164
THE MESTA
Though originally they were fines for trespass upon a particular
kind of land, the montazgos gradually became fixed charges for
access not only to montes but to other types of town commons.
In fact, by the time the Mesta was established in 1273, the name
had come to be applied to almost any toll upon passing flocks, re-
gardless of their trespassing on the montes.
A few illustrations will suffice to establish the character of this
important tax in its earlier phases. A fuero which was granted in
804 to the town of Valpuesta by Alfonso II of Leon and Asturias
gave to the townspeople “ full liberty to cut wood in the royal
forests, to build houses and churches or for fuel, and to enjoy un-
hampered access to pastures and springs on going out and return-
ing [with their flocks] without payment of any montazgo or por-
tazgo.” 1 In 824 Count Munio Nunez gave a charter to the in-
habitants of Branosera, by which it was stipulated that “ from all
men who come from other towns to pasture their animals in the
town montes, the townspeople are to levy a montazgo.” 2 In a
like manner, some villeins of Berbeja and Barrio received exemp-
tions from certain taxes at the hands of their lord, ‘ because they
had to pay the montazgo, but could not collect it from cows or
swine [coming on their lands] ’3 In a grant of lands to the mon-
astery of Santa Juliana, dated 1045, Ferdinand I expressly quali-
fied the jurisdiction of the monks over their new possessions by
specifying that “ they were not to levy any montazgo on those
who hunted there.” 4 A trial over some property of the monas-
tery of Sahagfin in 1055 was settled by the agreement that the
unsuccessful claimants to certain montes were to pay montazgos
for their use of those lands.6
The portazgo appeared quite as early as the montazgo, and,
like it, was a tax the title to which was vested in the owner of
certain real property; in this case the property consisted of the
1 Gonzâlez, vi, p. 2. There was a similar privilege granted to the cathedral
of Oviedo in 853. Espana Sagrada, xxxvii, p. 319.
2 Munoz, p. 17.
3 Munoz, p. 32. Ibid., p. 38: An exemption from montazgo in favor of the town
of Castro Jeriz, in 974.
, Gonzâlez, v, pp. 15 ff.
s Arch. Hist. Nac., Docs. Sahagiin, no. 969.
MEDIAEVAL SHEEP TAXES IN CASTILE
l65
highways and gates, whence the name of the tax. The portaticum,
portagem, portadigo, or portazgo was, therefore, levied upon all
goods and animals using these means of communication. Theo-
retically the king, as the lord of the land and protector of peaceful
travellers and merchants, was the proper recipient of such a tax,
just as his theoretical title to the montes gave him the montazgo.
But although the crown occasionally claimed a share or even the
whole of the portazgo, such claims were never enforced,1 and
from the earliest records of the ninth century onward this tax was
collected at the gates of towns, wayside castles, or monasteries by
the owners of such gateways.2 The only evidence of royal control
over the portazgo was evidenced by an occasional insistence on
the part of stronger monarchs that royal authorization was neces-
sary for the collection of the tax; though even this was rare, and
the portazgos were assesssed as a rule quite regardless of the
crown’s permission.3 In the course of time a royal tax developed
1 Part. 5, tit. 7, Ieyes 5-9, Part. 3, tit. 28, ley ɪɪ, and Part. 2, tit. ι, ley 2, give
the thirteenth-century view as to the theoretical share of the crown in the portazgos.
The rate was then one-eighth of the value of the animals or goods, and the king was
to have two-thirds of the yield, the town’s share being used to repair roads and walls.
It is interesting to note that in this code the ‘ Scholar King,’ Alfonso X, exempted
from portazgos “ the books, clothing, and other necessities brought in by students.”
Portugaliae Monumenta Historica, Leges et Consuetudines, i, p. 487, gives a charter
of Centocellas, n94, awarding two-thirds of the local portazgo to the lord of the
town. Cortes, S. Maria de Nieva, 1473, pet. 5, mentions the ancient theory that
Portazgos belonged to the crown.
2 Lopez de Ayala, op. cit., pp. 128-130, citing documents of 804 ff.; Berganza,
Antiguedades de Espana (Madrid, 1719-21, 2 vols.), ii,p. 59 (1129); Bib. Nac. Mad.,
Ms. 714, p. 183 (1179); Herculano, Historia de Portugal (Lisbon, 1863), iv, p. 420;
Acad, Hist., Indice Docs. Monast. Suprim , p. 18 (1232).
3 A good example of one of the few portazgos of which the crown received a share
was that of Plasencia, to which the Mesta flocks were the heaviest contributors.
The Castilian sovereigns retained two-thirds of the Plasencia portazgo down to the
close of the fourteenth century, when obligations incurred during the wars of Peter
the Cruel and Henry of Trastamara necessitated the disposal of this income. Bena-
vides, in Revista de Extremadura, iii (1901), pp. 172,433; iv (1902), p. 189; v (1903),
P∙ 219, presents documents illustrating the history and administration of this tax.
Illustrations of royal concessions of portazgo privileges are found in Arch. Osuna,
Béjar Mss., leg. 351, no. ɪ (1237); Pantigoso, Memorial . . . de Segovia (1523),
reprinted in Boletin Acad. Hist., xiv, p. 219 (1889). An interesting schedule of por-
tazgo rates of the twelfth century is found in the fuero of Zorita de Ios Canes, ed.
Urena (Madrid, 191x), pp. 399-414. A similar table from the fuero of Sephlveda
(thirteenth century) is in the Acad. Hist., Mss. Fueros Privs. y Ords. Municip., i,