Atlantis Online
March 28, 2024, 02:11:48 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Comet theory collides with Clovis research, may explain disappearance of ancient people
http://uscnews.sc.edu/ARCH190.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

The Templars in the Corona de Aragón

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Templars in the Corona de Aragón  (Read 7166 times)
0 Members and 92 Guests are viewing this topic.
Savannah
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 174



« Reply #45 on: January 11, 2009, 04:35:40 am »

Nor is any full information available about the extent to which redenciones were demanded by the Order in lieu of military service. A few individuals are known to have had their service permanently commuted. It was noted in 1181 that the holders of two manses at Auzeda paid 4s. in lieu of hueste in those years when the host was called out, (342) and in 1263 the Temple agreed to commute permanently the military service owed against the Moors by the holder of part of a fee at Espluga de Francolí, although he was still to give service for purposes of local defence. (343) But these were concessions made to individuals in districts away from the frontier. There are no examples of the Temple's commuting permanently the military obligations of a whole community, and when in 1294 and 1295 the provincial master agreed that the inhabitants of places received in exchange for Tortosa should pay a lump sum in lieu of various obligations, the right to military service [236] was retained by the Order. (344) Nevertheless at the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth centuries, when the Order was in need of money and when the conflict with the Moors had tended to assume the character of raiding, the Temple on a number of occasions sought to obtain redenciones instead of personal service from communities. At the time when money was needed for the purchase of Culla from William of Anglesola, the provincial master received 12,000s.B. from Monzón in commutation of military service and sought a further 15,000s. from the Order's vassals in Valencia, (345) while a surviving fragment of a letter shows that one commander was ordered to seek at least 700s. in lieu of military service and to send this and any other money he had, since it was needed for paying William of Anglesola. (346) In these cases it is clear, however, that the question of commutation was a matter for agreement between the Order and its vassals, who could -- if they wished -- still insist on serving in person.
Similarly little is known about the extent of the commutation of labour services. Only an occasional reference survives to the permanent commutation of an individual's obligations. (347) But as jova and tragina are still specifically mentioned in a number of documents of the later thirteenth century, (348) it is apparent that at least in some districts labour services had not been permanently replaced by money payments which had become just part of the rent owed for a holding.
 

It was clearly still possible for the Templars to make use of all kinds of labour services, for in most places where they had considerable properties they continued to have a demesne in the sense of cultivated lands not granted out to tenants. Lands which were retained by the Order and used for corn growing or the cultivation of vines are mentioned in a number of documents: some cartas de población refer to land which the Temple did not grant out to settlers, (349) and agreements with the episcopate about tithes sometimes mention the demesne lands which were to be exempt from payment, (350) while all the inventories of Templar houses which have survived from the end of the thirteenth and the early years of the fourteenth centuries refer to oxen and mules used for ploughing. (351) From such sources it is clear that in most districts it was the custom for the Templars to keep some land in demesne; they did not abandon demesne farming in reconquered places, as [237] happened in some newly settled parts of western Christendom. (352) And it is further shown by the inventories that the Order continued to keep land in demesne up to the time of the Templars' arrest.

In the absence of surveys, however, it is not easy to determine the proportion of land retained in demesne, although on a few occasions the size of the demesne is known. According to the carta de población issued for Vencilló in 1161/2 the Templars kept parellada there in demesne, and the same amount of land was retained at Borbotó a century later. (353) Since in many places a parellada was the normal holding of an individual tenant, (354) the demesne was obviously of only minor importance in these places. Yet Vencilló and Borbotó were not places where Templar convents were established. It is probable that where Templar houses were built demesne lands were more extensive: at Horta, where the normal holding was a parellada, the bishop of Tortosa in 1185 allowed exemption from tithes on twenty-five parelladas, although it is not known whether all this land was in fact retained in demesne; (355) and in 1244 it was agreed that at Chivert the Templars should be exempted from the payment of tithes on six parelladas, as long as these were kept in demesne. (356)

It is similarly difficult to determine whether the amount of land in demesne tended to increase or decline. What evidence there is suggests movement in both directions. In 1295 the commander of Barcelona granted out a manse at Parets, which the Templars had previously kept in demesne,

seeing that it is better and more useful for us and the said house that the said manse with all its honours and possessions be given in emphyteusis at the rent and proportional payment mentioned below than be kept at the labour of the said house; (357)
and at various times in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the Order made grants to tenants of dominicature, which were presumably portions of demesne land. (358) On the other hand, throughout the Templar period examples can be found of land being repurchased by the Order from tenants, and this was being frequently done in the commanderies of Valencia and Gardeny particularly at the end of the thirteenth century and at the beginning of the fourteenth. (359) Some of the land gained in this way was granted out again almost immediately, (360) and in some cases the [238] property had been sub-let by the Order's tenants (361) and the Temple was therefore in these instances not bringing land back into demesne. But on some occasions the demesne was apparently being increased. The fullest evidence on this point is provided by the documents concerning the holdings at Torre Farrera of the Lérida apothecary, Vincent of Viana. When Vincent's son, also an apothecary, died in 1293 the Order purchased his rights. (362) Eleven years later some of this land was granted out again by the Temple to various inhabitants of Torre Farrera. (363) Although some of the Vianas' land had been sub-let, (364) it is difficult to believe that in 1304 the Temple was granting out land already held by tenants, since the Order would then have been obliged to accept a lower rent than it had been receiving, and in any case the Templars at Gardeny were at this time forbidding tenants to grant out their lands at rent. (365) It seems therefore that in 1293 the Order was taking some land back into demesne. Thus at the time when demesne land near Barcelona was being granted out to tenants, elsewhere the Temple was recovering land from tenants. The Templars' demesne policy appears to have been a flexible one, and was presumably governed by such factors as the availability of a labour force to work the demesne and the availability of potential tenants. There is certainly no clear evidence of an overall decline of the demesne on Templar estates, such as has been postulated for Catalonia as a whole during this period. (366)
Besides working some of their land, the Templars in Aragon also engaged in pastoral husbandry as an adjunct to arable farming; it never completely replaced the latter. The inventories which survive for the year 1289 show that some convents had considerable flocks of sheep and goats. Miravet had a total of 1,380 and Monzón possessed 1,061; at Cantavieja there were 400 ewes, 41 rams, 211 wethers, and 340 goats, while Horta possessed 1,060 goats. (367) An inventory of the possessions of the convent of Peñíscola which was drawn up in 1301 similarly lists 700 ewes, 50 rams, 106 wethers, and over 200 goats, (368) and at the time of the arrest of the Templars 1,025 sheep and goats were seized at Miravet. (369) The keeping of large flocks of sheep and goats was clearly not a thirteenth-century innovation on Templar estates, for in 1184 the count of Urgel gave compensation to the commander of Gardeny for seizing 2,000 of the Order's sheep, (370) and in 1201 part of the payment made by the Temple when buying [239] some land at Villel consisted of 400 sheep. (371) It seems, however -- although inventories do not exist for all Templar houses and not all of the surviving inventories are complete -- that the largest flocks were usually kept on the more southerly estates of the Order: at Huesca in 1289 there were only 30 ewes and 2 rams and at Ambel only 30 ewes. (372) Most houses, on the other hand, kept a number of pigs and some also had cows. The largest numbers of pigs recorded in 1289 were in the commanderies of Monzón and Gardeny, which had 182 and 71 respectively, while Tortosa had a herd of 42 cows besides 2 bulls. (373)

These animals were kept partly in order to provide food for Templar convents, where the diet was not so restricted as in monasteries: thus in 1289 it was noted that the 250 wethers in the commandery of Monzón were 'for the provisioning of the table of the castle'. (374) But animals were probably kept also to supply the needs of the Templars in the East (375) and much of the produce of the animals, especially wool, was no doubt sold, although little evidence survives on this point.

In some cartas de población and agreements with tenants the Order reserved certain lands exclusively for the use of its own animals. The Order's dehesas are, for example, mentioned in agreements between the Templars and the inhabitants of Castellote made in 1244 and 1260. (376) This was not, however, always done, for at Chivert both Moorish and Christian inhabitants were allowed to graze their animals anywhere in the term of the castle. (377) It was not only the use of pasture that was restricted by the Temple. Among other restrictions were those on fishing, as at Cantavieja, where a stretch of the river was reserved for the use of the Templars alone. (378) But as in the Rule members of the Order were forbidden to hunt animals, except the lion, (379) no lands were retained in Aragon for the purposes of hunting.

Even in those areas where labour services were retained, the tenants of the Order could have provided only a small part of the labour force needed for working demesne lands and tending the Temple's animals. For most of the year the Order was obliged to rely on other sources of manpower. One of these was the Order itself, for some Templars were employed on the land or put in charge of farm animals. (380) Another source was probably provided by the slaves and unpaid lay associates which most Templar convents contained. (381) Possibly as important, however, was hired [240] labour, although virtually nothing is known about it; the only reference to this kind of labour is that found in a charter recording the emancipation of a slave at Tortosa in 1226: the Temple promised to pay him 2d. a day, as well as giving him his food, whenever the Order needed his services for its 'works'. (382)
 

It is difficult to judge to what extent, either on the Order's demesne lands or on those held by tenants, the Templars increased the value of their rights during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries through developments in farming methods and techniques. Only a few examples of Templar initiative in this sphere are recorded. As elsewhere there was certainly a development of viticulture: examples frequently occur of tenants being ordered to plant vineyards on the lands assigned to them; (383) and that the Order sought to increase pastoral farming on the part of its tenants is implied by the statement made in 1255 that certain tithes had been commuted at Alfambra so that the inhabitants could acquire more animals. (384) But little else is known about improvements in farming and farming techniques made by the Templars. It would obviously have been in the Order's interests to extend irrigation, for much higher rents could clearly be demanded from irrigated land: at Moncada near Valencia a proportional rent of a third was exacted from irrigated land compared with a fifth from non-irrigated; (385) on lands held by Moors at Villastar the proportions were a quarter and a seventh; (386) and in the district of Segriá non-irrigated lands usually provided only a quarter of the rent derived from irrigated land. (387) On a few occasions the Order did certainly seek to extend irrigation. In 1238 the commander of Boquiñeni bought a strip of land in order to construct a canal which would carry water to some of the Temple's property, (388) and in 1245 Marlofa was granted to Bertrand of Naya because he had given water from Pinseque to the Order and agreed to open up a canal to bring it to Marlofa. (389) But grants of water to the Temple did not necessarily mean that irrigation was being extended -- some donors may merely have been confirming existing arrangements about the use of canals -- and some extensions of irrigation that did occur were undertaken by the Order's tenants rather than by the Temple itself. A charter drawn up in 1173 records that three of the Order's tenants had converted some land in Segriá from secanum to reganum, (390) and [241] at Monzón the initiative in extending irrigation appears to have lain with the inhabitants: it was agreed in 1230 that the latter could, if they wished, increase the amount of land that was irrigated, (391) and the wording of an undertaking given twenty years later by the Order to construct a canal through Paúls and Sosils suggests that this was done as the result of a petition by the inhabitants of these places and not on Templar initiative. (392) It might, of course, be argued that the Templars did place an obligation on their vassals to increase the value of their holdings: charters recording grants of land to tenants often include a clause stipulating that the property was to be improved. (393) But it may be doubted whether very much significance was attached to this provision. Whenever precise details are given about the treatment of property, these reveal merely a concern on the part of the Templars to ensure that it was maintained in a proper state. The cutting down of trees without permission was often forbidden (394) and in some cases those who held houses of the Order were commanded to spend a certain amount of money on repairs, which were clearly frequently necessary if houses were to be maintained in a fit state. (395) Even if a tenant did increase the value of his property it was probably not easy for the Temple to derive any benefit from it. Unless a tenant paid a proportional rent the Order did not normally receive any automatic gain, and as grants to tenants were usually made in perpetuity it was probably difficult to increase rents. (396) In order to attract settlers and keep tenants, however, it was no doubt necessary to give them a hereditary interest in their holdings, and the Temple could not adopt a general policy of granting land for life or for a fixed term of years. Holdings were granted on these conditions only rarely and the grants of this kind that were made can sometimes be explained by particular circumstances. (397) Even if the Templars had been able to alter rents when they wanted to, they would have encountered difficulty in enforcing increases if, as has been suggested, the economic situation of the Order's tenants was deteriorating in the later part of the thirteenth century.

There can be little doubt therefore that the value of the Order's rights in the Corona de Aragón was increased much more through the resettlement of land than through any improvements in farming methods and techniques, whether they were undertaken on the initiative of the Templars or on that of their vassals. Resettlement was the most important development which occurred on the Order's estates in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It was this that determined the prosperity of the majority of the Order's properties and it was this that most influenced the relations between the Temple and its vassals in the Corona de Aragón.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Spam   Logged
Savannah
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 174



« Reply #46 on: January 11, 2009, 04:36:08 am »

Notes for Chapter Six

1. Lees, Records.

2. RAH, 12-6-1/M-83, doc. 110; cf. ACA, reg. 310, fol. 67-67v.

3. AHN, cód. 469, pp. 177-8, doc. 136; San Juan, leg. 556 doc. 4; see below, p. 386.

4. F. Baer, Die Juden im christlichen Spanien (Berlin, 1929), pp. 98-100, doc. 95. The concession was made for fifteen years.

5. ACA, parch. James I, Appendix no. 31; AGP, parch. Tortosa, no. 81. That the vicar was one of the Moncadas' officials and not, as has sometimes been thought, a royal nominee, is apparent from ACA, parch. James I, no. 1746, and AGP, parch. Tortosa, no. 42.

6. ACA, parch. James I, no. 1746, Appendix no. 31; AGP, parch. Tortosa, no. 81.

7. See below, p. 271.

8. This was the normal pattern of administration throughout Aragon and Catalonia: cf. J.M. Font Rius, 'Orígenes del régimen municipal de Cataluña', AHDE, xvii (1946), 254-7.

9. ACA, reg. 291, fols. 135v, 137, 149v, 252-252v, 256-257v, etc.

10. ACA, CRD Templarios, nos. 36, 133; AGP, parch. Espluga de Francolí, no. 249.

11. ACA, reg. 291, fol. 326v.

12. e.g. ibid., fols. 149v, 171v, 198v-199.

13. ACA, parch. James I, no. 1031. On the master deça mer, see below, p. 328.

14. ACA, reg. 291, fols. 221v, 259, 299-299v.

15. ACA, parch. James I, no. 1978. In 1302 Peter Malet sold the bailiwick of Espluga de Francolí back to the Temple for 290s.B. when he was obliged to resign because of accusations made against him by the inhabitants of Espluga: AGP, parch. Espluga de Francolí, no. 249.

16. ACA, reg. 291, fol. 135v.

17. ACA, parch. Peter III, no. 135.

18. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 67-72, doc. 12; cf. T. Muñoz y Romero, Colección de fueros municipales y cartas pueblas de los reinos de Castilla, León, Corona de Aragón y Navarra (Madrid, 1847), p. 539; R. Esteban Abad, Estudio histórico-politico sobre la ciudad y comunidad de Daroca (Teruel, 1959), p. 367.

19. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 17-19, doc. 4; see below, p. 390. The same procedure was still in use at the time of the arrest of the Templars: ACA, reg. 291, fol. 216.

20. AHN, cód. 689, pp. 76-8, doc. 78.

21. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 67-72, doc. 13.

22. Cf. J.M. Lacarra, 'Les villes-frontière dans l'Espagne des Xie et XIIe siècles', Moyen Âge, lxix (1963), 218. On the situation in Castile, see J.M. Font Rius, 'Les villes dans l'Espagne du moyen age', Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin, vi (1954), 274-5; L.G. de Valdeavellano, Historia de las instituciones españolas (Madrid, 1968), p. 545.

23. The Order appears normally to have retained control over the appointment of the more important officials in the non-Christian communities under Templar jurisdiction. Although in the agreement made with the Moors of Chivert in 1234 nothing was stated about the method of appointing Moorish officials, the Templars presumably nominated them, for in 1359 the aljama was seeking the right to present three men, from whom the alamín was to be chosen: M. Gual Camarena, 'Mudéjares valencianos. Aportaciones para su estudio', Saitabi, vii (1949), 174-5. In the thirteenth century Moorish officials in Tortosa were appointed by the Order or the Moncadas: ACA, parch. Peter II, no. 258; parch. James I, nos. 43, 1746; cf. parch. Peter II, no. 257.

24. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 17-19, doc. 4; pp. 67-72, doc. 13; see below, p. 390.

25. AHN, cód. 471, pp. 258-9, doc. 233.

26. J. Cots i Gorchs, 'Les "Consuetuds" d'Horta (avui Horta de Sant Joan) a la ratlla del Baix Aragó', Estudis universitaris catalans, xv (1930), 313. The code of customs for Miravet which was confirmed shortly after the abolition of the Temple similarly included a clause stating that the inhabitants had the right to elect jurados: Constituciones Baiulie Mirabeti, ed. G. Sánchez (Madrid, 1915), p. 9; F Valls Taberner Les costums de la batllia de Miravet', Revista jurídica de Cataluña, xxxii (1926), 59.

27. AHN cód. 494, pp. 17-19 doc. 4; see below p. 390. On this office see F. Sevillano Colom, 'De la institución del Mustaçaf de Barcelona, de Mallorca, y de Valencia', AHDE, xxiii (1953) 525-38.

28. Cots i Gorchs, loc. cit., p. 315.

29. ACA, parch. James I, no. 2234; vernacular version in B. Oliver, Historia del derecho en Cataluña, Mallorca y Valencia: Código de las costumbres de Tortosa, iv (Madrid, 1881), 496-500, where the date is given wrongly.

30. AHN, San Juan, leg. 355, doc. 1. A similar procedure was followed at Miravet: Constituciones Baiulie Mirabeti, pp. 32-3; Valls Taberner, loc. cit., p.74.

31. AHN, cód. 471, pp. 322-3, doc. 255.

32. AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 77v, doc. 253.

33. Ibid., fols. 87v-88, doc. 278; published in Oliver, op. cit. ii. 55-6. This judgement was based on the charter granted to the inhabitants of Tortosa by Raymond Berenguer IV in 1149, in which it was stated that disputes between citizens should be settled by the judgement of the court and probi homines of Tortosa: CDI, iv. 144-7, doc. 61; Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 121-6, doc. 75.

34. CDI, iv. 155-64, doc. 61. The bishop's decision was confirmed in the Costums de Tortosa, 1. i. 9, in Oliver, op. cit. iv. 14.

35. ACA, parch. James I, no. 2136; a vernacular version of this document is published in Oliver, op. cit. iv. 487-91. Cf. Costums de Tortosa, III. i. 1; VII. vii. 1, 20, in Oliver, op. cit. iv. 104-5, 317-18, 323. A case tried by the vicar and two coniudices in 1242 is recorded in AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 58, doc. 179.

36. Costums de Tortosa, IX. xiv. 3, in Oliver, op. cit. iv. 397-8.

37. M. Albareda y Herrera, El fuero de Alfambra (Madrid, 1925), pp. 44-5.

38. In 1294, for example, it was agreed that the Temple should receive 1,000s. annually from the men of Peñíscola for cena and certain other dues: ACA, parch. James II, no. 420; cf. nos. 408, 411-14.

39. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 827, 1514.

40. AHN, San Juan, leg. 598, unnumbered document.

41. CDI, iv. 155-64, doc. 61; Costums de Tortosa, I. i. 15, and IX. xiii. 5, in Oliver, op. cit. iv. 16, 395-6; cf. A. Ruiz Moreno, 'Los baños públicos en los fueros municipales españoles', Cuadernos de historia de España, iii (1945), 153; L. Torres Balbás, 'Los baños públicos en los fueros municipales españoles', Al-Andalus, xi (1946), 444.

42. AHN, cód. 471, pp. 338-40, doc. 265; pp. 359-60, doc. 278.

43. Ibid., pp. 317-18, doc. 250.

44. Cots i Gorchs, loc. cit., p. 314.

45. AHN, cód. 689, p. 45, doc. 36 bis; Costums de Tortosa, I. v. 10, and IX. XX.2, in Oliver, op. cit. iv. 44, 420.

46. AHN, San Juan, leg. 174, doc. 16.

47. CDI, iv. 154-5, doc. 61.

48. Costums de Tortosa, I. v. 9, and IX. XX. 1, in Oliver, op. cit. iv. 43-4, 420.

49. AHN, Montesa, P. 523.

50. It must be remembered, however, that at Tortosa the Templars were complaining of the activities of the Moncadas as well as of those of the citizens.

51. AHN, cód. 471, pp. 338-40, doc. 265; pp. 359-60, doc. 278. In the same year -- 1260 -- the concejos of Castellote and Las Cuevas de Cañart gave up the concession which they had obtained concerning the appointment of the local justiciar: cód. 689, pp. 76-8, doc. 78.

52. ACA, parch. James II, no. 722.

53. ACA, parch. James I, no. 1550.

54. ACA, parch. James I, no. 1502; AGP, parch. Espluga de Francolí, nos. 210, 575.

55. ACA, CRD James II, no. 717; AHN, San Juan, leg. 306, doc. 16; AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 726, 941, 1473.

56. ACA, reg. 291, fols. 136v, 340v-341.

57. ACA, parch. James I, no. 2230.

58. ACA, parch. James I, no. 1332; see below, p. 388. The dues which are mentioned in the document were not in fact worth as much as 2,000s. annually.

59. 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), 436-7, doc. 47; cf. AHN, cód. 471, p. 71, doc. 65; ACA, Bulas, leg. 15, doc. 1; this last document is analysed by F. Miquel Rosell, Regesta de letras pontificias del Archivo de la Corona de Aragón (Madrid, 1948), p. 105, no. 187.

60. See, for example, F.R.H. Du Boulay, The Lordship of Canterbury (London, 1966), pp. 204-5; E. Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely (Cambridge, 1951), p. 167.

61. Cf. J. Guiraud and E. Cadier, Les Registres de Grégoire X et de Jean XXI (Paris, 1960), pp. 382-3, doc. 997; Delaville, Cartulaire, iii. 305-6, 378, 389, docs. 3534, 3683, 3712.

62. ACA, Bulas, leg. 22, doc. 2; cf. leg. 16, doc. 1; AHN, cód. 471, pp. 16-17, doc. 25. The first two of these documents are analysed by Miquel Rosell, op. cit., pp. 109, 160, nos. 195, 300.

63. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 794.

64. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 701, 710, 729, 735, 813, 815, 818, 828.

65. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 801, 806.

66. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 284, 511, 1577, 2280, 2338.

67. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 1641, 1648, 2425.

68. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 865, 881, 916, 939, 944.

69. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 503, 553, 595, 802, 1577, 1586.

70. This policy had been adopted by some lords in the south of France a century earlier: J.H. Mundy, Liberty and Political Power in Toulouse, 1050-1230 (New York, 1954), p. 272. R.I. Burns, The Crusader Kingdom of Valencia (Harvard, 1967), i. 138, provides some evidence from Valencia on this point.

71. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 326, 350, 484, 563, 750, etc.

Report Spam   Logged
Savannah
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 174



« Reply #47 on: January 11, 2009, 04:37:49 am »

72. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 186, 583, 1621, 1857, etc. The change in wording was probably not very significant. No doubt in most instances land was sub-let for profit and this practice was checked by the earlier form of wording. The later formula was more comprehensive, in that it also prohibited the sub-letting of land at a low rent, as might happen, for example, when an individual wanted to provide for one of his relations. But sub-letting at a low rent was probably comparatively rare.

73. M. Ferrandis, 'Rendición del castillo de Chivert a los Templarios', Homenaje a D. Francisco Codera (Zaragoza, 1904), pp. 30-1.

