[149] By 1254 the situation demanded royal interference. King James wrote in March, urging the Valencians to be mindful of their eternal salvation and to cease defrauding the church. Contrary custom laws they had been citing were to be looked upon as void. No one was to gather his crops until the agents (nuncii) had assessed them. Payment in full was especially demanded "for olives, wheat, grapes, flax, hemp, and vegetables, and [the offspring of] animals."⁽¹⁾ The document hardly marks a stage in the conflict. Medieval burgher and peasant, pastor and bishop, were much the same. None of them could resist the arbitrament of a bellicose uproar.

The Controversy

Resistance spread from eggs and chickens to pigs and figs, olives and grapes.⁽²⁾ Where would it all end? Reports of unhappy scenes reached the royal ear. The cloth at the burial service, and candles at Mass and at baptisms, were "violently snatched away" from the lay participants. When no candles were brought, some clerics demanded money.⁽³⁾ Feelings being what they were -- and medieval litigants were not prone to minimize their grievances -- the whole system of tithes and fees was on the point of breaking down.

After his attempted settlement of the tithe problem at the diocese of Valencia, James had turned to those parts of the kingdom of Valencia which lay under the bishop of Tortosa. Here too he had sternly imposed in 1258 the status quo ante. The bishop "can by your own authority force and put at pledge...all the men of the kingdom of Valencia of the diocese of Tortosa, to give you tithes on everything as they ought," with the help of the royal officials.⁽⁴⁾ Now James turned his attention again to the diocese of Valencia (May 1260). He banned collection of the more disputed objects until he could come in person to settle the question. Meanwhile the usual tithe had to be paid on greens of all kinds, on rice, grapes, lambs, and the like.⁽⁵⁾ The storm seems to have abated somewhat, possibly due to the exemption James cannily gave for eggs, chickens, hens, olives, and figs (1260).⁽⁶⁾ But three months later he had to rebuke the men of Denia: "Because a Christian man is bound to pay God tithes on all fruits, therefore we wish and command firmly and severely that you pay in full, without making difficulties, the [150] tithes on the figs and almonds which you dry or cause to be dried for sale."⁽⁷⁾

The Burriana folk were causing a similar disturbance, over first fruits, keeping back that tax and at the same time dispatching complaints to the king. They had some room for legal maneuver in the circumstance that, though they fell under the diocese of Tortosa, they belonged to the realm and custom of Valencia. In November, James made a personal and "diligent" investigation there, with the bishop of Tortosa present, and ordered the people to pay up.⁽⁸⁾ An equivalent excitement in Morella -- the bishop of Tortosa against the knights and people over first fruits -- had previously been settled by the king in 1258. That settlement applied to all places in the Valencia segment of the Tortosa diocese except Burriana; payment was to be modeled on that of the Valencia diocese.⁽⁹⁾ But the tithe problem remained a lively issue in the north in 1263.⁽¹⁰⁾

It was in the capital city that feeling about the tithe ran high. Unsatisfied with the last ruling in their favor, the citizens seem to have passed a regional law to their further advantage. Soon they were sending off a delegation to wait upon the king; these agents protested several points of the royal decision, especially the prohibition against harvesting and storing before an assessor had arrived. Independently the bishop had already sent a procurator bearing the clerical complaints. The king could effect no compromise because the bishop's man was not authorized to represent his principal to this extent. An exchange of letters ensued.⁽¹¹⁾ Finally, in July 1261, less than a year after his last judgment on the situation, the king in desperation ruled:

We wish that all the aforesaid state of affairs should be returned to its original condition, until we can investigate it. Wherefore...you will pay the tithe and first fruits just as you have been accustomed to pay them hitherto; and if you have passed any law to the prejudice of these in Valencia, you will immediately cancel it.⁽¹²⁾

Six years later the situation had deteriorated to the point of being an open "magnum scandalum."⁽¹³⁾ Tithes, first fruits, sacramental stipends -- the whole system needed drastic reorganization. Unreasonable appeals to the crown by the clergy were rejected. When James came to Valencia both sides, weary of the long strife, appealed to him to make a definite arbitration of "that quarreling and discord" during his stay in the city.⁽¹⁴⁾

The Settlement of 1268

It was no easy task; the king says he had to "discuss and converse with the one side and the other, laboring over the matters in dispute, and compromising and improving that which seemed ill done." With feelings running [151] high, with ecclesiastical thunders imminent, with all social classes from baron to peasant allied, and with every town in the kingdom represented, it is easy to imagine the tension at these parleys. James had personally experienced the painful consequences which followed infringement upon clerical rights. On the other hand, he could not afford to alienate the cities, which continued to be a support to him in his turbulent reign. This whole realm indeed, upon which he relied for consolidating and strengthening royal power, was in crisis.

There was a brighter side. Neither of the parties involved could afford a serious estrangement, and both had reached that stage of disgust over the long strife which made the moment ripe for negotiation. The king's simple arbitration would be welcomed. "It is better and more proper," he argued, "to arbitrate than to use the rigor of the law." The subsequent agreement was solemnly signed by a great concourse of representatives "in the palace of the bishop."⁽¹⁵⁾ This covenant, dated April 27, 1268, was later rendered in Catalan and incorporated into the Furs as the law of the land.

Considering the almost painful detail of this document, not the humblest leafy green vegetable can have been overlooked. According to the arbitration, the tithe fell mostly on farmers and stockmen. Why, then, were the city folk so concerned? It cannot be on account of price rises, since the great staples -- wheat, wine, and oil -- are given no relief. Therefore, the average city man must also have been, in the kingdom of Valencia, a small-scale farmer. This agrees with what is known of some other cities, like Narbonne, where contemporary conditions were not dissimilar.

It would also account for the brotherhood of agricultores of the city and countryside of Valencia early in King James's reign;⁽¹⁶⁾ these latter may even have consisted of bourgeoisie who rented farms to tenants on a crop-sharing basis. What is more to the point, a generous plot of land was commonly given to settlers in the city. Even when a whole section of town was assigned, a corresponding segment of lands was added. The shoemakers got a street in Valencia, plus forty-three fanecates of land and other bits, for instance; a Teruel group got one hundred and fifty jovates along the Guadalaviar, along with their own section in the city. Vegetables and fruits grown in and about the city, within the walls of Valencia and in the immediate suburbs of Roteros, Boatella, and La Xarea, are in fact covered by a special proviso; one may sell them untithed, with no limitation of quantity or exception of kind.

A more general series of exemptions, concerning the whole realm, draws a picture of the small farmer. He raised a variety of vegetables and fruits for his domestic needs. He kept a few pigs and chickens, perhaps a donkey or doves or some bees, and some domestic cattle. He hawked a modest surplus about the city streets. After this arbitration, he paid no tithe for vegetables or fruits consumed at home, or for carrots, cabbage, turnips, spinach, or any [152]other vegetable. Onions and garlic, however, were tithed when in strings of eleven or more. No offspring of cattle or donkeys actually engaged in tilling the field could be taken from him. No chicken or chick, no pigeon or peacock, goose or duck or any kind of egg was to be touched. He could grow his own sugar (not a commercial crop in the realm then) and dry some raisins for home use untithed. Pigs were taxed when the sucklings of the herd reached fifteen. Cheeses and fleeces of wool were set at the same figure, beeswax at the level of thirty pounds per annum. Feed for draft animals or domestic stock was tax-free.

One might dabble in trade, selling in a casual way -- not beyond a yearly income of a few solidi -- pears, peaches, apples, pomegranates, nuts, mulberries, plums, quinces, sorb apples, and all other fruit from trees. The same was true for small amounts of fresh figs and almonds sold from a basket on the open squares. These items might also be eaten free at home in any quantity. Bowers of grape vines within the walls of any town in the diocese were free from tithe. Fishing in the marshes of the Albufera and snaring birds anywhere in the realm had been exempted much earlier, in 1250.⁽¹⁷⁾

It becomes clear why the clergy had been making tithe demands upon the city -- and why the people of the city or the small rural farmers resisted these raids into their modest revenues. The small farmer does not have the most generous of natures; the clergy were in no dire need; and this kind of tithing assumes an unedifying aspect of niggling and harassment. The treaty, therefore, seems to have been in large measure a victory for the laity.

The commercial farmer could draw but slight consolation from the treaty. He was the man who marketed grains, wine grapes, or olives, or who raised the fruits in common demand, especially dried figs and almonds. Bread and wine formed the bulk of agricultural commodities grown just around the city of Valencia, vegetables and fruit being of lesser importance.⁽¹⁸⁾ This serious farmer had lost every argument as to the manner of making the tithe. He was to wait upon the judgment of the tithe officers, and to leave his harvest where it lay for two full days (one day for millet) until their arrival. This meant in practice that the officials could take their pick of the crop, the choice wheat or grapes or olives, and in full measure, with all benefits of doubt. The point had been hotly contested and, despite this ruling, would raise its indignant head again.

All grains fell under the full tenth. Fourteen varieties were specified, including alfalfa, barley, flax, oats, blue vetch, and white wheat. Their tithe had to be paid on the field itself at harvest time. The few reductions amounted to little more than a deduction of expense, equitably made by law rather than left to the farmer's conscience. Olives were down to one-twelfth, but "no other expenses are to be deducted." Rice was similarly entered at a twelfth, saffron at a fifteenth. Dried figs dropped to a fifteenth; the tithe was to be given upon gathering, "before the figs are divided between the owner [153]and his harvesters." The tenth on wheat was softened by allowing a deduction of the sheafage (garba) paid to the reapers. The arbitration swept aside the farmer's cherished distinction between sparse or nonsparse olive groves, and between land cultivated or newly broken. It rejected any deductions from grapes. And it shrewdly insisted that the tenth be given in the vineyard, from each individual plot; no one could slyly offer the collectors a moldy field as a geographical tenth! Warning was issued against another tax evasion: cows and donkeys were not to be untruthfully represented as work animals.

The stockman was not spared. The Valencia kingdom had been and would continue to be important in this type of enterprise. Horses, cows, donkeys, every lamb and ewe, any sizable herd of swine -- all had to make their contribution. Their forage was taxed a full tenth. One gathers that the horse, the lamb, and the ewe were not a normal possession of the small farmer, since even single animals returned a money tax: twelve pence for the former, an obol each for the two latter.

In sum, the basic tithes on oil, wine, grain, figs, commercial livestock, and large-scale fruit or vegetable farming were vindicated but slightly relaxed. The small farmer was almost completely freed from the nuisance -- though he still contributed a personal share at the mill or the oven -- as long as his produce was substantially for domestic consumption. The cities had won out; the rural areas under the feudal lords, who received a share of the tithe themselves, had been less fortunate. The result, on the whole, was not without profit for the church, though it involved a loss in connection with produce tithes coming from city parishes. From now on, church authorities knew, the tithe could not be disputed, or contrary custom adduced, or payment refused, without breaking the agreed and formal law.

Protests and deputations to the king continued, but in diminished measure. In 1271 the justiciar of Valencia Master Guy together with Mark of Tovia, William of Sarrión, Raymond of Castile, William Zaplana, and Arnold Sexiba acted as a protest committee to the king. They represented the knights, eminent citizens, "and whole community" of the city and kingdom of Valencia. In this capacity they raised problems as to the manner of collecting the grain tithe and as to first fruits. The Valencians were currently enjoying a "contention" on these matters with the bishop, who had sent off his own agent to the king.⁽¹⁹⁾

Opposition to the terms of the treaty was handled rather firmly by the crown. Very early in 1273 King James promised the bishop and chapter that he would make all inhabitants of the city and diocese pay their tithes according to the judicial arbitration of 1268; his officials were to give active help too.⁽²⁰⁾ The problem survived after the death of King James. The cities of the kingdom of Valencia sent delegates, fortified with documents clarifying their position, to plead before the new king. King Peter was not sympathetic. He [154] warned that "we propose to continue exacting justice with regard to the tithe belonging to us and to the bishop of Valencia in the land of Valencia."⁽²¹⁾ And the first document of the new king Peter in the corpus of municipal privileges concerned the manner of collecting tithes and first fruits.⁽²²⁾

Later in 1278 King Peter worked out a form of "compromise" in cooperation with the delegates and the bishop. Ample notice was to be given to the tithe officials; the tithe was to be taken by them in the fields; and precise instructions were supplied concerning collection of such items as rice and wine grapes.⁽²³⁾ Peter seems to have stood firmly on this. In 1279 he several times ordered coercion under heavy fine where necessary and punishments for fraud. He was particularly annoyed that some vineyard owners, when asked to identify their plots so that the tithe could be cut from them, simply pointed to a neighbor's vines.⁽²⁴⁾ In 1281 the king wrote to Peter Alçut the bailiff of Picasent, recommending the use of force "to compel [people] to pay and give to the church of Valencia its tithes and first fruits, as they ought."⁽²⁵⁾

Two burning general questions remained to be solved, now that it was obvious no further concessions would be made as to the manner of collecting the tithe. Both concerned the first fruits. Could it be tolerated that "on all for which the tithe is given, let first fruits also be taken"?⁽²⁶⁾ And which came first, the tithe or the first fruits? After all, a crop undiminished by the tithe contributed more first fruits to the parish; the process in reverse favored the diocese over the parish; and a full tax of both on the original sum favored church over farmer! The customs of Aragon were supposed to be the guide.⁽²⁷⁾ But people were not of one mind as to precisely what had been the custom in Aragon. In June of 1271, King James applied the crown's authority and neutral arbitration to this problem.

