Navigation – Plan du site
Chronica regum Castellae

Juan de Soria: the Chancellor as Chronicler

Peter LINEHAN

Résumés

Desde que hace casi un siglo Georges Cirot publicó por vez primera (y de forma ejemplar) la que llamó Crónica latina de los reyes de Castilla, esta crónica anónima ha sido escasamente estudiada, olvido del que sólo hace poco ha comenzado a recuperarse. Recurriendo tanto al texto como al contexto, este artículo persigue más fomentar la discusión que ofrecer resultados seguros sobre una obra en la que se pone de manifiesto que no era poca la relación entre el autor y Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada, tanto desde el punto de vista historiográfico como en el oficial (a propósito de la cancillería de Castilla). También se trata aquí de las características novedosas de la Crónica latina, del controvertido proceso de su autoría, y del trato ambivalente que el autor da a Fernando III de Castilla y León y a su madre, doña Berenguela.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

  • 1  Georges CIROT, «Chronique latine des rois de Castile (1236)», Bulletin hispanique, 14 ,1912, p. 30 (...)
  • 2 CLI, cap. 12-13; 22-24; DRH (ed. J. FERNÁNDEZ VALVERDE, CCCM, 1987), VII.29; IX.5-11. Cf. CIROT’s c (...)
  • 3  As for example in their descriptions of the rebellion of Gonzalo Pérez de Molina in 1223, analysed (...)
  • 4 CLI, 41: 5 («Anno iterum postea revoluto»); DRH, IX.11: 13 («Anno postea iterum revoluto»); F. J. H (...)

1It was the man who made known the only surviving manuscript of the anonymous Latin Chronicle [CLI]1 who first commented on the textual parallels of that work with Archbishop Rodrigo of Toledo’s De rebus Hispanie [DRH], albeit, as parallels go, these may be said not to amount to much. The two chroniclers’ accounts of the two great battles of their lifetime, for example, those of Alarcos and Las Navas de Tolosa, could hardly have been more different2. It is not so much in verbal similarities as in the sequence in which events are described that a resemblance between the two works is observable3. But one coincidence, remarked on by neither Cirot nor Julio González but by our absent colleague Francisco Hernández, clinches the matter and establishes the nature of their relationship. This is not something that they have in common in that from both it is missing. It is the absence of any account of the years 1220-23 as well as the manner in which each resumes his narrative after the lacuna: sufficient proof that here at least the archbishop was following our man4.

  • 5  Though I am reluctant to accept the descriptions of CLI as written «lo suficientemente tarde para (...)
  • 6  L. SERRANO, «El canciller de Fernando III de Castilla», Hispania, 1, 1941, p. 3-40, p. 37. (By the (...)
  • 7  Whether the disappearance of manuscripts of the Romance Jofré de Loaisa was engineered in order to (...)

2So D. Rodrigo made use of the Latin Chronicle, just as elsewhere in his work he made use of the chronicle of Lucas of Tuy. Now we medievalists are broad-minded. We have to be: we regularly forgive plagiarism (provided it was done long ago, not recently)5. But the deliberate suppression of items of information, or of an entire source of information, that is another thing. Is it thinkable that D. Rodrigo was responsible for the fact that, but for the chance survival of the unique copy published by Cirot, and its modern descendent, the Latin Chronicle would be unknown to us? That is to say, was the almost complete disappearance of the work accidental? Or was it deliberate? To put it another way, ought we even to be thinking in terms of an act of depuración, of elimination of the competitor who had eclipsed him? And in that case was that disappearance due either to D. Rodrigo himself, in his capacity as executor of the author’s will in 12466, or of a loyal Toledan claque later active and intent on promoting the former archbishop’s account of modern times?7

  • 8 L. SERRANO, «El canciller…», p. 4-5; A. BALLESTEROS, «Don Juan el canciller», Correo erudito, 1,194 (...)

3As we all remember, that account of modern times had been written at the behest of Fernando III. We remember this because the prologue to the De rebus Hispanie tells us as much ; just as the prologue to Lucas of Tuy tells us that the Chronicon mundi was written on the instructions of doña Berenguela. By comparison, the Latin chronicle appears to have had no influential friends or protectors – though we are also told that it was the influence of the same doña Berenguela that secured Juan de Soria his promotion as chancellor in 12178. Lacking even a prologue, the chronicle begins its account «in medias res». It enters shyly and anonymously into the confident and unforgiving world of thirteenth-century Spanish historiography.

  • 9  J. ZURITA, Anales de la Corona de Aragón, Zaragoza, 1561-1580, III.3.
  • 10  J. GONZÁLEZ, «La crónica latina…», p. 69.
  • 11 Anales, III.2 [ad an. 1228]: «Hallo en las crónicas que compuso en latín un obispo de Burgos, que t (...)

4That anonymity is in many ways the chronicle’s most interesting feature. At any rate, it provides us with a starting point. Consider the possibilities. There are two. One is that once it had a prologue which identified its author, but that this somehow got detached from the body of the work. Here we must consider the relevance of the chronicle of the unnamed bishop of Burgos mentioned by Zurita9. Julio González considered it «probable» that this was our bishop and our chronicle10 – which, if correct, would date the work to 1240-1246. But, of course, it is not correct. Either González did not read, or he failed to understand, Cirot’s demonstration that the information about Aragonese affairs related by Zurita from the «general history of Castile» of that bishop of Burgos was supplied not by our chronicler but by one of his episcopal successors11.

5The other possibility is that it did not have a prologue And if it did not, then why not? Was it because it was never intended as a chronicle at all? Or rather, because in the mind of the compiler it had not yet reached that stage of development? Remember: though prologues are the first things the reader reads, they are the last thing the writer writes.

  • 12  F. J. HERNÁNDEZ, «La corte de Fernando III…», p. 111, n. 28.
  • 13  Herewith just one of the reasons for rejecting González’s suggestion that rather than borrowing on (...)
  • 14 CLI, 4: 4; 12: 18; 19: 24; 38.13. The word occurs just twice in CM: 4.67.8; 4.88.3.
  • 15  The former system is employed in chap. 28-51, 64 and 68-69, the latter in chap. 52-59, 65 and 67.
  • 16  R. CARANDE HERRERO (ed.), CCCM 73 (1997), prol. lin. 11 («in cronicis annotari»); lin. 170 («scrip (...)

