[108] When, in 1115, the Saracens of Tudela signed a treaty of capitulation with Alfonso el Batallador, it was agreed by both sides that henceforth the Muslims, though subject to the king's authority generally, should retain their own criminal courts and judges, and that these should have final jurisdiction over them even in cases involving Christians:

...that they be and remain in their litigations and trials under the jurisdiction of their qadi and his lieutenants, just as in the days of Muslim rule. And if a Muslim shall have litigation with a Christian, or a Christian with a Muslim, the Muslim qadi shall render judgement to the Muslim, according to Islamic law, and the Christian judge to the Christian, according to [Christian] law.⁽¹⁾

Although the Bailiff of Játiva was the only Christian official within the kingdom of Valencia legally entitled to hear cases between Muslims in the mid-fourteenth century, no less than eighty-nine [109] percent of all such cases recorded during the decade 1355-1365 were heard by some Christian official. In fact, of the nineteen cases between Muslims summarized in the table appended to this chapter, fourteen of the trials were conducted in clear violation Muslim treaty agreements and the laws of Valencia.

In Aragon the disparity was slightly less pronounced, possibly because the royal house had begun as early as 1316 to put a stop to illegal interference in Muslim judicial matters by Christian officials.⁽³⁾ None of the cases recorded for Zaragoza violated the rights of the aljama there, and only one of nine recorded for Borja violated the privileges of that aljama. In Lérida, however, half the cases reported were counter to the law and the rights of the Muslims, and in Huesca more than two-thirds contravened the king's own provisions for the Mudéjar community there.⁽⁴⁾ The tendency in these cases was to remove jurisdiction from Muslim courts and officials and to place it in the hands of Christian ones.

Though in each of the kingdoms under the Crown of Aragon some Muslim officials had competence over cases between Muslims and Christians, in only one case (in Catalonia) between the two peoples during the entire period did a Muslim official exercise such jurisdiction. Only once did a Muslim official preside at a trial involving [110] Jews and Muslims, and then only jointly with the bailiff of the city. Most surprising of all, though a majority of Mudéjar communities enjoyed the right to try civil cases between Muslims, in Valencia they were able to exercise this right only about ten percent of the time, and in Catalonia only about fifty percent. In Aragon they did actually exercise the prerogative a majority of the time, but even here well over half the cases (about 60%) originally heard before Mudéjar officials were subsequently removed or appealed to Christian ones, making the over-all competence of the Muslim courts in Aragon even more limited than those in Catalonia.

The process by which this transition was effected, and the reasons adduced by Christian authorities for their steady encroachments upon promised Mudéjar judicial independence, will be considered in more detail subsequently. To facilitate the reader's understanding of the process, the following pages offer a description of the Christian officials involved in the administration of justice to Mudéjares and the general purview of their jurisdiction. As will be shown later, such limitations as existed in theory on the competence of a particular official bear little relation to his authority in practice. The list is thus intended merely to characterize and introduce these officials and their offices, rather than to define them. The offices themselves were not defined. The index [111] of cases provided at the end of this chapter affords a better look at the authority actually exercised by them.

The KING himself intervened in relatively few cases, although all authority over Muslims stemmed ultimately from him. He appears to have concerned himself primarily with cases in which favorites of his were concerned, such as suits involving Faraig de Belvis, or the suit of Çaat Alcafaç against the king's own mercenaries. In other cases, even those of major importance, he was generally content to allow the general bailiff or some other official to deal with the matter. In all cases, nonetheless, the king received one-fourth of the penalty ("calonia") if it was financial,⁽⁵⁾ and the whole fine in capital cases such as sodomy or miscegenation.⁽⁶⁾ Sometimes he granted his rights over the calonias to others in reward for services rendered or as a form of vassalage.⁽⁷⁾ He could and transfer jurisdiction from one qadi to another as well as from one Christian official to another.⁽⁸⁾ There are more than a few [112] cases in the registers of Muslims appealing to the king to intervene in Muslim proceedings, and it seems likely that he was thought of by the Mudéjares as fair and impartial. Certainly in those cases where he did rule (and a record is preserved) there seems to have been no tendency toward favoritism, except perhaps a slight leaning toward the Muslims.

The QUEEN was granted a great many aljamas during the course of the war, primarily to supplement her dwindling income from other sources. These included the Saracen aljamas of Tortosa, Torella, Borja, Burriana, Eshida, and Játiva, and the Jewish aljama of Valencia. Many of these remained under the control of the Queen of Aragon through the fourteenth century.⁽⁹⁾ Eleanor, during the decade in concern here, took possession of all fines collected through judicial channels, but did not personally intervene any more than her husband in juridical proceedings themselves, except in Valencia. There she demanded that Peter Boyl, the general bailiff, immediately terminate the inquisition in progress against the Muslims (see p.370) and yield to her all jurisdiction over them.⁽¹⁰⁾ She does not appear to have heard cases herself thereafter, nonetheless, but to have allowed the bailiff of the city and Muslim officials there to supervise the administration of justice.

The GENERAL BAILIFF was the official who oversaw the ordinary functioning of the laws of the realm. As the king's deputy he enjoyed particular authority over Muslims and Jews, "the king's [113] treasure." Each of the three kingdoms had a general bailiff, and in each the office was for life and salaried at 2 ,000s annually, plus "jura et castra."⁽¹¹⁾ The opportunities for increasing one's personal wealth must have been enormous. Each general bailiff was supreme in his own kingdom, and co-operation between them was effected through the king.⁽¹²⁾ Mudéjares were subject to the bailiff of the realm in which they found themselves at any given moment: Saracens from Barcelona accused of a crime in Aragon were under the jurisdiction of the General Bailiff of Aragon,⁽¹³⁾ Valencian Muslims leaving the country through Barcelona had to be certified by the General Bailiff of Catalonia,⁽¹⁴⁾ and Catalan or Aragonese Mudéjares leaving through Valencia were certified by the General Bailiff of Valencia.⁽¹⁵⁾

Particularly in Valencia, the rule of the general bailiff was ubiquitous and all-encompassing. He issued licenses to bear arms, beg alms, disregard dress codes, practice prostitution, change residence, visit enemy countries, transport merchandise, and emigrate, and he prosecuted anyone caught doing these things without [114] one of his licenses.⁽¹⁶⁾ He could bring charges against as well as try Muslims for any criminal act, and in most areas he was competent to hear civil cases involving Muslims and Christians (see below). He could seize and imprison Saracens suspected of crimes, and frequently did so, especially in cases of carnal relations between Muslims and Christians.⁽¹⁷⁾ He determined the salaries of other officers of his courts,⁽¹⁸⁾ and investigated the honesty even of Muslim legal officials. Numerous instances occurred during the decade of the general bailiff's prosecuting and fining qadis and çalmedinas for abuses of office or even simple incompetence.⁽¹⁹⁾

Peter Boyl, the General Bailiff of Valencia during most of the reign of Peter the Ceremonious,⁽²⁰⁾ made the office even more [115] powerful than it had been traditionally, through his close relationship to the king and tireless efforts to increase his own authority at the expense of that of the Governor of Valencia, Garcia de Loriz. Through Boyl's efforts a number of rights which had been removed from the office in the early years of Peter IV's rule were restored to it (e.g., the right to issue alms licenses),⁽²¹⁾ and his personal power extended far beyond the official prerogatives of the office. The king granted him personally, for instance, absolute criminal and civil jurisdiction over a number of areas of Valencia formerly not subject to the general bailiff:

    We hereby grant and concede to you and yours forever, under the agreement following, with a free and irrevocable donation, all criminal jurisdiction which does or should belong to us over the living Saracens, present or future, in the place called Alcocer, which belongs to the heir of Raymund Castellano, situated within the term of the city of Valencia, as well as that in the place called Aledua, which belongs to Berengar Fabra and Jacob Scivamur, knights, within the term of the city of Alcira. [This applies to all] the inhabitants, either inside the places and their environs, or on public roads where they do wrong, regardless of their status, or whether they are native or foreign..., saving only that [you] shall not inflict the death penalty, which we expressly reserve to ourselves..⁽²²⁾

Unlike the GOVERNOR OF VALENCIA, the GOVERNOR OF ARAGON was competent to hear Muslim cases in his courts.⁽²⁴⁾ In fact, it was so common for civil cases between Muslims to reach his court that Mudéjares began using the expense involved in travelling to and appearing in his court as a weapon against each other, bringing false accusations to bear against other Muslims they wished to incommode. In March of 1356, to put a stop to this, the king prohibited the governor from hearing any but really necessary cases between Saracens,⁽²⁵⁾ but this measure apparently failed of its effect, and in April of the same year he ordered the governor to prosecute the Moors who were using his court for their own personal vendettas.⁽²⁶⁾ In general his authority seems to have been directed [117] toward actually executing orders of the courts and guaranteeing the personal rights of Muslims accused before the law.⁽²⁷⁾ His jurisdiction did not extend outside the kingdom of Aragon.⁽²⁸⁾ The Governor of Valencia, as has been seen, had rather limited jurisdiction. Officially, his primary duty in regard to the Muslim population on of Valencia was probably the capture and prosecution of way slaves (even those not vassals of the king), which was the area where there was no dispute between him and the general bailiff.⁽²⁹⁾ Apart from these duties, the governors in both kingdoms frequently dealt with Mudéjares simply as the deputies of the king.⁽³⁰⁾

It is impossible to define clearly the duties or prerogatives of the JUSTICE OF ARAGON.⁽³¹⁾ Apart from records of his presiding at certain trials, there is so little evidence that it is impossible to infer the precise authority over Muslims enjoyed by the holder this office. In Aragon and Catalonia there were, in addition, LOCAL JUSTICES, whose salaries were paid by the citizens of the [118] town,⁽³²⁾ and who seem to have acted generally (like the Justice of Aragon) as the king's vicar in any given case involving Muslims.⁽³³⁾

Outside of Valencia, the LOCAL BAILIFF seems to have played a greater and greater role in the administration of Muslim justice as the fourteenth century progressed, possibly because he was the one official with clear jurisdiction in every Aragonese and Catalan city or town. This is suggested both by the fact that during the depopulation occasioned by the Great Plague many duties formerly discharged by other officials devolved upon town bailiffs, the one indispensable official,⁽³⁴⁾ and by the fact that the monarch made use of the local bailiff as the repository of all cases not lying under the specific competence of another judge.⁽³⁵⁾

