[356] The Templars maintained their banking and moneylending activities throughout the thirteenth century, but during the later part of that period their situation in the Corona de Aragón was becoming increasingly difficult. Although revenues in the reconquered areas were probably still rising to some extent as a result of continuing resettlement, the Order was gaining little new property through gift or purchase. On the other hand, increasing demands were being made on Templar resources through the exaction of extraordinary aids both by the Aragonese kings and by the Temple in the East, while the Orders income had been reduced through the restrictions imposed on its rights and privileges by the Aragonese rulers, who were seeking to increase their own wealth and authority.

Nevertheless, although James II like earlier rulers sought to reduce the Orders privileges, in 1307 he was reluctant to follow the example of the French king and arrest the Templars and seize their property. Philip IV wrote to the Aragonese king in the middle of October, informing him that he had ordered the seizure of the Templars and of their possessions in France on charges of heresy, idolatry, and immorality; and he invited James to do the same in Aragon.⁽²⁾ News was also brought to James of the arrest of the Templars in Navarre, which was then ruled by Philip's son.⁽³⁾ But instead of taking immediate action against the Templars the Aragonese king -- like Edward II in England⁽⁴⁾--came out in their support. In the middle of November he wrote to Philip that

they have lived indeed in a praiseworthy manner as religious men up till now in these parts according to common opinion, nor has any accusation of error in belief yet arisen against them here; on the contrary, during our reign they have faithfully given us very great service, in whatever we have required of them, in repressing the enemies of the faith.⁽⁵⁾

In the later part of November, however, further letters arrived from France, bearing the news that the Grand Master and other Templars had confessed to the crimes of which they had been accused.⁽⁷⁾ Therefore at the beginning of December James commanded the bishops of Valencia and Zaragoza and the inquisitor John of Lotgers to undertake an investigation and ordered the seizure of the Templars and their possessions in the Corona de Aragón.⁽⁸⁾ This was done before any instructions had been received from Clement V, and this earned the Aragonese king a rebuke from the pope, who obviously feared losing control of the proceedings against the Temple in Spain as well as in France.⁽⁹⁾

In some districts the seizure of the Templars and their possessions ordered by James II was carried out quickly and without difficulty. Peñíscola and other Templar strongholds in northern Valencia, for example, were taken into royal hands almost immediately.⁽¹⁰⁾ But greater resistance was encountered in some other areas, especially Aragon. There the Templars fortified their castles and resisted royal forces, while at the same time protesting their innocence.⁽¹¹⁾ Villel and Castellote did not fall until the autumn of 1308 and Miravet held out until December of that year, while Monzón was not captured until May 1309.⁽¹²⁾

Clement V had in the meantime elaborated the procedure to be followed in investigating the conduct of the Templars. In the summer of 1308 he issued a series of bulls in which he appointed for each country a group of papal commissioners, who were to act in conjunction with the local bishops in carrying out the inquiries. The results of the investigations were to be presented to provincial councils, which were to pronounce sentence on individual Templars.⁽¹³⁾ No complete record survives of the interrogations to which the Aragonese Templars were subjected. It is known that the questioning was completed by the summer of 1310,⁽¹⁴⁾ but the only documentary evidence that has been preserved from the lands subject to James II is of the answers given by thirty-two Templars and several non-Templar witnesses when questioned at Lérida in February and March 1310 by the diocesan [358] and some of the papal commissioners.⁽¹⁵⁾ The only full record that exists for any part of the Aragonese province is that for Roussillon, which lay outside the territories ruled by James II.⁽¹⁶⁾ The Templars who were questioned at Lérida, like those who were interrogated in Roussillon, admitted to a few of the minor charges, but denied all the more important and serious accusations. Thus while it was agreed that there was no noviciate, charges such as those concerning the denial of Christ, the worshipping of idols, and homosexual practices were vigorously contested. The non-Templar witnesses were not, however, so unanimous. Some spoke in support of the Order. The Franciscan William of Xesa, who claimed to have heard the confessions of many Templars, said that 'he found them good Christians and confessing faithfully and devotedly like true catholics.' The warden of the Franciscans in Lérida, who had also heard Templar confessions, similarly asserted that the Templars seemed to be good Christians. On the other hand, Raymond of Carcassonne, the rector of Aytona, was of the opinion that the accusations made against the Order were true. But none of the witnesses who appeared before the bishop of Lérida could do more than refer to rumours and suspicions, many of which had as their basis merely the secrecy in which Templar chapters were held. Reference was made by several of the witnesses to the placing of a guard on the door at the time of chapter meetings, while the Franciscan Peter Mir told how Raymond of Orchau had come 'pale and stupefied' out of the chapter which had received him into the Order. But none could produce any substantial evidence against the Templars.

