The Templars in the Corona de Aragón

[Savannah]

The papacy was not affected by the Order's ecclesiastical rights and privileges in the way that the Aragonese kings were by the Templars' secular immunities, and although there were differences between popes and the Temple in the thirteenth century (68) at no time did the papacy attempt a general reduction of the Order's ecclesiastical privileges. It did take action, however, over the payment of tithes. This was done in the interests of the secular clergy, who were directly affected by the exemptions enjoyed by the [168] Temple and other religious houses. In the middle of the twelfth century Adrian IV restricted the exemption of the regular clergy and decreed that it should apply only to novales. (69) Tithes were to be paid from all demesne lands except those newly brought under cultivation. His successor, Alexander III, later argued that Adrian's ruling had not applied to the Temple, the Hospital, or Citeaux; (70) but it has been shown that Citeaux's exemption was reduced in Adrian's pontificate; (71) the military orders were therefore probably subject to the restriction as well. (72) In arguing that Adrian's ruling had not applied to the Templars, Hospitallers, and Cistercians, Alexander was probably seeking to justify his own policy of allowing these Orders exemption from the payment of tithes on all lands which they cultivated. (73) But if Alexander reversed the policy of his predecessor in this respect for the benefit of the orders which he particularly favoured, these exceptional privileges were not maintained. Because of continued tension over tithes, the general chapter of Citeaux in 1180 imposed a restriction on its own privileges, and decreed that if Cistercians in future acquired lands from which tithes had been paid this payment should continue;(74) and at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 Innocent III extended this ruling to all regular clergy who enjoyed privileges similar to those of Citeaux: exemption was to be confined to demesne labores acquired before the Council and to demesne novales. (75) The only other Templar privilege which was not always respected by the papacy was that concerning the payment of procurations in money. Thus when Urban IV sent a papal clerk as tax-collector to the south of France and Spain in 1264 he ordered the clergy, including the military orders, to provide procurations both in kind and in money. (76)

But if the papacy normally respected the Order's ecclesiastical immunities, the rights and privileges of the Templars were frequently called in question, especially by the secular clergy, whose revenues and authority were reduced by these immunities. Yet, as was admitted by some Templars after their arrest, (77) the faults did not all lie on one side. The Aragonese evidence shows that the abuses which the prelates at the Third Lateran Council or writers like William of Tyre complained of bitterly were not uncommon. (78)

The churches and tithes which the Templars possessed were a subject of frequent controversy. Bishops sometimes tried to [169] recover the churches which their predecessors had granted to the Temple. In 1193, for example, the bishop of Tarazona asserted a claim to the church of Ambel, which had been given to the Temple by the bishop Michael in 1145. (79) But on the other side there was the complaint that the Templars gained churches and tithes unjustly. At the Lateran Council in 1179 the prelates argued that the Order received gifts of churches and tithes without episcopal consent, even though in the bull Omne datum optimum the necessity of obtaining this consent had been stressed. At the Council it was decreed that churches and tithes which had been received 'in modem times' without consent should be surrendered. (80) This phrase was defined by Alexander to refer merely to the ten years preceding the Council, and this ruling was confirmed by Urban III in 1186. (81) The prelates' complaint was echoed in Catalonia in a dispute about tithes in 1181 between the Temple and the bishop of Urgel. The latter finally confirmed whatever the Order had gained in the past in certain places but decreed that in future it should not obtain tithes without episcopal consent.(82) But it is often difficult to determine whether episcopal consent was in fact sought; in the records of most grants of tithes by laymen in the Corona de Aragón there is no reference to the bishop, yet this does not necessarily mean that he was ignored. Possibly the abuse was less marked in Aragon than elsewhere, since the majority of acquisitions of churches and tithes by the Order there resulted from grants by the prelates themselves in the reconquered districts.

At other times there was abuse of the particular rights and powers which the bishops and the Order enjoyed over churches in Templar patronage. Disputes occasionally arose about the presentation and institution of clerics. It was stated in several papal bulls that some bishops sought to obtain Templar churches for members of their own households and therefore refused to accept candidates presented by the Temple; (83) and bishops also refused to institute secular priests living in Templar convents unless provision for them outside the Order's houses was made. A bull condemning this latter practice was addressed to the Templars in Spain in 1239, (84) but there is otherwise little evidence of a reluctance on the part of the Aragonese and Catalan bishops to accept priests put forward by the Order. The only known instance occurred in 1288 when the bishop of Urgel refused to [170] accept a candidate for the church of Puigreig on the ground that he had celebrated divine offices while the country was under interdict. On this occasion the Temple easily found a supporter in Alfonso III, who described the bishop's action as 'scandalous and prejudicial to our country'. (85) But if the Templars had grievances about the way in which some bishops exercised their powers, the prelates at the Lateran Council in 1179 on their side complained that the Templars failed to present candidates for benefices to the diocesan and also removed priests from livings without episcopal consent. It was therefore decreed that, unless a church was held by the Temple 'in full right', presentation to the diocesan was to be made; and the Order was at the same time forbidden to remove priests without episcopal consent. (86) That these decrees were not always observed is apparent from their repetition in 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council, (87) while in Spain the archbishop of Tarragona in 1193 ordered the Templars to observe them after the bishop of Tarazona had complained that they were not being respected, (88) and in 1221 a similar grievance was voiced by the bishop of Zaragoza. (89)

Disputes arose more frequently, however, about the revenues of Templar churches. Some bishops sought to recover dues which had been granted away by their predecessors. Although in 1193 the bishop of Tarazona was not able to substantiate his claim to the church of Ambel, he was awarded a quarter of the tithes of 'bread and wine' from that church, even though this quarter had been assigned to the Temple in 1148. (90) A claim to a quarter of the tithes of St. John at Monzón and its dependent churches was similarly put forward by Berenguer, bishop of Lérida, in 1219; (91) but the bishop failed to establish a right to these dues, and the same happened in 1264, when a later bishop claimed a quarter of these tithes. (92) It was, however, agreed in 1219 that the bishop should have twelve cenas annually for himself and nineteen followers from these churches, although the right of hospitality had not been specifically reserved when the church of St. John had been. granted in 1149; and the bishop's right of hospitality was again accepted by arbiters in 1265, when it was amended to consist of ten cenas for the bishop and twenty-five mounted followers. (93) These arbiters nevertheless did uphold a Templar protest against the exaction of cenas in money, contrary to papal decrees. According to the Templars there was also abuse of the [171] decrees which limited the number of followers for whom bishops could claim hospitality: in 1226 Honorius III had occasion to write to the bishop of Zaragoza, saying that the Templars had complained that

not content with the number of persons and horses decreed in the Lateran Council, you bring with you such an unreasonable multitude of knights and horses that in your sole visit you consume what should suffice for many for a large part of the year. (94)

[Savannah]

The Order could also argue that papal decrees were contravened when contributions to episcopal subsidies were demanded from Templar churches. When in 1301 the bishop of Lérida taxed Templar churches for the subsidy then being levied in aid of the newly established university of Lérida, the Order maintained that this demand was contrary to the privilege Ante oculos mentis, which stated that bishops should not demand more from Templar churches than their predecessors had done; (95) and when the bishop of Lérida sought a contribution from the vicar of Remolins towards a subsidy in aid of a royal expedition to Granada in 1273, the Templars maintained that this levy contravened the privilege which stated that, after provision had been made for vicars and episcopal dues, the revenues of Templar churches were to be used in the interests of the Holy Land. (96) Yet in 1229 an earlier bishop of Lérida had asserted that the Templars themselves abused this privilege by not assigning a sufficient amount for the maintenance of vicars and the fulfilment of obligations to the bishop. (97) In most cases it is not known what provision the Temple made for its vicars, and even when evidence does survive it sometimes consists merely of a list of dues, without any indication of their value. (98) But it may be noted that on some occasions the income of Templar vicars was determined by the diocesan; (99) that priests were sometimes given Templar churches as beneficia personalia and received most of the revenues attached to these churches; (100) and that at the beginning of the fourteenth century a number of Templar vicars in southern Aragon were being paid eightpence a day for food, together with 70s. a year for other expenses, and this compares not unfavourably with some of the provisions made for chantry priests at that time. (101)
The Templars' rights over churches and tithes were not the only causes of dispute between the Order and the secular clergy. The [172] Temple's right of burial reduced the income of the secular clergy and the latter's opposition to this privilege is referred to both in general decrees issued by the papacy and in local sources. A bull published by Alexander III shows that some prelates demanded a third instead of a quarter of bequests, (102) and Urban III in 1186/7 was obliged to remind bishops that nothing was to be taken if those buried in the Order's cemeteries left the equivalent of a quarter to the secular clergy, (103) while a further Templar complaint led Innocent III to decree that no one was to remove by force the bodies of those who had chosen burial in the Temple. (104) The Aragonese sources provide further evidence of particular abuses, committed by both sides: while the bishop of Zaragoza claimed in 1221 that he was not receiving the quarter due to him, (105) in 1296 the Templars were complaining that the bishop of Lérida was trying to prevent a certain priest from being buried at Gardeny. (106) These Aragonese sources also reveal that some bishops in the Corona de Aragón managed to impose permanent restrictions on the Templars' burial rights. In 1192, after a series of disputes between the Order and the bishop of Lérida, it was agreed that the Templars should exercise their right of burial in the diocese of Lérida only at Monzón, Chalamera, and Gardeny; (107) and elsewhere it seems to have become accepted that episcopal assent was necessary for the establishment of a new Templar cemetery. In 1204 the bishop of Zaragoza granted the Templars the right to have a cemetery at their house in Zaragoza, and a similar privilege was conceded for the Templar house in Barcelona in 1246 by the bishop of Barcelona. (108) Towards the end of the twelfth century the bishop of Tortosa had likewise allowed the Order to have a cemetery in the city of Tortosa, but he imposed the condition that the Templars

are to receive none of our parishioners for burial unless they can ascend to the Zuda on their own feet or on horseback without the aid of man or woman; (109)
this limitation was, however, removed in 1281. (110) But the bishop of Tortosa then imposed the restriction that if a horse other than the mount of the dead person was left to the Temple, or money in lieu of horse and arms, these should be included among the goods from which the secular clergy was to receive a quarter. In 1246 the bishop of Barcelona had similarly decreed that the [173] Templars should surrender a portion of any money left instead of horses and arms; and it was then further agreed that of movables and immovables left to the Order by inhabitants of the diocese of Barcelona, the bishop and chapter were to receive a half, which they were to divide equally with the parish priest. (111) Thus with regard to rights of burial it was common for the Aragonese bishops to restrict the privileges conceded to the Temple by the papacy. In the Corona de Aragón the Order's burial rights were often determined by agreements with the episcopate, and these modified papal privileges and restricted their application. The papal privileges were nevertheless important in that they forced the episcopate to allow the Templars to enjoy at least some rights of burial; they could not be completely ignored. If bishops sought to prevent the Order from exercising rights of burial altogether they were likely to incur papal displeasure, as happened at Huesca in 1200 when Innocent III threatened to call in the bishop of Lérida to bless the Temple's cemetery in the city if the bishop of Huesca continued to refuse to do so. (112)
The Temple's privileges concerning confraternity similarly led to conflict with the secular clergy. According to the Templars some ecclesiastics refused to allow members of the Order into their churches or demanded part of the money collected by the Temple.(113) But at the Lateran Council in 1179 the prelates on their side maintained that the Templars exceeded their rights by coming to places under interdict and opening churches there more than once a year. (114) There seem to have been faults on both sides, but the situation was made worse by the activities of those who pretended to be Templars or acting for the Temple and tried to collect for their own profit the alms intended for the Order. (115)

The secular clergy were further unwilling to accept the exceptional immunity from the payment of tithes enjoyed by the military orders and Citeaux in Alexander III's pontificate. Many prelates argued that these Orders were exempt only on demesne novales. Alexander was obliged to state in the bull Audivimus et audientes that if he had meant the privilege to apply only to novales he would have used that word. (116) Yet complaints by the Temple and the other Orders on this point continued and the bull Audivimus et audientes was frequently reissued. (117) The proceedings of the Lateran Council in 1179 apparently gave rise to a further abuse, for in the bull Non absque dolore Lucius III ordered the [174] excommunication of those who exacted tithes from Templar labores held before the Council. (118) The origin of this abuse is not clear, but possibly Alexander at the Council confirmed his ruling that the Cistercians and the military orders should have the tithes from demesne labores as well as from demesne novales, and this was interpreted to apply only to labores acquired in future. The decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council were similarly quickly abused. Some prelates argued that in the Council the exemption had been cancelled on labores acquired before as well as after 1215, and it was to combat this claim that Honorius III issued the bull Ex parte dilectorum filiorum; (119) and in answer to others who claimed that all lands acquired before 1215 were liable to tithe Gregory IX in 1228 and 1229 defined the Order's exemption as consisting in freedom from the payment of tithes on demesne labores acquired before 1215, on demesne novales acquired before or after the Council, and on gardens, woods, fishing, hay, mills, and the food of its animals. (120)

Yet although dispute might turn on the interpretation of papal privileges concerning the payment of tithes, in Aragon these privileges, like those concerning burial rights, were usually of only limited importance. They often provided merely the starting-point for discussion about Templar obligations in individual dioceses, and in many parts of the Corona de Aragón the Order's exemption was reduced through local compromises and particular agreements. Some bishops sought to check their losses of tithes by placing a restriction on the amount of demesne land which was to be exempt from payment. At Horta, according to an agreement made with the bishop of Tortosa in 1185, the Templars were to enjoy exemption on twenty-five parelladas; (121) and when in 1263 the bishop of Valencia allowed exemption on a Templar garden at Borbotó, he stated that it was not to exceed six fanegadas in size. (122) Many other agreements obliged the Templars to pay a proportion of the tithes from lands which were exempted by papal privilege. When the archbishop of Tarragona arbitrated between the Temple and the bishop of Tarazona in 1193, he judged that -- with certain exceptions -- the Order should pay half of the tithes of 'bread and wine' from its demesne labores in the diocese of Tarazona. (123) This practice can be traced earlier in the neighbouring diocese of Zaragoza. The Templars agreed in 1147 to pay half of the tithes from the lands which they cultivated [175] there, except those newly brought under cultivation; (124) and this concession was extended in 1204 when the provincial master agreed to pay half of the tithes from demesne novales as well as labores. (125) The custom of paying half of the tithe from demesne lands appears to have been most common in Aragon, but instances also occur in Catalonia: in 1192, for example, the bishop of Lérida retained half of the tithe from the Temple's demesne in Segriá. (126) Once such local agreements had been made, papal privileges were of little value. Although they might be quoted during the course of disputes by either side when it was convenient for them, (127) disagreements between the Order and the secular clergy were usually settled by reference to earlier local agreements rather than to papal privileges. Thus the arbiters in a dispute over tithes between the Temple and the bishop of Zaragoza in 1221 confirmed the agreement made in 1204, after the bishop had complained that the Templars were not paying the tithes owed from demesne lands; (128) and in 1265 the arbiters in a dispute between the Order and the bishop of Lérida referred back to a compromise made in 1154. (129)

[Savannah]

The Templar exemption from the payment of tithes was affected not only by the claims of bishops and parish priests, but also by the rights which other individuals or institutions enjoyed over the tithes of Templar demesnes. In some instances the Temple was able to obtain a surrender of these rights, but it was usually obliged to give compensation. To gain the rights which the monastery of Poblet owned in the tithes from Templar labores at Barbens the Order was in 1182 obliged to give in exchange land elsewhere,(130) and among the rights which the Temple purchased from Bernard of Vallvert in 1216 was his share of the tithes from Templar labores at Palau. (131)

Lay interests were also at work in the sphere of extraordinary papal taxation. Although the papacy usually exempted the Templars from papal taxes imposed for the benefit of the Aragonese kings, James II made a number of attempts to obtain contributions from the military orders to the tenths which were granted to him by the papacy for his proposed expeditions to Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinia. (132) When Boniface VIII in February 1297 granted a tenth of ecclesiastical revenues to the Aragonese king for four years, he made no specific reference to the Temple, thus implying that it was exempt; (133) and this was explicitly stated [176] early in September of that year, after collectors of the tax had tried to exact payment from the Order. (134) But in the same month James protested through his representative at the papal court that it had been agreed that the Temple should contribute. He asked Boniface to issue orders commanding payment and claimed that if the military orders were exempted the sum derived from the tenth would be reduced by at least a third, and the grant would have to be extended for a further two years. (135) In a reply sent in December Boniface postponed making a decision until he could meet James to discuss the matter. (136) But the king apparently gained nothing from the military orders, for in 1299 Boniface agreed to extend the grant of the tenth for a further two years. (137) Boniface again exempted the Temple in 1303 when he gave a tenth to James for three years for the conquest of Corsica and Sardinia, (138) but after Boniface's death James made fresh efforts to gain the tenth from the military orders. In June 1304 he was in negotiation with Benedict XI, but by the time of the pope's death in the next month James had been able to secure only a vague promise about contributions from the military orders. (139) The issue was raised again at the beginning of the next year, yet the military orders were again exempted when Clement V assigned the king a tenth for a further four years. (140)