6As has often been noted, the Latin chronicle is unusually outward-looking, with information about foreign affairs provided at points throughout the text – but not always, indeed not often, at relevant points. These are notices which cannot be said to belong where they have come to rest, where it looks as if they have simply been left in expectation of a decision regarding their final destination. So could it be that what we have is a form of draft annals, as Dr Hernández has suggested12 an accretion of chancery annals prepared by a succession of, as it were, «annalists on duty»?13 In fact, ought we to be speaking of «a» compiler at all? Despite evidence of stylistic consistency (the use throughout the work of the adverb «intrinsecus», for example)14, ought we not rather to be speaking of «compilers» in the plural, amongst whom there was uncertainty whether entries were to be dated by the Spanish or the Christian era?15 (To these hypothetical «compilers» I shall return) And of chronicles in the sense of the «chronicles» mentioned by Guillermo Pérez de la Calzada, his «Rithmi de Iulia Romula seu Ispalensi Urbe», into which new material might be «added» or «written»?16

7Consider the end of chap. 62 and chap. 63 in its entirety, concerning the year 1231-1232:

62 [visit to Galicia and Asturias] … alios secum duxit Burgis.
63 Confluxit ad eandem ciuitatem maxima hominum multitudo populorum et nobilium tam de Castella quam de Gallecia et aliis partibus regni, ubi logam(!) protaxit moram rex, expediendo negocia multiformia cum consilio bonorum uirorum.

  • 17 Cf. the contribution of Inés Fernández-Ordóñez to the present volume.

8To me (but not to all) this looks suspiciously like an uncompleted annal17.

  • 18  Peter LINEHAN, «Don Rodrigo and the government of the kingdom», Cahiers de linguistique et de civi (...)
  • 19  Thus Roger WRIGHT, Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France, Liverpool, 1982, (...)
  • 20  Peter LINEHAN, History and the historians of Medieval Spain, Oxford, 1993, p. 350-412.
  • 21 Id., «D. Juan de Soria: unas apostillas», in: Fernando III y su tiempo (1201-1252), p. 377-393; p.  (...)
  • 22  «[…] la qual mostrada el dicho thesorero dixo quela dicha carta era meester de mostrar en muchos l (...)

9Reference to a chancery context brings us to an aspect of the matter which I have discussed elsewhere so will not repeat here, namely the probable extent of D. Rodrigo’s resentment at the loss of prestige implied by the transfer of the Castilian chancery to Juan de Soria in 1231. Previous writers, sustained perhaps by the unspoken conviction that the bishops of a canonised king could never have been in discord with one another, have gone so far as to suggest that the transfer was made on the archbishop’s own recommendation18 (It has even been suggested that the pair were cousins)19. In fact, the case was probably the opposite. The loss of the royal chancery represented a huge shrinkage of Toledo’s prestige at the very moment at which its archbishop was planning its apotheosis in both script and stone20. The case did not go by default. Confirmation of Juan de Soria’s episcopal promotion to the see of Osma was delayed by a year and a half or more, and by whom if not by his Toledo metropolitan?21 And almost a century later the issue of Toledo’s claim on the chancery was still alive. Out of concern for the state of the original of the chancellor’s 1231 undertaking to surrender the chancellorship to the archbishop if he died or if he were promoted to a see outside the province of Toledo, in August 1329 the treasurer of the Toledo would seek to secure an authenticated copy of the instrument22.

  • 23  D. MANSILLA, La documentación pontificia de Honorio III (1216-1227), Rome, 1965, n° 153, 144.
  • 24  A[rchivo de la] C[atedral de] Toledo, X.7.A.3.6, X.1.A.1.3a [‘Zucheta’] (4, 8 Apr. 1231; printed S (...)

10On this occasion I wish to make just two observations and one suggestion. The first observation is this. In January 1218 (that is within three months of D. Juan’s first appearance as royal chancellor) D. Rodrigo was seeking compensation for his loss of the royal chancery and thereby of the opportunity to influence expressions of the royal will, by securing two privileges from the papal chancery, one confirming the church of Toledo’s primacy over the metropolis and province of Seville, the other granting it possession of the church of ‘Zucketa’ (hispanice ‘Zuqueca’), which the archbishop had persuaded the pontiff was identical with the Visigothic see of Oreto23 ; then, in 1231, in the very month of the transfer of Toledo’s hereditary chancellorship to D. Juan, D. Rodrigo had these privileges confirmed by Gregory IX24. It is difficult to believe that these coincidences were wholly fortuitous.

  • 25  D. MANSILLA, La documentación pontificia…, n° 10.
  • 26  It was seen as a suitably «juicy» return for the benefits of the cardinal’s influence at Rome, «qu (...)
  • 27  D. MANSILLA, La documentación pontificia…, n° 179; P. LINEHAN, History and the historians…, p. 258 (...)

11The second refers to the chancery of the kingdom of León which its traditional incumbent, the archbishop of Compostela, was also made to surrender to the abbot of Valladolid in 1231. Interest here attaches to the fact that in November 1216 Honorius III had sought to persuade Alfonso IX to bestow that office upon Juan Gaitán, papal subdeacon, magister scolarum of León, and nephew of Cardinal Pelayo Gaitán25. Notice two things: first, that none of those concerned pretended for a moment that the cancelleria of the kingdom of León was a purely decorative office. Far from it, the cancelleria of the kingdom of León (and of the kingdom of Castile too for that matter) was a licence to print money26. Secondly, that the pontiff’s request bordered on the limits of permissible interference in affairs of state, and that in November 1216, when it was made, Alfonso IX was in a peculiarly vulnerable position since another eighteen months were to pass before the pope was to declare his bastard son, the king of Castile, fit to rule the kingdom of León27.

12The suggestion is simply this: that the almost complete disappearance of what we call the Latin chronicle may have provided the archbishop with further compensation for the loss of that office.

  • 28 CLI, chap. 73-74. D. Rodrigo was at pains to insist that the chancellor who had done the honours «R (...)
  • 29  L. SERRANO, «El canciller…», p. 39-40.

13The chancellor had replaced the archbishop as the intimate of princes. The spectacle of him celebrating the first mass in the purified mosque of reconquered Córdoba in 1236 may well have seemed to endanger that primatial jurisdiction regarding whose defence D. Rodrigo had been so exercised just five years earlier, and all the more so after 1243 by which time Fernando III was poised to deliver the Castilian Church into the hands of two of his sons and the chancellor was the bishop of an exempt see beyond the other’s jurisdiction28. The chancellor’s will recalls the man who had accompanied the infantes to Paris and Murcia29.