The pope was not satisfied with reports sent to him by the Aragonese commissioners, and in March 1311 he ordered that the Aragonese Templars should be subjected to torture in order, as he said, 'that the truth might be elicited more clearly and more certainly from them.' Again the evidence which survives is limited, but eight Templars are known to have been subjected to torture and questioning again by the archbishop of Tarragona and the bishop of Valencia at Barcelona in August 1311. Some of these Templars feared that they might give way under torture and asserted beforehand that any confession of guilt they might make would not be true but only induced by the torture; but all in fact even under torture continued to maintain their innocence of all the main charges levelled against them.⁽¹⁷⁾

[359] As the results of the inquiries conducted in many other countries were similarly favourable to the Temple, there was no justification for an outright condemnation of the Order. But on the grounds that the Order had been rendered suspect by the confessions of the Grand Master and others, and because it was alleged that no one would in future want to join it, in March 1312 at the Council of Vienne Clement V decreed the abolition of the Temple,⁽¹⁸⁾ to the protests of the Aragonese prelates.⁽¹⁹⁾ At the beginning of May he assigned the possessions of the Temple to the Hospitallers. From this ruling, however, were excepted Templar lands and rights in Portugal, Castile, Aragon, and Mallorca.⁽²⁰⁾ This reservation was made to a large extent as a result of the activities of James II and of his envoys.

Already before the end of 1307 James had begun to consider the possible fate of the Temples Aragonese possessions,⁽²¹⁾ and from that time onwards he was involved in negotiations about the Order's property, while retaining control of Templar possessions in Aragon until a decision was reached, despite orders to surrender them to the custodians named by the pope.⁽²²⁾ James's primary concern, whether the Temple was abolished or not, was the maintenance and extension of his own power and authority. If the Templars were exonerated, James wanted to use the trial as an opportunity to reduce their power. In 1308 he informed his envoys to the papal curia that if the Templars were found innocent he was not ready to allow them to recover their strongholds, especially those on the frontier or near the sea.⁽²³⁾ If, on the other hand, the Temple was abolished, James was anxious to ensure that his authority was at least safeguarded in any settlement made concerning the Temples possessions and that another individual or institution did not secure complete control over them. In particular he wanted to make sure that if the Temple was dissolved the revenues from its Aragonese estates were devoted to uses within the Peninsula, for Clement V when ordering the arrest of the Templars and the seizure of their property had declared that if they were found guilty their wealth should be used to further the interests of the Holy Land.⁽²⁴⁾ James, who had earlier tried to prevent the Aragonese Templars from sending responsions to the East,⁽²⁵⁾ argued on a number of occasions that grants of property had been made to the Temple in Aragon for the purpose of defending the Church in the West and resisting the Moors in the [360] Peninsula, not in order to provide resources for the struggle against the infidel in the Holy Land.⁽²⁶⁾

These considerations made James reluctant to accept any plan which would involve the transference of the Orders property to Rome, to the bishops, or to any secular prince, such as the king of Jerusalem, who would use the revenues in the interests of the Holy Land.⁽²⁷⁾ He was also opposed to any scheme whereby the Hospitallers would take possession of the Temple's property, just as earlier Spanish kings had resisted plans for the union of the military orders.⁽²⁸⁾ He feared the power which the Hospital would enjoy if it gained Templar property in his realms, especially as according to James the Templars had proportionately more possessions, especially castles, in the Corona de Aragón than elsewhere. He argued that

if the Hospitallers or their master were unwilling to observe fealty to the king, which God forbid, they would be able to bring into the land of the said king whatever other power they might wish, nor could they be prevented in view of the very favourable opportunities they would have for doing this considering the said castles and strongholds which they would have on the frontiers and in other parts of the kingdoms of the said king, both by land and by sea.⁽²⁹⁾

James's desires would have been fulfilled if he could have [361] retained the Temples possessions for himself, and at an early stage in the negotiations he appears to have considered this as a possibility. In 1308 his envoys were instructed to say that if Templar lands in France passed to the French Crown, then he should receive those in Aragon.⁽³²⁾ But when it became clear that this solution was impossible he came increasingly to favour a plan whereby Templar possessions in Aragon would be assigned to a new Spanish military order. At one time it was suggested that the Order of Mountjoy should be revived and given Montesa as its headquarters,⁽³³⁾ but James's chief proposal was for the creation of a new offshoot from the Order of Calatrava. Its members, who would be Aragonese, would observe the rule of Calatrava but would not be subject to its master: visitation and correction would be carried out by the Cistercian monastery of Grandeselve or that of Fontfroide. If necessary, James was willing to concede that the new foundation should pay to the pope the responsion which the Templars had sent to the East.⁽³⁴⁾ The creation of such an Order would solve James's problems, for it would have only limited power and James would be able to control it, especially if, as was at one time suggested, one of the king's sons became its master.⁽³⁵⁾ Most of its revenues would, moreover, be devoted to purposes inside the Peninsula.

