Atlantis Online
June 27, 2022, 12:54:23 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Ancient Crash, Epic Wave

  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
Author Topic: The Templars in the Corona de Aragón  (Read 6063 times)
Hero Member
Posts: 174

« on: January 11, 2009, 03:56:55 am »

The Templars in the Corona de Aragón
John Alan Forey


  List of Maps
  Chapter One : Introduction: The Foundation of the Temple
  Chapter Two : Expansion: (i) The Reconquest and the Growth of Property
  Chapter Three : Expansion: (ii) The Creation of Provinces and the Foundation of Convents
  Chapter Four : Rights and Privileges: (i) Secular
  Chapter Five : Rights and Privileges: (ii) Ecclesiastical
  Chapter Six : The Exploitation of Property
  Chapter Seven : Templar Organization and Life: (i) The Convent
  Chapter Eight : Templar Organization and Life: (ii) The Province and its Relations with the East
  Chapter Nine : Secular Activities of the Templars
  Chapter Ten : Conclusion : The Dissolution of the Temple

  Appendix I : Illustrative Documents
  Appendix II : Lists of Officials
  Appendix III : Dependencies of Convents
  Appendix IV : Seals


NOTE: The material in this volume may be cited by its URL or by reference to the pagination of the original 1973 print edition. These page numbers have been inserted into the set, set off by brackets and bold face font, as for example: [76].
Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Hero Member
Posts: 174

« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2009, 03:58:08 am »

The Templars in the Corona de Aragón

Alan John Forey



[v] I had not been long engaged in the study of the Templars in the Corona de Aragón before it became apparent that, because of the wealth of manuscript material available and because of the general lack of adequate catalogues and calendars, it would be impossible to examine all the relevant unpublished material thoroughly and that some limits would have to be imposed. The manuscript sources on which this book is based are therefore primarily those which are contained in the Archivo Histórico Nacional in Madrid and the Archivo de la Corona de Aragón in Barcelona, where the main collections of materials concerning the Templars are housed. Even so it has not been possible to examine fully all the relevant royal manuscripts in the Archivo de la Corona de Aragón, for to do so this would in itself require years of sustained research. Nevertheless, the many thousands of documents which have been consulted should be sufficiently representative to provide a reliable guide to the history of the Templars in the Corona de Aragón.

During the preparation of the book I have received welcome assistance from a number of people and institutions. The early stages of my work on the Templars were supervised by Professor P.E.L. Russell and Dr. J.R.L. Highfield, whom I would like to thank for much help and good advice. I have also benefited from discussions with Professor D.W. Lomax and Dr. A.T. Luttrell, and a number of valuable comments and suggestions were made by Miss E.E.S. Procter and Mr. R.D.F. Pring-Mill, who examined an earlier version of the work when it was submitted as a thesis. I am further indebted for their help and courtesy to many archivists and librarians in Barcelona, Madrid, Oxford, and Durham. I would also like to acknowledge grants received from the University of Durham Travel Fund, and to thank the Durham University Publications Board for accepting the work for publication. During the course of publication I have become very [vi] grateful to members of the staff of the Oxford University Press for the care and patience they have shown. I would finally like to express my gratitude to my wife, without whose encouragement and assistance this book would probably never have been finished.

Durham, October 1972
Report Spam   Logged
Hero Member
Posts: 174

« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2009, 03:59:42 am »

The Templars in the Corona de Aragón

Alan John Forey



Introduction: The Foundation of the Temple

[1] In the same year [1118], certain noble men of knightly rank, devoted to God, pious and God-fearing, made a profession before the lord patriarch to live perpetually in chastity and obedience and without property, in the manner of the regular canons, giving themselves up to the service of Christ. The first and foremost among them were the venerable men Hugh of Payns and Godfrey of St. Omer. As they had neither church nor anywhere to live the king [Baldwin II] gave them a temporary dwelling in the palace which he had, adjoining the Temple of the Lord on the north side. The canons of the Temple of the Lord further granted under certain fixed conditions for domestic needs a plot of land which they had near the said palace. The lord king and his nobles, and also the lord patriarch with the prelates of churches from their own demesnes conferred benefices on them, some for a period, some in perpetuity, to provide for their food and clothing. Their first undertaking, and one which was enjoined on them by the lord patriarch and the rest of the bishops, for the remission of their sins, was that especially for the protection of pilgrims they should with all their strength guard roads and highways from the attacks of thieves and robbers.
As this brief extract from William of Tyre's Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum, written towards the end of the twelfth century, contains one of the fullest surviving accounts of the foundation of the Order of the Temple, (1) the origins of the Order can obviously not be traced in detail. Not even all of William of Tyre's statements can be accepted without question. Here he places the origin of the Temple in the year 1118, but he later states that the Council of Troyes, where the Rule of the Temple was drawn up and which began on 13 January 1128, took place in the Order's ninth year. (2) This latter comment is also found in the Prologue of the Templar Rule, (3) while another document, recording a grant made to the Templars on 13 September 1128, was similarly said to have been drawn up in the Order's [2] ninth year. (4) The establishment of a new community would obviously necessitate a period of discussion and negotiation, but these references -- if accurate -- imply that the Templars commemorated a date towards the end of 1119 or at the beginning of 1120 as marking the start of their new way of life. (5)
Hugh of Payns, the founder and first master, derived his name from a village some eight miles north-west of Troyes, and he is said to have been related to the ruling house of Champagne and to St. Bernard, (6) but little is known of his early life or of when he settled in the Holy Land. (7) Nor can the observances adopted by Hugh and his followers in the period up to the Council of Troyes be fully described. A few are referred to specifically in the Templar Rule, for at the Council of Troyes Hugh gave an account of the community's customs to the assembled prelates, and the Rule was in part based on these early usages. (Cool It is clear from the Rule, for example, that the community had taken its meals together in a refectory and that during meals there was no absolute rule of silence, (9) while the custom of prolonged standing during offices is also mentioned. (10) The Rule further suggests that women members had not at first been excluded. (11) But it is usually difficult to determine whether in the Templar Rule an old usage was being preserved or a new one introduced. (12) Some recent writers have seen the early community as a kind of Third Order attached to the canons of the Holy Sepulchre, but as its members took the normal monastic vows and lived a common life, this is not a very helpful description. (13)

If little is known about their early observances, there is more certainty about the original function of the Templars. William of Tyre's statement that their first duty was to guard roads and protect pilgrims finds support in several other twelfth-century sources. (14) In undertaking this task they were answering an obvious need: descriptions of the dangers of the journey along the roads to Jerusalem are a common feature of early twelfth-century pilgrim narratives. (15) The welfare of pilgrims was thus the first concern the Templars, as it was of the Hospitallers. By the time of the Council of Troyes, however, the Templars had become involved in the defence of the kingdom of Jerusalem and fighting against the infidel had become their main function.

It has been asserted by some writers that the Christian military order, which devoted itself to fighting the infidel, emerged in [3] imitation of the Islamic institution of the ribat, which was a fortified convent whose inmates combined a religious way of life with fighting against the enemies of Islam. (16) This argument is based on no direct evidence of borrowing. It rests on the similarities between the Christian and Islamic institutions and on the claim that the combining of a religious and a military way of life was alien to Christian traditions, which forbade clerics to bear arms or shed blood: St. Bernard's hesitancy in writing in support of the Templars when requested to do so by Hugh of Payns is taken by Castro as giving 'a measure of the great distance that separated the new military orders from the Christian conception of life'. (17)

In order to assess the validity of this argument it would be helpful in the first place to ascertain whether the Franks settled in the East after the First Crusade had contact with, and knowledge of, the Muslim institution; but because of the paucity of evidence and because the word ribat could be used to describe buildings which were not military strongholds but served other purposes,(18) this cannot be stated with certainty. (19) But even if it were assumed that the Franks were in a position to borrow from the Muslims, it may be doubted whether they did so. Although little information survives about the organization of and life within the ribats, it is obvious that the Temple and the other military orders were in form based on Christian monasteries and monastic orders, especially Citeaux. It cannot be maintained that in this respect there was a borrowing from the ribat, most of whose occupants apparently served only temporarily, as a kind of retreat, particularly during Ramadan. (20) But if it can be accepted that the Christian military orders derived their organization from Christian institutions there remains the question whether the idea of combining the religious and the military way of life could have been taken from Islam. Certainly the military order was looked upon in Christendom as something quite new: St. Bernard wrote that 'a new kind of militia is reported to have arisen... a new kind of militia, I say, and unknown to the world', (21) and Peter the Venerable admitted that he had been amazed on hearing of the Temple. (22) But although the military order was considered quite new, it was quickly accepted by the Church. Peter the Venerable stated that he had rejoiced on learning of the Temple and had venerated it from the time of its foundation. (23) St. Bernard, besides playing an [4] important role in the composition of the Templar Rule, (24) gave his encouragement to the Order in his De Laude Novae Militiae; (25) and although he delayed before writing this work, the reason that he gave for the delay was not that he questioned the validity of the Templars' activities but he feared

lest a lightly-given and hasty assent should be criticized, if I though ignorant should presume to undertake a task which a better person could fulfil better, and something which is so necessary should be rendered less agreeable through me. (26)
The papal legate and the other prelates at the Council of Troyes were similarly ready to accept the new institution. Had the Order been as alien to the outlook of western Christendom at the time as Castro suggests, the combining of the religious and military way of life would not have been acceptable to the Church; (27) and it can be argued not only that the concept of the military order was not completely at variance with Christian ideas but that it evolved out of the existing Christian background. New confraternities and religious communities were frequently established in the Middle Ages to meet the changing demands of medieval society. The needs of pilgrims, for example, led to the establishment of institutions which provided hospitality for those visiting shrines and holy places. But pilgrims needed protection as well as care, and at a time when the Church was proclaiming the Peace of God and stressing the social and moral obligations of knighthood, it is not surprising that the idea was evolved of forming a knightly community to protect pilgrims on the road to Jerusalem. Already before the First Crusade a group of nobles in south-western France had formed an association for the purpose of protecting the monastery of La Sauve near Bordeaux and the pilgrims who visited it. (28) At this early stage in its history the Temple had little in common with the Muslim ribat, and could scarcely have been influenced by it, but the Templars were already combining a religious way of life with an activity which must have involved the use of force and the shedding of blood. And once the Templars had adopted this way of life for the protection of pilgrims, the transition to becoming a military order was not a difficult one, especially when in the kingdom of Jerusalem there was a lack of soldiers and when the Church was promoting and giving its support to the war against the infidel. In this way the [5] Temple as a military order can be considered a product of early twelfth-century Christian society.
Nevertheless in the years immediately following its foundation the Temple appears to have made little mark. It is not, for example, mentioned in Fulcher of Chartres's Gesta Francorum Iherusalem Peregrinantium, which covers the period up to 1127. (29) William of Tyre's remark that after nine years there were still only nine members can probably be taken as a play on numbers, (30) but it does suggest that in the beginning there was no marked increase in membership. In the West the community appears to have been little known. (31) Certainly there is little record of patronage in western Europe in the early and middle 1120s. Ordericus Vitalis reports that when Fulk of Anjou returned from the pilgrimage on which he had embarked in 1120 he promised to make an annual benefaction to the Templars, (32) but the only indication of Templar acquisitions in the West at this time among the documents published by Albon is a reference in a charter, drawn up in the year 1124, to Templar rights in a church near Marseilles. (33) But as Fulk had been to the East, and as Marseilles was an obvious point of contact between East and West, these donations should not be taken as evidence of any widespread knowledge of the Templars in the West. This lack of support appears in fact to have demoralized some Templars. In a letter written at about the time of the Council of Troyes Hugh of Payns represents Satan as tempting them by saying

Why do you labour in vain? Why do you expend so much effort to no purpose? Those men, whom you serve, acknowledge you as partners in labour but are unwilling to share in brotherhood. When do the benefactions of the faithful come to the knights of the Temple? When are prayers said for the knights of the Temple by the faithful throughout the whole world? (34)
When therefore Hugh of Payns and some of his companions crossed to western Europe, apparently in 1127, they were seeking not only the approval which was obtained at the Council of Troyes, but also material support. Their activities in this sphere apparently lay at first mainly in north-eastern France -- in Champagne and Flanders. In the former, donations were received at Troyes and Barbonne, (35) while in Flanders the Order gained the patronage of count William. (36) His gifts were confirmed by his [6] successor in September 1128, and at the same time a donation was received from William, the castellan of St. Omer.(37) The fact that William of St. Omer's son was one of the first Templars probably explains this early expansion in Flanders. (38) Hugh of Payns, who was in Flanders in September 1128, also visited Anjou and Poitou, (39) and according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and other English sources he met the English king in Normandy and then crossed to England. (40) The acquisition of patronage was not, however, dependent entirely on the activities of Hugh himself, for other members of the Order were being sent out to seek support, and some of them had reached the Iberian peninsula by the early months of 1128, for in March of that year the Templar Raymond Bernard received from the Portuguese queen Teresa the castle of Soure, which lay on the Moorish frontier. (41)
If the Templars had reached Portugal by March 1128, they must presumably have arrived earlier in the north-east of the Peninsula, but it is not until 1131 that they are mentioned there in dated documents which are altogether reliable. Certainly all the supposed references to the Templars in the north-east of Spain before 1128 must be rejected or at least very seriously questioned. There are no grounds for assuming, as some historians have done, that the fratres de palmis mentioned in Ordericus Vitalis's account of the attack on Benicadell in 1124 were Templars; (42) as they are linked in the narrative with the bishop of Zaragoza and the lord of Belchite they may have been members of the military confraternity founded at Belchite two years earlier. (43) Further, the dating must be questioned of all Templar documents which Miret y Sans assigns to the years before 1128. (44) The first is a decree concerning those who had claims against the Order; it bears the date '1125' and was issued by the count of Barcelona from the Aragonese town of Ejea. (45) As the count at that time had no authority in Aragon, and as in the document he is given the title Princeps Aragonensis, which did not come into use until 1137, the date must be inaccurate. (46) Secondly, Miret y Sans assumes that a charter recording a grant by Peter of Malán in Vallespirans, dated '24 February in the eighteenth year of Louis', belongs to the reign of Louis VI; he assigns it to the year 1126. (47) Yet in another charter concerning property at Vallespirans, which is dated 'in the seventeenth year of Louis the Younger' -- that is 1154 -- the scribe and witnesses mentioned are the same as those named in [7] the other document. (48) Peter of Malán's grant was therefore most certainly made in the reign of Louis VII and his charter is to be assigned to the year 1155. Thirdly, Miret y Sans gives '1127' as the date of a donation to the Temple made by Titborgs, the daughter of Berenguer of Sta. Coloma; this, however, is a misreading of the document, and Miret y Sans himself later gives the correct date, which is 1197. (49) Finally, like Garcia Larragueta, he follows Zurita in placing in the year 1127 Alfonso I's gift of Mallen, made jointly to the Temple and Hospital. (50) Yet it was pointed out by Fernández that the date given in the Anales is a misprint, (51) as is clear from its place in the text: 'V' has been printed for 'X', and the date should read '1132', as is given in Zurita's Indices. (52) It is perhaps also significant that a royal grant of privileges to the Mozarabs of Mallén, issued in the middle of 1132, makes no reference to the military orders, who may therefore not have gained Mallén until the second half of that year. (53) García Larragueta further accepts the date of 1125 for a primitive fuero issued jointly by the Hospital and Temple to the inhabitants of Novillas, which lies on the Ebro near Mallén. (54) But this document exists only in a suspect transcript made in the year 1271, (55) and the Navarrese ruler García Ramírez in 1135 issued a charter granting Novillas jointly to the two Orders. (56) The grant made in 1135 could, of course, have been merely a confirmation of an earlier gift; the document issued by García Ramírez was called a charter of donation and confirmation. But this was a formula often used when new grants were being made, and in view of the lack of evidence about the Templars in Europe generally as early as 1125 it seems probable that -- if the transcript of the fuero is authentic -- the transcriber omitted an 'X' when copying the date; this would bring the date of the fuero into line with that of the royal grant.

If the dating of all documents referring to the Temple which have been assigned to the years before 1128 must be rejected, or at least seriously questioned, the dates of those which have been attributed to the years 1128-30 are not altogether free from doubt. Among the documents published in the Cartulario de 'Sant Cugat' del Vallés is the will of Raymond Hugh, who held the castle of Tona, south of Vich; this document, which includes a bequest of a mule to the Temple and the Holy Sepulchre, is assigned by its editor to the year 1128. (57) The date of the will is given merely as [8] 28 March in the twentieth year of Louis and the date of its execution as 29 June in the twenty-first year. (58) But a transcript of the instrument of execution was made on 6 February in the twenty-first year of Louis the Younger. Therefore, provided that the dating is accurate, the will must be attributed to the reign of Louis VI and must be dated 28 March 1128. But this would mean that the instrument of execution was drawn up in the twenty-first year of Louis VI and the transcript in the twenty-first year of Louis VII, and this coincidence suggests that in fact a mistake was made about the beginning of the regnal year and that the will itself as well as the transcript of the instrument of execution should be assigned to the reign of Louis the Younger.

Doubts must also be voiced about Albon's attribution to the year 1129 of a grant which was made to the Templars by Miro Peter and which consisted of rights in the churches of Razazol and Boquiñeni, villages on the Ebro above Zaragoza. (59) This donation was inserted in a charter recording the gift of these rights to Miro Peter by the Aragonese king Alfonso I, and the date given appears to refer to the royal grant. (60) It is not known when the donation to the Temple was made.

Lastly the date must be discussed of the charter in which Raymond Berenguer III of Barcelona granted the castle of Grañena to the Templars and also gave himself 'in obedience to them, without property, a knight of God, wherever they wish, for the rest of my life'. (61) The date of this document has usually been accepted as 14 July 1130, and it is argued that the count did not fulfil his promise. (62) He continued to govern his territories and drew up his will on 8 July 1131 'lying in his palace in Barcelona, stricken by the illness from which he died'. (63) The clause 'if meanwhile I happen to die', which appears in the charter, might therefore be taken to indicate that the count was expressing a future intention, which he did not in fact fulfil. But it is possible that the charter should be assigned to the year 1131. Miret y Sans discovered in the Catalan Hospitaller archive, then housed in the convent of San Gervasio, a transcript which gave this date, (64) while Rodriguez Campomanes, writing in the middle of the eighteenth century, stated that the date is given as 1131 in several (aliquot) manuscripts. (65) Admittedly all the copies of the document on which Albon bases his text give '1130', but none of these versions can be dated earlier than the second half of the thirteenth [9] century, and most of them appear to be derived from the late thirteenth-century Templar cartulary now known as register 310 in the Crown archive in Barcelona. If the charter was issued in 1131, it was drawn up after the count had made his will and only very shortly before his death, which according to the necrologium of Ripoll occurred on 19 July. (66) It would follow that right at the end of his life the count probably did enter the Temple, and support for this contention is found not only in a claim made by Raymond Berenguer IV in 1143 that his father had been a brother of the Temple, 'in whose Rule and habit he gloriously ended his life', (67) but also in the comment in the Gesta Comitum Barcinonensium that

at the end, offering himself to God and to the militia of Jerusalem, he ended his life very religiously in the house of the poor at Barcelona without property. (68)
The clause 'if meanwhile I happen to die' could then refer to the count's final illness in 1131 and to the possibility that he might die before he could implement his promises.
It is not until 1131 that the Templars are mentioned in dated documents of a reliable character in north-eastern Spain. Nevertheless, there appears to be an earlier reference to them in Aragon in an undated letter written apparently not later than 1130 by William, archbishop of Auch. (69) The letter concerns the militia which Alfonso I of Aragon had established at Monreal del Campo and mentions that this militia had been freed by Alfonso from paying the royal tax of a fifth of booty captured from the Moors 'like the militia of Jerusalem'. The Temple therefore appears to have been receiving privileges from Alfonso I by 1130.


Notes for Chapter One
1. xii. 7, in Recueil des historiens des croisades: historiens occidentaux, i (Paris, 1844), 520. Other twelfth-century accounts of the foundation of the Temple are contained in the Chronique de Michel le Syrien, xv. ii, trans. J. B. Chabot, iii (Paris, 1905-10), 201-3, and Walter Map, De nugis curialium, i. 18, ed. T. Wright (Camden Society, 1850), pp. 29 ff.

2. Op. cit. xii. 7, in Recueil, i. 520. The date of the Council is discussed by G. Schnürer, Die ursprüngliche Templerregel (Freiburg, 1903), p. 113. The Rule of the Temple was not completed at the Council: certain points were left for the decision of the pope and the patriarch of Jerusalem, and the latter appears to have made some additions about the year 1130: ibid., passim.

3. Règle, p. 14.

4. Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 10-11, doc. 16.

5. V. Carrière, 'Les Débuts de l'Ordre du Temple en France', Le Moyen Âge, xxvii (1914), 309, note 2, and Histoire et cartulaire des Templiers de Provins, avec une introduction sur les debuts du Temple en France (Paris, 1919), p. xvi, note 2, argues that a document, which is published ibid., p. 111, doc. 93, and by Albon, Cartulaire, p. 6, doc. 9, dated 31 October in the eighth year of the Temple, must belong to the year 1127 and that therefore the Order could not have been founded before the beginning of November 1119. Although 1127 is the most likely date for this document, it cannot be definitely assigned to that year.

6. L'Art de vérifier les dates, i (Paris, 1783 edn.), 513 ;J. Richard in Saint Bernard de Clairvaux (Paris, 1953), pp. 13-14.

7. Carrière, 'Les Débuts', p. 308, note 1, suggests that he may have accompanied count Hugh of Troyes to the Holy Land in 1104; but according to Michael the Syrian he did not arrive in the East until the beginning of Baldwin II's reign: Chronique, xv. 11, trans. Chabot, iii. 201; and he was in the West in 1113: M. Barber, 'The Origins of the Order of the Temple', Studio monastica, xii (1970), 222.

8. Règle, p. 14.

9. Ibid., pp. 33-4, art. 8.

10. Ibid., p. 26, art. 7.

11. Ibid., p. 69, art. 56.

12. It has been argued that the verbs collaudamus and preoptamus were used in the text of the Rule when an earlier usage was being confirmed, and that the use of vetamus and contradicimus signified the rejection of an earlier custom: G. de Valous, 'Quelques observations sur la toute primitive observance des Templiers et la Regula pauperum commilitonum Christi', Mélanges Saint Bernard (Dijon, 1954), p. 35; see also Schnürer, op. cit., pp. 95-9. But it may be doubted whether the compilers of the Rule were always as precise and careful as this in their choice of words.

13. J. Leclerq, 'Un document sur les debuts des Templiers', Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, lii (1957), 85; C. Dereine in Le Moyen Âge, lix (1953), 197.

14. Chronique de Michel le Syrien, xv. 11, trans. Chabot, iii. 203; Walter Map, op. cit. i. 18, ed. Wright, p. 29.

15. The Pilgrimage of the Russian Abbot Daniel in the Holy Land, ed. C. W. Wilson (Palestine Pilgrims' Text Society, 1888), p. 9; An Account of the Pilgrimage of Saewulf to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, trans. W. Brownlow (Palestine Pilgrims' Text Society, 1892), pp. 8-9.

16. J.A. Conde, Historia de la dominación de los árabes en España (Madrid, 1820), i. 619, note 1; J. Oliver Asín, 'Origen árabe de "rebato", "arrobda" y sus homónimos', Boletín de Ia Real Academia Española, xv (1928), 540-1; M. Asín Palacios, El Islam cristianizado (Madrid, 1931), p. 138, note 2; A. Castro, The Structure of Spanish History (Princeton, 1954), pp. 203-7. That the Spanish military orders were derived in part from Islamic institutions has also been argued by M. Cocheril, 'Essai sur l'origine des ordres militaires dans la péninsule iberique', Collectanea Ordinis Cisterciensium Reformatorum, xxi (1959), 247-8, and E. Lourie, 'A Society Organised for War: Medieval Spain', Past and Present, xxxv (1966), 67-8, although I have not been able to follow the latter's argument that 'the influence of the ribat on these orders is apparent in the fact that except, and then only initially, for Santiago, the Orders of Spain... were never Hospitaller foundations, unlike either the Temple or Hospital'. Islamic influence on the Spanish military orders has been questioned by the most recent writers on these Orders: J.F. O'Callaghan, 'The Affiliation of the Order of Calatrava with the Order of Cîteaux', Analecta Sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis, xv 176-8; D.W. Lomax, La Orden de Santiago (Madrid, 1965), pp. 3-4.

17. Castro, op. cit., p. 207.

18. A. Noth, Heiliger Krieg und Heiliger Kampf in Islam und Christentum (Bonn, 1965), pp. 72-6.

19. G. Marçais, 'Ribat', Encyclopedia of Islam, iii (London, 1936), 1152, argues that by the twelfth century the ribats were losing their military character and were becoming purely monastic establishments, but that there was a general development of this kind has been doubted by Noth, op. cit., p. 83. In maintaining that the ribat did not exist in Syria as a fortified convent and that the word was used there to refer simply to watchtowers, Lomax, op. cit., p. 3, seems to be reading too much into a statement by Mukaddasi, Description of Syria, including Palestine, trans. G. Le Strange (Palestine Pilgrims' Text Society, 1886), p. 61.

20. Noth, op. cit., pp. 78-80, 86-7; G. Marçais, 'Note sur les ribâts en Berbérie', Mélanges René Basset, ii (Publications de l'Institut des Hautes-Études Marocaines, vol. xi, 1925), 418-21. Marçais also doubts whether there were any links between ribats.

21. Migne, PL, clxxxii. 921; St. Bernard, Opera Omnia, ed. J. Leclerq and H.M. Rochais, iii (Rome, 1963), 214.

22. Migne, PL, clxxxix. 434; The Letters of Peter the Venerable, ed. G. Constable (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), i. 407, no. 172.

23. Ibid.

24. This seems to be the implication of the clause 'cui creditum ac debitum hoc erat' in the Prologue of the Templar Rule: Règle, p. 16.

25. Migne, PL, clxxxii. 921-40; St. Bernard, Opera Omnia, iii. 213-39.

26. When suggesting that St. Bernard may not at first have given his full approval to the Temple, F. Vacandard, Vie de Saint Bernard (Paris, 1927), i. 236-7, refers to a letter which St. Bernard wrote to Hugh, count of Champagne, when the latter joined the Temple: Migne, PL, clxxxii. 135-6; Albon, Cartulaire, p. 3, doc. 5. But in this letter St. Bernard is not obviously doing anything more than mourning the absence of a friend.

27. The De Laude can of course be looked upon partly as a justification or apology for the Temple, but what it sought to justify primarily was the use of force against the infidel rather than the combining of the military and religious ways of life. The justness of the use of force against the infidel was similarly the point at issue when Hugh of Payns wrote to members of the Order that 'certain of you have been confused by some less prudent people, as if your profession, by which you have dedicated your life to bearing arms against the enemies of the faith and of peace for the defence of Christians, as if, I say, that profession were illicit or wicked': Leclerq, loc. cit., p. 87. In so far as these writings reveal criticism of the Temple, therefore, it is criticism of the use of force rather than of the particular character of the Temple.

28. ___ . Cirot de la Ville, Histoire de l'abbaye et congrégation de Notre-Dame de Ia Grande-Sauve, i (Paris, 1844), 297-9, 497-8; C. Erdmann, Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens (Stuttgart, 1935), p. 253.

