as well as by his succcessors with great consideration. In the reign of Don Juan I, Pero de Ayala, Alferez* mayor or standard-bearer of the military order of the Scarf, was again made prisoner at the battle of Aljubarrota. He afterwards exercised the functions of Grand Chancellor of Castile. He died at a very advanced age, in the beginning of the fifteenth century.

"The Master of the Horse, or of the Knights of the Emperor or King," says Dr. Southey in a note to his Chronicle of Cid,' "is what they call in romance the Alferez. He ought to carry the king's standard when he goes to battle, and he has power to judge knights in all cases of knighthood which arise among them, as if they should sell, or pawn, or misuse their horses or arms. Also he hath the power to settle all suits among them by reason of debts. Also he may restrain or expel those who have deserved it, if they are disobedient in the ordinances and things which he commands them to do in matters of knighthood. And, notwithstanding he may do all these things aforesaid, nevertheless, he cannot adjudge any one to the pain of death, nor to loss of limb, for anything he may say or do. Part Iv. Tit. 18, Ley 11.

"Conde Don Piñolo Ximenes, the Alferez of King Bermudo, is called 'Christiferus' in old writings, which Yepes explains to be another term for standard-bearer, the banner having either a crucifix or a cross upon it. Chron. Gen. de S. Benito, T. 6, ff. 17.

"The cross, which was the standard of the famous battle of the Navas de Tolosa, was made of iron, because, at that time, anything like luxury had been just denounced by law. About half its staff was covered by a sort of shield, to protect the bearer, and from this an index-hand proceeded, which the Alferez might turn to that part of the field where succour was most needed-at least, this is supposed to have been its use. A print of this standard is given in the notes to 'Mondejar's Historia del Rey Don Alonso VIII, p. 434."-Southey's Chronicle of the Cid, p. 408.-T.

Ayala has left numerous works; the most important, and to my knowledge the only ones which have been printed, are his Chronicles of Castile, comprising the reigns of Don Pedro, Don Enrique II., Don Juan I., and a portion of the reign of Don Enrique III.* He translated a few Latin authors,† especially Livy, whom he attempted to imitate by writing a contemporary history in the rude Castilian of his age. There is also extant a treatise of his, on falconry, which is very highly esteemed, for Ayala united to the learning of a clerk, the worldly accomplishments on which the nobles of those times prided themselves. His experience in the noble art of hunting contributed not a little, it is said, to maintain him in the good graces of the four kings under whom he lived.‡

The uninterrupted favour which Ayala enjoyed under Enrique II. and his successors is, in truth, the only assignable motive for the charge which has been brought against him of calumniating Don Pedro. In fact, no one has succeeded in convicting him of having falsified the truth in his writings maliciously or intentionally; on the contrary, the authors who most

*It is, however, doubtful whether Ayala was the author of the "Cronica de Enrique III." See upon this question Nicolas Antonio, Bibliotheca Hispana vetus, Lib. x, cap. 1.

The

† Among others, a portion of the works of St. Gregory. best known of his poetical writings, is his Rimado de Palacio," which, according to Sismondi, was "written in prison for the express purpose of rendering Don Pedro odious to his subjects, and of conciliating their goodwill towards his brother."-Sismondi's Literature of Europe, Vol. 11. p. 149.-T.

Bib. Hispana vetus, Lib. x. cap. I.

distrust him have made use of his work, and to cite only one, the principal apologist of Don Pedro, the Conde de la Roca has unscrupulously copied him at the very time he was accusing him of falsehood. I shall shortly examine the absurd compilation which has been opposed to the history of Ayala, but for the present will only reply to the general charge of partiality with which our chronicler has been reproached, and his history thus laid open to suspicion.

An accusation which is founded upon no precise fact, is, through its very vagueness, difficult of refutation. Doubtless, Ayala who was both spectator and actor in a great revolution, who had been proscribed by Don Pedro, and treated with favour by Don Enrique, could not always conceal from his readers that his affections were enlisted on one side more than the other; has he, however, attempted to palliate the faults or crimes of the prince for whom he fought? Have those writers, whose condemnation of Don Enrique's conduct was the most severe, ever needed to seek for arguments and proofs elsewhere than in the Chronicle of Ayala ? He wrote history, as history was written in the fourteenth century, without pretending to judge the motives of the actions which he recorded. Throughout his narrative the personal opinions, or predilections of the author seldom appear, and if occasionally he is led to indulge in a few short reflections, I appeal to every impartial reader whether the sentiment he expresses be not always that of an honest man. I do not deny that he may be charged with repeating the rumours, which, although generally believed at the time, are now justly suspected; but it should be remarked, that on all such

occasions he affirms nothing, and invariably cites his authority, if popular report may be dignified with that title. Besides, can we wonder that truth should suffer when carried into the enemy's camp? In my opinion, we ought rather to admire the honest chronicler for the pains he has taken to discriminate between truth and error, and to produce a work so generally free from party feeling.

Here, perhaps, should be pointed out some remarkable discrepancies existing between the different editions, or rather manuscripts of Ayala's Chronicle. There are two principal copies known to us, which I shall designate after the manner of the Spanish authors as the Vulgar and the Abreviada. The Abridgement, notwithstanding its title, seems the more ancient and in all probability is the first compilation of Ayala. Several passages are to be found there which are suppressed in the later copy, evidently from a political motive. Whether these suppressions have been made by himself, or as is more probable, are to be attributed to some copyist attached to the Court, they have their value, in that they show, how far the liberty of writing might be carried in the fourteenth century, since so few alterations, and those bearing so slightly upon the leading facts, satisfied the susceptibility of an usurper.* If, however, Ayala did himself retouch his first compila

* Was Balthazar Ayala, the Spanish Judge Advocate, who, in the reign of that most arbitrary Prince, Felipe II, advanced the doctrine that kings might be variously compelled by the Sovereign Pontiff to act justly, and that the Holy Father might even, if it were for the advantage of the Commonwealth, depose kings, a descendant of the Chancellor of the usurping Enrique II?

tion in the spirit of flattery, it will be allowed that the trade of a courtier was much easier to follow in the middle ages, than it has become since.

The reproaches with which Ayala has been assailed, may be explained, by remarking that they bear less upon assumed inaccuracies in his narrative than upon the idea which he gives to the modern reader of Don Pedro's character. Thus a book written in perfect good faith was calculated to produce an effect unforeseen by the author himself. A long series of successive and pitiless murders is all that many people discover in the Chronicle of Don Pedro, and when we judge this prince according to the feelings of modern times, nothing more is necessary in order to class him among the most cruel tyrants who have disgraced humanity. How is it that in the popular legends stillcurrent in Andalucia, and in the poets, those eloquent historians of the people, the same murders, the same crimes are narrated, and yet Don Pedro appears in them under an entirely different aspect and even inspires a positive interest? The events are the same; nevertheless, the legends and the chronicles leave a totally different impression. The cause of this difference in my opinion, exists in the peculiar character of the two kinds of composition. The historian of the middle ages, indifferent as to the character of the facts he related, often uninteresting through his conciseness, and always coldly exact, wrote for the men of his own time, and described actions which were to be judged by a future generation. On the contrary, the popular legend, full of passionate feeling and consequent partiality, related so as to justify the impression intended to be produced.