Like the tithe difficulty, the problem of the first fruits was not confined to the diocese of Valencia. The Tortosa diocese had been experiencing similar difficulties with its Valencian towns. But the northern diocese does not have an ecclesiastical tax documentation on the scale of the Valencia diocese. Aside from quarrels in this matter directly with the religious Orders and with the tithe-holding king, only an echo is heard there of the more general disturbances. A major reason undoubtedly was the less extensive town life in the north and the wider extent of religious holdings. The two independent centers of town life, Morella and Burriana, were seething very much like their neighbors in the southern diocese. The king had to make a general tithe settlement up here in 1258,⁽²⁸⁾ and then include the north in the wider settlement of 1268. Separate agreements on the first fruits had been worked out with Burriana (1260) with Morella (1258 and 1263), and with Castellón (1260).⁽²⁹⁾ In the few places comprising the Segorbe diocese too, the people "refuse to give the first fruits to the venerable bishop-elect of the Segorbe diocese," and the king finally had to order officials of the crown to support the diocesan collectors.⁽³⁰⁾

[155] In the diocese of Valencia, Bishop Jazpert assaulted his first fruits problem with diligence. Letters of inquiry were dispatched at the hand of Dominic of Biscay, "a discreet man" and pastor of St. Lawrence in Valencia city, to the dioceses of Huesca, Zaragoza, Tarazona, and Tarragona.⁽³¹⁾ One set of messages was directed to the ecclesiastical authorities, another to the lay authorities. The answer indicated that the laity in Valencia had not been quite honest in their scruples. The tenth was to be given first. But the reckoning of the first fruits was drawn from the original total, so that the abstracted tithe was mentally restored, to be computed once again "in the quantity of the first fruits," as the lay magnates of the commune of Tarazona pointed out.⁽³²⁾

This presumably settled the question, but in those litigious days one fears that it did not. In any case, both the what and the how had been settled by the compromise of King James in 1268 with its subsequent modifications. And an unusually competent bishop was at hand to deal with difficulties.

The King's Share

The king sat on the side of the angels during the Valencia tithe dispute, passing high and objective judgment. Was the objectivity complete? James was a just man by and large, and circumstances made an equitable arbitration imperative. But it must be remembered that the tithe was also a civil tax -- among the most important because so universal and secure.

In Valencia the tithe assumed even greater importance. The estates of barons and religious Orders were owned free of land tax; royal revenues from land therefore derived from the king's own holdings in the new kingdom. These latter were extensive; but the process of infeudation took time, rents had to be lenient in order to encourage settlement, and from an early date King James had to waive even the 10-solidi entry fee. In short, Valencian land tended to be or to become alodial. As a result King James's exchequer counted heavily upon tithe income.⁽³³⁾ Thus, no matter what his personal sympathies, the king had to watch carefully over the collecting of what the crown bluntly called "the tithe owed to God and to us."⁽³⁴⁾

It may also be significant that the king's share of the small farmer's domestic produce could more easily be waived than could the stake in the commercial farming. Three and a third percent of much of the food sold in the kingdom of Valencia, of the oil it was cooked in, and of the wine it was washed down with went into James's purse from the tithe alone. Wheat was affected by the tithe three different times: at the harvest, at the mill, and at the oven. James got certain first fruits as well, to say nothing of his direct levies on church income from time to time, much of which was reductively the tithe.

James was continually embarrassed for funds. He supported a frustrating [156] series of petty wars and too often allowed his generous nature its head. His tribute and revenue system in Valencia limped badly, as succeeding documents in the Golden Book of municipal privileges reveal; the nobles and clergy were determined to pay as few taxes as possible, while the townsmen and merchants required exemptions and privileges in order to promote trade. Quite a number of the Valencian documents in James's archives have reference to the king's small debts and borrowings.

This introduces a struggle chronologically prior to the great tithe outburst of the late sixties: that between James and the church. James had a double tithe to consider. As the greatest landowner in Valencia he wished to attach to the royal purse the maximum possible share of the tithe. And, as the recipient of large revenues from commerce, feudal services, mines, industry, and the like, he wished to pay out the minimum possible. Almost to the end of his life King James kept, and allowed the knights and religious Orders to keep, a half of the tithes in the Valencian section of the Tortosa diocese.

This was the easier because, while the crusade lasted, the king had a real claim based upon a concession by the diocese of Tortosa. After the crusade the bishop was hard put to get even his half; in 1267 Pope Clement IV ordered King James not to disturb the Tortosa bishop in the gathering of his half-tithe.⁽³⁵⁾ Only in 1273, when the weight of evidence made it impossible for the king to deny that the crown had once promised the bishop of Tortosa "the tithes and first fruits in his whole diocese," did he reduce the intake by the crown, nobles, and religious to only a third "as in the Valencia diocese."⁽³⁶⁾

Even then he insisted on retaining the full half for the important holdings of St. Vincent's hospital in the Tortosan part of Valencia. Previously, in a greedier moment, James had made a contract for the lion's share of the tithe, with the infant church being organized in Majorca (1238). "The lord king is to have in perpetual fief two-thirds of the tithes owed by divine law -- that is, on bread, wine, and oil. But of the other things tithable, whether of animals in large or small number, or of sheep, wool, cheese, and fish, the king is to have only a half."⁽³⁷⁾ Struck with caution lest he be taken advantage of, he quickly added that "if the lord pope does not wish to ratify the accord here noted, neither the lord king nor the prince are under obligation to fulfill their part."⁽³⁸⁾

James was not so fortunate in Valencia, though the canons were his own creatures and might be relied upon to be compliant.⁽³⁹⁾ In the first year after the fall of the city, however, he does seem to have captured half of the tithes then available.⁽⁴⁰⁾ An agreement was very early reached in 1240 and 1241. Bishop Ferrer and the chapter gave him, "in perpetual benefice and a fief to you the lord James by the grace of God illustrious king of the Aragonese... the third part of the fruits of things tithable...in the whole episcopate of the kingdom of Valencia."⁽⁴¹⁾ This same contract, under the aegis of the [157] metropolitan, was spelled out again in the document of endowment in November 1241.⁽⁴²⁾ In 1247 the bishop and chapter referred, in their organization of revenues, to this "arbitration" of the tithe between diocese and crown.⁽⁴³⁾

The king had to tithe all his crown revenues (there was little distinction then, it seems, between public and private income of the king), including mills and ovens, sea fisheries and taxes from Moslems, and game and fish. He retained a third of this crown tithe. Specifically excluded was any royal claim to the third of tithes paid by knights or clerics. This would prevent the king from stepping into a power vacuum and seizing the thirds of weaker knights before the church could organize her own attack ("because, when we [the church] find ourselves in a position to reclaim these, we shall keep them for ourselves and our successors").⁽⁴⁴⁾ Perhaps King James respected this latter restriction; his son Peter was not disposed to do so.⁽⁴⁵⁾ There is evidence indicating that James took at least some of these knightly thirds, and indeed the inclusion of such a condition in the document suggests a royal lack of scruple in this direction.⁽⁴⁶⁾

As a vassal of the bishop for his share of the tithes, James bound himself to be a defender of diocesan interests. When new settlers arrived the agreement was automatically to extend to those who were directly under the king. This same agreement would be written into future arbitrations, when settling the wrangles over the dowry of the church. As far as he was concerned, James simply surrendered (the word is "absolved") as a favor whatever other claims he had to church revenue. Church authorities, on the other hand, expressly introduced the principle that no layman could ever claim a tithe nor could the church surrender it. They viewed their concession as a convenient infeudation.⁽⁴⁷⁾ It was a moral victory. It also placed the king under feudal obligations.

Centuries later the infeudation remained, to embarrass constitutional theorists in early-modern Spain. The seventeenth-century constitutionalist Matheu y Sanz was to marshal arguments for royal possession of the third-tithe as a clear regalian property. He would argue for royal jurisdiction over all tithe cases because James I had alienated only the actual possession of the two-thirds. Even the recent diocesan historian Sanchís Sivera understands the church tithe as "profane and secular," a regalian gift to the diocese by way of endowment, given by the king in fief. This odd interpretation stems apparently from a wish to justify "nuestro piadoso Conquistador" and his right of patronage.⁽⁴⁸⁾

Why did the metropolitan archbishop of Tarragona replace the bishop of Valencia in certain of these negotiations? It could have been routine confirmation; or perhaps in this way James felt more secure, foreseeing how he would later be accused of imposing his will through a packed chapter; finally, in some cases the problem of the disputed episcopate in the early [158] days of Valencia city was a relevant factor. Thus, late in 1241 the metropolitan awarded James and his heirs "the third part of the tithes of the town of Alcira and its country," from the time when it should be conquered. The agreement was for the Valencia diocese, but meanwhile the king must hold the partial tithe in fief from the church of Tarragona.⁽⁴⁹⁾

In 1245 the king reached an agreement with Bishop Arnold over the tithe of the Albufera lagoon near Valencia, a source of crown wealth from fishing and salt.⁽⁵⁰⁾ The bishop and chapter accepted a flat rate of 1,000 solidi annually, in lieu of the two-thirds tithe. The sum had to be paid by the crown tax-farmer, or by those currently leasing Albufera income, before any other disbursement from this source was made. When the king assigned the Albufera revenues to his son Prince Alphonse in 1253, he retained this 1,000 solidi for the church.⁽⁵¹⁾ It was not always easy to collect on such promises. Nonpayment led to an appeal by the diocese in 1256; the king ordered the current tax-farmers to pay bishop and chapter their thousand for the preceding year.⁽⁵²⁾ Probably the sum given yearly to the diocese represented a fair tithe at first; it assumes a revenue from the Albufera of 15,000 solidi yearly, and in 1253 Prince Alphonse was collecting 18,000 from the Albufera plus certain Valencian rents. A hundred years later the crown interests in the lagoon would be sold for 120,000 solidi, the saltworks alone being worth 50,000.⁽⁵³⁾

Bishop Andrew maintained a continuing battle against the facile concessions to the crown by his two predecessors. The case must have gone through the usual preliminaries of extensive negotiations, appeal to arbitrators, mutual recrimination, and the rest. At any rate, in the very year when James was reproving the settlers and solving their tithe problems, the king's own case came before the papal court. On August 13, 1268 James appointed two commissioners to act "as our advocates at the papal court...for the negotiations we are conducting with the bishop of Valencia about the business of the third part of the tithe."⁽⁵⁴⁾ The fight continued.

Five years later (1273) it is apparent that these negotiations have not gone well with the king. A man grown fairly old now in deeds good and bad, he found himself on the brink of the future life, "wishing to provide for the salvation of our soul."⁽⁵⁵⁾ He was inclined from sheer weariness to put some conclusion to this interminable wrangle with the Valencian church; there is a snappish tone to the final document. Nor should one overlook the possible pressures -- for the tone of the settlement is so far ungracious that one suspects pressures -- of the international situation. The current bishop of Valencia was a powerful man at the court of Rome. A new pope, Gregory X, had recently replaced two successive French popes who for a decade had been pouring out money to promote the Angevin cause as against the interests of Aragon. A compromise candidate (indeed, he had not been a cardinal nor even a priest), his succession offered new hope to Aragonese [159] interests in the western Mediterranean. Besides, at this moment James fancied himself as a strong candidate for Holy Roman Emperor and as the leader of a great crusade to Jerusalem.

The agreement reviewed the whole case. James remarked that

you claim, and often claimed before, that we were doing you injustice as to the third part of the tithe which we have kept until now, and are receiving now in the city and diocese of Valencia from our castles and towns, and as to the endowments we promised to make..., and as to the properties belonging to the mosques which we gave this church.⁽⁵⁶⁾

Here the royal document catalogues the reasons impelling the king to a settlement: affection for the church, regard for the honor of God, a disinclination for further litigation on the subject, and "also the desire to shut the mouths of many who might be able to say that we purposely and harmfully withheld the aforesaid rights of the same church."⁽⁶⁰⁾ King James is careful to add -- and the concession is a measure of the deep feelings aroused in the controversy -- that "according to our conscience, we do not believe that we are bound to do this." Besides this appeal to a notoriously lax faculty in his kingly personality, he also reproachfully recalls that "we snatched [this church] from the hands of the pagans and gained it by our own blood and restored it to Christian worship."⁽⁶¹⁾ The long, petulant document is moving and very human.

