Nobles and Hidalgos: Definitions and Distinctions

Who, or what, were the nobility of sixteenth-century Extremadura? The origins and formation of the Spanish nobility were multiple, complex, and often obscure, and as a result the group set at the top of provincial society by virtue of privilege and inheritance eludes simple categorization. In Castile as a whole in the sixteenth century there were several classes of nobles (grandes, títulos, caballeros, hidalgos) which had their origins in different historical periods and circumstances. The caballeros, for example, to a great extent could be traced back to the heyday of the reconquista (twelfth and thirteenth centuries) and the military services rendered by armed men on horseback, whereas the grandes and títulos were royal creations of a later era. Furthermore a number of juridical distinctions subdivided these groups; an hidalgo might be,

for example, "de solar conocido," "de ejecutoria," "de vengar 500 sueldos." But by the early sixteenth century most of these minute legal distinctions had become blurred or largely ignored in practice and probably had lost much meaning even for contemporaries.^[9] Basically what remained was a sort of three-tiered division of all those who had fiscal exemptions and other real or honorary privileges. These three groups roughly corresponded to the designations grandes and títulos (at the top), caballeros, and hidalgos. Although Trujillo, more so than Cáceres, was home to a number of "señores de vasallos"—from the fourteenth century, for example, the Orellanas (a branch of the Altamirano family) ruled Orellana la Vieja—both cities lacked representatives of the highest group of Castilian nobility. Certain members of the título class, however, did figure in local society by virtue of their relationships (both of kinship and clientage) with the local nobility and the proximity of their holdings or jurisdictions to the cities. The Duke of Béjar, one of the largest stockraisers of Castile, for example, was influential in the cities. A number of young men from noble families of Cáceres and Trujillo served in his household; Juan de Chaves, descendant of Luis de Chaves, el viejo (friend and ally of Ferdinand and Isabella) and himself an author of a chronicle of his lineage, was said to have been raised there. One cacereño noble, Diego de la Rocha, in his instrument of entail drafted in 1546, called the "conde de Benalcázar, Marqués de Gibraleón, Duque de Béjar que espera ser" his lord and said he was a criado (servant, retainer) of that house, from which he had received "good treatment and many favors." In 1570 don Diego Mejía de Ovando, the lord of Don Llorente and Loriana and vecino of Cáceres, sold a censo on his entail to raise 2000 ducados in order to accompany the Duke of Béjar to Genoa.^[10]

Broadly speaking, then, the privileged class in Cáceres and Trujillo comprised two more or less distinct groups. One consisted of the wealthy, powerful, and stable noble families. Most of these nobles were caballeros and many held titles. They filled the seats of the city council, maintained large households—residences in the city and estates in the countryside—and intermarried extensively. The other, larger group included all the other individuals and families which lacked titles but held fiscal exemptions that distinguished them from the taxpayers (pecheros) and could claim hi-

dalgo status of some kind. The distinctions between these groups of course faded at times, since noble families were hierarchies that included poor and illegitimate relatives whose status differed considerably from that of the principal heir or heirs and direct line; and also the fortunes of an entire family could change over time.

The terms "noble" and "hidalgo" will be used here not in a technical or legal sense but rather to distinguish between these generalized social (really socioeconomic) groupings. The terms noble and nobility will be reserved for the small circle of principal families that dominated their respective cities and districts, while the term hidalgo will refer to the privileged group as a whole or will be used to distinguish between the leading nobles and all others. If at first glance the distinction seems confusing or nitpicking, its significance emerges clearly when one compares the wealth and position of a great (by local standards) noble like Juan de Chaves (the chronicler)—who in 1558 at the king's request and at considerable personal expense accompanied the queens of Portugal and Hungary, sisters of Charles V, from Trujillo to Badajoz^[11] —with that of humble hidalgos living in the villages of the countryside who worked the land with a pair or two of oxen and were hardly distinguishable from their fellow labradores.