When in 1297 and 1301 the collectors of these papal taxes demanded contributions from the Order, the Templars were able to quote to them the privilege Quanto devocius divino. (141) On these occasions the Order was making legitimate use of this bull, which concerned taxes levied on papal authority. But the Templars frequently sought to extend the application of this privilege and often used it to protect themselves when they were asked to contribute to episcopal subsidies. In 1290, when the bishop of Zaragoza demanded a subsidy from the clergy of his diocese, the Templars asserted that because of their papal privileges they were not obliged to contribute to any

collecta, subsidies, sums of money or other exactions, under whatever name they are taken, or to pay them for whosoever's benefit or for whatever reason they are imposed, by reason of their churches, houses or possessions(142)
-- a clear reference to the bull Quanto devocius divino; in answer to demands for money by the bishop of Lérida at the time of the [177] French invasion in 1285 and by the bishop of Gerona in the next year they similarly maintained that they were exempt from the payment of any tallia or collecta; (143) and requests from prelates in the following years received the same response.(144)
The Templars were, however, on firmer ground when they argued that the episcopate contravened the Order's clearly stated privilege that its members and servants could not be excommunicated except on papal authority. This right was abused especially during financial disputes with the Aragonese and Catalan bishops. In 1288 the bishop of Lérida pronounced a sentence of excommunication on the clerks in the convent of Gardeny when they refused to contribute towards an ecclesiastical subsidy for the king; (145) and at the turn of the century during a dispute about the tax for the university of Lérida the provincial master and his subordinates were excommunicated. (146) Prelates could, of course, pass sentence on the Order's vassals, but they appear at times to have used this power as a further weapon against the Templars themselves. A bull issued by Gregory IX, and renewed in 1246 and 1255, dealt with complaints by the Temple against certain bishops and their officials who, since they could not excommunicate members of the Order, imposed sentences on the Temple's men or on those using its mills and ovens or on those who traded with the Templars, thus preventing the latter from coming into contact with these people. Gregory pointed out that they were preserving the word but not the spirit of papal decrees. (147) The prelates on their side, on the other hand, asserted at the Lateran Council in 1179 that the Templars tried to exempt their confratres from episcopal jurisdiction and thus weakened the bishops' authority. (148)

Hostility between the Temple and the secular clergy was almost unavoidable, for the privileges which were granted to the Temple and an increasing number of other religious houses and orders constituted a growing threat to the jurisdiction and income of the secular clergy; and disputes were at times marked by bitterness and violence. In 1301 the Templars claimed that during the dispute about the tax for the university of Lérida the bishop had seized the Templar vicar of Ballobar and two other priests, burnt a bridge at Monzón and a number of Templar boats, carried off some of the Order's animals, and killed more than ten of its men, while others had been held to ransom; the bishop on his [178] side maintained that the Templars were holding captive the vicar of Binaced and had threatened several other priests; he also asserted that they had destroyed a bridge at Conchel and damaged other property. (149) But it should not be supposed that there was continuous conflict. At times a more friendly relationship prevailed. As has been seen, the Aragonese clergy can be observed carrying out papal orders for the protection of the Templars, (150) and several promises of protection to the Temple by the Aragonese prelates themselves have also survived. (151) The clergy in the Corona de Aragón can similarly be seen giving their support to papal requests for aid to the Temple: one copy of the appeal sent out by Innocent IV in 1253, for example, is preserved in a letter which the bishop of Tarazona sent to the clergy of his diocese and in which he told them to exhort the faithful to make benefactions to the Order. (152) The surviving records also provide examples of the Templars' respecting episcopal rights. A number of documents record the presentation of candidates for benefices to the diocesan, (153) and in another charter drawn up in 1248 the bishop of Lérida's representative acknowledged that he had received full payment from the Order in respect of persons who had chosen burial at Gardeny. (154) Evidence of this kind is admittedly sparse, but it was obviously more important to keep records of the settlements of disputes than to preserve administrative documents of a routine nature.

It must further be remembered that not all the disputes between the Temple and the secular clergy were the result of deliberate abuse of right and privilege. In Church as in State the administrative methods in use were still rudimentary and conflict could easily be occasioned by administrative failings. Templar rights over parish churches were sometimes called in question apparently because of the inadequacies of episcopal archives. Bishops did not always know what rights had been granted away by their predecessors and therefore disputed Templar claims, as in 1221 when the bishop of Zaragoza demanded to know by what right the Templars held the church of Encinacorba and several others in his diocese. (155) He apparently did not have records of the grants made by earlier bishops.

Some other disputes seem to have been caused by uncertainty among the bishops about the extent of the Order's papal privileges. When in January 1292 the bishop of Lérida was demanding [179] a contribution to an ecclesiastical subsidy, he stated that he was willing to examine the Order's privileges and would give up his demands if the Templars could prove their right to exemption, (156) and in May of the same year he promised to lift the sentence of excommunication which he had imposed if the Templars could show that this contravened their privileges. (157) But the Templars then faced the problem of producing evidence which a bishop would accept. During a dispute in 1288 the commander of Gardeny was able to place before the bishop of Lérida's official only a register containing transcripts of privileges; he said that the originals were at Miravet and could not be brought to Lérida because of the dangers of the journey. (158) But the excuses put forward by the Order on this point were not very consistent: while at times the Templars argued that the originals were at Miravet, on other occasions they maintained that they were in Cyprus and could be seen there or in the papal registers; (159) and while on occasion they claimed that documents could not be moved from Miravet because of the dangers of transporting them, (160) at another time they argued that the documents could not be examined except in the presence of the provincial master, who was away on the king's service. (161) The Templars appear at times to have had no desire to produce original documents for inspection. On the other hand, some bishops apparently sought to prevent the Order from showing originals by not allowing it enough time to produce them. (162) But even if privileges were produced, further dissensions might be occasioned by the differing interpretations to which they could be subject (163) or by a misunderstanding of their significance. (164)

[Savannah]

Conflict might also arise out of a clash of rights. Thus Templar chaplains who became vicars of churches might claim as members of the Order to be exempt from episcopal jurisdiction but, on the other hand, the diocesan might claim obedience from them as vicars of churches subject to episcopal authority. Arbiters between the Order and the bishop of Lérida in 1264 tried to solve this problem by stating that such vicars should be subject to episcopal authority unless the Templars could produce privileges or agreements to the contrary. (165) A further clash of powers and privileges occurred in 1301. According to a decree passed in the provincial council ofTarragona in the year 1300, those who damaged ecclesiastical property were to be ipso facto excommunicated, [180] and it was argued by the bishop of Lérida in the following year that the Templars were subject to this decree; the Templars, on the other hand, asserted that they could not be excommunicated except on papal authority. The evidence ends with the archbishop of Tarragona hesitating between observance of the Order's privileges and adherence to the decrees of the provincial council. (166) Dispute might also be caused by conflicting papal decrees, for the papal chancery, like that of the Aragonese kings, sometimes issued general orders, which ignored particular privileges. Towards the end of the twelfth century Clement III sought to clarify the situation and to protect Templar rights by stating that papal letters which were contrary to the Order's immunities but which did not mention the Temple by name could not be used against it; (167) and in the middle of the thirteenth century it was decreed that papal letters which generally set aside privileges of this last kind but which did not mention the Temple by name could not harm its immunities. (168) These decrees no doubt helped to protect Templar rights, but they could not prevent disputes from occurring when papal letters were issued which clashed with Templar privileges. (169)

The failure of bishops to enforce papal decrees for the protection of the Order was again not necessarily the result of deliberate negligence. In some instances the explanation is probably to be sought in the weight of the administrative burdens placed on the Aragonese prelates. The Templars clearly made full use of general bulls of protection. That sent to the bishop of Sigüenza in 1244, for example, was employed by the Order against the nobles Berenguer of Puigvert and Peter of Queralt, the vicar of the church of Alcolea, the rural dean of Monzón, the royal vicar of Cervera, the abbot of Rocafort, and various others, including the bishop of Lérida. (170) The custom of delegating the task of dealing with petitions and appeals no doubt eased the work of the papal curia, but it sometimes placed a heavy burden on the local clergy, who may for this reason have sometimes failed to give satisfaction to the Temple. Their failure does not necessarily imply that they were hostile to the Order.

The nature of medieval government and administration made dispute inevitable, but probably the Templars -- who took the same measures to protect their ecclesiastical rights as they did to safeguard their secular ones -- did not usually have their rights and [181] privileges permanently reduced by conflicts arising out of administrative shortcomings. Their immunities were affected more by the activities of prelates who sought to maintain their jurisdiction and income by restricting Templar privileges, just as in the secular sphere the Crown's efforts to increase its power and wealth led to a diminution of the Order's secular rights.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Savannah]

Notes for Chapter Five

1. AGP, parch. Selma, no. 22. The grant made to the Temple in 1171 had, however, included tithes and all other revenues: Miret y Sans, Les Cases, p. 169.

2. Ferreira, Memorias, ii. 823-5.

3. e.g. AHN, San Juan, leg. 308, doc. 1; ACA, parch. Peter III, no. 96.

4. Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 70-1, doc. 94.

5. Ibid., p. 100, doc. 143.

6. AHN, San Juan, leg. 340, doc. 4.

7. AHN, San Juan, leg. 285, doc. 3.

8. AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 95v, doc. 296; ACA, parch. Peter III, no. 96; Albon, Cartulaire, p. 334, doc. 545; AHN, San Juan, leg. 354, doc. 2; Montesa, P. 78.

9. Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 235-6, docs. 368, 369; p. 310, doc. 502. The bishop of Taragona similarly gave up his claim to the quarter when he granted the church of Ribaforada in Navarre to the Templars.

10. Ibid., pp. 345-6, doc. 557.

11. AHN, San Juan, leg. 340, doc. 4.

12. AHN, San Juan, leg. 285, doc. 9; AHN, cód. 691, fols. 153v-154, doc. 391.

13. AHN, Montesa, P. 568; cód. 466, pp. 56-7, doc. 56.

14. AHN, San Juan, leg. 277, doc. 30.

15. Prutz, MU, p. 49 no. 88; p. 64, no. 280.

16. e.g. J.D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, xxii (Venice, 1778), 219-20, 1019-22.

17. Ibid., cols. 223, 1047.

18. ACA, reg. 310, fol. 9.

19. Similar privileges were granted to all the leading military orders. Bulls for the Hospital are published or analysed in Delavile, Cartulaire; those for the Teutonic Order may be examined in E. Strehlke, Tabulae Ordinis Theutonici (Berlin, 1869). The papal privileges of the military orders have been discussed by H. Prutz in Die geistlichen Ritterorden (Berlin, 1908), caps. 5,6, and in Entwicklung, caps. 3, 4; but as Prutz did not know of any version of the bull Omne datum optimum before that issued in 1163 his interpretation of Templar privileges needs revision especially on this point.

20. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 378, Bullaire, doc. 5.

21. Prutz, MU, pp. 46-7, no. 57.

22. e.g. Ferreira, Memorias, ii. 811-21 (1186), 826-38 (1194); Migne, PL, cci. 1195-1200 (1183).

23. ACA, reg. 309, fol. 7-7v.

24. Ferreira, Memorias, ii. 821-3.

25. Prutz, MU, pp. 47-8, no. 64; cf. ACA, reg. 310, fol. 4.

26. This offer was made at least as early as 1144: Albon, Cartulaire, p. 381, Bullaire, doc. 8.

27. Marquis d'Albon, 'La mort d'Odon de Saint-Amand, grand-maître du Temple', Revue de l'orient latin, xii (1911), 281-2.

28. AHN, San Juan, leg. 713, doc. 19; see below, p. 391.

29. ACA, Bulas, leg. 11u, doc. 49; cf. F. Miquel Rosell, Regesta de letras pontificias del Archivo de la Corona de Aragón (Madrid, 1948), p. 92, no. 160. See also AHN, cód. 471, p. 20, doc. 31.

30. ACA, reg. 310, fol. 11-11v.

31. ACA, reg. 309, fol. 22-22v.

32. Prutz, Entwicklung, p. 286, doc. 12.

33. Prutz, MU, p. 46, no. 51.

34. Ibid., p. 38, no. 3.

35. G. Schnürer, Die ursprüngliche Templerregel (Freiburg, 1903), p. 64.

36. Règle, p. 38.

37. G. Constable, Monastic Tithes from their Origins to the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, 1964), pp. 225-7.

38. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 377, Bullaire, doc. 5.

39. AHN, cód. 1312, p. 116, doc. 81. Constable, op. cit., p. 236, suggests that the word sumptus should be translated as 'use' or 'consumption' rather than as 'expense', on the grounds that it was occasionally replaced by the word nutrimen; but in one document quoted by Constable, op. cit., p. 260, note 2, sumptus is distinguished from nutrimen; and in thirteenth-century Catalan translations of papal bulls the word sumptus was rendered as despeses or messions: e.g. AHN, cód. 1032, pp. 4-5, doc. 4; pp. 18-19, doc. 19; pp. 22-4, doc. 23.

40. Constable, op. cit., pp. 240-4.

[Savannah]

41. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 334, doc. 545.

42. Ibid., pp. 345-6, doc. 557. The phrase 'ganad ejusdem' is employed in this document and seems to refer to the animals themselves rather than their food.

43. Prutz, MU, p. 38, no. 5.

44. J. Delaville Le Roulx, 'Bulles pour l'ordre du Temple, tirées des archives de S. Gervasio de Cassolas', Revue de l'orient latin, xi (1905-8), 424-5, doc. 29.

45. C. Bourel de la Roncière, Les Registres d'Alexandre IV, i (Paris, 1902), 322, doc. 1075.

46. B. Jordan, Les Registres de Clément IV (Paris, 1893-1945), p. 32, doc. 134. The Templars were expected to contribute to the taxes for the Latin Empire imposed at the Council of Lyons in 1245: AHN, cód. 467, p. 49, doc. 71; cf. Annales de Burton, in Annales Monastici, ed. H.R. Luard, i (London, 1864), 277. But in 1246 Innocent IV stopped the collection of these from the Temple: AHN, cód. 466, p. 32, doc. 32; cf cód. 471, p. 20, doc. 32; García Larragueta, Gran priorado, ii. 313-14, doc. 319.

47. AHN, cód. 467, p. 11, doc. 21.

48. J. Guiraud, Les Registres d'Urbain IV, i (Paris, 1901), 136-7, doc. 470; cf. Delaville, Cartulaire, iii. 88, doc. 3096.

49. G. Digard, M. Paucon, etc., Les Registres de Boniface VIII, ii (Paris, 1904), 29-31, doc. 2426.

50. Delaville, Cartulaire, iii. 709, doc. 4364. In 1295 Boniface also pledged the possessions of the Temple and Hospital in the Corona de Aragón for the payment of Blanche of Anjou's dower to James II: V. Salavert y Roca, 'El Tratado de Anagni y la expansión mediterránea de la Corona de Aragón', EEMCA, v (1952), 254, 358-60, doc. 46; Digard, Faucon, Registres de Boniface VIII, i (1907), 80-1, doc. 212; Delaville, Cartulaire, iii. 664-5, doc. 4281; cf. iii. 817, doc. 4520.

51. Prutz, MU, p. 42, no. 25, with the reissues mentioned there.

52. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 376, Bullaire, doc. 5.

53. Delaville Le Roulx, 'Bulles pour l'ordre du Temple', pp. 409-10, doc. 3 (1154); Ferreira, Memorias, ii. 774-84 (1163), etc.

54. AHN, cód. 471, pp. 9-10, doc. 14 (1217); ACA, reg. 309, fol. 19v (1236).

55. P. Kehr, Papsturkunden in Spanien. I. Katalanien (Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Phil.-hist. Klasse. Neue Folge, vol. xviii, 1926), pp. 475-7, doc. 182; Delaville Le Roulx, 'Bulles pour l'ordre du Temple', pp. 413-17, doc. 11.