  • 30 CLI, cap. 58-59, where the author reveals (59: 6-7) that the cardinal had previously been bishop-el (...)
  • 31  P. LINEHAN, History and the historians…, p. 308-309; «libri [geomancie] quem [sic] magister Gerard (...)
  • 32  E.g. in his description of Ibn-T­mart as «uir sapiens et discretus licet infidelis» (6: 14). Cf. G (...)

14His is the voice of the courtier, the insider who can record such intimate details as Queen Leonor climbing into bed with her dead son and trying to resuscitate him (20: 10-13) or letters from the king of Aragón concerning the capture of Mallorca (55: 24). But it is also the voice of government, with his remarks on the profitlessness of Gascony (c. 17: 41-3) representing, as it were, the considered opinion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. With his unusual emphasis on extra-peninsular events and their complexities, he was the first Castilian chronicler of international range. In his cosmopolitanism he provides the perfect foil for those doughty champions of Christendom, Alfonso VIII, Fernando III and…Cardinal Pelayo Gaitán, leader of the ill-fated Fifth Crusade30. D. Juan had his cultural formation in the Burgos of Bishop Mauricio while Alfonso VIII was scouring France and Italy for staff for his new university of Palencia, and maintaining Gerard of Cremona in his translation work at Toledo: a tradition which, by his support there of Hermannus Alemannus, D. Juan himself would continue in the 1240s31. His attitude with regard to Islam and the Islamic foe is more nuanced than Juan Gil has suggested32.

  • 33  J. O’CALLAGHAN, The Latin Chronicle of the kings of Castile, Tempe, AR., 2002, p. 3.
  • 34  Acquaintance with at least the jargon of civil law is evident at chap. 2: 11-12 and 65: 4.

15He had been in Rome at least twice (30: 63, 67). Was it on his travels abroad that he had learnt the practice of royal annals, with the material for each year collected separately – and therefore that much more liable to be lost (as in Castile indeed it was) – and written up over a period of years?, with assistants in the chancery involved in the process, but not ‘for publication’ as they stood. The unpacked reference to Gratian in c. 1, recently identified by Prof. James Brundage in a footnote to O’Callaghan’s translation, provides an indication of this33. As do the playful reference «discordiam discordantium ad concordiam reuocauit» in c. 35: 9 apropos of Fernando III’s acclamation as king of Castile, and the description of the king of Aragón, Ramiro the Monk, in c. 4: 56 as «tamquam inutilis regni regimini». Here were the coded allusions for the cognoscenti amounting almost to a series of internal memoranda34.

16Coming after him, D. Rodrigo either sacrificed such foreign material to his by 1243 increasingly eccentric arrangement of both peninsular and other matters (for example, and in defiance of all chronological considerations, displacing Peter of Aragón to Book VI, chap. 4, and the affairs of the Latin Empire to Book VII, chap. 24) or felt no need to incorporate it at all, as in the case of the Albigensian Crusade, the Fourth Lateran Council (though, like D. Juan, he had been there), and Italian developments. Did D. Rodrigo find it easier to distribute non-Castilian material in this way, or to ignore it altogether, because it had not been assigned a place in the abandoned Latin chronicle’s narrative?

  • 35 CLI, 2: 6 and 11-12 (Lucan); 13: 28 (Prudentius); 14: 5 (Virgil); 15: 1-2 (Seneca); 17: 1-2 (Ovid); (...)

17The ‘annalist on duty’ hypothesis might be thought to account for the fact that more than half of all the classical allusions that the text contains occur in just five of its 75 chapters (concerning the years 1195-1211)35. The same explanation, namely that the «annalist on duty» had simply failed in that duty, might account for the complete absence of any record for the years 1220-1223. But it also raises other problems, in the words of scripture making «the last state worse than the first». For example, in the years before 1217 Juan de Soria was not yet chancellor, so when did he begin writing or superintending the writing of the Chronicle? Did he inherit a going concern? Or, from 1217, did he project back to the beginning of the reign of Alfonso VIII, «borrowing» the first eight thin chapters from somewhere, evidently not Lucas? Why, when the chancellor continued in office until his death in 1246, does the Chronicle end in 1236? Why was it that D. Rodrigo appears not to have made use of the CLI after 1224? For that matter, how did D. Rodrigo gain access to the chancellor’s account at all? Above all, how is the work’s concluding pentameter to be explained? «Hoc opus expleui tempore, credo, breui» (75: 5). What is the work that is being completed in short order here? Dr Charlo Brea has observed changes in the texture of the Chronicle from chap. 60 onwards. But whether he is right or wrong about that, the problems concerning CLI go far further.

18Allow me to approach these problems from two directions, first the contextual and then the textual.

  • 36  F. J. HERNÁNDEZ, «La corte de Fernando III…», p. 110-118, 141-143; A. RODRÍGUEZ LÓPEZ, «Quod alien (...)

19During the troubled period at the beginning of Fernando’s reign as king of Castile, after Berenguela had abdicated to him her rights of succession, it was alleged that in fact she had had nothing to abdicate because it was not she but her sister Blanca (Blanche of Castile) who was Alfonso VIII’s eldest surviving daughter. So Fernando’s domestic enemies stated in letters probably of 1224 in which they offered the Castilian crown to Blanche’s son, the future Louis IX. This, they claimed, was what on his deathbed Alfonso VIII had decreed should happen in the event of his son Enrique dying without issue. It was, one of them stated, the king’s «last will». That claim – which was to enjoy a measure of credence in interested circles, and particularly interested French circles, for centuries to come down to Bodin and beyond – depended entirely on the credibility of the story that Berenguela was junior to Blanche36. But that story had already been discredited, and it was the Latin Chronicle that had discredited it.

  • 37  J. GONZÁLEZ, Fernando III, t. 2, n° 4; DRH, IX.5: 10-13: adding that the whole kingdom had twice d (...)
  • 38  L. SERRANO, «El canciller…», p. 5.
  • 39  «Si rex A. sine filio masculo superstite obierit, succedat illi regno filia sua B. et uir eius Con (...)

20There in chap. 33 we read that Alfonso VIII’s wishes regarding the succession toBerenguela as his eldest surviving daughter had been proved («declarabatur») by a certain charter sealed with his lead seal at the curia celebrated at Carrión, «que reperta fuit in armario Burgensis ecclesie». Now from its place in the narrative we seem to be meant to understand that this discovery was made in 1217 (the year in which Juan de Soria began to function as chancellor) and there is evidence in the same chapter that the account was written up before 1230 (33: 18-20). It was from here that D. Rodrigo got his version of the story37. But by the time D. Rodrigo’s «opusculum» left his hands in March 1243, that Burgos item was probably in the royal chancery, transferred there by Juan de Soria who had known Burgos since his youth38 and been bishop of the place since 1240. And no doubt that is why it is no longer in the Burgos archive along with the associated documentation concerning Berenguela’s aborted marriage to Conrad of Hohenstaufen (which would have served the purpose equally well)39.