74. AHN, San Juan, leg. 174, doc. 16; cf. R.I. Burns, 'Social Riots on the Christian-Moslem Frontier (Thirteenth-Century Valencia)', American Historical Review, lxvi (1960-1), 378-400. A rather different picture of relations between Christian and Moor in Valencia is presented by F. Roca Traver, 'Un siglo de vida mudéjar en la Valencia medieval (1238-1338)', EEMCA, v (1952), 115-208, but this article is concerned primarily with the relations between the Moors and those in authority, especially the Aragonese kings.

75. J. Reglá, 'La expulsión de los moriscos y sus consecuencias. Contribución a su estudio', Hispania, xiii (1953), 263-4; J.E. Martínez Ferrando, 'Estado actual de los estudios sobre la repoblación en los territorios de la Corona de Aragón (siglos XII a XlV)', VII Congreso de historia de la Corona de Aragón (Barcelona, 1962), i. 160. For references to Moors at Miravet in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, see AHN, San Juan, leg. 306, docs. 12, 14; leg. 308, doc. 2.

The Moorish population in the Corona de Aragón was probably in most cases static, but not all the Moorish settlements in Aragon at the end of the Middle Ages had had a continuous existence since the period of Muslim domination: there were said to be sixty-one Morisco households at the beginning of the seventeenth century at La Zaida, but in the mid twelfth century this place had apparently been lying waste: Reglá, loc. cit., pp. 247, 467; H. Lapeyre, Géographie de l'Espagne morisque (Paris, 1959), p. 110; see also above, p. 213.

76. e.g. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 15-15v, docs. 16, 17; fol. 16-6v, doc. 19; fols. 19-20, docs. 22, 23; Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 37, doc. 116; cf. J. M. Font Rius, 'La reconquista de Lérida y su proyección en el orden jurídico', Ilerda, vii (1949), 11.

77. e.g. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 6.

78. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 16-16v, doc. 19; fol. 20-20v, doc. 24; fol. 42, doc. 90.

79. Cf. J.M. Lacarra, in La reconquista española y la repoblación del país (Zaragoza, 1951), pp. 72-4.

80. Regulations about raiding expeditions and the division of booty frequently occur in fueros issued to townships near the Moorish frontiers: see J.M. Lacarra, 'Les villes-frontière dans l'Espagne des XIe et XIIe siècles', Le Moyen Age, lxix (1963), 210-11.

81. Settlers were often required to build houses within a specified period of time: see above, p. 209.

82. Cf. E. de Hinojosa, El régimen señorial y la cuestión agraria en Cataluña (Madrid, 1905), pp. 290-2 ; J.M. Font Rius, 'Franquicias locales en la comarca del alto Bergadá', Pirineos, x (1954), 459-88; id., 'Franquicias urbanas medievabes de la Cataluña Vieja', BRABLB, xxix (1961-2), 17-46.

83. ACA, parch. James I, no. 380; see below, p. 385.

84. e.g. ACA, parch. James I, nos. 701, 1248; parch. Alfonso III, nos. 122, 124, 125.

85. Cf. M. Gual Camarena, 'Mudéjares valencianos. Aportaciones para su estudio', Saitabi, vii (1949), 168-70, 178-81.

86. Ferrandis, loc. cit., pp. 29-31.

87. Cf. C. Cahen, La Syrie du nord à l'époque des croisades (Paris, 1940), pp. 330-1.

88. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 67-72, doc. 13; cf. R. Esteban Abad, Estudio histórico-politico sobre la ciudad y comunidad de Daroca (Teruel, 1959), p. 363; E. Sáez, R. Gibert, etc., Los fueros de Sepúlveda (Segovia, 1953), pp. 411-12. The fuero of La Cañada also contains the concession about the appointment of officials, but few concessions of this kind appear to have been made at the time of resettlement on Templar estates.

89. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 104-6, doc. 20; San Juan, leg. 421, doc. 7 (in the relevant sentence of the version of this document published by Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 344-6, doc. 244, there is a mistranscription, and 'hec' is given instead of 'nec'); cf. A. Pabomeque Torres, 'Contribución al estudio del ejército en los estados de la reconquista', AHDE, xv (1944), 307-8.

90. AHN, cód. 689, p. 12, doc. 7.

91. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 1-4, doc. 1 (Cantavieja); pp. 19-22, doc. 5 (Mirambel); pp. 85-9, doc. 16 (Iglesuela); pp. 104-6, doc. 20 (La Cuba).

92. Albareda y Herrera, op. cit., p. 25. On similar limitations elsewhere, see Palomeque Torres, loc. cit., pp. 234-7.

93. Ferrandis, loc. cit., p. 31.

94. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 107. The settlement of this area had started much earlier, but it was apparently not complete by 1226. In the document recording this concession reference is made to the populatores who were already established there and to others who might receive land in the future. It may be argued therefore that the exemption from military service should be looked upon as a concession made in order to encourage resettlement.

95. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 169-70, doc. 116.

96. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fols. 17-19, doc. 21. Tenants with a parellada of land were expected to provide a pair of oxen for ploughing and one animal for carting service; those who had larger holdings had to provide more. By comparison some tenants of the Temple in Cataluña Vieja at Auzeda were obliged to do two days' ploughing together with other services at the will of the lord, and the service owed from one manse at Palau consisted of three days' ploughing, two days of other work, and also carting services: ACA, parch. Alfonso II, no. 327; parch. Peter III, no. 407.

97. AHN, Montesa, P. 73.

98. S.A. García Larragueta, 'Fueros y cartas pueblas navarro-aragonesas otorgadas por Templarios y Hospitalarios', AHDE, xxiv (1954), 592-3; Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 285-6, doc. 208.

99. AHN, cód. 466, pp. 40-1, doc. 42; see below, p. 395.

100. Ferrandis, loc. cit., p. 29.

101. AHN, cód. 466, pp. 42-5, doc. 44.

102. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 1-4, doc. i (Cantavieja); pp. 19-22, doc. 5 (Mirambel); pp. 47-8, doc. 10 (Villarluengo); pp. 31-3, doc. 7 (Tronchón); pp. 67-72, doc. 13 (La Cañada); pp. 85-9, doc. 16 (Iglesuela); pp. 104-6, doc. 20 (La Cuba).

103. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 30v-31, 44-45v; a version of the charter for Pulpís is published in BSCC, xxiv (1948), 65-6.

104. AHN, cód. 1032, pp. 79-80, doc. 50; published by F.D. Gazulla, 'La Orden del Santo Redentor', BSCC, x (1929), 98.

105. AHN, cód. 691, fols. 18v-19v, doc. 39; fols. 194v-195v, doc. 441. This wording is taken from a twelfth-century confirmation of the charter; in what purports to be a copy of the original charter, settlers are said to be freed from the payment of any rent (censum) except tithes and primicias: AHN, San Juan, leg. 340, doc. 1.

106. AHN, cód. 691, passim.

107. At Seca, for example, nothing was to be given from the produce of fruit trees: AHN, Montesa, P. 73.

108. AHN, San Juan, leg. 421, doc. 7. The version of this document published by Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 344-6, doc. 244, changes the sense on this point by giving 'proximis' for 'pro eis'.

109. Ferrandis, loc. cit., p. 32.

110. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fol. 39-39v.

111. AHN, Montesa, P. 461. The Templars did, however, manage to extract a payment of 250s.V. in return for this concession.

112. AHN, Montesa, P. 73.

113. AHN, Montesa, P. 250.

114. For rents before 1225, see AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 85-9; in 1225 a payment of 14s. is mentioned: parch. Gardeny, no. 204; and early in 1226 the provincial master promised not to exact more than this amount: parch. Gardeny, no. 107. For the reduction to 12s., see parch. Gardeny, nos. 124-31.

115. e.g. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 104, 117.

116. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 26v-28, 44-45v. A version of the charter for Alcalá is published in BSCC, xxxiii (1957), 253-6.

117. Cf. G. Duby, L'Économie rurale et la vie des campagnes dans l'Occident médiéval (Paris, 1962), ii. 436-7, where the value of mills is stressed.

118. AHN, Montesa, P. 73.

119. Ferrandis, loc. cit., p. 31.

120. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 26v-28.

121. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 1-4, doc. 1; pp. 19-22, doc. 5; pp. 85-9, doc. 16.

122. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 30v-31.

123. AHN, San Juan, leg. 351, doc. 1.

124. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 184-5, doc. 126.

125. J. Cots i Gorchs, 'Les "Consuetuds" d'Horta (avui Horta de Sant Joan) a la ratlla del Baix Aragó, Estudis universitaris catalans, xv (1930), 312.

126. AHN, San Juan, leg. 310, doc. 18; Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 329-30, doc. 236. The inhabitants of Tortosa had, of course, been exempted from lezda and other tolls by Raymond Berenguer IV: see above, pp. 114-15.

127. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 264-6, doc. 191; 270-1, doc. 196; 344-6, doc. 244. At Gandesa the due was referred to by the term forcia; cf. Hinojosa, op. cit., pp. 116-17.

128. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 1-4, doc. 1; pp. 19-22, doc. 5; Albareda y Herrera, op. cit., pp. 42, 44-5.

129. AHN, cód. 691, fols. 18v-19v, doc. 39; fols. 194v-195v, doc. 441; cód. 494, pp. 67-72, doc. 13; García Larragueta, 'Fueros y cartas pueblas', pp. 594-5; Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 264-6, doc. 191; 270-1, doc. 196; 306-8, doc. 222.

130. The right was retained in the fuero issued for Alfambra by the master of the Order of Mountjoy: Abbareda y Herrera, op. cit., p. 19.

131. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 169-70, doc. 116.

132. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 654, 1757.

133. AHN, San Juan, leg. 351, doc. 1. In the code of customs drawn up in 1296 it was stated that intestia, exorquia, and cugucia 'have no place' in Horta: Cots i Gorchs, loc. cit., p. 321.

134. García Larragueta, 'Fueros y cartas pueblas', pp. 592-5; Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 285-6, doc. 208; 306-8, doc. 222.

135. Ibid. i. 301-3, doc. 219; 505-7, doc. 344.

136. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 15-16v.

137. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 31-3, doc. 7.

138. Ibid., pp. 1-4, doc. 1; pp. 19-22, doc. 5; pp. 85-9, doc. 16.

139. AHN, San Juan, leg. 351, doc. i; cód. 466, pp. 42-5, doc. 44; cód. 467, p. 442, doc. 424; Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 301-3, doc. 219.

140. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 30v-31.

141. AHN, Montesa, P. 136, 174, 218, 220, 325.

142. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 344-6, doc. 244.

143. AHN, Montesa, P. 112 bis, 113, 214.

144. e.g. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 67-72, doc. 13.

145. Cf. S. Sobrequés Vidal in Historia social y económica de España y America, ii (Barcelona, 1957), 70.

146. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 507-8, doc. 345; cf. id., 'Franquicias locales en la comarca del alto Bergadá', Pirineos, x (1954), 459-88, especially pp. 482-3.

147. e.g. ACA, parch. James II, nos. 345, 356, 1088, 1443.

148. The Moors at Chivert were, however, exempted from this due: Ferrandis, loc. cit., pp. 29-30.

149. Cf. J.M. Font Rius, 'Orígenes del regimen municipal de Cataluña', AHDE, xvi (1945), 487-92.

150. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 4v, doc. 112; see below, p. 368; published from a later transcript by Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 139-40, doc. 87.

151. Ibid. i. 264-6, doc. 191; 394-6, doc. 272.

152. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 44-45v.

153. See, for example, Los fueros de Sepúlveda, pp. 175-8.

154. Cambridge Economic History of Europe, i. 471; F.L. Carsten, The Origins of Prussia (Oxford, 1954), pp. 28-32; cf. Duby, L'Économie rurale, i. 321-3, docs. 38, 39.

155. AHN, Montesa, P. 200, 263.

156. Cambridge Economic History of Europe, i. 462.

157. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 26v-28; see above, p. 215. E. Lourie, 'Free Moslems in the Balearics under Christian Rule in the Thirteenth Century', Speculum, xlv (1970), 626, suggests that after the conquest of Mallorca the Temple transferred some Moors to the island from its estates on the mainland; but the evidence is by no means conclusive.

158. There was a considerable French element on some Templar lands along the Ebro near Zaragoza, but these immigrants may have settled before the Order acquired these estates: C. Higounet, 'Mouvements de populations dans le Midi de la France du XIe au XVe siècle', Annales, viii (1953), 6.

159. AHN, cód. 691, fols. 68v-69, doc. 209.

160. Lacarra, 'Documentos', no. 150 (iii. 548-9). On the date of this document, see above, p. 14, note 60.

161. e.g. Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 275-6, 295, 298, docs. 440, 473, 476; AHN, cód. 691, fol. 71, doc. 215.

162. Lacarra, 'Documentos', no. 150 (iii. 548-9).

163. This confirmation survives in two late twelfth-century versions (AHN, cód. 691, fols. 18v-19v, doc. 39, and fols. 194v-195v, doc. 441) and in a transcript which belongs probably to the later thirteenth century: AHN, San Juan, leg. 346, doc. 1. In the earlier versions the confirmation is undated, while in the later one the date is given as 1176 and as in the third year after the siege of Tortosa. The names of the witnesses suggest that the document was in fact drawn up about the middle of the twelfth century.

164. AHN, San Juan, leg. 340, doc. 1. See above, p. 7.

165. Lacarra, 'Documentos', no. 175 (iii. 568-9). In 1135 Novillas was granted to the Orders with all the land subject to it 'waste and settled': Albon, Cartulaire, p. 73, doc. 100; but this was a formula commonly employed in charters of donation, and no conclusions can be drawn from its use on a particular occasion.

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

167. AHN, San Juan, leg. 138, doc. 4; see below, p. 371.

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

169. AHN, San Juan, leg. 286 bis, doc. 1.

170. AHN, San Juan, leg. 39, doc. 52.

171. AHN, cód. 691, fol. 145-145v, doc. 371. The date of this document is given wrongly in Colección de fueros y cartas pueblas de Espana (Madrid, 1852), p. 23, and I. de Asso, Historia de la economia política de Aragón (Zaragoza, 1947 edn.), pp. 7, 187.

172. AHN, San Juan, leg. 598, unnumbered document.

173. AHN, San Juan, leg. 138, doc. 4; see below, p. 371.

174. AGP, parch. Cervera, no. 484; see below, p. 405.

175. AHN, cód. 467, p. 442, doc. 424.

176. El 'Llibre Blanch' de Santas Creus, ed. F. Udina Martorell (Barcelona, 1947), p. 51, doc. 43. The castle at Selma had been built towards the end of the tenth century: F. Bofarull y Sans, El castillo y la baronía de Aramprunya (Barcelona, 1911), p. 21.

177. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 49v, doc. 112; see below, p. 368.

178. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 160-1, doc. 108; 169-70, doc. 116.

179. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 5. Grants to a further four men are recorded on the dorse of this document.

180. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 4, 6.

181. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 7.

182. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 32-32v, doc. 59.

183. Ibid., fol. 35-35v, doc. 69; fol. 45v, doc. 100; parch. Gardeny, no. 1588.

184. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 1786.

185. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 365-7, doc. 256. The Order had similarly sought to attract men from Aguilar and Castellpagés when it was setting up Villanueva de la Barca in 1212: ibid., pp. 329-30, doc. 236. Aguilar and Castellpages were not, however, under Templar lordship. The township of Villanueva del Segriá, near Castellnou, had already been established by the early years of the thirteenth century, but no details of its foundation are known: cf. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 1292.

186. J.M. Font Rius, 'La comarca de Tortosa a raiz de la reconquista cristiana (1148)', Cuadernos de historia de España, xix (1953), 110; AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, passim.

187. A considerable number of Moors, however, remained in this region after the reconquest: see above, p. 200.

188. AHN, San Juan, leg. 351, doc. 1; Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 264-6, doc. 191.

189. García Larragueta, 'Fueros y cartas pueblas', pp. 592-5; Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 285-6, doc. 208; 306-8, doc. 222.

190. Ibid. i. 301-3, doc. 219; 317-18, doc. 228; 344-6, doc. 244.

191. In the carta de población for Batea there is a reference to sixty settlers, but this is exceptional.

192. AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 43, doc. 135; AHN, San Juan, leg. 306, doc. 35.

193. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 227-31, docs. 164, 165; CDI, viii. 68-9, doc. 23. There are several puzzling features about the carta de población issued by Alfonso II and his charter of donation to Bernard Grand: both are dated 30 October 1181, and while the carta de población refers to the fuero of Zaragoza, the charter to Bernard Granel mentions that of Barcelona. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 798, seeks to explain these peculiarities by arguing that the king at first attempted to resettle Algars and Batea and therefore issued the carta de población; when this attempt failed he granted these places to Bernard Graneb, and 'in order to ensure the validity of this second concession' he ante-dated it so that it bore the same date as the carta de población. But in both documents the witnesses and scribe are the same, and there are reasons for suggesting that they were both issued at the same time. According to the charter issued to Bernard Granel, Alfonso was still to receive two-thirds of the revenues of Algars and Batea and he would therefore have been concerned about the way in which these places were resettled, even if Bernard Granel was to enjoy lordship over them. He might therefore have issued a carta de población at the time when he granted Algars and Batea to Bernard Granel. The fact that one document refers to the fuero of Zaragoza and the other to that of Barcelona does not invalidate this argument, for the carta de población is concerned with settlers and the terms on which they were to settle, while the other charter gives details of the conditions on which Bernard Granel was to hold Algars and Batea of the king.

In 1182, when Alfonso II confirmed the Temple's right to the territories which had been granted with Miravet in 1153, he referred specifically to Algars and Batea, and this was probably done in response to a Templar protest against his action in the previous year: AHN, San Juan, leg. 306, doc. 6. Bernard Granel surrendered his claims to Algars and Batea in 1187: leg. 306, doc. 7.

The slowness of resettlement along the lower Ebro apparently also led Alfonso II to ignore Templar rights at Rasquera. Although Rasquera was among the places granted to the Order in 1153, in 1171 Alfonso granted it to the Hospital. But the Templars apparently recovered it, for they issued a carta de población for it, although the date of this charter is not known: Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 797-8.

194. Font Rius, 'La comarca de Tortosa', pp. 110-11.

195. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 184-5, doc. 126. The fact that the surviving Templar charter for Batea was not issued until 1205 suggests that the settlement mentioned in Alfonso's charter of 1181 had collapsed.

196. Ibid. i. 394-6, doc. 272; 421-2, doc. 289; 505-7, doc. 344; Garcia Larragueta, 'Fueros y cartas pueblas', pp. 598-9. The date of the charter for Gandesola is given wrongly as 1278 in Colección de fueros y cartas pueblos de España, p. 101.

197. AHN, San Juan, leg. 307, doc. 1.

198. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 411-12, doc. 283; AHN, San Juan, leg. docs. 1, 2.

199. AHN, Montesa, P. 78.

200. It was said of Miravet at the beginning of the fourteenth century that 'not so many Christians come there as to other places': Finke, Papsttum, ii. 72, doc. 48; and at the end of the fifteenth century there were only three Christian thouseholds there: Reglá, loc. cit., pp. 263-4.

201. J. Rius Serra, Rationes Decimarum Hispaniae (1279-1280), i (Barcelona, 1946), 165-78. These taxes were exacted in other places in the diocese of Tortosa where the Order enjoyed rights of ecclesiastical patronage.

202. In 1244 the Templars granted the valley of Batea to a group of men 'as the men of Nonaspe held and possessed it': Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 411-12, doc. 283. This concession was presumably occasioned by the agreement by which Elvira of Cervellón ceded Nonaspe and several other places to the Order: see above, p. 189.

203. Albareda y Herrera, op. cit.; AHN, Ordenes militares, Calatrava, sign. 1341-C, fols. 135-6.

204. F.D. Gazulla, 'La Orden del Santo Redentor', BSCC, x (1929), 98.

205. AHN, cód. 689, p. 54, doc. 45. Admittedly the date of this document is given as 1184, but this must be an error in transcription. According to Colección de fueros y cartas pueblas de España, p. 287, Villarbuengo was resettled in 1184, but this is merely a repetition of a mistake made at one point by Asso, op. cit., p. 9, where it is stated that Villarluengo was granted to Mountjoy for settling in 1184; Asso later, however, ibid., p. 203, gives the date as 1194.

206. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 47-8, doc. 10.

207. A. López Polo, 'Documentos para la historia de Teruel', Teruel, i (1949), 187-8.

208. AHN, cód. 466, p. 204, doc. 173.

209. AHN, cód. 689, pp. 56-7, doc. 50. In 1197 the Templars came to an agreement with the inhabitants of Castellote on a number of issues: A. Bonilla y San Martin, 'El derecho aragonés en el siglo xii', II Congreso de historia de la Corona de Aragón, i (Huesca, 1920), 276-7, doc. 42. Bonilla gives the date as 1198, but see RAH, 12-6-I/M-83, doc. 48, and AHN, cód. 689, p. 11, doc. 6.

210. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 67-72, doc. 13. This document is not dated, but it is clear from the names of the Templars mentioned in it that it was issued before the end of the century. There is no justification for the date of 1142 which is given in Colección de fueros y cartas pueblas de España, p. 60, and repeated by R. Esteban Abad, Estudio histórico-político sobre la ciudad y comunidad de Daroca (Teruel, 1957), p. 185.

211. AHN, San Juan, leg. 231, doc. 2; published from later versions by M. Gual Camarena, Precedentes de la reconquista valenciana (Valencia, 1953), pp. 72-3. In 1204 the bishop of Zaragoza granted the Templars the church of Cantavieja, but this does not mean that a church had in fact been built by that time: AHN, San Juan, leg. 39, doc. 67.

212. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 1-4, doc. 1.

213. Ibid., pp. 19-22, doc. 5; pp. 31-3, doc. 7; pp. 85-9, doc. 16; pp. 104-6, doc. 20; cód. 689, p. 24, doc. 16.

214. Rius Serra, op. cit. ii (Barcelona, 1947), 103-4. Tronchón appears not to have been a completely new settlement in 1272, since a justiciar and jurados had already been established when the carta de población was issued.

215. AHN, cód. 466, p. 242, doc. 247.

216. Ibid., pp. 387-8, doc. 462.

217. Ibid., pp. 231-2, doc. 230.

218. Ibid., pp. 42-5, doc. 44.

219. Ibid., pp. 40-1, doc. 42; see below, p. 395.

220. AHN, cód. 466, pp. 41-2, doc. 43.

221. Ibid., p. 260, doc. 276; pp. 268-9, docs. 292, 293.

222. AHN, Montesa, P. 14.

223. AHN, Montesa, P. 123, 124, 136, 146, 157, 174, 177, 178, 180, 181.

224. AHN, Montesa, P. 123, 124. A larger entry fine was sometimes charged when the Temple was granting existing houses there: Montesa, P. 177.

225. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fol. 39-39v; cf. Montesa, R. 99.

226. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 15-16v; Huici, Colección diplomática, 412-15, docs. 298, 299. In 1243 James I had issued a carta de población for Carpesa.

227. According to F. Diago, Anales del reyno de Valencia (Valencia, 1613), vii. 25, and Javierre, Privilegios, p. 67, the alquería of Borbotó was given to the Temple. This is also stated by J. Villarroya, Real Maestrazgo de Montesa (Valencia, 1787), i. 157, but in the same work (i. 62-3), he says that it was sold to the Temple. An incomplete copy of the instrument recording the transaction is contained in AHN, Montesa, sign. 543-C, fol. 38v, and there it is worded as a gift. But in 1263 the bishop of Valencia said that the Templars had bought it: Montesa, P. 265. Possibly William of Portella received a payment de caritate for a grant.

228. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 16v-17.

229. AHN, Montesa, P. 266. There is another version of this document in the cathedral archive in Valencia: B. Olmos y Canalda, Inventario de los pergaminos de la Catedral de Valencia (Valencia, 1961), p. 43, no. 335.