56. Only a few payments by the Temple for particular properties -- mainly churches -- are recorded in the Liber Censuum, ed. P. Fabre and L. Duchesne (Paris, 1889-1952).

57. Prutz, Entwicklung, pp. 32-3.

58. Delaville Le Roulx, 'Bulles pour l'ordre du Temple', pp. 430-1, doc. 40.

59. Ibid., p. 429, doc. 38.

60. e.g. in the bull Non absque dolore: ACA, reg. 309, fol. 9; reg. 310, fol. 7-7v; AHN, cód. 471, p. 73, doc. 69.

61. AHN, cód. 471, pp. 75-6, doc. 73.

62. RAH, 12-6-1/M-83, doc. 111; AGP, parch. Cervera, no. 472.

63. Prutz, Entwicklung, p.268, no. 88; cf. Prutz, MU, pp. 51-2, no. 141; ACA, reg. 310, fol. 5v.

64. Mansi, op. cit. xxii. 223.

65. J.B. Mahn, L'Ordre cistercien et son gouvernement (Paris, 1951), pp. 138-9, 148.

66. Giraldus Cambrensis, Opera, ed. J.S. Brewer, iv (London, 1873), 205.

67. Cf. J. Rousset de Pina, in Du premier Concile du Latran à l'avènement d'Innocent III (Histoire de l'Église depuis les origines jusqu'à nos jours, vol. ix, Paris, 1953), ii. 62-4.

68. Finke, Papsttum, pp. 41-54.

69. Mansi, op. cit. xxii. 327-8, 330.

70. Ibid. xxii. 328. On the policies of Adrian IV and Alexander III, see P. Viard, Histoire de la dîme ecclésiastique dans le royaume de France aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles (Paris, 1912), pp. 42-4; Constable, op. cit., pp. 278 ff.

71. Mahn, op. cit., p. 107.

72. Constable, op. cit., p. 282, suggests that the Hospital was exempt from this ruling, but he provides no evidence on this point; and his remarks here seem inconsistent with what he later says about Alexander III's policy: ibid., p. 299.

73. Ibid.

74. Mahn, op. cit., p. 111; Constable, op. cit., p. 303.

75. Mansi, op. cit. xxii. 1042-3.

76. Guiraud, Registres d'Urbain IV, i. 128, no. 460.

77. Michelet, Procès, i. 199; ii. 9.

78. Mansi, op. cit. xxii. 222-3; William of Tyre, Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum, xii. 7, in Recueil des historiens des croisades: historiens occidentaux, i (Paris, 1844), 521.

79. AHN, San Juan, leg. 174, doc. 4.

80. Mansi, op. cit. xxii. 223.

81. Prutz, MU, p. 41, no. 17; p. 43, no. 29. Prutz assigns Alexander's decree to the years 1171-2, but the reference in it to the Council shows that it cannot have been issued before 1179.

82. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fols. 86-7, doc. 214.

83. ACA, reg. 310, fols. 3, 9; Ferreira, Memorias, ii. 800-2.

84. L. Auvray, Les Registres de Grégoire IX, ii (Paris, 1907), 1217-18, no. 4721.

85. ACA, reg. 74, fol. 71.

86. Mansi, op. cit. xxii. 223.

87. Ibid. xxii. 1047-50.

88. AHN, San Juan, leg. 174, doc. 4.

89. AHN, San Juan, leg. 39, doc. 102; see below, p. 381.

90. AHN, San Juan, leg. 174, doc. 4.

91. AHN, San Juan, leg. 324, doc. 1.

92. AHN, San Juan, leg. 324, doc. 2.

93. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 2244-B.

94. AHN, cód. 471, p. 23, doc. 39.

95. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 2241-A.

96. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 2246-B.

97. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 2245-D.

98. e.g. AHN, San Juan, leg. 277, doc. 30; leg. 285, doc. 8.

99. AHN, San Juan, leg. 285, doc. 9; cód. 466, pp. 169-70, docs. 144, 145.

100. AHN, San Juan, leg. 277, doc. 30; leg. 333, doc. 5 see below, p. 410.

101. ACA, reg. 291, fol. 273-273v.

102. ACA, reg. 309, fol. 7-7v.

103. Ferreira, Memorias, ii. 821-3.

104. ACA, reg. 310, fol. 8.

105. AHN, San Juan, leg. 39, doc. 102; see below, p. 381.

106. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 2245-H.

107. AHN, San Juan, leg. 324, doc. 1.

108. AHN, San Juan, leg. 39, docs. 61, 67; ACA, parch. James I, no. 1029.

109. Villanueva, Viage, v. 277-80.

110. AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 95v, doc. 296.

111. ACA, parch. James I, no. 1029.

112. A. Durán Gudiol, Colección diplomática de la catedral de Huesca, ii (Zaragoza, 1969), 548, doc. 575.

113. ACA, reg. 310, fol. 4-4v.

114. Mansi, op. cit. xxii. 223.

115. ACA, reg. 309, fols. 24v-25.

116. Ferreira, Memorias, ii. 789-91; cf. Mahn, op. cit., p. 108.

117. e.g. Ferreira, Memorias, ii. 791-3 (1182/3), 793-5 (1186/7), 796-8 (1210).

118. Prutz, MU, pp. 42-3, no. 28.

119. AHN, cód. 471, pp. 19-20, doc. 30.

120. Prutz, MU, p. 53, no. 183; ACA, reg. 309, fol. 19.

121. AHN, San Juan, leg. 354, doc. 2. This agreement was confirmed in 1263: leg. 308, doc. 6.

122. AHN, Montesa, P. 265.

123. AHN, San Juan, leg. 174, doc. 4.

124. Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 285-6, doc. 460.

125. AHN, San Juan, leg. 39, docs. 61, 67.

126. AHN, San Juan, leg. 324, doc. 1.

127. AHN, San Juan, leg. 324, doc. 2.

128. AHN, San Juan, leg. 39, doc. 102; see below, p. 381.

129. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 2244-B.

130. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fols. 97v-98, doc. 237; see below, p. 372.

131. ACA, parch. James I, no. 58.

132. According to A.T. Luttrell, 'The Aragonese Crown and the Knights Hospitallers of Rhodes: 1291-1350', English Historical Review, lxxvi (1961), 9, the Aragonese kings had sought contributions to papal taxes from the military orders as early as 1277; but in that year the king was concerned with the proceeds of papal taxes which had been deposited with the military orders, not paid by them: ACA, reg. 39, fol. 225-225v; Delaville, Cartulaire, iii. 350, doc. 3631.

133. G. Digard, M. Faucon, etc., Les Registres de Boniface VIII, i (Paris, 1907), 634-5, doc. 1679.

134. Ibid., col. 793, doc. 2059.

135. Finke, AA, i. 37-41, doc. 30.

136. Ibid. iii. 63-5, doc. 30.

137. Digard, Faucon, Registres de Boniface VIII, ii (Paris, 1904), 426, doc. 3088.

138. ACA, Bulas, leg. 23, doc. 4; cf. F. Miquel Rosell, Regesta de letras pontificias del Archivo de la Corona de Aragón (Madrid, 1948), p. 166, no. 312; A. Fábrega i Grau, 'La dècima per a la conquesta de Sardenya en els pontificats de Bonifaci VIII i Benet XI', VI Congreso de historia de la Corona de Aragón (Madrid, 1959), p. 466.

139. V. Salavert y Roca, Cerdeña y la expansión mediterránea de la Corona de Aragón (Madrid, 1956), ii. 122-3, docs. 90, 91; Fábrega i Grau, loc. cit., p. 473.

140. Finke, AA, iii. 134-8, doc. 60; Salavert y Roca, op. cit. ii. 151-4, doc. 116; 165-6, doc. 128.

141. ACA, CRD Templarios, no. 691; parch. James II, no. 1683.

142. Delaville Le Roulx, 'Bulles pour l'ordre du Temple', pp. 434-5, doc. 45.

143. ACA, reg. 57, fol. 192v; reg. 66, fol. 235-235v.

144. ACA, reg. 70, fol. 88; reg. 80, fol. 96v; reg. 92, fol. 161v; reg. 96, fol. 101v; AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 2246-D.

145. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 2244-C.

146. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 2241-B, 2244-D, -E, -F, -G, -H, 2246-G; parch. Comuns, no. 95; cf. Finke, Papsttum, ii. 6-7, doc. 5.

147. Prutz, MU, p. 57 no. 235; ACA, parch.James I, no.2117; reg. 310, fol. 11. The version of this bull issued by Gregory IX to which Prutz, MU, p. 53, no. 171, refers was apparently in favour of the Hospitallers and not the Templars: Delaville, Cartulaire, ii. 376, doc. 1894; but the later versions of the bull refer back to a similar privilege granted to the Templars by Gregory.

148. Mansi, op. cit. xxii. 223.

149. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 2244-D, -G.

150. See above, p. 166.

151. In 1134 the archbishop of Tarragona and his bishops placed the Temple and its property under the Truce of God: Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 53-5, doc. 71; and in 1216 a later archbishop, Spartago, put the Order under his own special protection: AHN, cód. 471, p. 76, doc. 74.

152. AHN, San Juan, leg. 713, doc. 19; see below, p. 391.

153. AHN, cód. 466, pp. 169-70, docs. 144, 145; San Juan, leg. 285, doc. 9; leg. 324, doc. 4.

154. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 495; cf. AHN, Montesa, P. 278.

155. AHN, San Juan, leg. 39, doc. 102; see below, p.381.

156. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 2245-F.

157. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 2246-C. Similar statements were made on a number of other occasions: e.g. parch. Gardeny, nos. 2244-C, 2245-H, 2246-G.

158. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 2244-C.

159. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 2241-A, 2245-F, -H, 2246-D, -G.

160. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 2244-C, 2246-D.

161. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 2245-F.

162. AHN, cód. 466, pp. 26-7, doc. 24; p. 58, doc. 58; pp. 67-8, doc. 67; see below, p. 399.

163. In 1301, for example, a different interpretation was placed on the bull Ante oculos mentis by the Templars and the bishop of Lérida: AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 2241-A; and the Templars' exemption from extraordinary papal taxation appears to have been differently interpreted in different parts of the Corona de Aragón: see J. Rius Serra, Rationes Decimarum Hispaniae (1279-1280) (Barcelona, 1946-7), passim. For a disputation concerning the interpretation of Hospitaller privileges, see J.A. Brundage, 'A Twelfth-Century Oxford Disputation Concerning the Privileges of the Knights Hospitallers', Mediaeval Studies, xxiv (1962), 153-60.

164. It is possible that the Templars misunderstood the significance of the bull Quanto devocius divino; certainly Delaville Le Roulx appears to have been misled by its wording, for he gives an inaccurate resumé of it: 'Bulles pour l'ordre du Temple', p. 431, doc. 42.

165. AHN, San Juan, leg. 324, doc. 2.

166. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 2241-B, 2244-D, -G.

167. Kehr, Papsturkunden in Spanien. I. Katalanien, pp. 537-8, doc. 236; ACA, reg. 310, fols. 7, 7v.

168. AHN, cód. 1312, pp. 125-6, doc. 88; ACA, reg. 309, fol. 22. In these decrees, issued by Urban IV, there are references to similar bulls issued by Innocent IV and Alexander IV.

169. e.g. ACA, CRD Templarios, no. 691; CRD James II, no. 842.

170. RAH, 12-6-1/M-83, doc. 111.

[Savannah]

6

The Exploitation of Property

[189] Any attempt to examine the way in which the Temple exploited its varied rights and properties in the Corona de Aragón is hampered by a lack of vital evidence. No series of accounts and no court records have survived, and although a few rentals and custumals for particular estates have been preserved, there is for Templar lands in Aragon no survey comparable with that compiled by the English Templars in 1185. (1) The majority of the documents concerning the exploitation of property which have survived are charters recording grants of land to individual tenants, and from these only limited conclusions can be drawn.

It seems, however, that the Order usually pursued a policy of demesne exploitation, in the sense that it normally sought to retain direct control over its lordships and estates. There are only a few examples of the Temple's granting or farming out whole townships or all its rights in a certain district; and the concessions of this kind which were made were of a temporary nature and can in most instances be explained by particular circumstances. Lordships were occasionally assigned for a time to individuals as beneficia in return for concessions made to the Order: in 1244 the Templars granted the castle and township of Gandesa for life to Elvira, the widow of William of Cervellón, because she had given the Order the castle of Nonaspe together with rights in several neighbouring places; (2) and in the following year Bertrand of Naya was given the castle and township of Marlofa for life partly because he had granted irrigation rights to the Order. (3) But the concession of Marlofa was also made 'for the greater security of the Temple' and in return for an annual rent of thirty cahíces of barley and seventy of wheat. Temporary grants of lordships appear therefore to have been made not only as beneficia but also in order to ensure the defence and protection of castles which were not manned by the Templars themselves. On some other occasions Templar rights in a district were farmed out apparently [190] because for reasons of distance it was more convenient for them to be administered in this way. Thus in the middle of the thirteenth century the Order's properties at Calatayud, on the river Jalón, were subject to the convent of Villel, some eighty miles further south, and it was probably their remoteness from the convent that accounts for their being farmed out in 1255 to two Jews, who were to pay an annual rent or farm of 120m. (4) But grants of this kind appear to have been few. In addition, of course, some places -- such as Tortosa -- were not directly subject to the Temple because enfeoffment had already taken place before the Templars acquired rights of lordship. But only a few earlier concessions of this kind are known and they did not necessarily mean that the Order was excluded altogether from a share in administration. Although the vicar who presided over the city court in Tortosa was appointed by the Moncadas, the latter had been assigned only a third of the revenues of the city, and the collection of dues was undertaken in part by the Order's officials. (5) And the records of conflicts between the Templars and the Moncadas show that in the thirteenth century the Order was trying to exert a direct influence in all matters of administration. (6) Most places under Templar lordship were, however, more immediately subject to the Order.

In Catalonia a town or village belonging to the Order was usually administered by a lay bailiff working under Templar supervision,(7) while in Aragon there was normally a lay justiciar as well as a bailiff in each township. ( Besides these officers there were of course in each town or village a number of other subordinate officials, and similarly in places where the Temple possessed only scattered rights and properties the Order had a variety of officials, of whom many were laymen but some were members of the Order. Clearly this type of administration, provided that it was conducted efficiently, would bring greater profit to the Order than the system of farming out estates. But in the appointment of officials the Temple appears not to have been guided purely by considerations of efficiency, for at least towards the end of the thirteenth century bailiffs and justiciars of townships were commonly appointed for life (9) and offices were used by the Order as objects of patronage which it had at its disposal. Thus a bailiff was usually allowed a hundredth of some or all of the revenues of a bailiwick (10) and the office of bailiff was clearly [191] considered a desirable acquisition: individuals would seek to obtain the promise of a Templar bailiwick already before the existing holder of the office had died, (11) and in the years following the arrest of the Templars the king received frequent petitions from office-holders who saw their tenure endangered. (12) The Templars therefore used offices as rewards to be given to those who had served the Order well. In 1246 the bailiwick of Vallfogona was granted for life to Martin of Grañena, who had been the personal servant of the master deça mer, (13) and at the beginning of the fourteenth century Stephen of Castro, who had been servant to both the provincial master and the castellan of Monzón, held several bailiwicks in the district of Monzón. (14) Offices could alternatively be sold. In return for the grant of the bailiwick of Puigreig Peter of Combes in 1269 gave the Temple his rights over a manse there. (15) To men like Peter of Combes the acquisition of office not only brought the income normally assigned to officials but also provided a means of access to other favours such as the grant of a corrody or further financial rewards. In the years preceding the arrest of the Templars Dominic Pérez of Ares, the bailiff of Horta, was receiving de speciali gratia an annual payment of 50s. and two cahíces of wheat, (16) and because of the services he had rendered to the Temple Peter of Combes himself was in 1279 assigned part of the income of the church of St. Martin in Puigreig in addition to his normal salary.(17)