29. Ed. H. Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg, 1913).

30. Op. cit. xii. 7, in Recueil, i.521; cf. F. Lundgreen, Wilhelm von Tyrus und der Templerorden (Historische Studien, vol. xcvii, 1911), p. 59. According to Michael the Syrian there were originally thirty members: Chronique, xv. 11, trans. Chabot, iii. 201.

31. A letter in which Baldwin II informed St. Bernard that he was sending two Templars, Andrew and Gundemar, to gain papal approval for the Order, has been assigned by some writers to the period 1119-26: Albon, Cartulaire, p. 1, doc. 1; R. Röhuicht, Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani (New York edn., n.d.), i. 28, no. 116. But its authenticity has been questioned: Carrière, Histoire et cartulaire, p. xxv; M. Melville, La Vie des Templiers (Paris, 1951), p. 272.

32. Historia Ecclesiastica, xii. 29, ed. A. le Prevost, iv (Société de l'Histoire de France, 1852), 423.

33. Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 1-2, doc. 2. On the date of this document, see Cartulaire de la commanderie de Richerenches de l'Ordre du Temple (1136-1214), ed. Marquis de Ripert-Monclar (Avignon, 1907), p. xxxiii, note 4.

34. Leclerq, loc. cit., p. 89.

35. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 16, doc. 22; p. 6, doc. 9. On this early expansion in France, see Carrière, 'Les Débuts', pp. 311-21.

36. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 5, doc. 7.

37. Ibid., pp. 10-12, docs. 16, 17.

38. Cf. Melville, op. cit., p. 25.

39. Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 5-6, doc. 8; pp. 8-10, docs. 12-15.

40. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, sub anno 1128, ed. D. Whitelock (London, 1961), p. 194; Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, vii. 39, ed. T. Arnold (London, 1879), p. 250; Annales de Waverleia, in Annales Monastici, ed. H. R. Luard, ii (London, 1865), 221.

41. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 7, doc. 10. C. Erdmann, 'Der Kreuzzugsgedanke in Portugal', Historische Zeitschrift, cxli (1929), 38, rejects the claim that the Templars had possessions in Portugal by 1126.

42. Op. cit. xiii. 4, ed. le Prevost, v (1855), 5-7; cf. M. Gual Camarena, Precedentes de Ia reconquista valenciana (Valencia, 1952), p. 12.

43. On this confraternity, see P. Rassow, 'La cofradía de Belchite', AHDE, iii (1926), 200-26; A. Ubieto Arreta, 'La creación de la cofradía de Belchite', EEMCA, v (1952), 427-34. The nature of this confraternity, which is known only through a confirmation issued in 1136, is obscure. While it was possible to serve in it for a short period, it was also envisaged that there would be life-members; but in the surviving confirmation there is no reference to the taking of monastic vows, as members of military orders did, and the wording of the confirmation seems to imply that private property was allowed. It seems to have been essentially a lay institution, whose members, however, like crusaders received indulgences.

44. Miret y Sans, Les Cases, p. 16.

45. AHN, cód. 471, p. 155, doc. 157.

46. Miret y Sans, Les Cases, p. 16, note 2, does, however, rightly reject another document supposedly issued by the count of Barcelona at Ejea in 1125: AHN, cód. 467, p. 170, doc. 183. The date must also be rejected of another charter recording a grant supposedly made by Raymond Berenguer IV in 1126: AHN, San Juan, leg. 333, doc. 1. Miret y Sans, Les Cases, pp. 15-16, further questions the date of a grant apparently made by the count of Urgel in 1123. The Templar named in the charter of donation -- Gerald of Nocura -- is mentioned in other documents drawn up between 1134 and 1137: Albon, Cartulaire, p. 57, doc. 73; p. 101, doc. 144.

47. AGP, parch. Cervera, no. 325.

48. Ibid., no. 374.

49. Miret y Sans, Les Cases, pp. 222-3.

50. Zurita, Anales, i. 51; García Larragueta, Gran priorado, i. 38, note 17; 54, note 110.

51. AHN, cód. 502, pp. 4-5.

52. J. Zurita, Indices rerum ab Aragoniae regibus gestarum ab minis regni ad annum MCDX (Zaragoza, 1587), p. 59.

53. T. Muñoz y Romero, Colección de fueros municipales y cartas pueblos de los reinos de Castilla, León, Corona de Aragón y Navarra (Madrid, 1847), pp. 503-4.

54. Gran priorado, i. 38, 54; cf. M.L. Ledesma Rubio, La encomienda de Zaragoza de Ia Orden de San Juan de Jerusalén en los siglos XII y XIII (Zaragoza, 1967), p. 27.

55. AHN, San Juan, leg. 340, doc. 1. The hand in which the transcript is written is not characteristic of the later thirteenth century; it seems rather to be an imitation of a twelfth-century script.

56. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 73, doc. 100.

57. Cartulario de 'Sant Cugat' del Vallés, ed. J. Rius Serra, iii (Barcelona, 1947), 84-5, doc. 892.

58. Ibid. iii. 87-8, doc. 896.

59. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 18, doc. 26.

60. The document, of which only a late twelfth-century copy is known, is published in full by Lacarra, 'Documentos', no. 150 (iii. 548-9). It appears to bear the date December, Era 1167; Lacarra, however, assigns it to the year 1128, not 1129, because it was confirmed by Peter, bishop of Zaragoza, whom Lacarra identifies with Peter of Librana, who was dead by December 1129. But as Peter's confirmation immediately precedes that of Raymond Berenguer IV, which must have been made between 1137 and 1162, it is possible that the bishop in question is in fact Peter of Torroja (1153-84).

61. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 25, doc. 33.

62. e.g. A. de Bofarull y Broca, Historia de Cataluña, ii (Barcelona, 1876), 425; Miret y Sans, Les Cases, pp. 23-4; S. Sobrequés Vidal, Els grans comtes de Barcelona (Barcelona, 1961), pp. 199-200; F. Soldevila, Història de Catalunya (Barcelona, 1963), p. 134.

63. Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 28-9, doc. 38; LFM, i. 527, doc. 493.

64. Miret y Sans, Les Cases, p. 16.

65. P. Rodríguez Campomanes, Dissertaciones históricas del Orden y Cavallería de los Templarios (Madrid, 1747), p. 220.

66. Bofarull y Broca, op. cit. ii. 425.

67. Albon, Cartalaire, p. 204, doc. 314; CDI, iv. 94, doc. 43.

68. Ed. L. Barrau Dihigo and J. Massó Torrents (Barcelona, 1925), p. 38.

69. Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 3-4, doc. 6; Lacarra, 'Documentos', no. 151 (iii. 549-50). On the relations of the archbishop of Auch with Aragon at this time, see J. M. Lacarra, 'La restauración eclesiástica en las tierras conquistadas por Alfonso el Batallador (1118-1134)', Revista portuguesa di história, iv (1949), 267.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 04:00:28 am by Savannah » Report Spam   Logged
Hero Member
Posts: 174

« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2009, 04:01:49 am »


Expansion: (i) The Reconquest and the Growth of Property

[15] The century following the Templars' arrival in the Iberian Peninsula witnessed a very marked expansion of the Order in north-eastern Spain. In that region the Templars acquired more wealth than the Hospitallers, while the Spanish military orders failed to attain in the Corona de Aragón the importance which they possessed in the centre of the Peninsula. This Templar expansion resulted to a considerable degree from the favour shown to the Order by the rulers of Aragon and Catalonia in return for its participation in the reconquista.

By the time that the Templars arrived in Spain the raiding between Christian and Moor which had characterized much of the eleventh century had been partly replaced on the Christian side by a policy of conquest, and in the north-east of the Peninsula the later decades of the eleventh and the early years of the twelfth centuries had been marked by notable Christian advances. Alfonso I, the king of Aragon and Navarre when the Templars reached the Peninsula, had conquered much of the middle valley of the Ebro, including the city of Zaragoza, and had made further gains to the south along the rivers Jalón and Jiloca. And to assist him in preserving and extending his gains, Alfonso had in 1122 founded the military confraternity at Belchite. In these circumstances it is not surprising that in Aragon and Catalonia, as in Portugal, the Templars were immediately expected to give military assistance against the Moors. This expectation is apparent from the count of Barcelona's grant of the castle of Grañena, for this lay in the march or frontier area, and was given 'for the defence of Christendom according to the purpose for which the Order was founded'; (1) and this wording was repeated in 1132 when Armengol VI, count of Urgel, gave the Temple the frontier castle of Barbará, which his family had [16] held of the counts of Barcelona since 1067. (2) The task of defending frontier castles, which the Templars were later to perform in the Holy Land, was already being assigned to them in Catalonia.

Yet the Templars were at first reluctant to become involved in the struggle against Islam in the Peninsula. At that stage in their expansion they were no doubt wary of committing themselves to fighting on a second front against the infidel. (3) They did not therefore immediately establish themselves in Grañena and undertake its defence. When the count of Urgel granted Barbará, he stated that it should be held by the Templars 'who shall have come with arms and stayed in Grañena or in our march': the use of the future-perfect tense, coupled with the reference to two possible places of Templar settlement, implies that the Order had not then occupied the castle of Grañena. And when -- possibly in the following year -- Raymond Berenguer IV confirmed the count of Urgel's grant, the clause 'when they shall have come with arms and stayed in Grañena or in the aforesaid march' was included in the charter of confirmation, (4) again indicating that Grañena had still not been occupied by the Temple, and apparently implying that the count's confirmation was a conditional one, which would explain why Barbará was included in a list of newly granted strongholds contained in a charter issued to the Temple by Raymond Berenguer in 1143. (5) A further attempt to involve the Temple in the reconquest appears, however, to have been made in Catalonia about the year 1134, when the count of Barcelona and at least twenty-six Catalan nobles promised to serve with the Temple for a year and when Raymond Berenguer further undertook to provide equipment and land to support ten Templar knights. (6) As William and Odo of Moncada promised to give this service in the cavalleria of Grañena, the promises clearly referred to service in Spain and not in the Holy Land. The significance of the promises is made further apparent by the wording of Raymond Berenguer's undertaking -- apparently made later than the others (7) -- for this stipulates that the count is to serve not just for one year, but for the first year. This wording seems to indicate that when the promises were being made the manning of frontier castles by the Templars was being discussed and that the count was proposing to serve the Order for a year from the date when the Temple entered the struggle against the Moors in Spain. The cavalleria of [17] Grañena was thus a proposed Templar establishment and not an existing one. (Cool

Attempts were similarly being made in Aragon to bring the Templars into the reconquista. The exemption from the tax of a fifth on booty which Alfonso I granted to the Templars provides an indication of the military role assigned to the Order by the Aragonese king, while Alfonso's bequest of his kingdoms -- in the absence of an obvious heir -- to the Temple, the Hospital, and the canons of the Holy Sepulchre in 1131 should probably also be partly explained in the same context. (9) The inclusion of the Holy Sepulchre among the beneficiaries shows that Alfonso was motivated partly by veneration for the Holy Places and a concern for the Holy Land; the importance attached by Spaniards to Jerusalem at this time despite the presence of Islamic power in the Peninsula is clear from their participation in crusades to the East (10) and from the idea expressed on a number of occasions that the expulsion of the Moors from Spain would open the way to Jerusalem. (11) But Alfonso's bequest, if carried out, would inevitably have involved the Temple in the conflict with the Moors in the Peninsula, and in view of Alfonso's aggressive policies towards the Moors and his foundation of militias to assist in the struggle against the infidel it may be argued that the Aragonese king was also trying to ensure the continuation of the reconquest by the Temple, when his own militias of Monreal and Belchite, which are not mentioned in the will, had presumably collapsed. (12) But although Alfonso confirmed his will shortly before his death in September 1134 (13) it was not carried into effect. For the Aragonese and Navarrese nobles the situation in 1134 was similar to that which faced the English barons on the death of Henry in the following year, since a large number of nobles had witnessed Alfonso's will and had sworn to enforce it. (14) As in England, the king's wishes were ignored. Aragon fell to Alfonso's brother Ramiro, who was a monk and bishop-elect of Roda; the regnum Cesaraugustanum came under the control of Alfonso VII of Castile; and García Ramírez was established as ruler of Navarre. (15) The will had therefore no immediate effect on Templar activities in Aragon.

It was nevertheless as a result of later negotiations between Raymond Berenguer IV and the Orders about the latter's claims to Alfonso's kingdoms that the Temple was brought into the reconquista. The background to these negotiations is, however, by [18] no means clear. It has been argued by Ubieto Arteta (16) that the first step was taken by Alfonso VII of Castile in 1136, after Innocent II had in June of that year ordered the Castilian king to enforce the will; after receiving the papal letter, Alfonso VII broke his alliance with García Ramírez, who until then was holding the regnum Cesaraugustanum of him, and made a treaty with Ramiro II of Aragon. The text of the treaty has not survived, but Ubieto -- basing his argument partly on scattered references in other sources and partly on what happened later -- claims that Alfonso VII granted the regnum Cesaraugustanum to Ramiro, although he was still to hold it for life of the Aragonese king, and that the two kings agreed to take joint action against García Ramírez. According to Ubieto, the grant to Ramiro and the attack on the Navarrese

would be nothing but the carrying out of the papal orders about the fulfilment of Alfonso's will, for which the unification of the old royal lands under one person was necessary. (17)
It was then decided that Alfonso's will was impracticable. Fresh terms were therefore arranged -- presumably later, although this is not made clear by Ubieto -- under the guidance of the papal legate Guy. It was agreed that Ramiro's daughter Petronilla should be betrothed to Raymond Berenguer IV, count of Barcelona; the latter was to receive Aragon from Ramiro and was then to obtain renunciations of claims from the Holy Sepulchre, the Hospital, and the Temple. The surrender of the kingdom to the count was made in 1137. In 1140 the Hospital and the Holy Sepulchre gave up their claims, as did the Temple three years later.
This account may be criticized on a number of points. It is not beyond doubt that the dispatch of Innocent's bull, which does not bear the year of issue, immediately preceded the agreement made between Alfonso and Ramiro in 1136; it may have been issued in 1135. (18) Ubieto Arteta assigns it to the year 1136 by linking it with the legation to Spain in that year of the cardinal Guy. Yet, although the cardinal's presence in 1143 when compensation was given to the Temple for its claims suggests that he was involved in the question of the Aragonese succession, (19) his legation need not from the beginning have been closely linked with Innocent's bull, especially as it is stated in the Historia Compostellana [19] and elsewhere that the legate had been invited to Spain in the first place by Alfonso VII to settle ecclesiastical disputes. (20) Even if it is accepted that the bull belongs to the year 1136, and that Guy's legation was occasioned by the question of the Aragonese succession, it is difficult to link the papal order with the grant of the regnum Cesaraugustanum to Ramiro. It may be asked why it should have been necessary to unite all the lands of Alfonso I before surrendering them to the rightful heirs, and it is not easy to understand how an agreement which gave to Alfonso VII a temporary, and to the Aragonese kings a permanent, right over the regnum Cesaraugustanum could have contributed towards the execution of the will. (21) A different interpretation of the events of 1136 is suggested by a reading of the Chronica Adefonsi Imperatoris and the Historia Compostellana, both of which imply that in the war between García Ramírez and Alfonso VII hostilities were started by the Navarrese. (22) The Historia Compostellana states that the king of Portugal attacked Alfonso 'after he had heard that the emperor was being troubled by the same king García', while the Chronica Adefonsi Imperatoris says that 'king García of Navarre and all his fighting men rebelled against the lord emperor', and that the kings of Navarre and Portugal 'opened hostilities against the emperor and prepared for battle', It may be doubted whether a medieval chronicler, writing a 'song of praise' of Alfonso VII, (23) would have said merely this if the war had been sponsored by the pope and had had the purpose of restoring Alfonso I's lands to the rightful heirs. García Ramírez apparently rebelled against Alfonso VII in 1136, just as in the previous year he had abandoned the lordship of Ramiro. The alliance of Alfonso and Ramiro therefore may well have been occasioned by, and not caused, the outbreak of hostilities, since the Castilian king was also being attacked by Portugal and needed support. The most obvious ally was Ramiro, and Alfonso's grant of the regnum Cesaraugustanum to him may, as Traggia suggested, (24) be interpreted as a bribe to win him over to the Castilian side at a time when the Aragonese king might have tried to reassert his own overlordship over García Ramírez or gain outright control of the regnum Cesaraugustanum. (25)

If the war with Navarre and the cession of the regnum Cesaraugustanum to Ramiro are interpreted in this way, it may be doubted whether the agreement between Alfonso and Ramiro in 1136 was concerned at all with the question of the Aragonese [20] succession in the ways that Ubieto suggests, especially as the betrothal of Petronilla and the grant of Aragon to the count of Barcelona did not take place until a year after the 1136 agreement, (26) and as it is not even certain that Petronilla had been born by the time of the agreement. (27) Ramiro's abdication from power in 1137 may have been linked with the question of Alfonso's will in that his rejection of its terms aroused the opposition of the pope who, as a result, may have refused to grant a dispensation for Ramiro's marriage; (28) but there is nothing to suggest that his course of action in 1137 arose out of the agreement of the previous year. Nor is papal hostility the only possible explanation of Ramiro's cession of his kingdom. It may have been occasioned by his difficult relations with his own nobles and with the Castilian and Navarrese rulers, for in one document Ramiro stated that he was giving away his kingdom

because of the many deceptions and frauds which I have suffered from many and so that I shall not suffer any more. (29)
While no link can be shown between the 1136 agreement and Ramiro's actions in the following year, there is further nothing to indicate that the grant of Aragon to the count of Barcelona formed part of any plan whose culmination was to be the renunciation of claims by the Temple, the Hospital, and the Holy Sepulchre. The documents recording the cession of Aragon to Raymond Berenguer are silent on this point; (30) it is further not clear that in 1137 the count of Barcelona was in any better position than Ramiro to obtain renunciations; (31) and it was not until three years later that the Hospital and the Holy Sepulchre renounced their claims. To maintain therefore that the negotiations conducted between Raymond Berenguer IV and the beneficiaries of Alfonso I's will arose out of measures adopted by Alfonso VII and Ramiro in 1136 and 1137 is merely to put forward a hypothesis, for which no evidence can be adduced and to which a number of objections can be raised. The negotiations may well have been undertaken on the initiative of the count of Barcelona himself. When he gained Aragon he needed a legitimate title to it in the eyes of the Church; he also wanted to secure the assistance of the Templars in the reconquista.
In the negotiations with the count of Barcelona the Hospital and the Holy Sepulchre acted together. After proposals had [21] apparently been made by Raymond Berenguer, the patriarch of Jerusalem wrote to Raymond, the Grand Master of the Hospitallers, asking him to act on behalf of the Holy Sepulchre and to make similar agreements for both Orders. (32) Raymond therefore went to Spain, where he realized that it was essential for the proper government and defence of Aragon that the Hospital should surrender its claims. In a charter drawn up on 16 September 1140 he renounced, with certain reservations, the third left to the Hospital. (33) On the same day a similar surrender, in almost exactly -- mutatis mutandis -- the same words and with similar reservations was drawn up on behalf of the Holy Sepulchre. (34) This surrender was made in the name of the patriarch, with the Grand Master acting as his proxy. This explains the further renunciation made by the patriarch in August 1141 in terms similar to those of 1140; (35) it was merely a confirmation of the action taken by Raymond in the previous year.

Several historians have assumed that the Temple joined with the Hospital and the Holy Sepulchre in these negotiations. Zurita writes as though the Temple was involved in 1140; (36) but although the other two Orders refer to each other, neither mentions the Temple. Zapater asserts that all three Orders made surrenders of claims in 1141. (37) But as the patriarch's charter in 1141 was merely a confirmation of the renunciation made on his behalf by the Grand Master of the Hospital, there is no reason for the existence of similar documents for the other Orders. Zapater probably saw the surrender by the Holy Sepulchre in 1141 and Adrian IV's later confirmation of renunciations by all three Orders, (38) and assumed that the Hospital and the Temple had made similar cessions at the same time.

The Temple negotiated separately, for the issues were to some extent different. One stage in the negotiations is revealed in an undated letter from the count of Barcelona to the Grand Master of the Temple, written between 1137 and 1143. (39) This letter begins:

How king Alfonso shortly before his death left his kingdom in three parts, to the Sepulchre of the Lord, namely, to the Hospital and the militia of the Temple is well known to all. I therefore, his successor in the kingdom, want to serve that militia in all ways and to honour it and to magnify it honourably. Considering the nature of your profession, it seems to me that, just as in the beginning under the blessed [22] Peter the Church of God then founded rejoiced through the preaching of the apostles, so now the same Church is defended by your action. Therefore we and all the clergy and people of the land of Spain beg your brotherhood that you provide for the Church of God and aid it in its necessity in so far as you are able and give and send to us at least ten of your brothers, whom you think suitable for this task, by whom in our land knights and others of the faithful, who shall have given themselves to this militia, may be governed and ruled.
Although the count makes no direct reference to the renunciation of claims to Aragon by the Temple, it is clear from the opening sentences that he was thinking in terms of compensating the Order for its share of the kingdom. But he was also reviving the idea -- first put forward when he promised to serve for a year in the Temple -- that the Order should provide ten knights, who were to be sent from the Holy Land to form the nucleus of a Templar force in Spain. The wording of the letter suggests that part of the count's concern was with the loss of manpower which would result if Catalans and Aragonese who joined the Order were sent to the East. Like the Spanish rulers and the popes at the turn of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, who had tried to prevent Spaniards from going on crusades in the Holy Land, (40) he wanted his subjects to remain in Spain to fight against Islam there. To obtain the agreement of the Order, the count offered not only sufficient land to maintain ten knights, but also the town of Daroca, the castles of Osso and Beichite, lordship over one man of each religion in Zaragoza, a quarter share in Cuarte, near Huesca, and a tenth of all that he acquired or won from the Moors.
At the end of the letter the count warned the Grand Master of the dangers of delay in replying to his request; but if the letter was sent (41) it did not win over the Templars, (42) and when agreement was finally reached in 1143 following negotiations conducted 'frequently and diligently through letters and envoys', the Order managed to obtain considerably greater concessions. The Templars were then given the castles of Monzón, Mongay, Barbará, Chalamera, Belchite, and Remolins and royal rights in Corbins; a tenth of royal revenues and in addition 1,000s. annually from royal dues both in Zaragoza and in Huesca; a fifth of all lands conquered from the Moors; and exemption from certain taxes. (43)

[23] In the charter recording the grant of these rights and privileges, as in the count's earlier letter, no reference is made to the renunciation of claims to the kingdom of Aragon by the Temple, but there can be no doubt that this was a condition of the grant. That the Temple made a formal renunciation is clear from the confirmation of it issued by Adrian IV in 1158, (44) and that it must have been made at this time is evident from the absence of any other grant to the Order by the count which could have comprised compensation for its claims to Aragon. The renunciation must have been made in a separate document drawn up at this time which has not survived.

But the count was not only gaining a renunciation of claims. In the charter he stated that

for the defence of the western Church which is in Spain, for the defeat, overcoming, and expulsion of the race of Moors and the exaltation of the holy Christian faith and religion, I have decreed that a militia shall be formed, on the model of the militia of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, which defends the eastern Church, to be subject to the Temple and to follow that militia's rule and customs of holy obedience.
The Templars had agreed and 'sent their decree and counsel about the establishment of a militia of Christ in Spain against the Moors'. This agreement clearly meant not, as some writers have imagined, (45) that the Temple was first being introduced into Spain in 1143, but that it was then being brought into the struggle against the Moors in the Peninsula. (46) Up to 1143 the Order had been concerned only with obtaining property and recruits there. Now, with the consent of the Grand Master, the Temple was to serve the same purpose in Spain as it did in the Holy Land; and it was expected not only to provide troops but also to have a share in deciding policy, for Raymond Berenguer promised not to make peace with the Moors without the counsel of the Templars.
From 1143 onwards, therefore, the Templars fought in Spain and took part in the Aragonese reconquest up to its completion with the conquest of the kingdom of Valencia. In major campaigns the Templars formed part of the royal army, but they also undertook expeditions of their own, and the distinction made in some fueros between service owed to the provincial master and that due to the local Templar commander suggests that Templar activities included small-scale raids as well as larger expeditions. (47) [24] The Order was, in addition, often made responsible for the defence and protection of castles along the Moorish frontier. Although the evidence of their military activities and conduct in the field is sparse, (48) the Templars' participation in the struggle with the Moors during the period of the Aragonese reconquest cannot be called in question, as that of the Hospitallers has been. (49) In return for this military assistance the Temple received a share of the lands conquered from the Moors. But the attitude of the Aragonese rulers towards the 1143 agreement changed during the course of the reconquest. In the second half of the twelfth century they appear to have observed its provisions. In the early part of the next century, however, they came to consider that Raymond Berenguer's concessions to the Order had been excessive and tried to relate the Templars' rewards to the importance of the help they gave in the conquest of new territories.

The results of the 1143 agreement first became apparent during the expeditions which Raymond Berenguer undertook during the following ten years along the valleys of the lower Segre and Ebro, which then probably formed part of the kingdom of the Moorish ruler Lobo, who in the period following the collapse of Almoravide power controlled much of eastern Spain. (50) The participation of the Templars in the attack on Tortosa in 1148 is proved by an agreement which they made with the Hospitallers during the siege (51) and by a reference in the Annali Genovesi, (52) while their presence at the siege of Lérida in the following year is known from an agreement made there between the Order and the bishop of Roda. (53) There is also evidence to show that members of the Order were helping to besiege Miravet in the summer of 1152. (54) The size of Templar contingents on these expeditions is not known, but the Templars' role was important enough for the troubadour Marcabru to be able to comment that

En Espaigna, sai, lo Marques
E cill del temple Salamo
Sofron lo pes
E.l fais de l'orguoill paganor. (55)
Report Spam   Logged
Hero Member
Posts: 174

« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2009, 04:02:38 am »

By the middle of the twelfth century it had become a common practice among Christian rulers in Spain to anticipate conquests from the Moors and to make grants of territory which still lay in Moorish hands. This custom had been followed in the case of [25] Tortosa: Raymond Berenguer III had promised the city to Artal, count of Pallars; (56) Alfonso I stated in his will that if he captured it he would give it to the Hospitallers; (57) in 1136 Raymond Berenguer IV gave it in fee to William of Montpellier, who ten years later left it to his son; (58) in 1146 the count of Barcelona granted the lordship of the city, together with the castle called the Zuda and a third of the city's revenues, to the seneschal William Raymond of Moncada; (59) and at about the same time the Genoese were assigned a third of the city by the count. (60) After the capture of Tortosa only the last two of these grants were taken into consideration. (61) Nevertheless Miret y Sans has argued that because of these two donations the Temple gained only a fifteenth instead of a fifth of the city: Moncada and the Genoese were each assigned portions of the whole city, and the Templars were given a fifth only of the remaining third. (62) Yet shortly after the capture of the city William Raymond of Moncada complained that he had not been given a whole third. The count of Barcelona in reply maintained that he could grant William a third only of the part remaining to him and could give nothing from the third which the Genoese had won for themselves or from the Temple's fifth; and Raymond Berenguer's assertion was upheld in the count's court. (63) Priority was thus given to the claims of the Genoese and the Templars. (64) That the Templars in fact obtained the fifth promised in 1143 is further made clear in a confirmation of Templar rights in Tortosa issued by Alfonso II in 1175, for in this he not only referred to a fifth of the whole city, but also stated that all the revenues of Tortosa were to be collected by the bailiffs of the king and of others who had rights there, and that a fifth was to be assigned to the Temple before any other division was made. (65) The Temple's share of Tortosa consisted, however, merely in the right to receive a portion of the city's revenues. It was allowed no active part in the government and administration of Tortosa: in 1174 Alfonso II and Raymond of Moncada commuted the labour services of the Moors of Tortosa without reference to the Order (66) and in 1180 the king drew up constitutions for the city which were witnessed by Moncada but not by the Templars. (67)
The Temple also obtained a fifth of the city of Lérida after its capture in 1149. The Order's claim had been safeguarded in an agreement made in 1148 about the division of the city, whose territories were then defined as stretching from the boundaries of [26] Corbins in the north to those of Gebut in the south. (68) The lordship of the city, together with a third of the lands and revenues there, was granted to the count of Urgel, but from the two-thirds remaining to the count of Barcelona a fifth of the whole city was to be given to the Temple and over this fifth the count of Urgel was to exercise no rights of lordship; in compensation he was given certain powers over the castellanry of Ascó. After the conquest of Lérida the Order was apparently assigned specific districts in the terms of the city, (69) and although it is nowhere stated what lands were given to the Templars, later evidence shows that they were granted Gardeny, situated on a hill to the south of the city, where Alfonso I had built a castle in 1123 but had failed to hold it; (70) they appear also to have been given rights in Fontanet, on the opposite bank of the river from Gardeny, in the district of Segria to the north and west of the city and in the parish of St. Lawrence within the city. (71)

In 1153, after the rest of the lower Segre and Ebro valleys had been conquered, Raymond Berenguer further gave the Order the equivalent of a fifth of the whole of the ribera of the Ebro from Mequinenza to Benifallet. (72) His grant consisted of the castle of Miravet, whose boundaries were delineated to include the minor strongholds of Algars, Batea, Corbera, Gandesa, Pinell, and Rasquera; estates at Mequinenza, Flix, Ascó, García, Mora de Ebro, and Tivisa; and two jovadas at Marsá. In his charter the count stressed the Temple's duty of defending these strongholds by stating that he wanted Miravet to be entrusted to safe guardians. By this time the Templars had probably also secured the castle of Remolins, on the Segre, which had been promised in 1143, for in 1154 the arbiters in a dispute between the Order and the bishop of Lérida confirmed possession of it to the Temple. (73) There is, however, no record of the grant of a fifth of the lands along the lower Segre below Lérida to the Order.