In the end, the king gave to the church "our castle of Chulilla and our castle and town of Garg, situated in the kingdom of Valencia and in your diocese, with their fortifications and men and women," including the king's third of the tithe in these two places, plus justice and coinage duty.⁽⁶²⁾ A proviso was appended that, if ever the question of the king's third should be raised again, or allied questions, this grant would become void. The church happily accepted, this time mustering thirteen out of a possible fifteen canons to sign the agreement. A companion document to these two by the king and church announced a policy of severity by king and civil officials [160] toward nonpayment of ecclesiastical taxes of all kinds by other laymen.⁽⁶³⁾ The crown had not come away the loser. Seventy years later the king's third of the tithe on bread and wine, plus his third of the vegetable tithe for the lands in the environs of the capital city, alone amounted to almost 9,000 solidi a year. This almost equaled the great tax on salt, was three times what the king got from the Jews, and was surpassed by the revenues of only the largest towns.⁽⁶⁴⁾

There is a final point, only indirectly pertinent to the tithe, about the king's financial interest in the church and his influence exerted through it. This is his right as patron over the houses of some of the important religious groups in the new realm. This patronage had been firmly established from the beginning, and confirmed by a special document secured from Pope Gregory IX early in 1239. Not only St. Vincent's church and hospital fell under it, but any "other churches and monasteries of the kingdom of Valencia which you built and endowed."⁽⁶⁵⁾

King James gathered unto himself certain of the first fruits, a fact one learns from a document of his successor. James had renounced them in a general way in 1240; in 1282 King Peter was ordering payment in the Alfandech Valley "in those places where the said lord king our father receives these first fruits and ought to receive them."⁽⁶⁶⁾ And a document of 1278 reveals that the crown is corecipient of first fruits in the realm widely, though places are not specified.⁽⁶⁷⁾

King James could handily use his share of the tithe or first fruits to pay local debts, as in May of 1262 when he mixed civil and ecclesiastical revenues of assigned places, without distinction, to make a grant to the abbot of Benifasá.⁽⁶⁸⁾ A decade later, to fulfill a promise of 1,000 morabatins left to the monastery in his will, James handed over forever his share of the tithe in these same places.⁽⁶⁹⁾

Barons and Knights

Other powers were not less happy in their determined efforts to sequester church revenues for the family purse. Settlement charters granted by nobles often required payment of the tithe, even stipulating the custom law to be observed in its assessing. Many were discreetly silent as to the ultimate beneficiary.⁽⁷⁰⁾ But some name him quite candidly: "me and mine"; or, more piously, "me and Holy Mother Church"; or, more subtly, "according to the division" practiced on the lord's estates in Aragon.⁽⁷¹⁾ The church in Valencia early set as a goal the reclaiming of the third-tithe from these nobles, advertising her intentions in the document in which she settled with the king.⁽⁷²⁾

These lords included a number of outside bishops. The bishop of Zaragoza received the walled towns and castles of Ribarroja and Albalat del [161] Júcar where he held the "ius et dominium" until 1269, when he traded them to the king for Pedrosa in Aragon. The bishop of Vich in 1238 got Labeiren and Cunilare near Murviedro, houses in the latter town, and Alcudia and Benialcazim near Paterna -- the latter soon traded for the castle of Sagart. The bishop of Segorbe had Borbotó, Coscolana, Piedra, Navajas, and Tramacastiel, or substantial parts thereof -- though his situation, as we have seen, was unique. The bishop of Barcelona held the castle and valley of Almonacid, a valuable area the king soon tried to reclaim. Other crusading bishops, like Huesca, Narbonne, and Tarragona, received properties. The Zaragoza bishop acquired also from a local lord half the tithes of nineteen areas in the Segorbe diocese. The tithe claims of such prelates could be settled pari passu with those of other lords.⁽⁷³⁾

The secular lordships included a number of ecclesiastical establishments as well, like the shrine of St. Vincent's which held Castellón or the religious Orders whose properties were far-flung. Unlike the case of the prelates, the Orders brought uncomfortable nuances to the situation. Some claimed to be exempt from diocesan jurisdiction or tithes, while others did not. Those with exemption sought to extend the privilege to vassals and villages. Some Orders had arrived to take an active, apostolic part in the work of the new diocese; whereas other Orders, or separate houses of an Order like Ripoll or Escarp, only held in absentia revenue-producing property to help their work elsewhere. Perhaps these latter eventually paid the tithe. But an absentee owner like the abbot of Montearagón, whose monastery held enough land in the Valencian kingdom as to be involved in military service here in 1277, nowhere appears in the tithe documents. The resident Orders were each the subject of special negotiations, in the course of which matters of revenue were worked out.⁽⁷⁴⁾

The lord not infrequently won the third-tithe. Even then the church imposed the same admission of principle as in the case of the crown: the right of being paid tithes could not become invested in a layman nor was the church able to give it to a layman.⁽⁷⁵⁾ However, though the bishop retained in his power the legal and moral jurisdiction, the money or the grapes or the wheat went as a special favor to the lord. Somehow one feels that the latter was not dissatisfied with the arrangement. The lord could hope, in return for the release of mosques, cemeteries, first fruits, and the like, to retain some of the mosque's supporting properties and a third of the tithe. But he would have to accept the latter as a fief, doing homage to the bishop for it.

This concept of a tithe infeudated, in whole or in part, was a settled abuse throughout Christendom. The third ecumenical council of the Lateran (1179) had ordered the laity to return these tithes; the Fourth Lateran (1215) had forbidden them for the future -- a prohibition unfortunately seized upon as a tacit approval of the current situation. In France at this time, King St. Louis counseled restitution; but his nobles were unenthusiastic.[162] In the kingdom of Valencia, however, the infeudation of the captive tithe might be defended as the lesser of two evils and a hesitant step forward toward ecclesiastical liberty.

What was the formal process? A document would be drawn: "we grant to you Peter of Montagut and your successors, as a perpetual benefice and fief, the third part of the tithes" in all his territories.⁽⁷⁶⁾ By this "you are henceforward our loyal and lawful vassal and defender of our church, and you are bound to do fidelity and homage for these."⁽⁷⁷⁾ A supplementary document, by the lord, recorded the homage and ratified the conditions.⁽⁷⁸⁾ The infeudation normally seems to have been perpetual; but it would require the formality of renewal by subsequent possessors, at least where the same family did not continue to hold.⁽⁷⁹⁾ An ecclesiastical lord had some differences of form, in the matter of homage, from the lay lord; thus a provision in the perpetual fief got by the bishop of Huesca was that, if the successors in this holding were laymen, they were to swear homage as knights do. This may explain the appearance briefly of Miret of Ciutadella, doing homage for the bishop's land.⁽⁸⁰⁾

This kind of document represented more than a church victory as to the theoretical owner of the tithe. It had the practical effect of assuring the lord's backing in collecting the whole tithe, so that the bishop as well received his share fully. It brought the matter under the feudal law -- itself codified in a section of the Furs. It established firmly a principle which might later be vindicated against less strongly entrenched foes. And it provided an opportunity to define exactly the objects to be tithed. For security the church preferred that the collector in the first instance be the bailiff of the bishop.⁽⁸¹⁾

One after another, the great landowners entered the cluster of Moorish houses called the episcopal palace. There in colorful ceremony they made homage for their holdings and for all future acquisitions. Each set his signature to a properly witnessed document, perhaps before "the assembled chapter" and with other knights as witnesses.⁽⁸²⁾ Loose manuscripts survive for a number of these homages, and a fourteenth-century register of those past infeudations which still seemed important at the time of compilation. For the sake of fashioning some generalization, it may be assumed that these represent the bulk of the pertinent documentation. In them, perhaps fifty knights and barons accepted the fiefs of their third-tithes; occasionally the proportion received varied. At least once the church authorities, anxious lest this concession ever be construed as coming from their own two-thirds, emphasized in the contract that the grant left room only for one secularized third; "from our two parts, however, we intend to yield or give you nothing."⁽⁸³⁾ Though the infeudation was usually perpetual, the bishop could restrict it to a lifetime.⁽⁸⁴⁾

Despite the automatic extension to future holdings, separate charters of infeudation were sometimes drawn to cover these different estates.⁽⁸⁵⁾ Most [163]of the documents were drawn up during the years just after the main crusade effort, indicating a brisk attack on the problem shortly after actual possession of their lands had been taken by the various knights -- if reasonable time is allowed for the first tithing to be refused and a subsequent quarrel to develop. Before the end of 1242 the system seems to have been regularized, and perhaps thirteen or more of the lords brought to do homage. A number of the documents show that there was reluctance and then arbitration. It is not unsound to assume that even pious knights would demand the third as their due -- as did the religious Orders, the several crusading bishops, and King James himself. During the interim period before final surrender, there may have been many a knight who, like Artal of Luna, saw to it that the church received none of this revenue "from him or his Christians or Moors." In Artal's case (1257), past nonpayment had to be specifically remitted for the rather long stretch of almost twenty years.⁽⁸⁶⁾

The king's homage for Valencian crown properties had been given early in 1240 to the bishop-elect of Valencia.⁽⁸⁷⁾ Vidal of Cañellas, the great scholar and statesman who was bishop of Huesca, followed in June, for his townships of Alboraya and Almácera. He secured the full tithe for any ten jovates of the land, yielding the remainder.⁽⁸⁸⁾ The first of the secular lords was brought in at the opening of the new year. This was Peter of Montagut, the brother of the bishop of Zaragoza, doing homage for the tithes of his castles and territories of Alcudia de Carlet, Alarp, and Carlet, and for his lesser holdings (February 7, 1241).⁽⁸⁹⁾ A month later the Navarrese knight López of Esparsa made an agreement for the Benisanó area near Liria and for all future gains.⁽⁹⁰⁾ Before the year's end -- another struggle and agreement having intervened with the king over the diocesan endowment -- one of the greatest barons, Berengar of Entenza, had done homage in separate documents for his castles and territory of Chiva and of Turís.⁽⁹¹⁾ The pattern had been set. The infeudations continued now in a steady stream.

In January 1242 the knight Miret of Ciutadella signed for Almácera which he had just acquired, apparently by sub-infeudation from the bishop of Huesca.⁽⁹²⁾ The powerful Simon Pérez of Arenós, lieutenant of the king for the realm of Valencia, swore homage on April 1, for his castle and territory of Pedralba southwest of Liria.⁽⁹³⁾ In May, Peter Jordán of Alfambra received the infeudation of the third-tithe of Melilla and its country (a grant "below Ruzafa ").⁽⁹⁴⁾ Peter d'Or did homage for the Albalat territory not far distant.⁽⁹⁵⁾ Peter Azlor, very possibly the same man, did so for holdings in the same place and at Cinqueros;⁽⁹⁶⁾ Peter of Puig for his lands near Valencia;⁽⁹⁷⁾ Simon of Salinas for his Campanar estates;⁽⁹⁸⁾ and William of Espailargas for his lands there.⁽⁹⁹⁾ The warrior bishop of Vich, St. Bernard Calvó, was represented in a settlement for his holdings (June 1242), places like Labeiren and Cunilare near Murviedro, and Alcudia and Benialcazim near Paterna.⁽¹⁰⁰⁾ In July 1242, the bishop of Huesca again did homage in general for all his [164] holdings; perhaps he had acquired important lands since his previous appearance; he also did homage for his town of Alboraya.⁽¹⁰¹⁾

A series of owners followed in August: the justiciar of Aragon Peter Pérez, for his lands in the Valencian huerta;⁽¹⁰²⁾ the crusader Roderick of Falz or of Salses, for Rafalaxat in the huerta;⁽¹⁰³⁾ Sire García for his Ruzafa lands;⁽¹⁰⁴⁾ and Sancho Pérez of Oblites for nearby property.⁽¹⁰⁵⁾ In September the royal functionary Martin Sánchez did homage for his lands near Valencia city,⁽¹⁰⁶⁾ Raymond of Rosanes for lands in Almazora,⁽¹⁰⁷⁾ and Arnold of Vernet for his place in the Valencian huerta.⁽¹⁰⁸⁾ Others followed, like Raymond of San Ramón for his Cuart possessions (1245);⁽¹⁰⁹⁾ Berengar of Montreal in 1248 for holdings present and future;⁽¹¹⁰⁾ the powerful Artal of Luna for Paterna and Manises in 1257 and 1262;⁽¹¹¹⁾ the magnate Simon Pérez of Arenós again for "the land of the river Mijares" and for Andilla in August 1260.⁽¹¹²⁾

