho vos saluda uno que es de Alcalá” 1510a; “Sembré avena loca ribera de Henares” 170b).¹⁴ Historically, it makes much sense that he should spend considerable time in Alcalá. Alcalá was the second archiepiscopal town of the diocese after Toledo. The archbishops were quite often there. The archpriests of the region often met in the town, as in 1311, when we see there those of Madrid, Guadalajara, Buitrago, Almoguera, Alcalá, Salamanca, Hita (Lorenzo Pérez, predecessor of Juan Ruiz), Uceda, and the representative of Zorita. The autobiographical tone of the LBA has always been recognized as self-evident. What now becomes apparent is the deliberate fusion of fact and fiction intended by Juan Ruiz. By giving a series of clues consistent with his true name, rank, and activities, he clearly expected to be seen as the protagonist of the LBA, in the same way in which the accessus ad auctores saw Ovid as the main character of his own poems. In this context, Alfonso de Paradinas is an exemplary reader, regardless of whether he is historically correct when he sees Juan Ruiz writing the book in prison. Paradinas, on the other hand, exemplifies the type of idle speculation which adds little or nothing to the understanding of the book. While the perception of the autobiography is essential, the pursuit of complete correspondences between the literary episodes and historical events leads us astray into the limbo of fictional history, or historical fiction.

Juan Ruiz may even have intended that his public, or part of it, recognize certain names, besides his own, which he included in the book. Gutierre Gómez's messenger, Ferrán García, who would have been known to Juan Ruiz from the Madrid litigation, if not through other personal experiences, had become notary public in the archiepiscopal court of Toledo by 1330. As messenger of the former archbishop his activities are well documented and he would have also been known by many contemporary clerics. The salacious episode of “Cruz cruzada, panadera” (115-22) would gain an added flavor for those who could identify this “mensajero / tan presto e tan ligero” (120ab). However, as in the case of Paradinas' observation, the possible identification of Ferrán García adds little to our understanding and enjoyment of the poem. Notwithstanding, the historical data may be used with great profit to clarify the ideology and the cultural structures of the time implicit in many passages of the LBA.

Limiting ourselves for the moment to the Madrid litigation, we find there are, in the judicial procedures and in the ruling witnessed by Juan Ruiz, elements that help us to understand better than before some parts of the book.

The cántica of the Talavera clerics (LBA, 1690-1709) has well-known literary precedents. Less familiar are some historical parallels which I will not discuss here. However, two observations related to what has been discussed seem pertinent. In the first place, the cabildo (1691c) of Talavera which met to hear the dreadful news from the archpriest was not to be understood as the chapter of the collegiate church of Santa María (founded as such by archbishop Rodrigo Giménez de Rada in July of 1211) but the confraternity of the parish priests of Talavera. The word cabildo was used to refer to these associations, as we have seen before, and there are several other examples of meetings of this cabildo of Talavera during the first quarter of the fourteenth century. It was most appropriate that the local archpriest should address such meetings, since it was on those occasions that he most typically fulfilled his role as intermediary between the prelate and the rural priests. It would have been improper for the archpriest to address the canons of the collegiate church, who were subject only to the archdeacon of Talavera or to the archbishop. The mutterings of Sancho Muñoz against a certain “don Gonzalo canónigo” (1708a) should then be understood as directed against a canon of the local colegiata and not as slander against the distant canons of Toledo. By reducing the whole episode to its narrow geographical and institutional setting, a greater intensity may be perceived in the interplay of its different voices.

The appeal to the king of Castile against the papal order (1696c-1607d) has been recognized as a comic element in the narrative of the Talavera clerics. What no one seems to have noticed is the meaning of the ludicrous malapropism which follows a few lines later, when the appeal against the papal command is again invoked: “Demandó los apóstoles e todo lo que más vale” (1700a). As has been shown, the apostolos was the letter of appeal to the Apostolic See, not the opposite.

Finally, the digression on confession in the LBA deserves to be reconsidered in the light of the Alcalá trial witnessed by the historical Juan Ruiz. Rita Hamilton concluded her incisive appraisal of the passage by pointing out that “more than in any other section of the Libro, the voice of the narrator may possibly be that of Juan Ruiz, Arcipreste de Hita.”¹⁵ Her educated guess is now confirmed by the historical evidence. The humility topos of the first stanzas (1131-35) may contain a biographical reference: “repetirvos querría una chica liçión” (1131b); “no me oso aventurar / salvo en un poquillo que oí disputar” (1133cd). Since the trial which he witnessed in Alcalá dealt precisely with some aspects of the sacrament of Penance he may very well be referring to arguments presented there before the judge arbitrator. The long passage on jurisdiction and the adequate administration of the sacrament (1144-61) is the one that seems to be most closely related to the Madrid conflict. After stating that even the archbishops have limitations on their jurisdiction and must not deal with cases reserved for the pope, he asks the rhetorical question that must have been addressed more than once to the Madrid parish priests: “¿Por qué el sinple clérigo es d'esto tan osado?” (1149d). Magister Lorenzo had followed the guidelines of the 1323 synod when he forbade the Madrid clerics to deal with cases reserved to the archbishop (“quod de causis spiritualibus et eis anexis, matrimonialibus aut criminalibus, etiam ciuiliter intentatis, dicti iudices non cognoscant”). The same limitations are echoed in stanza 1150, when Juan Ruiz mentions the many cases reserved to episcopal jurisdiction and which “son mucho defendidos a clérigos menores” (1150d).