While the results of the 1143 agreement during the lifetime of Raymond Berenguer IV are fairly clear, its importance in the reign of Alfonso II is more obscure. Little information can be found in either Christian or Arab chronicle sources about Alfonso's expeditions in what became southern Aragon, and it is not known what part the Templars played in these campaigns. Nor is it altogether clear how far Alfonso II carried out the promises made by Raymond Berenguer. The Order could expect a fifth of [27] Alfonso's conquests, but it was in fact excluded from the areas conquered by him. The military orders which enjoyed the patronage of the Aragonese king in these districts were those of Spanish origin. The stronghold of Alcañiz was given to Calatrava in 1179, (74) and a series of grants was made by Alfonso to the minor Order of Mountjoy, which had been founded about the year 1173 by the Leonese noble, Roderick count of Sarria. (75) Amongst the endowments of this Order were various frontier castles, including Alfambra, Villel, and Castellote. The special favour shown by the Aragonese king to this small Order, coupled with the absence of royal patronage of the Temple in these districts, suggests that Alfonso was becoming reluctant to entrust the defence of his Moorish frontiers mainly to a large international order, which might -- as in the Holy Land (76) -- pursue an independent policy, contrary to royal interests, and that he gave his support to Mountjoy because it could be more easily controlled than the Temple.

The exclusion of the Templars from southern Aragon apparently did not mean, however, that Alfonso was rejecting the 1143 agreement, for he made a number of important grants to the Temple, which were probably compensation for the Order's claim to a fifth of southern Aragon and some of which by their timing seem to be connected with his expeditions. The promises made in November 1169 of the Valencian castles of Oropesa and Chivert and of 1,000m. annually, to be paid whenever tribute was gained from the Moorish king Lobo, may thus have been linked with the expedition which Alfonso had undertaken in that year.(77) The promise of the Valencian stronghold of Montornés in 1181 may similarly have been made in compensation for a share in the conquests which Alfonso had made in the previous year. (78) Other important grants by Alfonso cannot be linked closely with his expeditions, and explanations of these grants are not provided in the charters of donation, but it may be suggested that these also comprised compensation for the Order's fifth of southern Aragon. These donations include the gift of the castle of Horta in ?1174, (79) and that of Encinacorba in 1175, (80) and also the important grant made in March 1182 of royal rights of lordship, together with a half of royal revenues, in Tortosa, Ascó, and Ribarroja. (81) The king retained merely his demesne lands in Tortosa, his ecclesiastical rights, and half of the hunting and fishing when he or the queen [28] was present; the Temple's fifth in Tortosa was, however, to be included in the revenues to be divided, together with the rents of any lands which either party acquired in future in the city. (82)

Although the Temple appears to have been given compensation for its fifth of Alfonso's conquests in this way, the necessities of frontier defence obliged the Aragonese king to make further donations to the Temple shortly before his death. The Order of Mountjoy, though expanding territorially, had become subject to difficulties. Already in 1186 a proposal had been made to incorporate it into the Temple. This plan had not been carried out presumably because of opposition from Alfonso II, who was still trying to exclude the Templars from southern Aragon. Mountjoy was instead in 1188 joined to the Hospital of the Holy Redeemer, which the Aragonese king had recently founded at Teruel for the ransoming of captives. But this did not bring an end to the Order's problems; and continuous rivalries and divisions within the Order finally led Alfonso to command that Mountjoy's possessions should be returned to the Crown or granted to an order which could defend them. It was decided, as Alfonso informed the pope in 1195, (83) that the Templars could protect them more effectively than anyone else; and in the following year Mountjoy was incorporated into the Temple by the Aragonese king and Fralmo of Lucca, the master of Mountjoy. (84)

By this amalgamation the Temple acquired a considerable amount of property in southern Aragon, most of which is listed in the instruments of union and in memoranda drawn up by the members of Mountjoy who opposed the amalgamation. (85) The most important gains mentioned in these documents consisted of the lordships of Alfambra -- with which the neighbouring places of Camaflas, Malvecino, Miravete, and Perales had been granted to Mountjoy in 1174 (86) -- Villel, (87) Libros, Fuentes Calientes, Orrios, Castellote, (88) and Villarluengo. These documents also mention a dozen churches of which Mountjoy had enjoyed the patronage through the gift of Peter, bishop of Zaragoza, besides other lands of minor importance in Aragon. Amongst the rights not mentioned in these lists, but which the Temple also gained in 1196, was the lordship of Cantavieja, of which the Templars were in possession by 1197, (89) and two further churches in southern Aragon. (90) By the end of Alfonso II's reign the Templars thus held many frontier castles and occupied an important role in frontier defence [29] not only along the lower reaches of the Ebro but also in southern Aragon. (91)

Before the death of Alfonso II the Templars had further through their own military activities secured a temporary foothold in Valencia by capturing the castle of Pulpís, over which the Aragonese king then, in 1190, granted them lordship. (92) This was, however, lost again. According to the troubadour Gerald of Luc it was sold back to the Moors by Alfonso II:

Gauch n'ant las gens d'outra.l Nil
car lor fai taut gen socors
c'us feus de lor ancessors
c'avion conquist li fraire
vendet, mas ges non pres gaire
vas q'era grans la ricors. (93)
Riquer has pointed out that, in view of the troubadour's known hostility towards the Aragonese king, this assertion need not be accepted, but the poem does indicate that Pulpís had been lost again by the time of Alfonso's death in 1196. (94) Nevertheless, the episode had given the Templars a claim to the castle which could be put forward if the stronghold fell again to the Christians.
In Alfonso II's reign the Templars appear to have gained more than the fifth due to them according to the terms of Raymond Berenguer IV's charter. Royal generosity was not so marked in that of Peter II. His chief territorial acquisition from the Moors consisted of the Rincón de Ademuz, gained in 1210. In compensation for the Order's claim to a fifth of the lands conquered Peter granted the Temple his rights in Ascó, (95) and because they had taken part in the expedition 'with a praiseworthy band of brothers', he restored to the Templars the lordship of Tortosa, (96) which -- since it formed part of the dowry which Peter's mother Sancha had been assigned by Alfonso II in 1174 (97) -- the Order had lost early in Peter's reign. The provincial master, Arnold of Torroja, had witnessed the grant in 1174 and reserved Templar rights, but at the time these consisted merely of a fifth of the city's revenues. After Alfonso's death, Peter II had become involved in disputes about his mother's rights, and although in 1200 she agreed to surrender certain claims, she retained Tortosa for life as Alfonso had held it before granting it to the Temple. (98) No compensation was given to the Temple, and though in 1202 the Templars were [30] able to use the king's acute need of money to extract from him a charter granting the city back to the Order, (99) Sancha succeeded in retaining authority there until her death, (100) and the king's charter remained ineffective. Even when Sancha died in 1208, however, the city was not restored to the Temple. Peter granted it instead for life to William of Cervera, reserving only the military service and questias owed by the Christian inhabitants and jurisdiction over breaches of the peace. (101) This grant to William of Cervera lessened the value of the restoration of the city to the Templars in 1210. The king ordered William to do homage for the city to the Templars; he refused, but was overruled by arbiters appointed by the king; (102) and at the beginning of November 1210 a charter was drawn up stating that William of Cervera and his son were to hold Tortosa of the Temple for two lives, as William had previously held it of the king. (103) The Order had thus gained little beyond a claim to Tortosa, since William of Cervera still enjoyed most of the revenues of the city; the Temple had merely its fifth, its demesne lands, and the rights which Peter had reserved in 1208. The Order was therefore in 1210 obtaining only a partial restoration of what it could claim by right, and it did not recover all its former rights in Tortosa until William of Cervera in 1215 agreed to surrender the city to the Order, retaining for life only the king's share of the revenues and the royal demesnes as detailed in 1182. (104)

In receiving Ascó in 1210, the Order was gaining more than it did in the case of Tortosa, but at a price. This stronghold had also formed part of Sancha's dowry and was retained by her for life. Nevertheless Peter II did give the Temple compensation for its rights of lordship and share in the revenues of Ascó: in 1204 he assigned to the Order the castle and township of Serós, on the condition that when Ascó had been recovered from the queen-mother, it should be exchanged for Serós. To win this concession, however, the Temple was obliged to surrender temporarily certain rights, including the tenth from the royal demesne in Aragon. (105) This agreement was cancelled in 1206, when the king promised instead to pay the Temple 500m. annually from the revenues of Serós. (106) When Sancha died the Templars were therefore able to recover their rights in Ascó by surrendering the revenues in Serós. Peter's grant in 1210 thus comprised the half-share of the revenues which Alfonso II had kept in 1182. But Peter, [31] besides retaining 200m. annually from the lezda and peaje of Ascó, also received in return for the grant the sum of 5,000maz. from the Templars. Since the annual value of a half-share of the revenues of Ascó was apparently 500m., the transaction in 1210 should therefore be viewed as a sale rather than a donation. The provincial master was nevertheless obliged to state that he would make no further claim about the fifth of the Rincón de Ademuz. It is true that Peter did make other grants to the Order for its military help: at the end of 1210 he rewarded the Templars for their services against the Moors by confirming two donations of rents in Lérida made by the count of Urgel, (107) and in June 1212 at the time of the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa he made further minor concessions to the Templars, (108) while the promises of the alqueria and tower of Ruzafa and the castle of Culla in Valencia made in 1211 and 1213 respectively may have been occasioned by Templar participation in a Valencian expedition. (109) But although Peter might stress

how useful, how faithful, and how necessary they have been to our predecessors in everything which concerned the expansion of Christendom and how much they have sought to aid us ourselves in our necessities, (110)
Report Spam   Logged
Hero Member
Posts: 174

« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2009, 04:03:44 am »

the nature of the grants made to the Templars in 1210 following the conquest of the Rincón de Ademuz suggests that the Crown was becoming reluctant to make important new grants of territory to the Order.
The Crown's attitude towards the Temple finds a more precise expression in the reign of James I, especially at the time of the conquest of Mallorca from the Almohade ruler Abu-Yahya. At the meetings of the Cortes held in Barcelona at the end of 1228 and at Tarragona in September 1229 it was agreed that the land gained in the proposed expedition to Mallorca should be divided among the king, nobles, and clergy according to the size of contingents provided, and promises were made at these assemblies by various magnates and prelates to bring a certain number of troops. (111) After the conquest of Mallorca, these agreements were put into effect; as a result the Temple gained considerably less than a fifth of the island. All who had provided troops were assessed at a certain number of caballerías, according to the size of their contingents. (112) The term was here used merely to signify [32] shares; it did not refer to actual pieces of land, as has often been thought. (113) The largest single assessment was that of the king, who was rated at 5,674½ caballerías, while of the rest the Templar assessment of 525½ caballerías was the fifth largest, coming after those of Nuño Sánchez, Gastoneto of Moncada, the bishop of Barcelona, and the count of Ampurias. As the total number of caballerías was nearly 13,450, the Templar assessment was just under a twenty-fifth of the whole. How large a contingent this figure represented is not clear. The chronicler Desclot states that in the Barcelona assembly the Order promised to contribute thirty horsemen and twenty crossbowmen; (114) but there is no reference to such a promise in the documents drawn up in the Cortes or in the Chronicle of James I, and Desclot's information about other contingents is inaccurate; (115) there seems therefore little reason for accepting his statement. And in the Cortes at Tarragona the lieutenant of the provincial master of the Temple merely promised to bring as many knights as possible. Nevertheless an indication of the number of troops which the Templar assessment represented is possibly provided by the evidence which survives about the share allotted to the Hospitallers. They had arrived too late to take part in the expedition but petitioned the king to give them some land in Mallorca. According to the Chronicle of James I the king agreed to give them the amount allotted for a contingent of thirty knights and also made them a further gift out of his own share; (116) and in the list of caballerías the Hospitallers are assigned first 148 caballerías and then 'by the donation of the king' another 152 caballerías. It may be suggested therefore that the 148 caballerías represented the share for thirty knights, and that each knight was assessed at five caballerías. The Templar contingent would therefore have consisted of just over a hundred knights or their equivalent.

Exactly what the Order gained as its twenty-fifth share is not known, since in the repartimiento the Temple's acquisitions are not given separately. The island was divided into eight parts, four of which were assigned jointly to the king, the Temple, William of Moncada, Raymond Alamán, and William of Claramunt, whose caballerías together comprised about half the total number. (117) Of these four parts the king gained approximately five-sixths and the others one-sixth. But details of the division of the sixth are not given, and it can only be stated what the Temple and these nobles [33] were assigned together, although the proportions of each are known, for William of Moncada was assessed at 276 caballerías and Raymond Alamán and William of Claramunt jointly at 205. The Temple's share of the sixth was therefore a little over a half.

In the city of Mallorca the Temple and the three nobles were given 55 out of 320 operatoria, 4 ovens out of 24, 12 houses of the 89 in the Almudayna, and 393 elsewhere, besides 5 alquerías totalling 66½ jovadas. (118) Outside the city they were granted half of Pollensa, half of the Montaña, a quarter of Montuiri, and a twelfth of the Albufera. (119) The acquisitions in Pollensa consisted of 52 alquerías totalling 285 jovadas; in the Montaña they gained 26 alquerías of 129 jovadas; and in Montuiri their allocation comprised 36 alquerías of 193 jovadas. (120)

Thus in the division of Mallorca James I made no attempt to enforce Raymond Berenguer's charter, which he could have done by granting the Order part of his own share; the only donation he made to the Temple at this time other than those mentioned in the repartimiento was of a castle near the walls of the city of Mallorca given in April 1230 as a residence for the Templars.(121) And the precedent created following the acquisition of Mallorca was to be followed when further conquests were made: when James issued a confirmation of Templar privileges in 1233, during the siege of Burriana, he revoked the Order's right to a fifth of lands conquered from the Moors. (122) When therefore lands were distributed after the conquest of the kingdom of Valencia from the Moorish ruler Zaiyán, the Templars no longer enjoyed a privileged position. Their reward like that of others was to be determined by the extent of their help. (123)

No precise evidence survives about the significance of the Templar forces in the conquest of the Valencian kingdom, but entries in the Chronicle of James I suggest that the Order's troops were important not because of their numbers but because they could be quickly mobilized and could, with the men of the royal household, help to form the nucleus of an army. When early in 1238 the king set out towards the city of Valencia, his army -- according to the Chronicle -- included a commander of the Temple with about twenty knights. This was a small contingent compared with the royal retinue at that time of 130-40 knights, or Roderick of Linzana's following of thirty; but it was a force that was in the field earlier than many contingents coming from Aragon [34] and Catalonia. (124) That this was the importance of Templar troops is also suggested by the Chronicle account of the Burriana campaign in 1233. Troops for the assault on Burriana should apparently have been concentrated at Teruel. None appeared on the day fixed, but messengers reported to the king that the provincial masters of the Temple and Hospital, together with the Calatravan commander of Alcañiz, had been waiting near Murviedro for two days according to orders. These then joined James, and the attack on Burriana appears, from the evidence of the Chronicle, to have been undertaken by the king, the military orders, the men of Teruel and of the bishop of Zaragoza, and a few nobles, who were assisted only later by other lay contingents. (125)

In return for such aid the Templars received certain rewards. In June 1233, during the siege of Burriana, James granted the Templars the alquerías of Benhamet and Mantella, which lay within the terms of Burriana, on the condition that they captured them, (126) and the Templars' assistance was further rewarded after the capture of Burriana by the grant on 25 July of part of the town, including six towers. (127) Three days earlier, for the 'many and gracious services' which the Temple had given in the siege of Burriana, the king also confirmed the grant of Chivert to the Temple. (128) At this time it still lay in Moorish hands, but -- as in many other Moorish strongholds -- the inhabitants preferred to capitulate on terms rather than withstand a long siege, and the provincial master was able to negotiate for its surrender. (129) In 1237 the Templars were given the alquería of Seca in Burriana by the king, (130) and in the next year, following the capture of the city of Valencia, James

remembering the many and gracious services which you our beloved and venerable brothers of the house of the Temple have given us and give us daily and have given now in the conquest of the city and kingdom of Valencia
granted to the Order in the city the torre grande at the gate called Barbazachar for a residence, houses in the same part of the city, land for a garden in La Xarea outside the gate, and twenty jovadas of arable land. (131) In August 1244, following the siege of Játiva, at which the provincial master had been present, the Order was further given half of the shipyard at Denia (132) and later in the same year, at the siege of Biar, James gave the Temple the right to [35] build houses on the walls of Burriana.(133) Two years later James also gave compensation for Ruzafa, which had been promised to the Temple by Peter II. The Order was assigned the alquerías of Moncada and Carpesa, which both lay near the city of Valencia and which James had bought from Peter of Moncada and the royal notary Bernard Vidal. (134) The Order lastly obtained Pulpís, although it was not until 1277 that the Templars gained possession of it from the Order of Calatrava, which claimed to have captured it. (135)
Yet the gains made by the Temple from the Crown following the conquest of Valencia were limited. New donations of property by the king were comparatively few and unimportant, and very little was granted to the Order in the more southerly parts of the kingdom; the Templars were not assigned a leading role in frontier defence there. (136) Nor were all the promises made by previous kings carried out, even though some of the places promised had apparently comprised compensation for the Order's fifth elsewhere. Culla was given by the king in 1235 to Blasco of Alagón, and Montornés in 1242 to a royal notary Peter Sánchez; (137) and although Oropesa had been promised with Chivert to the Temple in 1169, no reference was made to it when James confirmed the Temple's claim to Chivert in 1233, and after its capture it was assigned to the Hospital, which had been promised it in 1149 by Raymond Berenguer IV. (138) No compensation was received by the Temple for any of these places, even though the Order plainly had charters to support its claims. (139) Although the evidence about the conquest of, and allocation of lands in, Valencia is not so precise as that concerning Mallorca, the Templars clearly failed to gain either the fifth promised by Raymond Berenguer IV or all of the other rights to which they could lay claim in the kingdom of Valencia.

While in the first half of the thirteenth century the Temple's share in the Aragonese conquests was declining, this source of new wealth disappeared almost entirely after the acquisition of Valencia, which completed the conquest of the territories assigned to the Aragonese kings in the treaty of Cazorla in 1179. The only further property in reconquered districts that the Order gained from the Crown were houses and land in Murcia, granted by James I in 1266 after the Aragonese expedition there, in which the Templars had participated. (140) The Order's undertaking in 1143 [36] to take part in the conflict with the Moors had therefore proved most profitable to the Temple in the twelfth century, when it received important lordships and rights from Raymond Berenguer IV and Alfonso II; through the grants received from these rulers it had become particularly powerful along the lower valleys of the Segre and Ebro and in southern Aragon. Its rewards in Mallorca and Valencia were of lesser importance.

While the Order was gaining important estates from the Aragonese rulers in return for its participation in the reconquista, it was increasing its wealth throughout the Corona de Aragón through other donations and purchases. These other acquisitions were in a variety of forms. Some gifts to the Temple were of cash and movables, especially horses and arms. A considerable number of grants of this kind were made by confratres of the Temple. Although some religious orders founded at the end of the eleventh century, such as Citeaux and Grandmont, prohibited the practice of confraternity, the Rule of the Temple permitted the custom, which soon received encouragement from the papacy. (141) The Order had confratres in Aragon as early as 1131,(142) and the rapid extension of such ties in north-eastern Spain is apparent not only from individual contracts of confraternity which have survived, but also from several lists of confratres which have been preserved. A parchment roll, covering the period up to 1225, thus lists some 450 Aragonese and Navarrese confratres of the Temple. (143) A similar list is found in a late twelfth-century Templar cartulary; in part it reproduces the parchment roll and contains the names of 230 confratres. (144) This cartulary also includes a further list of confratres living in Novillas; fifty-two agreements of confraternity are here detailed. (145) Most of these confratres made bequests of movables to the Order. Those who possessed a horse and arms usually bequeathed these; women commonly left their best garment; and other bequests by confratres were of money. It is difficult to judge, however, how frequently acquisitions of movables were made by the Temple. Although gifts of horses and arms and cash are frequently recorded in contracts of confraternity, information about other donations in these forms has often survived only because these gifts were noted in wills which were preserved because they also referred to rights over landed property. An isolated gift of cash is unlikely to have left any [37] surviving record. As wills not infrequently refer to bequests of movables to the Temple, however, acquisitions in this form may have been of some importance. (146)

Report Spam   Logged
Hero Member
Posts: 174

« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2009, 04:04:39 am »

Nevertheless, the sources are inevitably concerned mainly with rights of a more permanent kind. They show that some of the Order's acquisitions consisted of dues of a personal character, not linked with any landed or territorial rights gained by the Temple. Among dues of this type were those commonly paid by confratres of the Order. (147) Most of the surviving documents, however, record acquisitions of rights over landed property. Comparatively little of this property lay in the most northerly parts of Aragon and Catalonia; much more was situated further south in recently reconquered areas, where there was still a threat of Moorish attack and where lands were often of little value until they had been resettled. The surviving evidence perhaps to some extent distorts the true picture of the distribution of Templar property, for several groups of documents concerning Templar rights in northern Catalonia are known to have been lost, (148) but it is clear from the small number of Templar convents established in the most northerly parts of the Corona de Aragón and from the limited incomes of these houses that only a small part of the Order's landed property was situated in these regions. (149)

The surviving sources reveal that the Templars gained lordship over a considerable number of castles and townships, especially in certain areas, such as the Ebro valley in Aragon. The castle and village of Novillas, situated on the Ebro near the frontiers of Aragon and Navarre, was granted jointly to the Temple and the Hospital in 1135 by García Ramírez of Navarre, (150) and the Templars gained full control of it by surrendering to the Hospital the rights which they had been given by Alfonso I in the neighbouring village of Mallén. (151) At about the same time the Order acquired lordship of the now deserted village of Razazol, further down the river, for this had been granted by Ramiro II to a certain Calvet towards the end of 1134 and the latter's grant of it to the Temple was confirmed by Raymond Berenguer IV four years later. (152) In 1151 the count of Barcelona further confirmed the Temple's rights of lordship over Boquiñeni, downstream from Razazol, but it is not known when the Templars acquired their rights there. (153) It is similarly not known when the Order gained Marlofa, on the right bank of the Ebro between the junction with [38] the Jalón and the city of Zaragoza; evidence of Templar rights there is found only in thirteenth-century administrative documents. (154) It is clear, on the other hand, that the Temple's rights of lordship at Alfocea -- on the opposite bank of the river to Marlofa -- originated in 1143, when the Templars were given a fifth share in the township, (155) while another fifth was acquired in 1194. (156) On the Ebro below the city of Zaragoza the Templars gained La Zaida. A three-quarter share in this township was given to the Order in 1161 by Jordana, the daughter of Iñigo Fortunones, who had been lord of Larraga; (157) in 1176 the Order acquired from Peter López of Luna the rights which had belonged to Elvira, the daughter of Gómez of Ruesta, formerly lord of Ayerbe and Bolea; (158) and two years later the Templars purchased the share belonging to Elvira's sister, Tota Gómez. (159) The Order in the same way gradually acquired the lordship of the now deserted place of Añesa, lying further north on the river Arba, which flows into the Ebro at Gallur. The almunia of Añesa had been given in 1117 by Alfonso I to Lope Garcés Peregrino, (160) who in 1133/4 left half of his possessions to his wife Mayor and the other half to the Temple, the Hospital, and the church of St. Mary in Zaragoza. (161) In 1144 Galindo Garcés of San Vicente gave the Order the quarter share of Añesa which he had received from his aunt, the widow of Lope Garcés, (162) and three years later Peter Romeu gave the Templars another share, which was presumably the other part of Mayor's portion. (163) Within a few years the Order had also acquired the rights enjoyed there by the bishop of Zaragoza in exchange for land elsewhere. (164) To the south of the Ebro the Templars had early obtained the castles of Ambel and Alberite from Peter Taresa, who according to some sources was a candidate for the Aragonese throne in 1134, (165) and shortly after the middle of the twelfth century the lordship of the castle and village of Novallas, near Tarazona, was granted by Lazarus, the son of Fortún Aznárez, lord of Tarazona. (166)

Groups of lordships were similarly built up in other districts. One group, including Cofita, Castejón del Puente, Alfantega, and Sta. Lecina, was concentrated in the neighbourhood of Monzón in the valley of the river Cinca. (167) Further east, along the lower reaches of the Segre, the Order gained the castles of Torres de Segre and Gebut, (168) besides a number of lordships in the district of Segriá to the north-west of Lérida and in the district to the [39] east of the city. Among these were Grallera, Barbens, Talladell, and a half of Pedrís. (169) In the region inland from Tarragona, slightly further east, the Order acquired another series of lordships, comprising rights over Selma, Ollers, Vallfogona, Albió, Espluga de Francolí, Montbrió, and Valldossera. (170) The last area where any considerable lordships were gained was the northern part of Valencia. In 1303 the Order purchased from William of Anglesola, who was lord of Bellpuig, the castle of Culla and the territory subject to it, which included Corbo (? Carbó), Buey, Vistabella, Benafigos, Adzaneta, and Molinell and the towers of Vina Rabina and Benasal.(171) Nine years earlier, however, the Templars had already considerably increased their possessions in northern Valencia through an exchange by which they surrendered to James II their rights in Tortosa. The king was anxious to recover lordship over this important coastal city, which could be of use to him in his Mediterranean policies, and the Temple was willing to give up its rights because of the difficulties it was encountering in exercising its authority there. In return James gave the Temple the castle and town of Peñíscola, with which were included Vinaroz and Benicarló; the castle and township of Ares; and the Tenencia de las Cuevas, which comprised Las Cuevas de Vinromán, Salsadella, Albocácer, Villanueva de Alcolea, Tirig, and Serratella. (172)

In other areas acquisitions of lordships were not so important. In the more northerly parts of Aragon only a few small villages -- Arnasillo, Huerrios, Bien, and a share in Miquera -- are known to have been gained. (173) In Cataluña Vieja apparently the only lordship of any significance that was obtained was that of Puigreig, on the upper Llobregat, which was bequeathed to the Temple in 1187 by the troubadour William of Bergadán. (174) Even this lordship the Order gained only after a long delay. Following William's death, which occurred between 1192 and 1196, the bequest was obviously disputed by the troubadour's brother, for Puigreig was included in the sale of the viscounty of Bergadán made to Peter II in 1199 by either the brother or the latter's widow. (175) Puigreig remained under royal authority until 1231, when James I, at last carrying out the conditions of William of Bergadán's will, assigned it to the Temple. (176)

A few of these lordships acquired in various parts of the Corona de Aragón were of considerable individual importance. Those [40] gained in northern Valencia at the turn of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries were among the most valuable acquisitions made by the Aragonese Templars. (177) But generally the most important towns and castles under Templar authority were those obtained from the Crown in return for aid in the reconquista; the lordships gained in other ways tended usually to be of only moderate value and consisted mainly of rights over minor castles and small townships and villages.