The Temple did not always, however, have exclusive control over the appointment of officials. The inhabitants of places under Templar lordship were recognized as having a corporate existence -- signified by the term concejo in Aragon and universidad in Catalonia -- and they came to enjoy certain powers, which sometimes included the nomination of officials. In several places in the more southerly parts of Aragon the concejo had either partial or complete control over the appointment of the local justiciar. In the fuero of La Cañada de Benatanduz, which was based on that of Daroca, it was stated that the judex was to be set up 'by the hand of the concejo'; presumably, as at Daroca, the concejo made an annual appointment to the office. (18) A lesser degree of control was gained by the inhabitants of Cantavieja in 1255. It was then agreed that they should present ten men to the Templar commander of Cantavieja and he was to select one of them to be justiciar. The individual appointed was to hold office for a year and before [192] surrendering his post he -- together with the other nine presented -- was to nominate a further ten, from whom the commander was to name the next justiciar. (19) A similar procedure was possibly followed also at Castellote and Las Cuevas de Cañart, where at about the same time the concejos purchased from the Temple the concession that the justiciar should be changed annually. (20) As a consequence of this power of appointment, at least some concejos obtained a share of judicial profits: at La Cañada amercements were normally divided into three parts, of which one was assigned to the Temple, another to the concejo, and the third to the plaintiff. (21) But it was only in a limited number of places in southern Aragon, where the influence of Castilian practice was felt, (22) that the inhabitants participated in the appointment of the more important officials of a township. Elsewhere these were nominated by the Order. (23)

It was, nevertheless, common both in southern Aragon and elsewhere for the inhabitants of townships to appoint or share in the appointment of alcaldes and jurados or similar officials, who assisted in the exercise of jurisdiction. At La Cañada de Benatanduz the alcaldes, like the judex, were appointed 'by the hand of the concejo', and at Cantavieja two of the ten men presented to the commander were to be chosen by him to act as jurados. (24) At Monzón, according to an agreement made in 1257, the jurados or adelantados were to be nominated annually by the concejo, although the candidates were to be presented to the commander, who had the power to reject those of whom he disapproved; (25) and in the code of customs compiled for Horta in 1296 the right of the inhabitants to appoint jurados was confirmed, although again the nominees were to be presented for approval to the Templar commander. (26)

The inhabitants of some places under Templar lordship also participated in the appointment of officials with more specialized functions. According to the agreement made at Cantavieja in 1255 one of the ten men presented to the commander by the concejo was to be appointed to the office of almotazaf who had charge of weights and measures, (27) while in the customs of Horta the right of the inhabitants to nominate corredores was confirmed. (28) And by the terms of a settlement made in 1275 the citizens of Tortosa gained the right to assist in the selection of those who were to carry out inquests: it was agreed that the citizens should choose [193] annually at Ascension sixteen probi homines -- four from each parish -- and from these the vicar was to select four who were to assist in the holding of inquests. Those appointed were to be known as paciarii or paeres and they were to receive a proportion of the fines which were imposed following the inquests. (29) It was not, however, common for special officials to be appointed to conduct inquests on Templar estates; the task was normally assigned to the jurados or other existing officials. At Horta in 1296 it was agreed that the jurados should assist the bailiff of Horta in undertaking inquests (30) and at Monzón in 1279, after the inhabitants had complained about the amount of crime being committed in the town, the Order had granted that for the next two years the adelantados, the counsellors of the justiciar and the heads of tithings could carry out inquests when certain offences were committed. They were, however, to present offenders to the justiciar of Monzón and fines were retained by the Temple. (31)

Participation in the appointment of officials formed merely one part of the activity of the concejos and universidades under Templar lordship. They often had an important role in administration even when they did not control appointments. In Tortosa the citizens were assisting in judicial administration long before 1275. Already in the twelfth century some of the probi homines were playing an important part in the judgements given in the city court. Thus in 1193 a dispute concerning some land which had been granted to the Templars was judged in the city court by four probi homines. (32) And the citizens of Tortosa were seeking to extend the competence of the city court and to increase their own importance in it. At the end of the twelfth century they put forward a claim that all cases should be decided there, but this was rejected by arbiters, who declared that disputes between inhabitants of Tortosa should be heard in the city court, but that suits between the Templars or the Moncadas and citizens should be brought before judges appointed by the lords of Tortosa. (33) In 1242, however, when the bishop of Lérida arbitrated between the citizens on the one side and the Templars and William of Moncada on the other, it was declared that certain civil cases between the lords of Tortosa and citizens should be heard in the city court. (34) The role of the citizens in the proceedings of the court was defined in 1272, following another prolonged dispute, during which the [194] Templars and Raymond of Moncada claimed that their authority was being weakened by the activities of the citizens. In the compromise that was finally reached the practice was confirmed whereby the vicar chose two citizens to decide with him civil cases and those involving monetary penalties; and, as in the past, appeals were to be heard by two or more citizens acting in conjunction with the vicar. It was also then agreed that inquests should be held in cases involving certain offences, such as homicide, ****, arson, and forgery, and that the vicar should choose citizens to assist him in conducting these. (35) The Customs of the city of Tortosa show that the citizens also had a number of other administrative functions. The checking of weights and measures, for example, was undertaken jointly by the vicar and the citizens, who received a third of the penalties imposed for infringements. (36) The inhabitants of Templar lordships also became involved in financial administration. At times they assisted in the assessment and collection of dues. Contributions towards the 400s. owed for peita by those living at Alfambra were clearly assessed by the inhabitants themselves, for in 1266 some of them complained that they had been forced to pay more than their share by the richer and more powerful members of the community; (37) and presumably the vassals of the Temple were similarly involved whenever dues were exacted by the Order in the form of a lump sum paid by the community as a whole. (38) Communities also not infrequently obtained the farms of Templar monopolies. In the middle of the thirteenth century, for example, the inhabitants of Grallera and Torre Farrera in the district of Segriá acquired the farms of the ovens of these places, (39) and in 1254 the universidad of Villalba similarly received the forge there at farm. (40)

[Savannah]

In a few instances the concejos and universidades obtained complete control over certain aspects of administration, to the total exclusion of the Temple. In a sentence of arbitration given in 1242 the bishop of Lérida declared that the public baths in Tortosa pertained to the citizens and not to the lords of the city, and the citizens' rights in this matter were confirmed later in the century when the Customs of Tortosa were compiled. (41) In the first half of the thirteenth century the inhabitants of Monzón had control of the irrigation canals and also of weights in the town and presumably took the profits derived from these rights. (42) In 1173 the men of Monzón had also claimed a right to the profits of the [195] ferry across the Cinca, and although when the matter was disputed before the bishop of Zaragoza they were obliged to accept the Order's claims, it was nevertheless agreed that the Temple and the inhabitants should each contribute half of the costs of maintaining the ferry and that the income from it should be divided between them. (43)

Finally, the communities subject to the Temple or the officials elected by them often had the power to issue their own decrees or by-laws and to receive a share of the amercements imposed for infringements. In the code of customs drawn up at Horta in 1296 the right of the jurados to issue by-laws was confirmed, and it was decreed that fines for breaches of them were to be divided between the jurados and the Temple as had been customary until then. (44) At Castellote, where the community enjoyed a similar right, the jurados and the Temple each received a third of the amercements imposed, as did the lords and citizens at Tortosa. (45) To safeguard its own interests the Order normally stipulated that enactments of this kind required the consent of the Temple, but clearly in practice this provision was not always observed. In 1263 the Templars complained that the concejo of Ambel had issued constitutions which were prejudicial to the Order, (46) and at about the same time the commander of Tortosa asserted that the citizens ignored Templar rulings when they wanted to issue decrees and accepted instead the decisions of the Moncadas. (47) It was therefore made clear in the Customs of Tortosa that all enactments were to be made in the city court in the presence of the bailiffs of both the Moncadas and the Templars. (48)

When the provincial master surrendered Templar rights of lordship in Tortosa to the Crown in 1294 he said that he was doing so

because the rights of the said militia of the Temple are being diminished and harmed in various ways. (49)
Clearly the exercise of power by the concejos and universicladessubject to the Temple in some instances reflected a desire on the part of these communities to encroach on Templar authority and to appropriate some of the Order's revenues, and this desire was obviously particularly strong in the city of Tortosa, where the inhabitants had important commercial and trading interests. (50) But the activities of communities should not always be viewed in this [196] light. The Templars, like other lords, had only a very limited administration at their disposal, and it was therefore often necessary for them to enlist the aid and seek the co-operation of their vassals in order that the Temple's rights of lordship might be exercised more effectively. This is apparent, for example, in the agreement made at Monzón concerning the holding of inquests. It might therefore be to the Temple's advantage to allow its vassals to perform certain functions, even if it was obliged to surrender part of the profits to them. It would thus be wrong to view the exercise of power by communities as always the result of an attack on Templar rights and as always prejudicial to the Order's authority. Concejos and universidades did not even always want to participate in the administration of Templar lordships. The problems and difficulties of administration sometimes led communities to surrender to the Temple the powers which they did possess and made them reluctant to accept any further duties. The inhabitants of Monzón in 1230 granted to the Temple the main irrigation canal there for a hundred years and agreed to pay cequiaje to the Order, and thirty years later they abandoned their control over weights there in return for 20,000s.; (51) and when in 1296 the Templars offered to reduce by 100s. the amount demanded for questia from the inhabitants of Barbará, provided that the community accepted responsibility for the collection of the tax, the favour was refused. (52)
The administration of the Order's estates was affected not only by the powers of the concejos and universidades but also by the rights of others who enjoyed authority within Templar lordships. In a number of places certain rights and revenues had been granted away by previous lords before the Temple gained possession, although not all of these earlier concessions had been in the same form or affected Templar administration to the same extent. In Espluga de Francolí, for example, the fee which Hugh of Cervellón held was essentially a money fief, consisting primarily of a third of the revenues of the lordship, and although according to a sentence of arbitration given in 1258 Hugh had the right to be present when justice was dispensed, the existence of this fee had little effect on Templar administration in Espluga, for most dues were collected by Templar officials, and Hugh received his third from these. (53) But some of the fees held by knights in Espluga when the Temple acquired it consisted of rights over particular properties [197] and consequently those who lived on these lands were removed from the direct control of the Order.(54)

It is not altogether clear to what extent within their lordships and estates the Templars continued this practice of granting out rights and revenues. Certainly in the thirteenth century dues from Templar monopolies were commonly farmed out not only to communities but also to individuals either in perpetuity or for varying periods, (55) and the dues collected by public notaries were usually farmed by them for life: at the time of the arrest of the Templars the office of notary at Cantavieja was held for life at an annual rent of 60s.J., and that at Castellote for a rent of 80s.J. a year. (56) But the only other dues which are known to have been frequently granted out were those which were temporarily alienated when the Order was seeking to anticipate its revenues. When this happened the transaction usually assumed the form of either a sale or a loan. Thus in May 1275 rents worth 1,500s.B. which fell due during the course of the following twelve months were sold for 1,200s.B. to Isaac Adreti by the commander of Palau. (57) Several years earlier Isaac Adreti had also been involved in a transaction which took the form of a loan. He had lent the commander of Palau 2,000s.B. and had received in repayment the dues which had been assigned to the Order as its tenth of royal revenues in Barcelona. (58) The wording of several papal bulls issued in the second half of the thirteenth century and ordering the recovery of Templar rights which had been illicitly alienated would seem to imply, however, that it was a common Templar practice to grant out rights and revenues on a fairly extensive scale. In 1297 Boniface VIII was repeating the words of several of his predecessors when he wrote that

it has come to our hearing that not only the beloved sons the preceptor and brothers of the house of the Temple of Jerusalem in Aragon and Catalonia but also their predecessors have granted tithes, lands, houses, meadows, pastures, woods, mills, rights, jurisdictions and certain other goods of that house..., to the grave harm of the same house, to a number of clerics and laymen, to some of them for life, to some for a considerable period of time, and to others in perpetuity, at farm or for an annual rent. (59)
In the second half of the thirteenth century the papacy appears to have been seeking to check the continued Templar practice of granting out rights and dues. But a large number of papal bulls [198] were issued on the subject of the alienation of rights by religious institutions, (60) and the form of wording employed by Boniface VIII in 1297 was also frequently used in bulls applying to other monasteries and orders. (61) He was adopting a common formula, which therefore does not necessarily provide very exact and precise information about Templar activities. Certainly another series of papal bulls issued on the same subject in the second half of the thirteenth century gives a rather different impression of Templar policies at that time. Boniface VIII was again repeating the words of several of his predecessors when in 1298 he wrote that on the petition of the Templars he was ordering the recovery of rights and lands previously alienated illicitly. (62) No doubt at all times some rights were likely to be granted out by the Templars to friends and relations, but that the second series of papal bulls gives a more accurate indication of Templar policies in the later part of the thirteenth century than the first set is suggested by the Temple's purchasing of fees in places such as Espluga de Francolí and Barbará, for these purchases appear to imply that the Order was itself seeking to recover rights rather than pursuing a policy of granting out more. That at this time it was trying to remove intermediate authorities and to maintain direct control of those who worked the land and paid dues is also indicated by its attitude to the question of the sub-letting of holdings by tenants in the later part of the thirteenth century. Sub-letting was a very common phenomenon on Templar estates. A tenant might let part of the land which he had received from the Temple; a prosperous tenant might alternatively buy land from his less fortunate neighbours and sub-let it; and the same might be done by an individual who had acquired wealth elsewhere through trade or business and wanted to invest it in land. In the middle decades of the thirteenth century, for example, Vincent of Viana, a Lérida apothecary whose wife came of a family established at Torre Farrera, (63) purchased a considerable amount of land in the latter place from tenants of the Temple, (64) and some of this was sub-let. (65) The sub-letting of lands held of the Temple was clearly a profitable activity for the Order's tenants: the rent paid by a sub-tenant was usually two or three times as large as that demanded by the Order from the tenant, (66) and in some instances the difference between the two payments was considerably greater. (67) But sub-letting brought little benefit to the Temple. If land was sub-let, it could not be so easily brought [199] back into demesne, and as sub-tenants were often made responsible for fulfilling tenants' obligations to the Order (68) the Temple often had no direct authority over the individuals from whom it was meant to receive rents and services. Towards the end of the thirteenth century the Templars were attempting to remedy this situation, at least in the commandery of Gardeny, whose history can be traced more fully than that of others. On a number of occasions the Order acquired direct authority over the sub-tenant of a holding by purchasing the rights of the tenant of the property. (69) In the later thirteenth century the Templars of Gardeny also sought to check further sub-letting by forbidding new tenants to grant out their lands at rent. (70) In the 1260s they began to insert in charters issued to new tenants a clause stating that the property in question was not to be granted out at any larger rent than that paid to the Temple; (71) and for the rest of the Templar period at Gardeny charters recording grants of land to tenants included a clause of this kind, although from 1285 the form of wording was changed and new tenants were thenceforth forbidden to sub-let at any rent. (72)
Yet if towards the end of the thirteenth century the Temple was seeking to remove intermediate authorities and to recover rights earlier granted out, it is still not altogether clear how frequently concessions of revenues and rights of lordship had been made in earlier periods. Certainly the surviving evidence does not suggest that revenues were normally farmed out or that fiefs were commonly created by the Templars within their lordships. The great majority of the documents which are concerned with the exploitation of property record grants of small individual holdings to peasants and townsmen, and the work of Templar officials appears to have consisted primarily in the exaction of dues and services from these rather than in the supervision of fief-holders or farmers of revenues.
 

When the relations between the Temple and the peasants and townsmen on its estates are examined, it very soon becomes apparent that the Order was unable to exact all the dues and services to which it might claim a right. In many parts of the Corona de Aragón during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries concessions had to be granted in order to ensure that land was brought under cultivation and worked. This had to be done especially in the [200] districts conquered from the infidel. In some parts of these regions concessions were made in the first place to the Moorish population. These were not only made in order to gain possession of territories during the reconquest but also had the purpose of checking widespread emigration to places further south still under Muslim rule, for although the Moors would not want to lose their lands, many would nevertheless be reluctant to live under alien domination, especially when they feared that the Christians would be hostile to them. The uneasiness which many felt when they were brought under Christian rule is illustrated by the agreement made in 1234 between the Templars and the Moors of Chivert, for this includes an undertaking by the Order to build a wall to protect the Moorish quarter and a promise on the part of the Templars that

if any Saracen within one whole year from the time when this agreement is made wishes to leave this stronghold and wants to go to pagan territories, he can do this without any impediment and can take with him his wife, children, slaves, cattle and anything else he has and can go to the land of the Saracens with the protection of the brothers of the Temple. (73)
And both on Templar estates and elsewhere Moorish fears were sometimes shown to be justified. In 1263, for example, the Christian inhabitants of Ambel admitted to attacking and plundering the Moorish quarter there and to killing five Moors. (74) But while in places such as Ambel and Chivert it is clear that there was a Moorish population living under Templar authority, it is difficult to judge exactly how successful the policy of granting concessions to Moors was. Although in some places along the lower Ebro, including Miravet, the Moors still comprised the greater part of the population at the end of the fifteenth century, (75) in most districts from which the Moorish population was not expelled the importance of the Moorish element living under Templar rule cannot be estimated. It is not known how many Moors decided to migrate to Muslim Spain. Emigration was, however, obviously common. The agreement made at Chivert in 1234 refers to those who had already moved to places under Moorish rule, and in other districts which came under Templar lordship references are frequently encountered to holdings which had previously been held by Moors but which had passed into Christian hands. (76) Of course, the population of reconquered places had not [201] in the period of Muslim domination always consisted entirely of Moors. That there had been a Mozarab community living in some areas which became subject to the Templars is suggested by references in Templar documents to individuals whose names included the word 'Mozarab'. (77) It is also possible that some of the Jews to whom the Temple was granting land near Lérida just after the middle of the twelfth century had already been inhabitants of that district before it had been conquered from the Moors.(78) The numerical importance of such Mozarab and Jewish elements -- which, unlike the Moors, would have had no reason for emigrating -- is not known; (79) but clearly the existing population of reconquered places, whether it was Muslim, Christian, or Jewish, was usually inadequate. It was necessary to attract new settlers. Yet while newcomers might expect to be able to profit from raids into Moorish territory, (80) there were a number of drawbacks to settling a reconquered district. Settlers often had to leave behind their families and friends; if they settled in a region which was still near he frontier they were likely to suffer from Muslim raiding; they often had to build their own dwellings before they even had anywhere to live; (81) and as the land had often lain waste for long periods hard work was essential before it could be made profitable. There were often more attractive lands being opened up in districts under Christian rule nearer their own homes, and the pressure of population was not sufficient to force large numbers to seek their livelihood in reconquered lands. In these areas concessions had therefore to be granted not only to prevent Moors from emigrating but also in order to attract new settlers.

