ALFONSO X IN ANDALUCIA *

Notwithstanding its odd Nobel laureate (not to mention its multitude of artists of genius), in the 'problematic' and `inferiority complex'-ridden Spain of the 1960s 'el español universal' remained something of an existential oxymoron. A few were able to break the spell. Blessed by the Swedish Academy, Juan Ramón's Platero surpassed in fame Loyola's mount, while in the historical category Charles V was closely followed by Alfonso X, supra-national emperor and world renown scholar. I Today, by contrast, as a new millennium approaches, we Spaniards seem more at home with ourselves. Though the old craving for recognition by the wider world persists, it now coexists with a heightened sense of self-esteem and of patriotism and in particular of local patriotism. This later development has especially benefited the community of historians whom the autonomías defer to as tutelaries of their localities' various pasts. Flattering and profitable as it is, however, this new interest is not without its dangers. There is the temptation to pander to a populist view of the past and to emphasize the highs, avert one's gaze from the lows, and worst of ah present that past as an inevitable evolution preordained by the present -by the provincial present, needless to say.

fashionable myths regarding the Moorish descent of modem Andalucians -some of whom the search for their roots has led to embrace Islam -and for publishing the texts which constitute the authentic historical record.In undertaking this task, he is responding both to what for him amounts almost to a moral imperative, and -as he has recently remarked -to the practical consideration that a muster of the provincial components of the story must needs precede the assembly of the national whole. 2 In this same spirit he presents us now with the impressive volume of his Diplomatario andaluz de Alfonso X, 3 as a significant fragment of the historical record of 'la época fundacional de Andalucía' (p.y), by implication clearing the main field of the Andalucian cultural landscape of the accumulated detritus deposited by Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Vandals and Visigoths, not to mention the Arabs.
The 540 documents from the reign of Alfonso X (1252-1284) printed here are preceded by three introductory essays.In the first of these González Jiménez sketches the main outlines of the story.As he observes, particularly in the earlier years of the reign, there is a curious lack of connexion observable between the documentation and the narrative sources, principally the Chronicle of Alfonso X,4 written some fifty years after the king's death.'Parece ajena a las tensiones y problemas de este drámatico año de 1273', the editor remarks (p.xciv), though to his credit he has effectively combined the two types of source, and in doing so has illuminated significant aspects of Alfonso's reign, most notably, and authoritatively, that of the settlement of the Andalucian frontier.Though cast as a survey of the entire reign, González Jiménez's essay is very much Andalucía-centred.Yet although Alfonso's imperial career is accorded just three unes, it is one of its merits that it helps to bring into focus Ballesteros's sprawling narrative of the subject in Alfonso X el Sabio (Barcelona 1963) while indicating some of that pioneering work's egregious blunders.5 The editor's introduction convincingly demonstrates that it was `after the processes of conquest by Femando Ill and settlement by Alfonso X that Andalucía emerged as a mature and fully formed historical entity' (p.cxviii).6 Moreover, regarding the king's last will and testament (as to the date of which see below), some of his interpretations are of special interest: for its relevance to the ongoing debate regarding the nature and evolution of Spanish feudalism, for example, the suggestion that Alfonso's assignment of the kingdoms of Seville-Badajoz and Murcia was limited lo the lifetimes of their recipients (p.cxii).7 The collection of documents itself -assembled with the assistance of numerous scholars (p.viii) from many archives in Spain and Portugal as well as Andalucía -represents a massive achievement, the significance of which may be gauged by the fact that volumes 1 and 2 of the Memorial Histórico Español, hitherto the principal corpus of published documents for Alfonso's reign, contains just 46 `Andalucian' items.8 With certain exceptions, indicated by the editor, most items seem to have been edited from originals, and occasional references to the likes of the `strong box' of Arcos, the `iron box' of Córdoba, the `secret archive' of Toledo reveal the amount of diplomacy and leg work that the task has involved.Thus it is with deep respect and admiration that the following consideranda, addenda and corrigenda are offered here.

