[189] Any attempt to examine the way in which the Temple exploited its varied rights and properties in the Corona de Aragón is hampered by a lack of vital evidence. No series of accounts and no court records have survived, and although a few rentals and custumals for particular estates have been preserved, there is for Templar lands in Aragon no survey comparable with that compiled by the English Templars in 1185. ⁽¹⁾ The majority of the documents concerning the exploitation of property which have survived are charters recording grants of land to individual tenants, and from these only limited conclusions can be drawn.

It seems, however, that the Order usually pursued a policy of demesne exploitation, in the sense that it normally sought to retain direct control over its lordships and estates. There are only a few examples of the Temple's granting or farming out whole townships or all its rights in a certain district; and the concessions of this kind which were made were of a temporary nature and can in most instances be explained by particular circumstances. Lordships were occasionally assigned for a time to individuals as beneficia in return for concessions made to the Order: in 1244 the Templars granted the castle and township of Gandesa for life to Elvira, the widow of William of Cervellón, because she had given the Order the castle of Nonaspe together with rights in several neighbouring places; ⁽²⁾ and in the following year Bertrand of Naya was given the castle and township of Marlofa for life partly because he had granted irrigation rights to the Order. ⁽³⁾ But the concession of Marlofa was also made 'for the greater security of the Temple' and in return for an annual rent of thirty cahíces of barley and seventy of wheat. Temporary grants of lordships appear therefore to have been made not only as beneficia but also in order to ensure the defence and protection of castles which were not manned by the Templars themselves. On some other occasions Templar rights in a district were farmed out apparently [190] because for reasons of distance it was more convenient for them to be administered in this way. Thus in the middle of the thirteenth century the Order's properties at Calatayud, on the river Jalón, were subject to the convent of Villel, some eighty miles further south, and it was probably their remoteness from the convent that accounts for their being farmed out in 1255 to two Jews, who were to pay an annual rent or farm of 120m. ⁽⁴⁾ But grants of this kind appear to have been few. In addition, of course, some places -- such as Tortosa -- were not directly subject to the Temple because enfeoffment had already taken place before the Templars acquired rights of lordship. But only a few earlier concessions of this kind are known and they did not necessarily mean that the Order was excluded altogether from a share in administration. Although the vicar who presided over the city court in Tortosa was appointed by the Moncadas, the latter had been assigned only a third of the revenues of the city, and the collection of dues was undertaken in part by the Order's officials. ⁽⁵⁾ And the records of conflicts between the Templars and the Moncadas show that in the thirteenth century the Order was trying to exert a direct influence in all matters of administration. ⁽⁶⁾ Most places under Templar lordship were, however, more immediately subject to the Order.

In Catalonia a town or village belonging to the Order was usually administered by a lay bailiff working under Templar supervision,⁽⁷⁾ while in Aragon there was normally a lay justiciar as well as a bailiff in each township. ⁽⁸⁾ Besides these officers there were of course in each town or village a number of other subordinate officials, and similarly in places where the Temple possessed only scattered rights and properties the Order had a variety of officials, of whom many were laymen but some were members of the Order. Clearly this type of administration, provided that it was conducted efficiently, would bring greater profit to the Order than the system of farming out estates. But in the appointment of officials the Temple appears not to have been guided purely by considerations of efficiency, for at least towards the end of the thirteenth century bailiffs and justiciars of townships were commonly appointed for life ⁽⁹⁾ and offices were used by the Order as objects of patronage which it had at its disposal. Thus a bailiff was usually allowed a hundredth of some or all of the revenues of a bailiwick ⁽¹⁰⁾ and the office of bailiff was clearly [191] considered a desirable acquisition: individuals would seek to obtain the promise of a Templar bailiwick already before the existing holder of the office had died, ⁽¹¹⁾ and in the years following the arrest of the Templars the king received frequent petitions from office-holders who saw their tenure endangered. ⁽¹²⁾ The Templars therefore used offices as rewards to be given to those who had served the Order well. In 1246 the bailiwick of Vallfogona was granted for life to Martin of Grañena, who had been the personal servant of the master deça mer, ⁽¹³⁾ and at the beginning of the fourteenth century Stephen of Castro, who had been servant to both the provincial master and the castellan of Monzón, held several bailiwicks in the district of Monzón. ⁽¹⁴⁾ Offices could alternatively be sold. In return for the grant of the bailiwick of Puigreig Peter of Combes in 1269 gave the Temple his rights over a manse there. ⁽¹⁵⁾ To men like Peter of Combes the acquisition of office not only brought the income normally assigned to officials but also provided a means of access to other favours such as the grant of a corrody or further financial rewards. In the years preceding the arrest of the Templars Dominic Pérez of Ares, the bailiff of Horta, was receiving de speciali gratia an annual payment of 50s. and two cahíces of wheat, ⁽¹⁶⁾ and because of the services he had rendered to the Temple Peter of Combes himself was in 1279 assigned part of the income of the church of St. Martin in Puigreig in addition to his normal salary.⁽¹⁷⁾

The Temple did not always, however, have exclusive control over the appointment of officials. The inhabitants of places under Templar lordship were recognized as having a corporate existence -- signified by the term concejo in Aragon and universidad in Catalonia -- and they came to enjoy certain powers, which sometimes included the nomination of officials. In several places in the more southerly parts of Aragon the concejo had either partial or complete control over the appointment of the local justiciar. In the fuero of La Cañada de Benatanduz, which was based on that of Daroca, it was stated that the judex was to be set up 'by the hand of the concejo'; presumably, as at Daroca, the concejo made an annual appointment to the office. ⁽¹⁸⁾ A lesser degree of control was gained by the inhabitants of Cantavieja in 1255. It was then agreed that they should present ten men to the Templar commander of Cantavieja and he was to select one of them to be justiciar. The individual appointed was to hold office for a year and before [192] surrendering his post he -- together with the other nine presented -- was to nominate a further ten, from whom the commander was to name the next justiciar. ⁽¹⁹⁾ A similar procedure was possibly followed also at Castellote and Las Cuevas de Cañart, where at about the same time the concejos purchased from the Temple the concession that the justiciar should be changed annually. ⁽²⁰⁾ As a consequence of this power of appointment, at least some concejos obtained a share of judicial profits: at La Cañada amercements were normally divided into three parts, of which one was assigned to the Temple, another to the concejo, and the third to the plaintiff. ⁽²¹⁾ But it was only in a limited number of places in southern Aragon, where the influence of Castilian practice was felt, ⁽²²⁾ that the inhabitants participated in the appointment of the more important officials of a township. Elsewhere these were nominated by the Order. ⁽²³⁾

It was, nevertheless, common both in southern Aragon and elsewhere for the inhabitants of townships to appoint or share in the appointment of alcaldes and jurados or similar officials, who assisted in the exercise of jurisdiction. At La Cañada de Benatanduz the alcaldes, like the judex, were appointed 'by the hand of the concejo', and at Cantavieja two of the ten men presented to the commander were to be chosen by him to act as jurados. ⁽²⁴⁾ At Monzón, according to an agreement made in 1257, the jurados or adelantados were to be nominated annually by the concejo, although the candidates were to be presented to the commander, who had the power to reject those of whom he disapproved; ⁽²⁵⁾ and in the code of customs compiled for Horta in 1296 the right of the inhabitants to appoint jurados was confirmed, although again the nominees were to be presented for approval to the Templar commander. ⁽²⁶⁾

The inhabitants of some places under Templar lordship also participated in the appointment of officials with more specialized functions. According to the agreement made at Cantavieja in 1255 one of the ten men presented to the commander by the concejo was to be appointed to the office of almotazaf who had charge of weights and measures, ⁽²⁷⁾ while in the customs of Horta the right of the inhabitants to nominate corredores was confirmed. ⁽²⁸⁾ And by the terms of a settlement made in 1275 the citizens of Tortosa gained the right to assist in the selection of those who were to carry out inquests: it was agreed that the citizens should choose [193] annually at Ascension sixteen probi homines -- four from each parish -- and from these the vicar was to select four who were to assist in the holding of inquests. Those appointed were to be known as paciarii or paeres and they were to receive a proportion of the fines which were imposed following the inquests. ⁽²⁹⁾ It was not, however, common for special officials to be appointed to conduct inquests on Templar estates; the task was normally assigned to the jurados or other existing officials. At Horta in 1296 it was agreed that the jurados should assist the bailiff of Horta in undertaking inquests ⁽³⁰⁾ and at Monzón in 1279, after the inhabitants had complained about the amount of crime being committed in the town, the Order had granted that for the next two years the adelantados, the counsellors of the justiciar and the heads of tithings could carry out inquests when certain offences were committed. They were, however, to present offenders to the justiciar of Monzón and fines were retained by the Temple. ⁽³¹⁾

Participation in the appointment of officials formed merely one part of the activity of the concejos and universidades under Templar lordship. They often had an important role in administration even when they did not control appointments. In Tortosa the citizens were assisting in judicial administration long before 1275. Already in the twelfth century some of the probi homines were playing an important part in the judgements given in the city court. Thus in 1193 a dispute concerning some land which had been granted to the Templars was judged in the city court by four probi homines. ⁽³²⁾ And the citizens of Tortosa were seeking to extend the competence of the city court and to increase their own importance in it. At the end of the twelfth century they put forward a claim that all cases should be decided there, but this was rejected by arbiters, who declared that disputes between inhabitants of Tortosa should be heard in the city court, but that suits between the Templars or the Moncadas and citizens should be brought before judges appointed by the lords of Tortosa. ⁽³³⁾ In 1242, however, when the bishop of Lérida arbitrated between the citizens on the one side and the Templars and William of Moncada on the other, it was declared that certain civil cases between the lords of Tortosa and citizens should be heard in the city court. ⁽³⁴⁾ The role of the citizens in the proceedings of the court was defined in 1272, following another prolonged dispute, during which the [194] Templars and Raymond of Moncada claimed that their authority was being weakened by the activities of the citizens. In the compromise that was finally reached the practice was confirmed whereby the vicar chose two citizens to decide with him civil cases and those involving monetary penalties; and, as in the past, appeals were to be heard by two or more citizens acting in conjunction with the vicar. It was also then agreed that inquests should be held in cases involving certain offences, such as homicide, rape, arson, and forgery, and that the vicar should choose citizens to assist him in conducting these. ⁽³⁵⁾ The Customs of the city of Tortosa show that the citizens also had a number of other administrative functions. The checking of weights and measures, for example, was undertaken jointly by the vicar and the citizens, who received a third of the penalties imposed for infringements. ⁽³⁶⁾ The inhabitants of Templar lordships also became involved in financial administration. At times they assisted in the assessment and collection of dues. Contributions towards the 400s. owed for peita by those living at Alfambra were clearly assessed by the inhabitants themselves, for in 1266 some of them complained that they had been forced to pay more than their share by the richer and more powerful members of the community; ⁽³⁷⁾ and presumably the vassals of the Temple were similarly involved whenever dues were exacted by the Order in the form of a lump sum paid by the community as a whole. ⁽³⁸⁾ Communities also not infrequently obtained the farms of Templar monopolies. In the middle of the thirteenth century, for example, the inhabitants of Grallera and Torre Farrera in the district of Segriá acquired the farms of the ovens of these places, ⁽³⁹⁾ and in 1254 the universidad of Villalba similarly received the forge there at farm. ⁽⁴⁰⁾

In a few instances the concejos and universidades obtained complete control over certain aspects of administration, to the total exclusion of the Temple. In a sentence of arbitration given in 1242 the bishop of Lérida declared that the public baths in Tortosa pertained to the citizens and not to the lords of the city, and the citizens' rights in this matter were confirmed later in the century when the Customs of Tortosa were compiled. ⁽⁴¹⁾ In the first half of the thirteenth century the inhabitants of Monzón had control of the irrigation canals and also of weights in the town and presumably took the profits derived from these rights. ⁽⁴²⁾ In 1173 the men of Monzón had also claimed a right to the profits of the [195] ferry across the Cinca, and although when the matter was disputed before the bishop of Zaragoza they were obliged to accept the Order's claims, it was nevertheless agreed that the Temple and the inhabitants should each contribute half of the costs of maintaining the ferry and that the income from it should be divided between them. ⁽⁴³⁾

Finally, the communities subject to the Temple or the officials elected by them often had the power to issue their own decrees or by-laws and to receive a share of the amercements imposed for infringements. In the code of customs drawn up at Horta in 1296 the right of the jurados to issue by-laws was confirmed, and it was decreed that fines for breaches of them were to be divided between the jurados and the Temple as had been customary until then. ⁽⁴⁴⁾ At Castellote, where the community enjoyed a similar right, the jurados and the Temple each received a third of the amercements imposed, as did the lords and citizens at Tortosa. ⁽⁴⁵⁾ To safeguard its own interests the Order normally stipulated that enactments of this kind required the consent of the Temple, but clearly in practice this provision was not always observed. In 1263 the Templars complained that the concejo of Ambel had issued constitutions which were prejudicial to the Order, ⁽⁴⁶⁾ and at about the same time the commander of Tortosa asserted that the citizens ignored Templar rulings when they wanted to issue decrees and accepted instead the decisions of the Moncadas. ⁽⁴⁷⁾ It was therefore made clear in the Customs of Tortosa that all enactments were to be made in the city court in the presence of the bailiffs of both the Moncadas and the Templars. ⁽⁴⁸⁾

When the provincial master surrendered Templar rights of lordship in Tortosa to the Crown in 1294 he said that he was doing so

because the rights of the said militia of the Temple are being diminished and harmed in various ways. ⁽⁴⁹⁾

The administration of the Order's estates was affected not only by the powers of the concejos and universidades but also by the rights of others who enjoyed authority within Templar lordships. In a number of places certain rights and revenues had been granted away by previous lords before the Temple gained possession, although not all of these earlier concessions had been in the same form or affected Templar administration to the same extent. In Espluga de Francolí, for example, the fee which Hugh of Cervellón held was essentially a money fief, consisting primarily of a third of the revenues of the lordship, and although according to a sentence of arbitration given in 1258 Hugh had the right to be present when justice was dispensed, the existence of this fee had little effect on Templar administration in Espluga, for most dues were collected by Templar officials, and Hugh received his third from these. ⁽⁵³⁾ But some of the fees held by knights in Espluga when the Temple acquired it consisted of rights over particular properties [197] and consequently those who lived on these lands were removed from the direct control of the Order.⁽⁵⁴⁾

It is not altogether clear to what extent within their lordships and estates the Templars continued this practice of granting out rights and revenues. Certainly in the thirteenth century dues from Templar monopolies were commonly farmed out not only to communities but also to individuals either in perpetuity or for varying periods, ⁽⁵⁵⁾ and the dues collected by public notaries were usually farmed by them for life: at the time of the arrest of the Templars the office of notary at Cantavieja was held for life at an annual rent of 60s.J., and that at Castellote for a rent of 80s.J. a year. ⁽⁵⁶⁾ But the only other dues which are known to have been frequently granted out were those which were temporarily alienated when the Order was seeking to anticipate its revenues. When this happened the transaction usually assumed the form of either a sale or a loan. Thus in May 1275 rents worth 1,500s.B. which fell due during the course of the following twelve months were sold for 1,200s.B. to Isaac Adreti by the commander of Palau. ⁽⁵⁷⁾ Several years earlier Isaac Adreti had also been involved in a transaction which took the form of a loan. He had lent the commander of Palau 2,000s.B. and had received in repayment the dues which had been assigned to the Order as its tenth of royal revenues in Barcelona. ⁽⁵⁸⁾ The wording of several papal bulls issued in the second half of the thirteenth century and ordering the recovery of Templar rights which had been illicitly alienated would seem to imply, however, that it was a common Templar practice to grant out rights and revenues on a fairly extensive scale. In 1297 Boniface VIII was repeating the words of several of his predecessors when he wrote that

it has come to our hearing that not only the beloved sons the preceptor and brothers of the house of the Temple of Jerusalem in Aragon and Catalonia but also their predecessors have granted tithes, lands, houses, meadows, pastures, woods, mills, rights, jurisdictions and certain other goods of that house..., to the grave harm of the same house, to a number of clerics and laymen, to some of them for life, to some for a considerable period of time, and to others in perpetuity, at farm or for an annual rent. ⁽⁵⁹⁾

Yet if towards the end of the thirteenth century the Temple was seeking to remove intermediate authorities and to recover rights earlier granted out, it is still not altogether clear how frequently concessions of revenues and rights of lordship had been made in earlier periods. Certainly the surviving evidence does not suggest that revenues were normally farmed out or that fiefs were commonly created by the Templars within their lordships. The great majority of the documents which are concerned with the exploitation of property record grants of small individual holdings to peasants and townsmen, and the work of Templar officials appears to have consisted primarily in the exaction of dues and services from these rather than in the supervision of fief-holders or farmers of revenues.
 