These lordships over castles and townships inevitably constituted only a small minority of the acquisitions made by the Aragonese Templars. The majority consisted of lesser rights over landed property. The type of acquisition most commonly made by the Order comprised rights over pieces of land used for the growing of corn or vines, or more rarely of olives. It is difficult, however, to assess the importance of most acquisitions of this kind, for measurements are only rarely given in charters. Terms such as 'peca', 'campum', and 'vinea' are frequently employed, without any indication of size, and although in Catalonia some acquisitions consisted of manses, this word did not refer to properties of any uniform size. (178) Besides these very numerous rural holdings the Temple also gained a certain amount of urban property. In Zaragoza. for example, the Order acquired rights over houses and shops, especially in the neighbourhood of the Cineja gate -- the southern gate in the Roman wall -- and near the western gate, the Puerta de Toledo. (179) In Huesca houses and shops were acquired particularly in the barrio of the Temple and in the suburb outside the Alquibla gate, which stood at the end of the present calle de Ramiro el monje; (180) by the early thirteenth century there was similarly a Templar barrio in Tarazona. (181) Among other acquisitions by the Order were rights over mills, including fulling mills as well as those used for grinding corn; and in some places, such as Jaca on the river Aragón and Cascajo on the river Gállego, mills appear to have been the most important possessions which the Order held. (182)

The Temple gained, lastly, considerable ecclesiastical properties. Unlike some monastic orders founded at about the same time, the Temple was allowed to hold property of any kind. In the Rule of the Temple the right to acquire tithes was conceded and this right was confirmed by Innocent II in 1139 in the bull Omne datum optimum. (183) It would have been possible to justify [41] this right by arguing that as the function of the Templars was fighting they could not maintain themselves by their own labour as some contemporary monastic orders sought to do, and that they therefore needed dues such as tithes, especially as the war against the infidel was a costly enterprise. (184) But the only reason given in the Rule was that, as the Templars had adopted a life of poverty, they should be allowed to possess tithes -- a reference to the argument commonly expressed at the time that those who had given up their possessions should be counted among the pauperes Christi and should therefore be allowed to receive tithes. (185) The Rule of the Temple and the bull Omne datum optimum do not, on the other hand, make any reference to the patronage of churches; yet it is unlikely that the Templars would have been permitted to have tithes but not churches. If this had been the case a specific prohibition in the Rule would be expected.

Certainly within a very few years of the Council of Troyes the Templars were beginning to acquire rights over churches in the Corona de Aragón. In 1135 they gained the church of Novillas in the diocese of Zaragoza, and they may have obtained rights over the nearby churches of Razazol and Boquiñeni even earlier. (186) Besides these churches the Templars further gained in the same diocese, during the twelfth century, rights over the churches of Alberite, La Zaida, and Encinacorba, (187) and in 1204 the bishop gave the Order eight other churches in the districts which the Templars had taken over from Mountjoy. (188) The Order also possessed considerable ecclesiastical patronage in the diocese of Lérida, for from 1149 it held the church of St. John in Monzón, together with its subject churches, which in 1192 numbered twenty-three. (189) Along the lower valley of the Ebro, which formed part of the diocese of Tortosa, the Order acquired the patronage of the churches of Miravet, Algars, and Ribarroja; and further south in the same diocese it gained the churches of Seca and Chivert. (190) Elsewhere its importance as a patron was more limited. In the diocese of Urgel it had only the church of Puigreig, (191) and in the diocese of Barcelona only that of Selma. (192) Similarly in the Aragonese part of the diocese of Tarazona the Temple's only church was that of Ambel, (193) while in the diocese of Segorbe/Albarracín the Aragonese Templars enjoyed the patronage only of the church of Ademuz. (194) In the diocese of Valencia there appear to have been no churches under Templar [42] patronage. (195) Throughout the kingdom of Valencia, however, which was divided between the dioceses of Tortosa, Segorbe, and Valencia, the Order received from its estates the share of the tithes which lords in that kingdom normally enjoyed from their lands. (196) It thus received from the bishop of Tortosa in 1244 a half of the tithes of Chivert and of all its lands in Burriana, (197) and in 1263 the bishop of Valencia gave the Templars a third of the tithes of Borbotó, which they had acquired from William of Portella. (198) A number of acquisitions of tithes were of course also made in other parts of the Corona de Aragón from both laity and clergy. (199)

Report Spam   Logged
Hero Member
Posts: 174

« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2009, 04:05:22 am »

This accumulation of property which was occurring throughout the Corona de Aragón while the Aragonese rulers were granting newly conquered lands to the Temple has parallels in the histories of other religious orders; but the motives of the donors of this property were, to some extent, different from those of patrons of monasteries. Whereas patrons of the regular clergy would often -- if they had the means -- found a monastery or convent and provide revenues for its support, none of the charters of donation recording gifts to the Temple is a foundation charter of a convent of the Order. The property which was granted to the Temple in various parts of the Corona de Aragón was given primarily in order to provide resources for the struggle against the infidel in Spain and the Holy Land or to further the work of resettlement in reconquered areas. (200)

Yet although these benefactors of the Temple did not found convents, they -- like the Aragonese rulers when they granted frontier estates to the Order -- expected the Temple to provide for their spiritual welfare in the same ways as monasteries did for their patrons. They hoped to gain spiritual reward through prayers said for them in the Order's houses and through good works performed by Templar convents, and sought by this means to avoid the agonies of hell and to share in the joys of paradise. (201) This aspect of patronage is revealed especially in contracts of confraternity, which sometimes give details of the spiritual benefits received by confratres. Confratres were included in the prayers said not only in their local Templar convents, but in all houses of the Order. (202) They were also considered to participate in the fasts and alms -- giving undertaken by the Templars. (203) These benefits were usually extended to a confrater's family and [43] occasionally to a few friends as well. (204) The Temple in addition promised to bury confratres in its cemeteries and agreed to grant the habit, if it was demanded, even to female confratres. (205) In most cases, of course, a confrater would not seek the habit until he was dying and this promise by the Temple referred primarily to the custom known as ad succurrendum, which allowed individuals to die in the habit. The wording of the Templar Customs indicates, however, that as in some other orders those who took the habit when dying were not considered full members:

If a man asks to be made a brother when he is dying, he who gives him the habit shall say nothing to him, but put it on him when he is on the point of death. The brother can take it off him again when he sees that he is dead; and if he dies in the habit there is no obligation to say the paternosters which must be said for a brother. (206)
The dying person merely had the habit placed upon him, without any proper profession; he was not buried in the habit nor was he treated as a brother after death.
Some patrons, considering further their spiritual welfare, provided through donations for the saying of masses or for the maintenance of lamps or candles which were to burn before the altars of Templar chapels. Those who had the means endowed chantries or lamps in perpetuity. In 1275, for example, G. of San Melione established two chantries in the Templar church at Valencia, ordering that

the clerics who serve the said chantries in the said church are to celebrate daily a requiem mass for my soul and for those of all my benefactors, and are to be present by day and night at the offices which are said and celebrated in the said church every day and night, and are to go every day to my grave to absolve me and say prayers (207)
and when in 1282 Peter Cornel stated in his will that he would leave the castle of Fréscano to the Temple if he died without legitimate sons, he made the condition that the Order was to maintain ten priests to say masses for his soul and keep ten lamps burning day and night in the chapel in which he was to be buried. (208) Such provisions required a considerable endowment. The priests whom Peter Cornel provided for were to receive an annual salary of 150s. each, and in 1280 the bishop of Valencia considered that an income of 20l.V. was necessary to maintain a chantry priest and his boy and to provide for lamps and [44] candles, (209) while an endowment of a lamp alone appears usually to have required a rent of from 10s. to 30s. a year.(210) Those who could not give enough to make perpetual endowments might merely provide for masses to be said on the anniversary of their death or state that masses should be said for a certain period or that a certain number of masses should be said. In 1295 Gayeta, the wife of Peter of Rueda, provided in her will for the celebrating of daily masses for a year, while by the terms of his wife's will, drawn up in 1208, Peter of Tena was obliged to see that 2,000 masses were said for her soul by a chaplain provided by the Templars in Zaragoza. (211) Alternatively a few shillings or a few pence might be left to the Temple and masses were to be said or candles and lamps kept burning until the money was used up.
While spiritual benefits were sought by all those who made gifts to the Order, at least a considerable minority of donors also sought a more worldly reward. In a world where largesse was extolled as a virtue, nobles could enhance their prestige by making generous benefactions. Some individuals, however, sought more precise material returns from the Order, although it cannot be stated what proportion of benefactors obtained benefits of this kind, for charters do not necessarily record all aspects of a transaction. It has been argued that during the civil war in England between Stephen and Matilda the Templars were given property in return for political support, and it has been maintained that the rival powers in the disputed borderlands between Poland and Pomerania sought to retain a hold over these districts by granting extensive properties there to the Templars. (212) There may similarly have been political motives behind some of the grants to the Temple in the disputed areas on the borders of Aragon and Navarre in the years following the death of Alfonso I. García Ramírez may have given Novillas to the Hospital and Temple in 1135 in the hope that they would defend it for the Navarrese, and a similar motive may explain in part the confirmation of Templar rights over Razazol issued in 1138 by Raymond Berenguer IV, for in the previous year García Ramírez had given it to Raymond of Cortes. (213) But the Order's reluctance to become involved in political disputes probably meant that gifts made for such reasons were few. (214)

There is clearer evidence of other material benefits obtained by donors. Those who entered into the confraternity of the Temple [45] received a promise of protection from the Order, and this privilege was also sought by others. Many individuals, especially in Cataluña Vieja, bound themselves to make payments to the Order, which were considered partly as benefactions -- in many of the surviving contracts the phrases 'for the salvation of our souls' or 'for the safety of our souls' occur (215) -- and partly as payments for protection by the Temple. Requests for Templar protection are encountered not only in these formal contracts but also in a number of wills. The Temple was asked, in return for a donation, to give its protection to the testator's family after his death. In 1195, for example, a butcher called Arnold left a vineyard at Gardeny to the Templars and placed his wife and three children in their custody. (216) Some of those who sought the protection of the Temple were men who had no lords: thus in 1280 and 1281 several individuals who had redeemed themselves from the lordship of Galcerán of Pinós placed themselves under Templar protection. (217) Yet not all who sought the Order's protection lacked lords of their own. (218) In a society where violence was endemic many needed protection from any possible source and saw the advantage of having a Templar cross on their property, even though they already had a lord. (219) The frequency with which men turned to the military orders for protection is illustrated by a gloss on the Usage In baiulia ve1 guardia, which makes the comment

What of the Hospitallers and Templars, who daily receive custodies of this kind? (220)
and the need for protection was clearly important in bringing to the Temple a considerable number of small payments.
Besides seeking Templar protection for his dependants, a donor might also see to their interests by asking the Temple to pay off his debts after his death or to make payments to his family or other dependants. In 1255 Gonzalbo Gómez, an inhabitant of Teruel, gave a vineyard to the Templars on the condition that after his death they would pay off his debts and

make good all the injuries I have caused and also give to a certain woman named Mary by whom I have a child and who is now pregnant 100s.J. and to the son who has been born 200s.J. and to the one who is to be born, if he is then living, another 200s.; (221)
[46] in 1219 after making several bequests Bernard of Savasona left the remainder of his possessions to the Templars on the condition that they would marry off his grand-daughter and provide her with a dower of 200maz.; (222) and in her will drawn up in 1298 Mary Rossa, an inhabitant of Valencia, asked the Temple to make an annual gift of a cahíz of corn to her servant for four years. (223)
Other donors sought to provide for themselves. It was common for benefactors of the Temple, especially confratres, to be granted regular corrodies during their lives. Sometimes a single payment in kind or money was made by the Order each year. When Bartholomew of Miracle and his wife became confratres of the Order in 1199 and gave it houses and land in Huesca, the Templars assigned them annually on All Saints' day three cahíces of wheat, two measures of wine, an arroba of cheese and 40s.J., (224) and when Peter of Montañana gave the Temple some land at Torre de Bafes in 1169 the Temple agreed to give him a quarter of the produce during his life. (225) But most of those who received corrodies were promised a daily allowance of food and drink, and occasionally clothing or a payment for clothing as well: a confrater called Stephen of Monzón, for example, was given his food and drink and also 50s. a year, which were stated to be for his clothing. (226) But such promises did not necessarily mean that the recipient was in fact regularly maintained by the Temple. Benefactors were sometimes seeking merely the right to hospitality, which might be exercised only occasionally or when the donors were no longer able to maintain themselves. Thus although in 1176 the Templars promised Dominic of Batizo and his wife food and drink 'in our house of Huesca or of Monzón, wherever you want to receive it, all the days of your life', this couple lived in Pertusa and could scarcely have received regular maintenance at either Huesca or Monzón. (227) The desire on the part of benefactors to provide against future need is sometimes revealed very clearly in the sources. When Nina of Talladell gave the Templars a vineyard at Gardeny in 1196, they promised to give her assistance if she became poverty-stricken, and in the middle of the twelfth century a priest at Novillas named Gerald made a donation to the Temple on the condition that it would give him 10s. if he was ever in need of money because of illness and would provide him with a mount if he wanted to go on a pilgrimage. (228)

Most of the obligations entered into by the Temple in return [47] for grants were of this temporary kind. Usually only ecclesiastical patrons obliged the Templars to pay rents in perpetuity for property given to the Order; but it was of course difficult for ecclesiastical institutions to make unconditional gifts. Thus when the abbot of Ripoll granted the lordship of Alfantega to the Order in 1217 he imposed an annual rent of 400s.B. on the Templars. (229) Grants to the Temple were not often looked upon by laymen as a means of exploiting property, although a few instances of this attitude are encountered in the sources. In 1176 Arnold of Murello gave a plot of land to the Templars on the condition that they built a mill there and that when the mill had been built Arnold would contribute half of the costs of running it and would receive half of the profits; (230) and in 1192 Alfonso II gave land at Lérida to the Temple on the same terms. (231) Nor was the rent of 1,000s. which James I demanded of the Templars for the Puente de Monzón and Castejón del Puente in 1219 merely a nominal sum; he admitted at the time that the grant was not then worth that amount and in 1224 the rent was reduced to 500s. (232) The imposition of permanent obligations on the Order by laymen occurred only occasionally, however, and in many charters the words 'per proprium alodium' or a similar phrase were included apparently to denote not that the property being transferred was necessarily free from all obligations but that the donor himself was not imposing any dues on the Order: such phrases were used to characterize the nature of the transaction, not the nature of the property. (233)

Some of those who made grants to the Temple did not seek any future material recompense from it, but did obtain a single payment from the Templars at the time of the transaction. Some charters recording the transfer of property to the Temple are worded as charters of donation but refer to payments made by the Order 'out of alms' or 'out of charity'. The earliest example of this practice occurs in ?1135 when Raymond Adalbert of Juiá received 20m. from the Temple for the gift of his rights over land at Collsabadell, (234) and numerous further instances are recorded, especially in Catalonia. (235) The amount paid by the Templars in such cases presumably did not represent the full value of the property, for in addition to the monetary return the donor was also gaining the spiritual benefits which resulted from a grant. Such transactions were therefore partly gifts and partly sales. The same [48] may be said of conveyances by gift of land which was to be redeemed from pledge. An early example of this form of transaction is provided by Peter Taresa's grant of the castle of Alberite to the Templars, for the Order was obliged to pay 300m. to recover it from Simon Garcés of Bureta. (236) There was thus no clear-cut distinction between the gift and the sale of property; some transactions had the characteristics of both types of conveyance, and this is reflected in the wording of some charters. In a document drawn up in 1182, for example, it is stated that for the redemption of their souls and of those of their ancestors Berenguer Bafarul and his wife gave and sold to the Temple their rights in Torre de Bafes. (237)

Report Spam   Logged
Hero Member
Posts: 174

« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2009, 04:05:57 am »

Many benefactors of the Temple thus wished not only to further the work of the Order and gain spiritual reward; they also sought material benefits for themselves. But in any discussion of corrodies and the other payments made for gifts, it must be remembered that the desire to share in the life of a religious house was common amongst the laity in this period, and also that there were few ways of providing for one's old age or for the welfare of one's dependants except by making a gift to an ecclesiastical institution. It must also be remembered that the patronage of the Church which was expected of laymen must have placed a considerable burden on some individuals and families. Some individuals could scarcely afford to make an outright donation of any size during their lives. Gifts post obitum were therefore made in many instances; (238) but an alternative was to make a grant which was to be effective immediately and to seek maintenance in return. But many donors had to consider not only their own livelihood but also that of their descendants, and this may explain some of the money payments which were made in return for gifts. Donors had to ensure that their family estates were not eroded too much by the donations which were expected from each generation. They might therefore stipulate that the property they gave to a religious foundation should be held of it by their descendants; (239) or they might seek some monetary return for their gift.

Although some of the rights which the Templars paid for were said to have been given to the Order, straightforward sales of property to the Temple in the Corona de Aragón were very common. The Order began to purchase land there in the middle of the fourth decade of the twelfth century, and in many areas [49] records of sales to the Order are more numerous than charters of donation. Sales of property in and around Huesca to the Temple occurred almost twice as frequently as gifts, (240) and while some twenty grants of landed property in the city of Zaragoza are recorded, nearly fifty sales of rights there to the Temple are known. (241) Sales of rights over landed property in and around Tortosa were similarly more than twice as numerous as donations there to the Templars. (242) This does not necessarily mean, however, that the Order acquired more property through sales than through donations. Most purchases by the Order were of only minor significance.

The purchase of landed property was one way in which the Templars could invest the wealth derived from the rights given to the Order, from grants of money and from the profits of war. By purchasing rights over land the Templars were also able to concentrate their possessions, and this end was also achieved through exchanges. Much of the property bought by the Templars bordered on land already held by the Order. Of seventeen purchases which they made in the parish of St. Mary in Zaragoza, twelve were of property adjoining lands belonging to the Order; (243) and a similar situation is encountered in many other places. The Temple also sought to concentrate its property by purchasing rights in lands where it already had certain claims. It often, for example, bought out the rights enjoyed by an overlord, as in 1150 when it purchased Raymond of Gurb's rights over land which had been left to the Temple at Parets, to the north of Barcelona. (244) At other times when it acquired the lordship of a town or village, it bought up fees held there: thus in the second half of the thirteenth century, after it had gained the lordship of Espluga de Francoli, the Order purchased a number of fees there, including those of Hugh of Cervellón, William of Jorba, and Arnold of Malgrat. (245) The Templars' acquisition of a mill at Cascajo, just to the north of Zaragoza, illustrates well the way in which through purchase they sometimes gradually built up their rights over a particular piece of property. In 1162 García of Albero and his wife Mary sold to the Temple the rent of 80s.J. per annum which they received for the mill from Duranda, the widow of a certain Folquer, and her children. (246) In the years following this initial sale, the Order gradually through a series of purchases acquired the rights of the tenants. In 1168 four of the children [50] sold a half share in the mill to the Templars for 400s.J., and three years later a further eighth was purchased from one of Duranda's sons for 12m. (247) In 1173 the Templars spent another 12m. in buying from the bishop of Zaragoza the share of another son, who was then a canon of Zaragoza, (248) and finally in 1178 the portion belonging to Arnold, a son of Duranda by her marriage to Alamán of Atrosillo, was purchased for 13m. (249) Such purchases not only led to a concentration of Templar property; they also served to prevent the disputes which were almost inevitable when rights over landed property were divided. After the Temple had gained the lordship of Espluga de Francolí, for example, it recognized Hugh of Cervellón's claim to a fee there; (250) but disputes arose about particular revenues and it was necessary to resort to arbitration in 1257 and 1268. (251) When, therefore, the Templars bought this fee in 1289 they were probably seeking not only to achieve a concentration of property but also to avoid further dispute. Besides purchasing land bordering on Templar possessions and buying rights over property in which they already had an interest, the Templars also through purchase concentrated their property to some extent in the neighbourhood of Templar convents. This tendency may be illustrated with reference to the convent of Palau, to the north of Barcelona, which was one of the earliest Templar foundations in Catalonia. (252) While grants of property to that convent were scattered over a wide area, the lands purchased by that house tended to be concentrated in Barcelona and in the district of Vallés, just to the north -- in Palau itself in Parets del Vallés, and in Sta. Perpetua de Mogudá. (253) Only occasional purchases are recorded at places further away from the convent, and the only property of any importance that was bought outside Barcelona and the district of Vallés was at Gurb, to the northWest of Vich, where in 1200 the Order paid 800s. to Ferrer of Andrea for a manse. (254) But although it is clear that the Templars tried to concentrate their possessions in various ways, at times when they were making a large number of purchases they were obliged to buy whatever land was available, and they inevitably bought a certain amount of property which neither adjoined the Order's possessions nor was already partly under Templar control.

Opportunities for purchasing land were often, of course, provided by the financial difficulties of landholders, and this is sometimes made clear in the documents of sale. In 1163 the Order was [51] able to buy property at Montjuich in Barcelona because a certain Saurina needed money to redeem her son from captivity, (255) and difficulty in paying debts led the prior of St. Mary in Tarrasa to sell land there to the Templars in 1190; (256) and William of Anglesola in 1303 similarly stated that he was selling Culla to the Order because

we are liable for so many debts and injuries that we do not think that all the landed property we have in the kingdom of Valencia is sufficient for satisfying and emending them. (257)
But it would be wrong to assume that all those who sold property to the Order were in financial difficulties. Since marriage portions, for example, were often expressed in money terms, land was not infrequently sold in order to make payments to widows. (258) On other occasions the initiative in a transaction may have come from the Order, which wanted a particular piece of land and was prepared to pay a good price for it, so that the holder of the property would be persuaded to sell even if he had no need to do so for financial reasons. And in the reconquered districts, where land had often to be settled and brought under cultivation before it could be made profitable, landlords probably needed little persuasion before agreeing to sell. Some transactions which are recorded as sales, moreover, were really agreements following disputes over land. At a time when it was often difficult to establish clearly what rights different individuals enjoyed in a piece of property, it was a common practice for disputes to be settled by assigning the land in question to one claimant, who would then be obliged to compensate the other party by paying him a sum of money. And the documents recording such settlements are sometimes worded as instruments of sale: a charter drawn up in 1166 thus records that the Templars bought certain land in Razazol for 35s., but it also states that in return for this payment the sellers were abandoning the claims they had been making against the Temple about this property.(259)
The gradual growth of Templar property through gift and sale which was taking place throughout the Corona de Aragón while the Aragonese rulers were granting the Order large estates near the Moorish frontier in return for military aid inevitably owed little to the Crown; the Aragonese rulers appear to have made few other donations to the Temple. (260) Nor does the clergy [52] appear usually to have been an enthusiastic patron of the Order. Admittedly most of the churches and many of the tithes gained by the Temple in the Corona de Aragón were given to the Order by bishops, but the great majority of these acquisitions lay in the reconquered areas, and the gifts appear to have been made in order to stimulate resettlement, which would in turn increase episcopal revenues. The bishops' point of view is made clear in a charter recording a grant of tithes at Horta to the Templars by the bishop of Tortosa in 1185, for this includes the clauses

you are to resettle the aforesaid castle of Horta and its territories and the settlers of that place are to give us and our churches established there the primicias of all produce and animals faithfully. (261)
Report Spam   Logged
Hero Member
Posts: 174

« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2009, 04:06:36 am »

It was therefore from the bishops of Zaragoza, Lérida, Tortosa, and Valencia that the Order received most of its ecclesiastical patronage. From the bishops in the more northerly parts of the Corona de Aragón it gained little. The only known grant by a bishop of Urgel was that of the church of Puigreig in 1278, and the only donations by bishops of Huesca were the gift of the church of Algás in 1176 and the bequest of the castle of Torres de Segre by James of Sarroca in December 1289. (262) No acquisitions at all are recorded from the bishops of Vich or Gerona. An examination of the surviving lists of confratres also reveals the limited clerical interest in the Order, for almost all of those listed were laymen. Very few individual clerics sought the confraternity of the Temple and there are no references in Templar records to any unions of confraternity with other religious houses. The clergy appear to have valued more highly the prayers said in monasteries, although unions between Spanish military orders and other religious institutions are not altogether unknown. (263) And many of the clergy may have felt that the Temple had acquired enough of their rights through papal concessions. The Order appears, on the other hand, to have been popular with all classes of the laity. While the confratres listed on the parchment roll of confraternity, for example, were almost all men of sufficient standing to possess a horse and arms and included some of the leading Aragonese and Navarrese nobles, the majority of the fifty-two agreements mentioned in the list of Novillas confratres concerned men of lesser rank.
Any attempt to discover with which families the Order had [53] particularly close links is hampered, however, especially in Aragon, by the difficulty of tracing family trees. Although it is clear, on the one hand, that the Order gained a certain amount of property in Boquiñeni and Pradilla from various members of the family of Rada (264) and, on the other, that the Templars had only tenuous links with some of the leading Aragonese families, such as the Romeu and the Cornel, (265) it is usually difficult to discover whether the Temple had ties with an Aragonese family for more than a generation or two. It is clear, however, that the Templars received a number of donations in Aragon from the French lords who had participated in Alfonso I's campaigns and from their families. (266) The French count Rotrou of Perche left land and houses in Zaragoza jointly to the Temple, the monastery of the Holy Cross at Tudela, and the sons of a certain Subiano, and by an agreement made in 1142 the Order was assigned the count's residence near the city wall and half of the land. (267) This residence presumably lay between the churches of St. Mary and St. Nicholas, where according to Zurita part of the count's property lay and where until recently the count's rights of lordship left a trace in the street named conde de Alperche. (268) Two years later Taresa, the widow of Gaston of Béarn, granted the Temple land at Sobradiel, on the Ebro above Zaragoza, and property in the city, presumably in the parish of St. Mary, where according to Zurita Gaston had been given rights in the former Mozarab quarter after the capture of Zaragoza.(269) In 1148 Peter, count of Bigorre, similarly granted the Order property in the city of Zaragoza. (270) In no case did the estates granted by Alfonso I to French lords remain intact long, and it has been suggested that one reason for their break-up was that these lords were not interested in settling permanently in Aragon. (271) Obviously efficient administration of distant properties was not easy and this may partly explain the donations to the Temple by these French lords.