Whatever the causes of this tendency, it made a good deal of sense. If Muslims were not themselves to have control of legal proceedings concerning them, the local bailiff was certainly the Christian official most apt to deal fairly with them: he had little to gain from harassing them, and was uniquely familiar with life in the morería, since his ordinary duties included supervision of its physical upkeep and facilities, overseeing the erection of [119] needed walls or buildings (such as carnicerías), assigning taxes assessing the property values of Muslim edifices, and safe-guarding Muslims against unjust taxation by royal officials.⁽³⁶⁾ The city of Valencia had separate bailiffs for its Christian and Muslim populations,⁽³⁷⁾ as did Borja.⁽³⁸⁾ The duties of the latter seen by the king as comprising "the exercise, on our behalf, ...of law and justice among Jews and Saracens, [in cases] among themselves or involving those who have claims against them..."⁽³⁹⁾ Peter was adamant that the particular care of Muslims by the local bailiffs should not be disturbed by other officials:

...we command that, keeping absolutely clear of all the aforesaid [duties] and similar ones which pertain to the jurisdiction or the office of the said bailiwick, you shall in no way endeavor to intervene against the said aljamas or any of their members, singly or in groups, or [interfere] with the privileges and incomes of the said bailiwick....⁽⁴⁰⁾

In Valencia the role of the local bailiff was minimized by the enormous authority of the general bailiff of the kingdom. As in Aragon-Catalonia, local bailiffs oversaw the physical upkeep of the morerías (and even assigned lands to Muslim immigrés⁽⁴⁵⁾), granted licenses, and administered justice in purely municipal matters, [121] but the general bailiff jealously guarded his prerogatives the Mudéjares, and the local bailiffs of Valencia seem to heard cases mostly involving only Christians.⁽⁴⁶⁾ It is ironic in a way that local bailiffs in Valencia did not hear Muslim cases as often as their Aragonese counterparts, since, unlike the latter, Valencian bailiffs were sometimes Muslims.⁽⁴⁷⁾

The JURISPERITI were Christian lawyers assigned to hear or assist in cases involving Muslims and Christians, or, occasionally Muslims. Muslims could not be lawyers (see Chapter VII), and hence had need of expert legal advice in their suits before Christian authorities. There is some evidence that certain Christians specialized in law relating to Muslims: Martin de la Torre appears in at least seven cases involving Muslims during the decade, in numerous localities.⁽⁴⁸⁾ Several of these cases are among the most [122] celebrated of the time, e.g., the conspiracy of Cilim, or the robbery of the king's qadi, Faraig de Belvis. His name never occurs in trials involving only Christians.

It is not possible to determine exactly the distinctions between other officers of the courts, such as the ALGUATZIRUS (cf. Castilian "alguacil"), LICENCIATUS IN LEGIBUS, JUDEX, LEGUM DOCTOR, etc. The titles themselves explain as much as can be inferred from the documents.

Even in Christian courts the administration of justice to Muslims differed from that for Christians. Jews and Muslims could not be constrained to swear upon the Gospels, and elaborate provisions were made in Aragonese codes of law for the taking of oaths from them.⁽⁴⁹⁾Nor could Christians be required to swear to or at the demand of a Muslim or Jew, but only at the behest of a judge, and only on the Gospels or the head of a Christian.⁽⁵⁰⁾

The question of witnesses was rather perplexing, and official policy on the subject varied from time to time. Under the Fueros of Aragon Christians in criminal cases had to be convicted on the testimony of two Christians, while Muslims or Jews were to be convicted by one Christian and one person of their own faith.⁽⁵¹⁾ In [123] civil cases the plaintiff had to provide one witness of his faith and one of the defendant's.⁽⁵²⁾ This latter provision was included from any concern for objectivity, but because, as the legislators commented, "if battle or ordeal were required by law of such witnesses, the Jew or Moor would never be able to find Christian witnesses to testify for them."⁽⁵³⁾ The Costums of Tortosa provided that a Christian must prove something against a Muslim with two or more Muslim witnesses, and a Muslim against a Christrian with two or more Christians.⁽⁵⁴⁾ Nevertheless, the Costums also denied to both Jews and Muslims the right to testify in capital cases such as kidnapping,⁽⁵⁵⁾ and excluded many Muslims from court by denying freedmen generally the right to testify against their padrons, and prohibiting anyone with less than fifteen morabetíns in personal wealth from bringing suit in any court.⁽⁵⁶⁾

In Majorca Saracen captives could not even bear witness against Jews, by special royal edict,⁽⁵⁷⁾ and in Valencia in the thirteenth [124] century a Muslim could be convicted of a criminal act on the testimony of two Christians alone.⁽⁵⁸⁾ But in Aragon under the reign of Peter IV the provisions of the Fueros were strictly observed regarding witnesses in criminal and civil cases: "it has always been the usage of the kingdom, according to law and custom, in civil and criminal cases involving Muslims to admit Muslim witnesses, and without the proof of Muslim witnesses never to rule on Muslim cases..."⁽⁵⁹⁾

Although Muslims could not, as has been observed, practice law, they were free to bring suit before Christian judicial officials as plaintiffs in civil suits.⁽⁶⁰⁾It was common for Muslims and Christians to file suit jointly as co-plaintiffs, or to be named as co-defendants in civil or criminal action;⁽⁶¹⁾ this implies at least generally equal footing before the law. The court sometimes appointed public defenders for individual Muslims accused of some crime,⁽⁶²⁾ and in at least one instance appointed a regular attorney for an aljama:

Since the Muslim aljama of the city [of Teruel] and its members have and intend to have numerous suits pending, both as plaintiffs and defendants, with the city and with various other persons, and since your advocacy may be extremely useful and necessary for them, we therefore direct and command you to act on their behalf in all these [cases], and in all matters to assist them and. to lend them in such suits advocacy, aid, counsel and support.⁽⁶³⁾

The king received all or part of fines collected for such offenses as assault, manslaughter, theft, adultery, fraud, malfeasance in office, etc., even when all parties involved were Muslims.⁽⁷⁰⁾Homicidia were collected from Muslims by the amin of the aljama, but turned over to the local bailiff to be employed at the king's discretion.⁽⁷¹⁾ Other fines were retained by the presiding official of the trial, or split between two when a dispute arose over jurisdiction.⁽⁷²⁾ Enforcement of fines was generally the duty of the local bailiff, but as with other police functions of the courts (i.e., apprehending the accused, enforcing subpoenas, etc.), the king employed whatever officials might be handy in a particular case.⁽⁷³⁾

The amount of fine and type of punishment for Muslims, or for [127] Christians committing crimes against Muslims, were established either by fuero or by royal edict.⁽⁷⁴⁾ An example of such an edict is published in the Appendix (C 898:222). These fines varied enormously from place to place, and are not susceptible of generalization. In most cases it is apparent that every effort was made to safeguard the physical well-being of the Muslims, even if they not accorded full equality before the law.

In at least one respect Mudéjares were better off than their Christian compatriots: they were theoretically exempt from torture and any noble who tortured a Muslim incurred no less a penalty than the loss of his lands.⁽⁷⁵⁾As in so many matters, however, there was quite a gulf between theory and practice, and there are numerous instances in the royal registers of authorization or tacit approval by the king of the torture of Muslims.⁽⁷⁶⁾ Even in cases [128] where the monarch rebukes officials for violating the law in this way the prescribed penalty is never inflicted.⁽⁷⁷⁾

On the other hand, the king's general leniency toward the Muslims was remarkable. He allowed them to bring suit in violation of statutes of limitations, justifying this on the grounds of their ignorance of the law.⁽⁷⁸⁾ And he granted pardons with amazing frequency, for every sort of crime, even those one might have thought the most execrable. Following is a table of the pardons and amnesties granted by Peter to Muslims between 1355 and 1365, with the crime for which they were granted indicated wherever possible.

All documents are from Chancery registers

Date
Document                                                Recipient                                                    Charge

Dec. 24, 1356  1379:93	Muslim soldier in king's service	unspecified
July 1, 1357 901:104	Muslim from Zaragoza	murder and escape from jail
Aug. 9, 1357 901:135	Muslim immigrants to Játiva	all crimes committed to date, including illegal emigration
Aug. 11, 1357 901:137	two Muslims of Calatayud	murder
Nov. 5, 1357 1566:154	Muslims of Teruel	murder
Feb. 9, 1358 901:269	female Muslim of Valencia	unspecified
Sept. 10, 1359 1567:128	aljama of Seta	all crimes to date
Feb. 4, 1360 1170:186	aljama of Torrellas	treason
Apr. 4, 1362 907:40	Muslim of Valencia	murder
Apr. 5, 1362 907:62	aljama of Valencia	all crimes to date
Apr. 14, 1362 907:64	Muslim of Valencia	murder*
Jan. 9, 1362 911:51	female Muslim	illicit carnal relations
Feb. 3, 1365 1387:131/1404:56	Muslim of Lérida	unspecified
June 17, 1365 1209:170	various Muslims	giving aid and counsel to runaway slaves

*This pardon was highly unusual in that it was of temporary duration ("quousque ipsum revocaverimus"), and covered only the personal safety of the recipient: after a year his goods could be inventoried and confiscated as penalty for the crime.  During the validity of the pardon, moreover, the Muslim could make no effort to defend himself:  "...non possis crimine vel bonis aut aliter iudicaliter te defendere ullo modo, sed processus quivis iudicialis et extra iudicialis contra te et tua bona hoc guidatico suspendatur, excepta bonorum annotatione et confiscatione, que post annum possit fieri..."