[Savannah]

The problem of manpower was not, however, peculiar to the districts reconquered from the Moors. In the more northerly parts of the Corona de Aragón the Templars, like other lords, were seeking to extend the area of land under cultivation. A supply of labour was obviously necessary for this purpose, and inducements might have to be offered in order to obtain it. Further, many of those who were attracted by offers of improved conditions of tenure in new settlements in the north or in the reconquered areas further south were tenants on old-established estates in the more northerly parts of the Corona de Aragón. As a result, these estates soon began to suffer from a shortage of manpower, which was made more acute by the fact that tenants were also migrating to the growing urban communities, where they could enjoy greater [202] freedom. (82) The Templars sought to check desertion from their estates in Cataluña Vieja by adopting the practice of extracting charters from their men, in which the permanence of the Temple's rights of lordship were recognized and stressed. In 1229, for example, William of Sargantanes, an inhabitant of Voltregá near Vich, acknowledged that he and his children and possessions were under the lordship of the Temple

namely so that I or my descendants can never choose any other lord than the brothers of the Temple and no prescription of time or residence in village or city or town can benefit me or mine in any way or injure the said militia;(83)
and many similar charters survive from the rest of the thirteenth century. (84) But the exaction of charters was not in itself enough to prevent desertion. Concessions had again to be granted.
The concessions made by the Templars and other lords in order to ensure that land was worked covered a wide variety of issues. Moors who became subject to Christian lords in the reconquered areas were commonly allowed freedom of religion and law. (85) At Chivert the Moors were permitted to retain their mosque and cemeteries and were given the right to fast, to call worshippers to prayer, and to go on pilgrimage without hindrance. They were also to be judged by their own officials according to their own laws and were not to be compelled to swear any oath 'by any creature or thing except by Almighty God'. (86) Of course, to allow the Moors their own officials was probably a necessary concession in view of language differences, and to have rejected Muslim laws would have been out of keeping with the normal respect shown in the Middle Ages for local custom. (87) But these concessions probably helped to persuade some Moors to accept Christian domination. A concession sometimes made to attract new settlers to reconquered districts was to guarantee protection to those who had committed crimes elsewhere. The fuero of La Cañada de Benatanduz, for example, includes a clause stating that

if any murderer settles in La Cañada de Benatanduz and his enemies come after him to settle, they must either accept him in friendship or leave the township. (88)
Those who had fled from justice could thus seek a new home in the reconquered areas. The majority of concessions, however, were concerned with dues and services.
[203] Temporary or partial exemptions from military service were granted by the Temple to Christian settlers in some reconquered areas. In the carta de población for La Cuba, in the commandery of Cantavieja, settlers were freed from the obligation of hueste and cabalgada for two years, while those at Villalba, which was subject to Miravet, were given exemption for fifteen years. (89) After that period the inhabitants of Villalba were to serve whenever requested against the Moors, as were those of Castellote, (90) but in the commandery of Cantavieja the obligation for cabalgada was limited to once a year with the provincial master and twice with the commander of Cantavieja. (91) Similarly, by the provisions of the fuero which had been granted to the inhabitants of Alfambra by the master of the Order of Mountjoy and which remained in force under the Templars, the commander of Alfambra could demand hueste and cabalgada only twice a year. (92) A fuller exemption was granted to the Moors of Chivert: they were obliged to give service only if Chivert itself were attacked, either by Christians or Moors. (93) When this privilege was granted Templar expeditions were directed primarily against Moorish Spain and the Order was obviously wary of using its Muslim subjects against men of their own religion. The only comparable exemption granted to Christian settlers seems to have been the freedom from ejército and cabalgada conceded in 1226 to those holding land at Fontanet near Lérida. (94) But by the early thirteenth century this district was no longer adjacent to Muslim territories. In areas which were still near the Moorish frontier at the time when they were settled the Temple could not afford to grant such full exemptions to their Christian vassals.

By contrast, it seems to have been in the more southerly areas that the fullest exemptions from labour services were granted to Christian settlers. On their estates in the district of Lérida, which was conquered in the mid twelfth century, the Templars usually demanded some labour services, though not as many as were owed by some of the Order's tenants in Cataluña Vieja. Each settler at Vencilló was obliged to perform annually one day's labour service on the Temple's demesne and to carry goods as far as Lérida once a year, (95) and a similar obligation was imposed by the Temple in the district of Segriá. (96) But further south Christian settlers on Templar estates seem often to have been completely exempt from labour services, for these are not mentioned [204] in any document concerning Christian tenants living in the lower Ebro valley or in southern Aragon, while the only reference to such obligations in Valencia is that found in the carta de población for the alquería of Seca in Burriana, where one day's ploughing a year was demanded of settlers. (97) It is, of course, dangerous to assume that the absence of any reference to an obligation necessarily means that it was not owed: that dues and services owed were not always listed in full in cartas de población is apparent from the wording of the charter issued to settlers at Pinell in 1198, for in this the Temple reserved certain specified rights and 'other things which are seen to pertain to the lord of the land'. (98) Yet the almost complete absence of references to labour services in the more southerly parts of the Corona de Aragón strongly suggests that Christian settlers on the Order's estates in these districts were free from these obligations. In the more southerly areas, on the other hand, labour services were demanded from at least some of the Order's Moorish tenants. Those at Villastar in the commandery of Villel were obliged to provide one man from every household once a month, (99) and as in the charter granted to the Moors of Chivert in 1234 Moorish officials were specifically exempted from labour services, it seems that the other Moorish inhabitants there were expected to perform them. (100)

Tenants of the Order were sometimes not only exempted from performing labour services but also freed from the payment of rent for their lands. Thus in 1264 the commander of Villel conceded to the Christian inhabitants of Villastar that if the non-irrigated land there was worked, tithes and primicias should be paid from it, but no other rent. (101) But it is difficult to assess exactly how common this practice was. Certainly a considerable number of cartas de población refer to the payment of tithes and primicias but do not state that settlers were also to pay rent for their holdings. Those for Cantavieja, Villarluengo, and other places in the commandery of Cantavieja are of this type, (102) as are several issued in the northern part of Valencia, such as those for Pulpís and Castellnou de Chivert. (103) Yet in the absence of documents concerning individual tenements it cannot usually be ascertained whether in fact no rents were paid. Possibly the statement that no other peita was to be exacted -- which is found in some of the charters concerning places in southern Aragon -- should be taken to mean that the inhabitants of these districts did not pay rent for [205] their holdings; and it may be noted in this context that when Alfonso II granted Villarluengo to the Order of Mountjoy in 1194, he stated that it was to be settled at 'tithes and primicias'. (104) But rents were clearly charged in some places whose cartas de población might be taken to imply that they were not. In the charter granted to Novillas it was stated that settlers were not to

pay any tribute to anyone except the tithes and primicias pertaining to the Church of God. (105)
Yet other sources show that settlers there usually paid rents as well as tithes and primicias. (106) The dues which were referred to in cartas de población by the term peita may therefore not have included land rents, and it is possible that details of rents were omitted from some cartas de población not because none were paid but merely because they were not paid jointly by settlers or at a standard rate. Certainly it was not the general policy of the Order to grant lands free of rent, although when proportional rents were charged it was not unusual for exemptions to be allowed on products of minor importance. (107) Rents were not, however, always demanded immediately from settlers. The Christians who came to Villalba, for example, were exempted from payment for two years. (108) Concessions of this kind were obviously necessary when land had been lying waste for a long time after being reconquered. But not all the places where rents were not immediately demanded fell into this category. Thus an exemption for two years was granted in 1234 to the Moors of Chivert. (109) In this case the concession is perhaps to be explained by devastation which took place at the time of the reconquest.
Because of variations in measures and quality of land, it is difficult to ascertain whether the Templars sought to attract settlers by charging low rents for land. Proportional rents demanded by the Order in reconquered areas were not noticeably smaller than those exacted elsewhere, but it must be remembered that in some reconquered districts rents might include a charge in lieu of labour services. On at least one occasion, however, it was asserted that land was not being worked because the Order was demanding too high a rent for it, and the Templars appear in several instances to have been obliged to reduce their demands to ensure that land was brought under cultivation. Non-irrigated land at Masarrochos near Valencia was still lying waste in 1286, [206] even though in the carta de población issued by the Temple in 1251 it had been decreed that this land was to be worked within four years. (110) The inhabitants maintained that it was not worth cultivating while the Temple demanded a third of the produce. The provincial master therefore reduced the rent to a fifth. (111) A similar reduction seems to have been made in the alquería of Seca in Burriana, for while in the carta de población issued in 1243 it was stated that a fifth of produce should be paid to the Temple, (112) in 1261 land there which was to be made into vineyards was granted to sixteen men at the rent of a ninth. (113) The need to attract settlers may also explain reductions in the rents charged at Fontanet near Lérida in the early thirteenth century, when the process of resettlement was apparently still incomplete. In 1225 rents were reduced from 15s. to 14s. per fanegada and in 1231 there was a further reduction to 12s. (114) Several references occur to arrears of rent at Fontanet at this time, (115) and it is possible that there as elsewhere the Temple had imposed too heavy a burden of rent and was finding difficulty in retaining settlers.

[Savannah]

The concessions made by the Temple in order that land should be cultivated rarely included exemptions from the payment of tithes and primicias. In the cartas de población these are regularly mentioned among the rights retained and the only charters which include concessions are those of Alcalá and Castellnou de Chivert, where tithes and primicias were not taken from garden produce, fruit, wool, or cheese; but even in these cases it seems that the dues were merely being commuted, for it was stated that a chicken was to be exacted from every house for tithes and primicias. (116) But of course in the exaction of these dues the Temple did not have a completely free hand, for a proportion of them was usually owed to the diocesan. It appears to have been the Templar practice also to retain monopoly rights, for at least some of these are specifically reserved in every carta de población. The Templars possibly found that dues from monopolies were easier to collect and more profitable than others. (117) The few concessions which are mentioned in the cartas de población were made mainly in Valencia. At Seca settlers were allowed to bake up to five loaves in their own houses at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost; (118) the Moors of Chivert were not obliged to make any payment for animals slaughtered in the carnicería; (119) and the settlers at Alcalá were allowed to have their own mills, provided that they were [207] not powered by wind or water; hand-mills were thus permitted, and this would reduce Templar revenues, but presumably not to any great extent. (120)

Among the other concessions made by the Order were those concerning the exaction of tolls and the public due of questia or peita, and it is possible that the Order sometimes also abandoned its claim to a fifth of the spoils of war; but it is difficult to generalize about the incidence of these dues. They are usually referred to -- if at all -- only in cartas de población, and for some districts, such as that of Lérida, very few of these charters survive, while many of the cartas de población which have been preserved contain no reference to them. This omission is particularly common among the cartas de población drawn up by the Temple in Valencia; these do not usually mention any dues other than land rents, monopoly dues, tithes, and primicias. In a number of charters for places in the lower Ebro valley and in southern Aragon, the Temple reserved its right to lezda, including presumably that paid by the inhabitants of the districts in question, and the cartas de población for Cantavieja, Mirambel, and Iglesuela contain details about tolls to be exacted from inhabitants who took cattle or other animals into Moorish territory. (121) Yet, with the exception of that for Pulpís, (122) the charters which survive for Templar estates in Valencia contain no reference to tolls, and it cannot be ascertained whether the men living in these places paid them to the Order. But the absence of any reference to these dues in the carta de población which the Templars issued in 1192 for Horta, further north, (123) probably did imply that settlers were exempt from the payment of tolls there, for in 1165 -- when Horta was still under the lordship of the Crown -- Alfonso II had conceded that those who settled there should not be obliged to pay lezda or peaje anywhere in the kingdom, (124) and in the customs confirmed in 1296 the inhabitants were exempted from the payment of lezda or peaje within the boundaries of Horta. (125) But the only exemptions from tolls which are known definitely to have been granted to settlers by the Templars themselves were those enjoyed by the inhabitants of the commandery of Miravet, who were freed from the payment of lezda and peaje in places subject to the convents of Monzón and Ascó, and by settlers at Villanueva de la Barca, who were allowed free passage across the Segre. (126) The incidence of peita and questia seems to have been very uneven. [208] While settlers at Villalba were exempted from questia in their carta de población, those at Gandesa paid it; (127) and while the inhabitants of Cantavieja and Mirambel were exempted from peita, those of Alfambra were subject to this due. (128) But no full information survives about the exaction of peita and questia, and the same is true of the right to a fifth of booty and prisoners taken in war. This right must have been of some importance, especially in the frontier districts, and it was retained by the Order in the cartas de población issued for Novillas, Pinell, Gandesa, and La Cañada de Benatanduz; (129) but there is no reference to it in any other settlement charter granted by the Temple, (130) and in none was a specific exemption conceded.