In Catalonia genealogical problems are not so great, and the relationships between the Temple and some of the leading Catalan families can to some extent be traced. The Order appears to have gained comparatively little property from those families whose power was centred in the more northerly parts of Catalonia. The Templars had only occasional connections with the families of Pinós and Cardona and that of the counts of Ampurias. (272) The [54] house from which the Templars acquired most property in northern Catalonia was probably that of the viscounts of Bergadán; the Order's acquisitions from this family included not only the castle of Puigreig, but also seven manses in Puigreig, Caserras, and El Funillet, given to the Temple by the troubadour's father in 1182. (273)

A more constant relationship can be traced between the Temple and some of the families which had considerable estates in the more southerly parts of Catalonia. These families in most cases both gave and sold property to the Order. The most important of them was that of the counts of Urgel, with whom the Temple had frequent contacts in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. Armengol VI not only gave the castle of Barbará to the Order, but also in his will drawn up in 1133 bequeathed his demesne at Calcina and his horse and arms to the Templars. (274) In 1147 he further granted land for the construction of mills near Balaguer, which had been gained in 1106 by Raymond Berenguer III and Peter Ansúrez, Armengol's grandfather. (275) Three years later the count gave the Templars permission to take water from Albesa to irrigate lands at Corbins, as had been done in the Moorish period. (276) Patronage of the Temple was continued by Armengol's son, Armengol VII, who succeeded to the county in 1154. The latter, with his wife Dulce, in 1161 founded a chantry at the Templar convent at Gardeny; until a proper endowment was made for it the count assigned to the Temple 100s.B. annually out of rents derived from Moorish shops, presumably in Lérida. (277) Armengol VII also gave the Order a half-share in the lordship of the castle of Pedrís, southeast of Balaguer. The charter of donation has not survived but the gift was confirmed by Armengol's widow and his son in 1185, the year after his death. (278) He also consented to the Temple's acquisition of lands in Fontanet and Lérida from two of his tenants (279) -- his rights in these properties being clearly derived from the division of lands made after the conquest of Lérida -- and finally in his will, drawn up in 1177, he bequeathed his horse and arms to the Order, together with further rights along the lower Segre. (280)

In 1201 Armengol VIII in turn promised the Temple dues in Lérida worth 100s.B. a year after his death; meanwhile the Order was to be given 10s.B. annually from these revenues. (281) In his will, drawn up seven years later, he also bequeathed to the [55] Temple his demesne at Albesa, with the right to build mills there, (282) while his wife Elvira, who later married William of Cervera, left 50m. to the Templars. (283) The relations of Armengol VIII with the Order were not, however, always friendly, but his quarrels with the Templars led to further transfers of property to them. Already before his father's death he had become involved in a dispute with the Order and seized some of its sheep. It was agreed in 1184 that compensation of 1,000m. should be given to the Templars, failing which the count's honour of Alchabez was to be surrendered. The money was clearly not paid, for in the next year Armengol VIII and his mother Dulce granted the Order their rights at Alchabez, although to gain this concession the Templars were obliged to give them 200maz. and a horse. (284) Further evidence of differences between the count and the Templars is found in an agreement made in 1201. In return for the confirmation of all Templar possessions in Lérida and a promise of protection by Armengol, the Order not only paid the count 250m., but also agreed to surrender all claims which it had against him, and these were valued at the large sum of 15,000s.B. (285) Lastly, in 1205 Armengol gave the Order dues in Lérida worth 100s.B. annually in compensation for an attack on the Templar house at Barbens. (286) The last links with the house of Urgel occurred when Armengol VIII's nephew Gerald of Cabrera sold the castle of Mediona to the Templars and then entered the Order after he had been dispossessed of the county. (287)

There was thus a fairly constant, if at times uneasy, relationship between the Order and the counts of Urgel up to the early thirteenth century, although they had not especially favoured the Order and none had chosen burial in the Temple. (288) A similar link can be traced with the family of Torroja. The first member of that house to favour the Temple was Arnold, who in the middle years of the twelfth century made grants of vineyards in Lérida -- received from the count of Barcelona after the city's capture -- and of other land at Grallera, Aguilella, Barbens, and Tortosa. (289) Since the charters of donation have not survived, these gifts cannot be precisely dated. Nor is the identity of Arnold beyond dispute. Miret y Sans argues that he was related to the Templar of that name who became Grand Master of the Order. (290) Yet in a confirmation of his grant of rights at Aguilella it is stated that the gift had been made by the Arnold who later [56] became a Templar. (291) Unless there were two Templars of the same name at the time, the patron of the Order must therefore have been the man who afterwards became Grand Master.

Most of the gifts made by Arnold were confirmed in February 1164 by his kinsman Raymond of Torroja and the latter's wife Gaia of Cervera; and Raymond at the same time made further concessions to the Order. (292) These included land at Barbens, next to that given by Arnold, and the tithe owed from Templar possessions there. Raymond also gave permission for the Order to acquire rights in lands held of him at Barbens by Gerald of Luzano and Raymond of Concabella, who in the following year left half of his holding to the Temple. (293) For the confirmation and concessions made in 1164 Raymond of Torroja received 400s.J. from the Temple, but three years later he did grant freely that after his death the Order should have half of his land at Barbens; if he left no legitimate sons or if his sons died without legitimate offspring, the other half as well was to pass to the Templars. (294) By the time that Raymond drew up his will in 1196 his son Raymond was already dead, but two other sons survived, and one of these, called Hugh, inherited part of the family's lands at Barbens, while the Templars received the rest.(295) In the meantime, the Order had purchased some houses from Raymond of Torroja at Solsona, which he held of the count of Urgel. (296) From Hugh the Templars in 1210 bought the lordship of the castle and township of Grallera, after Arnold of Medalla had in the previous year left the Templars 600maz. towards the cost of its purchase. (297) Eight years later Hugh bequeathed a manse at Espluga de Francolí to the Order. (298) Hugh had been left the lordship of Espluga by his father, whose wife Gaia enjoyed certain rights there by inheritance and had in 1183 also purchased those of her brother Pons, later viscount of Bas. (299) Hugh bequeathed Espluga to his sister Eldiardis, who in turn granted the castle of Espluga de Francolí and that of Olmells to her son, Simon of Palau, when he married Geralda of Anglesola in 1231; (300) and Simon, who died in 1246/7, left Espluga de Francolí to the Temple, (301) although the bequest was disputed by his widow and it was only in 1255 that Geralda was receiving a payment of 1,000m. for surrendering the castle to the Templars, who also undertook to pay her an annual pension of 2,000s.B. (302)

Amongst the other families in the more southerly parts of [57] Catalonia from which the Order made a considerable number of acquisitions were those of the Ribelles -- from which the Temple gained rights in Lérida and at Barbens, Fuliola, and Guardiola (303) -- and the Anglesola. Raymond Berenguer I had given the latter family a large stretch of uninhabited land between Tárrega and Lérida, which it had begun to settle by 1079, when Raymond Berenguer II confirmed his father's grant. (304) This family had further in 1118 been granted Corbins by Raymond Berenguer III, (305) and it was in these places that the Order gained a number of properties from the family, including the now-deserted places of Torre de Bafes and Escarabat, which both lay near Palau de Anglesola. (306) It was from members of this family too that the Order obtained the castles of Gebut and Culla.

One other Catalan family which may be mentioned in this context is that of the Moncadas. The Temple inevitably came into frequent contact with members of this family in Tortosa, where both the Order and the Moncadas enjoyed rights of lordship; but in addition a certain amount of the family's property, including important rights along the lower valley of the Ebro, passed into the Order's possession. In 1182 Raymond of Moncada granted the Templars his rights in the castle of Horta; for this and other minor concessions he received 1,000m. from them. (307) Twenty-five years later the Temple paid a further 1,000m. to Raymond's son, also called Raymond, for the lordship of the castle and town of Buriacenia, near Tortosa, (308) and in 1210 the Order spent 12,000s.J. in buying off the Moncadas' claims to Bene, which according to the Templars lay within the boundaries of Horta. (309) Finally, in 1216 the Temple gained from Raymond of Moncada the 200m. which the king in 1210 had retained in the lezda and peaje of Ascó. These dues had been given to Moncada in 1213, and the Templars bought them from him for 2,500m. (310)

Little was gained from these leading Catalan families after the early part of the thirteenth century, and acquisitions from other sources similarly became less frequent after the early decades of the century. Just as Templar expansion through grants by the Crown of newly conquered territories declined and stopped, so the growth of Templar property throughout the Corona de Aragón through other gifts and purchases slackened in the thirteenth century, although this did not happen simultaneously in all districts. Of sixty-five grants of landed property in Huesca, [58] Luna, Jaca, and elsewhere in the most northerly parts of Aragon, recorded mainly in a cartulary which covers the period from 1148 to 1273, (311) forty-four were made during the fifty years up to 1220 and only fourteen occurred in the following half-century. Of twenty-six donations of land to the Temple in Boquiñeni, Pradilla, and Tauste, most of which are recorded in volume five of the fourteenth-century Hospitaller Cartulario Magno, (312) only three dated grants occurred after the year 1200, compared with nineteen in the previous half-century. Apart from the royal grants of rights in Tortosa in 1148 and 1182, twenty-four gifts of landed property to the Temple in that city and the surrounding villages are known, mainly from a cartulary which was not completed before 1281, (313) and of these donations all except one took place between 1160 and 1220, while the remaining grant was made in 1226. Gifts in forms other than land appear to have undergone a similar decline. This can be illustrated by the declining numbers of confratres, for they did not usually give land to the Order. In the parchment roll of confratres of Aragon and Navarre, which covers the period up to 1225, the great majority of entries refer to contracts made before 1170; and although confraternity with the Temple became popular in Valencia during the years following the conquest of that kingdom, only two out of more than forty surviving contracts of confraternity with the Order there belong to the twenty years preceding the arrest of the Templars. (314)

Report Spam   Logged
Hero Member
Posts: 174

« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2009, 04:07:18 am »

Purchases by the Order underwent a similar decline. Of forty-six sales to the Temple of landed property in the city of Zaragoza -- the records of these are found mainly in the Cartulario Magno (315) -- twenty-four were made during the twenty years ending 1190 and thirty-six in the wider period from 1161 to 1220. Templar expenditure on property in the city was proportionate to the number of purchases. Almost half of the money spent by the Templars in Zaragoza was paid out in the twenty years up to 1190, and over three-quarters in the sixty years up to 1220. (316) Records of sales to the Temple in the towns and villages around Zaragoza, recorded mainly in the same fourteenth-century sources, reveal a similar pattern. (317) Four-fifths of the sales in these places occurred between 1161 and 1220, while of the money spent by the Temple more than four-fifths was expended between 1161 and 1220 and more than half in the last decade of the twelfth [59] century. In the most northerly parts of Aragon the peak in the number of Templar purchases lay in the period between 1160 and 1190. The concentration of purchases in this period is well illustrated by what happened at Almudébar, for all the ten purchases made by the Order there occurred between 1176 and 1183. (318) After the end of the twelfth century the number of purchases made by the Temple in this area declined rapidly, although Templar expenditure did not markedly decrease until after 1250. In the more southerly parts of Aragon little property was bought by the Temple after the early decades of the thirteenth century. Of the purchases by the Order in the district of Castellote, which are recorded in a Templar cartulary compiled towards the end of the thirteenth century, (319) two-thirds had been made by 1220 and by that date an even larger proportion of the money expended there by the Temple had been spent; and although the first volume of the Hospitaller Cartulario Magno records a number of small purchases at Villel in the later part of the thirteenth century, (320) most of the money spent by the Templars in and around Villel had been expended by 1220. In the neighbourhood of Tortosa the decline in purchases is even more marked. No sales of land there to the Order are known after 1220, and in the quarter of a century up to that date they were made only occasionally. The period of greatest expenditure on land at Tortosa was during the years from 1165 to 1175, in which period the Order spent more than 3,000m.

In the later part of the thirteenth and at the beginning of the fourteenth centuries the Templars are known to have been making important purchases only in two districts in the Corona de Aragón. The first was the area inland from Tarragona, where the Temple bought the castle of Montbrió in 1269 and where it also acquired by purchase a number of fees held of the Order at Barbara, Albió, and Espluga de Francolí. (321) The other district was northern Valencia, where Culla was bought from William of Anglesola. (322) This was the most important single purchase ever made by the Order, but in assessing the significance of the transaction account should be taken of the arrangements which the Templars were obliged to make in order to pay for it. It was agreed that payment should be in instalments, and this meant that the Templars did not have to complete payment until a year and a half after the sale. (323) Nevertheless the Templars had difficulty in meeting their [60] commitments, and in an attempt to obtain a longer period for payment they sought to take over some of William of Anglesola's debts. (324) But this did not solve the Temple's difficulties and it was therefore forced to sell rents to be paid out of the revenues it received elsewhere: in return for the sum of 16,000s.B., for example, a citizen of Lérida was assigned 1,000s.B. annually out of the income from the Temple's property in the district of Lérida. (325) The acquisition of Culla seems to have represented an attempt to create an extensive Templar lordship in northern Valencia, following the exchange of Tortosa for Peñíscola, and this was done partly at the expense of Templar possessions elsewhere. The Temple's landed wealth was probably only slightly increased by the purchase of Culla. The greatest increases had occurred in the twelfth and the early decades of the thirteenth centuries. It could, of course, be argued that this conclusion, like that concerning the geographical distribution of Templar property, is inevitably based on incomplete evidence. But the areas which have been discussed are those for which fairly full evidence is preserved in cartularies compiled in the late thirteenth or in the fourteenth centuries, and losses which had occurred by then would probably have been of early rather than late documents.

The slackening in the expansion of the Order's landed property during the thirteenth century can scarcely be accounted for by mortmain legislation. Mortmain decrees were admittedly included in the Furs of Valencia, (326) and these may at times have hindered the transference of property to the Order in that kingdom: when Bernard of Ganalor granted rights in a vineyard at Valencia to the Templars in 1259 he made the provision that if they could not obtain them 'through the impediment of the fuero of Valencia', they should -- as stipulated in the Furs -- have the price of the vineyard instead. (327) But legislation of this kind was not attempted throughout the Corona de Aragón. (328) It was, on the other hand, common for lords to impose restrictions on the alienation of individual holdings, but such restrictions were made in the twelfth as well as in the thirteenth century.

The decline in donations to the Order can, however, be fairly easily explained. The popularity of any religious institution tended to wane after an initial period of prosperity and growth. Most monasteries gained the majority of their endowments in the first century or so of their existence; (329) by the thirteenth century [61] the great period of monastic endowment in Spain as elsewhere was over. (330) But there were also particular reasons why the Templars and the other military orders in north-eastern Spain no longer received extensive patronage. (331) The Aragonese reconquest had been completed before the middle of the thirteenth century and from that time onwards the function of the military orders in the Corona de Aragón was limited to frontier defence and raiding. In the Holy Land, of course, the Templars still had a more important task, which needed considerable resources. But although in the later thirteenth century much was written about the condition of the Holy Land and many crusading schemes were produced, (332) there was little enthusiasm for more practical measures of help. And in some countries it was being argued that the Templars were not making the best use of the property which they did possess in western Europe. (333) In this situation it is not surprising that patronage of the Order was declining.

The decline in acquisitions by purchase may have been occasioned in part by the diversion of Templar revenues into other types of investment. In the thirteenth century the Order occupied an important role as money-lender and some Templar funds were utilized in this way. (334) The Order may also have been investing money in commercial enterprises as an alternative to buying land: early in 1307 the Templars set up an attorney to recover from a certain inhabitant of Peñíscola not only the sum of 2,000s. which they had deposited with him but also the

share due to us of the profit which he made with the aforesaid money on the journeys which he made by sea and elsewhere with his ships. (335)
In this instance it is not clear, however, whether the money in question belonged to the Templars or consisted of cash that had originally been deposited with the Order. But whether or not revenues were being used in this way, probably the main reason for the decline in purchases was the deterioration in the financial position of the Temple. In the later part of the thirteenth century there was often little money available for investment. In many parts of the Corona de Aragón the Templars were experiencing difficulties in paying the annual dues which they owed to their superiors. (336) and during the course of the century the evidence of borrowing by the Temple and of debts owed by it increases. Most of the money borrowed by the Order consisted, of course, [62] of short-term advances, which were to be repaid when rents and dues were collected. This kind of loan was very common in the thirteenth century and does not in itself provide evidence of serious financial difficulties. But in practice the Templars sometimes had difficulty in repaying such loans: in 1254, for example, money owed to a Jewish money-lender in Barcelona was repaid by obtaining a further loan elsewhere. (337) And even if short-term loans were usually repaid when dues were collected, the Templars owed other debts which they had more difficulty in paying. This is apparent from an account drawn up in 1277, for this not only gives details of Templar obligations of various kinds amounting to over 100,000s.J., but also makes it clear that these were not all recent debts. (338) Although the Temple had very considerable estates in the Corona de Aragón the income derived from them was not always sufficient to meet such obligations; and in the thirteenth century the Order was at times obliged to alienate property and rights in order to obtain the money which it needed. It has been seen how rents were sold when money was required to pay the sums owed for the castle of Culla. Similarly when the Templars needed 1,000m. in 1255 to buy off the claims of Simon of Palau's widow to Espluga de Francolí, they sold their right of questia there for 1,200m. (339) These financial difficulties were apparently not the result of extravagance on the part of the Templars. Although, for example, they had to maintain expensive castles, they did not engage in extravagant building programmes. Templar buildings were neither elaborate nor unnecessarily large. (340) The explanation is to be sought rather in the increasing demands made of the Aragonese Templars both by the Order in the East and by the Aragonese kings. In the later part of the thirteenth century the Templars in the Levant were becoming increasingly dependent on aid from western Europe, and at the same time the Aragonese kings were not only developing new forms of taxation to which the Order was obliged to contribute, but also limiting some of the Temple's former immunities. (341) Nor was the situation improved by rising prices, which decreased the value of rents paid in money. In these circumstances the Order inevitably bought only a small amount of land in the later part of the thirteenth century, and by then the expansion of Templar property in the Corona de Aragón was coming to an end.

Report Spam   Logged
Hero Member
Posts: 174

« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2009, 04:07:55 am »

Notes for Chapter Two

1. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 25, doc. 33.

2. Ibid., pp. 36-7, doc. 47 (the reference should be to ACA, parch. Raymond Berenguer IV, no. 14, not no. 7); LFM, i. 268-9, doc. 252.

3. On the Templar attitude to the reconquest in Portugal at this time, see C. Erdmann, 'Der Kreuzzugsgedanke in Portugal', Historische Zeitschrift, cxli (1929), 40.

4. CDI, iv. 18-19, doc. 6; Albon, Cartulaire, p. 53, doc. 70. The date is given as 3 January in the 25th year of Louis (1133) and in the year of the Incarnation 1134 (1135 N.S.).

5. CDI, iv. 93-9, doc. 43; Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 204-5, doc. 314.

6. CDI, iv. 32-3, doc. xi; Albon, Cartulaire, p. 55, doc. 72. In both of these versions one name is omitted. There are possibly two others which have now faded from the manuscript: ACA, parch. Raymond Berenguer IV, no. 28. M. Melville, La Vie des Templiers (Paris, 1951), p. 29, quotes Albon incorrectly in stating that the count and twenty-four others made promises. These promises, which are undated, are noted on the dorse of a charter which records a concession to the Templars made by the count of Barcelona and the archbishop of Tarragona during an assembly of prelates and nobles in April 1134 (this charter is published in CDI, iv. 29-32, doc. 11, and Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 53-5, doc. 71). As several of those who promised service appear as witnesses to the charter, the promises may well have been made during the assembly in April 1134.

7. The count's promise was inserted at the top of the memorandum after the other entries had been made.

8. It is possible that there was some kind of Templar establishment at Grañena by 1136, but the evidence is very tenuous: see below, p. 91; and there is nothing to suggest that the Templars themselves had taken over the defence of Grañena by that date.

9. CDI, iv. 9-12, doc. 2; Delaville, Cartulaire, i. 85-6, doc. 95; Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 30-1, doc. 40; LFM, i. 10-12, doc. 6; García Larraguera, Gran priorado, ii. 15-18, doc. 10.

10. At the turn of the eleventh and twelfth centuries some Spanish rulers had found it necessary to obtain papal bulls prohibiting Spaniards from going to the East; see, for example, Migne, PL, clxiii. 45, 64-5, docs. 26, 44; cf. J. Goñi Gaztambide, Historia de la bula de la cruzada en España (Vitoria, 1958), pp. 60-1, 64-5; see also A. Ubieto Arteta, 'La participación navarro-aragonesa en la primera cruzada', Príncipe de Viana, viii (1947), 357-83.

11. P. Rassow, 'La cofradía de Belchite', AHDE, iii (1926), 225; Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 3-4, doc. 6; Lacarra, 'Documentos', no. 151 (iii. 549).

12. Cf. J.M. Lacarra, Semblanza de Alfonso I el Batallador (Zaragoza, 1949), p. 13. The significance of the inclusion of the Hospitallers among the beneficiaries is not clear because historians are not agreed about the character of the Hospitallers at this time. Delaville, Hospitaliers, p. 45, and E.J. King, The Knights Hospitallers in the Holy Land (London, 1931), pp. 32-3, argue that the Hospital had become a military order by 1126, when the office of constable is mentioned; this has been questioned by Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, p. 53. As has been pointed out by the latter, ibid., p. 54, Alfonso in his will referred to the Hospital as 'Ospitale pauperum quod Jherosolimis est', and to the Temple as 'Templum Domim cum militibus qui ad defendendum Christianitatis nomen ibi vigilant', but it would be dangerous to attempt to base any conclusions merely on the wording of these descriptions.

13. Delaville, Cartulaire, i. 91, doc. 106; García Larragueta, Gran priorado, ii. 21, doc. 13.

14. Ibid., pp. 15-18, doc. 10; CDI, iv. 70-3, doc. 32; LFM, i. 17-19, doc. 12.

15. Contemporary accounts suggest that this occurred because of the need to maintain peace and to defend Alfonso's lands from the Moors. Ramiro at one time stated that he had become king 'not through ambition for office or desire for advancement but only because of the needs of the people and for the tranquillity of the Church': Villanueva, Viage, xv. 375, doc. 78; and when discussing the succession to Alfonso I the author of the Chronica Adefonsi Imperatoris stressed the need for defence and maintained that Alfonso VII intervened first to give aid to Ramiro and the Aragonese people, who were 'in great fear and trembling': ed. L. Sánchez Belda (Madrid, 1950), p. 51; cf. P. Kehr, 'El papado y los reinos de Navarra y Aragón hasta mediados del siglo XII', EEMCA, ii (1946), 160-1. But this may well have been written in an attempt to justify Alfonso VII's acquisition of the regnum Cesaraugustanum, and the acceptance of Rarniro as king suggests that military considerations were not of the greatest importance.

More recently it has been suggested that the provisions of Alfonso's will were rejected because they were contrary to the 'juridical tradition' of the country, which demanded that the ruler should be a member of the royal family: J.M. Ramos y Loscertales, El reino de Aragón bajo Ia dinastía pamplonesa (Acta Salmanticensia, vol. xv, 1961), pp. 99-100, 104; A. García-Gallo, 'La sucesión del trono en la Corona de Aragón', AHDE, xxxvi (1966), 46-7; cf. Hispania, X (1950), 417. It is not clear, however, to what extent a juridical tradition concerning the succession had been evolved by the early twelfth century. As it has been set out, the juridical tradition is merely a series of rules formulated by historians on the basis of what happened on a few particular occasions. Even if it is likely that a juridical tradition was being evolved, it may not have covered the circumstances existing in 1134, when the only close relation of the dead king was a monk. Certainly the fact that Alfonso's will was confirmed by the nobility suggests that its provisions were not considered illegal. Admittedly in 1134 the choice fell on Alfonso's brother and on García Ramírez, who was of royal descent, even if in an illegitimate line; but it does not necessarily follow from this that Alfonso's will was rejected because he had not designated a member of his family to succeed him. It is possible that it was rejected partly because the nobles preferred to have a king rather than ecclesiastical institutions in authority over them, while no doubt personal ambitions of claimants and their supporters were of some importance.

16. A. Ubieto Arteta, 'Navarra-Aragón y la idea imperial de Alfonso VII de Castilla', EEMCA, vi (1956), 49-53.

17. J.M. Lacarra, 'Alfonso II el Casto, rey de Aragón y conde de Barcelona', VII Congreso de historia de la Corona de Aragón (Barcelona, 1962), i. 101, similarly assumes that Alfonso's action was occasioned by Innocent's bull, but does not reach any conclusions about his motives.

18. The bull is published by Albon, Cartulaire, p. 373, Bullaire, doc. 2, and P. Kehr, Papsturkunden in Spanien. I. Katalanien (Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Phil.-hist. Klasse, N.F., vol. xviii, 1926), p. 318, doc. 50. Kehr. 'El papado', p. 162, note 176, inclines to the date 1135, which is also accepted by P.E. Schramm, 'Ramon Berenguer IV', in Els primers comtes-reis (Barcelona, 1960), p. 14.

19. Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 204-5, doc. 314; CDI, iv. 93-9, doc. 43.

20. Historia Compostellana, iii. 46, in ES, xx. 570-1; Kehr, 'El papado', p. 163, note 178, refers to a document in the archive of Burgos which states that Alfonso invited the legate.

21. The sources are not consistent about the rights to be enjoyed by Alfonso and Ramiro over the regnum Cesaraugustanum. According to Ubieto, Alfonso was to hold it of Ramiro, but it has also been suggested that Ramiro held it as a vassal of Alfonso: cf. H. Grassoti, 'Homenaje de García Ramírez a Alfonso VII', Príncipe de Viana, xxv (1964), 60-1.

22. Historia Compostellana, iii. 51, in ES, xx. 585; Chronica Adefonsi Imperatoris, ed. Sánchez Belda, pp. 58-9.

23. Ibid., p. x.

24. J. Traggia, 'Ilustración del reynado de don Ramiro II de Aragón', Memorias de la Real Academia de la Historia, iii (1799), 493.

25. F. Balaguer, 'La vizcondesa del Bearn doña Talesa y la rebelión contra Ramiro II en 1136', EEMCA, v (1952), 102, suggests that the events of 1136 were occasioned by an appeal for help by Ramiro to Alfonso VII. This theory is based mainly on an entry in the Chronica Adefonsi Imperatoris, ed. Sánchez Belda, pp. 51-3, which has usually been taken to refer to Alfonso's seizure of the regnum Cesaraugustanum shortly after Alfonso I's death. Balaguer argues that as the entry follows an account of events which took place in the spring of 1135 it must belong to 1136. But it may be pointed out that the entry also immediately precedes accounts of other events which took place in 1135; and it may be noted that the same chronicler later gives a different explanation of the war with Navarre in 1136.

26. CDI, iv. 59-60, doc. 24; LFM, i. 12-13, doc. 7. Ubieto Arteta, loc. cit., pp. 49-50, argues that the regnum Cesaraugustanum was restored to Ramiro by 24 August 1136, but that the actual treaty between the kings took place later, at some time during the period up to 28 October 1136. He adopts this argument because a document of 24 August was said to have been drawn up in the year in which Zaragoza was restored to Ramiro, while another document of 28 October was said to have been written in the year that Alfonso made an agreement with Ramiro: see Lacarra, 'Documentos', nos. 196, 197 (iii. 586-7); but it seems likely that both documents refer to the same event, and that the agreement was made by the later part of August.