[131] Although the administration of justice to Muslims by the Christian hierarchy of Aragon, both secular and ecclesiastical, was generally lenient and equitable, there was one very serious point of contention which created a fundamental dissatisfaction among the Mudéjares. Muslim law ("çuna") was the foundation not only of the Islamic state, but of the Muslim religion, just as, during most of the Middle Ages, Christian law was seen as the foundation of Christian states. References to Jews and Muslims in medieval documents always refer to peoples not of differing religions, but of different laws, and this concept of legal identity was shared by the minorities themselves. In treaties of capitulation between Muslims and the conquistadores, therefore, there was nearly always a clause guaranteeing the right of the conquered peoples to their own law, the çuna, by which they regulated their personal lives as well as their communal affairs. This right was continuously upheld by the Aragonese monarchs, in theory if not in practice, and one of Peter IV's own acts was to confirm the right of all his Muslim subjects to their own law: ". . .in every sort of case, civil or criminal, you shall be judged by and according to the çuna and not by the civil law or any other law or custom of the land...."⁽⁷⁹⁾

Yet Muslims were manifestly not judged according to the çuna in a great many cases, as will be obvious from the table appended to [132] this chapter, unless one assumes that Christian judges were conversant with Islamic law. This is, of course, the main reason for the effort on the part of the aljamas to safeguard the prerogatives of the qadi and to be able to nominate him themselves (see Chapter II). If the majority of cases involving Muslims were not heard by qadis or Muslim officials, the majority of cases were not decided according to the çuna. It is true that some Muslims preferred civil law to their own, either as a means of independence from the rule of the aljama, or because the penalties under the çuna were more severe than corresponding ones under the Christian fueros,⁽⁸⁰⁾but in the vast majority of cases Muslims found themselves subject to Christian law through simple usurpation by civil authorities. In a few cases the monarchy intervened to protect Muslim rights in the matter,⁽⁸¹⁾ but the king himself constantly violated or overrode Islamic laws in matters such as inheritance, public religious [133] observance, and sexual mores.⁽⁸²⁾

James II was the first to alter the legal position of Muslims on a general scale. In 1316 he issued an edict establishing new guidelines for trials involving Muslims in all his kingdoms. Briefly put, these provided that in the future all civil cases involving only Muslims or Muslims and Christians should be heard before Muslim judges and determined according to Islamic law (çuna), but that criminal cases were to be heard by Saracen qadis only when they involved a Muslim defendant and plaintiff; if the plaintiff was a Christian and the defendant a Muslim, the case was to be handled by Christian officials of the place where the crime occurred, according to the laws of Aragon.⁽⁸³⁾Although this decree confirmed by subsequent monarchs (e.g., Peter IV in April, 1362), it had been superseded almost immediately by another disposition of James himself in 1319, this time placing all jurisdiction over Muslims in criminal cases in the hands of the Justice of Aragon, and jurisdiction in civil ones under the general bailiff: [134]

...but the judging and sentencing of such crimes shall be effected by you, the aforesaid justice, with proper recognition of [any] privileges granted to the Saracens which have been in effect to date. In other cases the said bailiff shall exercise jurisdiction over the Saracens, as properly pertains to his office.⁽⁸⁴⁾

...the said General Bailiff of the kingdom of Aragon, present or future, and no other official, shall hear all litigations and cases, civil and criminal, brought to or due for trial in regular fashion and involving Christians, Jews, Muslims, or any combination thereof. He shall bring them to a just conclusion and rule on them as their merits demand, freely exercising absolute jurisdiction even over Jews and Saracens.⁽⁸⁵⁾

To a certain extent this lack of consistency in application of juridical norms may have been due to genuine misunderstanding and confusion. Though the edict of 1351 may seem clear in retrospect and was certainly widely disseminated,⁽⁸⁷⁾ there was controversy about its text as little as six years after its promulgation, and the king had to clarify its meaning to prevent abuses of authority and damage to Muslim interests.

    It has recently been pointed out to us on behalf of the said general bailiff that when Christians are the plaintiffs [in such cases], such Christians and some Jews and Saracens, ignoring the aforesaid provision and declaration [of 1351], obtain from us diverse letters of commission for officials and judges other than the general bailiff [to rule on] civil and criminal cases which these Christians have against Jews or Saracens, or which the Jews and Saracens have against each other. By this means the Jews and Saracens are oppressed with various injuries, and the authority of the bailiff, who ought to be regarded as their ordinary, is considerably demeaned [136] and visibly diminished. We wish therefore.. .the said provision and declaration to be observed absolutely, and we hereby revoke any and all commissions granted by us or the Governor of Aragon in the past or future to any official or person... if they in any way seem to contradict the said provision and declaration, unless that letter is contained in them word for word.⁽⁸⁸⁾

Zaragoza also enjoyed particular municipal privileges. James had granted its qadi the same authority enjoyed by that of Huesca in 1298,⁽⁹²⁾ but as in the case of the latter, this concession had been officially ignored in later years. In 1346 Peter allotted the Christian merinus of the city the rights over Muslim criminal jurisdiction enjoyed by local Christian officials elsewhere in the realm, together with cases involving only Muslims.⁽⁹³⁾ This usurpation, unopposed by the Zaragoza aljama, was confirmed in 1358 and 1365, and extended to include the rector in the former year.⁽⁹⁴⁾ On the other hand, the city's Muslim inhabitants were exempt by royal decree from the jurisdiction of the governor and general bailiff, [138] who had ultimate authority elsewhere in the kingdom,⁽⁹⁵⁾ and lords in the areas of Zaragoza were prohibited from appointing judges to rule on cases involving the city's Mudéjar population, as they did in other places.⁽⁹⁶⁾

The general lack of consistency in official policy in this matter was further complicated for the Mudéjares (and historians) by various specific royal decrees which indirectly impinged on the authority of one official or other, as when, for instance, Daroca was exempted from a general inquisition being conducted against Muslims during the years 1361-1363, and no one but the bailiff of the city was allowed to conduct trials involving Muslims unless the king himself was present in the city;⁽⁹⁷⁾ or when the Jews and Muslims of Ejea requested and obtained from the king a general dispensation from the authority of the Governor of Aragon (n.b.), since they had to travel to dangerous places on business and (presumably) needed more immediate attention. They were placed under the personal jurisdiction of Luppus de Gurrea, a friend of the Court. All cases involving them, whether with Muslims, Christians, or Jews, were liable to him, and he was to deal with them "de foro et ratione ac secundum ritum judeorum et çunan sarracenorum."⁽⁹⁸⁾

There is less information about this issue in Catalonia generally.⁽⁹⁹⁾ In Tortosa a case between an exaricus and his lord was decided by a Christian or Muslim judge depending on the religion of the plaintiff:

And if there should happen to arise between the lord and his exaricus a complaint or suit, the lord should file, lodge, witness and settle the suit under the authority of the Muslim qadi both in its first hearing and in any appeals, and [likewise] any suits in reference to an original exarequia between them which the lord may bring against his exaricus.

But if the exaricus brings suit against his lord, it should be heard and decided in a Christian court, and brought to a conclusion [there].⁽¹⁰⁰⁾

I decree that if any Christian or Jew shall have litigation with any Saracen of Lérida or with any Saracen who comes to Lérida, he shall take it before the çalmedina or qadi established for the Saracen aljama of Lérida, and shall make his case directly before them: no Saracen shall be summoned before a Christian or Jewish court except by the çalmedina or qadi of the aljama. And in case a contest or dispute should someday arise or be brought up between the said adelantati and aljama and the Bailiff of Lérida about whether, by virtue of the words of the decision above, the aforesaid aljama is completely exempt, or should be exempted from trial or judgement of the Bailiff of Lérida, it is just so: the said bailiff may not proceed against them for any crime or misdemeanor, nor interfere in any way with them, in civil cases or criminal ones ⁽¹⁰¹⁾

...we hereby provide that henceforth the said aljama and [141] its members shall try every case, civil or criminal, before the qadi or çalmedina of the said aljama, present or future, so that the said Bailiff of Lérida, present or future, shall not be competent to intervene in any of the aljama's cases, civil or criminal, or those of its members; rather, the said qadi and çalmedina, present and future, shall render justice in such cases according to their law, and punish as they shall deem fit. And we wish this decree to be obeyed and observed exactly, whatsoever commissions, processes, customs, and practices to the contrary notwithstanding in any way...
 
We therefore hereby command our Governor General and his Lieutenant in Catalonia, and the Vicar and Curia of Lérida, as well as the said Bailiff of the city, and our other officials and subjects, present and future, under penalty of 500 morabetíns of gold (to be collected by our treasurer as often as the edict is violated), that they observe firmly and honor this concession, interpretation, declaration and confirmation of ours, and that our officials cause it to be honored and observed inviolately, and not transgress it for any reason.
 
And that the foregoing may enjoy greater vigor, we swear before the Lord God and upon His four holy Gospels, touching them at this very moment, to honor and observe forever all these things in every detail, and to cause them to be observed, just as they are set out above.
 
Moreover, since we desire this concession, interpretation, and confirmation for the said aljama to be observed effectively and always, particularly by the said Bailiff, present or future, we command under the same penalty that the said Bailiff, either the one now in office or those who shall hold the office after him, shall have to swear on the said four holy Gospels of God to observe all that which is disposed above before they may exercise their office. And we also wish the said officials and their deputies to lend the said qadi, çalmedina, and adelantati of this aljama their counsel, help, and favor in exercising their aforesaid jurisdiction, if and when they shall have need of it.
 
It is, nonetheless, our intention that in whatever judgements or sentences pronounced or promulgated by the said qadi, çalmedina, and adelantati of the aljama on any matter, as well as in the trials hereafter conducted [by them], our Fiscalis of Lérida, present or future, shall be obliged to watch out for our interests and the maintenance of our rights, and this Fiscalis shall receive any portion belonging to us from such proceedings, in our name, and will not fail to be responsible for it to [our] treasurer.⁽¹⁰²⁾

In striking contrast to the situation in Aragon, the civil and criminal jurisdiction over Valencian Mudéjares was very nearly uniform and clearly understood by all parties. Prior to 1298 the procurator general had exercised this authority, but in that year James II constituted the General Bailiff of Valencia as permanent and ultimate judge of all civil and criminal cases involving the Muslim population of royal or ecclesiastical lands.