The hidalgo group was, then, homogeneous neither in wealth nor in social standing or political influence, all of which usually went together. Frequent references to suits for hidalguía indicate the tenuous claim some had to privileged status; hidalgo status often came down to a question of whether one paid normal taxes or not, whether an individual (or, perhaps more important, his antecedents) had been included in the padrón (list of taxpayers). Incorporation of an individual who considered himself to be an hidalgo into the padrón occasioned a number of suits that were taken to the royal chancillería (high court of appeals) in Granada.^[12] The testimony collected in the prosecution of these suits demonstrates clearly, however, that fiscal exemption was only one of the qualities that defined the hidalgo; possibly proof of such exemption in itself did not suffice to prove hidalguía. Just as important was evidence regarding the rank of one's father and grandfather and, perhaps even more convincing, one's association and relationship with a lineage that included prominent and recognized nobles.

Hidalguía adhered to a family and lineage, not to an individual as

such, and in effect this meant the male line since in this period women scarcely figured.^[13] One case that illustrates the kind of evidence that could be brought to bear on the question of hidalguía was that of the brothers Francisco and Martín de Escobar, who initiated a suit in 1588 because they had been included in the padrón of the village of Robledillo (jurisdiction of Trujillo). Juan de Chaves, former regidor of Trujillo (very likely the chronicler), testified that he had talked with the litigants' father, Pedro de Escobar, in the house of Escobar's relative (deudo) Alvaro de Escobar, whom Chaves called a "caballero muy principal." Chaves further testified that the litigants' older brother Gómez Nuño de Escobar, who had gone to the Indies and returned wealthy, had been an intimate of Juan de Escobar (son and heir of the aforementioned Alvaro de Escobar and brother of Fray Diego de Chaves, the confessor of Philip II). When Juan de Escobar's eldest son, Alvaro Rodríguez de Escobar, caballero of Santiago, and his brother went to fight the Alpujarras rebellion, Gómez Nuño de Escobar "gave his relative a beautiful chestnut horse for the journey." Another witness stated that Juan de Escobar had been padrino (godfather) at Gómez Nuño de Escobar's wedding and at the baptism of one of his sons. Chaves's testimony, then, offered evidence of close association between the family of the litigants and a much higher-ranking noble lineage. What further proof of their hidalgo status could be needed? Francisco and Martín de Escobar won their suit in Granada, although virtually none of the testimony bore any direct relation to their own status and activities. Francisco went to the Indies, probably at least twice. While this did emerge in testimony, the fact that he did so as a merchant did not.^[14]

An even more remarkable instance of what might be regarded as largely circumstantial proof of hidalguía appeared in the suit initiated by Pedro de Sande of Cáceres in 1551 and pursued by his sons in the 1570s. Pedro de Sande's father, Hernando de Sande, was from Lugo in Galicia, where he was considered to be an hidalgo. The main branch of the Sande family came to Cáceres and Plasencia from Galicia in the early fifteenth century, and one of those Sandes—Juan de Sande Carvajal, el viejo—was corregidor of Salamanca, probably in the early years of the sixteenth century (see table 2 for the Sande family). Hernando de Sande participated in a jousting tournament "de señores y caballeros hijosdalgo" in which

Table 2
The Paredes, Sande, and Carvajal Families of Trujillo and Cáceres

he so distinguished himself that he came to the attention of the corregidor Juan de Sande, who on hearing Hernando's name decided he must be a relative of his. He invited Hernando de Sande to his lodgings and was so pleased with him that he insisted that his newly discovered relation send a son to live in his household. Hernando de Sande took his son Pedro de Sande to Cáceres; Pedro remained there and became a vecino.

The testimony amassed to prove the hidalguía of Pedro de Sande and his sons included that of another illustrious Sande, Diego García de Sande, a caballero of Santiago and brother of the famous military officer don Alvaro de Sande (later Marqués de Piobera). He testified in the suit that Pedro's father, Hernando de Sande, was a "justador grande" and that "it was clear that he was related to all who were of the house of Sande." Diego García had taken Pedro de Sande, along with other relatives, with him to Seville when he went there to get married. Diego García de Sande further stated that he had known another son of Hernando de Sande, Juan de Sande, who fought with him in Italy and Sicily and elsewhere, and that this Juan de Sande had received a salary increment in addition to his regular pay that only hidalgos received. Everyone thought of Juan de Sande as don Alvaro de Sande's kinsman; don Alvaro had felt it deeply when Juan de Sande was killed in Turkey, "because he was his relative." Diego García also noted that he himself had another brother named Arias de Sande who had been a captain and died in Italy; Arias was also the name of the litigant Pedro de Sande's paternal grandfather. Proof of the hidalguía of Pedro de Sande's family, therefore, rested on several types of evidence: close association with and recognition as "deudos" by prominent nobles; a relative (Pedro's brother Juan) having had a privilege to which only hidalgos were entitled (the "ventaja" he received as a soldier); and the use of a name associated with the much more prominent line of the family (Arias). Again all the evidence pertained to the male line and the activities of the males of the lineage; women were scarcely mentioned except in relation to the litigants themselves.^[15]