230. AHN, Montesa, P. 73.

231. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 26v-28.

232. Ibid., fols. 44-45v.

233. Ibid., fols. 30v-31. The change from the fuero of Zaragoza to that of Valencia is perhaps not in itself very significant, as it was the usual practice of the Temple to adopt the latter: cf. M. Gual Camarena, 'Estudio de la territorialidad de los Fueros de Valencia', EEMCA, iii (1947-8), 271.

234. Cf. F. Sobdeviba, Pere el Gran, II. i (Barcelona, 1962), 16, 71-2.

235. AHN, Montesa, P. 112 bis, 113, 214.

236. AHN, Montesa, P. 348.

237. AHN, Montesa, P. 357.

238. The Aragonese sources provide little evidence about the resettlement of Mallorca. J. Lladó y Ferragut, Catálogo de la sección histórica del archivo municipal de Pollensa y de las curias de los Templarios y Hospitalarios de San Juan de Jerusalén (Palma, 1944), pp. 90-1, refers to a volume in the municipal archive of Pollensa which contains records of various Templar transactions, but these all belong to the last decade of the thirteenth and first years of the fourteenth centuries. On the existence of Muslim tenants on Templar estates in Mallorca, see E. Lourie, 'Free Moslems in the Balearics under Christian Rule in the Thirteenth Century', Speculum, xlv (1970), 625-9.

239. Cf. Sobrequés Vidal in Historia social y económica de España y América, ii. 47-8.

240. These were caused not only by the desertion of settlers dismayed by the hardness of the life or by Moorish raids; some settlements were destroyed as a result of feuds between the Templars and neighbouring lords: cf. F. Cameras y Candi, 'Entences y Templers en les montanyes de Prades', BRABLB, ii (1903-4), 217-57.

241. Huici, Colección diplomática, i. 536-7, doc. 398.

242. A hearth assessment for Catalonia survives for the year 1359: CDI, xii, passim. This, of course, refers to the period after the Black Death.

243. Miret y Sans, Les Cases, pp. 399-400.

244. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 507-8, doc. 345.

245. AGP, parch. Cervera, no. 484; see below, p. 405.

246. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 41v, doc. 87; cf. AHN, San Juan, leg. 437, doc. 2.

247. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 101, doc. 144; cf. ACA, parch. James I, no. 2001.

248. See above, p. 62.

249. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 190, 191, 192, 193, 196, 197, etc.

250. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 231-40, 243, 244, etc.

251. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 383, 384, 385, 388, 389, 395, 567.

252. See above, p. 206.

253. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 326-8, 330-2, 334, 337, etc.

254. e.g. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 713, 967.

255. J. Miret y Sans, 'Inventaris de les cases del Temple de la Corona d'Aragó en 1289', BRABLB, vi (1911), 69; id., Cartoral dels Templers de les comandes de Gardeny y Barbens (Barcelona, 1899), p. 30.

256. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 1536.

257. Miret y Sans, 'Inventaris', pp. 63-5.

258. ACA, CRD James II, no. 1183.

259. ACA, parch. James II, no. 6; cf. AHN, cód. 466, pp. 366-7, doc. 444.

260. e.g. AHN, San Juan, leg. 559, docs. 39, 41, 61; cód. 469, pp. 415-16, doc. 354.

261. e.g. AHN, San Juan, leg. 551, doc. 7; leg. 552, docs. 18, 31.

262. e.g. ACA, reg. 48, fol. 71v; reg. 60, fol. 80v.

263. See above, p. 132.

264. AHN, San Juan, leg. 333, doc. 15; cód. 471, p. 135, doc. 136; p. 210, doc. 211.

265. AHN, San Juan, leg. 333, doc. 15; cód. 471, pp. 229-38, doc. 220. The privilege in question has been published by M.T. Oliveros de Castro, Historia de Monzón (Zaragoza, 1964), p. 588.

266. ACA, reg. 64, fol. 77-77v; AHN, cód 471, pp. 129-30, doc. 128. When the privilege was confirmed its date was given as 1086.

267. Another suspect privilege supposedly granted to the inhabitants of Monzón by Alfonso I again in 1076 was also discussed during the course of this dispute: AHN, San Juan, leg. 333, doc. 15; the privilege has been published by Oliveros de Castro, op. cit., p. 589.

268. AHN, San Juan, leg. 333, doc. 15; cód. 471, pp. 218-19, doc. 215; pp. 229-38, doc. 220.

269. AHN, cód 689, p. 12, doc. 7.

270. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 45v, doc. 100

271. Usually milites, sancti, and clerici are mentioned, but some charters also forbid alienation to certain other individuals, such as lepers or the donati of another religious institution: AHN, cód. 467, p. 378, doc. 474; cód. 469, p. 171, doc. 132; cód. 499, p. 31, doc. 73; San Juan, leg. 553, doc. 141.

272. AHN, códs. 499, 689.

273. This is among the documents of Gardeny, fols. 17-19, doc. 21.

274. ACA, Varia 3.

275. e.g. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fols. 17-19, doc. 21.

276. ACA, reg. 291, fol. 323v.

277. e.g. Libri confraternitatum Sancti Galli, Augiensis, Fabrariensis, ed. P. Piper, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica (1884); Liber Vitae Ecclesia Dunelmensis, ed. A.H. Thompson (Surtees Society, vol. cxxxvi, 1923); Liber Vitae: Register and Martyrology of New Minster and Hyde Abbey, ed. W. de Gray Birch (Hampshrie Record Society, 1892); cf. E. Bishop, Liturgica Historica (Oxford, 1918), pp. 349-69. A Templar list from the south of France similar to those compiled in Aragon has been published by A. du Bourg, Histoire du grand-prieuré de Toulouse (Toulouse, 1883), Appendix, p. xiv, doc. 21.

278. On Aragonese confraternity lists, see above, p. 36, and below, p. 376.

279. ACA, Varia 3.

280. The use of inquests for this purpose in England is discussed by R.V. Lennard, 'Early Manorial Juries', English Historical Review, lxxvii (1962), 511-18.

281. See below, pp. 266, 269.

282. Cf. J. Pérez de Urbel, Los monjes españoles en la edad media, ii (Madrid, 1934), 529.

283. ACA, parch. James II, no. 2325.

284. ACA, reg. 60, fol. 80v.

285. ACA, reg. 90, fols. 44v, 56v; see below, p. 405.

286. ACA, reg. 13, fol. 182v; reg. 48, fol. 71v; AGP, parch. Barbará, no. 127.

287. ACA, reg. 114, fol. 168v.

288. Cf. Duby, L'Économie rurale, ii. 529.

289. This does not, of course, imply that these crops were grown in these proportions.

290. Many examples of this kind of payment can be found among the parchments of Gardeny in the AGP.

291. Information about this district is contained in the collection of royal parchments in the ACA.

292. AHN, códs. 470, 691, passim.

293. AHN, cód. 691, fol. 145-145v, doc. 371.

294. Information about these districts is contained in AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny and parchments of Gardeny.

295. AHN, San Juan, leg. 351, doc. 1; García Larragueta, 'Fueros y cartas pueblas', pp. 592-5, 598-9; Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 264-6, doc. 191; 270-1, doc. 196; 285-6, doc. 208; 301-3, doc. 219; 306-8, doc. 222; 344-6, doc. 244; 411-12, doc. 283; 421-2, doc. 289; 505-7, doc. 344.

296. AHN, San Juan, leg. 306, doc. 12; leg. 308, doc. 2.

297. Information about this district is contained in AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa and parchments of Tortosa.

298. AHN, cód. 466, pp. 40-1, doc. 42; pp. 42-5, doc. 44; pp. 387-8, doc. 462; cód. 689, p. 24, doc. 16; see below, p. 395.

299. On this area, see AHN, Montesa, documentos particulares, passim.

300. Ferrandis, loc. cit., p. 32; ARN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 26v-28.

301. AHN, cód. 689, passim.

302. See AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny and parchments of Gardeny, and also a capbreu drawn up in 1214 in AGP, armario 11.

303. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 26v-28; Montesa, P. 73.

304. e.g. AHN, cód. 689, p. 24, doc. 16; pp. 75-6, doc. 77.

305. Ferrandis, loc. cit., p. 32.

306. e.g. ACA, parch. Alfonso II, nos. 266, 373, 489, 667, 718.

307. ACA, parch. James II, nos. 408, 411, 412, 413, 414, 420, 722; AHN, San Juan, beg. 598, unnumbered document; Albareda y Herrera, op. cit., p. 42.

308. Cf F. de Hinojosa, El regimen señorial y la cuestión agraria en Cataluña (Madrid, 1905), pp. 200-1.

309. ACA, parch. Peter III, no. 474; parch. Alfonso III, nos. 80, 190; see below, p. 400.

310. ACA, parch. Peter III, nos. I, 36,; parch. Alfonso III, nos. 123, 201.

311. AHN, cód. 466, pp. 41-2, doc. 43.

312. ACA, parch. James II, no. 1688; cf. parch. Peter III, no. 277; AGP, parch. Selma, no. 29.

313. Proportional rents were exacted in the twelfth century at Labar, but when grants of land were made there to tenants in the thirteenth century a fixed money rent was demanded.

314. The change took place between 1185 and 1193: AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos., 1792, 1793, 1796, 1797, 1808.

315. Documents drawn up in the 1160s refer to tithe as a proportional due: AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 32-32v, doc. 59; fols. 37v-38, doc. 77. From the early thirteenth century onwards rent and tithe were exacted in the form of a single payment assessed in money: parch. Gardeny, nos. 85-9, 91, 93-6, 203, 586.

316. Albareda y Herrera, op. cit., p. 46. At Castelbote tithes were similarly exacted in the form of fixed money payments: AHN, cód. 689, pp. 1-4, doc. 2; A. Bonilla y San Martín, 'El derecho aragonés en el siglo xii', II Congreso de historia de la Corona de Aragón, i (Huesca, 1920), 276-7, doc. 42.

317. ACA, parch, James I, no. 1420; parch. Alfonso III, no. 190. Fixed payments in kind were possibly also being abandoned on some other occasions when it was stated that the census was being replaced by a fixed money payment: e.g. parch. Peter III, no. 474.

318. e.g. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 1579.

319. AHN, cód. 466, passim.

320. AHN, San Juan, leg. 598, unnumbered document.

321. ACA, parch. James II, no. 518; see below, p. 407.

322. ACA, parch. Alfonso III, no. 190.

323. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 1787-90, 1792, 1793.

324. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 1796, 1797, 1808.

325. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 1807, 1829, 1834.

326. ACA, parch. Alfonso III, no. 201.

327. ACA, parch. James I, no. 1626.

328. e.g. AHN, San Juan, leg. 529, doc. 73; leg. 553, docs. 112, 144, 154.

329. AHN, Montesa, P. 113, 169, 214.

330. e.g. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 594, 750, 785, 1596.

331. AHN, cód. 468, pp. 230-1, doc. 207.

332. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 939, 985, 1570.

333. ACA, CRD Templarios, nos. 403, 457, 607; see below, p. 413.

334. ACA, CRD Templarios, nos. 403, 457, 507, 607; see below, p. 413.

335. Miret y Sans, 'Inventaris', p. 64.

336. ACA, CRD Templarios, no. 81; see below, p. 415.

337. e.g. F. Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely (Cambridge, 1951), p. 76; G. Duby, 'Economic domaniale et économie monétaire: le budget de l'abbaye de Cluny entre 1080 et 1155', Anna/es, vii (1952), 167.

338. Several documents recording changes refer to small payments made at the time by tenants to the Order: e.g. ACA, parch. James I, no. 1230.

339. ACA, parch. Alfonso III, no. 37; cf. AHN, San Juan, leg. 532, doc. 13.

340. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 1-4, doc. 1.

341. Ibid., pp. 67-72, doc. 13.

342. ACA, parch. Alfonso II, no. 327.

343. ACA, parch. James I, no. 2163.

344. ACA, parch. James II, nos. 408, 411, 412, 413, 414, 420.

345. ACA, CRD Templarios, nos. 616, 618.

346. ACA, CRD Templarios, no. 539.

347. ACA, parch. Peter III, no. 103.

348. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 967, 969, 996, 1233; ACA, parch. James I, nos. 1938, 1941; parch. Peter III, no. 407; parch. Alfonso III, no. 120; parch. James II, no. 990.

349. e.g. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 169-70, doc. 116; 505-7, doc. 344.

350. AHN, San Juan, leg. 354, doc. 2; Montesa, P. 265.

351. Miret y Sans, 'Inventaris', pp. 62-72; ACA, CRD Templarios, nos. 116, 117, 118; CRD James II, nos. 1313, 1737, 1747.

352. Cambridge Economic History of Europe, i. 477.

353. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 169-70, doc. 116; AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 16v-17.

354. Holdings of this size are mentioned in a number of cartas de población, especially along the lower Ebro.

355. AHN, San Juan, leg. 354, doc. 2. In this document it is stated that this land was to be exempt from tithe whether the Templars kept it in demesne or not.

356. AHN, Montesa, P. 78. No attempt to estimate the size of the demesne from the numbers of ploughing animals is possible, even when no labour services were owed, because it is not known where in a commandery these animals were used.

357. ACA, parch. James II, no. 518; see below, p. 407; cf. parch. James II, no. 990.

358. e.g. AHN, San Juan, leg. 351, doc. 2; ACA, parch. Alfonso II, no. 575; parch. James I, no. 1446. In 1168 the Templars of Gardeny made two grants of land from their condamina, a term which could mean demesne land: AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fols. 31, 34v-35, docs. 55, 68; but the exact significance of the word in this context is not clear: cf. parch. Gardeny, nos. 281-8, 297.

359. e.g. AHN, Montesa, P. 370, 453, 485, 554; AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 184, 438, 1501.

360. AHN, Montesa, P. 452, 453.

361. e.g. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 730.

362. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 719.

363. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 686, 691, 703, 754, 776, 784, 804, 819.

364. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 748 bis.

365. See above, p. 199.

366. Hinojosa, op. cit., p. 203.

367. Miret y Sans, 'Inventaris', pp. 62-9. These Templar figures can be compared with some sixteenth-century sheep statistics provided by J. Klein, The Mesta: A Study in Spanish Economic History, 1273-1836 (Harvard, 1920), p. 60.

368. ACA, CRD James II, no. 1313.

369. Finke, Papsttum, ii. 85-6, doc. 58.

370. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fols. 107v-108, doc. 258; cf. fols. 103v-104, doc. 250. In 1201 the bishops of Zaragoza and Tarazona were ordered to investigate a Templar complaint that 1,000 of the Order's sheep and goats had been seized: AHN, San Juan, leg. 720, doc. 9.

371. AHN, cód. 466, p. 208, doc. 182. When the Temple took over the possessions of the Order of Mountjoy in 1196 it gained considerable flocks of sheep in southern Aragon, including 1,500 at Alfambra and 900 at Villel: AHN, Ordenes militares, Calatrava, sign. 1341-C, fols. 135-6.

372. Miret y Sans, 'Inventaris', pp. 63-4.

373. Ibid., pp. 62-3, 68-9.

374. Ibid., p. 62.

375. On the shipment of food supplies, see below, p. 324.

376. AHN, cód. 689, pp. 1-4, doc. 2; pp. 76-8, doc. 78.

377. Ferrandis, loc. cit., p. 31; AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 26v-28.

378. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 17-19, doc. 4; see below, p. 390.

379. Règle, p. 58, art. 48. Hunting the lion was justified by reference to Genesis 16:12, and to I Peter 5:8: 'your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.'

380. See below, p. 281.

381. See below, pp. 285, 288.

382. AGP, Cartubary of Tortosa, fol. 7, doc. 22.

383. e.g. AHN, San Juan, leg. 529, doc. 73; leg. 546, docs. 4, 36; leg. 551, doc. 7; cód. 469, pp. 515-18, docs. 525, 526; pp. 521-2, doc. 531. These examples are taken from the district around Zaragoza. Cf. Duby, L'Économie rurale, i. 237 ff.; L.G. de Valdeavellano, Historia de las instituciones españolas (Madrid, 1968), p. 257.

384. Albareda y Herrera, op. cit., p. 46.

385. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 15-16v.

386. AHN, cód. 466, pp. 40-1, doc. 42; see below, p. 395.

387. e.g. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 78, doc. 196.

388. AHN, cód. 470, p. 16, doc. 22.

389. AHN, San Juan, leg. 556, doc. 4; cód. 469, pp. 177-8, doc. 136; see below, p. 386.

390. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 51-51v, doc. 117; cf. parch. Gardeny, nos. 4, 7.

391. AHN, cód. 471, pp. 338-40, doc. 265.

392. Ibid., pp. 340-5, doc. 266.

393. e.g. AHN, cód. 466, p. 153, doc. 115; p. 157, doc. 123; AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 11-11v, doc. 34; fols. 12v-13, doc. 39.

394. e.g. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 196-9, 201, 427.

395. AHN, cód. 468, pp. 43-5, doc. 54; San Juan, leg. 587, docs. 34, 39; Montesa, P. 324.

396. In the document concerning the extension of irrigation in Segriá in 1173, however, the Order did stipulate that if irrigation was further extended then the rent should be increased; see also AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 524, 882. But provisions of this kind are rare.

397. In 1200, for example, when the Temple's right to a manse was being disputed, the commander of Palau settled the matter by granting the manse for life to the other party, who abandoned all other claims to it: ACA, parch. Peter II, nos. 94, 95; cf. parch. Alfonso II, nos. 423, 424.
Report Spam   Logged
Savannah
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 174



« Reply #48 on: January 11, 2009, 04:40:39 am »

7

Templar Organization and Life: (i) The Convent

[263] The sites of Templar convents in the Corona de Aragón varied considerably in character and reflected the different roles which the Templars played in the Aragonese kingdoms. Some convents were housed in large, strongly fortified castles, which at the time of the arrest of the Templars were able to withstand siege for months or even years. Amongst such convents was that of Monzón, which was established in an impressive castle dominating a hill by the river Cinca. Others were housed in more modest strongholds, as at Gardeny, where the Templar chapel and an adjoining two-storey building still survive. (1) Some convents, on the other hand, whose situation was determined by economic rather than military considerations, were set up in cities and large towns. The convent of Zaragoza was established apparently in the parish of St. Philip, where until the nineteenth century the remains of the Templar chapel could be seen in the calle del Temple. (2) The convent in the city of Huesca has similarly left a trace in the names of the calle de los Templarios and the plaza del Temple. (3) Despite these external differences, however, the internal organization of Templar convents was essentially the same throughout the Corona de Aragón.

As has been seen, the official in charge of a Templar convent was usually known by the title of 'commander' or 'preceptor'. The term 'master', which was sometimes given to the heads of Miravet and Tortosa, Gardeny, Palau, and Novillas in the middle years of the twelfth century, fell into disuse after the 1180s, (4) and the only later change in terminology was the introduction of the word 'castellan' from 1277 to describe the head of the convent of Monzón. This title appears to have had no special significance, and the position of the castellan can obviously not be compared with that of the Hospitaller castellan of Amposta, who was the head of a province. The title may have been introduced to distinguish the head of the convent from the subordinate commander [264] of the villa of Monzón, although this was not done in other places where a similar situation existed. (5)

Commanders of convents were drawn from members of both of the main ranks in the Order: from the knights and from the sergeants. As might be expected, however, it seems to have been the practice where possible to appoint knights. Of twenty-four commanders holding office between 1300 and 1307 whose ranks can be traced from documents concerning the dissolution of the Temple, (6) twenty were knights and only four were sergeants. The sergeants who did hold office, moreover, were usually placed in charge of minor convents, such as Selma and Añesa. (7)

The office of commander could be granted either for life or for a term. (Cool The power to make a life appointment appears normally to have been reserved to the Grand Master and central Convent: when Berenguer of Cardona gave the commandery of Alfambra for life to Peter of San Justo in 1306 he did so not in his capacity as provincial master but by virtue of his office of visitor, to which were attached certain rights usually exercised by the Grand Master and Convent. (9) An examination of lists of commanders and their dates of office suggests, however, that few appointments of this kind were made. Appointments which were not for life were normally made by the provincial master and his advisers, although nominations could also be made by the Grand Master himself. The latter might intervene when he wished to promote the interests of a Templar whose services he valued, and he was no doubt also petitioned by members of the Order in the East who sought office as a means of returning to western Europe. (10) This situation could easily lead to conflict, and on such occasions the provincial master, who was on the spot, had the advantage. When Simon of Lenda was put in charge of the Aragonese province in 1307 the Grand Master James of Molay wrote to him, seeking an office for Peter of Castellón, after an earlier request to the previous provincial master had been refused. The Grand Master also complained that

when brother Bernard of Tamary left Cyprus we granted him the house of Ribaforada and when he arrived in Catalonia the provincial master had given it to another. It is a bad thing that orders are not obeyed when we give any bailiwick. (11)
During vacancies in the office of provincial master, the Grand Master was able to act more freely. After the death of Berenguer [265] of Cardona, James of Molay made appointments to four commanderies in Aragon, granting at least three of these posts to Templars who were known to him personally. (12) It might have been expected that the provincial master would also be subject to pressure from the Aragonese king in the matter of appointments, but there is only one known instance of such interference. In March 1290 Alfonso III complained to the provincial master about the removal from office of Romeo of Burguet, the commander of Barcelona, whom the king had been employing in the collection of a royal aid; (13) and before the end of May the commander was restored to office. (14) But in this case the king was acting only because those involved in the collection of the tax were expecting the seal of the commander of Barcelona to be used as a sign of authentication. It does not suggest that royal interference in appointments at this level was common.
As the exact dates when commanders were appointed or removed from office are not known, the length of the terms of office of those who were not appointed for life cannot be determined precisely; but it is clear that there was no uniformity. The length of a term depended on the will of the provincial master. Nevertheless, with regard to a certain number of appointments a pattern is discernible. The Customs of the Temple refer to the appointing of commanders at the provincial chapter, (15) and that this was a common practice in the second half of the thirteenth century is suggested by the fact that a number of commanders were appointed to or removed from posts in April or May, which was the time when the annual provincial chapter was then usually held. (16) In 1286, for example, when the provincial chapter was in session on 17 April and had apparently begun on the 14th of that month, (17) Raymond Oliver is known to have been transferred from the charge of the convent of Villel to that of Tortosa between the 3rd and the 17th of April (18) and Peter of Tous was similarly moved from Gardeny to Miravet between the 6th and the 17th of April. (19) Some commanders thus held office for a whole year or for a number of complete years. But this was by no means a universal custom, for officials could clearly be appointed to and removed from posts at times other than during the chapter. William of Alcalá, who was commander of Gardeny in October 1254, was appointed to that post not earlier than August of that year, (20) and between the early part of June and the end of August [266] 1269 Bernard of Pujalt was removed from office at Barbará in order to be given charge of the convent of Miravet. (21) Yet if it is clear that commanders could be appointed and dismissed outside the provincial chapter, it may nevertheless have been the custom to review all appointments annually during the chapter, as happened in the Teutonic Order, whose officials were obliged to surrender their offices each year at the chapter. (22) That this may have been a Templar practice as well is suggested by the obligation placed on commanders to present statements to the chapter each year giving details of the condition of their houses.(23)

Although a commander who was not appointed for life sometimes held the same post for more than twenty years, (24) offices were normally held -- as in the Dominican Order (25) -- for only two or three years. At Zaragoza in the thirteenth century thirty-six commanders are known, while for Castellote in the same period a list of thirty can be compiled. At both Villel and Gardeny there were forty. Almost inevitably this custom of short periods of office was accompanied by the practice of transferring Templars from the charge of one convent to that of another. William of Montgrí was in turn the head of Corbins (1243), Miravet (1244), Castellote (1246), Ambel (1246-9), Tortosa (1250-8), Ambel and Boquiñeni (1259), Monzón (1265-6), Alfambra (1267-71) -- which he held jointly with Villel in 1271 -- Novillas (1272), and Huesca (1277). It was also common for Templars to have several periods of office at the same house. Raymond Oliver was commander of Tortosa from 1286 to 1287 and from 1290 until 1292, and head of Zaragoza from 1292 until 1294 and from 1297 until 1307. Raymond of Bastida in the same way was three times commander of Castellote between 1265 and 1278. Although these policies must have hampered efficient administration, they perhaps helped to prevent the growth of tensions which were liable to occur when a small community was subject to the same individual for a long period of years. But they were presumably adopted primarily in order to avoid the dangers which would exist if a Templar enjoyed too permanent a control over the possessions of a commandery and to emphasize that the holding of office in the Temple was regarded as a trust and responsibility rather than as a reward. This was also made clear by the not unusual practice of making commanders ordinary members of convents again instead of transferring them to the charge of other houses. John of [267] Corzano, for example, who was commander of Huesca from 1215 until 1221, remained in that house during the rest of 1221 without any office and later, in 1224-5, was holding a minor post there, before becoming commander of Zaragoza in 1226. (26)

Report Spam   Logged
Savannah
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 174



« Reply #49 on: January 11, 2009, 04:41:21 am »

Efficient administration was hindered not only by frequent changes in personnel but also by the practice of allowing a commander to rule over more than one convent at a time There was apparently no regulation prohibiting the holding of commanderies in plurality, as there was at one time in the Hospital. (27) In most cases one of the houses held jointly was a minor convent Boquiñeni was held by the commander of Ambel in 1256-7 and 1259, by the head of Añesa from 1271 until 1273, and by the commander of Novillas in 1282, while Juncosa was linked with Palau from 1246 to 1250 and from 1254 until 1258. It is possible -- in view of the known financial difficulties of Boquiñeni in the second half of the thirteenth century -- that appointments of this kind represented attempts to reduce the financial demands made on smaller convents which were in need of money. Although it is not clear whether a commander was assigned a fixed share of a convent's revenues, (28) such appointments would obviously save not only the expenses incurred by the commander himself, but also those of his attendants: according to the Customs of the Temple a knight commander was allowed an extra mount, which necessitated an additional arms-bearer, (29) and in practice during the second half of the thirteenth century Aragonese commanders sometimes had a companion as well as one or two arms-bearers. (30)

Some convents may at times have lacked commanders of their own for a different reason. In the Hospital several commanderies in each province were not assigned to commanders but were retained as camere by either the Grand Master or the head of the province, who drew revenues from them; (31) a similar practice is found in the Spanish military orders, in which a group of estates formed the mesa maestral. (32) There are hints that at the beginning of the fourteenth century the Temple was also following this custom. The post of commander of Gardeny was kept vacant from 1302 until 1307, and when the Grand Master James of Molay appointed Arnold of Banyuls to the commandery in the latter year he stated that the appointment was as commander, apparently stressing that he was not just installing a deputy to administer the commandery for his own benefit.(33) At the same [268] time the Grand Master granted the commandery of Peñíscola 'as the provincial master of Aragon held it', apparently meaning that the latter had previously kept it in his own hands. (34) Clear evidence of the practice in the Temple is, however, lacking.