When the relations between the Temple and the peasants and townsmen on its estates are examined, it very soon becomes apparent that the Order was unable to exact all the dues and services to which it might claim a right. In many parts of the Corona de Aragón during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries concessions had to be granted in order to ensure that land was brought under cultivation and worked. This had to be done especially in the [200] districts conquered from the infidel. In some parts of these regions concessions were made in the first place to the Moorish population. These were not only made in order to gain possession of territories during the reconquest but also had the purpose of checking widespread emigration to places further south still under Muslim rule, for although the Moors would not want to lose their lands, many would nevertheless be reluctant to live under alien domination, especially when they feared that the Christians would be hostile to them. The uneasiness which many felt when they were brought under Christian rule is illustrated by the agreement made in 1234 between the Templars and the Moors of Chivert, for this includes an undertaking by the Order to build a wall to protect the Moorish quarter and a promise on the part of the Templars that

if any Saracen within one whole year from the time when this agreement is made wishes to leave this stronghold and wants to go to pagan territories, he can do this without any impediment and can take with him his wife, children, slaves, cattle and anything else he has and can go to the land of the Saracens with the protection of the brothers of the Temple. ⁽⁷³⁾

The problem of manpower was not, however, peculiar to the districts reconquered from the Moors. In the more northerly parts of the Corona de Aragón the Templars, like other lords, were seeking to extend the area of land under cultivation. A supply of labour was obviously necessary for this purpose, and inducements might have to be offered in order to obtain it. Further, many of those who were attracted by offers of improved conditions of tenure in new settlements in the north or in the reconquered areas further south were tenants on old-established estates in the more northerly parts of the Corona de Aragón. As a result, these estates soon began to suffer from a shortage of manpower, which was made more acute by the fact that tenants were also migrating to the growing urban communities, where they could enjoy greater [202] freedom. ⁽⁸²⁾ The Templars sought to check desertion from their estates in Cataluña Vieja by adopting the practice of extracting charters from their men, in which the permanence of the Temple's rights of lordship were recognized and stressed. In 1229, for example, William of Sargantanes, an inhabitant of Voltregá near Vich, acknowledged that he and his children and possessions were under the lordship of the Temple

namely so that I or my descendants can never choose any other lord than the brothers of the Temple and no prescription of time or residence in village or city or town can benefit me or mine in any way or injure the said militia;⁽⁸³⁾

The concessions made by the Templars and other lords in order to ensure that land was worked covered a wide variety of issues. Moors who became subject to Christian lords in the reconquered areas were commonly allowed freedom of religion and law. ⁽⁸⁵⁾ At Chivert the Moors were permitted to retain their mosque and cemeteries and were given the right to fast, to call worshippers to prayer, and to go on pilgrimage without hindrance. They were also to be judged by their own officials according to their own laws and were not to be compelled to swear any oath 'by any creature or thing except by Almighty God'. ⁽⁸⁶⁾ Of course, to allow the Moors their own officials was probably a necessary concession in view of language differences, and to have rejected Muslim laws would have been out of keeping with the normal respect shown in the Middle Ages for local custom. ⁽⁸⁷⁾ But these concessions probably helped to persuade some Moors to accept Christian domination. A concession sometimes made to attract new settlers to reconquered districts was to guarantee protection to those who had committed crimes elsewhere. The fuero of La Cañada de Benatanduz, for example, includes a clause stating that

if any murderer settles in La Cañada de Benatanduz and his enemies come after him to settle, they must either accept him in friendship or leave the township. ⁽⁸⁸⁾

[203] Temporary or partial exemptions from military service were granted by the Temple to Christian settlers in some reconquered areas. In the carta de población for La Cuba, in the commandery of Cantavieja, settlers were freed from the obligation of hueste and cabalgada for two years, while those at Villalba, which was subject to Miravet, were given exemption for fifteen years. ⁽⁸⁹⁾ After that period the inhabitants of Villalba were to serve whenever requested against the Moors, as were those of Castellote, ⁽⁹⁰⁾ but in the commandery of Cantavieja the obligation for cabalgada was limited to once a year with the provincial master and twice with the commander of Cantavieja. ⁽⁹¹⁾ Similarly, by the provisions of the fuero which had been granted to the inhabitants of Alfambra by the master of the Order of Mountjoy and which remained in force under the Templars, the commander of Alfambra could demand hueste and cabalgada only twice a year. ⁽⁹²⁾ A fuller exemption was granted to the Moors of Chivert: they were obliged to give service only if Chivert itself were attacked, either by Christians or Moors. ⁽⁹³⁾ When this privilege was granted Templar expeditions were directed primarily against Moorish Spain and the Order was obviously wary of using its Muslim subjects against men of their own religion. The only comparable exemption granted to Christian settlers seems to have been the freedom from ejército and cabalgada conceded in 1226 to those holding land at Fontanet near Lérida. ⁽⁹⁴⁾ But by the early thirteenth century this district was no longer adjacent to Muslim territories. In areas which were still near the Moorish frontier at the time when they were settled the Temple could not afford to grant such full exemptions to their Christian vassals.

By contrast, it seems to have been in the more southerly areas that the fullest exemptions from labour services were granted to Christian settlers. On their estates in the district of Lérida, which was conquered in the mid twelfth century, the Templars usually demanded some labour services, though not as many as were owed by some of the Order's tenants in Cataluña Vieja. Each settler at Vencilló was obliged to perform annually one day's labour service on the Temple's demesne and to carry goods as far as Lérida once a year, ⁽⁹⁵⁾ and a similar obligation was imposed by the Temple in the district of Segriá. ⁽⁹⁶⁾ But further south Christian settlers on Templar estates seem often to have been completely exempt from labour services, for these are not mentioned [204] in any document concerning Christian tenants living in the lower Ebro valley or in southern Aragon, while the only reference to such obligations in Valencia is that found in the carta de población for the alquería of Seca in Burriana, where one day's ploughing a year was demanded of settlers. ⁽⁹⁷⁾ It is, of course, dangerous to assume that the absence of any reference to an obligation necessarily means that it was not owed: that dues and services owed were not always listed in full in cartas de población is apparent from the wording of the charter issued to settlers at Pinell in 1198, for in this the Temple reserved certain specified rights and 'other things which are seen to pertain to the lord of the land'. ⁽⁹⁸⁾ Yet the almost complete absence of references to labour services in the more southerly parts of the Corona de Aragón strongly suggests that Christian settlers on the Order's estates in these districts were free from these obligations. In the more southerly areas, on the other hand, labour services were demanded from at least some of the Order's Moorish tenants. Those at Villastar in the commandery of Villel were obliged to provide one man from every household once a month, ⁽⁹⁹⁾ and as in the charter granted to the Moors of Chivert in 1234 Moorish officials were specifically exempted from labour services, it seems that the other Moorish inhabitants there were expected to perform them. ⁽¹⁰⁰⁾

Tenants of the Order were sometimes not only exempted from performing labour services but also freed from the payment of rent for their lands. Thus in 1264 the commander of Villel conceded to the Christian inhabitants of Villastar that if the non-irrigated land there was worked, tithes and primicias should be paid from it, but no other rent. ⁽¹⁰¹⁾ But it is difficult to assess exactly how common this practice was. Certainly a considerable number of cartas de población refer to the payment of tithes and primicias but do not state that settlers were also to pay rent for their holdings. Those for Cantavieja, Villarluengo, and other places in the commandery of Cantavieja are of this type, ⁽¹⁰²⁾ as are several issued in the northern part of Valencia, such as those for Pulpís and Castellnou de Chivert. ⁽¹⁰³⁾ Yet in the absence of documents concerning individual tenements it cannot usually be ascertained whether in fact no rents were paid. Possibly the statement that no other peita was to be exacted -- which is found in some of the charters concerning places in southern Aragon -- should be taken to mean that the inhabitants of these districts did not pay rent for [205] their holdings; and it may be noted in this context that when Alfonso II granted Villarluengo to the Order of Mountjoy in 1194, he stated that it was to be settled at 'tithes and primicias'. ⁽¹⁰⁴⁾ But rents were clearly charged in some places whose cartas de población might be taken to imply that they were not. In the charter granted to Novillas it was stated that settlers were not to

pay any tribute to anyone except the tithes and primicias pertaining to the Church of God. ⁽¹⁰⁵⁾

Because of variations in measures and quality of land, it is difficult to ascertain whether the Templars sought to attract settlers by charging low rents for land. Proportional rents demanded by the Order in reconquered areas were not noticeably smaller than those exacted elsewhere, but it must be remembered that in some reconquered districts rents might include a charge in lieu of labour services. On at least one occasion, however, it was asserted that land was not being worked because the Order was demanding too high a rent for it, and the Templars appear in several instances to have been obliged to reduce their demands to ensure that land was brought under cultivation. Non-irrigated land at Masarrochos near Valencia was still lying waste in 1286, [206] even though in the carta de población issued by the Temple in 1251 it had been decreed that this land was to be worked within four years. ⁽¹¹⁰⁾ The inhabitants maintained that it was not worth cultivating while the Temple demanded a third of the produce. The provincial master therefore reduced the rent to a fifth. ⁽¹¹¹⁾ A similar reduction seems to have been made in the alquería of Seca in Burriana, for while in the carta de población issued in 1243 it was stated that a fifth of produce should be paid to the Temple, ⁽¹¹²⁾ in 1261 land there which was to be made into vineyards was granted to sixteen men at the rent of a ninth. ⁽¹¹³⁾ The need to attract settlers may also explain reductions in the rents charged at Fontanet near Lérida in the early thirteenth century, when the process of resettlement was apparently still incomplete. In 1225 rents were reduced from 15s. to 14s. per fanegada and in 1231 there was a further reduction to 12s. ⁽¹¹⁴⁾ Several references occur to arrears of rent at Fontanet at this time, ⁽¹¹⁵⁾ and it is possible that there as elsewhere the Temple had imposed too heavy a burden of rent and was finding difficulty in retaining settlers.

The concessions made by the Temple in order that land should be cultivated rarely included exemptions from the payment of tithes and primicias. In the cartas de población these are regularly mentioned among the rights retained and the only charters which include concessions are those of Alcalá and Castellnou de Chivert, where tithes and primicias were not taken from garden produce, fruit, wool, or cheese; but even in these cases it seems that the dues were merely being commuted, for it was stated that a chicken was to be exacted from every house for tithes and primicias. ⁽¹¹⁶⁾ But of course in the exaction of these dues the Temple did not have a completely free hand, for a proportion of them was usually owed to the diocesan. It appears to have been the Templar practice also to retain monopoly rights, for at least some of these are specifically reserved in every carta de población. The Templars possibly found that dues from monopolies were easier to collect and more profitable than others. ⁽¹¹⁷⁾ The few concessions which are mentioned in the cartas de población were made mainly in Valencia. At Seca settlers were allowed to bake up to five loaves in their own houses at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost; ⁽¹¹⁸⁾ the Moors of Chivert were not obliged to make any payment for animals slaughtered in the carnicería; ⁽¹¹⁹⁾ and the settlers at Alcalá were allowed to have their own mills, provided that they were [207] not powered by wind or water; hand-mills were thus permitted, and this would reduce Templar revenues, but presumably not to any great extent. ⁽¹²⁰⁾

Among the other concessions made by the Order were those concerning the exaction of tolls and the public due of questia or peita, and it is possible that the Order sometimes also abandoned its claim to a fifth of the spoils of war; but it is difficult to generalize about the incidence of these dues. They are usually referred to -- if at all -- only in cartas de población, and for some districts, such as that of Lérida, very few of these charters survive, while many of the cartas de población which have been preserved contain no reference to them. This omission is particularly common among the cartas de población drawn up by the Temple in Valencia; these do not usually mention any dues other than land rents, monopoly dues, tithes, and primicias. In a number of charters for places in the lower Ebro valley and in southern Aragon, the Temple reserved its right to lezda, including presumably that paid by the inhabitants of the districts in question, and the cartas de población for Cantavieja, Mirambel, and Iglesuela contain details about tolls to be exacted from inhabitants who took cattle or other animals into Moorish territory. ⁽¹²¹⁾ Yet, with the exception of that for Pulpís, ⁽¹²²⁾ the charters which survive for Templar estates in Valencia contain no reference to tolls, and it cannot be ascertained whether the men living in these places paid them to the Order. But the absence of any reference to these dues in the carta de población which the Templars issued in 1192 for Horta, further north, ⁽¹²³⁾ probably did imply that settlers were exempt from the payment of tolls there, for in 1165 -- when Horta was still under the lordship of the Crown -- Alfonso II had conceded that those who settled there should not be obliged to pay lezda or peaje anywhere in the kingdom, ⁽¹²⁴⁾ and in the customs confirmed in 1296 the inhabitants were exempted from the payment of lezda or peaje within the boundaries of Horta. ⁽¹²⁵⁾ But the only exemptions from tolls which are known definitely to have been granted to settlers by the Templars themselves were those enjoyed by the inhabitants of the commandery of Miravet, who were freed from the payment of lezda and peaje in places subject to the convents of Monzón and Ascó, and by settlers at Villanueva de la Barca, who were allowed free passage across the Segre. ⁽¹²⁶⁾ The incidence of peita and questia seems to have been very uneven. [208] While settlers at Villalba were exempted from questia in their carta de población, those at Gandesa paid it; ⁽¹²⁷⁾ and while the inhabitants of Cantavieja and Mirambel were exempted from peita, those of Alfambra were subject to this due. ⁽¹²⁸⁾ But no full information survives about the exaction of peita and questia, and the same is true of the right to a fifth of booty and prisoners taken in war. This right must have been of some importance, especially in the frontier districts, and it was retained by the Order in the cartas de población issued for Novillas, Pinell, Gandesa, and La Cañada de Benatanduz; ⁽¹²⁹⁾ but there is no reference to it in any other settlement charter granted by the Temple, ⁽¹³⁰⁾ and in none was a specific exemption conceded.

The situation is a little clearer with regard to the rights usually known in Cataluña Vieja as the malos usos. On some of its estates in the district of Lérida the Temple did not altogether abandon these rights. In the carta de población for Vencilló the right of exorquia was retained, ⁽¹³¹⁾ and in two charters recording grants of land to tenants near Lérida which were issued by the Order in 1234 the phrase 'with all evil custom ceasing' was included, which suggests that on these properties some of the malos usos had been retained up to that time. ⁽¹³²⁾ There is no reference, however, to the exaction of malos usos on the Temple's lands along the lower valley of the Ebro, and in several cartas de población freedom from them was specifically granted. In the charter issued to the settlers of Horta the Templars promised to exact no malos usos, ⁽¹³³⁾ and in 1198 the Order undertook not to demand exorquia, intestia, or cugucia from the inhabitants of Pinell, who were further freed from the malos usos when a new carta de población was issued in 1207. ⁽¹³⁴⁾ A similar exemption was included in the charter issued for Batea, whose customs were later adopted at Algars. ⁽¹³⁵⁾ It is clear that the Temple normally surrendered its rights to the malos usos on its estates along the lower Ebro valley. The Order similarly abandoned its claims to them in the carta de población issued for Moncada in Valencia, ⁽¹³⁶⁾ but these rights are not mentioned in any other settlement charter granted by the Templars in that kingdom. Yet if the Order gave up these rights on its estates along the lower Ebro it is unlikely that it would have tried to reserve them in Valencia. Although the malos usos are usually associated with Cataluña Vieja, rights of a similar kind did exist in Aragon, and in the more southerly parts of that kingdom some were [209] retained by the Templars. At Tronchón, in the commandery of Cantavieja, the Order claimed a right to a fifth of the goods of any inhabitant who died intestate, unless he had been killed by the Moors, ⁽¹³⁷⁾ and at Cantavieja, Mirambel, and Iglesuela the Templars took a fifth of the possessions of those who died under sentence of excommunication or interdict. ⁽¹³⁸⁾

Yet although in some places several of the malos usos or similar rights were retained by the Order, there is no evidence in the reconquered lands settled by the Temple of the remensa personal. The only restrictions known to have been imposed on settlers were those which were considered necessary to guarantee that estates were worked. To ensure that land was brought under cultivation, alienation was often forbidden for a certain number of years. At Horta and Batea the period was five years, at Villastar three, and at Belloque and Cambor two. ⁽¹³⁹⁾ A limitation of this kind was not, however, always imposed and the Templars sometimes merely decreed that the land should be worked or houses built within a certain period. Thus in the carta de población for Pulpís it was decreed that the Temple should have the right to seize any land that was not worked within two years,⁽¹⁴⁰⁾ and settlers who were given lands by the Order on the outskirts of Valencia were often obliged to build houses within three or four months. ⁽¹⁴¹⁾ To ensure that land was kept under cultivation, the Order frequently also decreed that a tenant must reside personally on his holding; failure to do so was punished by confiscation of the property. In the carta de población for Villalba it was stated that anyone who was absent from his holding for three years should forfeit it, unless he was being held captive, ⁽¹⁴²⁾ and some lands at Carpesa were held on the condition that if the tenants did not reside personally within three months of being warned to do so, their lands would be confiscated by the Order. ⁽¹⁴³⁾ The Templars sometimes also sought to enforce personal residence by decreeing that tenants could alienate their lands only to local inhabitants. ⁽¹⁴⁴⁾ In imposing restrictions of this kind the Temple was, of course, merely doing the same as many other lords in the reconquered districts. ⁽¹⁴⁵⁾

Freedom from the malos usos was clearly one of the most important privileges which the Temple could offer to settlers, for it was commonly by granting this that lords in Cataluña Viejasought to check emigration from their estates and to attract new [210] tenants. The Templars were adopting the same policy as many other northern lords when in 1281, in an attempt to increase the population of Puigreig, they promised

to all those settlers who wish to come to the said settlement and make continuous residence there and become homines proprii of the Temple that they are to be exempt in perpetuity and free from cugucia and intestia and exorquia and from the redemption of men and women; so that they can come freely to the said settlement without any redemption and that they can freely leave it whenever they wish without any redemption of their persons or their movables. ⁽¹⁴⁶⁾

Some general trends can obviously be discerned among the concessions made by the Templars to ensure that land was worked. On the one hand, there was a tendency to abandon the malos usos and labour services and, on the other, monopoly rights and tithes and primicias were usually retained. But -- except in the few cases when the customs of one township were adopted en bloc in another -- the conditions of tenure varied to some extent from place to place. The picture of uniform concessions which has sometimes been presented in general discussions of exemptions clearly does not apply to Templar estates. ⁽¹⁴⁹⁾ Of course, in some instances the Templars were probably merely confirming concessions made by previous lords, and some variations can be explained in this way. But there were also variations between places where the work of settlement was begun by the Templars. This was presumably because the conditions laid down in the cartas de población represented compromises between the wishes of the Order and those of settlers; just as the granting of the charter to the Moors of Chivert in 1234 was preceded by negotiations, so presumably the issuing of cartas de población to Christian settlements followed discussions between the Templars and the first settlers. And varying decisions could be reached as a result of such discussions.