It was at this point, when the testimony touched most directly on the litigants, that the case for Pedro de Sande and his sons began to appear less than airtight and that the difference between somewhat tenuous hidalgos and those who were clearly recognized as such becomes more obvious. In Cáceres the litigant Pedro de

Sande married Francisca Picón, the daughter of Francisco Picón, whom witnesses said was an hidalgo and "very rich." In general the testimony emphasized the latter quality; what was undeniable was that Pedro de Sande's wife was not a "doña" at a time (midsixteenth century) when most noble women of substance bore that title. It is also undeniable that, between them, Pedro de Sande and Francisca Picón, hidalgos of middling status, produced a family of upwardly mobile sons whose ambitions and abilities finally brought them at least close to the position to which they aspired. Their son Dr. Francisco de Sande, the most energetic and possibly most capable of the lot, in the last third of the sixteenth century served on audiencias (high courts) in Mexico, Guatemala, and Bogotá and briefly as governor of the Philippines (in the 1570s), working tirelessly in the interests of himself and his brothers, one of whom, don Juan de Sande, eventually ended up on the city council of Cáceres. Yet while their mother, Francisca Picón, in her later years at times was called "doña" and at others not, significantly her own son Dr. Sande omitted the doña in referring to her. Similarly his brothers used the title "don" but not consistently, so that the family's claim to the honorific even in the late sixteenth century, when the use of such titles had proliferated, continued to be uncertain.^[16]

Clearly, in the latter part of the sixteenth century a successful professional career could go a long way toward elevating the status of an entire family. Like Dr. Francisco de Sande, Licenciado Diego García de Valverde, another cacereño who served on several audiencias in the New World, was the son of a woman who was not a doña. His brother Baltasar de Valverde could not sign his name, and they had a first cousin who was married to a surgeon. But Valverde's wife was a doña, and his son was "don" Francisco de Valverde.^[17] A similar process affected Licenciado Diego González Altamirano of Trujillo and his family. He also served on audiencias in the Indies, had relatives who probably were involved in commerce and the lower-ranking professions, and was responsible for his sons' elevation in status. Thus in addition to all the other legal, social, and economic considerations that served to define hidalguía (and foster distinctions between nobles and hidalgos of varying rank and status), in the sixteenth century socioeconomic and political changes generated yet other factors that also came to bear on the determination of hidalguía and status. Inevitably the whole concept

of nobility and hidalguía underwent transformations in the sixteenth century, complicating the task of analyzing and describing the hidalgo group.^[18]

The hidalgos of Cáceres and Trujillo, as suggested, were quite heterogeneous and really constituted a group only insofar as they could claim certain privileges in common. More marginal hidalgos might actively pursue nonnoble trades and occupations or have relatives who did so. One of the more respectable occupations for lower-ranking hidalgos was that of notary. Among the lower-ranking hidalgos intermarriage with non-hidalgos was common, further blurring distinctions between individuals at this level. Very likely, however, as insignificant as the distinction might seem to have been in many instances, it continued to be recognized. A witness said that the parents of the first and second wives of Hernando de Encinas, who petitioned to go to Peru (or Tucumán) in 1591 with his family, were hidalgos ("estuvieron en posesión de hijosdalgo"), while Encinas's parents were honorable and prominent people ("en posesión de gente muy honrada y principal") but obviously not hidalgos.^[19] Hidalguía was one's birthright, and being poor or working at a trade or with the land could not obviate that inherited quality. Thus while it may seem anomalous that the hidalgo appointed alférez (ensign) by the Cáceres city council was a cloth shearer (tundidor ), or that the father of Antonio de Cotrina, an hidalgo who became an entrepreneur in the Indies trade, was a tailor and many of his relatives dyers, the contemporaries of such individuals apparently perceived no incongruity.^[20]

A large number of middle and lower-ranking hidalgos lived in the towns and villages outside the cities. Whereas in 1552 Casar de Cáceres, with over 700 vecinos, claimed to have no hidalgos,^[21] other pueblos had rather large numbers of them. In 1561 nearly 70 of Zorita's 380 vecinos were hidalgos. In 1551 several of them had obtained a royal provision directing that Trujillo's corregidor allow the hidalgos of Zorita to hold offices that up until then had been reserved for labradores; the hidalgos proposed that they be given half the available positions because of their high proportion among the town's inhabitants.^[22] The pueblo of Zarza, where the estates of the Pizarro family were located, in 1561 had 10 hidalgos among its 103 vecinos.