The commander of a convent occupied a dual role. He was in the first place the head of a community which followed a partly military, partly monastic, way of life. As such he had the duty of leading the members of his convent in the field and of seeing that both there and inside the convent the Rule and Customs of the Temple were observed. He had the right to punish those who contravened regulations, though if he was a sergeant commander he apparently could not deprive a knight of his habit. (35) In the same way a sergeant commander seems to have been unable to admit a knight into the Order, and apparently at the end of the thirteenth century permission had to be obtained from the provincial master before a commander could accept any new recruits to the Order. (36) A commander was secondly in charge of the rights and property attached to his convent and was responsible for their administration, although there is evidence which indicates that in the later thirteenth century and in the early years of the fourteenth, when the Temple was facing increasing financial demands, decisions about methods of exploiting property were taken by the provincial master: in a number of documents of this period it is stated that land was being granted to tenants by commanders on the order or with the licence of the provincial master; (37) and in 1305 the provincial master referred in a letter to a request by the commander of Mallorca for permission to 'give and establish certain lands and possessions'. (38) Out of the revenues of the property he administered a commander was obliged to make an annual payment or responsion to the head of the province. (39)

In carrying out these duties some commanders in the early thirteenth century had the aid of a sub-commander. This office is to be distinguished from that of lieutenant of a commander; the latter was merely a temporary replacement, appointed either when the post of commander was vacant or when a commander was absent from his house or wished to set up a delegate to act for him in a particular matter. In most cases the office of sub-commander is mentioned for the first time in the early years of the thirteenth century: at Barbará in 1200, at Grañena in 1203, and at Boquiñeni in 1211. (40) It came into being when the Templars [269] were rapidly extending their property and possibly also increasing in numbers, and although it is nowhere stated what duties a sub-commander performed the office was clearly a sign of an organization expanding to meet growing needs. But in the more static conditions which characterized the middle and later decades of the thirteenth century the office must have been found superfluous, for it disappears from most convents in the fourth decade of the century, and the last reference to it is at Ambel in 1242. (41)

Whether there was a sub-commander or not, the head of a convent was assisted in the administration of the possessions of his house by an official who in Catalonia was always called a 'chamberlain' (camerarius, cambrero); this title was also used in Aragon from the middle of the thirteenth century, but until that time the term 'keeper of the keys' (claviger, clavero) was employed there. The nature of the surviving evidence does not permit a close examination of the work of these officials. The only traces of their activity are a few inventories which they drew up of the possessions of their convents and the stipulation contained in some charters that the chamberlain's permission was to be obtained before tenants could make alterations to property held of the Order. (42) It may be assumed, however, that their position corresponded to that of the cellarers in Cistercian houses, and the term 'cellarer' was itself used at Villel in the sixth decade of the thirteenth century as an alternative to 'chamberlain'. (43) The financial and administrative organization of a Templar convent, like that of a Cistercian monastery, was simple. With a partial exception in the case of property assigned by donors specifically to the Order's chapels, (44) there was no decentralization of control and no obedientiary system.

Chamberlains, like the heads of convents, usually held office for only a short period. The names of thirty-three are recorded at the house of Zaragoza in the thirteenth century, while twenty-five are known at Tortosa in that period and eighteen at Castellote, although the lists for the last two convents are by no means complete. (45) A few Templars moved as chamberlains from one house to another -- Peter of Lena was chamberlain at Tortosa at the end of 1271 and at Castellote from 1272 to 1274 -- but the rapid change in personnel was usually effected by giving the office to various brothers within a convent and if necessary, in a small convent or presumably if Templars of administrative ability were lacking, [270] by giving a brother several terms of office: at Zaragoza, Spañol was chamberlain from 1248 to 1249 and from 1255 to 1257; Bartholomew held the post in 1255 and from 1260 until 1263; and Dominic of Alcorisa was in office from 1264 to 1266 and from 1270 until 1274. The object of this policy was presumably to avoid placing a permanent burden of administration on one brother, but it must have provided a further obstacle to efficient administration, especially when a new chamberlain and a new commander took up their posts at about the same time.

Other Templars concerned with the administration of the property of a convent had more particular responsibilities. Within a commandery brothers were often placed in charge of dependent groups of estates and were responsible for the day-to-day administration of them: transactions such as the granting of land to new tenants were still conducted by the head of the convent. As has been seen, during the period of Templar expansion some of those placed in charge of groups of estates in time became the heads of new convents, but most remained as subordinate administrators. These minor officials were frequently called commanders or preceptors, but these titles were not universal; occasionally they were known as sub-commanders (46) and in a very few instances they were referred to as chamberlains, (47) while in the Templar Customs, in which they were assigned two mounts, they were called freres casaliers. (48) The number of these dependencies varied in different commanderies and at different times in the same commandery. The convent of Miravet had at times subordinate commanders of Nonaspe, Algars, Gandesa, and the villa of Miravet itself. (49) The Templars at Monzón similarly had a commander of the villa, besides commanders of La Ribera, La Litera, (50) Chalamera, Cofita, Estiche, and Zaidín, and a Templar -- not called commander -- at Armentera. By contrast, some convents had merely one or two dependencies. The only one subject to Boquiñeni was at Pradilla, and the commanders of Cabafias and Razazol were the only subordinate officials of Novillas in the thirteenth century. These officials spent part of their time on the estates which they administered, away from their convents. In some cases they were accompanied by several other Templars and a small subordinate community was formed. This appears to have happened at Cofita, for the priest who was given the living of Crespano in 1299 was promised food in the Templar house of [271] Cofita 'as is given to one of the brothers who live there'; (51) and from the middle of the thirteenth century the house of Barcelona, which was then a dependency of Palau, had its own chapel and its own chaplain. (52) On the other hand, some of the Templars placed in charge of estates appear to have lived almost alone. This is implied by a complaint made in 1264 that the bishop of Lérida's men had expelled the brother and his servant who were staying at the Order's house at Armentera (53) and by a reference to the horse 'which the brother who is at Chivert rides', found in an inventory of the possessions of the convent at Peñíscola drawn up in 1302. (54) Yet it was not necessary for these Templars to be absent from their convents as continuously as Templar chaplains who were granted livings at a distance from their houses; and the rather scanty evidence which survives about these local administrative officials suggests that terms of office were short. Between 1294 and 1307, for example, William of Passenant, Peter of Montesquíu, and Bernard Belissén all had periods of office in Segría and Urgel, which were dependencies of Gardeny. (55)

The relationship between these Templar officials and the lay administrators on Templar estates varied. On some occasions a subordinate commander's area of authority coincided with that of the lay justiciar or bailiff of a town. The commander of the villa of Monzón was concerned with Templar rights merely within the town, as were the lay justiciar and bailiff there. At the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth centuries there were similarly both a Templar commander and a lay bailiff at Espluga de Francolí, which was subject to the convent of Barbará. (56) This situation appears to have existed, however, only in the more important townships under Templar lordship. Elsewhere a Templar official had a number of lay bailiffs and justiciars under his control. The commander of La Ribera, for example had authority over the lay bailiffs of all the Templar lordships along the banks of the Cinca; and in a letter to James II Mascharos Garideyl in 1308 explained that the commander of Miravet used to establish lay bailiffs in all the places subject to Miravet, such as Gandesa, Corbera, and Nonaspe, and a brother of the Temple, who spent most of his time at Gandesa, was placed in charge of the bailiffs. (57) Alternatively the bailiff of a small town could be made directly responsible to the head of a convent, without the intervention of any subordinate commander.

[272] Other members of a convent were sometimes assigned administrative duties of a more limited importance, such as the management of irrigation canals or mills. The title of commander was also occasionally given to these officials. A brother John was in charge of the canals at Pina from 1238 to 1255 (58) and Peter of Montañana, a member of the convent of Monzón, was in 1269 the commander of the mills of Almerge, (59) while in the second half of the thirteenth century the house of Gardeny also had a Templar in charge of some of its mills. (60) But minor administrative tasks were not always performed by members of the Order. There was a flexibility in the employment of Templars and outsiders in the administration of the Order's property.

Besides these administrative officials, there was normally also a chaplain in each convent. In the Temple's early years there were apparently no clerical members of the Order, and the spiritual needs of the brothers were attended to by secular priests: the phrase 'chaplains or others staying for a period', found in article four of the Latin Rule, implies that priests and clerks were at first merely attached to the Order without becoming members. (61) In the documents of the later 1130s, however, references to clerical members begin to occur, (62) and the right to admit clerics was confirmed in 1139 by Innocent II in the bull Omne datum optimum. (63) In that privilege the pope stated that clerics could be received into the Temple after a probationary period of a year; they were to be subject to the Master and their share in the government and administration of the Order was to be determined by the Master and brothers; (64) and their food, dress, and bedding were to be the same as those of other brothers, except that they were to wear tight-fitting habits. (65)

Yet in practice the Temple may not have been able to attract a sufficient number of clerical recruits to enable every convent to have a chaplain who was a member of the Order. Although in some houses, such as Gardeny and Mas-Deu, (66) there were on occasion several Templar chaplains, for many convents no continuous list of Templar chaplains can be compiled, even where comparatively full evidence survives. And in some cases those referred to as chaplains of convents were secular priests: in 1280, for example, the cleric who was called 'chaplain of the castle' at Villel was not a Templar. (67) There may at times therefore have been a shortage of priestly brothers in the Order, as there was in [273] the Hospital in the thirteenth century. (68) Nevertheless, the clerical members of the Order belong essentially at this level of Templar organization, for there is no evidence of an ecclesiastical hierarchy in the Temple, such as is encountered in the Hospital. (69) Although Honorius III granted special powers of absolution to the chaplain of the chief house in a province, (70) this does not imply the existence of several ecclesiastical ranks within the Order.

The powers of confession and absolution exercised by Templar chaplains in the Order's convents were considerable. They could hear the confessions of Templar servants as well as those of the brothers; (71) but the claims in the Templar Customs that 'they have from the pope greater powers than an archbishop to absolve brothers' and that they had power 'to absolve brothers always according to the quality and quantity of the offence' are not accurate. (72) The Customs elsewhere mention certain offences for which Templar chaplains could not give absolution, (73) and some of the limitations of their powers are further explained in papal bulls. They could not absolve a Templar who had killed a Christian; nor could they grant absolution when there had been fighting between brothers involving the shedding of blood. The right of giving absolution when there was no bloodshed was granted by Honorius III in 1223 to the chaplain of the chief house in a province, (74) and at least during Clement IV's pontificate this right was enjoyed by all Templar chaplains. (75) By these decrees the papacy was granting to Templar chaplains the same powers over members of the Order as abbots enjoyed over their monks. The third offence mentioned in the Customs for which they could not grant absolution was assault on a member of another religious order or on a clerk or priest. This may again refer to cases in which there was mutilation or bloodshed, for although Honorius III and Alexander IV reissued a decree of Innocent III which stated that offences of this kind which did not involve mutilation or bloodshed or the striking of a bishop or abbot could be dealt with by bishops, (76) the same two popes allowed Templar chaplains to absolve members of the Order for crimes of this nature committed by brothers before they had joined the Temple, unless the offences were of the more serious character mentioned above; (77) and it would be strange if the Order's chaplains could absolve Templars for certain offences only if they had been committed before the culprits had been received into the Order. [274] A Templar chaplain could lastly not absolve a brother who was found to have entered the Temple by simony or to have concealed that he was in orders.(78)

Report Spam   Logged
Savannah
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 174



« Reply #50 on: January 11, 2009, 04:41:45 am »

Despite the grant of these powers of absolution to Templar chaplains, it was not the papal intention that Templars should of necessity be absolved by them. The bull Omne datum optimum allowed brothers to be absolved by any 'honest' priest, (79) and in 1238 Gregory IX permitted those in captivity in the East to be absolved by Franciscans or by Jacobite priests. (80) The Temple itself, like many other religious orders, (81) placed some restrictions on freedom of confession, but the charge made against the Order that it compelled its members to confess only to their own chaplains was unfounded. (82) The Customs state merely that a Templar should confess to a Templar chaplain, if one was available, unless permission had been obtained to go to another priest. (83) The statements made by Templars at their trial show that -- although some did not understand the regulation -- the ruling in the Customs was normally followed. Bartholomew of Torre, a chaplain at Mas-Deu, said that if a Templar chaplain was not available, Templars should go to a Dominican or Franciscan, or if no friar was at hand to a secular priest. (84) The same opinion was voiced by many other Templars, while in the course of the inquiries conducted in Aragon after the arrest of the Templars, two Franciscans of Lérida testified that they had often heard confessions from Templars. (85)

The Templar chaplains' main work consisted in their religious duties in the Order's convents, but their time was not always exclusively devoted to these. They sometimes acted as scribes, particularly before the spread of the system of public notaries,(86) and in the thirteenth century some became vicars of churches under Templar patronage. This happened especially in and around Monzón, and also in other towns and villages where Templar convents were established, such as Novillas, Boquiñeni, and Miravet. (87) Most Templar vicars could thus live in one of the Order's convents; they usually avoided the life of isolation which the papacy saw as one of the dangers arising from the grant of parishes to members of religious orders. (88) Some became involved in administrative work. Towards the end of the thirteenth century the chaplain of the church of the Holy Redeemer at Teruel was placed in charge of the Order's lands there; (89) and [275] although there was generally no obedientiary system, the Templar chaplains of Gardeny had charge of certain lands and revenues assigned to their chapel. The surviving sources show the Gardeny chaplains purchasing property with money bequeathed for the service of the altar or for the endowment of lamps, leasing out the land under their authority, and receiving rents from it. (90) But although the chaplains of Gardeny can thus be seen administering lands which provided revenues for their church, it was often stated that they were acting on the licence of the commander; they did not possess full authority over these properties, and the granting out of such land was sometimes done by the commander of Gardeny himself; (91) in a few documents concerning these properties the chaplain was not even mentioned at all. (92) Whether chaplains in other convents occupied a similar position with regard to such lands is not known.

Templar chaplains, like other officials in a convent, usually held office in the same house only for a short period. Although the Templar William of Albesa was a chaplain at Gardeny from 1208 until 1237, (93) the career of John of Monzón was more typical. In 1260 and 1261 he was chaplain at Villel; (94) in the next year he was transferred to Castellote; (95) in 1264 he was chaplain at Tortosa; (96) and in 1268 he returned to Castellote. (97)

The remaining brothers in a convent participated in the government and administration of their house only in the conventual chapter. This was held weekly: according to the Customs of the Order: a chapter was to be convened on the eve of Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost and on every Sunday -- except in the octaves of these three festivals -- in any place where there were four or more Templars. (98) At such meetings a commander was meant to take the counsel of all present, asking first the advice of the most experienced individually and then that of the rest together. (99) These chapters were according to the Customs instituted in order that brothers might confess their faults there and amend them; (100) the chapter was considered primarily as a chapter of faults, such as was held in other religious communities, (101) and the section in the Customs on the holding of a chapter is mainly concerned with its judicial activities which are described in some detail. (102) Brothers were expected to confess their faults voluntarily, but if they failed to do so, accusations could be made against them, although a charge could not be sustained on the accusation of only [276] one brother. When more than one Templar was prepared to bring a charge the commander could, if he suspected malice, question the accusers separately. To rebut a charge an accused was allowed to call upon brothers who could testify in his defence. The Customs do not elaborate all points of procedure, but it is made clear that the sentences imposed -- which in the Temple ranged from a day's fasting and a beating to expulsion from the Order (103) -- rested on a majority decision in the chapter. The Templar Customs give little information about the other work of a chapter, although they do state that the admission of new members had to take place there, and the evidence given by Templars after their arrest shows that this ruling was normally observed. (104) Presumably any matter that concerned the convent could be raised at the chapter. But conventual chapters in the Temple occupied a much more subordinate role than those in the Dominican Order, where the chapter elected the head of a convent and reported on his conduct. (105) In the Temple, authority in a convent rested to a large extent in the hands of the commander; and it is possible that in some convents his was the only seal, for although references occasionally occur to conventual seals, (106) some documents issued by commanders and their convents were sealed with the commander's seal and not that of the convent. (107) Nor is there any evidence of attempts to ensure that a commander did not have complete and undisputed control over his seal, as occurred in some other communities.(108) The nature of the Temple in fact made some centralization of authority inevitable. In the field the need for clear and decisive leadership made it necessary for members of a convent to be strictly subordinated to their commander and for the latter to carry out the commands of the provincial master. In the military sphere a commander was inevitably responsible to the master rather than to members of his convent, and the same was true in the economic sphere, where commanders were further responsible to the provincial master for the payment of dues owed by convents. Yet although the character of the Temple demanded that authority should be centralized in these respects, a commander usually consulted at least some members of his convent on matters concerning the administration of his commandery: documents were only very rarely issued on the authority of a commander alone. (109)

How many Templars there were in most Aragonese convents is [277] not known. In the Teutonic Order, whose customs were taken mainly from the Temple, a convent was expected to contain the common minimum of thirteen members, (110) and this may have been the rule in the Temple as well. But it is not clear whether Templar convents in fact usually housed as many brothers as this or how many Templars there were in the Corona de Aragón as a whole. In some countries the inquiries made before the dissolution of the Temple have been used to provide numerical evidence, and these have usually revealed small numbers.(111) Such sources can, of course, provide only minimum numbers, for it is not known how large a proportion of the Templars was arrested and interrogated. Certainly in Aragon some attempted to flee. Peter of San Justo, the commander of Peñíscola, was taken when trying to escape by sea (112) and three others who had tried to flee were handed over to the king by the bailiff of Tortosa. (113) Others may have been more successful for in the years following the arrest of the Templars there were rumours that some members of the Order had entered the service of the king of Granada. (114) In the Aragonese province a full record of those who were arrested survives only for the house of Mas-Deu, twenty-five of whose members were interrogated in 1310. (115) This figure suggests that Aragonese houses contained more Templars than those in other western countries, and this is possible in view of the Templars' participation in the struggle against the Moors, but Mas-Deu may not have been typical, since it was the only convent in Roussillon and possessed a considerable number of dependencies. The only other numerical evidence which exists for Aragon from the time of the dissolution of the Order is a list giving the names of 109 former Templars who were paid pensions; but as only fourteen of the twenty-five Templars interrogated in Roussillon received payments the list clearly cannot be used even to give an indication of the total number of Templars arrested. (116)

Report Spam   Logged
Savannah
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 174



« Reply #51 on: January 11, 2009, 04:42:24 am »

The references in documents to those who gave counsel to a commander have also been used for estimating numbers, (117) but this source is open to the criticism that it is often not clear whether all members of a convent are being mentioned by name. Three forms of wording are common. The first indicates that there are other brothers of the convent not mentioned individually: the commander acts with the advice of those named 'and of other brothers'. The second is ambiguous, merely listing names without [278] stating whether there are others. The third might seem to imply that all members of a convent are being named: the commander acts with the counsel 'of our brothers... namely...'; but it can be shown that even this formula does not provide reliable evidence of the total numbers in a house. (118) This source, like the inquiries, can therefore produce only minimum figures. They are usually very low and bear no necessary relation to actual numbers, although they do suggest that the latter varied in different convents. The greatest number of Templars at the convent of Mas-Deu mentioned in any single document in the Aragonese archives is seventeen, compared with ten at Castellote and five at Boquiñeni. (119) The greatest number of brothers without office who can be traced in any one year at Gardeny is twenty-two, at Zaragoza eight, and at Boquiñeni four.(120) It is further significant that in the second half of the thirteenth century, when documents were tending to become fuller and more detailed, the number of brothers who can be traced in some convents, such as Boquiñeni, decreases, for there is other evidence of declining numbers shortly before the dissolution of the Temple. To a request made about the year 1300 by the commander of Mallorca that some Templars should be sent out to the island, the provincial master Berenguer of Cardona replied

About the brothers which you ask us to send you, we must inform you that we have none whom we can send.(121)
The same answer was given to a similar demand by Arnold of Banyuls, the commander of Peñíscola. (122) The provincial master was, however, ready to allow the commander of Mallorca to create new brothers according to the needs of his convent and this, together with the requests themselves, suggests that numbers were not being limited for economic reasons, as happened in many monasteries in the thirteenth century; (123) the decline in numbers is to be explained rather by difficulties in recruiting at a time when the Aragonese reconquista was complete and when enthusiasm for crusades was waning. (124)
Although the records of the trial of the Templars are of only limited value for calculating total numbers, they are of use for estimating the proportions of knights, sergeants, and chaplains in the Order's convents at the time of the Templars' arrest. At Mas-Deu there were only three knights and four chaplains, compared [279] with eighteen sergeants, and of the thirty-two Templars mentioned in a fragmentary record of an interrogation by the bishop of Lérida in 1310 nine were knights, four were chaplains, and nineteen were sergeants. (125) Again, the majority of the Templars who were being paid pensions in 1319 were sergeants. (126) The numerical preponderance of sergeants in the Temple indicated by this evidence is borne out by that drawn from other countries, with the exception of Cyprus, where knights were in the majority. (127) In the early fourteenth century the Temple was thus not predominantly a knightly order. Although most convents had a knight as commander, most of those under his authority were sergeants.