If we recall that the first version of the LBA was completed in 1330 and that the Alcalá trial was held most probably during the early months of that year, we should not be surprised to hear the distant echo of the revolt of the Madrid clerics in the LBA. We also see reflected there what must have been the position of Juan Ruiz's colleague, Alvaro Ruiz, archpriest of Alcalá and lawyer for the archbishop, a position of outright condemnation of the abuses of the lower clergy. It is significant that this attitude of the narrator should reflect the interests of the historical author. It is even more significant that the attitude is atypical of the narrator. For once, Juan Ruiz has been sidetracked from the literary persona which he has assumed in the rest of the book. He has allowed what for him was a recent experience to intrude in the otherwise consistent fabric of fiction, humour, parody, and ambiguity.

The basic autobiographical elements of the LBA are finally established in all certainty, but they should be seen only as one of the many layers of meaning in one of the most cherished Spanish masterpieces.

ADDENDUM

Just before sending this note to La Corónica and while I was attending the seventh International Congress of Medieval Canon Law at Cambridge, a special exhibition of new books related to the topic of the Congress revealed to me the most recent study on Juan Ruiz and his work, Henry Ansgar Kelly's Canon Law and the Archpriest of Hita, Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 27 (Binghamton: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1984). It is an admirable effort by a self-confessed “outsider to the world of medieval Spanish Literature” (p. 115). Kelly uses the same papal registers which I have also consulted to reach the conclusion that Juan Ruiz, archpriest of Hita and author of LBA, should not be confused with Juan Rodríguez de Cisneros, in spite of Sáez's assurances to the contrary. However, I cannot agree with two major conclusions of Kelly's book: a dating of LBA towards the end of the fourteenth century (pp. 16-35 and 84) and the attribution of the cántica de los clérigos de Talavera to a contemporary of Alfonso Martínez de Toledo, in the first half of the fifteenth century (p. 88). This is not the place for a detailed reconsideration of the problems posed by Kelly's data. The new evidence which I have presented above would seem to have enough weight to anchor the LBA firmly in the first half of the fourteenth century. As for the cántica, Kelly's assumptions regarding the ecclesiastical structures of Talavera, on which he builds his conclusion, represent the most serious flaw of his book. I will deal with those topics at length in my book, where I have been able to use a massive amount of documents from the ACT and the AHN which have not been taken into account by earlier juanruicistas. I was able to do so as co-director of the Burriel Project, devoted to the publication of the medieval collection of documents in the ACT. After six years of preliminary work, including a complete revision of the card-catalogue, carried out with Dr. Ramón Gonzálvez, archivist of the cathedral, a book describing all the materials preserved in the Toledan cartularies will appear in early 1985 (Los cartularios de Toledo [Madrid: Fundación Aveces]).

APPENDIX

Copy of the sentence of magister Lorenzo, canon of Segovia.

Alcalá de Henares [early 1330].

“In nomine Domini, amen. Nouerint uniuersi presentis publici instrumenti sententiam inspecturi quod in presentia mei notarii infrascripti et¦ testium subscriptorum ad hoc spetialiter uocatorum et rogatorum, uenerabilis et discretus magister Laurencius canonicus Segouiensis ar-¦biter et arbitrator ac amicabilis compositor assumptus comuniter et concorditer per reuerendum patrem et dominum domnum Eximinum Dei¦ gratia archiepiscopum Toletanum ex parte una et discretos clericos et concilium de Maiorito ex parte altera super omni (5) lite, dis-¦cordia et controuersia que inter partes ipsas uerteuatur seu uerti sperabatur super hiis que inferius continetur, presentibus Aluaro¦ Roys archipresbitero de Alcala dicti domini procuratore ac eciam Eximino Petri et Gundissaluo Petri dictorum clericorum¦ et concilii de Maiorito procuratoribus, pronunciauit in hec uerba:

‘In Dei nomine, amen. Ego magister Laurencius canonicus Segouiensis arbiter et arbitrator ac amicabilis compositor assumptus comuniter et concorditer per reuerendum in¦ Christo patrem domnum Eximinum archiepiscopum Toletanum (10) cum sui capituli consensu ex una parte, ac discretos uiros cleri-¦cos et concilium de Maiorito ex altera, super omni lite, discordia et controuersia que actenus uertebatur seu uerti spe-¦rabatur inter partes ipsas super capitulis inferius declaratis, prout in instrumento compromissi per partes ipsas in me facti ple-¦nius continetur, visis et examinatis diligenter peticionibus, racionibus et iuribus utriusque partis et auditis et inte-¦lectis eciam diligenter ea omnia que dicte partes michi dare in scriptis uel oretenus super hoc dicere uoluerunt et super¦ hiis omnibus comunicato consilio sapiencium ac utriusque partis inuestigata super hoc et cognita uoluntate ac (15)¦ eciam¦ per me solemni deliberatione prehabita super ipsis ex uigore dicti compromissi in me facti, Dei nomine inuocato, pro¦ bono pacis et concordie inter partes habende et perpetuo confirmande, laudo, arbitror, pronuncio, dico, mando, et pre-¦cipio

quod prefati clerici de Maiorito Toletane diocesis possint decetero se collegium, vniuersitatem uel capitulum nominare.¦

Item, quod possint habere et habeant sigillum comunem et utentur eo.

Item, quod habeant et possint habere archam comunem.¦

Item, quod de biennio in biennium, prima die maii, dicti clerici de Madrit (20) possint assumere et assumant de se ipsis du-¦os presbiteros quos presentent archiepiscopo Toletano qui comittat illis duobus presbiteris sibi presentatis et cuilibet illorum¦ in solidum iurisdicionem in hiis que secuntur:

Primo, quod causas sacrilegiorum que acciderint in villa de Madrit, quanto ad penam pecunia-¦riam que est mille et octaginta morabetini, dicti iudices possint audire et difinire.

Item, quod possint audire et difinire¦ causas ciuiles quas clerici etiam coniugati de Maiorito inter se habebunt et quas inter laicos agentes cuiusque condicionis¦ sint et clericos etiam coniugatos defendentes contigerit uentilari.

Item, quod de causis spiritualibus et eis anexis, matrimonialibus (25) aut¦ criminalibus, etiam ciuiliter intentatis, dicti iudices non cognoscant, preterque de causis sacrilegiorum quanto ad penam pecuniariam ut est¦ dictum.

Item, quod isti duo iudices utantur iurisdicione eis comissa quousque aliis duobus iurisdicio per archiepiscopum, ut supradictum est,¦ sit comissa.

Item, quod si aliter illorum iudicum infra dictum biennium decederet uel amoueretur ex causa, superstes exerceat iurisdi-¦cione; et nichilominus dicti clerici possint alium presbiterum uel duos, si uterque decessisset uel fuisset amotus, eligere et presentare eidem¦ archiepiscopo ut eis infra decem dies a tempore presentacionis iurisdicionem committat, (30) quod si non faceret ex tunc, illi presbiteri iurisdicio-¦nem supradictam exerceant libere in causis antedictis ac si per dictum archiepiscopum esset eis expresse comissa.

Item, quod ab istis¦ iudicibus possit appellari ad archiepiscopum Toletanum uel ad quem de iure uel consuetudine fuerit appellandum.

Que omnia et sin-¦gula supradicta hinc inde fieri seruari et adimplari, laudo, arbitror, dico, precipio, difinio et mando sub pena in prefato com-¦promisio contenta in singulis et pro singulis capitulis laudi et compromissi contentis si contra factum fuerit soluenda a parte non¦ seruande omnia et singula supradicta pena huiusmodi prout in compromisso dicto continetur diuidenda, (35) saluo et reseruato michi arbi-¦trio et potestate declarandi, interpretandi et corrigendi super predictis ubicumque et quacumque uisum fuerit expedire. Et super predictis et¦ quolibet predictorum iterum, semel et pluries pronunciandi hoc arbitrium seu laudum sum.’

Hec sententia latum seu lata fuit apud Alcalam¦ Toletane diocesis in domo habitacionis dicti domini magistri Laurencii, procuratoribus dictorum domini archiepiscopi et clericorum ac conci-¦lii de Maiorito supradictis approbantibus expresso et emologantibus et confirmantibus arbitrium, sentenciam seu laudum antedictos, presentibus uenerabilibus

Johanne Roderici archipresbitero de Fita,

(40) Gundissaluo Ferrandi clerico in parrochiali ecclesia Sancte¦ Marie de Guadalfaiara,

Dominico Alfonsi clerico in parrochiali ecclesia de Penaluer Toletane diocesis,

Ferrando Royz¦ milite,

Martino Roderici alcaiat,

Ferrando Falcon,

Johanne Falcon fratre suo,

Sancio Fernandi, vicinis.

Alfonso¦ Martini et Alfonso Petri publicis notariis dicti loci de Alcala testibus ad premissa uocatis specialiter et rogatis”.