The latter two holdings were renegotiated in 1263 by the procurators of Simon's wife, Mary Fernández. At her death all rights "both as to Saracens and to Christians" were to revert to the bishop and chapter.⁽¹¹³⁾ The tithes of Sot, Chera, and Villar were given to the Aragonese magnate Furtado de Lihori in 1271.⁽¹¹⁴⁾ The lord of Rascaña and Algerós, William of Aguiló, made his homage sometime before 1260.⁽¹¹⁵⁾ Roderick Díaz arranged in 1260 for the tithes of his castles and regions of Almonacid and Benaguacil for life.⁽¹¹⁶⁾

A list of thirteen men doing homage in 1272 for the third-tithes includes new names, some of them perhaps heirs or subsequent owners. They were substantial, even great, men: the knight and royal counselor Blaise Maza,⁽¹¹⁷⁾ James of Oblites,⁽¹¹⁸⁾ Simon Peter of Daroca,⁽¹¹⁹⁾ Simon Zapata of Murviedro,⁽¹²⁰⁾ Sancho Ferdinand of Loriz,⁽¹²¹⁾ Martin Roiz or Ruiz of Chelva,⁽¹²²⁾ the crown agent Simon Zapata of Játiva,⁽¹²³⁾ John Peter Zapata,⁽¹²⁴⁾ Peter Martin of Oblites,⁽¹²⁵⁾ and Lope Sánchez.⁽¹²⁶⁾ Others turn up in the Book of Legal Documents, including some of the greatest names in the realm, like Carroz of Rebollet, the admiral of Catalonia, who held Denia, Olocayba, Polop (to 1257), and other places.⁽¹²⁷⁾ In 1273 the Tibi lands of Sancho Pérez of Lienda were negotiated.⁽¹²⁸⁾ The now discredited Trobes of James Febrèr, which may nevertheless derive from some form of documentation, speak of an Agramunt from Navarre who "enjoyed half the tithes of Nules, which the bishop gave him," a Raymond of Seguí who kept all the tithes on his holdings, and a William of Salines who bought the third-tithe of Campanar from the cathedral chapter.⁽¹²⁹⁾

Some areas have a less usual history. In 1243, Cuart in the environs of Valencia city lost the episcopal two-thirds to the king, who in return traded his third of the Puzol tithe to the bishop.⁽¹³⁰⁾ Raymond of San Ramón, who seems to have acquired a small fortification and a number of corrals in the region, secured the infeudation of the usual third: "but we grant you this in [165] such wise, only if you shall be able to retrieve the third part from the lord king, because it is he who holds it as a fief for the bishop and the Valencian church."⁽¹³¹⁾ The bishop and chapter, unoptimistic and wishing to be perfectly safe, explicitly forbade their share to be touched by the owner.⁽¹³²⁾ The rejected wife of King James, Teresa Giles of Vidaure, received a full half of the tithes for her castles of Jérica and Toro; this was a lease but such a permanent one that custom would surely congeal it into a right: three hundred years.⁽¹³³⁾ Exceptions to the latter infeudation were made for the offspring of cows, horses, asses, and goats, which the cathedral body preferred to retain.

The important official Simon Pérez of Arenós, though he had done homage in 1242 for his castle and country of Pedralva, struck a very different bargain in 1260 with the bishop and chapter for his later lands: a half of the tithe or, when it fell on his considerable Saracen revenues, all of it.⁽¹³⁴⁾ Simon's son Blaise kept these latter claims. He even attempted to transfer the homage to the bishop of Zaragoza, perhaps with an eye to a better contract. But the Valencian bishop and chapter sued Blaise, and a royal investigation confirmed their rights.⁽¹³⁵⁾ Artal of Luna had his tithe fief for Paterna and Manises restricted to his lifetime, and complicated by an annual fee to the bishop and chapter of a hundred silver besants (1257).⁽¹³⁶⁾ The Paterna lands were renegotiated in 1262 by his heirs, being again restricted to a lifetime and with certain animals retained.⁽¹³⁷⁾ Some lords drove a hard bargain. A son of King James, Peter Ferdinand, refusing to pay the tithe for his Saracen revenues at Buñol and Ribarroja, did agree during an arbitration to pay 300 solidi every Christmas, a concession of the tithe which was to end at his death.⁽¹³⁸⁾

In the northern part of the kingdom of Valencia the bishop of Tortosa similarly sought to regularize the ownership of tithes. But documents of tithe homage here are rare, probably reflecting far less activity. Tortosa was a more established diocese, not so needy or so concerned to establish precedents at the outset. Again, a great deal of seignorial property up here belonged to the military Orders or to the Cistercians; and the Tortosa diocese did make strenuous efforts to diminish the Orders' ownership of tithes. One lay baron prominent in the Tortosa tithe records is William Raymond of Moncada, lord of Nules. In spring of 1250 he did homage for half the tithes of Nules castle and countryside. He and his successors held this forever, with the obligation of populating the area, of protecting the local church, and of seeing that the diocesan half was paid. His own revenues from Saracen tenants were included as under the tithe. (In 1306 a descendant, Raymond Moncada, renewed this homage.) A similar Tortosan tithe arrangement was made with Peter Simon (Eximénes) for the castle of Montornés in 1268. Simon of Urrea received a temporary grant of all tithes in his Alcalatén estates in 1282 at a price of 100 solidi yearly to the bishop. It was to run for [166] his lifetime plus ten years, after which his heir must give half the yearly tithes to the diocese.⁽¹³⁹⁾

Certain areas in Valencia are represented by documents of later date; it is difficult to relate these to the post-conquest period.⁽¹⁴⁰⁾ In the abortive Segorbe diocese there was understandably little opportunity for tithe problems to evolve. Even here, on the occasion of the first reorganization attempted (1247), Bishop Peter awarded half the tithes of Olocau, Adzaneta, and Chodos to Peter of Alcalá.⁽¹⁴¹⁾

What of the many knights whose names do not appear? There were several hundred newly created "knights of the conquest" alone, and documents disclose a large number of lords and lordlings not considered in the tithe records. For one thing, only the diocese of Valencia is here under examination. Crown lands and religious lands -- an enormous extension -- are not being considered, nor are those of city dwellers, nor probably some Moslem regions. This having been said, a puzzle remains. Were these the only secular lords powerful enough to claim the privilege of conquerors? Had other landowners given in, without leaving a trace of protest? These are not likely solutions, especially when one remembers the part taken by the barons and knights in the more general tithe conflict. It might be conjectured that the ecclesiastical authorities did not press their case against the others; but this would have been inconsistent with their inner urge to barratry. The piety of the majority would hardly have caused them to make a gift of these revenues to the church, though James of Jérica did so (1279) with the tithes and first fruits of Domeño castle and territory.⁽¹⁴²⁾

A superficially plausible explanation might be that we are dealing with holdings to which the church itself had some claim, with the knights as vassals. This would explain why immensely powerful men did homage for relatively small territories; it is supported by a comparison of place names, because so many of the estates are near those listed for the church. To accept this hypothesis would mean greatly expanding our present understanding of the amount of land owned by the diocese. The theory seems unlikely, in view of the great poverty professed by the church, especially when the diocese had to employ this excuse to secure the tithes from the parishes by papal permission. And all the documentary evidence points the other way: that these lands were held by the individuals themselves with no reference to the church. Besides, some of the tithe-contracts refer to a wide sweep of holdings present and future of a given lord; it is not probable that only church-owned lands could be meant. Again, one might suspect that the records refer to lands whose tithes were to be applied to the cathedral, since the diocesan records have disappeared. But it seems most improbable that no indication of such a situation, or of other tithe arrangements, has survived in the many documents relative to the Valencian tithes and tithe conflict.

[167] It is possible that these individual agreements represent owners of great power, especially from among men holding lands in the diocese mero et mixto imperio. Once the church settled with them, the other feudatories in the diocese could be treated as though on crown lands. This would explain why the church warned James away from claiming the thirds of the knights, and why she later clashed with the crown over this question. It would also explain why the barons and knights as a body were involved in the general tithe conflict and in the accord of 1268. It may be that the church first settled in principle the question of the king's third, then that of the third claimed by the very powerful nobles (especially where the farmlands were more settled by Christians?), and finally that of the tithes owed by the body of knights and citizens.

Speaking in a general context and as late as 1273, King James said plainly: "we and the knights and religious in the diocese of Valencia receive a third portion of the tithe."⁽¹⁴³⁾ The king intended this as a restatement of general policy, which he claimed to be applicable also to the Tortosa diocese holdings in the kingdom of Valencia. He revealed again the situation of general lay ownership of third-tithes in another plain-spoken document that same year.⁽¹⁴⁴⁾ Yet again, when the king assumed control of the third-tithe from lands of knights which he had come to hold, and the Valencia bishop protested the action, there is evidence -- though not unambiguous -- of antecedent possession of the third-tithes by all knights (1279-1280).⁽¹⁴⁵⁾ Cases also exist of the refusal by knights to transfer their right to the king.⁽¹⁴⁶⁾

King Peter made it one of his first duties after his accession to cite Hugh of Baux to court (October 1277), assigning him a day to answer "about the demand of the third part of the tithe which the king required from the knights of Burriana."⁽¹⁴⁷⁾ In 1280, ordering the holder of the queen's flocks in Valencia to pay the tithe, King Peter told him to reserve the king's third. In 1281-1282 crown functionaries even attempted to seize the thirds belonging to the Templars at Burriana and Ademuz.⁽¹⁴⁸⁾ And in 1280 the king commanded an official "to see to it that the bishop of Valencia produces just reasons, if there be any, which could stand in the way of paying the king the third-tithe" of lands formerly held by knights.⁽¹⁴⁹⁾

Some knightly estates paid no tithe; seven such places including a Valencian saltworks are listed among the holdings of James's son Peter Ferdinand. The tithe Peter Ferdinand actually did pay was considerably less than a mathematical tenth of the given income.⁽¹⁵⁰⁾ Possibly knights with more modest estates staffed only by Moslems owed too small a tithe to bother about; the bishop could hope in such a case for a mere two-thirds of a tenth of a previous Moslem rent. Among larger landholders enjoying a share of the tithe were ex-King Vincent or Sa^cîd. He regulated the tithe in detail in his baronial settlement charter for Villahermosa, ordering it to be given "both to us and to the church."⁽¹⁵¹⁾

[168] It can be argued that the majority of the important Valencian landholders did not submit to infeudation for their share of the tithe, nor yet formally surrender that share. This contention could be based upon the roll call of Valencian feudatories obliged to fight during the 1277 Moslem revolt, and upon the inexplicable silence of the tithe documents regarding most of its names. The listing is far wider than the names available from the tithe documentation. The disparity is partly in numbers (almost fifty men in the tithe documents, some one hundred and fifty in the roll call), partly in the circumstance that the two lists do not jibe. Some twenty-five of the 1277 warriors also appear in tithe settlements. Names which do coincide include some very important men, such as James of Jérica, Simon of Urrea, Carroz, Artal of Alagón, and Entenza. Of course, it is only fair to note that the military roll call has an extension somewhat wider than the combined dioceses of Tortosa and Valencia, and that changes of ownership in a rapidly moving real-estate market can account for some disparity between the two lists. A comparison of the two does tend to confirm the suspicion that the tithe settlements cover a minority, though a large and important minority, of the landholders.⁽¹⁵²⁾

In conclusion, it seems that knights generally claimed the third-tithe, but that the church did not recognize their claim, and that a large number of them secured an infeudation to regularize this. There is no clear reason why only those named made such compacts. They may have been the most important landowners; or have held lands possessed of some unique quality -- a connection with the crown, or with the cathedral, or utterly independent; or (feeblest supposition of all) all manuscript trace of further surrenders has disappeared. A general conclusion seems to be that the church did not recover the third-tithe from the knights, any more than she had from the king or the religious, but that for reasons difficult to stabilize firmly she had to be content with infeudating the third to a large minority of them.