The situation is a little clearer with regard to the rights usually known in Cataluña Vieja as the malos usos. On some of its estates in the district of Lérida the Temple did not altogether abandon these rights. In the carta de población for Vencilló the right of exorquia was retained, (131) and in two charters recording grants of land to tenants near Lérida which were issued by the Order in 1234 the phrase 'with all evil custom ceasing' was included, which suggests that on these properties some of the malos usos had been retained up to that time. (132) There is no reference, however, to the exaction of malos usos on the Temple's lands along the lower valley of the Ebro, and in several cartas de población freedom from them was specifically granted. In the charter issued to the settlers of Horta the Templars promised to exact no malos usos, (133) and in 1198 the Order undertook not to demand exorquia, intestia, or cugucia from the inhabitants of Pinell, who were further freed from the malos usos when a new carta de población was issued in 1207. (134) A similar exemption was included in the charter issued for Batea, whose customs were later adopted at Algars. (135) It is clear that the Temple normally surrendered its rights to the malos usos on its estates along the lower Ebro valley. The Order similarly abandoned its claims to them in the carta de población issued for Moncada in Valencia, (136) but these rights are not mentioned in any other settlement charter granted by the Templars in that kingdom. Yet if the Order gave up these rights on its estates along the lower Ebro it is unlikely that it would have tried to reserve them in Valencia. Although the malos usos are usually associated with Cataluña Vieja, rights of a similar kind did exist in Aragon, and in the more southerly parts of that kingdom some were [209] retained by the Templars. At Tronchón, in the commandery of Cantavieja, the Order claimed a right to a fifth of the goods of any inhabitant who died intestate, unless he had been killed by the Moors, (137) and at Cantavieja, Mirambel, and Iglesuela the Templars took a fifth of the possessions of those who died under sentence of excommunication or interdict. (138)

Yet although in some places several of the malos usos or similar rights were retained by the Order, there is no evidence in the reconquered lands settled by the Temple of the remensa personal. The only restrictions known to have been imposed on settlers were those which were considered necessary to guarantee that estates were worked. To ensure that land was brought under cultivation, alienation was often forbidden for a certain number of years. At Horta and Batea the period was five years, at Villastar three, and at Belloque and Cambor two. (139) A limitation of this kind was not, however, always imposed and the Templars sometimes merely decreed that the land should be worked or houses built within a certain period. Thus in the carta de población for Pulpís it was decreed that the Temple should have the right to seize any land that was not worked within two years,(140) and settlers who were given lands by the Order on the outskirts of Valencia were often obliged to build houses within three or four months. (141) To ensure that land was kept under cultivation, the Order frequently also decreed that a tenant must reside personally on his holding; failure to do so was punished by confiscation of the property. In the carta de población for Villalba it was stated that anyone who was absent from his holding for three years should forfeit it, unless he was being held captive, (142) and some lands at Carpesa were held on the condition that if the tenants did not reside personally within three months of being warned to do so, their lands would be confiscated by the Order. (143) The Templars sometimes also sought to enforce personal residence by decreeing that tenants could alienate their lands only to local inhabitants. (144) In imposing restrictions of this kind the Temple was, of course, merely doing the same as many other lords in the reconquered districts. (145)

Freedom from the malos usos was clearly one of the most important privileges which the Temple could offer to settlers, for it was commonly by granting this that lords in Cataluña Viejasought to check emigration from their estates and to attract new [210] tenants. The Templars were adopting the same policy as many other northern lords when in 1281, in an attempt to increase the population of Puigreig, they promised

to all those settlers who wish to come to the said settlement and make continuous residence there and become homines proprii of the Temple that they are to be exempt in perpetuity and free from cugucia and intestia and exorquia and from the redemption of men and women; so that they can come freely to the said settlement without any redemption and that they can freely leave it whenever they wish without any redemption of their persons or their movables. (146)
This did not mean, however, that the malos usos disappeared altogether from Templar estates in Cataluña Vieja. At the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth centuries many of those living on the Order's lands in this region were still subject to the remensa personal; (147) and elsewhere, if the Templars could not claim redemption payments, they might demand the due known as laudimium, which a lord could exact when he confirmed conveyances of property held of him. (148)
Some general trends can obviously be discerned among the concessions made by the Templars to ensure that land was worked. On the one hand, there was a tendency to abandon the malos usos and labour services and, on the other, monopoly rights and tithes and primicias were usually retained. But -- except in the few cases when the customs of one township were adopted en bloc in another -- the conditions of tenure varied to some extent from place to place. The picture of uniform concessions which has sometimes been presented in general discussions of exemptions clearly does not apply to Templar estates. (149) Of course, in some instances the Templars were probably merely confirming concessions made by previous lords, and some variations can be explained in this way. But there were also variations between places where the work of settlement was begun by the Templars. This was presumably because the conditions laid down in the cartas de población represented compromises between the wishes of the Order and those of settlers; just as the granting of the charter to the Moors of Chivert in 1234 was preceded by negotiations, so presumably the issuing of cartas de población to Christian settlements followed discussions between the Templars and the first settlers. And varying decisions could be reached as a result of such discussions.

[211] It is not always easy to judge the success of this policy of concession. As has been seen, it is not known how many Moors left Templar estates and migrated to Muslim Spain. But it is clear that when lords wanted to attract new settlers it was not enough for them just to be ready to offer concessions: these needed to be publicized and the work of settlement organized. In some instances the Templars delegated part of this task to others. In 1151 land on a Templar estate at Castelldans was granted to two men on the condition that they undertook the work of resettling the whole estate. (150) The five individuals to whom the carta de población for Gandesa was issued were similarly assigned the task of finding further settlers, as was a certain Filiolo at Gorrapte,(151) while the charter for Castellnou de Chivert was granted to Bartholomew Amoros 'and to the settlers whom you send there'. (152) The men who undertook this work on Templar estates and elsewhere in Spain (153) can obviously be compared with the locatores who were employed to bring settlers to new lands in eastern Germany. Most of those who acted in this capacity on Templar estates in Aragon appear not, however, to have received as extensive privileges and rights as were usually conceded to the German locatores. (154) Although Filiolo was granted the office of bailiff and a quarter of judicial profits at Gorrapte, the two men who undertook the work of resettlement at Castelldans were merely exempted from the payment of rent and the performance of labour services, and in other instances there is no reference to any special privileges enjoyed by those who helped to resettle Templar estates. While some individuals resettled whole estates for the Order, others seem to have been given the task of finding tenants for particular holdings, for in some instances the Temple gave existing tenants additional lands, which they could then sub-let to newcomers at a profit. Thus in 1255 Arnold of the Ribera de Monzón was assigned land for building houses in Valencia next to the houses which he already held of the Temple, and in 1262 he granted away half of this land at more than twice the rent which he paid to the Order for it. (155) But it is not clear how frequently the Order delegated the task of finding settlers. It has been argued that the military orders resettled lands on the north-eastern borders of Germany by transferring some of their own tenants from estates further west. (156) In the Corona de Aragón the Templars adopted a policy of this kind when establishing Castellnou in Segriá, [212] and the evidence provided by names suggests that settlers on Templar lands elsewhere in the Aragonese kingdoms were sometimes similarly drawn from the Order's own estates: Peter of Horta, for example, was among the settlers to whom the carta de población for Alcalá de Chivert was granted. (157) That settlers on Templar estates in Aragon might be drawn from the Order's own properties is also implied by the statement in the charter for Puigreig that men could come there 'without any redemption'. But presumably the Templars did not usually pursue a policy of resettling lands by transferring tenants from other estates belonging to the Order, for if they had done so there would often soon have been a lack of manpower on the old-established properties; and in so far as can be ascertained from the evidence provided by names, those who came to settle on Templar estates were drawn from all parts of Aragon and Catalonia and possibly also from the more southerly districts of France. (158)

[Savannah]

Whether the task of resettling an estate was undertaken by the Order itself or delegated to others, the Templars usually issued a carta de población, and these charters are obviously an important source for tracing the course of resettlement on the Order's lands. Yet it must be remembered that they mark only a stage in the process of settlement. Many were issued to just a handful of individuals, and in many charters reference is made to future settlers. And it is clear that in many settlements new land was being brought under cultivation and houses built right up to the end of the thirteenth century. But not all settlements prospered in this way, and some cartas de población refer to merely abortive attempts to bring land under cultivation. If cartas de población do not therefore mark the completion of settlement, they do not necessarily mark the beginning either. A second charter might be issued not only after an earlier settlement had collapsed, but also when conditions of tenure were being confirmed or changed. The course of resettlement cannot therefore be traced just from the evidence provided by the cartas de población. But even when all the available material is examined, it is not always easy to follow the progress of resettlement on Templar estates.

Some places in Aragon along the Ebro and its tributaries which had been conquered in the early part of the twelfth century, before the Temple entered into the reconquista, still needed resettling when they were acquired by the Order, although in some [213] others a Christian community had been established before the Temple gained possession. Although the Templars issued a carta de población for Razazol in the later 1150s or early 1160s, (159) the work of resettlement was not then just beginning, for there were settlers at Razazol as early as 1129, (160) and the existence of charters recording conveyances of land there in the 1140s and early 1150s shows that this early settlement had not collapsed. (161) Boquiñeni had apparently also been resettled by 1129, (162) but it is not altogether clear whether or not Novillas was inhabited by Christians when it was given to the Order. In the middle of the twelfth century, when the fuero of Novillas was confirmed, it was stated that the work of resettlement had been carried out by the Temple: after the Order had gained the Hospital's rights there, the Templar Garner,

seeing that he could not defend the township of Novillas from the Saracens without the help of good men, settled it and allocated the lands of the said township of Novillas to settlers -- holy men, knights and footmen -- who wished to settle there. (163)
But it may be doubted whether the scribe who drew up this confirmation was well informed. The carta de población which survives -- its authenticity is admittedly not beyond suspicion (164) -- was drawn up in the name of the Temple and of the Hospital, not just in that of the Temple; and it is clear that even before 1135, when the carta de población was apparently issued, some allocation of lands had already taken place, for a bequest of a holding at Novillas was included in a will drawn up in 1133. (165) It may be suggested therefore that Novillas was already repopulated when it was given to the Orders and that the Templars -- not alone but in conjunction with the Hospitallers -- merely confirmed an existing settlement. At Añesa, La Zaida, and Encinacorba, on the other hand, resettlement was defmitely the work of the Order. When the bishop of Pamplona granted the Templars the right to build a church at Añesa in 1149, he said that they were then establishing a settlement there; (166) and when the bishop of Zaragoza in 1177 gave the Order a similar right at La Zaida, he stated that
ever since it was ravaged by the Moors it has lain waste and uncultivated until the brothers began to work the land there with great labour and expense; (167)
[214] while a year earlier the same bishop, quoting from Deuteronomy, had said of Encinacorba that it lay 'in a place of horror and waste solitude'. (168) Encinacorba was soon resettled by the Templars. They issued a carta de población for it in 1177 (169) and late twelfth-century evidence shows that the settlement there did not collapse. (170) The work of repopulation may not have been carried out so effectively, however, at Añesa and La Zaida. Although a carta de población was issued for Añesa in 1157, (171) exactly a hundred years later a fresh charter was drawn up and lands were apparently then being allocated to settlers; (172) and in the fourteenth century Añesa was the least valuable of the former Templar commanderies. The Templars may similarly have enjoyed only limited success in attracting Christians to La Zaida. Although the Order had gained rights of lordship there in 1161, La Zaida was still without Christian inhabitants in 1177, (173) and when at the end of the thirteenth century the Grand Master gave permission for the alienation of La Zaida, he stated that he was doing this after being informed
of certain things in the bailiwick of Aragon which are in a poor state and unprofitable to the Temple, (174)
which suggests that the Order had not been altogether successful in resettling La Zaida. Certainly in 1275 the Templars were still trying to settle the nearby places of Belloque and Cambor, for in a carta de población issued in that year it was decreed that lands should be brought under cultivation there within two years. (175)
The Temple also participated in the resettlement of places in other areas which were already in Christian hands before the Order entered into the reconquista, but the process of repopulation is usually difficult to follow. In the thirteenth century, for example, there was clearly a Christian settlement at Selma, which had been lying waste in 1149, (176) but it is not known when this was established.

More information survives about resettlement in districts conquered after 1143. The Templars began to settle Christians on their estates around Lérida almost immediately after the city's capture. As has been seen, an agreement was made in 1151 about bringing settlers to the Order's lands at Castelldans, (177) and in 1158 the Templars, acting jointly with Gilbert of Anglesola, made grants of land for settlement at Avinabita, while in 1161/2 a carta de población was issued for Vencilló. (178) By this time land at Gardeny was also being brought under cultivation. In 1161 the commander [215] of Gardeny granted gardens there to fourteen inhabitants of Lérida, (179) and in 1165 a further seven men were assigned as much land as they could irrigate there and another four were given land to make gardens, (180) while in the following year eight more individuals received plots at Gardeny for this purpose. (181) At this time the Order was similarly undertaking the resettlement of land at Fontanet, on the opposite bank of the Segre to Gardeny; (182) and by 1170 some Templar lands in Segriá were being worked by Christians, although it is not clear to what extent the Temple was responsible for resettling these lands. (183) But although the work of resettlement was begun early on Templar estates near Lérida, it was not quickly completed. That setbacks were not uncommon is suggested by a clause inserted in a charter recording the grant of three fanegadas of land by the Templars in Lérida in 1174; this stated that

if it happens that all the other settlers of that field leave it, we [the Templars] have the power to recover these three fanegadas. (184)
The extensive evidence which survives, however, about Templar estates in the region of Lérida shows that at least in many places there was continuous Christian settlement from the second half of the twelfth century. And in the early decades of the thirteenth century the Order could seek to draw upon the inhabitants of existing settlements in the area when it wanted to found completely new townships. This happened in 1231 when Castellnou in Segriá was being established. The land was assigned by the Order to the inhabitants of Riudovelles and of other nearby places under Templar lordship, and these were to undertake the building of the new township. (185)
The resettlement of Templar estates along the lower valley of the Ebro was not usually begun so early. Although Christian settlers soon established themselves in the city of Tortosa, (186) Christians did not come to live in many of the more rural parts of this region until the last years of the twelfth century or the early decades of the thirteenth, after Alfonso II's conquests had made the district less exposed to Muslim raids. (187) It was at this time that resettlement was undertaken on many of the Temple's estates in the region. Cartas de población were issued for Gandesa and Horta in 1192, (188) and Christian settlers at Pinell received charters in 1198 and 1207, (189) while a carta de población was drawn up in 1205 for Batea, in 1209 for Camposines, and in 1224 for [216] Villalba. (190) That these charters refer to an early stage in the work of repopulation and did not just confirm well-established settlements is apparent in the first place from the charters themselves. The carta de población for Gandesa was issued to only five settlers and the main work of resettlement clearly still lay ahead, while that for Pinell in 1207 was granted to only seven out of a proposed thirty settlers. (191) Other sources point to the same conclusion. In 1185 Horta was said by the bishop of Tortosa to need resettling, and although Miravet had some Christian inhabitants by then, these were not numerous enough to justify the building of a parish church. (192) A further indication of the lack of settlement on Templar lands in this region until towards the end of the twelfth century is provided by Alfonso II's grant of a carta de población for Algars and Batea in October 1181 and by his simultaneous gift of these places ad populandum to Bernard Granel; such action could obviously not have been taken if Algars and Batea had been settled by the Order and the Templars had been exercising their rights of lordship over tenants there. (193) The granting of cartas de población by the Temple is, moreover, paralleled at this time by similar activity on the part of other lords who had estates in this region. (194) But if the Templars were trying to establish communities of Christian settlers on their lands along the lower Ebro towards the end of the twelfth century, they were not always at once successful. As the seven settlers mentioned in the carta de población for Pinell in 1207 did not include the three named in the charter issued nine years earlier, it seems that the first attempt at resettlement had failed, as apparently had the king's essays at repopulating Batea and Horta, for which Alfonso II had issued a carta de población in 1165. (195) The resettlement of the lower Ebro seems in fact to have been a slow and laborious undertaking, which lasted throughout the thirteenth century: Gorrapte received a carta de población from the Order in 1237, as did Gandesola in 1248, while the Templars drew up a charter for Algars in 1281. (196) Admittedly at Algars there is evidence of some Christian settlement sixty years earlier, (197) and several references occur in the first half of the thirteenth century to a Templar official who supervised the administration of Algars. (198) But the wording of the charter issued in 1281, which shows that the customs of Batea were being adopted at Algars, does not suggest that the Order was then just modifying conditions of tenure for an existing [217] settlement; and it may be noted that although the Temple had been granted rights of ecclesiastical patronage there in 1244, (199) Algars -- like Miravet where there were very few Christian settlers(200) -- is not mentioned in the accounts of papal taxes collected in 1279 and 1280. (201) It is probable therefore that in 1281 the Templars were seeking to re-establish a settlement at Algars, while in the case of Gorrapte it is made absolutely clear in the carta de población that the Templars were beginning the work of resettlement in 1237. (202)

[Savannah]