  • 40  AHN, Órdenes Militares. Calatrava, carp. 442, n° 6: mandate to absolve brothers of Calatrava for m (...)
  • 41  P. LINEHAN, History and the historians…, p. 254, n. 32.

21Another example of the chancellor’s international confidence was his relationship with the cardinal bishop of Sabina, John of Abbeville. It was with the chancellor rather than with the archbishop that in 1228-1229 the papal legate was in contact and at Valladolid where the chancellor was abbot that he held his council for the churches of Castile and León(chap. 54). Moreover, as is shown by an inscription on a papal letter of April 1231 (againat the very time of the transfer to D. Juan of the archbishop’s chancellorship) he certainly kept in touch with Castilian affairs thereafter40. The chancellor’s insistence on canonical marriage and his altogether sounder record on the subject of illicit liaisons, frequently remarked upon, may have had something to do with that41.

  • 42  «¿Un segundo autor para la última parte de la Crónica latina de los reyes de Castilla?», in: M. PÉ (...)
  • 43 Cf.CLI, 10: 18-20; 11: 9; 14: 23; 14: 23-5. Cf.ibid., 54: 16-18.
  • 44 Ibid., 50-52 (X 2.20.47; 4.4.8).
  • 45 C[hronicon] M[undi], E. FALQUE (ed.), CCCM 74.1 (2003), prol. 2.54; 3.5.43; 4.46.25.

22This consideration leads me from the contextual to the textual. The use, no fewer than four times in a single chapter, chapter 65, of the word «contubernium» to describe these liaisons was one of the reasons adduced by Charlo Brea in support of his conjectural second author of chapters 60 to 75 of the Latin chronicle42. «Contubernium»can serve as something of a bench-mark here since, for all its author’s repugnance to such relationships, never before – not even in describing the clerical «sedition» that the legatine measures caused – had he made use of that pejorative description43. Nor had the word been employed in the relevant decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council44. Nor when Lucas of Tuy had used it had he done so in other than a neutral or even a favourable sense45.

  • 46  P. LINEHAN, «A papal legation…», p. 240.
  • 47 DRH, VII.1: 10; VII.5: 47; IX.2: 29.
  • 48 Ibid., VII.31: 7-8.
  • 49  P. LINEHAN, History and the historians…, p. 255-258.

23So what was it that had changed between the composition of chapter 14 of the Latin chronicle and chapter 65 to justify the usage of the word contubernium in contrast to (lawful) connubium? What had changed was that in 1229 that was the word used by John of Abbeville to describe such relationships46. After that (or rather, after chapter 65 of the Latin chronicle) even D. Rodrigo got the message – but only as regards foreigners: Aragonese husbands and Portuguese wives47. In the case of Alfonso IX of León and doña Berenguela of Castile, although he concedes that the pair were «consanguinitatis linea […] iuncti»48, nowhere does the archbishop describe their union in terms so demeaning – understandably perhaps since, after all, these delinquents were the parents of his king. Nor does he find space anywhere to mention that this particular contubernium was eventually dismantled49.

  • 50 DRH, IX.10.37. For the spiritual effects of ungirding, akin to those of godparenthood, see Peter LI (...)
  • 51 CLI, 47: 20; 67: 22.
  • 52 Ibid., 50: 36.
  • 53  CM, 4.93.11 (p. 332); Peter LINEHAN, «On further thought: Lucas of Tuy, Rodrigo of Toledo and the (...)
  • 54  S. DOMÍNGUEZ SÁNCHEZ, Documentos de Gregorio IX…,n° 418.
  • 55  «Planher vuelh En Blacatz en aquest leugier so», M. BONI (ed.), Sordello, Le poesie, Bologna, 1954 (...)

24The relationship between the offspring of that liaison and doña Berenguela, already close, was further strengthened at Burgos in 1219 by the latter’s role in ungirding her newly knighted son, with all that that implied50. One generation on, the Latin chronicle recorded Fernando III returning to his mother and his wife from his exploits: to his mother and his wife, in that order51 and on one occasion just to his mother52. With a possessive mother reluctant to surrender her hold on her son, these must have been difficult times for the chancellor, whose emphasis seems to confirm, in diplomatic terms, what Lucas of Tuy declared openly: namely that, even as an adult, Fernando remained subject to his mother’s ferula, «as though he were a little boy»53. A similar remark about Berenguela – the «queen of Toledo», as the papal chancery curiously addressed her54 – was made by the Mantuan poet Sordello da Goito. In his plaint in memory of Blacatz d’Alms, Sordello imagines Europe’s rulers feasting off the heart of the deceased patron of troubadours in order to acquire the qualities they lacked themselves. In this scenario the king of Castile requires two helpings because he is the ruler of two kingdoms. «But if he does dine twice», the poet observes, «he will have to do so secretly because if his mother finds out she will beat him with her stick»55.

  • 56 DRH, IX.12: 14-17: remarked on by F. J. HERNÁNDEZ, «La corte…», p. 116, n. 50.
  • 57  «Nobilis regina […] breuibus filium allocuta est: ‘[…] Astant uassalli uestri, curia interest, ips (...)

25Which brings us back to court and to differences of opinion there regarding the role of doña Berenguela, the queen mother and to these differences as they are reflected in the chronicles of the two prelates, the archbishop and the chancellor. Here is one, arguably the key event of Fernando III’s reign: the resumption of the reconquest in 1224. Whose idea was that? According to D. Rodrigo it was the queen-mother’s; it was to doña Berenguela that credit was due; this is recorded in a bare four lines of text56. The chancellor though, while recording the king’s acknowledgement of his debt to his mother («to whom after God I owe everything I possess») devotes a complete chapter to his address to the nobility. In the chancellor’s account then it is not the queen-mother, it is the youthful king (I mean, the Holy Spirit speaking through him) «ex insperato, humiliter et devote tanquam filius obediencie» (43: 6-7) who is made responsible for the Great Leap Forward –though, even now, onlyafter the queen-mother has seized the opportunity of providing her son with a toe-curlingly embarrassing object lesson in constitutional punctiliousness57.