Farming the Tithes

The tithes were farmed and even traded around, like the secular revenues of the crown in Valencia. This could be done at a flat rate or for a percentage. The priors of the Valencian chapter, ultimately responsible for the collecting, were expressly allowed to operate through farmers if they wished. Thus, a third-tithe was handed to a monk of Holy Crosses, Peter of Calçareyns, as a personal benefice until certain injuries done to him, and now assessed at a money value, were repaired.⁽¹⁵³⁾

In 1245 King James awarded 50 solidi annually to Bernard of Cervelló, to be taken from the crown's third-tithe in the city and countryside of Valencia. He confirmed this gift again in 1260 to Bernard's daughter Silia.⁽¹⁵⁴⁾ Saltworks (not those of the Albufera) leased to royal farmers paid the church a set [169] tithe of 100 Jaca solidi every year.⁽¹⁵⁵⁾ In 1273 Simon Guasch, the royal bailiff for the Denia and Calpe districts, incorporated the king's share of the tithe merely as another of the several crown taxes in his accounting.⁽¹⁵⁶⁾

Sometimes the tithe was sold directly to the lord. It is not always easy to distinguish this arrangement from an arbitration-payment or even a simple infeudation of the tithe, of which it is a variant. Sometimes, by an intermediate form, a lord added some small compensatory money payment in his contract of infeudation. An example of a straight sale of the diocesan two-thirds is the contract given to the magnate Blaise Maza:

We lease to you Blaise Maza knight, and yours, henceforward for ten years. . . two parts of all the fruits of the earth and trees belonging to the bishop and chapter of Valencia, in your castle and country of Villamarchante...for the price of two hundred solidi every year.⁽¹⁵⁷⁾

We, Brother Andrew,...with the consent of the chapter of Valencia, sell and grant only to you Furtado de Lihori knight...and Giles Roderick your son the whole tithe of bread, wine, trees, and all other fruits which we have...except the tithe on livestock, in the fortified rural areas of Sot, Villar, and Chera, which you hold.⁽¹⁵⁸⁾

A number of other cases emerge in the realm of Valencia later in the century, such as that of the baron James of Jérica (1280). There is also continuing evidence of the use of tithe farmers: for example, at Cárcer (1280), Montserrat and Montroy (1288), Cocentaina (1289), Polop and the mountains (1292), Luchente (1293), Biar (1294), Cárcer and Enova (1295), and Alcira (1303). Although scattered, the evidence is indicative of the system used, if not everywhere, at least not uncommonly.

A tangled case occurred in 1260. A citizen of Valencia, Peter of Pont, had bought the third-tithes of Rascaña and Algerós in the territory of Valencia city, from William of Aguiló; where the latter had acquired these tithes is not known, but the bishop was buying them back.⁽¹⁶²⁾ The same was done with the tithe on sea fishery. "We lease to you Raymond Jaland citizen of [170] Valencia, and yours, henceforth for one year, the year coming next, the whole of the tithe of the fish of the sea in the diocese."⁽¹⁶³⁾ He was to make payment every four months as was the custom, presumably a fixed sum.

A similar farming case, also to be paid every four months by custom, indicates that sub-farming was used:

We sell to you Hugueto of Umanino, and yours, henceforward for the coming year, the whole tithe on the cattle tax [carnage] in the episcopate of Valencia, in the same way as it has been the custom hitherto to be sold and alienated and collected or taken, in such wise that you and whoever you wish may gather and receive the said tithe.⁽¹⁶⁴⁾

William of Anglesola, when selling Culla to the Templars, included the tithes as a property value.⁽¹⁶⁷⁾ Just as King James paid debts with his third-tithe, his grandson James II was similarly to subinfeud tithes or grant them as alms to a religious house -- all a form of tithe farming in effect.⁽¹⁶⁸⁾ Though circumstances in Segorbe made that diocese atypical -- smallness, poverty, and a long battle for independence against the bishop of Valencia -- it affords an interesting parallel of tithe farming around 1280: one-fourth of the Ademuz tithes, one-third of those of Vallanca, and so on.⁽¹⁶⁹⁾

For transporting and merchandising the tithes, the Valencian church fortified itself with a variety of privileges, covering passage on land, sea, and fresh water. One of the most important of these was granted to the diocese in 1269.

[You may] freely convey all the products, from your [own] revenues only, wherever you may possess them, and have them sent into the city of Valencia whenever you wish, and even transport them, tax-free, from one place to another throughout the whole realm of 'Valencia and market them. [You may] also export them from the realm itself, by land or by sea, and ship them to whatever place you wish, and do what you want with them. No statute, present or future, is to impede this in any way. We firmly order the bailiffs, magistrates, justiciars, and all other officials and our [individual] subjects...⁽¹⁷⁰⁾

Such farming of tithes was against canon law. Contemporary reformers attacked the abuse. Grosseteste called it, and aptly, "slavery" for the church.⁽¹⁷³⁾ The advantages were obvious, however, in passing on to an entrepreneur the risks implicit in depending upon agricultural revenue. Bishop Arnold assigned such a reason in a license of 1246 for the farming of tithes: "many dangers can threaten [farmers' incomes] both because of barrenness and because of fog, hail, and other bad weather."⁽¹⁷⁴⁾ The same idea was incorporated into the document of 1259 organizing the revenue priorates in the chapter; trouble in a given year was foreseen, from "popular discontent or on account of royal burdens, and from general loss of productivity," and provision made to recoup these deficiencies from other years or other priorates.⁽¹⁷⁵⁾

It is not possible, unfortunately, to estimate how much the church realized from the diocesan tithes, but it must have been an impressive sum. A list of the estates of Peter Ferdinand in the realm of Valencia in 1273, for example, includes "the places on which he is obliged to pay tithe to the bishop of Valencia." His section of Cocentaina paid tithes on an income of 3,700 solidi; four of his castles had to pay tithe on castle guard to the bishop. From the document it is difficult to decide exactly how much the diocese got, but it would seem to have been a considerable sum.⁽¹⁷⁶⁾

A much later list of a dozen small Moslem towns suggests what might be expected from such places. Either these are for properties acquired from Christians, or much more probably are the direct payment of the sums the lords here owe on their own incomes. Though dated as late as 1330, it may not be inapplicable, in a conservative agricultural situation, to an earlier time. Four of these places contributed some 500 solidi each; Guadalest, Callosa, Polop, and Castell; 366 came from Confrides, and a total of 887 from the others -- Algar with Pedil, Almácera, Finestrat, Chirles (Charli), Albalat, and Tárbena.⁽¹⁷⁷⁾

According to the contemporary Valencian historian Muntaner (born 1264 but writing at the end of the first quarter of the fourteenth century), so much tithe was collected in Valencia, Murcia, and Majorca, "that it would be difficult to say that she [the church] has as many tithes and first fruits from five other kingdoms as from these three" crusade conquests.⁽¹⁷⁸⁾ According to a Catalan census of the mid-fourteenth century, the total tithe from grain, wine, and vegetables from the Valencian area would by then have reached over 25,000 solidi a year. This is greater than the rents of the crown at that time from the cities of Murviedro (13,500) or Alcira (14,550), and almost as great as the rents of Játiva (27,328), being surpassed only by the rents of Valencia city (79,624).⁽¹⁷⁹⁾

[172] An index to the economic potential of the Valencian diocese in the thirteenth century is that it was to become, by the time of the Council of Constance less than two hundred years later, one of the wealthiest sees in Christendom. It would be surpassed in revenue then (1417) by only twelve dioceses. It would rank in income with Seville and Zaragoza (and with Lincoln and Norwich in England) and well above places like Paris, London, Milan, Lyons, or Utrecht.⁽¹⁸⁰⁾

1. Arch. Cath., leg. 35, no. 4 (Mar. 28, 1254); copy in Bibl. Univ. Val., codex 145, doc. 25; published in Colección diplomática, doc. 492. The people "novas questiones et illicitas contra ecclesiam conantur indebite suscitare"; "faciatis integre...decimas de omnibus fructibus olivarum, bladi, vindemie, lini, canabi, et ortalicie, animalium, et aliarum omnium."

2. Colección diplomática, doc. 839 (May 15, 1260): "de ovis, gallinis, pullis et olivis et uvis parralorum et porcellis et ficubus" (cf. Itinerari, p. 301; and Aureum opus, doc. 59, fol. 18r).

3. Ibid.: "et eciam purpuram et candelas, quas mortuis duci feceritis, violenter auferunt vobis."

4. Ibid., doc. 762 (Feb. 15, 1258): "possitis auctoritate propria compellere et pignorare...omnes homines regni Valencie diocesis dertusensis ad dandum vobis decimas de omnibus sicut debent." Arch. Cath. Tortosa, cajón Obispo, doc. 11 (possibly 1257).

5. Colección diplomática, doc. 839.

6. Ibid.

7. Arch. Cath., perg. 4,645 (Aug. 11, 1260). "Quia fidelis homo de omnibus fructibus solvere Decimas deo tenetur. Ideo volumus et mandamus firmiter et districte quatenus de ficubus et amigdalis quas ad vendendum desicatis seu facitis desicari decimas sine difficultate qualibet persolvatis."

8. Itinerari, p. 558n., and Colección diplomática, doc. 1,125 (Nov. 5, 1260).

9. Arch. Crown, James I, Reg. Canc. 9, fol. 20v (Feb. 15, 1258): "donamus vobis venerabili et dilecto nostro Bernardo dei gratia Episcopo Dertusensi et vestris successoribus ecclesie Dertusensi imperpetuum quod omnes homines Morelle et omnium aliarum villarum et locorum Regni Valencie diocesis Dertusensis donent primicias vobis et vestris successoribus et ecclesie Dertusensi de omnibus, sicut alii homines eiusdem Regni Valencie diocesis donant Episcopo et Ecclesie Valencie, exceptis tamen hominibus burriane qui faciant vobis in Ecclesia Dertusensi super premissis in posse nostro justicie complementum."

10. Colección diplomática, doc. 1,173 (June 16, 1263), an arbitration.

11. Ibid., doc. 900 (July 24, 1261).

12. Ibid.: "volumus quod omnia supradicta in statum pristinum reducantur, donec nos in eisdem videamus; quare...donetis decimam primiciamque, prout hactenus eam dare consuevistis, et si quod statutum in preiudicium earum Valencie fecistis, illud statim revocetis."

13. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,360; in Colección diplomática, doc. 941 (April 27, 1268). Some fragments of the settlement of April 1268 are also preserved among the papers of the military Orders at Madrid (Arch. Nac. Madrid, Ords. Milits., Montesa, R122-123). The document entered into public law and as late as 1797 was reprinted in booklet form with alternate columns of Catalan and Castilian: Versión literal del fuero I, lib. IV, rub. 24, de los del reyno de Valencia sobre diezmos, primicias, y derechos parroquiales, que es la sentencia arbitral del señor rey Don Jayme I de Aragón...(Valencia, 1797).

14. Ibid.: "fortiter requirentibus...clericis et probis hominibus,...quod antequam nos recederemus de partibus Valencie, per nos illa dissensio et discordia determinaretur."

15. Ibid.: "tractando et loquendo cum una parte et altera et laborando super premissis ac coequando et dirigendo ea quae...videbantur male facta"; "quia honestius et melius est componere...quam sequi rigorem iuris."

16. Gremios y cofradías, I, 86-88, doc. 21.

17. Aureum opus, doc. 36, fols. 11Cv-12 (an. 1250).

18. The argument is from figures available a century after the conquest (Censo de Catalunya ordenada en tiempo del rey Don Pedro el Ceremonioso, ed. P. de Bofarull y Mascaró, Colección de documentos inéditos, corona de Aragón, vol. XII [Barcelona, 1856], p. 262).

19. Bibl. Univ. Val., ms. codex 145, doc. 34 (July 22, 1271); also in Aureum opus, doc. 90, fol. 28r.

20. Codex, ibid., doc. 35; Arch. Cath., perg. 2,396 (Feb. 26, 1273).

21. Arch. Crown, Peter III, Reg. Canc. 40, fol. 125v (June 15, 1278): "noveritis nos vidisse nuncios vestros"; "cum super facto decime que nobis et Episcopo Valencie competit in terra Valencie, cum dicto Episcopo incedere proponamus et procedere exigere iustitia[m]."

22. Aureum opus, doc. 1, fol. 29r.

23. Arch. Crown, Peter III, Reg. Canc. 40, fol. 155 (Sept. 1, 1278): "super mandatum quod vobis fecimus super decimis et primiciis dandis nobis et Ecclesie temperavimus de consensu venerabilis Jazperti Dei gratia Episcopi Valentini et nuntiorum civitatis et aliquorum locorum Regni predicti [sic] quod deinceps dicta decima...et primicia dentur in area in garba fideliter..." Also Arch. Cath., perg. 2,361 (Sept. 1, 1278); in Bibl. Univ. Val., codex 145, doc. 38; and cf. Arch. Crown, Liber patrimonii regni Valentiae, fol. 288r.

24. Arch. Crown, Peter III, Reg. Canc. 42, fol. 201 (Nov. 25, 1279), and Arch. Cath., perg. 2,362. He also refers to the "composicionem...fecimus...prout in nostra litera super hec facta continetur."

25. Arch. Crown, Peter III, Reg. Canc. 50, fol. 201v (Nov. 24, 1281): "faciamus compelli omnes illos...racione decime vel primicie Ecclesie Valencie ad dandum et solvendum eidem prout debuerint." The controversies may be followed into the next century in the documents of codex 145 at the Bibl. Univ. Val.

26. Perg. 2,360 in note 13: "pro primicia autem detur tricesima quinta pars de omnibus supradictis, de quibus debet dari decima." And again in the solution of 1280 (perg. 2,382; see note 32): "de omnibus de quibus decima dari debet...dentur primicie."