These hidalgos of the villages, however, by no means constituted

a local aristocracy and did not monopolize wealth or, obviously, political power. Of Zorita's hidalgos 7 were called poor or very poor (1 was a tailor and another a carpenter), and several others had just an ox, or a pair of oxen, or three pigs, or the like. It is difficult to estimate wealth based on the 1561 vecindario (census) because the only property listed is livestock, and doubtless some individuals had other sources of income or means of making their living; 4 hidalgos (2 men and 2 women), for example, were described as living well but having no movable property ("tiene bien de comer y no hacienda mueble"). Taking property in livestock as a guide, however, some of the hidalgos probably were among the wealthiest villagers, but some pecheros were their equals. Diego de Trejo, the hidalgo wealthiest in stock, had 300 sheep, 25 oxen and cows, and 40 pigs, and another hidalgo, Pedro de Cacedo, had 250 sheep, 12 oxen and cows, and 60 pigs; but commoner Rodrigo Pérez had 350 sheep, 2 oxen, and 50 pigs. The situation was similar in Zarza, where half the hidalgos were poor and only 3 were called wealthy ("ricos"); but in fact none of them owned as much livestock or land as the well-to-do commoners of the village.^[23] In Ibahernando, where the census included a greater variety of properties, the situation was much the same. The town had only a handful of hidalgos among its 180 or so vecinos. The wealthiest of these, Diego de Arévalo, had a house, a vineyard with 800 vines, a horse, ass, 2 pigs, and 80 sheep; but the commoner Rodrigo Gutiérrez had two houses, two vineyards with 1200 vines, 3 oxen, 2 cows, a bull and a calf, 20 pigs, 2 donkeys, and 300 sheep and goats. Another pechero, Francisco de Roda, had a house and nearly 2000 vines in two vineyards, as well as 4 oxen, 250 sheep and goats, 2 pigs, and an ass. Well-to-do commoners far outnumbered hidalgos in Ibahernando.^[24]

While the hidalgos of the villages for the most part were a modest bunch, the presence of hidalgos was not limited to these local people, since a number of nobles—who were almost always vecinos of the cities and therefore usually not included in the censuses of the towns—owned houses and estates in and around the villages. Some noble families acquired señorío (jurisdiction) over villages in Trujillo's district, a process that accelerated in the sixteenth century and continued into the seventeenth. Around 1558–1559 Alonso Ruiz (returnee from Peru) purchased the village of Madroñera; Diego de Vargas Carvajal (son of Dr. Lorenzo

Galíndez de Carvajal, councillor of the Indies) purchased Puerto de Santa Cruz; Licenciado Juan de Vargas (oidor of the chancillería of Valladolid) bought Plasenzuela with its hamlets Guijo and Avilillos; Pedro Barrantes (another returnee from Peru) acquired La Cumbre; and Alvaro de Loaysa (father of Fray Jerónimo de Loaysa, first archbishop of Lima) became señor of Santa Marta and Diego Pizarro de Hinojosa of Torrecillas.^[25] In addition many noble families exercized considerable influence in villages where they owned residences and estates. The Moraga family dominated Aldea del Cano (in Cáceres's district), and in 1561 members of the related Moraga, Vita, and Cano families were living there.^[26] The parents of don Juan de Sande (nephew of don Alvaro de Sande) maintained a house in Torrequemada where they lived much of the year. In Trujillo's district the Vargas family was influential in Madrigalejo, where they had built a "casa-fuerte" demolished by orders of Queen Isabella, the Pizarro Carvajals were important in Alcollarín, and the Solís family in Ibahernando.^[27] The rich nobles who acquired señorío over villages of course usually already had houses and properties in these places, like the Pizarros in Zarza and Alonso Ruiz in Madroñera.