Many places in southern Aragon were clearly already inhabited by Christians when the Temple acquired them from the Order of Mountjoy. Alfambra had received a fuero from Count Roderick, the founder of Mountjoy, and according to memoranda drawn up by members of that Order who opposed the amalgamation with the Temple, the possessions which the Templars gained there included churches with their ornaments, books, and vestments, and also mills and an oven. (203) The members of Mountjoy similarly asserted that the Templars had gained a church, mills, and an oven at Villarluengo. This place had been uninhabited when it was granted by Alfonso II to Mountjoy in February 1194, (204) but it had been repopulated almost immediately, for in the same year that Order rewarded an individual for his help in resettling it; (205) and when the Temple issued a carta de población for Villarluengo in 1197 there were at least twenty Christian settlers there. (206) At Villel, for which Alfonso II had drawn up a resettlement charter in 1180, (207) there were also Christian settlers in 1196, for in that year the Templars were said to have taken possession of a church there, and in the same year they began making purchases of land from some of the Christian inhabitants.(208) In 1196 the Order was similarly buying property from Christians at Castellote. (209) The places resettled by 1196 may also have included La Cañada de Benatanduz, for the Templars almost immediately issued a fuero for it. (210) But Cantavieja may have lacked settlers when it was gained by the Templars, for when Peter II confirmed possession of it to the Order in 1212, he stated that he was doing so

to settle our land and especially that which is situated on the Muslim frontier; (211)
and the only carta de población for Cantavieja that survives was drawn up in 1225. (212) And it seems to have been only after the [218] conquest of Valencia had been undertaken, and this district had ceased to be a frontier region, that a number of places near Cantavieja were settled. Cartas de población for Iglesuela and La Cuba were issued in 1242 and for Mirambel in the following year, while Santolea, which was subject to Castellote, received a charter in 1261, and Tronch6n was given one in 1272.(213) But the evidence concerning this part of southern Aragon is sparse and it is not clear whether these were all new settlements and whether they were maintained continuously. It may be noted, however, that the accounts of papal taxes collected in 1280 on the one hand mention La Cuba, Iglesuela, Tronchón, and Mirambel, and on the other indicate that some places in this area belonging to other lords had only recently been settled. (214) In the middle decades of the thirteenth century there was certainly some new settlement on Templar lands further south, again near the Valencian border, in the commandery of Villel. Although there were some Christian settlers at Riodeva before the middle of the century (215) a carta de población was not issued until 1260, (216) and that intensive settlement was only then being undertaken is shown by the wording of a charter drawn up in 1257, which refers to the possibility of resettling Riodeva. (217) A few years later the settlement of Villastar, between Villel and Teruel, was also being undertaken. In 1264 a carta de población for this alquería was granted to twenty Christian settlers. That this was a new settlement is suggested by the absence of any earlier reference to Villastar in the first volume of the Cartulario Magno, which is devoted to the commandery of Villel, and also by two provisions included in the charter itself: it was decreed that settlers should not alienate their holdings for three years and that if the Order did not build a mill at Villastar they were to use the mill at Villel. (218) But this settlement did not immediately flourish, and in 1267 there were only four Christian hereditates there. In that year the Order granted all the rest of the land in the alquería to Moorish settlers. It was stated that
all the hereditates of the aforesaid alquería are to be divided equally and shared among thirty Saracen settlers of the same place except the four hereditates which the Christians have there. (219)
Yet in 1271 a further charter was issued to Christian settlers at Villastar, in which the terms of the 1264 charter were modified and in which it was said that all the land at Villastar was to be [219] divided among seventeen settlers. (220) The resettlement of Villastar appears therefore to have suffered several setbacks, but it is clear from the evidence provided in the Cartulario Magno that the Christian settlement there was maintained during the rest of the thirteenth century. (221)
In the kingdom of Valencia resettlement appears to have been undertaken mainly in the middle decades of the thirteenth century. The Order was granting houses in the city of Valencia to tenants by June 1239, less than a year after the city's capture, (222) and there seems to have been no lack of settlers there, for in the middle of the century the Temple was creating a new suburb outside the walls of the city in La Xarea, (223) and was even able to charge small entry fines for land on which houses were to be built.(224) In the middle years of the thirteenth century the Order also granted cartas de población for several of the alquerías lying to the north of the city, but some of these may merely have confirmed settlements started by previous lords. This may have been the case at Masarrochos, for the charter granted to settlers there in October 1251 was issued apparently only a few months after the Temple had acquired the alquería through an exchange with Simon Pérez of Arenoso. (225) At Moncada as well in 1248 the Templars were probably issuing a charter to a settlement created before the Order gained possession. The wording of the documents recording the king's grant of Moncada and Carpesa in 1246 implies that these places were then already settled, and Moncada was clearly already populated in May 1248 when the Order issued the carta de población, for the charter was drawn up by the chaplain of Moncada and twenty settlers are mentioned in it by name. (226) The Templars may themselves, however have resettled Borbotó, which they acquired from William of Portella in 1238. (227) The carta de población which they issued in 1265 clearly did not mark the very beginning of settlement, (228) for in January 1263 the Order had been prepared to agree to pay the bishop of Valencia 20 besants annually for the next twenty years for two-thirds of the tithes of Borbotó. (229) As the settlers paid the Order 800s. for the charter, its purpose was presumably to record a change in the conditions of tenure. But the settlement at Borbotó may not have been of long standing, for in 1265 there was no mill or forge there and it was decreed in the carta de población that certain land was to be brought under cultivation within three years.

[220] In the middle decades of the century the Order was also undertaking the resettlement of lands further north. Settlers in the alquería of Seca in Burriana, which the Temple had been granted in 1237, received a carta de población in 1243, (230) as did those at Alcalá de Chivert in 1251 -- although lands had still to be allocated when their charter was issued (231) -- and the work of resettlement at Castellnou de Chivert was being organized in 1262. (232) In the more northerly part of Valencia the Temple appears also later to have been obliged to undertake the main work of resettlement at Pulpís, for although the Order of Calatrava had issued a carta de población for it in 1244, the resettlement charter granted by the Templars was not issued until 1286, nine years after Pulpís had been awarded to the Order, and the terms of the Templar charter imply that a new settlement was being created: the fuero of Valencia was adopted instead of that of Zaragoza, which had been applied in 1244; settlers were to bring land under cultivation within two years; and they were also to build a church there. (233)

[Savannah]

No further information about Pulpís in the Templar period survives, but it is clear that most of the settlements created or taken over by the Temple in the kingdom of Valencia were maintained throughout the rest of the thirteenth century. Nevertheless, on Templar estates, as on those of other lords, (234) there was a problem of absenteeism, and because of the difficulty in obtaining new tenants the Order could not rigorously enforce regulations about personal residence. Although at Carpesa there was a rule that tenants would be deprived of their holdings if they did not take up residence within three months of being ordered to do so,(235) in May 1274 the Templars undertook not to deprive one individual of his land there provided that he came to live in Carpesa by the beginning of the following year; (236) and when in April 1275 he had still not taken up residence there, the Order allowed him a further two weeks' grace. (237)

A survey of the resettlement of conquered lands held by the Temple shows that its progress was uneven. (238) Settlers were attracted most easily and quickly to the large cities. (239) In the more rural areas, on the other hand, lands were often lying waste for long periods; and the evidence from the lower Ebro valley and southern Aragon suggests that it was particularly difficult to attract settlers to districts which were very close to the Moorish frontier and exposed to raiding. Along some parts of the frontier there [221] was a belt of waste land between Christian and Moor. Admittedly the settlement of some rural districts, such as that around Lérida, began almost immediately after they had been reconquered. But in all regions there were likely to be setbacks (240) and the work of was only slowly completed. And in some places along the Ebro and its tributaries in Aragon the Templars may never have established satisfactory settlements. The Temple and other lords were competing for the available manpower, and the Order could only offer the same concessions as others. The Aragonese kings may further in the interests of their own estates have tried to check the flow of settlers on to private lands. This seems to be the implication of a charter issued in 1251 in which James I granted the Order the right to establish a further five settlers at Camañas, in the commandery of Alfambra. (241) Nevertheless, although it is impossible to gain a precise estimate of the size of settlements until the mid fourteenth century, (242) the success of the Templars generally in bringing reconquered lands into use, with either Christian or Moorish settlers, is apparent from the Hospitaller valuation of Templar commanderies drawn up in the earlier part of the fourteenth century, for this shows that many of the more wealthy Templar houses were situated in districts which had been gained from the Moors in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. (243)

The Order was not always so successful, however, in preventing emigration from its more northerly estates. Although a carta de población, favourable to tenants, was issued by the Templars for Puigreig in 1281, (244) eleven years later permission to alienate the stronghold was given by the Grand Master because, like La Zaida, it was not profitable to the Order. (245)

The effects of the reconquest and resettlement were felt throughout the Corona de Aragón and influenced the Temple's policies towards its vassals not only in the reconquered districts. The need to bring land under cultivation and to keep it cultivated explains the majority of the concessions granted by the Order to its tenants. But a number of concessions were made for other reasons. Some were granted to individual tenants as special favours or in return for a payment. In 1154, for example, the Templars assigned land near Lérida free of rent to a scribe named Pons 'because of the service and love which you show to our house'; (246) and in 1137, in return for a payment of 20m., the Order agreed to reduce [222] the rent owed from some land at Collsabadell from a fifth to an eleventh. (247) It has been seen how the Order's lack of money in the thirteenth century similarly led it to free the inhabitants of Espluga de Francolí from the obligation to pay questia in return for a payment of 1,200m. (248) But not all the concessions made by the Order are fully explained in the sources. At Fontanet, near Lérida, the dues owed from some holdings were reduced in 1293 from 12s. to 10s. per fanegada, (249) and ten years later a further reduction of 2s. was made. (250) In 1303/4 the rent payable on some lands at Gardeny, on the opposite bank of the Segre, was similarly reduced from 12s. to 10s. per fanegada. (251) At Fontanet the rate of 12s. per fanegada had been in force since 1231, (252) and at Gardeny rents had remained unchanged in amount for at least forty years before the reduction made in 1303/4. (253) It cannot therefore be maintained that in these instances the Temple had imposed too heavy demands at the time of settlement and was forced to reduce them in order to bring land under cultivation, as had happened in some districts. The provincial master explained the reductions made in 1303/4 merely by saying that the land was so heavily burdened that the tenants were unable to pay their dues; he was therefore reducing Templar demands at the great insistence of the tenants and in order that the Temple should be more certain of receiving what was due. The difficulty which the commanders of Gardeny were experiencing at this time in collecting dues is apparent from the large number of references to non-payment and arrears of rent which occur in the documents of this convent at the end of the thirteenth century. Of fifteen references to nonpayment or arrears at Fontanet, eight occur in the period between 1290 and 1304, and twenty-eight out of fifty-two references in the commandery as a whole come from the same period. In most cases from two to four years' rent was owed, but several instances of non-payment for ten years or more are recorded. (254) The seriousness of the situation is revealed in an inventory of Gardeny's possessions drawn up in 1289, for in this the commander made clear that he could not pay the dues he owed to the provincial master partly because of the difficulty the convent was encountering in the collection of rents. (255) But although it is apparent that rents were reduced in the commandery because of the tenants' inability to pay what was demanded of them, the sources do not explain why at this time the Order's vassals were in financial [223] difficulties. The provincial master's statement in 1303/4 could be explained by declining productivity resulting from soil exhaustion. But an alternative explanation is suggested by the wording of a charter recording the sub-letting in 1284 of some land which was held of the Temple at Grallera in Segriá. In this document the recipient of the land undertook to pay all dues which were owed for it, including bovaje 'if, which God forbid, it is exacted'. (256) The Order's tenants may have had difficulty in paying their dues to the Temple because they were being impoverished by frequent royal demands for extraordinary taxes. If this was so, then all commanderies would of course have been affected. But much more evidence survives about Gardeny than about any other commandery, and it is not known whether other commanders were obliged to reduce rents at the end of the thirteenth century. Nevertheless, a considerable number of references to arrears and non-payment of dues occur at this time in other commanderies. Inventories drawn up in 1289 at Huesca and Calatayud include details of arrears owing in these commanderies, (257) and a list of debts owed to the convent of Corbins in 1300 similarly contains references to arrears of rent, (258) while a few years earlier the commander of Barcelona had nominated an attorney to recover debts and compel the men of the commandery to pay the dues which they owed. (259) In the commandery of Zaragoza at the end of the thirteenth century a number of tenants were deprived of their lands because rents had not been paid, (260) and the commanders of Zaragoza began to adopt the practice, when making grants of land, of stating that arrears would not be tolerated for more than a certain time. (261) Finally, the royal registers of the period refer not infrequently to Templar appeals to the Crown for assistance in the exaction of dues owed to the Order. (262)

[Savannah]

Yet while some cases of arrears and non-payment of rent reflect the impoverishment of Templar vassals, others are to be explained by unwillingness rather than inability to pay. When demanding dues or services the Templars not infrequently encountered opposition from individuals or communities who asserted that the Order was exceeding its rights or who were trying to avoid the fulfilment of obligations and thus create an immunity through prolonged default. The Order's financial rights were those which were most commonly called in question, but dispute also arose on other issues. It has been seen how the inhabitants of Ambel [224] questioned the Order's judicial powers, only to throw themselves on the mercy of the provincial master; (263) and at Monzón, where the Order claimed a right to military service whenever it needed it, the inhabitants on several occasions in the thirteenth century sought to restrict and limit their military obligations. In 1210 they admitted that they owed hueste and ejército but denied that they were liable for cabalgada. This claim was disallowed by Peter II who acted as arbiter in the dispute and who decreed that the men of Monzón should perform every kind of military service whenever the Temple demanded it. (264) Later in the century they asserted that according to the terms of a privilege issued by the Aragonese king Sancho Ramírez in 1076 they were not obliged to give hueste or cabalgada

if it was not done by their consent unless it was necessary for a battle in the field with bread for three days.
On these grounds they refused in 1287 to answer a summons to be at Játiva at Easter ready to serve for three months and in 1289 they neglected a further demand for service in Valencia. (265) Although Sancho Ramírez's privilege was confirmed by Peter III and Alfonso III, (266) the form in which it survives is suspect -- in 1076, for example, Monzón was still in Moorish hands -- and the fact that it had not been used in 1210 suggests that it could have been a thirteenth-century forgery. (267) The Templars did not go so far as to assert this, but they did point out that the privilege had never been used before and that at the time when it had been issued Monzón had not been resettled. By means of such arguments and by invoking the sentence given by Peter II the Order in 1292 finally compelled the inhabitants of Monzón to agree to pay 12,000s.J. as a penalty for default of service. (268) The inhabitants of Castellote, after refusing to serve, had similarly in 1265 accepted that military service was to be performed whenever the Order demanded it. (269)
Dispute between the Order and its men, as between the Temple and the Crown, was no doubt encouraged by the vague wording of documents, and this also hindered the settlement of differences. Although in the thirteenth century documents did tend to be more detailed, the charters which recorded grants to individual tenants, like the cartas de población, often failed to state fully what obligations were owed to the Order. A rather extreme example is [225] provided by a charter drawn up in 1170 concerning two cahizadas of land in the district of Segriá: the only obligation placed on the tenants was that 'they are to pay rent as is the custom in Segriá.' (270) Throughout the Order's history in Aragon it was usual, however, for the Templars to seek to safeguard their rights by inserting in land charters a clause forbidding the alienation of property to knights or clerics. (271)

The ability of the Templars to enforce their rights depended, of course, not only on the manner in which documents were drawn up but also on the extent to which written records were kept. The Templars certainly tried to preserve a record of the obligations owed to them. Charters recording grants of land to tenants were usually drawn up in the form of chirographs, so that the Templars as well as the recipients of the land could have a copy; these documents were also copied into the Order's cartularies, although this was not a uniform practice. Whereas over half of the documents in the cartulary of Castellote are of this type, very few charters of this kind were included in that compiled for the convent of Huesca. (272) A further record of obligations was preserved in rentals and custumals: in 1214, for example, the commander of Gardeny drew up a list of the rents and labour services by tenants of lands in Segriá, (273) and Templar dues in Cerdaña were listed by the commander of Puigreig in 1275. (274) Although rentals and custumals were occasionally copied into cartularies, (275) very few now survive; but the compilation of such records was presumably a normal practice. Thus although no records of this kind have been preserved for the commandery of Monzón, it is known that, after the arrest of the Templars there, twenty-five books and cuadernos giving details of rents and dues owed to the convent were seized by the Crown. (276) The lists of confratres compiled by the Templars also served the purpose of recording what was due to the Order, for although these lists can be compared with the confraternity books which have survived from some monasteries and which were for use at the altar, (277) the Templar lists in all cases mention the obligation as well as the name of the confrater; and the copying of lists of confratres to the Novillas cartulary was no doubt done exclusively to provide a record of what was due to the Order. (278) But although the Templars adopted various common procedures for keeping records of the dues and services owed to them, the inadequacy of [226] the written evidence at the Order's disposal was made apparent in 1275, when the commander of Puigreig drew up the list of dues owed in Cerdaña, for to do this he was obliged to rely not only on charters and earlier capbreus but also on 'the oaths of men'.(279) Much information was not recorded in writing, and as on other estates the inquest had to be employed as the only possible method of finding out what the lord's rights were; (280) and there must have been the danger that those who gave evidence would define existing practice, which might in fact contradict right and privilege.