  • 58  DRH, IX.1: 12; 2: 6 («prudens»); 10: 27; 11: 18; 12: 5,14; 14: 11; 15: 12; 17: 36; CLI, 41: 8 («cl (...)
  • 59 Ibid., 66: 23.
  • 60  Namely Alfonso VIII’s bequest to the church of Osma of the lordship of the city (in 1204), which a (...)
  • 61  «matrem, que tunc erat apud Legionem, de longe salutauit per nuncium, qui nunciaret ei fideliter e (...)
  • 62  L. CADIER, «Bulles originales du XIIIe siècle conservées dans les Archives de Navarre», Mélanges d (...)
  • 63  Since his meal would encourage him to recover Castile, lost by his own stupidity, though only if h (...)

26If these indications are significant, the conclusion must be that, although at the start of Fernando’s reign, D. Juan was closely allied to the queen-mother to whom he owed his advancement, by the middle of it he, like her son, was striving to liberate himself from her continuing interference in affairs of state. Though until 1224 the lady who for D. Rodrigo was invariably «nobilis» also merited the same encomium and others from the chancellor58, after the resumption of the reconquista only once do we hear her praised, and then in the same breath as her «prudent» daughter-in-law59. Other issues also existed, specific to Osma, which must have strained its bishop’s relationship with the queen-mother60. Be that as it may, when in 1236 the king received the call to hasten to Córdoba he made it clear that nothing she might say would stop him. In D. Rodrigo’s account, by contrast, it is she who, although not physically present, is the brains behind the whole operation of restoring to Hispania the ancient dignity shamefully squandered of old, with her son little more than her agent61. But when, in April 1237, Gregory IX wrote to Castile in order to encourage Fernando III to make peace with the king of Navarre, it was not to the queen-mother and the archbishop that he did so but to the queen-mother and the chancellor62. Sordello’s contemptuous squib, therefore, which is datable to that same year or to early 1237, was founded on reality, as was his matching swipe at the expense of that other mother’s boy, the king of France, Louis IX, who, the poet claimed, like the king of Castile also lacked for appetite63.

27But that brings us back to the old claim that Castile belonged to France, which is far too delicate a matter for an Englishman in Paris to enter into.

  • 64  «uirum discretum, benignum et largum, qui adeo ab omnibus diligebatur quod pater omnium putaretur» (...)

28So instead, and by way of conclusion, let me return to Juan de Soria himself. As Julio González noticed, only three individuals in the Latin chronicle are allowed the luxury of an epithet: the chronicler himself (qua chancellor), the papal legate, of whom I have spoken, and Martín López de Pisuerga (1192-1208), D. Rodrigo’s predecessor as archbishop of Toledo, upon whom the chronicler lavishes words of unparalleled warmth64.

  • 65  J. F. RIVERA, La iglesia de Toledo en el siglo  XII, t. 1, Rome, 1966, p. 202-203.
  • 66 P. LINEHAN, «D. Juan de Soria…»; p. 388-389; id., «The case of the impugned chirograph, and the jur (...)

29Before his election to Toledo, Martín López had been archdeacon of Palencia65. This brings him into the mainstream of intellectual, and in particular of canonical, activity which I have discussed elsewhere and which, in the early decades of the thirteenth century, as well as Palencia, involved Osma, Soria, Calahorra and Zamora. There would therefore have been no shortage of compilers, or annalists, in that burgeoning École normale supérieure, the seminary out of which the personnel of the Castilian chancery was to emerge, under the control of its first professional chancellor66.

  • 67  J. HERNANDO PÉREZ, Hispano Diego García, escritor y poeta medieval, y el Libro de Alexandre, Burgo (...)

30There are all sorts of other things I might have spoken about but haven’t – one of them the language question, the (to me futile) question why the chancellor’s charters were in the vernacular while the Latin chronicle was in Latin. I say futile because from the mechanical treatment of historical questions you get mechanical answers: in this case, the conclusion, both futile and mechanical, that it must have been the chancellor Diego Garcia, the author of Planeta, or possibly his son, who was the author of our chronicle, as well as of much else67.

  • 68  Beryl SMALLEY, «Ecclesiastical attitudes to novelty c.1100-c.1250», in: D. BAKER (ed.), Church, so (...)

31We may wonder what more there is to be said about these chroniclers – Lucas of Tuy, the Latin chronicler, and Rodrigo of Toledo – who in the last ten or twenty years have received more attention than in the previous seven hundred. Ought they not now to be left alone to acquire a sort of historiographical patina, a sort of bottle age? «Whereof we cannot speak», it was once said, not altogether unreasonably, «thereof must we be silent». But it wasn’t a historian who said it. If that were the historian’s code there would be no history. As one of the twentieth century’s most acute medievalists once observed, «history would be a duller subject than it is if historians limited themselves to questions which admit of answers on the evidence available»68. Still, questions do deserve answers and, by the same token, answers demand questions. Indeed, it is almost the only reason historians have for communicating at all.

Haut de page

Notes

1  Georges CIROT, «Chronique latine des rois de Castile (1236)», Bulletin hispanique, 14 ,1912, p. 30-46; 109-118; 244-274; 353-374 ; 15,1913, 18-37; 17-87; 268-283; 411-427. Although in many respects Cirot’s edition and commentary have never been bettered, for convenience I will cite the CCCM edition by L. CHARLO BREA (1997). I wish to thank members of the colloquium for helping me to change my mind about various of the issues discussed below, also Professors James Brundage, Richard Kinkade and Roger Wright for their comments on an earlier draft.

2 CLI, cap. 12-13; 22-24; DRH (ed. J. FERNÁNDEZ VALVERDE, CCCM, 1987), VII.29; IX.5-11. Cf. CIROT’s characterisation of D. Rodrigo’s of the earlier battle («phraséologie ampoulée») by contrast with that of CLI: Bulletin hispanique, 14, p. 259n.

3  As for example in their descriptions of the rebellion of Gonzalo Pérez de Molina in 1223, analysed by F. J. HERNÁNDEZ, «La corte de Fernando III y la casa real de Francia. Documentos, crónicas, monumentos», in: Fernando III y su tiempo (1201-1252), VIII Congreso de Estudios Medievales, León, 2003, p. 103-55, p. 116. See also the unsystematic list of instances given by J. GONZÁLEZ, «La crónica latina de los reyes de Castilla», in Homenaje a don Agustín Millares Carló, Gran Canaria, 1975, t. 2, p. 55-70, p. 65.

