WRITING A PAST TO REMEMBER: TEXTS AS MONUMENTS IN MEDIEVAL CASTILE

Holly Sims

A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Romance Studies (Spanish) in the College of Arts & Sciences.

Chapel Hill 2019

Approved by:

Frank Domínguez

Lucia Binotti

Carmen Hsu

Rosa Perelmuter

Samuel Sánchez y Sánchez

© 2019 Holly Sims ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ii

ABSTRACT

Holly Sims: Writing a Past to Remember: Texts as Monuments in Medieval Castile (Under the direction of Frank Domínguez)

This dissertation examines textual and architectural memorials produced by monarchs and nobles in the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries in Castile. In response to political instability, elites composed works of prose and poetry to defend their standing and commemorate their prestige. They aimed these works at the other members of their sociopolitical networks, which coalesced around the bonds of kinship that united individuals to a lineage, a household, and the body politic. The texts are similar in use to religious foundations, such as monasteries and funerary chapels, built by a noble family to proclaim the virtue of its lineage. To analyze the intended effect of these textual and architectural memorials, this dissertation relies on a qualitative method of studying social networks and also takes into account each author and patron’s historical and social contexts. This study demonstrates that the Castilian elites’ prose, poetry, and religious foundations are analogous elements in a commemorative process that begins with their creation and extends their influence over the course of generations.

iii

To my parents and sister.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation is a work about memory. In studying how individuals commemorated themselves and others in their sociopolitical networks, I have been reminded of all the ways in which the members of my own networks have “remembered” me as I have worked on this project. I would like to thank them for their love, encouragement, and guidance.

First, I am grateful for my parents, Andy and Beth, and sister, Heather, to whom this dissertation is dedicated. They have supported me every step of the way, offering help when I have needed it, cheering me on, and always believing in me. This dissertation would not have been possible without their constant support and love.

I would also like to thank my grandparents, Charles and Jeanette Holland and John and Margie Sims. They instilled in me a love of reading and have encouraged me in every endeavor. I am grateful for their example to our family and to me.

Numerous other family members and friends have rallied around me. I appreciate the support that each one has extended to me and would especially like to thank Carlee Forbes,

Anne Harford, Hailey Hedden, Kate Heil, Angela Hinze, Eden and Cole Justad, Caroline

Lindley, Lauren Odomirok, Tressa Thudumu, Ashley Whitman, and Sarah Verrill.

Part of this dissertation is adapted from my article, “Family Matters: Textual Memory and the Politics of Loss in Gómez Manrique’s Consolatorias,” published in Bulletin of

Hispanic Studies 95.3 (2018). I would like to thank the publisher for granting permission to use this article in my dissertation.

v I also wish to thank the members of my dissertation committee. Drs. Lucia Binotti,

Carmen Hsu, and Rosa Perelmuter provided valuable feedback that helped me improve the original idea for this dissertation. Special thanks goes to Dr. Samuel Sánchez y Sánchez for his support and friendship over these many years.

Finally, I am grateful to Dr. Frank Domínguez, my dissertation advisor, who has helped me find the appropriate direction for this project. His guidance has improved this dissertation at every stage and has made me a better scholar in the process.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………..…………...1

I. Historical Context…………………………………………………..…………...…..2

II. Class Identity and Casas of the Nobility…………………………..…………...…..4

III. Methodology and Chapter Summaries…………………………..……………….12

CHAPTER 1: MEMORIES OF ALFONSO X AS EMPEROR IN THE PRIMERA CRÓNICA GENERAL DE ESPAÑA AND THE ROYAL CHAPEL IN SEVILLE…………..…………………………………………..19

I. The Wise King of the Prologue……………………………………………..……..21

II. The Cid and the Emperor………………………………………………………....27

III. Alfonso X’s Imperial Status in the Royal Chapel…………………………..……32

CHAPTER 2: THE COMMEMORATION OF VIRTUE IN DON JUAN MANUEL’S LIBRO DE LAS TRES RAZONES, LEONOR LÓPEZ DE CÓRDOBA’S MEMORIAS, AND THEIR FUNERARY CHAPELS….………………………………...……………..……..…42

I. Self-Justification through Suffering………………………………………….....…44

II. Divine Assurances of Prosperity…………………………………………..…...…55

III. Virtue Enshrined in Religious Foundations and Funerary Chapels……..…….…60

CHAPTER 3: CONFLICTING TEXTUAL AND ARCHITECTURAL MEMORIES OF ÁLVARO DE LUNA IN FIFTEENTH-CENTURY CASTILE………………………………………….…71

I. The Commemoration of Luna’s Virtue…………………………………..…..……73

II. Noble Responses to Luna’s Rise to Power………………………..………………83

III. The Redemption of Luna’s Memory…………………………..…………………96

vii CHAPTER 4: THE CONSOLATION AND COMMEMORATION OF FAME IN THE MANRIQUE CLAN’S POETRY AND FUNERARY PRACTICES…………………………………..…107

I. The Consolation of the Manrique Clan’s Fame…………………..………………109

II. Defense of the Manrique Clan’s Property and Status……………..…………….126

III. Commemoration of the Manrique Lineage………………………………..……137

CONCLUSION………………………………………………………..……………………151

WORKS CITED…………………………………………………………………....………156

viii

INTRODUCTION

In medieval Castile, memory of an individual depended on two related factors: how well or poorly a person lived up to the ideals of his or her class and how those acts were commemorated, both in writing and through the construction of monuments. These memories can provide an accurate description of an individual, but they can also be suspect, as Fernán

Pérez de Guzmán reminds us in Generaciones y semblanzas (1455). Describing texts, this author cautions that “…la buena fama quanto al mundo es el verdadero premio e galardón de los que bien e vertuosamente por ella trabajan, si esta fama se escrive corrupta e mintirosa, en vano e por demás trabajan los maníficos reyes e príncipes…” (66).

Fama refers to “…the public talk that continually adjusts honor and assigns rank or standing …” (Fenster and Smail 3-4).1 Elites quested for fama as an indication of preeminence within their social class and decried infamy as a threat to their status. For nobles, fama was closely connected to a clan’s origin because its members sought to uphold the virtue of their lineages in accordance with the chivalric ideals of their class. Nobles proclaimed their status—and inscribed their fama—in laudatory works of prose and poetry and magnificent architectural structures.

However, these forms of memory encountered opposition in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The elites’ texts often contradict each other. Their writers lived in a

1 The concept of fama derived from classical antiquity and “…meant public opinion, idle talk, rumor, and reputation as well as fame” (Fenster and Smail 2). Fama has traditionally been interpreted as a verbal act, such as the extreme examples of slander and encomium that Pérez de Guzmán describes in Generaciones y semblanzas. However, Gianni Guastello (2017) has also examined fama in medieval literature, art, and architecture. For more information on fama, see María Rosa Lida de Malkiel (1952), Helena Béjar (2006), and Heather Kerr and Claire Walker (2015).

1 politically unstable world in which individuals often questioned their opponents’ fame and entire clans clashed over competing alliances and jurisdictional rights. Religious foundations, such as monasteries and funerary monuments, enshrined members of a noble clan, but they could also be altered by later generations or destroyed by opponents, as happened to the funerary chapel built by Álvaro de Luna in Toledo Cathedral.

Writing a Past to Remember: Texts as Monuments in Medieval Castile examines why monarchs, nobles, members of a clan, and members of the royal administration created these texts and religious foundations and studies how these forms of memory influenced succeeding generations. These practices developed within a specific historical context and in response to the importance of a noble’s property to his or her casa, which will be explained in the first two sections of this introduction. The final section will address the methodology used in this dissertation and will describe its chapters.

I. Historical Context

The Castilian elites composed their works of prose and poetry against an historical backdrop of political instability. Power struggles between monarchs led to outright civil war, such as the rebellion of Alfonso X’s son and eventual heir, Sancho IV, in 1275 and the assassination of Pedro I by his illegitimate half brother, Enrique Trastámara, in 1369. These violent events jeopardized the prosperity of clans loyal to the Castilian monarchs but created new opportunities for others as a result of the so-called mercedes enriqueñas, or temporary grants of land that Enrique II dispensed to nobles who supported his cause in the civil war against Pedro I (Valdeón Baruque, Los Trastámaras 31).

2 In the fifteenth century, these political struggles increased exponentially. The very same nobles who had benefitted from mercedes enriqueñas beset the Trastámara monarchs with challenges to their authority. During the reign of Juan II, nobles revolted against the king’s favorite, Álvaro de Luna; later, many of the same nobles deposed Enrique IV in effigy during the Farce of Ávila in 1465.

These conflicts highlight the tremendous power of the nobles as a class as a result of its growth in size and strength during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.2 According to

Teofilo Ruiz, their numbers varied between a “…high figure of 13 per cent to a lower estimate of 10 per cent of the entire population, the latter being a more probable approximation” (79). These percentages are staggering because the lowest estimate

“…represents the highest percentage of aristocrats in a western European country and reveals the passionate commitment of a large segment of the Spanish population to a noble life”

(Ruiz, Spanish 79).3

According to Luis Suárez Fernández, there were fifteen noble houses whose members dominated the courts of the Trastámara monarchs (“The Kingdom” 96).4 These clans rose to

2 Historians have interpreted the political instability of fifteenth-century Castile in light of an ongoing struggle between the monarch and the nobles. See Luis Suárez Fernández (1972), Julio Valdeón Baruque (1975), Suárez Fernández (1975), William D. Phillips, Jr. (1978), Valdeón Baruque (2001), Manuel Barrios (2001), Valdeón Baruque (2002), Suárez Fernández (2003), and Emilio Mitre Fernández (2007).

3 Despite the high percentage of nobles in medieval Castile compared to other European regions, similar waves of social and political change affected the nobility as a class across Europe. For more information, see Jonathan Dewald (1996), Isabel Alfonso, Hugh Kennedy, and Julio Escalona (2004), Matthew P. Romaniello and Charles Lipp (2011), Michael Crawford (2014), and Liesbeth Geevers and Mirella Marini (2015). For more information on the Castilian nobility as a class, see Salvador de Moxó (1969), María Concepción Quintanilla Raso (1989), Emilio Cabrera (1995), Miguel Ángel Ladero Quesada (1998), Quintanilla Raso (1997), Marie-Claude Gerbet (1997), Víctor M. Gibello Bravo (1999), Quintanilla Raso (2006), Adeline Rucquoi (2006), and Arsenio Dacosta, José Ramón Prieto Lasa, and José Ramón Díaz de Durana (2014).

4 They were the Velasco, Medinaceli, Manrique, Quiñones, Pimentel, Enríquez, Sandoval, Stúñiga, Mendoza, Silva, López de Ayala, Villena, Fajardo, Guzmán, and Ponce de León clans. These clans’ influence “…stemmed, in the first place, from their enormous wealth, from the large number of fortresses that they possessed” (Suárez Fernández, “The Kingdom” 96). For more information about specific lineages and their rise to power, see Helen Nader (1979), Esther González Crespo (1986), Rosa María Montero Tejada (1996), Simon

3 power by supporting Enrique II in the civil war against Pedro I, and the mercedes enriqueñas formed the basis of their fortunes. In the fifteenth century, they maintained “…an approximate total of two dozen seigniorial estates” (Suárez Fernández, “The Kingdom” 96).

The wealth and status of these clans, especially the Mendoza and Manrique families, empowered them to rebel against Juan II, Álvaro de Luna, and Enrique IV. Such opposition to the monarch—and his favorite, in the case of Álvaro de Luna—stemmed from these individuals’ perceived threats to the nobles’ status, which they defended according to the values of their class.

II. Class Identity and Casas of the Nobility

The nobles derived their elite status from their social function as bellatores during the

Reconquest.5 They maintained their preeminence as a class through their jurisdiction over landholdings bestowed by the monarch in recognition of a knight’s service (Heras y Borrero

11). These royal grants of land, or señoríos, were often linked to titles and generated income from tax exemption (Ruiz, Spanish 79).6 In addition to enriching a knight’s patrimony, a

R. Doubleday (2001), Juan Luis Carriazo Rubio and Miguel Ángel Ladero Quesada (2002), and Cristina Jular Pérez-Alfaro (2009).

5 The bellatores were one of three social groups distinguished by their function in the Middle Ages. The function of the bellatores, “…destinada a los usos diversos de la fuerza, estaba reservada a los guerreros, que constituían casi siempre un grupo aristocrático” (Ladero Quesada 15). The other groups—oratores and laboratores—formed as a result of their respective religious and agricultural functions in society (Ladero Quesada 15).

6 The term señorío refers to a designated territory under the control of a titleholder. In the Middle Ages, four specific types of señoríos were distinguished by the status of the titleholder: realengos belonged to the monarch; abadengos belonged to monasteries and cathedrals; solariegos belonged to nobles who did not hold ecclesiastical office; and concejiles belonged to towns or cities (García de Cortázar 11). This dissertation is concerned primarily with señoríos as they refer to royal grants of land—and its associated privileges—to a noble. A señorío generated income for its titleholder because he or she collected the taxes on the land and the revenue it produced, which would have normally enriched the monarch. These rents included the pedido, moneda forera, servicio, the medio servicio imposed upon Jews, alcabalas, and tercias (Beceiro Pita, “Los estados” 306). For more information on the economic implications of a señorío, see J. P. Cooper (1976),

4 señorío elevated his legal authority within his own territory because property bestowed as a royal grant was theoretically alienated from the monarch (Quintanilla Raso, “El engrandecimiento” 21-22). Upon the recipient’s death, however, both the title and property were supposed to be returned to the Crown unless the monarch had specifically granted permission for them to form part of a mayorazgo, or entail.7

The mayorazgo was intended to perpetuate the virtue of a lineage in accordance with the nobles’ chivalric ideal as a class of bellatores.8 Individuals who did not belong to this class theoretically did not have the same right to property, which nobles used to express both their elite legal status and virtue as a result of a clan’s illustrious origin. The entailment of señoríos transferred ownership from a celebrated ancestor who founded the mayorazgo to his immediate heirs on the condition that they could not sell or divide the clan’s possessions

Quintanilla Raso (1982), and Isabel Beceiro Pita (1988). For more information on the development and uses of señoríos in medieval Castile, see Moxó (1964), Juan Carlos Alba López (1994), and Moxó (2000).

7 The practice of entailments was introduced between 1370 and 1390 and became institutionalized under the Trastámara monarchy (Palencia Herrejón 169). However, precursors of the mayorazgo can be found much earlier, in the thirteenth century. A law describing inheritance in Toledo in 1229 “…especifica unas normas de sucesión que posteriormente serán comunes a toda la nobleza: la preferencia de la primogenitura, la masculinidad y los descendientes directos y de mayor edad” (Beceiro Pita, “La conciencia” 330-31). Alfonso X’s legal code, the Partidas (1265) also sanctions agnatic primogeniture and outlines the basis of a mayorazgo (Beceiro Pita, “La conciencia” 330). The first mayorazgo was established in 1291, although the practice did not become institutionalized until the start of the Trastámara dynasty (Beceiro Pita, “La conciencia” 331). In 1390, Juan I overturned a legal clause mandating the return of a noble’s property to the Crown in the event that the noble died without a direct or legitimate heir (Beceiro Pita, “La conciencia” 331). During the fifteenth century, however, the nobles’ increasing power led them to assume “…that a royal grant of a town, or a title, implicitly included the power to found a mayorazgo” (Cooper, “Patterns” 235-36). For more information on the historical development of mayorazgos, see Bartolomé Clavero (1974).

8 Maurice Keen explains the connection between knighthood, nobility, and lineage in his definition of chivalry: “It continues to be used, and quite frequently, in a narrow sense, to describe those collectively who had formally and ceremonially taken up knighthood. But it also comes to be used to describe the obligations, estate and style of life of those entitled, on account of their birth, to aspire to knighthood, but who may or may not be knights in fact” (Chivalry 145). This shift produced a new conception of nobility based on “the hereditary capacity to receive knighthood,” which privileged the virtue of a lineage (Keen, Chivalry 145). However, in fourteenth-and fifteenth-century Castile, the monarch’s ennoblement—and favoritism—of members of court who were not of noble lineage challenged the identity of the nobility as a class defined by a chivalric ideal. Nobles and others on both sides recorded their contrasting perspectives in writing. For more information on this literary debate, see Carlos Heusch (2000). For more information on chivalry and the evolution of the nobility in medieval Europe, see Keen (1996) and Jesús D. Rodríguez-Velasco (2010).

5 among other descendants.9 Instead, property passed directly from one generation to the next through the titleholder of the mayorazgo. He or she received it as a mandate to ensure the continued prosperity of the kin group (Menéndez Pidal de Navascués 13).

Women were not excluded from either their families’ mayorazgos or the elites’ incentive to enhance their prestige through property ownership (Gaunt 269). An heiress’ inheritance secured her own status and also that of the clan united to her by a marriage alliance. In every spousal union, two lineages benefitted politically and financially through the consolidation of property (Beceiro Pita and Córdoba de la Llave 147).

However, the formation of a mayorazgo had the unintended consequence of denying a livelihood to second sons and, as a result, increased the pressure on noble families to transmit other forms of property to heirs who had no control over entailments. For this reason, noble clans lobbied to maintain control over encomiendas, the properties they defended as commanders in the military orders of Calatrava, Santiago, and Alcántara.10

These landholdings were supposed to revert back to the Order upon the recipient’s death, but family members regularly petitioned for them to remain with the heir of the previous commander to avoid forfeiting their income and prestige (Solano Ruiz 142).

9 A mayorazgo included both landed territory—namely señoríos—and material assets, such as libraries, which noble clans formed as part of the spread of “vernacular humanism” in the fifteenth century (Lawrance, “Humanism” 222). This movement featured “…the translation and adaptation of classical works for the entertainment and instruction of noble and unprofessional readers” (Lawrance, “Humanism” 222). Of these readers, a few had the financial means to amass private libraries. The collections of the I marqués of Santillana, the III conde of Benavente, and the I conde of Haro are notable for the variety of their contents and the vast number of titles translated into Castilian. For more information on these and other nobles’ libraries, see Ladero Quesada and Quintanilla Raso (1981), Beceiro Pita (1982), Lawrance (1984a), Beceiro Pita and A. Franco Silva (1985), Beceiro Pita (1990a), Vaquero (2003), and Beceiro Pita (2006). For information about vernacular humanism and the spread of lay literacy in fifteenth-century Castile, see Lawrance (1984b), Sara Nalle (1989), and Isabel Beceiro Pita (2006).

10 These properties were governed by members of the Order who acted as comendadores, or commanders, on behalf of the Master of the Order. Within the Order of Santiago, there were two levels of property ownership: the encomienda and the encomienda mayor, which included the administration of several encomiendas within a señorío (Matellanes Merchán 726). For more information on property distribution in the military orders, see Miguel Rodríguez Llopis (1980) and Enrique Rodríguez-Picavea (1994).

6 Both encomiendas and mayorazgos contributed to a clan’s solar, or landed estate, which allowed titled noble families to amass substantial fortunes.11 However, all of a clan’s property was also used to benefit a lesser group of nobles or commoners associated with them by blood or affiliation, such as hidalgos, escuderos, caballeros de cuantía, caballeros de acostamiento, vasallos del rey, and even servants (MacKay, “The Lesser” 60).12 They benefitted from the wealth of the monarch and great nobles by occupying positions of relative power in their casas, or households.

A noble’s casa had both human and architectural dimensions as a form of shelter. The earliest use of the word casa refers to the “edificio o parte del edificio en que habita un individuo o una familia” (Alonso, Diccionario 640). This definition expanded to include

“familia” in the thirteenth century and “hacienda familiar” in the fourteenth century (Alonso,

Diccionario 640). By the fifteenth century, these uses of casa coexisted with a genealogical interpretation: “descendencia o linaje que tiene un mismo apellido y viene del mismo origen”

(Alonso, Diccionario 640).13

An early lexicographer such as Sebastián de Covarrubias Horozco recognizes these varied definitions and also identifies a casa as the resulting conglomerate of places and

11 The solar of a noble clan was closely tied to the clan’s prestige as a manifestation of its lineage’s virtue. Juan Ramón Palencia Herrejón suggests that a noble clan’s virtue rested on “…cinco fundamentos básicos: el origen ilustre del linaje, la privanza regia, el patrimonio en la ciudad y la tierra, la solidaridad interna y externa del grupo familiar y el sistema de símbolos de poder del mismo” (164). The clan’s solar, in addition to its heraldic arms and naming practices, was a symbol of its virtue in connection to patrimony and power (Palencia Herrejón 165). For more information on symbols of a lineage’s virtue, see Faustino Menéndez Pidal de Navascués (2006).

12 The lesser nobility also included members of the royal administration because “…civil servants in the upper reaches of the bureaucracy found little difficulty in getting themselves accepted as nobles” (MacKay, “The Lesser” 169).

13 These medieval uses are consistent with modern definitions of casa. The first offered by the Real Academia Española is “edificio para habitar” (“Casa.”) However, definitions of casa that refer to a family unit have decreased in use: “familia” has dropped to fifth place and “descendencia o linaje que tiene un mismo apellido y viene del mismo origen” has dropped to sixth place (“Casa”).

7 people. As he explains in his Tesoro de la lengua castellana o española (1611), “Agora en lengua castellana se toma casa por la morada y habitación fabricada con firmeza y suntuosidad;…y porque las tales son en los propios solares de donde traen origen, vinieron a llamarse los mesmos linajes casas, como la casa de los Mendozas, Manrique, Toledos,

Guzmanes, etc.” (Covarrubias 469).

A similar conglomerate, the casa real, also signifies a place—“palacio”—and a group of people: “personas reales y conjunto de sus familias” (“Casa”). This conglomerate took on the additional meaning of cuerpo, of which Covarrubias offers three definitions: “Primera, del cuerpo que se contiene debajo de una especie, como hombre, árbol, piedra. La segunda, que se forma de diversas cosas compuestas y concertadas entre sí, de que materialmente resulta, como la casa, la nave, etc. La tercera, que se compone de partes distantes cada una por sí, que hacen un cuerpo o comunidad, como una república” (648).14

The association between casa and cuerpo as collective units emerged as a textual metaphor for the body politic in the Siete Partidas, the Castilian legal code initiated by

Alfonso X. He explains that the king is the head of the nation, which is composed of subjects and others housed within the royal casa. They are like “…los miembros del cuerpo, bien así por el mandamiento que nace del rey, y que es señor cabeza de todos los del reino, se deben mandar, y guiar y haber un acuerdo con él para obedecerle, y amparar y guardar y enderezar el reino de donde él es alma y cabeza, y ellos, los miembros” (Alfonso X, Las Siete 134-35).

14 These definitions are consistent with modern uses of cuerpo. The first two definitions offered by the Real Academia Española are “aquello que tiene extension limitada, perceptible por los sentidos” and “conjunto de los sistemas orgánicos que constituye un ser vivo,” respectively (“Cuerpo”). However, the conglomerate definition of cuerpo—“conjunto de personas que forman un pueblo, una república, una comunidad o una asociación”— has dropped to fourteenth place (“Cuerpo”).

8 This structure affirmed the monarch’s divine and temporal authority over the realm through its metaphoric representation as a human body in medieval political philosophy.15

However, text-based metaphors of cuerpo also referred to an individual body. For example, Jorge Manrique describes his body as a fortress under siege as a result of the arresting power of love at first sight in two lyric poems, “Castilo d’amor” and “Escala d’amor.” Similarly, in Diego de San Pedro’s Cárcel de amor (1492), the protagonist,

Leriano, is imprisoned in a castle that is also his own body because his love for the king’s daughter, Laureola, is unrequited. In addition, in Fernando de Rojas’ La Celestina (1499),

Melibea’s suicide destroys both her body—which is “fecho pedaços”—and Pleberio’s casa and metaphorically imprisons him “…triste y solo in hac lacrimarum valle” (Rojas 335, 343).

These text-based metaphors indicate the importance of the architectural casas that were constructed by noble clans in medieval Castile. On a clan’s solar, nobles built elaborate structures, such as castles, urban palaces, hospitals, monasteries, and funerary chapels. These structures provided shelter for the members of a noble household, united them to the head of a clan, and proclaimed the magnificence of its lineage.

Magnificence is a philosophical concept and refers to an outward expression of virtue that is innate to members of an elite social class (Alonso Ruiz, “La nobleza” 221). In the works of classical philosophers such as Aristotle and Vitruvius, magnificence was closely tied to architecture because a builder demonstrated virtue through the use of correct proportion and dignified ornamentation (Alonso Ruiz, “La nobleza” 220). In fifteenth- century Castile, Alonso de Cartagena, Diego de Valera, Juan de Guzmán, and Gómez

Manrique linked magnificence to largesse (Alonso Ruiz, “La nobleza” 222). Nobles

15 For more information on the medieval body politic and Alfonso X, see Francesco C. Cesareo (1984), Sergio Bertelli (2001), and Antonella Liuzzo Scorpo (2013).

9 associated these social values with the virtue of their lineages by building costly, ostentatious monuments.

For example, on the Mendoza clan’s solar near Guadalajara, the I marqués of

Santillana constructed a castle at Real de Manzanares, a hospital at Buitrago, and a pantheon in the church of San Francisco in Guadalajara (Layna Serrano, El Palacio 16). Later,

Santillana’s grandson, the II duque of Infantado, refurbished the castle at Real de

Manzanares and also constructed a new urban palace, known as the Palace of Infantado

(Layna Serrano, El Palacio 23).16 Similarly, the II conde of Haro and his wife, Mencía de

Mendoza, built a funerary chapel—the Constable’s Chapel—and an urban palace—the Casa del Cordón—in Burgos. They chose this location near the Velasco clan’s solar in Medina de

Pomar, where the II conde of Haro’s ancestors had endowed a monastery.17

These examples of the Mendoza and Velasco clans’ architectural patronage represent a widespread practice among the Castilian nobles in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.18

This dissertation will focus on one aspect of this practice: the nobles’ construction of religious foundations, such as monasteries and funerary chapels, as well as tombs. These structures were closely associated with the memory of a clan, as numerous scholars have explained.

16 For more information about the Mendoza clan’s architectural patronage in Guadalajara, see María Teresa Fernández Madrid (1991) and Francisco Layna Serrano (1993, 1997).

17 For more information on the monuments built by the Velasco clan, see Yarza Luaces (2001), Alonso Ruiz (2003), Felipe Pereda (2005), Alicia Montero Málaga (2012), Antonio Ruiz Tejerina (2012), and Beciero Pita (2014).

18 For example, the Medinaceli family constructed the Casa de Pilatos in Seville; the Alba family constructed the Palacio de las Dueñas also in Seville; and the Fajardo clan constructed numerous buildings, including a castle in Almería and a funeraey chapel in the Cathedral of Murcia. For additional examples and more information on the construction of castles, palaces, and religious foundations, see Joaquín Yarza Luaces (1988a, 1988b), Damián Bayón (1991), Edward Cooper (1991), Fernando Checa (1992a, 1992b), Rosario Díez del Corral Garnica (1992), María Lucía Lahoz Gutiérrez (1995), Palencia Herrejón (1995), Pereda (1999), María Teresa López de Guereño Sanz (2001), Manuel Valdés Fernández (2001b), Jesús Urrea (2002), Yarza Luaces (2003), Begoña Alonso Ruiz (2011, 2012), Olga Pérez Monzón (2013), and Ronda Kasl (2014).

10 Tombs served a commemorative purpose through their adornment with allegorical or devotional images, emblems of family lineage, and portrait likenesses of the deceased that functioned as “memorial strategies” (Valdez del Alamo and Pendergast 1).19 The members of a clan also used the location of their tombs as a memorial strategy. Nobles routinely elected to be buried as a family unit in a prestigious location, usually near the altar of either a funerary chapel or the main church of a monastery constructed on or near a clan’s solar

(Vivanco 147).20

In addition, a clan’s religious foundations united several generations through the spiritual and social benefits of capellanías, or chaplaincies. The foundation of capellanías was “…una práctica muy común entre las familias pudientes y nobiliarias, quienes, a cambio de un legado, obligaban así a una comunidad religiosa a rezar en el aniversario de la defunción o del enterramiento de su fundador” (Lacarra, “La última” 202). The monetary amount of the donation and the number of capellanías reflected the magnificence of both the monument and its founder’s lineage.

19 For more information and examples, especially of royal tombs, see Henriette s’Jacob (1954), Erwin Panofsky (1964), Ermelindo Portela and María del Carmen Pallares (1992), Paul Binski (1996), Margarita Ruiz Maldonado (2001), Therese Martin (2006), Kathleen Nolan (2010), Elizabeth Valdez del Alamo (2010), and Marguerite Keane (2013).

20 Members of the same elite clan preferred to be interred in close proximity to each other and to the main altar, although religious architectural structures, especially those that contained relics and attracted pilgrims, were initially not designed to accommodate a large number of interior burials. Canon law approved at the I Council of Braga in 561 C.E. prohibited interior burial of laymen in basilicas that held the remains of Christian martyrs (Royer de Cardinal 196). As a result, laymen were buried in cemeteries adjacent to basilicas, although by the tenth century, religious leaders, such as bishops, and certain royals, namely kings and princes, were permitted interment in the portico and cloister of a church (Royer de Cardinal 196). In the eleventh century, elite religious and royal figures were also buried in the presbytery and under the temple’s floor (Royer de Cardinal 196). By the end of the Middle Ages, this practice had expanded, and “…about one half of the dead sought burial in church” (Binski 72). Noble clans used this practice to commemorate the virtue of a lineage and proclaim its status. A noble family’s wealth allowed its members to make financial contributions that determined the location of their tombs given the “jerarquización del espacio sagrado a partir del altar, el lugar más honroso, hasta los pies de la iglesia, el lugar más alejado de aquél y, por tanto, el más barato” (Martínez Gil 94).

11 Writing a Past to Remember: Texts as Monuments in Medieval Castile studies the similar purpose behind the elites’ religious foundations and texts: both were forms of memory that were intended to influence standing in a sociopolitical network. The monarch, as the head of the body politic, nominally controlled this network. It functioned as a political casa in which “…el reino o las ciudades se entendían como un conjunto de familias y que el rey, los señores o los principales de las comunidades debían gobernar la república como buenos padres de familia” (Imízcoz Beunza, “Las redes” 88). Whether familial or feudal in nature, bonds of kinship were paramount because they theoretically offered protection based on “the mutual obligations owed by all family members to help and support each other in every area of life” (Althoff 41). However, political instability in medieval Castile threatened the security of the elites’ bonds of kinship and, as a result, jeopardized a clan’s status. This dissertation examines how the Castilian elites defended their positions in their sociopolitical networks by inscribing competing memories of their lineages in prose, poetry, and religious foundations.

III. Methodology and Chapter Summaries

Writing a Past to Remember: Texts as Monuments in Medieval Castile relies on a qualitative approach to studying social networks that originated in the disciplines of sociology, anthropology, and social psychology and recently has been applied to the medieval and Early Modern periods. Within this critical framework, a social network represents the “conexiones entre actores relacionados de un modo u otro a través de interacciones efectivas que se producen en un momento dado” (Imízcoz Beunza and Arroyo

Ruiz 100). These social actors include both individuals and entire subgroups, which are

12 composed of actors linked by one or more shared interests.21 Such interests include but are not limited to economic benefit, commercial transactions, written and oral forms of communication, personal affect, hierarchies of authority, family connections, and patronage

(Sánchez Balmaseda 19-20).

The connections between individuals that this dissertation will examine are those that united the head of a clan to members of his casa, the monarch, and the body politic. The formation—or threat—to those bonds of kinship is the motivation behind the Castilian elites’ composition of prose and poetry and construction of monasteries and funerary chapels.

Scholars have developed two methods of studying social networks. One is a quantitative approach known as social network analysis, which is used to analyze how actors form subgroups, as well as how these subgroups coalesce into an entire network (Wasserman and Faust 18).22 This quantitative approach models relationships between subgroups in mathematical or graphical terms (Wasserman and Faust 19). The data used to create these

21 François-Xavier Guerra further explains the relationship between individuals and subgroups as actors in a social network: “Que la unidad elemental de todo análisis social es el individuo, pues sólo él tiene conciencia y sólo él actúa. Pero también que este individuo tiene una capacidad relacional que se despliega en múltiples dimensiones y que lo hace capaz de constituir grupos” (118). The relationships between individual actors do not necessarily amount to the formation of a subgroup, which is an entity that functions as a social actor (Guerra 120).

22 Contemporary social network analysis has developed out of three areas of research, beginning in the 1930s with sociometric analysis, in which researchers studied small groups using graph theory (Scott 7). This perspective helped to uncover ways of breaking down networks into subgroups, and researchers at Harvard University continued to study these units, which were alternately termed cliques, clusters, or blocks (Scott 16). These researchers—who were influenced by the British social anthropologist Radcliffe-Brown—sought to determine how to uncover the subgroup structure of any social network given data for the constitutive actors’ linkages (Scott 16). However, a third approach to social network analysis arose out of Manchester University, and its proponents, such as J. Clyde Mitchell, emphasized the effect of conflict on society (Scott 7). Mitchell defines a social network as “a specific set of linkages among a defined set of persons, with the additional property that the characteristics of these linkages as a whole may be used to interpret the social behaviour of the persons involved” (2). In the 1960s, Harrison White, a researcher at Harvard, united these three channels of investigation in his study of the mathematics of social structure, and his work gave rise to contemporary social network analysis (Scott 7-8). Stanley Wasserman and Katherine Faust define this methodology as “…a distinct research perspective within the social and behavioral sciences; distinct because social network analysis is based on an assumption of the importance of relationships among interacting units. The social network perspective encompasses theories, models, and applications that are expressed in terms of relational concepts or processes. That is, relations defined by linkages among units are a fundamental component of network theories” (4).

13 models can be collected from various media but must always be organized into a data matrix, which “is a table of figures, a pattern of rows and columns” (Scott 38).23

When this type of social network analysis has been applied to the medieval and Early

Modern periods, scholars have used data from written sources, such as letters, to reconstruct egocentric networks, which are based on an individual’s relationship to other actors in the same network (Wetherell 128). For example, María Isabel Sánchez Balmaseda (1995) has analyzed networks of patronage among various actors at Felipe II’s court from 1554 to 1559;

José María Imízcoz Beunza and Lara Arroyo Ruiz (2011) have used epistolary correspondence to reconstruct the social networks of two eighteenth-century military officials and government administrators in Navarre; and Isabelle Rosé (2011) has used letters written between 926 and 942 C.E. to chart Odo of Cluny’s social network based on ties of family and spiritual kinship. These scholars have represented their findings graphically through the use of computer-generated data matrices.

The qualitative approach does not require the data mapping of social network analysis.24 Instead, it examines “los vínculos entre los actores sociales, observando los intercambios, colaboración y conflictos entre ellos, para explicar cómo se configuran las facciones, grupos o redes que actúan en el campo social y político, y con qué significados”

(Imízcoz Beunza, “Las redes” 77). This qualitative method is the critical approach used in this dissertation to examine how the Castilian elites’ texts and monuments were intended to influence a clan’s standing in a sociopolitical network formed by bonds of kinship.

23 For more information on data mapping and quantitative techniques to analyze social networks, see José Luis Molina (2001).

24 For this reason, historians have preferred the qualitative approach, as Charles Wetherell explains when he states that the quantitative emphasis of social network analysis has prohibited the expansion of its use (124). María Ángeles Martín Romera offers another perspective, especially for the lack of interest in social network analysis among historians of the Middle Ages, based on the relative scarcity of documents that can be collected as data from this period (223).

14 A few scholars have applied the qualitative approach to social networks in medieval and Early Modern Spain. For example, Ana M. Gómez-Bravo (2013) has studied textual production in manuscript culture to explain how networks of scribes, artisans, merchants, and nobles used writing to establish their social status in fifteenth-century Spain.25 Furthermore, several collections of critical essays edited by José María Imízcoz Beunza (2001); by

Sebastián Molina Puche and Antonio Irigoyen López (2009); by Imízcoz Beunza and Oihane

Oliveri Korta (2010); and by Francisco Sánchez-Montes González, Julián J. Lozano Navarro, and Antonio Jiménez Estrella (2016) have identified patronage and family relationships as the basis of aristocratic social networks in Early Modern Spain. These studies complement volumes edited by Juan Hernández Franco (1995) and by Francisco Chacón Jiménez and

Hernández Franco (2007) that explain how the historical study of the family in Early Modern

Spain also reveals social change.

Most recently, however, scholars have applied the qualitative approach to studying social networks to the historical and cultural legacies of Pedro I in the critical cluster “Redes

Petristas: Networks and Memory of Pedro I of Castile” in La corónica 45.2 (2017). Redes

Petristas is an ongoing project rooted in Memory Studies and Network Theory that aims to compile an online database of the social actors that have offered conflicting interpretations of the rise of the Trastámara dynasty (Rodríguez Porto and Roselló Martínez 41, 44). The critical cluster brings together eight articles that examine these legacies from the perspectives of historiography, literary studies, visual culture, and gender studies. As a result, it provides an interdisciplinary model for using texts that belong to a variety of genres, as well as

25 For more information on how written works can be used to qualitatively study social networks in the medieval and Early Modern periods, see Paul D. McLean (2007). He analyzes patronage letter writing in Renaissance Florence as a rhetorical practice that also implied the formation of social networks between authors, patrons, and clients.

15 cultural artifacts such as art and architecture, to qualitatively examine social networks.

Writing a Past to Remember: Texts as Monuments in Medieval Castile adapts the Redes

Petristas model to study how the Castilian elites’ texts and religious foundations were intended to influence their clans’ status in their sociopolitical networks.

Chapter 1 examines how Alfonso X used textual production and architectural patronage to proclaim his fame as the imperial head of his sociopolitical network. This chapter analyzes the Primera crónica general de España (1270) as a work that was intended to establish the king’s authority by recounting the great deeds of past heroes. One of these heroes is the Cid, whose death inspired the imperial stature of the sculpture that adorned

Alfonso X’s tomb in the Royal Chapel that he founded in Seville Cathedral. This chapel demonstrated the prestige that Alfonso X sought during his lifetime and was the first funerary monument of its kind built in Castile. This chapter considers the analogous intended purpose of Alfonso X’s Primera crónica general and Royal Chapel as emblems of the king’s imperial status.

Chapter 2 discusses how members of the nobility and royal administration adapted

Alfonso X’s historiographical and architectural models for their own purposes in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Two texts will be considered: don Juan Manuel’s Libro de las armas o de las tres razones (1337) and Leonor López de Córdoba’s Memorias (1412).

While separated by three quarters of a century, these texts were both composed in response to injustice committed against the authors’ families. The authors aimed their redemptive accounts at the members of their sociopolitical networks to assert the virtue of their lineages.

For this same purpose, don Juan Manuel founded the monastery of Saint John and Saint Paul at his señorío of Peñafiel, and Leonor built the Chapel of the Rosary in the church of Saint

16 Paul in Córdoba. This chapter considers the similar function of these individuals’ texts and monuments to restore don Juan Manuel and Leonor’s sociopolitical status in connection to their virtue.

Chapter 3 examines the representations of Álvaro de Luna produced by members of the nobility, the royal administration, and his own casa in fifteenth-century Castile. Juan de

Mena’s Laberinto de Fortuna (1444) and Gonzalo de Chacón’s Crónica de don Álvaro de

Luna (1460) are favorable to Luna. However, the I marqués of Santillana’s “Coplas contra don Álvaro de Luna” (1453) and “Doctrinal de privados” (1453) and Fernán Pérez de

Guzmán’s Generaciones y semblanzas (1455) offer contradictory views based on Luna’s lack of noble lineage and acquisition of extensive landholdings. These authors and Luna belonged to the same sociopolitical network, and each sought to defend his own prestige in response to threats to his status.

To commemorate his sociopolitical ascent at Juan II’s court, Luna commissioned the

Chapel of Santiago in Toledo Cathedral, but a group of nobles destroyed it in a revolt against him in 1441. After Luna’s death in 1453, the marriage of his daughter, María de Luna, to

Santillana’s grandson enhanced the status of both clans. María’s marriage into the powerful

Mendoza family changed the sociopolitical network that had excluded Luna during his lifetime and created an atmosphere in which she could rebuild the Chapel of Santiago to redeem her father’s memory and assert his fame. This chapter considers how the competing textual and architectural memories of Luna reflect changes in his bonds of kinship with the other members of his network.

Chapter 4 examines the efforts of one noble clan, the fifteenth-century Manrique family, to defend its elite sociopolitical status in response to threats posed by the death of

17 some of its illustrious members and the consequent forfeiture of their property. Gómez

Manrique addressed female family members—his sister, Juana Manrique, and his wife, Juana de Mendoza—in the consolation poems he composed in response to their respective forfeiture of property and loss of a child. He also composed an elegy, the “Defunsión del noble cavallero Garçía Laso de la Vega” (1458), to defend his family’s interests following the death of a relative, Garcilaso de la Vega, and his family’s forfeiture of the Commandery of Montizón. Similarly, Jorge Manrique wrote the “Coplas por la muerte de su padre” (1476-

79) for his family members and others in their shared sociopolitical network after the death of its patriarch, Rodrigo Manrique. This elegy was a reminder of the Manrique clan’s status in light of its possible loss of influence and property in the Order of Santiago. These works were intended to fulfill a similar purpose for the Manrique clan as pantheons that members of this family patronized in Calabazanos, Zafra, and Uclés, yet surpassed the family’s funerary monuments as an emblem of sociopolitical prestige.

These four chapters analyze the fame and infamy of the Castilian monarch and nobles through the memories they created in prose, poetry, and religious foundations. By considering their similar intended purpose, this dissertation offers an interdisciplinary perspective on the formation and fragmentation of the elites’ bonds of kinship within their casas. In this way, Writing a Past to Remember: Texts as Monuments in Medieval Castile examines the effect of the elites’ texts and religious foundations on their sociopolitical networks.

18

CHAPTER 1: MEMORIES OF ALFONSO X AS EMPEROR IN THE PRIMERA CRÓNICA GENERAL DE ESPAÑA AND THE ROYAL CHAPEL IN SEVILLE

When Alfonso X assumed the throne of Castile in 1252, he inherited a vast patrimony that included Portugal, Aragón, Catalonia, the tributary Kingdom of Granada, and the united territories of Castile and León from his father, Fernando III. Alfonso X then set his sights on becoming Holy Roman Emperor. However, his nineteen-year quest, the fecho del Imperio, resulted in defeat26 and the near destruction of Alfonso X’s realm: it bankrupted the royal coffers and contributed to the political unrest that enabled his second son, Sancho, to mount a rebellion.27 Nevertheless, Alfonso X created an image of himself as the source of wisdom and temporal authority in the works he commissioned.

26 The death of the Holy Roman Emperor William II of Holland in 1256 prompted an election, in which Alfonso X and his rival, Richard of Cornwall, both declared victory (O’Callaghan, The Learned 201). Alfonso X claimed the title Holy Roman Emperor through the lineage of his mother, Beatriz de Suabia, who was descended of the powerful German Hohenstaufen family. However, the fecho del Imperio ultimately failed because Alfonso X never received papal support. In 1273, the German electors chose Rudolph, Count of Hapsburg, as Holy Roman Emperor (O’Callaghan, The Learned 232). When Gregory X acknowledged this candidate’s legitimacy, Alfonso X traveled to Beaucaire to meet with the pope, who immediately rejected the king’s claim (O’Callaghan, The Learned 232). This event, coupled with the unexpected death of Alfonso X’s son and heir, Fernando de la Cerda, in 1274 signaled the end of the fecho del Imperio (O’Callaghan, The Learned 333). For more information, see Carlos Estepa Díaz (1985) and Ana Rodríguez López (2000).

27 In 1257, Alfonso X granted monetary tributes and pensions to the German nobles who had elected him Holy Roman Emperor (O’Callaghan, “The Cortes” 382). To maintain his international influence during the fecho del Imperio, the king required substantial revenue that exceeded his income. Alfonso X’s constant requests to levy taxes created an unstable political climate and in part motivated his subjects’ support for his second son, Sancho, when he rebelled in 1275. The previous year, while Alfonso X was in Beaucaire, his oldest son and heir, Fernando de la Cerda, was killed while leading a military expedition (O’Callaghan, The Learned 229). Before Alfonso X could return to Castile, Sancho pronounced himself heir apparent, disregarding the inheritance of Fernando de la Cerda’s young sons, Alfonso and Fernando de la Cerda (Keller 36). This dispute caused an armed rebellion in which Sancho was supported by two of his brothers, their mother, Queen Violante, many of the Castilian nobles, and the kings of Portugal and Aragón (Keller 36). To defend his own realm, Alfonso X was forced to seek mercenary aid from the king of Morocco (Keller 36-67). Nevertheless, their forces were defeated, and Sancho IV succeeded his father as King of Castile upon Alfonso X’s death in 1284. For more information on Alfonso’s taxation policies and relationship to the Castilian nobles, see Joseph O’Callaghan (1971, 1985, 1996).

19 These works were produced at the royal scriptorium, which refers to both the architectural space in which Alfonso X’s scribes carried out his commissions and a cultural institution that promoted scientific inquiry, translation, and composition of prose and poetry in the vernacular (Salvador Martínez 345).28 Numerous scholars have investigated these initiatives as they have contributed to Alfonso X’s epithet: the Wise, or the Learned.

Recently, others have analyzed how Alfonso X’s textual production conveyed his imperial aspiration. For example, Daniel Alberto Panateri (2015) has considered the role of the emperor in the Siete Partidas; María Victoria Chico Picaza (2016) has studied how the text and illuminations of the Códice Rico of the Cantigas de Santa María represent Alfonso X’s political and religious authority; and Nicholas Parmley (2017) has suggested that maritime imagery in the Cantigas de Santa María demonstrates the influence of Alfonso X’s empire beyond the Iberian Peninsula.

This chapter examines the representation of Alfonso X as emperor in one of his historical works, the Primera crónica general de España (1270), and the Royal Chapel that he constructed in Seville Cathedral. The Primera crónica general is a record of “los fechos de Espanna” (Alfonso X, Primera I:2).29 These deeds are usually performed by mythological figures, rulers, and heroes of the Reconquest and are organized sequentially in the text to create a sense of identity around the figure of the king.30 In this scheme, the account of the

28 As an architectural space, the scriptorium “…se encontraba donde quiera que estuviese el rey…” (Salvador Martínez 346). However, three prominent locations emerged in Murcia, Toledo, and Seville because these cities often hosted Alfonso X’s court (Salvador Martínez 347-48). For more information on the scriptorium and how texts were produced at Alfonso X’s court, see Diego Catalán (1992), Ana María López Álvarez (1996), Gonzalo Menéndez Pidal (1999), Ana Domínguez Rodríguez (2000), and Laura Fernández Fernández (2013).

29 Numerous scholars have analyzed this text as a paradigm of medieval historiography. For example, see James F. Burke (1985), Fernando Gómez-Redondo (1989), Nancy Joe Dyer (1990), Inés Fernández-Ordóñez (1993), Leonardo Funes (1997, 2001, 2008), and Michel Garcia (2010).

20 Cid’s death contributes to Alfonso X’s preeminence as the head of the body politic and of his casa real. Alfonso X projected the same supremacy through the foundation of the Royal

Chapel and the iconography of its tomb sculptures in Seville Cathedral. This chapter analyzes the similar function of this funerary chapel and the Primera crónica general to memorialize the king.

I. The Wise King of the Prologue

Despite Alfonso X’s bid to become Holy Roman Emperor, the Primera crónica general does not overtly address the fecho del Imperio. One explanation is the incompleteness of the text. It ends before the reign of Alfonso X because scribes had largely stopped working on the Primera crónica general by 1275 in favor of another historical work, the General estoria (1280).31 Nevertheless, the description of Alfonso X as a wise king in the prologue to the Primera crónica general suggests that this text was intended to validate his bid to become emperor. Alfonso X projected his imperial prowess by imparting wisdom to his subjects and upholding the royal authority of his lineage.

The prologue begins by ascribing the origin of writing and textual production to past

“sabios” and indirectly comparing them to Alfonso X: “Los sabios antigos, que fueron en los

30 Scholars have also analyzed the political projections of the Primera crónica general. For example, see Charles Fraker (1978), Roberto J. González-Casanovas (1995), Geraldine Coates (2006, 2009), and Liuzzo Scorpo (2011).

31 Scholars disagree on the year in which Alfonso X abandoned the Primera crónica general, although they identify a common motivation: the political repercussions of the failed fecho del Imperio. For example, Charles Fraker suggests that Alfonso X cast the text aside in 1275, which was also “the year Alfonso abandons his claim on the imperial throne” (101). Geraldine Coates identifies the period from 1270 to 1274 as a likely estimate for when Alfonso stopped work on the Primera crónica general, but she also attributes his decision to his failed imperial claim (“Imperial Decline” 79). Fernando Gómez-Redondo also suggests that the chronicles’ incompletion is due to “the serious problems that emerged during the 1270s: the nobility’s revolt of 1272—in which his brother Philip took part—and his final renunciation of the Imperial Crown after meeting Gregory X in Beaucaire in 1275, followed by the death of his firstborn son, the infante Fernando de la Cerda” (“Building” 589).

21 tiempos primeros et fallaron los saberes et las otras cosas, touieron que menguarien en sus fechos et en su lealtad si tan bien no lo quisiessen pora los otros que eran en so tiempo…”

(Alfonso X, Primera I:3). For this reason, they developed writing as an antidote to “…el desden de non querer los omnes saber las cosas, et la oluidança en que las echan depues que las saben…” (Alfonso X, Primera I:3).

Written texts were a form of memory because they protected the past from oblivion for the benefit of present and future generations. By providing a means through which to share knowledge, a written text also memorialized its creator, such as the “sabios antigos” presented as exemplars (Alfonso X, Primera I:3). Their wisdom stems from both their intellect and magnanimity in sharing knowledge with others through writing.

One group included in the “sabios antigos” is the Greeks and Romans (Alfonso X,

Primera I:3). Their contributions are further clarified by the examples in the General estoria.

One such example is that of Jupiter, a king of Crete, who was “…el mas sabio, e mas alto e mas poderoso rey que en los gentiles ouo, e del dizen que uinieron los reyes de Roma, e de

Troya, e de Greçia e los otros altos principes” (Alfonso X, General I:191). In addition to the glorious lineage that he founded, Jupiter was revered for providing access to the liberal arts in the trivium and quadrivium. Specifically, Jupiter “…emendo los yerros que dizieran e pusieran en estas artes los otros sabios, e los philosophos que fueran antel e otrossi los de su tiempo; et ennadio e cumplio en ellas las cosas quelos otros sabios non pusieran…” (Alfonso

X, General I:197).

These contributions made Jupiter a wise king because he not only exceeded the accomplishments of his contemporaries, but also shared his knowledge with his subjects. The two divisions of the liberal arts enriched humans in different ways: “…ca por las tres del

22 triuio se dizen los nombres alas cosas, e estas fazen al omne bien razonado, e por las quatro del quadriuuio se muestran las naturas delas cosas, e estas quatro fazen sabio ell omne…”

(Alfonso X, General I:194). The trivium consisted of grammar, logic, and rhetoric and was intended to be studied before the quadrivium, which included arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy (Alfonso X, General I:194). Notwithstanding the value of this educational system, an individual’s increase in knowledge also occurred by following the example of a good ruler, such as Jupiter. By imparting wisdom to his subjects, he united the members of the body politic around his own prestige.

This model of kingship is the same that is recorded in the prologue to the Primera crónica general. The “sabios antigos” behave like Jupiter because they wrote texts to preserve “las artes de las sciencias et los otros saberes” (Alfonso X, Primera I:3). These forms of knowledge encompass more specific disciplines: “el saber dell arte de geometria,”

“los curssos de las estrellas et los mouimientos de las planetas,” “las naturas de las yeruas et de las piedras,” “las leys de los sanctuarios et las de los pueblos, et los derechos de las clerezias et los de los legos,” and “las gestas de los principes” (Alfonso X, Primera I:3).

These disciplines reflect some of the genres that Alfonso X cultivated in in the royal scriptorium. For example, from 1252 to 1262, scholars carried out astronomical experiments used to enhance the Tablas alfonsinas, which were translated from the Arabic findings of the astronomer al-Zarqali (Keller 137). In 1276, scribes compiled Los libros del saber de astronomía into a single volume, and that same year Alfonso X ordered the composition of the Libro de las formas e de las ymagenes que son en los cielos e de las vertudes e de las obras que salen dellas en los cuerpos que son dyuso del cielo e de la luna (Keller 139, 141).

This last text contains a lapidary that describes the virtues and medicinal uses of precious

23 stones (Keller 141-42). In addition to these works on geometry and astronomy, Alfonso X commissioned a legal code, the Siete Partidas, and a record of “las gestas de los principes” in the Primera crónica general (Alfonso X, Primera I:3).

The implication is that Alfonso X would presumably be a good emperor because, like

“sabios antigos” such as Jupiter, he imparts wisdom to his subjects with the dual purpose of educating them and enhancing his image.32 He is described this way in the prologue to the

Primera crónica general. Alfonso X is “…fermosura de Espanna et thesoro de la filosofia, ensennanças da a los yspanos; tomen las buenas los buenos, et den las vanas a los vanos”

(Alfonso X, Primera I:2). These contributions directly benefit the body politic, as the narrator apostrophizes: “O Espanna, si tomas los dones que te da la sabiduria del rey, respandeçeras, otrosi en fama et fermosura creçeras” (Alfonso X, Primera I:2).

The wisdom that Alfonso X imparts to his subjects stems from the divine blessing that descends from one individual to another in a royal lineage. As Alfonso X’s narrative voice explains, “…Nos don Alfonsso, por la gracia de Dios rey de Castiella, de Toledo, de

Leon, de Gallizia, de Seuilla, de Cordoua, de Murcia, de Jahen et dell Algarue, ffijo del muy noble rey don Ffernando et de la reyna donna Beatriz, mandamos ayuntar quantos libros pudimos auer de istorias en que alguna cosa contassen de los fechos dEspanna…” (Primera

I:4).

This passage attributes the production of the Primera crónica general directly to

Alfonso X, although the extent of his personal involvement is not known.33 However, as this

32 For more information on Alfonso X’s model of kingship, see Cesareo (1984) and Liuzzo Scorpo (2013).

33 Nevertheless, numerous scholars have used the prologues of works attributed to Alfonso X to analyze the extent of his authorial role. Some have distinguished between the Alfonsine prologues written in the first person, presumably by the king himself, and those in which Alfonso X is referenced in the third person and does not ostensibly demonstrate an authorial voice (Kennedy, “The Sabio-Topos” 186). For more information

24 passage also implies, Alfonso X received the divine grace to rule as the son and successor of

Fernando III and Beatriz de Suabia. Their lineage—and wisdom—positioned Alfonso X to become king and to impart his own knowledge to his subjects in the Primera crónica general. The main source for this text was Jiménez de Rada’s De rebus Hispaniae (1243), which Alfonso X’s father, Fernando III, authorized as a revision to a previous history, Lucas of Tuy’s Chronicon mundi (1238).34 By continuing this tradition of historical writing,

Alfonso X not only upheld a standard of his royal lineage, but also emphasized its divinely inspired origin as a means to project his imperial power.

The connection between Alfonso X’s ancestry and political authority is further contextualized in the General estoria in the idea of a chosen lineage. This text explains,

“Pero es aquí de saber que la Sancta Escriptura, que luego de Adam que fue el primero comienço de todos, cato siempre en los omnes una linea que touo en personas connosçudas e contadas…” (Alfonso X, General I:61). This lineage advances in history “…fastal comienço dela sexta edat, pora auer ende sin toda sennal de pecado a Sancta Maria Uirgen, dond nasciesse Cristo que saluasse el mundo como lo fizo” (Alfonso X, General I:61).35 While this

on Alfonso X’s prologues and the authorship of his works, see Anthony J. Cárdenas (1985), Rafael Cano Aguilar (1989), González-Casanovas (1994), and H. Salvador Martínez (2016).

34 In the prologue to the Primera crónica general, Alfonso X’s narrative voice acknowledges that “…tomamos de la cronica dell Arçobispo don Rodrigo que fizo por mandado del rey don Ffernando nuestro padre…” (I:4). By using a text connected to his father’s reign as the basis of the Primera crónica general, Alfonso X was “building upon a royal association with literature and scholarship” (Kennedy, “The Sabio-Topos” 185). This association also extends to the previous generation because Berenguela of Castile—the mother of Fernando III and the grandmother of Alfonso X—commissioned the Chronicon mundi (Shadis 123). This text was incorporated into the Primera crónica general, although to a much lesser extent than Jiménez de Rada’s De rebus Hispaniae because the two works contradicted each other. For example, Lucas of Tuy privileged the role of León, but Jiménez de Rada centered the activity of Spanish history in Castile (Kersken 193). Alfonso X’s scribes were forced to choose because, as Peter Linehan explains, “The Alfonsine scriptorium was not a place in which the nice differences discernible in the two accounts of the Peninsular past could be calmly discussed and reconciled. It was a battlefield. Compilation implies choice” (“From” 18). They ostensibly chose the main source that better supported Alfonso X’s political agenda in the fecho del Imperio by privileging the role of Castile.

25 separate line encompasses many individuals—especially “personas connosçudas e contadas”—it ultimately leads to Christ, the supreme ruler and arbiter of history (Alfonso X,

General I:61).

The Primera crónica general echoes this same concept of a separate lineage on a national stage by privileging the descent of Castilian monarchs from the Visigoths. The text is intended to “mostrar la nobleza de los godos et como fueron uiniendo de tierra en tierra, uenciendo muchas batallas et conquiriendo muchas tierras, fasta que llegaron a Espanna, et echaron ende a todas las otras yentes, et fueron ellos sennores della…” (Alfonso X, Primera

I:4). After the expansion of the Umayyad Caliphate into the Iberian Peninsula in 711,

Christian monarchs continued the myth of a superior line stemming from the Visigoths.36

This royal line not only claimed political supremacy, but also divine blessing, as the text suggests by describing “cuemo la ayunto Dios, et por quales maneras et en qual tiempo, et

35 The “sexta edad” refers to the division of the General estoria into six ages, beginning with the biblical account of creation and progressing each hour to record the history of the world (Alfonso X, General I:61). The General estoria is an example of universal historiography, which presents history as a narrative of salvation articulated through the concept of translatio imperii, or the transfer of secular power within a divinely inspired framework. This concept was derived by early Christian writers, such as Eusebius of Caesarea and Paulus Orosius, who emphasized the progress of God’s activity in history through chronology and biblical typology. For more information on these authors and medieval historiography, see James William Johnson (1962), Arnaldo Momigliano (1966), Dominic Janes (2000), Paolo Delogu (2002), Andy Fear (2005), Jennifer A. Harris (2011), and Gabrielle M. Spiegel (2016). For more information on the General estoria, see Francisco Rico (1984) and Fernández-Ordóñez (1999).