AHN, Clero, códices, n. 987B, f. 1v.

I have maintained the peculiar Latin spelling of the manuscript as well as its line divisions.

Notes

1. “Structure and Ideology in the LBA,” La Corónica, 7 (1978-79), 92-104, p. 95.

2. “Juan Ruiz de Cisneros (1295/96-1351/52), autor del Buen Amor,” in El Arcipreste de Hita: el libro, el autor, la tierra, la época. Actas del I Congreso Internacional sobre el Arcipreste de Hita (Barcelona: Seresa, 1973), pp. 365-68. Manuel Criado de Val partially accepted their attribution in his Historia de Hita y su Arcipreste (Madrid: Editora Nacional, 1976), p. 92, and Julio Rodríguez-Puértolas, after expressing some prudent doubts, was even able to provide a chronological chart embellishing the data provided by Sáez and Trenchs (Juan Ruiz, Arcipreste de Hita [Madrid: Edaf, 1978], pp. 264-69). For a balanced survey of the different opinions on this matter see Alan Deyermond, Edad Media, vol. I of the Historia y crítica de la literatura española, Francisco Rico ed. (Barcelona: Crítica, 1980), pp. 216-17.

3. AHN, Clero, códices, n. 987B.

4. The documents on which this survey is based are preserved both in the Cathedral Archive of Toledo [ACT] and in the AHN. Given the nature of this note, I do not give their location here, but will publish them in the aforementioned book.

5. Partida I, ix, 3 (Juan Antonio Arias Bonet ed. [Valladolid: Universidad, 1975]) states that only bishops could excommunicate, although archdeacons and other authorities from the cathedral chapter could be empowered to do so “si lo han de costumbre usada por quarenta annos.” The same rule was observed in France and England during the same period (F. D. Logan, Excommunication and the Secular Arm in Medieval England [Toronto: University Press, 1968], p. 14).

6. A survey of these cofradías will also be included in my book. The cofradía or cabildo of Madrid had been recognized by Alfonso X in 1265, in a privilege that was confirmed by Sancho IV in 1285 and by Alfonso XI in 1314 and 1315 (F. Fita, “Madrid desde el año 1235 hasta el de 1275,” BRAH [Boletin. Real Academia de la Historia], 8 [1886], 65-69).

7. “Ab eo quo appellatum est, ad eum qui de appellatione cogniturus est, dimissorie litterae dirigantur que uulgo ‘apostoli’ appellantur, quarum postulatio et acceptio infra quintum diem finienda est ex offitio.” Gratian, Decretum, II, II, vi, 24 (Corpus iuris canonici, Emil Friedberg and E. L. Richter eds. [Leipzig: B. Tauchnitz, 1879-81], vol. I).

8. On this topic, perhaps Juan de Aragón's most moving letter is the one he wrote to his father, Jaume II, describing the state of Castile (“terram istam in miserabili et flebili statu esse multisque discriminibus et guerris expositam”). He places part of the blame on the regents, whom he describes with bitter humour as “tutores nostri, ne dicam destructores” (Letter from Brihuega, August 3rd, 1322, ed. Heinrich Finke, Acta Aragonensia, III, Berlin-Leipzig, 1922 [rpt. Darmstadt: Scientia Verlag Aalen, 1968], p. 404).

9. José Sánchez Herrero, Concilios provinciales y sínodos toledanos de los siglos XIV y XV (La Laguna: Universidad, 1976), pp. 184 and 194.

10. Gran Crónica de Alfonso XI, Diego Catalán ed. (Madrid: Seminario Menéndez Pidal & Gredos, 1976), I, pp. 462-68.

11. Cortes de los antiguos reinos de León y Castilla, Real Academia de la Historia ed., I (Madrid, 1861), p. 476.

12. Carlos García Goldaraz, El códice lucense de la colección canónica hispana (Rome: CSIC, Delegación de Roma, 1954), III, p. 298.

13. Agustín Millares Carlo, Contribuciones documentales a la historia de Madrid (Madrid: CSIC, 1971), p. 166.

14. Quotations from the LBA are from the edition by Jacques Joset, Clásicos Castellanos, 14 & 17 (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1974).

15. “The Digression on Confession in the LBA,” in LBA Studies, G. B. Gybbon-Monypenny ed. (London: Tamesis, 1970), pp. 149-57.

This note (a forerunner of my book, Juan Ruiz y sus contemporáneos, to be published in 1985) has been considerably improved thanks to the comments of Lorraine Hernández, Alan Deyermond, Peter Linehan, and C. A. Marsden. Ramón Gonzálvez was also extremely helpful when I researched the historical background in the Cathedral Archive of Toledo. To all of them my heartfelt gratitude. Footnotes have been kept to a minimum, since full documentation will be provided in my book.