27. Ibid.

28. Document in note 4.

29. Bayerri, Historia de Tortosa, VII, 150. Arch. Cath. Tortosa, cajón Donaciones y Privilegios, docs. 5 and 46 (Castellón, Morella agreements). See above, note 8 for Burriana. The tithe unrest continued here too, though in a minor way; for example in 1309 the bishop settled his dispute over certain tithes with the communes of Burriana, Onda, Nules, Villarreal, and Almenara (Bibl. Univ. Val. codex, doc. 43, cf. doc. 42).

30. Arch. Crown, Peter III, Reg. Canc. 41, fol. 98 (June 27, 1279): "intelleximus quod quidam de Segorbio...contradicunt dare primicias venerabili electo Segorbicensi." Cf. fol. 88v (June 3, 1279) on the same subject and area. The document is a decade later than the Valencian troubles, because the struggle just to establish a Segorbe diocese had to come first. The districts involved included most of the diocese: Castelnovo, Altura, and Begís (see Chapter III, p. 51).

31. Arch. Cath. (August-September 1280), pergs. 2,383 and 2,386 (Huesca); pergs. 2,382 and 2,384 (Zaragoza); perg. 2,385 (Tarragona); perg. 2,387 (Tarazona). The answers are "traddendas discreto viro Dominico debiscarra Rectori Ecclesie Sancti Laurentii Valentie presencium portatori." A description of how the tithes and first fruits were given according to custom (ca. 1200) at Toulouse is furnished by the chronicler William of Puylaurens (Mundy, Toulouse, pp. 292-293).

32. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,382 (Sept. 4, 1280): "in numero primicie."

33. J. Martínez Aloy, La diputación de la generalidad del reino de Valencia (Valencia, 1930), pp. 4-10, 17-18.

34. Perg. 2,361 in note 23: "decima Deo et nobis debita." Aureum opus, doc. 12, fols., 4r, v (Nov. 2, 1241): "deducta parte nostra quam ibi accipere debemus." Arch. Crown, Peter III, Reg. Canc. 40, fol. 125v (June 15, 1278): "que nobis et Episcopo Valencie competit"; fol. 155 (Sept. 1, 1278): "super decimis et primiciis dandis nobis et Ecclesie."

35. Arch. Cath. Tortosa, cajón Obispo y Cabildo, doc. 36.

36. Arch. Crown, James I, perg. 2,148. Arch. Cath. Tortosa, cajón Diezmos, doc. 25 (Mar. 27, 1263); cartulary II, fols. 155-157. Copy in Bibl. Univ. Val., codex 145, doc. 33; in Colección diplomática, doc. 1,398.

37. Colección diplomática, doc. 191 (Nov. 27, 1238): "dominus rex habeat in feudum perpetuum duas partes de decimis iure divino debitis, videlicet, in pane, vino et oleo; in reliquis autem decimacionibus, tam animalium grossorum et minorum quam ovium, lane et casei ac piscium, habeat rex tantum medietatem."

38. Ibid.: "quod si dominus papa composicionem hic annotatam nolit habere ratam, dominus rex vel infans non teneantur ad composicionem istam aliquatenus obligati."

39. Ibid., doc. 989 (Feb. 26, 1274).

40. Ordinatio ecclesiae valentinae, p. 368, where a witness "audivit ab Archipresbytero [probably of Teruel; a Valencian canon] quod hoc anno medietatem decimarum percipiebat rex, et alteram medietatem clerici" (1238).

41. Arch. Cath., perg. 1,304 (an. 1240): "in beneficium perpetuum et in feudum vobis domino Jacobo dei gracia Illustri Regi Aragonum...terciam partem fructuum omnium Decimabilium...totius Episcopatus Regni Valentie." And cf. Aureum opus, doc. 12, fol. 4r, v (1241).

42. Arch. Cath., leg. 35, fasc. 1, fols. 1-2v (Nov. 2, 1241), and perg. 2,303 (same date).

43. See Chapter VIII, note 135: "composicionem."

44. Document as cited in note 42: "illam enim cum vendicare poterimus nobis et successoribus nostris integre retinemus."

45. Arch. Crown, Peter III, Reg. Canc. 48, fol. 82v (July 14, 1280).

46. See Arch. Crown, Peter III, Reg. Canc. 41, fol. 11 (Nov. 3, 1278); also fol. 60 (April 20, 1279), where he is bent on collecting some.

47. Arch. Cath., perg. 1,304 (June 1, 1240). Martinez Aloy (Diputación, p. 10) and Sanchís Sivera (Diócesis valentina, II, 431) also see this as a victory of diocese over crown.

48. Lorenzo Matheu y Sanz, Tractatus de regimine urbis et regni Valentiae sive selectarum interpretationum ad principaliores foros eiusdem (Valencia, 1654), pp. 167 ff., 178 ff., 186. Sanchís Sivera, Diócesis valentina, II, 113.

49. Arch. Crown, Real Patrim., Real Casa, extra series, no. 47; cf. Documenta selecta, doc. 7 (Nov. 7, 1241): "terciam partem in decimis ville Algezire et terminorum suorum," to be held "in feudum pro nobis et Ecclesia Terrachonensi."

50. Arch. Cath., pergs. 486, 2,316, and 2,451, and Arch. Crown, James I, perg. 988 (all May 29, 1245): "imperpetuum mille solidos annuatim habendos et percipiendos in exitibus Albufere Valencie, pro illis videlicet duabus partibus sive toto iure decime quas et quod vos debetis percipere et habere in unoquoque auno in Albufera Valencie." See also Arch. Crown, Liber patrimonii regni Valentiae, fol. 294v, and the Itinerari, pp. 172-173 and n.

51. Arch. Crown, James I, perg. 1346.

52. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,452 (July 26, 1256).

53. F. de P. Momblanch y Gonzálbez, Historia de la Albufera de Valencia (Valencia, 1960), p. 53.

54. Arch. Crown, James I, Reg. Canc. 15, fol. 13v (Aug. 13, 1268). "Constituimus et ordinamus...procuratores nostros in curia romana...in negotio quod habemus cum Episcopo Valentino super facta tertie partis decime."

55. Arch. Crown, James I, perg. 2,148 (Mar. 27, 1273): "volentes saluti nostre anime providere."

56. See Arch. Crown, James I, perg. 2,144; Itinerari, p. 477 (Mar. 1, 1273). Also Colección diplomática, doc. 999 (an. 1274): "et dixistis pluries quod nos iniuriabamus vobis et ecclesie valentine, tam super tercia parte decimarum, quam retinuimus usque modo, et modo percipimus in civitate et diocesi valentina, de castris et villis nostris...quam eciam super possessionibus mesquitarum, quas dedimus ipsi ecclesie." There are several similar documents of February 1273 in the cathedral archives too (e.g. perg. 2,380, or the Liber instrumentorum, fols. 78v-80).

57. Arch. Crown, ibid.: "contencio sive quaestio diu fuerit inter nos...et vos."

58. Ibid.: "dicta definicio non valet, pro eo videlicet quia per capitulum valentinum firmata non fuerit, sed tantum per ipsum Ferrarium...et quinque canonicos ipsius ecclesie, qui tune temporis de curia nostra [regis] erant."

59. Ibid.: "dicta ecclesia in predicta diffinicione enormiter erat lesa."

60. Ibid.: "cupientes eciam ora multorum claudere, qui possent dicere quod nos iura predicta ipsius ecclesie iniuriose et voluntarie detinemus."

61. Ibid.: "licet secundum conscienciam nostram, nos teneri non credimus" and: "ecclesia quam nos eripuimus de manibus paganorum et proprio sanguine acquisivimus ac redegimus ad cultum fidei Christiane."

62. Ibid.: "castrum nostrum de Xulella et castrum nostrum et villam de Garg sita in regno Valencie et diocesi vestra cum fortitudinibus ipsorum et hominibus et feminis." On these two places see Chapter VIII, note 55.

63. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,396 (Feb. 26, 1273): including first fruits, tithes, and other church revenues throughout the diocese; crown officials are to enforce this.

64. Censo de Catalunya, pp. 262-263: "item lo terç del delme del pa et del vin de la orta de la ciutat de Valencia...6,500 solidos," in the city revenues; and "item lo terç del delme de la ortelissa de la dita ciutat, 2,020 solidos."

65. Arch. Vat., Reg. Vat. 19 (Gregory IX), fol. 68r (Jan. 9, 1239); noted in Auvray, Registres, II, no. 4,705, and published by Vineke in Documenta selecta, no. 6: "quibuslibet aliis ecclesiis et monasteriis Regni Valentie que construxisti et dotasti de novo." Cf. below, Chapter XV.

66. Arch. Crown, Peter III, Reg. Canc. 59, fol. 100 (Aug. 25, 1282): "locis in quibus dictus dominus Rex pater noster ipsas primicias recipit et recipere debet."

67. Arch. Crown, Peter III, Reg. Canc. 40, fol. 155 (Sept. 1, 1278).

68. Arch. Crown, James I, Reg. Canc. 12, fol. 51v (May 15, 1262): "in redditibus...cenis et aliis iuribus nostris tam decimis, primiciis, quam quibuslibet aliis."

69. Arch. Crown, James I, Reg. Canc. 21, fol. 57 (Aug. 26, 1272): "totam ab integro partem nostram et iura omnia quam et que percipimus...in decima totius bladi...in Vall bona et Arbers, Sobirans, aldeis Morelle et in terminis suis."

70. E.g. "Colección de cartas pueblas," no. III (Ares, 1243): "et ita illud forum [Caesaraugustae] postulat et demandem [sic] dando decimam et primiciam"; no. XXXVIII (Villafranca, 1249) "ita quod dando fideliter domino Deo et sancte Ecclesie"; no. XLVIII (Villanueva, 1237).

71. Ibid., no. I (Adzaneta, Jan. 8, 1271), BSCC, I (1920), 122-124: "nobis et nostris"; similarly no. XXI (Vistabella, 1251); no. XX (Culla, 1244): "Et teneamini nobis et Sancte matri ecclesie solvere atque dare decimam ut est as[s]uetum in civitate Caesarauguste."

72. Arch. Cath., leg. 35, fasc. 1, fols. 1v-2v.

73. On the Zaragoza tithes see above, Aguilar, Noticias, I, 85. For the Huesca bishop's holdings see below, notes 80, 88, 101; for the Barcelona bishop's holdings, note 116; for the Vich bishop, note 100. See in general the lists of bishops and monasteries culled from archives and later chroniclers by Juan de Mariana, Historia general de España, 9 vols. (Valencia, 1783-1796), IV, appendix 2.

74. See Chapters X-XIII, passim. A series of interesting tithe items for the Cistercians of Benifasá may be found in their papers in Arch. Nac. Madrid (e.g. carp. 423, nos. 2 and 13, an. 1258 and 1261; carp. 424, nos. 7, 17, and 18, an. 1266 and 1269; 425, no. 4, an. 1272; and 421, nos. 1-5, an. 1245). See also the Tortosa Cathedral Archives below in Chapter XII, section 1, "The Cistercians : the Monks of Benifasá." The Corachar people are committed to paying "conventui Scarpii [Escarp] presenti et futuro primicias omnium rerum," in carp. 422, no. 11, an. 1247.

75. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,341 (Feb. 7, 1241): "ius percipiendi decimas quod in laycum cadere non potest, dare non possumus." Again in perg. 2,413 (Aug. 29, 1260) the tithe as a special favor is given in fief, but it is expressly stated that the "ius percipiendi decimas" does not go with it; this "in dominio retinemus." Similar expressions occur in other homages (e.g. perg. 2,344 [July 21, 1242]; and perg. 2,345 [Mar. 11, 1241]).

76. Ibid. (perg. 2,341): "concedimus vobis Petro de Monte acuto et successoribus vestris in perpetuum beneficium et feudum terciam partem fruetu[u]m decime." On the schools of thought as to origins of lay possession of tithes, see San Martin, Diezmo en España, pp. 110 ff.; cf. 127-128, 135-136.

77. Ibid.: "et sitis jude nostri fideles et legales vasalli et defensores Ecclesie nostre, et teneamini facere pro hiis fidelitatem et hommagium."

78. Additional document, also on perg. 2,341.

79. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,339 (July 25, 1242), for example.

80. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,340 (Nov. 27, 1242). Cf. note 92.

81. As in the agreement of 1241 in note 75 (perg. 2,341), and perg. 2,344 (July 21, 1242).

82. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,343 (July 15, 1308): "iuravit et fecit homagium P. de Monte Acuto in palacio domini Episcopi Valentini in forma hic contenta super feudo cum pertinenciis decime castrorum...et aliis locis que obtinet in diocesi Valentina." This is a later copy or repetition by an heir (July 15, 1308); see the homage of 1241 in note 89. Perg. 2,344 (July 21, 1242): "si que eciam dominus Rex vobis dederit in Episcopatu nostro, sub eadem forma concedimus vobis et successoribus vestris de omnibus decimabilibus terciam partem predictam." Perg. 2,365 (but an. 1306, for Mogente and Liombay castles): "congregato capitulo in domo domini Episcopi."