4 CLI, 41: 5 («Anno iterum postea revoluto»); DRH, IX.11: 13 («Anno postea iterum revoluto»); F. J. HERNÁNDEZ, «La corte de Fernando III…», p. 111-112.

5  Though I am reluctant to accept the descriptions of CLI as written «lo suficientemente tarde para comentar y parafrasear el Chronicon del Tudense» (cf. note 53 below), and DRH as «no […] mucho más que una paráfrasis y comentario, a veces discrepante, de la Crónica del Canciller»: ibid., p. 106n, 112.

6  L. SERRANO, «El canciller de Fernando III de Castilla», Hispania, 1, 1941, p. 3-40, p. 37. (By the author I mean Juan de Osma, a.k.a. Juan de Soria.)

7  Whether the disappearance of manuscripts of the Romance Jofré de Loaisa was engineered in order to assist the hypothetical deception I am not in a position to say.

8 L. SERRANO, «El canciller…», p. 4-5; A. BALLESTEROS, «Don Juan el canciller», Correo erudito, 1,1940, p. 145-151, p. 151; J. GONZÁLEZ, Reinado y diplomas de Fernando III, t. 1, Córdoba, 1980, p. 504.

9  J. ZURITA, Anales de la Corona de Aragón, Zaragoza, 1561-1580, III.3.

10  J. GONZÁLEZ, «La crónica latina…», p. 69.

11 Anales, III.2 [ad an. 1228]: «Hallo en las crónicas que compuso en latín un obispo de Burgos, que trasladó la historia general de Castilla y fue en tiempo del rey don Alonso el décimo, que la principal causa porque Zeit Abuzeit fue echado del reino…». Regardless of what Zurita may have meant by «y fue en tiempo del rey don Alonso el décimo», in our chronicle the king of Valencia is identified not by name but only as «rex […] calidus et astutus» (c. 54). For Zurita’s alternative identifications of this bishop of Burgos as Gonzalo Pérez ‘Gudiel’ (†1299) and Gonzalo de Hinojosa (†1327), see G. CIROT, «Cronique latine…», Bulletin Hispanique, 15,1913, p. 272-274.

12  F. J. HERNÁNDEZ, «La corte de Fernando III…», p. 111, n. 28.

13  Herewith just one of the reasons for rejecting González’s suggestion that rather than borrowing one from another, CLI and DRH may both have used a common source («una anotación común»): «La crónica latina…», p. 64-65. For in that case, where more appropriately might that source have been preserved than … in the royal chancery?

14 CLI, 4: 4; 12: 18; 19: 24; 38.13. The word occurs just twice in CM: 4.67.8; 4.88.3.

15  The former system is employed in chap. 28-51, 64 and 68-69, the latter in chap. 52-59, 65 and 67.

16  R. CARANDE HERRERO (ed.), CCCM 73 (1997), prol. lin. 11 («in cronicis annotari»); lin. 170 («scripta sunt <in> cronicis»).

17 Cf. the contribution of Inés Fernández-Ordóñez to the present volume.

18  Peter LINEHAN, «Don Rodrigo and the government of the kingdom», Cahiers de linguistique et de civilisation hispaniques médiévales, 26, 2003, p. 87-99. Cf. J. GONZÁLEZ, Fernando III…, t. I. p. 506. For the same blithe assumption about D. Rodrigo’s attitude to D. Juan’s appointment in 1217, see L. SERRANO, «El canciller…», p. 6.

19  Thus Roger WRIGHT, Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France, Liverpool, 1982, p. 257. If so, blood was evidently thinner than water.

20  Peter LINEHAN, History and the historians of Medieval Spain, Oxford, 1993, p. 350-412.

21 Id., «D. Juan de Soria: unas apostillas», in: Fernando III y su tiempo (1201-1252), p. 377-393; p. 381.

22  «[…] la qual mostrada el dicho thesorero dixo quela dicha carta era meester de mostrar en muchos logares et por periglos que podrian acaesçer en terminos e en otros logares»: [Madrid,] A[rchivo] H[istorico] N[acional], Clero, carp. 3019/8.

23  D. MANSILLA, La documentación pontificia de Honorio III (1216-1227), Rome, 1965, n° 153, 144.

24  A[rchivo de la] C[atedral de] Toledo, X.7.A.3.6, X.1.A.1.3a [‘Zucheta’] (4, 8 Apr. 1231; printed S. DOMÍNGUEZ SÁNCHEZ, Documentos de Gregorio IX (1227-1241) referentes a España, León, 2004, n° 176, 179 [‘Çucheta’ in Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Reg. Vat. 15, fol. 77r°]. For further implications of this «little essay in creative antiquarianism», see P. LINEHAN, History and the historians…, p. 340-344.

25  D. MANSILLA, La documentación pontificia…, n° 10.

26  It was seen as a suitably «juicy» return for the benefits of the cardinal’s influence at Rome, «qui tibi et regno tuo esse potest multipliciter fructuosus». The pope’s letter continues: «Preces nostras sic efficaciter impleturus affectui de affectu non subtrahens, et effectui adiciens per affectum, quod et nos precibus tuis ex hoc specialius grata teneamur vicissitudine respondere». Cf. the same play on the words effectus-affectus (and in this case affectio)in the begging letter on behalf of another of the cardinal’s nephews («P. latorem presencium») contained in the formulary of Thomas of Capua (datable from its context to 12181221 and perhaps meant for the bishop of Salamanca) in S. F. HAHN, Collectio monvmentorvm […] Antiqvitates, geographiam, historiam omnem, ac nobiliores ivris partes havd mediocriter illustrantivm, Brvnsvigae, t. 1, 1724, p. 383-384; Peter LINEHAN, The spanish Church and the Papacy in the thirteenth century, Cambridge, 1971, p. 291-292.

27  D. MANSILLA, La documentación pontificia…, n° 179; P. LINEHAN, History and the historians…, p. 258-259.

28 CLI, chap. 73-74. D. Rodrigo was at pains to insist that the chancellor who had done the honours «Roderici Toletani primatis uices [gerente]» (DRH, IX.17: 8): apparently the only occasion in his chronicle on which he described himself as primate. See F. J. HERNÁNDEZ & P. LINEHAN, The mozarabic cardinal. The life and times of Gonzalo Pérez Gudiel, Florence, 2004, p. 30-32.