Although the hearing and deciding of all litigations and cases, civil and criminal, of the Saracens of Valencia is considered to be the prerogative of the procurator general, we now think it desirable to establish that in all such cases of Saracens residing in our lands or those of the Church or an [143] Order, the said general bailiff shall nevertheless hear and rule and give sentence on them, and no other official may hear them or intervene in any of them.⁽¹⁰⁵⁾

On his accession to the throne, Peter the Ceremonious refined slightly the claims of the office of the general bailiff, specifying that he could conduct trials against Muslims only when he proceeded "without profit or salary, and with minimum expenses," and allowing the qadi primary jurisdiction in civil cases involving only Muslims within the aljama.⁽¹⁰⁶⁾ In 1355 he introduced further [144] modifications designating the king's qadi (cf. Chapter II) as the sole judge in criminal cases involving only Muslims.⁽¹⁰⁷⁾

But in general the authority of the bailiff tended to increase rather than decrease, and the office was clearly the focal point of all legal transactions involving Moors. After a series of disputes, for instance, between the governor and procurator general over the right to try the Muslims of nobles, the king transferred jurisdiction over them from the procurator to the general bailiff in all cases where they committed crimes in areas under royal control.⁽¹⁰⁸⁾ As of 1357 the bailiff could try even civil cases between Muslims within the aljama of Játiva,⁽¹⁰⁹⁾ and from 1359 he alone could hear cases involving Jews and Saracens or Christian plaintiffs against non-Christian defendants.⁽¹¹⁰⁾ In outlying towns Muslims enjoyed [145] the privilege of not being judged outside their communities, nor could the procurator, under whose jurisdiction they were compromised if they were not royal or ecclesiastical serfs, enter their courts. The bailiff, on the other hand, could exercise his authority there without restriction.⁽¹¹¹⁾

Other officials did retain some competence in the face of the increasing concentration of power in the hands of the bailiff. Nobles in Valencia could hold trials of their own Saracens, or appoint notaries to do so,⁽¹¹²⁾ and in the larger cities both in officials and the Christian municipal bailiffs continued to conduct trials and exercise juridical authority.⁽¹¹³⁾But the balance of power in Valencia was clearly shifting to the general bailiff throughout the century, and there seems to have been a deliberate effort on the part of the Crown to strip both the governor and procurator general of all judicial authority over the Muslims, or at least to circumscribe their competence severely.

However, the disparity between official pronouncements and actual practice was so great that the intention of the king was a matter of scant importance in the legal affairs of Mudéjares. [146] The table appended to this chapter provides an index of cases involving Muslims which appear in Chancery registers from 1355 to 1366. Of the cases of civil and criminal litigation between Christians and Muslims in Valencia the general bailiff heard only one more than the governor: obviously the king's efforts to give the bailiff predominance had little immediate effect, despite the very clear intention of the law in enjoining the governor from interfering in such cases. Moreover, in flagrant violation of legal principles centuries old and continuously upheld by the monarchy, both the general bailiff and the governor constantly intervened in cases involving only Muslims, even civil suits. They heard nearly a third of such cases in Valencia during the period in question.

During the war, when the king was under constant stress and badly needed the support of the Mudéjares, numerous aljamas took advantage of the situation and wrested from the harried suzerain guarantees of their right to be judged according to Islamic law. The registers of the Chancery record such demands from the communities of Paterna, Mericis, Crevillente, Elche, Artana, Valencia, Játiva, Castre, Alfandequiella, Aspe, Espada, Enveyo, Benicandut, Alcudia, Xenguer, and Ayhi.⁽¹¹⁴⁾ It is undoubtedly significant that all of these aljamas are Valencian. In Aragon the usurpation [147] of Mudéjar judicial authority was enormously less; in Catalonia there was virtually no abridgement of legal autonomy. Moreover, the war generally weakened the position of the Aragonese aljamas, and even if they had wished to correct abuses they were not in a good position to do so. The Valencian Muslims suffered the greatest abridgement of their freedoms throughout the thirteenth and early fourteenth century, and by a kindly turn of fate were the segment of the population most able to take advantage of the war between Aragon and Castile in the mid-fourteenth century. They found themselves in a position to better their legal status, and they took it.

The index of cases on the following pages provides a closer look at the workings of Aragonese justice in regard to Mudéjares. It should be obvious from this table that general pronouncements about jurisdiction over the Muslims would be of limited value. This very fact testifies to the very great degree of inter-dependence of the Muslim and Christian communities generally, and to the necessity of a system of justice loose and diverse enough to accommodate the complexity of Iberian convivencia. It seems likely that the discrepancies between official theory and daily practice worked to the advantage of the Muslims as much as to their disadvantage. There are relatively few cases of complaints about usurpation of jurisdiction, and in quite a number of cases Muslims clearly preferred [148] Christian justice to Islamic courts, possibly due to procedural limitations on the administration of justice against Muslims by Christians. In short, despite the widespread violation of post-reconquest promises of judicial autonomy, the system of interlocking justice prevailing under the Crown of Aragon in the fourteenth century may represent a successful departure from the general pattern of institutional separation between Christians and Muslims, a departure which operated to the satisfaction of a considerable proportion of both communities.

[149] CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF ALL CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES INVOLVING MUSLIMS IN THE DOCUMENTS OF THE ROYAL CHANCERY BETWEEN 1355 AND 1366

It is likely that a number of civil cases involving only Mudéjares in Catalonia did not find their way into Chancery records, since there was less Christian interference in Muslim judicial process in Catalonia than in the other lands of the Crown, and since some cases heard by local Muslim officials might have left no record outside the Muslim courts. That such was the case outside of Catalonia, or even in Catalonia generally, does not seem at all likely. It would be a mistake to imagine the legal system of Aragon in the fourteenth century as comparable to the vast jungle of litigation known today, or even as similar to the far-ranging and relatively well-organized system of courts in France or England the time of this study. The legal system of the Aragonese Crown operated less efficiently and on a much smaller scale. During the period in question the population of Aragon-Catalonia-Valencia, always small by comparison (even to that of Castile), was even further reduced by the plague. All cases involving any important crime, and very nearly all cases involving Christians or Jews as well as Muslims, necessarily drew attention and the notice of higher officials.

Moreover, the nature of the cases recorded argues strongly that nearly all cases left records in the Chancery. Those listed below, for example, are for the most part far from being in any way remarkable. Many of them were, in fact, heard by local Muslim officials, and need have left no record. In relatively few of the [150] cases is a specifically royal court involved, and even when the king himself heard a case, it was scarcely of so dramatic or urgent a nature that one might infer that only the most remarkable or important cases found their way into the monarch's purview (n.b. cases 711:133, p.l53; 1070:50, p.158; 1210:85, p.162). Quite to the contrary, the great diversity of officials involved in the proceedings, and the enormous variety of cases presented, testify to the very great percentage of cases which must have found their way into Chancery records.

Furthermore, in the majority of cases the material used as a basis for the table has been drawn from documents which do not deal overtly with the trial or suit in question, but only mention it by way of enforcing the decree of the presiding official, requesting or demanding payment of the official's salary, ordering the original trial to be reopened under new supervision, or instructing officials to honor a property settlement arranged during the course of some litigation. It is significant in this context that royal decrees ensuring enforcement of judicial process were often issued for cases involving only Muslims and ruled upon by qadis.

Perhaps most to the point, the evidence presented herein supports strongly the general picture drawn in the preceding chapter on the basis of other types of records and documents: if Chancery documents do not provide a complete list, it appears that they at least give a representative sample.

[151] EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

All documents are from the Chancery registers of the Archive of the Crown of Aragon

"place" designates the location of primary jurisdiction, i.e., the scene of the crime or the residence of the parties bringing suit; it is not the point of execution of the document cited

titles of officials in quotation marks are those employed in the document itself

BGA = General Bailiff of Aragon
BGV = General Bailiff of Valencia
FdB = Faraig de Belvis, the "king's qadi" It is not clear whether in all cases heard by de Belvis he acted as "king's qadi" or not: wherever the document itself indicated the precise nature of his authority in specific cases it has been noted.
GV = governor of Valencia
JP = Jurisperitus
Just. Arag. = Justice of Aragon
"Bailiff" without other designation refers to the bailiff of the city of primary jurisdiction
"qadi" without other designation refers to the qadi of the aljama if the city of primary jurisdiction

    the sign { joining them indicates they shared jurisdiction equally

    the sign X separating them indicates that jurisdiction was disputed between them; the name following the sign # is
          the name of  the official who ultimately won the dispute and heard the case

the numbers 1., 2., etc., before an official indicate primary and secondary jurisdiction: the case was heard by 1. and. appealed
    to 2.; wherever the documents reveal the identity of the appellant it has been noted

Cases between Muslims

Source
Date                                                           Presiding
Place                                                          Official                                                  Crime or subject of litigation

688:160* Feb. 16, 1357 Huesca	JP	murder of one Muslim by another
691:34 June 21, 1357 Borja	faqi # "auditor curie"	civil suit between two Muslims
692:182 Aug. 18, 1357 Borja	Abdalla de Galip	civil suit between FdB and his procurator
699:131 Jan. 13, 1360 Borja (?)	FdB as faqi	civil case between two Muslims
700:188+ Mar. 6, 1360 Brea	qadi # { faqi, king	breach of promise suit by Muslim against erstwhile fiancée
703:43 June 17, 1360 Borja	FdB # Merinus of Zaragoza # bailiff	unspecified suit between Muslims
704:68 Aug. 19, 1360 Borja	Blasius Eximinus	suit by two Muslims vs. the faqi of the aljama
1073:5 Dec. 17, 1360 Zaragoza	JP	Crown vs. aljama
706:122 July 12, 1361 Zaragoza	qadi # JP	suit over property between Muslims; removed from qadi at request of plaintiffs
1183:118 Nov. 18, 1362 Daroca	bailiff (?)	civil suit between Muslims
711:133 Jan. 20, 1363 Zaragoza	king	suit between Muslims
715:56 Oct. 15, 1363 Huesca	1. FdB as qadi 2. JP	suit vs. Muslim adelantati by qadi
1197:9 Feb. 23, 1364 Huesca	1. FdB as qadi 2. Çalema del Rey	suit between Muslim and his father-in-law
1197:19 Feb. 26, 1364 Buruaguena	JP	suit against female Muslim by aljama over back taxes
719:106 Feb. 12, 1365 Zaragoza	qadi	civil suit vs. Muslim and his wife by another Muslim

* Text in Appendix.
+ Cf. C 699:297 (Apr. 11, 1360).