[211] It is not always easy to judge the success of this policy of concession. As has been seen, it is not known how many Moors left Templar estates and migrated to Muslim Spain. But it is clear that when lords wanted to attract new settlers it was not enough for them just to be ready to offer concessions: these needed to be publicized and the work of settlement organized. In some instances the Templars delegated part of this task to others. In 1151 land on a Templar estate at Castelldans was granted to two men on the condition that they undertook the work of resettling the whole estate. ⁽¹⁵⁰⁾ The five individuals to whom the carta de población for Gandesa was issued were similarly assigned the task of finding further settlers, as was a certain Filiolo at Gorrapte,⁽¹⁵¹⁾ while the charter for Castellnou de Chivert was granted to Bartholomew Amoros 'and to the settlers whom you send there'. ⁽¹⁵²⁾ The men who undertook this work on Templar estates and elsewhere in Spain ⁽¹⁵³⁾ can obviously be compared with the locatores who were employed to bring settlers to new lands in eastern Germany. Most of those who acted in this capacity on Templar estates in Aragon appear not, however, to have received as extensive privileges and rights as were usually conceded to the German locatores. ⁽¹⁵⁴⁾ Although Filiolo was granted the office of bailiff and a quarter of judicial profits at Gorrapte, the two men who undertook the work of resettlement at Castelldans were merely exempted from the payment of rent and the performance of labour services, and in other instances there is no reference to any special privileges enjoyed by those who helped to resettle Templar estates. While some individuals resettled whole estates for the Order, others seem to have been given the task of finding tenants for particular holdings, for in some instances the Temple gave existing tenants additional lands, which they could then sub-let to newcomers at a profit. Thus in 1255 Arnold of the Ribera de Monzón was assigned land for building houses in Valencia next to the houses which he already held of the Temple, and in 1262 he granted away half of this land at more than twice the rent which he paid to the Order for it. ⁽¹⁵⁵⁾ But it is not clear how frequently the Order delegated the task of finding settlers. It has been argued that the military orders resettled lands on the north-eastern borders of Germany by transferring some of their own tenants from estates further west. ⁽¹⁵⁶⁾ In the Corona de Aragón the Templars adopted a policy of this kind when establishing Castellnou in Segriá, [212] and the evidence provided by names suggests that settlers on Templar lands elsewhere in the Aragonese kingdoms were sometimes similarly drawn from the Order's own estates: Peter of Horta, for example, was among the settlers to whom the carta de población for Alcalá de Chivert was granted. ⁽¹⁵⁷⁾ That settlers on Templar estates in Aragon might be drawn from the Order's own properties is also implied by the statement in the charter for Puigreig that men could come there 'without any redemption'. But presumably the Templars did not usually pursue a policy of resettling lands by transferring tenants from other estates belonging to the Order, for if they had done so there would often soon have been a lack of manpower on the old-established properties; and in so far as can be ascertained from the evidence provided by names, those who came to settle on Templar estates were drawn from all parts of Aragon and Catalonia and possibly also from the more southerly districts of France. ⁽¹⁵⁸⁾

Whether the task of resettling an estate was undertaken by the Order itself or delegated to others, the Templars usually issued a carta de población, and these charters are obviously an important source for tracing the course of resettlement on the Order's lands. Yet it must be remembered that they mark only a stage in the process of settlement. Many were issued to just a handful of individuals, and in many charters reference is made to future settlers. And it is clear that in many settlements new land was being brought under cultivation and houses built right up to the end of the thirteenth century. But not all settlements prospered in this way, and some cartas de población refer to merely abortive attempts to bring land under cultivation. If cartas de población do not therefore mark the completion of settlement, they do not necessarily mark the beginning either. A second charter might be issued not only after an earlier settlement had collapsed, but also when conditions of tenure were being confirmed or changed. The course of resettlement cannot therefore be traced just from the evidence provided by the cartas de población. But even when all the available material is examined, it is not always easy to follow the progress of resettlement on Templar estates.

Some places in Aragon along the Ebro and its tributaries which had been conquered in the early part of the twelfth century, before the Temple entered into the reconquista, still needed resettling when they were acquired by the Order, although in some [213] others a Christian community had been established before the Temple gained possession. Although the Templars issued a carta de población for Razazol in the later 1150s or early 1160s, ⁽¹⁵⁹⁾ the work of resettlement was not then just beginning, for there were settlers at Razazol as early as 1129, ⁽¹⁶⁰⁾ and the existence of charters recording conveyances of land there in the 1140s and early 1150s shows that this early settlement had not collapsed. ⁽¹⁶¹⁾ Boquiñeni had apparently also been resettled by 1129, ⁽¹⁶²⁾ but it is not altogether clear whether or not Novillas was inhabited by Christians when it was given to the Order. In the middle of the twelfth century, when the fuero of Novillas was confirmed, it was stated that the work of resettlement had been carried out by the Temple: after the Order had gained the Hospital's rights there, the Templar Garner,

seeing that he could not defend the township of Novillas from the Saracens without the help of good men, settled it and allocated the lands of the said township of Novillas to settlers -- holy men, knights and footmen -- who wished to settle there. ⁽¹⁶³⁾

ever since it was ravaged by the Moors it has lain waste and uncultivated until the brothers began to work the land there with great labour and expense; ⁽¹⁶⁷⁾

of certain things in the bailiwick of Aragon which are in a poor state and unprofitable to the Temple, ⁽¹⁷⁴⁾

The Temple also participated in the resettlement of places in other areas which were already in Christian hands before the Order entered into the reconquista, but the process of repopulation is usually difficult to follow. In the thirteenth century, for example, there was clearly a Christian settlement at Selma, which had been lying waste in 1149, ⁽¹⁷⁶⁾ but it is not known when this was established.

More information survives about resettlement in districts conquered after 1143. The Templars began to settle Christians on their estates around Lérida almost immediately after the city's capture. As has been seen, an agreement was made in 1151 about bringing settlers to the Order's lands at Castelldans, ⁽¹⁷⁷⁾ and in 1158 the Templars, acting jointly with Gilbert of Anglesola, made grants of land for settlement at Avinabita, while in 1161/2 a carta de población was issued for Vencilló. ⁽¹⁷⁸⁾ By this time land at Gardeny was also being brought under cultivation. In 1161 the commander [215] of Gardeny granted gardens there to fourteen inhabitants of Lérida, ⁽¹⁷⁹⁾ and in 1165 a further seven men were assigned as much land as they could irrigate there and another four were given land to make gardens, ⁽¹⁸⁰⁾ while in the following year eight more individuals received plots at Gardeny for this purpose. ⁽¹⁸¹⁾ At this time the Order was similarly undertaking the resettlement of land at Fontanet, on the opposite bank of the Segre to Gardeny; ⁽¹⁸²⁾ and by 1170 some Templar lands in Segriá were being worked by Christians, although it is not clear to what extent the Temple was responsible for resettling these lands. ⁽¹⁸³⁾ But although the work of resettlement was begun early on Templar estates near Lérida, it was not quickly completed. That setbacks were not uncommon is suggested by a clause inserted in a charter recording the grant of three fanegadas of land by the Templars in Lérida in 1174; this stated that

if it happens that all the other settlers of that field leave it, we [the Templars] have the power to recover these three fanegadas. ⁽¹⁸⁴⁾

The resettlement of Templar estates along the lower valley of the Ebro was not usually begun so early. Although Christian settlers soon established themselves in the city of Tortosa, ⁽¹⁸⁶⁾ Christians did not come to live in many of the more rural parts of this region until the last years of the twelfth century or the early decades of the thirteenth, after Alfonso II's conquests had made the district less exposed to Muslim raids. ⁽¹⁸⁷⁾ It was at this time that resettlement was undertaken on many of the Temple's estates in the region. Cartas de población were issued for Gandesa and Horta in 1192, ⁽¹⁸⁸⁾ and Christian settlers at Pinell received charters in 1198 and 1207, ⁽¹⁸⁹⁾ while a carta de población was drawn up in 1205 for Batea, in 1209 for Camposines, and in 1224 for [216] Villalba. ⁽¹⁹⁰⁾ That these charters refer to an early stage in the work of repopulation and did not just confirm well-established settlements is apparent in the first place from the charters themselves. The carta de población for Gandesa was issued to only five settlers and the main work of resettlement clearly still lay ahead, while that for Pinell in 1207 was granted to only seven out of a proposed thirty settlers. ⁽¹⁹¹⁾ Other sources point to the same conclusion. In 1185 Horta was said by the bishop of Tortosa to need resettling, and although Miravet had some Christian inhabitants by then, these were not numerous enough to justify the building of a parish church. ⁽¹⁹²⁾ A further indication of the lack of settlement on Templar lands in this region until towards the end of the twelfth century is provided by Alfonso II's grant of a carta de población for Algars and Batea in October 1181 and by his simultaneous gift of these places ad populandum to Bernard Granel; such action could obviously not have been taken if Algars and Batea had been settled by the Order and the Templars had been exercising their rights of lordship over tenants there. ⁽¹⁹³⁾ The granting of cartas de población by the Temple is, moreover, paralleled at this time by similar activity on the part of other lords who had estates in this region. ⁽¹⁹⁴⁾ But if the Templars were trying to establish communities of Christian settlers on their lands along the lower Ebro towards the end of the twelfth century, they were not always at once successful. As the seven settlers mentioned in the carta de población for Pinell in 1207 did not include the three named in the charter issued nine years earlier, it seems that the first attempt at resettlement had failed, as apparently had the king's essays at repopulating Batea and Horta, for which Alfonso II had issued a carta de población in 1165. ⁽¹⁹⁵⁾ The resettlement of the lower Ebro seems in fact to have been a slow and laborious undertaking, which lasted throughout the thirteenth century: Gorrapte received a carta de población from the Order in 1237, as did Gandesola in 1248, while the Templars drew up a charter for Algars in 1281. ⁽¹⁹⁶⁾ Admittedly at Algars there is evidence of some Christian settlement sixty years earlier, ⁽¹⁹⁷⁾ and several references occur in the first half of the thirteenth century to a Templar official who supervised the administration of Algars. ⁽¹⁹⁸⁾ But the wording of the charter issued in 1281, which shows that the customs of Batea were being adopted at Algars, does not suggest that the Order was then just modifying conditions of tenure for an existing [217] settlement; and it may be noted that although the Temple had been granted rights of ecclesiastical patronage there in 1244, ⁽¹⁹⁹⁾ Algars -- like Miravet where there were very few Christian settlers⁽²⁰⁰⁾ -- is not mentioned in the accounts of papal taxes collected in 1279 and 1280. ⁽²⁰¹⁾ It is probable therefore that in 1281 the Templars were seeking to re-establish a settlement at Algars, while in the case of Gorrapte it is made absolutely clear in the carta de población that the Templars were beginning the work of resettlement in 1237. ⁽²⁰²⁾

Many places in southern Aragon were clearly already inhabited by Christians when the Temple acquired them from the Order of Mountjoy. Alfambra had received a fuero from Count Roderick, the founder of Mountjoy, and according to memoranda drawn up by members of that Order who opposed the amalgamation with the Temple, the possessions which the Templars gained there included churches with their ornaments, books, and vestments, and also mills and an oven. ⁽²⁰³⁾ The members of Mountjoy similarly asserted that the Templars had gained a church, mills, and an oven at Villarluengo. This place had been uninhabited when it was granted by Alfonso II to Mountjoy in February 1194, ⁽²⁰⁴⁾ but it had been repopulated almost immediately, for in the same year that Order rewarded an individual for his help in resettling it; ⁽²⁰⁵⁾ and when the Temple issued a carta de población for Villarluengo in 1197 there were at least twenty Christian settlers there. ⁽²⁰⁶⁾ At Villel, for which Alfonso II had drawn up a resettlement charter in 1180, ⁽²⁰⁷⁾ there were also Christian settlers in 1196, for in that year the Templars were said to have taken possession of a church there, and in the same year they began making purchases of land from some of the Christian inhabitants.⁽²⁰⁸⁾ In 1196 the Order was similarly buying property from Christians at Castellote. ⁽²⁰⁹⁾ The places resettled by 1196 may also have included La Cañada de Benatanduz, for the Templars almost immediately issued a fuero for it. ⁽²¹⁰⁾ But Cantavieja may have lacked settlers when it was gained by the Templars, for when Peter II confirmed possession of it to the Order in 1212, he stated that he was doing so

to settle our land and especially that which is situated on the Muslim frontier; ⁽²¹¹⁾

all the hereditates of the aforesaid alquería are to be divided equally and shared among thirty Saracen settlers of the same place except the four hereditates which the Christians have there. ⁽²¹⁹⁾

In the kingdom of Valencia resettlement appears to have been undertaken mainly in the middle decades of the thirteenth century. The Order was granting houses in the city of Valencia to tenants by June 1239, less than a year after the city's capture, ⁽²²²⁾ and there seems to have been no lack of settlers there, for in the middle of the century the Temple was creating a new suburb outside the walls of the city in La Xarea, ⁽²²³⁾ and was even able to charge small entry fines for land on which houses were to be built.⁽²²⁴⁾ In the middle years of the thirteenth century the Order also granted cartas de población for several of the alquerías lying to the north of the city, but some of these may merely have confirmed settlements started by previous lords. This may have been the case at Masarrochos, for the charter granted to settlers there in October 1251 was issued apparently only a few months after the Temple had acquired the alquería through an exchange with Simon Pérez of Arenoso. ⁽²²⁵⁾ At Moncada as well in 1248 the Templars were probably issuing a charter to a settlement created before the Order gained possession. The wording of the documents recording the king's grant of Moncada and Carpesa in 1246 implies that these places were then already settled, and Moncada was clearly already populated in May 1248 when the Order issued the carta de población, for the charter was drawn up by the chaplain of Moncada and twenty settlers are mentioned in it by name. ⁽²²⁶⁾ The Templars may themselves, however have resettled Borbotó, which they acquired from William of Portella in 1238. ⁽²²⁷⁾ The carta de población which they issued in 1265 clearly did not mark the very beginning of settlement, ⁽²²⁸⁾ for in January 1263 the Order had been prepared to agree to pay the bishop of Valencia 20 besants annually for the next twenty years for two-thirds of the tithes of Borbotó. ⁽²²⁹⁾ As the settlers paid the Order 800s. for the charter, its purpose was presumably to record a change in the conditions of tenure. But the settlement at Borbotó may not have been of long standing, for in 1265 there was no mill or forge there and it was decreed in the carta de población that certain land was to be brought under cultivation within three years.