29  L. SERRANO, «El canciller…», p. 39-40.

30 CLI, cap. 58-59, where the author reveals (59: 6-7) that the cardinal had previously been bishop-elect of León: a fact confirmed by Thomas of Capua (HAHN, Collectio, loc. cit.) though it has passed unnoticed by most modern historians of the spanish Church. See D. MANSILLA, «El cardenal hispano Pelayo Gaitán», Anthologica Annua, 1,1953, p. 11-66, p. 12-14; P. LINEHAN, The spanish Church and the Papacy…, p. 279 n. 3. ‘Domnus Pelagius’ is first recorded as bishop-elect of León in April 1207 and Feb. 1208 but has disappeared by Jan. 1209 (J. M. FERNÁNDEZ CATÓN, Colección documental del archivo de la catedral de León (775-1230), VI (1188-1230), León, 1991, p. 18, n° 1793, 1800, 1806). He had been cardinal-deacon of S.Lucia since 1205 and was promoted cardinal-bishop of Albano in 1213: C. EUBEL, Hierarchia catholica medii et recentioris aevi, vol. 1, Munich, 1913, p. 3.

31  P. LINEHAN, History and the historians…, p. 308-309; «libri [geomancie] quem [sic] magister Gerardus de Cremona [† 1187], magnus medicus in phisica, transtulit de arabico in latinum, habens expensas a rege Castelle»: ms. Chantilly 322, fol. 45v° (cit. C. BURNETT, «Filosofía natural, secretos y magia», in L. GARCÍA BALLESTER (ed.), Historia de la ciencia y de la técnica en la Corona de Castilla, t. 1, Edad Media, Salamanca, 2002, p. 95-144, p. 128 n. 144); W. F. Boggess, «Hermannus Alemannus’s rhetorical translations», Viator, 2,1971, p. 227-250, p. 248 (identifying the chancellor as «Juan Domingues de Medina»), p. 249.

32  E.g. in his description of Ibn-T­mart as «uir sapiens et discretus licet infidelis» (6: 14). Cf. GIL, «La historiografía»: La cultura del románico, siglos XI al XIII. Letras, religiosidad, artes, ciencia y vida, F. LÓPEZ ESTRADA (ed.) [Historia de España Menéndez Pidal, XI], Madrid, 1995, p. 86: «no hay piedad para los infieles […] La religión islámica y sus ritos provocan náusea: las mezquitas han de ser limpiadas de la inmundicia (spurcicia) agarena antes de ser consagradas al culto cristiano». There was nothing particularly significant about his use of the term spurcicia, which at this time was routine usage in the papal chancery for all things Muslim.

33  J. O’CALLAGHAN, The Latin Chronicle of the kings of Castile, Tempe, AR., 2002, p. 3.

34  Acquaintance with at least the jargon of civil law is evident at chap. 2: 11-12 and 65: 4.

35 CLI, 2: 6 and 11-12 (Lucan); 13: 28 (Prudentius); 14: 5 (Virgil); 15: 1-2 (Seneca); 17: 1-2 (Ovid); 17: 34 (Virgil); 17: 41 (Horace);18: 15-16 (Horace); 18: 30-1 (Virgil); 23: 43-4 (Claudian); 40: 23=44: 26 (Horace); 74: 24 (Virgil). I have been assisted in the task of identification by O’Callaghan’s translation, though not all his suggestions have I accepted. Biblical references provide a less useful index. They abound throughout the work, though as many as 30 of its 75 chapters lack them.

36  F. J. HERNÁNDEZ, «La corte de Fernando III…», p. 110-118, 141-143; A. RODRÍGUEZ LÓPEZ, «Quod alienus regnet et heredes expellatur. L’offre du trône de Castille au roi Louis VIII de France», Le Moyen Âge, 105 ,1999, p. 109-128, p. 113-115; Peter LINEHAN, «The accession of Alfonso X (1252) and the origins of the war of the spanish succession» [repr. LINEHAN, Past and present in Medieval Spain, Aldershot, 1992], p. 59-79, esp. p. 71-73. (Berenguela had been born in 1171, Blanca in 1188.)

37  J. GONZÁLEZ, Fernando III, t. 2, n° 4; DRH, IX.5: 10-13: adding that the whole kingdom had twice done homage to her before the birth of Enrique.

38  L. SERRANO, «El canciller…», p. 5.

39  «Si rex A. sine filio masculo superstite obierit, succedat illi regno filia sua B. et uir eius Conradus cum ea»: AC Burgos, vol. 17, fol. 434: printed J. M. GARRIDO GARRIDO, Documentación de la catedral de Burgos (1184-1222), Burgos, n.d., n° 277, failing to note that the instrument is a chirograph. See photograph in P. RASSOW, Der Prinzgemahl: ein Pactum matrimoniale aus dem Jahre 1188 (Quellen und Studien zur Verfassungsgeschichte des Deutschen Reiches in Mittelalter und Neuzeit, Bd VIII. Heft 1; Weimar, 1950), ad fin.

40  AHN, Órdenes Militares. Calatrava, carp. 442, n° 6: mandate to absolve brothers of Calatrava for minor violence against clergy: inscription of papal chancery: «d[omi]n[u]s Sabin[ensis] fi[eri] et sc[ri]bi p[re]cepit» (text S. DOMÍNGUEZ SÁNCHEZ, Documentos de Gregorio IX…, n° 186, Apr. 1231). For Spaniards in the cardinal’s Roman household, see Peter LINEHAN, «A papal legation and its aftermath: Cardinal John of Abbeville in Spain and Portugal, 1228-1229», in: I. BIROCCHI et al. (ed.), A Ennio Cortese, Rome, 2001, t. 2, p. 236-256, p. 241. Also in April 1231 (regarding which see above, note 24) the maintenance of one of them, Master P., was wished upon the church of Cuenca: AC Toledo, X.1.E.2.8.

41  P. LINEHAN, History and the historians…, p. 254, n. 32.

42  «¿Un segundo autor para la última parte de la Crónica latina de los reyes de Castilla?», in: M. PÉREZ GONZÁLEZ (ed.), Actas I Congreso Nacional de Latín Medieval (León, 1-4 de diciembre de 1993), León, 1995, p. 251-256, p. 253.