83. Arch. Cath., perg. 1,208 (Feb. 21, 1245): "de nostris quidem duabus partibus nichil vobis intendimus concedere vel dare."

84. As in Arch. Cath., pergs. 2,431 (Jan. 19, 1263) and 2,432 (June 14, 1257).

85. As in Arch. Cath., pergs. 2,351 and 2,368 (two documents), for 1242; perg. 2,413 for 1260.

86. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,432 (June 14, 1257): "ab eo vel a Christianis sive sarracenis." He held, for example, Paterna and (1237-1273) Manises.

87. Arch. Cath., perg. 1,304 (see note 41).

88. Arch. Cath., pergs. 5,959, 5,960, and 2,325 (June 27-28, 1240): the agreement here is with the bishop "elect" Ferrer and the chapter. See also the Liber de bisbalia, fol. 25r,v (June 28, 1240): "notum sit omnibus quod cum questio verteretur inter Venerabilem patrem Vitalem dei gracia Oscensem Episcopum ex una parte [et] Ferarrium per eandem [gratiam] sedis Valentine Electum et propositum Tarrachonensis Ecclesie et Capitulum eiusdem sedis ex altera super decimis et ecclesia Alqueriarum Alborayi et de Almaçera...amicabili voluntate ad invicem statuerunt et ordinaverunt quod dictus Episcopus Oscensis...habeat ius patronatus in dictorum locorum ecclesia. Item habeat in perpetuum decimam decem iovatarum terre quascumque elegerit in predictis alchariis....Et Episcopus et Ecclesia Valentina habent omnia iura specialia et ecclesiastica in predicta ecclesia."

89. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,341 (Feb. 7, 1241): "et successoribus vestris in perpetuum beneficium." In 1286 he got the castle of Ibi. He had received Carlet and Alarp on July 7, 1238. Alarp or Alfarp or Alharb was a village in the valley of Alcalá, an area then including everything from Carlet to Turís. Alcudia is discussed by Sanchís Sivera, but with the owner given incorrectly as Peregrin of Montagut, in Nomenclátor de Valencia, p. 46.

90. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,345 (Mar. 11, 1241): "concedimus vobis Lupo de Sparsa...in feudum terciam partem fructuum decime a nobis recipiende in omnibus honoribus et possessionibus que vos habeatis in loco qui Benazamen nuncupatur in orta Valencie et in terminis suis." This could also be Benejama near Alcoy. López held other land near Burriana (Itinerari, p. 116). See also perg. 2,421 (same date): "Luppus de Sparça."

91. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,368 (Dec. 5, 1241). This was still held by the bishops in 1306, when "nobilis Gonbaldum d'Entença" swore homage for Chiva castle (perg. 2,369). See too the clarification of 1314 in perg. 2,412. The same man held Puig and other places.

92. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,342 (Jan. 25, 1242): "Mireto de Ciutadilla" -- is he, then, a Minorean? Almácera was held by the bishop of Huesca previously, and it appears again in the bishop's hands as late as September 1242 (Arch Cath., perg. 1,206, Sep. 27, 1242).

93. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,351 (April 1, 1242). A Tarazona knight, the son of Blaise (Blasco) Simon, he had married Alda Fernández, daughter of Sa^cîd the ex-king of Moslem Valencia. She brought him the castle and area. He held other important Valencian lands. For example, in 1251 King James took his stronghold of Castalla here and Torre de Onil, giving in exchange the Valencian towns of Villamarchante and Cheste. He had Ibi (1251) and Masarrojos (1246), the latter soon being exchanged for Alventosa.

94. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,346 (May 28, 1242): "subtus Ruçafam" (today the partida de Melilla).

95. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,352 (June 27, 1242). Peter "de Auro" (Liber instrumentorum, fols. 55-56); possibly this is a Doria, or from Aura? He appears as a member of the king's household in his travels from 1260 to 1269 (cf. Itinerari, pp. 302, 308, 348, 351, 414, 427, 578). He seems to have bought up the various grants, or otherwise to have acquired them, around Albalat dels Sorells (Codinats) before 1240 and may be considered the first lord here.

96. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,419 (June 29, 1242). Cf. the Liber instrumentorum, fols. 121-122v, Liber constitutionum, fols. 83v-84r (June 29, 1242). "Petrus Azlor," perhaps Dezláur, could belong to one of two noted families of King James's nobility; the devices of both stand upon fields of gold, and may explain the alternate form of "d'auro." Senquier, Cinquayros, or Cinqueros stood close to the sea, just north of Valencia city, near Albalat and Foyos; Peter Dezlor received his first grant here in 1238. The d'Açlors are an important noble family; figures like Sancho Peter and Blaise Peter d'Açlor appear on royal documents of our time. The village of Binahalim near Penáguila, for example, belonged partly to the latter (1250).

97. Arch. Cath., perg. 1,087; and perg. 2,428 (both July 8, 1242).

98. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,344 (July 21, 1242).

99. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,429 (July 23, 1242): "desplargues," "de Spalangues," etc. This may be one of the Espluga (Spluga, Çaspluga, etc.) who came on the crusade, whose name derived from holdings at Esplugas near Barcelona; but is more probably the knight William of Espailargas, Despaylarges or Spallargas the Perelada native (according to Febrèr) who appears in the Repartimiento of Valencia. He seems to have had the lordship of Campanar from 1242; later it reverted to the crown. See below, Chapter X, note 98.

100. Arch. Cath., pergs. 2,420 and 5,964 (June 17, 1242). This was for all his holdings. He received in the Valencia chapter: "a vobis promissionem manualem de indempnitate et utilitate ecclesie valentine curanda et observanda."

101. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,339 (July 25, 1242). But in September he renewed the Almácera homage; perhaps he had again taken direct ownership (pergs. 2,340 and 2,421, both of 1242). See also Arch. Cath. Huesca, 2-9-567 (perg.): "sit notum cunctis quod nos dei gratia episcopus Valencie et prepositus Tarrachone et commune Capitulum Valentinum per nos et successores nostros damus et concedimus vobis venerabili et dilecto V[itali] dei gratia episcopo oscensi in feudum et beneficium personale...terciam partem decime omnis...de honoribus et possessionibus vestris quas in Episcopatu Valencie possidetis" (8 kals. Aug.).

102. Arch. Cath., pergs. 2,425 and 2,424 (both Aug. 5, 1242).

103. Arch. Cath., pergs. 2,348 and 2,427 (both Aug. 8, 1242): "de Falcibus" and "de Salces." The first Roderick was a Navarrese, the latter apparently from Salses in Roussillon. Both knights were on the crusade; the former appears in the Repartimiento of Valencia.

104. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,423 (Aug. 19, 1242): "Siri Garcie"; this is more probably a foreign title (Ser or Sir) than a name (Catalan Sir, Castilian Siro).

105. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,347 (Aug. 22, 1242).

106. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,349 (Sept. 10, 1242); he is King James's "azemilario nostro" in 1274, when he is purchasing Rafalaxat near Valencia (Itinerari, p. 500), and remained in this office until the king's death.

107. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,350 (Sept. 12, 1242). The Rosanes were a knightly family (e.g. Berengar in Itinerari, p. 54, and in the Repartimiento); Rosans, 100 kilometers from Nîmes, may be their place of remote origin.

108. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,424 (Sept. 26, 1242). The place is left blank in the document. There is a Vernet in the French Pyrenees. An Arnold of Venice came to Valencia, according to Febrèr's dubious Trobes, his shield showing a Lion of St. Mark; our man is more probably the Barcelona knight who appears in three documents (1242, 1260, 1264) signed at Barcelona and who owns houses there on St. Anne street (Itinerari, pp. 163, 305, 362).

109. Arch. Cath., pergs. 1,208 and 2,410 (Feb. 21 and 22, 1245): if he can recover it from the king who holds it in fief from the church of Valencia. The place was an extensive area in the region of Cuart de Poblet, centering on a fort or tower called Aleis (perhaps Ladea or Aldaya). See Chapter XV, p. 289, and notes 66, 67.

110. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,415 (Aug. 6, 1248); apparently an important knight in Valencia (cf. itinerari, p. 144, an. 1240).

111. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,432 (June 14, 1257). Artal, a loyal but violent man, was one of the most important barons in the realms of King James. He appears in the Llibre dels feyts prominently, in chs. 21, 25, 455, 503-504, 517, 547-548; and in over fifty documents scattered through the Itinerari. The lord of Paterna again signed an agreement for that place in 1262, perhaps a confirmation (perg. 1,096 [Dec. 4, 1262]).

112. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,413 (Aug. 29, 1260). This included his castle of Arenós.

113. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,431 (Jan. 19, 1263): "tam a Sarracenis quam a Christianis."

114. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,367 (Oct. 1, 1271); on the transcription and on these places, see note 158 and text.

115. See note 162.

116. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,430 (Sept. 12, 1268): "tam a Christianis quam a Sarracenis." He appears in the Itinerari (pp. 435, 438) and was dead by 1270. The bishop of Barcelona also claimed Almonacid. Benaguacil passed to Roderick's daughter Sancha.

117. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,358 (July 11, 1272). The Aragonese knight Maza was a close adviser of the king, appearing as signatory to important royal documents from at least 1217 to 1273. He signed the capitulation of Valencia city (1238), the treaty with the viscount of Cabrera (1223), and the privileges of Balaguer and of Collioure (1236, 1223). In 1220 he received for seven years the revenues of Roures; in 1275 he was summoned by name to help put down the revolt of the Valencian Moslems. (See Itinerari, pp. 21, 23, 25, 36, 37, 44-46, 48, 70, 92, 96, 101, 105, 106, 112, 123, 134, 405, 451, 458, 483-484, 526). He was also a member of Prince Peter's retinue on the latter's Castilian trip of 1269, being one of the few Aragonese rather than Catalans, and taking one of the more imposing baggage-trains (Soldevila, Pere el Gran, III, 248-249).

118. There are a number of important men of this name; this man would seem to be the James of Oblites who held Chella at about this time (1283).

119. See Itinerari, p. 129, an. 1237.

120. There are several knightly families or branches of a family of this name, especially one with lands at Alcira and Picasent and another at Játiva. This particular Simon may be the one who soon became lieutenant of the royal procurator of the kingdom of Valencia, for the region below the Júcar.

121. There are a number of knights with this surname, and several with the first names, but it is difficult to identify him exactly.

122. Martin may have belonged to the Roiz (or Rois) de Corella clan prominent in medieval Valencia; a Roiz de Corella was among the prominent feudatories convoked to military service in a Valencia document of 1277.

123. He had bought some three thousand solidi worth of territory near Játiva in the preceding five years, and probably held other lands of his own besides those he cared for as royal agent. He was the first administrator for that part of the Valencian conquest which fell below the Júcar River, as one of the two lieutenants of the procurator-general of the kingdom of Valencia.

124. Perhaps this is the Aragonese who appears as bailiff of Montblanch in documents of 1262 and 1267; he fought with the king in a feudal war; the king at one time owed him 3,900 solidi (Itinerari, pp. 328, 398).

125. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,358 (July11, 1272). Is this the cleric Peter Martínez, who was the son of the justiciar of Aragon Martin Pérez (cf. Llibre dels feyts, ch. 402)?

126. Arch. Cath., Liber instrumentorum, fol. 58v: "Lupus Sancii de B."

127. Ibid., passim; see also Peter Pons on fol. 119, R. Díaz on fols. 128v-130.

128. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,359 (July 12, 1273); "Tyvi." He also held Maçot near Torrente, and other places.

129. Troba 11, p. 18 has an Agramunt from Navarre who "gotja la mitad / Dels Delmes de Nules, que el Bisbe li ha dat"; troba 452, p. 238, tells how William Salines "gotja á Campanar / Per mercè del Rey, è per capitol / Lo ters delme te, de qui el va comprar"; troba 461, p. 244 is about Raymond of Seguí of the queen's household, who got "Alazadi" and two jovates "ab dècimes totes al Bisbe pagades." There are several Agramunts in the records, including one from France and one from Lérida (Acromonte). The William of Salines may be the Simon of Salinas or Salines in note 98 and text. Raymond of Seguí must be the queen's porter Seguí who got lands and houses during the siege of Valencia in Arch. Cath., perg. 2,329 (July 23, 1238). On the lay share of the tithes of Nules see note 139 and text.

130. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,335 (Sept. 10, 1243): "permutamus vobis domino Iacobo...Duas partes decimarum quas nos in Ecclesia de Quart iure episcopali habemus[,] pro illa parte tercia decime quam vos domine Rex habetis in Ecclesia de Puzols."