Cases involving Muslims and Jews

Source
Date                                                            Presiding
Place                                                           Official                                                  Crime or subject of litigation

686:180 Apr. 1, 1356 Tarazona	{ bailiff, J. Ferdinand	property dispute between Jews of Tarazona and Muslims of Malon
1566:65, 106 June 8, 1356 Tarazona	1. queen's bailiff* 2. JP	unspecified suit against Jew by two Muslims
687:189 Nov. 29, 1356 Ariza	BGA	dispute over property between Muslim couple and Jew
1566:115 Mar. 4, 1357 Tarazona	bailiff	complaint by Muslims that Jews lent money in violation of royal ordinances
691:127 Oct. 23, 1357 Zaragoza	Just. Arag.	carnal relations of Jewess with Christains and Muslims
701:16 May 6, 1360 Borja	local justice	financial dispute between Jews and Muslims
701:16 May 6, 1360 Borja	{ faqi, bailiff	financial dispute between one Jew and one Muslim
705:138 June 12, 1361 Calatayud	"judex curie regis"	disputed debts between Jews and Muslims
707:193 Apr. 9, 1362 Borja	local justice+	murder of Jew by two Muslims

* The bailiff delegated his authority in this case to an official styled "eximius," who conducted the trial in the name of the bailiff and the procurator general.
+ The widow of the murdered Jew had unsuccessfully attempted to obtain justice first from the qadi and amin of the town where the accused were living.

Cases involving Muslims and Christians

Source
Date                                                           Presiding
Place                                                          Official                                                  Crime or subject of litigation

686:16 Oct. 24, 1355 Ricla	procurator	unspecified charges vs. Christian and Muslim
684:196 Apr. 2, 1356 Borja	BGA	suit vs. Fratres Minores by aljama of Borja regarding property
687:84 July 12, 1356 Huesca	merinus*	murder of Christian by Muslim
688:145 Jan. 31, 1357 Zaragoza	JP	civil suit by Muslim for exemption from taxes of aljama
691:31 June 2, 1357 ?	king	murder of Muslim by Christians
695:60 Jan 31, 1359 Huesca	king+	murder of Muslim and wounding of his companions by Christians
983:188 Feb. 20, 1359 Ricla	Just. Arag. X lord of Ricla #king	murder of Christian by Muslim
696:184 Apr. 5, 1359 Zaragoza	1.Just. Arag. 2. P. de Casseda, "miles"	complaint vs. Muslim by Christian; appeal by Muslim
1567:156 Jan. 13, 1360 Huesca	bailiff*	unspecified prosecution of aljama by the city
1071:96 Jan. 25, 1360 Aranda	"capitaneus of Aranda"	carnal relations of female Muslims with Christain males
699:169 Feb. 15, 1360 Calatayud	bailiff	civil suit by tax collector to collect back salary from aljamas
699:217 Apr. 18, 1360 Quadret	Liet. Just. Arag.	civil suit vs. Christian and the Muslim aljama of Quadret by Christain plaintiff
703:77 July 8, 1360 Letun	Peter Avarchus	unspecified suit between P. Eximin d'Eleson and Muslim aljama of Letun
1071:192 July 17, 1360 Zaragoza	Peter de Salanova	carnal relations of Muslim and Jewish males with Christian females
702:163 May 4, 1361 Tamarit	JP	civil suit by domestic of the king against the aljama of St. Stephen
705:150 June 26, 1361 Borja	Vice-governor of Aragon # local justice	complaint of Christian vs. Muslims who aided in the escape of Muslim captive
706:197 Oct. 21, 1361 Calatayud	Just. Arag.	civil suit with Muslim and Christian co-plaintiffs
705:157 July 5, 1361 Quartel	Justice of Sagunto	"state" vs. Muslim
711:194 Mar. 4, 1363 Monzón	alguatzirus	robbery of Muslim by Christian
711:185 Mar. 20, 1363 Barbastro	king	unspecified charges vs. Muslim by Christian
717:82 May 28, 1364 Huesca	1. judex 2. JP of Zaragoza	unspecified complaint vs. Muslim by Christian; appeal by Muslim
725:21 Feb. 25, 1366 Monzón	alguatzirus	carnal relations of male Muslim with female Christian

* This document terminated the proceeddings without a ruling.
+ The investigation and preliminary hearings in this case were conducted by a local justice; the final ruling was given by the king.

[158] CATALONIA

Cases involving Muslims and others

Source
Date                                                            Presiding
Place                                                           Official                                                   Crime or subject of lititgation

684:196 May 19, 1356 Teruel	local justice	suit by Jewish and Muslim aljamas for the removal of court-appointed scribanus
1566:48 May 27, 1356 Teruel	bailiff	carnal relations of female Muslim with Christian males
688:18 Aug. 2, 1356 Figueras	{Prince John {alguatzirus {JP of Perpignan	assault against Muslims by Christians
1566:75 Sept. 15, 1356 Teruel	bailiff	carnal relations of female Muslim with Christian males
1154:88 Feb. 28, 1358 ?	"legum doctor"	carnal relations (?) of female Muslim with non-Muslim males
692:36 Feb. 7, 1357 Lérida	"judex et auditor curie"	carnal relations of Muslim male with Christian female
1070:50 Oct. 28, 1357 ?	king	carnal relations of two females Muslims with Christian males
983:5 Dec. 3, 1358 Lérida	qadi	non-payment of debt owed to cleric by aljama
906:133 Dec. 15, 1361 Barcelona	Guillelmus de Figaria	illegal seizure of emigrating Muslims (suit brought by the Muslims themselves)
909:154 July 11, 1364 Barcelona	king	criminal negligence charges vs. Muslim doctor in treating a Christian
721:88 Dec. 3, 1364 Lérida	JP	murder of Jews by Christians and Muslims
691:231 May 17, 1358 Lérida	bailiff*	wounding of one Muslim by another
1073:6 Dec. 17, 1360 Teruel	{JP {king's procurator	corruption in office
1183:139 Nov. 26, 1362 Lérida	FdB	dispute over dowry, involving qadi of Lérida as defendant

* The bailiff was subsequently fined by the king 100 morabetins for violating the laws of Catalonia, which provided that all cases involving Muslims should be tried before the Muslim qadi

[160] VALENCIA

Cases involving Muslims and others

Source
Date                                                            Presiding
Place                                                           Official                                                   Crime or subject of litigation

683:5 Oct. 27, 1355 Valencia	BGV	dispute over rights to Muslim market between Bishop of Valencia and the Abbess of St Elizabeth
1068:45 Dec. 13, 1355 ?	BGV	selling of captured Christians and illegal arms to Granada by Muslims
686:92 Jan. 2, 1356 Valencia	undecided	tresspass and assault vs. Christian committed by Muslims
684:105 Jan. 22, 1356 Chiva, Godela, Penxissa	1. GV 2. king	sentences vs. aljamas and universities of the cities by GV appealed; original charges not specified
687:17 Apr. 15, 1356 Madrona-Borral	JP	suit by aljama vs. Christian for harassment suffered during revolt of the union
1380:108 Dec. 19, 1356 Valencia	king	carnal relations of Mulim male and Christian female
901:241 June 22, 1357 Castellón	GV	theft of a purse from Christian woman by two Muslims
691:84 Aug. 14, 1357 Valencia	portarius	carnal relations of female Muslims with Christian males
691:114 Oct. 11, 1357 Valencia	Lady Timbors X GV # ?	carnal relations of female Muslims with Christian males
1566:175 Jan. 18, 1358 Penaquibus	bailiff*	theft by Muslim
691:153 Jan. 18, 1358 Játiva	notary	civil suit between Muslim and Christian over property rights
693:100 Jan. 22, 1358 Játiva	bailiff	civil suit between Muslim and bailiff regarding will
691:199 Feb. 26, 1358 Valencia (?)	"legum doctor"	civil suit vs. female Muslim by Christian nobles
695:190 Sept. 24, 1359 Sagunto	{"legum doctor" {judex #Prince Ferdinand	murder and rape of Christian women by Muslims
1071:76 Oct. 24, 1359 Valencia	BGV	carnal relations of Christian women with Muslim male
699:226 Apr. 20, 1360 Valencia (?)	Luppus de Forbes	murder of Christian by Muslims
1569:76 Dec. 12, 1360 Valencia	queen	suit against queen's procurator by Muslim
710:31 Mar. 2, 1362 Valencia	BGV	murder of Muslim by Jew
707:140 Mar. 18, 1362 Valencia	Justice of Alcira # 2 Valencian Christians # vice-Gv # "legum doctor" # BGV # JP	dispute over Muslim accused of treason and claimed as captive by Christian plaintiff
714:165 Nov. 15, 1363 Valencia	GV+	illegal export wheat by Muslims
1210:85 Apr. 26, 1365 Artana	king	theft of mules by Muslim muledrivers
1209:108 May 13, 1365 Sera	BGV	suit by Muslims vs. the rector of the church of Seta
1209:128 June 3, 1365 Perpunxen	GV	capture of Christians by Muslims
1211:97 June 16, 1365 Valencia	scribe	capture of Christian scout by Muslims
720:39 Sept. 1, 1365 Morella	king	robbery perpetrated vs. Muslims by Christians
1208:77 Sept. 6, 1365 Valencia	Liet.-justice of Valencia	dispute between Barcelona merchant and Muslim whom he claims as slave
986:66 Sept. 19, 1365 Valencia	king	suit against two Christians by Muslims%
986:93 Oct. 3, 1365 Valldigna	Abbot of Valldigna	treason of Muslim serfs of the monastery

* The bailiff was fined for unlawfully hearing this case, which belonged to the jurisdiction of the qadi
+ A suit was initiated against the governor by the lord of the Muslims, asserting that his prosecution of them was illegal; the
        king ruled against the governor.
% The accused Christians were summoned and appeared, but the Muslim's plaintiffs did not; the king brought charges of
        harassment against the Muslims.