43 Cf.CLI, 10: 18-20; 11: 9; 14: 23; 14: 23-5. Cf.ibid., 54: 16-18.

44 Ibid., 50-52 (X 2.20.47; 4.4.8).

45 C[hronicon] M[undi], E. FALQUE (ed.), CCCM 74.1 (2003), prol. 2.54; 3.5.43; 4.46.25.

46  P. LINEHAN, «A papal legation…», p. 240.

47 DRH, VII.1: 10; VII.5: 47; IX.2: 29.

48 Ibid., VII.31: 7-8.

49  P. LINEHAN, History and the historians…, p. 255-258.

50 DRH, IX.10.37. For the spiritual effects of ungirding, akin to those of godparenthood, see Peter LINEHAN, «Alfonso XI of Castile and the arm of Santiago (with a Note on the pope’s foot)», in: A. GARCÍA Y GARCÍA & P. WEIMAR (ed.), Miscellanea Domenico Maffei dicata, Frankfurt, 1995 [repr. LINEHAN, The processes of politics], p. 121-146, p. 130-132.

51 CLI, 47: 20; 67: 22.

52 Ibid., 50: 36.

53  CM, 4.93.11 (p. 332); Peter LINEHAN, «On further thought: Lucas of Tuy, Rodrigo of Toledo and the Alfonsine histories»,Anuario de Estudios Medievales, 27, 1998, p. 415-436 [repr. LINEHAN, The processes of politics and the rule of law. Studies on the iberian kingdoms and papal Rome in the Middle Ages, Aldershot, 2002], at p. 420-421. (I take this opportunity of acknowledging the persuasive demonstration provided by Enrique JÉREZ, «El Tudense en su siglo: Transmisión y recepción del Chronicon mundi en el Doscientos», in: Francisco Bautista (ed.), El relato historiográfico: textos y tradiciones en la España medieval, Papers of the Medieval Hispanic Research Seminar, 48 (London: Department of hispanic studies, Queen Mary, University of London, 2006), p. 19-57, p. 32-34,that «la versión más acabada que conocemos del Chronicon mundi hay que fecharla antes de finales de noviembre de 1238».)

54  S. DOMÍNGUEZ SÁNCHEZ, Documentos de Gregorio IX…,n° 418.

55  «Planher vuelh En Blacatz en aquest leugier so», M. BONI (ed.), Sordello, Le poesie, Bologna, 1954, p. 158-165. For an acute appreciation of the queen-mother as represented by the three chroniclers, see G. MARTIN, «Régner sans régner : Bérengère de Castille (1214-1246) au miroir de l’historiographie de son temps», e-Spania, 1 (2006).

56 DRH, IX.12: 14-17: remarked on by F. J. HERNÁNDEZ, «La corte…», p. 116, n. 50.

57  «Nobilis regina […] breuibus filium allocuta est: ‘[…] Astant uassalli uestri, curia interest, ipsi consulant nobis sicut tenentur et consilium eorum sequimini in hoc facto’»: CLI, 44: 1-7.

58  DRH, IX.1: 12; 2: 6 («prudens»); 10: 27; 11: 18; 12: 5,14; 14: 11; 15: 12; 17: 36; CLI, 41: 8 («clarissima»); 35: 15; 42: 11 («tanquam prudens»); 44: 1, 1, 19.

59 Ibid., 66: 23.

60  Namely Alfonso VIII’s bequest to the church of Osma of the lordship of the city (in 1204), which after 1214 both Berenguela and Fernando III strenuously and effectively opposed, resisting or ignoring all papal sanctions: P. LINEHAN, «D. Juan de Soria…», p. 387.

61  «matrem, que tunc erat apud Legionem, de longe salutauit per nuncium, qui nunciaret ei fideliter ea que acciderant et firmum propositum filii, quod nulla ratione poterat inmutari»: ibid., 70: 22-5. Cf.DRH, IX.17.30-5: «Stabilitata incolis et bellatoribus ciuitate rex Fernandus Toletum ad reginam nobilem est reuersus, que pari uictoria iocundata utpote que consilio et subsidio, licet absens, omnia procurarat, gracias cum lacrimis egit Deo, quod antiqua dignitas, ignauia principum liturata, sui sollercia et studio filii fuit Hispanie restituta».

62  L. CADIER, «Bulles originales du XIIIe siècle conservées dans les Archives de Navarre», Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire, 7, 1887, p. 268-338,n° 23-24; P. LINEHAN, «D. Juan de Soria…», p. 377.

63  Since his meal would encourage him to recover Castile, lost by his own stupidity, though only if his mother allowed him to eat (since he did nothing without her permission): M. BONI, Sordello, p. 160; R. MENÉNDEZ PIDAL, Poesía juglaresca y orígenes de las literaturas románicas, 6th ed., Madrid, 1957, p. 141-142. For Sordello’s exile in Spain and France, see M. BONI, p. 47-48.

64  «uirum discretum, benignum et largum, qui adeo ab omnibus diligebatur quod pater omnium putaretur» (12: 9-11).

65  J. F. RIVERA, La iglesia de Toledo en el siglo  XII, t. 1, Rome, 1966, p. 202-203.

66 P. LINEHAN, «D. Juan de Soria…»; p. 388-389; id., «The case of the impugned chirograph, and the juristic culture of early thirteenth-century Zamora», in: M. ASCHERI et al. (ed.), Manoscritti, editoria e biblioteche tra medioevo ed età moderna. Studi offerti a Domenico Maffei, Rome, 2006, p. 461-513; id., Spanish Church and the Papacy…, p. 66; I. FLEISCH, Sacerdotium – Regnum – Studium. Der westiberische Raum und die europäische Universitätskultur im Hochmittelalter. Prosopographische und rechtsgeschichtliche Studien, Berlin, 2006, p. 292-298.

67  J. HERNANDO PÉREZ, Hispano Diego García, escritor y poeta medieval, y el Libro de Alexandre, Burgos, 1992. For a refreshingly sane review of the evidence, see R. WRIGHT, El tratado de Cabreros (1206): estudio sociofilológico de una reforma ortográfica, London, 2000, p. 99-122.

68  Beryl SMALLEY, «Ecclesiastical attitudes to novelty c.1100-c.1250», in: D. BAKER (ed.), Church, society and politics (Studies in Church history, 12; Cambridge, 1975), p. 113-131, p. 129.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Peter LINEHAN, « Juan de Soria: the Chancellor as Chronicler », e-Spania [En ligne], 2 | décembre 2006, mis en ligne le 14 décembre 2006, consulté le 25 octobre 2014. URL : http://e-spania.revues.org/276 ; DOI : 10.4000/e-spania.276

Haut de page

Auteur

Peter LINEHAN

pal35@hermes.cam.ac.uk, St John’s College, Cambridge, SIREM (GDR 2378, CNRS)

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

© e-Spania

Haut de page