Yet while at the beginning of the fourteenth century most of the Templars in a convent were sergeants, it is difficult to ascertain whether this had earlier been the case. The only Templars whose  ranks were usually stated in documents were the chaplains; on a few occasions brothers were described as fratres milites, but it can be shown that Templars who are known to have been knights were not always called milites. (128) It is further not even clear whether in the Order's early years the distinction between knight and sergeant was made. Bloch has argued that the Templar Rule provides evidence of two ranks of fighting men in the Temple, distinguished by clothing, equipment, and social status. (129) But it may be questioned whether those whom he places in the second rank -- the armigeri of the Rule, who wore black or brown clothing -- were in fact Templars, for in article twenty-one it is stated that some of those who should have worn dark clothing had assumed white habits, and thus

have arisen... certain pseudo-brothers and married men and others saying that they are of the Temple, when they are of the world. (130)
The term miles, moreover, is used in the Rule not to signify one rank within the Order but as the equivalent of frater. On several occasions the phrase miles aut frater is used, (131) and in the later French translation, made when there were sergeants in the Order, the word miles is translated as frere chevalier only in one clause where the allowance of horses and servants mentioned is the same as that later given to the knights; (132) elsewhere it is rendered as frere, and in this way a distinction is made in the translation between brothers of the Temple and the armigeri. (133) But if this was [280] the situation at the time when the Rule was compiled, the distinction of knight and sergeant was introduced soon afterwards, for in 1139 Innocent II could refer to 'brothers, both knights and sergeants'. (134)
The admission of sergeants implied really the establishment of two further ranks in the Order, for a distinction was made between sergeants-at-arms and freres des mestiers. The sergeants-at-arms were in some ways similar to the knights. They were fighting brothers and when they were living in a convent they were concerned with administration and the care of their horses and equipment; and in the Customs of the Order knights and sergeants-at-arms are sometimes grouped together under the title freres du couvent, as distinct from the freres des mestiers. (135) This distinction might seem to suggest that only the knights and sergeants-at-arms had a share in the government of a convent, but this was not so in the West: commanders are often said to be acting with the counsel of brothers who include freres des mestiers, (136) and there is occasional evidence of the presence of these brothers at chapter meetings. (137) Yet while there were similarities between the knights and sergeants-at-arms, the latter differed from the knights in dress, equipment, and social status. While knights, for example, wore white habits and were allowed three mounts and an arms-bearer, sergeants-at-arms were dressed in brown and were usually permitted only one mount; (138) and while in the thirteenth century knights had to be of knightly descent and legitimate birth, sergeants were merely required to be of free birth. (139) It may have been the growing stress on the hereditary character of knighthood in fact that led to the acceptance of sergeants-at-arms into the Order; and this step may in turn have made possible the admission of non-military sergeants.

The freres des mestiers fought only in an emergency and did not normally possess arms. (140) When they were living in a convent they were usually employed in household or agricultural work. The Templar Customs mention certain household duties performed by these brothers, (141) and further evidence of their activities is provided in the Aragonese sources. These show that those working inside a convent might perform the functions of cook, butler, or porter, (142) or be employed in a particular trade: some houses, such as Monzón, had Templar shoemakers, (143) while Miravet in 1241 had a brother Dominic as tailor, (144) and Monzón [281] at times possessed a Templar smith and tanner. (145) Others were employed on the land. A brother Andico was a gardener at Castellote in 1237, (146) and G. of Albesa in 1212 worked in the vineyards at Gardeny. (147) Some had charge of the Order's farm animals: a brother Ferrer was a cowherd at Miravet in 1228; (148) Arnold of Corbins was 'preceptor of sheep' at Gardeny in 1182; (149) and Templar oxherds are mentioned at Zaragoza and Huesca. (150) Often no more specific title than 'labourer' (operarius, obrero) was given, presumably referring to manual workers with no special skill. (151) These freres des mestiers were the only members of the Order who normally performed manual labour; the Rule did not oblige all Templars to participate in this activity, and it was done by knights and sergeants-at-arms only as a penance. (152)

In the convent, as in the field, the Templars devoted themselves to practical occupations. The rarity with which Templar signa are found on documents suggests that throughout the history of the Order the majority of members were illiterate. Many could have described themselves, as a member of Mas-Deu did at his interrogation, as 'simple and ignorant', and many could have echoed the words of another Templar of the same house who said that his life had been 'given up to the land and the custody of animals'. (153) Meditative reading or literary and intellectual activity could therefore not be expected of them, and those Templars who were literate seem to have devoted little time to these pursuits. In the Corona de Aragón no Templar chronicle has survived or is known; and although Olivier -- to whom the poem 'Estat aurai lonc temps en pessamen' is ascribed in an early fourteenth-century manuscript -- may as Milá claims have been a Catalan Templar, (154) there is no evidence in the Templar archives to support Riquer's suggestion that, because of his knowledge of Pulpís, the troubadour Gerald of Luc may have been a member of the Order. (155) James of Garrigans knew how 'to write shaped letters well and to illuminate with gold' and wrote a book of hours for James II, (156) but he was probably exceptional, for he had been in minor orders before becoming a Templar. (157) The lack of intellectual and literary activity is further apparent from the small number and limited subject-matter of the books mentioned in Templar inventories. In a detailed list of the possessions of the convent of Corbins drawn up in 1299 only sixteen volumes are mentioned. (158) This list also demonstrates the limitations in [282] subject-matter, for of the volumes listed three-quarters were service books, such as missals and psalters, and the rest consisted of two volumes of sermons and two of the lives of saints. Admittedly, the inventories of property seized by the Crown after the arrest of the Templars show that some houses had a wider range of books, although it is not known how they came into the Temple's possession or whether they were actually read. (159) Among eight volumes handed over to the king from Monzón in 1313 were the Dialogues of Gregory the Great, the Exameron of St. Ambrose, the Historia Scholastica of Peter Comestor, and the Sentences of Hugh of St. Victor. (160) These lists also refer to a vernacular version of the Codex of Justinian and of the Secreta Secretorum, then attributed to Aristotle: (161) and the royal officer Mascharos Garideyl reported that he had found a copy of 'lo Theoderich', which must be a version of the Dominican Theoderic's Chirurgia, (162) and also a book beginning 'De decayment de cabels', which was probably a translation of John XXI's Thesaurus pauperum. (163) Even a copy of part of the Ars Poetica was taken into royal hands. (164) But in most cases only one copy of each of these works is known and most convents, like Corbins, appear to have possessed few books other than those needed for the conduct of services: the books from the convent of Peñíscola which were listed in 1311, for example, consisted -- apart from several copies of the Rule and Customs -- almost entirely of service books. (165) The reference to translations among the books seized by the Crown is not the only evidence which suggests that literate Templars had often only an inadequate knowledge of Latin. The Aragonese Templars also had two translations made of a cartulary containing mainly royal and papal privileges to the Order, (166) and all the known versions of the Rule and Customs in the Corona de Aragón were written in the vernacular. (167) Moreover, when the Templars were interrogated after their arrest, it was necessary to explain the charges in the vernacular, even to the chaplains. (168)

Although the daily activities of the Templars were in marked contrast to those of others who followed the regular life, they were fitted when possible into the normal framework provided by the recital of divine office. Nor were services reduced to a minimum for, in addition to the canonical hours and mass, the offices of the Virgin and of the Dead and the gradual psalms before Matins were said. (169) But as most Templars were not in orders [283] their participation in services was limited. They listened in silence to the recital of offices by their chaplains and were merely recommended to say a fixed number of paternosters for each office. (170) They were further excused from attending any additional masses that were said in their chapels, just as they were not obliged to take part in any processions other than the twelve stipulated in the Rule. (171)

Other aspects of the regular life were similarly adapted to suit the needs of the Templars and, apart from the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience common to all regular clergy, Templar observances were often more like those of regular canons than those of monks. The Order's regulations about food were governed by a concern to ensure that Templars were strong enough to fight. They were allowed to eat meat three times a week, and fasting was limited mainly to Lent, to the period between the Monday before St. Martin in November and Christmas, and to Fridays between All Saints and Easter -- very much less than that prescribed in the Benedictine Rule; (172) and Templars were forbidden both in the Rule and in a number of papal decrees to undertake any additional fasts without permission. (173) Silence was enjoined upon the Templars at meal times, but an exception was made for brothers who needed to speak 'through ignorance of signs', and similarly although silence was normally to be maintained after Compline a Templar was allowed to speak to his arms-bearer then, and brothers were also permitted to talk to each other if the military situation demanded it. (174) In matters of dress, the eastern climate was taken into consideration and brothers were allowed to wear linen from Easter to All Saints. (175)

Cistercian influence may, however, be seen in the Rule in the enforcement of a noviciate and possibly also in the prohibition on child oblation, (176) although opposition to this practice was growing throughout the monastic world, (177) and the prohibition in the Rule may be an addition made by the patriarch of Jerusalem. (178) Yet the first of these customs fell into disuse and the second was not fully observed. It was generally admitted by Templars who were interrogated at the beginning of the fourteenth century that individuals received into the Order were considered 'at once as professed brethren'. (179) It is not known how long this had been the custom. The provision for a probationary period was not, as [284] Curzon claims, (180) omitted when the Rule was translated into French -- it was merely moved and attached to the clause concerned with the age of admission to the Order(181) -- and at the beginning of the thirteenth century an individual in Aragon was ordered to spend a year as a donatus before becoming a full member of the Order: the condition was imposed on Bonsom of Villa in July 1204 at Castellote that

you are to serve in this house like the other donati for one year from this July, and on the completion of that year you are to receive the habit and cross like other brothers. (182)
But no other evidence about the noviciate survives. Possibly, as in the Teutonic Order, it was abandoned because of the need to recruit new members rapidly after heavy losses in battle. (183) This is perhaps what was implied by the Templar William of Tamarite when he said in 1310 that individuals were accepted at once as professed brothers 'so that they can undertake and devote themselves to the exercise of arms against the Saracens'. (184) But clearly the period of noviciate had been discarded long before this and most Templars who were questioned at this time did not know why it had been abandoned; some even thought that it had never existed. (185)
In the prohibition on child oblation, it was stated that parents who wished their sons to enter the Temple should keep them at home until they were of an age when they could bear arms. Entrants were further expected to be old enough to make a final decision for themselves about entry, for the clause was added

for it is better not to vow in boyhood than to retract violently after becoming a man.
But no definite age limit was fixed and it was left to the discretion of the Templars in a particular locality to determine whether a youth was old enough to be admitted. In practice some convents contained brothers who had been received when they were scarcely old enough either to bear arms or to make a final decision for themselves about entering the Order. Among the Templars interrogated by the bishop of Lérida in 1310 one had joined the Order at the age of twelve and another when only thirteen. (186) On the other hand, there are no clear examples in the Corona de Aragón of very young children being formally admitted as oblati, [285] to be trained specifically for the profession of Templar, although the practice is found in other countries. (187) Some children did live in the Order's convents in Aragon, but they were apparently, like the young James I, merely being placed in the guardianship of the Temple and in some instances provided with a knightly education. When Peter Sánchez of Sporreto put his son in the wardship of the Templars of Huesca in 1217 for a period of ten years, he stated that the boy was to be free to leave the Huesca convent at the end of that period, and a similar condition was made by a widow, who in 1209 placed her three sons in the care of the commander of Zaragoza. (188) When on another occasion the Catalan noble Peter of Queralt asked the provincial master Berenguer of Cardona to accept the son of one of his knights, the master ordered the commander of Peñíscola to rear the boy 'in good customs... as you have been accustomed to do'. (189) It may not have been uncommon for the sons of nobles and knights to spend some time in a Templar convent in this way instead of being placed in a noble household; and as some no doubt later joined the Order, this could help to explain why knights tended to join the Temple at an earlier age than sergeants. (190)
Report Spam   Logged
Savannah
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 174



« Reply #52 on: January 11, 2009, 04:42:58 am »

These boys were by no means the only non-Templars who might be encountered in the Order's convents. In all houses there were a certain number of outsiders in the service of the Temple. Many of them took part in the everyday work of a house and some lived in the Templar community.

Templar convents in the first place often housed a considerable number of slaves. The thirteen commanderies for which inventories survive from the year 1289 had an average of twenty each, and Monzón, Miravet, and Gardeny had 49, 45, and 43 respectively; only in the inventory of the house of Calatayud is there no reference to the possession of slaves. (191) All were Moors, although some had been baptized, (192) and almost all were male: in 1289 the convent of Monzón was alone in possessing a female slave. In the inventories and elsewhere slaves were called captives, for in Spain they were usually prisoners either captured in the Peninsula or gained through piracy. (193) Some had no doubt been taken by the Templars themselves -- when the provincial master wrote to James II in 1304 about a raid into Granada he mentioned that a number of prisoners had been taken (194) -- but in the thirteenth century the Temple acquired many captives through [286] purchase at prices which varied according to the number of Moors available, increasing during intervals between major campaigns and also generally towards the end of the thirteenth century. (195) The frequent purchase of slaves by the Templars illustrates one of the disadvantages of using this kind of labour force -- namely, the constant diminution to which it was subject. Slaves were lost not only through death, but also by redemption (196) and through flight, which was perhaps not uncommon, especially when escaped slaves might hope for shelter and aid from the free Moorish population of the country; (197) on the other hand, since Templar slaves were usually male, few slave children could have been born on the Order's estates. But, despite the disadvantages of employing them, slaves were probably necessary in view of the difficulty in some parts of the Corona de Aragón of obtaining alternative forms of manpower. These slaves, who were placed in the charge of a Templar sometimes known as the 'keeper of the captives', (198) were probably in many instances not only maintained in Templar convents but also worked in them as household servants; convents like Monzón, however, which had large numbers of slaves -- some of them living in Templar dependencies -- could scarcely have used them all in this way and it may be argued that slaves were also employed as agricultural labourers. (199)

Templar convents also contained a number of free workers, for while household tasks might be performed by members of the Order, they were also carried out by non-Templars. There was no uniformity in the practice of household employment; the calling-in of outsiders apparently depended on the needs of a particular convent at a particular time. Huesca had a non-Templar cook in 1224, as did Gardeny in 1262. (200) Lay butlers can also be traced at the latter house, together with porters, a baker in 1238, and a water-carrier in 1225. (201) While some convents had a brother as tailor, at Palau in 1272 the monopoly of tailoring for the convent was granted to a confrater, Bernard of Gilida. (202) Similarly at the beginning of the fourteenth century Raymond of Sumerano was being paid two cahíces of wheat annually for acting as barber to the house of Gardeny. (203) It cannot be ascertained how often laymen were used for work of this kind, for these employees are encountered in the sources only as occasional witnesses to documents. The arms-bearers of the Templars, on the other hand, were always laymen. They similarly appear as witnesses and are [287] never given the title of 'brother'. Some in fact were used by the king to guard the Templars after the latter's arrest. (204)

From lists of witnesses it is clear that there was also a considerable number of secular priests and clerks in the service of the Temple, who often lived in its convents. In the last decade of the thirteenth century more than a dozen such clerks and priests can be traced at Gardeny. (205) They were no doubt needed in part to assist the Templar chaplains in their duties or to replace them in convents which had no Templar chaplains of their own, but they were probably also increasingly required for the celebration of masses for the Order's benefactors. Although it would have been to the Temple's financial advantage to have these masses celebrated by members of the Order, rather than by secular priests, the numbers of Templar chaplains were clearly insufficient for this purpose, and only once was it stated that the chantry priest should be a Templar. (206) On other occasions -- either when the founder of a chantry sought to provide for members of his family by decreeing that the chaplain should be a relation (207) or when no special qualifications were stipulated -- secular priests were no doubt usually employed. Whether the latter lived and were maintained in Templar houses probably depended in part on the nature of the endowment. A chaplain who was assigned a fixed salary by the founder of a chantry or one who was himself assigned the lands given for his maintenance presumably did not usually reside in a Templar house. (208) On the other hand, when the Templars were asked to make general provision for a chaplain out of an endowment granted to the Order, they probably preferred for financial reasons to provide maintenance in a convent rather than pay a salary on which a priest could live; and in some cases it is clear that this was done. (209) This was possible when, as in most instances, the masses for which the Temple was responsible were celebrated in the Order's chapels; but it was sometimes stipulated that the masses should be said elsewhere and in some cases for reasons of distance chantry priests could not live in Templar houses. The chaplain who was to celebrate masses for the soul of Peter of Alcalá in a church at Pertusa could scarcely have been maintained in any of the Order's establishments. (210) In some other instances the Templars may have preferred to provide maintenance outside a convent because a chantry priest was married. Certainly some of the clerics in the Temple's service [288] are known to have had families and were assigned houses in which to live; and the wording of documents suggests that this situation was not exceptional. (211)

As most of the Templars were illiterate and as their chaplains could not draw up all the Order's documents, scribes were employed by some convents in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. At Novillas in the middle of the twelfth century a scribe named Bernard agreed to draw up Templar documents for a period of five weeks each year after Michaelmas; during this time he received his food from the Order. (212) Zaragoza and Huesca are two other houses where notaries can be traced at the end of the twelfth and in the early decades of the thirteenth centuries. (213) But not all convents engaged scribes in this way. Templar documents were drawn up by a wide variety of people. Some were written by secular clerks living in the Order's convents: Peter of Zaidín wrote documents for Gardeny between 1247 and 1254, calling himself 'deacon and scribe of Gardeny'; (214) others were drawn up by local parish priests and chaplains. (215) With the spread of the system of public notaries, the Temple began towards the middle of the thirteenth century to use these extensively, though not exclusively; and in places under Templar lordship the Order could stipulate that the notary should draw up documents for it free of charge. (216) The only house which had its own scribe in the second half of the thirteenth century was Gardeny, where at least from 1260 the Templars had their own public notary, even though Gardeny came within the boundaries of Lérida; (217) and it maintained this privilege until the time of the Templars' arrest, despite opposition in 1299 from the court and paceres of Lérida. (218)

While some of those who were employed in Templar convents were paid, others gave their services freely, as did some knights and some of those who worked on the Order's estates. Reference is made to these unpaid helpers in a papal bull which speaks of

your [the Templars'] priests and laymen, of whom some serve you freely and others for money, (219)
but it is not easy in practice to distinguish those who gave their services permanently without pay. They cannot be identified through terminology, for there was no attempt to achieve precision in the use of terms: although it has been argued that the word donatus or donado describes those who gave themselves to [289] the Temple and participated in its life without actually taking vows, (220) the term was in fact often used of men who were merely entering into bonds of confraternity with the Order, and at least on some occasions nothing more was implied by the term specialis donatus. (221) A permanent unpaid servant can therefore be identified with certainty only if the sources provide a full description of his condition and activities. This is never done, but in a few cases sufficient information is given to make an identification probable, as in the case of Bartholomew of Tarba at Zaragoza in 1224. (222) He gave the Temple all his possessions, but retained for life a house and his movables. He received his food and drink in the Templar convent in the city and thus lived outside the convent but received his meals in it. This description at first sight resembles that of a confrater with a corrody, but the agreement between him and the Temple contains the clause
they [the Templars] are not to delegate me in town or outside it in any way without my consent nor transfer me from the aforesaid house,
and this suggests that he was in the service of the Order and was ensuring that he would not be obliged to do work which he did not like or be sent away from Zaragoza. The kind of work which the Temple might have asked of him outside the city included supervision of Templar lands; that unpaid servants were sometimes employed in this capacity is suggested, though not proved, by the wording of a document drawn up in 1222, in which the commander of Ambel's lieutenant in Tarazona is described as a donado. (223) A further example comes from Miravet, where in 1228 Peter of Luco gave himself to the Temple as a conversus and donatus. (224) He granted to the Order all his possessions, although the donation was not to be immediately effective. He also made the proviso that
if by chance, which God forbid, my wife complains to the aforesaid house and I am forced to leave your house, the aforesaid house is to have 500s.J. worth of goods... and if my wife dies before me, I will immediately enter the Order and receive the habit.
Report Spam   Logged
Savannah
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 174



« Reply #53 on: January 11, 2009, 04:43:21 am »

Peter of Luco seems to have had the desire to join the Temple, could not do so because he was married, and therefore entered its service as a layman. (225) The case of Iñigo Sánchez of Sporreto at Huesca appears to have been similar. In 1207 with his wife and [290] son he made a donation to the Temple; (226) in 1214 he was a donatus and seems from the way in which he is mentioned to have been taking part in the life of the convent of Huesca; (227) and in the next year he became a brother, presumably after his wife had died. (228) These examples give little precise information about conditions of service and there could probably be variations in the terms agreed to, but they do suggest that the permanent unpaid servants of the Temple differed in character from the Cistercian conversi, who were subject to more rigorous regulations. (229)
Men giving temporary unpaid service are mentioned several times in the Rule of the Temple, and it seems to have been expected not only that the Order would satisfy its need of chaplains and servants in this way, but also that knights would give temporary service. (230) It was perhaps hoped that crusaders would stay in the East for a period and spend that time with the Order. Certainly in the early years of the Temple in Aragon it was not uncommon for nobles to promise service in the Peninsula against the Moors for a year. It has been seen how Raymond Berenguer IV and at least twenty-six nobles promised to serve for that length of time in ?1134, (231) and in 1148 García Ortiz, the lord of Zaragoza, spent a year with the Templars at Corbins.(232) At about the same time Peter of Piguera promised that if he recovered from wounds which he had received he would serve for the same period, and Iñigo of Rada when ill made a similar agreement. (233) Although this kind of service may especially have attracted young nobles and knights who were without responsibilities, clearly not all those who fought for a period with the Temple fell into this category. This form of knightly service may, however, have been characteristic only of the early years of the Order's history, since there are no further examples of it in Aragon after the middle years of the twelfth century and since the later Customs of the Order do not mention it. But there are indications that some kinds of temporary unpaid service were still being given in the thirteenth century. Innocent III in 1206 issued a bull directed against those who undertook to serve the Order for a period and then left before the term had expired; (234) and Gregory IX in 1227 ordered prelates not to hinder any of their clergy who wished to give unpaid service to the Temple for a year or two; he decreed that during such a period priests should not be deprived of their benefices and ecclesiastical revenues. (235) But priests may have been [291] attracted particularly to such service by the hope of the Templar patronage which it could bring. The Order might give a priest one of its livings or petition the pope to provide him to a benefice. (236)

Besides those who gave their services to the Temple, probably many of the individuals who received corrodies from the Order either lived in Templar houses or at least received food and drink there, although the Templars were wary of allowing women into their convents. When Dominica of Sieste was promised food and drink by the commander of Zaragoza in 1248 he undertook to provide her with a house in which she could live, near to the Templar chapel. (237)

Maintenance was also given in Templar convents to the poor. The Rule and Customs provided for both regular and occasional almsgiving. In the Rule it was stipulated that all broken bread left after meals should be given to the poor or to servants and that altogether a tenth of the bread used in a house should be assigned to the poor. (238) The later Customs go further in stating that from the meat given to two brothers there should be enough left over to feed two paupers, while the house in which a provincial master was staying was obliged to feed three extra men. (239) Besides this regular almsgiving there were occasional charities. When a brother died one poor man was to be fed for forty days, and on the death of a person who was serving with the Order for a limited period a poor man was to receive food for seven days. (240) Old clothes were to be given to the poor, and on Maundy Thursday in each house thirteen paupers were to be washed and were to be given two loaves of bread, new shoes, and twopence each. (241) The office of almoner is frequently mentioned in the Rule and Customs and in some cases this official appears to have been assigned a separate building. (242) This and other references (243) show that alms were not just to be distributed at the door. The poor were to be fed inside Templar convents.