[163] VALENCIA

Cases between Muslims

Source
Date                                                            Presiding
Place                                                           Official                                                   Crime or subject of litigation

684:207 Apr. 16, 1356 Valencia	BGV	property dispute
1068:134 June 16, 1356 Valencia	GV	adultery of male Muslim
899:41 July 28, 1356 Valencia	BGV	adultery of female Muslim
692:155 July 20, 1357 Valencia	{B. Vinus {procurator fiscalis	unspecified charges vs. converso
692:182 July 20, 1357 Valencia	Abdalla de Galip	fraud perpetrated vs. FdB in property sale
901:276 Feb. 11, 1358 Valencia	BGV	illegal alms-begging
693:110 Feb. 12, 1358 Valencia	alguatzirus	murder of one Muslim by another
700:60 Nov. 15, 1359 Valencia	king	civil suit vs. Çaat Alcafaç by Muslim mercenaries
709:37 Aug. 9, 1361 Algar-Quartell	{"legum doctor" {JP # Justice of Sagunto	highway robbery
706:176 Aug. 12, 1361 Mizlata	1. judex 2. licenciatus in legibus	unspecified charges vs. Muslim official; appealed on his behalf by notary
907:40 Apr. 4, 1362 Valencia	BGV	murder
714:137 Sept. 14, 1363 Zaragoza*	JP of Valencia	treason
986:86 Oct. 2, 1365 Segorbe	alguatizirus	treason (?)
1204:86 Apr. 25, 1365 Játiva	king	suit vs. former qadi and current lieutenant-qadi by wife of current qadi, FdB
1205:71 May 8, 1365 Valencia	king's treasurer+	unspecified charges vs. Muslim
1210:94 May 21, 1365 Castre	GV # licenciatus in legibus	unspecified charges vs. Çaat Alcafaç
1206:18 Aug. 8, 1365 Catre	licenciatus in legibus	theft
1206:84 Sept. 12, 1365 Valencia	Çaat Alcafaç	civil suit between FdB on behalf of his wife and Hacen Alcomoch

* Although the Muslims involved were subject to the Archbishop of Zaragoza, the king apperntly considered their place of
    residence (Onda, in Valencia) to constitute the most important sriterion in assigning primary jurisdiction.
+ The treasurer employed as his subdelegate Raymund Tolosanus, here styled "legum professor"; this same R. Tolosanus was
    the "licenciatus" referred to in the following entry.

1. "...quod sint et stent illos in judicio et pleytos in manu de lure alcudi, et de lures alguaziles, sicut in tempus de illos moros fuit. Et si habuerit moro judicio cum christiano, vel christianus cum moro, donet judicium alcudi de moros ad suo moro, secundum suam zunam, et alcudi de christianos ad suum christianum secundum suum foro," Muñoz y Romero, Colección, p.416.

2. E.g., that of Chivert: ". . .contencio vel querela inter christianos et sarracenos vel iudeos alfachinus alcaydus iudicet sarracenus, secundum legem suam, et christianus baiulus templi iudicet christianos et iudeos" Roca Traver, "Un Siglo," p.73, n.217; cf., for Játiva: "Si aliquis christianus conqueratur de sarraceno recipiat iusticie complementum in posse çaymedine vestre, secundum çunam sarracenorum" ibid., n.218. Cf., for Lérida (1228), Villanueva, Viage, XVI, p.181.

3. C 907:58 (Jan. l, 1316).

4. One-third of the recorded cases violate the provisions of James II , and another third the grant of Peter IV (both of these discussed low), even though they take place within a few years of the issuance of the latter. Of all the cases recorded, only two (C 715:56 and C 1197:9) seem to conform to the law. All of the data upon which the observations on these pages is based are summarized in the table at the end of this chapter.

5. Roca Traver, "Un Siglo," pp.68-9.

6. Macho y Ortega, "Condición," p.179.

7. E.g., the grant to Blasius Acenarius de Lorau of those of Daroca in return for two cavalrymen: ". . . concedimus vobis predictos denarios quos pro nobis habeatis teneatis et percipiatis in et super dicta aljama sarracenorum predicte ville [Daroce] et caloniis ipsius dum vitam duxeritis in humanis, ac si et prout dictus Sanctius de Martes a nobis ipsos habebat et percipiebat, pro quibus servitium duorum equitorum armatorum nobis facere teneamini juxta forum. . ." C 966:74 (Feb.23, 1358).

8. In 1365, for example, the king removed the Muslim population of the valley of Almonacir from the jurisdiction of Segorbe and constituted a new jurisdiction for them within the valley, prohibiting any further extradition of them to Segorbe: C 1205:69 (Apr.7). He could not, however, grant an elongamentum (prorogation) for a fine already imposed by a qadi: C 719:106 (Feb.12, 1365).

9. Macho y Ortega, "Documentos," p.l48.

10. C l534:l29 (Dec.22, 1361); cf. C 1537:56 (Jan. l, 1363).

11. C 1074:98 (May 21, 1362); RP 1704:50 (1357). For an excellent detailed study of the General Bailiff of Valencia in the fifteenth century, see L. Piles Ros, Estudio documental sobre el Bayle General de Valencia (Valencia, 1970).

12. C 688:97 (Dec.17, 1356).

13. Ibid.

14. C 904:139 (Aug.13, 1360), in appendix.

15. Registers of the Real Patrimonio, passim, provide examples of these functions and the respective jurisdictions of the general bailiffs.

16. His ability to license emigration and almsbegging were often limited or circumscribed by the king in response to special circumstances: see C 1506:20 (Mar.22, 1363), where the king forbids the issuance of further licenses to emigrate, and C 862:124 (1337), where the king removed the right to grant alms licenses from the purview of the General Bailiff of Valencia. In addition to these duties, the general bailiff of all kingdoms provided the king with financial information about the state of the aljamas (C 687:50 [June 8, 1356]), enforced royal edicts, supervised levying of troops on Muslim aljamas, and generally acted as the king's deputy in regard to Muslims. This latter function extended to the protection, in the king's name, of foreign Muslims visiting the king's lands; see C 720:8, in the Appendix.

17. RP 1710:23 (1365), for example.

18. C 966:96 (Feb.10, 1357).

19. E.g., the inquisition initiated against Azmet Açaba for abuses of the office of qadi, which Azmet's paying a fine of 900s (RP 17014:23 [1357]); cf. the fine imposed on the çalmedina of the morería of Játiva for incompetence ("errades que's deya ignoranter auer fets"): RP 1706:18 (1360).

20. The first General Bailiff of Aragon during the decade 1355-65 was Peter Jordan. He also held the post of General Bailiff of Catalonia until his death in 1362, when Blasius Acenarius de Borau replaced him as Bailiff of Aragon, and Jacob de Rocafort as Bailiff of Cata1onia (C 1074:98 [May 21, 1362], C 687:50 [June 8, 1356], C 7l9:88 [Jan.31, 1365]). In 1364 a new general bailiwick was created "ultra Sexonam" for the area to the southwest of the bailiwick of Valencia proper. This post was filled by Johannes Dolit (RP 1711, preface).

21. C 692:154 (July 21, 1357). Cf. "Rights."

22. "Tenore presentis damus et concedimus vobis et vestris perpetuo sub pacto subscripto, donatione pura et irrevocabili, inter vivos iurisdictionem criminalem nobis quomodolibet pertinentem et pertinere debentem in sarracenis nunc habitantibus et habitaturis in loco d'Alcacer, qui est heredis Raymundus Castellani, in termino civitatis Valentie situato, ac in loco d'Aledua, qui est Berengarii Fabre et Iacobi Scivamur, militum, in termino ville Algezire constituto, et eorum terminis, sive infra ipsa loca et eorum terminos cuiuscumque conditionis existant, sive delinquant in caminis publicis sive non, et sive sint extranei sive privati..., dum tamen pena mortis, quasi nobis expresse reservamus, non habeant condempnare" C 911:28 (Oct.22, 1364).

23. "...fustigando, crucesignando. . .aures, manus et pedes, nares et alia membra auferendo et privando, relegando, exulando et quovis alio punitionis et condemnacionis genere. .visum fuerit, absque aliqua appellatione, provocatione, et suplicatione vel recurssu..." ibid.

24. E.g., C 683:154 (Mar.31, 1356).

25. Ibid.

26. C 683:171 (Apr.2, 1356).

27. C 1402:147 (Feb. l, 1359).

28. C 691:163 (Jan.29, 1358) is a letter from the king to the Governor of Aragon, forbidding him to carry out an execution on the property of some Hospitallers' Mudéjares in Aztone "quia dicta loca non intra regnum predictum Aragonie situata existunt, sed potius intra Cathalonie principatum, ex quo in eisdem locis per vos executio non debet fieri quavis ratione vel causa."

29. C 693:163 (Oct.18, 1357). In the fifteenth century there was such a dispute: see Piles Ros, Estudio.

30. See, for examples: C 688:32 (Aug.21, 1356),688:91 (Dec.17, 1356), 689:48 (Nov.30, 1456), 690:165 (Feb.16, 1357), 693:9 (Aug. 1357), 908:233 (Sept. l, 1363).

31. There is no clear evidence of a Justice of Valencia in the fourteenth century.

32. C 1567:183 (Mar.23, 1360).

33. For the Justice of Aragon, see C 723:90 (Oct.22, 1365) and C 900:42 (Mar.7, 1358); for the local justices, see C 683:241 (Aug.5, 1356), C 684:231 (June 7, 1356), and C 986:188 (Feb.5, 1359).

34. See López de Meneses, Documentos, p.65.

35. E.g., C 683:153-4 (Mar.31, 1356).

36. For examples of such duties, see C 684:233 (June 8, 1356), C 711:135 (Jan.24, 1363), C 699:66 (Nov.26, 1359) (the protective function of the bailiff vs. other officials is particularly evident in this document), C 714:23 (Mar.22, 1363), C 908:233 (Sept. l, 1363), C 1571:89 (Feb.14, 1363).

37. RP 1708:18 (1362).

38. C 1566:129 (July 5, 1357). In this document Garsia M. de Bierlas is appointed to the office of the "bajulia judeorum et sarracenorum Burgie," although he already held the "bajulia civitatis Terolis et aljamarum sarracenorum et judeorum eiusdem" as of April, 1356 (C966:21). Cf. C 966:46 (July 26, 1356) and C 1566:157 (Nov.5, 1357). There is some reason to suspect that de Bierlas was particularly associated with Muslim affairs: see Chapter VII, p.347, n. 75.

39. "... exercendum pro nobis...jus et justiciam ipsis judeis et sarracenis inter se et querelantibus de ipsis..." C 966:514 (June 27, 1357).