[220] In the middle decades of the century the Order was also undertaking the resettlement of lands further north. Settlers in the alquería of Seca in Burriana, which the Temple had been granted in 1237, received a carta de población in 1243, ⁽²³⁰⁾ as did those at Alcalá de Chivert in 1251 -- although lands had still to be allocated when their charter was issued ⁽²³¹⁾ -- and the work of resettlement at Castellnou de Chivert was being organized in 1262. ⁽²³²⁾ In the more northerly part of Valencia the Temple appears also later to have been obliged to undertake the main work of resettlement at Pulpís, for although the Order of Calatrava had issued a carta de población for it in 1244, the resettlement charter granted by the Templars was not issued until 1286, nine years after Pulpís had been awarded to the Order, and the terms of the Templar charter imply that a new settlement was being created: the fuero of Valencia was adopted instead of that of Zaragoza, which had been applied in 1244; settlers were to bring land under cultivation within two years; and they were also to build a church there. ⁽²³³⁾

No further information about Pulpís in the Templar period survives, but it is clear that most of the settlements created or taken over by the Temple in the kingdom of Valencia were maintained throughout the rest of the thirteenth century. Nevertheless, on Templar estates, as on those of other lords, ⁽²³⁴⁾ there was a problem of absenteeism, and because of the difficulty in obtaining new tenants the Order could not rigorously enforce regulations about personal residence. Although at Carpesa there was a rule that tenants would be deprived of their holdings if they did not take up residence within three months of being ordered to do so,⁽²³⁵⁾ in May 1274 the Templars undertook not to deprive one individual of his land there provided that he came to live in Carpesa by the beginning of the following year; ⁽²³⁶⁾ and when in April 1275 he had still not taken up residence there, the Order allowed him a further two weeks' grace. ⁽²³⁷⁾

A survey of the resettlement of conquered lands held by the Temple shows that its progress was uneven. ⁽²³⁸⁾ Settlers were attracted most easily and quickly to the large cities. ⁽²³⁹⁾ In the more rural areas, on the other hand, lands were often lying waste for long periods; and the evidence from the lower Ebro valley and southern Aragon suggests that it was particularly difficult to attract settlers to districts which were very close to the Moorish frontier and exposed to raiding. Along some parts of the frontier there [221] was a belt of waste land between Christian and Moor. Admittedly the settlement of some rural districts, such as that around Lérida, began almost immediately after they had been reconquered. But in all regions there were likely to be setbacks ⁽²⁴⁰⁾ and the work of was only slowly completed. And in some places along the Ebro and its tributaries in Aragon the Templars may never have established satisfactory settlements. The Temple and other lords were competing for the available manpower, and the Order could only offer the same concessions as others. The Aragonese kings may further in the interests of their own estates have tried to check the flow of settlers on to private lands. This seems to be the implication of a charter issued in 1251 in which James I granted the Order the right to establish a further five settlers at Camañas, in the commandery of Alfambra. ⁽²⁴¹⁾ Nevertheless, although it is impossible to gain a precise estimate of the size of settlements until the mid fourteenth century, ⁽²⁴²⁾ the success of the Templars generally in bringing reconquered lands into use, with either Christian or Moorish settlers, is apparent from the Hospitaller valuation of Templar commanderies drawn up in the earlier part of the fourteenth century, for this shows that many of the more wealthy Templar houses were situated in districts which had been gained from the Moors in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. ⁽²⁴³⁾

The Order was not always so successful, however, in preventing emigration from its more northerly estates. Although a carta de población, favourable to tenants, was issued by the Templars for Puigreig in 1281, ⁽²⁴⁴⁾ eleven years later permission to alienate the stronghold was given by the Grand Master because, like La Zaida, it was not profitable to the Order. ⁽²⁴⁵⁾

The effects of the reconquest and resettlement were felt throughout the Corona de Aragón and influenced the Temple's policies towards its vassals not only in the reconquered districts. The need to bring land under cultivation and to keep it cultivated explains the majority of the concessions granted by the Order to its tenants. But a number of concessions were made for other reasons. Some were granted to individual tenants as special favours or in return for a payment. In 1154, for example, the Templars assigned land near Lérida free of rent to a scribe named Pons 'because of the service and love which you show to our house'; ⁽²⁴⁶⁾ and in 1137, in return for a payment of 20m., the Order agreed to reduce [222] the rent owed from some land at Collsabadell from a fifth to an eleventh. ⁽²⁴⁷⁾ It has been seen how the Order's lack of money in the thirteenth century similarly led it to free the inhabitants of Espluga de Francolí from the obligation to pay questia in return for a payment of 1,200m. ⁽²⁴⁸⁾ But not all the concessions made by the Order are fully explained in the sources. At Fontanet, near Lérida, the dues owed from some holdings were reduced in 1293 from 12s. to 10s. per fanegada, ⁽²⁴⁹⁾ and ten years later a further reduction of 2s. was made. ⁽²⁵⁰⁾ In 1303/4 the rent payable on some lands at Gardeny, on the opposite bank of the Segre, was similarly reduced from 12s. to 10s. per fanegada. ⁽²⁵¹⁾ At Fontanet the rate of 12s. per fanegada had been in force since 1231, ⁽²⁵²⁾ and at Gardeny rents had remained unchanged in amount for at least forty years before the reduction made in 1303/4. ⁽²⁵³⁾ It cannot therefore be maintained that in these instances the Temple had imposed too heavy demands at the time of settlement and was forced to reduce them in order to bring land under cultivation, as had happened in some districts. The provincial master explained the reductions made in 1303/4 merely by saying that the land was so heavily burdened that the tenants were unable to pay their dues; he was therefore reducing Templar demands at the great insistence of the tenants and in order that the Temple should be more certain of receiving what was due. The difficulty which the commanders of Gardeny were experiencing at this time in collecting dues is apparent from the large number of references to non-payment and arrears of rent which occur in the documents of this convent at the end of the thirteenth century. Of fifteen references to nonpayment or arrears at Fontanet, eight occur in the period between 1290 and 1304, and twenty-eight out of fifty-two references in the commandery as a whole come from the same period. In most cases from two to four years' rent was owed, but several instances of non-payment for ten years or more are recorded. ⁽²⁵⁴⁾ The seriousness of the situation is revealed in an inventory of Gardeny's possessions drawn up in 1289, for in this the commander made clear that he could not pay the dues he owed to the provincial master partly because of the difficulty the convent was encountering in the collection of rents. ⁽²⁵⁵⁾ But although it is apparent that rents were reduced in the commandery because of the tenants' inability to pay what was demanded of them, the sources do not explain why at this time the Order's vassals were in financial [223] difficulties. The provincial master's statement in 1303/4 could be explained by declining productivity resulting from soil exhaustion. But an alternative explanation is suggested by the wording of a charter recording the sub-letting in 1284 of some land which was held of the Temple at Grallera in Segriá. In this document the recipient of the land undertook to pay all dues which were owed for it, including bovaje 'if, which God forbid, it is exacted'. ⁽²⁵⁶⁾ The Order's tenants may have had difficulty in paying their dues to the Temple because they were being impoverished by frequent royal demands for extraordinary taxes. If this was so, then all commanderies would of course have been affected. But much more evidence survives about Gardeny than about any other commandery, and it is not known whether other commanders were obliged to reduce rents at the end of the thirteenth century. Nevertheless, a considerable number of references to arrears and non-payment of dues occur at this time in other commanderies. Inventories drawn up in 1289 at Huesca and Calatayud include details of arrears owing in these commanderies, ⁽²⁵⁷⁾ and a list of debts owed to the convent of Corbins in 1300 similarly contains references to arrears of rent, ⁽²⁵⁸⁾ while a few years earlier the commander of Barcelona had nominated an attorney to recover debts and compel the men of the commandery to pay the dues which they owed. ⁽²⁵⁹⁾ In the commandery of Zaragoza at the end of the thirteenth century a number of tenants were deprived of their lands because rents had not been paid, ⁽²⁶⁰⁾ and the commanders of Zaragoza began to adopt the practice, when making grants of land, of stating that arrears would not be tolerated for more than a certain time. ⁽²⁶¹⁾ Finally, the royal registers of the period refer not infrequently to Templar appeals to the Crown for assistance in the exaction of dues owed to the Order. ⁽²⁶²⁾

Yet while some cases of arrears and non-payment of rent reflect the impoverishment of Templar vassals, others are to be explained by unwillingness rather than inability to pay. When demanding dues or services the Templars not infrequently encountered opposition from individuals or communities who asserted that the Order was exceeding its rights or who were trying to avoid the fulfilment of obligations and thus create an immunity through prolonged default. The Order's financial rights were those which were most commonly called in question, but dispute also arose on other issues. It has been seen how the inhabitants of Ambel [224] questioned the Order's judicial powers, only to throw themselves on the mercy of the provincial master; ⁽²⁶³⁾ and at Monzón, where the Order claimed a right to military service whenever it needed it, the inhabitants on several occasions in the thirteenth century sought to restrict and limit their military obligations. In 1210 they admitted that they owed hueste and ejército but denied that they were liable for cabalgada. This claim was disallowed by Peter II who acted as arbiter in the dispute and who decreed that the men of Monzón should perform every kind of military service whenever the Temple demanded it. ⁽²⁶⁴⁾ Later in the century they asserted that according to the terms of a privilege issued by the Aragonese king Sancho Ramírez in 1076 they were not obliged to give hueste or cabalgada

if it was not done by their consent unless it was necessary for a battle in the field with bread for three days.

Dispute between the Order and its men, as between the Temple and the Crown, was no doubt encouraged by the vague wording of documents, and this also hindered the settlement of differences. Although in the thirteenth century documents did tend to be more detailed, the charters which recorded grants to individual tenants, like the cartas de población, often failed to state fully what obligations were owed to the Order. A rather extreme example is [225] provided by a charter drawn up in 1170 concerning two cahizadas of land in the district of Segriá: the only obligation placed on the tenants was that 'they are to pay rent as is the custom in Segriá.' ⁽²⁷⁰⁾ Throughout the Order's history in Aragon it was usual, however, for the Templars to seek to safeguard their rights by inserting in land charters a clause forbidding the alienation of property to knights or clerics. ⁽²⁷¹⁾

The ability of the Templars to enforce their rights depended, of course, not only on the manner in which documents were drawn up but also on the extent to which written records were kept. The Templars certainly tried to preserve a record of the obligations owed to them. Charters recording grants of land to tenants were usually drawn up in the form of chirographs, so that the Templars as well as the recipients of the land could have a copy; these documents were also copied into the Order's cartularies, although this was not a uniform practice. Whereas over half of the documents in the cartulary of Castellote are of this type, very few charters of this kind were included in that compiled for the convent of Huesca. ⁽²⁷²⁾ A further record of obligations was preserved in rentals and custumals: in 1214, for example, the commander of Gardeny drew up a list of the rents and labour services by tenants of lands in Segriá, ⁽²⁷³⁾ and Templar dues in Cerdaña were listed by the commander of Puigreig in 1275. ⁽²⁷⁴⁾ Although rentals and custumals were occasionally copied into cartularies, ⁽²⁷⁵⁾ very few now survive; but the compilation of such records was presumably a normal practice. Thus although no records of this kind have been preserved for the commandery of Monzón, it is known that, after the arrest of the Templars there, twenty-five books and cuadernos giving details of rents and dues owed to the convent were seized by the Crown. ⁽²⁷⁶⁾ The lists of confratres compiled by the Templars also served the purpose of recording what was due to the Order, for although these lists can be compared with the confraternity books which have survived from some monasteries and which were for use at the altar, ⁽²⁷⁷⁾ the Templar lists in all cases mention the obligation as well as the name of the confrater; and the copying of lists of confratres to the Novillas cartulary was no doubt done exclusively to provide a record of what was due to the Order. ⁽²⁷⁸⁾ But although the Templars adopted various common procedures for keeping records of the dues and services owed to them, the inadequacy of [226] the written evidence at the Order's disposal was made apparent in 1275, when the commander of Puigreig drew up the list of dues owed in Cerdaña, for to do this he was obliged to rely not only on charters and earlier capbreus but also on 'the oaths of men'.⁽²⁷⁹⁾ Much information was not recorded in writing, and as on other estates the inquest had to be employed as the only possible method of finding out what the lord's rights were; ⁽²⁸⁰⁾ and there must have been the danger that those who gave evidence would define existing practice, which might in fact contradict right and privilege.

The ability of the Temple to exact dues and services further depended on the efficiency of those who administered the Order's property. It has already been seen that considerations of efficiency did not always govern the choice of lay officials on the Temple's estates; and efficient administration was probably also hampered by the custom of appointing members of the Order to offices for only short periods of time, for this practice must have meant that Templar officials often had a very inadequate knowledge of the estates in their charge. ⁽²⁸¹⁾ Nothing is known in detail of the workings of Templar administration, but its limited effectiveness is apparent from the fact that the Temple, like many other ecclesiastical lords, ⁽²⁸²⁾ was frequently obliged to seek the king's aid in enforcing its authority when -- as often happened at least in the period for which royal registers survive -- its officials encountered resistance. The Order clearly had difficulty in imposing its will when it was faced by united opposition from a whole community or from a considerable number of its men. In 1306, when a series of crimes was committed by a group of men at Puigreig, the commander there

could not by himself carry out inquiries against them, in view of the rebelliousness and power of the aforesaid, who were disobedient and rebelling against him, and he sought and invoked secular aid so that he could seek out and discover the truth in these matters. He therefore required and instructed the sub-vicar [of Berga] to assist him in executing justice. ⁽²⁸³⁾

The dues which the Order sought to collect from its lordships and estates were demanded in one of three forms. In some instances a proportional payment was exacted. When rents from land were taken in this form the proportion varied from a half of the produce -- in which case the Order normally provided half of the seed -- down to an eleventh or tasca. At other times dues were assessed as fixed payments in kind. When corn rents of this kind were owed for arable lands, they were in most regions taken either half in wheat and half in barley or in equal proportions of wheat, barley, and oats. ⁽²⁸⁹⁾ Lastly, dues could be expressed as fixed sums of money. Dues assessed in this last form appear not, however, to have always been paid in money. In many instances a sum of money 'ad panem et vinum' or 'pani et vino' is referred to, ⁽²⁹⁰⁾ apparently implying that the payment, although assessed in money, was made in kind. But a clear distinction cannot be made between dues described in this way and those which are simply stated as amounts of money, for it is possible that in the latter case payment may also in practice have been made in kind.

The form in which dues were demanded varied considerably from one region to another and sometimes even within the same region. In the more northerly parts of Catalonia rents from arable land and vineyards subject to the Templars were for most of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries predominantly of the proportional type, ⁽²⁹¹⁾ and a similar situation is encountered in many places in the northern half of Aragon, such as Novillas and Boquiñeni, ⁽²⁹²⁾ although at Mesa fixed corn rents were demanded from settlers in 1157. ⁽²⁹³⁾ In the more southerly parts of the Corona de Aragón the variety is rather greater. In the district of Lérida, land rents were expressed in money terms at Gardeny and Fontanet, while in Segári fixed rents in kind were usually exacted. ⁽²⁹⁴⁾ Along the lower Ebro, Christian settlers in the commanderies of [229] Miravet and Horta and also those at Villalba paid fixed rents in kind for their lands, ⁽²⁹⁵⁾ but Moorish inhabitants of Miravet owed proportional rents, ⁽²⁹⁶⁾ while at Tortosa all forms of payment are encountered. ⁽²⁹⁷⁾ In the more southerly parts of Aragon, proportional rents were demanded of settlers at Villastar, fixed rents in kind were exacted from those settling at Riodeva, and money rents were asked of those coming to Santolea. ⁽²⁹⁸⁾ In the kingdom of Valencia, rents for lands in the city of Valencia were usually expressed in money terms, while proportional rents were demanded in the alquerías to the north of the city and also at Burriana. ⁽²⁹⁹⁾ Further north in the kingdom of Valencia, the Moors of Chivert paid proportional rents for their lands, but the Christian settlers at Alcalá de Chivert owed fixed corn rents. ⁽³⁰⁰⁾

Other dues were similarly exacted in a variety of forms. Both hens and money were commonly demanded as rents for houses and gardens in all districts of the Corona de Aragón, while in some parts of Valencia and in the commandery of Castellote ⁽³⁰¹⁾ payments of wax were also fairly common. Rents for mills and ovens granted out by the Order were taken in all forms, and even within a particular region there was no uniformity: although, for example, fixed rents in corn were usually demanded for mills in the district of Segriá, in some cases a money rent was exacted. ⁽³⁰²⁾ Not very much information survives about the payments made by tenants for using mills and ovens retained by the Order, but while in the kingdom of Valencia one loaf out of every twenty-seven baked was exacted for fornaje at Chivert and one out of every twenty-five at Burriana, ⁽³⁰³⁾ elsewhere there seems to have been more variety in the form of payment. ⁽³⁰⁴⁾ There is similarly little evidence about the form in which dues were exacted for the use of uncultivated land; in the charter granted to the Moors of Chivert in 1234, however, it was decreed that the Temple should receive a quarter of the venatio grossa, but that four rabbits should be paid to the Order annually by those who caught them. ⁽³⁰⁵⁾ Nevertheless, in the case of certain dues there does seem to have been greater uniformity. Payments for protection in Cataluña Vieja were usually in the form of a fixed rent in kind; ⁽³⁰⁶⁾ and peita, questia, and cena were normally expressed as money payments. ⁽³⁰⁷⁾

Despite the diversity in forms of payment, some slight trends and developments can be discerned. There was in the first place [230] a tendency in some districts for proportional rents to be replaced by fixed dues paid in kind or money. ⁽³⁰⁸⁾ This was clearly happening on some of the lands of the commandery of Barcelona at the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth centuries. At Gurb, near Vich, for example, there are two cases in 1285 and another in 1288 of proportional dues for land being replaced by fixed rents, ⁽³⁰⁹⁾ and the same was happening at this time on lands subject to the convent of Barcelona in other villages. ⁽³¹⁰⁾ A few examples of the replacement of proportional rents are also encountered in other districts: it was agreed in 1271 that the Christian settlers at Villastar should pay 200s.J. pani et vino instead of a seventh of the produce of their lands; ⁽³¹¹⁾ and in 1302 the rent for a mill at Peñíscola was changed from a proportional payment to twelve cahíces of wheat. ⁽³¹²⁾ Proportional rents for lands appear also to have been replaced in some districts for which no records of change survive, for while early documents refer to proportional rents, later ones mention only fixed dues in money or kind; this is true of some districts in the commandery of Tortosa, such as Labar. ⁽³¹³⁾ On some Templar estates there was a similar tendency to change the tithe from a proportional due into a fixed payment. At the end of the twelfth century the tithes from Templar lands in the district of Pardines near Lérida were commuted into fixed payments assessed in money, ⁽³¹⁴⁾ and it was probably at about the same time that a similar change was made at Fontanet, ⁽³¹⁵⁾ while in 1255 the tithes of wool and cheese were commuted at Alfambra and Orrios into a fixed annual payment of 100s.J. ⁽³¹⁶⁾

Besides this trend away from proportional dues there was in some places a replacement of fixed rents in kind by rents assessed in money. Again most of the clearest evidence comes from Cataluña Vieja, where some fixed rents in kind were being replaced by money payments at the same time as proportional rents were being commuted. ⁽³¹⁷⁾ A few documents record similar changes in other districts, ⁽³¹⁸⁾ and again comparison of early and late charters recording grants of lands to tenants indicates that changes were made in some places for which no specific evidence of commutation survives: at Villel up to the middle of the thirteenth century fixed rents in kind were in most cases exacted, but after that time rents were usually assessed in money. ⁽³¹⁹⁾

The significance of these changes should not, however, be exaggerated. They affected only a minority of the dues collected [231] by the Order and there was no general trend towards the exaction of dues in any one particular form. There are even isolated cases where the change was in the opposite direction. Although it was agreed in 1157 that settlers at Añesa should pay a fixed rent in kind for their holdings, when the Templars issued a new carta de población a hundred years later they demanded proportional rents. ⁽³²⁰⁾ On other occasions in the second half of the thirteenth century when new lands were being granted out the Order sometimes similarly demanded a proportion of produce. The frequency of payments in this form in Valencia has been noted, and even in the commandery of Barcelona when some demesne land was granted out to tenants in 1295 a proportional rent was sought. ⁽³²¹⁾

As the rights which the Temple obtained in areas which were already settled were gained from a large number of different individuals and institutions, it might be expected that the dues it received in these districts would vary considerably in form; and the force of custom would make change slow. But if the variations in type of payment in some areas can be explained at least in part in this way, it is necessary to account for the variety of forms which the Templars themselves adopted in districts which they settled and to explain the changes which the Order did make.