Although the office of almoner is referred to in Aragon only in three documents belonging to the convent of Boquiñeni, (244) it is clear that the Templars in the Corona de Aragón did not neglect the obligation of almsgiving. The inventories which survive from the year 1289 show that the convent of Gardeny allocated corn 'for alms, namely the tenth of bread', while the houses of Monzón and Huesca also set aside corn to be used for almsgiving. (245) [292] Further evidence of almsgiving comes from the time of the arrest of the Templars. In a letter to James II the commander of Mas-Deu in December 1307 asserted that alms were given daily by his own convent and three times a week by the Templars at Gardeny; he further maintained that 'at Miravet, as not so many Christians come there as to other places, alms are given to Christians and to Saracens'; and he also quoted the numbers of poor -- undoubtedly exaggerated -- who had been supported at Monzón and Gardeny. (246) If the validity of a claim made by the Templars at that time may be doubted, more certain evidence from the same period is provided by a royal writ issued in 1308, in which James II ordered that the alms formerly given by the Temple at Gardeny should still be distributed to the poor, the Dominicans, and the Franciscans. (247) There appears therefore to have been little substance in the charge made against the Templars at the beginning of the fourteenth century that alms were not given by the Order as they should have been. (248)

There was probably more truth, however, in the further charge that the Templars did not provide hospitality, for almsgiving appears usually not to have been accompanied by the care of the sick in Templar houses or by the dispensing of hospitality to travellers, although the Order was of course obliged at times to entertain the Aragonese king and some of his officials. The only provision in the Rule and Customs concerning hospitality to travellers is that the brothers who guided and protected pilgrims in the Holy Land should give food, transport, and shelter to those in need, but there is no evidence to indicate that this was a normal function of the Templars elsewhere. (249) In the Templar Rule and Customs there are no clauses concerned with the care of sick laymen, such as are found in the Rules of the Hospital and the Teutonic Order; the latter on this point imitated the Hospital and not the Temple. (250) The office of infirmarer is admittedly frequently referred to in the Templar Rule and Customs, but all the references concern the care of sick Templars. (251) It may therefore be presumed that the infirmarer mentioned in 1205, 1212, and 1231 at Gardeny -- the only Aragonese house which is recorded as having this official -- was concerned with sick members of the Order. (252) Certainly the infirmary of the Gardeny convent must be distinguished from the house of the sick which in a thirteenth-century document is stated to be [293] near Gardeny, (253) for the latter hospital is elsewhere referred to as 'the sick of St. Lazarus living close to the house of Gardeny'. (254) In England, two Templar convents housed the sick and infirm brethren from the whole country, and it is possible that the infirmary at Gardeny was used for a similar purpose. (255) But while Templar convents seem not to have provided for the sick, they nevertheless contained a wide variety of men, and apart from the Templars themselves were frequented by laymen employed there, by those who received maintenance there, and by the poor who sought alms at the Templar table. A Templar convent was by no means an isolated community of warrior-monks, living away from the world.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Spam   Logged
Savannah
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 174



« Reply #54 on: January 11, 2009, 04:44:01 am »

Notes for Chapter Seven

1. These were restored in the seventeenth century: F. Carreras y Candi, 'Excursions per la Catalunya aragonesa y provincia d'Osca', Butlletí del Centre Excursionista de Catalunya, xviii (1908), 193-7; cf. J. Puig i Cadafalch, L'arquitectura romànica a Catalunya, iii (Barcelona, 1918), 424-5, 578.

2. J.M. Quadrado, Recuerdos y bellezas de España: Aragón (Barcelona, 1844), p. 290; M. de la Sala-Valdés, Estudios históricos y artisticos de Zaragoza (Zaragoza, 1933), p. 300. The Templar cemetery in Zaragoza, however, was in the parish of St. Mary: AHN, cód. 468, pp. 21-2, doc. 29; see below, p. 380.

3. Cf. R. del Arco, Catálogo monumental de España: Huesca (Madrid, 1942), i. 137.

4. It is last encountered in 1185: ACA, parch. Alfonso II, nos. 381, 382. The term was used in the same way elsewhere by the Templars and also by the Hospitallers: C. Erdmann, 'Der Kreuzzugsgedanke in Portugal', Historische Zeitschrift, cxli (1929), 41, note 1; Lees, Records, pp. lxiii-lxiv; Cartulaire de la commanderie de Richerenches de l'Ordre du Temple (1136-1214), ed. Marquis de Ripert-Monclar (Avignon, 1907), p. cxlviii; Delaville, Hospitaliers, p. 303.

5. e.g. Miravet.

6. Michelet, Procès; Villanueva, Viage, v. 226-32, doc. 9 (on the interpretation of this document, see below, p. 299, note 126); Finke, Papsttum, ii. 364-78, doc. 157; A. Mercati, 'Interrogatorio di Templari a Barcelona (1311)', Spanische Forschungen der Görresgesellschaft: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kulturgeschichte Spaniens, vi (1937), 246-51.

7. The sergeant P. of Lobera was commander of Selma in 1307, and Pascal of Alfaro and Bernard Belissén, who were in charge of Añesa in 1301 and 1307 respectively, were similarly sergeant commanders. The other sergeant commander of this period, Berenguer Guamir, had a more important post as commander of Barcelona.

8. Offices in the Hospital could similarly be granted either for life or for a term: see, for example, Delaville, Cartulaire, iii. 529, doc. 4022.

9. ACA, parch. James II, no. 2260; see below, p. 414.

10. When the provincial master Berenguer of Cardona was in Cyprus on one occasion, he received several petitions for the commanderies of Corbins and Gardeny: ACA, CRD Templarios, no. 247.

11. ACA, CRD Templarios, no. 86.

12. Ibid.

13. ACA, reg. 81, fol. 76-76v.

14. ACA, reg. 82, fol. 47v.

15. Règle, p. 103, art. 127; J. Delaville Le Roulx, 'Un nouveau manuscrit de la Règle du Temple', Annuaire-bulletin de la Société de l'Histoire de France, xxvi (1889), 200.

16. See below, p. 318.

17. AHN, Montesa, Sign. 542-C, fols. 30v-31; see below, p. 318.

18. AHN, cód. 466, p. 264, doc. 283; Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 30v-31.

19. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 572; AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 30v-31.

20. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 1296; at the beginning of August James of Timor was commander: parch. Gardeny, no. 1890.

21. AHN, cód. 471, pp. 326-7, doc. 259; San Juan, leg. 308, doc. 6.

22. M. Perlbach, Die Statuten des Deutschen Ordens (Halle, 1890), pp. 59-60.

23. See below, p. 320.

24. e.g. Arnold of Castellví was commander of Castellote for twenty-three years between 1283 and 1306 before being transferred to Mallorca.

25. G.R. Galbraith, The Constitution of the Dominican Order (Manchester, 1925), p. 123.

26. AHN, cód. 499, pp. 8-9, doc. 12; p. 23, doc. 46; pp. 61-2, doc. 151; pp. 73-4, doc. 179.

27. Delaville, Hospitaliers, p. 305; Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, p. 349.

28. That he did is suggested by the wording of several documents: e.g. ACA, CRD Templarios, no. 133; AHN, cód. 469, pp. 505-6, doc. 512; but this evidence is not conclusive.

29. Règle, pp. 106-7, art. 132.

30. AHN, San Juan, leg. 169, doc. 10; leg. 277, doc. 1; leg. 333, doc. 5; cód. 689, p. 89, doc. 94; ACA, parch. James I, no. 1623.

31. Delaville, Hospitaliers, pp. 306, 308; Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, pp. 351-2.

32. Javierre, Privilegios, pp. 65-9; M. Danvila, 'Origen, naturaleza y extensión de los derechos de la Mesa Maestral de la Orden de Calatrava', BRAH, xii (1888), 116-63; J.F. O'Callaghan, 'The Affiliation of the Order of Calatrava with the Order of Citeaux', Analecta Sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis, xvi (1960), 7, 22-3; D.W. Lomax, La Orden de Santiago (Madrid, 1965), pp. 205-6.

33. ACA, CRD Templarios, no. 86.

34. Ibid. There was a commander of Peñíscola, however, until the early part of the year 1307.

35. Règle, p. 249, art. 466.

36. ACA, CRD Templarios, nos. 285, 400.

37. e.g. ACA, parch. Peter III, nos. 217, 324-30; parch. James II, no. 518; AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 165, 212, 329; AHN, Montesa, P. 249-51, 341, 342. Not all the documents recording grants of property to tenants at this time refer to the master's intervention, but this is not necessarily significant. Earlier documents of this type which mention the provincial master refer to his counsel rather than his command or licence.

38. ACA, CRD Templarios, no. 355.

39. See below, p. 319.

40. ACA, parch. Peter II, nos. 100, 169; AHN, cód. 470, p. 28, doc. 36.

41. RAH, 12-6-I/M-83, doc. 107.

42. e.g. ACA, CRD Templarios, nos. 116-18; AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 196-8.

43. e.g. AHN, cód. 466, p. 153, doc. 115; p. 157, doc. 123; p. 158 doc. 126.

44. See above, p. 275.

45. Lists of chamberlains are given in Appendix II.

46. RAH, 12-6-I/M-83, docs. 118, 119, 121; AHN, San Juan, leg. 174, doc. 15.

47. RAH, 12-6-I/M-83, doc. 120; ACA, CRD James II, nos. 1737, 1747.

48. Règle, p. 134, art. 181.

49. Lists of dependencies are given in Appendix III.

50. La Ribera referred to lands along the Cinca; La Litera lay to the east of Monzón.

51. AHN, San Juan, leg. 333, doc. 5; see below, p. 410.

52. On the building of the chapel, see ACA, parch. James I, no. 1162, and Bulas, leg. 11, doc. 49; cf. F. Miquel Rosell, Regesta de letras pontificias del Archivo de Ia Corona de Aragón (Madrid, 1948), p. 92, no. 160. In 1250 a brother William was chaplain there: parch. James I, no. 1189. In the second half of the thirteenth century there was similarly a chapel in the house of Vallfogona, which was subject to Barbara: parch. James I, no. 1410.

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

54. ACA, CRD James II, no. 1737.

55. Segriá:
William of Passenant 1294-6
Peter of Montesquíu 1296-1302
William of Passenant 1303
Bernard Belissén 1303-4

Urgel:
Peter of Montesquíu 1295-6
William of Passenant 1296-1302
Bernard Belissén 1306-7

56. AGP, parch. Espluga de Francolí, nos. 249, 319; ACA, parch. James II, no. 686.

57. ACA, CRD Templarios, no. 36.

Report Spam   Logged
Savannah
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 174



« Reply #55 on: January 11, 2009, 04:45:00 am »

58. AHN, cód. 467, p. 368, doc. 459; pp. 369-70, doc. 462.

59. AHN, cód. 471, pp. 326-7, doc. 259.

60. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 2435.

61. Règle, p. 64.

62. Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 112-13, doc. 161; J.L. de Moncada, Episcopologio de Vich, i (Vich, 1891), 437-8.

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

64. Cf. Règle, pp. 165-6, arts. 270-1, where it is stated that the various chapters in the Order had the power to judge chaplains as well as other brothers. The Templar chaplains were not always ready to accept this subordination to the lay authorities in the Order. In 1255 the Aragonese provincial master complained to the pope that a number of Templar priests refused to obey him and had ignored a summons to appear before him: 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), 427, doc. 35; AHN, cód. 467, p. 21, doc. 30.

65. Cf. Règle, pp. 164-5, art. 268; pp. 235-6, art. 434. Their habits were normally of a dark colour; only those who became bishops were allowed white habits, such as the knights had. No Templars in Aragon are known to have become bishops but there are instances in the East: e.g. E. Langlois, Les Registres de Nicolas IV (Paris, 1886-93), p. 27. doc. 165.

66. A list of Templar chaplains at Gardeny is given in Appendix II. For Mas-Deu, see Michelet, Prochs, ii. 428, 442, 454, 463.

67. AHN, cód. 466, p. 329, doc. 376.

68. Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, p. 236.

69. Delaville, Hospitaliers, pp. 294-6; Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, p. 235.

70. Prutz, Entwicklung, p. 282, doc. 4.

71. L. Auvray, Les Registres de Grégoire IX, ii (Paris, 1907), 567, doc. 3520; ACA, reg. 310, fol. 12.

72. Règle, p. 165, art. 269; p. 284, art. 542.

73. Ibid., p. 166, arts. 272, 273.

74. Prutz, Entwicklung, p. 282, doc. 4.

75. Ibid., pp. 288-9, doc. 16.

76. ACA, reg. 310, fol. 3v; AHN, cód. 471, pp. 65-6, doc. 56; Migne, PL, cxvi. 643-4.

77. P. Pressutti, Regesta Honorii Papae III, i (Rome, 1888), 168, doc. 4530; ACA, 309, fol. 35.

78. Recruits were questioned on these points when they were admitted to the Order: Règle, p. 234, art. 431; p. 343, arts. 673, 674; Finke, Papsttum, ii. 364, doc. 157. These abuses were attacked by Innocent III in the bull Vitium pravitatis: Migne, PL, ccxvi. 890-1.

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

80. J. Sbaralea, Bullarium Franciscanum, i (Rome, 1759), 245.

81. J.B. Mahn, L'Ordre cistercien et son gouvernement (Paris, 1951), p. 82; M. Perlbach, Die Statuten des Deutschen Ordens (Hale, 1890), p. 63; J.F. O'Callaghan, 'The Affiliation of the Order of Calatrava with the Order of Citeaux', Analecta Sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis, xvi (1960), 27; D.W. Lomax, La Orden de Santiago (Madrid, 1965), p. 97.

82. Michelet, Procès, i. 93.

83. Règle, p. 165, art. 269.

84. Michelet, Procès, ii. 432.

85. Finke, Papsttum, ii. 374-5, doc. 157.

86. e.g. ACA, reg. 310, fol. 72; AHN, cód. 689, p. 57, doc. 51; cód. 468, pp. 553-4, doc. 542.

87. e.g. Dominic of Monmagastre was vicar of St. John in Monzón in 1250, as was Raymond of Anis in 1278 and Peter of Torre from 1292 to 1304. William Vasco was vicar of Novillas in 1271, García of Rueda vicar of Boquiñeni in 1252, and Peter of Manresa vicar of Miravet from 1271 to 1288.

88. Cf. U. Berlière, 'L'exercice du ministère paroissial par les moines du xiie au xviiie siècle', Revue bénédictine, xxxix (1927), 344-8. In 1255, however, the provincial master had occasion to complain of the dissolute life led by some Templar chaplains who had been granted parishes: AHN, cód. 467, p. 21, doc. 30.

89. AHN, cód. 466, p. 364, doc. 441.

90. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 898, 995, 996, 998, 1000, 1411, 1535, etc.

91. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 20, 21, 22, 892, 945, 1610, 1628.

92. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 951.

93. See Appendix II.

94. AHN, cód. 466, p. 322, docs. 359, 360; pp. 386-7, doc. 462.

95. AHN, cód. 689, p. 70, doc. 70.

96. AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fols. 34v-36, docs. 111, 112; fols. 56v-8, docs. 175, 178.

97. AHN, cód. 689, pp. 25-6, doc. 17; pp. 27-8, doc. 19.

98. Règle, p. 215, art. 385.

99. Ibid., p. 226, art. 412.

100. Ibid., p. 217, art. 389.

101. See, for example, G. de Valous, Le Monachisme clunisien des orígines au XVe siecle, i (Paris, 1935), 216-18.

102. Règle, pp. 216-84, arts. 386-543.

103. Ibid., pp. 227-76, arts. 416-523.

104. Ibid., p. 85, art. 97. That the procedure in the Customs was followed may be concluded from the fact that the admissions referred to in statements made by members of the convent of Mas-Deu in 1310 always took place on a Sunday: Michelet, Procès, ii. 423-515.

105. G. R. Gaibraith, The Constitution of the Dominican Order (Manchester, 1925), pp. 45, 111 ff.

106. R. de Huesca, Teatro histórico de las iglesias del reyno de Aragón, vii (Pam- plona, 1797), 121; Costums de Tortosa, 1. iv. 9, in B. Oliver, Historia del derecho en Cataluña, Mallorca y Valencia: Código de las costumbres de Tortosa, iv (Madrid, 1881), 36. On Templar seals, see Appendix IV.

107. AHN, cód. 471, pp. 322-3, doc. 255.

108. Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, p. 364.

109. e.g. AHN, San Juan, leg. 559, doc. 41; leg. 564, doc. 58; leg. 576, doc. 49.

110. Perlbach, op. cit., p. 41.

111. There were only 144 Templars in the British Isles, and even at the New Temple in London there were only five or six able-bodied Templars: C. Perkins, 'The Knights Templars in the British Isles', English Historical Review, xxv (1910), 222. In Cyprus only seventy-six Templars were arrested and interrogated: K. Schottmüller, Der Untergang des Templer-Ordens (Berlin, 1887), ii. 143-400.

112. Finke, Papsttum, ii. 229, doc. 124.

113. ACA, reg. 291, fol. 96v; cf. Finke, Papsttum, ii. 121-2, doc. 77.

114. Ibid. ii. 140, doc. 87; 145, doc. 88; 188, doc. 105. Certainly Bernard of Fuentes, who was arrested and interrogated at Lérida an 1310, later escaped and went to Tunis, where he became head of the Christian militia in the service of the sultan; in 1313 he returned to Aragon as the sultan's envoy: ibid. ii. 226-7, doc. 121; 372, doc. 157; A. Masiá de Ros, La Corona de Aragón y los estados del norte de Africa (Barcelona, 1951), pp. 171, 490-2, doc. 186; cf. C.E. Dufourcq, L'Espagne catalane et le Maghrib aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles (Paris, 1966), pp. 489-90.

115. Michelet, Procès, ii. 423-515.

116. Villanueva, Viage, v. 226-32, doc. 9.

117. This method is employed by García Larragueta, Gran priorado, i. 249.

118. This is apparent, for example, from a comparison of AHN, cód. 689, pp. 28-31, docs. 20, 22, 23.

119. Mas-Deu: ACA, parch. James I, no. 1773 (1264); Castellote: AHN, cód. 689, pp. 26-7, doc. 18 (1247); Boquiñeni: AHN, cód. 470, pp. 5-6, doc. 4 (1192), pp. 25-6, doc. 33 (1223), pp. 36-7, doc. 47 (1231), etc.

120. The figure for Gardeny refers to the year 1212; that for Zaragoza to 1213; and that for Boquiñeni to 1192-3, 1219, 1223, and 1230.

121. ACA, CRD Templarios, no. 285.

122. ACA, CRD Templarios, no. 371.

123. U. Berlière, 'Le nombre des moines dans les anciens monastères', Revue bénédictine, xli (1929), and xlii (1930); G.G. Coulton, Five Centuries of Religion, iii (Cambridge, 1936), 540-58.

124. A decline of this kind would mean of course that any conclusions about numbers derived from evidence concerning the dissolution of the Temple would not be valid for an earlier period.

125. Finke, Papsttum, ii. 364-78, doc. 157.

126. Villanueva, Viage, v. 226-32, doc. 9. The ranks of those receiving pelisions are not given, but twenty-three can be traced from other sources as knights, and all of these received payments of 1,400s.B. or more. Similarly twenty-one can be traced as sergeants and these received payments of not more than 1,000s.B. John of Rosas who can be identified as a chaplain received 600s.B., as did another Templar described as Aznar Capella. It may therefore be concluded that the forty-five Templars who received payments of 1,400s.B. or more were knights, and that the sixty-three who received payments of 1,000s.B. or less were sergeants or chaplains, and of these the great majority would probably be sergeants. As none of the four chaplains interrogated in Roussillon received pensions, possibly most of the clerical members of the Order found employment elsewhere in the Church, and did not receive pensions.

127. In Britain only 15-20 of the 144 brothers were knights: Perkins, loc. cit., p. 224. In Cyprus more than half were knights: Schottmüller, op. cit. ii. 143-400. García Larragueta, Gran priorado, i. 237-8, shows that knights were probably in a minority in the Hospital in Navarre, and although Delaville, Hospitaliers, p. 290, argues that knights predominated in the Hospital, he does not substantiate this assertion.

128. A brother Cavler is mentioned in thirty-one documents in the Cartulary of Castellote (AHN, cód. 689), but is called miles on only three occasions.

129. M. Bloch, La Société féodale, ii (Paris, 1940), 58.

130. Règle, p. 67.

131. Ibid., p. 35, art. 11; p. 46, art. 35.

132. Ibid., p. 54, art. 51 of the French version.

133. Ibid., p. 46, art. 41 of the French version. A number of writers have suggested that the rank of sergeant did not exist at the beginning: e.g. Miret y Sans, Les Cases, p. 21; M. Bruguera, Historia general de la religiosa y militar Orden de los caballeros del Temple, i (Barcelona, 1888), 125; but they do not examine the question in detail.

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

135. e.g. Règle, p. 269, art. 509.

136. e.g. AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fols. 12v-13, doc. 39; AHN, cód. 469, p. 372, doc. 322.

137. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 604; cf. Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, pp. 123, 237, 348.

138. Règle, pp. 109-13, arts. 138-43.

139. Ibid., p. 194, art. 337; p. 234, art. 431; p. 240, art. 445.

140. Ibid., p. 129, art. 172; p. 229, art. 419.

141. Ibid., p. 113, art. 143; p. 115, art. 146; p. 161, art. 258; p. 178, art. 300; p. 189, art. 325, etc.

142. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 604; AHN, San Juan, leg. 308, doc. 5; cód. 466, p. 153, doc. 116; pp. 247-8, doc. 254.

143. AHN, cód. 471, pp. 340-5, doc. 266; AGP, parch. Comuns, no. 211.

144. RAH, 12-6-I/M-83, doc. 51.

145. AHN, San Juan, leg. 324, doc. 1; cód. 471, pp. 187-9, doc. 199; ACA, reg. 310, fol. 74.

146. AHN, cód. 689, p. 99, doc. 100.

147. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 604.

148. AHN, San Juan, leg. 309, doc. 5.

149. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 99, doc. 240.

150. AHN, cód. 469, p. 372, doc. 322; pp. 401-2, doc. 343; cód. 499, p. 45, doc. 107.

151. AHN, cód. 469, p. 363, doc 310; AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fols. 12v-13, doc. 39; fol. 16-16v, doc. 50; parch. Tortosa, nos. 11, 20.

152. Règle, p. 163, art. 266; p. 251, art. 470; p. 263, art. 498.

153. Michelet, Procès, ii. 479, 493. In the thirteenth century it was decreed in the Teutonic Order that illiterate brothers should not learn to read and write without permission: Perlbach, op. cit., p. 64.

154. M. Milá y Fontanals, De los trovadores de España (Barcelona, 1861), p. 364; cf. J. Massó Torrents, Repertori de l'antiga literatura catalana (Barcelona, 1932), pp. 7-8; P. Meyer, 'Les derniers troubadours de la Provence', BEG, xxxi (1870), 436. Massó Torrents, op. cit., p. 241, suggests that the troubadour should be identified with the Templar Raymond Oliver, but as the latter was still alive in 1328 he is unlikely to have been writing sixty years earlier: AHN, San Juan, leg. 587, doc. 37. A further suggestion, made by G. Bertoni, 'Il serventese di Ricaut Bonomel', Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie, xxxiv (1910), 701, note 4, is to identify him with the Oliver mentioned in the Catalan version of the Templar Customs: cf. J. Delaville Le Roulx, 'Un nouveau manuscrit de la Règle du Temple', Annuaire-bulletin de la Société de l'Histoire de France, xxvi (1889), 205.