40. "...mandamus quatenus a predictis omnibus et similibus vos penitus abstinendo de hiis qui ad cognitionem seu oficium [sic] spectant bajulie predicte, contra dictas aljamas vel aliquem ipsarum aut singulares earundem, vel de cognitione jurium et reddituum dicte bajulie vos intromittere minime procuretis..." C 713:178 (Feb.28, 1363).

41. C 983:156 (Jan.21, 1359).

42. C 967:275 (Sept.12, 1358); cf. C 685:44 (Oct.14, 1355), in Appendix. Cf. also note 104, below.

43. E.g., the regulation of prostitutes; C 686:14 (Oct.14, 1355).

44. Cases where the bailiff deals with Muslims as the king's deputy: C 683:240 (Aug.8, 1356), C 686:218 (May l0, 1356), C 686:220, ut supra, C 687:50 (June 8, 1356), C 688:122 (Jan.l4, 1357), C 689:71 (Dec.20,1356), C 689:79 (Jan. l4, 1357), C 690:31 (Aug.12, 1356), C 705:178 (July 22, 1361), C 711:135 (Jan.24, 1363), C 721:135 (Jan.22, 1365), C 1571:89 (Feb.4, 1363), C 1573:165 (Oct. 4, 1365). For the bailiff's role in the fifteenth century, see Macho y Ortega, "Documentos," p.147 (but read for the date of this entry 1399 instead of 1339).

45. C 1569:102 (July 6, 1361).

46. On licenses, see C 862:124 (1337); on his hearing of Christian cases, see C 1571:40 (Aug.26, 1362). Cf. the opinion of Roca Traver that "los justicias de las villas intentaron sentenciar personalmente los litigios suscitados, mas el monarca cortó rápidamente este abuso, ordenando que en estos asuntos fuera el bayle [general] quien entendiera" ("Un Siglo," p.71). That the king upheld the jurisdiction of the Christian general bailiff against that of the Christian local bailiffs hardly justifies Roca Traver's subsequent conclusion that the aljama was "a judicial entity completely seperate from the Christian community" (ibid.).

47. RP 1704:2, 1705:2, 1706:2, 1709:2, 1719:2 are the lists of payments for the office of Bailiff of Valencia (city) for the years 1357, '59, '60, '62, '64, and '63, respectively. The only year the holder of the office is specified -- 1358 -- he is Ali Alfoxeni, who paid 700s for the office (about average: for the salaries of Valencian bailiffs, see RP 1711:27ss, and for other remuneration, C 966:96 [Feb.10, 1357]). As has been pointed out, there were separate bailiffs for Muslims and Christians in Valencia, so Alfoxeni did not, presumably, hold office over Christians.

48. C 708:213 (Apr.6, 1362), C 714:137 (Sept.14, 1363), C 723:158 (Dec.20, 1365), C 1197:19 (Feb.26, 1364), C 1207:4 (May 30, 1365), C 1208:77 (Sept.6, 1365), RP 2911:6. Garsia de Munyonis of Pamplona also specialized in Muslim cases (C 705:138, C 700:144, etc.).

49. See the very complex dispositions of the Fueros on the subject, where the oath is determined both by the religion of the swearer and the nature of the crime: II.1314, 138. Cf. Ramos y Loscertales, "Recopilación," s.83; Carreras y Candi, "Ordinacions," XI, p.388.

50. Costums, IV.1.4; Villanueva, Viage, VI, p.185.

51. Fueros, VIII.315 (Tilander, p.186).

52. Fueros, II.107 (Tilander, p.53).

53. .". . .si batalla o torna fuesse iudgada por fuero contra tales testimonias, nunqua podría trobar el iudío o el moro testimonias cristianos qui testimoniassen por ellos" ibid. It is odd that this reason should be adduced, however, since the testing of Christian witnesses for Muslims by combat or ordeal is specifically prohibited ter in the same chapter (II.114). Cf. the earlier version in Ramos y Loscertales, "Recopilación," and its significance, below, p. 368.

54. IV.11a.29. Note that in Jewish-Christian conflicts only one witness of the opposite faith was required (IV.11a.27-28).

55. IX.24.6.

56. IX.la.l3.

57. Llabrés y Fita, "Privilegios de los hebreos mallorquines," BRAH, XXXVI (1900), p.24 (document of July 21, 1269); cf. "Carta de la paería de Tortosa (1276)," in D. Bienvenido Oliver, Historia del derecho en Cataluña, Mallorca, y Valencia (Madrid, 1878), II, p.498.

58. "Item stablim e ordenam que dos testimonis christians convinents de bona fama puguen fer testimoni e llur testimoni sia cregut contra iuheus e sarrahins en tot fet criminal que sia entre christians e iuheus o christians e sarrahins ho contrastants nenguns privilegis per nos o per nostres antecessors atorgats a iuheus o a sarrahins..." (privilege of James II [Aureum Opus, 12], published in Roca Traver, "Un Siglo," p.74, n.224).

59. ". . . de foro et consuetudine regni fuerit solitum in questionibus tam civilibus quam criminalibus sarracenorum recipi testes sarracenos et sine probatione testium sarracenorum questiones ipsorum nullatenus terminari.. ." C 705:134 (June 9, 1361). In fifteenth-century Aragon the Crown went even further, and granted to some Muslims the right to be accorded equal weight of testimony in legal process: see Macho y Ortega, "Condición," p.172.

60. As were foreigners: Costums, III. la.29.

61. C 684:105 (Jan.22, 1356), C 686:16 (Oct.24, 1355), C 706:197 (Oct.21, 1361).

62. Such public defenders were called "caplevatores": C 686:92 (Jan.2, 1356).

63. "Cum aljama agarenorum civitatis eiusdem et eius singulares habeant et habere intendant diversas questiones agendo vel defendendo cum universitate dicte civitatis et nonnullis aliis personis, sitque eis patrocinium vestrum plurimum necessanium et etiam oportunum, eapropter vobis dicimus et mandamus quatenus fovendo partem dicte aljame in omnibus, et per omnia assistatis eidem, sibique in dictis causis prestetis patrocinium, auxilium, consilium, et favorem" C 1570:36 (Sept.23, 1360).

64. Fueros, II.110; C 720:39 (Sept. l, 1365).

65. Such expenses were often enormous: C 1183:118 (Nov.18, 1362) mentions court expenses of 1,l50s; C 1566:1514 (Nov.5, 1357) sets court costs at 2,000s.

66. Costums, III. la.29.

67. E.g., C 1205:45 (Mar. 15, 1365). Cf. table, below.

68. E.g., RP 1704:23 (1357), where six Saracens accused of defrauding the city of Játiva with defective building materials settle out of court with the bailiff for the sum of 2,400s.

69. C 687:84 (July 12, 1356); C 900:27 (Feb.26, 1358).

70. RP l705:22ss (1359); HP 1706:18 (1360).

71. C 1570:87 (Mar.10, 1361).

72. RP 1709:19 (1364).

73. E.g., the superadjuttarius: C 707:193 (Apr.9, 1362).

74. A certain inflationary tendency is notable in this regard: the Fuero of Calatayud of 1131 demanded a penalty of 300s for the murder of a Muslim; the Fueros of Aragon compiled about a hundred years later demanded 500s for the sane offense (Ramos y Loscertales, "Fuero de Calatayud," s.35, p.412; Tilander, Fueros, VII.273, p.162). In Tortosa the general penalty for murder was death, but Christians who killed Muslims or Jews were liable only to a fine (Costums, I. 1.14) until the drafting of the Costums, at which time all murder was made punishable corporally (ibid.; Aunos Perez [El Derecho catalan en el siglo xiii {Barcelona, 1926}, p.134] is in error on this point). The fine for assaulting a Muslim in fourteenth-century Valencia was 12s (RP 2911:48 [1354-55]).

75. ". . . iuxta forum Aragonie si aliquis haro torserit aliquum sarracenum debet amittere locum suum" C 1073:161 (Jan.8, 1362). This was true in the thirteenth century as well: see Villanueva, Viage, VI, p.187 (". . .nec tornantur judei nec sarraceni..."). Macho y Ortega is mistaken in assuming that this exemption from torture was a fifteenth-century innovation ("Condición," p.193).

76. The jurisperitus of Huesca handling a murder case involving only Muslims was twice empowered to use torture in gathering information from Muslims (C 688:160 [Feb.16, 1357], C 690:232 [May 8, 1357]). The queen's procurator in Eslida received instructions to proceed with torture "according to Muslim law" after the Mudéjares of the community complained about the torture being used against them: C 986:45, in Appendix.

77. In C 1073:161, ut supra, a fine was exacted, but in C 1208:78 (Sept,6, 1365) and C 1211:63 (May 26, 1365) there was no penalty at all, even though in each case the torture was patently inspired purely by greed on the part of the official. C 1380:108 (Dec.19,1356) is -- to my knowledge -- unique in manifesting compliance with this law during the decade.

78. C 687:17 (Apr.15, 1356).

79. ". . . in quibuscumque [ca]usis civilibus et cniminalibus judicemini per et secundum çunan et non per forum seu aliam quamcumque legem seu consuetudinem patrie..." C 906:177 (February, 1348). A fine of 1,000 morabetíns was to be imposed for violations. For one of the very many treaties of capitulation which mention the çuna, see that of the Muslims of Tudela, in Muñoz y Romero, Colección, pp.4l5ss.

80. Mahoma Ballistarius sought and received the right to be tried according to the forum Aragonie rather than the çuna either as a plaintiff or defendant: C 705:170 (July 18, 1361). In addition, a Muslim of Lérida was fined 40s for declining to be tried in a Muslim court ("qui no volch tenir juy de çuna donat per lo çabiçala" RP 993:145 [1361]), and several female Muslims opted for the Christian penalty of enslavement for carnal relations with Christians rather than the Muslim punishment of stoning: e.g., RP 1710:22 (1365). Other than these cases, however, there is no indication that the vast number of cases involving Muslims and handled by Christian officials (see table) represent the will of the Mudéjars. Ironically, the practice of allowing Muslims to opt for a lighter civil penalty violated the laws of Valencia: see Roca Traver, "Un Siglo," p.75, n.225.

81. E.g., C 1569:26 (Oct.17, 1359).

82. See the sections on travel and inheritance in Chapter VI; cf. C 908:140 (1363). On sexual mores see Chapter VII, pp.343ss. Sodomy, moreover, which was severely punished under the Christian monarchs of Spain, is not a crime under Islamic law; that Muslims were burned for it is certain: see Piles Ros, Estudio, p.288, #750.

83. "Quia super criminibus per aliquem vel aliquos sarracenos comissis vel committendis contra aliquem vel aliquos christianos, iudex sarracenus se nullatenus intromittat, sed per iusticias aut alios officiales iurisdictionem exercentes locorum quibus dicta crimila commissa fuerint procedatur secundum forum Aragonie ad conservationem iusticie super eis. In causis vero tam civilibus quam criminalibus que de sarraceno ad sarracenum ventilabuntur, quequidem secundum çunam sarracenorum iuxta eorum predicta privilegia usitata debuerint terminari, volumus quod per iudices sarracenos procedatur ac terminentur et ipse cause. Cause etiam civiles quas per christianos contra sarracenos moveri contingerit volumus quod per sarracenos iudices terminentur" C 907:58 (Jan. l, 1316; confirmed Apr.11, 1362).

84. "Cognitio tamen et decisio dictorum criminum fiat per vos, justiciam supradictum, salvis et servatis privilegiis concessis dictis sarracenis quibus usi sunt hucusque. In aliis enim bajulus memoratus exerceat jurisdictionem in dictis sarracenis prout ad eius officium noscitur pertinere" C 1567:172 (Mar.27, 1319).

85. ". . . dictus baiulus generalis regni Aragonie, qui nunc est vel pro tempore fuerit, et non alius, de quibuscumque causis et questionibus, tam civilibus quam criminalibus, inter christianos et judeos seu sarracenos ac etiam inter se ordinanie [ ? ] motis et movendis cognoscat, et eas fine debito terminet ac decidat prout earum merita duxerint exposcenda, in judeos et sarracenos ipsos iurisdictione omnimoda libere exercendo" C 707:70 (Nov.18, 1351).

86. "... sepissime inter gubernatorem et baiulum regni Aragonie generalem super iurisdictionis exercitio in iudeos et sarracenos regni ipsius et decidendis ipsorum questionibus quas tam inter se quam cum christianis habent questio aliqua exoritur..." ibid.

87. It was reconfirmed in 1357 (C 1070:48 [Oct.22]), in 1361 (C 707:70 [Dec.23]), and again in 1363 (C 1075:93 [Feb.18]).

88. "Et nunc pro parte dicti baiuli generalis nobis fuerit demostratum [sic] quia quando christiani sunt actores, iidem christiani et aliqui iudei et sarraceni, tacito de provisione et declaratione iamdictis, obtinent a nobis super causis, tam civilibus quam criminalibus, quas ipsi christiani contra iudeos et sarracenos et iidem iudei et sarraceni inter se habeant, diversas commissionum litteras ad alios officiales et judices pretercumque ad dictum baiulum generalem, ob quod iudei et sarraceni predictis diversis maliciis oprimuntur et iurisdictio dicti baiuli, qui inter eos pro ordinario est habendus, leditur non modicum et diminiuitur evidenter. Volentes igitur ex certa scientia et expresse quod provisio et declaratio iamdicte penitus observentur, commissiones quascumque per nos seu gubernatorem nostrum Aragonie quibusvis officialibus et personis s[epe?] predictis factas et faciendas, que in aliquo provisione et declarationi obviare videantur huius serie revocamus, nisi in eis tenor de verbo ad verbum preinserte littere insertus [sit]" C 707:70 (Oct.22, 1357).

89. C 704:42 contains information about this grant, but does not give its exact date. James reigned from 1291 to 1327.

90. C 1570:19 (June 2, 1360).

91. C 704:42 (June 21, 1360).

92. C 860:6 (Apr.15).

93. C 986:47 (Nov.10, l346-Sept. l, 1365).

94. C 1070:134 (May 23, 1358); C 966:85 (May 25, 1358).

95. C 703:40 (June 1, 1360). This was the case in Borja as well: C 693:28 (Sept.l6, 1357).

96. C 1073:95 (July 8, 1361).

97. C 906:11 (July 22, 1361).

98. C 793:58 (Aug.25, 1362); cf. C 707:70, ut supra. According to Macho y Ortega the general practice in .Aragon in the fífteenth century was for the amin to have primary jurisdiction in all civil cases involving only Muslims, with appeals made to the qadi; in criminal cases the General Bailiff of Aragon ruled, advised by the amin and qadi ("Condición," p.177). He avers, moreover, that the bailiff  "was the only Christian who intervened in the internal affairs of the Muslims, since, though it is certain that in the fourteenth century the justices and almutazafes made certain inspections in the Muslim aljamas, John I put an end to this intrusion and decreed that no Christian official '...should presume or attempt to proceed or conduct any trials against you [Muslims] for any crimes or misdemeanors, no matter what his rank or station...'" (ibid., p.175). Simply assuming that this edict actually put an end to the practice seems to me unjustified, since such edicts were legion in the fourteenth century, and since Macho y Ortega himself publishes a document which clearly shows that just such abuses were taking place in Calatayud in the mid-fifteenth century: see his "Documentos," p. 451 (document of 1459).

99. I.e., an agreement of such a relationship dating from the time of the conquest of Tortosa: this is made clear in the text preceding.

100. "E si per auentura entrel senyor e son exaric sena pleyt ne demanda: quel senyor la demanda deu fer, termenar e examinar, e acabar en poder del alcayt dels sarrains, axi el principal com en les appellacions, e totes demandes que per rao de la exarequia veyla sien mogudes ne feyta entre ells quel senyor moua contra son exarich. Mas si lo exarich mou demanda contra lo senyor, deuse examinar e determenar en la cort dels crestians: e portar a acabament" Costums, IV.26.33.

101. C 903:203, in Appendix.

102. C 903:203, in Appendix.

103. C 903:214 (Nov.10, 1359).

104. C 721:142 (Jan.26, 1365). In Barcelona the bailiff of the city had sole jurisdiction over Muslim inhabitants of the city, which might indicate that the case of Lérida was not typical of Catalan cities. But there was no Muslim aljama in Barcelona, and in fact the jurisdiction of the Bailiff of Barcelona extended officially only to captives: "...bajuli civitatis predicte fuerunt et sunt in possessione patefacta atque usu civiliter et criminaliter capiendi et puniendi quoscumque captivos et servos, neophitos seu babtitzatos, liberos necminus et alios sarracenos et sarracenas captivos civitatis jamdicte" C 967:275 (Sept.12, 1358).

105. "Licet cognitio et decisio omium negotiorum et causarum tam civilium quam criminalium sarracenoruin regni Valencie ad procuratorem generalem pertinere noscantur [sic] nunc taliter duximus ordinandum quod de causis omnibus supradictis sarracenorum sed habitancium in locis nostris et ecclesiarum et religiosorum dictus baiulus generalis tamen cognoscat et eas determinet et decidat et nullus alius officialis nec de eis cognoscat aut se in aliquo intromittat" Aureum Opus, priv.7 of James II (1298), published in Roca Traver, "Un Siglo," p.74, n.2l4. Roca Traver found it difficult to offer an over-view of the administration of justice to Valencian Mudéjares, even though the role of the general bailiff makes it simpler than that of Aragon. Burns' observation about thirteenth-century Valencia that "the average free Muslim, unless he had to bring charges against a Christian or serve as witness against one, never entered Christian court" (Islam, p.270) is not applicable to the fourteenth century in any of the Crown's lands. Burns also entertains the opinion that "A Moor haled into court by a Christian appeared before his own judge...; in criminal cases he retained his own law. Nor could testimony of Christians or Jews condemn him. The requirement a witness from one's own religious group had become normal in Europe by the twelfth century" (ibid., pp.264ss) The requirement of one type of witness does not preclude conviction on the testimony others. Moreover, these findings are markedly at variance with thirteenth-century texts published by Roca Traver (see note 58, above).

106. "Super aliis vero negotiis civilibus dictan aljamam aut singulares eius tangentibus alcadius dicte morarie et in eius deffectum dictum bajulum generalem vel eius locumtenentem procedi volumus et jubemus..." C 862:119 (Jan.13, 1337).

107. C 685:61 (Oct.16, 1355).

108. "...cognitio et punitio illorum sarracenorum locorum nobilium et militum qui committunt aliqua crimina infra loca et terminos regios spectant et spectare debent ad ipsum bajulum generalem et non ad vos seu alium officialem regni.. ." C 692:154 (July 21, 1357). For an example of the type of dispute that led to this change, see C 692:66 (Mar.15, 1357), where a Christian who fatally wounded a Muslim was taken to be tried by the men of the town where the incident occurred. The governor protested that the matter lay under his competence, but the king finally assigned the trial to the procurator general.

109. This decree seems to have been aimed particularly at the governor, whose constant efforts to interfere in Mudéjar justice were apparently annoying the monarch: "...aljama sarracenorum civitatis Xative et eius singulares, qui sepius per gubernatorem regni Valentie et alios officiales et commissarios nostros vexantur immensibus et immoderatis sumptibus et expensis..." C 901:134 (Aug.4, 1357)

110. C 966:121 (Nov.21, 1359)

111. C 1571:9 (Apr.9, 1362).

112. C 720:65 (Sept.13, 1365).

113. "Quia amodo nisi in casibus et criminibus delictis vel excessibus ian exceptis, in omnibus aliis et singulis quibusvis casibus criminibus, excessibus et delictis serventur dicte aljame suisque singularibus dicta çuna iuxta quam de ipsis cognoscant et iusticiam faciant una cum dicto baiulo val eius locumtenente aut de eius licencia seu mandato predicti alcadius, alcaydus, çalmedina, et sagio, prout hec ad singula eorum officia de antiqua consuetudine pertinent et expectant...; ...[et] dictus procurator fiscalis se nullatenus intromittat, nam hoc sibi penitus inhibemus" C 910:118-9 (Sept. 16, 1366). Cf. C 910:120 (Sept. 16, 1366).

114. In addition to the listings under "Demands" at the end of Chapter VII ("Oppression"), these will be found at C 691:177 (Feb.26, 1358), C 1569:26 (Oct.17, 1359), C 1205:36 (Mar.1, 1365), C 1204:63 (Apr.8, 1365), C 913:91 (Nov.25, 1366).