27. Ubieto Arteta, loc. cit., p. 49. and 'La campana de Huesca', Revista de filología española, xxxv (1951), 50, suggests that Ramiro was married in January 1136. On the other hand, S. de Vajay, 'Ramire II le Moine, roi d'Aragon, et Agnès de Poitou dans l'histoire et dans la légende', Mélanges offerts à René Crozet (Poitiers, 1966), ii. 739-40, maintains that Ramiro married in the autumn of 1135 and that Petronilla was born not later than July 1136.

28. Cf. Kehr, 'El papado', pp. 162-3; Vajay, loc. cit., p. 737. On the question of the existence of a papal dispensation it may further be noted that after about a year of marriage Ramiro's wife returned to her own country: ibid., p. 742. Vajay also suggests that Innocent may have been influenced in his policy towards Ramiro by the fact that Ramiro's brother-in-law was one of the leading supporters of Anacletus, the other claimant to the papal throne: ibid., p. 741.

29. LFM, i. 13-14, doc. 8. The evidence about internal opposition has been subject to varied interpretations: see, for example, Ubieto Arteta, 'La campana de Huesca'; Balaguer, 'La vizcondesa del Bearn'.

30. CDI, iv. 59-60, doc. 24; LFM, i. 12-13, doc. 7.

31. According to F. Balaguer, 'La Chronica Adefonsi Imperatoris y la elevación de Ramiro II al trono aragonés', EEMCA, vi (1956), 14, 'only Raymond Berenguer could resolve the problem, since he was a Templar who safeguarded the rights of the Order in case the house of Barcelona died out'; and a similar statement is attributed to Lacarra in Hispania, x (1950), 418. The meaning of these remarks is, however, far from clear.

32. CDI, iv. 70-3, doc. 32. The main documents recording the negotiations of the Hospital and the Holy Sepulchre have also been published by C. Odriozola y Grimaud, Ramón Bereriguer IV, conde de Barcelona, caballero del Santo Sepulcro de Jerusalén. Memorias históricas referentes a la cesión en su favor de la Corona de Aragón, hecha por Ia Orden militar del Santo Sepulcro, la del Hospital y del Temple en el año 1140 (Barcelona, 1911). He does not, despite the title, offer any evidence about the Temple.

33. CDI, iv. 73-5, doc. 32; Delaville, Cartulaire, i. 111-12, doc. 136; LFM, i. 17-19, doc. 12.

34. CDI, iv. 70-3, doc. 32.

35. Ibid., pp. 78-81, doc. 36; LFM, i. 15-16, doc. 10; V. de la Fuente, Historia de Calatayud, i (Calatayud, 1880), 338-40, doc. 8.

36. Anales, ii. 4. The same assumption is made by M. Bruguera, Historia general de la religiosa y militar Orden de los caballeros del Temple, i (Barcelona, 1888), 286, and Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, p. 44.

37. M. Zapater, Cister militante (Zaragoza, 1662), pp. 56-7.

38. CDI, iv. 317-18, doc., 30; Delavile, Cartulaire, i. 201, doc. 267; LFM, i. 19, doc. 13; Kehr, Papsturkunden in Spanien. I. Katalanien, pp. 364-5, doc. 81.

39. Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 102-3, doc. 145; CDI, iv. 368-70, doc. 153. The inclusion of 'princeps Aragonensis' among Raymond Berenguer's titles shows that the letter was written not earlier than 1137.

40. See above, p. 63, note 10.

41. The letter is now in the ACA in Barcelona: parch. Raymond Berenguer IV, undated no. 21.

42. R. Esteban Abad, Estudio histórico-político sobre la ciudad y comunidad de Daroca (Teruel, 1959), p. 49, suggests that opposition to the count's offer came from the inhabitants of Daroca because their privileges would have been affected; but their situation in fact would not have been changed.

43. This important document has been published most recently in Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 204-5, doc. 314, and CDI, iv. 93-9, doc. 43. It also appears in P. de Marca, Marca Hispanica (Paris, 1688), cols. 1291-4, doc. 402; P. Rodríguez Campomanes, Dissertaciones históricas del Orden y Cavallería de los Templarios (Madrid, 1747), pp. 221-4; P. Dupuy, Histoire de l'Ordre militaire des Templiers (Brussels, 1751), pp. 108-11, doc. 9; J.S. de Aguirre, Collectio maxima conciliorum omnium Hispaniae et novi orbis, v (Rome, 1755), 57-8; ES, xliii. 484-8, doc. 51. Albon identifies Mongay with the castle of that name to the east of Balaguer; but that place remained in royal hands. The castle granted to the Temple may have been the Mongay near Monzón. The Order failed to obtain Belchite, which remained in the possession of Lope Sánchez. On the lords of Belchite during the rest of the twelfth century, see M. Pallarés Gil, 'La frontera sarracena en tiempo de Berenguer IV', Boletín de historia y geografía del Bajo-Aragón, i (1907), 150-1.

44. CDI, iv. 3 17-18, doc. 130; Delaville, Cartulaire, i. 201, doc. 267; LFM, i. 19, doc. 13; Kehr, Papsturkunden in Spanien. I. Katalanien, pp. 364-5, doc. 81. This bull refers to the documents in which the renunciations made by the three Orders were recorded.

45. Zurita, Anales, ii. 4; in CDI, iv. 417, it is stated that Raymond Berenguer's grant marked the foundation of the Temple in the Corona de Aragón.

46. This interpretation has already been suggested briefly by Erdmann, loc. cit., p. 41, who also argues that after 1143 the Templars also participated in the reconquest in Portugal. M. Usón y Sesé, 'Aportaciones al estudio de la caída de los Templarios en Aragón', Universidad, iii (1926), 484, follows Miret y Sans, Las Cases, p. 29, in arguing that as a result of the count's grant the Order gained an 'official position' in Aragon and Catalonia, but neither explains what is meant by this phrase.

47. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 1-4, doc. 1; M. Albareda y Herrera, El fuero de Alfambra (Madrid, 1925), p. 25.

48. A few general rules about conduct in the field are found in the Templar Customs: Règle, pp. 115-27, arts. 148-68; pp. 206-14, arts. 366-83; but no evidence survives from Spain on this subject.

49. S. García Larragueta, 'La Orden de San Juan en la crisis del imperio hispánico del siglo XII', Hispania, xii (1952), 483-524. The argument presented in this article relies heavily on the absence of evidence, and the interpretation given of some documents, especially a bull issued by Celestine III in 1193, may be questioned. In that bull the pope commanded the Hospitallers to continue fighting against the Moors when the Christian rulers made peace with them: P. Kehr, Papsturkunden in Spanien. II. Navarra und Aragon (Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. Phil.-hist. Klasse. N.F., vol. xxi, 1928), pp. 554-5, doc. 200. Whether the pope's orders were carried out is not known, but in 1205 the Aragonese king claimed that the Order of Calatrava did not dare to wage war on the Castilian frontier because the king of Castile had made a truce with the Moors: D. Mansilla, La documentación pontificia hasta Inocencio III (Rome, 1955), p. 351, doc. 321.

M.L. Ledesma, 'Notas sobre la actividad militar de los hospitalarios', Príncipe de Viana, xxv (1964), 51-6, emphasizes the difficulty of reaching any conclusion about the Hospital's military activity because of lack of evidence.

50. The exact extent of Lobo's kingdom is not known: cf. F. Codera, Decadencia y desaparición de los Almoravides en España (Zaragoza, 1899), pp. 123-5; I. de las Cagigas, Los mudejares, i (Madrid, 1948), 266. Codera argues that in a treaty with the Genoese in 1149 Lobo sought to ensure the safety of the Moors in Tortosa; but the treaty refers to the Genoese in the city, not to the Moors there: S. de Sacy, 'Pièces diplomatiques tirées des archives de la republique de Gènes', Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque du Roi, xi (1827), 3-5.

51. Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 339-40, doc. 553; cf. pp. 349-50, doc. 564.

52. Annali Genovesi di Caffaro, ed. L. T. Belgrano, i (Fonti per la storia d'Italia, Rome, Genoa, 1890), 86.

53. Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 345-6, doc. 557.

54. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 53v, doc. 124.

55. Poésies complètes du troubadour Marcabru, ed. J.M.L. Dejeanne (Toulouse, 1909), p. 171. This poem has usually been assigned to the years 1137 or 1146-7, at the time of the Almería expedition: ibid., p. 235; P. Boissonnade, 'Les personnages et les événements de l'histoire d'Allemagne, de France et d'Espagne dans l'œuvre de Marcabru (1129-1150)', Romania, xlviii (1922), 219-20; C. Appel, 'Zu Marcabru', Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, xliii (1923), 409. Yet in 1137 the Templars were not fighting in Spain; and as the count of Barcelona alone is mentioned, without any other Spanish ruler, it may be suggested that the poem was occasioned by Raymond Berenguer's expeditions rather than by the Almería campaign, in which several rulers participated. A date towards the end of the fifth decade of the twelfth century therefore seems more likely, as was suggested by C. Chabaneau, 'Sur la date du Vers del Lavador de Marcabrun', Revue des langues romanes, 3rd series, xiii (1885), 250-1.

56. ES, xlii. 102-3. The Hospitallers in 1242 put forward claims in Tortosa based on the rights of the count of Pallars: ACA, parch. James I, no. 870; AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fols. 48v-49, doc. 148.

Report Spam   Logged
Hero Member
Posts: 174

« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2009, 04:09:48 am »

57. Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 30-1, doc. 40; CDI, iv. 9-12, doc. 2; Delaville, Cartulaire, i. 85-6, doc. 95; LFM, 1. 10-12, doc. 6.

58. CDI, iv. 53-4, doc. 22; ES, xlii. 109.

59. CDI, iv. 113-14, doc. 51; LFM, i. 485, doc. 462.

60. CDI, iv. 332-4, doc. 141; 337-9, doc. 144.

61. The count of Barcelona obtained a surrender of the claims of the house of Montpellier: B. Oliver, Historia del derecho en Cataluña, Mallorca y Valencia: Código de las costumbres de Tortosa, i (Madrid, 1876), 68.

62. Miret y Sans, Les Cases, p. 61.

63. CDI, iv. 114-23, doc. 51; 347-55, doc. 147; LFM, i. 487-92, docs. 464, 465.

64. The Genoese sold their share back to the count in 1153: CDI, iv. 212-16, doc. 78; LFM, i. 485-7, doc. 463.

65. Oliver, op. cit. i. 393-4.

66. CDI, viii. 52-4, doc. 16.

67. ACA, parch. Alfonso II, no. 299. In February 1182 a charter was issued to the Jews of the city by the king and Raymond of Moncada, without reference to the Templars: AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 86v, doc. 275.

68. CDI, iv. 126-9, doc. 54; LFM, i. 168-9, doc. 161.

69. Cf. J. M. Font y Rius, 'La reconquista de Lérida y su proyección en el orden jurídico', Ilerda, vii (1949), 15.

70. Lacarra, 'Documentos', nos. 29, 30, 31 (ii. 497-p), 117 (iii. 520).

71. This conclusion is based on the large number of Templar grants of property to tenants in these districts.

72. CDI, iv. 208-11, doc. 77. On the dates of Raymond Berenguer's conquests in these districts, see A. Giménez Soler, 'La frontera catalano-aragonesa', II Congreso de historia de la Corona de Aragón, i (Huesca, 1920), 487-8.

73. AHN, San Juan, leg. 324, doc. I; leg. 333, doc. 1.

74. Bullarium Ordinis Militiae de Calatrava, ed. I.J. de Ortega y Cotes, J.F. Alvarez de Baquedano, and P. de Ortega Zulliga y Aranda (Madrid, 1761), pp. 13-14.

75. On the history of the Order of Mountjoy, see J. Delaville Le Roulx, 'L'Ordre de Montjoye', Revue de l'Orient latin, i (1893), 42-57; A. Blásquez y Jimenez, 'Bosquejo histórico de la Orden de Montegaudio', BRAH, lxxi (1917), 138-72; F.D. Gazulla, 'La Orden del Santo Redentor', BSCC, ix (1928), 90-107, 157-60, 204-12, 370-5; x (1929), 38-41, 98-101, 124-6; A.J. Forey, 'The Order of Mountjoy', Speculum, xlvi (1971), 250-66.

76. R.C. Smail, Crusading Warfare (1097-1193) (Cambridge, 1956), pp. 102-4.

77. CDI, viii. 45-7, doc. 13; BSCC, xiv (1933), 169-70; xxviii (1952), 298; AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 14-14v, doc. 14; see below, p. 370. A peace was made with the Moors in the following year and Lobo apparently agreed to pay Aragon a tribute of 40,000m. annually. This treaty seems to have been observed until Lobo's death in 1172, but it is not known whether the Temple received the promised payment; cf. M. Gual Camarena, Precedentes de la reconquista valenciana (Valencia, 1952), pp. 26-7.

78. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 89-89v, doc. 221; cf. Javierre, Privilegios, p. 115, no. 7. On the 1180 expedition, see Gual Camarena, op. cit., p. 29.

79. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fols. 16v-17, doc. 20; ACA, Varia 2, fol. 72-72v. Most versions of this grant give its date as 30 June 1177, and this is accepted by J. Miret y Sans, 'Itinerario del rey Alfonso I de Cataluña, II en Aragón', BRABLB, ii (1903-4), 403. J. Caruana, 'Itinerario de Alfonso II de Aragón', EEMCA, VII (1962), 149, 169, note 232, assigns the document to the year 1174 because Alfonso was unlikely to have been at Lérida, where the document was issued, at the end of June 1177; but the earlier date is given in only one late copy of the document: AHN, San Juan, leg. 354, doc. 6.

80. Ibid., leg. 285. doc. 2.

81. LFM, i. 492-5, doc. 466; Oliver, op. cit. i. 394-7. The date of this grant is discussed by Miret y Sans, 'Itinerario', p. 416. It would have been at this time that the Templar provincial master, Berenguer of Avinyó, confirmed certain privileges which Raymond Berenguer IV had granted to the Jews and Moors of Tottosa in 1148 and 1149: CDI, iv. 130-5, doc. 56; J. Miret y Sans, 'La carta de franquicias otorgada por el Conde de Barcelona a los judíos de Tortosa', Homenaje a D. Francisco Codera (Zaragoza, 1904), pp. 200-2.

82. Royal and Templar demesnes in Tortosa were defined in 1182 and 1184: ACA, parch. Alfonso II, no. 328; LFM, i. 495-7, doc. 467.

83. Kehr, Papsturkunden in Spanien. I. Katalanien, p. 560, doc. 254.

84. Gazulla, loc. cit. x. 99-101.

85. AHN, Ordenes Militares, Calatrava, sign. 1341-C, fols. 135-6.

86. Gazulla, loc. cit. ix. 370-1; Albareda y Herrera, op. cit., pp. 96-7.

87. The terms of Villel included Tramacastiel and Villastar.

88. The terms of Castellote included Las Cuevas de Cañart, Santolea, and Bordón.

89. There was a Templar commander of Cantavieja in that year. A document issued by Peter II in 1212 makes it clear that Alfonso had earlier granted it to Mountjoy: AHN, San Juan, leg. 231, doc. 2 published from two later versions by Gual Camarena, op. cit., pp. 72-3.

90. These are mentioned in a confirmation issued by the bishop of Zaragoza in

1204: ANN, San Juan, leg. 39, doc. 67.

91. Apart from the strongholds which it inherited from Mountjoy, the Temple also obtained in southern Aragon from Alfonso II -- apparently near the end of his reign -- the frontier castle of Albentosa: cf. AHN, cód. 466, pp. 4-5, doc. 3.

92. AHN, Montesa, R. 8; cf. Javierre, Privilegios, p. 115, no. 8; see below, p. 373. For the date of this grant, see Miret y Sans, 'Itinerario', pp. 450-1.

93. M. de Riquer, 'El trovador Giraut del Luc y sus poesías Contra Alfonso II de Aragón', BRABLB, xxiii (1950), 234. He also publishes a version of Alfonso's grant, taken from a fourteenth-century transcript in the ACA: ibid., pp.247-8.

94. Ibid., p. 219.

95. AHN, San Juan, leg. 186, doc. 3; published from a later manuscript by Gual Camarena, op. cit., pp. 69-71.

96. Oliver, op. cit. i. 397-9.

97. ACA, parch. Alfonso II, no. 146.

98. ACA. parch. Peter II, 110. 98; cf. Zurita, Anales, ii. 49, and J. Miret y Sans, 'Itinerario del rey Pedro I de Cataluña, II en Aragón', BRABLB, iii (1905-6), 240, 245-6.

99. ACA, parch. Peter II, no. 139. On the day when this charter was issued the Templars made a loan of 1,000m. to the king: Miret y Sans, 'Itinerario del rey Pedro', p. 266.

100. AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fols. 72v-73, doc. 235; ACA, parch. Peter II, no. 257.

101. Ibid., no. 308. In 1209 and 1210 William of Cervera and Raymond of Moncada acted together as lords of Tortosa: AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 70, doc. 227; fol. 75-75v, doc. 246.

102. ACA, reg. 310, fol. 35v.

103. Ibid., fol. 35-35v.

104. ACA, parch. James I, no. 39. In a copy in reg. 310, fol. 35, the date is given wrongly as 1214.

105. ACA, parch. Peter II, no. 201. This compromise must have been preceded by another, for a reference survives to an agreement about Serós made by Raymond of Gurb, who was provincial master in 1200 and 1201; and in 1209 it was stated that the Templars had received revenues in Serós for more than eight years: reg. 310, fol. 31; parch. Peter II, no. 313.

106. ACA, reg. 310, fol. 31.

107. J. Miret y Sans, Cartoral dels Templers de les comandes de Gardeny y Barbens (Barcelona, 1899), pp. 22-3; see also ACA, reg. 310, fol. 37-37v.

108. AHN, SanJuan, leg. 39, doc. 92; ACA, reg. 310, fol. 36.

109. ACA, parch. Peter II, no. 410; AHN, Montesa, R. 20; published from a different manuscript in BSCC, xi (1930), 355; cf. Javierre, Privilegios, p. 120, nos. 21, 22. Peter is known to have undertaken an expedition against the Moors in 1212: Gual Camarena, op. cit., p. 45.

110. AHN, San Juan, leg. 39, doc. 79; see below, p. 377.

111. CDI, vi. 95-101, docs. 16, 17; xi. 3-6; A. Lecoy de la Marche, Relations politiques de Ia France avec le royaume de Majorque (Paris, 1892), i. 403-5; Huici, Colección diplomática, i. 128-30, doc. 63; 138-40, doc. 70; Chronicle of James I, caps. 50-4, trans. J. Forster (London, 1883), i. 104-1l.

112. CDI, xi. 37-9. The repartimiento of Mallorca has also been published, from a different manuscript, by J.M. Quadrado, Historia de Ia conquista de Mallorca (Palma, 1850).

113. e.g. M. Rotger, 'Los Templers a Mallorca', Congreso de historia de la Corona de Aragón, i (Barcelona, 1909), 143; Miret y Sans, Les Cases, p. 252; Lecoy de la Marche, op. cit. i. 79; S. Sobrequés Vidal in Historia social y económica de España y America, ii (Barcelona, 1957), 22-3. It is assumed by these writers that the caballerías were actual pieces of land, granted in addition to the alquerías, houses, etc., mentioned in the repartimiento. Yet since in the repartimiento it is frequently stated (CDI, xi. 75 ff.) that individuals were given alquerías, operatoria, etc., 'for their caballerías', it is clear that the caballerlas were merely units of assessment. On the use of the term in this sense, see Los fueros de Aragón, ed. G. Tilander (Acta Reg. Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis, vol. xxv, Lund, 1937), pp. 303-4. The word is also found in this sense in AHN, cód. 689, pp. 99-100, doc. 107.

114. B. Deselot, Chronicle of the Reign of King Pedro III of Aragon, trans. F.L. Critchlow, i (Princeton, 1934), 78.

115. His figures for Nuño Sánchez and the count of Ampurias are inaccurate. C. de Tourtoulon, Jacme Ier le Conquérant, i (Montpellier, 1863), 244, note 1, argues that Desclot confuses the Cortes held us 1228 at Barcelona with that held in 1229; but the promise which Desclot attributes to the Temple was not made in the later assembly either. Lecoy de la Marche, op. cit. i. 38, asserts that the promise mentioned by Desebot was made after the Cortes, but this claim is not based on any documentary evidence.

116. Cap. 97, trans. Forster, i. 186.

117. CDI, xi. 116, 131-3.

118. Ibid., pp. 74-5, 121, 125, 129-31.

119. Ibid., p. 132. Quadrado, op. cit., p. 434, identifies the Montaña with Escorca.

120. CDI, xi. 88-90, 107-8, 114-15. A further two alquerías of ten jovadas are also included in the list of Templar holdings at Montuiri, but these are said to be the king's, and were probably exchanged for the alquería of ten jovadas which the Temple was given in Petra: ibid., pp. 100-1.

121. ACA, reg. 310, fol. 45.

122. AHN, Montesa, R. 31; cf. Javierre, Privilegios, p. 124, no. 35.

123. The principle that rewards should be proportionate to the size of contingents was laid down after the conquest of the city of Valencia in 1238: Chronicle of James I, caps. 284-9, trans. Forster, i. 398-401; ii. 402-3.

124. Ibid., Caps. 255-60, trans. Forster, i. 369-74.

125. Ibid., Caps. 153-4 trans. Forster, i. 253-5.

126. AHN, Montesa, R. 25; cf. Javierre, Privilegios, pp. 122-3, no. 29; R. de Maria, El 'Repartiment' de Burriana y Villarreal (Valencia, 1935), pp. 12-14.

127. Huici, Colección diplomática, i. 202-3, doc. 114; BSCC, xv (1934), 68-9.

128. Huici, Colección diplomática, 1. 200-1, doc. 112; BSCC, xiv (1933), 172-3.

129. Chronicle of James I, cap. 185, trans. Forster, I. 291. For the text of the agreement and discussion of it, see M. Ferrandis, 'Rendición del castillo de Chivert a los Templarios', Homenaje a D. Francisco Codera (Zaragoza, 1904), pp. 23-33. The date of the agreement is 28 April 1234. M. Gual Camarena, 'Reconquista de la zona castellonense', BSCC, xxv (1949), 436, argues that Chivert submitted to the Temple in September 1233 and that a draft of the later agreement was then drawn up. As the agreement which survives was written apparently at the time of the provincial chapter, it was probably a confirmation of terms which had been accepted earlier. G. de sa Vall, 'Rendición del castillo de Xivert', BSCC, xxiv (1948), 232, argues that the document was originally drawn up in Arabic.

In 1225 James had promised Chivert to Roderick Jimenez of Luesia; he was given compensation for his claims in 1237: Javierre, Privilegios, pp. 131-2, no. 61.

130. ACA, reg. 310, fol. 47; cf. Javierre, Privilegios, p. 132, no. 62.

131. AHN, Montesa, R. 65; CDI, xi. 290; cf. Javierre, Privilegios, p. 134, no. 70. In a survey of houses in Valencia begun on 9 April 1239 fifty are attributed to the Temple in the quarter of the men of Lérida: CDI, xi. 589-90 (the total is given as fifty, but fifty-one are listed). These appear to be the same as the fifty noted in the Daroca and Teruel sector (ibid., p. 644), since there are several repetitions elsewhere in these groups. In the repartimiento of Valencia the area of land granted to the Temple is given wrongly as ten jovadas: ibid., p. 290.

132. AHN, cód. 471, pp. 107-8, doc. 103; Huici, Colección diplomática, i. 386, doc. 273.

133. AHN, Montesa, R. 78; cf. Javierre, Privilegios, p. 138, no. 83.

134. Huici, Colección diplomática, 1. 412-15, docs. 298, 299; Javierre, Privilegios, pp. 66-7. Although the king gave securities, the Order had still not received full compensation twenty-five years later: AHN, Montesa, P. 321.

135. AHN, Montesa, P. 316, 372. James I stated in his Chronicle, on the other hand, that he had captured the castle: cap. 185, trans. Forster, i. 291. On Pulpís, see A. Sánchez Gozalbo, 'Notas para la historia del Maestrazgo de Montesa: el castillo de Polpís', BSCC, xiv (1933), 457-60.

136. Santiago seems to have been the military order with the most property in the southern part of Valencia: R.I. Burns, The Crusader Kingdom of Valencia (Harvard, 1967), i. 178.

137. Huici, Colección diplomática, i. 238, doc. 139; 356, doc. 246; BSCC, ix (1928), 86-7.

138. Delaville, Cartulaire, 1. 141-3, doc. 181; BSCC, xxiii (1947), 279-80; xxviii (1952), 297. For the history of Oropesa up to 1270, see F. Sevillano Colom, 'Bosquejo histórico de Oropesa', BSCC, xxvii (1951), 77-82, although he confuses the Temple and Santiago when discussing the events of 1270. At the end of the thirteenth century, when Oropesa was held by Berenguer Dalmau, the Temple negotiated for its purchase, but the outcome of these negotiations is not recorded: ACA, CRD Templarios, no. 425. Although according to R. de María, 'Xivert y Oropesa', BSCC, xiv (1933), 180, the king in 1298 granted full jurisdiction to the Temple in both Chivert and Oropesa, there is in fact no reference to the latter in the charter of donation: AHN, Montesa, R. 169.

139. Burns, op. cit. i. 192, states that the king gave the Templars compensation for Oropesa in 1249; but, as he earlier points out correctly (ibid. i. 186), the grant in question was to the Hospitallers, not to the Templars; cf. BSCC, xxiii (1947), 280-2.

140. Huici, Colección diplomática, ii. 309, doc. 925; J. Torres Fontes, La reconquista de Murcia en 1266 por Jaime I de Aragón (Murcia, 1967), pp. 212-13, doc. 8; Chronicle of James I, cap. 446, trans. Forster, ii. 568.

141. Règle, p. 68, art. 55.

142. ANN, cód. 691, fol. 169v, doc. 422.

143. AHN, cód. 1311.

144. AHN, cód. 691, fols. 168-82, doc. 422.

145. Ibid., fols. 196-8, doc. 442; see below, p. 376.

146. A considerable number of bequests of cash are included in wills in AGP, parch. Testamentos.

147. See below, p. 110.

148. See below, pp. 99-100.

149. See below, cap. III.

150. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 73, doc. 100.