The ability of the Temple to exact dues and services further depended on the efficiency of those who administered the Order's property. It has already been seen that considerations of efficiency did not always govern the choice of lay officials on the Temple's estates; and efficient administration was probably also hampered by the custom of appointing members of the Order to offices for only short periods of time, for this practice must have meant that Templar officials often had a very inadequate knowledge of the estates in their charge. (281) Nothing is known in detail of the workings of Templar administration, but its limited effectiveness is apparent from the fact that the Temple, like many other ecclesiastical lords, (282) was frequently obliged to seek the king's aid in enforcing its authority when -- as often happened at least in the period for which royal registers survive -- its officials encountered resistance. The Order clearly had difficulty in imposing its will when it was faced by united opposition from a whole community or from a considerable number of its men. In 1306, when a series of crimes was committed by a group of men at Puigreig, the commander there

could not by himself carry out inquiries against them, in view of the rebelliousness and power of the aforesaid, who were disobedient and rebelling against him, and he sought and invoked secular aid so that he could seek out and discover the truth in these matters. He therefore required and instructed the sub-vicar [of Berga] to assist him in executing justice. (283)
In such instances royal officials could obviously act more effectively than the Templars because they could, if necessary, summon armed assistance from neighbouring districts in order to coerce the Order's men. But many of the appeals made by the Temple were concerned with the activities of individuals rather than of [227] groups or communities. In 1283, for example, the commander of Huesca complained that certain individuals in his commandery had not paid the dues they owed; he sent the king a list giving names and amounts and this was forwarded to the sobrejuntero of Jaca, who was ordered to enforce payment.(284) In 1291 a royal official in Mallorca was similarly commanded to compel individuals who alienated property held of the Temple to pay laudimium to the Order, and in the same year the justiciar of Calatayud was told to force a Jewess who had not paid rent for three years to surrender her house and land to the Templars. (285) The invoking of royal assistance in order merely to oust one Jewess from her property might, of course, appear to imply that the king's help was sought when it was not really needed and that by the end of the thirteenth century it had become customary for the Templars to seek royal aid whenever resistance, however slight, was encountered. But it must be remembered that there was always the danger that royal intervention in these circumstances might be used by the Crown as a precedent in order to create a right to interfere, to the detriment of the Temple's authority. The Templars were well aware of this possibility: when the commander of Puigreig invoked the assistance of the sub-vicar of Berga in 1306 he had it set down in writing that this was not to prejudice the Order's rights and immunities. The Templars were therefore unlikely to make unnecessary appeals to the king, for fear of the consequences. Other explanations of appeals against individual tenants must be sought. Possibly a tenant, whose lands were situated in a place which was far away from a convent and in which the Order had only a small amount of property, might through passive resistance be able by himself to withstand the Order's demands: this could explain why royal officials were frequently commanded to assist the Temple in the exercise of the rights which it inherited from the Order of Mountjoy, for Alfonso II had given the latter Order lordship over one man in every royal city or town of a hundred or more inhabitants and also over one man out of every hundred elsewhere on royal lands. (286) It was probably also difficult for the Order to coerce individuals who held land of the Temple but did not live on Templar estates: one complaint made to the king in 1299, for example, concerned certain inhabitants of Tárrega who held lands of the Order at Talladell and who were refusing to pay questia, [228] cena, and other dues for these lands. (287) On other occasions, however, the Order's difficulties may have arisen because individuals were given support by neighbours and friends, who combined to prevent the Temple's officials from taking action against a defaulter.(288) Thus not only was the Order obliged to make concessions to its men and to surrender some rights in the Corona de Aragón; it also encountered difficulty in enforcing the authority and exacting the dues and services which it did retain.

[Savannah]

The dues which the Order sought to collect from its lordships and estates were demanded in one of three forms. In some instances a proportional payment was exacted. When rents from land were taken in this form the proportion varied from a half of the produce -- in which case the Order normally provided half of the seed -- down to an eleventh or tasca. At other times dues were assessed as fixed payments in kind. When corn rents of this kind were owed for arable lands, they were in most regions taken either half in wheat and half in barley or in equal proportions of wheat, barley, and oats. (289) Lastly, dues could be expressed as fixed sums of money. Dues assessed in this last form appear not, however, to have always been paid in money. In many instances a sum of money 'ad panem et vinum' or 'pani et vino' is referred to, (290) apparently implying that the payment, although assessed in money, was made in kind. But a clear distinction cannot be made between dues described in this way and those which are simply stated as amounts of money, for it is possible that in the latter case payment may also in practice have been made in kind.

The form in which dues were demanded varied considerably from one region to another and sometimes even within the same region. In the more northerly parts of Catalonia rents from arable land and vineyards subject to the Templars were for most of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries predominantly of the proportional type, (291) and a similar situation is encountered in many places in the northern half of Aragon, such as Novillas and Boquiñeni, (292) although at Mesa fixed corn rents were demanded from settlers in 1157. (293) In the more southerly parts of the Corona de Aragón the variety is rather greater. In the district of Lérida, land rents were expressed in money terms at Gardeny and Fontanet, while in Segári fixed rents in kind were usually exacted. (294) Along the lower Ebro, Christian settlers in the commanderies of [229] Miravet and Horta and also those at Villalba paid fixed rents in kind for their lands, (295) but Moorish inhabitants of Miravet owed proportional rents, (296) while at Tortosa all forms of payment are encountered. (297) In the more southerly parts of Aragon, proportional rents were demanded of settlers at Villastar, fixed rents in kind were exacted from those settling at Riodeva, and money rents were asked of those coming to Santolea. (298) In the kingdom of Valencia, rents for lands in the city of Valencia were usually expressed in money terms, while proportional rents were demanded in the alquerías to the north of the city and also at Burriana. (299) Further north in the kingdom of Valencia, the Moors of Chivert paid proportional rents for their lands, but the Christian settlers at Alcalá de Chivert owed fixed corn rents. (300)

Other dues were similarly exacted in a variety of forms. Both hens and money were commonly demanded as rents for houses and gardens in all districts of the Corona de Aragón, while in some parts of Valencia and in the commandery of Castellote (301) payments of wax were also fairly common. Rents for mills and ovens granted out by the Order were taken in all forms, and even within a particular region there was no uniformity: although, for example, fixed rents in corn were usually demanded for mills in the district of Segriá, in some cases a money rent was exacted. (302) Not very much information survives about the payments made by tenants for using mills and ovens retained by the Order, but while in the kingdom of Valencia one loaf out of every twenty-seven baked was exacted for fornaje at Chivert and one out of every twenty-five at Burriana, (303) elsewhere there seems to have been more variety in the form of payment. (304) There is similarly little evidence about the form in which dues were exacted for the use of uncultivated land; in the charter granted to the Moors of Chivert in 1234, however, it was decreed that the Temple should receive a quarter of the venatio grossa, but that four rabbits should be paid to the Order annually by those who caught them. (305) Nevertheless, in the case of certain dues there does seem to have been greater uniformity. Payments for protection in Cataluña Vieja were usually in the form of a fixed rent in kind; (306) and peita, questia, and cena were normally expressed as money payments. (307)

Despite the diversity in forms of payment, some slight trends and developments can be discerned. There was in the first place [230] a tendency in some districts for proportional rents to be replaced by fixed dues paid in kind or money. (308) This was clearly happening on some of the lands of the commandery of Barcelona at the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth centuries. At Gurb, near Vich, for example, there are two cases in 1285 and another in 1288 of proportional dues for land being replaced by fixed rents, (309) and the same was happening at this time on lands subject to the convent of Barcelona in other villages. (310) A few examples of the replacement of proportional rents are also encountered in other districts: it was agreed in 1271 that the Christian settlers at Villastar should pay 200s.J. pani et vino instead of a seventh of the produce of their lands; (311) and in 1302 the rent for a mill at Peñíscola was changed from a proportional payment to twelve cahíces of wheat. (312) Proportional rents for lands appear also to have been replaced in some districts for which no records of change survive, for while early documents refer to proportional rents, later ones mention only fixed dues in money or kind; this is true of some districts in the commandery of Tortosa, such as Labar. (313) On some Templar estates there was a similar tendency to change the tithe from a proportional due into a fixed payment. At the end of the twelfth century the tithes from Templar lands in the district of Pardines near Lérida were commuted into fixed payments assessed in money, (314) and it was probably at about the same time that a similar change was made at Fontanet, (315) while in 1255 the tithes of wool and cheese were commuted at Alfambra and Orrios into a fixed annual payment of 100s.J. (316)

Besides this trend away from proportional dues there was in some places a replacement of fixed rents in kind by rents assessed in money. Again most of the clearest evidence comes from Cataluña Vieja, where some fixed rents in kind were being replaced by money payments at the same time as proportional rents were being commuted. (317) A few documents record similar changes in other districts, (318) and again comparison of early and late charters recording grants of lands to tenants indicates that changes were made in some places for which no specific evidence of commutation survives: at Villel up to the middle of the thirteenth century fixed rents in kind were in most cases exacted, but after that time rents were usually assessed in money. (319)

The significance of these changes should not, however, be exaggerated. They affected only a minority of the dues collected [231] by the Order and there was no general trend towards the exaction of dues in any one particular form. There are even isolated cases where the change was in the opposite direction. Although it was agreed in 1157 that settlers at Añesa should pay a fixed rent in kind for their holdings, when the Templars issued a new carta de población a hundred years later they demanded proportional rents. (320) On other occasions in the second half of the thirteenth century when new lands were being granted out the Order sometimes similarly demanded a proportion of produce. The frequency of payments in this form in Valencia has been noted, and even in the commandery of Barcelona when some demesne land was granted out to tenants in 1295 a proportional rent was sought. (321)

As the rights which the Temple obtained in areas which were already settled were gained from a large number of different individuals and institutions, it might be expected that the dues it received in these districts would vary considerably in form; and the force of custom would make change slow. But if the variations in type of payment in some areas can be explained at least in part in this way, it is necessary to account for the variety of forms which the Templars themselves adopted in districts which they settled and to explain the changes which the Order did make.

The Templars were clearly influenced by a number of considerations. In making some changes in the forms of payment they may have been influenced by a desire for simplicity. If all the dues from a tenant were taken in the same form, it might be possible to exact just one payment instead of several, and the problems of administration would be eased. Certainly this was the effect of some of the changes which occurred in Cataluña Vieja. Thus in 1288 the various dues owed for a manse at Gurb, comprising money rents, fixed rents in kind, and a proportion of certain produce, were commuted into a single payment of 9s.10d.B. (322) The commutation of some tithes in the commandery of Gardeny produced the same result. In the 1180s tenants on the Order's lands in the district of Pardines were paying a fixed rent of 8s. ad panem et vinum for each fanegada and in addition a proportion of produce for tithes and primicias. (323) In the following decade the proportional payments were commuted: tenants were now to pay for each fanegada 8s. for rent and a further 2s. ad panem et vinum for tithes and primicias; (324) and in the thirteenth [232] century the obligation became expressed as a single charge of 10s. ad panem et vinum. (325)

More important, however, was the question of profitability. On this point there were advantages and disadvantages attaching to each form of payment. When prices were rising, as seems to have been happening generally in western Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, proportional rents and fixed rents in kind did not decline in value as did those paid in money. Proportional rents also had the advantage that they allowed the Order to share automatically in any rise in productivity which took place, and this might be an important consideration when lands were being newly brought under cultivation. But proportional dues also had their drawbacks. When the commander of Barcelona was commuting some proportional land rents in 1288 he said that these were unprofitable because of the sterility of the land. (326) Obviously in years of bad harvests the Templars might gain very little from proportional rents, whereas when fixed rents were charged the Order knew that it would receive a definite amount of produce or money every year. The commander of Barcelona's comment suggests that there had been a series of bad harvests in the years preceding 1288. Proportional rents would also be of only limited value if a tenant farmed his land badly: thus in 1260 the commander of Palau claimed that the Order had lost agraria worth fifty quarters of corn because for twenty years a tenant called Berenguer of Pradillo had failed to cultivate his manse properly. (327) When the commander of Barcelona was commuting proportional dues in 1288 he also referred to

the expenses which have to be incurred in the collection of the said proportional rents.
This was clearly an important disadvantage of rents paid in this form. When proportional dues were exacted close supervision was necessary to ensure that the proper amount was given. A representative of the Temple had to be present in the fields when produce like grapes or olives was gathered, and on the threshing-floor at the time of the grain harvest; and many documents recording grants of land to tenants included a clause forbidding the latter to gather their crops unless a Templar official was present. (328) In some places, moreover, it was the custom for the Temple to contribute to the cost of threshing when proportional rents [233] exacted (329); and as rents of this kind were usually paid in the fields or on the threshing-floor the Temple often had the additional expense of transporting them to their houses -- an expense which was not normally incurred when fixed rents in kind were charged: whereas the Order's tenants in the district of Segriá who paid proportional rents were usually obliged to make payments in the field or on the threshing-floor, those who paid fixed rents in kind were normally expected to bring these dues at their own expense to the convent of Gardeny. (330) The problems attached to the collection of proportional dues would be of particular significance when a convent had small parcels of property scattered over a wide area, and this may explain why the commutation of proportional rents is particularly evident on the lands of the commandery of Barcelona. In places where Templar properties were more concentrated geographically and were mostly situated near convent these disadvantages lost some of their importance. In reconquered districts therefore, where the Temple had compact lordships and where also land was often being brought newly under cultivation, the Templars might be inclined to favour proportional rents, while in some other areas different forms of payment might be considered more profitable. The profitability of any type of payment varied according to the circumstances.
Decisions about the form in which dues were to be exacted were in some instances also influenced by the needs of the Temple. Rents were sometimes demanded in kind because the Order could then obtain produce needed in Templar convents for consumption purposes. Although the Temple usually charged money rents for houses in Zaragoza, in 1275 it demanded from one house-holder an annual rent of two arrobas of oil, in order to provide fuel for a lamp in the Templar chapel in the city. (331) The needs of the Templars may also explain why corn rents were paid for some lands at Gardeny which were described as vineyards. (332) But considerations of this kind were not usually of overriding importance. Templar convents were expected to pay in money the dues or responsion which they owed to the provincial master, (333) and it might therefore have been imagined that the Order would exact dues in kind for the needs of the members of a convent, and dues in money to meet obligations owed to the provincial master. But it is clear that this was not always done. Letters ordering the payment of responsions often included a clause stating that goods [234] might be sold so that payment could be made in money, (334) while the inventory which survives for the house of Ambel from the year 1289 shows that the commander of that convent set aside wine and grain for his responsion; (335) and a list of responsions drawn up in the year 1307 indicates that some were actually paid in kind. (336) Some religious houses pursued a policy of demanding dues in money from their more distant properties, while exacting payments in kind from nearby estates in order to provide food and other necessaries for the monastery; (337) but clearly the Templars did not adopt this procedure. Such a policy, even if it had been desirable, would perhaps have been hard to implement because tenants would possibly have encountered difficulty in paying dues in the form which the Order wanted. It is noticeable that the predominance of rents expressed purely in money terms is most marked in the larger cities: whereas in the alquerías to the north of the city of Valencia proportional rents and fixed dues in kind were usually exacted by the Order, all those holding land and houses of the Temple within the city itself -- with one exception -- paid a rent that was expressed purely in money terms. The rents demanded from the Order's properties in Zaragoza and Barcelona were again usually of this type. It cannot, of course, be ascertained whether such rents were in fact always paid in money, but it is possible that the inhabitants of cities could pay rents regularly in money more easily than the Order's tenants in rural areas.

While the Templars were inevitably concerned with their own needs and their own profits, they could not, when deciding the form in which dues were to be exacted, altogether neglect the wishes of their vassals, whose interests would obviously not always coincide with those of the Order. Decisions about the form in which dues were to be paid, like decisions about what dues were to be owed, must in the newly settled areas have been reached after negotiations between the Templars and early settlers; and changes which were made elsewhere or at other times were presumably usually preceded by discussions between the Templars and communities or individuals. On some occasions the Order's vassals were apparently able to influence decisions by offering to pay for the changes which they wanted. (338) At times even, presumably when the Templars felt that there was little to choose between different forms of payment, tenants were offered a choice: in 1285 the occupant of a manse from which the Order [235] had recently been demanding a rent of 17s. was given the choice of paying the proportional dues and other charges which had earlier been exacted or negotiating a new agreement with the Temple about the amount of rent to be paid. (339) Decisions about the forms in which dues were to be exacted were thus influenced by a variety of interests and considerations, and in this situation it is hardly surprising that different forms were adopted in different places and that the same changes did not occur everywhere.

Much less is known about the forms in which services were exacted by the Order. Although a number of references occur to both mounted and foot service, the only precise information found in the Templar sources about the different kinds of military service owed to the Order is that contained in a few cartas de población from southern Aragon which refer to caballeros villanos. A clause was included in the fuero of Cantavieja stating that any settler bringing a horse and arms was to receive a caballería and was always to give mounted service if the commander and concejo of Cantavieja considered that he was capable of doing so; (340) and in the carta de población for La Cañada de Benatanduz it was decreed somewhat obscurely that

an inhabitant who has a yoke of oxen and an ass and two beds and bread and wine from one year to the next, if he has more than this up to thirty shillings, he is to furnish a foal; if he has more he is to furnish a horse and maintain it. (341)