131. Arch. Cath., perg. 1,208 (Feb. 21, 1245): "hec autem vobis sub tali prestatione concedimus si dictam terciam partem a domino Rege poteritis obtinere quam scilicet ipse in feudum tenet pro episcopo et ecclesia Valentina."

132. See note 83.

133. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,448 (April 30, 1258). Cf. note 161.

134. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,413 (Aug. 29, 1260). See notes 93, 112, and, in Chapter IV, note 131 and text.

135. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,322 (Feb. 10, 1268); Valencia church authorities had protested that Blaise Simon "debebat et tenebatur sibi facere homagium pro decimis," precisely because of the admission of jurisdiction implied by his father's contract with them. The king followed the same line of argument. The document is significant as showing the juridical importance of the contracts, even though they had only seemed to consecrate the status quo.

136. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,432 (June 14, 1257).

137. Arch. Cath., perg. 1,096 (Dec. 4, 1262); these lands seem to have changed hands.

138. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,370 (Feb. 4, 1260): "retinemus tamen decimam omnium Christianorum qui ibi habitant vel decetero habitabunt." On other tithes of Peter Ferdinand, see notes 150, 176, and text.

139. Arch. Cath. Tortosa, cajón Obispo, nos. 8, 35, 39, 52 (for items of 1250, 1268, 1306); cartulary no. VIII, fols. 147-149 (1250); cajón Alcalatén, no. 11 (1282).

140. For instance, Bartholomew Matoses, who did homage for the place of Benifayó de Espioca (Oct. 25, 1304), may not have been the first to make such an agreement here; there was a well-established parish before 1340, to which also the Christians of Almusafes came. Peter Boyl received the third-tithe of Castellón de Játiva (modern Villanueva de Castellón) in 1364, again confirmed in 1375. John of Procida received the tithe of Cocentaina, as did his successors in the fifteenth century. Gilet, held by John of Zaragoza from 1249, had its third-tithe given to the lord Peter William Catalán in 1375. Jaraco, held by Arnold Busquet and his thirty settlers in 1248 and later by the lord of Gandía, gave its third to the lord, as can be seen when the third is transferred to another man in 1417. The Mislata third was given in 1392 to Anthony of Vilaragut, though the lord of the area then was Bernard of Codinats. In 1393 the third-tithe of Rafalell, an Arab place settled by Christians in 1248, was held by Andrew Salvador, together with the third-tithe of Farnals and Cruz de Vistabella. Rocafort, after several masters, had been confiscated in 1349 and soon given to the Matet family; in April 28, 1354 the third-tithe went to them "ad tempus centum annorum."

141. Almagro, Historia de Albarracín, III, 276.

142. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,418 (Mar. 16, 1279). James and others held part of the tithes of Jérica, Toro, Chelva, Tuéjar, and Altura (Aguilar, Noticias de Segorbe, I, 593, and cf. the settlement on p. 94).

143. Colección diplomática, doc. 1,398 (Mar. 27, 1273): "terciam partem decimarum recipimus nos et milites ac religiosi in diecesi [sic] valentina."

144. Arch. Crown, James I, perg. 2,148 (Mar. 27, 1273).

145. Arch. Crown, Peter III, Reg. Canc. 41, fol. 60 (April 9, 1279).

146. Arch. Crown, Peter III, Reg. Canc. 40, fol. 29v (Oct. 21, 1277).

147. See document cited in note 146: "racione peticionis tercie partis decimarum quam petebat [rex] a militibus Burriane." The verb is here translated as "required," because the tense in the text is also ambiguous and may refer to a settled custom.

148. Arch. Crown, Peter III, Reg. Canc. 42, fol. 149 (April 13, 1280): "custodi cabanee bestiarii...reginae." For Burriana and Ademuz documents see Chapter X, notes 162, 163, and text.

149. Arch. Crown, Peter III, Reg. Canc. 48, fol. 82v (July 14, 1280): "et faciat sibi hostendi per venerabilem Episcopum Valencie si que iuste raciones sunt que impedire debeant dicto Regi dictam tertiam partem."

150. Arch. Crown, James I, Reg. Canc. 18, fols. 5 (April 18, 1273), 5v (an. 1273), and again on 5v (an. 1271); "de qua non solvit decimam" (Albaida, Ademuz, Luchente, Bocairente, Castielfabib, Finestrat), and "de locis de quibus tenetur dare decimam Episcopo Valencie." On Peter Ferdinand and the tithe of Buñol and Ribarroja, see notes 138 and 176 with text.

151. "Colección de cartas pueblas," no. XV (Villahermosa, Mar. 9, 1243). He lists things subject to and exempt from the tithe. James in 1242 gave Peter Sanz the grant of Montornés "cum iure decimarum parti nostre contingenti" (no. XIV of the same series, BSCC, IX [1928], 86-87).

152. Pere el Gran, IV [pt. 2, I], 90-91, doc. 68 (May 28, 1277). Were these men direct vassals of the crown, or can some be understood to be included in the tithe agreements as vassals of the greater lords? Useful for purposes of comparison perhaps is the later document listing the nobles convoked by Alphonse III at Valencia city in September 1286, thirty-one men including many family names belonging to tithe-vassals (Martínez Aloy, Diputación, doc. on p. 49); see also the families discussed by Viciana, Crónica de Valencia, part 2.

153. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,338 (June 17, 1242): "pro vestris debitis et iniuriis persolvendis," as a personal benefice until his death (when the debt, if unpaid, is canceled).

154. Arch. Crown, James I, pergs. 990 (1245) and 1,649 (1260). These are Jaca solidi, to be paid twice a year.

155. Arch. Crown, Peter III, Reg. Canc. 59, fol. 165v (Nov. 27, 1282) with a reference to previous payments (but "nomine quondam Ecclesie de A[l]barraçine").

156. Doc. edited by R. Chabás, El archivo, IV (1890), 310-311, no. 39 (June 3, 1273): "et tertio nostro decime." Bailiff Simon of Denia appears in a 1274 document again in the Itinerari, p. 492.

157. Arch. Cath., perg. 1,100 (Jan. 27, 1270): "vendimus vobis Blasco Massa militi et vestris hinc usque ad decem annos...duas partes omnium fructuum terre et arborum Episcopo et capitulo valentino pertinentes in Castro vestro et termino de Villamerxat...precio Ducentorum solidorum regalium in quolibet anno" on the feast of St. Andrew.

158. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,367, cf. note 114 (Oct. 1, 1271): "nos Frater Andreas...assensu capituli Valencie vendimus et concedimus vobis Furtado de Alihori militi...et Egidio Roderico filio vestro tantum [,] totam decimam panis, vini, arborum et aliorum fructuum omnium quam nos habemus...excepta decima bestiarii, de turribus et alcheriis de Cot, de Villar, de Xera et terminorum suorum, que loca sunt vestra." The diocese would succeed the Lihori or Lion family in ownership of Villar (del Arzobispo, or de Benaduf) here at least by 1308. Was some such transfer envisaged when this agreement was signed?

159. See documents cited in notes 139 (Urrea) and 113 (Simon's wife), and text.

160. Document cited in note 116.

161. Itinerari, p. 462n. Cf. also Bayerri, Historia de Tortosa, VII, 150-151; the author does not realize this is an infeuded and farmed tithe, or perhaps better a compromise farming to end a dispute. The area was heavily Moslem, so the tithe is rather the two-thirds of Teresa's personal revenues from these places; she must have received more than 2,000 solidi here. Note that this is a different tithe lease than that gained by Teresa above in note 133.

162. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,416 (Aug. 12, 1260). Had he leased it from William? It seems so, since the latter apparently still held the seigniory.

163. Arch. Cath., perg. 6,010 (Jan. 6, 1276): "sit omnibus noturn quod nos Raimundus de Belestar decanus sedis Valencie et Arnaldus de Buscheto canonicus dicte Sedis procuratores constituti pro capitulo valentino in bonis episcopatus Valencie sede vacante...vendimus vobis Raimundo Jalandi civi Valencie et vestris hinc ad unum annum primum venturum totam decimam piscium maris episcopatus."

164. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,918 (Jan. 6, 1276): "sede vacante...vendimus vobis Hugueto d'Iumanino et vestris hinc ad annum venturum totam decimam carnagii [?] episcopatus Valencie prout actenus consuetum est vendi et alienari et collegi sive percepi [sic] ita quod vos et quem voluenitis colligatis et percipiatis dictam decimam."

165. Arch. Cath., perg. 707 (Feb. 12, 1259). "Pateat universis presentem paginam inspectunis, quod nos Frater A. divina miseratione valentinus Episcopus Damus et concedimus tibi Raymundo de Almanar vassallo nostro baiuliam Castri sive omnium terminorum de Alcoy, nostrorum reddituum...Ita quod laboribus tuis et expensis quos et quas facies in collectione nostrorum reddituum recipias tantum retentione decimam, decem [novem ?] partibus nobis et Ecclesie Valentine fideliter reservatis. Hanc autem concessionem sive donacionem concedimus tibi sicut superius est iamdictum dum tamen nobis et Ecclesie valentine legatus fueris et devotus, et ut presens pagina maioris roboris gaudeat firmitate, earn Sigilli nostri munimine fecimus roborari. Quod est actum apud Cocentaniam pridie idus Februarii, anno domini millesimo cc quinquagesimo nono; Ego Fr. Andreas valentinus episcopus subscribo." This would seem to concern the revenues of the episcopal and capitular mensae, revenue-producing properties; but the tithe would probably be included. The high salary suggests that Raymond was being paid in this wise for other services as well; he appears in other cathedral documents and in the crown registers as a familiar and agent of the bishop.

166. "Colección de cartas pueblas," no. XXV (Mallo; June 18, 1289), BSCC, XI (1930), 354-357: "por muytos agradables servicios que a nos avedes feytos, damos a vos...todo el terçio dieçmo del pan del termino del Mallo, es a saber, de trigo, de centeno, de ordio...de vino, de corderos o de cabritos e de otras cossas que dieçmo se deva dar."

167. Ibid., no. XXXII (Mar. 27, 1303), BSCC, XIII (1932), 134-138: "et cum parte decimarum."

168. Arch. Crown, Liber patrimonii regni Valentiae, fols. 34v, 102v, 136.

169. López, "Confesores de la familia real," pp. 152-153.

170. Arch. Cath., perg. 3,005 (June 30, 1269). "Noverint universi quod nos Iacobus...concedimus imperpetuum vobis venerabili fratri A. per eandem [gratiam] Episcopo, Decano et Capitulo et Canonicis et aliis clericis Valencie et vestris successoribus imperpetuum quod decetero possitis libere et sine contradiccione alicuius...portare fructus omnes redituum vestrorum tantum ubicumque eos habueritis et mittere eos in Civitatem Valencie quandocumque volueritis et etiam libere...aportare de uno loco ad alium per totum Regnum Valencie ac vendere inde, set etiam de Regno ipso extrahere per mare et per terram et aportare ad quemcumque locum volueritis et facere inde vestras voluntates, constitutione aliqua facta vel facienda in aliquo non obstante. Mandantes firmiter baiulis curiis iusticiis et universis aliis officialibus et subditis nostris..."

171. Arch. Cath., perg. 1,199 (Sept. 6, 1311): a late confirmation by James II of a privilege given by James I.

172. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,392 (Jan. 2, 1267); perg. 2,393 (June 30, 1269).

173. Quoted by Moorman, Church Life, p. 33. See pp. 211-212, 218 and note. Lepointe blames the tithe troubles of Christendom especially upon the tithe farmers; greed and fraud apart, they received 5 percent or more of the collection ("Dîme," col. 1,240).

174. Arch. Cath., perg. 2,318 (Jan. 27, 1246): "multa possunt pericula imminere tum racione sterilitatis tum racione nebule grandinis et alterius tempestatis."

175. Arch. Cath., leg. 35, no. 1, fol. 3: "insultus populi seu propter Principis oppressionem, et generalem sterilitatem."

176. Arch. Crown, James I, Reg. Canc. 18, fol. 5r, v (two documents, 1271 and 1273): "item de locis de quibus tenetur dare decimam Episcopo valencie"; "de quibus levamus pro decima Episcopi cxxxiii solidorum, vj denariorum," etc. Cf. notes 138, 150, and text.

177. The list is in Arch. Crown, James I, Reg. Canc. 18, fol. 5v (an. 1271), and fol. 5 (an. 1273).

178. Crónica, ch. 36; there is probably exaggeration here, for Muntaner is irritated at papal anti-Catalan policies and is scolding Rome; but the substance of his statement is significant.

179. See note 64.

180. Statistical lists in Philip Hughes, History of the Church, 3 vols. (New York, 1935-1947), app. 5, pp. 539-540. King Alphonse at this time petitioned Rome to break the prosperous kingdom into two additional dioceses, Castellón and Játiva.