155. M. de Riquer, 'El trovador Giraut del Luc y sus poesías contra Alfonso II de Aragón', BRABLB, xxiii (1950), 220.

156. ACA, CRD Templarios, no. 157; Finke, AA, ii. 924-5, doc. 596; cf. A. Rubió y Lluch, Documents per l'història de la cultura catalana migeval, ii (Barcelona, 1921), 16, note 1.

157. Finke, Papsttum, ii. 167, doc. 94.

158. J. Miret y Sans, 'Inventaris de les cases del Temple de la Corona d'Aragó en 1289', BRABLB, vi (1911), 70-2.

159. It was stated in the Rule that there should be a reading at meal times, but it is not known what was usually read: Règle, p. 34, art. 9.

160. J. Rubió, R. d'Alós, and F. Martorell, 'Inventaris inèdits de l'Ordre del Temple a Catalunya', Anuari de l'Institut d'Estudis Catalans, i (1907), 396-7, doc. 5.

161. Villanueva, Viage, v. 200; F. Martorell y Trabal, 'Inventari dels bens de la cambra reyal en temps de Jaume II (1323)', Anuari de l'Institut d'Estudis Catalans, iv (1911-12), 562, 565; Rubió, Alós, and Martorel, loc. cit., p. 406, doc. 17. There are two fourteenth-century Catalan versions of the Secreta Secretorum in the Biblioteca Nacional: J. Massó Torrents, Manuscrits catalans de la Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid (Barcelona, 1896), pp. 61, 69.

162. Villanueva, Viage, v. 200; Martorelly Trabal, loc. cit., p. 562. The earliest surviving copy of a Catalan translation of this work dates from 1310: L. Karl, 'Théodoric de l'Ordre de Prêcheurs et sa Chirurgie', Bulletin de la Société Française d'Histoire de la Médecine, xxiii (1929), 161-2.

163. Villanueva, Viage, v. 200; Martorell y Trabal, lo. cit., p. 562. In a Catalan version of this work contained in a fourteenth-century manuscript in the Episcopal Museum in Vich the heading of the first chapter is translated as 'De decayment de cabeyls': Tresor de pobres (Biblioteca de la revista catalana, 1892), p. 10; cf. J. Massó Torrents, 'Manuscrits catalans de Vich (Arxiu Municipal, Museu Episcopal, Biblioteca Episcopal)', Revista de bibliografía catalana, ii (1902), 238-9.

164. Rubió, Alós, and Martorell, loc. cit., pp. 403-4, doc. 14.

165. Ibid., pp. 393-6, doc. 4.

166. AHN, códs. 1032, 1312. It is not known who made these translations.

167. Rubió, Alós, and Martorell, loc. cit., pp. 393-6, doc. 4; Villanueva, Viage, v. 201; Martorell y Trabal, loc. cit., pp. 553, 562-6, where seven copies are mentioned; J. Massó Torrents, 'Inventari dels bens mobles del rey Martí d'Aragó', Revue hispanique, xii (1905), 415, 420, 422, 435, 453, nos. 6, 39, 53, 154, 285, where five are mentioned; Delaville Le Roulx, 'Un nouveau manuscrit'.

168. Michelet, Procès, ii. 423-515, passim.

169. Règle, pp. 202-4, arts. 355-8.

170. Ibid., p. 171, art. 282; p. 180, arts. 306-7; cf. Delaville, Cartulaire, ii. 558, doc. 2213.

171. Règle, pp. 171-2, art. 284; pp. 204-5, arts. 360-1.

172. Ibid., pp. 35-6, art. 10; p. 74, art. 76; pp. 200-1, arts. 350-1.

173. Ibid., pp. 41-2, art. 34; p. 202, art. 353; Ferreira, Memorias, ii. 893; ACA, reg. 310, fol. 4v.

174. Règle, pp. 33-4, art. 8; pp. 39-40, art. 17.

175. Ibid., p. 31, art. 69.

176. Ibid., pp. 22-3, art. 58; pp. 25-6, art. 62.

177. M.P. Deroux, Les Origines de l'oblature bénédictine (Vienne, 1927), pp. 44 ff.

178. G. Schnürer, Die ursprüngliche Templerregel (Freiburg, 1903), pp. 54-6.

179. Michelet, Procès, ii. 423-515; Finke, Papsttum, ii. 366, doc. 157; A. Mercati, 'Interrogatorio di Templari a Barcellona (1311)', Spanische Forschungen der Görresgesellschaft: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kulturgeschichte Spaniens, vi (1937), 247.

180. Règle, p. iv.

181. Ibid., pp. 25-6, art. 14 of the French version.

182. AHN, cód. 689, p. 93, doc. 99.

183. E. Strehlke, Tabulae Ordinis Theutonici (Berlin, 1869), pp. 387-8, doc. 560; cf. K. Górski, 'The Teutonic Order in Prussia', Medievalia et Humanistica, xvii (1966), 28.

184. Michelet, Procès, ii. 451.

185. Ibid. ii. 429, 444, 481.

186. Finke, Papsttum, ii. 368-9, doc. 157; cf. A. Trudon des Ormes, 'Listes des maisons et de quelques dignitaires de l'Ordre du Temple en Syrie, en Chypre et en France', Revue de l'Orient latin, v (1897), 393, where an example of entry into the Temple at the age of eleven is quoted.

187. E. Magnou, 'Oblature, classe chevaleresque et servage dans les maisons méridionales du Temple au XIIe siècle', Annales du Midi, lxxiii (1961), 389-90. Not all the cases referred to here were necessarily of formal oblation, but there is one very clear instance: cf. C. Brunel, Les plus Anciennes Chartes en langue provençale, ii (Paris, 1952), 18-19, doc. 372. Oblation appears not to have been unknown in the Hospital and in the Teutonic Order: Delaville, Hospitaliers, p. 290; Cartulaire, ii. 38-40, doc. 1193; Perlbach, op. cit., p. 51. In the Teutonic Order an individual was not supposed to make his profession before the end of his fourteenth year.

188. AHN, cód. 499, pp. 19-20, doc. 34; cód. 469, pp. 224-5, doe. 177; see below, p. 379.

189. ACA, CRD Templarios, no. 458.

190. Most of the Templars interrogated by the bishop of Lérida in 1310 gave their age on entering the Order: Finke, Papsttum, ii. 364-78, doc. 157. The average age of eighteen sergeants on entering was nearby twenty-seven, and only two had joined the Temple when below the age of twenty. The average for the nine knights was twenty and a half. One of them had joined at the age of fifty, but none of the others was over twenty when admitted, and the average age of the others on entering was seventeen.

191. J. Miret y Sans, 'Inventaris de les cases del Temple de la Corona d'Aragó en 1289', BRABLB, vi (1911), 62-9. Not all the slaves were housed in the convents; some were maintained in dependencies.

192. Miravet had two baptized slaves and there were also some at Alfambra. There was no obligation on Christian lords to free slaves who were baptized: see C. Verlinden, L'Esclavage dans l'Europe médiévale, i (Bruges, 1955), 300, 303-4.

193. Ibid. i. 252-61; cf. Costums de Tortosa, ix. vii, in B. Oliver, Historia del derecho en Cataluña, Mallorca y Valencia: Código de las costumbres de Tortosa, iv (Madrid, 1881), 376-80.

194. Finke, AA, iii. 122-4, doc. 54; A. Giménez Soler, 'Caballeros españoles en Africa y africanos en España', Revue hispanique, xii (1905), 366, note i.

195. Verlinden, op. cit. i. 282-5; see below, p. 398.

196. AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 7, doc. 22; Miret y Sans, 'Inventaris', p. 69.

197. Provisions concerning escaped slaves were included in a number of agreements made by the Temple: M. Ferrandis, 'Rendición del castillo de Chivert a los Templarios', Homenaje a D. Francisco Codera (Zaragoza, 1904), p. 30; AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fols. 48v-49, doc. 148; ACA, parch. James I, no. 870; cf. Costums de Tortosa, VI. i. 1-3, in Oliver, op. cit. iv. 265-6; Verlinden, op. cit. i. 299, 310-l1. An instance where the Moorish population gave assistance to escaping Templar slaves is mentioned in ACA, reg. 48, fol. 117. On this problem in the following centuries, see Verlinden, op. cit. i. 481-509, and idem, 'Esclaves fugitifs et assurances en Catalogne (xlve-xve siècles)', Annales du Midi, lxii (1950), 301-28.

198. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 144; Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 17v, doc. 54.

199. Cf. Verlinden, L'Esclavage, i. 288; J. Miret y Sans, 'La esclavitud en Cataluña en los últimos tiempos de la edad media', Revue hispanique, xli (1917), 11.

200. AGP, parch. Testamentos, no. 134; parch. Gardeny, no. 2435.

201. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 816, 907, 947.

202. ACA, parch. James I, no. 2127.

203. ACA, reg. 291, fol. 257v.

204. Ibid., fols. 302v, 306v.

205. References to these occur in the numerous parchments of Gardeny belonging to this period.

206. AHN, cód. 466, p. 36, doc. 36; pp. 354-5, doc. 423; see below, p. 384.

207. AHN, Montesa, R. 134; ACA, reg. 291, fol. 298.

208. These kinds of provision were made by some founders of chantries: AHN, Montesa, R. 134; P. 610; ACA, reg. 55, fol. 2v.

209. ACA, parch. James I, no. 1595.

210. AHN, cód. 499, p. 9, doc. 13; ACA, reg. 310, fol. 75-75v. That there was no Templar establishment of any kind near Pertusa at least towards the end of the twelfth century is apparent from the Templars' retention of the right of hospitality in certain houses there in 1176: cód. 499, pp. 7-8, doc. ii.

211. AHN, cód. 468, pp. 81-3, doc. 78; San Juan, leg. 531, doc. 9; cf. R.I. Burns, The Crusader-Kingdom of Valencia (Harvard, 1967), i. 112-14; P. Linehan, The Spanish Church and the Papacy in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, 1971), caps. 1-5.

212. AHN, cód. 691, fols. 198v-199v, doc. 444.

213. At Zaragoza a certain Andrew was the scribe of the house from 1188 until 1207: AHN, San Juan, leg. 569, doc. 5; cód. 468, pp. 26-7, doc. 35, etc. In the Cartulary of Huesca (AHN, cód. 499), several scribes are mentioned between 1205 and 1247.

214. e.g. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 50, 145, 209, 909, 1655.

215. e.g. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 680, 683, 775, 777; parch. Casas Antiguas, no. 16.

216. ACA, reg. 291, fol. 361.

217. The name of the notary throughout the period was Bernard Menaguerra, but it is clear from references by one notary to the notebooks of his predecessor that there were at least two notaries of that name.

218. ACA, reg. 197, fols. 4v-5; AGP, parch. Comuns, no. 253.

219. D. Mansilla, La documentación pontjficia de Honorio III (1216-1227) (Rome, 1965), pp. 199-200, doc. 256.

220. Trudon des Ormes, loc. cit., p. 420.

221. AGP, parch. Tortosa, no. 64, where the term is clearly used merely to denote a confrater. On the inconsistency in the use of the terms confrater and donatus, see J. Orlandis, '"Traditio corporis et animae" (La "familiaritas" en las iglesias y monasterios españoles de la alta edad media)', AHDE, xxiv 125-30.

222. AHN, cód. 468, pp. 216-17, doc. 188; cód. 469, pp. 397-8, doc. 338.

223. A. Bonilla y San Martín, 'El derecho aragonés en el siglo xii', II Congreso de historia de la Corona de Aragón, i (Huesca, 1920), 289, doc. B.

224. AHN, San Juan, leg. 309, doc. 5.

225. Both Bartholomew of Tarba and Peter of Luco made promises of obedience to the Temple, and it is argued by Magnou, loc. cit., p. 386, that such a promise meant that an individual was becoming more than a confrater. In these cases it appears to have been so, but in the documents of the house of Tortosa promises of obedience are often mentioned in connection with those who were merely entering into the confraternity of the Temple.

226. AHN, cód. 499, pp. 18-19, doc. 32.

227. Ibid., p. 21, doc. 39.

228. Ibid., p. 81, doc. 195.

229. J.B. Mahn, L'Ordre cistercien et son gouvernement (Paris, 1951), pp. 51-3.

230. Règle, pp. 32-3, art. 29; pp. 64-5, art. 5; pp. 65-6, art. 32; p. 66, art. 61.

231. See above, p. 16.

232. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 308, doc. 499; p. 312, doc. 505.

233. AHN, cód. 691, fols. 137v-138, doc. 357; fol. 163, doc. 414; see below, p. 368. Iñigo of Rada was lord of Funes at least from 1155 to 1158: Lacarra, 'Documentos', nos. 259 (iii. 633), 262 (iii. 636), 264 (iii. 638).

234. ACA, reg. 309, fol. 11v.

235. Ibid., fol. 18-18v; repeated in 1245 and 1265: AHN, cód. 1312, pp. 90-4, doc. 57; ACA, reg. 309, fols. 25v-26.

236. AHN, San Juan, leg. 333, doc. 5; see below, p. 410. Papal registers contain several examples of the provision to benefices of secular priests patronized by the Temple: e.g. J. Guiraud, Les Registres d'Urbain IV, ii (Paris, 1901), 434-5, doc. 900; iii (Paris, 1904), 280, doc. 1786; 419, doc. 2487. None of these concerns Aragon, but there is no reason to suppose that the situation there was different from that in the rest of western Christendom.

237. AHN, cód. 469, p. 505, doc. 511. In the inventories which have survived from the year 1289 the food and drink of the brothers is sometimes listed separately from that of the companyes, and was no doubt of a different quality: Miret y Sans, 'Inventaris', pp. 63-4.

238. Règle, pp. 37-8, arts. 14, 15.

239. Ibid., pp. 104-5, art. 129; p. 119, art. 153; pp. 208-9, arts. 370, 371.

240. Ibid., pp. 62-3, art. 3; pp. 64-5, art. 5.

241. Ibid., p. 30, art. 24; pp. 198-9, arts. 346, 347.

242. Ibid., p. 142, art. 199; p. 163, art. 266; p. 198, art. 346, etc.

243. Ibid., pp. 83-4, art. 94; p. 137, art. 188.

244. AHN, cód. 470, pp. 5-6, doc. 4; pp. 66-7, doc. 78; pp. 73-4, doc. 88; see below, p. 374.

245. Miret y Sans, 'Inventaris', pp. 63, 69.

246. Finke, Papsttum, ii. 72, doc. 48.

247. ACA, reg. 291, fol. 114v.

248. Michelet, Procès, i. 94. Trudon des Ormes, loc. cit., pp. 4, 8-20, refers to statements made by Templars after their arrest in France, Cyprus, and Italy, showing that alms -- especially the tenth of bread -- were given in these countries; and a few years earlier James of Molay, when protesting against the proposed union of the military orders, stated that alms were given three times a week in Templar convents and also mentioned the giving of the tenth of bread: S. Baluzius, Vitae Paparum Avenionensium, ed. G. Molbat, iii (Paris, 1921), 151. About the year 1295 the Grand Master had, however, for financial reasons forbidden excessive almsgiving, and this could have given rise to the charge made against the Templars: Michelet, Procès, i. 629. But even in the twelfth century it had been noted that the Templars did not dispense alms on the same scale as the Hospitallers: John of Wurzburg, Descriptio Terrae Sanctae, cap. 12, in Migne, PL, clv. 1087.

249. Règle, pp. 100-1, art. 121. It has been suggested that the Templars maintained hospitals in Navarre at Bargota, Sangüesa, Torres del Río, and Puente la Reina, along the pilgrim route to Compostela: M. Núñez de Cepeda, La beneficencia en Navarra a través de los siglos (Pamplona, 1940), pp. 38-9, 73, 218, 235; L. Vázquez de Parga, J.M. Lacarra, and J. Uría Ríu, Las peregrinaciones a Santiago de Compostela, ii (Madrid, 1949), 129. But the hospital at Bargota belonged to the Hospitallers, as probably did that at Sangüesa, where the Hospital had a commandery: García Larragueta, Gran priorado, i. 96, 155. The assertion that the Templars were established at Torres del Río seems to be based merely on the fact that the chapel there is in the octagonal form which has sometimes been considered characteristic of Templar architecture; but as has been seen (above, p. 108, note 91), there was no architectural style peculiar to the Templars. The Templars did enjoy the lordship of the old township of Puente la Reina, but there is no definite evidence to indicate that they established a hospital there for pilgrims. The only indication that they may have dispensed hospitality there is the wording of a charter issued by García Ramírez in 1146, which states that 'you [the Templars] may sell bread and wine, and give hospitality to any poor traveler for the love of God but not for money': J.M. Lacarra, 'Notas para la formación de las familias de fueros navarros', AHDE, x (1933), 260.

250. Delaville, Cartulaire, i. 67, doc. 70; Perlbach, op. cit., pp. 31-4; in a bull issued in 1199 Innocent III stated that 'with regard to the poor and the sick' the Teutonic Order adopted the customs of the Hospital: B. Strehlke, Tabulae Ordinis Theutonici (Berlin, 1869), p. 266, doc. 297.

251. See especially arts. 190-7, which form the retrais of the infirmarer: Règle, pp. 138-41.

252. AGP, parch. Testamentos, no. 103; parch. Gardeny, nos. 604,1740, 1815.

253. AGP, parch. Testamentos, no. 165.

254. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 1753.

255. Victoria County History of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely, ii (London, n.d.), 260; Lees, Records, p. clxxx; T.W. Parker, The Knights Templars in England (Tucson, 1963), p. 41.
Report Spam   Logged
Savannah
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 174



« Reply #56 on: January 11, 2009, 04:45:53 am »

8

Templar Organization and Life:
(ii) The Province and its Relations with the East

[308] According to article 87 of the Templar Customs, the head of the Aragonese province, like other provincial masters, was among the officials who were chosen by the Grand Master and chapter, as distinct from those whom the Grand Master could appoint merely with the counsel of some of the prodomes of the Temple.(1) The word 'chapter' is used in the Rule and Customs to signify any formal assembly, and in this context could therefore apply either to the meetings of the central Convent in the East or to the general chapter of the Order. In the next article, however, a distinction is made between unspecified officials appointed in the general chapter and those whom the Grand Master could appoint merely with counsel,(2) and in a Catalan version of the Customs of the Temple an article is included which specifically states that provincial masters could be appointed only in the general chapter.(3) At least in the second half of the thirteenth century, then, when article 88 and the Catalan version of the Customs were drawn up,(4) provincial masters were expected to be appointed in the general chapter. There is little evidence to show how far this ruling was observed in the appointment of the head of the Aragonese province. No records of elections exist and the only documents which survive about a particular appointment concern that of Simon of Lenda, the last provincial master, in September 1307. In the notifications of this appointment no reference is made to any assembly.(5) But at that time the Grand Master was in France; the pope had already decided to hold an inquiry into Templar conduct; and there were apparently dissensions among the Aragonese Templars.(6) The circumstances were therefore exceptional. But in the absence of precise information about dates of appointment and about the times when general chapters were held,(7) it is not clear whether on [309] other occasions the procedure mentioned in the Customs was followed.

Whichever of the central authorities appointed provincial masters, it would be expected that the post would usually be given to a Templar who had served in the East and was known to the Grand Master and the leading officials of the Order; and it can be seen that this was certainly done in some instances. When notifying Simon of Lenda of his appointment in 1307, the Grand Master James of Molay referred to their long acquaintance with each other.(Cool The new provincial master was an Aragonese Templar, and at the time of his promotion commander of Horta,(9) but he had been in Cyprus in 1292,(10) and his acquaintance with James of Molay probably dated from that time. His predecessor, the Catalan Berenguer of Cardona, is also known to have visited the East before his appointment, for in 1286 Alfonso III had given him permission to take horses from Aragon to the Holy Land.(11) With the disappearance of the central archives of the Order, however, it is impossible to determine whether the provincial master had always earlier been in the East. The only other known instances are of Gilbert Eral, who was Grand Commander in the Holy Land in 1183(12) and who became provincial master in 1185, and of Hugh of Jouy who was marshal of the Order in the East before being made provincial master in 1254.(13)

Yet the interests of the central authorities were not the only factor in deciding appointments to the post of provincial master. The wishes of the province itself were taken into account at least when a vacancy was caused by the death of a provincial master. In a letter to the Aragonese king, James of Molay in 1307 stated that

it is an established custom that when any preceptor of a province dies the brothers of his province, after informing the master of what has happened, advise according to their knowledge and opinion about the appointment of a new ruler for the province. And because our brothers have not yet done so, we have not been able without hearing their advice to establish a new preceptor.(14)

The other influence on appointments was likely to be that of secular rulers. Royal influence in the choice of provincial masters has been demonstrated in France,(15) and suggested in England,(16) and in Aragon in the fourteenth century Peter IV was able to [310] secure the appointment of his nominee to a Hospitaller province.(17) Royal attempts to influence Templar appointments in Aragon are also recorded at the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth centuries; they were never altogether successful and on some occasions they failed completely, but at times the choice of provincial masters may have been influenced by royal wishes. In an effort to win support for Charles of Valois's claim to the Aragonese throne, the French king Philip the Fair in 1286 wrote to Honorius IV, asking him to request the Grand Masters of the Hospital and Temple to appoint provincial masters in Aragon who would favour the French cause.(18) This petition, however, produced no result: the Templar provincial master Berenguer of San Justo remained in office. Four years later, apparently on the expiry of Berenguer of San Justo's period of office, the Aragonese king Alfonso III in turn tried to influence the choice of the provincial master. On 27 April 1290 he wrote to the Grand Master, William of Beaujeu, asking for the election of a Catalan as provincial master,

a person whom we can trust, and let him be experienced, prudent, and discreet, and suitable for the aforesaid position and a man who will be able to help us with counsel and aid.(19)
A further letter, written on the same day, requested the appointment of Peter of Tous, the commander of Miravet, who in the Cortes of Monzón had been placed on the king's council.(20) These letters, which sought to prevent the reappointment of a provincial master who apparently came of a Roussillon family(21) and to secure instead the election of a Catalan who could assist the king, were no doubt occasioned by political considerations, for Roussillon was subject to James of Mallorca, who was hostile to Aragon and in league with the latter's enemies. Already in February the king had decreed that all foreigners should leave the country(22) and he was obviously particularly anxious to ensure that positions of influence and importance were not occupied by men of divided loyalties. Alfonso did not gain all his demands: his nominee was not appointed. But Berenguer of San Justo was transferred to a post in Cyprus(23) and his successor, Berenguer of Cardona, was a Catalan. In April 1302 James II complained about Berenguer of Cardona, who had opposed him in the Cortes, and demanded that he should be removed from office.(24) No immediate [311] reply was received and in September James reiterated his demand.(25) Two months later the Grand Master, James of Molay, wrote saying that he would willingly remove the provincial master if it were in his power to do so; but he was bound by the statutes of the Temple, which stated that offices granted ad terminum could not be revoked before the end of the term.(26) At the end of January 1303 James accepted this refusal on the grounds that the provincial master had apologized,(27) and Berenguer of Cardona remained in office until his death in 1307. In that year James put forward Dalmau of Timor, the commander of Barbará, as his candidate for the post of provincial master(28) On this occasion, unlike those of 1290 and 1302, the king's intervention appears not to have been occasioned by any particular circumstances, and it might therefore be argued that the Crown was now beginning to assert a regular pressure on elections to the office of provincial master; but the Aragonese kings had long had reason to desire the appointment of amenable masters and they may well have acted earlier in this way: according to the Chronicle of James I the king had exerted influence on Hospitaller appointments as early as 1230.(29) In 1307 the royal candidate was again rejected, but the new provincial master, Simon of Lenda, was probably acceptable to the king, for he had been a royal envoy to Philip the Fair in 1301 and again in 1303.(30) As James of Molay reminded the new provincial master, the Temple needed not only to preserve its independence, but also to maintain good relations with the Aragonese king, on whose favour the well-being of the province depended;(31) and this double need may account for the choice of Simon of Lenda,just as it may explain the earlier appointment of Berenguer of Cardona.
Report Spam   Logged
Savannah
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 174



« Reply #57 on: January 11, 2009, 04:46:34 am »

That these local influences -- whether of the Templars in the province or of the secular rulers -- were of some significance in determining appointments is suggested by the predominance among the Aragonese provincial masters of men who were already known in the province before their appointment. Of thirty-two provincial masters in Aragon, twenty-two can be traced as Templars in the province before their promotion.(32) Of the rest, Peter of Moncada was the younger son of the Catalan noble Raymond of Moncada, killed during the conquest of Mallorca,(33) and Berenguer of San Justo probably came from Roussillon. Only one name -- Hugh of Jouy -- definitely suggests [312] the appointment of a Templar who was not connected with the province, but his case was exceptional. According to Joinville, he was banished from the Holy Land for negotiating with the Muslims without Louis IX's consent, and it was therefore necessary to find him a post in the West.(34)

Several provincial masters, like Peter of Moncada, came from the leading noble families of the province. William of Cardona was the younger brother of the viscount Raymond Folz III(35) and Berenguer of Cardona belonged to the same family,(36) while Arnold of Castellnou was the brother of William, viscount of Castellnou.(37) Hugh Geoffrey came from the family of the viscounts of Marseilles(38) and Arnold of Torroja was a member of the house of that name, which richly endowed the Temple in Catalonia.(39) Such appointments, like the division between knights and sergeants, illustrate the influence which birth and secular rank inevitably exercised within the Order: St. Bernard's assertion that the Templars 'defer to the better, not to the more noble' was scarcely an accurate claim.(40) These appointments also show how the Temple provided a career for the younger sons of the nobility, who might find the Templar way of life more attractive than that of a monk. Yet the majority of provincial masters were of necessity drawn from lesser families. Peter of Rovira came of a knightly house settled in the district of Vallés to the north of Barcelona,(41) and Raymond of Gurb belonged to the family which held the castellanry of Gurb, to the north of Vich;(42) but in most cases their origins cannot be traced.