151. It is not known exactly when the exchange took place, although various dates have been suggested -- not altogether consistently -- by García Larragueta, Gran priorado, i. 52, note 98, and i. 55, and M.L. Ledesma Rubio, La encomienda de Zaragoza de la Orden de San Juan de Jerusalén en los siglos XII y XIII (Zaragoza, 1967), p. 25, note 9; p. 76, note 93. According to a document drawn up in 1173 Garner of the Temple and Peter Raymond of the Hospital made the exchange, which was later confirmed by the provincial masters of the two Orders at the siege of Tortosa: AHN, San Juan, leg. 290, doc. 2 (Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 339-40, doc. 553, and Lacarra, 'Documentos', no. 249 [iii. 624-5] publish this document from a copy in AHN, cód. 691, fol. 29v-30, which bears the date 1149). The exchange had therefore taken place by 1148, and there are several reasons for suggesting that it occurred soon after García Ramírez made his grant. The Templar and Hospitaller who carried it out were those who received Novillas from the Navarrese ruler, and while Garner is mentioned in one other document drawn up in 1135 (Es, xlix. 336, doc. 13), there is no evidence of him after this -- although a considerable number of documents concerning property at Novillas survive from the 1140s -- except in a fourteenth-century transcript of a confirmation of the fuero of Novillas (AHN, San Juan, leg. 346, doc. i), and this reference can be discounted. In two earlier versions of this document he is not mentioned: AHN, cód. 691, fols. 18v-19v, doc. 39; fols. 194v-195v, doc. 441; the names of Garner and other Templars and Hospitallers mentioned in the later version but not in the other two are exactly those found in the document already mentioned, drawn up in 1173, and it seems that they were taken from this document. The donation of the church of Novillas in 1135 to the Temple alone and not to the two Orders suggests that the Temple may even then have had complete control over Novillas: Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 70-1, doc. 94 (where the date is given wrongly). Further, although the records of Templar acquisitions in Novillas are numerous, there are none relating to Mallén. An early exchange would, moreover, have been convenient for both parties.

152. AHN, cód. 691, fol. 9-9v, doc. 26; Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 107-8, doc. 154. Calvet confirmed his grant in 1151: AHN, cód. 691, fol. 12-12v, doc. 32.

153. Ibid., fols. 11v-12, doc. 31.

154. e.g. AHN, San Juan, leg. 556, doc. 4; see below, p. 386.

155. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 191, doc. 292; Lacarra, 'Documentos', no. 230 (iii. 609-10).

156. AHN, San Juan, leg. 532, doc. 7.

157. Ibid., leg. 38, doc. 17.

158. Ibid., leg. 38, doc. 26.

159. Ibid., leg. 138, doc. 2. At the end of the thirteenth century La Zaida, together with some neighbouring properties, was given to Artal of Alagón in exchange for La Ginebrosa, Camarón, and Buñol, which were situated further south: AHN, cód. 467, p. 287, doc. 313; p. 453, doc. 441. According to I. de Asso, Historia de la economía politica de Aragón (Zaragoza, 1947 edn.), p. 203, Buñol is a despoblado in the term of La Ginebrosa.

160. Lacarra, 'Documentos', no. 10 (ii. 482).

161. Ibid., no. 177 (iii. 570-1).

162. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 219, doc. 336.

163. Ibid., p. 283, doc. 455; Lacarra, 'Documentos', no. 245 (iii. 621).

164. AHN, cód. 691, fols. 1v-2, doc. 4.

165. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 122, doc. 177; p. 155, doc. 229; pp. 242-3, doc. 384 (the date of this document is given wrongly as 1146); Lacarra, 'Documentos', nos. 342 (v. 564-5), 350 (v. 571-2). The dates of these acquisitions are discussed by Lacarra. In his will Peter Taresa also left the nearby castles of Borja and Magallón to the Temple and Hospital jointly, but presumably because of a rival claim by Peter's mother Taresa, Raymond Berenguer IV in 1151 forced the Orders to surrender Borja and Magallón to her in return for a confirmation of the grant of Ambel and Alberite and a ratification of the exchange involving Novillas and Mallén: LFM, i. 20-2, docs. 14, 15; CDI, iv. 179-82, docs. 65, 66.

166. Lacarra, 'Documentos', no. 398 (v. 614-15). The document is undated, but there is a reference in it to the Templar Lope of Sada, who is mentioned in other documents drawn up between 1157 and 1175; cf. AHN, San Juan, leg. 340, doc. 10.

167. Lacarra, 'Documentos', no. 360 (v. 580-1); ACA, reg. 310, fol. 44-44v; AHN, San Juan, leg. 323, doc. 14; Delaville, Cartulaire, 1452-3, doc. 677; 520-1, doc. 835; cf. A. Ubieto Arteta, El real monasterio de Sigena (1188-1300) (Valencia, 1966), pp. 20-1.

168. C. Rocafort, Geografia general de Catalunya: Provincia de Lleyda (Barcelona, n.d.), p. 190; ACA, Varia 1, fol. 53.

169. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 1, doc. 1; fols. 65v-66, doc. 160; fol. 103-103v, doc. 249; fol. 108-108v, doc. 259; parch. Casas Antiguas, no. 275; parch. Barbará, no. 71.

170. AGP, parch. Selma, no. 3 parch. Testamentos, no. 3; parch. Barbará, no. 78; parch. Espluga de Francolí, no. 394; ACA, parch. Alfonso II, nos. 150, 175; parch. James I, nos. 713, 1032; Miret y Sans, Les Cases, p. 346; cf. J. Miret y Sans, 'Lo castell de Montbrió', Butlletí del Centre Excursionista de Catalunya, ix (1899), 41-5.

171. AHN, Montesa, P. 582; published from a transcript in the municipal archive of Culla in BSCC, xii (1931), 134-8; cf. A. Sánchez Gozalbo, 'Notas para la historia del Maestrazgo de Montesa. Castillo de Culla', ibid., xxv (1949), 304-25.

172. AHN, Montesa, P. 523; cf. A. Sanchez Gozalbo, 'Notas para la historia del Maestrazgo de Montesa. Castillo de Cuevas de Avinromá', BSCC, xiv (1933) 289-99. In the same year the king gained William of Moncada's rights in Tortosa through another exchange: E. Bayerri, Historia de Tortosa y su comarca, vii (Tortosa, 1956), 625-6.

173. ACA, parch. Alfonso II, no. 293; Peter II, no. 128; AHN, cód. 499, pp. 37-8, docs. 89, 90. According to R. del Arco, 'Huesca en el siglo XII', II Congreso de historia de la Corona de Aragón, i (Huesca, 1920), 335, Miquera formed part of the city of Huesca, but when it was given to the Temple it was said to be near Huesca.

174. ACA, parch. Alfonso II, no. 451; published by M. de Riquer, 'El testamento del trovador Guilhem de Berguedán', Mélanges de linguistique et de littérature romanes a la mémoire d'Istvan Frank (Annales Universitatis Saraviensis, vol. vi, 1957), pp. 581-3. This confirmed an earlier bequest made in 1183: AGP, parch. Testamentos, no. 31. J. Miret y Sans, 'Los vescomtes de Cerdanya, Conflent y Bergadà', Memories de la Real Academia de Buenas Letras de Barcelona, viii (1901), 160, wrongly attributes the earlier will to the troubadour's father.

175. Puigreig is not mentioned in two documents in the ACA concerned with this sale: parch. Peter II, nos. 67, 82; but it is named in another charter dealing with the sale in the episcopal archive of Barcelona; this is published by J. Miret y Sans, 'Enquesta sobre el trovador Vilarnau, amb algunes noves de Guillem de Bergada, Rainon de Miraval i Guillein de Mur', Revue hispanique, xlvi (1919), 2612.

176. Huici, Colección diplomática, i. 166-7, doc. 86. In northern Catalonia the Templars also made several acquisitions along the river Noguera. The castles of Terrassa and Castellón de Encús were given to the Order: ACA, Varia I, fols. 56v, 58; AHN, San Juan, leg. 138, doc. 3. The castle of Palau which Raymond of Castellvell gave to the Templars was said in a fourteenth-century inventory to be in Pallars, and may have been Palau de Noguera: ACA, reg. 310, fol. 43-43v; Varia 1, fol. 53v. Admittedly Miret y Sans, Les Cases, p. 84, states that the church of Palau de Noguera was given to the Hospitallers in 1161 by the count of Pallars on the condition that they resettled the place; he maintains that from that time Palau was a dependency of the Hospitaller house at Susterris. Yet he provides no further twelfth- or thirteenth-century evidence; and according to A. Coy y Cotonat, Sort y comarca Noguera-Pallaresa (Barcelona, 1906), p. 339, the tithes of Palau de Noguera were granted to the Temple in 1180. It therefore seems possible that the Hospital did not resettle Palau and that it later passed into the hands of the Temple; the Hospitallers may have gained it only after the dissolution of the Temple.

177. Culla was easily the most expensive purchase made by the Aragonese Templars. Its cost was 500,000s., not 50,000s., as is stated by Burns, op. cit. i. 192.

178. Cf. E. de Hinojosa, El régimen señorial y la cuestión agraria en Catalunia (Madrid, 1905), p. 41.

179. AHN, cód. 468, p. 15, doc. 15; pp. 19-20, docs. 25, 26; pp. 154-5, docs. 137-9; pp. 158-62, docs. 144-51; pp. 164-5, doc. 155.

180. AHN, cód. 499, pp. 42-3, doc. 101; p. 44, doc. 104; p. 52, doc. 123; pp. 60-1, doc. 150; p. 66, doc. 163; pp. 69-70, doc. 169; p. 76, doc. 185; p. 86, doc. 203; pp. 93-4, doc. 216.

181. RAH, 12-6-1/M-83, doc. 95. It was not only in the cities and large towns, however, that acquisitions of houses and shops were made. In some places houses built within the walls of castles had no lands attached to them, and some of the acquisitions made by the Templars at Novillas, for example, consisted of properties of this type: e.g. AHN, cód. 691, fol. 31v, docs. 86, 87; fol. 36, doc. 100.

182. AHN, cód. 499, pp. 26-7, docs. 53, 56, 57; cód. 469, pp. 354-6, docs. 299-301, 303; Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 216-17, doc. 331; Lacarra, 'Documentos', nos. 352, 353 (v. 573-4).

183. Règle, pp. 59-60, art. 66; Albon, Cartulaire, p. 377, Bullaire, doc. 5.

184. Cf. G. Constable, Monastic Tithes from their Origins to the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, 1964), p. 142.

185. Ibid., p. 170, note 1; p. 231.

186. Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 70-1, doc. 94. On Razazol and Boquiñeni, see above, p. 8, and Albon, Cartulaire, p. 307, doc. 495.

187. AHN, cód. 691, fols. 1v-2, doc. 4; San Juan, leg. 138, doc. 4; leg. 285, doc. 3; see below, p. 371.

188. AHN, San Juan, leg. 39, doc. 67.

189. Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 345-6, doc. 557. The subject churches were listed in 1192 as those of Crespano, Cofita, Ariéstolas, Castejón del Puente, Pomar, Estiche, Sta. Lecina, Alcolea, Castelflorite, La Roya, Cascallo (?El Coscollar), Sena, Sigena, Ontiñena, Torre de Corneil, Chalamera, Ballobar, Filcena, Calavera, Casas Novas, Balcarca, Ripoll, Alfantega, San Esteban de Litera, and the Almunia de San Juan: AHN, San Juan, leg. 324, doc. 1.By that time the Order had in fact alienated the churches of Sena and Sigena. In 1192 the bishop of Lérida also granted the Order the churches of Binafut, Morilla, Monesma, and St. John in Selgua.

190. AHN, San Juan, leg. 308, docs. 1, 2, 6; Montesa, P. 78; AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 95v, doc. 296.

191. ACA, parch. Peter III, no. 96.

192. Miret y Sans, Les Cases, p. 169.

193. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 236, doc. 369.

194. AHN, Montesa, P. 568.

195. At the end of the thirteenth century the Temple claimed the patronage of the church of Moncada, but it was not able to produce evidence to support its claim: AHN, Montesa, P. 507.

196. Cf. R.I. Burns, 'A Mediaeval Income Tax: The Tithe in the Thirteenth-Century Kingdom of Valencia', Speculum, xli (1966), 438-52; idem, The Crusader Kingdom of Valencia, i. 155-68.

197. AHN, Montesa, P. 78.

198. AHN, Montesa, P. 265.

199. e.g. AHN, San Juan, leg. 354, doc. 2; AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 45, doc. 98; fol. 84, doc. 210.

200. Revenues were occasionally granted specifically for use in the Holy Land: e.g. AHN, Montesa, P. 438, 451; but usually no condition of this sort was made.

201. In a number of charters of donation it was stated that a gift was being made 'because I fear to see the agonies of hell and wish to arrive at the joys of paradise': e.g. AHN, cód. 499, p.43, doc. 103; p. 81, doc. 195 see also below, p. 374.

202. AHN, cód. 466, pp. 47-9, doc. 47.

203. Ibid.; AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 76, doc. 249.

204. AHN, Montesa, P. 410.

205. AHN, Montesa, P. 207, 223, 417.

206. Règle, p. 325, art. 632.

207. AHN, Montesa, P. 134.

208. ACA, reg. 55, fol. 2v.

209. AHN, Montesa, P. 134. In 1304 a chantry priest in Valencia was assigned 12/.V. a year: Montesa, P. 610.

210. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 2, doc. 2 parch. Gardeny, nos. 20, 455. 456.

211. AHN, Montesa, P. 535; cód. 469, pp. 184-6, doc. 145.

212. Lees, Records, p. xl; T.W. Parker, The Knights Templars in England (Tucson, 1963), p. 16; F.L. Carsten, The Origins of Prussia (Oxford, 1954), p. 13.

213. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 73, doc. 100; pp. 107-8, doc. 154; AHN, cód. 691, fol. 10, doc. 27. The Temple later obtained a renunciation of claims from Raymond of Cortes's widow: ibid., fol. 10-10v, doc. 28.

214. See below, p. 345.

215. e.g. ACA, parch. Alfonso II, nos. 266, 489; Peter II, nos. 31, 52, 68, 256, 380; see below, p. 375.

216. AGP, parch. Testamentos, no. 58.

217. ACA, parch. Peter III, nos. 221, 290.

218. Some individuals placed only part of their property under the Temple's protection; they presumably held the rest of another lord: e.g. ACA, parch. Peter II, nos. 46, 68. But at other times men holding of a lord put all their property under the protection of the Order, which promised assistance against all except the lord: e.g. parch. Alfonso II, no. 718; Peter II, no. 236. It was generally accepted that an individual could have both a lord and a protector, provided that the lord's permission was obtained: cf. Hinojosa, op. cit., p. 90.

219. Property under the Temple's protection was often stated to be 'under crosses': e.g. ACA, parch. Peter II, nos. 52, 68, 236, 286; see below, p. 375. P. Ourliac, 'Les villages de la region toulousaine au xxe siècle', Annales, iv (1949), 268-77, shows how in some villages established by the Hospital in Toulouse Hospitaller protection by itself was not felt adequate.

220. Hinojosa, op. cit., p. 89, note 3.

221. AHN, cód. 466, pp. 47-9, doc. 47.

222. AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 74-74v, doc. 242.

223. AHN, Montesa, P. 542.

224. AHN, cód. 499, p. 68, doc. 167.

225. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 48-48v, doc. 107.

226. AHN, San Juan, leg. 575, doc. 112.

227. AHN, cód. 499, pp. 7-8, doc. ii.

228. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 280; AHN, cód. 691, fols. 19v-20, doc. 41; fols. 100v-101, doc. 276.

229. AHN, San Juan, leg. 323, doc. 14.

230. AHN, cód. 469, p. 523, doc. 534.

231. ACA, parch. Alfonso II, no. 698.

232. ACA, reg. 310, fol. 44-44v; AGP, parch. Comuns, no. 142.

233. See, for example, Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 92-3, doc. 132; cf. R. Boutruche, Une Société provinciale en lutte contre le régime féodal: l'alleu en Bordelais et en Bazadais du XIe au XVIIIe siècle (Rodez, 1947), p. 41.

234. Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 67-8, doc. 90. The date is given as November A.D. 1135, and in the 27th year of Louis; Albon assigns the document to the year 1134.

235. For similar transactions in the south of France, see M. Castaing-Sicard, 'Donations toulousaines du Xe au XIIIe siècle', Annales du Midi, lxx (1958), 57-64.

236. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 122, doc. 177; Lacarra, 'Documentos', no. 342 (v. 564-5).

237. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fols. 98v-99, doc. 239; parch. Casas Antiguas, no. 78.

238. Although such gifts were frequently made to the Temple, it cannot be stated what proportion of donations was of this type, for it was often not stated in charters when a donation was to take effect.

239. e.g. ACA, parch. Alfonso II, nos. 87, 382, 459, 463.

240. The documents concerning these transactions are found mainly in AHN, cód. 499.

241. Most of the evidence concerning Zaragoza is contained in AHN, cód. 468.

242. Most of the evidence concerning Tortosa is found in AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa.

243. AHN, cód. 468, pp. 14-24, docs. 12-15, 17-22, 25-31.

244. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 368, doc. 597.

245. ACA, parch. James 1,nos. 1502, 1503; Appendix, no.33; parch. Alfonso III, nos. 289, 290, 293, 294; Appendix, no. 4; AGP, parch. Espluga de Francolí, no. 474. Miret y Sans, Les Cases, p. 317, assigns the purchase of Arnold of Malgrat's fee to the year 1286, but at that time the seller merely stated that he had no documents concerning the fee: parch. Espluga de Francolí, no. 318; the sale had taken place twenty years earlier. The Temple acquired rights over Hugh of Cervellón's fee in the first instance only for seven years.

246. AHN, cód. 469, pp. 354-5, doc. 300; cf. p. 349, doc. 292.

247. Ibid., p. 354, doc. 299; p. 356, doc. 303.

248. Ibid., pp. 522-3, doc. 533.

249. Ibid., p. 355, doc. 301.

250. AGP, parch. Espluga de Francolí, no. 284. This claim was derived from an agreement between Pons and Raymond of Cervera in 1181, by which the latter was to hold a third of the revenues of Espluga in fee of the former: parch. Espluga de Francolí, no. 288. This right descended to Raymond's son William of Guardia: ACA, parch. James 1, no. 441; and Hugh claimed the right through his aunt Marquesa, the wife of William of Guardia, and their daughter Geralda: parch. James I, no. 1550; parch. Espluga de Francolí, no. 284.

251. AGP, parch. Comuns, no. 258; ACA, parch. James I, nos. 1527, 1550, 1938, 1941.

252. On the convent of Palau, see below, p. 91.

253. Barcelona: ACA, parch. Raymond Berenguer IV, no. 312; parch. Alfonso II, nos. 53, 723; parch. James I, nos. 11, 977, 1644; Varia 1, fols. 1-1v, 4-5. Palan: Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 140-1, doc. 202; ACA, parch. Alfonso II, no. 198; parch. James I, nos. 56, 88, 299, 454, 456; Varia 1, fols. 9v-10, 14v-15. Parets: Albon, Cartulaire, p. 368, doc. 597; ACA, parch. Alfonso II, nos. 202, 280; parch. James I, nos. 47, 227, 314, 2193. Sta. Perpetua: ACA, parch. Alfonso II, nos. 282, 392, 720.

254. ACA, parch. Raymond Berenguer IV, no. 144; parch. Peter II, no. 78.

255. ACA, Varia 1, fol. 1-1v; see below, p. 369.

256. Ibid., fol. 1.

257. AHN, Montesa, P. 582; published from a different manuscript in BSCC, xii (1931), 134-8.

258. e.g. AHN, Montesa, P. 463.

259. AHN, cód. 691, fol. 53, doc. 156.

260. e.g. AHN, San Juan, leg. 285, doc. 4; cód. 470, pp. 93-4, doc. 112.

261. AHN, San Juan, leg. 354, doc. 2; AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 43, doc. 135.

262. A. Durán Gudiol, Colección diplomática de la catedral de Huesca, i (Zaragoza, 1965), 316, doc. 318; ACA, parch. Peter III, no. 96; C. Rocafort, Geografia general de Catalunya: Provincia de Lleyda (Barcelona, n.d.), p. 190. On James of Sarroca, see R. del Arco, 'El obispo Don jaime Sarroca, consejero y granprivado del Rey Don Jaime el Conquistador', BRABLB, ix (1917-20), 65-91, 140-67; del Arco did not know, however, of the existence of the bishop's will and placed his death in December 1288 or January 1289.

263. T. Ruiz Jusué, 'Las cartas de hermandad en España', AHDE, xv (1944), 417-18; D.W. Lomax, La Orden de Santiago (Madrid, 1965), pp. 27-8.

264. AHN, cód. 470, pp. 5-6, doc. 4; pp. 65-8, docs. 75, 77, 78, 80; see below, p. 374.

265. In 1147 Peter Romeu, with his sons García, Peter, Blasco, and Simon, gave his rights at Mesa to the Temple: Albon, Cartulaire, p. 283, doc. 455; Lacarra, 'Documentos', no. 245 (iii. 621). These four sons became confratres of the Order: AHN, cód. 1311, sides K, R; and the Temple made exchanges of property at Pradilla with Blasco Romeu in 1173 and with García Romeu, who was lord of Pradilla, in 1271: AHN, cód. 470, pp. 81-2, doc. 99; pp. 85-6, doc. 103.

266. On these lords and their activities, see P. Boissonnade, Du nouveau sur la Chanson de Roland (Paris, 1923), pp. 38-69; M. Defourneaux, Les Français en Espagne aux XIe et XIIe siècles (Paris, 1949), caps. 3, 4; J.M. Lacarra, 'La conquista de Zaragoza por Alfonso I', Al-Andalus, xii (1947), 78-83; idem, 'Gaston de Bearn y Zaragoza', Pirineos, viii (1952), 127-34; L.H. Nelson, 'Rotrou of Perche and the Aragonese Reconquest', Traditio, xxvi (1970), 113-33.

267. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 183, doc. 280; Lacarra, 'Documentos', no. 229 (iii. 609).

268. Zurita, Anales, i. 44.

269. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 220, doc. 338; Lacarra, 'Documentos', no. 354 (v. 574-5); idem, 'Gastón de Bearn', pp. 133-4; Zurita, Anales, i. 44.

270. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 309, doc. 501; Lacarra, 'Documentos', no. 366 (v. 585-6); A. du Bourg, Histoire du grand-prieuré de Toulouse (Toulouse, 1883), Appendix, pp. xliii-xliv, doc. 62.

271. J.M. Lacarra, 'La repoblación de Zaragoza por Alfonso I el Batallador', Estudios de historia social de España, i (1949), 214-17.

272. In 1170 Galcerán of Pinós granted the Temple rights in the mountains of Encija and Palomera: AGP, parch. Cervera, 110. 123; Cartulary of Gardeny, fols. 106-7, doc. 256. In 1211 Galcerán's son, Raymond Galcerán, gave the Order his rights over an inhabitant of Bergadán: parch. Cervera, no. 375. And in 1279 Galcerán of Pinós confirmed all the grants and sales made by his predecessors to the Temple, mentioning in particular two manses: parch. Cervera, no. 229.

In 1133 Bernard Amat, viscount of Cardona, made a grant of salt to the Temple: Albon, Cartulaire, p. 50, doc. 66. In 1221 the viscount William for 50s. surrendered to the Order mills in Puigreig which had been given to the Templars by the king and which William held in pledge: parch. Cervera, no.227. In the next year William granted the Order a manse: parch. Cervera, no. 451; ACA, parch. James I, no. 193; and he also chose burial in the Temple, although the Order obtained the body only after a dispute with the abbot of Cardona: parch. Cervera, no. 517.

273. ACA, parch. Alfonso II, no. 333; AGP, parch. Cervera, nos. 232, 474.

274. J. Miret y Sans, Investigación histórica sobre el vizcondado de Castellbó (Barcelona, 1900), pp. 368-71; Delaville, Cartulaire, iv. 243-4, doc. 98bis.Calcina was near Puigcercús: C. Rocafort, Geografia general di Catalunya: Provincia de Lleyda (Barcelona, n.d.), p. 809, note 288.

275. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 61-61v, doc. 150.

276. Ibid., fol. 56v, doc. 133. The date of this document could be read as 10 Kalends of October 1150 or the Kalends of October 1160. Miret y Sans, Les Cases, p. 73, accepts the latter; but as the Templar provincial master Peter of Rovira is mentioned in the document, it could not have been drawn up later than 1158.

277. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 15, doc. 15.

278. Ibid., fol. 103-103v, doc. 249; fol. 108-108v, doc. 259; AGP, parch. Casas Antiguas, nos. 263, 275. In 1194 the Hospitallers received a grant of Pedrís from the count of Urgel: Delaville, Cartulaire, i. 609, doc. 960. This must mean either that the donation to the Temple was not carried out or that the Hospitallers gained merely the other half of Pedrís.

279. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 21-21v, doc. 27; fol. 26, doc. 40.

280. D. Monfar y Sors, Historia de los condes de Urgel, in CDI, ix. 418-21; Delaville, Cartulaire, i. 351, doc. 515.

281. ACA, reg. 310, fol. 82-82v.

282. Monfar y Sors, op. cit., in CDI, ix. 433-7; Delaville, Cartulaire, ii. 91, doc. 1308; El Cartulario de Tavernoles, ed. J. Soler García (Castellón de la Plana, 1961), pp. 190-5, doc. 112.

283. Monfar y Sors, op. cit., in CDI, ix. 446.

284. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fols. 103v-104, doc. 250; fols. 107v-108, doc. 258; fols. 108v-109, doc. 260. The Temple appears to have been slow in making this payment, for in 1190 -- in return for a confirmation of Alchabez -- it agreed not only to pay the count 440s.B., but also gave him 200maz. and a horse: ACA, reg. 310, fol. 82. Alchabez should possibly be identified with Castellblanch de Litera: cf. Cartulary of Gardeny, fols. 109v-110, docs. 261, 262.

285. ACA, parch. Peter II, no. 119; AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 451. Miret y Sans, Investigación histórica, pp. 171-2, refers to another dispute between the Order and the count in 1194.

286. ACA, reg. 310, fol. 83. The Order apparently gained altogether rents in Lérida worth 300s.J. annually from the count: ibid., fols. 82v-83.

287. J. Miret y Sans, 'Notes per la biografía del trovador Guerau de Cabrera', Estudis universitaris catalans, iv (1910), 323. The Order's rights over the castle of Mediona were later granted away in exchange for rights at San Iscle de Bages: Miret y Sans, Investigación histórica, p. 116, note 1.

288. Monfar y Sort, op. cit., in CDI, ix. 405-14, 421, 434, 445, 506.

289. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fols. 62v-63. doc. 153; fols. 64v-65, docs. 157, 158; fol. 68, doc. 170.

290. Les Cases, p. 104.

291. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 64v, doc. 157.

292. Ibid., fols. 62v-63, doc. 153.

293. Ibid., fol. 64-64v, doc. 156.

294. Ibid., fol. 62-62v, doc. 152.

295. AGP, parch. Testamentos, no. 55; cf. ACA, parch. James I, no. 111.

296. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 99, doc. 240; cf. J. Serra y Vilaró, 'Relacions entre los senyors y la ciutat de Solsona al segle XIII', Congreso de historia de la Corona de Aragón, i (Barcelona, 1909), 70.

297. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 1, doc. 1; parch. Gardeny, no. 1540; parch. Testamentos, no. 104; cf. parch. Gardeny, no. 1494.

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

299. AGP, parch. Espluga de Francolí, no. 526. The district in which Espluga lay had been granted as waste land by the count of Barcelona to Pont Hugh of Cervera in 1079/80. On the early history of Espluga de Francolí, see A. Altisent, 'Un poble de la Catalunya Nova els segles Xl i XII. L'Espluga de Francolí de 1079 a 1200', Anuario de estudios medievales, iii (1966), 131-213.

300. ACA, parch. James 1, no. 432.

301. The will does not survive, but the bequest is mentioned in a document drawn up in 1278: AGP, parch. Espluga de Francolí, no. 394. On the date of Simon's death and the history of the family in general, see J. Miret y Sans, Los vescomtes de Bas en Ia illa de Sardenya (Barcelona, 1901).