II
A group of documents which reflect Alfonso's most poignant answers to the rebellion of his son, Infante Sancho, in the last two years of his life (1282-84), deserves to be considered first.His judicial sentence against Sancho -Diplomatario's no.503bis (9 [recte 8] Nov. 1282) -presents several problems.The earliest known version of it is the Latin text printed by J. Zurita.9 The belief 6.A small point: in the discussion of the king's late attempts to strengthen the frontier against the Marinids and Portugal, `Coviellas de Douro,' which was given to the Order of Saint John, should not be located in Portugal (p.cxiv and doc.479); the place is the `Cubillas', near Villalar (Valladolid) which still was an 'encomienda de San Juan de Jerusalén' in P. Madoz's time.See his Diccionario geográfico-estadístico-histórico de España y sus posesiones de Ultramar, 16 vols (Madrid 1848-9) 7:195b-196a.
7. The other introductory essays of the Diplomatario, Joaquín Cerdá Ruiz-Funes on 'Instituciones de Andalucía.Estudio histórico-jurídico' and María José Sanz Fuentes on 'Instituciones de Andalucía.Estudio diplomático,' are useful treatments of the state of each question and provide a taxonomic approach to the documentation edited there.
8. (Madrid 1851); hereafter MHE.However, it is regretable that strict philological criterio have not been followed in this collaborative effort and that modero accent pattems have been forced upon medieval verb forms (for example, -ié forms, typical of the indicative imperfect in the thirteenth century, are consistently rendered as `-íe').9. Indices rerum ab Aragonice regibus gestarum ab initiis regni ad annum MCDX (Zaragoza 1578) 171-4.[3 ] perpetuated by Ballesteros-10 that Zurita had translated an original Spanish text into Latin is baseless.Together with Ballesteros's Spanish version of it, this canard originated with the Marqués de Mondéjar.11 However, although a modem fabrication, 12 the Mondéjar-Ballesteros text does at least faithfully convey the meaning of the Latin original -which is more than can be said for the translation by A. Canellas in his rendering of Zurita's Indices.13 Canellas' Spanish version of the sentence appears in the Diplomatario without any account of its provenance, as though it were Alfonso's own.As well as lisping, the king is made to express some surprisingly modem sentiments.Thus, the description of his attempts to reach a compromise with his son 'ad bonum statum, pacem et tranquillitatem' is represented as a statement of policy 'hacia el bien del Estado, la paz y la tranquilidad'.14 Likewise, Sancho's call to arms to the municipal militia of several cities (Lat.concilia) is represented as a request for advice (Sp.consejos).Finally, the force of Alfonso's `constitutionar objection regarding the legality of the proto-parlamentary Cortes of 1282 which had purported to replace him with Sancho -`curiam generalem, si tamen debet dici curia' -is diminished by the use of a false cognate: 'reunió una curia general, si es que puede llamarse curia'.15 It is unfortunate that this crucial document should have been presented here in so garbled and misleading a version, for, as González Jiménez himself demonstrates in the course of providing an elegant solution to a particularly messy problem created by Ballesteros' reading of 'el rey' as 'al rey' (p.xxxviii), even the merest mistranscription is capable of creating historiographical havoc in its wake.
Closely related to Alfonso's sentence against lois son is the next document to be considered, his last will and testament.Printed in the Diplomatario as no.518, 13.Gestas de los Reyes de Aragón, i (Zaragoza 1984) 262-6: the text printed in Diplomatario as no.503bis.To add one more loop to the tangle, R. P. Kinkade now dañas that Canellas' text has been 'translated from the Latin by Zurita': also, apparently, that the Canellas and Ballesteros versions are identical!('Alfonso X, Cantiga 235, and the events of 1269-1278', Speculum, 67 [1992] 322, n. 133).
14.In reality, of course, Alfonso's words do not express a precocious perception of the modem notion of 'the State'as his reference to `bonum statum terrx' two or three lines earlier in the same text makes plain.
15. Cf. the Mondéjar-Ballesteros rendering 'aquellas Cortes, si acaso assi se deven llamar'.Alfonso X, 996. it ought to appear not at 8 November 1283, the date derived via MHE 2 ccxxviii from a late fifteenth-century copy in Madrid, Real Academia de la Historia, but immediately after no.503bis (the judicial sentence) at 8 Nov. 1282, which is the date given in the near-contemporary copies of the Latin version of both documents made in Seville two weeks after the king's death and sent to the French court.' (Incidentally, juxtaposition of this Latin text and the sentence published by Zurita clearly shows that Zurita did not translate, but copied, a medieval text, albeit introducing certain classical features, such as the dipyhong, the effect of which is deceptive.)By publishing on the same day the sentence condemning Sancho (no.503bis) and the testarnent depriving him of the rights of succession (no.518) the king tried to bring upon his rebel son the full force of the law in a characteristically grandiose and fruitless gestare whose intent is lost if the two documents are pulled a year apart.
After solemnly convicting and disinheriting Sancho in November of 1282, Alfonso lived on in his Sevillian refuge for a year and a half.17 In 10 January 1284, he wrote an appendix to the earlier testament, a codicil which is sometimes described as his "second testament".Diplomatario (no.521) uses the notarial copy of the Spanish text dated 16 April 1284 -the king had died on 4 Aprilpreserved at Lisbon, Arquivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo, and provides an improved edition of that text.18 However, the failure also to mention the copy of the Latin text dated 20 April 1284 and transmitted to Paris 19 disguises some substantive facts of history.Also omitted from the present edition are the dating and signatures of the Sevillian notaries who certified the validity of the copies after Alfonso's death -which although they are not attributable to Alfonso's chancery nevertheless provide an indication of the measures taken by interested parties to ensure the execution of the will before Sancho reached Seville, an event which did not take place until mid-May and has a bearing on the next item to be considered here.
16. Publ.DAUMET, 'Les testaments d'Alphonse X' 75-87.Daumet's date was accepted by Ballesteros, in preference to that given in MHE.His chaotic paraphrase of the text of the will is unfortunately riddled with misprints: Alfonso X, 1000.In 1986, Craddock also asumes the date of 8 Novembre 1282 and provides a long quotation from another copy of the original Spanish testament (in Escorial MS M.H.2) which has not been taken into consideration in Diplomatario (art.quoted aboye, n. 4).17.The incidents of the `civil war' are described by Ballesteros (Ibid.978-1057) and analyzed by González Jiménez (cv-cxi), who disagrees with some of Ballestero's points (p.cx, n. 136) but accepts his main thesis, that Alfonso's side began to gain the upper hand by 1283 (see Ballestero's sub-chapter 'El bloque faccioso se resquebraja', 998-1000).See also Craddock (art. in n. 4) and R.A. MACDO-NALD, 'Alfonso the Leamed and Succession: A Father's Dilemma,' Speculum, 40 (1965) 647-53.
18. Previously published in As Gavetas da Torre do Tombo, 6 (1967) 185.This notarial copy was obtained in Seville for Queen Beatriz of Portugal, daughter of Alfonso and one of bis main beneficiaries.
A notable absence from the Diplomatario is the document dated 23 March 1284, two weeks before Alfonso's death, printed by T. Rymer, 21 as 'littera Alfonsi Regis Castell ad Martinum IV papam de reconciliatione cum Sancio filio', the effect of which was to abrogate the sentence and testament of 8 Nov. 1282, the codicil of 10 January 1284 (Diplomatario no.521), and the papal condemnation ('Insurgentis fremitus', 9 August 1283).Was... or would have been -if genuine.But is it?, we may wonder, for evidently it cut no ice at the papal curia.
Its text survives in a littera de inspeximus dated Zamora 10 Oct. 1284, where Sancho's court was, witnessed by several bishops and barons, and also by `magister Ago decretorum doctor'.It was issued, rege mandante, by Master John of Cremona, who was a royal notary and member of the Alfonsine research team and who had been active in 1276 in the translation and recasting of the //// Libros de las estrellas de la ochaua espera.22 After Alfonso's death, Master John found a niche in Sancho IV's court, where he received better than average remuneration.23 As to the littera itself, as reported, there are certain curious features, as to both content and form.Thus, on first reading, the sentence 'Non enim invenimus tantam fidem, quam in Romana ecclesia, nam alii quorum auxilium ex debito sparabamus nos, loco auxilii, irriserunt' appears altogether un-Alfonsine.However, although such sentiments would have been wholly implausible if ascribed to the period 1275-82, in fact they are closely paralleled by passages in the post-1282 will and codici1.24 Similarly, its authentication by the royal gold sea! ('sigillo nostro parvo aureo') may occasion surprise.Use of the gold seal was rare -so rare that it is not even mentioned by Sanz Fuentes in her 'Estudio diplomático'.But it was not unknown; one had been attached to Alfonso's confirmation of the privileges of Seville in September 1283.25 Nor does the fact that no such seal is now extant in the Vatican Archive 26 clearly demonstrate that one was not affixed to this letter in March 1284 and that the inspeximus of the following October is necessarily an inspeximus of a forgery.
If the gold seal of the original letter was intended to emphasize the importance of its contents in the spring of that year, so too were the names of those who vouched for its authenticity in that autumn: 27 the Infante Juan, brother of Sancho, an unsavory opportunist whose career ended in suitably inglorious manner; 25 a flock of curial prelates: 'luan Alfonso of Palencia, the sometime Alfonsine loyalist who had wasted no time in making his peace with his nephew Sancho; Alfonso of Coria, the rebel Infante's chancellor; " Fernando [Arias] of Túy, an early supporter of the rebel Sancho who nevertheless maintained close links with Beatriz of Portugal, the Cordelia to Alfonso's Lear; 31 Ferrán Pérez, elect of Sigüenza, accused of treason and sodomy by the dying Alfonso and promoted royal notary by Sancho IV; 32 frater Munio -Rymer's frater Diurno though in reality the rather more nocturnal nun-chasing Prior Provincial of the Dominicans -whose later election to the see of Palencia was to be rejected by Boniface VIII; " and Gómez García, canon of Toledo, abbot of Valladolid and Notary of León who would soon be expelled from the Chancery for misappropriation.34  -though, as stated aboye, it cut no ice when he got there because (doubtless too) ahl the proctors of France and Aragón, armed with copies of Alfonso's `pre-reconciliation' will and codicil, joined forces to discredit it.But were they right too?The question remains.Was the littera de reconciliatione indeed a fake?It is doubly curious that in their biographical studies of Alfonso X and Sancho IV, Antonio Ballesteros 36 and his more competent spouse Mercedes Gaibrois both studiously ignored it.For neither of them was ignorant of Rymer's great work, and both of them were well aware of the passage at the end of the Crónica de Alfonso X in which the chronicler recorded Alfonso's eleventh-hour decision to pardon his reportedly sick son, and did so in terms so strangely reminiscent of those of the said letter: "E cuando fué afincado de la dolencia dijo ante todos que perdonaba al infante don Sancho, su fijo heredero, que lo ficiera con mancebía... e mando fazer luego cartas desto, seelladas con sus sellos de oro"." This, of course, was written some fifty years after the event, in the 1330s when the rewriting of history of the 1280s was in full swing.But -unless it be seriously suggested that there was collusion between the English and the Castilian chanceries in the 1330's -the letter in Rymer establishes that there was reconciliation in the air in 1284, certainly by October and possibly by April.Not that anything carne of it, as the account of dying Sancho IV provided by D. Juan Manuel famously records.According to Sancho IV (according to D. Juan Manuel), D. Sancho still bore his father's curse: 'Et diome la su maldicion mio padre -says Sancho-[...] guando se moña; otrosi mi madre, que es biva [...], se que me la da agora, et bien creo por Çierto que eso mismo fara a su muerte'.38 Now, no doubt, D. Juan Manuel had reasons of his own for keeping the curse of Sancho IV alive in the 1330's -an so did Queen Violante when she dictated the (more or less) veiled threats found in her last will and testament, which may be thought to confirrn the veracity of Juan Manuel's narrative: 'ruego al rey [Sancho], por el amor de Dios e por la bendkion de su padre e de su madre, que aquelos lugares que yo tengo d'el [...] que los non tome fasta que todas mis debdas sean pagadas e mis mandas cunplidas'.39 36.Alfonso X...; Sevilla en el siglo XIII (Madrid 1913).37. CAX 66a.Cf.RYMER 640a `licet juvenili aetate, plusquam voluntate inductus... visus fuerit a patemae devotionis semitis deviasse'.
38. Libro de las armas, ed.J. M. BLECUA, Obras completas I (Madrid 1982) 138.39.Thus, on 11 April 1292, Violante of Aragón, Alfonso's widow and Sancho's estranged mother, conjuring the ghost of her husband curse in order to induce her son to comply with her last wishes.The dead father's blessing which had yet to be merited is mentioned again a few unes later: 'E ruego e conjuro al rey por Dios e por santa Maria e por la bendigion de Dios e de santa Maria primeramiente, e dessi por la de su padre e de su madre e porque depare Dios quien lo a el faga quandol mester fuere -ca todos por esto an de passar-, que non enbarge nin desapodere a los mios manssesores de ninguno da-quelos lugares que yo tengo fasta que todas mis debdas sean pagadas e mis mandas cunplidas.E si lo non fiziere, demandegelo Dios e santa Maria su madre en el cuerpo e en el alma...' (Will sealed 11 April, 1292, opened and published in Benavente, 20 January 1302: AHN, Clero, c. 1429/6, original).'Threats of otherworldly retribution to obtain compliance of last whishes No doubt either, sometime before 1305 Jofré de Loaisa, that disillusioned member of the Alfonsine court who had taken Sancho's side in 1282, and whose characterization of Alfonso's reign was designed to justify Sancho's revolt, stated that Alfonso had died before his son could reach him and beg his forgiveness." Ultimately, of course, we cannot know whether it was conscious judgment on their part -swayed by the very same arguments which had favoured Aragonese and French interests in the papal curia, or influenced perhaps by the suspicion that Sancho IV was not abo ye cooking the books 41or just plain carelessness that caused Antonio Ballesteros and his wife to leave the littera de reconciliatione entirely out of account.Fake or not, however, el Rey Sabio' s last public act in Seville surely deserves houseroom in González Jiménez splendid work.

III
Further addenda and corrigenda to scattered entries in the Diplomatario: i) no.32 (5 June 1253) omits the details printed here in italics: 'el aldea que auie nombre en tiempo de moros Geluferiz, a que yo pus nombre Cartagena': `Notyas, que es en termino de FaÇnalcalar' (cf.MHE 1 vii).ji) no.124 (27 March 1254) omits the following words in italics, thus concealing the fact that Seville's municipal council was responsible for the upkeep of the city's aqueduct: 'E estos mill mrs les do para adobar e para labrar los carmos de Sevilla, e ellos han los de labrar e de fazer para syenpre a su costa e a su mysion por estos mill mrs' (cf.MHE 1 xvi).
are commonplace in the formulaic language of contemporary testaments; what is unusual, and therefore symptomatic of a specific reference to Sancho's curse, is a linkage with the paternal blessing or lack thereof -though possibly Sancho IV would have remained unaware of it until January 1302, when Violante had died and her will was open.And by then Sancho had been dead himself, for seven years.40.Sancius, penitencia ductus, ex co quod rebellis [...] fuerat patri suo, intendebat [...] redire ad prefatum patrem suum et eius misericordiam implorare et ad ipsius redire graciam et mandatum'.Crónica de los reyes de Castilla, ed. A. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ (Murcia 1982) 120.Cf.F.J. HER-NÁNDEZ, 'Noticias sobre Jofré de Loaisa y Ferrán Martínez' RCEH 4 [1980] 281-309: 284.Loaysa seems to be right about the fact that Alfonso died before Sancho could reach Seville (see note 19 supra), so that, if there was a reconciliation, it was negotiated by one of Sancho's envoy's.
41.In connexion with the regularisation of his uncanonical marriage to María de Molina.See A. MARCOS POUS, 'Los dos matrimonios de Sancho IV de Castilla', Escuela Española de Arqueología e Historia en Roma: Cuadernos de Trabajo 8 (1956) 7-108; 97; E. JADPÉ and H. FINKE, `La dispensa de matrimonio falsificada para el rey Sancho IV y María de Molina', Anuario de Historia del Derecho Español 4 [1927] 298-318. [9] iii) add document of 18 May 1254, with Alfonso's confirmation of his father's donation to the archbishops of Toledo of part of the revenues from the mercury mines of Chillón.42 iv) no.223 is dated 16 February 1258, but is placed amongst documents of 1260, where it actually belongs, according to Ortíz de Zúriiga, the source for this.Unfortunately the same document is positioned with those from 1258 in the index (p.585), and given number 204, which disturbs the concordance between numbers 204-23 in text and index.y ) add document of 1262 March 6.Seville (see Appendix, 1).vi) add full text of doc.255bis, 1262 April 22. Seville (see Appendix, 2).vii) no.329 (12 July 1267) derives from an original document. 43Contrary to the editorial indications, however, this is not a 1267 original.The hand is not a chancery hand.The parchment imitates the shape and size of a royal letter patent, with its plica crudely perforated, no seal -and no possibility of its ever having possessed one.What we have here is an imitative copy containing at least one important interpolation: 'ches mrs de la moneda nueua, que monta sessenta de la que agora corre'.Though the diplomatic elements are otherwise compatible with a lost original of 1267, the interpolated text (in italics) refers to a type of coinage that was not struck until 1277, the seisenes -so-called because they were worth six of the older maravedís."viii) no.373 (27 September 1269) is printed from the incomplete edition of G. Argote de Molina."For `Xaraf (next to 'Torre de Gil de Olit', one of the two settlements given to the knights of Baeza) and the lengthy chancery confirmation lists, here omitted, cf. the fuller text in M. de Jimena.46 ix) add document of 25 July 1271, concerning the payments due from the church, the city council and the Jewish and Moorish communities of Córdoba for the upkeep of the city's aqueducts.Don Alfonso, por la gracia de Dios rey de Castiella, de Toledo, de Leon, de Galigia, de Seuilla, de Cordoba, de Murcia, de Jahen y del Algarbe, a uos, Gongaluo Perez d'Orlas e a Roy Ferrandez e a Ferran Gongaluez de Angulo e a Ferrand Royz de Contreras e a Gil Perez e a Roy Diaz, salut e gracia.Sepades que maestre Domingo, electo de Toledo, me dixo que don Sancho, mio hermano, que uos dio lorigas, que tomo prestadas, con que me uiniessedes fazer seruigio a Cadiz.Et agora me dize que aquellos de quien don Sancho las tomo prestadas que las demandan a el e al cabildo.
Cathedral Archive of Toledo: A.7.D.1.2a.Letter on paper.The probable context of all this is Cádiz in the spring of 1261.It reveals that the occupation of the town was less peaceful than has been supposed."It also affords a rare glimpse of the preparedness of the Castilian militant Church.More of the same is apparent in the next item.
2) 1262 April 22. Seville Alfonso X to Domingo, Archbishop elect of Toledo.He commends him for having fortified the frontier in the 'adelantamiento de Cazorla' and for continuing the work of his predecessor, Archbishop Sancho [I], seeks to dissuade him from following the advice he has received to joumey to the papal curia (Corte de Roma/Corte), and thanks him for having provided his nominees with benefices.
De la calongia que me embiastes dezir que dierades a Pasqual Garcia e la racion al chantre de Talauera, fiziestes lo muy bien e gradesco uos lo mucho, e non lo dierades agora en nengun logar que uos lo yo mas gradeciesse.
The present edition is an 'improved' and partially reconstructed version of the original document as it stands today.Italics between brackets are used for hypothetical reconstructions of lost text when I have been able to find letters or words that fit both the blank spaces and the meaning.Roman letters between brackets indicate parts of the document now illegible but visible to Burriel (whence MHE).
As well as providing priceless testimony of Alfonso's use of the Church to foster his plans in Andalucia this letter also illustrates the king's manipulation of Castilian ecclesiatics in general.Sepan quantos esta carta uieren e oyeren como nos, don ALFONSO, por la gracia de Dios rey de Castiella, de Toledo, de Leon, de Galizia, de Seuilla, de Cordoba, de Murcia, de Jahen y del Algarbe, por fazer bien e merced a maestre Gongaluo, nuestro notario e arcidiano de Toledo, damos e otorgamosle ocho yugadas de heredat pora pan a año e uez en la alcaria que ha nombre Cantalmarin, e es en termino de Seuilla, que han por linderos, de la una parte el exido de la alcaria e heredat de Garci Ioffre, e de la otra parte el arroyo de la alcaria e la xara que se tiene con lo de Martin Melendez, e de las otras dos partes la xara.
E esta heredat sobredicha a1 damos e1 otorgamos con entradas e con salidas e con todas sus pertenencias, quantas ha e deue auer, que la aya libre e quita por juro de heredat pora siempre jamas, el e todos aquellos que lo suyo ouieren de heredar, pora dar e uender e empeñar e camiar e enagenar e pora fazer della e en ella todo lo que quisiere, como de lo suyo mismo.En tal manera que la non pueda uender ni dar ni enagenar a eglesia ni a orden ni a omne de religion sin nuestro mandado.
Fecha la carta en Murcia, yueues veynt e quatro dias andados del mes de margo, en era de mill e trezientos e diez arios.
x) nos.387(5 Nov. 1271)  and 416 (3 Aug. 1274) omit the chancery confirmation lists published in MHE 1 cxxiv, cxxxv.xi) add document of 1272 March 24.Murcia (see Appendix, 3).xii) no.482: date given as 5 July 1281 (following MHE 1 clxxxix).Date in printed text is 25 July ('uiernes veynt e cinco días andados').xiii) no.502 ('sábado XXI días de julio' era 1320; dated 21 July 1282) repeats a mandate concerning ecclesiastical asylum also entered at 21 July 1267 (no.330).Moreover, in neither of these years did 21 July fall on a Saturday.The correct date would appear to be 21 July 1268.xiv) add the document dated 4 March 1283, by which Alfonso gives the towns and castles of Moura, Serpa, Noudar and Mourao to his daughter Beatriz, queen of Portugal.48 APPENDIX 1) 1262 March 6.Seville Instructions to six knights to return to Archbishop Domingo of Toledo annour lent them by his predecessor, archbishop Sancho of Castile, which they had used in the king's service in Cádiz.
48. Ed.As Gavetas daTorre do Tombo 12 (1977) 489-93 and 493-5 (two copies).It complements the grant of Niebla to the same queen with the same date: Diplomatario n. 508.Those Portuguese towns were at the time under the jurisdiction of Seville, as González Jiménez reminds us in his introduction (p.cxvi).