The Templars were clearly influenced by a number of considerations. In making some changes in the forms of payment they may have been influenced by a desire for simplicity. If all the dues from a tenant were taken in the same form, it might be possible to exact just one payment instead of several, and the problems of administration would be eased. Certainly this was the effect of some of the changes which occurred in Cataluña Vieja. Thus in 1288 the various dues owed for a manse at Gurb, comprising money rents, fixed rents in kind, and a proportion of certain produce, were commuted into a single payment of 9s.10d.B. ⁽³²²⁾ The commutation of some tithes in the commandery of Gardeny produced the same result. In the 1180s tenants on the Order's lands in the district of Pardines were paying a fixed rent of 8s. ad panem et vinum for each fanegada and in addition a proportion of produce for tithes and primicias. ⁽³²³⁾ In the following decade the proportional payments were commuted: tenants were now to pay for each fanegada 8s. for rent and a further 2s. ad panem et vinum for tithes and primicias; ⁽³²⁴⁾ and in the thirteenth [232] century the obligation became expressed as a single charge of 10s. ad panem et vinum. ⁽³²⁵⁾

More important, however, was the question of profitability. On this point there were advantages and disadvantages attaching to each form of payment. When prices were rising, as seems to have been happening generally in western Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, proportional rents and fixed rents in kind did not decline in value as did those paid in money. Proportional rents also had the advantage that they allowed the Order to share automatically in any rise in productivity which took place, and this might be an important consideration when lands were being newly brought under cultivation. But proportional dues also had their drawbacks. When the commander of Barcelona was commuting some proportional land rents in 1288 he said that these were unprofitable because of the sterility of the land. ⁽³²⁶⁾ Obviously in years of bad harvests the Templars might gain very little from proportional rents, whereas when fixed rents were charged the Order knew that it would receive a definite amount of produce or money every year. The commander of Barcelona's comment suggests that there had been a series of bad harvests in the years preceding 1288. Proportional rents would also be of only limited value if a tenant farmed his land badly: thus in 1260 the commander of Palau claimed that the Order had lost agraria worth fifty quarters of corn because for twenty years a tenant called Berenguer of Pradillo had failed to cultivate his manse properly. ⁽³²⁷⁾ When the commander of Barcelona was commuting proportional dues in 1288 he also referred to

the expenses which have to be incurred in the collection of the said proportional rents.

Decisions about the form in which dues were to be exacted were in some instances also influenced by the needs of the Temple. Rents were sometimes demanded in kind because the Order could then obtain produce needed in Templar convents for consumption purposes. Although the Temple usually charged money rents for houses in Zaragoza, in 1275 it demanded from one house-holder an annual rent of two arrobas of oil, in order to provide fuel for a lamp in the Templar chapel in the city. ⁽³³¹⁾ The needs of the Templars may also explain why corn rents were paid for some lands at Gardeny which were described as vineyards. ⁽³³²⁾ But considerations of this kind were not usually of overriding importance. Templar convents were expected to pay in money the dues or responsion which they owed to the provincial master, ⁽³³³⁾ and it might therefore have been imagined that the Order would exact dues in kind for the needs of the members of a convent, and dues in money to meet obligations owed to the provincial master. But it is clear that this was not always done. Letters ordering the payment of responsions often included a clause stating that goods [234] might be sold so that payment could be made in money, ⁽³³⁴⁾ while the inventory which survives for the house of Ambel from the year 1289 shows that the commander of that convent set aside wine and grain for his responsion; ⁽³³⁵⁾ and a list of responsions drawn up in the year 1307 indicates that some were actually paid in kind. ⁽³³⁶⁾ Some religious houses pursued a policy of demanding dues in money from their more distant properties, while exacting payments in kind from nearby estates in order to provide food and other necessaries for the monastery; ⁽³³⁷⁾ but clearly the Templars did not adopt this procedure. Such a policy, even if it had been desirable, would perhaps have been hard to implement because tenants would possibly have encountered difficulty in paying dues in the form which the Order wanted. It is noticeable that the predominance of rents expressed purely in money terms is most marked in the larger cities: whereas in the alquerías to the north of the city of Valencia proportional rents and fixed dues in kind were usually exacted by the Order, all those holding land and houses of the Temple within the city itself -- with one exception -- paid a rent that was expressed purely in money terms. The rents demanded from the Order's properties in Zaragoza and Barcelona were again usually of this type. It cannot, of course, be ascertained whether such rents were in fact always paid in money, but it is possible that the inhabitants of cities could pay rents regularly in money more easily than the Order's tenants in rural areas.

While the Templars were inevitably concerned with their own needs and their own profits, they could not, when deciding the form in which dues were to be exacted, altogether neglect the wishes of their vassals, whose interests would obviously not always coincide with those of the Order. Decisions about the form in which dues were to be paid, like decisions about what dues were to be owed, must in the newly settled areas have been reached after negotiations between the Templars and early settlers; and changes which were made elsewhere or at other times were presumably usually preceded by discussions between the Templars and communities or individuals. On some occasions the Order's vassals were apparently able to influence decisions by offering to pay for the changes which they wanted. ⁽³³⁸⁾ At times even, presumably when the Templars felt that there was little to choose between different forms of payment, tenants were offered a choice: in 1285 the occupant of a manse from which the Order [235] had recently been demanding a rent of 17s. was given the choice of paying the proportional dues and other charges which had earlier been exacted or negotiating a new agreement with the Temple about the amount of rent to be paid. ⁽³³⁹⁾ Decisions about the forms in which dues were to be exacted were thus influenced by a variety of interests and considerations, and in this situation it is hardly surprising that different forms were adopted in different places and that the same changes did not occur everywhere.

Much less is known about the forms in which services were exacted by the Order. Although a number of references occur to both mounted and foot service, the only precise information found in the Templar sources about the different kinds of military service owed to the Order is that contained in a few cartas de población from southern Aragon which refer to caballeros villanos. A clause was included in the fuero of Cantavieja stating that any settler bringing a horse and arms was to receive a caballería and was always to give mounted service if the commander and concejo of Cantavieja considered that he was capable of doing so; ⁽³⁴⁰⁾ and in the carta de población for La Cañada de Benatanduz it was decreed somewhat obscurely that

an inhabitant who has a yoke of oxen and an ass and two beds and bread and wine from one year to the next, if he has more than this up to thirty shillings, he is to furnish a foal; if he has more he is to furnish a horse and maintain it. ⁽³⁴¹⁾

Similarly little is known about the extent of the commutation of labour services. Only an occasional reference survives to the permanent commutation of an individual's obligations. ⁽³⁴⁷⁾ But as jova and tragina are still specifically mentioned in a number of documents of the later thirteenth century, ⁽³⁴⁸⁾ it is apparent that at least in some districts labour services had not been permanently replaced by money payments which had become just part of the rent owed for a holding.
 

It was clearly still possible for the Templars to make use of all kinds of labour services, for in most places where they had considerable properties they continued to have a demesne in the sense of cultivated lands not granted out to tenants. Lands which were retained by the Order and used for corn growing or the cultivation of vines are mentioned in a number of documents: some cartas de población refer to land which the Temple did not grant out to settlers, ⁽³⁴⁹⁾ and agreements with the episcopate about tithes sometimes mention the demesne lands which were to be exempt from payment, ⁽³⁵⁰⁾ while all the inventories of Templar houses which have survived from the end of the thirteenth and the early years of the fourteenth centuries refer to oxen and mules used for ploughing. ⁽³⁵¹⁾ From such sources it is clear that in most districts it was the custom for the Templars to keep some land in demesne; they did not abandon demesne farming in reconquered places, as [237] happened in some newly settled parts of western Christendom. ⁽³⁵²⁾ And it is further shown by the inventories that the Order continued to keep land in demesne up to the time of the Templars' arrest.

In the absence of surveys, however, it is not easy to determine the proportion of land retained in demesne, although on a few occasions the size of the demesne is known. According to the carta de población issued for Vencilló in 1161/2 the Templars kept parellada there in demesne, and the same amount of land was retained at Borbotó a century later. ⁽³⁵³⁾ Since in many places a parellada was the normal holding of an individual tenant, ⁽³⁵⁴⁾ the demesne was obviously of only minor importance in these places. Yet Vencilló and Borbotó were not places where Templar convents were established. It is probable that where Templar houses were built demesne lands were more extensive: at Horta, where the normal holding was a parellada, the bishop of Tortosa in 1185 allowed exemption from tithes on twenty-five parelladas, although it is not known whether all this land was in fact retained in demesne; ⁽³⁵⁵⁾ and in 1244 it was agreed that at Chivert the Templars should be exempted from the payment of tithes on six parelladas, as long as these were kept in demesne. ⁽³⁵⁶⁾

It is similarly difficult to determine whether the amount of land in demesne tended to increase or decline. What evidence there is suggests movement in both directions. In 1295 the commander of Barcelona granted out a manse at Parets, which the Templars had previously kept in demesne,

seeing that it is better and more useful for us and the said house that the said manse with all its honours and possessions be given in emphyteusis at the rent and proportional payment mentioned below than be kept at the labour of the said house; ⁽³⁵⁷⁾

Besides working some of their land, the Templars in Aragon also engaged in pastoral husbandry as an adjunct to arable farming; it never completely replaced the latter. The inventories which survive for the year 1289 show that some convents had considerable flocks of sheep and goats. Miravet had a total of 1,380 and Monzón possessed 1,061; at Cantavieja there were 400 ewes, 41 rams, 211 wethers, and 340 goats, while Horta possessed 1,060 goats. ⁽³⁶⁷⁾ An inventory of the possessions of the convent of Peñíscola which was drawn up in 1301 similarly lists 700 ewes, 50 rams, 106 wethers, and over 200 goats, ⁽³⁶⁸⁾ and at the time of the arrest of the Templars 1,025 sheep and goats were seized at Miravet. ⁽³⁶⁹⁾ The keeping of large flocks of sheep and goats was clearly not a thirteenth-century innovation on Templar estates, for in 1184 the count of Urgel gave compensation to the commander of Gardeny for seizing 2,000 of the Order's sheep, ⁽³⁷⁰⁾ and in 1201 part of the payment made by the Temple when buying [239] some land at Villel consisted of 400 sheep. ⁽³⁷¹⁾ It seems, however -- although inventories do not exist for all Templar houses and not all of the surviving inventories are complete -- that the largest flocks were usually kept on the more southerly estates of the Order: at Huesca in 1289 there were only 30 ewes and 2 rams and at Ambel only 30 ewes. ⁽³⁷²⁾ Most houses, on the other hand, kept a number of pigs and some also had cows. The largest numbers of pigs recorded in 1289 were in the commanderies of Monzón and Gardeny, which had 182 and 71 respectively, while Tortosa had a herd of 42 cows besides 2 bulls. ⁽³⁷³⁾

These animals were kept partly in order to provide food for Templar convents, where the diet was not so restricted as in monasteries: thus in 1289 it was noted that the 250 wethers in the commandery of Monzón were 'for the provisioning of the table of the castle'. ⁽³⁷⁴⁾ But animals were probably kept also to supply the needs of the Templars in the East ⁽³⁷⁵⁾ and much of the produce of the animals, especially wool, was no doubt sold, although little evidence survives on this point.

In some cartas de población and agreements with tenants the Order reserved certain lands exclusively for the use of its own animals. The Order's dehesas are, for example, mentioned in agreements between the Templars and the inhabitants of Castellote made in 1244 and 1260. ⁽³⁷⁶⁾ This was not, however, always done, for at Chivert both Moorish and Christian inhabitants were allowed to graze their animals anywhere in the term of the castle. ⁽³⁷⁷⁾ It was not only the use of pasture that was restricted by the Temple. Among other restrictions were those on fishing, as at Cantavieja, where a stretch of the river was reserved for the use of the Templars alone. ⁽³⁷⁸⁾ But as in the Rule members of the Order were forbidden to hunt animals, except the lion, ⁽³⁷⁹⁾ no lands were retained in Aragon for the purposes of hunting.

Even in those areas where labour services were retained, the tenants of the Order could have provided only a small part of the labour force needed for working demesne lands and tending the Temple's animals. For most of the year the Order was obliged to rely on other sources of manpower. One of these was the Order itself, for some Templars were employed on the land or put in charge of farm animals. ⁽³⁸⁰⁾ Another source was probably provided by the slaves and unpaid lay associates which most Templar convents contained. ⁽³⁸¹⁾ Possibly as important, however, was hired [240] labour, although virtually nothing is known about it; the only reference to this kind of labour is that found in a charter recording the emancipation of a slave at Tortosa in 1226: the Temple promised to pay him 2d. a day, as well as giving him his food, whenever the Order needed his services for its 'works'. ⁽³⁸²⁾
 

It is difficult to judge to what extent, either on the Order's demesne lands or on those held by tenants, the Templars increased the value of their rights during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries through developments in farming methods and techniques. Only a few examples of Templar initiative in this sphere are recorded. As elsewhere there was certainly a development of viticulture: examples frequently occur of tenants being ordered to plant vineyards on the lands assigned to them; ⁽³⁸³⁾ and that the Order sought to increase pastoral farming on the part of its tenants is implied by the statement made in 1255 that certain tithes had been commuted at Alfambra so that the inhabitants could acquire more animals. ⁽³⁸⁴⁾ But little else is known about improvements in farming and farming techniques made by the Templars. It would obviously have been in the Order's interests to extend irrigation, for much higher rents could clearly be demanded from irrigated land: at Moncada near Valencia a proportional rent of a third was exacted from irrigated land compared with a fifth from non-irrigated; ⁽³⁸⁵⁾ on lands held by Moors at Villastar the proportions were a quarter and a seventh; ⁽³⁸⁶⁾ and in the district of Segriá non-irrigated lands usually provided only a quarter of the rent derived from irrigated land. ⁽³⁸⁷⁾ On a few occasions the Order did certainly seek to extend irrigation. In 1238 the commander of Boquiñeni bought a strip of land in order to construct a canal which would carry water to some of the Temple's property, ⁽³⁸⁸⁾ and in 1245 Marlofa was granted to Bertrand of Naya because he had given water from Pinseque to the Order and agreed to open up a canal to bring it to Marlofa. ⁽³⁸⁹⁾ But grants of water to the Temple did not necessarily mean that irrigation was being extended -- some donors may merely have been confirming existing arrangements about the use of canals -- and some extensions of irrigation that did occur were undertaken by the Order's tenants rather than by the Temple itself. A charter drawn up in 1173 records that three of the Order's tenants had converted some land in Segriá from secanum to reganum, ⁽³⁹⁰⁾ and [241] at Monzón the initiative in extending irrigation appears to have lain with the inhabitants: it was agreed in 1230 that the latter could, if they wished, increase the amount of land that was irrigated, ⁽³⁹¹⁾ and the wording of an undertaking given twenty years later by the Order to construct a canal through Paúls and Sosils suggests that this was done as the result of a petition by the inhabitants of these places and not on Templar initiative. ⁽³⁹²⁾ It might, of course, be argued that the Templars did place an obligation on their vassals to increase the value of their holdings: charters recording grants of land to tenants often include a clause stipulating that the property was to be improved. ⁽³⁹³⁾ But it may be doubted whether very much significance was attached to this provision. Whenever precise details are given about the treatment of property, these reveal merely a concern on the part of the Templars to ensure that it was maintained in a proper state. The cutting down of trees without permission was often forbidden ⁽³⁹⁴⁾ and in some cases those who held houses of the Order were commanded to spend a certain amount of money on repairs, which were clearly frequently necessary if houses were to be maintained in a fit state. ⁽³⁹⁵⁾ Even if a tenant did increase the value of his property it was probably not easy for the Temple to derive any benefit from it. Unless a tenant paid a proportional rent the Order did not normally receive any automatic gain, and as grants to tenants were usually made in perpetuity it was probably difficult to increase rents. ⁽³⁹⁶⁾ In order to attract settlers and keep tenants, however, it was no doubt necessary to give them a hereditary interest in their holdings, and the Temple could not adopt a general policy of granting land for life or for a fixed term of years. Holdings were granted on these conditions only rarely and the grants of this kind that were made can sometimes be explained by particular circumstances. ⁽³⁹⁷⁾ Even if the Templars had been able to alter rents when they wanted to, they would have encountered difficulty in enforcing increases if, as has been suggested, the economic situation of the Order's tenants was deteriorating in the later part of the thirteenth century.

There can be little doubt therefore that the value of the Order's rights in the Corona de Aragón was increased much more through the resettlement of land than through any improvements in farming methods and techniques, whether they were undertaken on the initiative of the Templars or on that of their vassals. Resettlement was the most important development which occurred on the Order's estates in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It was this that determined the prosperity of the majority of the Order's properties and it was this that most influenced the relations between the Temple and its vassals in the Corona de Aragón.

1. Lees, Records.

2. RAH, 12-6-1/M-83, doc. 110; cf. ACA, reg. 310, fol. 67-67^v.

3. AHN, cód. 469, pp. 177-8, doc. 136; San Juan, leg. 556 doc. 4; see below, p. 386.

4. F. Baer, Die Juden im christlichen Spanien (Berlin, 1929), pp. 98-100, doc. 95. The concession was made for fifteen years.

5. ACA, parch. James I, Appendix no. 31; AGP, parch. Tortosa, no. 81. That the vicar was one of the Moncadas' officials and not, as has sometimes been thought, a royal nominee, is apparent from ACA, parch. James I, no. 1746, and AGP, parch. Tortosa, no. 42.

6. ACA, parch. James I, no. 1746, Appendix no. 31; AGP, parch. Tortosa, no. 81.

7. See below, p. 271.

8. This was the normal pattern of administration throughout Aragon and Catalonia: cf. J.M. Font Rius, 'Orígenes del régimen municipal de Cataluña', AHDE, xvii (1946), 254-7.

9. ACA, reg. 291, fols. 135^v, 137, 149^v, 252-252^v, 256-257^v, etc.

10. ACA, CRD Templarios, nos. 36, 133; AGP, parch. Espluga de Francolí, no. 249.

11. ACA, reg. 291, fol. 326^v.

12. e.g. ibid., fols. 149^v, 171^v, 198^v-199.

13. ACA, parch. James I, no. 1031. On the master deça mer, see below, p. 328.

14. ACA, reg. 291, fols. 221^v, 259, 299-299^v.

15. ACA, parch. James I, no. 1978. In 1302 Peter Malet sold the bailiwick of Espluga de Francolí back to the Temple for 290s.B. when he was obliged to resign because of accusations made against him by the inhabitants of Espluga: AGP, parch. Espluga de Francolí, no. 249.

16. ACA, reg. 291, fol. 135^v.

17. ACA, parch. Peter III, no. 135.

18. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 67-72, doc. 12; cf. T. Muñoz y Romero, Colección de fueros municipales y cartas pueblas de los reinos de Castilla, León, Corona de Aragón y Navarra (Madrid, 1847), p. 539; R. Esteban Abad, Estudio histórico-politico sobre la ciudad y comunidad de Daroca (Teruel, 1959), p. 367.

19. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 17-19, doc. 4; see below, p. 390. The same procedure was still in use at the time of the arrest of the Templars: ACA, reg. 291, fol. 216.

20. AHN, cód. 689, pp. 76-8, doc. 78.

21. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 67-72, doc. 13.

22. Cf. J.M. Lacarra, 'Les villes-frontière dans l'Espagne des Xi^e et XII^e siècles', Moyen Âge, lxix (1963), 218. On the situation in Castile, see J.M. Font Rius, 'Les villes dans l'Espagne du moyen age', Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin, vi (1954), 274-5; L.G. de Valdeavellano, Historia de las instituciones españolas (Madrid, 1968), p. 545.

23. The Order appears normally to have retained control over the appointment of the more important officials in the non-Christian communities under Templar jurisdiction. Although in the agreement made with the Moors of Chivert in 1234 nothing was stated about the method of appointing Moorish officials, the Templars presumably nominated them, for in 1359 the aljama was seeking the right to present three men, from whom the alamín was to be chosen: M. Gual Camarena, 'Mudéjares valencianos. Aportaciones para su estudio', Saitabi, vii (1949), 174-5. In the thirteenth century Moorish officials in Tortosa were appointed by the Order or the Moncadas: ACA, parch. Peter II, no. 258; parch. James I, nos. 43, 1746; cf. parch. Peter II, no. 257.

24. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 17-19, doc. 4; pp. 67-72, doc. 13; see below, p. 390.

25. AHN, cód. 471, pp. 258-9, doc. 233.

26. J. Cots i Gorchs, 'Les "Consuetuds" d'Horta (avui Horta de Sant Joan) a la ratlla del Baix Aragó', Estudis universitaris catalans, xv (1930), 313. The code of customs for Miravet which was confirmed shortly after the abolition of the Temple similarly included a clause stating that the inhabitants had the right to elect jurados: Constituciones Baiulie Mirabeti, ed. G. Sánchez (Madrid, 1915), p. 9; F Valls Taberner Les costums de la batllia de Miravet', Revista jurídica de Cataluña, xxxii (1926), 59.

27. AHN cód. 494, pp. 17-19 doc. 4; see below p. 390. On this office see F. Sevillano Colom, 'De la institución del Mustaçaf de Barcelona, de Mallorca, y de Valencia', AHDE, xxiii (1953) 525-38.

28. Cots i Gorchs, loc. cit., p. 315.

29. ACA, parch. James I, no. 2234; vernacular version in B. Oliver, Historia del derecho en Cataluña, Mallorca y Valencia: Código de las costumbres de Tortosa, iv (Madrid, 1881), 496-500, where the date is given wrongly.

30. AHN, San Juan, leg. 355, doc. 1. A similar procedure was followed at Miravet: Constituciones Baiulie Mirabeti, pp. 32-3; Valls Taberner, loc. cit., p.74.

31. AHN, cód. 471, pp. 322-3, doc. 255.

32. AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 77^v, doc. 253.

33. Ibid., fols. 87v-88, doc. 278; published in Oliver, op. cit. ii. 55-6. This judgement was based on the charter granted to the inhabitants of Tortosa by Raymond Berenguer IV in 1149, in which it was stated that disputes between citizens should be settled by the judgement of the court and probi homines of Tortosa: CDI, iv. 144-7, doc. 61; Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 121-6, doc. 75.

34. CDI, iv. 155-64, doc. 61. The bishop's decision was confirmed in the Costums de Tortosa, 1. i. 9, in Oliver, op. cit. iv. 14.

35. ACA, parch. James I, no. 2136; a vernacular version of this document is published in Oliver, op. cit. iv. 487-91. Cf. Costums de Tortosa, III. i. 1; VII. vii. 1, 20, in Oliver, op. cit. iv. 104-5, 317-18, 323. A case tried by the vicar and two coniudices in 1242 is recorded in AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 58, doc. 179.

36. Costums de Tortosa, IX. xiv. 3, in Oliver, op. cit. iv. 397-8.

37. M. Albareda y Herrera, El fuero de Alfambra (Madrid, 1925), pp. 44-5.

38. In 1294, for example, it was agreed that the Temple should receive 1,000s. annually from the men of Peñíscola for cena and certain other dues: ACA, parch. James II, no. 420; cf. nos. 408, 411-14.

39. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 827, 1514.

40. AHN, San Juan, leg. 598, unnumbered document.

41. CDI, iv. 155-64, doc. 61; Costums de Tortosa, I. i. 15, and IX. xiii. 5, in Oliver, op. cit. iv. 16, 395-6; cf. A. Ruiz Moreno, 'Los baños públicos en los fueros municipales españoles', Cuadernos de historia de España, iii (1945), 153; L. Torres Balbás, 'Los baños públicos en los fueros municipales españoles', Al-Andalus, xi (1946), 444.

42. AHN, cód. 471, pp. 338-40, doc. 265; pp. 359-60, doc. 278.

43. Ibid., pp. 317-18, doc. 250.

44. Cots i Gorchs, loc. cit., p. 314.

45. AHN, cód. 689, p. 45, doc. 36 bis; Costums de Tortosa, I. v. 10, and IX. XX.2, in Oliver, op. cit. iv. 44, 420.

46. AHN, San Juan, leg. 174, doc. 16.

47. CDI, iv. 154-5, doc. 61.

48. Costums de Tortosa, I. v. 9, and IX. XX. 1, in Oliver, op. cit. iv. 43-4, 420.

49. AHN, Montesa, P. 523.

50. It must be remembered, however, that at Tortosa the Templars were complaining of the activities of the Moncadas as well as of those of the citizens.

51. AHN, cód. 471, pp. 338-40, doc. 265; pp. 359-60, doc. 278. In the same year -- 1260 -- the concejos of Castellote and Las Cuevas de Cañart gave up the concession which they had obtained concerning the appointment of the local justiciar: cód. 689, pp. 76-8, doc. 78.

52. ACA, parch. James II, no. 722.

53. ACA, parch. James I, no. 1550.

54. ACA, parch. James I, no. 1502; AGP, parch. Espluga de Francolí, nos. 210, 575.

55. ACA, CRD James II, no. 717; AHN, San Juan, leg. 306, doc. 16; AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 726, 941, 1473.

56. ACA, reg. 291, fols. 136^v, 340^v-341.

57. ACA, parch. James I, no. 2230.

58. ACA, parch. James I, no. 1332; see below, p. 388. The dues which are mentioned in the document were not in fact worth as much as 2,000s. annually.

59. J. Delaville Le Roulx, 'Bulles pour l'ordre du Temple, tirées des archives de S. Gervasio de Cassolas', Revue de l'orient latin, xi (1905-8), 436-7, doc. 47; cf. AHN, cód. 471, p. 71, doc. 65; ACA, Bulas, leg. 15, doc. 1; this last document is analysed by F. Miquel Rosell, Regesta de letras pontificias del Archivo de la Corona de Aragón (Madrid, 1948), p. 105, no. 187.

60. See, for example, F.R.H. Du Boulay, The Lordship of Canterbury (London, 1966), pp. 204-5; E. Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely (Cambridge, 1951), p. 167.

61. Cf. J. Guiraud and E. Cadier, Les Registres de Grégoire X et de Jean XXI (Paris, 1960), pp. 382-3, doc. 997; Delaville, Cartulaire, iii. 305-6, 378, 389, docs. 3534, 3683, 3712.

62. ACA, Bulas, leg. 22, doc. 2; cf. leg. 16, doc. 1; AHN, cód. 471, pp. 16-17, doc. 25. The first two of these documents are analysed by Miquel Rosell, op. cit., pp. 109, 160, nos. 195, 300.

63. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 794.

64. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 701, 710, 729, 735, 813, 815, 818, 828.

65. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 801, 806.

66. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 284, 511, 1577, 2280, 2338.

67. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 1641, 1648, 2425.

68. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 865, 881, 916, 939, 944.

69. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 503, 553, 595, 802, 1577, 1586.

70. This policy had been adopted by some lords in the south of France a century earlier: J.H. Mundy, Liberty and Political Power in Toulouse, 1050-1230 (New York, 1954), p. 272. R.I. Burns, The Crusader Kingdom of Valencia (Harvard, 1967), i. 138, provides some evidence from Valencia on this point.

71. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 326, 350, 484, 563, 750, etc.

72. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 186, 583, 1621, 1857, etc. The change in wording was probably not very significant. No doubt in most instances land was sub-let for profit and this practice was checked by the earlier form of wording. The later formula was more comprehensive, in that it also prohibited the sub-letting of land at a low rent, as might happen, for example, when an individual wanted to provide for one of his relations. But sub-letting at a low rent was probably comparatively rare.

73. M. Ferrandis, 'Rendición del castillo de Chivert a los Templarios', Homenaje a D. Francisco Codera (Zaragoza, 1904), pp. 30-1.

74. AHN, San Juan, leg. 174, doc. 16; cf. R.I. Burns, 'Social Riots on the Christian-Moslem Frontier (Thirteenth-Century Valencia)', American Historical Review, lxvi (1960-1), 378-400. A rather different picture of relations between Christian and Moor in Valencia is presented by F. Roca Traver, 'Un siglo de vida mudéjar en la Valencia medieval (1238-1338)', EEMCA, v (1952), 115-208, but this article is concerned primarily with the relations between the Moors and those in authority, especially the Aragonese kings.

75. J. Reglá, 'La expulsión de los moriscos y sus consecuencias. Contribución a su estudio', Hispania, xiii (1953), 263-4; J.E. Martínez Ferrando, 'Estado actual de los estudios sobre la repoblación en los territorios de la Corona de Aragón (siglos XII a XlV)', VII Congreso de historia de la Corona de Aragón (Barcelona, 1962), i. 160. For references to Moors at Miravet in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, see AHN, San Juan, leg. 306, docs. 12, 14; leg. 308, doc. 2.

The Moorish population in the Corona de Aragón was probably in most cases static, but not all the Moorish settlements in Aragon at the end of the Middle Ages had had a continuous existence since the period of Muslim domination: there were said to be sixty-one Morisco households at the beginning of the seventeenth century at La Zaida, but in the mid twelfth century this place had apparently been lying waste: Reglá, loc. cit., pp. 247, 467; H. Lapeyre, Géographie de l'Espagne morisque (Paris, 1959), p. 110; see also above, p. 213.

76. e.g. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 15-15^v, docs. 16, 17; fol. 16-6^v, doc. 19; fols. 19-20, docs. 22, 23; Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 37, doc. 116; cf. J. M. Font Rius, 'La reconquista de Lérida y su proyección en el orden jurídico', Ilerda, vii (1949), 11.

77. e.g. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 6.

78. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 16-16^v, doc. 19; fol. 20-20v, doc. 24; fol. 42, doc. 90.

79. Cf. J.M. Lacarra, in La reconquista española y la repoblación del país (Zaragoza, 1951), pp. 72-4.

80. Regulations about raiding expeditions and the division of booty frequently occur in fueros issued to townships near the Moorish frontiers: see J.M. Lacarra, 'Les villes-frontière dans l'Espagne des XI^e et XII^e siècles', Le Moyen Age, lxix (1963), 210-11.

81. Settlers were often required to build houses within a specified period of time: see above, p. 209.

82. Cf. E. de Hinojosa, El régimen señorial y la cuestión agraria en Cataluña (Madrid, 1905), pp. 290-2 ; J.M. Font Rius, 'Franquicias locales en la comarca del alto Bergadá', Pirineos, x (1954), 459-88; id., 'Franquicias urbanas medievabes de la Cataluña Vieja', BRABLB, xxix (1961-2), 17-46.

83. ACA, parch. James I, no. 380; see below, p. 385.

84. e.g. ACA, parch. James I, nos. 701, 1248; parch. Alfonso III, nos. 122, 124, 125.

85. Cf. M. Gual Camarena, 'Mudéjares valencianos. Aportaciones para su estudio', Saitabi, vii (1949), 168-70, 178-81.

86. Ferrandis, loc. cit., pp. 29-31.

87. Cf. C. Cahen, La Syrie du nord à l'époque des croisades (Paris, 1940), pp. 330-1.

88. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 67-72, doc. 13; cf. R. Esteban Abad, Estudio histórico-politico sobre la ciudad y comunidad de Daroca (Teruel, 1959), p. 363; E. Sáez, R. Gibert, etc., Los fueros de Sepúlveda (Segovia, 1953), pp. 411-12. The fuero of La Cañada also contains the concession about the appointment of officials, but few concessions of this kind appear to have been made at the time of resettlement on Templar estates.

89. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 104-6, doc. 20; San Juan, leg. 421, doc. 7 (in the relevant sentence of the version of this document published by Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 344-6, doc. 244, there is a mistranscription, and 'hec' is given instead of 'nec'); cf. A. Pabomeque Torres, 'Contribución al estudio del ejército en los estados de la reconquista', AHDE, xv (1944), 307-8.

90. AHN, cód. 689, p. 12, doc. 7.

91. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 1-4, doc. 1 (Cantavieja); pp. 19-22, doc. 5 (Mirambel); pp. 85-9, doc. 16 (Iglesuela); pp. 104-6, doc. 20 (La Cuba).

92. Albareda y Herrera, op. cit., p. 25. On similar limitations elsewhere, see Palomeque Torres, loc. cit., pp. 234-7.

93. Ferrandis, loc. cit., p. 31.

94. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 107. The settlement of this area had started much earlier, but it was apparently not complete by 1226. In the document recording this concession reference is made to the populatores who were already established there and to others who might receive land in the future. It may be argued therefore that the exemption from military service should be looked upon as a concession made in order to encourage resettlement.

95. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 169-70, doc. 116.

96. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fols. 17-19, doc. 21. Tenants with a parellada of land were expected to provide a pair of oxen for ploughing and one animal for carting service; those who had larger holdings had to provide more. By comparison some tenants of the Temple in Cataluña Vieja at Auzeda were obliged to do two days' ploughing together with other services at the will of the lord, and the service owed from one manse at Palau consisted of three days' ploughing, two days of other work, and also carting services: ACA, parch. Alfonso II, no. 327; parch. Peter III, no. 407.

97. AHN, Montesa, P. 73.

98. S.A. García Larragueta, 'Fueros y cartas pueblas navarro-aragonesas otorgadas por Templarios y Hospitalarios', AHDE, xxiv (1954), 592-3; Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 285-6, doc. 208.

99. AHN, cód. 466, pp. 40-1, doc. 42; see below, p. 395.

100. Ferrandis, loc. cit., p. 29.

101. AHN, cód. 466, pp. 42-5, doc. 44.

102. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 1-4, doc. i (Cantavieja); pp. 19-22, doc. 5 (Mirambel); pp. 47-8, doc. 10 (Villarluengo); pp. 31-3, doc. 7 (Tronchón); pp. 67-72, doc. 13 (La Cañada); pp. 85-9, doc. 16 (Iglesuela); pp. 104-6, doc. 20 (La Cuba).

103. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 30^v-31, 44-45^v; a version of the charter for Pulpís is published in BSCC, xxiv (1948), 65-6.

104. AHN, cód. 1032, pp. 79-80, doc. 50; published by F.D. Gazulla, 'La Orden del Santo Redentor', BSCC, x (1929), 98.

105. AHN, cód. 691, fols. 18^v-19^v, doc. 39; fols. 194^v-195^v, doc. 441. This wording is taken from a twelfth-century confirmation of the charter; in what purports to be a copy of the original charter, settlers are said to be freed from the payment of any rent (censum) except tithes and primicias: AHN, San Juan, leg. 340, doc. 1.

106. AHN, cód. 691, passim.

107. At Seca, for example, nothing was to be given from the produce of fruit trees: AHN, Montesa, P. 73.

108. AHN, San Juan, leg. 421, doc. 7. The version of this document published by Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 344-6, doc. 244, changes the sense on this point by giving 'proximis' for 'pro eis'.

109. Ferrandis, loc. cit., p. 32.

110. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fol. 39-39^v.

111. AHN, Montesa, P. 461. The Templars did, however, manage to extract a payment of 250s.V. in return for this concession.

112. AHN, Montesa, P. 73.

113. AHN, Montesa, P. 250.

114. For rents before 1225, see AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 85-9; in 1225 a payment of 14s. is mentioned: parch. Gardeny, no. 204; and early in 1226 the provincial master promised not to exact more than this amount: parch. Gardeny, no. 107. For the reduction to 12s., see parch. Gardeny, nos. 124-31.

115. e.g. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 104, 117.

116. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 26^v-28, 44-45^v. A version of the charter for Alcalá is published in BSCC, xxxiii (1957), 253-6.

117. Cf. G. Duby, L'Économie rurale et la vie des campagnes dans l'Occident médiéval (Paris, 1962), ii. 436-7, where the value of mills is stressed.

118. AHN, Montesa, P. 73.

119. Ferrandis, loc. cit., p. 31.

120. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 26^v-28.

121. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 1-4, doc. 1; pp. 19-22, doc. 5; pp. 85-9, doc. 16.

122. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 30^v-31.

123. AHN, San Juan, leg. 351, doc. 1.

124. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 184-5, doc. 126.

125. J. Cots i Gorchs, 'Les "Consuetuds" d'Horta (avui Horta de Sant Joan) a la ratlla del Baix Aragó, Estudis universitaris catalans, xv (1930), 312.

126. AHN, San Juan, leg. 310, doc. 18; Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 329-30, doc. 236. The inhabitants of Tortosa had, of course, been exempted from lezda and other tolls by Raymond Berenguer IV: see above, pp. 114-15.

127. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 264-6, doc. 191; 270-1, doc. 196; 344-6, doc. 244. At Gandesa the due was referred to by the term forcia; cf. Hinojosa, op. cit., pp. 116-17.

128. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 1-4, doc. 1; pp. 19-22, doc. 5; Albareda y Herrera, op. cit., pp. 42, 44-5.

129. AHN, cód. 691, fols. 18^v-19^v, doc. 39; fols. 194^v-195^v, doc. 441; cód. 494, pp. 67-72, doc. 13; García Larragueta, 'Fueros y cartas pueblas', pp. 594-5; Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 264-6, doc. 191; 270-1, doc. 196; 306-8, doc. 222.

130. The right was retained in the fuero issued for Alfambra by the master of the Order of Mountjoy: Abbareda y Herrera, op. cit., p. 19.

131. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 169-70, doc. 116.

132. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 654, 1757.

133. AHN, San Juan, leg. 351, doc. 1. In the code of customs drawn up in 1296 it was stated that intestia, exorquia, and cugucia 'have no place' in Horta: Cots i Gorchs, loc. cit., p. 321.

134. García Larragueta, 'Fueros y cartas pueblas', pp. 592-5; Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 285-6, doc. 208; 306-8, doc. 222.

135. Ibid. i. 301-3, doc. 219; 505-7, doc. 344.

136. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 15-16^v.

137. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 31-3, doc. 7.

138. Ibid., pp. 1-4, doc. 1; pp. 19-22, doc. 5; pp. 85-9, doc. 16.

139. AHN, San Juan, leg. 351, doc. i; cód. 466, pp. 42-5, doc. 44; cód. 467, p. 442, doc. 424; Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 301-3, doc. 219.

140. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 30^v-31.

141. AHN, Montesa, P. 136, 174, 218, 220, 325.

142. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 344-6, doc. 244.

143. AHN, Montesa, P. 112 bis, 113, 214.

144. e.g. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 67-72, doc. 13.

145. Cf. S. Sobrequés Vidal in Historia social y económica de España y America, ii (Barcelona, 1957), 70.

146. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 507-8, doc. 345; cf. id., 'Franquicias locales en la comarca del alto Bergadá', Pirineos, x (1954), 459-88, especially pp. 482-3.

147. e.g. ACA, parch. James II, nos. 345, 356, 1088, 1443.

148. The Moors at Chivert were, however, exempted from this due: Ferrandis, loc. cit., pp. 29-30.

149. Cf. J.M. Font Rius, 'Orígenes del regimen municipal de Cataluña', AHDE, xvi (1945), 487-92.

150. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 4^v, doc. 112; see below, p. 368; published from a later transcript by Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 139-40, doc. 87.

151. Ibid. i. 264-6, doc. 191; 394-6, doc. 272.

152. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 44-45^v.

153. See, for example, Los fueros de Sepúlveda, pp. 175-8.

154. Cambridge Economic History of Europe, i. 471; F.L. Carsten, The Origins of Prussia (Oxford, 1954), pp. 28-32; cf. Duby, L'Économie rurale, i. 321-3, docs. 38, 39.

155. AHN, Montesa, P. 200, 263.

156. Cambridge Economic History of Europe, i. 462.

157. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 26^v-28; see above, p. 215. E. Lourie, 'Free Moslems in the Balearics under Christian Rule in the Thirteenth Century', Speculum, xlv (1970), 626, suggests that after the conquest of Mallorca the Temple transferred some Moors to the island from its estates on the mainland; but the evidence is by no means conclusive.

158. There was a considerable French element on some Templar lands along the Ebro near Zaragoza, but these immigrants may have settled before the Order acquired these estates: C. Higounet, 'Mouvements de populations dans le Midi de la France du XI^e au XV^e siècle', Annales, viii (1953), 6.

159. AHN, cód. 691, fols. 68^v-69, doc. 209.

160. Lacarra, 'Documentos', no. 150 (iii. 548-9). On the date of this document, see above, p. 14, note 60.

161. e.g. Albon, Cartulaire, pp. 275-6, 295, 298, docs. 440, 473, 476; AHN, cód. 691, fol. 71, doc. 215.

162. Lacarra, 'Documentos', no. 150 (iii. 548-9).

163. This confirmation survives in two late twelfth-century versions (AHN, cód. 691, fols. 18^v-19^v, doc. 39, and fols. 194^v-195^v, doc. 441) and in a transcript which belongs probably to the later thirteenth century: AHN, San Juan, leg. 346, doc. 1. In the earlier versions the confirmation is undated, while in the later one the date is given as 1176 and as in the third year after the siege of Tortosa. The names of the witnesses suggest that the document was in fact drawn up about the middle of the twelfth century.

164. AHN, San Juan, leg. 340, doc. 1. See above, p. 7.

165. Lacarra, 'Documentos', no. 175 (iii. 568-9). In 1135 Novillas was granted to the Orders with all the land subject to it 'waste and settled': Albon, Cartulaire, p. 73, doc. 100; but this was a formula commonly employed in charters of donation, and no conclusions can be drawn from its use on a particular occasion.

166. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 334, doc. 545.

167. AHN, San Juan, leg. 138, doc. 4; see below, p. 371.

168. AHN, San Juan, leg. 285, doc. 3.

169. AHN, San Juan, leg. 286 bis, doc. 1.

170. AHN, San Juan, leg. 39, doc. 52.

171. AHN, cód. 691, fol. 145-145^v, doc. 371. The date of this document is given wrongly in Colección de fueros y cartas pueblas de Espana (Madrid, 1852), p. 23, and I. de Asso, Historia de la economia política de Aragón (Zaragoza, 1947 edn.), pp. 7, 187.

172. AHN, San Juan, leg. 598, unnumbered document.

173. AHN, San Juan, leg. 138, doc. 4; see below, p. 371.

174. AGP, parch. Cervera, no. 484; see below, p. 405.

175. AHN, cód. 467, p. 442, doc. 424.

176. El 'Llibre Blanch' de Santas Creus, ed. F. Udina Martorell (Barcelona, 1947), p. 51, doc. 43. The castle at Selma had been built towards the end of the tenth century: F. Bofarull y Sans, El castillo y la baronía de Aramprunya (Barcelona, 1911), p. 21.

177. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 49^v, doc. 112; see below, p. 368.

178. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 160-1, doc. 108; 169-70, doc. 116.

179. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 5. Grants to a further four men are recorded on the dorse of this document.

180. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 4, 6.

181. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 7.

182. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 32-32^v, doc. 59.

183. Ibid., fol. 35-35^v, doc. 69; fol. 45^v, doc. 100; parch. Gardeny, no. 1588.

184. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 1786.

185. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 365-7, doc. 256. The Order had similarly sought to attract men from Aguilar and Castellpagés when it was setting up Villanueva de la Barca in 1212: ibid., pp. 329-30, doc. 236. Aguilar and Castellpages were not, however, under Templar lordship. The township of Villanueva del Segriá, near Castellnou, had already been established by the early years of the thirteenth century, but no details of its foundation are known: cf. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 1292.

186. J.M. Font Rius, 'La comarca de Tortosa a raiz de la reconquista cristiana (1148)', Cuadernos de historia de España, xix (1953), 110; AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, passim.

187. A considerable number of Moors, however, remained in this region after the reconquest: see above, p. 200.

188. AHN, San Juan, leg. 351, doc. 1; Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 264-6, doc. 191.

189. García Larragueta, 'Fueros y cartas pueblas', pp. 592-5; Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 285-6, doc. 208; 306-8, doc. 222.

190. Ibid. i. 301-3, doc. 219; 317-18, doc. 228; 344-6, doc. 244.

191. In the carta de población for Batea there is a reference to sixty settlers, but this is exceptional.

192. AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 43, doc. 135; AHN, San Juan, leg. 306, doc. 35.

193. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 227-31, docs. 164, 165; CDI, viii. 68-9, doc. 23. There are several puzzling features about the carta de población issued by Alfonso II and his charter of donation to Bernard Grand: both are dated 30 October 1181, and while the carta de población refers to the fuero of Zaragoza, the charter to Bernard Granel mentions that of Barcelona. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 798, seeks to explain these peculiarities by arguing that the king at first attempted to resettle Algars and Batea and therefore issued the carta de población; when this attempt failed he granted these places to Bernard Graneb, and 'in order to ensure the validity of this second concession' he ante-dated it so that it bore the same date as the carta de población. But in both documents the witnesses and scribe are the same, and there are reasons for suggesting that they were both issued at the same time. According to the charter issued to Bernard Granel, Alfonso was still to receive two-thirds of the revenues of Algars and Batea and he would therefore have been concerned about the way in which these places were resettled, even if Bernard Granel was to enjoy lordship over them. He might therefore have issued a carta de población at the time when he granted Algars and Batea to Bernard Granel. The fact that one document refers to the fuero of Zaragoza and the other to that of Barcelona does not invalidate this argument, for the carta de población is concerned with settlers and the terms on which they were to settle, while the other charter gives details of the conditions on which Bernard Granel was to hold Algars and Batea of the king.

In 1182, when Alfonso II confirmed the Temple's right to the territories which had been granted with Miravet in 1153, he referred specifically to Algars and Batea, and this was probably done in response to a Templar protest against his action in the previous year: AHN, San Juan, leg. 306, doc. 6. Bernard Granel surrendered his claims to Algars and Batea in 1187: leg. 306, doc. 7.

The slowness of resettlement along the lower Ebro apparently also led Alfonso II to ignore Templar rights at Rasquera. Although Rasquera was among the places granted to the Order in 1153, in 1171 Alfonso granted it to the Hospital. But the Templars apparently recovered it, for they issued a carta de población for it, although the date of this charter is not known: Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 797-8.

194. Font Rius, 'La comarca de Tortosa', pp. 110-11.

195. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 184-5, doc. 126. The fact that the surviving Templar charter for Batea was not issued until 1205 suggests that the settlement mentioned in Alfonso's charter of 1181 had collapsed.

196. Ibid. i. 394-6, doc. 272; 421-2, doc. 289; 505-7, doc. 344; Garcia Larragueta, 'Fueros y cartas pueblas', pp. 598-9. The date of the charter for Gandesola is given wrongly as 1278 in Colección de fueros y cartas pueblos de España, p. 101.

197. AHN, San Juan, leg. 307, doc. 1.

198. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 411-12, doc. 283; AHN, San Juan, leg. docs. 1, 2.

199. AHN, Montesa, P. 78.

200. It was said of Miravet at the beginning of the fourteenth century that 'not so many Christians come there as to other places': Finke, Papsttum, ii. 72, doc. 48; and at the end of the fifteenth century there were only three Christian thouseholds there: Reglá, loc. cit., pp. 263-4.

201. J. Rius Serra, Rationes Decimarum Hispaniae (1279-1280), i (Barcelona, 1946), 165-78. These taxes were exacted in other places in the diocese of Tortosa where the Order enjoyed rights of ecclesiastical patronage.

202. In 1244 the Templars granted the valley of Batea to a group of men 'as the men of Nonaspe held and possessed it': Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 411-12, doc. 283. This concession was presumably occasioned by the agreement by which Elvira of Cervellón ceded Nonaspe and several other places to the Order: see above, p. 189.

203. Albareda y Herrera, op. cit.; AHN, Ordenes militares, Calatrava, sign. 1341-C, fols. 135-6.

204. F.D. Gazulla, 'La Orden del Santo Redentor', BSCC, x (1929), 98.

205. AHN, cód. 689, p. 54, doc. 45. Admittedly the date of this document is given as 1184, but this must be an error in transcription. According to Colección de fueros y cartas pueblas de España, p. 287, Villarbuengo was resettled in 1184, but this is merely a repetition of a mistake made at one point by Asso, op. cit., p. 9, where it is stated that Villarluengo was granted to Mountjoy for settling in 1184; Asso later, however, ibid., p. 203, gives the date as 1194.

206. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 47-8, doc. 10.

207. A. López Polo, 'Documentos para la historia de Teruel', Teruel, i (1949), 187-8.

208. AHN, cód. 466, p. 204, doc. 173.

209. AHN, cód. 689, pp. 56-7, doc. 50. In 1197 the Templars came to an agreement with the inhabitants of Castellote on a number of issues: A. Bonilla y San Martin, 'El derecho aragonés en el siglo xii', II Congreso de historia de la Corona de Aragón, i (Huesca, 1920), 276-7, doc. 42. Bonilla gives the date as 1198, but see RAH, 12-6-I/M-83, doc. 48, and AHN, cód. 689, p. 11, doc. 6.

210. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 67-72, doc. 13. This document is not dated, but it is clear from the names of the Templars mentioned in it that it was issued before the end of the century. There is no justification for the date of 1142 which is given in Colección de fueros y cartas pueblas de España, p. 60, and repeated by R. Esteban Abad, Estudio histórico-político sobre la ciudad y comunidad de Daroca (Teruel, 1957), p. 185.

211. AHN, San Juan, leg. 231, doc. 2; published from later versions by M. Gual Camarena, Precedentes de la reconquista valenciana (Valencia, 1953), pp. 72-3. In 1204 the bishop of Zaragoza granted the Templars the church of Cantavieja, but this does not mean that a church had in fact been built by that time: AHN, San Juan, leg. 39, doc. 67.

212. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 1-4, doc. 1.

213. Ibid., pp. 19-22, doc. 5; pp. 31-3, doc. 7; pp. 85-9, doc. 16; pp. 104-6, doc. 20; cód. 689, p. 24, doc. 16.

214. Rius Serra, op. cit. ii (Barcelona, 1947), 103-4. Tronchón appears not to have been a completely new settlement in 1272, since a justiciar and jurados had already been established when the carta de población was issued.

215. AHN, cód. 466, p. 242, doc. 247.

216. Ibid., pp. 387-8, doc. 462.

217. Ibid., pp. 231-2, doc. 230.

218. Ibid., pp. 42-5, doc. 44.

219. Ibid., pp. 40-1, doc. 42; see below, p. 395.

220. AHN, cód. 466, pp. 41-2, doc. 43.

221. Ibid., p. 260, doc. 276; pp. 268-9, docs. 292, 293.

222. AHN, Montesa, P. 14.

223. AHN, Montesa, P. 123, 124, 136, 146, 157, 174, 177, 178, 180, 181.

224. AHN, Montesa, P. 123, 124. A larger entry fine was sometimes charged when the Temple was granting existing houses there: Montesa, P. 177.

225. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fol. 39-39^v; cf. Montesa, R. 99.

226. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 15-16^v; Huici, Colección diplomática, 412-15, docs. 298, 299. In 1243 James I had issued a carta de población for Carpesa.

227. According to F. Diago, Anales del reyno de Valencia (Valencia, 1613), vii. 25, and Javierre, Privilegios, p. 67, the alquería of Borbotó was given to the Temple. This is also stated by J. Villarroya, Real Maestrazgo de Montesa (Valencia, 1787), i. 157, but in the same work (i. 62-3), he says that it was sold to the Temple. An incomplete copy of the instrument recording the transaction is contained in AHN, Montesa, sign. 543-C, fol. 38^v, and there it is worded as a gift. But in 1263 the bishop of Valencia said that the Templars had bought it: Montesa, P. 265. Possibly William of Portella received a payment de caritate for a grant.

228. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 16^v-17.

229. AHN, Montesa, P. 266. There is another version of this document in the cathedral archive in Valencia: B. Olmos y Canalda, Inventario de los pergaminos de la Catedral de Valencia (Valencia, 1961), p. 43, no. 335.

230. AHN, Montesa, P. 73.

231. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 26^v-28.

232. Ibid., fols. 44-45^v.

233. Ibid., fols. 30^v-31. The change from the fuero of Zaragoza to that of Valencia is perhaps not in itself very significant, as it was the usual practice of the Temple to adopt the latter: cf. M. Gual Camarena, 'Estudio de la territorialidad de los Fueros de Valencia', EEMCA, iii (1947-8), 271.

234. Cf. F. Sobdeviba, Pere el Gran, II. i (Barcelona, 1962), 16, 71-2.

235. AHN, Montesa, P. 112 bis, 113, 214.

236. AHN, Montesa, P. 348.

237. AHN, Montesa, P. 357.

238. The Aragonese sources provide little evidence about the resettlement of Mallorca. J. Lladó y Ferragut, Catálogo de la sección histórica del archivo municipal de Pollensa y de las curias de los Templarios y Hospitalarios de San Juan de Jerusalén (Palma, 1944), pp. 90-1, refers to a volume in the municipal archive of Pollensa which contains records of various Templar transactions, but these all belong to the last decade of the thirteenth and first years of the fourteenth centuries. On the existence of Muslim tenants on Templar estates in Mallorca, see E. Lourie, 'Free Moslems in the Balearics under Christian Rule in the Thirteenth Century', Speculum, xlv (1970), 625-9.

239. Cf. Sobrequés Vidal in Historia social y económica de España y América, ii. 47-8.

240. These were caused not only by the desertion of settlers dismayed by the hardness of the life or by Moorish raids; some settlements were destroyed as a result of feuds between the Templars and neighbouring lords: cf. F. Cameras y Candi, 'Entences y Templers en les montanyes de Prades', BRABLB, ii (1903-4), 217-57.

241. Huici, Colección diplomática, i. 536-7, doc. 398.

242. A hearth assessment for Catalonia survives for the year 1359: CDI, xii, passim. This, of course, refers to the period after the Black Death.

243. Miret y Sans, Les Cases, pp. 399-400.

244. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 507-8, doc. 345.

245. AGP, parch. Cervera, no. 484; see below, p. 405.

246. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 41^v, doc. 87; cf. AHN, San Juan, leg. 437, doc. 2.

247. Albon, Cartulaire, p. 101, doc. 144; cf. ACA, parch. James I, no. 2001.

248. See above, p. 62.

249. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 190, 191, 192, 193, 196, 197, etc.

250. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 231-40, 243, 244, etc.

251. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 383, 384, 385, 388, 389, 395, 567.

252. See above, p. 206.

253. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 326-8, 330-2, 334, 337, etc.

254. e.g. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 713, 967.

255. J. Miret y Sans, 'Inventaris de les cases del Temple de la Corona d'Aragó en 1289', BRABLB, vi (1911), 69; id., Cartoral dels Templers de les comandes de Gardeny y Barbens (Barcelona, 1899), p. 30.

256. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 1536.

257. Miret y Sans, 'Inventaris', pp. 63-5.

258. ACA, CRD James II, no. 1183.

259. ACA, parch. James II, no. 6; cf. AHN, cód. 466, pp. 366-7, doc. 444.

260. e.g. AHN, San Juan, leg. 559, docs. 39, 41, 61; cód. 469, pp. 415-16, doc. 354.

261. e.g. AHN, San Juan, leg. 551, doc. 7; leg. 552, docs. 18, 31.

262. e.g. ACA, reg. 48, fol. 71^v; reg. 60, fol. 80^v.

263. See above, p. 132.

264. AHN, San Juan, leg. 333, doc. 15; cód. 471, p. 135, doc. 136; p. 210, doc. 211.

265. AHN, San Juan, leg. 333, doc. 15; cód. 471, pp. 229-38, doc. 220. The privilege in question has been published by M.T. Oliveros de Castro, Historia de Monzón (Zaragoza, 1964), p. 588.

266. ACA, reg. 64, fol. 77-77^v; AHN, cód 471, pp. 129-30, doc. 128. When the privilege was confirmed its date was given as 1086.

267. Another suspect privilege supposedly granted to the inhabitants of Monzón by Alfonso I again in 1076 was also discussed during the course of this dispute: AHN, San Juan, leg. 333, doc. 15; the privilege has been published by Oliveros de Castro, op. cit., p. 589.

268. AHN, San Juan, leg. 333, doc. 15; cód. 471, pp. 218-19, doc. 215; pp. 229-38, doc. 220.

269. AHN, cód 689, p. 12, doc. 7.

270. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 45^v, doc. 100

271. Usually milites, sancti, and clerici are mentioned, but some charters also forbid alienation to certain other individuals, such as lepers or the donati of another religious institution: AHN, cód. 467, p. 378, doc. 474; cód. 469, p. 171, doc. 132; cód. 499, p. 31, doc. 73; San Juan, leg. 553, doc. 141.

272. AHN, códs. 499, 689.

273. This is among the documents of Gardeny, fols. 17-19, doc. 21.

274. ACA, Varia 3.

275. e.g. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fols. 17-19, doc. 21.

276. ACA, reg. 291, fol. 323^v.

277. e.g. Libri confraternitatum Sancti Galli, Augiensis, Fabrariensis, ed. P. Piper, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica (1884); Liber Vitae Ecclesia Dunelmensis, ed. A.H. Thompson (Surtees Society, vol. cxxxvi, 1923); Liber Vitae: Register and Martyrology of New Minster and Hyde Abbey, ed. W. de Gray Birch (Hampshrie Record Society, 1892); cf. E. Bishop, Liturgica Historica (Oxford, 1918), pp. 349-69. A Templar list from the south of France similar to those compiled in Aragon has been published by A. du Bourg, Histoire du grand-prieuré de Toulouse (Toulouse, 1883), Appendix, p. xiv, doc. 21.

278. On Aragonese confraternity lists, see above, p. 36, and below, p. 376.

279. ACA, Varia 3.

280. The use of inquests for this purpose in England is discussed by R.V. Lennard, 'Early Manorial Juries', English Historical Review, lxxvii (1962), 511-18.

281. See below, pp. 266, 269.

282. Cf. J. Pérez de Urbel, Los monjes españoles en la edad media, ii (Madrid, 1934), 529.

283. ACA, parch. James II, no. 2325.

284. ACA, reg. 60, fol. 80^v.

285. ACA, reg. 90, fols. 44^v, 56^v; see below, p. 405.

286. ACA, reg. 13, fol. 182^v; reg. 48, fol. 71^v; AGP, parch. Barbará, no. 127.

287. ACA, reg. 114, fol. 168^v.

288. Cf. Duby, L'Économie rurale, ii. 529.

289. This does not, of course, imply that these crops were grown in these proportions.

290. Many examples of this kind of payment can be found among the parchments of Gardeny in the AGP.

291. Information about this district is contained in the collection of royal parchments in the ACA.

292. AHN, códs. 470, 691, passim.

293. AHN, cód. 691, fol. 145-145^v, doc. 371.

294. Information about these districts is contained in AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny and parchments of Gardeny.

295. AHN, San Juan, leg. 351, doc. 1; García Larragueta, 'Fueros y cartas pueblas', pp. 592-5, 598-9; Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 264-6, doc. 191; 270-1, doc. 196; 285-6, doc. 208; 301-3, doc. 219; 306-8, doc. 222; 344-6, doc. 244; 411-12, doc. 283; 421-2, doc. 289; 505-7, doc. 344.

296. AHN, San Juan, leg. 306, doc. 12; leg. 308, doc. 2.

297. Information about this district is contained in AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa and parchments of Tortosa.

298. AHN, cód. 466, pp. 40-1, doc. 42; pp. 42-5, doc. 44; pp. 387-8, doc. 462; cód. 689, p. 24, doc. 16; see below, p. 395.

299. On this area, see AHN, Montesa, documentos particulares, passim.

300. Ferrandis, loc. cit., p. 32; ARN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 26^v-28.

301. AHN, cód. 689, passim.

302. See AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny and parchments of Gardeny, and also a capbreu drawn up in 1214 in AGP, armario 11.

303. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 26^v-28; Montesa, P. 73.

304. e.g. AHN, cód. 689, p. 24, doc. 16; pp. 75-6, doc. 77.

305. Ferrandis, loc. cit., p. 32.

306. e.g. ACA, parch. Alfonso II, nos. 266, 373, 489, 667, 718.

307. ACA, parch. James II, nos. 408, 411, 412, 413, 414, 420, 722; AHN, San Juan, beg. 598, unnumbered document; Albareda y Herrera, op. cit., p. 42.

308. Cf F. de Hinojosa, El regimen señorial y la cuestión agraria en Cataluña (Madrid, 1905), pp. 200-1.

309. ACA, parch. Peter III, no. 474; parch. Alfonso III, nos. 80, 190; see below, p. 400.

310. ACA, parch. Peter III, nos. I, 36,; parch. Alfonso III, nos. 123, 201.

311. AHN, cód. 466, pp. 41-2, doc. 43.

312. ACA, parch. James II, no. 1688; cf. parch. Peter III, no. 277; AGP, parch. Selma, no. 29.

313. Proportional rents were exacted in the twelfth century at Labar, but when grants of land were made there to tenants in the thirteenth century a fixed money rent was demanded.

314. The change took place between 1185 and 1193: AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos., 1792, 1793, 1796, 1797, 1808.

315. Documents drawn up in the 1160s refer to tithe as a proportional due: AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 32-32^v, doc. 59; fols. 37^v-38, doc. 77. From the early thirteenth century onwards rent and tithe were exacted in the form of a single payment assessed in money: parch. Gardeny, nos. 85-9, 91, 93-6, 203, 586.

316. Albareda y Herrera, op. cit., p. 46. At Castelbote tithes were similarly exacted in the form of fixed money payments: AHN, cód. 689, pp. 1-4, doc. 2; A. Bonilla y San Martín, 'El derecho aragonés en el siglo xii', II Congreso de historia de la Corona de Aragón, i (Huesca, 1920), 276-7, doc. 42.

317. ACA, parch, James I, no. 1420; parch. Alfonso III, no. 190. Fixed payments in kind were possibly also being abandoned on some other occasions when it was stated that the census was being replaced by a fixed money payment: e.g. parch. Peter III, no. 474.

318. e.g. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 1579.

319. AHN, cód. 466, passim.

320. AHN, San Juan, leg. 598, unnumbered document.

321. ACA, parch. James II, no. 518; see below, p. 407.

322. ACA, parch. Alfonso III, no. 190.

323. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 1787-90, 1792, 1793.

324. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 1796, 1797, 1808.

325. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 1807, 1829, 1834.

326. ACA, parch. Alfonso III, no. 201.

327. ACA, parch. James I, no. 1626.

328. e.g. AHN, San Juan, leg. 529, doc. 73; leg. 553, docs. 112, 144, 154.

329. AHN, Montesa, P. 113, 169, 214.

330. e.g. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 594, 750, 785, 1596.

331. AHN, cód. 468, pp. 230-1, doc. 207.

332. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 939, 985, 1570.

333. ACA, CRD Templarios, nos. 403, 457, 607; see below, p. 413.

334. ACA, CRD Templarios, nos. 403, 457, 507, 607; see below, p. 413.

335. Miret y Sans, 'Inventaris', p. 64.

336. ACA, CRD Templarios, no. 81; see below, p. 415.

337. e.g. F. Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely (Cambridge, 1951), p. 76; G. Duby, 'Economic domaniale et économie monétaire: le budget de l'abbaye de Cluny entre 1080 et 1155', Anna/es, vii (1952), 167.

338. Several documents recording changes refer to small payments made at the time by tenants to the Order: e.g. ACA, parch. James I, no. 1230.

339. ACA, parch. Alfonso III, no. 37; cf. AHN, San Juan, leg. 532, doc. 13.

340. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 1-4, doc. 1.

341. Ibid., pp. 67-72, doc. 13.

342. ACA, parch. Alfonso II, no. 327.

343. ACA, parch. James I, no. 2163.

344. ACA, parch. James II, nos. 408, 411, 412, 413, 414, 420.

345. ACA, CRD Templarios, nos. 616, 618.

346. ACA, CRD Templarios, no. 539.

347. ACA, parch. Peter III, no. 103.

348. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 967, 969, 996, 1233; ACA, parch. James I, nos. 1938, 1941; parch. Peter III, no. 407; parch. Alfonso III, no. 120; parch. James II, no. 990.

349. e.g. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 169-70, doc. 116; 505-7, doc. 344.

350. AHN, San Juan, leg. 354, doc. 2; Montesa, P. 265.

351. Miret y Sans, 'Inventaris', pp. 62-72; ACA, CRD Templarios, nos. 116, 117, 118; CRD James II, nos. 1313, 1737, 1747.

352. Cambridge Economic History of Europe, i. 477.

353. Font Rius, Cartas de población, i. 169-70, doc. 116; AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 16^v-17.

354. Holdings of this size are mentioned in a number of cartas de población, especially along the lower Ebro.

355. AHN, San Juan, leg. 354, doc. 2. In this document it is stated that this land was to be exempt from tithe whether the Templars kept it in demesne or not.

356. AHN, Montesa, P. 78. No attempt to estimate the size of the demesne from the numbers of ploughing animals is possible, even when no labour services were owed, because it is not known where in a commandery these animals were used.

357. ACA, parch. James II, no. 518; see below, p. 407; cf. parch. James II, no. 990.

358. e.g. AHN, San Juan, leg. 351, doc. 2; ACA, parch. Alfonso II, no. 575; parch. James I, no. 1446. In 1168 the Templars of Gardeny made two grants of land from their condamina, a term which could mean demesne land: AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fols. 31, 34^v-35, docs. 55, 68; but the exact significance of the word in this context is not clear: cf. parch. Gardeny, nos. 281-8, 297.

359. e.g. AHN, Montesa, P. 370, 453, 485, 554; AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 184, 438, 1501.

360. AHN, Montesa, P. 452, 453.

361. e.g. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 730.

362. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 719.

363. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 686, 691, 703, 754, 776, 784, 804, 819.

364. AGP, parch. Gardeny, no. 748 bis.

365. See above, p. 199.

366. Hinojosa, op. cit., p. 203.

367. Miret y Sans, 'Inventaris', pp. 62-9. These Templar figures can be compared with some sixteenth-century sheep statistics provided by J. Klein, The Mesta: A Study in Spanish Economic History, 1273-1836 (Harvard, 1920), p. 60.

368. ACA, CRD James II, no. 1313.

369. Finke, Papsttum, ii. 85-6, doc. 58.

370. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fols. 107^v-108, doc. 258; cf. fols. 103^v-104, doc. 250. In 1201 the bishops of Zaragoza and Tarazona were ordered to investigate a Templar complaint that 1,000 of the Order's sheep and goats had been seized: AHN, San Juan, leg. 720, doc. 9.

371. AHN, cód. 466, p. 208, doc. 182. When the Temple took over the possessions of the Order of Mountjoy in 1196 it gained considerable flocks of sheep in southern Aragon, including 1,500 at Alfambra and 900 at Villel: AHN, Ordenes militares, Calatrava, sign. 1341-C, fols. 135-6.

372. Miret y Sans, 'Inventaris', pp. 63-4.

373. Ibid., pp. 62-3, 68-9.

374. Ibid., p. 62.

375. On the shipment of food supplies, see below, p. 324.

376. AHN, cód. 689, pp. 1-4, doc. 2; pp. 76-8, doc. 78.

377. Ferrandis, loc. cit., p. 31; AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 26^v-28.

378. AHN, cód. 494, pp. 17-19, doc. 4; see below, p. 390.

379. Règle, p. 58, art. 48. Hunting the lion was justified by reference to Genesis 16:12, and to I Peter 5:8: 'your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.'

380. See below, p. 281.

381. See below, pp. 285, 288.

382. AGP, Cartubary of Tortosa, fol. 7, doc. 22.

383. e.g. AHN, San Juan, leg. 529, doc. 73; leg. 546, docs. 4, 36; leg. 551, doc. 7; cód. 469, pp. 515-18, docs. 525, 526; pp. 521-2, doc. 531. These examples are taken from the district around Zaragoza. Cf. Duby, L'Économie rurale, i. 237 ff.; L.G. de Valdeavellano, Historia de las instituciones españolas (Madrid, 1968), p. 257.

384. Albareda y Herrera, op. cit., p. 46.

385. AHN, Montesa, sign. 542-C, fols. 15-16^v.

386. AHN, cód. 466, pp. 40-1, doc. 42; see below, p. 395.

387. e.g. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 78, doc. 196.

388. AHN, cód. 470, p. 16, doc. 22.

389. AHN, San Juan, leg. 556, doc. 4; cód. 469, pp. 177-8, doc. 136; see below, p. 386.

390. AGP, Cartulary of Gardeny, fol. 51-51^v, doc. 117; cf. parch. Gardeny, nos. 4, 7.

391. AHN, cód. 471, pp. 338-40, doc. 265.

392. Ibid., pp. 340-5, doc. 266.

393. e.g. AHN, cód. 466, p. 153, doc. 115; p. 157, doc. 123; AGP, Cartulary of Tortosa, fol. 11-11^v, doc. 34; fols. 12^v-13, doc. 39.

394. e.g. AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 196-9, 201, 427.

395. AHN, cód. 468, pp. 43-5, doc. 54; San Juan, leg. 587, docs. 34, 39; Montesa, P. 324.

396. In the document concerning the extension of irrigation in Segriá in 1173, however, the Order did stipulate that if irrigation was further extended then the rent should be increased; see also AGP, parch. Gardeny, nos. 524, 882. But provisions of this kind are rare.

397. In 1200, for example, when the Temple's right to a manse was being disputed, the commander of Palau settled the matter by granting the manse for life to the other party, who abandoned all other claims to it: ACA, parch. Peter II, nos. 94, 95; cf. parch. Alfonso II, nos. 423, 424.