302. AGP, parch. Espluga de Francolí, no. 390; Miret y Sans, Les Cases, pp. 313-14; cf. ACA, parch. James I, no. 1433. In 1260 the pension was reduced to 1,500s.B.: parch. Espluga de Francolí, no.111; cf. no.352. There was a further dispute about the pension in 1275: parch. James I, nos. 2221, 2232. In 1272 Sybilla, the daughter of Geralda and wife of the count of Ampurias, advanced a claim to Espluga: parch. James I, nos. 2109, 2111, 2112.

303. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 15v, doc. 17; fol. 50, doc. 113; fol. 66v, doc. 162; fols. 66v-67, doc. 164; fol. 68, doc. 169; fols. 76-7, doc. 193; fol. 90-90v, doc. 223 fols. 105v-106, doc. 255; parch. Gardeny, nos. 530, 589, 1743, 1744; parch. Testamentos, no. 330.

304. LFM, i. 174-5, doc. 165.

305. Ibid., pp. 175-6, doc. 166.

306. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 15-15v, doc. 16; fols. 20v-21, doc. 26; fol. 54-54v, doc. 127; fols. 72v-73, doc. 184; fols. 84-5, docs. 210, 211; fols. 93v-94v, docs. 229-31; fol. 97-97v, doc. 236; fol. 98-98v, doc. 238; parch. Gardeny, nos. 456, 525, 581, 1296; parch. Corbins, no. 95; parch. Casas Antiguas, nos. 2, 4, 38, 71, 83; parch. Espluga Calva, nos. 57, 60.

307. AHN, San Juan, leg. 354, doc. 6.

308. ACA, parch. Peter II, no. 277.

309. ACA, Varia 2, fols. 72v-74; AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 94v, doc. 295.

310. ACA, reg. 310, fol. 36v; AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fols. 2-3, docs. 3,4; Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 90, doc. 284.

311. AHN, cód. 499.

312. AHN, cód. 470.

313. AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa.

314. AHN, Montesa, P. 533, 540.

315. AHN, cód. 468.

316. These calculations take into account the money spent in settling disputed claims to land and in redeeming from pledge land granted to the Order.

317. AHN, códs. 467-9.

318. AHN, cód. 499, pp. 29-31, docs. 64-72; pp. 89-90, doc. 209; published by M.D. Cabré, 'Noticias y documentos del Altoaragón. La Violada (Almudévar)', Argensola, x (1959), 149-55, docs. 2-11.

319. AHN, cód. 689. This cartulary originally covered the period up to 1272; a number of documents drawn up between 1274 and 1283 were inserted later.

320. AHN, cód. 466.

321. AGP, parch. Barbara, no. 78; parch. Espluga de Francolí, nos. 210, 474, 611; ACA, parch. James I, nos. 1502, 1938, 2179; Appendix, no. 33; parch. Alfonso III, Appendix, no. 4; parch. James II, not. 623, 1028; reg. 291, fol. 262v .

322. AHN, Montesa, P. 582; published in BSCC, XII (1931), 134-8.

323. AHN, Montesa, P. 585.

324. ACA, CRD Templarios, no. 580; cf. AHN, Montesa, P. 611, 619.

325. ACA, reg. 291, fol. 226; cf. fols. 241-241v.

326. IV. xix. 5-8, and VI. iv. 37, 47, in Volumen Fororum et Actuum Curiae (Valencia, 1548), fols. 110, 150v, 151v; Fori Antiqui Valentiae, lxxii. 5-7, 14, and lxxxvi. 27, 31, ed. M. Dualde Serrano (Madrid, Valencia, 1967), pp. 114-15, 117, 165, 166.

327. AHN, Montesa, P. 224.

328. The right to alienate to the Church in Aragon and Catalonia was eonfirmed in 1235: Cortes de Aragón, Valencia y Cataluña, i (Madrid, 1896), 126. There is, however, a reference to a mortmain decree concerning Lérida in 1276: AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 473.

329. Cf. G. de Valous, Le Temporel et la situation financière des établissements de l'Ordre de Cluny du XIIe au X1Ve siècle (Vienne, 1935), p. 16.

330. J. Perez de Urbel, Los monjes españoles en la edad media, ii (Madrid, 1934), 528; E. de Hinojosa, El régimen señorial y la cuestión agraria en Cataluña (Madrid, 1905), p. 57.

331. On a similar decline in donations to the Hospitallers, see M.L. Ledesma Rubio, La encomienda de Zaragoza de la Orden de San Juan de Jerusalén en los siglos XII y XIII (Zaragoza, 1967), p. 110, and A. Ubieto Arteta, El real monasterio de Sigena (1188-1300) (Valencia, 1966), pp. 69, 77.

332. A.S. Atiya, The Crusade in the Later Middle Ages (London, 1938), part 2; P.A. Throop, Criticism of the Crusade (Amsterdam, 1940), passim.

333. e.g. at a council at Norwich in 1291 it was argued that it should be ascertained how many knights could be maintained from the revenues of the Temple and the Hospital and that this number should be kept in the East: Bartholomew Cotton, Historia Anglicana, ed. H.R. Luard (London, 1859), pp. 208-9.

334. See below, cap. IX.

335. ACA, parch. James II, no. 2360.

336. See below, p. 319.

337. ACA, parch. James I, no. 1391.

338. ACA, parch. Peter III, no. 26.

339. Miret y Sans, Les Cases, pp. 314-15; cf. ACA, parch. James I, no. 1550. On the alienation of property by the Templars elsewhere in Europe to pay off debts, see E. Berger, Les Registres d'Innocent IV, iii (Paris, 1897), 159, doc. 6237.

340. This is apparent from the surviving buildings at Gardeny, one of the most important convents in the Corona de Aragón: see J. Puig i Cadafalch, L'arquitectura romànica a Catalunya, iii (Barcelona, 1918), 424-5, 578; E. Lambert, L'Architecture des Templiers (Paris, 1955), p. 93. Inventories of Templar goods show, on the other hand, that the Order's chapels were rich in ornaments, but it is not known how these came into the Templars' possession: see 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), 391-407.

341. See below, caps. IV, VIII.
Report Spam   Logged
Hero Member
Posts: 174

« Reply #13 on: January 11, 2009, 04:10:55 am »


Expansion: (ii) The Creation of Provinces and the Foundation of Convents

[87] The development of Templar organization during the Order's early years in north-eastern Spain cannot be examined closely, for officials were not at first given precise titles; but it appears that in the beginning the Order merely appointed a number of Templars as bailiffs to collect revenues and administer the acquisitions made in a particular district. Those who are first mentioned in the sources had authority over fairly large areas, whose extent seems to have been determined by political divisions. Between 1128 and 1136 Hugh of Rigaud had charge of Templar possessions both in Catalonia and in the districts to the north of the Pyrenees, where the counts of Barcelona had political interests; (1) but neither he nor his immediate successor, Arnold of Bedocio, is mentioned in any Templar documents drawn up in Aragon or Navarre, both of which at the time of the Templars' arrival in Spain were ruled by the Aragonese house. (2) These first officials came in time to have under their command subordinate bailiffs, who were set in charge of smaller areas. Amongst such lesser officials was the Templar Raymond Gaucebert, who was frequently named in Templar documents concerning the districts of Barcelona and Vich between 1135 and 1142 and who was often given the title of 'bailiff'. (3)

As the Temple further expanded, however, a more elaborate and permanent form of organization was evolved. The early large administrative areas developed into provinces of the Order, ruled over by provincial masters, and at a more local level the basic unit of organization became the convent, a word which thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century evidence shows to have been used by the Templars to describe a community whose head was directly subject to the provincial master and was summoned [88] to provincial chapters, and whose members usually included a chamberlain and chaplain. (4)

The institution of the province, the master of which acted as the intermediary between the headquarters of the Order and individual convents, was unknown in religious orders before the twelfth century. The Hospitallers began to evolve this form of organization in the early part of that century, (5) and it was developed both by them and by the Templars as presumably the best means by which men and resources scattered through most of western Christendom could be mobilized for use in the East, besides providing an effective instrument for regulating other relationships between the centre and individual houses, as is clear from its later adoption by a number of other religious orders. (6) The alternative system of the filiation of convents, which was being developed by some orders of monks and canons in the twelfth century, might have produced regional groupings, but it would have involved too many stages in the transmission of supplies to the East, while distance and slowness of communications made direct links between the headquarters and individual convents impracticable.

The convent became the accepted basis of local Templar organization everywhere. Convents were established not only where the Templars were engaged in fighting the infidel: in Spain they were set up in areas away from the Moorish frontier, just as they were founded throughout western Europe. To what extent this policy was the result of a conscious decision is not known, but it had advantages over the alternative of concentrating the members of the Order in the districts where the struggle against the infidel was being waged and entrusting the administration of estates to Templar or lay bailiffs. Although it was wasteful of Templar manpower -- as was frequently pointed out towards the end of the thirteenth century (7) -- the presence of Templar communities throughout western Christendom no doubt helped to stimulate recruitment and bring patronage to the Order; (Cool and the dangers were avoided which would have resulted either from allowing Templar administrators to live permanently in isolation from other members of the Order or from committing the administration of distant estates entirely to laymen, who would have had personal and family interests.

The earliest reference to the province of 'Provence and certain [89] parts of Spain', which evolved out of the early administrative unit straddling the Pyrenees, occurs in 1143, when Peter of Rovira was described as 'master of Provence and a certain part of Spain'. (9) The province as it existed in the years following that date was not, however, exactly the same in extent as the earlier division, for it also included the kingdoms of Aragon and Navarre. The linking of these districts with Catalonia and Provence was presumably occasioned by the political union of Aragon and Catalonia, just as later in the twelfth century the cession of certain parts of Navarre to Castile appears to have led to the transference of Templar rights in these districts to the Castilian province. (10)

The Spanish part of the province expanded as the Christian frontiers advanced. It came to include the more southerly parts of Aragon and Catalonia in the later twelfth century and Mallorca and Valencia in the first half of the thirteenth. It was by then so large that it was decided to divide it into two provinces, by separating the Spanish possessions from those in Provence. Stephen of Belmonte -- last mentioned as provincial master in November 1239 (11) -- was still known as 'master of Provence and certain parts of Spain'; but his successor in the Spanish part of the old province, Raymond of Serra, who was in office by May 1240, (12) was given the title 'master in Aragon and Catalonia'. His authority was in fact more extensive and covered Roussillon, Navarre, Mallorca, and Valencia as well, but the change in title does mark the breakup of the former province. After 1240 the lands of the Temple in the Corona de Aragón and Navarre formed one province; (13) those in Provence constituted another. After the completion of the conquest of Valencia the only change in the extent of the Aragonese province was the temporary inclusion of certain possessions in Murcia, after the latter had been acquired by James II; but when agreement about boundaries had been reached between Aragon and Castile these reverted to the Castilian Templars. (14)

In the later part of the thirteenth century the Aragonese provincial master had over thirty convents subject to him in the Corona de Aragón, besides two in Navarre. (15) In Cataluña Vieja convents were founded at Palau, Aiguaviva, Castellón de Ampurias, and Puigreig, and further north, in Roussillon, one was established at Mas-Deu. To the west of the Llobregat, the castles of Barbará and Grañena, which had been among the Order's earliest acquisitions, became the sites of convents, as did the nearby [90] places of Juncosa and Selma. In the valley of the Segre there were Templar convents at Gardeny, Corbins, and Barbens, and on the Cinca -- a tributary of the Segre -- at Monzón. In Aragon along the Ebro valley convents were founded at Novillas, Boquiñeni, Ambel, Zaragoza, Pina, and La Zaida, and along tributaries of the Ebro at Ricla, Añesa, and apparently briefly at Luna as well, while another was set up at Huesca, to the east of Luna. In southern Aragon there were four convents in the thirteenth century -- at Alfambra, Cantavieja, Castellote, and Villel -- and five were established along the lower reaches of the Ebro -- at Miravet, Tortosa, Horta, Ascó, and Ribarroja. In the kingdom of Valencia further south, Chivert, Burriana, and the city of Valencia became sites of convents, and lastly one was established on the island of Mallorca.

It is not easy to trace the emergence of these convents. One difficulty arises from the lack of precision in the use of terms. The word most commonly employed to describe a Templar establishment was 'house' (domus, casa). In some cases a convent was being referred to, but the term was also applied to minor Templar establishments, which were dependent on a convent and not on the provincial master. The word in itself therefore does not give any indication of the nature of a Templar foundation. Similarly, the heads of convents were usually called 'commanders' or 'preceptors', but these were titles which were given to almost any Templars who were in positions of authority. Secondly, while only convents were directly subject to the provincial master, (16) the other characteristics of convents were not always peculiar to them alone. Chaplains and chamberlains are very occasionally encountered in places where convents were not established, and the heads of convents were not the only Templars who were present at provincial chapters. (17) And lastly, the early period of Templar expansion is, of course, less well documented than later periods. All that can be done therefore in tracing the development of convents is to indicate when the term 'convent' came to be used in different places, or when the sources suggest a development in organization in places where convents are known to have been founded.

Neither the term 'convent' nor the features characteristic of convents are mentioned in the sources referring to the period up to 1143, but by that date Templar communities were apparently [91] being established at Palau and Novillas and possibly at Grañena, as well as at Mas-Deu in Roussillon, which was only later incorporated into the Corona de Aragón. (18) In 1140 a sale of land was made to 'Peter master of Rovira of the same place of Palau', to Raymond Gaucebert, Raymond Arnold, and to a chaplain Pons. (19) The wording is confused: Peter of Rovira appears to be called master of Palau, although at that time he probably had authority on both sides of the Pyrenees. But the apparent reference to a master of Palau, together with the list of other Templars, including a chaplain, suggests that the origins of the convent of Palau should be traced back as far as 1140, even though the first clear indication of a Templar community there does not occur until 1151. (20) The grant of Alberite in ?1139 was similarly made to Rigald 'master in Novillas', who seems by his title to have been not merely an official responsible for certain estates, but rather the head of a community; (21) in the confirmation of this grant in ?1141 Rigald was said to be acting 'with the will of our other brothers', and this wording again suggests the existence of a Templar community at Novillas;(22) and although the term 'convent' is not applied to Novillas until 1147, (23) there is a reference to the brothers of Novillas in a document drawn up in 1143/5, (24) while there was a chaplain there in 1146. (25) The evidence concerning Grañena is more tenuous. It is merely that according to the historian of the see of Vich, who quotes a document which no longer survives, the bishop of Vich in 1136 gave permission for a certain chapel in the castle of Grañena to be served by a Templar chaplain. (26) But no commander of Grañena is known before 1181; a Templar house there is not mentioned until 1190; and the first evidence indicating that a separate convent had been founded does not occur until the beginning of the thirteenth century. (27)

From 1143 onwards the process of establishing convents was inevitably influenced by the agreement made in that year between the Templars and the count of Barcelona. Most of the places granted by the Aragonese rulers to the Temple in return for its participation in the reconquista lay near the Moorish frontier when they came into the Order's possession, and as long as they remained in the frontier region they needed to be protected against Moorish attacks. The Templars therefore quickly began to establish communities in the most important of them in order [92] not only to administer them but also to defend them against the infidel.

Although at Monzón there is no reference to a Templar community until 1153, ten years after the castle had been granted to the Order, (28) the house there was by then already sufficiently established to be looked upon as the centre of the Order in the Corona de Aragón: thus in 1153 it was said that the castle of Miravet had been granted to the 'brothers of Monzón'. (29) That this statement reflects Monzón's place in Templar organization at that time and was not merely occasioned by the circumstances of Raymond Berenguer's donation of the castle in 1143 is made clear by the wording of another document recording the grant of Alcanadre to the Order in 1155, for in this it is stated that the Templars who received the gift were acting on the advice of the brothers of Novillas, who were to administer the new acquisition, and of those of Monzón, implying that Monzón was considered to be the headquarters of the Aragonese Templars. (30)

Of the other castles granted in 1143, Corbins may quickly after its recapture have become the site of a convent, for in the dating clause of one document the year 1148 is referred to as the year in which 'García Ortiz served God in Corbins with those brothers', (31) and in the following year a bequest was made to the caballeria of Corbins. (32) But if there was then a convent there, it was apparently transferred to Gardeny after the conquest of Lérida, for in the second half of the twelfth century the commander of Gardeny conducted transactions involving property at Corbins, and at the end of the century some documents concerning rights at Corbins were being kept at Gardeny. (33) The word 'convent' is first used of Gardeny in the surviving sources in the year 1169; (34) but as early as 1151 Peter of Cartellá, who was later the head of the convent of Gardeny, was called 'master in those parts';(35) and in 1156 references occur to the master and brothers of the house of Gardeny and to a Templar chapel there. (36)

Report Spam   Logged
Hero Member
Posts: 174

« Reply #14 on: January 11, 2009, 04:11:28 am »

The convents founded along the lower Ebro at Tortosa and Miravet seem similarly to have been established soon after the conquest of this district by Raymond Berenguer IV in the mid twelfth century, although there is no specific mention of a convent at Tortosa until 1174 and at Miravet until almost the end of the century. (37) In 1156 there is a reference to Aymeric of Torreies as 'master of the brothers of the Temple in Tortosa'; (38) and nine [93] years later there seems also to have been a Templar community at Miravet, for in 1165 William Berard was master or commander of Miravet and Tortosa, with Sancho of Vergea as his deputy in Tortosa. (39) By then the centre of Templar authority along the lower Ebro had apparently been transferred to Miravet, and it is possible that this development had already taken place five years earlier, for in 1160, when Aymeric of Torreies was still master of Tortosa, Iñigo Sánchez was the official directly in charge of the Templar house there. (40) Miravet is admittedly not included in Aymeric's titles, but as all the surviving documents in which he is named are concerned with lands in Tortosa, the omission is not necessarily significant. The apparent transference of the seat of Templar administration from Tortosa to Miravet, which could have been occasioned by the strategic importance of the castle and by the fact that the Templars enjoyed full lordship there and not in Tortosa, suggests that the Templar community at Tortosa may even have been established before Miravet was acquired in 1153, for otherwise Templar power along the lower Ebro would probably from the beginning have been centred at Miravet. But if in 1165 the master of Miravet and Tortosa based his authority at Miravet, this situation may not have been maintained, for no subordinate official at Tortosa is mentioned between 1165 and 1174, even though a considerable number of documents survives from this period. The master of Miravet and Tortosa may for a time have exercised direct control over both communities. From 1174 onwards, however, there was again an official at Tortosa, and references soon begin to occur to a commander of Miravet as well. (41) Nevertheless the post of master or commander of Miravet and Tortosa was retained, and the holder of the office was apparently still considered as the head of the two convents: most of the documents concerning Templar rights in Miravet and Tortosa continued to be issued in his name, and his deputies in the two convents were on occasion called merely 'subpreceptor'. (42) And his authority was increased through the acquisition of Horta, Ascó, and Ribarroja from Alfonso II. This growth of power was reflected in a change of title: in 1192 he began to be referred to as 'commander of Miravet, Tortosa and La Ribera', and later this title was contracted to just 'commander of La Ribera'. (43) The actual administration of the newly acquired lordships at Horta and Ascó was soon delegated to subordinate [94] Templar officials. A commander had been set up at Ascó as early as 1181, when the Order held it in pledge from the king,(44) and this post was made permanent after Alfonso's grant in the following year. At Horta, a commander was named in a document which must be dated before the end of July 1193; (45) the post may, however, not have existed before 1192, for in the carta de población granted to settlers at Horta at the beginning of that year no commander is mentioned. (46) These subordinate commanders at Ascó and Horta in time became heads of convents, although there is little evidence to suggest when this development occurred. The establishment of a convent at Ascó was no doubt delayed by the temporary loss of lordship by the Templars there in the reign of Peter II. But the convents at Horta and Ascó had probably been established by 1236, after which date the office of commander of La Ribera ceased to exist. (47) The development of Templar administration at Ribarroja, the other place granted to the Order by Alfonso II in 1182, appears to have been much slower. In 1212 Templar rights there were farmed out for life; (48) no commander of Ribarroja is known until the later part of the thirteenth century; and for a time it formed part of the commandery of Ascó. (49) But in 1277 and 1307 the Templar community at Ribarroja was being assessed separately for payments to the provincial master: (50) a convent had thus by then been established there.

Templar organization in the lands acquired from the Order of Mountjoy in southern Aragon was fluid for several years after 1196. At first Templars -- often commanders of convents further north -- were placed in charge of groups of castles and lordships. In 1196 William of Peralta was commander of Novillas, Alfambra, Villel, and Teruel, and five years later he was commander of Monzón, Castellote, Cantavieja, and Villarluengo. Yet the Temple had been given these lands in order that they should be properly defended and it was therefore under an obligation to establish Templar communities as quickly as possible. It seems to have been doing so by the turn of the century. The linking of important castles in this region under the authority of one Templar did not continue after 1201, except in the case of Alfambra and Villel, which were both subject to the same official until 1207; and already before 1201 subordinate commanders, set in charge of one castle, were being appointed at Cantavieja, Castellote, Alfambra, [95] and Villel. The disappearance at Cantavieja and Castellote of officials with authority in more than one place is probably an indication that convents were by then being established in these castles. A chamberlain and five other brothers at Castellote are mentioned in a document belonging to the year 1201, (51) and at least five brothers besides the commander were living there in 1205. (52) On the other hand, there is no definite information about Templar organization at Cantavieja as early as 1201. (53) A convent at Villel, however, is mentioned as early as 1198, (54) and the continued link with Alfambra presumably means that a convent was not founded at the latter place, which was further from the frontier, until about 1207. But this cannot be proved, since there are few sources for the history of Alfambra. The commander of Alfambra was present at a provincial chapter in 1212, (55) but no specific reference to a convent there occurs before about 1230. (56)

By October of the latter year, only a few months after the conquest of Mallorca, the Templars had set up a convent on that island, (57) and before the end of the decade they had begun to found convents in the kingdom of Valencia. At the time of the treaty with the Moors of Chivert in 1234 there was already a Templar commander of Burriana, and he was apparently the head of a convent by 1239, when a chamberlain of the house of Burriana is mentioned. (58) There is also a reference in the middle of that year to a convent at Valencia, only nine months after the city's capture. (59) The creation of this convent may have been achieved by transferring most of the Templar community recently established at Burriana, since for the next two decades there appears to have been no convent at the latter place. During that period the commander of Burriana was subordinate to, and holding office from, the head of the convent of Valencia; the latter is in some documents called the commander of the 'house' -- in the singular -- of Valencia and Burriana; (60) and no minor officials are mentioned at Burriana between 1239 and 1261. At least from the latter date, however, there appear to have been convents in both Valencia and Burriana. (61) It is not clear whether the Templars also established a convent at Chivert soon after its recapture. In 1234 it was made subject to the commander of La Ribera, who controlled Templar estates along the lower Ebro; no commander of Chivert is mentioned until 1243; and there is no clear evidence of a convent there until the last quarter of the [96] century. (62) But as the office of commander of La Ribera ceased to exist after 1236, it is possible that a convent had by then been founded at Chivert.

The grants which the Aragonese rulers made to the Temple as a result of the 1143 agreement thus led to the foundation of sixteen convents -- nearly half of the total number founded by the Templars in the Corona de Aragón. The establishment of these convents provides a further illustration of the importance of the royal grants in the expansion of the Temple in the Aragonese realms; and as most of these convents were, to begin with, in the frontier region, their foundation further serves to emphasize the military importance of the Templars, who not only gave assistance in conquering territories from the Moors, but also played a significant role in ensuring that lands were not lost again to the infidel.

While from 1143 onwards convents were being set up in the newly conquered areas at places given to the Temple by the Aragonese rulers, others were being established in the more northerly parts of Aragon as the Order acquired more land mainly from private individuals; since the accumulation of property was gradual, however, the process of founding new convents was often slow. It is clear from the activities of the members of the house of Novillas that until about 1160 that convent had control of all Templar properties in Aragon and Navarre, except those on the borders of Aragon and Catalonia which were subject to the convent of Monzón. Raymond Bernard, head of Novillas before the middle of the twelfth century, was concerned with rights and properties in an area stretching from Ribaforada in Navarre to Zaragoza, and from Añesa to Calatayud; Peter Martínez, who was placed in charge of the convent in 1159, was frequently involved in transactions in Navarre as well as in Aragon; and even members of the convent who did not hold office were often engaged in business over a similarly wide area. The convent of Palau likewise probably controlled for a considerable number of years Templar rights in most of the districts of Catalonia which were in Christian hands by 1143; certainly Templar lands in the more northerly parts of Catalonia were subject to the commander of Palau at least until the later part of the twelfth century, for in 1182 that official received a grant of lands in and around Puigreig (63) and he was also present when the [97] will of the troubadour William of Bergadán -- concerned mainly with rights in the same district -- was drawn up in 1187. (64)

In these more northerly parts of the Corona de Aragón the establishment of a new convent was usually preceded by the delegation of a brother or several brothers to administer the Order's estates in a particular place. This was being done in Aragon and Navarre by the masters of Novillas before the middle of the twelfth century. As early as 1149 a brother Dominic was said to be in charge of the Order's rights at Boquiñeni, (65) and the Templar Raymond of Castellnou is mentioned consistently between 1146 and 1165 in documents concerning Templar lands in and around Huesca. Frequent references occur to a brother Ralph at Zaragoza between 1145 and 1157, and from the latter date Bernard of Salvi was in charge of Templar rights there. These officials were at first given no title -- Raymond of Castellnou was never called anything other than 'brother' or 'servant' -- but they soon came to be known as commanders. A brother Berenguer was commander of Boquiñeni in 1158,(66) and in 1162 Bernard of Salvi was called 'commander and obedientiary' of Zaragoza, (67) while from the end of 1155 references are also made to a commander of Novillas itself, in addition to the master, who was still in charge of the convent and who undertook the general supervision of properties in Aragon and Navarre. The title of commander in these instances merely denoted a Templar bailiff, subject to the master of Novillas: in 1165 the head of Novillas could still be given the title 'master of the militia of the Temple in the district of Zaragoza'. (68)

The establishment of new convents in northern Aragon, which gradually reduced the extent of Novillas's authority, appears to have taken place mainly in the second half of the twelfth century. One stage in this development is marked by the disappearance of the office of master of Novillas, which is not mentioned after 1169. (69) By then possibly three new convents had been set up in northern Aragon, for chamberlains besides commanders are mentioned at Huesca, Ambel, and Luna in 1160, 1162, and 1167 respectively. (70) The establishment of these officials may, however, mark only a stage in the development of communities independent of Novillas and not the completion of this process, for in 1162 the master of Novillas was involved with the commander and chamberlain of Ambel in buying land in the latter place. (71) And [98] if at this time Luna achieved independence of Novillas it soon became subordinate to the head of the house of Huesca. From 1174 the commander of Fluesca became known as commendator mayor and participated in the administration of Templar property in Luna; and in the early thirteenth century the establishment at Luna was abandoned. The last reference to a commander there occurs in 1217. (72) The proximity of Huesca and Luna and the limited extent of Templar rights in that region clearly meant that the maintenance of a convent in each place was not justified. While these developments were taking place in Alto Aragón convents were apparently also being founded along the Ebro valley. Although the Templar house at Zaragoza mentioned in 1170 may still have been subordinate to Novillas, there is a reference to a chamberlain there six years later. (73) And similarly although the house at Boquifleni referred to in 1170 may not have been an independent convent, there was a chamberlain there in 1183. (74) The convent which was founded at Aflesa, on the river Arba, appears to have been established rather later. No commander is known there until 1185, and there is no indication of a Templar community at Añesa until 1202. (75)

Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7   Go Up
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