36 The sequential structure of the Primera crónica general contributes to the establishment of a superior line through the Visigoths. The text is organized into four thematic sections: the first recounts ancient history and the conquest of the Romans; the second explains Barbarian and Visigoth history; the third presents the history of Asturias and León; and the fourth the history of Castile (Gómez-Redondo, “Building” 589-90). The Arab conquest of the Iberian Peninsula is not a separate thematic section, but nevertheless informs the accounts of the Reconquest in the history of Asturias, León, and Castile. As a result, the text establishes “la Pérdida de España como punto de inflexion de la historia hispánica” (Funes, El modelo 22). The lack of focused attention paid to the Arab conquest is also a result of the sequential, rather than purely chronological, structure of the Primera crónica general, which implies that “…es el señor de la tierra el que otorga a los sucesos un lugar en el tiempo” (Fernández-Ordóñez, Las Estorias 21). This structure ultimately privileges Alfonso X’s power as king—and presumably as emperor also—over a vast territory because he assigns historical value to events by recording them in the Primera crónica general.

26 quales reyes ganaron la tierra fasta en el mar Meditarreneo; et que obras fizo cada uno, assi cuemo uinieron unos empos otros fastal nuestro tiempo” (Alfonso X, Primera I:4).

By presenting himself as a continuation of the Visigothic line through the grace of

God, Alfonso X positions himself as a successful king and presumably an effective emperor.

He demonstrates his ability to unify the members of the body politic around his political authority through his role as compiler of “las gestas de los principes” (Alfonso X, Primera

I:3). These “gestas” provide models of behavior that also reflect Alfonso X’s preeminence

(Primera I:3). One such model is the Cid, Ruy Díaz de Vivar, whose posthumous achievements exemplify the imperial status to which Alfonso X aspired.

II. The Cid and the Emperor

The Primera crónica general contains a thorough prose biography of the Cid that casts him as an exemplary national figure.37 It is particularly conscious of the Cid’s place in the lineage of Alfonso X because the Cid’s daughters, Elvira and Sol, had respectively married the infantes of Navarre and Aragón. These marriages allowed subsequent monarchs to claim the Cid as a member of the casa real. For example, the Poema del Cid concludes,

37 The biography of the Cid occupies over 100 chapters of the Primera crónica general and was compiled from numerous sources. As H. Salvador Martínez explains, “Para componer la biografía del Cid los colaboradores alfonsíes no escatimaron recursos, sirviéndose de todos los medios a su alcance: la Historia Roderici de hacia 1110; una historia de Valencia atribuida a Ibn Alqama, los dos grandes historiadores latinos contemporáneos, Lucas de Tuy y Jiménez de Rada, y, por supuesto, el Cantar” (482). The process of compilation used to create the Cid’s biography in the Primera crónica general echoed that of the entire text. The scribes working in the royal scriptorium compiled historical accounts from existing accounts, principally Bishop Lucas of Tuy’s Chronicon mundi, Archbishop of Toledo Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada’s De rebus Hispaniae, and vernacular sources from a wide variety of prose genres, including history, wisdom literature, and fiction, as well as epic poetry (Catalán, La Estoria 13). The chroniclers’ use of these sources reflects a common practice in medieval historiography because writers “…fundaban la garantía de verdad de su relato en el hecho de haberlo hallado en fuentes inobjetables” (Funes, “La construcción” 59). The epic sources of the Primera crónica general have received substantial scholarly attention, especially those related to the Cid. For more information, see José Miguel Caso González (1981), David G. Pattison (1983), Brian Powell (1983), Dyer (1986), Samuel G. Armistead (1989), and Dyer (1995).

27 “Oy los rreyes d’España sos parientes son, / a todos alcança ondra por el que en buen ora naçió” (3724-25).

Alfonso X particularly benefitted from this association by assuming the Cid’s imperial stature as reflected in the Primera crónica general. Specifically, the accounts of the

Cid’s posthumous victory over the Muslim king Búcar and enthronement at the monastery of

Saint Peter in Cardeña present the Cid with imperial posture in fulfillment of divine blessing.

Through the Cid’s membership in the casa real, his triumphs contribute to the memory of

Alfonso X as emperor in the Primera crónica general.

However, the Cid’s relationship with the Castilian monarchs was not always mutually affirming. The Cid was exiled from court in 1081 for allegedly betraying the king.

Nevertheless, the Cid is assured of Heaven’s blessing when an angel appears to him in a dream: “Et pues que fue de noche et se adormecio, ueno a ell en uision como en figura de angel, et dixol assi: ‘Çid, ue aosadas do uas et non temas nada, ca siempre te yra bien mientre que uiuas, et seras rico et abondado et onrrado’” (Alfonso X, Primera II:524).38 The dream

“…confirms the fact that the protagonist is still favored by God, even if the king has exiled him” (Cerghedean 136).39

This event foreshadows another revelation of the Cid’s divine favor shortly before his death and final battle against the Muslim king Búcar. One night, “…vn omne le aparesçio tan blanco commo la nieue, et era cano et crespo, et entro por el palaçio, et traye en su mano vnas llaues…” (Alfonso X, Primera I:633). This vision of Saint Peter reassures the Cid,

38 This account is a prose version of an episode that occurs in the Poema del Cid. The archangel Gabriel appears to the Cid after he has been exiled and tells him to “‘¡Cavalgad, Çid, el buen Campeador, / Ca nunqua en tan buen punto cavalgó varón!’” (Poema 407-408). For more information on divine favor in the Poema del Cid, see Carmelo Gariano (1964) and José Terradas (2013).

39 In the Middle Ages, dreams were interpreted as conveying divine blessing. For more information, see Harriet Goldberg (1983) and Steven F. Kruger (1992).

28 “‘…as a dexar este mundo et yrte a la vida que non a fin, et esto sera de oy en treynta dias.

Pero tanto te quiere Dios fazer merçed, que la tu conpanna desbarate al rey Bucar, et que tu, seyendo muerto, venças esta batalla por onrra del cuerpo tuyo…’” (Alfonso X, Primera

II:633).40

Saint Peter’s pronouncement thirty days before the Cid’s death allows him to prepare both his soul for salvation and his body for battle. After confessing his sins and receiving absolution, the Cid “…despidiosse de todas las otras gentes, llorando mucho de los oios, et fuesse pora su alcaçar, et echosse en su cama, et nunca mas ende se lauanto…” (Alfonso X,

Primera II:634-35).41 Upon retiring, he refuses to eat or drink, save a tincture of myrrh and gold, although he makes meticulous preparations for the impending battle against Búcar

(Alfonso X, Primera II:635). Specifically, the Cid commands his attendants to anoint his body with myrrh and to “…ensellar el mio cauallo Bauieca, et guysaredes el mio cuerpo mucho onrradamiente guarnido, et ponerme hedes en el cauallo; et en manera me guisaredes et me ataredes que me non pueda caer del, et ponermedes la mi espada Tizon en la mano…”

(Alfonso X, Primera II:635). In this way, the Cid leads his forces to victory over Búcar’s

40 The Cid also receives notice of his imminent death through a series of dreams, as he explains: “Et desto so muy çierto, ca bien ha mas de siete noches que visiones me siguen, ca veo mi padre Diego Laynez et a mi fijo Diego Ruyz, et cada vez que los veo, dizenme: ‘mucho auedes morado aqui trendos, et vayamosnos a las asonadas perdurables’” (Alfonso X, Primera II:634). These dreams reinforce the Cid’s divine blessing as indicated by Saint Peter’s promise of salvation, with one noticeable distinction: the Cid was “velando ca non durmiendo” when the saint appeared (Alfonso X, Primera II:634). This statement clarifies that the Cid did not dream the vision of Saint Peter, notwithstanding the evident reassurance of divine favor in this episode.

41 The Cid’s response to his impending demise reflects common practices and attitudes toward death in the Middle Ages. Philippe Ariès explains that in epic poems, knights “…were usually forewarned. They did not die without having had time to realize that they were going to die” (2-3). This knowledge allowed them to prepare for death by assuming a prostrate position, lamenting their imminent loss of life, addressing the companions who surrounded their bedside, and praying for the soul’s salvation (Ariès 8-10). The account of the Cid’s death in the Primera crónica general apparently conforms to this pattern. However, in other accounts, the Cid’s death is presented differently. For example, in the Poema del Cid, the Cid’s death is mentioned only briefly by date: “Passado es d’este sieglo el día de cincuaesma; / ¡de Christus aya perdón!” (3726-27).

29 army in fulfillment of Saint Peter’s promise: “…tu, seyendo muerto, venças esta batalla por onrra del cuerpo tuyo…” (Alfonso X, Primera II:633).

The position of the Cid’s body on horseback evokes the traditional posture of a seated equestrian statue, which conveys both military prowess and imperial authority. Even after the battle, the Cid’s body retains its aura of power because his attendants and soldiers

“…lleuaron al cuerpo del Çid en su cauallo assy commo lo sacaron de Valencia, saluo ende que non leuaua ningunas armas, mas yua uestido de muy nobles pannos, de guysa que quantos vinien por el camino cuydauan que biuo yua, sino quando gelo dizian” (Alfonso X,

Primera II:639). They also wanted to project the Cid’s authority in death by adorning his casket “con porpola et con pliegos de oro,” similar to the “nobles pannos” that he wore

(Alfonso X, Primera II:639).

However, the Cid’s wife, doña Ximena, arranged for his body to first be publicly displayed at the monastery of Saint Peter in Cardeña. She “…dixo que mientra el su rostro et los oios estudiessen tan frescos et tan apuestos, nunca el su cuerpo entraria en ataut…”

(Alfonso X, Primera II:639). The Cid’s lifelike features suggest both his foresight in ordering his embalmment42 and his bodily incorruptibility, which was often interpreted as a sign of sainthood (Vauchez 427).43 As a result, when Alfonso VI arrived to “onrrar el Çid en

42 According to the account of the Cid’s death, his body was embalmed as he had requested: “Et desque fue finado, el obispo don Geronimo et Aluar Fannez et Pero Bermudez et Gil Diaz, su priuado, lauaronle et vngieronle, assy commo el mandara…” (Alfonso X, Primera II:636).

43 As a result, a saint’s corpse emanated a fragrant, rather than putrid, odor (Vauchez 428). The Cid’s embalmment eliminates the divine origin of his incorruptibility, although this passage contains clear overtones of sainthood. Bodily incorruptibility also appears in another context in the Primera crónica general. When Saint Peter visited the Cid to inform him of his imminent death and victory over Búcar, “…finco el palaçio lleno de vn olor tan sabroso, que non a coraçon en el mundo que lo podiesse asmar…” (Alfonso X, Primera II:634). This sweet smell indicates the presence of a saint and confirms the Cid’s statement that he did not dream the encounter with Saint Peter.

30 su sepultura…se marauillo quando vio venir al Cid en su cauallo et tan noblemente vestido…” (Alfonso X, Primera II:640).44

The king’s reaction fulfills the promise of divine favor that the angel made to the Cid upon his exile: “‘…seras rico et abondado et onrrado…’” (Alfonso X, Primera II:524). In addition to honoring his former vassal with his presence, Alfonso VI bestowed “onrras” through religious services, such as “cantar missas et en vigilias et en todos los otros officios que se deuen fazer a omne finado” (Alfonso X, Primera II:640). Alfonso VI also moved the

Cid’s body to a place of honor:

…mando fazer un tabernaculo bien obrado de tablas, et mando traher la su siella de marfil que el le uiera en las cortes de Toledo, et mando poner el tabernaculo a man derecha del altar de sant Pedro, et mandola cobrir de vn panno de peso et vn cabeçal. Et desi el rey mismo, por fazer onrra al Çid, llego ayudar a sacar el cuerpo de entre aquellas tablas ol metieran en Valencia.…Et quando esto vio el rey, afincosse que fiziessen lo que auien començado; et uestieron el cuerpo del Çid de unos pannos de porpola muy noble qual la enbiara el grant soldan de Persia, entre las otras muchas et muy nobles cosas quel enbiara; et calçaronle vnas calças de aquella porpola misma, et asentaronlo en su siella que el mandara aguysar; et pusieronle en su mano siniestra la espada Tizon metida en la vayna, et la mano derecha teniela en las cuerdas del manto….(Alfonso X, Primera II:640-41)

The Cid’s seated position as described in this passage is reminiscent of an imperial posture. He holds his sword, just as he did during the battle against Búcar, and his exquisite purple robes echo the clothing he wore upon his return to Valencia.45 These vestments also

44 Alfonso VI’s astonishment is due to the Cid’s lifelike appearance. Notwithstanding the overtones of hagiography in this account, the Cid’s bodily preservation is eventually explained by the process of embalming: “Et el rey cataua al rostro al Çid, et veyegelo tan fresco et tan liso et los oios tan claros et tan fermosos et tan egualmiente abiertos que non semeiaua sinon biuo, eet faziese mucho marauillado; mas despues quel dixieron en commo beuiera siete dias el balsamo et la mirra et que non comiera otra cosa fasta que muriera, et en commo fuera despues vngido et balsamado, non lo touo por grant marauilla, ca bien oyera dezir que en tierra de Egipto lo fazien assy a los reyes” (Alfonso X, Primera II:640).

45 The similarities between the Cid’s posture on horseback and on the throne also suggest correspondence between his military and spiritual victories. For example, while mounted on Babieca, the Cid led his troops to defeat the Muslim enemy: “Et quando esto vio el rey Bucar et los treynta et seys reyes, fueron marauillados, ca bien les semeio que vinien y sessenta mill caualleros todos mas blancos que vna nieve; et uenia delante vno mas grande que todos los otros, et traye en la mano vna senna blanca et en la otra vna espada que semeiaua fuego; et fazie vna mortandat muy grande en los moros que yuan fuyendo, que tan espantado fue Bucar et los sus reyes,

31 convey the Cid’s status because they were originally fit for Alfonso VI as a gift from the sultan of Persia. By extending this gift to the Cid, Alfonso VI elevates the sociopolitical status of his former vassal. The Cid’s royal robes, coupled with his majestic enthronement under a baldachin, project the image of an emperor. The implication is that the Cid’s temporal authority is equal to or even surpasses that of Alfonso VI.

For subsequent monarchs such as Alfonso X, the Cid’s elite position in the casa real serves to enhance the king’s preeminence in the body politic. By claiming to share the Cid’s lineage, Alfonso X also claimed the same divine favor and imperial status in the Primera crónica general. In this way, Alfonso X generated a textual memory of his own imperial power that is analogous in purpose to the funerary chapel he commissioned in Seville

Cathedral.

III. Alfonso X’s Imperial Status in the Royal Chapel

In 1252, Alfonso X built the Royal Chapel in Seville Cathedral following the death of his father, Fernando III. Both kings were eventually interred in this pantheon, which was the first of its kind built in a Castilian cathedral. Previous monarchs had consistently elected to be buried in monasteries under royal patronage, and those rulers who had been laid to rest in cathedrals did not commission their own funerary chapels. Alfonso X built the Royal Chapel to demonstrate the prestige of his lineage and incorporated imperial iconography in the tomb sculptures to memorialize himself as both king and emperor. In doing so, he established a

que començaron a fuyr et non touieron rienda fasta en la mar. Et estonçe la conpanna del Çid començaron a yr firiendo et matando en ellos” (Alfonso X, Primera II:637-38). Similarly, while seated on the throne at the monastery of Saint Peter in Cardeña, the Cid achieves a spiritual victory over a Jew who attempted to touch the Cid’s beard. The Cid’s hand extended to grasp his sword, and the Jew “…ouo atan grant miedo que cayo atras de espaldas, et començo a dar muy grandes bozes…” (Alfonso X, Primera II:642). As a result of this encounter, the Jew converted to Christianity and was baptized (Alfonso X, Primera II:643). Both episodes feature the Cid’s imperial stature in the context of his victories over religious groups.

32 new paradigm of architectural representation that his successors emulated in their own funerary chapels in the cathedrals of Toledo, Córdoba, and Seville.

Alfonso X constructed the Royal Chapel to commemorate his forebears, Fernando III and Beatriz de Suabia. This intent is evident in the donations of property, rents, and taxes that

Alfonso X made to the diocese of Seville, particularly its cathedral, which Fernando III dedicated before his death in 1252.46 Two years later, in honor of his predecessor, Alfonso X granted the cathedral chapter of Seville all the stores in close proximity (Laguna Paúl 238).

In 1256, Alfonso X made his first donation on the anniversary of his father’s death, when he increased the Church’s rents by 8,300 maravedís (Laguna Paúl 238). Finally, in 1279,

Alfonso X donated a fifth of the property confiscated from cavalry raids to the Church and archbishopric in Seville in order to establish sung masses for Fernando III and Beatriz de

Suabia on the anniversaries of their deaths (Laguna Paúl 240).

That same year, Alfonso X reinterred their remains in the Royal Chapel. Fernando III had previously been buried in front of the main altar, an honorific location that commemorated his successful reconquest of Seville (Laguna Paúl 236). In 1248, Fernando III led his forces into the city and consecrated its mosque as a Christian church by building an

46 Upon the dedication of Seville Cathedral, Fernando III made an enormous donation: “el diezmo del amojarifazgo de la ciudad de Sevilla y de todo su arzobispado, tanto de las tierras ya conquistadas como de las que él o sus sucesores ganaron a los moros; la villa de Cantillana; todo lo que tenía el rey en Chillón, evaluado en 2.500 maravedís anuales; 1.000 maravedís anuales de la renta real en el término de Sanlúcar, otros tantos en el de Tejada y 1.000 maravedís de las parias o tribute annual que pagaba el rey de Granada en concepto de vasallaje al monarca castellano” (Laguna Paúl 237). Unlike this one-time bequest, Alfonso X’s patronage of Seville Cathedral spanned his entire reign. In 1252, he confirmed Fernando III’s donation and also granted all but three of the mosques in Seville to the city’s newly established Christian diocese (Laguna Paúl 238). Approximately every two years between 1252 and 1261, Alfonso X increased the rents that the Church in Seville could collect on its properties and also donated additional properties to the cathedral chapter and the Archbishop of Seville, respectively. From 1261 to 1272, Alfonso X did not make any additional donations while he finished the conquest of Niebla and Cádiz (Laguna Paúl 239). During the next eight years, the Archbishop of Seville, Remón Losana, restructured the Church’s property, including new donations from the Crown in 1274 and 1276 (Laguna Paúl 240). In 1279, Alfonso X increased the rents given to the Church in Seville, and upon his death five years later, the cathedral received valuable works of art and manuscripts to enrich the chapter library (Laguna Paúl 240, 243).

33 altar, on which they placed an image of the Virgin Mary, at the eastern end of the building

(Laguna Paúl 236). Fernando III was buried before this same altar, in the most sacred space within the newly consecrated cathedral (Laguna Paúl 241).47

When Alfonso X constructed the Royal Chapel, he paid tribute to the legacy of

Fernando III’s reconquest of Seville. Alfonso X appropriated a symbolic space in the preexisting mosque by building the Royal Chapel along the eastern wall of the prayer hall containing the mihrab, near the minaret-turned-bell tower (Ruiz Souza 12). A contemporary legend states that shortly before the city’s capitulation, Fernando III secretly visited the mosque, where he saw the image of the Virgin Mary on a pillar facing the mihrab (Laguna

Paúl 236). In this same location within the cathedral, Alfonso X constructed the Royal

Chapel as the intended burial place of his immediate predecessors.

By doing so, Alfonso X broke with tradition because other royal pantheons were located in monasteries, such as Santa María la Real de las Huelgas in Burgos, where Alfonso

X’s mother, Beatriz de Suabia, was originally buried (Laguna Paúl 240). 48 This monastery was founded as the intended burial place of Castilian monarchs by Alfonso X’s great- grandfather, Alfonso VIII of Castile (Laguna Paúl 240). He and his wife, Leonor Plantagenet, were interred there, along with several of their children, including Fernando III’s mother,

Berenguela, through whom Fernando III claimed the Castilian throne (Arco 246-48, 177).

47 According to Laura Vivanco, the altar was the most honorific burial location in a church “…because burial in such a prominent position reflected the high status of the family….On the other hand, burial near the altar may also have been intended to benefit the dead spiritually, since the corpse was thus placed close to the holiest part of the church, where, during the mass, bread was transubstantiated into the body of Christ” (149). As a result, it is not coincidental that Alfonso VI enthroned the Cid immediately to the right of the altar in the main church of the monastery of Saint Peter in Cardeña, since this location also conveys the Cid’s prestige. After ten years, the Cid was buried in a similarly honorific location: “…enterraron el cuerpo del Çid ante el altar, a par de donna Ximena su muger…” (Alfonso X, Primera I:643).

48 Upon her death in 1235, Beatriz de Suabia was interred alongside one of her sons, Enrique, who had died in infancy (Arco 226). In addition to Alfonso X’s mother, his oldest son and heir, Fernando de la Cerda, and Fernando de la Cerda’s oldest son, Alfonso de la Cerda, were both buried at Las Huelgas Reales (Arco 255).

34 Nevertheless, Fernando III chose not to patronize the pantheon of Castilian monarchs after he also became King of León in 1230 (Ruiz Souza 10).49 The Leonese monarchs were traditionally buried in the monastery of Saint Isidore in León, which was founded by Sancho

I in 966 (Arco 50).50 However, Fernando III’s three immediate predecessors in León—

Alfonso IX, Fernando II, and Alfonso VII—chose to be interred elsewhere. Alfonso VII was buried in Toledo Cathedral upon his death in 1157; the previous year, he had triumphantly entered the city to restore a relic of Saint Eugene, the first bishop of Toledo (Nickson 151).

Alfonso VII was interred in a chapel devoted to this saint, as was his older son, Sancho III of

Castile, although their remains were later moved to the Chapel of the Holy Spirit in the thirteenth century (Nickson 151, 162).51 Alfonso VII’s younger son, Fernando II of León,

49 Fernando III unified the kingdoms of Castile and León when he inherited both realms. He became King of Castile in 1217 upon the untimely death of his uncle, Enrique I, at only thirteen years of age. Enrique I was the successor of Alfonso VIII, whose other sons had preceded Enrique I in death. Alfonso VIII’s oldest daughter, Berenguela, served as Enrique I’s regent since 1214 and immediately became queen upon his death (Shadis 86). Berenguela was married to Alfonso IX of León, and she ceded the Castilian throne to their son, Fernando III (Shadis 98-99). Berenguela also arranged for Fernando III to succeed his father as King of León. Alfonso IX had chosen as his heirs his daughters, Sancha and Dulce, from his first marriage to Teresa of Portugal (Shadis 111-12). Upon Alfonso IX’s death in 1230, Berenguela convinced Sancha and Dulce to cede the Leonese throne to Fernando III in exchange for monetary benefits and landholdings (Shadis 114). For more information on Fernando III’s accession and Berenguela of Castile’s political involvement, see Miriam Shadis (2009) and Janna Bianchini (2012).

50 Sancho I built the monastery to house the relic of the martyr Saint Pelayo of Córdoba (Arco 50). Shortly thereafter, Alfonso V rededicated the monastery to Saint John the Baptist and translated the remains of previous monarchs who had been buried elsewhere (Arco 51). His grandson, Fernando I, expanded the monument to house the relic of Saint Isidore, to whom the refurbished monastery was dedicated (Arco 52). Upon Fernando I’s death in 1065, he was buried in the main chapel near his father (Valdés Fernández 75). For more information on royal monasteries and funerary chapels in medieval Castile, see Fernando Chueca Goitia (1982), José Antonio Jara Fuente (1996), Rocío Sánchez Ameijeiras (1998), Concepción Abad Castro (2001), and Valdés Fernández (2001a).

51 Alfonso VII was the first monarch to request burial in Toledo Cathedral (Arco 209). He divided his realm between his two living sons: the older, Sancho III, received the kingdom of Castile, and the younger, Fernando II, received León. Sancho III died in 1158, one year after his father, and was likely interred in the Chapel of Saint Eugene with Alfonso VII (Abad Castro 65). Both tombs were later relocated to the Chapel of the Holy Spirit.

35 and his successor, Alfonso IX, were both interred in the cathedral of Santiago de Compostela

(Ruiz Souza 10-11).52

Notwithstanding these monarchs’ burials in cathedrals, they were not models for

Alfonso X’s foundation of the Royal Chapel because they did not receive proprietary pantheons. Alfonso VII and Sancho III’s eventual resting place in the Chapel of the Holy

Spirit, was “…too small and humble to ever have been intended as a permanent royal chapel…” (Nickson 38).53 In addition, Fernando II and Alfonso IX were laid to rest in close proximity to the apostle Santiago (Arco 170, 183). While this location was honorific, its prestige was due to the saint’s interment, not the construction of a pantheon. Alfonso X broke with these precedents by building the Royal Chapel at a site specifically chosen to reflect the prestige of Fernando III and Beatriz de Suabia.

Alfonso X gave the Royal Chapel imperial status through its symbolic location and the iconography of its funerary sculptures. In 1279, he composed a final will in which he requested that his body be buried at the foot of his parents’ sepulchers (Cómez Ramos, “La monarquía” 291).54 That same year, he commissioned funerary sculptures that “…consisted

52 The monarchs of León also ruled Galicia. Fernando II chose to be buried in the cathedral of Santiago de Compostela alongside his mother, Berenguela de Barcelona, although his widow, Urraca López de Haro, did not honor his wishes and interred Fernando II elsewhere (Arco 169). His son and successor, Alfonso IX, arranged for his father’s remains to be moved to Santiago de Compostela in 1188 (Arco 169). Upon Alfonso IX’s death in 1230, he was buried near his father (Arco 183).

53 It is likely that the Chapel of the Holy Spirit “was specifically built as a temporary resting place for Toledo’s royal bodies…” (Nickson 65). In 1248, the exiled King Sancho II de Portugal was also buried in the Chapel of the Holy Spirit (Nickson 65). However, the original resting place of Alfonso VII and Sancho in the Chapel of Saint Eugene became a royal pantheon before it was destroyed. Between 1192 and 1208, Archbishop of Toledo Martín de Pisuerga established royal requiem masses at the Chapel of Saint Eugene, located at the eastern end of the building (Nickson 38, 37). As a result, the Chapel of Saint Eugene in Toledo Cathedral was “…the earliest of the eastern royal chapels in medieval Iberia” (Nickson 38). Nevertheless, the Chapel of Saint Eugene only acquired this distinction after two monarchs were buried there, while the Royal Chapel in Seville Cathedral was originally intended as a pantheon.

54 In earlier wills, Alfonso X designated alternative locations for his burial. In 1263, he constructed a tomb in the church of the Holy Cross in Cádiz (Cómez Ramos, Las empresas 88). However, he later expressed a desire to be buried in a monastery in Murcia because this city was the first that he successfully conquered (Cómez

36 of life-like portraits of the three monarchs, made of precious metals and stones, adorned in

Andalusian textiles and seated on thrones above their caskets” (Crites 397). Fernando III’s effigy held his sword, and Alfonso X’s effigy was seated on a throne under a baldachin

(Martínez de Aguirre Aldaz 115-16, 119).55

The imperial posture of these effigies was likely inspired by the account of the Cid’s posthumous enthronement in the Primera crónica general, since most Castilian tombs featured recumbent effigies, and those at Las Huelgas Reales were unadorned stone caskets

(Crites 397-98). However, German tombs of Holy Roman Emperors may have also influenced the design of Alfonso X’s funerary sculptures, including indirectly through Otto

III’s description of Charlemagne’s seated effigy (Crites 398). Otto III’s account was possibly known to Alfonso X and probably also inspired the imperial depiction of the Cid in the

Primera crónica general (Crites 398).

In addition to the similar posture of the Cid’s enthronement and the monarchs’ effigies in the Royal Chapel, this pantheon proclaimed the imperial status of Fernando III through an inscription on his tomb. A phrase written in Latin, Castilian, Arabic, and Hebrew praised him as the ruler “who conquered all of Spain” (Crites 398). This inscription, coupled with the symbolic site of the pantheon in Seville Cathedral, cast Fernando III as emperor in

Ramos, Las empresas 88). Upon Alfonso X’s death in 1284, his heart was sent to Murcia, and his body was interred in the Royal Chapel at Seville Cathedral (Cómez Ramos, Las empresas 88). For more information on Alfonso X’s will and interment, see Domínguez Rodríguez (1984).

55 While Alfonso X commissioned the funerary sculptures of his parents’ tombs in 1279, his own funerary sculpture was not installed until after his death, so it is possible that his effigy was commissioned by his successor, Sancho IV (Martínez de Aguirre Aldaz 119). After Alfonso X’s death, Sancho IV took an active interest in Seville Cathedral to demonstrate his legitimacy as Alfonso X’s heir and to maintain the Church’s support during his reign (Laguna Paúl). In 1285, Sancho IV endowed the Royal Chapel by excusing the pantheon’s clergy from paying a tax on inherited property (Laguna Paúl 243). He also granted the Church in Seville patronage over the parish churches in the diocese (Laguna Paúl 243). These donations were the last royal bequests in the style of Alfonso X to the Church in Seville because, in 1285, Archbishop Remón Losana signed an agreement with the cathedral’s chapter in which they divided the patrimony of the Archbishop from that of Seville Cathedral (Laguna Paúl 243).

37 light of his successful efforts to advance the Reconquest and connect Spain to Christian kingdoms in Europe (Crites 398). Alfonso X attempted the same goal, albeit unsuccessfully, in the fecho del Imperio. Nevertheless, his burial alongside his predecessors in the Royal

Chapel gave Alfonso X a similar imperial status by suggesting that he continued his father’s political legacy.

The Royal Chapel also memorialized Alfonso X as emperor through the prestige of his lineage. The bonds of kinship he shared with Fernando III and Beatriz de Suabia guaranteed these monarchs’ temporal authority, which Alfonso X commemorated through the location and adornments of their tombs in the Royal Chapel. In addition to commissioning sepulchers, Alfonso X placed a statue of the Virgin Mary and Christ Child in the pantheon to represent the divine blessing of his lineage because “…earthly rulers were the vicarios de Dios” (Crites 398).56

This iconographic message creates a memory of Alfonso X analogous to that portrayed in the Primera crónica general. Alfonso X appears as a good emperor who has inherited his divinely inspired role as the culmination of the Visigoth line. Although neither

Fernando III nor Alfonso X ever became Holy Roman Emperor, their burial in the pantheon built specifically for their shared lineage supported their claim to imperial power and reflected their supremacy in the body politic.

The Royal Chapel also memorialized Alfonso X as the founder of a new paradigm of architectural patronage, which his successors emulated in constructing their own pantheons.

For example, his son, Sancho IV, founded the Chapel of the Holy Cross in Toledo Cathedral in 1285, one year after he assumed the throne. His insurrection following the failed fecho del

56 For more information about this statue, as well as the imperial projection of the other funerary sculptures in the Royal Chapel, see Javier Martínez de Aguirre Aldaz (1995), Teresa Laguna Paúl (2000), Sánchez Ameijeiras (2002), and Amy G. Remensnyder (2005).

38 Imperio likely motivated his desire to distinguish both his reign and resting place from those of his father. Nevertheless, he imitated the design of the Royal Chapel when he built the

Chapel of the Holy Cross on the eastern side of the presbytery, behind the main altar of

Toledo Cathedral (Ruiz Souza 22). In 1289, Sancho IV translated the tombs of Alfonso VII of León, Sancho III of Castile, and Sancho II of Portugal from the Chapel of the Holy Spirit

(Ruiz Souza 22). Their final location in the Chapel of the Holy Cross reflected the monarchs’ prestige through their tombs’ proximity to the main altar.57 Sancho IV was buried in the same prominent location upon his death in 1295.

His successors were also interred in proprietary funerary chapels located in cathedrals. His son, Fernando IV, was buried in the Chapel of Saint Clement in the Cathedral of Córdoba (Ruiz Souza 18). As a result, Alfonso XI expressed in his will a desire to be buried in Córdoba but was initially laid to rest in the Royal Chapel in Seville Cathedral

(Paulino Montero 136). Likewise, Pedro I of Castile’s wife, María de Padilla, was temporarily interred in the Royal Chapel in 1362, when Pedro I founded his own funerary chapel, also in Seville Cathedral (Ruiz Souza 12).58 Both he and María de Padilla were buried in this new pantheon in 1369, following the assassination of Pedro I by his half brother, Enrique Trastámara (Ruiz Souza 13-14). In 1371, the newly crowned Enrique II constructed the Royal Chapel in Córdoba to honor Alfonso XI’s testamentary request to be

57 Alfonso X acted similarly by refurbishing the royal pantheon in Las Huelgas Reales at the same time that he constructed the Royal Chapel. In the monastery, Alfonso X moved the tombs of its founders, Alfonso VIII of Castile and Leonor Plantagenet, to the choir, a preferred location in the presbytery (Laguna Paúl 240).

58 Also in 1362, Pedro I recognized María de Padilla as his wife and their daughters as his legitimate heirs (Ruiz Souza 12). María de Padilla had died the previous year and was buried in the royal monastery of Saint Clara in Astudillo, which she had founded (Ruiz Souza 12). Pedro I ordered the translation of her remains to Seville during the construction of his funerary chapel, which was adjacent to Alfonso X’s Royal Chapel along the eastern wall of the prayer hall in the preexisting mosque (Ruiz Souza 12).

39 buried in that city’s cathedral, like Fernando IV (Paulino Montero 136).59 Enrique II moved

Alfonso XI’s tomb from the Royal Chapel in Seville to the Royal Chapel in Córdoba to demonstrate that he “was acting as a loyal son and could therefore claim to be rightful heir as king” (Paulino Montero 137).

Enrique II also founded a proprietary funerary chapel in Toledo Cathedral. In 1374, he constructed the Chapel of the New Kings at the western end of the nave, in the exact location where the Virgin Mary was believed to have descended from Heaven to shroud Saint

Ildefonso (Ruiz Souza 14).60 Enrique II chose this location to project virtue onto the illegitimate origin of his dynasty (Martínez Gil 93-94).61 The first three Trastámara monarchs—Enrique II, Juan I, and Enrique III—and their respective queens—Juana Manuel,

59 Like the Royal Chapel in Seville and the Chapel of the Holy Cross in Toledo, the Royal Chapel in Córdoba was located on the eastern side of the presbytery, in the most sacred location of the cathedral (Ruiz Souza 18). Some scholars, such as Rafael Cómez Ramos, have identified the Royal Chapel in Córdoba as another example of a funerary chapel that Alfonso X constructed for his own intended burial (“La monarquía” 291). When he ultimately decided to be interred in Seville, his empty funerary chapel may have become the sacristy of the adjacent Chapel of Villaviciosa (Cómez Ramos, “La monarquía” 291). However, Juan Carlos Ruiz Souza distinguishes between Alfonso X’s architectural patronage in Córdoba and the Royal Chapel, which was built by Enrique II (18). This scholar suggests that Alfonso X constructed the Chapel of Saint Clement in Córdoba, where Fernando IV was later interred (Ruiz Souza 18). His burial in this location may account for his son, Alfonso XI’s, specific request to be interred in Córdoba (Ruiz Souza 18). Pedro I knew of his father’s desire but never accomplished the task of moving Alfonso XI’s tomb to Córdoba (Paulino Montero 136-37).

60 Saint Ildefonso was a bishop of Toledo, and he composed a treatise defending the virginity of Saint Mary (Nickson 1). According to legend, in 666 C.E., the Virgin Mary descended from Heaven and presented an ornate robe to Saint Ildefonso as a token of her gratitude (Nickson 1). In 1215, the Archbishop of Toledo used this account to successfully defend the primacy of the Toledan church and diocese in the Fourth Lateran Council in Rome (Nickson 3).

61 While the western orientation of the Chapel of the New Kings did not conform to the traditional location of funerary chapels in the eastern apse of a cathedral, Castilian monarchs had long used Toledo Cathedral to demonstrate their political supremacy. As Ruiz Souza explains, “Toledo, es la ciudad de los concilios hispanovisigodos, era la fuente del derecho, la expresión de la Hispania tardoantigua, capital de una monarquía que llegó a tener una unidad legal y confessional dentro de un marco territorial. De algún modo se presentaba como el testigo del pasado, mitificado por el recuerdo, al que siempre se alude ante la necesidad de tener que forjar un sentimiento de nacionalidad que cohesionase a una monarquía formalizada por numerosos reinos y señoríos” (16). As a result, Enrique II followed royal tradition by associating the legitimacy of his dynasty with Toledo through the sacred location of the Chapel of the New Kings. For more information on the Castilian monarchs’ connection to Toledo Cathedral, see Margarita Pérez Grande (2001) and Tom Nickson (2015).

40 Leonor of Aragón, and Catalina of Lancaster—were all buried in the Chapel of the New

Kings (Ruiz Souza 14).62

By constructing proprietary funerary chapels in cathedrals, Sancho IV, Pedro I, and

Enrique II continued the paradigm of royal architectural patronage begun by Alfonso X when he built the Royal Chapel in Seville Cathedral. This pantheon—like the Primera crónica general—memorialized Alfonso X as emperor by connecting his political legacy to that of his forebears, such as the Visigoths, the Cid, and Fernando III. However, the chapels that

Sancho IV, Pedro I, and Enrique II built were intended to distinguish them from their immediate predecessors. These monarchs adapted Alfonso X’s paradigm by building pantheons to demonstrate their prestige in response to political instability. This model persisted in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Nobles and members of the royal administration also began to endow monasteries and funerary chapels and to use textual production to defend their sociopolitical status.

62 The Chapel of the New Kings was moved behind the ambulatory of Toledo Cathedral in 1534 (Hidalgo Lucero 420). Archbishop Alfonso de Fonseca obtained Carlos V’s permission to move the chapel by opening a passageway through the existing Chapel of Saint Barbara (Hidalgo Lucero 420). In its actual location, the Chapel of the New Kings is adjacent to the Chapel of Saint Leocadia and the Chapel of Santiago (Hidalgo Lucero 428). The other funerary chapels were also moved to accommodate later renovations to the cathedrals. For example, in 1498, the monarchs interred in Sancho IV’s Chapel of the Holy Cross in the presbytery of Toledo Cathedral were moved to the Chapel of the Virgin of the Alcázar (Río de la Hoz 74). Similarly, in 1433, Juan II of Castile gave permission to demolish the Royal Chapel in Seville Cathedral, as well as the neighboring royal chapel built by Pedro I, to build a new gothic cathedral (Morales, La capilla 20). The renovations stalled until 1534, when Carlos V commanded the cathedral chapter to finish the Royal Chapel (Morales, La capilla 20). Alfonso X, Fernando III, and Beatriz de Suabia were reinterred in 1579 (Morales, La capilla 26). For more information on renovations to the royal funerary chapels and the cathedrals, see Lucio Hidalgo Lucero (1975), Teodoro Falcón Márquez (1980), Alfredo J. Morales (1991), and Luis Martínez Montiel and Alfredo J. Morales (1999).

41

CHAPTER 2: THE COMMEMORATION OF VIRTUE IN DON JUAN MANUEL’S LIBRO DE LAS TRES RAZONES, LEONOR LÓPEZ DE CÓRDOBA’S MEMORIAS, AND THEIR FUNERARY CHAPELS

Political instability in the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth centuries jeopardized the fame and status of many greater and lesser nobles. To secure their prestige, the Castilian elites followed Alfonso X’s paradigm and created texts and architectural buildings that proclaimed their status. Don Juan Manuel wrote the Libro de las armas o de las tres razones (1337) and built the monastery of Saint John and Saint Paul on his señorío of

Peñafiel. Three quarters of a century later, Leonor composed her Memorias (1412) and endowed the Chapel of the Rosary at the church of Saint Paul in Córdoba.

These two texts have been analyzed together by scholars such as Alan Deyermond

(2002) and Fernando Gómez-Redondo (2002). They have noted the similar structure, themes, and contexts of the Libro de las tres razones63 and the Memorias, which have also been studied as autobiographies.64 In addition, numerous scholars have analyzed the characteristics

63 Many scholars have referred to the work by the title Libro de las armas. However, others have chosen to use Libro de las tres razones, often abbreviated as LTR, because they believe this title more appropriately communicates the main idea of the text. For example, Deyermond explains that “…the fact that Juan Manuel returns time and again to the excellence of his own blood line, far from being a reason to reject LTR or some similar title, is a cogent reason to accept it: the ternary structure of the work brings different kinds of evidence to bear on the same theme. And to call it Libro de las armas falsifies both the structure and the theme” (“The Libro” 88). In this dissertation, I cite Carlos Alvar and Sarah Finci’s 2007 edition of don Juan Manuel’s works, and these editors list the full title of this text as Libro de las armas o de las tres razones. When not referring to this full title, I will use the shortened Libro de las tres razones.

64 For information on the autobiographical elements of the Libro de las tres razones, see Francisco Javier Díez de Revenga (1982), Germán Orduna (1982b), María Cecilia Ruiz (1989), María Elena Qués (1993), Funes and Qués (1995), Funes (2000b), Deyermond (2002), and Funes (2007). For information on the autobiographical elements of the Memorias, see Arturo Firpo (1980), Amy Katz Kaminsky and Elaine Dorough Johnson (1984), Amy Suelzer (1993), Piedad Calderón (1995), and Marcos Colón (2011). Some scholars who analyze the autobiographical elements of the Memorias also point to its connection to other works composed by women.

42 of these autobiographies by emphasizing Juan Manuel’s didactic intent65 and recourse to both orality and biblical references66 and Leonor’s disregard for established patriarchal norms, including those that governed writing.67

However, this chapter examines the Libro de las tres razones and the Memorias as self-justifications that were composed with a memorial purpose analogous to that of religious foundations and funerary chapels. Both authors suffered an unjust forfeiture of property and personal affront inflicted on them by the Castilian monarchs. While these events threatened don Juan Manuel and Leonor’s sociopolitical status, the authors defended their fame in

For example, see Deyermond (1983, 1995), Encarnación Juárez (1997), Victoria Rivera-Cordero (2011), and Elizabeth Teresa Howe (2015).

65 See Peter Dunn (1977) and Orduna (1977). In addition, scholars have analyzed the didacticism of don Juan Manuel’s other works. According to Kenneth Scholberg, “In all of his works, the primary intent of Juan Manuel was didactic. Whether he was presenting encyclopaedic knowledge in the Libro del cavallero et del escudero, offering advice to his son Fernando in the Libro infinido, reviewing religious and social hierarchies in the Libro de los estados, guiding actions through example in El Conde Lucanor or writing about falconry in the Libro de la caza, his motivation was to teach” (“Figurative” 143). For more information about don Juan Manuel’s extensive textual production, see Gómez-Redondo (1994). Of don Juan Manuel’s works, El Conde Lucanor has received the most scholarly attention. For more information about this text and the circumstances of its composition see David Flory (1995).

66 Don Juan Manuel makes repeated references to his use of oral sources in the Libro de las tres razones. He explains, “Et non lo oí todo a una persona, mas oí unas cosas a una persona, et otras, a otras; et ayuntando lo que oí a los unos et a los otros, con razón ayunté estos dichos…” (Manuel, Libro de las tres razones 979). While this affirmation borders on exaggeration, especially given the hyperbolic effect of the polysyndeton, don Juan Manuel’s inflated claim defends the truth of his account, which he also affirms when he states, “Peró con la merced de Dios fazer lo he; et cred que todo passó assí verdaderamente” (Manuel, Libro de las tres razones 979). By invoking God’s favor, don Juan Manuel elevates his role as author to that of Evangelist and likens his text to the Bible. He also explicitly makes this comparison: “…así contece en los que fablan [de] las Escrituras: [que] toman de lo que fallan en un lugar et acuerdan en lo que fallan en otros lugares, et de todo fazen una razón; et así fiz yo del que oí a muchas personas, que eran muy crederas, ayuntan[do] estas razones” (Manuel, Libro de las tres razones 979-80). For more information on the biblical references in the Libro de las tres razones, see Francisco Peña Fernández (2008). For more information on the orality of the text, see Ian Macpherson (1973), Deyermond (1982), Dennis Seniff (1984), Funes (2000b), and Deyermond (2002).

67 See María-Milagros Rivera Garretas (1990), Esther Gómez Sierra (1992), Rafael M. Mérida Jiménez (2000), Clara Estow (2002), Pilar Valero-Costa (2002), Juan Félix Bellido (2004), Louise Mirrer (1996), Bellido (2009), and Nieves Baranda (2011). Many scholars have interpreted Leonor’s autobiographical account as a blatant dismissal of the patriarchal norms that governed medieval authorship. However, others have analyzed the authenticity of Leonor’s claim to authorship, especially given the likelihood that she employed a scribe, as well as her probable level of literacy and the circumstances of her education. For more information on these perspectives, see Deyermond (1983), Mirrer (1991), Gómez Sierra (1992), Estow (2002), Valero-Costa (2002), Domínguez (2007), Lacarra (2007), and Colón (2011).

43 redemptive accounts aimed at the members of their respective networks. In their texts, don

Juan Manuel and Leonor advocate for the restitution of their property and claim to have received divine blessing as a means to assert their superiority over the monarchs who wronged them. In this way, the Libro de las tres razones and the Memorias commemorate the authors’ virtue, which don Juan Manuel and Leonor also proclaimed through their endowment of religious foundations.

I. Self-Justification through Suffering

Don Juan Manuel and Leonor respectively composed the Libro de las tres razones and the Memorias in response to injustices committed by the Castilian monarch. To justify themselves, the authors aimed their texts at the members of their sociopolitical networks and appealed for the monarchs to restore their property.

Don Juan Manuel wrote the Libro de las tres razones as a self-justification following conflict with Alfonso XI of Castile. They belonged to the same network at court and shared the same ancestral connection to Fernando III and Beatriz de Suabia. These monarchs were the two times great-grandparents of Alfonso XI, while their youngest son, the infante

Manuel, was don Juan Manuel’s father. The infante Manuel served at the courts of Alfonso X and Sancho IV, and don Juan Manuel was also active at the courts of Sancho IV and

Fernando IV. Upon the death of this last monarch in 1312, don Juan Manuel became the guardian of his infant son, Alfonso XI.

Don Juan Manuel’s guardianship of Alfonso XI was likely motivated by both family obligation and the potential for sociopolitical gain. Like the young king, don Juan Manuel was orphaned as a child: his father, the infante Manuel, died in 1283, when don Juan Manuel

44 was one year old, and his mother, Beatriz of Savoy, died in 1292. His first cousin, Sancho

IV, educated him at court, and don Juan Manuel followed in this royal tradition by acting as the guardian of Fernando IV’s son, Alfonso XI. He also used this connection to his own advantage by arranging the king’s marriage to his oldest daughter, Constanza Manuel,

1325.68

Two years later, however, Alfonso XI dissolved these close bonds of kinship when he annulled his marriage and imprisoned Constanza. These actions dishonored don Juan Manuel and personally aggrieved him in light of his previous guardianship of Alfonso XI. In response, he waged war against the king for two years69 and defended his fame by aiming the

Libro de las tres razones at the members of his sociopolitical network.

The text begins with an apostrophe that communicates the author’s purpose to a specific reader: “Frey Joán Alfonso, yo don Joán paré mientes al ruego et afincamiento que

68 Don Juan Manuel used marriage alliances—both his children’s and his own—to elevate his sociopolitical status. His first marriage was to Isabel of Mallorca, the daughter of Jaime II of Mallorca, in 1299, but Isabel died childless two years later. In 1311, don Juan Manuel remarried into another royal family when he wed Constanza of Aragón, the daughter of Jaime II of Aragón. With Constanza, don Juan Manuel had one child who survived infancy: a daughter, Constanza Manuel, whom he betrothed to Alfonso XI of Castile (Redondo Cantera 164). In 1327, Constanza of Aragón died, and don Juan Manuel married Blanca de la Cerda y Lara. She was the daughter of Fernando de la Cerda, the younger of Alfonso X’s two grandsons who were excluded from the line of succession when Sancho IV successfully claimed the throne (Redondo Cantera 164). Fernando de la Cerda’s older brother, Alfonso de la Cerda, would have become king had Sancho IV’s rebellion not succeeded. Alfonso de la Cerda did not renounce his claim to the Castilian throne until 1331 (Hernández 425). As a result, don Juan Manuel’s marriage into this family created a strategic alliance. With Blanca de la Cerda y Lara, don Juan Manuel had a son, Fernando Manuel, who was his father’s heir, and a daughter, Juana Manuel (Redondo Cantera 164). Don Juan Manuel had two illegitimate sons, Sancho and Enrique Manuel, with Inés de Castañeda (Redondo Cantera 164-65). Enrique Manuel became the I conde of Seia and I señor of Montealegre, and his descendants acquired señoríos in Castile and assumed prestigious positions at the courts of Juan II and Enrique IV of Castile (Redondo Cantera 165).

69 In addition to taking military action, don Juan Manuel redeemed his daughter by arranging her marriage to Pedro of Portugal, the son and heir of Alfonso IV of Portugal. This union was advantageous because it not only established a new royal alliance, but also retaliated against Alfonso XI of Castile. After annulling his marriage to Constanza Manuel, he married María of Portugal, the daughter of Alfonso IV of Portugal. However, Alfonso XI rejected his Portuguese queen in favor of a Castilian noble, Leonor de Guzmán. Furious at Alfonso XI’s mistreatment of their daughters, Alfonso IV of Portugal and don Juan Manuel formed an alliance against Castile by arranging the marriage of their respective children, Pedro of Portugal and Constanza Manuel, in 1329 (Redondo Cantera 164).

45 me fiziestes que vos diesse por escrito tres cosas que me avíades oído, por tal que se vos non olvidassen et las pudiésedes retraer cuando cumpliese…” (979). Frey Joán Alfonso belonged to the Dominican Order, of which don Juan Manuel was a devoted patron,70 and was also personally known to the author. Don Juan Manuel dedicated the last chapter of a contemporary work, the Libro enfenido (1336-37), to Frey Joán Alfonso.

However, don Juan Manuel also intended the Libro de las tres razones for a wider audience. At the end of the prologue, the author speaks to both the textual interlocutor, Frey

Joán Alfonso, and other readers: “Et vós, et los que este escrito leyeren, si lo quisieredes crer, plazernos [á]; et si falláredes otra razón mejor que ésta, a mi me plazerá más que la falledes et que la creades” (Manuel, Libro de las tres razones 980). This audience encompassed the varied members of don Juan Manuel’s sociopolitical network: political rivals, namely

Alfonso XI, don Juan Manuel’s allies at court in Castile, Aragón, and Portugal, and his relatives, such as his son and heir Fernando Manuel, who is also mentioned in the Libro enfenido.71 These intended readers are not specifically named in the Libro de las tres razones, but they figure directly in the author’s defense of his status in their shared sociopolitical network.

70 In 1320, don Juan Manuel founded the Dominican monastery of Saint John and Saint Paul in Peñafiel (Martín 177). He also established Dominican convents in Cifuentes and Belmonte and intended to build another in Alarcón (Redondo Cantera 169). He favored the Dominicans becauase “…cuyo orden era la que permitía, en su opinión, que sus protectores alcanzaran la salvación con mayor seguirdad” (Redondo Cantera 169). Don Juan Manuel’s association with the Dominican Order also influenced his literary production, as Carmen Benito- Vessels explains: “Don Juan Manuel era un gran aliado de los Dominicos, quienes lideraron las disputas del momento en torno a la Ascensión de la Virgen en cuerpo y alma, y es sobre este tema sobre el que Juan Manuel diserta en su Tratado de la Asunción” (Lenguaje 179). Don Juan Manuel composed the Tratado de la Asunción de la Virgen María (1340-46) at the end of his life and dedicated the work to Ramón Masquefa, the prior of the Dominican monastery in Peñafiel (Alvar and Finci xl). For more information on don Juan Manuel’s connection to the Dominican Order, see Lida de Malkiel (1950).

71 The last chapter of the Libro enfenido is dedicated to Frey Joán Alfonso, but don Juan Manuel wrote the work for his son, as he explains: “Et yo fiz éste para él et para los que non saben más que yo et él, que es agora, cuando yo lo comencé, de dos años, por que sepa por este libro cuáles son las cosas que yo prové et bi…” (Libro enfenido 939).

46 Similarly, Leonor López de Córdoba aimed the Memorias at a key member of her sociopolitical network who is not mentioned in the text: the Castilian queen, Catalina of

Lancaster. In the Memorias, Leonor describes how Catalina of Lancaster’s maternal grandfather, Pedro I, received the loyal service—and sacrifices—of the author and her family. Her father, Martín López de Córdoba, was not of noble lineage but rose to power through his appointment to prominent offices at court. When the camarero mayor, Juan

Fernández de Henestrosa, died in 1359, Pedro I bestowed this position upon Martín, who also acquired the office of repostero mayor in 1362. Three years later, Martín became both

Master of Alcántara and Master of Calatrava and was also appointed mayordomo mayor and adelantado mayor of Murcia. In 1366, Martín reached the apex of his political career when

Pedro I named him tesorero.72

However, Martín’s loyalty to the king ultimately cost him his life. Following Enrique

Trastámara’s assassination of Pedro I in 1369, Martín barricaded his household and the royal treasury in the fortress of Carmona. When the newly crowned Enrique II seized both the fortress and the treasury, he ordered the execution of Martín, the confiscation of his property, and the imprisonment of his family in Seville. Only Leonor and her husband, Ruy Gutiérrez de Henestrosa, survived the ordeal. They were released in 1379 upon Enrique II’s death and sought the protection of Leonor’s maternal aunt, María García Carrillo, in Córdoba.

Leonor aims her account of these traumatic events in the Memorias at Catalina of

Lancaster, whose mother, the infanta Constanza, was a daughter of Pedro I and one of

72 For more information on these offices, as well as Martín López de Córdoba’s sociopolitical ascent at Pedro I’s court, see Luis Vicente Díaz Martín (1976) and Ángel Luis Molina Molina (1981).

47 Leonor’s godmothers (Juan Lovera 256-57).73 Leonor emphasizes their shared ancestral connection. Just as Catalina of Lancaster was a descendant of Pedro I, Leonor’s own mother,

Sancha Carrillo, was “Sobrina é Criada del Señor Rey Don Alfonso, de mui esclarezida memoria (que Dios dé Santo Parayso) Padre del dicho Señor Rey Don Pedro…” (López de

Córdoba 17).74

In addition, Leonor shared another connection to Catalina of Lancaster that is not documented in the Memorias.75 By 1406, Leonor had entered the court of Enrique III and

73 Leonor was born in December of 1362 or January of 1363 at Pedro I’s residence in Calatayud. The king’s three daughters with María de Padilla, including Constanza, were designated royal heirs in 1362 (Juan Lovera 256-57). These three infantas were Leonor’s godmothers, and she refers to them in the text. She explains that after Enrique II deposed the king, “…residiamos en Carmona con las fijas del Señor Rey Don Pedro, mi marido, y Yo, é mis Cuñados, Maridos de mis hermanas; y un hermano mio que se llamaba Don Lope Lopez de Cordoba Carrillo…” (López de Córdoba 17). The mention of Pedro I’s daughters—the infantas who were Leonor’s godmothers—is misleading because only Pedro I’s illegitimate children were sequestered with Leonor and her family in Carmona (Howe 37). The infantas, including Catalina of Lancaster’s mother, Constanza, “..were in Bayonne as both collateral and hostages of the ‘Príncipe negro,’ Edward, the Prince of Wales, against loans made to the king” (Howe 37). Although Leonor composed this account several decades after the events recorded, the mistaken identity of Pedro I’s children in Carmona is not a mere oversight. As Elizabeth Teresa Howe explains, “Presumably, Leonor adds this ‘fact’ to her account both to emphasize her father’s loyalty to Pedro once more and implicitly to lay claim to the Queen’s favor for the rescue of her mother” (37). For more information, see Lacarra (2007).

74 The author also uses her father’s ancestry to establish a connection to Catalina of Lancaster. Leonor affirms that her father was “Sobrino de Don Juan Manuel, fijo de una Sobrina suyo fija de dos Hermanos” (López de Córdoba 16-17). However, as Clara Estow points out, don Juan Manuel “did not have a legitimate niece” (Pedro 97n62). Juan Lovera also suggests that the niece to whom Leonor refers was “nieta por cierto de D. Sancho Manuel, hijo bastardo del infante D. Manuel” (257). Given Martín López de Córdoba’s indirect relationship to don Juan Manuel based on his half brother’s daughter, or possibly granddaughter, Leonor mentions this connection solely to associate her father with a progenitor of the Trastámara dynasty. Don Juan Manuel’s daughter with Blanca de la Cerda, Juana Manuel, married Enrique Trastámara in 1350. Following Enrique’s successful coup in 1369, Juana became queen, and their direct descendants Juan I and Enrique III— Catalina of Lancaster’s husband—continued the ruling dynasty. Although its violent origin with the assassination of Pedro I led to the death of Leonor’s father, her family’s imprisonment, and the loss of their possessions, the author uses these unfortunate events to justify herself before the fifteenth-century Trastámara monarchs, particularly Catalina of Lancaster.

75 Leonor lived until 1430, but the Memorias do not address the last three decades of her life. Existing copies of the original text, which has been lost, are incomplete. The original text was stored in the Dominican convent of Saint Paul in Córdoba. Although this text has been lost, Reinaldo Ayerbe-Chaux affirms that it survived in two eighteenth-century transcriptions, one of which has also been lost (“Las memorias” 13). The other is located in the Biblioteca Colombina in Seville (Ayerbe-Chaux, “Las memorias” 13). Lacarra has suggested that the two eighteenth-century transcriptions were produced in connection to the process of canonization of Fray Álvaro de Córdoba, which concluded in 1741 (“Género” 738-39). Fray Álvaro de Córdoba was the confessor of Catalina of Lancaster and Juan II, and scholars have assumed that he was Leonor López de Córdoba’s brother, although there is no documentary evidence to confirm their familial relationship (Lacarra, “Género” 738). The original

48 Catalina of Lancaster. Following the king’s death, Leonor served his widowed queen as camarera mayor and was her most influential advisor during her co-regency with Fernando de Antequera, the brother of the late Enrique III, during the minority of Juan II. Fernando de

Antequera disapproved of Leonor’s rise to power, and in 1408, Catalina of Lancaster removed her from the position of camarera mayor, although they continued to correspond until 1412 (González de Fauve and Forteza 22).76 At this vulnerable time, Leonor likely composed the Memorias in an attempt to win the queen’s favor and regain her position at court.77

text of Leonor’s Memorias likely included some information about her life after 1400, which was not included in the eighteenth-century transcriptions in support of Fray Álvaro de Córdoba’s canonization (Domínguez, “Chains” 30n3). The copy conserved in the Biblioteca Colombina begins with a mention of this religious figure: “Nació San Álvaro en Cordoba año de 1360” (López de Córdoba 16). For more information on the manuscript copies of the Memorias, see M.-Pierrette Malcuzynski (1977).