The solution that was finally reached in 1317 was inevitably a compromise. It was agreed that a new military order should be established, with its headquarters at Montesa in Valencia. The members were to adopt Calatravan observances and were to be subject to the master of Calatrava in that he was to have the power of visitation and correction; this power was, however, to be exercised in conjunction with the Cistercian abbot of Stas. Creus. The new Order was to have all the possessions which the Temple had held in the kingdom of Valencia and also -- with certain exceptions -- those of the Hospital there. The lands in the South were thus being assigned to a new Order, whose primary concern would be the furtherance of the struggle against the Moors in the Peninsula. Templar properties in the rest of James's realms were to pass to the Hospital, which in this way gained a considerable amount of property, for Templar possessions in Aragon and Catalonia were far more extensive than those lost by the Hospital in Valencia. But the interests of the Aragonese kings were safeguarded by the provision that the Hospitaller Castellan [362] of Amposta was to do homage to the king before entering into office, and it was further decreed that the Aragonese king should continue to enjoy the rights which he had possessed in the past over Templar and Hospitaller properties.⁽³⁶⁾ The agreement was quickly put into effect, although James II certainly retained at least some of the movable possessions of the Templars.

The fate of the Aragonese Templars themselves was decided more quickly than that of their possessions. In May 1312 Clement V decreed that except in the cases of some leading members of the Order the power to judge individual Templars was still to rest with provincial councils. He also stated that all Templars except the impenitent and relapsed were to live in the Order's convents or in other religious houses, provided that there were no more than a few in any one house; and he ordered provincial councils to make provision for their maintenance out of the Temple's possessions.⁽³⁷⁾ In some countries provincial councils had already been held to determine the guilt of members of the Order, but it was not until November 1312 that the Aragonese Templars were absolved by a provincial council held at Tarragona. This council also decreed that they should be provided with accommodation and with a pension to be paid out of Templar revenues, and at the same time made it clear that they were subject to episcopal visitation and correction.⁽³⁸⁾ Although the payment of pensions meant that the Templars now possessed private property, the Church intended that in other respects they should continue to follow a monastic way of life: as John XXII later observed, the abolition of the Order did not mean that the Templars had been absolved from their vows.⁽³⁹⁾

Yet although they were still bound by their vows, the task of contributing to the defence of Christendom was now denied to them. They had no function to fulfil and were merely unwanted survivals from the past. In this situation it is not surprising that some quickly rejected the manner of life which had been decreed for them. They left the convents and religious houses to which they had been assigned; they engaged in secular activities, including inevitably fighting; they dressed like laymen; and they ignored their vow of chastity. As early as 1313 one Aragonese Templar was charged with rape, and in the next year it was reported that Berenguer of Bellvís was openly keeping a mistress at Gardeny, while others took wives.⁽⁴⁰⁾ And much of the evidence [363] which has been preserved about the Templars after the dissolution of the Order concerns the attempts made by the Church to ensure that they led strict lives. In 1317 John XXII wrote to the archbishop of Tarragona commanding him to force erring Templars to return to the convents to which they had been assigned, to correct their dress and way of life, and to obey the diocesan.⁽⁴¹⁾ The archbishop in turn ordered that the Templars

were not to involve themselves in wars or secular business and were totally to abstain from wearing red, green, and striped clothes and all others dissonant and contrary to religion and were not to use any or various pelts other than sheepskin or any ornate silk for their clothing, so that their religious and honest way of life might be apparent in their habits and clothes.

