Rodrigo Sánchez de Arévalo, who was Cartagena’s student, presented a far sunnier perspective. A letrado theorist and bishop of Palencia who spent much of his life in Rome, Arévalo agreed with Valera on the link between virtue and military training, describing the practice of arms in the most glowing terms. In his Vergel de los príncipes, written in the mid-1450s, Arévalo described the importance for rulers and nobles of “honest sports and commendable exercises.”50 He began by arguing for the restorative value of such pursuits, observing that “continuous mental effort overtaxes and weakens not only the body, but also the human heart and its powers.” In need of respite from their intellectual duties, a ruler should turn to physical activity instead of passive relaxation, because, in addition to offering their own rewards, “these sports and delights are the same as comfort and repose.”51 So which kinds of physical activities were the most virtuous and necessary? Foremost was “generous and noble exercise of arms, through which not only are kingdoms and lands defended but also expanded and improved.” Second was hunting on horseback, and third was playing and composing of music.52 For each of these noble pursuits, he described twelve excellencias, or qualities.
He summarized the benefits of martial sports in the eighth excellencia, listing the many noble virtues it might foster: obedience, patience, perseverance, fortitude, magnanimity, liberty, openness, justice, and temperance. The exercise of arms also destroyed vices and evils, including injustice, pugnacity, avarice, pride, and arrogance. The ultimate goal of all this military preparation, as revealed in the twelfth excellencia, was no less than the redemption of the world and the triumph of good over evil. For “through such noble exercises and temporal deeds of arms, men are prepared and trained for the spiritual war which we have with our invisible enemies, that is to say, with the devil, and with the world and with vices.”53 For Arévalo, this spiritual war was inherently unending and required eternal vigilance. And so the ruler “should not cease the acts and exercises and preludes which are the image of war,” for such training not only kept Christian warriors fit for battle but, by improving their moral character, were themselves significant victories in the struggle against evil.54
Church observers may have been divided on the merits of martial sports but they had no such difficulties with nonmilitary spectacles. Clerics of all stations were regular participants in any number of organized performances, both secular (coronations, royal entrances, noble weddings, births, and funerals) and religious (the liturgy, processions honoring local saints, and sermons). Public spectacles were the central means by which the Church communicated with the masses and, like the organizers of tournaments, they intentionally evoked emotional responses through clothing, decoration, and formalized speech. Such displays could be as elaborate and expensive as any knightly creation. Feast day processions, for instance, often required ad hoc taxes to defray the costs of splendid decorations, troops of musicians, and sumptuous feasts. Another type of major event was public preaching. Although local priests generally gave Sunday sermons, municipal concejos or guilds would contract mendicants for holidays, when a big crowd might be expected.
Successful preachers were master performers, unafraid to give their lessons a theatrical character. They could move from invective to tears in a few moments and the emotional absorption of both preacher and flock could be so complete as to disturb those unfamiliar with the experience, like the later French traveler Barthélemy Joly, who commented that, “in their preaching, they make use of an impressive vehemence. … On this topic, two things disturb me in the Spanish sermons: the extreme, almost turbulent, impetuousness of the preacher and the continual sighs of the women, so loud and forceful that they completely disrupt one’s attention.”55
Saint Vincent Ferrer’s well-documented tour through Murcia in 1411–1412, while unusual in its scale, exemplifies the importance accorded to public preaching. Ferrer, who came to Murcia at the invitation of Pablo de Santa María, bishop of Cartagena (and father of Alfonso de Cartagena), brought a retinue of three hundred, all of whom had to be fed and lodged, a task that fell to the local Dominican prior.56 Additional preparations included the construction of a pulpit and arrangement of space for the substantial crowds who came to hear the famous preacher. Efforts were likely taken to ensure that the audience was orderly, even to the extent of forbidding mothers to bring young children “because their crying distracts the preacher,” as happened in 1435 and again in 1472.57
In return for their efforts and expenditures, the municipal authorities hoped for dramatic social repercussions and in this they were largely gratified. Ferrer effectively called Murcianos to greater moral fervor, permitting the concejo to pass a series of new laws against collective sins such as gambling.58 At the same time, the amiable enmity of the frontier meant that visiting preachers had to tread carefully when commenting on interfaith concerns. Ferrer, for instance, made an impassioned appeal for strict segregation between the various religious communities in the city, and particularly for the removal of Jews from much of civic life. But, although they were very much open to these ideas, the concejo was chiefly concerned with local antiseignorial movements and the broader problem of urban violence. Their hope for Ferrer’s visit was that, “through the words he preaches to many people, he may move Christians as well as Jews and Muslims to voluntarily pardon the deaths of their fathers and mothers, siblings and other relatives as well as other offenses and injuries” and thus put an end to reciprocal violence and ongoing feuds.59
Although they could be comfortable on stage, clerics tended to remain on the margins of more playful public events. The idea that they should spend their leisure time in service to God was well established, as were priestly obligations to serve as moral exemplars. The expectations for their public and private comportment were explicitly laid out not only in ecclesiastic law but also in the civil code, as the Partidas decreed that “prelates should pay careful attention to their conduct as men whose example others follow, as above stated; and for that reason, they should not witness exhibitions, as, for instance, lance throwing, tilting or fights with bulls or other wild beasts, or visit those who take part in them. Moreover, they should not throw dice, or play draughts, or ball, or quoits, or any games like those which tend to interfere with their composure, nor should they remain to witness them, or be familiar with those who play them.”60
The documentary record for the actual behavior of ecclesiastics is scattered and frequently unreliable. This is due partly to the paucity of official church records, which understandably glossed over this issue, and partly to the nature of chronicle and literary descriptions, which often presented highly subjective views of the clergy. The minutes, however, of a number of synods held in fifteenth-century Castile detail attempts to legislate clerical behavior, while reports from diocesan inspectors describe the failings of the parish priests.61 From these sources, it appears that efforts to proscribe playful activities were less than effective, leaving the councils repeatedly obliged to ratify formal bans on any number of private or semiprivate diversions. These ranged from drinking in taverns, consorting with women, and playing at cards and dice to attending bullfights or public dances and musical performances to participating in burlesque dramas.
But church authorities sought to improve not only the morality of the clergy, but also that of society as a whole. Both Cartagena and Arévalo, although they disagreed sharply in their views of caballero tournaments, emphasized the moral influence of these spectacles. Although Cartagena’s objections were frequently echoed by others, knightly jousts and melees did not receive much overt church scrutiny. This lack of reaction may in part be explained