76 Leonor’s political machinations inspired pejorative assessments of her character by contemporary historiographers. For example, in Generaciones y semblanzas, Fernán Pérez de Guzmán labels her “una liviana e pobre muger” (156). The context of the author’s statement suggests that he reacted against Leonor’s influence at court because he describes her in connection to Alonso de Robles, who was Catalina of Lancaster’s escribano and Juan II’s contador mayor. Pérez de Guzmán sharply criticizes Robles for his damaging effect on Castilian government: “Non pequeña confusion e vergüeña para Castilla, que los grandes perlados e cavalleros cuyos anteçesores a maníficos e notables reyes pusieron freno, enpachando sus desordenadas voluntades con buena e justa osadía por utilidad e provecho del reino e por guarder sus libertades, que a un onbre de tan baxa condiçión como éste así se sometiesen” (156). The author extends this criticism to Leonor when he states that “…non sólo a este sinple onbre, mas a una liviana e pobre muger ansí como Leonor López, e un pequeño e raez onbre, Ferrand López de Saldaña, assí se sometían e inclinavan, que otro tienpo a un señor de Lara o de Vizcaya non lo fazían ansí los pasados” (156). In addition to Pérez de Guzmán, a contemporary poet, Gómez Pérez Patiño, described Leonor in two poems that are included in the Cancionero de Baena (Malcuzynski 66). These poems also respond to Leonor’s social status following her dismissal from court because they contain “una llamada a que doña Leonor aceptase su nueva condición adversa” (Malcuzynski 66). Additional sources regarding Leonor’s involvement at court can be found in the personal correspondence of both Catalina of Lancaster and Fernando de Antequera. For more information, see Estow (1982) and Dorothy Severin (1996).

77 Given the incompleteness of the existing manuscript, it is not possible to determine with certainty when or for whom Leonor composed the Memorias. Ayerbe-Chaux suggests that she dictated the work as a private confessional immediately following the death of her son in a plague epidemic, which Leonor mentions in the text (“Leonor” 19). However, most scholars suggest that the intended recipient was Catalina of Lancaster, although they disagree on when the text was composed. Marcelino Amasuno affirms that the Memorias were written in 1396 in anticipation of Enrique III and Catalina of Lancaster’s visit to Córdoba (62). In that year, the king granted Leonor a license to sell soap, and Amasuno interprets this royal conferral as evidence that the monarchs received Leonor’s appeal in the Memorias and compensated her accordingly (67-68). Other scholars, such as Juan Lovera (1989) and González de Fauve and Forteza (1996), suggest that Leonor composed the text in 1400—before she entered court—to attract the queen’s favor. Nevertheless, the most common date associated with the Memorias is 1412, when Leonor was dismissed from Catalina of Lancaster’s service.

49 Both don Juan Manuel and Leonor aimed their texts at implied readers within their sociopolitical networks to justify themselves in response to a monarch’s injustice. In addition to inflicting personal suffering, these monarchs injured don Juan Manuel and Leonor by confiscating property that belonged to their families. The authors used the Libro de las tres razones and the Memorias to both contest these unwilling forfeitures of property and defend their elite sociopolitical status.

Don Juan Manuel claims the independent kingdom of Murcia, which Alfonso X allegedly promised to the infante Manuel. However, don Juan Manuel states that Alfonso X broke his promise when he discovered that the kingdom would not be easily captured.

Murcia was under Muslim control, and during the conquest, the advancing Castilian forces

“…fueron todos en tan grant cuita, que ovieran a seer perdidos de fambre” (Manuel, Libro de las tres razones 990). When the king arrived, he manipulated the conditions of the siege.

Alfonso X “…fizo que los moros dixiesen que nunca se darién al rey sinon con tal pleito que los non pudiese dar a ninguno et que fincasen con la corona del reino et que fiziese por que mio padre renunciasse la donación quel avía fecha” (Manuel, Libro de las tres razones 990).

Without knowing of Alfonso X’s subterfuge, the infante Manuel told the king that “él sería pagado de quequiere qu’el rey le feziese” and readily accepted the señorío of Elche, a territory within the kingdom of Murcia (Manuel, Libro de las tres razones 990).

Elche was not an insignificant property,78 and, later, both the infante Manuel and don

Juan Manuel exerted some control over Murcia as adelantado mayor.79 Nevertheless, don

78 Don Juan Manuel explains that the señorío of Elche included “…una comarca de lugares que llaman los moros el Alhofra, que fue siempre como reino e señorío apartado, que nunca obedeció a ningund rey; et diérongelo así: que él et don Alfonso, su fijo, o cualquier fijo varón mayor legítimo, que eredase aquel señorío et que fuese mayoradgo; et que mio padre et don Alfonso, su fijo, e que todos los que aquel señorío oviesen, troxiesen su casa et su fazienda en manera de reis; et así lo fizieron siempre después acá” (Libro de las tres razones 990). The infante Manuel’s heir, Alfonso, was his only son with his first wife, Constanza of Aragón, both of whom preceded the infante Manuel in death. As don Juan Manuel explains, “Et porque don Alfonso

50 Juan Manuel claims this kingdom through his account of Alfonso X’s subterfuge in the Libro de las tres razones. As María Cecilia Ruiz explains, “… lo que don Juan Manuel quería salvaguardar del pasado a través de la escritura era la promesa de Murcia, que, aunque rota en un principio, era válida y podía ser, a su debido tiempo, reclamada como una deuda pendiente” (100). A potential claim to Murcia would not only elevate don Juan Manuel’s social standing, but would also guarantee a substantial inheritance for his descendants, who are among the intended readers of the Libro de las tres razones.

Don Juan Manuel’s potential claim to Murcia would also enhance his prestige because another implied reader, Alfonso XI, would have to grant this property as restitution for past offenses. In addition to suggesting that the king can be held accountable in this way, the account of Alfonso X’s broken promise to the infante Manuel has both dynastic and political bearings on the more recent enmity between Alfonso XI and don Juan Manuel. The author’s lineage has twice suffered injury at the hands of two monarchs: first, Alfonso X’s deception and, later, Alfonso XI’s abandonment of Constanza Manuel. Don Juan Manuel seeks justice for these offenses and, in light of their infamy, uses his claim to the kingdom of

Murcia to defend his sociopolitical status.

Likewise, Leonor recounts her family’s loss of property to justify herself to Catalina of Lancaster. During Martín López de Córdoba’s tenure at court, he benefitted from royal grants. Pedro I dispensed to him part of the señorío of Aguilar, including several windmills

murió en vida de mio padre ante que casase [et] oviesse fijos, casó mio padre con la condesa mi madre” (Libro de las tres razones 991). Don Juan Manuel was the only child of the infante Manuel and Beatriz of Savoy and, thus, his father’s exclusive heir.

79 Alfonso X granted this position to the infante Manuel (Molina Molina, “Los dominios” 216). Along with other properties, his son inherited the office of adelantado mayor of Murcia (Molina Molina, “Los dominios” 218-19). Don Juan Manuel held this position from 1284 to 1339, although at intervals Alfonso XI revoked his title and replaced him with four other nobles, of whom two were enemies and two were allies of don Juan Manuel (Torres Fontes, “Murcia” 353, 382).

51 in Aguilar and along the Monturque River (Quintanilla Raso, Nobleza 56). The señorío of

Aguilar was part of the Crown’s holdings, and Martín’s share of this property elevated his sociopolitical status in accordance with the prestigious positions he occupied at court, since he did not have noble lineage.80 In addition, Pedro I rewarded Martín with another señorío that included the townships of Villoslada, Lumbreras, Ortigosa, Niebla, and Torre de Camero

Viejo with the intention that they form part of a mayorazgo for Martín’s oldest son, Lope

(González de Fauve and Forteza 19). This mayorazgo would have ennobled their lineage by granting their descendants lordship over these properties.

However, Martín’s children never received this inheritance because, in a violent reversal of fortune, their loyalty to Pedro I led to its forfeiture. The first threat to their prosperity occurred in 1366, when one of Enrique Trastámara’s supporters, Muñiz de

Godoy—who already called himself Master of Alcántara in Aragón—claimed Martín’s positions of Master of Alcántara and Master of Calatrava in Castile (Molina Molina,

“Martín” 752).81 Following the assassination of Pedro I, Enrique II revoked Martín’s

80 However, in the Memorias, Leonor claims that her father “era Deszendiente dela Casa de Aguilar” (16). The Aguilar casa originated when Alfonso X granted a territory called Poley to Gonzalo Yáñez, who renamed it after his mother, María Méndez de Aguilar (Juan Lovera 258). Two subsequent generations inherited the property, but when Yáñez’s grandson died without direct heirs, Alfonso XI incorporated the señorío of Aguilar into the Crown’s holdings (Juan Lovera 258). Martín López de Córdoba attempted to reconstitute the señorío of Aguilar, although his claim was at best tenuous and was based on the marriage of one of Yáñez’s daughters to Fernán Alfonso de Córdoba, founder of the Alcaides de los Donceles (Juan Lovera 258). Martín was descended of a minor branch of the Alcaide de los Donceles. The progenitor of this lineage was Fernán Núñez de Temes. He received permission from Fernando III to use the last name Córdoba because he had scaled the first wall during the conquest of that city (Juan Lovera 258). His son, Alfonso Fernández de Córdoba, was the first of his lineage to use the last name (Juan Lovera 258). During the fourteenth century, Núñez de Temes’ descendants subdivided into three branches: Alcaide de los Donceles, Montemayor-Alcaudete, and Baena-Cabra (Juan Lovera 258). The founder of the Alcaide de los Donceles was Fernán Alfonso de Córdoba (Juan Lovera 258). Martín López de Córdoba was descended of the Alcaide de los Donceles through his father, Pascual López de Córdoba (Juan Lovera 258). Martín’s mother, Leonor Sánchez Manuel, was also descended of Fernán Núñez de Temes through his daughter, Leonor Fernández de Córdoba (Juan Lovera 258). The lineage of Martín’s mother was more illustrious, but since she had a brother, Martín could not inherit the property of his maternal ancestors (Katz Kaminsky and Dorough Johnson 78). As a result, it is significant that Martín accrued property as royal grants in recognition of his service to Pedro I (Katz Kaminsky and Dorough Johnson 78).

52 landholdings and in 1370 granted the señorío of Aguilar in its entirety to Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba, Martín’s brother-in-law.82 Martín was stripped of his remaining possessions the following year, when Enrique II ordered his execution and the imprisonment of his household. In the Memorias, Leonor recalls that “…el Señor Rey mandó que le cortasen la cabeza á mi Padre en la Plaza de San Francisco de Sevilla, y que le fuesen confiscados sus vienes, y los de su yerno, Valedores, y Criados…” (López de Córdoba 18).

Enrique II’s injustice also affected Martín’s son-in-law, Leonor’s husband, Ruy

Gutiérrez de Henestrosa. He was the only son of Juan Fernández de Henestrosa, who preceded Martín as camarero mayor, and upon his father’s death, he received a substantial inheritance (Juan Lovera 259).83 Leonor recounts that

… á mi Marido quedaronle muchos vienes de su Padre y muchos Lugares, y alcanzaba treszientos de á Cavallo suyos, é quarenta madejas de Aljofar, tan grueso como garvanzos, é quinientos moros, é moras, y dos mill marcos de plata en bajilla, y las Joyas, y preseas de su Casa, no las pudieran escrevir en dos pliegos de papel, y esto le cupo del dicho su Padre y Madre por que Otro fijo, y heredero non tenian…” (López de Córdoba 17)

Ruy forfeited these possessions when he was imprisoned with Leonor in Seville.

After the couple was released in 1379, he “fué á demandar sus Vienes, y los que lo tenian preciaronlo poco, por que no tenia estado, ni manera para los poder demandar…” (López de

81 Pope Urban V intervened, but Martín only retained the two masterships after Pedro I returned to Castile following Enrique Trastámara’s defeat at Nájera in 1367 (Molina Molina, “Martín” 752). For more information on this conflict, see Díaz Martín (1976).

82 Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba’s wife, María García Carrillo, was the sister of Martín’s late wife and Leonor’s mother, Sancha Carrillo. Gonzalo’s claim to the señorío of Aguilar was only minimally stronger than Martín’s. The founder of the Alcaide de los Donceles, Fernán Alfonso de Córdoba, was Gonzalo’s father (Juan Lovera 258).

83 Ruy Gutiérrez de Henestrosa’s wealth and political affiliation made him an advantageous match for Leonor. In 1369, the same year as the king’s assassination, Martín arranged their marriage when Leonor was only seven years old to theoretically provide for her and to make an uncompromising statement of his loyalty to Pedro I (Juan Lovera 260-61). In addition to serving Pedro I, Juan Fernández de Henestrosa was well connected at court based on his relationship to the late queen, María de Padilla, his niece (Estow, Pedro 133). In light of the civil war, Leonor’s wedding to Ruy Gutiérrez de Henestrosa was expedient because their union cemented an alliance between two families who supported the king but lacked noble lineage (Cabrera Sánchez 210).

53 Córdoba 20). These efforts were in vain because Ruy “…andubo siete años por el mundo, como Desbenturado, y nunca hallo Pariente, ni Amigo que bien le hiziese, ni huviese piedad de El…” (López de Córdoba 20). When he returned to Córdoba, he arrived “encima de su mula, que valia muy pocos dineros, é lo que traia vestido no valia treinta maravedis…”

(López de Córdoba 20).

Leonor’s description of her husband’s penury contrasts sharply with the list of his formerly extensive possessions. This juxtaposition contributes to Leonor’s self-justification in the Memorias. She defends her sociopolitical status by presenting herself and her family as loyal supporters of the legitimate king, Pedro I, and exposing the injustice of Enrique II through the loss of Martín’s life and his family’s possessions. The impact of these losses also applies to Leonor’s more recent dismissal from Catalina of Lancaster’s service at court.

Leonor’s account reminds the implied reader, Catalina of Lancaster, that a monarch’s duty is to reward, not vindictively harm, faithful courtiers such as Leonor.

Like don Juan Manuel in the Libro de las tres razones, Leonor recounts her suffering in the Memorias in an attempt to correct past injustices—at least in writing—and redeem her standing in an elite network. However, her circumstances differed from those of don Juan

Manuel, who maintained a legitimate claim to Murcia, because Leonor did not entertain any possibility of recovering her confiscated property. Enrique II redistributed Martín and Ruy’s forfeited possessions to other nobles, making it impossible for Catalina of Lancaster to restore them to Leonor. In 1412, the queen also appointed a new camarera mayor, Inés de

Torres, which confirmed that Leonor was unwelcome to return to court (González de Fauve and Forteza 22-23).

54 Despite this difference in don Juan Manuel and Leonor’s descriptions of their losses, the Libro de las tres razones and the Memorias coincide in commemorating the authors’ virtue through their unjust suffering at the hands of the monarch. This message not only defends the authors’ sociopolitical status but, by contrast, indirectly diminishes that of the monarch. Don Juan Manuel and Leonor further elaborate this juxtaposition through their accounts of divine blessing.

II. Divine Assurances of Prosperity

In addition to attributing their suffering to the monarchs’ injustice, don Juan Manuel and Leonor justify themselves through the intervention of the divine. Each of their texts describes miraculous visions that convey divine favor. Through these dream-like visions, the authors enhance their sociopolitical status by asserting the superiority of their virtue over that of the Castilian monarchs who mistreated them.

In the Libro de las tres razones, don Juan Manuel says that he heard the following account:

…cuando la reína doña Beatriz, mi abuela, era encinta de mio padre, que soñara que por aquella criatura, et por su linage, avía a ser vengada la muerte de Jesucristo, et ella díxolo al rey don Fer[r]ando, su marido; et oí dezir que dixera el rey quel parecía este sueño muy contrario del que ella soñara cuando estava encinta del rey don Alfonso, su fijo, que fue después rey de Castiella, padre del rey don Sancho; peró, pues así era, que parase mientes en lo que nacería et que rogassen a Dios que lo endereçase al su servicio. (Manuel, Libro de las tres razones 980)

This account suggests that the infante Manuel’s lineage will prosper because it is a recipient of divine favor. In addition, the proclamation that through the infante Manuel’s lineage “avía a ser vengada la muerte de Jesucristo” implies future success (Manuel, Libro de

55 las tres razones 980). Specifically, the mission to avenge the death of Christ refers to victory in the Reconquest (Ruiz, Literatura 79).

This guarantee of prosperity also implies that don Juan Manuel triumphs over

Alfonso XI through Beatriz de Suabia’s contrasting dreams. She was assured of the infante

Manuel’s success, but “…parecía este sueño muy contrario del que ella soñara cuando estava encinta del rey don Alfonso, su fijo, que fue después rey de Castiella…” (Manuel, Libro de las tres razones 980). While Alfonso X inherited the throne of Castile, the infante Manuel’s lineage apparently received the greater bequest of divine favor. This juxtaposition calls into question the monarchs’ virtue and casts a foreboding shadow over the reigns of Alfonso X and his successors, including Alfonso XI. By implying that the infante Manuel’s lineage is superior to that of the Castilian monarchs, don Juan Manuel subtly deprecates Alfonso XI and enhances his own status.84

In this way, the author uses the divine blessing of the infante Manuel’s lineage to justify himself in response to mistreatment at the hands of Alfonso XI. As Germán Orduna explains, don Juan Manuel “…hizo su ‘justicia’ sobre Alfonso XI hiriéndolo en su estirpe,

84 It is likely that don Juan Manuel uses Beatriz de Suabia’s dream to diminish Alfonso XI, rather than Alfonso X, because in another of don Juan Manuel’s texts, the Crónica abreviada (1325), the author praises his uncle as “muy alto e noble rey” (Manuel, Crónica 9). The Crónica abreviada is an adaptation of the Primera crónica general that summarizes each chapter in Alfonso X’s historical work. The copy of the Primera crónica general that don Juan Manuel used to compose the Crónica abreviada is known as the Crónica Manuelina, which has not survived (Orduna, “El exemplo” 120). Don Juan Manuel’s deferential adaptation of the Primera crónica general suggests that his criticism of Alfonso X in the Libro de las tres razones was not personally motivated. Rafael Ramos offers another explanation by attributing the account of Beatriz de Suabia’s ominous dream to a contemporary legend: “Cuenta esta leyenda que, en un arrebato de soberbia provocado por su sabiduría, el rey aseguró que si él hubiera podido crear el mundo, sin duda lo hubiera hecho mejor que Dios. Un ángel avisó al rey de su pecado, pero este lo desoyó hasta que, en sus últimos días, combatido por su propio hijo, casi sin posesiones y muerto de miedo, se arrepintió” (110). This legend is documented in Pedro de Barcelos’ Crónica geral de Espanha de 1344, and as Ramos explains, “Resulta significativo comprobar cómo la primera versión conocida de la leyenda sobre la muerte de Alfonso X se recoge hacia los mismos años en que se escribe el Libro de las armas y en los mismos círculos culturales en que se mueve don Juan Manuel (110). For more information on don Juan Manuel’s use of folkloric sources in the Libro de las tres razones, see Benito-Vessels (1994b) and Deyermond (2002). For more information on the Crónica abreviada and its relationship to the Primera crónica general, see Diego Catalán (1977), David Pattison (1992), Peter Linehan (1993), Benito-Vessels (1994a), Manuel Alvar (1996), and Leonardo Funes (2000a).

56 estigmatizándolo como de un linaje maldito” (“El Libro” 268).85 According to Beatriz de

Suabia’s dream, don Juan Manuel’s divine blessing is superior to the temporal authority of the Castilian monarchs. The account in the Libro de las tres razones sends a message to the implied readers confirming the author’s preeminence in his sociopolitical network.

Leonor justifies herself in the Memorias in much the same way. Although she was not able to recover her family’s forfeited possessions, she was rewarded with new properties by the grace of the Virgin Mary. After Leonor’s husband returned penniless from his seven-year journey in search of restitution, María García Carrillo “…que era en Córdoba junto á Sant

Hipolito, y á mi, y á mi marido me acojió alli en vnas Casas, junto alas suyas…” (López de

Córdoba 20).

This arrangement was less than satisfactory for Leonor, who was forced to endure the public humiliation of walking down the street to her aunt’s home (López de Córdoba 21). As a result, she prayed “…ála Virgen Santa Maria de Belen treinta dias, cada noche rezaba treszientas Aves Marias de Rodrillas, para que pusiese en Corazon á mi Señora, que consintiese abrir un Postigo á sus Casas…” (López de Córdoba 21). The Virgin apparently

85 Beatriz de Suabia’s opposing dreams of the infante Manuel’s and Alfonso X’s futures suggests a malevolent outcome for the Castilian monarchs in contrast to the promise of the infante Manuel’s divine blessing. In addition, don Juan Manuel implies an actual curse upon the monarchs’ lineage when he describes his final conversation with Sancho IV. When the king realizes that his death is imminent, he summons don Juan Manuel to explain why he will not receive his uncle’s blessing: “Yo non vos puedo dar bendición [por]que la non he [de mios padres]; ante, por mios pecados et por mios malos merecimientos que les yo fiz, ove la su maldición. Et diome la su maldición mio padre en su vida muchas vezes, seyendo bivo et sano, et diómela cuando se moría…” (Manuel, Libro de las tres razones 995). While Sancho IV admits his own wrongdoing, he also suggests that no potential successor could have inherited the king’s blessing because Alfonso X did not receive it from his father, Fernando III: “Ca el santo rey don Fer[r]ando, mio abuelo, non dio su bendición al rey, mio padre, sinon guardando él condiciones ciertas que él dixo, et él non guardó ninguna d’ellas; et por esso non ovo la su bendición” (Manuel, Libro de las tres razones 995-96). Fernando III instead gave his royal blessing to the infante Manuel, who in turn bestowed it upon his infant son, don Juan Manuel, as Sancho IV explains: “Et así vuestro padre heredó complidamente la bendición del rey don Fer[r]ando, su padre et nuestro abuelo; et porque la heredó et la ovo, pudo la dar a vós” (Manuel, Libro de las tres razones 997). Fernando III’s conferral of his blessing and the curse of Sancho IV’s lineage establish a political hierarchy that extends to their descendants, just as the account of Beatriz de Suabia’s conflicting dreams allows don Juan Manuel to triumph over Alfonso XI.

57 granted her request because, two days before Leonor completed her supplication, her aunt agreed to build the desired passageway between their houses (López de Córdoba 21).

Leonor’s answered prayer suggests that she has received the Virgin’s divine favor. However, the household servants later convinced María to disregard her niece’s request. Leonor recounts, “…fui tan desconsolada, que perdi la paciencia, é la que me hizo mas contradicion con la Señora mi tia se murió en mis manos, comiendose la lengua…” (López de Córdoba

21).86

In the midst of Leonor’s despair, she receives divine reassurance in the form of a dream-like vision. As the author explains, “…Otro dia, que no quedaba mas que un dia de acabar mi Oracion, Sabado, soñaba pasando por Sant Hipolito, tocando el Alva, vi en la pared delos Corrales un arco mui grande, y mui alto, é que entraba yo por alli, y cojia flores dela Sierra, y veia mui gran Cielo, y en esto desperte, é obe esperanza enla Virgen Santa

Maria que me daria casa…” (López de Córdoba 21).87

The property—the house that Leonor is promised—contributes to her self- justification before Catalina of Lancaster in the Memorias. The house fills the material void caused by the forfeiture of Martín and Ruy’s possessions and also elevates Leonor’s sociopolitical status as a property owner. In addition, the vision confirming Leonor’s divine favor allows the author to triumph over the monarchs whose injustices caused her suffering.

Leonor subtly criticizes Enrique II for his cruel treatment of her family and implies that his

86 Scholars have interpreted this servant’s death as confirmation of the Virgin Mary’s favor of Leonor. Despite her unsuccessful plea to García Carrillo, Leonor triumphed over the apparent instigator of her misfortune. For more information, see Jacques Joset (1995) and Lacarra (2007).

87 Scholars have analyzed this passage in relation to the medieval theories of dreams as visio or somnium. For example, see Joset (1995) and Lacarra (2007). However, others have interpreted Leonor’s dream—and, more generally, her prayers to the Virgin Mary—as examples of hagiography in the Memorias. For more information on this perspective, see Valero-Costa (2002), Bellido (2004), Baranda (2007), and Colón (2011).

58 temporal power is no match for the Virgin.88 The promise of a house also redeems Leonor in light of her disgraceful exit from court by making her the recipient of divine grace and implying that the queen has unwisely dismissed a loyal servant who is favored by the Virgin.

Through dream-like visions of divine favor, both don Juan Manuel and Leonor justify themselves by enhancing their sociopolitical status to the detriment of the Castilian monarchs who jeopardized the authors’ standing. The dreams in the Libro de las tres razones and the

Memorias juxtapose the authors’ divine blessing with the monarchs’ injustice. The mistreatment of Constanza Manuel by Alfonso XI and the dismissal of Leonor from Catalina of Lancaster’s service are represented as grave offenses against divine authority. However, for don Juan Manuel and Leonor, the dreams confirming their divine blessing redeem their suffering through the promise of continued prosperity.

These accounts of divine favor, as well as claims to property, defend the authors’ fame and restore their status in their sociopolitical networks. By rewriting past suffering as triumph, don Juan Manuel and Leonor commemorate their virtue in the Libro de las tres razones and the Memorias. These works have a similar intended purpose as that of don Juan

88 This contrast between the Virgin Mary’s divine authority and Enrique II’s unequal power is not the only instance of Leonor’s veiled disapproval of the king. When she describes her father’s execution, she juxtaposes his loyalty with Enrique II’s injustice through a conversation between Martín López de Córdoba and Bertrand du Guesclin, a French military commander whose forces aided Enrique II. Du Guesclin reproached Martín by asking, “Señor Mastre no os decia Yo que vuestras andanzas havian de parar en esto?” (López de Córdoba 18). In response, Martín affirmed his devotion to Pedro I by saying, “Mas vale morir como Leal, como Yo lo hé hecho, que no vivir como vos vivis, haviendo sido Traydor…” (López de Córdoba 18). This exchange is fictionalized because du Guesclin was not present at Martín’s execution; he had returned to France the previous year (Estow, Pedro 262). Nevertheless, Leonor uses their dialogue to juxtapose her father and du Guesclin based on their opposing values of loyalty and treachery. She identifies du Guesclin with betrayal by describing him as “…el Cavallero que el Rey Don Pedro se havia fiando dél, que lo ponia en Salvo estando cercado en el Castillo de Montiel, y no cumpliendo lo que le prometió, antes le entregó ál Rey Don Enrrique para que lo matase…” (López de Córdoba 18). Du Guesclin’s betrayal of Pedro I at Montiel evokes Enrique II’s betrayal of Martín at Carmona because both du Guesclin and Enrique II purposefully ignored the terms of their respective surrender agreements and caused the unjust deaths of their political opponents.

59 Manuel’s monastery in Peñafiel and Leonor’s Chapel of the Rosary, which the authors founded to proclaim the virtue of their respective lineages.

III. Virtue Enshrined in Religious Foundations and Funerary Chapels

Don Juan Manuel and Leonor established family pantheons to memorialize the virtue of their lineages. Don Juan Manuel built the monastery of Saint John and Saint Paul in

Peñafiel, and Leonor endowed the Chapel of the Rosary in the church of Saint Paul in

Córdoba. As family pantheons, these places of interment are architectural statements of the virtue they assert in the Libro de las tres razones and the Memorias through their intended purpose as monuments for a clan.

Don Juan Manuel received papal permission to build a Dominican monastery in 1318.

Two years later, he formalized the donation of several landholdings and their associated income and privileges (Redondo Cantera 169). Most of the donated property was from don

Juan Manuel’s estate in Peñafiel, which included several buildings he constructed in addition to an alcázar built by Alfonso X and a chapel dedicated to Saint Ildefonso (Redondo Cantera

170). The Dominican monastery briefly remained under the patronage of Saint Ildefonso before it was rededicated to Saint John, don Juan Manuel’s patron saint (Redondo Cantera

171).89

In 1324, don Juan Manuel built a new church on the site of the existing chapel. The apse faced the town of Peñafiel, and don Juan Manuel chose an elaborate mudéjar style for the exterior elevation (Redondo Cantera 172). He reinterred the remains of Saint Domingo de

89 During don Juan Manuel’s lifetime, the monastery was known by its dedication to Saint John. The secondary dedication to Saint Paul, which gave the monastery its complete name, probably occurred between 1460 and 1504 (Redondo Cantera 171n60).

60 Guzmán’s mother, Juana de Aza,90 near the capilla mayor, where don Juan Manuel himself also chose to be buried (Redondo Cantera 175). In a will dated 1339, he ordered the reburial of his second wife, Constanza of Aragón, in the capilla mayor and designated 100 pieces of silver to purchase lamps, chalices, and fabrics to adorn their resting place in accordance with his and his wife’s elite status (Redondo Cantera 173-74). Before don Juan Manuel’s death in

1348, he entrusted a manuscript of his complete works to the monastery (Lida de Malkiel

156). He died in Córdoba, but in keeping with his wishes, he was interred in the capilla mayor of the monastery in Peñafiel (Redondo Cantera 174).

Following don Juan Manuel’s burial, the monastery was used to house a pantheon for his descendants. In 1351, don Juan Manuel’s illegitimate half brother, Sancho Manuel, was buried in the Chapel of Saint Catherine, which was second in grandeur to the capilla mayor

(Redondo Cantera 176).91 One of don Juan Manuel’s illegitimate sons, Enrique Manuel, I conde of Seia and I señor of Montealegre, constructed a new chapel near the choir of the church, and one of Enrique’s sons, Pedro Manuel, II señor of Montealegre, was buried to the right of the choir (Redondo Cantera 176). Another of Enrique’s sons, Fernando de Villena, named his own son Juan Manuel II, who became I señor of Belmonte and also chose to be buried in the monastery. Juan Manuel II and his wife, Aldonza de la Vega, endowed the

Chapel of Santiago, located near Enrique Manuel’s chapel (Redondo Cantera 177). After

90 These remains served as a relic because Juana de Aza was known as a saint, although she not beatified until 1828 (Redondo Cantera 171n64). Nevertheless, don Juan Manuel likely installed her relic for the same reason he chose a mudéjar architectural style: to indicate the distinguished status of the monastery and its founder (Redondo Cantera 172).

91 Sancho Manuel was the illegitimate son of the infante Manuel. According to María José Redondo Cantera, “Sancho había estado presente y actuado como testigo en la colocación de la primera piedra de la iglesia y había colaborado con el fundador en diferentes hechos de armas” (176). The same year Sancho was buried in the chapel of Santa Catalina, his son, Juan Sánchez Manuel, made a donation to provide funerary celebrations for both his father and don Juan Manuel (Redondo Cantera 171n67).

61 they were interred in 1479, their son, Juan Manuel III, II señor of Belmonte,92 refurbished his parents’ chapel and rededicated it to Saint Vincent (Redondo Cantera 178). For his own purposes, Juan Manuel III reconfigured the Chapel of Saint Catherine by enlarging its floor plan and adding gothic vaults with elaborate tracery (Redondo Cantera 181). He also included sculptural details featuring the Manuel clan’s coat of arms (Redondo Cantera 188-

89).93

All of these individuals shared bonds of kinship with don Juan Manuel through two relatives of illegitimate birth: don Juan Manuel’s half brother, Sancho Manuel, and son,

Enrique Manuel. The founder’s legitimate offspring were not buried in the monastery in

Peñafiel as a result of their royal marriages. In 1329, following Alfonso XI’s annulment of his marriage to don Juan Manuel’s daughter, Constanza, she married Pedro of Portugal, the son and heir of Alfonso IV of Portugal. Constanza Manuel died in 1345 shortly after the birth of her third child, the future Fernando I of Portugal, and she was buried in the convent of

Saint Francis in Santarem, Portugal (Arco 282). The following year, don Juan Manuel’s son,

92 In addition to controlling the señorío of Belmonte, Juan Manuel II and III occupied prestigious positions at the Castilian royal court. Juan Manuel II was consejero to Juan II of Castile and guarda mayor and an ambassador to France on behalf of Enrique IV of Castile (Redondo Cantera 165). Juan Manuel III served Isabel I and was an ambassador on behalf of Maximiliano I of Austria and Felipe I of Castile, who named him to the Order of the Golden Fleece (Redondo Cantera 166).

93 The coat of arms was quartered, in the style of the Castilian monarchs’ coat of arms. The first and fourth quarters of the Manuel clan’s coat of arms depicted a golden wing and a hand brandishing a sword set against a red field, and the second and third quarters feature a red lion on a white field. The second and third quarters are identical to those of the coat of arms that Fernando III designed for the Castilian monarchs. It depicted a golden castle set against a red field on the first and fourth quarters and a red lion on a white field in the second and third quarters. In the Libro de las tres razones, don Juan Manuel describes his family’s coat of arms and attributes their origin to Beatriz de Suabia’s dream predicting the infante Manuel’s prosperity. The author interprets the wing, hand, and lion on the coat of arms in light of the infante Manuel’s receipt divine favor, but these emblems also represent the identity of the Manuel line through the function of emblazoned arms in medieval heraldry, which emerged concomitantly with the practice of hereditary inheritance in the twelfth century (Bradbury 264). For more information on medieval heraldry, see Ottfried Neubecker (1979), Eduardo Pardo de Guevara y Valdés (2000), and Faustino Menéndez Pidal de Navascués (2006). For more information on the infante Manuel and Fernando III’s coat of arms, see Menéndez Pidal de Navascués (1982), Jiří Louda and Michael Maclagan (1991), and Rodríguez-Velasco (2010).

62 Fernando, married Juana de Ampurias, a niece of Jaime II of Aragón.94 Don Juan Manuel’s other daughter, Juana, married Enrique Trastámara in 1450. After his successful overthrow of

Pedro I, Juana became Queen of Castile. Upon her death in 1381, she was laid to rest in the

Chapel of the New Kings that Enrique II founded in Toledo Cathedral.95

The interments of don Juan Manuel’s daughters reflected their royal status, but for don Juan Manuel’s relatives of illegitimate origin, burial in the monastery in Peñafiel was a similar statement of prestige. Their efforts to either construct or refurbish sumptuous chapels strategically allowed them to “…construir una falsa legitimidad a partir de la conmemoración funeraria…” (Redondo Cantera 177). The burial sites of Sancho Manuel, Enrique Manuel, and his descendants in the monastery in Peñafiel were an elaborate façade that masked their illegitimate origin because these individuals claimed don Juan Manuel as their ancestor.

94 While Fernando Manuel’s marriage to Juana de Ampurias did not afford him royal status, it did establish royal bonds of kinship with Aragón. Juana de Ampurias was the daughter of Jaime II’s younger brother, Ramón Berenguer, infante of Aragón and I conde of Ampurias (Giménez Soler 114). Fernando Manuel died in 1351 at the age of nineteen (Pretel Marín and Rodríguez Llopis 127). He could have succumbed to the plague, but the circumstances of his death were suspicious, given Pedro I of Castile’s assassination of several of Fernando Manuel’s contemporaries that same year (Pretel Marín and Rodríguez Llopis 127-28). Fernando Manuel dictated a will, but the location of his burial is not mentioned (Pretel Marín and Rodríguez Llopis 129). He was likely not buried at the monastery in Peñafiel because his own career revolved around the señorío of Villena, a property in Aragón that he inherited from don Juan Manuel, who negotiated Fernando’s marriage to Juana de Ampurias from the castle of Garcimuñoz on the Villena estate (Giménez Soler 114). In this same castle, Juana de Ampurias arranged a fealty ceremony for Fernando’s young daughter and heir, Blanca, after his death (Pretel Marín and Rodríguez Llopis 130). Juana also mentions “mi villa del Castiello”—likely a reference to the castle of Garcimuñoz in the Villena señorío—in a letter she wrote to Pedro IV de Aragón regarding Blanca’s guardian (Giménez Soler 654).

95 Through the royal offspring of his daughters, Constanza and Juana, don Juan Manuel was related to the kings of Portugal and Castile. Constanza’s firstborn, María of Portugal, married the infante Fernando of Aragón, a younger son of Alfonso IV of Aragón. While Constanza’s second child died in infancy, her youngest, Fernando, succeeded his father as King of Portugal. Fernando I of Portugal was the ninth king of Portugal and ruled from 1367 to 1385. In Castile, the descendants of Juana Manuel and Enrique II established the Trastámara dynasty. Ten years after Enrique Trastámara murdered Pedro I, Enrique’s son with Juana Manuel succeeded his father as Juan I of Castile. This event inadvertently fulfilled don Juan Manuel’s purpose for writing the Libro de las tres razones by establishing the superiority of his lineage over that of Alfonso X. Pedro I’s descendants—who were also directly descended of Alfonso X—were excluded from the Trastámara line of succession. For more information on Pedro I’s demise and the fortunes of his descendants, see Estow (1995) and María Estela González de Fauve, Isabel J. de las Heras, and Patricia de Forteza (2003).

63 However, don Juan Manuel acted similarly when he built the monastery and castle in

Peñafiel because he established a material connection to the infante Manuel, who died in

1283, when his son was only one year old. Don Juan Manuel did not retain the infante

Manuel’s royal title,96 although he inherited the bulk of his father’s vast estate, including

Peñafiel.97 This property was a strategic outpost during the Reconquest, but don Juan Manuel rebuilt the castle as an aristocratic residence98 to bolster his sociopolitical pretensions. As

96 Nevertheless, don Juan Manuel paid tribute to his father and his royal origin by using the title “fijo del infante don Manuel” (Díez de Revenga and Ruiz Abellán 16). Don Juan Manuel also acquired additional titles in association with one of his properties, the señorío of Villena in Aragón. In 1333, Alfonso IV de Aragón—the brother of don Juan Manuel’s second wife, Constanza de Aragón—named his brother-in-law “príncipe de Villena” (Díez de Revenga and Ruiz Abellán 19). However, don Juan Manuel desired a more esteemed recognition, and the king’s successor—his brother, Pedro IV—conceded that of “duque de Villena” (Díez de Revenga and Ruiz Abellán 20). Nevertheless, don Juan Manuel did not use either of these titles during his lifetime and instead referred to himself either simply by his own name or as the son of the infante Manuel (Díez de Revenga and Ruiz Abellán 21).

97 During his lifetime, the infante Manuel served at the courts of Alfonso X and Sancho IV, who both rewarded him with property. Alfonso X granted the townships of Elche, Crevillente, and Aspe, as well as the señoríos of Agreda, Santa Olalla, Cuéllar, Umbrete, Villena, and Escalona (Lomax 167). The infante Manuel also received the señoríos of Elda and Novelda, in addition to income from various landholdings in Castile; houses and territory in Seville and Murcia; and a fishing monopoly (Molina Molina, “Los dominios” 216). In addition, Alfonso X knighted the infante Manuel in the Order of Santiago in 1254 and named him to the positions of alférez mayor in 1258 and mayordomo mayor in 1278 (Lomax 167-68). The infante Manuel was also adelantado mayor of Murcia (Molina Molina, “Los dominios” 216). Despite the property he received from Alfonso X, the infante Manuel supported Sancho IV’s claim to the Castilian throne over that of Alfonso X’s grandsons in 1282. In return, Sancho IV granted Manuel señoríos in Chinchilla, Jorquera, Almansa, and Aspe y Beas, as well as the township and castle of Peñafiel (Molina Molina, “Los dominios” 217). At the time of his death, the infante Manuel had two surviving legitimate children: a daughter, Violante Manuel, with his first wife, Constanza of Aragón, and a son, don Juan Manuel, with his second wife, Beatriz of Savoy. While don Juan Manuel was his father’s sole heir, the infante Manuel also provided for his daughter, Violante, as was custom. She inherited the señoríos of Elda and Novelda, although the terms indicated that Violante was forbidden to sell them to anyone beyond the realms of Castile and Murcia or more powerful than her half brother, don Juan Manuel (Molina Molina, “Los dominios” 217-18). Women inherited property either when there were no direct male heirs or when they were bequeathed certain possessions, which were usually less consequential than those given to a male heir (Beceiro Pita, “La mujer” 297).

98 The señorío of Peñafiel was a royal possession until Sancho IV conferred it to the infante Manuel as recompense for his support during Sancho IV’s claim to the throne of Castile (Redondo Cantera 167). Don Juan Manuel was born in Peñafiel in 1282, and Sancho IV was godfather at his baptism (Lomax 175). Upon the infante Manuel’s death, Sancho IV allowed don Juan Manuel to retain the property (Redondo Cantera 167). The señorío of Peñafiel “…se extendía por el valle del Duero desde Valbuena, al oeste, hasta San Martín de Rubiales, al este. Su situación, próxima a Valladolid y en el camino hacia el reino de Aragón, le otorgaban un alto valor estratégico” (Redondo Cantera 167). Don Juan Manuel built a new castle and converted several rooms in the existing alcázar into a living space for the members of his court (Redondo Cantera 168). For don Juan Manuel, “…Peñafiel simbolizaba, desde la primera mitad del siglo XIV, el castillo residencia, testimonio

64 part of this strategic effort, don Juan Manuel endowed the Dominican monastery of Saint

John and Saint Paul.99 The founder’s descendants, especially Enrique Manuel and Juan

Manuel II and III, fulfilled the intended purpose for this religious foundation by creating a pantheon as an architectural statement of their lineage’s virtue.100

Like the Manuel clan, Leonor López de Córdoba and her successors constructed a funerary pantheon, the Chapel of the Rosary in the Church of Saint Paul in Córdoba, to commemorate the prestige of their lineage. Leonor endowed the chapel in 1409 (González de

Fauve and Forteza 24). For her father, Martín López de Córdoba, she built an elaborate tomb

del poder de la aristocracia castellana” (Valdeón Baruque, “Don Juan” 391). He and his family occupied Peñafiel at various intervals from 1311 to 1345 (Valdeón Baruque, “Don Juan” 388-90).

99 The monastery was an architectural statement of prestige for don Juan Manuel, specifically, because his father was buried elsewhere. The infante Manuel and his first wife, Constanza of Aragón, elected to be interred in the convent of Uclés, the seat of the Order of Santiago (Arco 225). They had been initiated into the Order in 1261, and they pledged to endow a funerary chapel with four capellanías (Arco 225). However, the infante Manuel and Constanza de Aragón were interred near the altar of the capilla mayor (Arco 225-26). Don Juan Manuel did not have the option to be buried there because he was not a member of the Order of Santiago. He also never became a knight in any of the military religious orders, as he explains in the Libro de las tres razones: “Et comoquiera que la mayor onra que puede seer entre los legos es cavallería, et lo son muchos reis que an mayor estado que nós, cuido que por guardar esto que me sería a mí muy grave de tomar cavallería de ninguno, si non en la manera que la toman los reis” (Manuel 991). By constructing his own pantheon in Peñafiel, a señorío he had inherited from his father, don Juan Manuel still paid tribute to the infante Manuel at the same time that he proclaimed his own prestige.

100 Don Juan Manuel’s descendants associated their elite status with the monastery and not the señorío of Peñafiel because the Manuel clan lost possession of this property in the mid-fourteenth century. In his second will dated 1345, don Juan Manuel left most of his property, including Peñafiel, to his son and heir, Fernando Manuel (Martínez Sopena 76). However, he also provided for his daughters, Constanza and Juana. Constanza Manuel inherited select señoríos in Castile, Murcia, and Alicante, and Juana received Escalona, with the stipulation that it pass to Fernando in exchange for 500,000 maravedís upon the event of Juana’s marriage (Molina Molina, “Los dominios” 226). Nevertheless, in 1351, one year after Juana’s marriage to Enrique Trastámara, Fernando died. His property passed to his two-year-old daughter, Blanca, but she died without heirs in 1361 (Molina Molina, “Los dominios” 226). At that time, the Manuel estate passed to her aunt, Juana Manuel, Fernando’s sister and don Juan Manuel’s only surviving child (Molina Molina, “Los dominios” 226). Juana’s property, however, was assimilated into the Crown’s holdings after her marriage to Enrique II (Molina Molina, “Los dominios” 226). As a result, the Manuel lineage forfeited the bulk of don Juan Manuel’s estate within two generations, although his descendants maintained their dynastic connection to the monastery in Peñafiel. In 1371 and 1373, after she became queen, Juana Manuel confirmed donations to this religious foundation on behalf of her deceased father and brother (Martín 180). In 1386, Queen Beatriz of Castile gave permission to continue using landholdings in Peñafiel to maintain the Dominican Order at the monastery (Martín 181). Beatriz was the wife of Juan I of Castile and thus Juana Manuel’s daughter-in-law. However, Beatriz was also the great-granddaughter of don Juan Manuel through his daughter, Constanza Manuel. Her son—don Juan Manuel’s grandson—Fernando I of Portugal was Beatriz’s father (Martín 181).

65 adorned with gold lions and the cross and standard of the Order of Calatrava to evoke the elite positions he held at Pedro I’s court (Lacarra, “La última” 201). She situated the tomb near the main altar, a place of honor that projected Martín’s superior status as both a loyal courtier and family patriarch. Leonor also designated sepulchers for other family members, including her husband, Ruy Gutiérrez de Henestrosa; daughter, Leonor de Henestrosa; son,

Martín López de Henestrosa; several grandchildren; and servants (Lacarra, “La última” 201).

The females were interred to the left of her father’s tomb, the males to the right, and the servants in an access nave alongside more distant relatives (Lacarra, “La última” 201).101

Leonor purposefully did not select the church of Saint Hipólito in Córdoba, even though it was the site of her divinely inspired dream in the Memorias. Saint Hipólito was the burial place of the señores of Aguilar, who had supported Enrique II in the civil war, in spite of their distant familial connection to Martín López de Córdoba (Domínguez, “Chains” 40).

Leonor strategically distanced her lineage from the individuals who had allegedly betrayed her father by endowing her family’s funerary chapel in a different church.

This decision also reflects Leonor’s desire to appease the Trastámara monarchs. The church of Saint Paul in Córdoba was founded by the Dominican Order, of which both the monarchs and Leonor were patrons (Domínguez, “Chains” 40). In her will, Leonor left instructions to be dressed in a Dominican habit before her burial in the Chapel of the Rosary.

She would have certainly known that “…los predicadores eran los confesores naturales de los

101 According to Lacarra, the distribution of these family members’ tombs “…revela una concepción simbólica del espacio, como se refleja en tantas construcciones medievales, bien sea artísticas o literarias” (“La última” 201). The placement of Martín López de Córdoba’s tomb near the main altar is a statement of his prestige that is analogous to don Juan Manuel’s desire to be buried in the capilla mayor of the monastery in Peñafiel. In addition, the inclusion of the family’s servants “…revela el papel destacado de los criados en la organización del clan familiar, asimilados a otros descendientes colaterales” (Lacarra, “La última” 201).

66 reyes y que Enrique II, como después hará Juan II, también había optado por el mismo hábito” (Lacarra “La última” 198).

In addition, Leonor appealed directly to Catalina of Lancaster by honoring her son,

Juan II, in the two capellanías that Leonor endowed for the Chapel of the Rosary. While one capellanía memorialized Leonor’s mother, Sancha Carrillo, the other paid tribute to Juan II

(González de Fauve and Forteza 24). For each capellanía, Leonor chose a festival date significant to both monarchs: the Holy Trinity, which coincided with Catalina of Lancaster’s conception of Juan II, and Saint Thomas Aquinas, which was the king’s birthday (Lacarra,

“La última” 203).

These overtures to the Trastámara monarchs indicate that Leonor intended the Chapel of the Rosary as an architectural statement of virtue. Through the symbolic adornments and location of the funerary chapel, Leonor redeemed her father’s fame and asserted her family’s prestige.

The Chapel of the Rosary was also part of a patrimony that Leonor and her husband established for their descendants. They acquired new landholdings and prestigious offices when they were unable to recover their forfeited property. In 1411, Ruy became alcalde mayor of Córdoba, where he and Leonor amassed significant possessions (Cabrera Sánchez

214). In 1422, Leonor founded a mayorazgo that consisted of “las casas mayores de la familia, situadas en la collación de Santa María, la mitad de la llamada Huerta de la Reina, un lugar en la sierra, varios mesones y hornos situados en la Rambla y Hornachuelos y 500 doblas de juro de heredad en las alcabalas de Córdoba” (Cabrera Sánchez 235). She entailed this inheritance for her son, Martín López de Henestrosa.102 The following year, Leonor

102 Leonor established this mayorazgo on the condition that Martín López de Henestrosa abandon his ecclesiastical career and take a wife (Cabrera Sánchez 216). He had occupied a variety of religious posts in

67 established an additional mayorazgo for her daughter, Leonor de Henestrosa,103 who received

“varias casas situadas junto a la iglesia de San Hipólito y en la collación de Santa María, la mitad de la Huerta de la Reina, una tienda de jabón en Córdoba, 500 doblas de juro en las alcabalas, y el cortijo de Teba” (Cabrera Sánchez 235). Leonor de Henestrosa ceded this last property and her share of the Huerta de la Reina to her brother, Martín López de

Henestrosa,104 upon their mother’s death in 1430 (Cabrera Sánchez 235).

Leonor López de Córdoba was buried in the Chapel of the Rosary, although its construction was not yet finished at the time of her death. Her grandson, Luis Fernández de

Henestrosa, the son of Martín López de Henestrosa, ordered the completion of the chapel in

Córdoba, Talavera, Burgos, and Santander, but in 1430 or 1431—around the time of Leonor’s death—he renounced his positions and married Beatriz de Quesada, whose father was señor of Garcíez and Santo Tomé in Jaén (Cabrera Sánchez 216). Martín López de Henestrosa followed in his father’s footsteps and became alcalde mayor of Córdoba, in addition to a veinticuatro of Córdoba and canciller mayor of Castile (Cabrera Sánchez 216).

103 She had been a lady-in-waiting to Catalina of Lancaster until 1411, when she made an advantageous marriage to Juan de Guzmán, the son of Juan Alfonso de Guzmán, I conde of Niebla (Cabrera Sánchez 217). While it was not uncommon for women to inherit property, Leonor López de Córdoba’s creation of a second mayorazgo for her daughter “…es el único caso que hemos encontrado, referido a Córdoba, en el que su promotor fue una mujer y que se trató, además, de un doble mayorazgo” (Cabrera Sánchez 235). Leonor’s bequest to her daughter, in addition to her son, is also unusual, as Lacarra explains: “Un mayorazgo supone legar la mayor parte de los bienes de forma indivisible para que sigan transmitiéndose y así se pueda conservar íntegra la riqueza y el poder; habitualmente se hacía sobre el mayor de los hijos y el promotor era un varón. La mujer quedaba relegada en la mayoría de los casos, ya que se consideraba que su auténtica herencia era la dote, que se había incrementado sensiblemente desde principios del siglo XIV” (“La última” 206-207). Katz Kaminsky and Dorough Johnson interpret Leonor’s property ownership as a sign of female autonomy that is also present in the Memorias through the proprietary actions of her aunt, María García Carrillo (79). Her husband, Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba, received the señorío of Aguilar in exchange for his support of Enrique II during the civil war. According to Gregory Hutcheson, García Carrillo’s ability to grant property to her niece “…suggests that she enjoyed great social and economic independence, enough so that she could dictate with absolute authority the policy and finances of her household” (“Leonor” 259). She may have acquired this ability either as a result of her elevated social standing in Córdoba or after the death of her husband in 1384 (Juan Lovera 261).

104 Martín López de Henestrosa was not Leonor de Henestrosa’s only brother. Leonor López de Córdoba and her husband had two other biological sons: Juan Fernández de Henestrosa, who died in a plague epidemic around the year 1400, and Gutierre Ruiz de Henestrosa, who died sometime before 1428 (Cabrera Sánchez 213- 14). Juan Fernández de Henestrosa was the oldest of the four children, and the circumstances of his death are recorded in the Memorias. The author recounts that she had adopted a Jewish orphan, Alonso, who was also ill, and forced Juan to care for him (López de Córdoba 24). Leonor prayed to the Virgin to spare Alonso’s life, and her prayer was answered; however, her oldest son, Juan, succumbed to the plague (López de Córdoba 24). For more information on this episode in the Memorias, see Ruth Ghassemi (1989).

68 1482 (González de Fauve and Forteza 24). In spite of the fact that he did not inherit any of his father’s property because he was born after Martín’s death, Luis Fernández de Henestrosa elevated himself to the positions of a veinticuatro of Córdoba in 1465 and a vassal of the king in 1476 (Cabrera Sánchez 218-19). Just as his grandmother had built the Chapel of the

Rosary as an architectural statement of her virtue to restore her family’s fame, Luis likely refurbished it to commemorate his own sociopolitical status. He hired the stonemason Pedro

López to reconstruct both the interior and exterior according to the Hispano-Flemish gothic style.105 The completed pantheon was built over an octagonal floor plan with a star-pointed vault, and the exterior façade featured an arched doorway emblazoned with the family’s coats of arms (Serrano Ovin 109-10).

Through Leonor and her grandson’s efforts to build the Chapel of the Rosary, this religious foundation redeemed the memory of three generations of their lineage. Similarly, the monastery in Peñafiel connected don Juan Manuel and his illegitimate descendants to illustrious ancestors. For each clan, the endowment of a family pantheon proclaimed the virtue of its lineage. Don Juan Manuel and Leonor used these architectural statements of virtue to counter their relatives’ unjust suffering and forfeitures of property at the hands of the Castilian monarchs. In this way, the monastery in Peñafiel and the Chapel of the Rosary fulfilled a similar intended purpose as the Libro de las tres razones and the Memorias.

105 This style of architecture was dominant in fifteenth-century Castile as a result of increased trade with Flanders. Castilian merchants in Burgos exported wool to Flanders in exchange for woolen cloth and luxury items, including religious art (Kasl 7). In addition, Castilians who resided in Bruges became patrons of both religious institutions and artists, which inspired elites in Castilian cities such as Burgos and Toledo to hire Flemish artists, artisans, sculptors, and builders to construct monuments, including tombs, funerary chapels, castles, and palaces (Kasl 10). The style of these monuments was an adaptation of gothic architecture that redefined “…la concepción espacial de la arquitectura, siempre dominando la variedad en el empleo de diferentes diseños de bóvedas (siempre sobre arcos) y todo ello ornamentado según los repertorios mudéjar y los de raíz flamenca y germana” (Alonso Ruiz, La arquitectura 28-29). For more information on the Hispano- Flemish gothic style in fifteenth-century Castile, see J. V. L. Brans (1952), Waldo Merino Rubio (1974), Alonso Ruiz (2003), Miguel Ángel Zalama (2004), Bayón (1991), Alonso Ruiz (2011), and Kasl (2014).

69 In their textual production and architectural patronage, don Juan Manuel and Leonor adopt Alfonso X’s paradigm for their own purposes. In the fifteenth century, other nobles followed their examples. In light of ongoing political instability during the reign of Juan II, greater and lesser nobles turned to writing to defend their status in a sociopolitical network headed by the king and his valido, Álvaro de Luna.

70

CHAPTER 3: CONFLICTING TEXTUAL AND ARCHITECTURAL MEMORIES OF ÁLVARO DE LUNA IN FIFTEENTH-CENTURY CASTILE

During the reign of Juan II, Álvaro de Luna was unquestionably the most powerful— and polarizing—political figure in Castile. In spite of his illegitimate birth, Luna held prestigious positions at court and amassed a vast patrimony of landholdings and their associated titles. To commemorate his newly acquired status as a member of the Castilian elite, Luna reconditioned several of his possessions, such as Escalona, as residences and built a magnificent pantheon, the Chapel of Santiago, in Toledo Cathedral. However, Luna’s power and acquisition of property placed him in conflict with nobles who vied for the same honors and possessions and who questioned the meteoric rise to power and propriety of an individual who lacked noble lineage. Their hostility to Luna contributed to a revolt that damaged the Chapel of Santiago in 1441 and eventually led Juan II to arrest Luna for treason, for which offense he was beheaded as a common criminal in 1453. His corpse was publicly displayed, and alms were collected for a pauper’s burial.

Luna’s political trajectory has been studied by many scholars106 and is also recorded in numerous contemporary works. For example, Juan de Mena praised Luna’s virtue in the

Laberinto de Fortuna (1444), while Íñigo López de Mendoza, who is better known by his title, I marqués of Santillana, disparaged Luna’s uncouth behavior in his “Coplas contra don

Álvaro de Luna” (1453). Santillana also interpreted Luna’s disgraceful death as a just punishment for improper behavior in the “Doctrinal de privados” (1453). Following Luna’s

106 For example, see César Silió Cortés (1935), Nicholas Round (1986), José Antonio Vaca de Osma (1990), Luis Soto (1991), Isabel Pastor Bodmer (1992), José Manuel Calderón Ortega (1998), José Serrano Belinchón (2000), Rucquoi (2006), María Pontón Choya (2013), and Vicente Ángel Álvarez Palenzuela (2017).

71 demise, conflicting accounts continued to circulate: Fernán Pérez de Guzmán attacked him in

Generaciones y semblanzas (1455), but Gonzalo de Chacón memorialized him as a martyr in the Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna (1460).107

Numerous scholars have studied these works, and others have analyzed the legacy of

Álvaro de Luna as represented in both the texts written about him108 and the iconography of the Chapel of Santiago.109 This chapter demonstrates how these texts and monuments were created with the same intended purpose to influence sociopolitical standing. Luna built the

Chapel of Santiago to commemorate his prestige in light of his appointment to preeminent positions and acquisition of expansive landholdings. Similarly, Mena and Chacón enhanced their status in the royal household by praising Luna, while Pérez de Guzmán and Santillana defended their prosperity from threats posed by Luna’s rise to power. However, after Luna’s death, his and Santillana’s lineages were united through the marriage of Luna’s daughter to

Santillana’s grandson, the II duque of Infantado. The resulting political alliance and consolidation of property provided Luna’s widow and daughter the means to rebuild the

Chapel of Santiago. The evolution of this monument as an emblem of Luna’s prestige, as well as the nobles’ conflicting accounts, point to the authors’ and patrons’ attempts to protect their own status in their shared sociopolitical networks.

107 Luna is also mentioned in histories of Juan II’s reign. For example, Luna is included in Alfonso Martínez de Toledo’s Atalaya de las corónicas, which was written between 1443 and 1454 (Larkin iv). Pedro Carrillo de Huete’s Crónica del Halconero de Juan II, written between 1420 and 1450, also includes Luna’s rise to power at court and interactions with the nobles, but stops short of his death (Mata Carriazo xiv).

108 For example, see César G. López (1992), Jesús García-Varela (1992) and Nancy Marino (1996). These scholars have examined how Luna’s rise and fall from power was construed to represent both positive and negative characteristics of noble behavior in texts written after his execution.

109 For example, see Patrick Lenaghan (2010), Julio Vélez-Sainz (2012), and Rocío Martínez López (2013). More will be said about the iconography, as well as the ornamentation, architectural style, and purpose, of the Chapel of Santiago in this chapter.

72 I. The Commemoration of Luna’s Virtue

Luna’s rise to power at Juan II’s court was a product of the king’s favoritism and generosity. Juan II rewarded Luna with prestigious positions and properties, and Luna built the Chapel of Santiago in Toledo Cathedral to commemorate his prestige. In the Laberinto de

Fortuna, Juan de Mena also praises Luna as an exemplar of virtue for Juan II. By glorifying

Luna, his patron, Mena creates a textual memorial to the most powerful member of Juan II’s court that also defends his own sociopolitical status in their shared network.

Luna dominated this network because of his close relationship to the king, which he established through the connections of his extended relatives. Luna was the illegitimate son of Álvaro Martínez de Luna, a middling noble who was señor of Cañete, Jubera, Alfaro, and

Cornago and royal cupbearer to Enrique III (Vaca de Osma 24). Luna’s mother, María

Fernández de Jarana, was a commoner and later married the alcalde of Cañete, Nicolás de

Cerezuela (Vaca de Osma 24). In practice, illegitimacy was not an impediment to sociopolitical ascent, even for the greater nobility, and in Luna’s case, his father legally recognized him (Echegaray 82). On his deathbed, Álvaro Martínez de Luna left his seven- year-old son a small inheritance and a letter of recommendation to his uncle, Pedro Martínez de Luna, who became Pope Benedict XIII during the Avignon Election and Papacy

(Echegaray 82). He baptized Luna and placed him with another relative, Juan Martínez de

Luna (Echegaray 82-83). In 1408, another of Luna’s paternal uncles, Pedro de Luna,

Archbishop of Toledo, used his influence to find a position for him as a page to Juan II of

Castile.110 Luna quickly became a confidant of the young king during the co-regency of

Fernando de Antequera and Catalina of Lancaster.

110 Both Luna’s father, Álvaro Martínez de Luna, and paternal grandfather, Juan Martínez de Luna, served at the Castilian court, for which activity they were rewarded with the señorío of Cañete, Jubera, Alfaro, and Cornago

73 When Juan II assumed the throne in his own right in 1419,111 he immediately chose

Luna as his valido, a position that “…actuaba como gobernante en lugar del monarca, por lo que era capaz de controlar el reino y los engranajes del poder” (Carceller Cerviño 88).112 In

1423, Luna was made Constable of Castile, the highest-ranking military role with

(Soto 26). However, these landholdings did not significantly elevate the sociopolitical status of the Luna clan in Castile. Luna’s paternal relatives were more established in Aragón and traced their lineage to a wealthy noble, don Bocalla, who fought on behalf of Sancho Ramírez during the conquest of Luna, in Zaragoza (Soto 26). Don Bocalla received the señorío of Luna, which inspired the family name of his descendants (Soto 26). They were also well connected in the Church. In addition to Pope Benedict XIII and the Archbishop of Toledo Pedro de Luna, another relative—Luna’s first cousin, also named Pedro de Luna—was Archbishop of Zaragoza (Soto 25).

111 The co-regency ended upon Catalina of Lancaster’s death on June 2, 1418. Fernando de Antequera preceded her in death in 1416, four years after he ascended the throne of Aragón as Fernando I as part of the Compromise of Caspe (Suárez Fernández, Nobleza y monarquía: Puntos 110). Following the death of Catalina of Lancaster, in March 1419, Juan II was declared legally of age at fourteen years old (Villaseñor Sebastián 613). The age difference between Luna and Juan II contributed to the king’s reliance on Luna as a political support. In 1408, when Luna entered court, he was eighteen years old, and Juan II was only four (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 30). However, some contemporary accounts of Luna’s rise to power attributed Juan II’s favoritism to Luna’s use of magic to bewitch the king. For example, Pérez de Guzmán reports that the king attributed to Luna “…tanto vigor e fuerça que de todo punto sin algunt medio se sometiese a la hordenança e consejo del condestable con más obidiençia que nunca un fijo omill lo fue a un padre, nin un obidiente religioso a su abad o prior. Algunos fueron que veyendo este amor tan especial y esta fiança tanto exçesiva tovieron que fue arte e maliçia de fechizos, pero de esto non ovo cosa çierta, aunque algunas diligençias ovo en ello” (171-72). In the Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna, Gonzalo de Chacón also indirectly refers to Luna’s recourse to magic when he recounts that “…non obstante que los que a la sazón estaban en el Consejo del Rey, todos, segúnd ya escrebimos, salvo el arçobispo de Toledo, fueron en ordenar la sentençia que el bienaventurado Maestre debiese morir, […] e entendieron en ordenar el pregón que se avía de pregonar quando al bienaventurado Maestre oviesen de levar a lo privar de la vida, ninguna otra cosa fallaron por donde fundar e conponer el tal pregón, o le dar cabsa o color alguno, salvo descir ‘que estaba apoderado de la persona del Rey’” (431). Chacón disagrees with the idea that Luna bewitched the king. The author’s insistence on Juan II’s autonomy also subtly defends both the king and Luna against accusations of sodomy, which swirled at court. For example, Pérez de Guzmán refers to such accusations, yet stops short of confirming them, when he states, “E lo que con mayor maravilla se podía dizir e oír, aun en los actos naturales se dio assí a la ordenança del condestable, que seyendo él moço e bien conplisionado e teniendo a la reina, su muger, moça e fermosa, si el condestable ge lo contradixiese non iría a dormir a su cámara d’ella, nin curava de otras mugeres, aunque naturalmente asaz era inclinado a ellas” (171). For more information on accusations of sodomy between Juan II and Luna, see Gregory S. Hutcheson (1999).

112 Luna’s tenure as valido reflected his status as a favorite of Juan II. The king’s successor, Enrique IV, also appointed his favorites—alternately Juan Pacheco, Miguel Lucas de Iranzo, and Beltrán de la Cueva—as valido. This position, however, did not become an institutionalized office at court until the seventeenth century, most notably during the reign of Felipe IV, who appointed Gaspar de Guzmán, known by his title, conde-duque of Olivares, as valido. His role expanded beyond that of a favorite to include the promotion of “a programme of governmental or constitutional reform, or merely some fiscal arrangement, designed to reinforce the authority and reputation of the state” (Thompson 15). For more information on the role of the valido in Early Modern Spain, see J. H. Elliott and L. W. B. Brockliss (1999) and José Antonio Escudero (2004). For more information on royal favorites, including Luna as valido, in medieval Castile, see Vaca de Osma (1990), Calderón Ortega (2004), François Foronda (2006), and María del Pilar Carceller Cerviño (2009).

74 responsibilities that included leading the army and protecting the realm during the ongoing

War on Granada (Torres Fontes, “Los Condestables” 60). This appointment was of great concern to the nobility as it coincided with the downfall of the previous Constable of Castile,

Ruy López Dávalos. In 1422, Luna had presented the king with fourteen letters that López

Dávalos had supposedly written to the King of Granada requesting his aid in a military intervention against Juan II in Castile (Torres Fontes, “Los Condestables” 71). To punish

López Dávalos, Juan II forced him into exile and stripped him of his property and titles. Luna received his condado of San Esteban de Gormaz and the señoríos of Castil de Bayuela and

La Adrada (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 150-51, 161).

Luna’s sociopolitical ascent at the expense of López Dávalos fueled a longstanding enmity with Fernando de Antequera’s four sons—Alfonso, Juan, Enrique, and Pedro— collectively known as the infantes of Aragón. They vehemently opposed Luna’s influence on their Castilian cousin, Juan II,113 especially since the fourteen letters that led to López

Dávalos’ downfall also implicated the infante Enrique as a conspirator against the king

(Torres Fontes 71). Luna and the infante Enrique clashed again in 1429, when the infantes of

Aragón attempted to take control of the city of Toledo, although they were defeated and subsequently exiled (Kasl 40). To add insult to their injury, Juan II made Luna administrator of the Order of Santiago at the expense of the infante Enrique, who was Master of Santiago from 1409 until 1445, when he died as a result of wounds sustained while fighting in the first

Battle of Olmedo (Kasl 40). In recognition of Luna’s victory in this battle, Juan II arranged for his appointment as the next Master of Santiago.

113 The infantes of Aragón were the first cousins of Juan II and also shared additional bonds of kinship through marriage alliances. The infante Alfonso married Juan II’s older sister, María de Castilla, and Juan II’s first wife, María de Aragón, was a sister of the four infantes of Aragón.

75 In addition to acquiring the positions of valido, Constable of Castile, and Master of

Santiago, Luna elevated his sociopolitical status through property ownership. He used purchases, exchanges, family connections, and royal grants to amass an enormous territory that included:

…Escalona y su tierra, el condado de San Esteban de Gormaz, las villas de Maderuelo, Ayllón, Riaza, Osma, Maqueda, San Silvestre, Arenas de San Pedro, San Martín de Valdeiglesias, El Colmenar, La Figuera, La Adrada, el lugar de Rexas, Castil de Bayuela, las villas de Infantado, la Puebla y Castillo de Montalbán, la Torre de Esteban Hambran, Alamín y sus términos, entre otras. (Franco Silva, “La villa” 162)

These and other properties formed part of two mayorazgos that Luna established for his descendants with permission from Juan II in 1434 and 1447 (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 241-

42). The first mayorazgo commemorated the birth of Luna’s heir, Juan de Luna, in 1435, and the second incorporated properties that Luna acquired subsequently (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro

242).114

Luna used the income from these offices and properties to expand the señorío of

Escalona, which he had received as a royal grant in 1424. The castle of Escalona was strategically situated between Toledo and Ávila, and Luna capitalized on this location by making the alcázar the center of his military campaign against the infantes of Aragón from

114 Juan de Luna was Luna’s son with his second wife, Juana Pimentel. Luna’s first wife, Elvira Portocarrero, died without heirs in 1430 (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 45). The following year, Luna married Juana Pimentel (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 45). This marriage was advantageous because Juana Pimentel boasted noble lineage as the daughter of Rodrigo Alonso Pimentel, I conde of Benavente, and the niece of both Alonso Enríquez, almirante of Castile, and Pedro Manrique, adelantado mayor of Castile (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 45). In addition to their son, who was Luna’s heir, they had a daughter, María de Luna. Luna also had two illegitimate children: a daughter, also named María de Luna, and a son, Pedro de Luna. In 1436, Juan II authorized the legitimization of María de Luna, who received a mayorazgo of Córnago and Jubera (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 242). Pedro also received a mayorazgo of Fuentidueña, in addition to the lands that his father inherited from a distant relative, María de Albornoz (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 242, 185). When she died without direct heirs, she left her property to Luna on the condition that it go to Luna’s second son, should he have one with Juana Pimentel, who would then adopt the Albornoz surname and coat of arms (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 185). As Luna did not have another legitimate son, he designated Pedro de Luna as the intended recipient of the Albornoz inheritance (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 185).

76 1429 to 1430 (Castillo Cáceres, “El castillo” 268).115 He also hosted Juan II and the royal court on numerous occasions, such as for Christmas in 1433 and 1435, and held lavish parties in the king’s honor in 1431, 1448, and 1452 (Castillo Cáceres, “El castillo” 269, 278).

The gathering in 1448, for example, celebrated Juan II’s marriage to Isabel of

Portugal and was held in the Sala Rica, which Luna constructed during renovations to the castle after a fire in 1438 (Castillo Cáceres, “El castillo” 270). The Sala Rica contained a polychrome coffered ceiling, silk tapestries, and luxury items made of gold and silver, including a golden cup encrusted with jewels that was a gift to Luna from the city of

Barcelona (Castillo Cáceres, “El castillo” 271, 277). These items were part of a treasure stored in the alcázar that also included gold monetary reserves (Castillo y Cáceres, “El castillo” 276).116 The sumptuous appointments, coupled with the military utility, of the alcázar made Escalona a symbol of Luna’s prestige and power in Castile.

The Chapel of Santiago, which Luna founded as his intended burial place in Toledo

Cathedral, served a similar commemorative purpose.117 In 1431, three months after Luna was

115 The alcázar was built in the tenth and eleventh centuries (Castillo y Cáceres, “El castillo” 268). During the Reconquest, Escalona fell into Muslim control but was recaptured by Alfonso VI (Soto 94). Alfonso X granted Escalona to the infante Manuel, whose son, don Juan Manuel, inherited the property. Don Juan Manuel fortified Escalona by building new walls with Albarrana towers (Cooper, Castillos 713). In the fifteenth century, the alcázar at Escalona was further fortified through the addition of a keep and a moat and was expanded to create a lavish residence that included a chapel, underground vaults, and palace rooms (Cooper, Castillos 714). It is possible that some of these modifications were made by either Luna or the subsequent owner of Escalona, Juan Pacheco, I marqués of Villena (Cooper, Castillos 714). For more information on Luna’s use of Escalona as a symbol of political power, see Óscar López Gómez (2013a, 2013b).

116 For more information on Luna’s treasure and the lavish adornments of the Sala Rica, see Fernando Castillo Cáceres (1994), Etelvina Fernández González (1997), Castillo Cáceres (1998), Vélez-Sainz (2012), and Fernando Villaseñor Sebastián (2013, 2014).

117 Julio Vélez-Sainz (2012) has discussed the Sala Rica at Escalona in conjunction with the Chapel of Santiago. He observes a common motif in the architectural details of these two structures, especially the repetition of emblems that proclaimed Luna’s identity, such as his coat of arms and the scallop shell icon of the Order of Santiago (Vélez-Sainz, “Mecenazgo” 193). This scholar also compares the adornments of the Sala Rica to the illuminations of a copy of Luna’s Libro de las claras e virtuosas mugeres, which was likely stored in the Sala Rica and influenced the iconography of the Chapel of Santiago as it was rebuilt by Luna’s daughter, María de Luna (Vélez-Sainz, “Mecenazgo” 194). Later in this chapter, more will be said about her efforts to restore

77 appointed administrator of the Order of Santiago, he received permission from the

Archdiocese of Toledo to build a pantheon in the location of three chapels devoted to Saints

James, Thomas of Canterbury, and Eugene in the ambulatory of the cathedral (Nickson 151).

The expansive new chapel was dedicated only to Saint James, likely in reference to Luna’s recent promotion in the Order of Santiago (Kasl 40-41). The walls of the chapel featured elaborate tracery in the gothic architectural style that the master builder, Pedro Jalopa, had developed while working in Aragón for Luna’s great-uncle, Pope Benedict XIII (Kasl 41).

Facing the chapel’s main altar, Luna arranged tombs that he commissioned for himself and his wife, Juana Pimentel. Atop his own tomb he placed a seated effigy that depicted him armed as a knight and could have possibly been articulated into a kneeling position to participate in masses performed in the chapel (Rodríguez Porto 23).

The lavish funerary chapel, coupled with its location within Toledo Cathedral, projected Luna’s prestigious status. Luna was the first individual not of royal birth to build a proprietary funerary chapel in a Castilian cathedral (Río de la Hoz 23). The choice of Toledo

Cathedral was particularly symbolic because this location was the burial site of monarchs in the Chapel of the Holy Cross and the Chapel of the New Kings. The Chapel of Santiago rivaled these royal pantheons in size and scale,118 and Luna’s seated effigy suggested imperial status through its visual association with Alfonso X’s seated funerary sculpture in

Seville Cathedral (Rodríguez Porto 24). As an architectural manifestation of Luna’s virtue,

Luna’s pantheon. For more information on the Libro de las claras e virtuosas mugeres in connection to Luna’s prestige, see María Teresa Chicote Pompanin and Ángel Fuentes Ortiz (2013).

118 Incidentally, this contrast was further enhanced when the Chapel of the New Kings was moved to its current location adjacent to the Chapel of Santiago. In 1534, Carlos I authorized the contemporary Archbishop of Toledo, Alfonso Fonseca, to move the chapel to a new location in the ambulatory (Ruiz Souza 14). Enrique II’s original pantheon was destroyed, except for the sacristy (Ruiz Souza 14). The Chapel of the New Kings was rebuilt in close proximity to the Chapel of Santiago. For more information on how Luna’s funerary chapel compared to others in Toledo Cathedral, see Sonia Morales Cano (2011).

78 the Chapel of Santiago proclaimed his equality with the other members of the Castilian elite, including the monarchs.

The construction of the Chapel of Santiago in Toledo Cathedral incensed many nobles, who “…condemned the impropriety of constructing such an ostentatious monument in a cathedral that served as a royal burial place” (Kasl 41). Under the leadership of the infantes of Aragón, a group of nobles mounted a rebellion from 1440 to 1441, when they stormed the cathedral and destroyed Luna’s bronze effigy.

Juan de Mena recorded this event in the Laberinto de Fortuna. The author’s poetic voice speaks to a magician, who describes the violent destruction of Luna’s effigy, yet provides reassurance that Luna’s prestige is more robust than his bronze likeness:

«Ca un condestable armado, que sobre un grand vulto de oro vimos asentado, con manos sañosas vimos derribado, e todo desfecho fue tornado cobre. ¿Pues, cómo queredes que otra vez obre Fortuna, tentando lo que es importuno? Basta que pudo derribar al uno, que al otro más duro lo falla que robre.» (Mena, Laberinto 2113-20)119

This assurance that Luna will triumph over the vicissitudes of Fortune complements

Mena’s glowing tribute to the Constable in a previous stanza, in which the author states,

“«Este cavalga sobre la Fortuna / e doma su cuello con ásperas riendas” (Mena, Laberinto

1873-74). This representation of Luna on horseback evokes the military prowess that he demonstrated as Constable of Castile. Luna upholds the virtue of these offices so well that he becomes an example for others, as the author explains:

Por ende, magnífico grand condestable, la ciega Fortuna, que havía de vos fambre,

119 Numerous scholars have commented on these references to Luna’s funerary chapel in the Laberinto de Fortuna. For example, see Pereda (1999), Rodríguez Porto (2003), Villaseñor Sebastián (2013), Kasl (2014), and Cristina Moya García (2015).

79 farta la dexa la forma de alanbre; de aquí en adelante vos es favorable. Pues todos notemos un caso mirable… (Mena, Laberinto 2129-33)

Mena composed the text for a specific audience made up of the king and his court. He specifically targets the king in the opening verse, when he dedicates the poem to “Al muy prepotente don Juan el segundo” (Mena, Laberinto 1). In this first stanza, the author also emphasizes Juan II’s responsibility by describing him as “al que con Fortuna es bien fortunado, / aquél en quien caben virtud e reinado” (Mena, Laberinto 7-8). Throughout the rest of the poem, Mena inspires Juan II to live according to these virtues as illustrated by the great deeds of past heroes, culminating in the only living example of Luna.

The author’s word choice in praising the king associates him with Luna’s success. For example, as Mena recounts in a vision, “Al nuestro rey magno bienaventurado / vi sobre todos en muy firme silla, / digno de reino mayor que Castilla” (Laberinto 1761-63). This description of Juan II as “bienaventurado” evokes the promise of Fortune’s blessing in the opening stanza of the poem, which also extends to Luna through his military triumphs. In addition, the author interprets his meaning for Juan II, whom he calls “rey soberano,” by reminding him that “los tiempos futuros de cómo e de quándo / será vuestra mano jamás vençedora” (Mena, Laberinto 2330, 2335-36). This promise echoes another description of

Luna as a successful knight “e franco de mano de nuestro grand rey, / e clara esperiençia de su firme ley, / e de la Fortuna jamás vençedor” (Mena, Laberinto 1885-88).

By glorifying Luna as an exemplar for the king, Mena commemorates Luna’s virtue in a similar fashion to the Chapel of Santiago. Although the author refers to the destruction of

Luna’s effigy, he implies that this event does not diminish Luna’s prestige, as the magician promises in the text. In addition, Mena evokes the seated posture of Luna’s funerary

80 monument before it was destroyed when he represents Juan II “…sobre todos en muy firme silla, / digno de reino mayor que Castilla” (Mena, Laberinto 1762-63). This vision of the king on his throne proclaims the authority that Juan II inherits from his royal predecessors.120

However, this image also suggests that Juan II upholds his responsibilities as monarch by emulating Luna’s virtue as embodied in the seated posture of his effigy. Through its display of arms, Luna’s effigy commemorated his virtue as an accomplished knight. Mena also assimilates Luna into this chivalric tradition by describing how he “cavalga sobre la Fortuna / e doma su cuello con ásperas riendas” (1873-74).121 In this way, Mena creates a textual memorial of Luna’s virtue that not only countermands the infamous destruction of his effigy, but also propagates Luna’s fame by presenting him as an exemplar for Juan II.

The Laberinto de Fortuna also memorializes Mena as author of this tribute. He addresses the muse Calliope with a personal request:

120 Mena represents Juan II as a fulfillment of the legacies of his royal predecessors when he recounts the following prophesy: “«Será rey de reyes e rey de señores, / sobrando, vençiendo los títulos todos, / e las façañas de reyes de godos, e rica memoria de los sus mayores” (Laberinto 2161-64). Castillo Cáceres (1997) has suggested that the description of Juan II’s throne in the Laberinto de Fortuna contributes to this poem’s political projection. As this scholar explains, Mena develops “…todo un programa de propaganda de la monarquía castellana que, de forma resumida, combina los acontecimientos gloriosos del pasado y el carácter ejemplar de la historia del reino con los conceptos abstractos que redundan en favor de la virtud y la legalidad de los reyes de la Casa de Trastámara, tan sensibles a estos aspectos desde su entronización” (Castillo Cáceres, “El trono” 73). For more information on the political projection of the Laberinto de Fortuna with regard to the Castilian monarchy, see Luis Beltrán (1971), José Luis Bermejo Cabrero (1973), and Deyermond (1980). For more information on Mena’s allusions to symbols of the monarchy, see Colin Smith (1991).

121 This description not only evokes Luna’s unparalleled success as Constable of Castile and administrator of the Order of Santiago, but also proclaims Luna’s virtue in connection to the chivalric ideal of knighthood embodied by the Cid. The image of Luna charging on Fortune echoes the depiction of the Cid’s body on horseback during his posthumous victory over Búcar in the Primera crónica general. As this account likely inspired Alfonso X’s seated effigy to proclaim his imperial status, there is also a connection between the Cid, Luna’s own seated effigy in the Chapel of Santiago, and Mena’s praise of Luna in the Laberinto de Fortuna. Mena mentions “los fechos del Çid” in the Laberinto de Fortuna, although the author does not directly interpret Luna’s accomplishments in light of the Cid’s exploits (Mena, Laberinto 26). Nevertheless, Mena’s and Luna’s emphasis on virtue as tied to chivalry suggests their participation in a widespread practice among fifteenth- century nobles who adapted accounts of the Cid’s triumphs to enhance written versions of their own chivalric exploits (Gómez-Redondo, “El Cid” 328). While neither Mena nor Luna was of illustrious origin, Rodríguez- Velasco has suggested that some tropes of chivalry, such as the knightly fable, “…became, in the Late Middle Ages, a social and political tool not only for individuals, but also for some groups and networks, and in particular for groups that could not claim any sort of relationship between their social position and the configurations of political nobility or lineage nobility” (“Knightly” 304).

81 combida mi lengua con algo que fable; levante la Fama su boz ineffable, por que los fechos que son al presente vayan de gente sabidos en gente: olvido non prive lo que es memorable. (Mena, Laberinto 20-24)

This petition evokes Alfonso X’s statement in the prologue to the Primera crónica general in which he advocates the use of written history to protect the memory of past heroes from oblivion. While Mena opts for a poetic account in the Laberinto de Fortuna, he intended this text as a similar memorial to its recipient, Juan II, by encouraging him to follow in the chivalric example of Luna.

Mena’s support for both the king and the valido reflects the author’s dependence on their favor as a member of the royal administration. He was chronicler and royal secretary from 1443 and also worked directly for Luna. For example, in 1446, he wrote the prologue to

Luna’s Libro de las virtuosas e claras mugeres, and two years later, he composed the

Memorias de algunos linajes (1448) at the Constable’s specific request.122 In this text, Mena refers to his patron as “muy ilustre señor” (Memorias 414). This apostrophe is similar to one the author uses in the Libro, in which he addresses Luna as “muy bienaventurado señor”

(Mena, Proemio 393).123 Mena promises Luna that through his writing “…será loada vuestra virtud e más extendida la gloria de vuestra fama, ca los enbidiosos adversarios, después de vuestro largo número de días, no les quedará materia con que la pasión del invidia los pueda

122 Luna was also patron of other elites at Juan II’s court, including Fray Juan de Alarcón, Fray Martín de Córdoba, Diego de Valera, Alvar García de Santa María, and Lope de Barrientos (Rucquoi, “Privanza” 333). These authors either composed works dedicated to Luna or praised him in their textual production (Rucquoi, “Privanza” 333).

123 Mena also praised Luna in three lyric poems, which are listed as numbers 30, 31, and 32 in Miguel Ángel Pérez Prieto’s 1989 edition of Mena’s complete works, which is the edition used in this dissertation.

82 atormentar, salvo glorioso enxemplo en vuestras fazañas, para se mejorar e corregir…”

(Mena, Proemio 393).124

This adulatory passage defends Luna against his adversaries: the nobles who opposed his assumption of prestigious offices, presumably out of envy or fear. This group included those nobles who destroyed Luna’s effigy in the Chapel of Santiago. Unlike Mena, they did not depend on Luna’s patronage or stand to benefit from Luna’s rise to power. To defend their status in response to the threat implied by Luna’s ascent, these nobles composed their own accounts aimed at their sociopolitical networks.

II. Noble Responses to Luna’s Rise to Power

Two of Luna’s most prominent adversaries were Íñigo López de Mendoza, I marqués of Santillana, and Fernán Pérez de Guzmán, III señor of Batres. These individuals were heads of noble families that rose to prominence through mercedes enriqueñas. In the case of the Mendoza clan, these royal grants were “the basis for the greatest fortune in Trastámara

Castile” (Nader 40).125 Both Santillana and Pérez de Guzmán vehemently opposed Luna’s influence at court and took military action against him in 1420 and 1432.126 They also

124 For more information on Mena and Luna’s literary connections the Libro de las virtuosas e claras mugeres, see Julian Weiss (1991).

125 Santillana and Pérez de Guzmán also shared familial bonds of kinship through the Ayala lineage. Pérez de Guzmán’s mother, Elvira de Ayala, was the sister of Santillana’s paternal grandmother, Aldonza de Ayala.

126 In 1420, these nobles formed an alliance with two prominent members of their network: Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, IV señor of Valdecorneja, II señor of Alba de Tormes, and the future I conde of Alba de Tormes, and Pedro Fernández de Velasco, the future I conde of Haro (Nader 48). This group supported the infante Enrique in an attempt to kidnap Juan II at Tordesillas (Nader 48). The failure of this plot led these nobles to return to the king’s good graces, although they rebelled again in 1432 to protest Luna’s increasing power in Castile (Barrio 13). They received additional support from Álvarez de Toledo’s nephew, Gutierre de Toledo, Bishop of Palencia, who later became Archbishop of Toledo, and Garci Sánchez de Alvarado (Barrio 14n13). However, all except Santillana, who withdrew to his solar, were captured in Zamora and imprisoned (Barrio 14). Pérez de Guzmán remained incarcerated for eight months (Barrio 15). Upon his release, he abandoned court and retired to his señorío at Batres, likely involuntarily (Barrio 15). While at Batres, Pérez de Guzmán turned his attention

83 attacked him in writing: in Santillana’s “Coplas contra don Álvaro de Luna” and “Doctrinal de privados” and Pérez de Guzmán’s Generaciones y semblanzas, the authors condemn Luna for his lack of virtue, which they connect to the sin of greed through Luna’s expansion of property. These attacks on Luna doubled as the authors’ attempts to defend their own status in response to Luna’s rise to power. Santillana’s descendants also defended the status of the

Mendoza clan, albeit through opposite means: they formed an alliance with Luna’s widow,

Juana Pimentel, and daughter, María de Luna. The changes in fortune—both economic and political—of the Luna and Mendoza clans in fifteenth-century Castile underscore the nobles’ efforts to protect their standing in an elite sociopolitical network.

In response to Luna’s meteoric rise to power, Pérez de Guzmán and Santillana disparaged Luna for his alleged lack of virtue to demonstrate that he did not deserve such a preeminent status. For example, Pérez de Guzmán claims that Luna “Preçiávase mucho de linaje, non se acordando de la homill e baxa parte de su madre” (181). This author casts Luna as an imposter who attempted to rise above his class at birth. Such devious behavior denotes a lack of virtue and suggests that Luna was ill suited for the rank he assumed at court. Pérez de Guzmán condemns Luna for improperly supplanting the power of the king: “Ovo asaz coraçón e osadía para açebtar e usar de la grande potençia que alcançó, ca o porque duró en ella grant tiempo e se le avía convertido como en natura, o porque su audaçia e presunçión fue grande, más usó de poderío de rey que de cavallero” (181-82).

Similarly, Santillana implies that Luna has presumptuously taken advantage of Juan

II’s generosity. In the “Coplas contra don Álvaro de Luna,” Santillana points out the

to textual production, including Generaciones y semblanzas. In this text, the author mentions the unfortunate encounter that led to his exile: “E después fueron presos don Gutierre de Toledo, arçobispo de Toledo, e su sobrino don Ferrand Álvarez de Toledo, conde de Alva, e con ellos Ferrand Pérez de Guzmán e Garçi Sánchez d’Alvarado” (Pérez de Guzmán 189). For more information about the circumstances and motivations surrounding Pérez de Guzmán’s textual composition, see Robert Folger (2003, 2004).

84 discrepancy between Luna’s birth and his elite status at court. In the first stanza, the author addresses the Constable with an apostrophe that evokes the celestial meaning of his surname:

O Luna más luminossa que la luz meridïana, clareçiente, radïossa, prepotente, soberana. (Santillana, “Coplas” 3-6)

Santillana implies that Luna has acquired so much temporal power that he inappropriately rivals the king, whose authority over Castile is like that of the sun over the day: “clareçiente, radïossa, / prepotente, soberana” (“Coplas” 5-6). With this comparison, Santillana indirectly criticizes Luna by suggesting that his assumed prestige pales in comparison to Juan II’s innate virtue as a Trastámara monarch. In addition, the author suggests that the natural order is broken since the lesser planet, the moon, eclipses the greater sun, in this case, the king.

While the author acknowledges the king’s supremacy, especially with the adjective

“prepotente,” in these verses he also subtly rebukes Juan II for ennobling an individual of humble origin, such as Luna (Santillana, “Coplas” 6). In a later stanza, Santillana repeats the same adjective in a different context by encouraging Juan II to reclaim his

estado prepotente magnifica y engrandeçe, su corona prepolente gloriffica y enobleçe. (“Coplas” 251-54)

This repeated use of “prepotente” to describe the king, beginning with the first verses of the “Coplas,” inverts the initial stanza of the Laberinto de Fortuna, which Mena famously dedicates to “Al muy prepotente don Juan el segundo” (Mena, Laberinto 1). Both Mena and

Santillana recognize the divine right of the king with the adjective—“prepotente”—that

Mena first incorporates into Spanish to describe Juan II. However, the opposing contexts of

85 Mena and Santillana’s texts alter the significance of each author’s message to Juan II.127

While Mena encourages him to reflect on Luna’s chivalric example as a source of virtue,

Santillana urges the king to act in accordance with the virtue of his royal lineage by separating himself from Luna’s influence.128

These conflicting accounts point to the polarizing effect of Luna’s sociopolitical ascent on the Castilian nobles. Unlike Mena, whose praise reflects the benefit he derived from Luna’s patronage, Pérez de Guzmán and Santillana interpret Luna’s rise to power as a threat to the stability of Juan II’s casa. However, these authors’ criticism of Luna was not only a personal attack on an individual they deemed inferior, especially since Luna’s extended relatives were well connected. For example, while Pérez de Guzmán deprecates the common status of Luna’s mother, he readily acknowledges that Luna’s paternal ancestry was illustrious: he describes Luna’s father as “un cavallero noble e bueno” (180). In addition, he states, “Esta casa Luna es de las mayores del reino de Aragón, e ovo en ella asaz notables personas…. E fueron todos los d’esta casa de Luna muy servidores del reino de Castilla”

(Pérez de Guzmán 180).

127 The use of “prepotente” is not the only example in which Mena and Santillana employed a similar strategy for different purposes. While Mena describes Luna as Fortune’s favorite in the Laberinto de Fortuna, Santillana presents Luna as a victim of Fortune’s vicissitudes as a result of the rotation of her iconographic wheel: “La fortuna que ayudó / a este sobir tan alto / la su rueda revessó / y le fizo dar gran salto. / Creo que nunca pensaste / que tal cosa avrié lugar, / si no pienso moderar / pensara tu gran contraste” (Santillana, “Coplas” 163-70). However, their opposing responses to Luna’s rise to power did not reflect personal enmity between the authors. They exchanged lyric poems, and Mena also composed La coronación del Marqués de Santillana as a tribute to Santillana following his military victory at Huelma in 1438. In return, Santillana paid for Mena’s burial in Torrelaguna upon his death in 1456. For more information on the relationship between Santillana and Mena, see Daniel Hartnett (2015). For more information on Luna’s rise and fall from power in relation to Fortune, see Soto (1991).

128 Santillana also directly addresses two members of the royal family—the queen, Isabel of Portugal, and the future Enrique IV—and encourages them to deflect Juan II’s attention away from Luna. To illustrate his point, Santillana says that the “grande llama” of royal virtue and great deeds cannot be extinguished because it is based on its “alta genealogía,” while Luna is engulfed by his ignoble lineage (“Coplas” 260, 263). As a result, the author laments the pernicious influence of Luna, who is waning in shadow, “eclibssada / y llena d’oscuridad, / tenebrosa y fuscada, / conplida de çeguedad” (Santillana, “Coplas” 187-90).

86 Luna followed in the tradition of his paternal lineage by ascending to prestigious offices at Juan II’s court and acquiring extensive landholdings that he entailed for his lineage.129 Nevertheless, from the perspective of nobles such as Pérez de Guzmán and

Santillana, Luna’s rise to power in barely three decades challenged their belief that property, especially a mayorazgo, was evidence of virtue accrued over the course of generations. To make this distinction and defend their own sociopolitical status, these authors associate

Luna’s lack of virtue with the sin of greed and, ultimately, the Constable’s ignominious demise.

In the “Coplas contra don Álvaro de Luna,” Santillana points out the unprecedented scope of Luna’s “patrimonio estenso, / de mar a mar dilatado,” as well as his “poderío inmensso, / rico, lleno y abastado” (91-92, 93-94). It included extravagant gifts from the king, such as

castillos y villas, muchas tierras y çibdades, grandes gentes y quadrillas, onores y dinidades, y tesoros inffinitos. (Santillana, “Coplas” 27-31)

The use of polysyndeton in these verses contributes to Santillana’s hyperbolic description of Luna’s “tesoros inffinitos,” but the author’s point is clear: Luna is by far the wealthiest individual in Castile (“Coplas” 31). Santillana also implies that Luna is most

129 As part of Luna’s program of strategic property expansion, Luna specifically sought to reconstitute the patrimony of his father and grandfather. They had controlled a señorío that consisted of the townships of Jubera, Córnago, Alfaro, and Cañete. However, when Luna’s father died penniless, his properties were integrated into the Crown’s holdings (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 147). Juan II sold Cañete and regranted Jubera, but Luna nevertheless convinced the king to grant him the townships of Jubera, Córnago, and Alfaro in 1420 (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 148-49). Luna later entailed Córnago and Jubera as an inheritance for his illegitimate daughter, María de Luna (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 242). In addition, Luna used his influence to benefit other members of his casa. He helped his half brother, Juan de Cerezuela, attain the position of Archbishop of Toledo in 1434. Juan de Cerezuela retained this office until 1442. His tenure as archbishop coincided with the years in which the Chapel of Santiago stood as an emblem of Luna’s prestige in Toledo Cathedral, until the destruction of the chapel in 1441. For more information on the Luna clan’s connections to the archbishopric of Toledo, see Vélez-Sainz (2008).

87 dissolute as a result of the corruptive influence of this extraordinary wealth. The author suggests that the extent of Luna’s “tesoros inffinitos” is only matched by the immeasurable power of “[Jesucristo] inffinido” calling sinners such as Luna to repentance with an

“inçesable clamor” (Santillana, “Coplas” 31, 196, 206). Santillana further equates Luna’s acquisition of property with the sins of avarice and gluttony by suggesting that Luna abused his power over other members of their network “por tragar sus posesiones / con garganta insaçiable” (“Coplas” 119-20).

Pérez de Guzmán echoes this scathing criticism when he describes Luna as

“cobdiçioso en un grande estremo de vasallos e de thesoros, tanto que así como los idrópigos nunca pierden la sed, ansí él nunca perdía la gana de ganar e aver, nunca reçibiendo fartura su insaçiable cobdiçia” (182-83). Luna’s thirst for wealth not only contributed to his own lack of virtue, but also infected all of Castile, as the author implies: “Qualquier villa e posesión que çerca de lo suyo estava, o por canbio o por conpra lo avía de aver. Así se dilatava e creçía su patrimonio como la pestilençia que se pega a los lugares çercanos” (184).

Pérez de Guzmán’s statements specifically refer to Luna’s ambitious expansion of his domain at Escalona. Juan II regularly granted Luna properties that were confiscated from members of their network. In addition to the properties that Luna received at López Dávalos’ expense, he acquired the landholdings of the infantes of Aragón when they were expelled from Castile in 1429. This patrimony included Madueruelo, Alba de Aliste, Trujillo,

Alburquerque, and Cuéllar (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 165). While Madueruelo, Alba de

Aliste and Cuéllar were royal grants, Luna gained Trujillo and Alburquerque through military conquest. With the territorial acquisition of Trujillo, Luna gained the associated title of duque of Trujillo (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 172). Juan II also granted Luna property that

88 he confiscated from rebellious nobles. For example, in 1448, the king granted Luna the señorío of Portillo, which previously belonged to Diego Gómez de Sandoval, conde of

Castro and adelantado mayor of Castile (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 229-30).130

Castilian nobles, including Santillana,131 also received forfeited properties, but they faced additional threats because Luna sought to expand his domain near Escalona by acquiring landholdings that belonged to other elites.132 For example, Luna purchased La

Torre de Esteban Hambrán from Pérez de Guzmán’s first cousin, Pedro López de Ayala, aposentador mayor to Juan II and alcalde mayor of Toledo (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 211).133

López de Ayala opposed Luna and in 1441 opened the city gates of Toledo to the infantes of

Aragón during the revolt in which they destroyed the Chapel of Santiago (Alonso, “Don

Álvaro” 20). Although in Generaciones y semblanzas the author does not explicitly mention

130 Sandoval was a staunch ally of the infantes of Aragón and supported them against Luna and Juan II in the first Battle of Olmedo in 1445. Following his and Luna’s victory, Juan II confiscated Portillo, which he used as a prison for his enemies until he granted the property to Luna in 1448 (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 230). More will be said about Sandoval’s forfeiture of Portillo in chapter four of this dissertation.

131 When Juan II expelled the infantes of Aragón from Castile, the king granted some of their property, including twelve towns near Guadalajara, to Santillana (Nader 50).

132 Luna also used his influence, as well as his relatives’ ecclesiastical connections, to acquire properties from religious institutions. For example, Luna gained the township of San Martín de Valdeiglesias in 1433 by trading for the monastery of the same name (Franco Silva, “El destino” 286). In addition, Luna used rents from Escalona and another of his many properties, Riaza, to purchase Alamín, a township located in close proximity to Escalona (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 210). Alamín belonged to the señorío of the Archbishopric of Toledo, but Luna was able to purchase it through the influence of his half brother, Juan de Cerezuela, who was Archbishop of Toledo from 1434 to 1442 (Franco Silva, “La villa” 163).

133 Just as Luna purchased La Torre de Esteban Hambrán from Pedro López de Ayala, he bought or traded numerous other properties from Castilian nobles as part of his ambitious program of property expansion. For example, in 1432, Luna bought the señorío of Arjona, with its corresponding title of duque, from Fadrique of Aragón (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 193). Two years later, Luna traded Arjona—as well as the properties of Arjonilla, La Higuera, Recena and three fourths of the township of Jimena—to Luis de Guzmán, Master of the Order of Calatrava, in exchange for the señoríos of Maqueda, San Silvestre, and El Colmenar (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 194). In 1437, Luna purchased the townships of Langa, Rejas, and Oradero from Isabel de Ávila, widow of Ruy Gómez de Avellaneda (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 215). The following year, Luna acquired the señorío of Alcozar, which had belonged to the Bishops of Osma until the beginning of the fifteenth century, when the Delgadillo family assumed its possession (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 217). Luna desired Alcozar for its proximity to Langa, and he laid claim to it because his half brother, Juan de Cerezuela, had been Bishop of Osma (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 217). Luna purchased Alcozar from Gutierre Delgadillo in exchange for a monetary payment and income from another of his properties, Aranda (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 217).

89 this connection,134 it almost certainly contributed to the censure of Luna in this text, especially given the accusation that Luna sought to acquire “más tesoro que todos los grandes onbres e perlados d’España” (183-84).

This reproach evokes Pérez de Guzmán’s assertion that Luna was an imposter to positions of power that he did not rightfully deserve, as well as Santillana’s insinuation that

Luna usurped the status of his superiors, including Juan II. These authors represent the perspective of many nobles who viewed Luna as a direct threat to their own sociopolitical status. This perspective ultimately led to Luna’s downfall. Under increasing pressure from the nobles, who had the support of the Castilian queen, Isabel of Portugal, Juan II ordered the arrest of Luna for treason on Good Friday in 1453. On June 2, Luna was publicly beheaded in Valladolid.

Santillana describes Luna’s downfall in the “Doctrinal de privados,” which was likely written shortly after the Constable’s death. The author suggests that Luna’s lack of virtue, manifested in his sinful accumulation of property, directly led to the Constable’s ignominious demise, which serves as a warning to readers.135 Luna’s poetic voice is contrite when

134 However, Pérez de Guzmán does include a semblanza of their common relative, Pero López de Ayala. The author states that “Don Pero López de Ayala, chançiller mayor de Castilla, fue un cavallero de grant linaje, ca de parte de su padre venía de los Haro,de quien los de Ayala deçienden; de parte de su madre viene de Çavallos, que es un gran solar de cavalleros” (Pérez de Guzmán 94). The chancellor’s son, also named Pedro López de Ayala, was aposentador mayor to Juan II and alcalde mayor of Toledo. The chancellor’s sister, Elvira de Ayala, was Pérez de Guzmán’s mother. Another of the chancellor’s daughters, Aldonza de Ayala, was a progenitor of Santillana.

135 Santillana composed both the “Doctrinal de privados” and the “Coplas contra don Álvaro de Luna” in 1453. Michèle S. Cruz-Saenz suggests that the “Coplas” predated Luna’s death, while the “Doctrinal” was written immediately following his execution because “…what was once a personal affront now assumes a different perspective. Hatred and scorn for Luna have been attenuated and the Condestable’s fate is now viewed as tragedy. Luna, once the object of Santillana’s odium, now becomes an exemplum illustrating a universal theme” (Cruz-Saenz 223-24). However, Nancy Marino offers an opposing interpretation: “The «Doctrinal de Privados» displays the markings of literary revenge against Santillana’s acknowledged adversary, in which the Condestable is made to confess in first person that his comportment was in direct opposition to both Christian and courtly ideals” (“The Creation” 493). Nevertheless, Santillana’s opposition to Luna’s expansion of property is consistent in both poems.

90 surveying his wealth: “Vi thesoros ayuntados / por grand daño de su dueño” (Santillana,

“Doctrinal” 1-2). The connotation of Luna’s greed is didactic because the Constable penitently urges the reader to “templad la cúpida sed” as a means to avoid the same end

(Santillana, “Doctrinal” 93). In keeping with this message, Luna laments,

Cosa ajena non dexé: tanto quise quanto vi. Agora, pues, ved aquí quánto valen mis riquezas, tierras, villas, fortalezas, tras quien mi tiempo perdí. (Santillana, “Doctrinal” 19-24)

In addition to conveying Luna’s loss of status, these verses represent the historical disintegration of Luna’s estate after his execution in 1453. Juan II attempted to confiscate the extraordinary wealth of his former valido, but Luna’s widow, Juana Pimentel, barricaded herself in the castle of Escalona to protect the inheritance of her son, Juan de Luna (Franco

Silva, “El destino” 292). When the king arrived at Escalona to seize the treasure stored in the alcázar, Juana Pimentel capitulated after negotiating the fate of her late husband’s assets

(Franco Silva, “El destino” 292). Juan II received two thirds of the treasure, while Juana

Pimentel kept the remaining third and was promised that Juan de Luna would inherit his father’s mayorazgos (Franco Silva, “El destino” 292). In a series of grants between June 26 and August 24, Juan II confirmed this inheritance and also conferred part of the income from the entailed properties (Franco Silva, “El destino” 292-93).136

136 On June 26, Juan de Luna received the condado of San Esteban de Gormaz, as well as the other entailed señoríos (Franco Silva, “El destino” 292). Four days later, Juana Pimentel recovered the townships of La Adrada, Colmenar, Castil de Bayuela, Arenas de San Pedro, La Higuera, San Martín de Valdeiglesias, Villa del Prado, Alamín, La Torre de Esteban Hambrán, and Puebla de Montalbán (Franco Silva, “El destino” 292). On July 12, Juan II granted Juan de Luna the tercias that corresponded to the villas of Infantado, including Alcocer, Salmerón, Valdeolivas, and San Pedro Palmiches (Franco Silva, “El destino” 292-93). For himself, the king reserved the alcabalas, the pedido, and the moneda forera associated with the villas of Infantado (Franco Silva, “El destino” 293). Juan II authorized this division of property in a royal decree on August 24 (Franco Silva, “El destino” 293).

91 When Santillana composed the “Doctrinal de privados,” he did not anticipate that

Luna’s former “riquezas, / tierras, villas, fortalezas” would also influence the fortunes of his own lineage (“Doctrinal” 22-23). In 1459, one year after Santillana’s death, his grandson, the future III marqués of Santillana, also named Íñigo López de Mendoza, married María de

Luna, the daughter of Luna and Juana Pimentel. This marriage united the formerly rival

Mendoza and Luna clans at a time when both lineages faced threats to their prosperity from

Enrique IV’s valido, Juan Pacheco, I marqués of Villena.137

Pacheco seized the opportunity to enhance his own prestige by acquiring some of

Luna’s extensive patrimony. Juan de Luna inherited most of it, but his sudden death in 1456 aligned the wealth—and with it, the political fortunes—of his lineage with the fate of his only child, not yet born to his wife, Leonor de Zúñiga (Franco Silva, “El destino” 293). In his will, Juan de Luna stated that his sister, María de Luna, should receive the inheritance if his child died without direct heirs (Franco Silva, “El destino” 293). Leonor de Zúñiga gave birth to a daughter, Juana de Luna, whom Juana Pimentel entrusted to the care of her late husband’s nephew, also named Juan de Luna, in Ayllón (Franco Silva, “El destino” 294).138

However, Pacheco attempted to kidnap Juana de Luna as the future bride of his son, Diego

López Pacheco (Franco Silva, “El destino” 294). At first, Juana de Luna’s protector held

Pacheco at bay by granting him two significant properties from the young heiress’ estate: the condado of San Esteban de Gormaz and the villas of Infantado (Franco Silva, “El destino”

137 Pacheco was of noble origin and also occupied a preeminent position at the courts of Juan II and Enrique IV. During the reign of Juan II, Pacheco was a confidant of the future Enrique IV. Following the first Battle of Olmedo in 1445, Pacheco received the title I marqués of Villena, and he continued to exercise considerable influence during the reign of Enrique IV. For more information on Pacheco’s biography and tenure at court, see Marino (2006).

138 Juan de Luna was gobernador of Soria and also enjoyed a prestigious position within Luna’s casa as the husband of Luna’s illegitimate daughter, María de Luna (Franco Silva, “El destino” 294).

92 294). Nevertheless, to protect her granddaughter’s fortune, Juana Pimentel was forced to seek political support from the Mendoza clan (Franco Silva, “El destino” 294).

Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, II marqués of Santillana, also opposed Pacheco because he occupied the Mendoza clan’s township of Guadalajara on behalf of Enrique IV in 1459

(Nader 117).139 The Mendoza clan exercised a longstanding political influence in

Guadalajara and controlled property surrounding the city, as well as the señoríos of Hita and

Buitrago in the nearby province of Madrid.140 In an effort to retain control of this domain and to undermine Pacheco’s political aims, the II marqués of Santillana arranged the marriage of his son to María de Luna.

In retaliation, Pacheco convinced Enrique IV to revoke all of Juana Pimentel’s property in 1461 (Franco Silva, “El destino” 298-99). The king also accused Juana Pimentel of subverting royal authority, for which offense she was condemned to death (Franco Silva,

139 The future Enrique IV joined forces with the infantes of Aragón, and in 1441, Luna convinced Juan II to grant the city of Guadalajara to the prince as a means to renegotiate his allegiance to the Castilian monarchy (Nader 48-49). However, Santillana was furious at the prospect of forfeiting his domain. Juan II deescalated the tense situation by exiling Luna from court (Nader 49). When the Constable quickly returned, however, Santillana informed Juan II that his future military support of the Castilian monarchy depended on the king’s bequest of additional properties and titles (Nader 49). This agreement led to Santillana’s appointment as I marqués of Santillana following his participation in the first Battle of Olmedo on behalf of Juan II alongside Luna, who was also promoted to Master of Santiago (Nader 49). Santillana received the first hereditary title of marqués in Castile (Nader 110).

140 During the reign of Juan II, the future Enrique IV had previously attempted to acquire the same township, but his efforts were thwarted by the I marqués of Santillana (Franco Silva, “El destino” 295). The Mendoza clan’s presence in Guadalajara dated to the first half of the fourteenth century, when Gonzalo Yáñez de Mendoza, montero mayor to Alfonso XI, settled in Guadalajara upon his marriage to an heiress of the Orozco clan (Layna Serrano, El Palacio 15). His heir, Pero González de Mendoza, was a staunch supporter of Enrique II, and in exchange for his loyalty to the king, González de Mendoza received grants that formed the basis of the Mendoza clan’s patrimony in Guadalajara, as well as the señoríos of Hita and Buitrago (Nader 39). In 1385, with his third wife, Aldonza Fernández de Ayala, González de Mendoza founded a mayorazgo for his lineage (Layna Serrano, El Palacio 15). His son, Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, almirante of Castile, further established the Mendoza clan’s influence in Guadalajara when he retained the right for himself and his descendants to choose the city’s representatives to the Cortes and received the patronage of the city offices as a royal grant (Nader 42-43). Hurtado de Mendoza’s heir, the I marqués of Santillana, actively defended his lineage’s claim to Guadalajara and also expanded the Mendoza clan’s influence in the region by acquiring twelve nearby townships that Juan II confiscated from the infantes of Aragón (Nader 50). For more information on the Mendoza clan, including its domain in Guadalajara, see Nader (1979), Layna Serrano (1993, 1997) and Ana Belén Sánchez Prieto (2001).

93 “El destino” 299).141 Although Enrique IV later pardoned her and even granted her an income of 125,000 maravedís from Luna’s confiscated property, Juana Pimentel’s desperate situation forced her to accept the marriage of her granddaughter, Juana de Luna, to Diego

López Pacheco, II marqués of Villena, in 1469 (Franco Silva, “El destino” 300).

The Villena and Mendoza lineages used their respective marriage alliances with

Juana de Luna and María de Luna to lay claim to Luna’s expansive patrimony. Most of

Luna’s property, including his prestigious domain at Escalona, was subsumed into the

Villena estate. Nevertheless, through a series of military and legal maneuvers, the Mendoza clan recovered significant territories, including Alamín, la Torre de Esteban Hambrán, San

Martín de Valdeiglesias, and the villas of Infantado. This last property was in Pacheco’s possession until 1470, when he returned it to Enrique IV in exchange for the señorío of

Requena (Franco Silva, “La fortuna” 300). Enrique IV required the villas of Infantado to secure the release of his wife, Juana of Portgual, and daughter, Juana, both of whom who had been in the custody of the II marqués of Santillana since the second Battle of Olmedo in

1467 (Franco Silva, “La fortuna” 300-301). The villas of Infantado were valuable to the II marqués of Santillana because of the proximity of these townships to Guadalajara. Later,

141 Furious at the intervention of the Mendoza clan, Pacheco arranged for Enrique IV to order the marriage of Juana de Luna to Diego López Pacheco, and when Juana Pimentel refused to obey, Pacheco had the king confiscate her property (Franco Silva, “El destino” 298). Juana de Luna’s protector, Juan de Luna, was exiled from Castile, and Juana Pimentel sought refuge in the castle in Montalbán (Franco Silva, “El destino” 298). Enrique IV also attempted to seize the property of María de Luna and her husband, but the king acquiesced to the Mendoza clan’s objections. The king allowed them to keep their property on the condition that they did not provide aid to either Juan de Luna or Juana Pimentel (Franco Silva, ”El destino” 298). As part of Juana Pimentel’s punishment, she agreed to do penance by undertaking a pilgrimage to Jerusalem barefoot and refusing aid to Juan de Luna (Franco Silva, “El destino” 298). However, Enrique IV condemned her to death for subverting his authority when she allegedly allowed Juan de Luna to seek shelter at the castle in Montalbán (Franco Silva, “El destino” 298-99). The king granted the señorío of Montalbán to Pacheco and distributed the rest of Juana Pimentel’s property to other nobles (Franco Silva, “El destino” 299). As a result of these unfortunate events, Juana Pimentel has received the epithet “la triste condesa.” For more information about her life and relationship with the Mendoza clan, see Cristian Berco (2004).

94 they further enhanced the Mendoza clan’s prestige in association with the title I duque of

Infantado, which the Catholic Monarchs granted to the II marqués of Santillana in 1475.142

The II marqués of Santillana’s machinations to secure the Mendoza clan’s prosperity—the marriage alliance with María de Luna, military and legal battles, and ransom—rivaled the nefarious actions of his enemy, Pacheco, and also resembled the motives for which his father, the I marqués of Santillana, criticized Luna in the “Doctrinal de privados” and the “Coplas contra don Álvaro de Luna.” In these texts, the I marqués of

Santillana excoriated Luna for the sin of greed, but, later, his son—Luna’s son-in-law, the I duque of Infantado—benefitted from Luna’s extensive patrimony. However, neither father nor son would have accused the other of hypocrisy. Both sought to defend the Mendoza clan’s standing in an elite network that included relatives, allies, and rivals.143

While Luna was a rival of the I marqués of Santillana, their descendants reshaped this network by forging a mutually beneficial alliance. The Mendoza clan checked Pacheco’s power and enhanced its own status by acquiring some of Luna’s patrimony. This acquisition

142 During the War of Castilian Succession, the Mendoza clan supported the Catholic Monarchs, who in turn rewarded their allies with royal grants. Isabel I confirmed the Mendoza clan’s acquisition of property that had formed part of Luna’s patrimony (Franco Silva, “El destino” 303). However, the Mendoza and Villena lineages disputed the ownership of San Esteban de Gormaz and Montalbán (Franco Silva, “El destino” 303). In 1488, they attempted to resolve this dispute by arranging a double marriage between the two clans (Franco Silva, “El destino” 304). As part of this agreement, the II marqués of Villena’s son, Juan Pacheco de Luna, would inherit the condado of San Esteban de Gormaz, but he died before his arranged marriage was celebrated (Franco Silva, “El destino” 304). The dispute reignited, and in 1503, Isabel I decided the matter by granting San Esteban de Gormaz to the Villena estate (Franco Silva, “El destino” 305). Isabel I also mandated that, in return, the Mendoza clan should receive a sum of one million maravedís (Franco Silva, “El destino” 305). The queen also negotiated a new marriage alliance between the two rival casas (Franco Silva, “El destino” 305). Nevertheless, the legal battle over Montalbán persisted until 1520, when Pacheco’s descendants secured possession of this property (Franco Silva, “El destino” 307).

143 This motivation also explains Santillana’s wavering support for Luna during his lifetime. For example, Santillana opposed Luna’s encroachment on Guadalajara, yet fought alongside him in the first Battle of Olmedo. In both instances, Santillana’s actions reflected his consistent prioritization of the Mendoza clan’s prosperity. As Helen Nader explains, “Santillana practiced a politics of necessity and opportunism—signing agreements and then breaking them, changing his support from one leader to another, withholding military service until his demands were met, defying the king’s will by barricading himself in the fortresses at Hita and Buitrago and later residing at the royal court to protect his own interests” (47-48). His son employed a similar strategy to protect the Mendoza clan’s interests during the reign of Enrique IV.

95 also reversed the fortunes of Juana Pimentel and María de Luna following Luna’s execution and their subsequent forfeiture of property. The new bonds of kinship that these women formed with the Mendoza clan not only ensured their prosperity, but also allowed Juana

Pimentel and María de Luna to restore the posthumous memory and final resting place of

Luna in the Chapel of Santiago.

III. The Redemption of Luna’s Memory

Following the destruction of Luna’s effigy in 1441, the Chapel of Santiago was unrestored until 1484, when Juana Pimentel undertook its rededication. Upon her death four years later, her daughter completed the restoration of the Chapel of Santiago by commissioning an elaborate retable and new tombs. Through these efforts, María de Luna sought to redeem her father’s memory. The completed Chapel of Santiago served a similar purpose as the Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna, which Gonzalo de Chacón composed to defend Luna’s virtue and fame. Both Chacón’s text and the restored Chapel of Santiago were intended to secure Luna’s posthumous status in a newly reconstituted sociopolitical network.

Luna’s downfall cast a shadow of infamy on his legacy. Following his execution on

June 2, his head was displayed on the scaffold for nine days as a reminder of the king’s authority to punish individuals who attempted to usurp royal power (Lenaghan 134). In addition, alms were collected to facilitate Luna’s burial. Given Luna’s former preeminence, which at its height rivaled that of Juan II, “…the collection of alms was humiliating and underlined how far he had fallen” (Vivanco 76). A charitable confraternity, the Frailes de la

Misericordia, buried Luna’s body in the church of Saint Andrew and later moved Luna’s remains to the Monastery of Saint Francis in Valladolid (Moya García 62).

96 Luna’s disgrace motivated Juana Pimentel and María de Luna to restore the Chapel of

Santiago as an architectural statement of its founder’s virtue. In 1484, Juana Pimentel endowed the chapel with three chaplains, each of whom said three masses weekly, and one of whom sang an additional mass to the Virgin Mary every Saturday (Lenaghan 132). She also instructed the chaplains to say a response over the burials at the end of each service

(Lenaghan 132). This provision was also intended to both benefit the souls of the deceased, including Luna, and redeem his memory in connection to his final resting place in the magnificent funerary chapel (Lenaghan 132).144 Upon the death of Juana Pimentel in 1488, she was interred in the Chapel of Santiago alongside Luna.

María de Luna continued the effort to refurbish the chapel. In 1488, she commissioned an elaborate retable from Pedro de Gumiel and Sancho de Zamora. The altarpiece is notable both for its gothic design and the representations of members of Luna’s casa in the company of saints. The retable is divided into three horizontal sections, each of which contains five panels. The first section depicts Saint Catherine of Alexandria, Saint

Agatha, the Virgin Mary enthroned, Saint Lucy, and Saint Martha (Vélez-Sainz,

“Mecenazgo” 190). The central section represents Saint Christopher, Saint John the Baptist, a sculpture of Santiago, Saint Isidore of Seville, and Saint Ildefonso (Vélez-Sainz,

“Mecenazgo” 183). The third section displays the Archbishop of Toledo Juan de Cerezuela,

144 Scholars disagree on when Luna was likely reinterred in the Chapel of Santiago. Some fix this date around 1484 in light of Juana Pimentel’s endowment of three capellanías. However, others suggest that Luna’s remains were moved from Valladolid much earlier because Gonzalo de Chacón mentions the Chapel of Santiago in the Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna. In the last chapter, the author explains that when he accompanied the future Isabel I and her brother, Alfonso, to Toledo, he took them to the Chapel of Santiago. He describes it as “vna mucho notable capilla que el bienaventurado Maestre abía fundado a muy grand costa en la iglesia catredal de Toledo” (Chacón 437). This visit likely occurred in 1468 (Kasl 42). Some scholars suggest that Luna was buried in the Chapel of Santiago around this time, given Chacón’s emphasis on the monument’s magnificence. Otherwise, the Chapel of Santiago would have been unrestored following the destruction of Luna’s effigy in 1441.

97 Luna, the Passion of Christ, Juana Pimentel, and the Archbishop of Toledo and Cardinal of

Spain Pedro González de Mendoza (Vélez-Sainz, “Mecenazgo” 187).

The arrangement of images aligns the Virgin Mary, the apostle Santiago, and the

Passion of Christ in the center panel of each horizontal section. The images of Luna and

Juana Pimentel in the third section appear to show these individuals’ devotion to the religious figures in the center panels.145 Immediately to the left of the image of the Passion of Christ,

Luna is represented in a reverent kneeling position, as if in prayer or taking the Eucharist, dressed as a knight in the Order of Santiago (Vélez-Sainz, “Mecenazgo” 187). Similarly,

Juana Pimentel faces the Passion of Christ on the other side, also in a kneeling position, dressed in a nun’s habit (Vélez-Sainz, “Mecenazgo” 187).146 Through these representations, the retable quite literally paints a picture of Luna and Juana Pimentel’s virtue as embodied in their physical postures, which convey piety and steadfastness.

This artistic statement of virtue is echoed in the iconography of the tombs that María de Luna commissioned from the sculptor Sebastián de Almonacid in 1489 (Lenaghan 130).

In contrast to the seated bronze effigy of Luna that was previously destroyed, the new tombs feature alabaster effigies of Luna wearing a cloak over armor and of Juana Pimentel dressed

145 Vélez-Sainz (2012) has demonstrated that the images of the saints in the retable also convey Luna’s virtue. The statue of Santiago in the center of the retable clearly corresponds to the dedication of the funerary chapel, which in turn occurred as a result of Luna’s promotion to administrator of the Order of Santiago. In addition, all of the female saints in the first horizontal section of the retable are mentioned in Luna’s Libro de las claras e virtuosas mugeres (Vélez-Sainz, “Mecenazgo” 190). There are also overt similarities between the circumstances of Saint Agatha’s death as described in the text and the motivations that led María de Luna to refurbish the Chapel of Santiago (Vélez-Sainz, “Mecenazgo” 191). Saint Agatha was unjustly executed and rescued by the apostle Santiago, after which a church was dedicated in her honor (Vélez-Sainz, “Mecenazgo” 191). In María de Luna’s estimation, Luna—who was Master of Santiago—was also unjustly executed, and she sought to redeem his memory by restoring the Chapel of Santiago as an emblem of his virtue (Vélez-Sainz, “Mecenazgo” 191).

146 According to Vélez-Sainz, Juana Pimentel’s habit reflects the fact that she joined a convent after Luna’s death (“Mecenazgo” 187). This scholar also suggests that the kneeling position in which Juana Pimentel and Luna are depicted in the retable may be a nod to their original seated effigies (Vélez-Sainz, “Mecenazgo” 187).

98 as a nun, both with hands clasped in peaceful repose (Lenaghan 130). The base of each tomb features sculpted reliefs of religious Virtues, the apostles, and the deceased’s coat of arms supported by angels (Lenaghan 130). Along the base, kneeling figures evoke the similar posture of Luna and Juana Pimentel in the retable. These figures also create a scene of mourning that is targeted to the identities of the deceased. Knights of the Order of Santiago flank each side of Luna’s tomb, and Juana Pimentel’s sepulcher is flanked by friars

(Lenaghan 130).147 These sculptural details and the images of the retable create an iconographical program that was intended to redeem Luna’s memory and reinstate his lineage’s fame.

María de Luna’s actions are similar to those of Leonor López de Córdoba. She constructed the Chapel of the Rosary as a means to restore her family’s sociopolitical status following Martín López de Córdoba’s execution and her own dismissal from Catalina of

Lancaster’s court.148 Leonor memorialized her father as a loyal member of Pedro I’s casa by adorning Martín López de Córdoba’s tomb with symbols of his preeminence at court: gold lions and the cross and standard of the Order of Calatrava (Lacarra, “La última” 201). As a pantheon for numerous other relatives, including Leonor’s children, the Chapel of the Rosary

147 Numerous scholars have analyzed the iconography and intended prestige of the tombs that María de Luna commissioned. For more information, see Juan Carrete Parrondo (1975), Rodríguez Porto (2003), Lenaghan (2010), Vélez-Sainz (2012), Martínez López (2013), and Villaseñor Sebastián (2013).

148 In addition to the similar motivations of both women’s architectural patronage, the Chapel of the Rosary and the Chapel of Santiago share a similar Hispano-Flemish gothic style, which was popular in fifteenth-century Castile. As trefoil chapels, they have a similar octagonal floor plan and star-pointed vault and also feature sculptural details of the respective patrons’ coat of arms. They were also completed within a few years of each other: Leonor’s grandson, Luis Fernández de Henestrosa, refurbished the Chapel of the Rosary in 1482, and Juana Pimentel and María de Luna restored the Chapel of Santiago from 1484 to 1488. In addition to the similarities between Leonor López de Córdoba and Luna’s funerary chapels, scholars have also compared the individuals themselves. For more information on comparisons of Leonor and Luna’s trajectories at court, see Juan Lovera (1989) and Hutcheson (2001). For more information on trefoil chapels and gothic architecture in Castile, see Alonso Ruiz (2005).

99 proclaimed the elite sociopolitical status of their lineage, which Leonor reinforced through the creation of two mayorazgos for her descendants.

María de Luna took a similar approach in her renovations to the Chapel of Santiago.

She overlooked her father’s disgrace and emphasized his virtue as a knight and as Master of the Order of Santiago in both the retable and the iconography of his tomb. In addition, the walls of the chapel were adorned with the scallop shell emblem of the Order of Santiago in reference to both the chapel’s patron saint and the prestige that Luna enjoyed as administrator and Master of Santiago.149 She also interred four of Luna’s relatives in niches along the chapel walls. Luna’s half brother, the Archbishop of Toledo Juan de Cerezuela, is buried immediately to the left of the retable, adjacent to the panel that bears his likeness (Vélez-

Sainz, “Mecenazgo” 187). Three paternal relatives—Luna’s uncle, the Archbishop of Toledo

Pedro de Luna, Luna’s father, and Luna’s son, Juan de Luna—are also interred in the Chapel of Santiago (Río de la Hoz 79). However, María de Luna purposefully excluded Luna’s mother, whose lack of noble lineage had generated criticism of Luna by nobles such as Pérez de Guzmán and Santillana (Lenaghan 134-35). By creating a pantheon for only the most illustrious members of Luna’s casa, María de Luna used the refurbished Chapel of Santiago to defend her lineage’s prestige.

In this way, the Chapel of Santiago is an architectural statement of Luna’s virtue that is analogous in purpose to the Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna. The author, Chacón, was a steward of Luna and Juana Pimentel and compiled this text in the decades following Luna’s

149 Knights, commanders, and masters of Santiago regularly evoked their roles in the Order through the location and adornments of their burial sites. For more information on Luna’s Chapel of Santiago as an example of this practice, see Miguel Cortés Arrese (1999) and Pérez Monzón (2007).

100 execution to defend the disgraced Constable (Berco 40).150 Using an adapted form of the royal chronicle, 151 Chacón interprets the events of Luna’s rise to power and execution as evidence of Luna’s innate virtue and loyal service to the monarch.

Just as María de Luna emphasizes Luna’s connection to illustrious relatives through their burials in the Chapel of Santiago, Chacón glosses over Luna’s illegitimate status and humble origin. The author simply states that Luna was “del noble e escogido linaje de la casa de Luna, que es de los nobles prinçipales del reyno de Aragón” (Chacón 8). To support this point, Chacón explains that Luna’s lineage is innately virtuous because it was recognized “así por nobleza de linaje como por mucha antigüedad e grandeza de patrimonio, e avn porque salieron siempre de aquella notables e escogidos hombres” (8).152

In addition to endowing Luna with a virtuous lineage, Chacón implies that the

Constable’s true worth is divinely inspired. He argues that Luna demonstrated virtue because he was “conseruado en la limpia criança que ovo, e nutrido polida e delicadamente, por

150 Most scholars agree that Chacón was the principal author of the Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna and that this text took its final shape in the decades after Luna’s execution. However, there is considerable disagreement regarding how this process unfolded. For example, Gonzalo Montiel Roig (1997) affirms the traditional view that Chacón composed the text after Luna’s execution, while François Foronda (2010) supports the assertion that the Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna was compiled from two separate texts: the Crónica laudatoria, which was written in three sections before 1445, from 1446 to 1448, and after 1507, and the Crónica Chacón, which written between 1462 and 1465 (Foronda, “Patronazgo” 436).

151 Although the Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna is adapted from the format of a royal chronicle, scholars recognize the influence of historical writing and identify elements of fiction and novelistic discourse in Chacón’s text. For more information on these interpretations, see Antonio Giménez (1975, 1976) and Dolores Pelaez (1992).

152 Lynne Echegaray notes that all of Luna’s mentioned relatives in the Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna are paternal. As she explains, Luna’s lineage was a problem based on “…the unfavorable reputation of Luna’s mother. To solve this problem, Chacón skillfully crafted his biography so that it never mentioned her at all. Moreover, neither the genealogical section nor the remainder of the chronicle contains identifiable maternal relatives” (Echegaray 81). Echegaray refers to this technique as “silencing” because the omission of Luna’s mother allowed Chacón “to defend Luna from attacks on his maternal family by his fifteenth-century critics” (88). María de Luna apparently used a similar technique when she excluded Luna’s mother from burial in the Chapel of Santiago. However, María de Luna did include a member of Luna’s casa on his maternal side: Juan de Cerezuela, who was the son of Luna’s mother and her husband, the alcaide of Cañete, Nicolás de Cerezuela. Nevertheless, Juan de Cerezuela’s prestigious position as Archbishop of Toledo—which he received through Luna’s influence—enhanced the prestige of Luna’s burial in connection to illustrious relatives.

101 dispusición e voluntad del poderoso Dios, como aquel que para tan grand señorío e para gobernación de tantas gentes lo criava e guardava” (Chacón 12). With this affirmation,

Chacón contests disparaging accounts of Luna’s greed by nobles such as Pérez de Guzmán and Santillana and instead suggests that Luna’s acquisition of prestigious offices, properties, and titles are deserved honors that reflect his divine favor.

This association of Luna’s virtue with divine blessing evokes the strategies that don

Juan Manuel and Leonor López de Córdoba employed in their respective texts to assert their superiority over the monarch. However, Chacón affirms Luna’s divine blessing as a means to emphasize Luna’s loyalty to Juan II. The author casts Luna as a martyr who happily submits to the temporal authority of the monarch and the divine authority of Providence in the moment of his execution. As the author explains, “E como de los mártyres se cuenta que iban con el alegre cara a rescibir martyrio e muerte por la Fe de Jesu-Christo, semejantemente iba el bienaventurado Maestre, sin turbaçión alguna que en su gesto paresciesse, a gustar e tragar el gusto e trago de la muerte, conosçiendo de sí mismo que siendo inocente…” (432). The author expresses no doubt as to the ultimate salvation of Luna’s soul because he spent the night before his death “ordenando… su alma, e descargando su conçiençia” (Chacón 430).

Chacón’s description of Luna as “bienaventurado” and his previous affirmation of the divine origin of the Constable’s virtue attribute an honorable purpose to an otherwise shameful death (430).153 Specifically, Chacón interprets Luna’s execution as a Christ-like sacrifice.

153 Chacón’s praise echoes the glorification of Luna in Mena’s textual production. Chacón describes Luna with the same word—“bienaventurado”—that Mena uses in the Proemio. In addition, Chacón reproduces a lyric poem—poem 32 in Pérez Priego’s edition of Mena’s works—that Mena composed to glorify the Constable based on his military prowess. However, the version of this poem in the Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna contains an additional verse that is not included in other editions (Moya García 70). In addition to alluding to Mena’s works to bolster his praise of Luna, Chacón reacts to works that disparaged Luna. For example, Chacón’s description of Luna’s confession as a guarantee of his salvation contradicts Santillana’s representation in the “Doctrinal de privados.” Santillana explains that Luna confesses his sins and commends his soul to God, but the ignominious nature of his death seems to overshadow any hope of salvation. Even though Luna admits,

102 The author includes an overt reference to Christ’s crucifixion by explaining that not only was the Constable arrested on Good Friday, he also arrived at his execution riding on a mule, just as Christ did on his triumphant entry into Jerusalem the week before his Passion (432).

Chacón uses this account to restore Luna’s posthumous fame. By alleging Luna’s divine favor, the author establishes continuity between Luna’s rise to power and execution, both of which emphasize Luna’s loyalty to Juan II. In this way, the text is a political model with “una fuerte carga didáctica: la vida del condestable serviría de ejemplo para el aprendizaje y como libro de referencia para los caballeros vinculados a la corte” (Montiel

Roig 188).

One of the members of court who likely benefitted from the Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna was Chacón himself. In addition to serving as a steward to Luna, Chacón was active at court following the death of Juan II. During the reign of Enrique IV, Chacón was contador and also served the future Isabel I as her guardian. Once she ascended to the throne, Chacón continued to occupy his post as contador and also became Isabel I’s mayordomo mayor.

Chacón’s own service to the queen gave him good reason to “…defender la figura política de un noble dedicado en exclusiva al servicio de la corona y leal a ésta por encima de todo”

(Montiel Roig 190). The author’s praise of Luna for his loyalty to Juan II, even in death, reflected positively on Chacón, both as a member of Luna’s casa and as a faithful courtier of

Isabel I.154 Chacón demonstrated his loyalty to Isabel I by delaying the publication of the

“Grandes fueron mis pecados; / grand misericordia pido / a ti, mi Dios infinido, / que perdonas los culpados,” his death is clearly not exemplary (Santillana, “Doctrinal” 393-96).

154 As Montiel Roig explains, “Podemos interpreter que Chacón se está vinculando en este texto a un defensor de la corona, un defensor que, como él, merece ser recompensado por los servicios prestados” (194). In this way, Chacón’s praise of Luna in the Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna is similar to Mena’s glorification of him in Laberinto de Fortuna because both authors sought to enhance their own sociopolitical status. However, in Chacón’s case, this effort went a step further. Chacón not only demonstrated that he was a loyal servant to Luna

103 Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna until after the deaths of all principal and secondary political figures mentioned in the text (Giménez, “El problema” 539).155

However, during Chacón’s lifetime, the Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna was likely read by Luna’s descendants and by courtiers associated with Luna’s casa, who were the author’s contemporaries.156 These readers not only benefitted from the didactic implications of the text as a model of behavior, but also used the Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna to defend their sociopolitical status following Luna’s ignominious demise. For example, Luna’s illegitimate son, Pedro de Luna, may have commissioned Chacón’s redemptive biography of

Luna in the years immediately following his father’s execution (Montiel Roig 183). In this case, Pedro de Luna likely “…patrocinó la escritura del texto no sólo con vistas a limpiar el buen nombre de su padre, sino para justificar sus derechos y los de sus descendientes sobre los bienes confiscados” (Montiel Roig 183). Chacón’s insistence on Luna’s loyalty to Juan II would have strengthened the claims of Luna’s descendants by invalidating the king’s original revocation of Luna’s patrimony (Montiel Roig 181).

This same reasoning also positions the Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna as a written defense of the Mendoza clan’s interests following the marriage of the III marqués of

Santillana to María de Luna. In addition to providing evidence that potentially supported the

Mendoza clan’s claim to Luna’s property, Chacón acknowledged the political ramifications

through episodes in which the author appears alongside the Constable in the text, but also sets himself up as dependable courtier who deserves recognition from Isabel I.

155 These political figures include Enrique IV of Castile, Isabel I, and their first cousin, Juan II of Aragón (Giménez, “El problema” 539). The Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna was first published in 1546 in Milan. Chacón’s delay in publishing the chronicle may reveal the influence of Pérez de Guzmán’s model of historiography in Generaciones y semblanzas (Giménez, “El problema” 539). In this text, the author advocates that “la estoria non sea publicada viviendo el rey o prínçipe en cuyo tienpo e señorío se hordena, porque’l estoriador sea libre para escrivir la verdad sin temor” (Pérez de Guzmán 64).

156 For more information on the individuals who were likely impacted by the Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna in the years immediately following Luna’s execution, see Foronda (2010).

104 of this marriage alliance in his text. For example, the author praises the I marqués of

Santillana, despite his historical enmity toward Luna (Moya García 72). Chacón’s praise of

Santillana tacitly acknowledges María de Luna’s marriage to Santillana’s grandson and the preeminence of the Mendoza clan at Isabel I’s court.

In this way, the Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna serves the same purpose as the

Chapel of Santiago: in addition to restoring Luna’s fame, both the text and monument defend the sociopolitical status of Luna’s casa following its alliance with the Mendoza clan. Juana

Pimentel and María de Luna were only able to complete the Chapel of Santiago because they shared bonds of kinship with the fifteenth-century Mendoza clan. Upon the death of the I duque of Infantado in 1479, his son—María de Luna’s husband—inherited the title and, with it, the Mendoza clan’s wealth, which funded the reconstruction of Luna’s funerary chapel.

Juana Pimentel and María de Luna received political support for this project from the II duque of Infantado’s uncle, Cardinal Pedro González de Mendoza, a trusted advisor to the

Catholic Monarchs, who appointed him Archbishop of Toledo in 1482 (Lenaghan 140). With their backing, Juana Pimentel and María de Luna received approval from the cathedral chapter to restore the Chapel of Santiago in 1483 (Lenaghan 140). In recognition of the

Mendoza clan’s support, Cardinal Mendoza is depicted adjacent to Juana Pimentel in the retable that María de Luna commissioned in 1488 (Vélez-Sainz, “Mecenazgo” 187).

The Mendoza clan supported Juana Pimentel and María de Luna’s patronage of the

Chapel of Santiago because this monument also memorialized the landholdings they received from Luna’s estate (Lenaghan 141). However, neither the II duque of Infantado nor María de

Luna chose to be buried in the Chapel of Santiago. Instead, they were both buried in

Guadalajara, where they were patrons of other monuments for the Mendoza lineage. For

105 example, from 1478 to 1480, the II duque of Infantado expanded the Mendoza clan’s castle in Real de Manzanares (Layna Serrano, El palacio 23). Shortly thereafter, he initiated the construction of a magnificent palace in Guadalajara to commemorate the increased prestige of his lineage in light of its recent receipt of the hereditary title duques of Infantado (Layna

Serrano, El palacio 23).157 This title was conferred upon the villas of Infantado, which the

Mendoza clan received from Luna’s forfeited patrimony.

The prosperity of both the Mendoza and Luna lineages in late fifteenth-century

Castile is a direct result of their matrimonial and political alliances. Through these unions and their associated consolidation of property, the I and II duques of Infantado, Juana

Pimentel, and María de Luna successfully enhanced their sociopolitical status in an elite network. They were also able to restore Luna’s posthumous fame in the Chapel of Santiago.

This monument ensured that the memory of Luna would not disappear from the network that his descendants dominated.

157 The castle in Real de Manzanares was begun in the fourteenth century by Pero González de Mendoza, who also founded a mayorazgo for his lineage in 1385 (Layna Serrano, El Palacio 15). His descendants continued the Mendoza clan’s architectural patronage. For example, the I marqués of Santillana completed the castle and also built a wall around the señorío of Hita, a hospital in Buitrago, and the church of San Francisco in Guadalajara, which served as a pantheon for the Mendoza lineage (Layna Serrano, El Palacio 16). His grandson, the II duque of Infantado, was buried in this pantheon (Beceiro Pita and Córdoba de la Llave 106). For more information about the Mendoza clan’s architectural patronage as a strategy to enhance its prestige, see Bayón (1991), Jara Fuente (1996), Francisco Layna Serrano (1993, 1997), Sánchez Prieto (2001), Yarza Luaces (2003), Adolfo Carrasco Martínez (2005), and Pablo Ortego Rico (2008)

106

CHAPTER 4: THE CONSOLATION AND COMMEMORATION OF FAME IN THE MANRIQUE CLAN’S POETRY AND FUNERARY PRACTICES

Throughout the fifteenth century, political conflicts—such as the ones surrounding

Luna’s rise and fall from power—destabilized the Castilian elites’ networks. In addition to the Mendoza patriarchs, their Manrique relatives faced threats to their status. The Manrique lineage traced its origin to the powerful Lara family and controlled the señorío of Amusco since the mid-thirteenth century (Domínguez, Love 4-5).158 The VIII señor of Amusco, Pedro

Manrique, further increased this clan’s prestige by assuming the position of adelantado mayor of León and acquiring the hereditary señorío of Paredes de Nava. His descendants obtained additional lordships, ecclesiastical titles, and positions in the royal administration.

Notable among them are his sons Gómez Manrique, señor of Velvimbre and corregidor of

Toledo during the reign of the Catholic Monarchs, and Rodrigo Manrique, I conde of

Paredes, Trece in the Order of Santiago, and Master of Santiago for Castile.159 Rodrigo’s son

158 For more information about the origin and history of the Manrique clan, see José Martín Jiménez (1969), Domínguez (1988), and Rosa María Montero Tejada (1996).

159 Pedro Manrique married Leonor de Castilla, who enjoyed a preeminent status as a granddaughter of Enrique II and the daughter of the duque of Benavente (Domínguez, Love 5). In addition to their sons Rodrigo and Gómez, their other children also enhanced their lineage’s prestige through the acquision of property. Their oldest son, Diego, inherited his father’s estate in Amusco and also became I conde of Treviño; another son, Pedro, was señor of Valdescaray; Íñigo became Archbishop of Seville; Juan was Archdeacon of Valpuesta; Fadrique became señor of Baños; and García was señor of Amayuelas (Domínguez, Love 5). Five of Pedro Manrique and Leonor de Castilla’s daughters also achieved advantageous marriages that contributed to their lineage’s elite status. Beatriz married the I conde of Haro; Juana married the II conde of Denia, through whom she also became condesa of Castro; Leonor married the I duque of Béjar; Inés married the II señor of Cañete, whose sister, Beatriz, was Rodrigo Manrique’s second wife; María married the señor of Fuentidueña; and Isabel married the conde of Oñate (Domínguez, Love 5). Another daughter, Aldonza, became Abbess of the convent of Saint Mary of Consolation in Calabazanos, which was founded as the Manrique clan’s principal burial place in Palencia (Domínguez, Love 5). María Manrique also joined this family foundation after her marriage was annulled on the grounds of her infertility (Salvador Miguel 136). She succeeded Aldonza as Abbess in 1468 (Salvador Miguel 141).

107 Jorge Manrique was also active in the Order of Santiago as Commander of Montizón and a member of the Trece (Alda Tesán 16).160

Gómez, Rodrigo, and Jorge Manrique regularly engaged in battles to defend their property and ensure the continued prosperity of their lineage. These individuals also turned to textual production, specifically poetry, for this same reason.161 Gómez Manrique composed the untitled consolation poem “No pocas vezes, muy noble e virtuosa señora” (1458) for his sister, Juana Manrique, following the loss of her husband’s inheritance and the “Consolatoria hordenada por Gómez Manrrique para la muy noble señora doña Juana de Mendoça” (1480) for his wife upon the deaths of two of their children. Gómez also composed the “Defunsión del noble cauallero Garçía Laso de la Vega” (1458) to memorialize Garcilaso, a relative who died in battle, and defend his descendants’ control of strategic properties in the Order of

Santiago. Similarly, Jorge Manrique wrote the “Coplas por la muerte de su padre” (1476-

1479) to glorify his father, Rodrigo Manrique, and advocate for the Catholic Monarchs’ continued support of the Manrique clan.

Numerous scholars have studied these four poems as commemorative tributes,162 while others have also commented on their political projection.163 This chapter expands upon

160 Within the Order of Santiago, the Trece was “un consejo consultativo del maestre encargado también de su elección” (Ayala Martínez 332). However, during and after Luna’s tenure as Master of Santiago, the king exercised increasing influence on this military religious order. Upon Luna’s death, the position of Master remained under the administration of the Castilian monarch, which allowed Juan II and Enrique IV to exert tighter control over both the kingdom and the properties governed by the Order. Enrique IV also maintained an active role in overseeing the Orders of Calatrava and Alcántara (Phillips 22). By doing so, he enhanced his own prestige as monarch but also angered nobles who were actively involved in the military orders, such as the Manrique clan in the Order of Santiago (Domínguez, Love 12). In 1462, Enrique IV further alienated the nobility by appointing a lowborn favorite, Beltrán de la Cueva, to the position of Master of Santiago (Phillips 48).

161 Scholars have focused on the works of Gómez and Jorge Manrique, although Rodrigo also composed lyric poetry, as did his father, the adelantado of León Pedro Manrique. For more information on the Manrique clan’s textual production, see Joaquín de Entrambasaguas (1996).

162 See, for example, Rafael Lapesa (1979), Deyermond (1987), Sieber (1989, 1993), and Kennedy (2008).

108 these arguments by examining Gómez and Jorge Manrique’s poems as a corpus that was intended to perpetuate the fame of the Manrique lineage. The authors composed their texts to defend their clan’s sociopolitical status in response to misfortunes, specifically the forfeiture of property and the deaths of illustrious relatives. The intended purpose of each work aligns with that of a religious foundation patronized by the Manrique clan and its allies. Gómez’s consolation poems are analogous to the convent of Saint Mary of Consolation in Calabazanos as emblems of the Manrique clan’s fame, and the “Defunsión” aligns with the familial context of Garcilaso’s interment in the convent of Saint Clara in Zafra, which Gómez also mentions in the text. In the “Coplas,” Jorge memorializes his father as Master of Santiago, a position that Rodrigo also commemorated through his elected burial in the convent of Uclés.

Individually, these texts are memorials that are similar in purpose to the Manrique clan’s religious foundations. As a corpus, Gómez and Jorge’s poems surpass these foundations as representations of the Manrique lineage’s virtue and elite sociopolitical status.

I. The Consolation of the Manrique Clan’s Fame164

Gómez Manrique composed two consolation poems for female members of his family in 1458 and 1480. Despite the fact that “No pocas vezes” and the “Consolatoria” are separated by a quarter of a century, they share key similarities: each work begins with an epistolary introduction directed to the women, and in both texts the author adapts the

163 See, for example, Humberto C. Márquez (1971), Antonio Serrano de Haro (1975), José B. Monleón (1983), David H. Darst (1985), Julio Rodríguez Puértolas (1985, 1986), Domínguez (1988), Carl Atlee (2010), and Vicente Beltrán Pepió (2016). Scholars have also analyzed the political overtones of Gómez Manrique’s satirical and moral poetry, such as “A Diego Arias de Áuila” (1459-1462) and the Esclamaçión e querella de la gouernaçión (1461-1462). For example, see Marino (2003), José María Rodríguez García (2005), Atlee (2007), and Round (2013). For additional information on Gómez’s textual production, see Scholberg (1994), Francisco Vidal González (2003), Eloy Recio Ferreras (2005), and Gisèle Earle (2018).

164 This section is adapted from my article, “Family Matters: Textual Memory and the Politics of Loss in Gómez Manrique’s Consolatorias,” published in Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 95.2 (2018).

109 Boethian paradigm of the classical consolatio to address the recipients’ personal and historical contexts. Together, the consolation poems also make a broader statement about the fortunes of the Manrique clan based on the virtue of its lineage. In this way, these texts are comparable in purpose to the convent in Calabazanos, of which Gómez and his wife were devoted patrons.

The author states the commemorative purpose of each work in the prologue. For example, Gómez explains, “No pocas vezes, muy noble e virtuosa señora, yo he seýdo por la señoría vuestra rogado e mandado e avn molestado, que sobre el caso d’esta aduersa fortuna vuestra alguna obra conpussiese…” (Manrique, “No pocas” 419-20).165 In the “Consolatoria hordenada,” Gómez tells his wife, “…yo, señora amada de mí quanto tu meresçimiento lo meresçe, que no se puede más encaresçer, quisiera vsar d’estos dos remedios juntamente después de los grandes ynfortunios e casos fuertes, avnque naturales, que nuestro señor Dios por deméritos permitió que sobreviniesen en la casa nuestra” (Manrique, “Consolatoria”

449). The author represents his relatives’ losses of property and descendants as unpredictable misfortunes that had the potential to affect the Manrique clan’s sociopolitical standing. These losses were of particular concern for noblewomen such as Juana Manrique and Juana de

Mendoza because their standing in society and their roles as Christian wives and mothers depended on their husbands’ political fortunes.

For Juana Manrique, the loss of her husband’s inheritance was the “aduersa fortuna” to which Gómez refers in the prologue of “No pocas vezes” (419). Juana Manrique’s husband was Fernando de Sandoval y Rojas, whose family supported the infantes of Aragón during the reign of Juan II of Castile. This alliance allowed Fernando’s father, the adelantado

165 When citing both consolation poems, page numbers are used in reference to the prose prologues, while verse numbers are used in reference to the poems.

110 of Castile Diego Gómez de Sandoval, to amass a substantial patrimony derived from his service to the infantes of Aragón, especially in their efforts to thwart Luna’s rise to power.166

In 1412, Fernando I of Aragón granted Diego Gómez de Sandoval the hereditary señorío of Lerma to reward him for his assistance in quelling a revolt (García Rámila 19). In

1420, the infantes of Aragón granted Sandoval the señorío of Maderuelo, which was part of the dowry of the infante Juan’s wife, Blanca of Navarre (Calderón Ortega 166). Following the infante Juan’s ascension to the throne of Navarre in 1425, Sandoval returned the señorío of Maderuelo to royal control in exchange for the title conde of Castro and the associated landholdings of Castrojeriz, Portillo, Osorno, and Saldaña in Castile (Suárez Fernández,

Historia 19). Juan II of Navarre also helped him acquire the surrounding townships of Cea,

Villadiego, San Andrés, San Pedro, Renedo, Castrillo, Velilla y Carvajal, Ampudia, and

Gumiel de Izán (Suárez Fernández, Historia 19).167 Sandoval incorporated these properties

166 This alliance with the infantes of Aragón originated with Diego Gómez de Sandoval’s service to their father, Fernando de Antequera. Sandoval received the position of adelantado of Castile as a reward for fighting with Fernando de Antequera’s forces in the Battle of Antequera (García Rámila 18). When Juan II of Castile assumed the throne in his own right, Sandoval supported the interests of the infantes of Aragón and opposed their enemy, Luna. In 1419, Sandoval moved to check Luna’s increasing power in Castile by collaborating with fourteen other nobles and prelates to alternate their presence at court as a means to constantly monitor Luna’s influence on Juan II (García Rámila 21). In this arrangement, the fifteen elites formed three groups of five, and each group spent four months at court (García Rámila 21). Sandoval belonged to a group with Pedro de Stúñiga, Pero Ponce de León, Perafán de Ribera, and the Archdeacon of Guadalajara (García Rámila 21). However, another key member of Sandoval’s network was his uncle, Sancho de Rojas, who was a loyal supporter of Fernando de Antequera and became Archbishop of Toledo in 1415 (Franco Silva, “El linaje” 98). Three years later, Sandoval adopted the Rojas heraldry and surname as a means to further elevate his status at court (Franco Silva, “El linaje” 98). That same year, the infante Juan appointed Sandoval as a member of the Consejo Real (Franco Silva, “El linaje” 98). From this position, he rose to the offices of canciller mayor del sello de la poridad and mayordomo mayor to the Castilian queen, María of Aragón (Franco Silva, “El linaje” 99). Following the infante Enrique’s defeat at Tordesillas in 1422, Sandoval was a key member of an oligarchy that governed Castile for two years (Suárez Fernández, Nobleza y monarquía: Puntos 126-27). The other leaders were all members of Sandoval’s elite network at court: his uncle, Sancho de Rojas, the Trastámara count Fadrique Enríquez, Pedro de Stúñiga, who was Sandoval’s ally, the conde of Benavente Rodrigo Pimentel, the contador mayor Fernán Alfonso de Robles, and Luna (Suárez Fernández, Nobleza y monarquía: Puntos 126- 27).

167 Of these properties, the township of Cea was a particularly significant acquisition in 1418, the same year in which Sandoval was named to the Consejo Real (Franco Silva, “El linaje” 98). Sandoval purchased Cea for 30,000 florines from Ramiro Núñez de Guzmán, whose family had controlled this property for three generations (Franco Silva, “El linaje” 98). However, the queen of Aragón, Leonor de Albuquerque, also had a claim to Cea,

111 into a mayorazgo for his son, Fernando de Sandoval y Rojas, in 1427 (Franco Silva, “El linaje” 100). Four years later, Juan II of Navarre granted Sandoval a second condado that consisted of the townships of Denia, Ayora, and Jávea (García Rámila 32).

However, the expulsion of the infantes of Aragón from Castile in 1429 changed

Sandoval’s fortunes. Juan II of Castile revoked Sandoval’s extensive patrimony in the condado of Castro and re-granted Castrojeriz, Portillo, Lerma, Saldaña, and Gumiel de Izán to other nobles in 1432 (Paz y Mélia 354).168 Although Sandoval was pardoned in 1439, he later forfeited his landholdings a second time after fighting on behalf of the infantes of

Aragón in the Battle of Olmedo in 1445 (Beltrán Pepió, Conflictos 61). Following Luna’s victory in this battle, Sandoval was imprisoned, although he was exonerated upon his release in 1446 (Beltrán Pepió, Conflictos 61). He recovered the señoríos of Lerma and Ayora, as well as the condado of Denia, but retained only the title—not the landholdings—associated with the condado of Castro (Beltrán Pepió, Conflictos 61). The loss of this estate would have particularly infuriated Sandoval and his descendants because a key property, Portillo, passed into the hands of their enemy, Luna.169

and she approved Sandoval’s purchase, which was financed by the queen’s brother-in-law, the infante Juan (Franco Silva, “El linaje” 98). Cea was Sandoval’s second territorial acquisition after Lerma, and these two properties formed the basis of his estate, which he strategically increased with the support of the infante Juan. In addition, Sandoval controlled Gumiel de Mercado, which was part the dowry of his wife, Beatriz de Avellaneda (Franco Silva, “El linaje” 99). Upon her death in 1436, Sandoval retained this property, although two years later he married Isabel de Ladrón. The territory that Sandoval controlled outside the condado of Castro—Cea, Lerma, and Gumiel de Mercado—was important for its proximity to Burgos and its strategic location between the estates of the Velasco and Manrique clans (Franco Silva, “El linaje” 99).

168 Castrojeriz went to Pedro Manrique, Portillo to Ruiz Díaz de Mendoza, Lerma to Íñigo de Estúñiga, Saldaña to Fernando López de Saldaña, and Gumiel to “otro caballero” (Paz y Mélia 354). Pedro Manrique thus benefitted from the misfortune of his extended relative through the marriage of his daughter, Juana, to Sandoval’s son, Fernando. Vicente Beltrán Pepió explains this dynamic in terms of a clan’s primary loyalty to members of its own lineage: “No había solidaridad entre los nobles de cada bando, y la caída del uno implicaba el reparto de sus bienes entre los que sobrevivían, le hubieran sido antes aliados o contrarios…” (Conflictos 84). However, Sandoval retained control of the condado of Denia, which, as Beltrán Pepió argues, Juan II of Navarre granted him as reparation following Sandoval’s loss of the condado of Castro because he supported the infantes of Aragón (Conflictos 87).

112 Upon Sandoval’s death in 1455, his son Fernando—Juana Manrique’s husband— aspired to reclaim the properties of the condado of Castro. He was able to recover the township of Cea in 1456170 and also received property as the II conde of Denia (Beltrán

Pepió, Conflictos 85). However, this inheritance was not immediately recognized for several reasons: Fernando’s father died intestate, his stepmother also claimed the property, and the inhabitants of Denia preferred a return to royal patronage (Beltrán Pepió, Conflictos 86).

Fernando’s claim to the condado of Denia was not settled in his favor until 1458,171 the same year in which Gómez composed “No pocas vezes” for Juana Manrique.

169 Following Sandoval’s initial disgrace in 1432, he briefly recovered Portillo from 1444 to 1448 (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 229). However, Luna’s victory over Sandoval’s allies, the infantes of Aragón, in the first Battle of Olmedo set in motion a chain of events that resulted in Sandoval’s forfeiture of Portillo. Upon his victory, Luna forged a new alliance with the future Enrique IV, who had fought against him with the backing of Castilian nobles, many of whom also supported the infantes of Aragón (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 230). Following their defeat, many nobles were imprisoned, including Sandoval (Beltrán Pepió, Conflictos 61). When he was released in 1446, Sandoval escaped to Aragón, but Juan II of Castile retained control of Sandoval’s properties, many of which the king granted to his own supporters, including Luna. He briefly acquired the township of Cea but granted it to Juan Pacheco in an effort to win his support in 1448 (Franco Silva, “El linaje” 101). That same year, Juan II of Castile granted Portillo to Luna, who retained control of the property until his execution in 1453 (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 230). Portillo was used as a prison for the king’s enemies, and Luna became a prisoner in his own property upon his arrest on Good Friday (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 230). Previously, Luna had acquired another señorío that had belonged to Sandoval—Maderuelo—until he traded it to Juan II of Navarre in exchange for the condado of Castro in 1426. Luna obtained Maderuelo from the estate of the infantes of Aragón in 1430, following their exile from Castile (Calderón Ortega, Álvaro 166). This event also instigated Sandoval’s forfeiture of the condado of Castro.

170 While Pacheco controlled Cea since 1448, he entered into negotiations with Juan II of Navarre in 1456 (Franco Silva, “El linaje” 101). In exchange for reconciliation with Juan II of Navarre, Pacheco returned Cea to Sandoval’s son, Fernando de Sandoval y Rojas (Franco Silva, “El linaje” 101).

171 Of the territories associated with this condado, Fernando recovered Denia and Jávea by purchasing the shares that belonged to his sisters Inés and María (Franco Silva, “El linaje” 102). He ultimately did not retain control of Ayora, which eventually became part of Cardinal Pedro González de Mendoza’s possessions (Franco Silva, “El linaje” 102). However, Fernando and Juana Manrique continued to lobby for the return of the condado of Castro by supporting the claim of Enrique IV’s half brother, Alfonso, during the Farce of Ávila. Alfonso promised to restore Fernando’s patrimony, and following Alfonso’s death, in 1469 Isabel I compensated Fernando and Juana Manrique (Beltrán Pepió, Conflictos 85). Their son, Diego de Sandoval, became conde of Lerma in 1484 as a concession for the Catholic Monarchs’ inability to grant the condado of Castro, which was controlled by Ruy Díaz de Mendoza (Beltrán Pepió, Conflictos 85). In 1493, Diego de Sandoval became marqués of Denia in recognition of his support of the Catholic Monarchs during the war in Portugal (Franco Silva, “El linaje” 103). Despite the increased prestige that these titles conferred to Diego de Sandoval, he and his descendants continued to lobby for the condado of Castro until 1537, when his grandson, Luis de Sandoval y Rojas, renounced his lineage’s claim in exchange for Carlos V’s approval to establish a mayorazgo of Denia and Jávora (Franco Silva, “El linaje” 103).

113 She likely requested a work of consolation during the uncertain period between 1455 and 1458, when her husband’s control of the condados of Castro and Denia was in jeopardy

(Beltrán Pepió, Conflictos 86).172 Gómez obliged with a prosimetrum and, in the prologue, alludes to Juana Manrique’s request over an extended period of time: “No pocas vezes, muy noble e virtuosa señora, yo he seýdo por la señoría vuestra rogado e mandado e avn molestado, que sobre el caso d’esta aduersa fortuna vuestra alguna obra conpusiesse…”

(Manrique, “No pocas” 419-20). Gómez refers to the circumstances of Juana Manrique’s misfortune by mentioning her titles when he apostrophizes her as “condesa de Castro, de

Denia, d’Ayora” (Manrique, “No pocas” 12). He then indirectly refers to her husband’s potential losses by declaring the intended purpose of the text:

a vos consolar en vuestras agora, estremas pasiones, grandes agonías, las quales no menos, mas más que las mías mi alma, sintiendo, las plane e las llora.” (Manrique, “No pocas” 13-16)

The personal, emotional overtones of “No pocas vezes” suggest that this text’s words of comfort were intended for family consumption. In addition to addressing Juana Manrique and her husband’s loss of property, Gómez also speaks more broadly to the fortunes of his entire lineage by employing the Manrique clan’s fame to console his sister at a moment when her sociopolitical status was threatened and make a statement about their family’s prestige.

He suggests that Juana Manrique’s misfortune is an opportunity to demonstrate the virtue of her lineage.

172 However, Beltrán Pepió also suggests that “…es radicalmente falso que en 1456-57 la Condesa de Castro necesitara ser consolada: por vez primera, el linaje de su marido veía la devolución de los estados castellanos al alcance de la mano, habiéndose de sumar éstos a las concesiones compensatorias recibidas en Valencia; era precisamente entonces cuando la fortuna les sonreía como no lo había hecho desde la aciaga derrota de 1429” (“Poesía” 165).

114 To accomplish this purpose, the author strategically breaks with the tradition of the classical consolatio in Boethius’ De Consolatione Philosophiae.173 During the Middle Ages, this text enjoyed widespread diffusion in both Latin and vernacular translations174 and was used to “…give moral advice as well as answers to such important questions as the nature of evil and divine providence” (Ziino 84).

De Consolatione is an allegorical dialogue between the author’s poetic voice and

Philosophy, who visits the narrator in prison and speaks to him about the inconstancy of

Fortune and the nature of human happiness.175 For example, Philosophy reminds Boethius that Fortune “enganna a los omnes. E, fasta conplir en esto todas sus artes, muéstrales que ha con ellos grand familiaridat muy blanda e muy lisonjera, fasta que los desanpara en un dolor

173 Michael Means defines the genre of consolatio as “1) the gathering together of commonplace philosophical themes (topoi) of a consolatory nature; (2) combining them into a framework based primarily on rhetorical considerations; (3) citing examples of historical or mythological characters who have endured severe misfortunes courageously; and (4) applying and addressing the whole to an individual who has suffered a particular misfortune—usually though not always the death of a near relative or friend” (8). Beltrán Pepió also recognizes Gómez’s inspiration in the consolatio “…para dar un marco intemporal y moralmente enaltecedor a los altibajos de fortuna de la familia política de su hermana: al presentar el caso de los Sandoval como un ejemplo ético se justificaban sus reclamaciones materiales como un acto de reparación justa no sólo desde el punto de vista político, sino también desde una perspectiva moral y social” (“Poesía” 165).

174 In medieval Iberia, the most commonly used vernacular version was a Castilian translation of Nicholas Trevet’s 1307 Latin commentary on De Consolatione (Briesemeister 63). This Castilian translation survives in three manuscripts of the fifteenth century (Keightley 171). In addition to the Spanish translations of Trevet’s commentary, there are also three existing manuscripts of the Consolaçion natural, a Spanish translation of De Consolatione made for the Constable of Castile Ruy López Dávalos in the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century (Keightley 185). Furthermore, one manuscript remains of a Spanish translation that Pedro de Valladolid, servant to the King of Navarre, undertook in 1436 (Briesemeister 66). Finally, an anonymous interpolated translation of Boethius’ consolatio into Spanish also exists in two fifteenth-century manuscripts (Keightley 173). Outside Castile, there were also three Catalan versions of De Consolatione produced between 1358 and 1390, and one of them, prepared by the Dominican Friar Antoni Ginebreda, was subsequently translated into Castilian Spanish, Hebrew, and Latin in the fifteenth century (Doñas 491). For more information on the vernacular translations of Boethius’ consolatio in medieval Iberia, see Tomás González Rolán and Pilar Saquero Suárez-Somonte (1992) and Miguel Pérez Rosado (1993).

175 Boethius was from an aristocratic Roman family, and after becoming a ceremonial consul in 510, he was promoted to Master of Offices at the court of the Emperor Theodoric in 522 (Lerer xii). However, one year later, he was accused of betraying the emperor and placed under house arrest (Lerer xii). Notwithstanding the allegorical nature of De Consolatione Philosophiae, there may be a strong autobiographical component to the text because Boethius wrote it while he was imprisoned from 523-524 C.E. It is not known whether or not the accusation against him was just, but he was executed for his alleged crime in 524 (Lerer xiii).

115 tan grande que se non pueda sofrir con toda desesperaçion” (Trevet 56).176 After chastising

Boethius for falling for Fortune’s wiles, Philosophy urges him to temper his despondency with the knowledge that God “es criador de todas las cossas; enderescándolos al bien las ordena” (Trevet 211). These lessons allow the narrator to come to terms with the past injustice committed against him, as well as his present imprisonment.

Gómez Manrique was certainly familiar with Boethius’ De Consolatione. A 1492 inventory of his property indicates that he owned a book referred to as “Boecio Severino,” which was most likely a vernacular translation of this work (Paz y Mélia 333).177 Gómez uses

Boethian themes in “No pocas vezes” to respond to his sister’s forfeiture of property. Gómez assuages his sister’s fear and defends the integrity of their family by reminding his intended readers that the vicissitudes of Fortune are no match for the eternal blessings they will surely receive. Specifically, Gómez attributes the “Desdichas e dichas, venturas e fados” that plague

Juana Manrique to “la Prouidençia del alta tribuna” (“No pocas” 64, 66). He therefore encourages his sister to accept both her father-in-law’s loss of property and the uncertain state of her husband’s inheritance in light of future rewards.

While this assurance of God’s omnipotence evokes Philosophy’s consolatory message to Boethius, Gómez nevertheless rejects both the dialogue and the allegory of De

Consolatione. Unlike in the classical consolatio, Gómez only references Fortune and

176 All references to De Consolatione Philosophiae are to Miguel Pérez Rosado’s La versión castellana medieval de los Comentarios a Boecio de Nicolas Trevet. As Dietrich Briesemeister explains, Castilian translations of Nicholas Trevet’s 1307 Latin commentary on De Consolatione were the most popular form of this text in medieval Iberia (63).

177 In addition, Gómez’s uncle, the I marqués of Santillana, owned at least two translations of this text that Gómez would have been able to access in his library (Keightley 182, 184). Other contemporary writers who belonged to the same elite network, such as Juan Alfonso de Baena, Pedro Guillén de Segovia, Fernán Sánchez de Calavera, Juan de Mena, Fernán Pérez de Guzmán, and Diego de San Pedro, all came into contact with De Consolatione, further suggesting Gómez’s knowledge of the text as a leading member of this group (Pérez Rosado, La versión 113).

116 Providence in service of the overarching purpose of his discourse: to comfort his sister through a direct address that reminds her of their lineage’s virtue and prestige. From the beginning, Gómez speaks directly to his sister when he apostrophizes her as “muy noble e virtuosa señora” (Manrique, “No pocas” 419). He also refers to her eminent status in both the

Manrique clan and its sociopolitical network when he addresses her as “manífica, noble, gentil doña Juana, / en amor sin duda más madre que ermana” (Manrique, “No pocas” 10-

11).

In addition to these repeated references to Juana Manrique, Gómez targets his consolation poem to a familial audience and its immediate circumstances by mentioning two of Fortune’s contemporary victims: the infante Enrique and Luna. Both figures would have been well known to the Manrique clan. The VIII señor of Amusco Pedro Manrique and his sons, including Rodrigo and Gómez Manrique, were allies of the infante Enrique. Diego

Gómez de Sandoval and his son, Fernando, also supported the infantes, specifically

Enrique’s brother, Juan II of Navarre. These nobles all vehemently opposed Luna and fought against him on numerous occasions, including the first Battle of Olmedo.

Gómez indirectly refers to the infante Enrique’s consistent efforts to lead the Castilian nobles in revolt against his enemy, Luna, when he describes

El muncho notable, mas mal venturoso, fijo terçero del rey don Fernando, con esta Fortuna sienpre batallando, gastó su beuir con poco reposo. (Manrique, “No pocas” 412-15)

Despite the infante Enrique’s influence in Castile—as Gómez explains, “que ya vos lo vistes tanto poderoso / que reyes asaz en poder sobraua”—he was killed in the first Battle of

Olmedo (Manrique, “No pocas” 416-17). Based on this unfortunate outcome, Gómez states that the infante Enrique was so much an enemy of Fortune “que avn en el sepulcro le dio

117 trabajoso” (Manrique, “No pocas” 419). He was buried “en Calatayud debaxo de las vanderas de Luna que sienpre le fueron enemigas” (Manrique, “No pocas” 426-27).

Luna’s victory in the first Battle of Olmedo led to the forfeiture of Sandoval’s condado of Castro and also jeopardized the fortunes of the Manrique clan. The death of the infante Enrique, who was Master of the Order of Santiago, prompted Juan II of Castile to order Luna’s election as the next Master. Rodrigo Manrique opposed this action because he sought the position for himself, a role that his son, Jorge Manrique, later memorialized in the

“Coplas por la muerte de su padre.”178 Nevertheless, Rodrigo’s claim was never officially recognized, and Luna retained the mastership.

However, Luna, like the infante Enrique, was a victim of Fortune. Gómez explains that the “…súbita caýda suya, en la qual por çierto la ya nonbrada Fortuna la gran mouilidat de su ley muncho confirmó” (Manrique, “No pocas” 448-50). However, unlike the unfortunate death of the author’s ally, the infante Enrique, Luna’s disgrace was deserved, as

Gómez explains to his sister: “…con la plaça, señora, vos prueuo, / do él por justiçia la vida perdió” (Manrique, “No pocas” 463-64). The author describes Luna’s demise abstractly with an allusion to the iconographic rotation of Fortune’s wheel:

Aquesta que digo que lo prosperó e puso en lo alto de su rueda, avnque la touo algún tienpo queda, su mala costunbre al fin no trocó, que quantos onores e bienes le dio, le fizo torrnar pagando el renueuo. (Manrique, “No pocas” 457-62)

178 In this elegy, the author commemorates his father as “el maestre don Rodrigo / Manrique, tanto famoso / e tan valiente” (Manrique, “Coplas” 292-94). While Jorge also refers to Luna as Master of Santiago, he uses Luna an example of the fickleness of Fortune’s favor in one of the de contemptus mundi stanzas: “Pues aquel grand Condestable, / maestre que conoscimos / tan privado, / no cumple que de él se hable, / sino sólo que lo vimos / degollado” (Manrique, “Coplas” 241-46). Jorge’s commemoration of his father in the “Coplas,” as well as this elegy’s intended purpose to defend the Manrique clan’s fame, will be discussed later in this chapter.

118 Given the Manrique clan’s political opposition to Luna, Gómez’s use of this polemic figure as an example of Fortune’s inconstancy is in marked contrast to his reassurance to

Juana that she will ultimately receive divine favor. The contrast is structural as well as ideological because his praise of Juana’s virtue and noble lineage immediately follows two stanzas devoted to Luna, who is the last in a series of classical and contemporary examples of the caída de príncipes.179 Unlike Luna, who famously rose to power despite his humble origin, Juana is “famosa” for descending from a lineage composed of “sangre real e grandes varones,” thus underscoring the contrast between Luna’s infamy and Juana’s illustrious ancestry (Manrique, “No pocas” 481, 607). Gómez specifically mentions two of Juana’s progenitors: “la muy magnífica señora doña Juana de Mendoça, avuela nuestra” and “la noblíssima e muy virtuosa señora, mi señora doña Leonor, nuestra madre” (Manrique, “No pocas” 493-94, 498-99). The author also implies that Juana embodies their virtue:

Agora me quiero, señora, torrnar a vos, en el nuestro linage famosa, a quien fizo Dios tanto virtuosa, que pocas se pueden con vos ygualar. (Manrique, “No pocas” 480-83)

Through the examples of the infante Enrique and Luna as contemporary victims of

Fortune, Gómez breaks with the Boethian tradition to comfort Juana by asserting the divine blessing and virtue of her lineage. He repeats this same strategy in the “Consolatoria hordenada.” Gómez composed this lyrical poem for his wife, Juana de Mendoza, upon the sudden deaths of two of their adult children, Luis and Catalina, in 1480. Just as he does in

179 The “Coplas por la muerte de su padre” follows this same pattern by presenting the deeds of Rodrigo’s life, as well as his exemplary death, as the epitome of Christian knighthood. Jorge begins his eulogy of Rodrigo’s character in stanza XXV, following examples of the deaths of contemporary figures such as the infantes of Aragón, Enrique IV, the king’s half brother Alfonso, Álvaro de Luna, Juan Pacheco, and Pedro Girón. By concluding this series of contemporary examples with Rodrigo’s death, Jorge suggests that his father surpasses the greatness of the other figures mentioned in the poem (Domínguez, Love 112).

119 “No pocas vezes,” he addresses the intended recipient directly, calling her “señora amada de mí quanto tu meresçimiento lo meresçe” (Manrique, “Consolatoria” 6-7).

To encourage his wife, Gómez uses the contemporary example of the marquesa of

Moya Beatriz de Bobadilla. He describes his sorrow “…en saber que la muy magnífica señora Marquesa de Moya, a quien yo soy tan afiçionado, auía seýdo llagada de la misma llaga que nosotros” (“Consolatoria” 85-89). While his and Juana de Mendoza’s children died as adults, the marquesa of Moya’s “primogenito, don Pedro de Cabrera, nacido en 1475, y su otra hija doña Beatriz, nacida el 26 de octubre de 1483, murieron siendo niños” (Lapesa 236).

The marquesa of Moya exemplifies the dignified response to adversity that Gómez desires to see in his wife.

Juana de Mendoza knew the marquesa because they belonged to the same elite network: Juana was one of Isabel I’s ladies in waiting, and the marquesa was the queen’s most trusted advisor.180 Through her example, Gómez reminds his wife that nobles worthy enough to serve the monarch are often subject to Fortune’s trials and must resist them with the fortitude becoming of their lineages. Despite the tragedy of their loss, the members of the

Manrique clan are protected through Divine Providence, as Gómez explains:

No nos deuemos quexar d’este Dios que nos conquista y nos da con qué llorar, pues en el mesmo lugar este mesmo choronista, su priuado y secretario, llama bienauenturados a los llorantes cuitados, y dize que consolados an de ser de neçesario. (Manrique, “Consolatoria” 323-32)

180 For additional biographical information on Beatriz de Bobadilla and her relationship with Isabel I, see Vicenta María Márquez de la Plata y Ferrándiz (2005).

120 This passage recalls Gómez’s affirmation in “No pocas vezes” that Fortune especially plagues Juana Manrique because “…ella vsa con vos, señora, como con todas las más personas en virtud fuertes, con las quales continua tiene guerra” (Manrique, “No pocas” 519-

21). While Gómez acknowledges that the virtue of Juana’s lineage makes her a target for reversals of fortune, such as her husband’s forfeited inheritance, the author also reminds his sister of their lineage’s divine blessing. For this reason, Gómez assures Juana that, despite her trials, “d’esta Fortuna seréys vençedora” (Manrique, “No pocas” 613).

Although the ultimate reward for their suffering is spiritual, Gómez’s trust in God’s promise to glorify the Manrique lineage also implies that his clan will receive the consolation of fame. While Boethius dismisses fame as a superficial adornment for those who “pensavan aver en este mundo grand fama e ser el su nonbre muy gloriosso e muy famado,” Gómez promises Juana Manrique that her patience will be rewarded by turning her tribulations into examples of Christian virtue (Trevet 106). He takes a similar approach to consoling his wife’s grief for the loss of their children in the “Consolatoria.” As a result, these works are memorials for a larger group because they proclaim the Manrique clan’s fame through its lineage’s response to misfortune.

This purpose is evident in the prose introductions, which privilege Gómez’s perspective as author through comparisons of the texts to architectural buildings. For example, in “No pocas vezes,” Gómez refers to his poem as a humble house constructed out of necessity: “esta pequeña e tosca edifiqué obra con aquella mesma neçessidad que edifican munchos miserables que para fazer casas non tienen facultad” (Manrique 421). He repeats the same verb—“edificar”—elsewhere to describe his role in composing the “Consolatoria” by comparing this poem to a church: “Pero después acaesçiéndome lo que acaesçe a los que

121 han mucho trabajado y gastado en hedificar alguna iglesia, […] yo, señora, trabajé por acabarle” (Manrique 450-51).

Other contemporary writers frequently employed similar architectural references. For example, in the “Defunsión de don Enrique de Villena, señor docto e de exçellente ingenio”

(1434), Santillana glorifies his mentor by comparing Villena’s literary contribution to the strength of a single column capable of sustaining a temple:

E bien commo tenplo a quien fallesçido han las sus colunpnpas por grand antigor, e una tan sola le faze favor, assí don Enrique nos ha sostenido. (161-64)

However, Gómez’s examples differ from those of other authors, including Santillana, because Gómez’s comparison of his works to buildings transcends the rhetorical use of the architectural metaphor. He equates the consolation poems to a house and a church in order to emphasize their purpose as commemorative acts in service of his family’s interests. By using the first person—as he states, “edifiqué” and “trabajé por acabarle”—he confirms his role as both author of the texts and architect of his family’s legacy (Manrique, “No pocas” 421;

“Consolatoria” 451).181

181 The prologue of “No pocas vezes” also emphasizes Gómez’s perspective as author through the use of the prosimetrum form to “eñadir algunas glosas” (Manrique, “No pocas” 68). Eleanor Johnson explains that, in medieval literature, “…the mixed form of prose and meter is inextricable from the attempt either to provide ethical learning or to theorize how and whether it might be possible to do so at all in literary writing. [...] It animates, that is, a veritable practice of vernacular literary theory in the late Middle Ages” (4). In this sense, Manrique’s use of the prosimetrum form illustrates his authorial self-consciousness because, as Julian Weiss points out, Manrique’s prose explanations are examples of “self-exegesis” that highlight the “intellectual framework” of his text (The Poet’s 134). For more information on the prosimetrum form and authorial self- consciousness in the Boethian tradition, see Elizabeth Elliott (2012). In addition, Gómez-Bravo offers another example of this authorial self-consciousness in Gómez’s creation of a cancionero: “Manrique’s poetic production reveals a sustained attempt to display the cultural worth that a noble with key positions at court and city would deftly transform into socio-economic advantage and vice versa. The insistence in highlighting lineage connections and ties with high nobility and monarchy appear accentuated in the connective thread that weaves the compilation of loose poetic papers and gives body to an ideology that marks the passage from paper archived at the bottom of a chest to the luxury codex” (195-96).

122 In this sense, Gómez’s consolation poems create a textual parallel to the convent of

Saint Mary of the Consolation in Calabazanos, built by the Manrique clan to proclaim the magnificence of its lineage. The VII señor of Amusco, Diego Gómez Manrique, created a testamentary bequest to build this convent in 1381 (Montero Tejada 340-41). His son and heir, the adelantado of León and VIII señor of Amusco, Pedro Manrique, reapportioned these funds to build the monastery of Saint Mary in Valvanera, where he chose to be buried upon his death in 1440 (Montero Tejada 344).182 However, his widow, Leonor de Castilla, reinterred her husband in the convent in Calabazanos, which she rededicated as the location of a family pantheon in 1458 (Montero Tejada 346).183 Upon her own death in 1470, she

182 Ten years before his death, Pedro Manrique donated funds—the same ones that his father had earmarked for the convent at Calabazanos—to Juan de Acevedo, who was prior of the royal monastery of Saint Benito in Valladolid (Beceiro Pita, “Los conventos” 326). Pedro Manrique wanted to build a Benedictine monastery that would be dedicated to Saint Mary of Consolation (Beceiro Pita, “Los conventos” 326). His decision to reapportion his father’s testamentary bequest was likely due to the prestige of the royal monastery (Beceiro Pita, “Los conventos” 326). This foundation had received the patronage of three Trastámara monarchs—Juan I, Enrique II, and Juan II—and was the site of Álvaro de Luna’s marriage to Juana Pimentel in 1430 (Beceiro Pita, “Los conventos” 327). Pedro Manrique may have attended this wedding, which occurred the same year that he donated the funds to Juan de Acevedo, because Juana Pimentel was Pedro’s niece. In addition to Pedro’s political motivations, he likely deliberately disregarded his father’s will because he wanted his monastery to be located in the landholdings he had received with the señorío of Treviño (Beceiro Pita, “Los conventos” 327). As a result, he chose to renovate and reform the monastery of Saint Mary in Valvanera (Beceiro Pita, “Los conventos” 327). His reforms followed the example of those imposed by Acevedo to foment a more ascetic lifestyle among the Benedictine monks (Diago Hernando 364, 361).

183 In 1446, Leonor de Castilla carried out her late husband’s plans to build a convent associated with Manrique landholdings. However, she used the funds that he had designated for the renovation of the convent of Saint Mary in Valvanera to establish a Poor Clare convent dedicated to Saint Mary of Hope in Amusco (Beceiro Pita, “Los conventos” 327). In 1455, Leonor received notice that the Benedictine monks intended to leave Valvanera for Zamora, and she also prepared to move the family foundation from Amusco to Calabazanos (Beceiro Pita, “Los conventos” 327). The abbess, Leonor’s daughter Aldonza, complained of the “estrechez e incomodidad que sufrían en la sede de Amusco” (Beciero Pita, “Los conventos” 328). Pope Calixto III gave his consent for the rededication of the convent in Calabazanos in February of 1458 (Rodríguez 346). The new convent served a strategic purpose based on its location in Manrique territory. As Beceiro Pita explains, Calabazanos “…está situado en los territorios de la rama principal de los Manrique, pero en la proximidad de los dos señoríos palentinos surgidos a partir de los mayorazgos creados por el adelantado don Pedro, los de Paredes de Nava y las Amayuelas, lo que facilita el papel del monasterio como nexo de unión entre los tres grupos familiares” (“Los conventos” 329).

123 received an honorific burial in an alabaster tomb located near the main altar of the convent chapel (Rodríguez 351).184

Many of Pedro Manrique and Leonor de Castilla’s descendants also chose to be buried in the convent at Calabazanos. Two of their daughters, Aldonza and María, and their granddaughter María—the daughter of Gómez Manrique and Juana de Mendoza—were all abbesses of this convent and were interred close to Leonor’s tomb (Montero Tejada 342).185

Several of their sons, including Íñigo, a bishop who later became Archbishop of Seville, and

Juan, Archdeacon of Valpuesta, were also buried in this convent (Montero Tejada 342).

In their respective wills, Gómez Manrique and his wife both provided for their eventual burial in the Manrique clan’s religious foundation. Gómez requested that every night, each of the nuns sang “el himno de Ntra. Señora que empieza «Oh gloriosa Domina» por su alma, la de Doña Juana de Mendoza, su mujer, la de Doña Leonor, su madre, y la de

Doña María, su hija, que fué abadesa” (Rodríguez 351).186 During his lifetime, Gómez was an active patron of the convent at Calabazanos. He donated “…ricos ornamentos y alhajas

184 Leonor’s epitaph recalls both her role in establishing the family pantheon in Calabazanos and her contribution to the Manrique clan’s sociopolitical status: “Aquí yace la ilustre señora doña Leonor, fija del mvy ilustre infante don Fadriqve dvqve de Benavente, nieta del mvy esclarecido rey don Enrique II, mvger del adelantado Pedro Manrique: La qual despvs de vivda fvdo, e doto este monasterio, e recibio el velo de monja en el, e assi bienaventvrada fallecio desta presente vida a 7 dias del mes de setiembre de 1470 años, fve trasladada en esta espvltura a 11 de enero de 1486” (Rodríguez 351). These adulatory statements echo Gómez’s praise of Leonor as a model of virtue for Juana Manrique. The author identifies his mother as “…la noblíssima e muy virtuosa señora, mi señora doña Leonor, nuestra madre…puedo a vos con verdat dezir famosa, pues entre las claras famas d’estas e de las otras que callé, non la vuestra se ascondiendo, relunbra” (Manrique, “No pocas” 498-506).

185 Gómez composed the Representación del nacimiento de Nuestro Señor at the request of his sister María, who became Abbess in 1468 (Salvador Miguel 141). Gómez’s work was performed in the convent sometime from 1458 to 1468, although most likely in 1458 (Salvador Miguel 141). This work has received substantial scholarly attention as an early example of Castilian theater. For more information on this text, see Harry Sieber (1965), Deyermond (1990), and Nicasio Salvador Miguel (2012). For more information on Gómez’s relationship to female family members, see Deyermond (1998).

186 For more information about Gómez and Juana de Mendoza’s testamentary bequests, see Rivera Garretas (2007).

124 para el culto divino y fabricó el Refectorio, donde campean sus escudos, flanqueando un

Crucifijo anterior, y el Dormitorio de las Religiosas” (Rodríguez 351).

Through these bequests, as well as the intended purpose of the convent to house a pantheon, the Manrique clan’s religious foundation in Calabazanos was an emblem of the family’s prestige. Gómez’s consolation poems fulfill an analogous purpose because they are textual memorials that commemorate the virtue of the Manrique lineage. Juana Manrique and

Juana de Mendoza gain solace by being inscribed in texts that enshrine their family’s fame and provide assurances that their suffering will ultimately lead to eternal blessings for the entire clan. In both consolation poems, Gómez asserts that the Manrique clan’s past triumphs are indicative of future successes, despite their present tribulations, because they are all subject to Providence’s divine will. Consequently, the author reinterprets his sister’s concern over her husband’s inheritance and his wife’s grief following the deaths of her children as signs of a more hopeful future in which the Manrique family will eventually triumph.

Nevertheless, the Manrique clan faced additional threats to its status in 1458. In the same year in which Leonor de Castilla rededicated the family pantheon in Calabazanos and

Gómez composed “No pocas vezes” to offer consolation for a forfeited inheritance,187 the

Manrique patriarchs took action to defend their control of properties in the Order of Santiago.

187 1458 was also the year of the I marqués of Santillana’s death, which deeply affected Gómez through the loss of a relative who had served as a mentor. To commemorate Santillana, Gómez composed an elegy, “El planto de las Uirtudes e Poesýa por el magnífico señor don Ýñigo López de Mendoça, Marqués de Santillana e Conde del Real, conpuesto por Gómez Manrrique, su sobrino.” The author refers to himself as Santillana’s nephew, but their consanguineal relationship was distant: Gómez’s paternal grandmother was the sister of Santillana’s father. Nevertheless, it is fitting that Gómez describes Santillana as an uncle because Gómez did not have any biological uncles: neither of his parents, Pedro Manrique and Leonor de Castilla, had siblings. Thus, his closest extended relatives were the nieces and nephews of his grandparents, including his paternal grandmother and her nephew, Santillana. Gómez describes this relationship when he laments “la defunsyón del muy virtuoso señor, padre vuestro, mi señor e mi týo” (Manrique, “Al reuerendo” 1-2). He directed the work to Santillana’s son, Pedro González de Mendoza, who was at the time Bishop of Calahorra and later became Cardinal of Spain and Archbishop of Toledo during the reign of the Catholic Monarchs. Incidentally, González de Mendoza also acquired control of the señorío of Ayora, which Juana Manrique and her husband hoped to recover as part of the condado of Castro at roughly the same time that Gómez composed both “No pocas vezes” and “El planto.”

125 Their influence was jeopardized by the death of a relative, Garcilaso de la Vega. As part of this response, Gómez composed the “Defunsión del noble cauallero Garçía Laso de la Vega” to defend his lineage’s property and status.

II. Defense of the Manrique Clan’s Property and Status

Garcilaso de la Vega was a knight in the Order of Santiago and Commander of

Montizón until his death in 1458.188 He was killed by a poisoned arrow to the neck during a military skirmish in the Hoya de Baza. This unfortunate event prompted his relatives in the

Manrique clan to request that Enrique IV grant Garcilaso’s knighthood and position as

Commander of Montizón to his son. However, Enrique IV denied this request, which threatened the Manrique family’s sociopolitical status, especially in light of the fact that

Rodrigo Manrique was commander of the nearby outpost of Segura de la Sierra. To protect his family’s standing, Gómez used the “Defunsión del noble cauallero Garçía Laso de la

Vega” to indirectly criticize Enrique IV and perpetuate the Manrique clan’s fame through

Garcilaso’s heroism. In this way, the “Defunsión” is a written memorial that is analogous to

188 There is a lack of historical and scholarly consensus about the date of Garcilaso’s death. In the first stanza of the “Defunsión,” Gómez states that this event occurred “A veynte e vn días del noueno mes, / el año de çinco, después de çincuenta, / e quatro dezenas poniendo en la cuenta, / nueue çentenas e vna después” (Manrique 1- 4). These verses point to September 21, 1455, which coincides with the date and month recorded in the Kalendario de Uclés (Salazar 495). However, contemporary chroniclers such as Alonso de Palencia, Diego de Valera, and Diego Enríquez del Castillo all assert that Garcilaso died in 1458 (Salazar 493-94). In light of this controversy, Deyermond suggests that “Lo más probable, pues, es que las crónicas tengan razón, y que la fecha según la primera estrofa de la Defunzión se deba no al poeta sino a un copista” (“La Defunzión” 94). Nevertheless, Antonio Salazar, Sieber, and Atlee all propose 1455 as the appropriate year of Garcilaso’s death and, thus, the composition of the “Defunsión” based on its first stanza. Atlee, in particular, offers substantial evidence to explain why “…it seems highly likely that Manrique accurately provided the date and location of Garcilaso’s death, a loss that affected him and his family personally” (“Political” 181). Regardless of the date, this poem occupies an important place in a corpus of works that Gómez composed to defend his clan’s sociopolitical status. As Deyermond explains, “Si aceptamos la fecha de 1458, la Defunzión será probablemente la tercera de un grupo de poesías elegíacas o consolatorias compuestas por Gómez Manrique en el plazo de dos o tres años, a raíz de desastres acaecidos entre sus parientes….La fecha de 1455, aceptada por varios críticos a causa de la primera estrofa, haría de la Defunzión la más temprana de este grupo de poesías” (“La Defunzión” 94-95).

126 the familial context of Garcilaso’s burial in the convent of Saint Clara in Zafra, which Gómez also mentions in the text.

Garcilaso was connected to the Manrique family by marriage: his sisters, Beatriz de

Figueroa and Mencía de Figueroa, respectively married two Manrique brothers, Fadrique, señor of Baños, and Rodrigo, conde of Paredes.189 In addition to being Garcilaso’s brother- in-law, Rodrigo was his guardian and mentor from the time that Garcilaso was eight years old (Salazar 482-83). Garcilaso’s father, Gómez Suárez de Figueroa, died in 1429, and the following year, Garcilaso’s mother, Elvira Laso de Mendoza, entrusted her son to Rodrigo’s care (Salazar 482-83). Rodrigo trained his young charge to become a knight in the Order of

Santiago and personally conferred this honor following Garcilaso’s participation in the reconquest of Huéscar, located in the Hoya de Baza, in 1434 (Salazar 283-84).190 Garcilaso’s death was therefore a profound personal and political loss for the Manrique clan, especially

Rodrigo, “a quien de su muerte muncho pesará” (Manrique, “Defunsión” 72).

Under Rodrigo’s tutelage, Garcilaso ascended in the leadership of the Order of

Santiago to become Commander of Montizón, a position he held until his death. This commandery was prestigious because Montizón was strategically located on a southern route that Castilian forces often used during the War on Granada (Domínguez, Love 12). Montizón was also in close proximity to Segura de la Sierra, of which Rodrigo was commander

189 Garcilaso was also a nephew of Santillana. This noble’s older sister, Elvira Laso de Mendoza, married Gómez Suárez de Figueroa, I señor of Feria. They had eleven children, including Garcilaso. In the “Defunsión,” Gómez refers to the familial relationship between Santillana and Garcilaso, who was “sin duda sobrino / del noble Marqués, señor de Buytrago»” (Manrique 79-80).

190 Garcilaso was only twelve years old when he became a knight. His initiation into the Order of Santiago at such a young age reflects his extraordinary demonstration of courage and prowess in the Hoya de Baza. As Carl Atlee explains, “The Hoya de Baza, a vast geographical region that comprised part of the northern terminus of the Kingdom of Granada and also bordered the cities of Jaén, Murcia, and Almería, was a frequently disputed territory….In the early years of Enrique IV’s reign, the Hoya de Baza was a dangerous zone in which Muslims loyal to the King of Granada and the Castilian knights often engaged each other in skirmishes” (“Political” 181). Garcilaso’s knighthood—and later, his death—were the results of two such skirmishes.

127 (Domínguez, Love 12). To protect the Manrique clan’s interests in the region, Rodrigo campaigned for the Commandery of Montizón to pass to Garcilaso’s son, also named

Garcilaso (Domínguez, Love 12). This child was at most a young adolescent when his father was killed in battle and was therefore entrusted to the care of his grandmother, Garcilaso’s mother, Elvira Laso de Mendoza (Salazar 486). In her will, she named her son—the child’s uncle—Pedro Suárez de Figueroa as his guardian (Salazar 486). However, it is likely that

Rodrigo would have exercised considerable influence on the young man, especially given the proximity of Montizón to Segura de la Sierra. He attempted to ensure that Montizón remained in possession of another close relative as a means to defend his own neighboring territory.

However, the Manrique clan’s prosperity was threatened when Enrique IV refused

Rodrigo’s request. To add insult to injury, Enrique IV bestowed the Commandery of

Montizón upon Diego Fernández de Iranzo,191 a member of a rival clan. The Iranzo family rose to power through the influence of Diego’s half brother, Miguel Lucas de Iranzo, who was a valido of Enrique IV.192 In response, Gómez Manrique composed a politically charged

191 In a contemporary chronicle, the Gesta Hispaniensia, Alfonso de Palencia refers to this recipient as “Nicolás Lucas, hermano de Miguel Lucas,” which has led some scholars to also use the name Nicolás (Palencia 184). However, José Rodríguez Molina explains that Palencia’s account is not entirely accurate because the new Commander of Montizón was Miguel Lucas de Iranzo’s half brother (256). For this reason, some scholars call him Diego Cerezo after the family name of his and Miguel Lucas’ mother, although documentation of the Order of Santiago uses the name Diego de Iranzo (Mercado Egea, Jorge 48). Royal documents, especially those produced during the reign of the Catholic Monarchs, also refer to the Commander of Montizón by the name Diego Fernández de Iranzo (Rodríguez Molina 252).

192 In 1455, Enrique IV ennobled Miguel Lucas de Iranzo and also made him a knight in the Order of the Golden Spur to commemorate his success in the War on Granada (Carceller Cerviño, “El ascenso” 23-24). During one encounter, Miguel Lucas fought alongside Garcilaso de la Vega, who killed one opponent and felled another’s horse (Atlee, “Political” 175). When Garcilaso presented the horse to Enrique IV, the king rejected the overture and instead gave the horse to Miguel Lucas when he knighted him (Atlee, “Political” 175). Given this history of animosity, Enrique IV’s decision to grant the Commandery of Montizón to a member of Miguel Lucas’ casa compounded the threat to the Manrique clan’s prosperity. Palencia suggests this action was motivated by Enrique IV’s dislike of Garcilaso, which stemmed from the incident in which this warrior presented his opponent’s horse to the king. On that occasion, Enrique IV “…empezó a mirarlo con malos ojos porque, provocado a combate por un moro, lo mató con su acostumbrada destreza y se llevó el caballo y demás

128 elegy, the “Defunsión,” to memorialize Garcilaso and criticize Enrique IV for failing to appropriately reward the family of such an exemplary knight.

The author achieves this dual purpose by praising Garcilaso for his military prowess and honorable death in service to the king. In the opening stanzas, a messenger, who narrates the elegy, is confronted with an extraordinary scene of mourning on the battlefield. Although the messenger does not immediately discover the identity of the fallen knight, the gravity of his death is apparent in the “sospiros e lloros” of his fellow soldiers (Manrique, “Defunsión”

7). Their grief is juxtaposed with the jubilation of the opposing army when the messenger describes the chaos of the scene:

Las nuestras gentes muy agro lloraban, dando sospiros e grandes gemidos; los moros con tronpas e con alaridos e con atabales el aire enllenaban. Los nuestros, llorando, su mal publicaban; los otros, riendo, su bien descubrían. (Manrique, “Defunsión” 9-14)

The structural and thematic opposition of these verses suggest that Garcilaso’s death has moral implications for Castile. The anaphora of “las nuestras” and “los nuestros” is the first subtle critique of Enrique IV because Gómez implies that the king has failed to recognize the loss of a warrior beloved by the entire kingdom.193

trofeos. Sentido el rey de la hazaña, no disimuló su enojo…” (Palencia 146). Similarly, on the day of Garcilaso’s death, “…pudo conocerse con más claridad y evidencia el rencor cada vez más profundo que Enrique abrigaba en su ánimo contra García desde el día en que dio muerte denodadamente, según se ha dicho, a los moros que lo desafiaban a singular combate” (Palencia 183). Palencia became court chronicler in 1456, two years before these events, and his account likely reflects the author’s own political opposition to Enrique IV (Phillips 2). However, members of Miguel Lucas’ casa composed their own account of this individual’s rise to power as valido and ennoblement in the Hechos del Condestable don Miguel Lucas de Iranzo (1473). For more information on this text and Miguel Lucas de Iranzo’s military activity, see Mateo Antonio Paez García (1986), Catherine Soriano (1991), and José Julio Martín Romero (2008, 2011a, 2011b).

193 These verses also point out the otherness of the Muslim warriors who antagonize the Castilian army, which is unified in both religious and national identity. By subtly implying that Enrique IV does not share in his soldiers’ response to Garcilaso’s death, these verses also imply that the king identifies more closely with the “other” Muslim army than with his own Christian soldiers. The author’s subtle criticism of Enrique IV reflects the perspective of nobles such as Rodrigo Manrique, who participated in the War on Granada to both fulfill the

129 Once his identity is established—“«Est’es Garcilaso: / matolo saeta por gran ocasión”—the author eulogizes him as an exemplary knight (Manrique, “Defunsión” 39-40).

Within the elegy’s narrative frame, an interlocutor tells the messenger:

»Est’es aquel que sangre fazía primero que nadie en los enemigos; est’es aquel que por sus amigos la vida e fazienda de grado ponía; est’es aquel que tanto valía, que nunca por çierto morir se deuiera. (Manrique, “Defunsión” 41-46)

The series of deictic statements confirms Garcilaso’s identity by emphasizing the knight’s prowess. The interlocutor suggests that Garcilaso possessed an allegedly rare combination of bravery and skill. Unlike other soldiers, he “jamás perdió su reposo / por grandes peligros nin fuertes temores” (Manrique, “Defunsión” 49-50).194 The exceptional qualities that the interlocutor describes, albeit hyperbolically,195 underscore the tragedy of

responsibility of the Order of Santiago and achieve lasting fame (Atlee, “Political” 177). However, Enrique IV’s military tactics minimized these outcomes for the Castilian nobility. The king devised a strategy to raid specific outposts by destroying crops, rather than laying siege to fortresses, which limited the nobles’ opportunities for combat and its rewards of fame and confiscated property (Phillips 55). In addition, Enrique IV prioritized diplomatic tactics to maximize tribute money from Granada over consistent military efforts to conquer the Muslim kingdom (Phillips 54). As Atlee explains, “Such willingness to fraternize with the enemy led the nobility to question the king’s loyalty to his Christian subjects. Seen in this light, the Defunzión del noble cauallero García Laso de la Vega can be understood as one of Manrique’s first and most subtle poetic reproofs of Enrique IV’s character” (“Political” 179).

194 In addition to surpassing his fellow soldiers in prowess, Garcilaso also attained a level of fame that challenged even classical and mythological examples, as the author explains: “Este fue tanto en armas dichoso, / que non lo fue más el fijo mayor / del buen rey troyano nin su matador, / por muncho que Omero lo pinte famoso” (Manrique, “Defunsión” 53-56). Gómez also alludes to Homer’s Iliad in the following stanza: “»Est’es aquel mançebo nonbrado / que non fue Troylo en su tienpo más; / est’es aquel que nunca jamás / fue visto vençido maguer que sobrado” (Manrique, “Defunsión” 57-60). In addition to these references to Hector, Achilles, and Troilus, the author includes a third classical example to explain Garcilaso’s success “faziendo en los moros non menos estrago / que los deçendientes en sí de Cadino” (Manrique, “Defunsión” 77-78). According to Deyermond, these allusions serve a dual purpose in the “Defunsión” by not only placing “…a un héroe castellano del siglo XV a la altura de los más renombrados héroes clásicos, sino que refuerza la impresión de un héroe predestinado a la muerte temprana” (“La Defunzión” 100-101). As Deyermond explains, both Achilles and Garcilaso died as a result of a wound to an unarmored area: Achilles to the heel and Garcilaso to the neck (“La Defunzión” 101). Garcilaso’s heroic death in battle contributes to his fame because he has achieved a good death according to his role as a member of the defensor class (Vivanco 135).

195 The hyperbole of the interlocutor’s description reflects the elegiac context. As a rhetorical strategy, hyperbole is frequently used in medieval elegies, as are comparisons of the deceased to classical or

130 Garcilaso’s death as announced by the soldiers’ laments. By presenting him as the pinnacle of success, the author suggests that Garcilaso’s death in battle warrants Enrique IV’s recognition, especially since “»Este, muriendo, al rey fizo pago, / pues que delante sus ojos fue muerto” (Manrique, “Defunsión” 73-74).196

Gómez uses this fact to criticize Enrique IV for his failure to grant the Commandery of Montizón to Garcilaso’s son, especially in light of the king’s witness of Garcilaso’s bravery. From the author’s perspective, the king’s action was not only unjust, but also a personal affront to the Manrique clan because Garcilaso’s valiant death in battle demonstrated the virtue of his lineage.

Gómez emphasizes the familial contexts of Garcilaso’s accomplishments. He identifies Garcilaso through his relationship to two illustrious figures in the Manrique clan’s network: Santillana and Rodrigo Manrique.197 Garcilaso was “… bien sin duda sobrino / del

mythological figures (Camacho Guizado 72-73). While Gómez draws on both of these aspects in eulogizing Garcilaso in the “Defunzión,” he nevertheless innovates literary tradition by targeting the poem to the Manrique clan’s immediate political circumstances. For more information on the “Defunsión” and the medieval elegiac genre, see Eduardo Camacho Guizado (1969), Bruce W. Wardropper (1972), Domínguez (1988), Sieber (1989), and Salvatore Poeta (2013).

196 Palencia also includes the king as a witness to these events and sheds additional light on his decision to deny Garcilaso’s son the Commandery of Montizón and a knighthood in the Order of Santiago. This chronicler states, “Aquel mismo día, pues, García, mortalmente herido, empezó a vomitar su vida por efecto del veneno; y cuando el mensajero dio noticia del desastre al rey, éste exclamó con cara alegre: «Vamos a ver la fuerza mortal que tiene la ponzoña, porque tengo entendido que le produce horribles gesticulaciones a García». Acudió luego a todo escape al lado de García, quien agonizaba en brazos de sus compañeros condolidos, y estuvo contemplando con alegres ojos aquella última rabia, por decirlo así” (Palencia 183-84).

197 Gómez also identifies another family connection that is not common to the Manrique clan. Through his bravery, Garcilaso has demonstrated “venir del linaje de aquel que pasó / con tanto peligro primero el Salado” (Manrique, “Defunsión” 63-64). This statement refers to the triumph of Garcilaso’s ancestors in the Battle of Tarifa in 1330. Francisco Vidal González identifies these ancestors as Gonzalo and García Laso de la Vega (Cancionero 352n11). According to the Crónica de Alfonso XI, Garcilaso was the first to cross the bridge over the Salado River and was closely followed by his brother, Gonzalo (Vidal González, Cancionero 352n11). This reference to Garcilaso’s ancestor of the same name points to “the poet’s desire to praise the deceased as one who had carried on successfully in the same tradition” and also situates him within “…Castilla’s long-standing tradition of warring against the Moors by reminding the audience that the victim’s ability to kill Arabs was a value that his culture had always praised; it also was a duty that the knight was obliged to fulfill as a member of the Order of Santiago” (Atlee, “Political” 177). In this way, Gómez’s praise of Garcilaso also subtly criticizes Enrique IV for his failure to uphold the traditional values of his kingdom (Atlee, “Political” 177).

131 noble Marqués, señor de Buytrago»” (Manrique, “Defunsión” 79-80). Garcilaso’s exemplary behavior also reflects the influence of his mentor because “lo armó cauallero en vna gran lid /

Rodrigo Manrrique, el segundo Çid” (Manrique, “Defunsión” 70-71). This praise of both

Garcilaso and his relatives reinforces the Manrique clan’s elite status in spite of Enrique IV’s insult. Through this message in the “Defunsión,” Gómez not only defends his family’s political interests, but also comforts his relatives by enshrining Garcilaso’s—and their own— fame within a textual memorial.

This consolatory function of the text is evident in the reaction of Garcilaso’s mother to the news of her son’s tragic, yet honorable, death. The messenger states:

»Por ende, señora, pues perdió la vida, ganando por sienpre la celeste gloria, dexando de sí perpetua memoria, no deue de ser su muerte plañida. (Manrique, “Defunsión” 93-96)

This assurance of Garcilaso’s fame comforts Garcilaso’s mother. While she admits that “la vmanidad me faze sentir / de mi noble fijo su triste morir,” she nevertheless accepts her son’s tragic death as the will of God (Manrique, “Defunsión” 266-67). Specifically, she seeks solace in the biblical example of Job’s patience and trust in Providence because, as she explains:

pues Dios así lo mandó, responderé lo que respondió el santo varón quando fue tentado, veyéndose pobre de rico tornado: Dominus dedit y Él lo tiró». (Manrique, “Defunsión” 268-72)

The stoic response of Garcilaso’s mother sets an example for the other women in her household. Her daughter, Elvira, has an opposite reaction: “salió con vn grito muy desigualado, / ronpiendo sus ropas después del tocado, / faziendo en sí mesma crueles fatigas” (Manrique, “Defunsión” 220-22). Elvira focuses on her own suffering, while

132 Garcilaso’s mother accepts her son’s death as part of his honorable service to the king. In this sense, her stoic response complements Garcilaso’s sacrifice because both increase their family’s virtue, as the messenger implies by praising their lineage:

»Pues venís de grandes varones, los quales pasaron con gestos yguales triunfos, plazeres, angustias e males e buenas andanças e tribulaçiones sin fer diferençia en sus coraçones. (Manrique, “Defunsión” 161-65)

The coincidence with Gómez’s treatment of his female relatives in “No pocas vezes” and the “Consolatoria” is striking.198 Just as he praises Garcilaso’s mother for her lineage, he commends Juana Manrique for her dynastic connection to their grandmother and mother, who are exemplary figures in “No pocas vezes.” In addition, the example of Garcilaso’s mother as a representation of her lineage’s virtue in the “Defunsión” is analogous to Gómez’s description of the marquesa of Moya as a model of how noblewomen, such as his wife, Juana de Mendoza, should respond to the unfortunate loss of a child in the “Consolatoria.” While

Garcilaso’s mother is a character in the elegy, and Juana Manrique and Juana de Mendoza are the intended recipients of the consolation poems, all three women embody the Manrique clan’s virtue in response to adversity. Their responses also contribute to the author’s purpose of enshrining their lineage’s fame within a textual memorial.

The “Defunsión” also comments on the familial context of Garcilaso’s interment. The messenger witnessed Garcilaso’s hasty burial in Quesada: “así lo posimos en Santa María / en vna capilla, mas no tan onrrada / como mereçiera la su buen espada” (Manrique,

“Defunsión” 99-101). However, his mother oversaw his translation to a new burial site that more appropriately reflected his prestige. According to the messenger:

198 This paragraph is also adapted from my article, “Family Matters: Textual Memory and the Politics of Loss in Gómez Manrique’s Consolatorias,” published in Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 95.2 (2018).

133 El qual fue leuado a vn gran conuento de dueñas que fizo la ya dicha madre, e fue sepultado çerca de su padre en vn tal onrrado e buen monumento como mereçía su mereçimiento, no poco llorado de sus dos ermanas. (Manrique, “Defunsión” 281-86)

The location of Garcilaso’s burial as described in these verses is the convent of Saint

Clara, which Garcilaso’s parents founded near their residence in Zafra, where Garcilaso was born in 1422 (Salazar 480). Its church was intended as a family foundation: Garcilaso’s father, Gómez Suárez de Figueroa, was buried there upon his death in 1429, and two of his daughters—Garcilaso’s older sisters Isabel and Teresa de Figueroa—were the first two abbesses (Salazar 480). Francisco Vidal González identifies these two women as the sisters who mourned Garcilaso during the scene of his burial in the “Defunsión” (Cancionero

361n39). As the messenger describes in the elegy, Garcilaso was “no poco llorado de sus dos ermanas” (Manrique, “Defunsión” 286).

The messenger also emphasizes the familial context of Garcilaso’s burial when he states that the warrior “fue sepultado çerca de su padre / en vn tal onrrado e buen monumento

/ como mereçía su mereçimiento” (Manrique, “Defunsión” 283-85). Garcilaso was interred near his father in the presbytery of the convent church, a location that proclaims his prestige in conjunction with the design of his effigy. His funerary monument depicts a warrior adorned in armor recumbent on two pillows (Salazar 478). This posture was common to fifteenth-century nobles’ tomb sculptures, especially those of knights.199 The fact that the

199 Hispano-Flemish sculptors such as Gil and Diego de Siloé, Enrique Egas, and Juan Guas cultivated this style in the second half of the fifteenth century (Salazar 477-78). Sebastián de Almonacid used a similar style in the effigies of Luna and Juana Pimentel, which are posed with their hands clasped, as is Garcilaso’s effigy. In the tomb of another knight, Martín Váquez de Arce, known as the doncel of Sigüenza, Almonacid also sculpted this individual’s effigy with armor and the cross of Santiago to denote the deceased’s membership in this military religious order. However, Almonacid represented the doncel in a reclining position in which his head is elevated as he reads a book. For more information about this effigy and its reclining posture, see Röll (1998). For more information on tomb sculpture in the late Middle Ages, see Binski (1996).

134 effigy wears armor also proclaims Garcilaso’s military prowess, as does the inscription above his tomb niche, which Antonio Salazar translates from Latin:

Aquí yace Garcia, llamado Laso de apellido, Noble caballero, y de ilustres padres nacido, Terror de los Moros, y de la patria defensor, Murió espirando ante su Rey herido Por una saeta, que en la garganta se le clavó, Pero la muerte nada respeta, más la fama vive perpetua. (479)

Together, this epitaph and funerary sculpture echo the praise of Garcilaso’s virtue and military prowess in the “Defunsión.” The text and funerary monument fulfill a similar purpose: they memorialize Garcilaso’s fame, while serving the greater intent of defending the

Manrique clan’s status within their sociopolitical network.200 Many members of this network attended Garcilaso’s interment in a show of support following Enrique IV’s insult of the deceased knight and his family. Garcilaso’s younger brother, Lorenzo Suárez de Figueroa, who was Bishop of Badajoz, presided over the funeral with the assistance of Bartolomé

García, a priest from Zafra (Salazar 498). Garcilaso’s mother and sisters attended the funeral, and his brother, the Bishop of Badajoz, was present at Garcilaso’s wake, which included other relatives, such as their brothers-in-law Fadrique and Rodrigo Manrique (Salazar 497-

98).201

200 This correspondence is similar to that of Leonor de Castilla’s epitaph and Gómez’s praise of his mother in “No pocas vezes.” For more information on Garcilaso’s epitaph and the relationship between his burial and the “Defunsión,” see Sieber (1989). Deyermond suggests a similar parallel between the warrior’s burial place and memory by pointing out that Gómez uses the elegy to emphasize the “contraste entre el cuerpo que muere y la fama que perdura” (“La Defunzión” 101).

201 Their political allies Pedro Ponce de León, whose son, Luis Ponce de León was the I conde of Arcos, Juan Manuel, and other powerful nobles in Extremadura also attended Garcilaso’s wake (Salazar 497). In addition, many of these same individuals witnessed Garcilaso’s first burial at the church of Saint Mary in Quesada. The attendees included the poet Gómez Manrique, Garcilaso’s brothers-in-law Fadrique and Rodrigo Manrique, Enrique Enríquez, conde of Alva de Liste, Garcilaso’s brothers Lorenzo and Pedro Suárez de Figueroa, Garcilaso’s first cousins, including Santillana’s sons and Juan de Guzmán, conde of Niebla and duque of Medina Sidonia, and Luis Ponce de León, conde of Arcos (Salazar 496).

135 Following Gómez’s composition of the “Defunsión,” Rodrigo continued to advocate for the return of the Commandery of Montizón to his family’s control. In 1465, Rodrigo and his brother Íñigo joined other disgruntled nobles in the Farce of Ávila, in which they ceremoniously dethroned Enrique IV in effigy and crowned his half brother Alfonso King of

Castile (Montero Tejada 307).202 Alfonso rewarded the Manrique clan for its support by granting the Commandery of Montizón to Rodrigo’s son, Jorge (Domínguez, Love 12).203

Rodrigo, his sons Jorge and Pedro, his brother Fadrique, and his son-in-law Pedro Fajardo204 besieged Montizón until Diego Fernández de Iranzo was forced to surrender his property and title to Jorge Manrique in 1467 (Domínguez, Love 12). At that time, the Commandery of

Montizón returned to the Manrique clan’s control.205

202 Kasl has compared the destruction of Luna’s effigy in 1441 to the Farce of Ávila because both were political insurrections led by disgruntled nobles (42). According to Salazar, Enrique IV’s response to Garcilaso’s death in battle was the principal motivation for the Farce of Ávila: “Esta muerte tuvo especial significación en la historia de España por se la causa de la franca rebelión de los nobles contra el Rey, escandalizados de la conducta y malos sentimientos de éste, que trajo por consecuencia la serie de sucesos y guerras que jalonan tan funesto reinado, culminando con el afrentoso auto de Avila, en el año 1465…” (493). However, the Castilian nobles’ opposition to Enrique IV also stemmed from his policies in the War on Granada; his active oversight of the military orders; and his open favoritism of Muslims, Jews, lesser nobles and commoners at court. For more information on the crises that led to civil war during Enrique IV’s reign, see Phillips (1978). For more information on the Farce of Ávila, see MacKay (1985).

203 In light of the fact that Garcilaso’s son did not receive the Commandery of Montizón, Beltrán Pepió has compared Jorge Manrique’s acquisition of this title and property to the VII señor of Amusco Pedro Manrique’s receipt of Castrojeriz following Diego Gómez de Sandoval’s forfeiture of property in 1429 (Conflictos 84). However, other political motives may have played a role in Alfonso’s decision to grant the Commandery of Montizón to Jorge Manrique following the Farce of Ávila. Garcilaso’s son was raised in the household of his paternal grandmother, Elvira Laso de Mendoza, and then served Enrique IV in Écija (Salazar 486-87). In recognition of his loyalty, Enrique IV granted him the alcabalas from Écija in perpetuity in 1471 (Salazar 487). Since it appears that Garcilaso’s son did not join his Manrique relatives in their opposition to Enrique IV, the newly crowned Alfonso would likely not have granted him the Commandery of Montizón.

204 Pedro Fajardo was married to Rodrigo Manrique’s oldest daughter, Leonor Manrique (Martín Jiménez 186). Fajardo was adelantado of Murcia and alcaide of the alcázares of Murcia and Lorca, as well as a commander in the Order of Calatrava (Martín Jiménez 186). In addition to these positions of military authority, Fajardo enjoyed an elevated status as señor of Mula, Alhama, Molina, and Jumilla and conde of Cartagena (Martín Jiménez 186).

205 Jorge Manrique’s son, Luis, succeeded his father as Commander of Montizón in 1480 (Mercado Egea, “Los comendadores” 65). However, in 1494, Diego Fernández de Iranzo’s son of the same name initiated a suit against Luis Manrique for income allegedly owed to his father from the Commandery of Montizón (Mercado Egea, “Los comendadores” 65). Luis Manrique, who was a member of the Trece in the Order of Santiago, won

136 While Rodrigo and his relatives’ efforts to secure the Commandery of Montizón were ultimately successful, the Manrique clan again faced threats to its status upon Rodrigo’s death in 1476. As with Garcilaso’s demise, the loss of Rodrigo was both a personal and political blow for the Manrique family. Rodrigo’s son, the Commander of Montizón Jorge

Manrique, followed in the example of his uncle, Gómez, by composing an elegy, the “Coplas por la muerte de su padre,”206 to commemorate the Manrique lineage’s fame through

Rodrigo’s prestige.

III. Commemoration of the Manrique Lineage

Rodrigo Manrique was the second son of the VIII señor of Amusco, Pedro Manrique, yet surpassed both his father and older brother as patriarch of the extended Manrique clan.

Rodrigo defended his family’s interests through his activity in the Order of Santiago. The infante Enrique, Master of Santiago, knighted him when Rodrigo was only twelve years old and soon thereafter granted him the Commandery of Segura de la Sierra. As staunch supporters of the infantes of Aragón, Rodrigo opposed their enemy, Luna, on numerous occasions. When he imprisoned Pedro Manrique, Rodrigo led his brothers in a raid to free their father. The infante Enrique also tasked Rodrigo with recovering the administration of the Order of Santiago (Domínguez, Love 6-7). In 1440, Rodrigo became a member of the

Trece and, upon his father’s death that same year, inherited the señorío of Paredes de Nava

(Domínguez, Love 8). In recognition of Rodrigo’s chivalric activity on behalf of the the dispute in 1513 (Mercado Egea, “Los comendadores” 65). For more information on Jorge Manrique as Commander of Montizón, see Eloy Benito Ruano (1980) and Ángela Madrid y Medina (1988, 2000).

206 Numerous scholars have commented on Gómez Manrique’s literary influence on his nephew, Jorge. Three of Gómez’s works—the “Defunsión,” “A Diego Arias de Áuila,” and “Aguilando al conde de Paredes”—likely inspired sections of Jorge’s “Coplas por la muerte de su padre.” For more information the literary connection between Gómez and Jorge Manrique, see Ernesto Moreno Báez (1970), Jesús Castañón Díaz (1975), Francisco Lluch Mora (1982), and Domínguez (1988).

137 Manrique clan and its allies, Gómez glorified him as “el segundo Çid” (Manrique,

“Defunsión” 71). However, the title to which Rodrigo aspired—Master of Santiago—eluded him on two occasions.

In 1445, the death of the infante Enrique gave Juan II of Castile the opportunity to nominate Luna as Master of Santiago. Rodrigo vehemently opposed Luna’s election and claimed the position for himself (Domínguez, Love 8). However, he relinquished this claim in 1452, when Juan II granted him the hereditary title of conde of Paredes de Nava in exchange for his support of Luna (Domínguez, Love 8). In 1474, Rodrigo again claimed the position of Master of Santiago following a contested election against Alonso de Cárdenas.

Rodrigo’s death two years later prompted a new election to determine his successor as

Master of Santiago, in which his oldest son, Pedro, emerged as a leading candidate (Marino,

Jorge 7). However, Cárdenas again challenged the Manrique clan and eventually emerged victorious in 1477 (Domínguez, Love 184n70).207

This outcome devastated the Manrique family. The Trece not only favored Rodrigo’s rival, but also tarnished Rodrigo’s legacy by designating Cárdenas the immediate successor of the previous Master, Juan Pacheco, I marqués of Villena (Domínguez, Love 139).

Pacheco’s death in 1474 had prompted the election in which Rodrigo claimed the position of

Master of Santiago. Rodrigo’s victory had never been officially recognized, but even so his legacy was effectively overturned when Cárdenas was named Pacheco’s successor

(Domínguez, Love 139). In addition, Cárdenas forced Rodrigo’s descendants to surrender

207 In 1476, Isabel I attempted to avoid an armed confrontation between the rival factions that supported Pedro Manrique and Cárdenas as Master of Santiago. The queen asked that the Trece seek the Pope’s permission for Fernando to become interim administrator of the Order (Domínguez, Love 184n70). All parties agreed to this arrangement for a projected period of six years, but in 1477 Fernando called for the election of a permanent Master, in which Cárdenas emerged victorious (Domínguez, Love 184n70).

138 Segura de la Sierra.208 In the span of a little more than a year, the Manrique family lost its patriarch, a strategic landholding, and control of one of the most powerful positions in

Castile.

During the uncertain period following Rodrigo’s death, his son, Jorge, composed the

“Coplas por la muerte de su padre.” He completed the 40-stanza poem sometime before his own death in battle in 1479.209 Like Gómez’s poetry, Jorge’s “Coplas” was intended to defend the Manrique clan’s sociopolitical status and console the members of his family following the loss of their patriarch and the forfeiture of his properties. The author reminds his relatives—and the monarch—that the Manrique clan merits recognition based on the virtue of its lineage, as embodied in Rodrigo’s demonstration of military prowess. The

“Coplas” fulfills a similar intended purpose as Rodrigo’s funerary chapel in the convent of

208 Theoretically, all property that belonged to the military orders reverted to the Master upon a commander’s death. Just as Garcilaso’s heir was denied the Commandery of Montizón, Rodrigo Manrique’s descendants were not guaranteed the lucrative territories he had controlled in the Order of Santiago. His oldest son Pedro—who aspired to succeed his father as Master of Santiago—inherited his land and title as II conde of Paredes de Nava. Pedro also succeeded his father as the next Commander of Segura de la Sierra, until Cárdenas’ election as Master. The forfeiture of Segura de la Sierra was particularly devastating for the Manrique clan in light of the profitability of this property. As Pedro Porras Arboledas explains, “Eran privativos del comendador los monopolios, martiniegas, yantares, obsequios, montasgos, las mestas de Segura y Albaladejo, todos los diezmos, las salinas de Hornos y Siles, las dehesas de Matillas, Burjalista, Zafalfaraz, Zahora, Peñolite, Puebla y Villar de Secilla y Burjahariza, otros censos, portazgos y derechos de la jurisdicción, además de una serie de otros derechos. Su valor económico era el mayor de la Provincia, pasando de medio millón de maravedíes a casi dos cuentos en este período” (259). The forfeiture of these assets was a tremendous economic loss for the Manrique family. In addition, the longevity of Rodrigo’s tenure as Commander of Segura de la Sierra would have contributed to the Manrique clan’s reluctance to leave the property, which was located in close proximity to other Manrique-held territories, including Montizón. Both Gómez Manrique and Garcilaso de la Vega trained as knights at Segura de la Sierra, which was likely Jorge’s birthplace. However, scholars have also suggested that Jorge could have been born at Paredes de Nava, Ecija, or Valladolid (Domínguez, Love 10-11). For more information, see Genaro Navarro (1965).

209 Scholars disagree on whether Jorge wrote the “Coplas” immediately following Rodrigo’s demise in 1476 or shortly before his own three years later. He was killed while attempting to capture the castle of Garcimuñoz from the II marqués of Villena (Domínguez, Love 16). Jorge received a side wound that penetrated his kidneys, and he died in the nearby village of Santa María del Campo Rus (Domínguez, Love 17). At the time of his death, two stanzas of a poem lamenting the bitterness of earthly travails—in the vein of the de contempus mundi topic that is also found in the “Coplas”—were discovered. Some scholars suggest that these stanzas should be included with the other 40 stanzas of the “Coplas.” For example, see José J. Labrador, C. Ángel Zurita, and Ralph A. DiFranco (1985) and Giovanni Caravaggi (2002). For more information on when Jorge wrote the “Coplas” in relation to his own death, see Richard P. Kinkade (1970), Lomax (1972), and José Manuel Ortega Cézar (2007).

139 Uclés, the headquarters of the Order of Santiago. However, the more lasting monument is the work that Jorge created to memorialize his father and the Manrique lineage.

Jorge achieves this purpose in the “Coplas” by establishing a correspondence between Rodrigo’s achievements during his lifetime and the exemplary nature of his death.

The author uses both to affirm Rodrigo’s rightful position as Master of Santiago. He explains that Rodrigo attained this position as a result of his virtue:

Aquel de buenos abrigo, amado, por virtuoso, de la gente, el maestre don Rodrigo Manrique, tanto famoso e tan valiente. (Coplas” 289-94)

Rodrigo also ascended to the position of Master of Santiago “Por su gran habilidad, / por méritos e ancianía / bien gastada” (Manrique, “Coplas” 367-69). These verses connect

Rodrigo’s prowess to the prestige of his lineage, which he steadfastly defended through his military activity. Jorge explains, “y en este oficio ganó / las rentas e los vasallos / que le dieron” (“Coplas” 346-48). In light of the Manrique clan’s recent forfeiture of Segura de la

Sierra, Jorge reminds his relatives that Rodrigo used his prosperity to magnify the virtue of his lineage. Specifically, he “fizo tratos tan honrosos / que le dieron aun más tierra / que tenía” (Manrique, “Coplas” 358-60).

Jorge’s praise of Rodrigo’s virtue and prowess as Master of Santiago is similar to

Gómez’s glorification of Garcilaso in the “Defunsión.” Both authors imply that such illustrious warriors deserve appropriate recognition from the members of their sociopolitical networks, including the monarch. While Gómez suggests that Enrique IV should reward the

Manrique clan following Garcilaso’s honorable death in battle, Jorge emphasizes Rodrigo’s

140 steadfast allegiance to the Catholic Monarchs during his lifetime and goes so far as to suggest that the king, Fernando II of Aragón, owes his reign to Rodrigo’s military service:

Pues nuestro rey natural, si de las obras que obró fue servido, dígalo el de Portogal, y, en Castilla, quien siguió su partido. (“Coplas” 379-84)

The following stanza reaffirms that Rodrigo faithfully served “la corona de su rey / verdadero” (Manrique, “Coplas” 389-90).

These mentions of Fernando II of Aragón denote his position in Castile following his marriage to Isabel I in 1469.210 Upon the death of Enrique IV in 1474, Isabel proclaimed herself Queen of Castile. This action led to the five-year War of the Castilian Succession between Isabel I and Enrique IV’s heir, Juana, known as la Beltraneja. Juana married King

Alfonso V of Portugal, and the Portuguese faction of the Castilian nobility, including

Pacheco and his descendants, supported her in the war. Many of the Castilian nobles who opposed Enrique IV in the Farce of Ávila, including the Manrique clan, fought on behalf of

Isabel I. Rodrigo’s final military conquest in 1474 was to recapture the Order of Santiago’s strongholds of Ocaña and Uclés from Pacheco. Two years later, Rodrigo died in Ocaña of a cancerous lesion to the face.

By praising Rodrigo’s military prowess as Master of Santiago, Jorge defends his father’s claim to this position and his family’s status following the forfeiture of Segura de la

Sierra. The author sends a message to the implied readers, including relatives, opponents, and

210 Fernando II of Aragón was the son and heir of Juan II of Aragón. The marriage of Fernando and Isabel effectively ended decades of political turmoil between the opposing Aragonese and Castilian branches of the Trastámara monarchy. Noble families who had been forced to choose between an alliance with the infantes of Aragón or with Luna and Juan II of Castile celebrated the reunification of the ruling house during the reign of Isabel and Fernando, although in practice the monarchs ruled their respective realms separately. Nevertheless, the prospect of an alliance between Castile and Aragón attracted many nobles, such as the Manrique and Mendoza clans, to Isabel’s cause during the civil war (Nader 54).

141 the Catholic Monarchs, to remind them of Rodrigo’s exemplary service. Although the message lacks the harsh overtones of Gómez’s criticism of Enrique IV in the “Defunsión,”

Jorge nevertheless uses his elegy to protest the Manrique clan’s reversal of fortune, which, as he argues, does not reflect either the lasting influence of Rodrigo’s accomplishments or the virtue of the Manrique lineage. The author interprets Rodrigo’s death not as the catalyst of the Manrique clan’s misfortune, but rather an opportunity to demonstrate Rodrigo’s—and his family’s—continued preeminence.

Specifically, Jorge represents Rodrigo’s death as an extension of the virtue that he demonstrated as Master of Santiago. Rodrigo’s demise occurs at a strategic moment in his career:

Después de puesta la vida tantas vezes por su ley al tablero; después de tan bien servida la corona de su rey verdadero; después de tanta hazaña a que non puede bastar cuenta cierta. (Manrique, “Coplas” 385-93)

These verses refer to Rodrigo’s military prowess and political acumen, which he demonstrated through his willingness to risk his life on behalf of his family and the monarch.

The use of anaphora contributes to the glorification of Rodrigo, as Pedro Salinas has explained: “Los después los siento como sumandos, en la operación del ajuste final de cuentas, del balance vital del maestre” (149). Rodrigo’s death, although painful and certainly unfortunate for his descendants, fulfilled the exemplary trajectory of his life.

In this sense, Rodrigo’s death is his last hazaña as Master of Santiago. To end his successful career, the poem suggests that “en la su villa d’Ocaña / vino la Muerte a llamar / a

142 su puerta” (Manrique, “Coplas” 394-96). Historically, Rodrigo died at the Order of

Santiago’s stronghold at Ocaña, which he had recently captured from Pacheco’s supporters.

In addition to referencing one of Rodrigo’s accomplishments, these verses also reaffirm his esteemed status through the appearance of Death as a courteous visitor. Death addresses

Rodrigo with the respect due to the Master of Santiago:

«Buen caballero, dexad el mundo engañoso e su halago; vuestro corazón d’azero muestre su esfuerço famoso en este trago. (Manrique, “Coplas” 397-401)

This decorous invitation reflects Rodrigo’s esteemed status through repeated references to his military skill and bravery, which he must now assert in the final battle of his life.211 Death encourages Rodrigo to face it without fear, “pues otra vida más larga / de la fama glorïosa / acá dexáis” (Manrique, “Coplas” 412-14). Rodrigo’s fame, the result of his glorious career, will outlast the earthly life that afforded him such success. As a result, the pain of death is mitigated for Rodrigo, who must suffer “este trago” with the fortitude becoming of the Master of Santiago (Manrique, “Coplas” 401).

By resolutely accepting death, Rodrigo also attains the ultimate goal of a Christian knight: the salvation of his soul. Death encourages Rodrigo to “partid con buena esperança, /

211 Death’s courteous address to Rodrigo breaks with the tradition of the medieval danza de la muerte, in which a skeletal Death indiscriminately summons individuals from all social classes. The iconography of Death included a scythe, clock, owl, flute, and skeleton (Infantes 105, 108, 111). This phenomenon enjoyed both artistic and literary representations in Europe. In 1424, a fresco of the danza de la muerte was painted in the Holy Innocents’ Cemetery in Paris, France, suggesting a theatrical representation of death (Infantes 37). Textual versions of the danza de la muerte also include performative elements, such as dialogue between Death and the victims. The textual tradition of the danza de la muerte emerged in the late-fourteenth and early-fifteenth centuries in Germany, France, and Spain (Infantes 59). In Spain, the Dança general de la Muerte emerged around the year 1400 (Infantes 188). A later Castilian version from 1520 also survives in printed form (Infantes 241). Numerous scholars have commented on the relationship of the danza de la muerte to the “Coplas por la muerte de su padre.” For example, see Salinas (1947), Basave (1956), Gilman (1959), Gómez Galán (1960), Díaz (1971), Fernández Alonso (1971), Lluch Mora (1982), and María Esther Silberman de Cywiner (1992).

143 qu’estotra vida tercera / ganaréis” (Manrique, “Coplas” 442-44). The vida tercera refers to spiritual salvation, which is eternal.

These so-called tres vidas—earthly existence, glorious fame, and eternal salvation— form a continuum in which an individual’s lifelong demonstration of virtue leads to both fame and salvation after death.212 The author describes this progression as a metaphoric journey, or pilgrimage: “Este mundo es el camino / para el otro, qu’es morada / sin pesar”

(Manrique, “Coplas” 49-51). An individual can easily stray from the appropriate course by succumbing to the temptations of a sinful world. For this reason, Death encourages Rodrigo to “dexad el mundo engañoso” (Manrique, “Coplas” 398). However, the author clarifies that

“Este mundo bueno fue / si bien usásemos dél / como debemos” (Manrique, “Coplas” 61-63).

The author’s praise of Rodrigo indicates that he has used his worldly position to its best advantage. As Death reminds him:

«E pues vos, claro varón, tanta sangre derramastes de paganos, esperad el galardón que en este mundo ganastes por las manos. (Manrique, “Coplas” 433-38)213

212 Many scholars have commented on Jorge’s description of the tres vidas. For example, see Gilman (1959), Cruz Martínez Esteruela (1967), Susana Royer de Cardinal (1992), and Vivanco (2004).

213 Death’s promise suggests that Rodrigo has attained salvation because he has fulfilled the professional obligations of his social class. In the stanza immediately preceding these verses, Death explains how each class achieves eternal life: “«El vivir qu’es perdurable / non se gana con estados / mundanales, / ni con vida delectable / donde moran los pecados / infernales; / mas los buenos religiosos / gánanlo con oraciones / e con lloros; / los caballeros famosos, / con trabajos e aflicciones / contra moros»” (Manrique, “Coplas” 421-32). These classes represent the division of medieval society into three ranks: defensor, orador, and labrador, although Death does mention this last rank. However, all three ranks are equally susceptible to death, as Jorge explains in stanza XIV: “Esos reyes poderosos / que vemos por escripturas / ya passadas / con casos tristes, llorosos, / fueron sus buenas venturas / trastornadas; / assí, que no ay cosa fuerte, / que a papas y emperadores / e perlados, / assí los trata la muerte / como a los pobres pastores / de ganados” (Manrique, “Coplas” 157-68). The egalitarian warning in this stanza evokes that of the danza de la muerte because Death summons members of all three classes indiscriminately. However, in the Dança general de la muerte, three individuals—the labrador, the Benedictine monk, and the religious hermit—are saved because they accept Death’s call. The “Coplas” also encourage the reader to prepare for the inevitability of death, regardless of social distinction. For example, in stanza III, the author states, “Nuestras vidas son los ríos / que van a dar en la mar, / qu’es el morir; /

144

Rodrigo’s reward for his consummate service to his family, the monarch, and the

Order of Santiago is both worldly fame and eternal salvation. This outcome is apparent in the final stanza of the “Coplas.” Jorge’s poetic voice declares the fulfillment of the illustrious trajectory of Rodrigo’s tenure as Master of Santiago:

Assí, con tal entender, todos sentidos humanos conservados, cercado de su mujer y de sus hijos e hermanos e criados, dio el alma a quien gela dio (el cual la ponga en el cielo en su gloria), que aunque la vida perdió, dexónos harto consuelo su memoria. (Manrique, “Coplas” 471-80)

For the members of Rodrigo’s family and household who surrounded his deathbed,214 the correspondence between Rodrigo’s life and death as Master of Santiago provided consolation for their misfortunes. The author includes himself in this group when he states,

“dexónos harto consuelo / su memoria” (Manrique, “Coplas” 479-80). This memory of

Rodrigo is the legacy that he indelibly imposed on the members of his sociopolitical network, and that Jorge commemorates in the “Coplas” by emphasizing his father’s virtue and military allí van los señoríos / derechos a se acabar / e consumir; / allí los ríos caudales, / allí los otros medianos / e más chicos, / allegados, son iguales / los que viven por sus manos / e los ricos” (Manrique, “Coplas” 25-36).

214 Many scholars have interpreted Rodrigo’s death as a literary example of the Artes bene moriendi. This Christian ritual emerged as a spiritual antidote to the terrifying reality of death as a result of rampant warfare, famine, and disease in the fourteenth century (Gago Jover, “Presentación” 24). The ritual of the Artes bene moriendi required the dying individual, or Moriens, to resist the devil’s five temptations—doubt of faith, desperation, impatience, vainglory, and avarice—and reaffirm his or her own salvation through confession, repentance, and absolution of sin (Gago Jover, “Presentación” 29). Moriens received spiritual guidance and encouragement from a priest and his or her own relatives, who guarded the deathbed with their physical presence and prayers (Gago Jover, “Presentación” 30). If all participants correctly executed their roles, then Moriens achieved a good death with its promise of eternal life. For more information on the Artes bene moriendi, see Mary Catharine O’Connor (1942) and Rebeca Sanmartín Bastida (2006). For more information on Rodrigo’s death in the “Coplas” in the context of this Christian ritual, see Lía Noemí Uriarte Rebaudi (1981), Ruiz Salvador (1982), Beltrán Pepió (1993), Francisco Gago Jover (2002), and Juan Carlos Conde (2009).

145 prowess. The elegy is a memorial that enshrines Rodrigo’s fame as Master of Santiago in spite of Cárdenas’ attempts to diminish the Manrique clan’s status. The author’s affirmation that “dexónos harto consuelo / su memoria” is both a reminder of Rodrigo’s extraordinary deeds and a promise to future generations that their lineage will continue to prosper

(Manrique, “Coplas” 479-80).

As a memorial to Rodrigo as Master of Santiago that also speaks more broadly to the fortunes of his lineage, the “Coplas” is analogous to Rodrigo’s elected burial in the convent of Uclés. The Order of Santiago controlled this domain since its royal donation in 1174, and exactly three hundred years later, Rodrigo wrested control of Uclés from the II marqués of

Villena when Rodrigo was elected Master of Santiago (Pérez Ramírez 42, 67).215 To commemorate this achievement, Rodrigo recorded in his will a desire to be buried near the altar of the main chapel in the convent of Uclés (Pérez Ramírez 74). This practice was not uncommon among masters of the military religious orders.216 Rodrigo’s choice of burial site also reflected his patronage of this convent during his lifetime. Rodrigo donated a gold- plated, silver emblem of the Virgen de la Quinta Angusta, a priest’s tunic embroidered in scarlet, a cloth embroidered with Rodrigo’s coat of arms to adorn the chapel during Lent, and two organs for the chapel (Pérez Ramírez 75). His executor, Juan de Velasco, was the prior

215 For more information on the history of the Order of Santiago and Uclés, see María Ángeles Casado Sánchez (2002).

216 Luna dedicated his funerary chapel to Santiago in commemoration of his roles as administrator and Master of the Order of Santiago. In addition, Pedro Girón, who was Master of Calatrava from 1445 to 1466, constructed a funerary chapel at the convent of Calatrava la Nueva (Kasl 42). He commissioned the chapel in 1465, at the height of his power as Master of Calatrava, in coincidence with Enrique IV’s approval of Girón’s plan to marry Isabel (Kasl 42). The chapel was designed by Hanequín de Bruselas, and Girón’s alabaster tomb was sculpted by Hanequín’s brother, Egas Coeman (Kasl 42-43). They used a late-gothic Burgundian style that emphasized the contrast between Girón’s alabaster tomb and other black stonework in the chapel (Kasl 43). For more information on funerary practices in the military orders, see Cortés Arrese (1999) and Pérez Monzón (2007).

146 of Uclés and commissioned an alabaster tomb for Rodrigo in keeping with this patron’s testamentary provision (Pérez Ramírez 74).

Rodrigo’s burial in the convent of Uclés commemorated his role as Master of

Santiago but also established a precedent for other members of his casa. Rodrigo’s wife,

Mencía de Figueroa, was likewise an active patron of Uclés and donated a velvet chasuble with a border of white damask and adorned with gold and silver (Pérez Ramírez 75). Their oldest son, Pedro Manrique, who aspired to succeed Rodrigo as Master of Santiago, and his wife, Leonor de Acuña, made another series of donations in the form of a silver crucifix, a gold-plated, silver chalice, two silver candelabras, a pair of octagonal vials with handles and lids, and a blue brocade chasuble with a border featuring the apostle Saint James and Pedro

Manrique and his wife’s coats of arms (Pérez Ramírez 75). In 1481, Pedro Manrique left provisions in his will for his own burial in the convent of Uclés and for the translation of his mother—Rodrigo’s first wife Mencía de Figueroa—and several of his siblings, including

Jorge Manrique (Pérez Ramírez 74-75). Numerous other members of the Manrique clan were also buried in the convent of Uclés. They included Pedro’s wife, Leonor de Acuña, Rodrigo’s third wife, Elvira de Castañeda, another of Rodrigo’s sons, also named Rodrigo, and Jorge’s son, Luis (Montero Tejada 346).

The interments—and extravagant donations—of these individuals effectively created a family pantheon in the convent of Uclés. By choosing to be buried in this location, the members of the Manrique clan commemorated the prestige of their lineage in connection to the Order of Santiago. The motivation to proclaim the virtue of the Manrique lineage is common to both the individuals buried in the convent of Uclés and their relatives who chose to be interred in the Manrique clan’s pantheon in Calabazanos. However, neither foundation

147 was a memorial to the entire Manrique family because numerous individuals elected to be interred elsewhere.

In addition to the VIII señor of Amusco, Pedro Manrique, who built the convent of

Saint Mary in Valvanera, his brother, García Fernández de Manrique, I señor of Amayuelas, chose to be buried in the chapel of the monastery of Saint Francis in Málaga (Montero Tejada

347). García Fernández de Manrique had participated in the conquest of Málaga, of which he was also named corregidor and alcaide (Montero Tejada 347). His burial thus specifically reflects his military achievements, even though it broke with established family tradition.217

Other branches of the Manrique clan founded their own pantheons. For example, descendants of the condes of Castañeda and the condes of Osorno often chose to be buried in the monastery of the Santísima Trinidad in Burgos (Montero Tejada 343-35).218 Another example is that of the adelantado of Castile and señor of Frómista Gómez Manrique and his wife, Sancha de Rojas, who founded the monastery of Saint Mary in Fresdelval in 1404

(Montero Tejada 339).219 Before the foundation of these pantheons, members of the

Manrique clan were buried in San Salvador de Palacios de Benaver, a Lara foundation near

217 García Fernández Manrique’s burial in Málaga nevertheless allowed for some continuity with his relatives’ predilection for Calabazanos. In his will, he stated that he wanted to be translated to the family pantheon if he were not buried in Málaga (Montero Tejada 347). Although he requested that his wife, Aldonza Fajardo, be buried with him, she chose to be interred in Calabazanos in defiance of his testamentary bequest (Montero Tejada 345). Their daughter, Mencía Manrique, and son, Bernaldino Manrique, the II señor of Amayuelas, were also buried with Aldonza Fajardo (Montero Tejada 343). In addition, Bernaldino’s wife, Isabel Ordóñez, and their son, also named García Fernández Manrique, the III señor of Amayuelas, were interred in Calabazanos (Montero Tejada 343).

218 This monastery was founded in 1207 and destroyed in 1366 but was rebuilt by later generations of these clans (Montero Tejada 343). The I conde of Castañeda, Garci Fernández Manrique, built the main chapel in 1375 and provided for its continued expansion in his will (Montero Tejada 343). His wife, Aldonso Téllez de Castilla, and their daughter, Beatriz Manrique, also donated property to the monastery (Montero Tejada 343).

219 Gómez was distantly related to the branch of the Manrique clan that patronized the convent of Saint Mary of Consolation in Calabazanos. Gómez was the grandson of Garci Fernández Manrique and his first wife, Urraca de Levia. With his second wife, Teresa Vázquez de Toledo, Garci Fernández Manrique had several children, including the VII señor of Amusco, Diego Gómez Manrique, who created a testamentary bequest to build the convent at Calabazanos in 1381. For more information on the convent of Saint Mary in Fresdelval, see Yarza Luaces (1988).

148 Burgos, or the church of Saint Peter in Amusco, the location of the Manrique family’s señorío (Montero Tejada 338).

While each pantheon was intended to commemorate the prestige of the individuals enshrined there, Gómez and Jorge Manrique’s texts created a more inclusive memorial of the entire Manrique lineage. In Gómez’s “No pocas vezes,” the “Consolatoria,” and the

“Defunsión” and Jorge’s “Coplas,” the authors use specific instances of personal and political loss to make a broader statement about the fortunes of the Manrique family. The authors assuage their relatives’ suffering by offering the consolation of the Manrique clan’s fame, which also serves a political purpose to defend the clan’s sociopolitical status in response to misfortune. In this way, Gómez and Jorge Manrique are architects of their lineage’s legacy in this corpus of works.

In addition to creating a more inclusive memorial than the Manrique clan’s disparate pantheons, this corpus also outlasted several of the family’s architectural monuments. For example, following Garcilaso’s interment in the convent of Saint Clara, part of his effigy was destroyed, possibly during the Napoleonic Wars (Salazar 478). Gómez could not have foreseen this outcome when he described Garcilaso’s burial “en vn tan onrrado e buen monumento / como mereçía su mereçimiento,” yet the “Defunsión” endures as the more lasting memorial (Manrique 284-85). Similarly, the Manrique clan’s pantheon in the convent of Uclés was dismantled after 1578, when the convent was refurbished under new guidelines that prohibited burials in the main church (Pérez Ramírez 77). The tombs of Rodrigo and

Jorge Manrique have since been lost, but the “Coplas” continues to enshrine the memory of these individuals.220

220 Jorge clearly intended the “Coplas” as a memorial to Rodrigo, but some scholars also interpret this poem as a memory of its author, Jorge. For example, Kennedy states that “Jorge uses his family pride not only to promote

149 Jorge likely did not expect that his family’s pantheon would one day disappear, although he hints at the ephemeral nature of such architectural constructions in the “Coplas.”

He mentions “los edeficios reales / llenos d’oro,” but in the context of their absence: “¿dónde iremos a buscallos?; / ¿qué fueron sino rocíos / de los prados?” (Manrique, “Coplas” 218-19,

226-28).221 In contrast to the passing glory of physical structures, which can be altered or diminished over time, the legacy that Jorge and Gómez constructed for the Manrique clan in their texts was intended to last. Each poem defended the Manrique family’s interests in response to an immediate misfortune. As a corpus, these works allowed the Manrique clan to triumph over its detractors and surpassed its funerary monuments as a memorial of the

Manrique lineage’s prestige.

the Manrique dynasty in courtly, poetic circles, but also as a means of presenting himself as a matchless poet whose superiority lies not in technical virtuosity but in his ability to convey absolute and eternal truth” (“Fame” 103). Regardless, the success of the “Coplas” in achieving the author’s intended memorial purpose lies in the popularity of this text in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. As Marino explains, thirty-five editions of the “Coplas” were published in Spain between 1483 and 1600, compared to the roughly twenty editions of another influential text, Mena’s Laberinto de Fortuna (Jorge 29). Taking into account the distribution of each edition, Marino estimates that within a century of its composition, “…nearly 10,000 or more copies of the Coplas had been available in Spain” (Jorge 29).

221 Begoña Alonso Ruiz interprets these verses as the author’s condemnation of ostentatious buildings that belie the intended purpose of such structures to convey the virtue of a clan’s magnificence (“La nobleza” 221). This interpretation certainly applies to the description of the Manrique clan’s enemy, Luna, and his wealth in the “Coplas.” The author wonders: “Sus infinitos tesoros, / sus villas e sus lugares, / su mandar, / ¿qué le fueron sino lloros?, / ¿qué fueron sino pesares / al dexar?” (Manrique, “Coplas” 247-52). These verses evoke Santillana’s “Coplas contra don Álvaro de Luna” and “Doctrinal de privados” through the connection of Luna’s prosperity to his downfall. These verses are also part of the ubi sunt section of the “Coplas,” in which the author emphasizes the transitory nature of life and worldly goods by lamenting the loss of historical figures and their courtly endeavors through examples that were well known to the Manrique clan. For more information on the ubi sunt in the “Coplas,” see Anna Krause (1937), Ricardo G. Villoslada (1966), Rodolfo A. Borello (1967), Margherita Morreale (1975), Javier Martín Barrios (1986), Soto (1989), and Ortega Cézar (2007).

150

CONCLUSION

Writing a Past to Remember: Texts as Monuments in Medieval Castile has demonstrated the similarities in intent underlying some of the most significant works of medieval Spain. These works were composed for or by monarchs and nobles who faced competing claims to power and property. The texts defend the authors’ status within their sociopolitical networks and were read by other members of these networks. In this way, the texts serve an analogous purpose to the funerary chapels and monasteries that were constructed to commemorate the virtue of a prestigious individual and his or her clan.

The Redes Petristas model of qualitative social network analysis has provided the critical framework for this dissertation. Each chapter examines specific texts and monuments as instruments that an author or patron used to influence his or her network. Writing a Past to

Remember, however, extends the scope of Redes Petristas by addressing the diverse perspectives of Castilian elites in the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries.

This narrative invites us to reconsider Fernán Pérez de Guzmán’s affirmation that appears at the beginning of this dissertation: “…la buena fama quanto al mundo es el verdadero premio e galardón de los que bien e vertuosamente por ella trabajan, si esta fama se escrive corrupta e mintirosa, en vano e por demás trabajan los maníficos reyes e príncipes”

(66). This statement stems from the belief that there is only one correct account of events.

However, as these chapters demonstrate, all accounts about individuals—especially elites who quested for fame, like those that Pérez de Guzmán describes in Generaciones y

151 semblanzas—respond to different circumstances, perspectives, and motivations. What they have in common is the need for an author to create a lasting memory.

For this reason, Alfonso X praises the “sabios antigos” who turned to writing as a means to prevent “el desden de non querer los omnes saber las cosas, et la oluidança en que las echan depues que las saben” (Alfonso X, Primera I:3). Similarly, Juan de Mena’s invocation to the Laberinto de Fortuna issues the following invitation: “levante la Fama su boz ineffable, / por que los fechos que son al presente / vayan de gente sabidos en gente” (21-

23). Mena implies that his purpose is to protect the great deeds of illustrious individuals, including Juan II of Castile, from oblivion. In this same vein, Gómez Manrique casts himself as a guardian of the Manrique family’s legacy through a metaphor that compares his role as author of “No pocas vezes” and the “Consolatoria” to that of an architect of a house and church.

The authors tailored their accounts to defend their interests in response to two principal threats to their sociopolitical status: conflict with a monarch or other nobles and the loss of property. For example, both don Juan Manuel and Leonor López de Córdoba used their texts to decry the monarch’s alleged injustice. Don Juan Manuel protested the dishonor that he and his daughter, Constanza, experienced at the hands of Alfonso XI by juxtaposing the alleged curse of the ruling dynasty with the divine blessing of the Manuel line. Leonor similarly sought to redeem her family’s honor following her father’s ignominious death by implying that Enrique II and Catalina of Lancaster’s unfair treatment was no match for the blessings that Leonor had received from the Virgin Mary. Through such criticism of the monarchs, the authors also decry the forfeiture of their clans’ property.

152 Conflict over property led to opposing accounts of Luna’s rise to power and downfall.

Gonzalo de Chacón and Mena, who benefitted from Luna’s patronage, praised him as the pinnacle of chivalric virtue. Chacón especially implies that Luna’s titles and vast properties are deserved honors that reflect divine favor. However, the I marqués of Santillana and Pérez de Guzmán criticize Luna as an imposter and attribute his demise to his sinful accumulation of wealth. The nobles considered landholdings, especially mayorazgos, as a representation of a lineage’s virtue because property was an outward sign of innate virtue that happened to accrue in economic value and conferred added prestige to subsequent generations. This perspective accounts for Santillana’s opposition to Luna, although when his descendants acquired a sizeable portion of his patrimony, they supported María de Luna’s efforts to restore Luna’s memory in the Chapel of Santiago.

The connection between property and virtue also sheds additional light on the motivations behind Gómez and Jorge Manrique’s poetry. These authors responded to instances of both personal and political loss, such as Juana Manrique’s uncertain inheritance, the deaths of Garcilaso de la Vega and Rodrgo Manrique, and the forfeiture of strategic, lucrative properties in the Order of Santiago. Gómez and Jorge composed their respective textual memorials to reassure their intended readers that such tribulations did not jeopardize the fortunes of the Manrique clan.

Notwithstanding the differences in the nobles’ motivations, these authors employed similar strategies in their texts in defense of their sociopolitical status. Specifically, they reacted to past misfortunes by either affirming the innate virtue of their lineages or denigrating another’s standing. These strategies also apply to the Castilian elites’ monuments. The iconography of tomb sculptures and the location of pantheons guaranteed

153 that monuments intended to commemorate an individual’s achievements also proclaimed the magnificence of his or her lineage.

However, the nobles’ textual and architectural memorials shared inherent limitations.

An author’s text had to be consumed by an audience that included varied members of his or her sociopolitical network in order to effectively defend the author’s status. Even so, rivals with different opinions could write competing accounts. Likewise, the Castilian elites’ monuments only fulfilled their intended purpose if they remained intact.

The destruction of Luna’s original effigy in the Chapel of Santiago demonstrates how easy it was for the commemorative function of architectural memorials to be altered. While

Luna’s seated effigy proclaimed his prestige, its obliteration emphasized the polemic nature of Luna’s rise to power. The Chapel of Santiago is a unique example because María de Luna later commissioned new tombs and an ornate altarpiece to redeem Luna’s memory when she married into the Mendoza clan. Other funerary monuments, such as Rodrigo and Jorge

Manrique’s tombs in the convent of Uclés, did not stand the test of time and were lost due to subsequent renovations.

Yet, when examined together, the nobles’ textual and architectural memorials generally created an enduring statement of a clan’s prestige, in spite of each work’s inherent limitations. Don Juan Manuel, Leonor López de Córdoba, and Gómez Manrique were aware of this fact. Don Juan Manuel wrote for his son and clan but took care to deposit his works, including the Libro de las armas o de las tres razones, for all to see in the convent of Saint

John and Saint Paul in Peñafiel. Leonor’s Memorias was likely intended to be a testimonial of her miraculous survival and be stored in the Chapel of the Rosary. Gómez describes

Garcilaso’s interment in the convent of Saint Clara in Zafra in the “Defunsión.” Although

154 this effigy was later damaged, readers would remember Garcilaso’s military prowess through the text and be reminded of the Manrique clan’s sociopolitical status in the face of adversity.

These examples demonstrate that the Castilian elites’ prose, poetry, and religious foundations are elements in an ever-changing commemorative process that begins with their creation and extends their influence over the course of generations. This process admits alteration, as happened with Luna’s Chapel of Santiago, Garcilaso’s effigy in Zafra, and the

Manrique clan’s tombs in the convent of Uclés. This process also allows a text that was composed in response to a specific misfortune to become a statement of prestige for an entire lineage as it was read and passed down within a clan.

When viewed from this perspective, the nobles’ textual and architectural memorials reveal a flaw in Pérez de Guzmán’s reasoning: it is not possible that “en vano e por demás trabajan los maníficos reyes e príncipes” (66). Even when texts are challenged or monuments destroyed, the Castilian elites’ efforts to memorialize their fame are not wasted. Every text and monument contributes to ensuring that the memory of the nobles and monarchs will be kept alive in future generations.

155 WORKS CITED

Abad Castro, Concepción. “Espacios y capillas funerarias de carácter real.” Maravillas de la España Medieval: Tesoro sagrado y monarquía. León: Junta de Castilla y León, 2001. 63-71.

Alba López, Juan Carlos. “El regimen señorial castellano en el siglo XV: Teoría y práctica de un sistema de poder.” Las instituciones castellano-leonesas y portuguesas antes del Tratado de Tordesillas. Ed. Luis Suárez Fernández and José Ignacio Gutiérrez Nieto. Valladolid: Sociedad V Centenario del Tratado de Tordesillas, 1994. 131-45.

Alda Tesán, Jesús-Manuel. “Introducción.” Poesía. 23rd ed. Madrid: Cátedra, 2005. 11-74.

Alfonso, Isabel, Hugh Kennedy, and Julio Escalona, ed. Building Legitimacy: Political Discourses and Forms of Legitimacy in Medieval Societies. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Alfonso X. General estoria. 2 vols. Ed. Antonio G. Solalinde. Madrid: J. Molina, 1930.

---. Las Siete Partidas: Antología. Ed. Francisco López Estrada and María Teresa López García-Berdoy. Madrid: Castalia, 1992.

---. Primera crónica general de España. 2 vols. Ed. Ramón Menéndez Pidal. Madrid: Gredos, 1977.

Alonso, Álvaro. “Don Álvaro de Luna: Entre Piccolomini, Juan de Mena y las Crónicas.” Medievalismo en Extremadura: Estudios sobre Literatura y Cultura Hispánicas de la Edad Media. Ed. Jesús Cañas Murillo, Fco. Javier Grande Quijigo, and José Roso Díaz. Cáceres: Universidad de Extremadura, 2009. 19-28.

Alonso, Martín. Diccionario medieval español: Desde las Glosas Emilianenses y Silenses (s. X) hasta el siglo XV. Vol. 1. Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, 1986.

Alonso Ruiz, Begoña. Arquitectura tardogótica en Castilla: los Rasines. Cantabria: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cantabria, 2003.

---. La arquitectura tardogótica castellana entre Europa y América. Madrid: Sílex, 2011.

---. “La nobleza en la ciudad: Arquitectura y magnificencia a finales de la Edad Media.” Studia histórica. Historia moderna 34 (2012): 215-51.

---. “Un modelo funerario del tardogótico castellano: las capillas treboladas.” Archivo español de arte 78 (2005): 277-95.

Alonso Ruiz, Begoña, ed. La arquitectura tardogótica castellana entre Europa y América. Madrid: Sílex, 2011.

156 Althoff, Gerd. Family, Friends, and Followers: Political and Social Bonds in Early Medieval Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004.

Alvar, Manuel. “Alfonso X contemplado por don Juan Manuel.” La literatura en la época de Sancho IV. Alcalá de Henares: Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad de Alcalá, 1996. 91-106.

Alvar, Carlos and Sarah Finci. “Introducción.” Obras completas de don Juan Manuel. Ed. Carlos Alvar and Sarah Finci. Madrid: Biblioteca Castro, 2007. xi-xlix.

Álvarez Palenzuela, Vicente Ángel. “Del gobierno de la oligarquía a la tiranía de d. Álvaro de Luna (1435-1439). Espacio, Tiempo y Forma 30 (2017): 15-82.

Amasuno, Marcelino V. “Apuntaciones histórico-médicas al escrito autobiográfico de Leonor López de Córdoba (1362-1430).” Revista de Literatura Medieval 8 (1996): 29-71.

Arco, Ricardo del. Sepulcros de la Casa Real de Castilla. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1954.

Ariès, Philippe. Western Attitudes toward Death: From the Middle Ages to the Present. Trans. Patricia M. Ranum. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1974.

Armistead, Samuel G. “Cantares de gesta y crónicas alfonsíes: ‘Mas a grand ondra / tornaremos a Castiella.’” Actas del IX Congreso de la Asociación Internacional de Hispanistas, 18-23 agosto 1986, Berlín. Ed. Sebastian Neumeister. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert, 1989. 177-85.

Atlee, Carl. “A Reassessment of the Satirical Nature of Gómez Manrique’s Coplas para Diego Arias de Ávila.” La corónica 35.2 (2007): 173-207.

---. “Political Protest in Gómez Manrique’s Defunzión del noble cauallero García Laso de la Vega.” Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 87.2 (2010): 169-85.

Ayala Martínez, Carlos de. “Maestres y maestrazgos en la Corona de Castilla (Siglos XII- XV).” Las Órdenes Militares en la Península Ibérica. Vol. 1. Ed. Ricardo Izquierdo Benito and Francisco Ruiz Gómez. Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla- La Mancha, 2000. 325-78.

Ayerbe-Chaux, Reinaldo. “Las memorias de doña Leonor López de Córdoba.” Journal of Hispanic Philology 2 (1977): 11-33.

---. “Leonor López de Córdoba y sus ficciones históricas.” Historias y ficciones: Coloquio sobre la literatura del siglo XV. Actas del Coloquio Internacional organizado por el Departament de Filologia Espanyola de la Universitat de València, celebrado en Valencia los días 29, 30 y 31 de octubre de 1990. Ed. R. Beltrán, J. L. Canet, and J.

157 L. Sirera. Valencia: Universitat de València Departament de Filologia Espanyola, 1990. 17-23.

Baranda, Nieves. “Through Women’s Eyes: The Appropriation of Male Discourse by Three Medieval Women Authors.” A Companion to Women’s Studies. Ed. Xon de Ros and Geraldine Hazbun. Woodbridge: Tamesis, 2011. 81-95.

Barrio, José Antonio. “Introducción.” Generaciones y semblanzas. Madrid: Cátedra, 1998. 9- 50.

Barrios, Manuel. Pedro I el Cruel: La nobleza contra su rey. Madrid: Ediciones Temas de Hoy, 2001.

Basave, Agustín. “Fondo y forma de las Coplas de Manrique.” La Nueva Democracia 36 (1956): 41-47.

Bayón, Damián Carlos. Mecenazgo y arquitectura en el dominio castellano (1475-1621). Granada: Diputación Provincial de Granada, 1991.

Beceiro Pita, Isabel. “Bibliotecas y humanismo en el reino de Castilla: Un estado de la cuestión.” Hispania 175 (1990a): 827-39.

---. “La biblioteca del conde de Benavente a mediados del siglo XV y su relación con las mentalidades y usos nobiliarios de la época.” En la España medieval, II. Estudios en memoria del profesor D. Salvador de Moxó. Ed. Miguel Ángel Ladero Quesada. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1982. 135-45.

---. “La conciencia de los antepasados y la gloria del linaje en la Castilla bajomedieval.” Relaciones de poder, de producción y parentesco en la Edad Media y Moderna. Ed. Reyna Pastor. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1990b. 329- 49.

---. “La mujer noble en la Baja Edad Media castellana.” La condición de la mujer en la Edad Media: Actas del Coloquio celebrado en la Casa de Velásquez, del 5 al 7 de noviembre de 1984. Madrid: Casa de Velásquez, 1986. 289-313.

---. Libros, lectores y bibliotecas en la España medieval. Murcia: Nausícaä, 2006.

---. “Los conventos de clarisas y sus patronas. Medina de Pomar, Palencia y Calabazanos.” SÉMATA, Ciencias Sociais e Humanidades 26 (2014): 319-41.

---. “Los estados señoriales como estructura de poder en la Castilla del siglo XV.” Realidad e imágenes del poder: España a fines de la Edad Media. Valladolid: Ámbito, 1988. 293-325.

158 Beceiro Pita, Isabel and Ricardo Córdoba de la Llave. Parentesco, poder y mentalidad. La nobleza castellana siglos XII-XV. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1990.

Beceiro Pita, Isabel and A. Franco Silva. “Cultura nobiliar y bibliotecas, cinco ejemplos de las postrimerías del siglo XIV a mediados del siglo XVI.” Historia, Instituciones, Documentos 12 (1985): 217-350.

Béjar, Helena. “Fama y vanidad.” Revista de occidente 299 (2006): 44-64.

Bellido, Juan Félix. “Leonor López de Córdoba: De la oscuridad a la luz por la palabra expresada.” En el espejo de la cultura: Mujeres e iconos culturales. Seville: ArCiBel Editores, 2004. 17-23.

---. “«Veréis la más desventurada, desamparada y más maldita mujer de todo el mundo». Dolor y desamparo en Leonor López de Córdoba.” Mujeres y ausencias: Duelo y escrito. Ed. Miriam Palma Ceballos and Eva Parra Membrives. Bern: Peter Lang, 2009. 13-39.

Beltrán, Luis. “The Poet, the King, and the Cardinal Virtues in Juan de Mena’s Laberinto.” Speculum 46 (1971): 318-32.

Beltrán Pepió, Vicente. Conflictos políticos y creación literaria entre Santillana y Gómez Manrique: La Consolatoria a la condesa de Castro. Madrid: Iberoamericana, 2016.

---. “La transmisión textual de las Coplas manriqueñas.” Incipit 7 (1987): 95-117.

---. “Poesía, ceremonia y celebración en la Consolatoria a la Condesa de Castro de Gómez Manrique.” Cuadernos del CEMYR 17 (2009): 153-68.

Benito Ruano, Eloy. “Un episodio bélico (y un autógrafo) de Jorge Manrique.” En la España medieval IV. Vol. 1. Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 1980. 139-45.

Benito-Vessels, Carmen. Juan Manuel: Escritura y recreación de la historia. Madison: Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies, 1994a.

---. “La prosa histórica de don Juan Manuel: La Crónica abreviada y el Libro de las armas.” Actas del III de la Asociación Hispánica de Literatura Medieval (Salamanca, 3 al 6 de octubre de 1989). Vol. 1. Ed. María Isabel Toro Pascua. Salamanca: Biblioteca Española del Siglo XV Departamento de Literatura Española e Hispanoamericana, 1994b. 181-86.

---. Lenguaje y valor en la literatura medieval española. Newark: Juan de la Cuesta, 2014.

159 Berco, Cristian. “Juana Pimentel, the Mendoza Family, and the Crown.” Power and Gender in Renaissance Spain: Eight Women of the Mendoza Family, 1450-1650. Ed. Helen Nader. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 2004. 27-47.

Bermejo Cabrero, José Luis. “Ideales políticos de Juan de Mena.” Revista de estudios politicos 188 (1973): 153-75.

Bertelli, Sergio. The King’s Body: Sacred Rituals of Power in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Trans. R. Burr Litchfield. University Park: The Pennsylvania State UP, 2001.

Bianchini, Janna. The Queen’s Hand: Power and Authority in the Reign of Berenguela of Castile. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2012.

Binski, Paul. Medieval Death: Ritual and Representation. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1996.

Borello, Rodolfo A. “Las Coplas de Manrique: Estructura y fuentes.” Cuadernos de Filología 1 (1967): 49-71.

Bradbury, Jim. The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare. London: Routledge, 2004.

Brans, J. V. L. Isabel la Católica y el arte hispano-flamenco. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica, 1952.

Briesemeister, Dietrich. “The Consolatio Philosophiae of Boethius in Medieval Spain.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 53 (1990): 61-70.

Burke, James F. “Alfonso X and the Structuring of Spanish History.” Revista Canadiense de Estudios Hispánicos 9.3 (1985): 464-71.

Cabrera, Emilio. “Los grupos privilegiados en Castilla en la segunda mitad del siglo XV.” Congreso Internacional de Historia: El Tratado de Tordesillas y su época. Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León; Tordesillas: V Centenario del Tratado de Tordesillas; Setúbal: Comemorações Descobrimentos Portugeses, 1995. 265-90.

Cabrera Sánchez, Margarita. “El destino de la nobleza petrista: La familia del maestre Martín López de Córdoba.” En la España Medieval 24 (2001): 195-238.

Calderón, Piedad. “El género autobiográfico en las memorias de Leonor López de Córdoba.” Medioevo y literatura: Actas del V Congreso de la Asociación Hispánica de Literatura Medieval (Granada, 27 septiembre – 1 octubre 1993). Vol. 1. Ed. Juan Paredes. Granada: Universidad de Granada, 1995. 463-70.

Calderón Ortega, José Manuel. Álvaro de Luna: Riqueza y poder en la Castilla del siglo XV. Madrid: Editorial Dykinson, 1998.

160 ---. “Los privados castellanos del siglo XV: reflexiones en torno a Álvaro de Luna y Juan Pacheco.” Los validos. Ed. José Antonio Escudero. Madrid: Dykinson, 2004. 41-62.

Camacho Guizado, Eduardo. La elegía funeral en la poesía española. Madrid: Editorial Gredos, 1969.

Cano Aguilar, Rafael. “Los prólogos alfonsíes.” Cahiers de linguistique hispanique medieval 14-15 (1989): 79-90.

Caravaggi, Giovanni. “Sobre las coplas póstumas de Jorge Manrique.” Pulchre, bene, recte: Estudios en homenaje al Prof. Fernando González Ollé. Pamplona: EUNSA: Gobierno de Navarra, Departamento de Educación y Cultura, 2002. 235-44.

Carceller Cerviño, María del Pilar. “Álvaro de Luna, Juan Pacheco y Beltrán de la Cueva: un estudio comparativo del privado regio a fines de la Edad Media.” En la España Medieval 32 (2009): 85-112.

---. “El ascenso político de Miguel Lucas de Iranzo: Ennoblecimiento y caballería al servicio de la monarquía.” Boletín del Instituto de Estudios Giennenses 176 (2000): 11-30.

Cárdenas, Anthony J. “The Literary Prologue of Alfonso X: A Nexus between Chancery and Scriptorium.” Thought 60 (1985): 456-67.

Carrasco Martínez, Adolfo. “Los Mendoza y lo sagrado. Piedad y símbolo religioso en la cultura nobiliaria.” Cuadernos de Historia Moderna 25 (2000): 233-69.

Carrete Parrondo, Juan. “Sebastián de Toledo y el sepulcro de don Álvaro de Luna.” Revista de Ideas 131 (1975): 37-43.

Carriazo Rubio, Juan Luis and Miguel Ángel Ladero Quesada. La memoria del linaje: los Ponce de León y sus antepasados a fines de la Edad Media. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla, 2002.

“Casa.” Diccionario de la lengua española. 27 Nov. 2018, http://dle.rae.es/?id=7lsKMtR.

Casado Sánchez, María Ángeles. “La Real Casa de Santiago y convento de Uclés: Construcciones militares y monásticas.” Revista de Historia Moderna: Anales de la Universidad de Alicante 20 (2002): 5-39.

Caso González, José Miguel. “La Primera crónica general y sus fuentes épicas.” Actas de las III jornadas de estudios Berceanos. Ed. Claudio García Turza. Logroño: Servicio de Cultura de la Excma. Diputación Provincial, 1981. 33-56.

Castañón Díaz, Jesús. “Cara y cruz de las Coplas de Jorge Manrique.” Publicaciones de la Institución Tello Téllez de Meneses 35 (1975): 139-73.

161 Castillo Cáceres, Fernando. “El castillo-palacio de Escalona, corte y escenario de poder de Álvaro de Luna.” La Fortaleza Medieval: Realidad y Símbolo (1998): 267-79.

---. “Notas acerca del tesoro monetario de don Álvaro de Luna en el Castillo de Escalona.” Numisma 253 (1994): 61-75.

---. “El trono de Juan II en el Laberinto de Fortuna.” Cuadernos de historia de España 74 (1997): 67-100.

Catalán, Diego. “Don Juan Manuel ante el modelo alfonsí: El testimonio de la Crónica abreviada.” Juan Manuel Studies. Ed. Ian Macpherson. London: Tamesis, 1977. 17- 51.

---. La Estoria de España de Alfonso X: Creación y evolución. Valencia: Artes Gráficas Soler, 1992.

Cerghedean, Gabriela. Dreams in the Western Literary Tradition with Special Reference to Medieval Spain: A Method for Interpreting Oneiric Texts. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen P, 2006.

Cesareo, Francesco C. “The Centrality of the King in the Thought of Alfonso X of León- Castile.” Kings and Kingship 11 (1984): 121-32.

Chacón, Gonzalo de. Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna. Ed. Juan de Mata Carriazo. Madrid: Espasa Calpa S.A., 1940.

Chacón Jiménez, Francisco and Juan Hernández Franco, eds. Espacios sociales, universos familiares: La familia en la historiografía española. XXV aniversario del Seminario Familia y élite de poder en el Reino de Murcia. Siglos XV-XIX. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia, 2007.

Checa, Fernando. “Poder y piedad: El mecenazgo de la nobleza.” Reyes y mecenas: Los Reyes Católicos – Maximiliano I y los inicios de la Casa de Austria en España. Toledo: Electa España, 1992a. 305-526.

---. “Poder y piedad: Patronos y mecenas en la introducción del renacimiento en España.” Reyes y mecenas: Los Reyes Católicos – Maximiliano I y los inicios de la Casa de Austria en España. Toledo: Electa España, 1992b. 21-54.

Chico Picaza, María Victoria. “De los preliminares al interior del códice: la imagen del Rey Sabio como hilo conductor.” Los paratextos y la edición en el libro medieval y moderno. Ed. Helena Carvajal González. Zaragoza: Prensas de la Universidad de Zaragoza, 2016. 15-28.

Chicote Pompanín, María Teresa and Ángel Fuentes Ortiz. “‘El auctor de esta obra es el condestable don Álvaro de Luna’. Génesis, iluminación y suntuosidad en las

162 Virtuosas e claras mugeres.” Don Álvaro de Luna y Escalona: Poder, propaganda y memoria histórica en el otoño de la Edad Media. Ed. Óscar López Gómez. Escalona: Diputación de Toledo y Ayuntamiento de Escalona, 2013. 171-212.

Chueca Goitia, Fernando. Casas reales en monasterios y conventos españoles. Bilbao: Xarait Ediciones, 1982.

Clavero, Bartolomé. Mayorazgo: Propiedad feudal en Castilla, 1369-1836. Madrid: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 1989.

Coates, Geraldine. “‘Et si desto menguas’: decadenica imperial en la Estoria de España.” El relato historiográfico: Textos y tradiciones en la España medieval. Ed. Francisco Bautista. London: Department of Hispanic Studies, Queen Mary, U of London, 2006. 103-21.

---. “‘Et si desto menguas’: Imperial Decline in the Estoria de España.’” Treacherous Foundations: Betrayal and Collective Identity in Early Spanish Epic, Chronicle, and Drama. Woodbridge: Tamesis, 2009. 76-112.

Colón, Marcos. “Voz narrativa y autorepresentación en las Memorias de doña Leonor López de Córdoba.” Córdoba, cauce de civilizaciones. Ed. Juan Fernández Jiménez and Guadalupe R. Alvear Madrid. Erie: ALDEEU, 2011. 3-16.

Cómez Ramos, Rafael. “La monarquía castellana y el arte gótico.” Alfonso X y su época: El siglo del rey sabio. Ed. Miguel Rodríguez Llopis. Barcelona: Carroggio, 2001. 287- 315.

---. Las empresas artísticas de Alfonso X el Sabio. Sevilla: Excma. Diputación Provincial de Sevilla, 1979.

Conde, Juan Carlos. “Conservados/olvidados: Una copla de Manrique y los límites del método neolachmanniano.” Incipit 29 (2009): 59-84.

Cooper, Edward. Castillos señoriales en la corona de Castilla. Vols. I-IV. Salamanca: Junta de Castilla y León Consejería de Cultura y Turismo, 1991.

Cooper, J.P. “Patterns of inheritance and settlement by great landowners from the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries.” Family and Inheritance: Rural Society in Western Europe, 1200-1800. Ed. Jack Goody, Joan Thirsk, and E.P. Thompson. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1976. 192-305.

Cortés Arrese, Miguel. El espacio de la muerte y el arte de las órdenes militares. Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 1999.

Covarrubias Horozco, Sebastián de. Tesoro de la lengua castellana o española. Ed. Ignacio Arellano and Rafael Zafra. Madrid: Iberoamericana, 2006.

163

Crawford, Michael J. The Fight for Status and Privilege in Late Medieval and Early Modern Castile, 1465-1598. University Park: The Pennsylvania State UP, 2014.

Crites, Dayna. “Churches Made Fit for a King: Alfonso X and Meaning in the Religious Architecture of Post-Conquest Seville.” Medieval Encounters 15 (2009): 391-413.

Cruz-Saenz, Michèle S. “The Marqués de Santillana’s Coplas on Don Álvaro de Luna and the Doctrinal de privados.” Hispanic Review 49.2 (1981): 219-24.

Darst, David H. “Poetry and Politics in Jorge Manrique’s Coplas por la muerte de su padre.” Medievalia et Humanistica 13 (1985): 197-205.

Dacosta, Arsenio, José Ramón Prieto Lasa, and José Ramón Díaz de Durana, ed. La conciencia de los antepasados: La construcción de la memoria de la nobleza en la Baja Edad Media. Madrid: Marcial Pons Historia, 2014.

Delogu, Paolo. An Introduction to Medieval History. Trans. Matthew Moran. London: Duckworth, 2002.

Dewald, Jonathan. The European Nobility, 1400-1800. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996.

Deyermond, Alan. “Cuentos orales y estructura formal en el Libro de las tres razones (Libro de las armas).” Don Juan Manuel: VII Centenario. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia Academia Alfonso X El Sabio, 1982. 75-87.

---. “Historia sagrada y técnica dramática en la Representación del nacimiento de Nuestro Señor, de Gómez Manrique.” Historias y ficciones: Coloquio sobre la literatura del siglo XV. Ed. R. Beltrán, J. L. Canet, and J. L. Sirera. València: Universitat de València, Departament de Filología Espanyola, 1990. 291-305.

---. “La Defunzión del noble cavallero Garcilasso de la Vega, de Gómez Manrique.” DICENDA. Cuadernos de Filología Hispana 6 (1987): 93-112.

---. “Las autoras medievales castellanas a la luz de las últimas investigaciones.” Medioevo y literatura: Actas del V Congreso de la Asociación Hispánica de Literatura Medieval (Granada, 27 septiembre – 1 octubre 1993). Vol. 1. Ed. Juan Paredes. Granada: Universidad de Granada, 1995. 31-47.

---. “Spain’s First Women Writers.” Women in Hispanic Literature: Icons and Fallen Idols. Ed. Beth Miller. Berkeley: U of California P, 1983. 27-52.

---. “Structure and Style as Instruments of Propaganda in Juan de Mena’s Laberinto de Fortuna.” Proceedings of the Patristic, Medieval, and Renaissance Conference 5 (1980): 159-67.

164 ---. “The Libro de las tres razones Reconsidered.” “Never-ending Adventure”: Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Spanish Literature in Honor of Peter N. Dunn. Ed. Edward H. Friedman and Harlan Sturm. Newark: Juan de la Cuesta, 2002. 81-107.

---. “Women and Gómez Manrique.” Cancionero Studies in Honour of Ian Macpherson. Ed. Alan Deyermond. London: Department of Hispanic Studies, Queen Mary and Westfield College, 1998. 69-87.

Diago Hernando, Máximo. “El papel de la alta nobleza en el proceso de reforma de los monasterios benedictinos de la Corona de Castilla a fines del Medioevo.” Poder, piedad y devoción: Castilla y su entorno (siglos XII-XV). Ed. Isabel Beceiro Pita. Madrid: Sílex, 2014. 359-88.

Díaz, Ramón. “La cortesía de Jorge Manrique con la muerte.” Papeles de Son Armadans 60 (1971): 139-48.

Díaz Martín, Luis Vicente. “La elección de Martín López de Córdoba como Maestre de Calatrava.” Homenaje a Fray Justo Pérez de Urbel 1 (1976): 423-32.

---. Los oficiales de Pedro I de Castilla. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, 1975.

Díez de Revenga, Francisco Javier. “El Libro de las armas de don Juan Manuel: Algo más que un libro de historia.” Don Juan Manuel: VII Centenario. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia Academia Alfonso X El Sabio, 1982. 103-16.

Díez de Revenga, Francisco Javier and María Concepción Ruiz Abellán. “Denominación y títulos de don Juan Manuel.” Miscelánea Medieval Murciana 8 (1981): 9-29.

Díez del Corral Garnica, Rosario. “Arquitectura y magnificencia en la España de los Reyes Católicos.” Reyes y mecenas: Los Reyes Católicos – Maximiliano I y los inicios de la Casa de Austria en España. Toledo: Electa España, 1992. 55-78.

Domínguez, Frank A. “Chains of Iron, Gold, and Devotion: Images of Earthly and Divine Justice in the Memorias of Doña Leonor López de Córdoba.” Medieval Iberia: Changing Societies and Cultures in Contact and Transition. Ed. Ivy A. Corfis and Ray Harris-Northall. Woodbridge: Tamesis, 2007. 30-44.

---. Love and Remembrance: The Poetry of Jorge Manrique. Lexington: The UP of Kentucky, 1988.

Domínguez Rodríguez, Ana. “El testamento de Alfonso X y la Catedral de Toledo.” Reales Sitios 21.82 (1984): 73-75.

---. “Sevilla y el «scriptorium» alfonsí.” Sevilla 1248. Sevilla: Ayuntamiento de Sevilla, Área de Cultura, 2000. 635-59.

165

Doñas, Antonio. “La Consolaçión natural, versión castellana de la Consolatio philosophiae encargada por Ruy López Dávalos: cartas preliminares.” Actas del XI Congreso Internacional de la Asociación Hispánica de Literatura Medieval: Universidad de León, 20 al 24 de septiembre de 2005. León: Universidad de León, Secretariado de Publicaciones, 2007. 491-500.

Doubleday, Simon R. The Lara Family: Crown and Nobility in Medieval Spain. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2001.

Dunn, Peter N. “The Structures of Didacticism: Private Myths and Public Fictions.” Juan Manuel Studies. Ed. Ian Macpherson. London: Tamesis, 1977. 53-67.

Dyer, Nancy Joe. “Alfonsine Historiography: The Literary Narrative.” Emperor of Culture: Alfonso X the Learned of Castile and His Thirteenth-Century Renaissance. Ed. Robert I. Burns, S. J. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1990. 141-58.

---. El Mio Cid del taller alfonsí: versión en prosa en la Primera Crónica General y en la Crónica de veinte reyes. Newark: Juan de la Cuesta, 1995.

---. “El Poema de Mio Cid en la Primera crónica general y la Crónica de veinte reyes.” La juglaresca: Actas del I Congreso Internacional sobre la juglaresca. Ed. Manuel Criado de Val. Madrid: EDI-6, 1986. 221-28.

Earle, Gisèle. Gómez Manrique, Statesman and Poet: The Practice of Poetry in Fifteenth Century Spain. Cambridge: Legenda, 2018.

Echegaray, Lynne. “The Missing Family: Silencing in the Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna.” The Medieval Chronicle IV. Ed. Erik Kooper. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2006. 81-89.

Elliott, Elizabeth. Remembering Boethius: Writing Aristocratic Identity in Late Medieval French and English Literatures. Burlington: Ashgate, 2012.

Elliott, J. H. and L. W. B. Brockliss, ed. The World of the Favourite. New Haven: Yale UP, 1999.

Entrambasaguas, Joaquín de. Los Manrique: poetas del siglo XV. Zaragoza: Editorial Ebro, 1996.

Escudero, José Antonio. “Introducción. Privados, validos y primeros ministros.” Los validos. Ed. José Antonio Escudero. Madrid: Dykinson, 2004. 15-33.

Estepa Díaz, Carlos. “El ‘fecho del Imperio’ y la política internacional en la época de Alfonso X.” Estudios alfonsíes: Lexicografía, lírica, estética y política de Alfonso el Sabio. Granada: Facultad de Filosofía y Letras Instituto de Ciencas de la Educación, 1985. 189-205.

166

Estow, Clara. “Leonor López de Córdoba: A Case for Writing Women.” Models in Medieval Iberian Literature and Their Modern Reflections: Convivencia as Structural, Cultural and Sexual Ideal. Ed. Judy B. McInnis. Newark: Juan de la Cuesta, 2002. 155-71.

---. “Leonor López de Córdoba: Portrait of a Medieval Courtier.” Fifteenth Century Studies 5 (1982): 23-46.

---. Pedro the Cruel of Castile, 1350-1369. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Falcón Márquez, Teodoro. La catedral de Sevilla: Estudio arquitectónico. Seville: Excelentísimo Ayuntamiento de Sevilla, 1980.

Fear, Andy. “The Christian Optimism of Paulus Orosius.” From Orosius to the Historia Silense: Four Essays on the Late Antique and Early Medieval Historiography of the Iberian Peninsula. Ed. David Hook. Bristol: HiPLAM, 2005. 1-16.

Fenster, Thelma and Daniel Lord Smail. Fama: The Politics of Talk and Reputation in Medieval Europe. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2003.

Fernández Alonso, María del Rosario. “Visiones de la muerte en Manrique: Poeta en quien culminan tres líneas tradicionales sublimándose.” Una visión de la muerte en la lírica española: La muerte como amada. Madrid: Editorial Gredos, 1971. 107-15.

Fernández Fernández, Laura. Arte y ciencia en el scriptorium de Alfonso X el Sabio. El Puerto de Santa María: Cátedra Alfonso X el Sabio, 2013.

Fernández González, Etelvina. “Don Álvaro de Luna, Condestable de Castilla y Maestre de Santiago: Hombre de su tiempo y promotor de las artes.” La nobleza peninsular en la Edad Media. Ávila: Fundación Sánchez Albornoz, 1997. 135-70.

Fernández Madrid, M.a Teresa. El mecenazgo de los Mendoza en Guadalajara. Guadalajara: Institución Provincial de Cultura, 1991.

Fernández-Ordóñez, Inés. “El taller historiográfico alfonsí. La Estoria de España y la General estoria en el marco de las obras promovidas por Alfonso el Sabio.” El scriptorium alfonsí: De los libros de astrología a las ‘Cantigas de Santa María’. Ed. Jesús Montoya Martínez and Ana Domínguez Rodríguez. Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1999. 105-26.

---. “La historiografía alfonsí y post-alfonsí en sus textos. Nuevo panorama.” Cahiers de linguistique hispanique medieval 18-19 (1993): 101-32.

---. Las Estorias de Alfonso el Sabio. Madrid: Istmo, 1992.

167 Firpo, Arturo Roberto. “Un ejemplo de autobiografía medieval: las Memorias de Leonor López de Córdoba (1400).” Zagadnienia Rodzajów Literackich 23.1 (1980): 19-31.

Flory, David A. El Conde Lucanor: Don Juan Manuel en su contexto histórico. Madrid: Editorial Pliegos, 1995.

Folger, Robert. Generaciones y semblanzas: Memory and Genealogy in Medieval Iberian Historiography. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen, 2003.

---. “Noble Subjects: Interpellation in Generaciones y semblanzas and Claros varones de Castilla.” eHumanista 4 (2004): 22-50.

Foronda, François. “La privanza, entre monarquía y nobleza.” La monarquía como conflicto en la corona castellano-leonesa (1230-1504). Ed. José Manuel Nieto Soria. Madrid: Sílex, 2006. 73-132.

---. “Patronazgo, relación de clientela y estructura clientelar. El testimonio del epílogo de la Historia de don Álvaro de Luna.” Hispania 50 (2010): 431-60.

Fraker, Charles. “Alfonso X, the Empire, and the Primera Crónica.” Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 55 (1978): 95-102.

Franco Silva, Alfonso. “El destino del patrimonio de don Álvaro de Luna. Problemas y conflictos en la Castilla del siglo XV.” La fortuna y el poder. Estudios sobre las bases económicas de la aristrocracia castellana (s. XIV-XV). Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz Servicio de Publicaciones, 1996. 265-307.

---. “El linaje Sandoval y el señorío de Lerma en el siglo XV.” Señores y señoríos (Siglos XIV-XVI). Jaén: Universidad de Jaén, 1997. 95-113.

---. “La villa toledana de Escalona. De don Álvaro de Luna a los Pacheco.” En la Baja Edad Media (Estudios sobre señoríos y otros aspectos de la sociedad castellana entre los siglos XIV al XVI). Jaén: Universidad de Jaén, 2000. 161-89.

Funes, Leonardo. “Don Juan Manuel y la herencia alfonsí.” Actas del VIII Congreso Internacional de la Asociación Hispánica de Literatura Medieval. Ed. Margarita Freixas, Silvia Iriso, and Laura Fernández. Santander: Consejería de Cultura del Gobierno de Cantabria, 2000a.

---. El modelo historiográfico alfonsí: Una caracterización. London: Department of Hispanic Studies Queen Mary and Westfield College, 1997.

---. “Elementos para una poética del relato histórico.” Poétique de la chronique. L'écriture des textes historiographiques au Moyen Âge (péninsule Ibérique et France). Ed. Amaia Arizaleta. Toulouse: Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail, 2008. 241-273.

168 ---. “Excentricidad y descentramiento en la figura autoral de don Juan Manuel.” eHumanista 9 (2007): 1-19.

---. “La construcción ficcional del acontecimiento histórico en el discurso narrativo de mediados de siglo XIV.” Studia Hispánica Medievalia III. Actas de las IV Jornadas Internacionales de Literatura Española Medieval. Ed. Rosa E. Penna and María A. Rosarossa. Buenos Aires: Universidad Católica Argentina, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, 1995. 59-68.

---. “Las variaciones del relato histórico en la Castilla del siglo XIV. El period post-alfonsí.” Estudios sobre la variación textual. Prosa castellana de los siglos XIII a XVI. Buenos Aires: SECRIT, 2001. 111-34.

---. “Paradojas de la voluntad de autoría en la obra de don Juan Manuel.” Actas del XIII Congreso de la Asociación Internacional de Hispanistas. Vol. 1. Ed. Florencio Sevilla and Carlos Alvar. Madrid: Castalia, 2000b. 126-33.

Funes, Leonardo and María Elena Qués. “La historia disidente: El lugar del Libro de las armas en el discurso historiográfico del siglo XIV castellano.” Atalaya 6 (1995): 71- 78.

Gago Jover, Francisco. “El Ars moriendi y su influencia en las muertes literarias.” Two Generations: A Tribute to Lloyd A. Kasten (1905-1999). New York: Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies, 2002. 119-134.

Garcia, Michel. “Noticias del presente. Memoria del futuro. Escribir la historia en Castilla en 1400 y más adelante.” Memoria e historia: Utilización política en la Corona de Castilla al final de la Edad Media. Ed. Jon Andoni Fernández de Larrea and José Ramón de Durana. Madrid: Sílex, 2010. 15-41.

García de Cortázar, José Ángel. “El reinado de Alfonso X: Un quicio entre dos épocas de la Edad Media.” Alfonso y su época: El siglo del rey sabio. Ed. Miguel Rodríguez Llopis. Barcelona: Carroggio, 2001. 5-15.

García Rámila, Ismael. Estudio histórico-crítico sobre la vida y actuación político-social del burgalés ilustre que se llamó D. Diego Adelantado Mayor de Castilla y primer Conde de Castro y Denia (1385-1455). Burgos: Imprenta del Excma. Diputación, 1953.

García-Varela, Jesús. “Álvaro de Luna: La (Inter)textualización de un héroe.” Romance Languages Annual 4 (1992): 451-54.

Gariano, Carmelo. “Lo religioso y lo fantástico en el ‘Poema de Mio Çid.” Hispania 47.1 (1964): 69-78.

169 Gaunt, David. “Kinship: Thin Red Lines or Thick Blue Lines.” Family Life in Early Modern Times, 1500-1789. Vol. 1. Ed. David I. Kertzer and Marzio Barbagli. New Haven: Yale UP, 2001. 257-87.

Geevers, Liesbeth, and Mirella Marini, ed. Dynastic Identity in Early Modern Europe: Rulers, Aristocrats, and the Formation of Identities. Burlington: Ashgate, 2015.

Gerbet, Marie-Claude. Las noblezas españolas en la Edad Media: siglos XI-XV. Trans. María José García Vera. Madrid: Alianza, 1997.

Gibello Bravo, Víctor M. La imagen de la nobleza castellana en la Baja Edad Media. Cáceres: Universidad de Extremadura, Servicio de Publicaciones, 1999.

Gilman, Stephen. “Tres retratos de la muerte en las Coplas de Jorge Manrique.” Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 13 (1959): 305-24.

Giménez, Antonio. “El problema del género en la Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna.” Boletín de la Real Academia Española 55 (1975): 531-50.

---. “Relato histórico y organización novelesca en la Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna.” Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos 79 (1976): 517-27.

Giménez Soler, Andrés. Don Juan Manuel: Biografía y estudio crítico. Zaragoza: Tip. La Académica, de F. Martínez, 1932.

Ghassemi, Ruth Lubenow. “La ‘crueldad’ de los ‘vencidos’: Un estudio interpretativo de Las Memorias de doña Leonor López de Córdoba.” La Corónica 18.1 (1989): 19-32.

Goldberg, Harriet. “The Dream Report as a Literary Device in Medieval Hispanic Literature.” Hispania 66.1 (1983): 21-31.

Gómez-Bravo, Ana M. Textual Agency: Writing Culture and Social Networks in Fifteenth- Century Spain. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2013.

Gómez Galán, Antonio. “Contribución al estudio de las Coplas de Jorge Manrique.” Arbor: Revista General de Investigación y Cultura 45 (1960): 56-71.

González Crespo, Esther. “El patrimonio de los Velasco a través de «El libro de las Behetrías»: Contribución al estudio de la fiscalidad señorial.” Anuario de Estudios Medievales 16 (1986): 239-50.

González Rolán, Tomás and Pilar Saquero Suárez-Somonte. “Boecio en el medievo hispánico: las versiones catalana y castellana de la Consolación a la luz de sus fuentes latinas: los comentarios de Guillermo de Aragón y Nicolás de Trevet.” Humanitas: in honorem Antonio Fontán. Madrid: Gredos, 1992. 319-37.

170 Gómez-Redondo, Fernando. “Building a Literary Model: Prose in the Court of Alfonso X (1252-84).” A Comparative History of Literatures in the Iberian Peninsula 1 (2010): 582-94.

---. “Don Juan Manuel.” Historia de la literatura española. Vol. 7. Ed. R. de la Fuente. Madrid: Ediciones Júcar, 1994. 319-408.

---. “El Cid humanístico: La configuración del paradigma caballeresco.” Olivar 10 (2007): 327-45.

---. Historia de la prosa medieval castellana III: Los orígenes del humanismo. El marco cultural de Enrique III y Juan II. Madrid: Cátedra, 2002.

---. “Historiografía medieval: Constantes evolutivas de un género.” Anuario de Estudios Medievales 19 (1989): 3-15.

Gómez Sierra, Esther. “La experiencia femenina de la amargura como sustento de un discurso histórico alternativo: Leonor López de Córdoba y sus Memorias.” La voz del silencio I: Fuentes directas para la histoira de las mujeres (siglos VIII-XVIII). Ed. Cristina Segura Graiño. Madrid: Asociación Cultural Al-Mudayna, 1992. 111-29.

González-Casanovas, Roberto J. “Alfonso X’s Concept of Hispania: Cultural Politics in the Histories.” Concepts of National Identity in the Middle Ages. Ed. Simon Forde, Lesley Johnson and Alan V. Murray. Leeds: Leeds Studies in English, 1995. 155-70.

---. “Book Culture in Alfonso X’s Prologues: The Texts and Contexts of Wisdom.” Hispanófila 111 (1994): 1-15.

González de Fauve, María Estela, Isabel J. Las Heras, and Patricia de Forteza. “Simbología del poder en un linaje castellano: los descendientes de Pedro I excluidos de la línea sucesoria.” Cuadernos de historia de España 78.1 (2003): n.p. Web. 27 Nov. 2018, http://www.scielo.org.ar.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S03 25-11952003000100003&lng=en&tlng=en.

González de Fauve, María Estela and Patricia de Forteza. “Linaje y poder a través de un escrito femenino: Las Memorias de Leonor López de Córdoba (s. XV).” Meridies 3 (1996): 17-28.

Guastella, Gianni. Word of Mouth: Fama and Its Personifications in Art and Literature from Ancient Rome to the Middle Ages. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2017.

Guerra, François-Xavier. “El análisis de los grupos sociales: Balance historiográfico y debate crítico.” Anuario de IEHS (2000): 117-22.

Harris, Jennifer A. “The Bible and the Meaning of History in the Middle Ages.” The Practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages: Production, Reception & Performance in Western

171 Christianity. Ed. Susan Boynton and Diane J. Reilly. New York: Columbia UP, 2011. 84-104.

Hartnett, Daniel. “Santillana y Mena: aliados y competidores.” Juan de Mena: de letrado a poeta. Ed. Cristina García Moya. Woodbridge: Tamesis, 2015. 109-16.

Heras y Borrero, Francisco Manuel de las. Apuntes sobre las instituciones nobiliarias en España. Madrid: Prensa y Ediciones Iberoamericanas, 1994.

Hernández, Francisco Javier. “Two Weddings and a Funeral: Alfonso X’s Monuments in Burgos.” Hispanic Research Journal 13.5 (2012): 407-33.

Hernández Franco, Juan, ed. Familia y poder. Sistemas de reproducción social en España (siglos XVI-XVIII). Murcia: Universidad de Murcia, 1995.

Heusch, Carlos. La caballería castellana en la baja edad media: Textos y contextos. Montpellier: Université de Montpellier III, 2000.

Hidalgo Lucero, Lucio. “La Real Capilla de Reyes Nuevos de Toledo: Apuntes históricos y artísticos.” Boletín Oficial del Arzobispado de Toledo. 131 (1975): 399-444.

Howe, Elizabeth Teresa. “Court and Convent: Leonor López de Córdoba and Sor Teresa de Cartagena.” Autobiographical Writing by Early Modern Hispanic Women. Burlington, Ashgate, 2015. 29-58.

Hutcheson, Gregory S. “Desperately Seeking Sodom: Queerness in the Chronicles of Álvaro de Luna.” Queer Iberia: Sexualities, Cultures, and Crossings from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. Ed. Josiah Blackmore and Gregory S. Hutcheson. Durham: Duke UP, 1999. 221-49.

---. “Leonor López de Córdoba and the Configuration of Female-Female Desire.” Same Sex Love and Desire among Women in the Middle Ages. Ed. Francesca Canadé Sautman and Pamela Sheingorn. New York: Palgrave, 2001. 251-75.

Imízcoz Beunza, José María. “Las redes sociales de las élites. Conceptos, fuentes y aplicaciones.” Las élites en la época moderna: La monarquía española. Vol. 1. Ed. Enrique Soria Mesa, Juan Jesús Bravo Caro, and José Miguel Delgado Barrado. Córdoba: Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad de Córdoba, 2009. 77-111.

Imízcoz Beunza, José María, ed. Redes familiares y patronazgo: Aproximación al entramado social del País Vasco y Navarra en el Antiguo Régimen (siglos XV-XIX). Bilbao: Universidad de País Vasco, 2001.

Imízcoz Beunza, José María and Lara Arroyo Ruiz. “Redes sociales y correspondencia epistolar. Del análisis cualitativo de las relaciones personales a la reconstrucción de redes egocentradas.” REDES 21.4 (2011): 98-138.

172

Imízcoz Beunza, José María and Oihane Oliveri Korta, eds. Economía doméstica y redes sociales en el Antiguo Régimen. Madrid: Sílex, 2010.

Infantes, Víctor. Las danzas de la muerte. Génesis y desarrollo de un género medieval (siglos XIII-XVII). Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 1997.

Janes, Dominic. “The World and Its Past as Christian Allegory in the Early Middle Ages.” The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages. Ed. Yitzhak Hen and Matthew Innes. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000.

Jara Fuente, José Antonio. “Muerte, ceremonial y ritual funerario: Procesos de cohesión intraestamental y de control social en la alta aristocracia del Antiguo Régimen (Corona de Castilla, siglos XV-XVIII).” Hispania LVI (1996): 861-83.

Johnson, Eleanor. Practicing Literary Theory in the Middle Ages: Ethics and the Mixed Form in Chaucer, Gower, Usk, and Hoccleve. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2013.

Johnson, James William. “Chronological Writing: Its Concepts and Development.” History and Theory 2.2 (1962): 124-45.

Joset, Jacques.”Cuatro sueños más en la literatura medieval española (Berceo, un ‘sueño’ anónimo del siglo XVI, el Arcipreste de Talavera, doña Leonor López de Córdoba).” Medioevo y literatura: Actas del V Congreso de la Asociación Hispánica de Literatura Medieval (Granada, 27 septiembre – 1 octubre). Vol 2. Ed. Juan Paredes. Granada: Universidad de Granada, 1995. 499-507.

Juan Lovera, Carmen. “Doña Leonor López de Córdoba (1362-1430). Relato autobiográfico de una mujer cordobesa escrito hacia 1400.” Boletín de la Real Academia de Córdoba, de Ciencias, Bellas Letras y Nobles Artes 117 (1989): 255-68.

Juárez, Encarnación. “Autobiografías de mujeres en la Edad Media y el Siglo de Oro y el canon literario.” Monographic Review 13 (1997): 154-68.

Kasl, Ronda. The Making of Hispano-Flemish Style: Art, Commerce, and Politics in Fifteenth-Century Castile. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014.

Katz Kaminsky, Amy and Elaine Dorough Johnson. “To Restore Honor and Fortune: ‘The Autobiography of Leonor López de Córdoba.’” New York Literary Forum 12-13 (1984): 77-88.

Keane, Marguerite. “Memory and Royal Identity in the Chapel of Blanche of Navarre at Saint-Denis.” Citation, Intertextuality, and Memory in the Middle Ages and Reniassance. Vol. 2. Ed. Giuliano Di Bacco and Yolanda Plumley. Liverpool: Liverpool UP, 2013. 123-36.

173 Keen, Maurice. Chivalry. New Haven: Yale UP, 1984.

---. Nobles, Knights and Men-at-Arms in the Middle Ages. London: The Hambledon P, 1996.

Keightley, Ronald G. “Boethius in Spain: A Classified Checklist of Early Translations.” The Medieval Boethius: Studies in the Vernacular Translations of De Consolatione Philosophiae. Ed. A. J. Minnis. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1987. 169-87.

Keller, John Esten. Alfonso X, El Sabio. New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc., 1967.

Kennedy, Kirstin. “Fame, Memory, and Literary Legacy: Jorge Manrique and the «Coplas por la muerte de su padre».” Negotiating Heritage: Memories of the Middle Ages. Ed. Mette B. Bruun and Stephanie Glaser. Turnhout: Brepols, 2008. 103-16.

---. “The Sabio-Topos: Prologues of Alfonso X in the Context of his Thirteenth-Century Royal Contemporaries.” Proceedings of the Ninth Colloquium. Ed. Andrew M. Beresford and Alan Deyermond. London: Department of Hispanic Studies Queen Mary and Westfield College, 2000. 175-90.

Kerr, Heather and Claire Walker, eds. Fama and Her Sisters: Gossip and Rumour in Early Modern Europe. Turnhout, Brepols, 2015.

Kersken, Norbert. “High and Late Medieval National Historiography.” Historiography in the Middle Ages. Ed. Deborah Mauskopf Deliyannis. Leiden: Brill, 2003. 181-215.

Kinkade, Richard P. “The Historical Date of the Coplas and the Death of Jorge Manrique.” Speculum 45. 2 (1970): 216-24.

Krause, Anna. Jorge Manrique and the Cult of Death in the Cuatrocientos. Berkeley: U of California P, 1937.

Kruger, Steven F. Dreaming in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992.

Labrador, José J., C. Ángel Zurita, and Ralph A. DiFranco. “Cuarenta y dos, no cuarenta coplas en la famosa elegía manriqueña.” Boletín de la Biblioteca Menéndez y Pelayo 61 (1985): 37-95.

Lacarra, María Jesús. “Género y recepción de las Memorias de Leonor López de Córdoba (1362/1363-1430).” Actas del XI Congreso Internacional de la Asociación Hispánica de Literatura Medieval (Universidad de León, 20 al 24 de septiembre de 2005). Ed. Armando López Castro and María Luzdivina Cuesta Torre. León: Universidad de León Secretariado de Publicaciones, 2007. 731-41.

---. “La última etapa en la vida de Leonor López de Córdoba: De las Memorias a sus disposiciones testamentarias.” RLM 21 (2009): 195-218.

174 Ladero Quesada, Miguel Ángel. “La consolidación de la nobleza en la baja Edad Media.” Los señoríos de Andalucía: Investigaciones sobre nobles y señoríos en los siglos XIII a XV. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz Servicio de Publicaciones, 1998. 15-42.

Ladero Quesada, Miguel Ángel and María Concepción Quintanilla Raso. “Bibliotecas de la alta nobleza castellana en el siglo XV.” Livre et lecture en Espagne et en France sous l’Ancien Régime. París: A.D.P.F., 1981. 47-59.

Laguna Paúl, Teresa. “La capilla de los Reyes de la primitiva Catedral de Santa María de Sevilla y las relaciones de la Corona castellana con el cabildo hispalense en su etapa fundacional (1248-1285).” Maravillas de la España Medieval: Tesoro sagrado y monarquía. León: Junta de Castilla y León, 2001. 235-49.

Lapesa, Rafael. “Poesía docta y afectividad en las ‘consolatorias’ de Gómez Manrique.” Estudios sobre literatura y arte dedicados al Profesor Emilio Orozco Díaz. Granada: Universidad de Granada, 1979. 231-39.

Larkin, James B. “Introduction.” Atalaya de las Corónicas. Ed. James B. Larkin. Madison: Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies, 1983. iii-xvi.

Lawrance, Jeremy N.H. “Humanism in the Iberian Peninsula.” The Impact of Humanism on Western Europe. Ed. Anthony Goodman and Angus MacKay. London: Longman, 1990. 220-58.

---. “Nueva luz sobre la biblioteca del conde de Haro: inventario de 1455.” El Crotalón, anuario de Filología Española 1 (1984a): 1075-96.

---. “The Spread of Lay Literacy in Late Medieval Castile.” Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 62 (1984b): 79-94.

Layna Serrano, Francisco. El Palacio del Infantado en Guadalajara. 2nd ed. Guadalajara: AACHE Ediciones, 1997.

---. Historia de Guadalajara y sus Mendozas durante los siglos XV y XVI. Vols. 1-4. Guadalajara: AACHE Ediciones, 1993.

Lenaghan, Patrick. “Commemorating a real bastard: the chapel of Álvaro de Luna.” Memory and the Medieval Tomb. Eds. Elizabeth Valdez del Alamo and Carol Stamatis Pendergast. Brookfield: Ashgate, 2010. 129-53.

Lerer, Seth. “Introduction.” The Consolation of Philosophy. Trans. David R. Slavitt. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2008. xi-xxii.

Lida de Malkiel, María Rosa. La idea de la fama en la Edad Media castellana. México, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1952.

175 ---. “Tres notas sobre don Juan Manuel.” Romance Philology 4 (1950): 155-94.

Linehan, Peter. “From Chronicle to History: Concerning the Estoria de España and its Principal Sources.” Historical Literature in Medieval Iberia. Ed. Alan Deyermond. London: Department of Hispanic Studies Queen Mary and Westfield College, 1996. 7-33.

Liuzzo Scorpo, Antonella. “La idea del poder en la Península Ibérica en la Edad Media: Perspectivas universales y particulares en la General estoria y la Estoria de España.” Studia Histórica, Historia Medieval 29 (2011): 23-50.

---. “The King as Subject, Master and Model of Authority: The Case of Alfonso X of Castile.” Every Inch a King: Comparative Studies on Kings and Kingship in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds. Leiden: Brill, 2013. 269-84.

Lluch Mora, Francisco. “La huella de cuatro poetas del cancionero en las ‘Coplas’ de Jorge Manrique.” Boletín de la Academia Puertorriqueña de la Lengua Española 10 (1982): 79-110.

Lomax, Derek W. “¿Cuándo murió don Jorge Manrique.” Revista de Filología Española 55.1 (1972): 61-62.

---. “El padre de don Juan Manuel.” Don Juan Manuel: VII Centenario. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia Academia Alfonso X El Sabio, 1982. 163-76.

López, César G. “La caída y muerte del Gran Condestable de Castilla en el contexto de la literatura de su época.” Miscelánea Medieval Murciana 17 (1992): 243-67.

López Álvarez, Ana María, ed. La escuela de traductores de Toledo. Toledo: Diputación Provincial de Toledo, 1996.

López de Córdoba, Leonor. Memorias. Ed. Reinaldo Ayerbe-Chaux. Journal of Hispanic Philology 2 (1977): 16-25.

López Gómez, Óscar. “De la excelsitud a la rebelión: Álvaro de Luna y Escalona (1424- 1453).” Don Álvaro de Luna y Escalona: Poder, propaganda y memoria histórica en el otoño de la Edad Media. Ed. Óscar López Gómez. Escalona: Diputación de Toledo y Ayuntamiento de Escalona, 2013a. 9-70.

López Gómez, Óscar, ed. Don Álvaro de Luna y Escalona: Poder, propaganda y memoria histórica en el otoño de la Edad Media. Escalona: Diputación de Toledo y Ayuntamiento de Escalona, 2013b.

Louda, Jiří and Michael Maclagan. Lines of Succession: Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe. New York: Macmillan, 1991.

176 MacKay, Angus. “Ritual and Propaganda in Fifteenth-Century Castile.” Past & Present 107 (1985): 3-43.

---. “The Lesser Nobility in the Kingdom of Castile.” Gentry and Lesser Nobility in Late Medieval Europe. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986. 159-80.

Macpherson, Ian. “Don Juan Manuel: The Literary Process.” Studies in Philology 70.1 (1973): 1-18.

Madrid y Medina, Ángela. “Jorge Manrique, Comendador de Montizón.” Cuadernos de estudios manchegos 18 (1988): 327-40.

---. “Las fronteras de Jorge Manrique.” Espacio, Tiempo y Forma 13 (2000): 151-59.

Malcuzynski, M.-Pierrette. “Nuevas copias manuscritas de las Memorias de Leonor López de Córdoba.” Varia lingüística y literatura: 50 años del CELL. Vol 2. Ed. Martha Elena Venier and Alejandro Arteaga. Mexico City: El Colegio de México, 1997. 53-79.

Manrique, Gómez. “Al reuerendo señor don Pero Gonçález de Mendoca, obispo de Calahorra.” Cancionero. Ed. Francisco Vidal González. Madrid: Cátedra, 2003. 362- 362-66.

---. “Consolatoria hordenada por Gómez Manrrique para la muy noble señora doña Juana de Mendoça, camarera mayor de la muy exçelente señora ynfante doña Ysabel, su muy amada muger.” Cancionero. Ed. Francisco Vidal González. Madrid: Cátedra, 2003. 448-66.

---. “Defunsión del noble Cauallero Garçía Laso de la Vega, fecha por Gómez Manrrique.” Cancionero. Ed. Francisco Vidal González. Madrid: Cátedra, 2003. 349-61.

---. “'No pocas vezes, muy noble e virtuosa señora.” Cancionero. Ed. Francisco Vidal González. Madrid: Cátedra, 2003. 419-48.

Manrique, Jorge. “Coplas por la muerte de su padre.” Poesía. 23rd ed. Ed. Jesús-Manuel Alda Tesán. Madrid: Cátedra, 2005. 148-67.

Manuel, don Juan. Crónica abreviada [Versión resumida de la Estoria de España de Alfonso X, el Sabio]. Obras completas. Ed. Carlos Alvar and Sarah Finci. Madrid: Fundación José Antonio de Castro, 2007. 7-297.

---. Libro de las armas o de las tres razones. Obras completas. Ed. Carlos Alvar and Sarah Finci. Madrid: Fundación José Antonio de Castro, 2007. 977-97.

---. Libro enfenido. Obras completas. Ed. Carlos Alvar and Sarah Finci. Madrid: Fundación José Antonio de Castro, 2007. 935-76.

177 Márquez, Humberto C. “Jorge Manrique y su contexto histórico.” Meridiano: Revista de la Facultad de Educación 10/11 (1971): 37-52.

Márquez de la Plata y Ferrándiz, Vicenta María. “Beatriz de Bobadilla (1440-1511): Camarera mayor y consejera de Estado.” Mujeres renacentistas en la corte de Isabel la Católica. Madrid: Castalia, 2005. 19-77.

Marino, Nancy. Don Juan Pacheco: Wealth and Power in Late Medieval Spain. Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2006.

---. “La relación entre historia y poesía: El caso de la ‘Exclamaçión e querella de la gouernación’ de Gómez Manrique.” Propuestas teórico-metodológicas para el estudio de la literatura hispánica medieval. Ed. Lillian von der Walde Moheno. México: Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2003. 211-25.

---. Jorge Manrique’s Coplas por la muerte de su padre: A History of the Poem and its Reception. Woodbridge: Tamesis, 2011.

---. “The Creation of a Contemporary Exemplar, Álvaro de Luna.” Nunca fue pena mayor: Estudios de literatura española en homenaje a Brian Dutton. Ed. Ana Menéndez Collera and Victoriano Roncero López. Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 1996. 489-94.

Martín, José Luis. “Don Juan Manuel: Fundador del convento de San Juan y San Pablo de Peñafiel.” Don Juan Manuel: VII Centenario. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia Academia Alfonso X El Sabio, 1982. 177-85.

Martin, Therese. Queen as King: Politics and Architectural Propaganda in Twelfth-Century Spain. Leiden: Brill, 2006.

Martín Barrios, Javier. Claves para la lectura de las Coplas a la muerte de su padre de Jorge Manrique. Madrid: Ediciones Daimon, 1986.

Martín Jiménez, José. “Filiación de los linajes de Jorge Manrique.” Boletín de la Real Academia de Córdoba, de Ciencias, Bellas Letras y Nobles Artes 89 (1969): 183-208.

Martín Romera, María Ángeles. “Nuevas perspectivas para el estudio de las sociedades medievales: El análisis de redes sociales.” Studia Historica. Historia Medieval 28 (2010): 217-39.

Martín Romero, José Julio. “El Condestable Miguel Lucas en su Crónica.” Revista de Filología Española 91 (2011a): 129-58.

---. “La crítica a la actitud de Enrique IV sobre la Guerra de Granada en los Hechos del condestable Miguel Lucas.” eHumanista 18 (2011b): 38-53.

178

---. “Orientación ideológica y elaboración literaria en los Hechos del Condestable Miguel Lucas.” Revista de Literatura Medieval 20 (2008): 59-80.

Martínez de Aguirre Aldaz, Javier. “La primera escultura funeraria gótica en Sevilla: La capilla real y el sepulcro de Guzmán el Bueno (1248-1320).” Archivo Español de Arte 68 (1995): 111-29.

Martínez Esteruela, Cruz. “Jorge Manrique, poeta cristiano.” Estudios de Deusto 15 (1967): 121-34.

Martínez Gil, Fernando. La muerte vivida: Muerte y sociedad en Castilla durante la Baja Edad Media. Toledo: Diputación Provincial, 1996.

Martínez López, Rocío. “La tumba de don Álvaro de Luna: significado político de la última morada del valido.” Don Álvaro de Luna y Escalona: Poder, propaganda y memoria histórica en el otoño de la Edad Media. Ed. Óscar López Gómez. Escalona: Diputación de Toledo y Ayuntamiento de Escalona, 2013. 243-83.

Martínez Montiel, Luis and Alfredo J. Morales. The Cathedral of Seville. Trans. Isabel Varea. London: Scala, 1999.

Martínez Sopena, Pascual. “Personal Naming and Kinship in the Spanish Aristocracy.” Personal Names: Studies of Medieval Europe: Social Identity and Familial Structures. Ed. George Thomas Beeth, Monique Bourin, and Pascal Chareille. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute, Western Michigan University, 2002. 67-76.

Mata Carriazo, Juan de. “Noticia preliminar.” Crónica del Halconero de Juan II, Pedro Carrillo de Huete. Ed. Juan de Mata Carriazo. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1946. ix-xv.

Matellanes Merchán, José Vicente. “Estructuración orgánica del espacio santiaguista en la submeseta sur (1170-1350).” Las órdenes militares en la Península Ibérica. Vol. 1. Ed. Ricardo Izquierdo Benito and Francisco Ruiz Gómez. Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad Castilla-La Mancha, 2000. 723-37.

McLean, Paul D. The Art of the Network: Strategic Interaction and Patronage in Renaissance Florence. Durham: Duke UP, 2007.

Means, Michael. The Consolatio Genre in Medieval English Literature. Gainesville: U of Florida P, 1972.

Mena, Juan de. Laberinto de Fortuna. Obras completas. Ed. Miguel Ángel Pérez Priego. Barcelona: Planeta, 1989. 209-303.

---. Memorias de algunos linajes. Obras completas. Ed. Miguel Ángel Pérez Priego. Barcelona: Planeta, 1989. 414-21.

179

---. Proemio del Libro de las virtuosas e claras mugeres, de don Álvaro de Luna. Obras completas. Ed. Miguel Ángel Pérez Priego. Barcelona: Planeta, 1989. 392-94.

Menéndez Pidal, Gonzalo. “Cómo trabajaron las escuelas alfonsíes.” Quaderns. Revista de traducció 4 (1999): 67-84.

Menéndez Pidal de Navascués, Faustino. “El linaje y sus signos de identidad.” Estudios de genealogía, heráldica y nobiliaria. Ed. Miguel Ángel Ladero Quesada. Madrid: Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad Complutense, 2006. 11-28.

---. Heráldica medieval española I: La casa real de León y Castilla. Madrid: Hidalguia, 1982.

Mercado Egea, Joaquín. Jorge Manrique y Garcilaso (glosas giennenses). Jaén: Gráficas Catena, 1980.

---. “Los Comendadores de Montizón y Chiclana: Orden de Santiago.” Boletín del Instituto de Estudios Giennenses 157 (1995): 91-176.

Mérida Jiménez, Rafael M. “Mujeres y literaturas de los medioevos ibéricos: Voces, ecos y distorsiones.” Estudis Romànics 22 (2000): 155-76.

Merino Rubio, Waldo. Arquitectura hispano flamenca en León. León: Institución Fray Bernardino de Sahagún Patronato José María Quadrado, 1974.

Mirrer, Louise. “Leonor López de Córdoba and the Poetics of Women’s Autobiography.” Mester 20.2 (1991): 9-18.

---. “Leonor López de Córdoba and the Poetics of Women’s Autobiography.” Women, Jews, and Muslims in the Texts of Reconquest Castile. Ann Arbor: The U of Michigan P, 1996. 139-50.

Mitchell, J. Clyde, ed. Social Networks in Urban Situations: Analyses of Personal Relationships in Central African Towns. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1969.

Mitre Fernández, Emilio. “Tensiones sociales y políticas de apaciguamiento en el ascenso y consolidación de los Trastámara (una panorámica).” Edad Media. Revista de Historia 8 (2007): 279-94.

Molina, José Luis. El análisis de redes sociales. Una introducción. Barcelona: Edicions Bellatera, 2001.

Molina Molina, Ángel Luis. “Los dominios de don Juan Manuel.” Don Juan Manuel: VII Centenario. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia Academia Alfonso X El Sabio, 1982. 215-26.

180

---. “Martín López de Córdoba, Maestre de Alcántara y Calatrava y Adelantado Mayor de Murcia.” Anuario de Estudios Medievales 11 (1981): 750-58.

Molina Puche, Sebastián and Antonio Irigoyen López, eds. Territorios distantes, comportamientos similares. Familias, redes y reproducción social en la Monarquía Hispánica (siglos XIV-XIX). Murcia: Universidad de Murcia, Servicio de Publicaciones, 2009.

Momigliano, Arnaldo. “Time in Ancient Historiography.” History and Theory 6 (1966): 1- 23.

Monleón, José B. “Las Coplas de Manrique: Un discurso político.” Ideologies & Literature 9 (1983): 116-32.

Montero Málaga, Alicia. El linaje de Velasco y la ciudad de Burgos, 1379-1474: Identidad y poder político. Madrid: Ediciones de La Ergástula, 2012.

Montero Tejada, Rosa María. Nobleza y sociedad en Castilla. El linaje Manrique (siglos XIV-XVI). Madrid: Caja de Madrid, 1996.

Montiel Roig, Gonzalo. “Los móviles de la redacción de la Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna.” Revista de literatura medieval 9 (1997): 173-95.

Morales, Alfredo J. La capilla real de Sevilla. Seville: Arte hispalense, 1979.

---. “Sobre la Capilla Real de Sevilla y algunos de sus creadores.” Archivo Hispalense 227 (1991): 185-94.

Morales Cano, Sonia. “La escultura funeraria gótica en la provincia de Toledo.” Anales de Historia del Arte Volumen Extraordinario (2011): 353-364.

Moreno Báez, Ernesto. “El gótico nominalista y las Coplas de Jorge Manrique.” Revista de Filología Española 53 (1970): 95-113.

Morreale, Margherita. “Apuntes para el estudio de la trayectoria que desde el ¿ubi sunt? lleva hasta el ‘¿Qué le fueron sino…?’ de Jorge Manrique.” Thesaurus: Boletín del Instituto Caro y Cuervo 30.3 (1975): 471-519.

Moxó, Salvador de. “De la nobleza vieja a la nobleza nueva. La transformación nobiliaria castellana en la Baja Edad Media.” Cuadernos de Historia 3 (1969): 1-210.

---. Feudalismo, señorío y nobleza en la Castilla medieval. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, 2000.

181 ---. “Los señoríos: En torno a una problemática para el estudio del regimen señorial.” Hispania 95 (1964): 185-236.

Moya García, Cristina. “Juan de Mena, Álvaro de Luna y los Mendoza: literatura y estrategias de linaje.” Juan de Mena: de letrado a poeta. Ed. Cristina García Moya. Woodbridge: Tamesis, 2015. 55-74.

Nader, Helen. The Mendoza Family in the Spanish Renaissance, 1350-1550. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1979.

Navarro, Genaro. “Segura de la Sierra, lugar de nacimiento de Jorge Manrique.” Boletín del Instituto de Estudios Giennenses 11 (1965): 9-18.

Neubecker, Ottfried. A Guide to Heraldry. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979.

Nickson, Tom. Toledo Cathedral: Building Histories in Medieval Castile. University Park: The Pennsylvania State UP, 2015.

Nolan, Kathleen. “The Queen’s Body and Institutional Memory: The Tomb of Adelaide of Maurienne.” Memory and the Medieval Tomb. Ed. Elizabeth Valdez del Alamo and Carol Stamatis Pendergast. Brookfield: Ashgate, 2010. 249-67.

O’Callaghan, Joseph. “Kings and Lords in Conflict in Late Thirteenth-Century Castile and Aragon.” Iberia and the Mediterranean World of the Middle Ages: Essays in Honor of Robert I. Burns, S.J. Vol. 2. Ed. P.E. Chevedden, D.J. Kagay, and P.G. Padilla. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996. 117-35.

---. “Paths to Ruin: The Economic and Financial Policies of Alfonso the Learned.” The Worlds of Alfonso the Learned and James the Conqueror: Intellect & Force in the Middle Ages. Ed. Robert I. Burns, S.J. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1985. 41-67.

---. “The Cortes and Royal Taxation during the Reign of Alfonso X of Castile.” Traditio: Studies in Ancient and Medieval History, Thought, and Religion 27 (1971): 379-98.

---. The Learned King: The Reign of Alfonso X of Castile. Philadephia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1993.

O’Connor, Mary Catharine. The Art of Dying Well: The Development of the Ars moriendi. New York: Columbia UP, 1942.

Orduna, Germán. “El exemplo en la obra literaria de don Juan Manuel.” Juan Manuel Studies. Ed. Ian Macpherson. London: Tamesis, 1977. 119-42.

---. “El Libro de las Armas: clave de la ‘justicia’ de don Juan Manuel.” Cuadernos de Historia 67-68 (1982a): 230-68.

182 ---. “La autobiografía literaria de don Juan Manuel.” Don Juan Manuel: VII Centenario. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia Academia Alfonso X El Sabio, 1982b. 245-58.

Ortega Cézar, José Manuel. Jorge Manrique a través del tiempo (estudio y antología). Toledo: Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha, 2007.

Ortego Rico, Pablo. “El patrocinio de los Mendoza: siglos XIV y XV.” En la España Medieval 31 (2008): 275-308.

Paez García, Mateo Antonio. “El Condestable Iranzo y la frontera con Granada: Un itinerario de sus actividades militares.” Andalucía entre oriente y occidente (1236-1492): Actas del V Coloquio Internacional de Historia Medieval de Andalucía. Ed. Emilio Cabrera. Córdoba: Diputación Provincial de Córdoba, 1986. 385-97.

Palencia, Alfonso de. Gesta Hispaniensia ex annalibvs svorvm diervm collecta. Vol. 1-2. Ed. Brian Tate and Jeremy Lawrance. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, 1998.

Palencia Herrejón, Juan Ramón. “Elementos simbólicos de poder de la nobleza urbana en Castilla: los Ayala de Toledo al final del Medievo.” En la España Medieval 18 (1995): 163-79.

Panateri, Daniel Alberto. “Las imágenes del rey y del emperador en Las Siete Partidas y la glosa de Gregorio López.” Cuadernos de Historia del Derecho 22 (2015): 215-55.

Panofsky, Erwin. Tomb Sculpture: Four Lectures on its Changing Aspects from Ancient Egypt to Bernini. Ed. H.W. Johnson. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1964.

Pardo de Guevara y Valdés, Eduardo. Manual de heráldica española. Madrid: Edimat Libros, 2000.

Parmley, Nicholas M. “Alfonso X’s Imagined Mediterranean Empire: Shipwrecks, Storms, and Pirates in the Cantigas de Santa María.” Hispanic Review 85.2 (2017): 199-221.

Pastor Bodmer, Isabel. Grandeza y tragedia de un valido: La muerte de don Álvaro de Luna. Vols. 1-2. Madrid: Caja de Madrid, 1992.

Pattison, David G. From Legend to Chronicle: The Treatment of Epic Material in Alphonsine Historiography. Oxford: The Society for the Study of Mediæval Languages and Literature, 1983.

---. “Juan Manuel’s Crónica abreviada and Alphonsine Historiography.” Medium Aevum 61.2 (1992): 242-49.

Paulino Montero, Elena. “Architecture and Artistic Practices in Fourteenth Century Castile: The Visual Memory of Alfonso XI and Pedro I under the First Trastamaran Kings.” La corónica 45.2 (2017): 133-63.

183

Paz y Mélia, Antonio. “Apéndice. Adiciones, Notas y Documentos.” Cancionero de Gómez Manrique. Vol. 2. Ed. Antonio Paz y Mélia. Palencia: Diputación Provincial de Palencia. 289-361.

Pelaez, Dolores. “Funciones del narrador en la Crónica de don Álvaro de Luna.” Actas del II Congreso Internacional de la Asociación Hispánica de Literatura Medieval (Segovia, del 5 al 19 de Octubre de 1987). Ed. José Manuel Lucía Megías, Paloma Gracia Alonso, and Carmen Martín Daza. Alcalá: Universidad de Alcalá, 1992. 631-41.

Peña Fernández, Francisco. “La sangre que clama en silencio. Intertextualidad bíblica en el Libro de las Armas de don Juan Manuel.” Spain’s Multicultural Legacies—Studies in Honor of Samuel G. Armistead. Ed. Adriene L. Martín and Cristina Martínez-Carazo. Newark: Juan de la Cuesta, 2008. 215-38.

Pereda, Felipe. “Magnificencia, también propaganda. Las capillas funerarias en la Península Ibérica durante la Baja Edad Media.” Jornadas de cultura hispano-portuguesa. Ed. Vicente Ángel Álvarez Palenzuela. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, 1999. 313-24.

---. “Mencía de Mendoza (†1500), mujer del I Condestable de Castilla: el significado del patronazgo femenino en la Castilla del siglo XV.” Patronos y coleccionistas: Los Condestables de Castilla y el arte (siglos XV-XVII). Valladolid: Secretariado de Publicaciones e Intercambio Editorial, Universidad de Valladolid, 2005. 9-119.

Pérez-Alfaro, Cristina Jular. “Nobility and Patronage: The Velascos, A Case Study.” Land, Power, and Society in Medieval Castile: A Study of Behetría Lordship. Ed. Cristina Jular Pérez-Alfaro and Carlos Estepa Díez. Turnhout: Brepols, 2009. 177-227.

Pérez de Guzmán, Fernán. Generaciones y semblanzas. Ed. José Antonio Barrio. Madrid: Cátedra, 1998.

Pérez Grande, Margarita. “Los Reyes y la Catedral de Toledo.” Maravillas de la España Medieval: Tesoro sagrado y monarquía. León: Junta de Castilla y León, 2001. 253- 59.

Pérez Monzón, Olga. “La imagen del poder nobiliario en Castilla: el arte y las órdenes militares en el tardogótico.” Anuario de estudios medievales 37.2 (2007): 907-56.

---. “Visiones artísticas y consenso político en la Corona de Castilla. Lo funerario en la Baja Edad Media.” Pacto y consenso en la cultura política peninsular (Siglos XI al XV). Ed. José Manuel Nieto Soria and Óscar Villarroel González. Madrid: Sílex, 2013. 497-530.

Pérez Ramírez, Dimas. Uclés, último destino de Jorge Manrique. Cuenca: Ministerio de Cultura, 1979.

184

Pérez Rosado, Miguel. La versión castellana medieval de los Comentarios a Boecio de Nicolas Trevet. Vol. 1. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1992. 1-225.

---. “Dos notas sobre la Consolación de Filosofía de Boecio en la Edad Media castellana.” Cuadernos de Filología Clásica. Estudios latinos 4 (1993): 114-26.

Phillips, William D., Jr. Enrique IV and the Crisis of Fifteenth-Century Castile, 1425-1480. Cambridge: The Medieval Academy of America, 1978.

Poema del Cid. Ed. Ian Michael. Madrid: Clásicos Castalia, 1976.

Poeta, Salvatore. La elegía funeral española: Aproximación a la “función” del género y antología. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva, 2013.

Pontón Choya, María. “Don Álvaro de Luna, el rey y los nobles.” Don Álvaro de Luna y Escalona: Poder, propaganda y memoria histórica en el otoño de la Edad Media. Ed. Óscar López Gómez. Escalona: Diputación de Toledo y Ayuntamiento de Escalona, 2013. 71-125.

Porras Arboledas, Pedro Andrés. “El derecho y la guerra en la obra de Jorge Manrique.” Juan Alfonso de Baena y su Cancionero: Actas del I Congreso Internacional sobre el Cancionero de Baena, Baena, del 16 al 20 de febrero de 1999. Baena: Ayuntamiento de Baena, Delegación de Cultura, 2001. 337-48.

Portela, Ermelindo and María del Carmen Pallares. “Los espacios de la muerte.” La idea y el sentimiento de la muerte en la historia y en el arte de la Edad Media (II). Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 1992. 27-35.

Powell, Brian. Epic and Chronicle: The ‘Poema de mio Cid’ and the ‘Crónica de veinte reyes.’ London: The Modern Humanities Research Association, 1983.

Pretel Marín, Aurelio and Miguel Rodríguez Llopis. El señorío de Villena en el siglo XIV. Albacete: Instituto de Estudios Albacetenses “Don Juan Manuel,” 1998.

Qués, María Elena. “El Libro de las Armas de don Juan Manuel: Construcción del yo / construcción del texto.” Anuario Medieval 5 (1993): 96-106.

Quintanilla Raso, María Concepción. “El engrandecimiento nobiliario en la Corona de Castilla. Las claves del proceso a finales de la Edad Media.” Títulos, grandes del reino y grandeza en la sociedad política: Fundamentos en la Castilla medieval. Ed. María Concepción Quintanilla Raso. Madrid: Sílex, 2006. 17-100.

---. “Haciendas señoriales nobiliarias en el reino de Castilla a fines de la Edad Media.” Historia de la hacienda española (épocas antigua y medieval): Homenaje al Profesor Garcia de Valdeavellano. Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Fiscales, 1982. 767-98.

185

---. “La nobleza en la historia política castellana en la segunda mitad del siglo XV. Bases de poder y pautas de comportamiento.” Congreso internacional Bartolomeu Dias e a sua época: Actas. Vol. 1. Porto: Universidade do Porto, 1989. 181-200.

---. “La renovación nobiliaria en la Castilla bajomedieval. Entre el debate y la propuesta.” La nobleza peninsular en la Edad Media. Ávila: Fundación Sánchez Albornoz, 1997. 255-341.

---. Nobleza y señoríos en la reino de Córdoba: La Casa de Aguilar (siglos XIV y XV). Córdoba: Publicaciones del Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros de Córdoba, 1997.

Ramos, Rafael. “Don Juan Manuel y las leyendas sobre la muerte de Fernando III El Santo.” Medioevo y literatura: Actas del V Congreso de la Asociación Hispánica de Literatura Medieval. Vol. IV. Ed. Juan Paredes. Granada: Universidad de Granada, 1995. 105-11.

Recio Ferreras, Eloy. Gómez Manrique: Hombre de armas y de letras (siglo XV). Puerto Rico: Créditos Editoriales, 2005.

Redondo Cantera, María José. “El convento de San Pablo en Peñafiel (Valladolid): Panteón de los Manueles.” Biblioteca: estudio e investigación 26 (2011): 161-99.

Remensnyder, Amy G. “Marian Monarchy in Thirteenth-Century Castile.” The Experience of Power in Medieval Europe, 950-1350. Ed. Robert F. Berkhofer III, Alan Cooper, and Adam Kosto. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005. 253-70.

Rico, Francisco. Alfonso el Sabio y la "General estoria": Tres lecciones. 2nd ed. Barcelona: Editorial Ariel, S.A., 1984.

Río de la Hoz, Isabel de. The Cathedral and City of Toledo. Trans. Gilla Evans. London: Scala, 2001.

Rivera-Cordero, Victoria. “Writing as Resistance: Self and Survival in Leonor López de Córdoba and Teresa de Cartagena.” The Inner Life of Women in Medieval Romance Literature: Grief, Guilt, and Hypocrisy. Ed. Jeff Rider and Jamie Friedman. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. 179-201.

Rivera Garretas, María Milagros. “Leonor López de Córdoba: La autorrepresentación.” Textos y espacios de mujeres (Europa siglos IV-XV). Barcelona: Icaria Editorial, 1990. 159-78.

---. “Los testamentos de Juana de Mendoza, camarera mayor de Isabel la Católica, y de su marido el poeta Gómez Manrique, corregidor de Toledo (1493 y 1490).” Anuario de Estudios Medievales 37.1 (2007): 139-80.

186 Rodríguez, S. “Calabazanos a la vista. La reina Católica y los Manrique. Nuevos datos.” Publicaciones Institución Tello Téllez de Meneses 6 (1961): 345-57.

Rodríguez García, José María. “Poetry and Penal Practices in Late-Fifteenth-Century Toledo: Rereading Gómez Manrique.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 35.2 (2005): 245-88.

Rodríguez Llopis, Miguel. Señoríos y feudalismo en el Reino de Murcia: Los dominios de la Orden de Santiago entre 1440 y 1515. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia, 1980.

Rodríguez López, Ana. “‘Rico fincas de tierra et de muchos buenos vasallos, mas que rey que en la cristiandat ssea’. La herencia regia de Alfonso X.” Cahiers de linguistique hispanique medieval 23 (2000): 243-61.

Rodríguez-Picavea, Enrique. La formación del feudalismo en la meseta meridional castellana: Los señoríos de la Orden de Calatrava en los siglos XII-XIII. Madrid: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 1994.

Rodríguez Porto, Rosa M.a “Fartan sus iras en forma semblante: La tumba de Álvaro de Luna y el status de la imagen en la Castilla tardomedieval.” Espacio, Tiempo y Forma 16 (2003): 11-28.

Rodríguez Porto, Rosa M.a and Sacramento Roselló Martínez. “The Redes Petristas Project: Mapping Petrista Networks Past and Present.” La corónica 45.2 (2017): 39-52.

Rodríguez Puértolas, Julio. “Jorge Manrique o la historia como pretexto.” Spicilegio Moderno 19-20 (1985): 17-27.

---. “Jorge Manrique y la manipulación de la historia.” Medieval and Renaissance Studies in Honour of Robert Brian Tate. Ed. Ian Michael and Richard A. Cardwell. Oxford: The Dolphin Book Co., 1986. 123-33.

Rodríguez Molina, José. La vida de la ciudad de Jaén en tiempos del Condestable Iranzo. Jaén: Ayuntamiento de Jaén, Concejalía de Cultura, Servicio de Publicaciones, 1996.

Rodríguez-Velasco, Jesús D. “Knightly Fables, Visual Concepts: On the Affinity between Chivalry and Bourgeoisie.” MLN 131 (2016): 301-19.

---. Order and Chivalry: Knighthood and Citizenship in Late Medieval Castile. Trans. Eunice Rodríguez Ferguson. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2010.

Rojas, Fernando de. La Celestina. Ed. Dorothy S. Severin. Madrid: Cátedra, 1995.

Röll, Johannes. “‘Do We Affect Fashion in the Grave?’ Italian and Spanish Tomb Sculptures and the Pose of the Dreamer.” The Image of the Individual: Portraits in the

187 Renaissance. Ed. Nicholas Mann and Luke Syson. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1998. 154-64.

Romaniello, Matthew P. and Charles Lipp, ed. Contested Spaces of Nobility in Early Modern Europe. Burlington: Ashgate, 2011.

Rosé, Isabelle. “Reconstrucción, representación gráfica y análisis de las redes de poder en la alta edad media. Aproximación a las prácticas sociales de la aristocracia a partir del ejemplo de Odón de Cluny († 942).” REDES 21 (2011): 139-217.

Round, Nicholas. “Gómez Manrique’s Exclamación e querella de la governación: Poem and Commentary.” Medieval Hispanic Studies in Memory of Alan Deyermond. Ed. Andrew Beresford, Louise M. Haywood, and Julian Weiss. Woodbridge: Tamesis, 2013. 149-74.

---. The Greatest Man Uncrowned: A Study of the Fall of Don Álvaro de Luna. London: Tamesis Books, 1986.

Royer de Cardinal, Susana. Morir en España (Castilla Baja Edad Media). Buenos Aires: Universidad Católica Argentina, 1992.

Rucquoi, Adeline. “Privanza, fortuna y política: la caída de Álvaro de Luna.” Rex, Sapientia, Nobilitas. Estudios sobre la Península Ibérica Medieval. Granada: Universidad de Granada, 2006. 327-69.

---. “Ser noble en España (siglos XIV-XVI).” Rex, Sapientia, Nobilitas. Estudios sobre la Península Ibérica Medieval. Granada: Universidad de Granada, 2006. 211-48.

Ruiz, María Cecilia. Literatura y política: el Libro de los estados y el Libro de las armas de don Juan Manuel. Potomac: Scripta Humanistica, 1989.

Ruiz, Teofilo F. Spanish Society, 1400-1600. Harlow: Pearson Education, 2001.

Ruiz Maldonado, Margarita. “La dama, el caballero y el eclesiástico en tres sepulcros salmantinos.” Imágenes y promotores en el arte medieval: Miscelánea en homenaje a Joaquín Yarza Luaces. Ed. María Luisa Melero Moneo, Francesca Español Bertrán, Anna Orriols I Alsina, and Daniel Rico Campo. Bellatera: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Servei de Publicacions, 2001. 599-608.

Ruiz Salvador, Antonio. “El buen vivir y el buen morir en los Cancioneros y en las Coplas de Jorge Manrique.” Boletín de la Academia Puertorriqueña de la Lengua Española 10 (1982): 155-65.

Ruiz Souza, Juan Carlos. “Capillas Reales funerarias catedralicias de Castilla y León: Nuevas hipótesis interpretativas de las catedrales de Sevilla, Córdoba y Toledo.” Anuario del Departamento de Historia y Teoría del Arte (U.A.M.) XVIII (2006): 9-29.

188

Ruiz Tejerina, Antonio. “La familia Velasco, Condestables de Castilla y su mecenazgo arquitectónico de la Orden Franciscana.” El viaje de San Francisco por la Península Ibérica y su legado (1214-2014). Córdoba: Asociación Hispánica de Estudios Franciscanos, 2012. 67-85.

Salazar, Antonio. “García Laso de la Vega.” Revista de estudios extremeños 19 (1963): 477- 524.

Salinas, Pedro. Jorge Manrique o tradición y originalidad. 1947. Barcelona: Ediciones Península, 2003.

Salvador Martínez, H. El humanismo medieval y Alfonso X el Sabio: Ensayo sobre los orígenes del humanismo vernáculo. Madrid: Ediciones Polifemo, 2016.

Salvador Miguel, Nicasio. “Gómez Manrique y la Representación del nacimiento de Nuestro Señor.” Revista de Filología Española 92.1 (2012): 135-80.

Sánchez Ameijeiras, Rocío. “El ‘çementerio real’ de Alfonso VIII en Las Huelgas de Burgos.” SEMATA, Ciencias Sociais e Humanidades 10 (1998): 77-109.

---. “La fortuna sevilla del códice florentino de las Cantígas: Tumbos, textos y imágenes.” Quintana: Revista do Departamento de Historia da Arte, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela 1 (2002): 257-73.

Sánchez Balmaseda, María Isabel. Análisis de redes sociales e historia: Una metodología para el estudio de redes clientelares. Diss. Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1995. Web. 7 Mar. 2017.

Sánchez-Montes González, Francisco, Julián J. Lozano Navarro, and Antonio Jiménez Estrella, eds. Familias, élites y redes de poder cosmopolitas de la monarquía hispánica en la Edad Moderna (siglos XVI-XVIII). Granada: Editorial Comares, 2016.

Sánchez Prieto, Ana Belén. La casa de Mendoza hasta el tercer Duque del Infantado (1350- 1531): El ejercicio y alcance del poder señorial en la Castilla bajomedieval. Madrid: Palafox & Pezuela, 2001.

Sanmartín Bastida, Rebeca. El arte de morir: La puesta en escena de la muerte en un tratado del siglo XV. Madrid: Iberoamericana, 2006.

Santillana, Íñigo López de Mendoza, Marqués de. “Coplas contra don Álvaro de Luna.” Poesías completas. Ed. Maxim P.A.M. Kerkhof and Ángel Gómez Moreno. Madrid: Clásicos Castalia, 2003. 525-44.

189 ---. “Defunsión de don Enrique de Villena, señor doctor e de exçellente ingenio.” Poesías completas. Ed. Maxim P.A.M. Kerkhof and Ángel Gómez Moreno. Madrid: Clásicos Castalia, 2003. 585-94.

---. “Doctrinal de privados.” Poesías completas. Ed. Maxim P.A.M. Kerkhof and Ángel Gómez Moreno. Madrid: Clásicos Castalia, 2003. 544-62.

Serrano Belinchón, José. El Condestable: De la vida, prisión y muerte de don Álvaro de Luna. Guadalajara: AACHE Ediciones, 2000.

Scholberg, Kenneth R. “Figurative Language in Juan Manuel.” Juan Manuel Studies. Ed. Ian Macpherson. London: Tamesis, 1977. 143-55.

---. Introducción a la poesía de Gómez Manrique. Madison: Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies, 1994.

Scott, John. Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. 2nd ed. London: SAGE, 2000.

Seniff, Dennis P. “Así fiz yo de lo que oý: Orality, Authority, and Experience in Juan Manuel’s Libro de la caza, Libro infinido, and Libro de las armas.” Josep Maria Solà-Solé: Homage, Homenaje, Homatge. Ed. Victorio Agüera and Nathaniel B. Smith. Barcelona: Puvill-Libros S. A., 1984. 91-109.

Serrano de Haro, Antonio. Personalidad y destino de Jorge Manrique. Madrid: Editorial Gredos, 1975.

Severin, Dorothy. “A Letter of Complaint from Fernando de Antequera about Leonor López de Córdoba in PN2.” Nunca fue pena mayor (Estudios de Literatura Española en homenaje a Brian Dutton). Ed. Ana Menéndez Collera and Victoriano Roncero López. Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 1996. 633-44.

Shadis, Miriam. Berenguela of Castile (1180-1246) and Political Women in the High Middle Ages. New York: Palgrave, 2009.

Sieber, Harry. “Dramatic Symmetry in Gómez Manrique’s La representación del Nacimiento de Nuestro Señor.” Hispanic Review 33.2 (1965): 118-35.

---. “Gómez Manrique’s Last Poem: Consolatoria para doña Juana de Mendoça.” Letters and Society in Fifteenth-Century Spain: Studies presented to P. E. Russell on his eightieth birthday. Ed. Alan Deyermond and Jeremy Lawrance. Wales: The Dolphin Book Co., 1993. 153-63.

---. “Narrative and Elegiac Structure in Gómez Manrique’s Defunzión del noble cavallero Garci Laso de la Vega.” Studies in Honor of Bruce W. Wardropper. Ed. Dian Fox, Harry Sieber, and Robert Ter Horst. Newark: Juan de la Cuesta, 1989. 279-90.

190 Silberman de Cywiner, María Esther. “Las Coplas de Manrique y la Danza de la Muerte.” Estudios Hispánicos. Vol. 1. Tucumán: Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, 1992. 11- 24.

Silió Cortés, César. Don Álvaro de Luna y su tiempo. Madrid: Espasa-Calpa, 1935. s’Jacob, Henriette. Idealism and Realism: A Study of Sepulchral Symbolism. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1954.

Smith, Colin. “Mena’s Laberinto and the Visual Arts.” Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 68.2 (1991): 297-303.

Solano Ruiz, Emma. La Orden de Calatrava en el siglo XV: Los señoríos castellanos de la Orden al fin de la Edad Media. Seville: Universidad de Sevilla, 1978.

Soriano, Catherine. “Los Hechos del Condestable don Miguel Lucas de Iranzo, crónica del siglo XV.” Atalaya 2 (1991): 180-90.

Soto, Luis. Don Álvaro de Luna: Un caso de la Fortuna en la Castilla del siglo XV. La Serena: Universidad de la Serena, Facultad de Humanidades, 1991.

---. “Para una relectura del ‘ubi sunt’ en las Coplas de Jorge Manrique.” Logos: Revista de Lingüística, Filosofía y Literatura 2 (1989): 129-46.

Spiegel, Gabrielle M.. “Structures of Time in Medieval Historiography.” The Medieval History Journal 19.1 (2016): 21-33.

Suárez Fernández, Luis. Nobleza y monarquía: Entendimiento y rivalidad: El proceso de construcción de la Corona española. Madrid: La Esfera de los Libros, 2003.

---. Nobleza y monarquía: Puntos de vista sobre la historia política castellana del siglo XV. Valladolid: Departamento de Historia Medieval, 1975.

---. “The Kingdom of Castile in the Fifteenth Century.” Spain in the Fifteenth Century, 1369- 1516: Essays and Extracts by Historians of Spain. Ed. Roger Highfield. London: Macmillan, 1972. 80-113.

Suárez Fernández, Luis, Ángel Canellas López, and Jaime Vicens Vives. Historia de España: Los Trastámaras de Castilla y Aragón en el siglo XV. Vol. 15. Ed. Ramón Menéndez Pidal. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1964.

Suelzer, Amy. “The Intersection of Public and Private Life in Leonor López de Córdoba’s Autobiography.” Monographic Review 9 (1993): 36-46.

Terradas, José. “La accion como forma religiosa en el Poema de Mio Cid.” MLN 128 (2013): 207-24.

191

Thompson, I. A. A. “The Institutional Background to the Rise of the Minister-Favourite.” The World of the Favourite. Ed. J. H. Elliott and L. W. B. Brockliss. New Haven: Yale UP, 1999. 13-25.

Torres Fontes, Juan. “Los Condestables de Castilla en la Edad Media.” Anuario de Historia del Derecho Español (1971): 57-112.

---. “Murcia y don Juan Manuel: Tensiones y Conflictos.” Don Juan Manuel: VII Centenario. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia Academia Alfonso X El Sabio, 1982. 353-83.

Trevet, Nicholas. La versión castellana medieval de los Comentarios a Boecio de Nicolás Trevet. Vol. 2. Ed. Miguel Pérez Rosado. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1990. 1-245.

Uriarte Rebaudí, Lía Noemí. “Un arte de vivir y un arte de morir en las Coplas de Jorge Manrique.” Letras: Revista de la Facultad de Filosofía de la Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina 1 (1981): 107-14.

Urrea, Jesús, ed. Casas y palacios de Castilla y León. Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León Consejería de Educación y Cultura, 2002.

Vaca de Osma, José Antonio. “Don Álvaro de Luna o el ajedrez de Castilla.” Los nobles e innobles validos. Barcelona: Planeta, 1990. 21-64.

Valero-Costa, Pilar. “El poder de la palabra: La política de género en la autobiografía de doña Leonor López de Córdoba.” Medievalia 34 (2002): 33-42.

Valdeón Baruque, Julio. “Don Juan Manuel y Peñafiel.” Don Juan Manuel: VII Centenario. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia Academia Alfonso X El Sabio, 1982. 385-95.

---. Los conflictos sociales en el reino de Castilla en los siglos XIV y XV. Madrid: Siglo Veintiuno, 1975.

---. Los Trastámaras: El triunfo de una dinastía bastarda. Madrid: Ediciones Temas de Hoy, 2001.

---. Pedro I el Cruel y Enrique de Trastámara: ¿La primera guerra civil española? Madrid: Santillana Ediciones Generales, 2002.

Valdés Fernández, Manuel. “El Panteón Real de la Colegiata de San Isidoro de León.” Maravillas de la España Medieval: Tesoro sagrado y monarquía. León: Junta de Castilla y León, 2001a.73-84.

---. “Patronazgo señorial y arte mudéjar en el reino de Castilla.” Imágenes y promotores en el arte medieval. Miscelánea en homenaje a Joaquín Yarza Luaces. Ed. Ma Luisa

192 Melero Moneo, Francesca Español Bertrán, Anna Orriols I Alsina, and Daniel Rico Campo. Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Servei de Publicacions, 2001b. 645-52.

Valdez del Alamo, Elizabeth. “Lament for a Lost Queen: The Sarcophagus of Doña Blanca in Nájera.” Memory and the Medieval Tomb. Ed. Elizabeth Valdez del Alamo and Carol Stamatis Pendergast. Brookfield: Ashgate, 2010. 43-79.

Valdez del Alamo, Elizabeth and Carol Stamatis Pendergast, eds. Memory and the Medieval Tomb. Brookfield: Ashgate, 2010.

Vaquero, Mercedes. “Cultura nobiliaria y biblioteca de Fernán Pérez de Guzmán.” Revista Lemir 7 (2003): 1-165.

Vauchez, André. Sainthood in the Later Middle Ages. Trans. Jean Birrell. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997.

Vélez-Sainz, Julio. “Mecenazgo y representación: imágenes de Álvaro de Luna en el Libro de las virtuosas e claras mugeres, el castillo de Escalona y la Catedral de Toledo.” Hispanic Review 80.2: (2012): 175-98.

---. “Propaganda y difamación: Alfonso Martínez de Toledo, el linaje de los Luna y el Arzobispado de Toledo.” Romance Philology 62 (2008): 137-57.

Vidal González, Francisco. “Itinerario literario de Gómez Manrique: su primera etapa.” Proceedings of the Ninth Colloquium. Ed. Andrew M. Beresford and Alan Deyermond. London: Department of Hispanic Studies, Queen Mary and Westfield College, 2003. 201-10.

---. Cancionero. Ed. Francisco Vidal González. Madrid: Cátedra, 2003.

Villaseñor Sebastián, Fernando. “La mejor labrada e mejor casa y la más notable, rica e maravillosa capilla que había en toda España: desarrollo artístico y arquitectónico en Castilla en tiempos de don Álvaro de Luna.” Don Álvaro de Luna y Escalona: Poder, propaganda y memoria histórica en el otoño de la Edad Media. Ed. Óscar López Gómez. Escalona: Diputación de Toledo y Ayuntamiento de Escalona, 2013. 129-69.

---. “Muchas copas de oro con muchas piedras preçiosas: joyas, lujo y magnificencia en la Castilla de don Álvaro de Luna.” Anales de Historia del Arte 24 (2014): 611-28.

Villoslada, Ricardo G. “El tema del ‘ubi sunt’: Nuevas aportaciones.” Miscelánea Comillas: Revista Semestral de Estudios Históricos 45 (1966): 5-117.

Vivanco, Laura. Death in Fifteenth-Century Castile: Ideologies of the Elites. Woodbridge: Tamesis, 2004.

193 Wardropper, Bruce W. “The Funeral Elegy of the Spanish Renaissance.” Modern Language Notes 87.6 (1972): 126-43.

Wasserman, Stanley and Katherine Faust. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994.

Weiss, Julian. “Alvaro de Luna, Juan de Mena and the Power of Courtly Love.” Modern Language Notes 106 (1991): 24-56.

---. The Poet’s Art: Literary Theory in Castile c. 1400-60. Oxford: The Society for the Study of Mediæval Languages and Literature, 1990.

Wetherell, Charles. “Historical Social Network Analysis.” International Review of Social History 43 (1998): 125-44.

Yarza Luaces, Joaquín. “La capilla funeraria hispana en torno a 1400.” La idea y el sentimiento de la muerte en la Historia y el Arte de la Edad Media. Ed. Manuel Núñez and Eugenio Portela. Santiago de Compostela: Servicio de Publicacións e Intercambio Científico da Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 1988a. 67-91.

---. “La imagen del noble en el siglo XV en la Corona de Castilla: Los Velasco antes del Primer Condestable.” Propaganda e poder: Congreso Peninsular de Història da Arte, 5 a 8 de maio de 1999. Lisbon: Ed. Colibri, 2001. 131-49.

---. “La imagen del rey y la imagen del noble en el siglo XV castellano.” Realidades e imágenes del poder. España a fines de la Edad Media. Ed. Adeline Rucquoi. Valladolid: Ámbito, 1988b. 267-91.

---. La nobleza ante el rey: Los grandes linajes castellanos y el arte en el siglo XV. Madrid: Ediciones El Viso, 2003.

Zalama, Miguel Ángel. “Arquitectura y estilo en la época de los Reyes Católicos.” Isabel la Católica: La magnificencia de un reinado. Quinto centenario de Isabel la Católica, 1504-2004. Madrid: Sociedad Estatal de Conmemoraciones Culturales, 2004. 127-40.

Ziino, Francesca. “Some Vernacular Versions of Boethius's De Consolatione Philosophiae in Medieval Spain: Notes on Their Relationship with the Commentary Tradition.” New Directions in Boethian Studies. Ed. Noel Harold Kaylor, Jr. and Philip Edward Philips. Kalamazoo: Studies in Medieval Culture XLV, Medieval Institute Publications, 2007. 83-107.

194