304
THE MESTA
to the herdsmen thenceforth as the cinco cosas vedadas, the
‘five forbidden [or enclosed] things,’1 and it was not until the
Mesta had the powerful patronage of the sixteenth-century au-
tocrats that the migrants dared intrude upon any of them. Be-
side the strict reservation of these enclosures, there were other
local pasturage regulations which were less severe upon the
nomads. For example, the latter were occasionally given the
privilege of pasturing on the rastrojo or stubble and straw residue
after the harvest.2 This resembled the ‘ common of shack ’ or
the use of Lammas land in mediaeval England.3 Furthermore,
after the grapes had been gathered the vineyard owners quite
often extended a similar privilege to the migratory flocks for a
nominal rental. The trimming of the vines and the fertilization
of the soil by the sheep were regarded by the agriculturist as
ample compensation, while the herdsmen valued the pampanos
or vine leaves as a particularly fattening fodder.4 Occasionally
groups of Castilian towns made arrangements for the mutual
enjoyment of each other’s enclosed commons,6 somewhat after
the manner of the Aragonese town leagues. In this, however,
they were not so successful as the more vigorously developed
organizations of the eastern kingdom.
The great thirteenth-century codes of Alfonso the Learned
summarized the accumulated experience in pasturage regulation
of previous centuries. Both the Fuero Real (1255) and the Parti-
das (ca. 1256-65) reflected in this respect the increased stability
of rural life and the growing importance and strength of town
governments in the exercise of jurisdiction over public lands.
1 Other instances of royal protection to the cosas vedadas are found in Munoz,
p. 271; Cascales, Discursos . . . de Murcia, disc, ii, cap. xviii; Memorial Hislbrico,
i, P∙ ЗЗЗ; Acad. Hist., Mss. 25-ι-C 8, fols. 93 ff. : various privileges of the migra-
tory flocks of Coria and of its church.
2 Alonso de Herrera, Libro que Irata de la Labranqa (Toledo, 1513), cap. 5: on
rastrojos in mediaeval Castile. A typical illustration of the mediaeval rastrojo regu-
lations of a Castilian town is found in Valverde Perales, Antiguas Ordenanzas de
Baena (Cordova, 1907), pp. 196, 223, 516, 558.
* K. E. Digby, History of the Law of Real Property (Oxford, 1876), pp. 6-7.
4 Cârdenas, op. cit., ii, p. 289; Altamira, Propiedad Comunal, p. 234.
s Arch. Osuna, Docs. Arcos, caj. 2, no, 52 (1435); Costa, Colecliinsmo Agrario,
PP∙ 399-4ol> Gonzalez, vi, p. 299.
EARLY PASTURAGE PROBLEMS
3θ5
Although the migrating flocks were allowed access to open un-
claimed areas, and the shepherds were given liberal privileges to
cut trees for their uses,1 they were hampered by the increased im-
portance given to town commons and especially to town enclos-
ures. Commons were defined in the Partidas as being “ for the
common benefit . . . of the poor as well as of the rich.” They
were not open to non-residents without permission from the towns-
people, nor was any private individual ever to secure title to part
of the public lands, whether town streets, enclosed dehesas, or open
éxidos? Many contemporary town charters went further than
these measures, and, like the Aragonese laws, forbade the owner-
ship of land by non-residents.3 This insistence upon the priority
of the claims and interests of the resident property owners was
one of the foundation stones upon which the opponents of the
Mesta rested their cases in the litigations of later years. In fact,
it became the fundamental argument of Campomanes and the
other reformers of the eighteenth century, who finally accom-
plished the practical destruction of the sheep owners’ organi-
zation.4
The most important contribution of the thirteenth-century
codes in this connection was their insistence, not only that the
town dehesas or enclosed pastures were to be undisturbed by
migrants, but that planted lands, especially grain fields (mieses),
orchards, and vineyards, were to be strictly guarded against
trespassers. Furthermore, when the sheep owners petitioned
for royal letters to insure their safety while on the way, these
safe conducts were issued as requested, but with the warning
that all local enclosures were to be respected by the flocks.5 These
letters defined in general terms the relations between the herds-
men and the owners of enclosed lands and brought the migratory
pastoral interests as a whole under the protection of the crown.
ɪ Fuero Real, lib. 4, tit. 6, ley 4; Part. 3, tit. 18, ley 19; tit. 28, ley 9. See
below, pp. 306-307.
2 Part. 3, tit. 28, ley 9 and tit. 29, ley 7.
3 Concordia de 1783, ii, fols. 109, no, cites instances from the fueros of Estrema-
duran towns. A possible precedent for these may be found in the Fuero Juzgo,
lib. 10, tit. 3, ley 4, which prohibited certain forms of absentee ownership.
4 Expediente de 1771, pt. 2, fols. 60, 71, 72, 91. 5 Part. 3, tit. 18, ley 19.