It is not known whether the office of provincial master was ever granted for life; it is apparent, on the other hand, that a number of Aragonese provincial masters were, like Berenguer of Cardona, appointed only for a certain period, for they later occupied other posts of similar or lesser importance. And as in the notification of the appointment of Berenguer of Cardona's successor it is not stated whether the office was to be held for life or not, it seems that such information was then not needed and that it was then the accepted practice to grant the office of provincial master for a period. The distance between the headquarters of the Order and many of the provinces meant that such appointments could not be reviewed annually, as may have happened in the case of posts within a province, for not all provincial masters could attend the general chapter each year: to have done so would [313] have necessitated an absence from their provinces of many months every year. The Temple appears therefore to have adopted the practice of nominating for a term of four years those officials who were appointed by the central authorities and of summoning them to the East at the end of that time, just as the Hospitallers towards the end of the thirteenth century followed the custom of recalling the heads of western provinces every five years.(43) This is the implication of a letter sent by the Grand Master to the queen-mother Constance in 1290, in which, when refusing her request of an office for a protégé, he wrote

we cannot, while observing our statutes, because it is customary to recall our bailiffs at four-yearly intervals, otherwise our house would be ruined.(44)
A rule of this kind may have been in use throughout the second half of the thirteenth century, since although the length of the Aragonese provincial masters' terms of office is not known exactly, all those who are known not to have died in office appear to have occupied the post for approximately four years or for multiples of four years. William of Cardona, who was in the East in 1253,(45) was provincial master from 1244 to 1252. William of Montañana, commander of Sidon and Grand Commander of the Order in 1262,(46) held office in Aragon from early in 1258 until February 1262. His successor, William of Pontóns, was provincial master for slightly over four years before holding high office in the East.(47) Peter of Moncada, who was killed at the siege of Tripoli in 1289,(48) also held the post for about four years, as he was provincial master from April 1279 until late in 1282 or early in 1283.(49) The next provincial master, Berenguer of San Justo, appears to have held office for two terms: he went to the East in 1286,(50) when he had been master for some three and a half years, and surrendered his post in 1290, when a second term would have been completed.(51)
At the end of the twelfth century and in the early decades of the thirteenth; however, there was certainly no rule of this kind. The periods of office of those who were later transferred to other posts varied greatly and were not related to the term of four years. Pons of Rigaud, provincial master from 1189 to 1195, held office for some six years,(52) while Pons Marescalci was provincial master for two and a half years between 1196 and 1199.(53)

Report Spam   Logged
Savannah
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 174



« Reply #58 on: January 11, 2009, 04:47:02 am »

[314] Before Provence was made into a separate province, a lieutenant ruled there as the delegate of the provincial master.(54) There was no similar office south of the Pyrenees. The Temple's participation in the reconquista inevitably meant that the provincial master spent most of his time in Aragon and Catalonia and a permanent delegate in these areas was not needed. In the Spanish districts, both before and after 1240, a lieutenant was appointed only on certain occasions. The provincial master might delegate his authority in the transaction of some particular business, and when he was away from the province he appointed someone to take his place during his absence. When Berenguer of Cardona went to Cyprus in 1300 he left Peter of Tous in charge of the province; and when the latter was transferred to Castile, the master delegated Raymond of Fals, the castellan of Monzón.(55) A temporary lieutenant was also appointed when the office of provincial master was vacant. The procedure laid down in the Customs of the Temple was similar to that followed during a vacancy in the office of Grand Master: a lieutenant -- comparable with the Grand Commander in the Holy Land -- was to be chosen by the heads of convents, to hold office until the naming of a new provincial master.(56) Those who were made lieutenants of the master in Aragon were usually Templars who were, or had been, commanders of Monzón, Miravet, or Gardeny, which were clearly regarded as the most important houses in the province.(57)

For most of the Temple's history in the Corona de Aragón the offices of provincial master and lieutenant were the only posts of importance in the central government of the province. At the headquarters of the Order in the Holy Land and Cyprus a seneschal, marshal, drapier, treasurer, and turcoplier are encountered,(58) and the Templar Customs suggest that the office of drapier existed in the provinces of Tripoli and Antioch and that there might be provincial marshals in the East.(59) This organization was not reproduced in the Aragonese province. The office of drapier is not mentioned in any document. A master's chamberlain appears only on one occasion,(60) while a marshal is referred to in only three charters in the middle decades of the thirteenth century;(61) and a letter written at the end of the century by the provincial master to one of his commanders, stating that 'at times of frontier service, the master gives horses and arms, both of wood and metal, to conventual brothers', indicates that the [315] provincial master was then performing the duties which a marshal would normally fulfil.(62) Clearly these offices did not regularly form part of the provincial administration.

Those who surrounded the provincial master were more concerned with his personal needs than with the administration of the province. In the Templar Customs the attendants allowed to a provincial master are specified only with reference to the eastern provinces: the provincial masters of Tripoli and Antioch were assigned a knight as companion, a sergeant, a deacon, a Saracen scribe, and a boy,(63) while the commander of the kingdom of Jerusalem was permitted the drapier as companion, a sergeant, a deacon, a Saracen scribe, two boys, a turcople, and two arms-bearers.(64) The entourage of the Aragonese master was, however, obviously based on these regulations. He had a companion who first appears by name in the fourth decade of the thirteenth century.(65) This companion was drawn from among the young knights of the province and was usually later given the charge of a convent. Pons of Pontóns was the master's companion early in 1271(66) and later in the same year became commander of Novillas. Similarly Gaucebert Durbán, who was the master's companion in 1293,(67) was placed in charge of Villel in 1296. There is no reference to a sergeant in the master's entourage until the beginning of the fourteenth century,(68) but there is earlier evidence of a master's chaplain. William of Auvergne held this post in 1172;(69) even then it was probably the title rather than the office that was new. The early chaplains also acted as the master's scribes -- William of Auvergne is known only because he drew up documents to which he added his signum -- but in the thirteenth century a professional scribe joined the entourage of the provincial master and from 1239 a succession of master's scribes can be traced.(70) The other regular attendants of the provincial master were his arms-bearers, of whom there were usually two or three.(71) While the headquarters of the Temple in the East reproduced some of the great offices found in the household of a king or leading noble, the court of the Aragonese provincial master was thus much more primitive and simple in composition.

It was like the households of great lords, however, in being itinerant.(72) The master's duty of visitation(73) and the difficulty of conducting provincial business from one place meant that when he was not serving on the Moorish frontier he was constantly [316] travelling with his court through the lands of the province. The records are too incomplete to allow the compilation of detailed itineraries, but for some years a certain amount of information survives, although this material reflects the necessity of journeying about the province on matters of special business rather than the duty of visitation. In 1292, when he was much concerned with the dispute at Monzón about military service, Berenguer of Cardona was in Barcelona in February(74) and in Monzón in June;(75) in October he was first at Huesca, then at Gardeny, and later at Barcelona;(76) and in December, after stopping at Algars, he returned to Monzón.(77) In 1294 he was at Lérida when the exchange of Tortosa was being discussed in August;(78) in September, when the exchange took place, he was in Tortosa itself;(79) and the next four months were spent largely either in Tortosa or in the places in Valencia which the Temple had received in the exchange.(80) On such journeys, hospitality for the master and his followers was provided by the Order's convents; and like kings, he seems to have claimed the right to commute his cena into a money payment when it was not convenient for him to take it in kind.(81)

This constant journeying about the province meant that the goods in the master's keeping were particularly liable to loss or damage. At least by the end of the thirteenth century the Aragonese provincial masters had therefore adopted the practice of establishing fixed places of deposit. By then a central archive and apparently a central treasury as well had been set up at Miravet. The indications of a central treasury are merely that a considerable sum of money was found at Miravet by royal officials in 1308, that part of it was found in the torra del thesor, and that no similar amounts are known to have been discovered in other convents.(82) The evidence is stronger, however, of a central archive. The claim made to the bishop of Lérida in 1288 and at other times(83) that original documents were kept at Miravet is shown to be genuine by an inventory of documents brought to Barcelona from Miravet after the arrest of the Templars. This lists not only sealed papal and royal privileges of a general character but also other documents of a more particular nature -- some of them sealed -- concerning eighteen convents other than Miravet.(84) The Temple, like the Order of Montesa later,(85) thus had a central archive in which were placed not only general privileges but also [317] charters -- including some original documents -- relating to individual convents.(86) The administration of a central treasury and archive would have required at least a small staff, composed of Templars or secular clerks, but of this there is no trace in the surviving sources.

The government of the province did not rest entirely in the hands of this limited permanent administration, for a certain amount of business was conducted in the provincial chapter. In establishing this institution the Templars were probably influenced by the Hospitallers, who were holding provincial chapters by the year 1123,(87) and more indirectly by the Cistercians; but it is not known when it became a regular part of provincial administration. When the provincial master Peter of Rovira surrendered to the Hospital the Temple's claim to a fifth of Amposta in 1153 he stated that he was acting 'with the consent of the whole of our chapter',(88) and in 1176 a grant of land near Tortosa to the Temple was made 'in the presence of the whole chapter which was held at Gardeny'.(89) These references probably signify meetings of a general character in the province, but the first specific mention of a capitulum generale does not occur until 1212.(90) Even then the chapter may not have been an assembly which met at fixed intervals, for in that year there were capitula generalia in October and again in December. Towards the end of the thirteenth century, however, it was customary to hold provincial chapters annually. The place and date of the chapter were decided by the provincial master in consultation with his advisers, as was the practice among the Dominicans, although the decision was not made at the time of the preceding chapter, as happened in the other Order.(91) Up to the middle of the thirteenth century the provincial chapter was held most frequently at Monzón, which in that period was looked upon as the centre of the province;(92) but in the second half of the thirteenth century it often met at Miravet and Gardeny as well.(93)
This change may have been introduced in order to relieve one house from the burden of providing for the chapter every year.(94) The selection of a meeting-place would be determined partly by geographical considerations, as the province was large and it would be convenient to choose a convent in a central position. But the choice of Miravet and Gardeny, in preference to other houses nearby, suggests that there was a further consideration -- probably that not all convents [318] were large enough to accommodate those attending the chapter. Towards the end of the thirteenth century it was customary to hold the provincial chapter at approximately the same time each year; when Berenguer of Cardona summoned a chapter to meet on the last Sunday in February, he mentioned that this was earlier than usual and referred to the 'time when the chapter is customarily held'.(95) From the surviving summonses it is clear that the normal time was in April or May and further that the chapter always began on a Sunday.(96) It was not always possible, however, to hold the chapter at the determined place and time, for on some occasions the master's arrangements were upset by royal needs, which took precedence over Templar convenience: in 1304 the chapter could not be held on the date fixed because James II was exacting frontier service from the Order(97) and in another year the date and meeting-place had to be changed because the master had been summoned to the royal curia to give counsel to the king.(98)

No regulation has survived limiting the duration of the provincial chapter; but it may be noted that documents drawn up during its sessions were always written on a Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday. This suggests that a provincial chapter normally lasted not more than four days, which was the maximum amount of time allowed for a Dominican provincial chapter in the mid thirteenth century.(99)

Report Spam   Logged
Savannah
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 174



« Reply #59 on: January 11, 2009, 04:47:34 am »

In the thirteenth century the provincial chapter was attended by all heads of convents, and a fairly complete list of commanders is given in some documents drawn up during its meetings.(100) But these documents also refer to brothers who were present in addition to the commanders; and a Templar interrogated in 1311 remembered a provincial chapter at Gardeny at which about a hundred members of the Order had been present.(101) It is not altogether clear who these brothers were. Some belonged to the convent in which the chapter was being held;(102) possibly commanders also brought their companions or other members of their houses with them, although the summonses refer to the attendance only of the commanders. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that there were elected representatives, such as are found at the chapters of the orders of friars.(103)

No full account of the procedure and work of a provincial chapter can be given. No acta have survived and the Templar Customs have nothing to say specifically about provincial chapters. [319] Surviving summonses reveal, however, that towards the end of the thirteenth century the payment of dues and stocktaking comprised an important part of the chapter's business. The head of each convent was ordered to bring his responsion, which was used partly for the province's contribution to expenses in the East and partly for expenditure within the province itself.(104) Only exceptional circumstances were responsions from the whole province paid at times other than during the provincial chapter.(105) As no amount is mentioned in the summonses, it is clear that at end of the thirteenth century the assessment of responsions was fixed. It is not known how the amount was determined, but a comparison of the only surviving list of responsions -- for the year 1307(106) -- with the Hospitaller evaluations of Templar commanderies(107) suggests that not all convents paid an equal proportion of their revenues. Of the twenty-two convents which both paid a responsion in 1307 and are mentioned in the Hospitaller evaluations, Monzón and Cantavieja paid the most (1,100maz.), but while Monzón was the second wealthiest house according to the Hospitaller evaluation, Cantavieja came only eleventh on the list; and while the average responsion in 1307 was about a tenth of the valuation given in the Hospitaller list, in some cases it amounted to about a half of the annual value and in others was as little as a twenty-fourth. It seems then that the size of a responsion was fixed by individual agreement between the provincial master and each convent, and that the size and needs of each community were taken into account.

It may be doubted, however, whether towards the end of the thirteenth century the provincial master ever received full payment of all responsions at the time of the chapter. In almost all documents which survive about payment there are references to defaulting by commanders. In 1277 six convents were unable to pay any of their responsions because of poverty,(108) and in 1289 the officials of Gardeny asserted that expenditure on mills and difficulty in collecting rents prevented them from making any payment in that year.(109) The 1307 list provides further evidence of arrears and default of payment. At least seven commanders appear to have been unable to pay in full the responsions which they should have brought to the chapter; and the wording of the document implies further that it was then the practice to excuse certain convents from payment either in a particular year or for [320] longer periods. Juncosa was assessed at 40maz., but the entry was made that 'it does not pay anything this year', suggesting a temporary immunity. The convent of Barbens, on the other hand, was exempt more permanently: no assessment was given for it; it was stated that 'it does not pay a responsion'; and the payment which it did make was in the form of a 'gift' to the master for that particular year. A similar exemption may have been enjoyed by Novillas, of which it was merely written that 'it does not pay anything', and by Añesa, against which the word 'nothing' was entered.

Yet if some convents were in financial difficulties and were unable to pay their responsions, others could afford to pay more than was demanded of them. As the fixed assessments did not take into account any extra revenues which might be available in a particular year, the provincial master in the summonses to the chapter asked commanders to bring any surplus which they had. In 1307 eight commanders made payments of this kind and in some cases the amounts were considerable: Monzón supplied 4,000s.J., and the surplus from Barbará amounted to over 3 ,600s.B. The discrepancy which there might be between the responsions and the revenues available is seen particularly in the case of Castellón de Ampurias, whose commander brought a surplus of 490s.B., but whose responsion was less than 30s.B.

In addition to responsions and surpluses, the houses in the lands subject to the Aragonese and Navarrese kings paid sums for the legistres, and those in the Corona de Aragón also gave money for the taylla de la cort, while a very few houses paid sums 'for the brothers overseas'. The payment for the legistres was probably for the pensions which the Temple gave to lawyers and justices at the king's court;(110) the second sum, sometimes said merely to be 'per la cort', may be related to the fixed annual sum which the Order paid for all documents drawn up for it in the Aragonese royal chancery.(111) The last of these payments probably consisted of donations made specifically for use in the East.

This part of the chapter's work was completed by the presentation of albaras, which described the state of the commanderies and which may have been linked with an annual review of offices. According to the summonses these statements were to include details of the corn and other goods left in the convents. Examples of albaras submitted to the chapter are probably provided [321] by the inventories which have survived for a number of convents from the year 1289,(112) for nine of the eleven which bear a precise date were drawn up in the fortnight before the chapter was held,(113) and several entries link them with the chapter: the commanders describe l'estament of their houses, a word used in the summonses to chapters; at Monzón dues had been paid 'up to the day of the chapter'; the commanders of Ambel and Alfambra set aside amounts of corn and wine for the responsion and other payments to the provincial master; and the head of Gardeny stated that he was unable to pay the responsion. These inventories contain lists of all movable property in the commanderies, including slaves, equipment, and stock as well as provisions. The commanders were thus merely stating what was in their houses. The chapter appears not to have been concerned to ensure that the property of a convent was being administered to the greatest profit and apparently did not oblige commanders to present accounts, although in view of the increasing financial demands made of the Temple this might have been desirable. It merely wanted to ensure that the property of convents was maintained by commanders in the state in which they had received it.(114)

Apart from the payment of dues and stocktaking, and possibly a review of appointments, the business of a chapter could cover a wide range of subjects, including admissions to the Order,(115) the dispensing of justice,(116) the granting out of land,(117) agreements with tenants,(118) the issuing of cartas de población,(119) or even the naming of an attorney in a dispute over tithes.(120) The chapter could obviously transact any administrative or judicial business. It was the formal meeting of the province, at which any matter could be raised. Such affairs, however, unlike the payment of responsions and stocktaking, were also dealt with at other times outside the chapter; apart from these two items, and possibly a general review of appointments, there appears to have been no type of business which was specially reserved for transaction in the provincial chapter.

The decision to bring a matter before the chapter was probably largely based on convenience. Some commanders were unable to try certain offences,(121) and on many questions heads of houses might want advice from the master or other commanders. Such matters would presumably be brought before the provincial chapter if it was to be held soon; otherwise a commander might [322] seek the master's opinion or judgement when the latter was visiting his convent, or act with the counsel of neighbouring commanders.(122) The provincial master, for his part, was expected to take advice on his actions,(123) but he could easily obtain it outside the chapter. When he stayed at a convent he was often joined by the commanders from near-by houses, and many documents issued by the provincial master were drawn up on the advice of, and attested by, a group of commanders from a particular locality.(124) On other occasions he called a council of the most important Templars in the province: an undated letter sent by the lieutenant of the commander of Peñíscola shows that in one year the provincial master took counsel at Gardeny on All Saints,(125) and at another time Peter of San Justo, commander of Alfambra and Peñíscola, was summoned to Miravet in October and told that 'the council is being recalled to Miravet to discuss important business.'(126) The wording of this summons, which belongs to the early fourteenth century, indicates that the custom of taking advice in this way had led by that time to the emergence of a formal institution, which had become a recognized part of the central administration of the province. Even in the exaction of money the provincial master could act outside the chapter, for although responsions and other dues were normally paid there he could seek additional payments at other times of the year; and at the end of the thirteenth century he did so frequently. This was inevitable when the provincial master was responsible for much of the financial business of the province, including the payment of extraordinary taxes, which were being sought increasingly frequently by the Aragonese king and the Grand Master, and when there was no attempt to relate the province's internal expenditure in a year to the amount which had been collected at the provincial chapter. The situation in which the provincial master must often have found himself is illustrated by a letter in which Berenguer of Cardona ordered the commander of Torres to

bring to the commander of Gardeny as soon as you have received this letter all the money in your possession, whatever it is for, and any that you can lay hands on, as we have great need of it for a payment which we have to make.(127)
The provincial chapter thus played only a restricted part in the government and administration of the province. Unlike the head [323] of a Dominican province, the provincial master was neither elected by his chapter nor answerable to it.(128) The chapter was, on the contrary, dependent on the master for its summoning, and documents drawn up during its sessions were issued in his name and sealed by him, for the provincial chapter had no seal of its own;(129) it could not act independently of the master. The chapter's lack of power meant that the government of the province rested mainly in the hands of the provincial master, as the delegate of the Grand Master. This centralization of authority in the province, like that in a convent, was to some extent inevitable. The masters of some provinces had to lead their men in the field, while the obligations owed by the western provinces inevitably meant that a provincial master's responsibility was to the Grand Master rather than to the brothers of his province.
The Templar Rule and Customs say little about the system of supplying the Order's needs in the East,(130) but it is clear from a bull issued by Nicholas IV in 1291 that the western provinces generally, like those of the Hospital, were obliged to send a third of their revenues to the East.(131) The Aragonese Templars, despite their participation in the reconquista, were not exempt from the duty of aiding the Order in the Holy Land. It seems probable, however, that in the thirteenth century they were expected to send only a tenth of their revenues, for during a dispute in 1221 about the tithes of certain parishes under Templar patronage the bishop of Zaragoza complained that the Templars

extracted a tenth from those tithes for the use of the master overseas before they gave the bishop his quarter.(132)
Further evidence of such an obligation is possibly provided by the existence in the mid thirteenth century of a decimarius, who was once referred to as the decimarius magistri,(133) and who on several occasions was also the commander of Corbins.(134) This official is clearly to be distinguished from the local decimarii, who are mentioned in the records of some convents and who collected tithes;(135) and it may be conjectured that he was concerned with the dispatch to the East of a tenth of provincial revenues.
By the beginning of the fourteenth century, however, the responsion owed by the province may have become expressed as a fixed sum of money instead of a proportional payment, for in 1304 the Templars negotiated with a Barcelona merchant about [324] the transfer to Cyprus of a responsion of exactly 1,000 marks of silver.(136) The same conclusion is suggested by the assertion made in 1301 by the bishop of Lérida that the Aragonese Templars

do not pay a responsion to the Holy Land that reaches the sum of 1,000 marks and they convert all the rest of their income to their own uses,
for the 'not' seems to be out of place and may have been inserted by the scribe by mistake.(137)
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy