[196] Jews, Christians and Muslims all paid regular annual taxes: the peyta (= tributum, trahut, tallia, questia), the cena, and the censal (or censualia). The cena and peyta averaged about 100s per aljama for the Muslims, with very large communities paying more. The cena had originally been a feudal duty for the provisioning of the king when he visited a town (cena de presencia) or traveled elsewhere (cena de absencia), but by the mid-fourteenth century it was merely a standard tax. The censualia, often referred to in the documents as exaccions, were an aggregate of annual taxes on property and business operations such as ovens, baths, shops, mules, etc.⁽¹⁾

Although the morabetín was originally a specific tax (see below), it had become merely another general imposition by the mid-fourteenth century. The word was applied to annual taxes as well as to irregular demands for the replacement of officials.⁽²⁾ That it was not collected at regular seven-year intervals, as is commonly supposed, is clear from the annual appointment of officials to collect it.⁽³⁾

Subsidies were officially irregular offerings made to the Crown to meet special expenses, but by the period in question they had become standard exactions. The precise amount of the subsidy collected from each aljama varied slightly more than that of other taxes, but so little that it is possible to describe it fairly as [197] a regular tax. Occasionally subsidies in the original sense were collected in much larger amounts than the annual subsidies, but this was rare.⁽⁴⁾

There were a number of minor annual taxes as well, such as the lezda, imposed on meat, the cabecagium (head tax) for the walls of the city, etc. These varied widely from city to city and can best be appreciated. by examination of the records of the individual aljama. Cavallerías were collected in most towns during war time on a regular basis; the amount of one cavallería varied from 1,500s to 365s.⁽⁵⁾ Some aljamas were liable for cavallerías in peace as well as war, and under such circumstances they were simply additional taxes.⁽⁶⁾ Royal Mudéjares paid a small property tax called the besant.⁽⁷⁾

Heavily agricultural areas, such as southern Valencia, paid taxes somewhat more agricultural in orientation: Aspe, for instance, paid, in addition to those mentioned above, a head tax on livestock ("atzaque"), a tax on hens, a head tax of one almut of barley for every person of whatever age or sex, "tithes" on such crops as grain and olives, and special monetary taxes on grain (the "canaxir").⁽⁸⁾ The standard head tax ("peyta") in such communities was often known [198] under some other name, but was levied in amounts comparable to those collected in northern communities. It is likely, in fact, that the rate of taxation in the South did not exceed that of the North by much, although in absolute terms the income from the richer and more populous communities of Valencia was much greater. The large number of agricultural taxes collected is deceptive: the amounts were often quite small. "Tithes," for instance, were usually only one-third of one-tenth of the quantity of the grain stored by the aljama.

General taxes were always assessed on the basis of real population figures; it was the responsibility of the tax collectors themselves to assess communities fairly. During the late 1350's and early l360's a number of aljamas complained that they were being taxed unfairly, since their populations had. declined drastically due to plague and war, and they were being taxed for many persons no longer alive or inhabiting their aljamas.⁽⁹⁾ In Teruel such complaints led to the king's establishing tax assessors in pairs, one from the aljama and one from the Court, so that any population figures would represent the view of both sides.⁽¹⁰⁾ In Borja he instructed the collectors to recount the population -- Christian and Jewish as well as Muslim -- after the entire city complained [199] of an unfair levy.⁽¹¹⁾ In some cases the Muslims may have taken advantage of the Crown's attempts at fairness in this regard; Peter thought so, at least, in regard to the aljama of Teruel, which he accused of duplicity in a dispute over its actual population for the purposes of a levy of 1360.⁽¹²⁾ But the principle stood that taxes should be levied on the basis of current, accurate population figures.⁽¹³⁾

Individual taxes, such as property taxes, were assessed by individual. All subjects of the Crown paid property taxes, and those involving Muslims seem to have been consonant with the general practice. The rate of taxation for Muslim property was probably higher: although there is no direct evidence of this, it is suggested by the great concern exhibited by the Crown to keep Muslim property from being sold or willed into the hands of non-Muslim subjects.⁽¹⁴⁾ The original morabetí was a property tax of 7s for every household owning property of 15 morabetíns or more,⁽¹⁵⁾ and was collected. every seven years, but by the mid-fourteenth century property taxes were [200] either annual or in the form of inheritance or sales taxes.

Inheritance taxes ranged. from one-twelfth to one-third the amount of the estate, and were paid directly to the Crown. They included other taxes such as the loisne, cens, sisa, peyta, besant, etc.⁽¹⁶⁾ There were also individual taxes paid by users of "royal possessions," such as wood.⁽¹⁷⁾

The question of tithes is as perplexing to the historian as it apparently was to the Muslims. In the twelfth century it was thought that Muslims should be liable to tithes only on Christian property which they worked or inherited.⁽¹⁸⁾ But the Fueros of Aragon tried to make Muslims subject to tithes generally, regardless of Christian ownership:

    All Jews and Muslims are liable to pay tithes and first-fruits directly for whatever real property they have..., and not merely for that which belonged to Christians at some point which can be remembered..⁽¹⁹⁾

Although it is stated in canon law that Jews and Saracens must pay tithes and first-fruits on lands which they cultivate, as well as for their animals, nevertheless.. .they scheme to avert these tithes and first-fruits with evil designs. We [201] therefore...with the advice and consent of our aforementioned chapter decree and ordain that if any Saracen shall decline or refuse to pay tithe or first-fruits on the said property, unless he show why he should be exempt from this sort of duty, at our command (or that of our officialis) the laymen of the parish in which such a Saracen lives or has residence (or in which are located or pastured the land and animals for which he is liable to tithe and first-fruits), should be warned that within three days, which we allot the parish and its members as canonical warning, they must cease to have commerce with the said Saracen or Jew, and from then until he shall have made adequate satisfaction they may not join with him in conversation, greeting, eating, drinking, buying, selling or any other commerce. And if anyone refuses to desist, or does the reverse, he should know that he will himself be excommunicate.⁽²⁰⁾

 ....he [the majordomo] refused to yield tithes and first- fruits of the Vall d'Uxó, which you assert belong to you or to someone in your church, although it is certain that in the said valley, where only Muslims live, they do not pay tithes or first-fruits, nor have they ever been accustomed to do so.⁽²¹⁾

On the other hand, it is quite clear that numerous small Valencian aljamas did pay tithes and first-fruits, although some of them obtained exemptions from them during the later years of the war.⁽²²⁾

There is no doubt about the fact that departing Muslims had to pay a "tithe" of their personal property and cash at the point of departure from Valencia. What such "tithes" reveal about the economic condition of the émigrés is discussed below. In Barcelona (and presumably other northern ports, such as Tortosa), a flat rate of l5s (the "mostalaffia") was charged instead. Both port "tithes" and the mostalaffia appear to have been charged of foreign visitors returning home as well as subjects of the Crown of Aragon.⁽²³⁾

When a Muslim slave or captive was freed the king received a [203] dobla (=15s l0d),⁽²⁴⁾ but it is not clear whether this was paid by the lord or the slave. Since Muslims generally raised the sums of money necessary for redemption themselves, it is not unlikely they could have paid a tax at the time of the "removing of the irons," and it would therefore be properly considered a tax on Muslims.

For the most part the registers of the Royal Patrimony do not distinguish the source (i.e., Muslim, Jewish, Christian) of incomes recorded as received,⁽²⁵⁾ and it seems likely that tax collectors were not usually appointed to specific religious groupings. In the South, some accounts were kept in Arabic, and the collectors of such accounts must therefore either have been Muslims themselves or employed them.⁽²⁶⁾ The account books were held by the aljamas themselves, though an aljama might be required to surrender them to appointee in need of them for arranging accounts.⁽²⁷⁾ The money collected by the aljama from taxes administered internally (such as those on meat, etc.) was kept by the amin and likewise surrendered upon request.⁽²⁸⁾ General taxes were collected by appointees delegated in a variety of ways: election, royal choice, appointment by the city, [204] etc. In some cases, such as the collection of the morabetí, they received a percentage of the take,⁽²⁹⁾ but for the most part they were paid a fixed. sum by the aljama itself.⁽³⁰⁾ Tax collectors were generally empowered to use any means at all -- foreclosure, sale of property, incarceration -- to collect taxes under their charge,⁽³¹⁾ but the Crown kept a close watch on their activities and frequently called them to answer for malfeasance in office.⁽³²⁾

For general taxes on Mudéjares the governor, justice, local justice, and local bailiff had ultimate authority after the king.⁽³³⁾ The Curia could not intervene, and if it tried, the king disregarded its dispositions.⁽³⁴⁾ The local bailiff was customarily responsible for the lezda,  subsidium,  tributum or peyta, and cena.⁽³⁵⁾ In most cases the collection of such taxes was farmed. out, very often to Muslims (even for collecting from non-Muslim residents),⁽³⁶⁾ and in some cases private individuals were granted even the authority of the bailiff over local taxes.⁽³⁷⁾ Taxation of the aljama as a whole, [205] however, was licit only in the presence of the bailiff, adelantati, and the amin.⁽³⁸⁾ In Daroca the Muslims were by special exemption immune to taxation from anyone but the bailiff, although the king sometimes violated this;⁽³⁹⁾ only the merinus of Zaragoza could collect or levy municipal taxes in that city after 1337.⁽⁴⁰⁾

All Muslims were liable to royal taxes, even those living under the jurisdiction of nobles or the Church. No matter who collected them or how much was skimmed off by prelates, cities, or nobles, the proceeds from Mudéjar taxation ultimately belonged to the king. Taxes such as those on livestock, or tolls, or special demands for marriages or the upkeep of castles could be charged by nobles or clerics and kept, but all the major taxes -- cena, peyta, subsidy, etc. -- flowed back to the king, or from 1359 on, to the queen. Peter had been obliged by his marriage contract to provide Eleanor with a certain minimum source of revenues, and during the war much of this income dried up, due either to the general economic decline occasioned by the plague and the war, or to occupation by Castilian troops. Peter therefore began granting her, in 1359, various aljamas which had been under his control to supplement her dwindling incomes:

Considering how, owing to the war with Castile, the said revenues and rights of your patrimony are so diminished and strained that they scarcely suffice for the maintenance of your household, since many of the more notable cities, towns, [206]and castles of your patrimony, both in Valencia and in Aragon, have been captured and occupied and are even yet held by the King of Castile, it is therefore fitting, according to the terms of our [marriage] contract, and also proper for the preeminence of your position, as well as for our mutual honor...that we give you, the said queen, the subsidies, tribute, and cenas of the Jewish and Saracen aljamas of the city in question⁽⁴¹⁾, so that you, the said queen, may from these aljamas request, demand, possess and impose subsidies and other exactions, just as you were accustomed to do with other aljamas of places in your patrimony.⁽⁴²⁾

Liability for specific taxes was decided as the outcome of a constant tension between the needs of the ruling classes and a complex and intricate structure of exemptions and remissions. Jews did not pay fogatge, a periodic tax assessed by household, though Mudéjares did.⁽⁴⁵⁾ Both Jews and Muslims were obliged by law to contribute in all general levies on the Christian population, at the same rate,⁽⁴⁶⁾ but an effort by the Muslims of Nabal to obtain a similar ruling for Christians to contribute with levies on Muslims rejected by the Court.⁽⁴⁷⁾ There was constant confusion about overlapping jurisdictions: should rural Muslim serfs be assessed as Muslims, for instance, or as vassals of their lord? Should the slim population of Barbastro pay fogatge with the city or with the Count of Urgel, their lord?⁽⁴⁸⁾ If Mudéjares could not meet tax payments, who confiscated their property -- the local lord, or the person to whom the taxes were owed?⁽⁴⁹⁾ How were free rural Mudéjares [208] to be taxed -- with the nearest large city or the nearest powerful lord?

There were no easy answers to these questions. In the case of free rural Mudéares, for instance, the king adopted first one expedient, then another. For the Muslims living in the valley of Almonacir outside Segorbe he simply created a new tax district specially for them,⁽⁵⁰⁾ while for those living in the hinterlands of Borja he ordered taxation with the aljama.⁽⁵¹⁾ Similarly, after receiving numerous complaints from nobles that their Muslim serfs had been compelled to contribute to levies both as Muslims and as vassals, often losing their property when they were unable to meet the same demand a second time,⁽⁵²⁾ the king first established that no Jew or Muslim be constrained to contribute to a local levy if his lord was also responsible for his taxes, but reversed himself two years later, declaring that Muslims must contribute with the aljama nearest them no matter who might be their lord.⁽⁵³⁾ The vagaries of the war itself severely exacerbated the confusion: the Muslim aljama of Daroca, for example, had a royal concession that all Mudéjares in its area should contribute through it, but the [209] noblewoman Milia Roderic obtained an exception for her vassals in the area, who were allowed to contribute through her. When Castile occupied Daroca, her vassals (who apparently capitulated) ceased to be her vassals, and became liable to taxation through the aljama once more. The king had to intervene to restore her privilege.⁽⁵⁴⁾

Although the tax base -- i.e., the number of taxable persons -- had to be assessed fairly, there were no limitations on the rates of taxation, and when the king found he could not get enough money one aljama, he simply raised the taxes of others.

 It seems that there are some aljamas which are on the border⁽⁵⁵⁾ and which cannot be taxed without great difficulty and danger. Whence it will be necessary, once it is clear in which of these aljamas no collection can be made, to share [the tax burden] among the other ones which can afford it, so that from the aljamas of Valencia nothing is lacking of that which has been assigned to them. And we [wish] that in this way the aljamas support each other.⁽⁵⁶⁾

The Mudéjares did complain, on the other hand, about persons who lived in the morería or enjoyed the privileges of the aljama and did not pay taxes. As in other tax problems the king vacillated between one expedient and another. In 1355 he ruled that (wandering minstrels) must pay taxes with the aljama of Játiva along with all others resident at the time of taxation.⁽⁵⁸⁾ But in the following year he limited the aljama to enrolling only Muslims actually members of the aljama and resident in it, excluding thereby temporary visitors as well as members who happened to be away.⁽⁵⁹⁾ (By contrast, the municipal authorities of the city of Valencia could [211] tax everyone within the confines of the city: Jews, Christians, Muslims, strangers, foreigners, et al.)⁽⁶⁰⁾ The king reacted favorably to a petition by Christians and Muslims (n.b.) in 1359 to force the higher ranks of society (clerics, nobles, knights) to contribute to war levies on their communities,⁽⁶¹⁾ and in 1362 he ordered even those holding specific royal exemptions in Zaragoza to contribute their full share toward war taxes and at least one-half their share in ordinary ones.⁽⁶²⁾ In the following year the aljama of Daroca brought to the king's attention the fact that numerous Muslim subjects of lords and knights resided or worked in the city and refused to pay taxes with the aljama. The king ordered them to pay.⁽⁶³⁾

Then, in 1365, the king reversed completely his attitude of nearly a decade, as well as a specific ruling of less than a month earlier, and ruled that the aljama of Játiva could not tax Muslims living in its morería unless they actually belonged to the aljama. He adduced five reasons for his mew policy:

First, because those Saracens who have recently moved into the said morería on account of the present war with Castile or due to an order given by the captain, justice, and councilmen of the city maintain residences in places and towns belonging to wealthy men, knights, and burgers, which are in the jurisdiction of the city of Játiva, and not in the morería.

Second, because these Saracens who have recently come to the morería pay and contribute with the other Saracens of the places and towns in which they usually reside, and are still bound. and obliged [to do so].

Third, because these Saracens owe military service with the said city, and pay their share in levies for it.

Fourth, because when the said city levies troops and the number of men in the morería is tallied, only those who are actually [members] of the morería are counted, since other Saracens who have fled to the morería for the reasons mentioned above are already enrolled in the places where they usually reside for tithes [n.b.] and owe military service there, as has been mentioned.

Fifth, because such Saracens pay and contribute with the city for the upkeep of the walls and for their share in other [municipal] duties, and not with the Saracens of the morería.⁽⁶⁴⁾

In the North, however, the problem became more exasperating and complicated as the war wore on. Franchitas was always granted for service to the Crown, and since Muslims were indispensable for one of the projects dearest to Peter's heart, i.e., the reconstruction of the aljaferia in Zaragoza, that city had undoubtedly the highest percentage of franchi among its Muslim population of any under the Crown. In 1356 a ruling similar to that for Valencia instructed all of Zaragoza's franchi to contribute with the aljama for the current war levy,⁽⁶⁹⁾ but was almost immediately rescinded by another directive enjoining the aljama not to tax the franchi after all.⁽⁷⁰⁾ Yet a third ruling, on the same day as the latter one, ordered the mayor of Zaragoza to cease excusing the Muslim Jahiel Aterrer from royal taxes on the aljama simply because he enjoyed [214] franchitas.⁽⁷¹⁾ Two days later the right of Ali Almaligerat to exemption from taxation on the grounds of his franchitas was upheld by the king against all previous royal enactments.⁽⁷²⁾ Probably more to clear up this staggering confusion than to realize monetary gain, the aljama sued in 1357 to force Mahoma Ballistarius to pay taxes for the war even though he possessed franchitas. The king ordered an investigation.⁽⁷³⁾

The confusion not only persisted but grew worse. In 1357 the king granted a new franchitas, despite the utter uncertainty of the status of the franchi, and reconfirmed it in 1358 against the efforts of the aljama to force the recipient (Abdulaziz Aterrer, a stonecutter in the service of the Archbishop of Zaragoza) to contribute with the aljama.⁽⁷⁴⁾ In February of 1361 the aljama again tried to alter royal policy, or perhaps clarify it, by suing. This time the suit was against the heirs of a Muslim originally given franchitas more than a century before.⁽⁷⁵⁾ The suit dragged on for months, and the aljama eventually lost after attempting unsuccessfully to prove the heirs illegitimate.⁽⁷⁶⁾ In the meantime, however, the king [215] did reverse himself, whether due to economic necessity or the importunings of the aljama, and declared that Zaragoza's franchi must pay war taxes with the aljama, although their franchitas should otherwise remain intact.⁽⁷⁷⁾ Further pressure from the aljama brought an even greater concession in the following year, requiring the franchi to pay their full share of war levies and one-half their share of ordinary ones:

 ...each and every Saracen of the said aljama, as well as any residing within the aforesaid city, [albeit] privileged or exempt, shall pay and be held to pay and contribute henceforth a each and every peyta, questia, loan, demand or any other exaction which may be made to, imposed on, or demanded of the aljama by us or our officials on an extraordinary occasion by reason of the war we are currently waging with the king of Castile, or for any other reason; and also in half of the ordinary peyta or questia which is customarily charged or levied annually from the said aljama, absolutely regardless of any privileges, concessions, laws, or customs which have been conceded or granted to such Saracens by us or our predecessors or anyone else in our name....⁽⁷⁸⁾

There were, moreover, other ways of escaping taxation. Unchallengeable [217] immunity was regularly granted to Muslims who would move to settle new territories, or to help repopulate the lands of a royal favorite.⁽⁸²⁾ Such immunity, however, usually lasted only for five or ten years, after which the immigrant would be liable to the usual taxes. Others escaped by working on royal projects for reduced pay, in return for which they received remissions or reductions of their personal taxes.⁽⁸³⁾ Some resorted to duplicity: numerous cases are reported of Muslims arranging with Christians to hide their property on Christian lands or even in their homes, so as to avoid being assessed for it. Even nobles co-operated in foiling royal tax collectors in this way, and the king finally had to enact very strict penalties against it.⁽⁸⁴⁾ Distorting population figures was another popular ploy, although it was often detected and punished.⁽⁸⁵⁾

While individuals might escape taxation through one ploy or another, the aljamas had no choice but to pay, and as time passed they found themselves more and more in debt. Aljamas were not allowed to impose special internal taxes to meet extraordinary tax demands of the Crown unless they had specific royal permission. They thus had little choice but to borrow the money. Even when they did impose taxes, it took some time to raise the money, and it was [218] generally necessary to borrow the money initially to satisfy the king's tax collector. Thus, although the aljama of Játiva, the wealthiest in the kingdom, had been granted royal authority as early as June of 1355 to levy a tax to meet an upcoming royal demand of 6,000s, they still had to borrow money in April of 1356 when the tax was actually collected, and continued the tax for a year thereafter to pay back the debt. The effect of this one debt on a large and prosperous aljama is illustrative of the general economic vulnerability of Mudéjar communities. The same year, the king was obliged to extend the authority to tax even further, so the aljama could get back on its feet,⁽⁸⁶⁾ and the same authority had to be extended again in 1357.⁽⁸⁷⁾ By 1359 the aljama's condition seemed worse than ever.

    Moved with compassion for the poverty and want to which you, the Muslim aljama of Játiva, are brought by virtue of the excessive burden of debt incurred and owed by you, on account of which without our favor, allowance and grace in regard to these and other debts you might easily come to utter ruin, we therefore, favorably responding to your entreaties to us, concede to you by authority of this document that for four years from the present date, in order to satisfy your debts more readily, you may impose and ordain all those taxes which the Christian community of the same city has imposed and levied with our permission, or similar ones, in the same way, manner, and form. And you may sell or rent these taxes, if you wish, to anyone you can, and cause them to be exacted and levied during the time designated above, and you may use the money accruing therefrom or apply it to the satisfaction and payment of your debts.⁽⁸⁸⁾

The burden of debt on the aljamas was already staggering by the opening of the 1360's. As of May, 1361, the aljamas of Elche and [220] Crevillente jointly owed about 32,000s to various creditors, who insisted on foreclosure to get back their money.⁽⁹²⁾ In lieu of this, the queen directed that, if the figures were accurate, letters of debt should be drawn up and the debts paid back in installments at the rate of three per year for the largest creditors and one per year for smaller amounts.⁽⁹³⁾ Even so, the two aljamas were still hopelessly in debt five years later, and the Crown finally simply canceled all the debts owed members of the royal family, leaving the aljamas to work out arrangements with any other individuals to whom they owed substantial sums.⁽⁹⁴⁾

In Aragon-Catalonia, though the finances of the aljamas were equally desperate, the causes were different. Loans from Jews were rare, and in some places (e.g., Tarazona) forbidden.⁽⁹⁵⁾ Both Jews and Muslims, in fact, appear to have borrowed heavily from Christians to meet their tax loads.⁽⁹⁶⁾ More humane laws in Aragon protected all citizens, and Muslims and Jews in particular, [221] from being seized or imprisoned for debts,⁽⁹⁷⁾ and the monarchy made sure they were actually enforced. Nobles forced aljamas to contract debts, sometimes for their own personal expenses, but the king was much more apt to hear about such abuses in the North, and in at least one case be forced the noble in question to repay the debt himself.⁽⁹⁸⁾

When the queen took over the major Aragonese aljamas, moreover, she regulated their finances minutely, and prohibited the taking of loans which were not in the best interests of the aljamas:

We forbid you...or any members of the aljama...to attempt or allow the borrowing of money or the taking of a loan at interest or otherwise, or to sell rights to loans or tax-returns, or to receive any advance -- even if the local bailiff or his lieutenant should approve -- on any amount of money from any person. Rather, all those sums which it is incumbent on the aljama to raise you shall obtain and collect by means of levying among yourselves a tax ("peyta"); or arranging payments and contributions among yourselves, as has been [previously] ordained in similar matters.⁽⁹⁹⁾

[222] Indeed, the queen's seal seems to have affected even the king, who began to defend the aljamas against the unscrupulous interference of his own officials. He harshly rebuked the Justice of Aragon in a letter of 1365 for having presumed to arrange some financial matters for a Jewish aljama:

  ...for well you know that you have no right to intervene in any matters regarding the Jews and Moors, who are our treasure and subject to our will. Wherefore we order and command you expressly to revoke at once the said agreement, and henceforth never to undertake to make such contracts with these or any other Jews or Moors...⁽¹⁰⁰⁾

The disastrous finances of the aljamas, of course, were not due wholly to taxation. In addition to royal demands, the aljama [223] was responsible for the salaries of various officials, such as the qadi. Even small aljamas often paid qadis salaries between 2,000s and 4,000s,⁽¹⁰²⁾ and had to pay them pensions when they retired (or even if they were removed for incompetence).⁽¹⁰³⁾ The aljama could, moreover, be dunned for the outstanding fines of its members: in 1355 the aljama of Játiva bought amnesty from all fines owed by its members to the king or his officials for 3,000s, which belies an actual aggregate of outstanding fines at least in excess of that figure.⁽¹⁰⁴⁾ The king voluntarily extended this amnesty twice subsequently, owing to "the great poverty of the aljama."⁽¹⁰⁵⁾ Aljamas often had special expenses parallel to the obligation of the Jews to keep the royal menagerie: the aljama of Huesca was required to support a law student named Dominic Egidius at the Studium Generale.⁽¹⁰⁶⁾

Rents were a considerable drain on Mudéjar finances, both individually and collectively. Many landless Muslims rented royal or ecclesiastical lands to farm "so they could pay royal taxes."⁽¹⁰⁷⁾ This rendered them liable to financial exploitation of various kinds, [224] which are discussed elsewhere. Royal remissions did not apply to rents.⁽¹⁰⁸⁾ Many aljamas rented lands collectively,⁽¹⁰⁹⁾ possibly for greater security, and all paid "rents" to the Crown for various positions or buildings which were licensed, such as baths, meat markets, glove-making, barbering, etc.⁽¹¹⁰⁾

Aside from periodic cash gifts from sympathetic nobles,⁽¹¹¹⁾ aljamas had little alternative to borrowing except to sell off property or taxes. The sale of property was, as will be discussed elsewhere in this study, complicated. Each town or morería had its own intricate laws and customs about the legitimate sale of Muslim properties and the collection of taxes thereto appertaining. Sometimes the Crown would intervene to override local statutes when the sale of property was crucial to the aljama's well-being, and the queen, conscientious in the extreme about the state of her aljamas, frequently remitted her share of the revenues from such sales so as to facilitate economic recovery for the morería.⁽¹¹²⁾ Still, the hard-pressed Mudéjares reached further and further to meet their demands: the officials of the aljama of Borja cold-bloodedly sold off the patrimony of two orphans to meet the aljama's obligations,⁽¹¹³⁾ and the Muslims of St Stephen Litarie sold to a domestic of the [225] king one-fourth of the possessions and houses they actually occupied.⁽¹¹⁴⁾ More commonly, aljamas sold off the rights to their revenues to the highest bidder, or farmed their taxes;⁽¹¹⁵⁾ in a curious twist on his ancient practice, the Muslims of Seta "rented" from the queen heir own revenues: i.e., they paid her a flat sum in return for keeping what was actually collected.⁽¹¹⁶⁾

The Crown's voracity was not untempered., however, and this gloomy account of the sad state of aljama finances leaves out -- as do most other studies, such as that of Küchler -- a crucial element of Aragonese tax structure: the remission. Both the king and the queen were well aware of the disastrous fiscal state of Mudéjar communities in the mid-fourteenth century, and -- whether for humanitarian reasons or self-interest or both -- tried hard to alleviate their plight, while still maintaining a level of taxation sufficient for their own needs. It would be grossly unfair to characterize the Aragonese Crown as rapaciously milking the Muslims for all it could get, or as keeping them as economic chattel. There is ample reason to believe that individually many Muslims flourished and grew wealthy even while the aljamas sank deeper into debt. It is extremely likely, moreover, that Muslims paid a smaller percentage of the total tax burden than their numbers alone would have [226]dictated.

In 1315 royal revenues from taxation amounted to 150,000s.⁽¹¹⁷⁾ Allowing for inflation and increased needs of the monarchy, a conservative estimate of the total revenues from taxes in the decade 1355-1365 would be about 200,000s annually.⁽¹¹⁸⁾ The figures in tables A and B appended to this chapter suggest an annual Muslim tax burden of from 7,000s to 54,500s per year, with an annual mean of 19,552s. This would mean that at the absolute most the Muslims paid slightly more than 25% of the total taxes of the kingdom, and that more likely their contribution ranged from 3% to 10% of the total. Since 25% represents an extremely modest estimate of the proportion of Muslim population to the general one,⁽¹¹⁹⁾ and since no stretch of the imagination could put this percentage as low as 3%, one is forced to conclude that in all likelihood the Mudéjares under the Crown of Aragon paid far less in taxes than their demographic proportions would have warranted.⁽¹²⁰⁾

Part of the reason for this was the extremely common practice [227] granting whole or partial relief from the taxes levied on Muslims and Muslim communities. The terminology varies in the documents; in this study "remission" will apply to a complete amnesty from any particular tax, i.e., no part of it to be demanded at any time; "partial remission" means that part of the demand is completely excused, the rest to be demanded now or later; "elongamentum" refers to the practice of proroguing the debt for a specified me, after which it would be due as originally levied. Since elongamenta were -- theoretically, at least -- eventually collected, they have been excluded from the following computations. It is important to recognize, nonetheless, the role they played in relieving the financial distress of the aljamas: very often the immediate exaction of a tax would have resulted in the ruin of an aljama or the imprisonment or loss of property of its members. Under such circumstances the Crown, by granting an elongamentum, was able both to show its creditors some evidence of ability to pay in the future and to spare the aljama utter ruin. In view of the severe financial embarrassment of the Crown itself during the latter half of the fourteenth century, the frequency of such grants is certainly testimony to the restraint, if not the benevolence, of royal fiscal policy.

Even more impressive were the remissions, which represented a complete loss of revenue for a royal house struggling to keep ahead of its creditors. It is impossible to compute the exact sums of remissions to the aljamas, even for one year, because they are [228] most often phrased as "all of the peyta," or "one-third of the subsidium," and since the peyta or subsidium for that year would then not be recorded (even if only a percentage of it were remitted), there is no way to be certain exactly how much revenue the Crown lost. It is possible, however, to provide an estimate of the proportion of Muslim revenues remitted, by figuring what percentage of communities paying regular taxes received remissions of those taxes.

Twenty-two aljamas paid regular taxes during the period 1355-1366.⁽¹²¹⁾ Of these, an annual average of 44% received whole or partial remissions of their regular tax payments during the years in question. This means that the Crown was receiving, throughout the difficult war years, only slightly more than half the revenues it customarily recieved from the Muslim communities under its authority. During three of these years -- l361, 1362, 1363 -- the Crown received income from considerably less than half of those communities usually liable: 37%, 33%, and 36%, respectively. In the vast majority of cases -- 83% -- the remissions were total, and in all but one they were for one-half the tax or more. These figures, moreover, refer only to regular taxes, i.e., cena, peyta, subsidium, etc. They do not include extraordinary war demands, of which the number [229] of remissions is undeterminable, since the data are not adequate, nor miscellaneous taxes, of which at least 10% were remitted annually although figures are inadequate for these as well.

These statistics do not begin to show the gap between the theoretical tax liability of the Mudéjares and their actual payments. The figures given above, for instance, are based on recorded remissions, i.e., cases where a document survives excusing a particular aljama from a particular tax. But a great many aljamas for which no such record of remission survives did not pay taxes during one or more years in the eleven-year period under discussion. If, for instance, each of the twenty-two aljamas which paid regular taxes at some point during the years 1355-1366 had paid regular taxes every year, the revenues from such taxes would have been 59,418s annually.⁽¹²²⁾ This figure exceeds only slightly the estimate of total regular income from all Muslim communities for 1294 as given in table E. Yet the total of all incomes, including irregular demands, during the period 1355-66 only equals this figure in one year, 1363, and this is due to an enormous war levy of over 400,000s. Excluding this peak year, only three years even approach the theoretical tax burden (1356, 1357, 1365). The actual mean annual intake from all Muslim taxes for the years 1355-66, exclusive of the 400,000s, is only 33% of the theoretical annual intake from regular taxes alone.

If an estimate is made of the theoretical tax liability of all [230] the aljamas which at any time paid taxes, i.e., if, as was officially the case, the cena, peyta, subsidium, and censualia were collected from every aljama under the Crown which had no specific exemption, the annual total would have been approximately 105,000s. The mean annual income from all Muslim sources during 1355-66 (again exlusive of the 400,000s in 1363) is only 19% of this figure.

What does this mean? First, it supports the suggestion made earlier that fourteenth-century Muslim tax contributions to the Crown in reality fell far below what should be expected. from official theory. Second, it shows that no matter how difficult the theoretical burden on any aljama may have been, there was great latitude for avoidance of payment, and that in fact only an average of about 60% of the aljamas paid all their annual taxes, with the figure dropping in some years to as little as 33%. Third, it shows that the Crown was collecting in any given year less than a third of the total sum it was supposedly entitled to demand from the aljamas.

If the aljamas were actually taxed at less than one-third of their official liability, how is it that royal taxation brought them to such financial straits? Were the official tax rates so far out of line with economic reality that demanding only a third of them drove the Mudéjar communities into debt? One clue may lie in the tremendous increase in some tax rates between 1330 and 1360. Information is scanty, but judging from the figures in table F, it would seem that the average rate for the cena in 1356 was about 300% of the rate in 1327. If this increase was uniform for all taxes, [231] Muslims paying only one-third of their official liability in 1360 would simply be paying the same taxes they had paid in 1330, and the Crown would have accomplished nothing but making itself appear generous in remitting an increase which could not be collected.

This explanation does not seem altogether convincing. There is no evidence that tax rates increased uniformly; the cena underwent more change than other taxes because its very nature demanded revision by the mid-fourteenth century, when it was no longer practical to view it as a feudal duty of hospitality, and it became merely an annual tax. Most likely at this juncture its amount was appraised at figures which were more in line with the inflated monetary values of the day than were the former levels.

Moreover, even if the tax rates had been increased substantially, this would not necessarily represent exorbitant royal taxation. Despite royal efforts to control them, prices had risen astronomically following the plague years, and salaries were at least two to three hundred percent higher than before the pestilence struck. A tax increase across the board of several hundred percent would probably have barely offset the Crown's expenses under inflated prices and salaries.

On the other hand, general taxes were almost certainly higher -- or at least collected in greater amounts -- in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries than during the period of this study, as table E demonstrates. Moreover, during the decade in question, regular taxation of Mudéjares was on the same terms and at the same [232] rate as that for Christians, and roughly the same can be said of extraordinary demands. There was no major tax imposed on the Muslim communities which was not also levied on the Christian ones at rough ly the same rate. Yet there is no hue and cry about the Christian municipalities being "ruined and utterly devastated" by royal taxation and debts. There are complaints, to be sure, and hardship, but no gloomy predictions of ultimate disaster, no desperate measures taken to ward off depopulation due to emigration of debt-ridden citizens, no wholesale remissions of tax burdens.

What then? There were probably more excesses in the taxation of Mudéjares, certainly more forced loans and abuses of that but these alone could scarcely account for so dramatic a phenomenon. Were the Mudéjares so much poorer than the Christians that they could not pay equal taxes? Verlinden concluded that in most Mudéjar communities there were no well-to-do individuals ("gens aisés").⁽¹²³⁾ Although the nature of documentation for the period. provides little direct evidence to support or contradict this assertion, a good many indirect indices of Mudéjar wealth can be extracted from Chancery materials. Such data point not only to the existence of a wealthy class of Mudéjares, but to the general prosperity of the Muslim community in toto. Individual Mudéjares regularly took out loans from Christians and Jews in amounts of l,000s or 2,000s,⁽¹²⁴⁾ and rented buildings (such as silos) from Christians at rates like [233] 3,000s annually.⁽¹²⁵⁾ Fines paid by them are often surprisingly high, and never very different from those charged of or paid by Christians.⁽¹²⁶⁾ Numerous Mudéjares were prosperous enough to travel to the Holy Land and back with their families and servants.⁽¹²⁷⁾ Many Muslims owned considerable property, real and moveable: flocks of 150 to 250 sheep (worth about 875s),⁽¹²⁸⁾ real property valued at from 500s to 2,500s.⁽¹²⁹⁾ A Saracen from Zaragoza was reimbursed for goods seized from him on a business trip in the amount of 3,000s;⁽¹³⁰⁾ the emigrating Muslims captured by Arnald de Caneto were awarded 30,000s as restitution for their lost personal property;⁽¹³¹⁾ Mahomat del Rey, at the time of his murder, was carrying l,200s cash;⁽¹³²⁾ a Muslim friend of the king owned a horse worth 750s.⁽¹³³⁾ Maymo Xehep left an estate in excess of 36,000s,⁽¹³⁴⁾ and Maymo Fuster's estate paid as one of numerous fines 23,000s for tax fraud.⁽¹³⁵⁾ Between them Maymo and Neixma Fuster left behind when they emigrated personal valuables auctioned. for 4,000s -- and these were the ones they had [234] abandoned.⁽¹³⁶⁾

Middle-class Saracens commonly owned real estate ranging from 50s in value to 300s,⁽¹³⁷⁾ and an ordinary Muslim grain store (for personal use) was worth about 190s.⁽¹³⁸⁾ Emigrants taxed at the port of Valencia -- mostly freed captives and therefore hardly well-to-do -- wore clothing worth on the average 30s, and most had at least 25s in cash on them.⁽¹³⁹⁾ Aside from a few notable exceptions,⁽¹⁴⁰⁾ moreover, Mudéjares were paid as well as Christians for their services,⁽¹⁴¹⁾ and were in great demand as skilled laborers. Although skilled craftsmen were prohibited by a law of 1349 from asking more than 70s annually as salaries,⁽¹⁴²⁾ Mudéjar carpenters in Zaragoza customarily received more than 18s per day in l357,⁽¹⁴³⁾ and a master was paid well in excess of 200s annually.⁽¹⁴⁴⁾ A Muslim juglar on the king's ships was paid wages at the rate of 900s annually, plus 80s for clothing and is per day as food ration.⁽¹⁴⁵⁾ On the same ship a [235] Mudéjar cableman earned 360s per year, plus 20s to eat on for four months.⁽¹⁴⁶⁾ (By contrast, a minor Muslim public official in Játiva, the fiscalis, made only l00s annually.)⁽¹⁴⁷⁾ In the army Muslims made considerably more, and there is every indication that with the exceptions noted above) they were paid at exactly the same rate as the Christians.⁽¹⁴⁸⁾

If, then, the Muslim communities included wealthy men and a prosperous middle class, what is the reason for their relatively small tax contribution, and the extreme generosity of the Crown in excusing them from their tax duties? The answers are not easy. One reason may be the inequity of distribution of taxes, both among communities and individuals. Although twenty-two aljamas paid regular taxes of some sort during the period 1355-66, 75% of the entire tax burden was met by seven of these aljamas. These were, in order of percentages, Játiva, Valencia, Zaragona, Borja, Elche, Huesca, and Calatayud. Játiva alone paid 35% of all taxes received during the eleven years of the war. (See table C.) It is easy to imagine how, in a time of stress, the drain on the resources of [236] these seven aljamas might become virtually insupportable, and this is precisely what is suggested by the table of remissions: the names of the seven occur more frequently than any others.

Another part of the answer may be provided by the franchi: there reason to believe that the wealthier a Mudéjar was, the less apt he was to be compelled to pay taxes (cf. the tax-fraud case of Maymo Fuster, above). If in the seven aljamas paying three-fourths of Mudéjar taxes, the most prosperous members avoided taxation through royal exemption, influence, or fraud, the tax burden would then fall on the shoulders of those less able to pay, and while wealthy individuals would continue to prosper, the poorer classes in the aljamas would be gradually ruined by the weight of taxation.

On the other hand, the Crown did respond to the demands of the aljamas in regard to the franchi, and inequality in taxation cannot wholly answer the question. Nor is it likely that the kings and queens of Aragon were simply "soft touches." When it came down to their survival or the aljamas', they were not inclined to be too altruistic.⁽¹⁴⁹⁾

Two other factors seem to be primarily responsible for this phenomenon. It is apparent that the Muslim population of Aragon- Catalonia-Valencia was declining markedly in the latter half of the fourteenth century. Though there are few statistics even vaguely [237] approaching reliability, the enormous number of Chancery documents which describe the "utter ruin" and "devastation" of the aljamas, the constant complaints by the aljamas themselves that they were being taxed for numbers which far exceeded their real membership, the severe measures taken to check Muslim emigration, and the lengths which the Crown and nobles would go to win back or attract Muslim serfs and vassals all testify to the dwindling number of Mudéjar subjects. The few figures extant bear out this conclusion: the aljama of Teruel, customarily paying war taxes for 92 "persons," in 1362 contained only 42 "persons," a drop in population of more than fifty-percent.⁽¹⁵⁰⁾ The population of the once thriving aljama of Ariza had been depopulated by 95% in 1361, and the king painted a gloomy picture of its condition in writing to Peter Jordan:

   ...more than two hundred Saracens used to have residence in the city, and now only about ten live there; all of the property which once belonged to the other Saracens of the town has devolved upon these ten, who must sell some of this property to pay their debts, but cannot get a fair price for the property because they must find among these same ten both buyers and sellers...⁽¹⁵¹⁾

Fewer statistics are available for Valencia,⁽¹⁵³⁾ but in view of the extreme anxiety displayed by Christians there to prevent Mudéjar emigration or even relocation, and considering that in years when passage to other lands was permitted Valencian Mudéjares emigrated from the country in numbers exceeding 200 persons annually, the situation cannot have been much better there.⁽¹⁵⁴⁾

It is, in fact, generally accepted that the entire population of the lands under the Crown of Aragon declined throughout the latter half of the fourteenth century; possibly the Muslim decline was not appreciably greater than that of the population as a whole, but what little evidence there is suggests otherwise. In 1294 the Muslims of Aragon paid about 90% of their theoretical tax liability. In 1315 this had been reduced to only about 60%, and by 1360 it was down to nearly 30%.⁽¹⁵⁵⁾ By the beginning of the fifteenth century the Muslim aljamas were very nearly desitute, their populations even lower than in the mid-fourteenth,⁽¹⁵⁶⁾ and by the middle of that century the Crown abolished nearly all taxes on the major Muslim aljamas because they could no longer pay even a part of them.⁽¹⁵⁷⁾

[239] The reasons for this population decline are not properly understood. There is not even scholarly agreement about its extent. But in the case of the Mudéjares part of the explanation undoubtedly lies in the regular attrition which resulted from the emigration of dissatisfied Muslims to other countries. There is abundant evidence that many Mudéjares were actually leaving the lands of the Crown throughout the fourteenth century. This gradual decrease was acutely aggravated by the great plagues which swept Europe in 1348 and thereafter, and which affected Iberian Muslims no less than Christians. A third factor exacerbated the situation: the extreme disruptions of Mudéjar life and prosperity occasioned by the war with Castile. The exact nature of the effects of the war will he discussed elsewhere; suffice it to observe here that the Mudéjares appear to have been affected in particularly disastrous ways by the mid-century war, and the consequent abrupt and dramatic decline in their economic stability and well-being must account in very large measure for the inability or unwillingness of the Crown to extract from them the full complement of taxes officially owed.⁽¹⁵⁸⁾

[240] Excluding the single levy in 1363 of 400,000s from all three kingdoms (200,000s from Aragon-Catalonia and 200,000s from Valencia), the total revenue from Muslim sources during the war years was 234,626s. The mathematical mean annual income from all Muslim sources to the Crown is thus 19,552s. The mean annual income for the years 1351, 1352, 1353, and 1368 (the years immediately preceding and following the war for which figures are available) is 6,825s. This figure closely approximates the average (or most common, as opposed to the statistical mean) annual amount of Muslim taxes received during the entire period 1351 to 1368, which was approximately 7,000s. This indicates an annual increase of about l2,727s in the amount of taxes received during the war. In view of the fact that seven aljamas paid almost exactly 75% of the total Muslim tax revenue, the burden on these seven communities during the war years must have been enormous.

The amounts of revenue received from the Muslim aljamas show clearly the rapid exhaustion of the communities' finances. Taking 7,000s as the average annual payment to the Crown after the plague years, the tax burden during the war divides itself almost neatly in half on either side of the year 1360. In every year up to and including 1360 the Muslim revenues collected exceeded the average [241] annual revenues for peace time. (In four of these years they exceeded the average by more than l,000s ) Four years fell below the standard rate -- all four in the last half of the war (1361, 1362, 1364, and 1366). Moreover, excluding the great levy of 400,000s (much of which was remitted), and the unusual contribution of Seta to the queen in 1365,⁽¹⁵⁹⁾ the rate of taxation during 1361-1366 was only a little better than half the rate in the period 1355-1360:

total taxes 1355-60 = l34,053s: annual rate = 22,342s

total taxes 1361-66 = 84,065s: annual rate = 14,011s

Inequities in the tax structure sanctioned by custom and difficult to alter, a severe decline in the Mudéjar population of most areas, and acute fiscal crisis of the aljamas due largely to war with Castile convinced the Aragonese monarchy that to force full payment of taxes would be to risk losing their Muslim subjects altogether. Efforts were made both to lure new Muslims to lands under royal control and to limit the departure of those already there, but [242] along with this the Crown adopted the wise expedient of foregoing immediate cash to foment economic recovery of the aljamas.

Many aljamas regained some solvency eventually, and at the beginning of the fifteenth century there apparently was a period of short-lived prosperity when the aljamas, although still depopulated, were able to pay more of the taxes they owed the king and queen. The tax policy of the Aragonese rulers regarding the Muslims was vindicated as well as it could have been under the severe stress of the age. It was a policy of restraint, sympathy, and realism, balancing as well as it could the needs of the Muslims and those of the Crown.
 

Table A:	Totals of taxes actually received, 1351-1368	p. 244
Table B:	Theoretical annual taxes, 1355-66	p. 246
Table C:	Total contributions by aljama, 1355-66	p. 250
Table D:	Remissions, 1355-66	p. 252
Table E:	Taxes of Aragonese aljamas, 1294 and 1315	p. 256
Table F:	Increase in rates for the cena, 1327-1357	p. 258

Unless otherwise specified all figures represent sueldos, either Valencian or jaccenses.

All data for the period 1355-1366 were derived from the registers of the Archive of the Crown of Aragon, both those of the Chancery and of the Royal Patrimony.  Earlier material is either also from the Crown registers or, where so indicated, from the material published by Manuel de Bofarull y de Sartorio in Rentas de la antiqua Corona de Aragón (Barcelona, 1871), XXXIX, in Colección de documentos inéditos de la Corona de Aragón.

N.B. that during the entire period under consideration (i.e., 1355-1366) the aljamas of Elda, Novelda, and other nearby towns were under the control of the King of Castile, and that all subsequent figures ignore the income from these aljamas, which were ordinarily liable to the Crown of Aragon.

                                By the king alone:                                    By the queen alone:
                                                   

YEAR	Aragon-Cat.	Valencia	Aragon-Cat.	Valencia	TOTAL
1351					7,000
1352					7,500
1353					4,000
1354					------
1355	1,985	6,000			7,985
1356	19,150	19,345			40,000
1357	11,778	34,830	800	7,100	54,508
1358	1,635	2,740	800	1,500	7,235
1359	368	4,550	400		7,913
1360	2,545	500	1,875	12,000	16,920
1361	250	4,413	1,000		6,613
1362		3,300	1,100		4,400
1363	15,425*	25,600*	*	*	41,025*
1364	145	500	1,000		2,525
1365	5187	10,080		16,000+	39,267
1366	4185	1,000	1,560		6,685
1367					------
1368					8,800
	62,653	112,858	8,475	36,600	262,376

* The 400,000s collected in this year from all three kingdoms as a special war demand was in large measure remitted subsequently, but it is impossible to know how much was forgiven. It has been deleted from all calculations except otherwise noted.

+ Although this figure represents a rather unusual tax contribution from so small an aljama (Seta), was recorded only for this year, and may have been partly remitted, I have included it here and elsewhere in my calculations, except where expressly excluded, because such periodic levies may have been one of the ways in which the Crown offset the generally low return from Muslim taxes, and thus represent a real and standard -- it erratic -- part of the royal tax system.

[245] Obsevations:

The mean annual income to the Crown is 19,552s during the years 1355-66; 16,370s during the year 1351-1368. The real average for both periods, i.e., the approximate figure which occurs most frequently, is about 7,000s per year.

During the years 1355-66 the Valencian aljamas paid 64% of the total tax burden, the Aragonese and Catalan aljamas 31%, and individuals about 5%. Twenty percent (20%) of the income during this period was paid to the queen, the remainder either going to the king specifically or to "the Crown."

For percentages by aljama, see table C.

Figures in parentheses represent estimates based on available data; for details of these estimates, see "Observations," below. Place names in parentheses are those of aljamas for which no regular taxes are recorded during 1355-1366. Their liability to taxation has been inferred from other types of taxation levied on them or from non-fiscal records.  (A) before a number indicates an average has been derived from three or more years in which the tax amount varied.
 
 

Aljama	Cena	Peyta	Subsidium	Censualia
Alagón	100	(100)	300	(300)
Alcira	(100)	100	(400)	(400)
Alicante	(100)	(100)	(400)	(400)
(Aranda)	(100)	(100)	(500)	(500)
Ariza	100	(100)	500	(500)
(Artana)	(100)	(100)	(400)	(400)
Aspe	(100)	(A) 3,000	(A) 3,000	(A) 3,00
Barbastro	(100)	(100)	750	(750)
Borja	100	(100)	2,000	3,000
Brea	60	(60)	(240)	(240)
Calatyud	(100)	(100)	(A) 750	(750)
(Crevillente)	(200)	(200)	(800)	(12,000)
Daroca	200	(200)	(A) 750	710
Elche	(200)	(200)	(800)	12,000
(Eslida)	(100)	(100)	(400)	(400)
(Espada)	(100)	(100)	(400)	(400)
Huesca	100	(100)	1,000	(1,000)
(Fanzara)	(100)	(100)	(400)	(400)
Játiva	600	1,500	8,000	5,000
Lérida	100	100	100	(100)
Magallón	(50)	(50)	200	(200)
(Montalbán)	(50)	(50)	(200)	(200)
(Muntroy)	(50)	(50)	(200)	(200)
Nabal	(50)	(50)	1,000	(1,000)
(Onda)	(100)	(100)	(400)	(400)
Orihuela	(100)	(100)	(400)	1,000
(Perpunxen)	(50)	(50)	(200)	(200)
St Cruce	50	(50)	(200)	(200)
(Seta)	(50)	(50)	(200)	(200)
Tarazona	100	(100)	400	(400)
Teruel	200	(200)	(A) 450	(450)
Tortosa	(100)	(100)	500	(500)
Uxó	(100)	(100)	(400)	(400)
Valencia	100	250	4,000	(4,000)
(Vilamalur)	(50)	(50)	(200)	(200)
Zaragoza	150	3,000	(A) 3,000	2,000
Totals (1):	1,960	7,950	23,700	23,710
Totals (2):	(4,110)	(10,910)	(33,840)	(54,400)

Grand Total 1:    59,418s
                                              } these totals include taxes not appearing in the table, but described below, and totaling 5,798s
Grand Total 2:    105,358s

Observations:

Total 1 is the total of all numbers without parentheses, i.e., the total sum of the tax monies actually received in one given year from all the aljamas listed. It is theoretical in the sense that in no one year did all the aljamas pay all their taxes, but it does represent a likely estimate of the standard tax burden before the great remissions of the post-plague years. If certain Valencian taxes such as the morabetí and the tithe are included for the ares in which they were collected (chiefly Muntroy, Onda, Perpunxen, Valencia, Játiva, and Teruel), the over-all sum of the total 1 figures is 59,418s.

[248] Total 2 represents the total which would have been collected had all the aljamas subject to royal taxes paid all royal taxes, i.e., were there no dispensations, privileges, remissions, exemptions, etc., and were the royal tax collectors absolutely efficient. The grand total of these figures would be 105,358s -- a wholly theoretical figure which was never attained in practice.

Total 1 is appoximately 56% of Total 2. That is, under ideal conditions it appears that the Crown collected just over half of the taxes it could have legally demanded. Under less than ideal conditions enormously less was collected: viz, table A.

The estimates were arrived at in several ways. In some cases there was indirect evidence: e.g., it was known that the aljamas of Elche and Crevillente were closely allied in fiscal matters and generally shared tax burdens equally. Information for Crevillente can thus be inferred from that of Elche. In other cases figures had to be derived from other data.

Where there was no other means of estimation, Sta Cruce was assumed to represent the minimum level of taxation for the cena for a small aljama, Lérida the minimum for a medium aljama, and Daroca the minimum for a large one. The peyta is nearly always the same figure as the cena, and was assumed to be when other information was lacking. In rough terms, the subsidium demanded of most aljamas was at least four times the amount of the cena, and this figure has been adopted when there is no other clue. The censualia actually recorded, except in one case, never differ by more than one-third either way from the amount of the subsidium. Wanting better guidelines, unknown censualia have thus been assumed to equal the subsidium.

The error in estimation is almost certainly in a downward direction, and the estimates are conservative. Magallón, for instance, is assumed to have paid a peyta of 50s, although it is known that in 1294 it paid an annual peyta of 200s*

*Bofarull, Rentas, p. 233.

Aljama                                                                                     Total contribution

Alagón	800
Alcira	200
Ariza	1,300
Barbastro	500
Borja	13,200
Calatayud	6,850
Crevillente	200
Daroca	2,830
Elche	13,200
Fanzara	2,00
Huesca	8,675
Játiva	82,500
Lérida	465
Muntroy	98
Nabal	1,500
Perpunxen	98
Onda	413
Orihuela	1,000
Seta	(16,000)*
Tarazona	400
Teruel	3,100
Tortosa	500
Uxó	6,000
Valencia	29,545
Zaragoza	18,700

Seven aljamas paid 75% of the total tax burden:
 

Játiva	35%
Valencia	13%
Zaragoza	8%
Borja	6%
Elche	6%
Huesca	4%
Calatayud	3%

[252] TABLE D: REMISSIONS, 1355-1366

The percentage figures represent the percentage of towns ordinarily paying taxes ( = 22) which did not pay the tax recorded in that column; e.g., in 1356 nine percent of towns liable to it did not pay the peyta.
 

Year	Cena	Peyta	Subsidium	Censulia	Demanda	Total	Miscellaneous: For
1355							Calatayud: walls 4%
1356		Ariza Uxó 9%	Ariza Huesca 14%	Uxó 9%		22%	Calatayud: walls 4%
1357		Ariza 4%	Alagón Borja Ariza 14%	Ariza Borja 9%		27%	Calatayud: walls 4%
1358		Uxó Valencia Játiva 14%	Játiva 4%	Ariza Borja Uxó Valencia Játiva 23%		41%	Calatayud: walls Borja: cavallerías 9%
1359		Játiva 4%	Játiva 4%	Ariza Borja Valencia Játiva 18%	Valencia 4%	30%	Calatayud: walls Borja: cavallerías Crevillente: alfarda Elche: alfarda Valencia: quintes 23%
1360		Játiva Zaragoza 9%	Játiva Zaragoza 9%	Ariza Borja Elche Valencia Játiva Zaragoza 27%		45%	Aranda: cavallerías Borja: cavallerías Calatayud: walls  14%
1361	Aranda 4%	las Fayas Játiva Zaragoza 14%	Játiva Zaragoza 9%	Aranda Ariza Borja las Fayas Elche Valencia Játiva Zaragoza 36%		63%	Aranda: cavallerías Calatayud: walls 9%
1362	Aranda 4%	Elche las Fayas 18%	Játiva Zaragoza 9%	Aranda Ariza Borja Elche las Fayas Valencia Játiva Zaragoza (Crevillente) 36%		67%	Calatayud: walls 4%
1363	Aranda 4%	Elche las Fayas Zaragoza 14%	Valencia Zaragoza aljamas of Valencia 14%*	Aranda Ariza Borja las Fayas Elche Fanzara Zaragoza 32%	Nabal Zaragoza 9%	64%	aljamas of Catalonia: fogatge Calatayud: walls 9%
1364		las Fayas Elche Zaragoza 14%	Zaragoza 4%	Borja Elche las Fayas Ariza Zaragoza 23%		41%	Calatayud: walls 4%
1365		las Fayas Travadell 9%	Fanzara Vilamalur 9%	Borja las Fayas Espada Travadell 18%	Muntanejos 4%	36%	Artana: cavallerías Artana: lezda Calatayud: walls Vilamalur: cavallerías 18%
1366	Játiva 4%	Aspe Játiva 9%	Vilamalur Játiva 9%	Borja las Fayas Espada Nabal Játiva 23%		45%	Artana: cavallerías Artana: lezda 18%

                        4%                   10%                8.5%                23%                6%                   44%                10%

The bottom figures are averages for the eleven years.

* Since "aljamas of Valencia" is too vague to compute statistically, and since the aljama of Valencia itself was already exempt, I have included this as if it were a remission to the aljama of Játiva. This is undoubtedly a slight distortion downward.

Aljama                                                      1294                                                        1315

Almonacir	3,000	----
Alagón	300	300
Aranda	800	1,500
Ariza	500	500
Borja	3,000	3,000
Daroca	730	730
Huesca	---	1,000
Huesa	300	300
Magallón	200	---
Nabal	100	100
Nuelia	500	---
Ricla	2,000+	---
Rueda	210	---
Tarazona	924	600
Teruel	---	450
Zaragoza	4,000	3,000
Total	16,464s	11,480s

* From Bofarull, Rentas, pp. 129ss and 214ss.

+ This figure includes both Christians and Muslims. I have retained it because there is no way to determine the percentage paid by the Muslims alone, and to delete it altogether would have distorted the overall total more severly than to include it.

Observations:

During the years 1355-1366 the percentage of the total Muslims revenues contributed by the Aragonese-Catalan aljamas was 31%. [257] Assuming this to have been the case earlier as well, the total taxes from all kingdoms in 1294 would have been approximately 53,110s. In 1315, they would have been about 36,386s. For the significance of this, see above, pp. 229ss.

These figures do not correspond exactly to those for the later periods in other tables, since the tax structure underwent considerable change during the forteenth century. They are interesting as points of comparison, but probably represent far less than the Crown was actually receiving from each community, since taxes in kind were also collected from nearly all the aljamas on the list. Numerous small fees and taxes were also collected and listed sporadically: most of these were systematically recorded during the decade 1355-1366, and this makes the disparity in amount even greater.

Note that neither Barbastro nor Calatayud appears on the list, although they became rather important in the mid-fourteenth century (cf. table C).

Figures for 1327 apply also to 1328, 1329, 1330. Some 1357 figures are averaged from more than one year during the period 1355-1366.
 
 

Aljama	1327	1357
Alagón	33s 4d	100s
Ariza	33s 4d	100s
Borja	33s 4d	100s
Brea	100s	60s
Calatayud	33s 4d	(100s)+
Daroca	83s 4d	200s
Huesca	100s	100s
Játiva	200s	600s
Lérida	33s 4d	100s
S. Creus	50s	50s
Tarazona	33s 4d	100s
Teruel	66s 8d	200s
Uxó	100s	(100s)
Valencia	33s 4d	100s
Zaragoza	50s	150s$

*Data for 1327 are all derived from Bofarull, Rentas, pp. 375ss.

+Figures in parentheses are estimates based on table B.

$Five aljamas which paid cena in 1327 do not appear in records for 1357: Nuelia, Ose, Turilles, Beniopa, and Gallinera.

Observations:

In about thirty years the cenas owed by the aljamas increased by about three times.

1. Macho y Ortega incorrectly assumed the censal to have been the debt incurred to pay off royal exactions: "Condición," p.186.

2. E.g., C 1068:111 (May 4, 1356).

3. For the standard opinion: Macho y Ortega, "Condición," p.203; for the annual appointments: RP 2402:23 (1355).

4. E.g., that of 20,000s demanded of the Jews of Barcelona in C 1473:115 (Mar.13, 1352).

5. C 1382:67 (Borja, 1348): 1,500s; RP 1694:2 (Daroca, 1364): 635s.

6. E.g., C 980:4 (1355).

7. C 1209:44 (Mar.l4, 1365).

8. RP 1711:l2ss (1366). Elda, Novelda, Alicante, and most other towns in this area paid similar taxes, and were subject to a special bailiwick ("bajulia regni Valentie ultra Sexonam").

9. Actually such complaints had been voiced as early as 1271, when the Crown conceded to the aljama of Aranda that they should no longer pay taxes for Saracens who left or were baptized; C 862:127 (1337) is a fourteenth-century confirmation of this. Property abandoned was, of course, taxable as before.

10. C 982:188 (Feb.5, 1359).

11. C 1383:233 (Nov.22, 1360) and C 1384:22 (May 30, 1361).

12. C 1383:239 (Jan.2, 1361), but see note 150, below.

13. C 910:118 (Sept.16, 1366).

14. On the universality of the property tax, see C 903:290 (May 7, 1360); on a typical (?) assessment, see C 904:73 (May 10, 1360), where 800s worth of Muslim property is taxed l2d annually. Of course, sales tax was also paid when Muslims were sold themselves: this jus quinti might be considered a contribution of the Mudéjar community. See C 1207:145 (Oct.3, 1365), for one of many examples. For more on the sales tax and property taxes in general, cf. López de Meneses, Documentos, p.92 (document of 1350 [ =C 890:165]).

15. Hamilton, Money, p.9.

16. See HP l708:18ss, and other RP registers.

17. E.g., a Muslim of Lérida paid one morabetí annually for wood for his oven. The wood tax was commonly called the cofra. (RP 994:40).

18. See Macho y Ortega, "Condición," pp.205-6.

19. "Todos los iudíos e los moros son tenudos de dar décimas e primicias entrega ment [sic] de quantas heredades an o oujeron lures auolorios, si non sola ment d'aquellas que non foron de cristianos an algún tiempo que omne se pueda acordar" I.5 (Tilander, p.11).

20. "Licet in canonibus caveatur quod judaei, et sarraceni de terris, quas colunt, et de animalibus suis decimas, et primitias solvere teneantur..., ipsas tamen decimas et primitias perversis machinationibus subtrahere moliuntur; nos igitur...de consilio et assensu praedicti nostri capituli statuimus, et ordinamus quod si aliquis sarracenorum contradixerit seu recusaverit solvere decimam, et primitiam de praedictis, quod nisi ostenderit quare a solutione hujusmodi sit immunis, ad mandatum nostrum, vel officialis nostri, layci illius parrochiae, in qua dictus sarracenus habitaverit, seu domiciliatus fuerit, et in qua terra et animalia de quibus solvendae sunt decimae et primitiae sita fuerit, et ipsa animalia pascentur, moneantur quod infra tres dies quos ei, et cuilibet ipsorum pro canonica admonitione assignamus, abstineant participare cum dicto sarraceno vel judaeo, et ex tunc donec satisfecerint competenter, non participent cum eodem, in loquendo, salutando, comedendo, et bibendo, emendo et vendendo, aut aliter participando. Et si desistere noluerit, seu contirarium fecerit, excommunicationi eo ipso se noverit subjacere" Villanueva, Viage, V, pp.352-3.

21. Emphasis mine. ". . .recusavit tradere decimam et primitiam vallis de Uxone, quam vobis vel quibusdam de ecclesia vostra dicitis pertinere, quamquam certum existat quod in dicta valle, in qua tantum sarraceni inhabitant, non solvantur decima et primitia, nec unquam solvi consueti fuerint" C 711:161 (Feb.27, 1363). Cf. C 725:12 (Feb.17, 1366), where the dispute is still unsettled. The king appears to have upheld the majordomo in the end.

22. See C 1204:63 (1365), C 1205:45 (1365), C 1209:44, 54, 55 (1365). For tithes in the fifteenth century (when the issue was equally uncertain), see Macho y Ortega, "Documentos," p.151; "Condición," pp.231, 284-5.

23. On port tithes, see C 1072:161 (Aug.30, 1360), and RP 1708:9, RP 1719:13, and passim. On the mostalaffia, see C 904:139 (Aug.13, 1360), RP 994:43 (1363), and passim.

24. RP 1711:11 (1366): "...per dret al senyor rey pertanyent de un moro catiu qui's reeme e's atalla de aquell, e es acostumat que com se atallen ells leuen los ferres donen una dobla al senyor Rey."

25. E.g., RP 338:18 (1356).

26. C 1569:75 (Dec.12, 1360).

27. RP 687:90 (May 4, 1359).

28. C 1208:78 (Sept.6, 1365).

29. RP 2402:23 (1355).

30. C 699:169 (Feb.15, 1360).

31. C 1380:78 (Nov.21, 1356).

32. RP 687:47 (July 7, 1357).

33. C 683:175 (Mar.25, 1356), C 1151:79 (Feb.19, 1357).

34. C 719:88 (Jan.31, 1365).

35. C 970:197 (Oct.31, 1364).

36. Macho y Ortega, "Condición," p.161; Piles Boa, "Situación," p. 79.

37. C 983:59 (Jan.4, 1359); cf. C 968:5 (Apr.2, 1359).

38. C 684:233 (July 8, 1356).

39. C 699:220 (Apr.23, 1360).

40. C 862:130 (Jan.21, 1337).

41. Tortosa.

42. ". . . considerantes etiam qualiter propter guerram Castelle dicti redditus atque jura camere vestre...in tantum sunt diminuti et extenuati quod vix possunt sufficere provisioni domus vestre, cum plura ex notabilioribus civitatibus, castris, et locis dicte camere vestre, tam in Aragonie quam in Valentie regnis constitutis, fuerunt capta et occupata et adhuc detinentur per regem Castelle. Ob quod expedit sicuti ex conventione tenemur, et aliter prout sublimitati status vestre ac honori nostro congruit... [ut demus] etiam vobis, regine prefate, subsidia, tributa, et cenas aljamarum judeoruin et sarracenorun eiusdem civitatis, ita quod vos, dicta regina, possitis a dictis aljamis petere, exigere, habere et imponere subsidia et alias exactiones prout facere consuevistis allis aljamis locorum camere vestre.. ." C 1536:62 (July 31, 1364).

43. C 1534:137 (Oct.5, 1359); C 1536:45 (Feb.20, 1360), C 1536:62, ut supra C 1537:48 (June 15, 1361). Many of these grants were so sudden that the king had to enjoin the former owners specifically from collecting taxes which they previously handled under royal privilege, e.g., in Tarazona (last named entry, above). Note that the Muslims of Eslida asked to be given to the queen: "...hauem sabut que a vosaltres plau esser de la dita Reyna" C 1205:60 (Mar.31, 1365).

44. C 1537:58 (July 28, 1363).

45. C 1506:66 (Jan.22, 1364: Corts of Tortosa).

46. C 1505:167 (July 4, 1365). The base rate was that paid by the Jews of Barcelona.

47. ". . . homines loci prefati non teneantur contribuere et solvere in predictis demandis vel subsidiis cum sarracenis aljame jamdicte,...[quinimo] sub solo nomine separati a sarracenis iamdictis..." 685:33 (originally Apr.14, 1355, reconfirmed Oct.12, 1355).

48. C 1206:20 (Aug.9, 1365).

49. The local lord: C 694:l27 (May 8, 1358).

50. C 1205:69 (Apr.7, 1365).

51. C 70l:48 (June 5, 1360).

52. E.g., C 700:230 (Apr.24, 1360), C 714:23 (Mar.22, 1363).

53. "...si en algun lugar haura christianos, iudeos e moros, que sean vasallos de otro senyor, que aquellos pagan com su senyor e en aquell braço del qual sera el dito senyor e no com los del dito lugar" C 985:105 (1363). Lords paid a fee set by the Corts or the Crown for each vassal, depending on the number of vassals and the wealth of the lord. Thus in the assessment for the recovery of Tarazona the highest assessment was that for Prince Ferdinand, who paid 4s 3d for each of 800 vassals (=l2,016s 3d), and the lowest was that of the Count of Luna, who paid 3d for each of 4,000 vassals (=1166s 8d): C 1382:119 (Apr.8, 1360). For the subsequent reversal royal policy, see C 1207:162 (Sept.26, 1365).

54. C 1205:8 (Dec.28, 1365).

55. I.e., Aragonese aljamas on the border with Castile.

56. This document was written to the collectors for the Aragonese aljamas in great haste and contains errors of grammar, as well as omission of several key words, such as "vullam" or its equivalent in the last sentence: ". . . es ver que y ha algunes aljames qui son en frontera, de que sens gran dificultat e dan no's poria hauer la tatxacio, per que sera mester, apres que sia vist que de aquelles aytals aljames res no pora esser haut, que sia carregat a les altres e suportar ho poran, per tal que a las aljames de Valencia res no falga de ço que'y es estat ordenat. E nos per semblant forma [vullam] que les unes aljames suporten les altres" C 1188:174 (Sept.10, 1363). It is questionable whether the sense of the penultimate sentence is as I have given it above, or whether the meaning is rather that the money raised from Aragonese aljamas is used for the defense of the Valencian ones, and that this amount must not be diminished so the war effort will not flag. In either case the fact remains that when some aljamas cannot meet their tax demands the rates are raised for those which can.

57. C 1473:181 (Apr.4, 1356).

58. Ita quod in dicto dono seu collecta per vos inde fienda solvant aut contribuant joculatores sarraceni d.icte aljame et quicumque alii singulares ipsius aljame tam mares quam femine eiuscumque condicionis existant" C 1401:86 (June 2, 1355).

"Ita quod in dicto dono seu collecta per vos inde fienda solvant aut contribuant joculatores sarraceni d.icte aljame et quicumque alii singulares ipsius aljame tam mares quam femine eiuscumque condicionis existant" C 1401:86 (June 2, 1355).

59. C 898:258 (Apr.12, 1356).

60. C 692:35 (Jan.28, 1357).

61. C 700:34 (Nov.5, 1359).

62. C 1183:158 (Dec. l, 1362).

63. C 711:135 (Jan.24, 1363).

64. C 1206:151 (Oct.15, 1365). Cf. below, p.422. The edict this one reversed is C 1207:162 (Sept.26, 1365). Although these reasons are mentioned by the king, they may be merely the ones submitted to him by the city, which had protested the earlier decision.

65. E.g., C 1573:165 (Oct.4, 1365); cf. Macho y Ortega, "Documentos," pp.447-45l. This problem is discussed at length in Chapter VI.

66. C 860:6 (Sept.21, 1336).

67. E.g., C 899:137 (Dec. l, 1356), which confirms the rights of living Muslims to a franchitas granted their ancestors in 1258.

68. C 684:207 (Apr.16, 1356).

69. C 1380:95 (Dec.1, 1356).

70. C 1379:92 (Dec.21, 1356).

71. C 687:7 (Dec.21, 1356).

72. C 1379:95 (Dec.23, 1356).

73. C 688:145 (Jan.31, 1357). Ballistarius was also called Mahoma Ayudemi, ballistarius. He was first granted franchitas for himself and his wife and children for 10 years, in 1352. In 1354 this was extended to last his lifetime, but the edict of 1356 (above) effectively annulled this privilege. Cf. C 908:79 (Dec.20, 1362), and below.

74. C 900:42 (Mar.7, 1358).

75. C 905:219 (Feb.16, 1361).

76. C 905:231 (July 6, 1361). The loss of the aljama may have been due to the fact that the abbot of the monastery to which the heirs labor interceded for them.

77. C 905:172 (Mar.30, 1361); cf. C 908:79.

78. "...omnes et singuli sarraceni dicte aljame et infra civitatem predictam degentes, privilegiati seu exempti, solvant et solvere ac contribuere teneantur decetero in omnibus et singulis peytis, questiis, mutuis, demandis, et aliis quibuscumque exactionibus que per nos seu nostri occasione extraordinarie fient seu imponentur et petuntur ipsi aljame ratione guerre quam habemus cum rege Castil quecumque alia ratione necnon in medietate peyte seu questie ordinarie, que indici seu imponi est solita anno quolibet aliame predicte quibusvis privilegiis, concessionibus, foris, aut usaticiis dictis sarracenis per nos aut predecessores nostros seu per quoscumque alios nostri nomine concessi seu indultis obsistentibus nullo modo..." ) C 908:79 and C 1183:158 (Dec.1, 1362).

79. C 908:79 (Dec.20, 1362): ". . .hoc tamen adiecto et nobis specialiter retento, quod tu, dictus Mahoma, tenearis solvere pertem te solvere contingente in operibus murorum et vallorum, ac stipendio equitum, et aliis missionibus et demandis quas dicta aliama et eius singulares occasione guerre tam quarn [sic] cum rege Castille et aliiss inimicis habemus et habebimus solvere facere seu prestare habuerint quomodo..." Cf. executory order: C 904:84 (Dec.20, 1362).

80. RP 996:15 (1365): "E abatuts ii sol. que En Jacme ça Plana, crida publich de Barchinona, hague per salari seu de una crida que feu per certs lochs de la ciutat de Barchinona, que tots serrahins franchs se haguessen a presentar al batle general ab lurs cartes dins vi dies."

81. E.g., C 912:166 (May 27, 1366). For fifteenth-century franchitas, note the document published by Piles Ros, Estudio, pp.182-3.

82. E.g., C 898:183 (Feb.22, 1356). Such grants were extremely common in Valencia.

83. E.g., C 899:195 (Jan.25, 1357).

84. E.g., C 701:32 (May 14, 1360), C 705:178 (July 22, 1361).

85. E.g., C 1068:111 (May 4, 1356).

86. C 1401:86 (June 2, 1355), C 898:257 (Apr.19, 1356).

87. C 901:128 (Aug.5, 1357).

88. C 903:175 (Nov.27, 1359), in Appendix.

89. C 901:205 (Nov.15, 1357).

90. E.g., C 1206:96 (Sept.15, 1365); for an example of royal relief, see C 1547:18 (Oct.27, 1358).

91. ". . .los capitols que nos vos hauem liurats per fer los dits aenpraments, segons los quals no deuets aliames de juheus ne de moros, sino singulars que sien richs..." C 1183:104 (Nov.14, 1362). The letter to Boyl is C 1183:27 (July 22, 1362). Some word has been Omitted in the passage above after "deuets," undoubtedly due to the carelessness of the scribe. Many war documents were written hastily and contain errors.

92. C 1569:91 (May 20, 1361) and C 1569:97 (June 15, 1361). Of this, 26,433s 6d was owed to Prince Ferdinand (8,000s by forty individuals, the rest by the aljama). G. Bosch was owed 5,l60s (see C 1569:92, in Appendix).

93. C 1569:117 (Sept.10, 1361), and ibid. (Sept.16, 1361).

94. In the meantime the small amount the aljama had been able to pay the prince was misappropriated by his procurator: C 1572:15 (Apr.18, 1363). On the final arrangements: C 1572:63 (Oct.15, 1366).

95. C 1566:115 (Mar. 4, 1357). This edict was obviously intended to protect Muslims.

96. E.g., a debt owed the king's chaplain by the Muslims of Lérida: C 983:5 (Dec.3, 1358), or that owed jointly by Muslims and Jews of las Torres de Galinda to a Christian (in the amount of 4,200s): C 691:109 (Sept.22, 1357).

97. E.g., Fueros of Aragon, II.75; the law of 1228, "De non tradendis," in Villanueva, Viage, XVI, p.192; the laws of Valls (1299-1325), in Carreras y Candi, "Ordinacions," XII, especially p.286.

98. Peter of Luna forced the aljama of Pincesch to borrow large amounts of money, of which the king noted, "quantitates in dictis obligationibus contente fuerunt converse in necessitatibus eiusdem nobilis et non sarracenorum predictorum" C 703:124 (Sept.23, 1360). The case came to light when an exchange was to be effected involving Pincesch and another noble's aljama. The other noble, the Lady Violante d'Urrea, refused to accept Pincesch in return for Sariñena when she learned of the debts of the former. What makes the incident particularly distasteful is that the Count of Luna apparently allowed the Muslims to be turned over to their creditors for his debt, until the king ordered an end to the practice: C 699:204 (Apr.2, 1360).

99. "Inhibemus ne...vos seu aliqui singulares dicte aljame...audeat vel permittat manulevare seu mutuo accipere, sub usuriis aut aliter, vel violaria aut censualia vendere, seu baratam aliquam recipere, etiam si bajuli dicte civitatis vel eius locumtenentis consensus interveniat, a quacumque persona quasvis peccunie quantitates, quinimo quantitates omnes et singulas dictam aljamam solvere contingentes per modum ordinationis peyte inter vos ordinare vel ordinande peytare et contribuere quilibet vestrum habeatis et teneamini prout in similibus est fieri ordinatum" C 1570:87 (Mar.6, 1361).

100. "Car ya sabedes que de judios y moros, qui son nostro tresoro, y estan a nuestro voler, en res no us deuedes entremeter. Por que nos dezimos y mandamos espressament que la dita firma revoquedes de feyto, e daqui adelant ellos ni otros judios ni moros por tal razon a firmar de dreyto no recibades..." C 1210:83 (Apr.24, 1365).

101. "...todos los bienes de la aljama no son capaces de pagar las deudas..." C 2422:60 (1413); cf. C 2423:273 (1414), where the queen warns the aljama's creditors that if the aljama perishes utterly, it will be their fault ("a culpa de vosotros"). Both documents are published by Macho y Ortega, "Documentos," pp.158-9.

102. E.g., C 971:124 (May 25, 1366): salary of 2,000s in peacetime and 4,000s in war for the alcayde (Christian) of Costant to be paid by the Jews and Muslims of the area.

103. E.g., C 966:89 (Apr.16, 1356): pension of 200s annually for qadi removed for malfeasance in office.

104. C 901:135 (Aug.9, 1357).

105. Ibid., C 910:120 (Sept.16, 1366).

106. C 697:17 (May 21, 1359).

107. C 686:218 (May 10, 1356).

108. C 1210:130 (July 3, 1365).

109. C 1210:146 (July 6, 1365), RP l7ll: passim.

110. E.g., RP 1711: passim; cf. Chapter II, p.69, and note 24.

111. E.g., for construction of houses: C 1567:124 (Sept.10, 1359).

112. E.g., C 1571:159 (Sept.10, 1363).

113. C 704:68 (Aug.19, 1360).

114. C 702:163 (May 4, 1361).

115. E.g., C 1569:92 (May 20, 1361), in Appendix. On the bidding, see C 2335:30 (1402), in Macho y Ortega, "Documentos," p.154.

116. C 1573:148 (June 28, 1365); the transaction is described as a "rental" in the document. Part of the fee had to be remitted due to the aljama's poverty.

117. Küchler, "Besteuerung," p.234.

118. The cenas alone increased by 300% between 1327 and 1357: see table F at the end of this chapter. Note also that in 1363 the Muslims of the kingdoms were taxed. 400,000s for a single war levy.

119. A widely accepted figure (of Vicens Vives) for Aragon alone is 35%. Cf. introductory remarks, pp.7ss.

120. Batlle Prats and Millás Vallicrosa estimated that the combined Jewish and Muslim populations of the kingdoms under the Crown of Aragon paid only 22% of the total royal income from taxes ("Noticias sobre la aljama de Gerona a fines del siglo xiv," Sefarad, V [1945], p.132). Küchler estimated ("Besteuerung," p.236) that the Jews alone paid more than half this amount throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. This would put the Muslim contribution at well below 11%.

121. Alcira, Alagón, Ariza, Aspe, Barbastro, Borja, Brea, Calatayud, Daroca, Elche, Huesca, Játiva, Lérida, Magallón, Nabal, Orihuela, Sta Cruce, Tarazona, Teruel, Tortosa, Valencia, and Zaragoza. The information in this paragraph and those following is all derived from the tax tables at the end of this chapter, q.v.

122. N.B. that this figure excludes all irregular taxes, such as war levies.

123. L'Esclavage, I, p.534.

124. C 687:6 (1356), C 700:4 (1360), C 708:168 (1362), C 1205:69 (1365).

125. E.g., C 1571:93 (Feb.11, 1363 [two entries]).

126. E.g., 500s, 900s, l,000s: RP 1704:23 (1357); RP 1709:19 (1364).

127. C 901:113 (1357), C 905:220 (1361), C 980:70 (1363).

128. C 720:39 and 88 (1365).

129. C 1570:66 (1360), C 723:158 (1365).

130. C 1205:68 (Apr.2, 1365).

131. C 906:133 (Dec.15, 1361): but they only got 4,000s.

132. C 688:180, in Appendix.

133. C 1211:66 (May 27, 1365).

134. RP 1708:18 (1362).

135. RP l706:l9ss (1360). Abraham Abenxoa left an estate of 2,000s: RP1719:25 (1363).

136. RP 1708:18ss (1362). The taxes alone on the goods of Çaat Fuster's personal goods were 289s 2d. (ibid.).

137. C 1573:127, 128 (1365); C 904:73 (1360).

138. C 1569:75 (Dec.12, 1360).

139. RP 1708:9 (1362); RP 1719:13 (1363).

140. E.g., C 700:144 (1360), where Muslims of Calatayud are forced to work free for the war effort; cf. C 1569:29 (1359),and in Chapter IV, pp.182ss.

141. C 1069:73 (1357).

142. Tilander, "Fueros aragoneses," p.24.

143. C 899:195 (Jan.25, 1357).

144. C 1170:7 (Jan.21, 1360).

145. C 1402:153-4 (1359).

146. C 1402:153-4 (1359).

147. C 1209:125 (May 29, 1365).

148. According to the capitula regulating military salaries as 1363 (C 985:115), cavalrymen were to be paid 7s per day regardless of religion, and infantrymen with armor 5s per day, likewise regardless of religious preference. Numerous documents (e.g., RP 2468:79 [1358]) indicate that this was the practice as well as the theory. Fourteen Granadan knights were granted a lump sum of l,000s as payment in 1358: perhaps payments were irregular (RP 2468:101). Muslim arms-makers were paid just under 2s per day in Zaragoza in 1363 (C 1075:91), which is rather low.

149. In October of 1359 the aljama of Elche begged the queen to remit their annual taxes, since they were utterly destitute, but the queen refused to do so, explaining that she was receiving no rents from them and absolutely required the tax money to maintain herself. She would, she said, honor their request as soon as her own finances were in better shape: C 1569:20.

150. C 701:140 (Sept.20, 1360), and ibid. (Sept.21, 1360). "Person" presumably refers to the head of a household: see introductory remarks or possible ratios to the general population. These figures were subsequently challenged by the king, but the challenge is suspect, since he did not order a new tally, as was customary in such cases, but rather that they be taxed according to the old number: C 1383:239 Jan.2, 1361).

151. "...cum in dicta villa solerent commorari ducenti sarraceni, domos foventes, et ultra, et nunc non inhabitent in eadem nisi decem vel circa, et ad ipsos decem omnes hereditates aliorum sarracenorum ipsius ville pervenerint, et cum eos opportet vendere ex ipsis hereditatibus pro solvendis suis debiti