It is not altogether clear how far these decrees were enforced in Aragon. When an agreement was made by the Hospitallers about Templar pensions in November 1319, nearly a year after John XXIIs decree, payments had apparently not been reduced in size, even though the amounts that were being paid were often very large. Dalmau of Rocaberti was receiving a pension of 8,000s. a year and Raymond of Guardia was paid 7,000s., while none [364] received less than 500s.⁽⁴⁶⁾ In the agreement, however, the possibility of a reduction in pensions was mentioned. Nevertheless, in 1322 Gerald of Copóns was still receiving the same amount as in 1319, and of eleven Templars who are known to have been paid pensions in Roussillon in 1329 at least seven were receiving as much as in 1319.⁽⁴⁷⁾ And it was clearly possible for Aragonese Templars to accumulate wealth: in 1328 Raymond Oliver was leasing out property which he had acquired in Zaragoza.⁽⁴⁸⁾ Yet at least some pensions were reduced in size. In 1329 two Templars in Roussillon appear to have been receiving less than they had earlier been assigned, and in the following year William of Castellbisbal was paid only 1,000s. instead of the 2,000s. which he had been receiving in 1319.⁽⁴⁹⁾ The enforcement of other decrees seems to have been similarly slow but not altogether neglected. When the agreement was made in 1319 about pensions the Templars were still living in the Orders houses in fairly large groups.⁽⁵⁰⁾ But, on the other hand, James II was informed in 1325 that Berenguer of San Marcial had not been paid his pension for the last two years because he had refused to transfer to a religious house and accept the authority of the diocesan.⁽⁵¹⁾

It is difficult to gain an impression of the life of the Aragonese Templars as a whole after 1312. Not only is it uncertain how far the Church's decrees were enforced; it is also not clear what proportion of the Aragonese Templars required correction. But obviously the survivors were not usually beset by financial hardship, even if some were leading a frustrating existence; and as their numbers dwindled probably the Church's concern over them grew less and they were left to end their days with little
interference.

The last of the Aragonese Templars died shortly after the middle of the century.⁽⁵²⁾ Their deaths marked the final disappearance in the Corona de Aragón of the Order which had first come to that country merely in search of resources, but which had later played an important role both in the Aragonese reconquest and in the resettlement of conquered lands, only then to be destroyed through the machinations of a French king. But although the Temple had ceased to exist, the concept of the military order had not seriously been questioned. New orders were still being founded in the fourteenth century and the institution of the military order still had centuries of life before it.

1. The dissolution of the Temple in Aragon has been studied in a number of works, especially Finke, Papsttum. See also Miret y Sans, Les Cases; Prutz, Entwick1ung (Prutz like Finke publishes some documents on the subject); M. Usón y Sesé, 'Aportaciones al estudio de la caída de los Templarios en Aragón, Universidad, iii (1926), 479-523; B. Alart, 'Suppression de l'Ordre du Temple en Roussillon, Bulletin de la Société agricole, scientifique et littéraire des Pyrénées-Orientales, xv (1867), 25-115. I have not therefore sought to examine the subject at great length. There is room for a more detailed study, based primarily on ACA, reg. 291, and other sources in the Aragonese Crown archive, but this would require another book.

2. Finke, Papsttum, ii. 46-7, doc. 30.

3. Ibid. i. 283; ii. 50-1, doc. 33; Finke, AA, xii. 170-1, doc. 73.

4. T. W. Parker, The Knighis Templars in England (Tucson, 1963), p. 91.

5. Finke, Papsttum, ii. 55-56, doc. 37; cf. 51-4, doc. 35; i. 286.

6. Ibid. ii. 62-3, doc. 41.

7. Ibid. ii. 47-9, docs. 31, 32.

8. Ibid. ii. 63-7, docs. 42-4.

9. A. Benavides, Memorias de D. Fernando IV de Castilla (Madrid, 1860), ii. 595, doc. 403. The bull Pastoralii prerninentie, which ordered the arrest of the Templars and seizure of their possessions, was drawn up on 22 November 1307 but it was not received in Aragon until 18 January 1308: ibid. ii. 619-21, doc. 415; Villanueva, Viage, xix. 317-9, doc. 48; Finke, Papsttum, ii. 77, doc.53.

10. Ibid. i. 287-8.

11. Ibid. ii. 70-3, doc. 48; 79-81, doc. 55.

12. The course of the action against the Temple can be followed in ACA, reg. 291. Extracts from this register have been published by Finke, Papsttum, ii. 85-7, doc. 58; 121, doc. 76; 131-2, doc. 84; see also Prutz, Entwicklung, pp. 349-52.

13. Regestum Clementis papae V, iii (Rome, 1886), 303-4, doc. 3484. At the same time Clement named the archbishop of Tarragona and the bishop of Vaiencia as custodians of Templar possessions in Aragon: ibid. iii. 312-15, doc. 3515.

14. Finke, Papsttum, ii. 202-5, docs. , 108, 109.

15. Ibid. ii. 364-78, doc. 157.

16. Michelet, Procès, ii. 423-515.

17. A. Mercati, 'Interrogatorio di Templari a Barcellona (1311)', Spanische Forschungen der Görresgesellschaft: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kulturgeschichte Spaniens, vi (1937), 246-51. Some other Templars were apparently later tortured at Lérida: Alart, loc cit., p. 72.

18. Villanueva, Viage, V. 208-21, doc. 6; Benavides, op. cit. ii, 835-41, doc. 571.

19. Finke, Papsttum, ii. 286-8, doc. 140. In February 1308 the bishop of Gerona, together with the count of Ampurias and Dalmau of Rocaberti, had hindered action being taken in Aragon against the Templars: ibid. ii. 63-6, doc. 42. It is difficult, however, to generalize about attitudes in Aragon to the Templars at this time. Much would depend on circumstances. While some, for example, might welcome measures against the Templars because of old feuds, many others were vassals of the Order or had friends and relations in it and would be influenced by these ties: after the arrest of the Templars the king received a number of petitions on behalf of members of the Order from their friends and relations: ACA, reg. 291, fols. 232, 281, 286^V.

20. Regestum Clementis papae V, vii (Rome, 1887), 65-8, doc. 7885.

21. Finke, Papsttum, ii. 73-4, doc. 49.

22. Regestum Clementis papae V, vi (Rome, 1887), 112-13, doc. 6740; Miret y Sans, Les Cases, p. 374; Alart, loc. cit., p. 67.

23. Finke, Papsttum, ii. 89-90, doc. 60.

24. Villanueva, Viage, xix. 317-19, doc. 48; Benavides, op. cit. ii. 619-21, doc. 415.

25. See above, p. 140.

26. Finke, Papsttum, ii. 230-8, doc. 125; 265-8, doc. 134; cf. 238-45, doc. 126.

27. Ibid. ii. 89-90, doc. 6o; 246-8, doc. 127; cf. 258-6,, doc. 132; 182-4, doc. 101; V. Salavert y Roca, Cerdaña y la expansion mediterránea de la Corona de Aragón (Madrid, 1956), ii. 553-4, doc. 433.

28. S. Baluzius, Vitae Paparum Avenionensium, ed. G. Mollat, iii (Paris, 1921), 150, doc. 32.

29. Finke, Papsttum, ii. 212-16, doc. 113.

30. Ibid. ii. 212-16, doc. 113; 217-19, doc. 115; 230-8, doc. 125.

31. Ibid. ii. 265-8, doc. 134.

32. Ibid. ii. 89-90, doc. 60.

33. Ibid. ii. 212-16, doc. 113.

34. Ibid. ii. 230-8, doc. 125; 265-8, doc. 134; 289-91, doc. 142.

35. Ibid. ii. 276-9, doc. 138.

36. Baluzius, op. cit. iii. 256-66, docs. 49, 50; P. Dupuy, Histoire de l'Ordre militaire des Templiers (Brussels, 1751), pp. 483-9, doc. 129.

37. 37.Regestum Clementis papae V, vii. 303-4, doc. 8784; Benavides, op. cit. ii.855-7, doc. 579.

38. J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, xxv (Venice, 1782), 515-18. There is evidence of the actual payment of pensions in 1313: Alart, loc. cit., pp. 81-3.

39. Dupuy, op. cit., pp. 511-14, doc. 137.

40. Finke, Papsttum, i. 383; Prutz, Entwicklung, p. 316, doc. 9.

41. Jean XXII (1316-1334): Lettres communes, ed. G. Mollat, i (Paris, 1904),429-30, doc. 4670.

42. Finke, Papsttum, i. 384, note 1.

43. Dupuy, op. cit., pp. 511-14, doc. 137.

44. Jean XXII: Lettres communes, i. 429-30, doc. 4670.

45. Bullarium Franciscanum, v (Rome, 1898), 160-2, doc. 347.

46. Villanueva, Viage, V. 226-32, doc. 9; Miret y Sans, Les Cases, pp. 390-5; the payment mentioned for Raymond of Guardia was the same as that assigned to him in 1313: Alart, loc. cit., pp. 81-3.

47. Miret y Sans, Les Cases, p. 395; Alart, loc. cit., pp. 98-101.

48. AHN, San Juan, leg. 587, doc. 37.

49. Alart, loc. cit., pp. 98-101; Miret y Sans, Les Cases, p. 384, note 1. The two in Roussillon were the knights Bernard of Millas and Bernard of Furques. Both were paid 1,000s., whereas they had earlier been assigned 1,400s. It is possible, however, that the payments of 1,000s. did not in these cases amount to a full years pension.

50. There were eleven Templars both at Barbará and at Gardeny.

51. Finke, Papsttum, i. 385-6.

52. Berenguer of Coll was still alive in 1350: Miret y Sans, Les Cases, p. 384.