[54] Circa primam horam noctis on 2 July 1251 the cause of reform suffered its second serious reverse within a month. The death of Pedro de Albalat, archbishop of Tarragona,⁽¹⁾ removed from the Spanish scene a prelate of singular energy and exceptional reforming zeal whose tally of provincial councils, as Argáiz recognised in the seventeenth century, outdid even that of the Visigothic Church.⁽²⁾ Argáiz credited him with eight councils, but in fact Pedro held ten councils between 1239 and 1250, and the annual cycle was broken only in those two years, 1241 and 1245, when he was called abroad for assemblies of the Universal Church. At the second of these he made a considerable impact.⁽³⁾ Yet, on account of his pastoral record in Aragon alone, he deserves a wider reputation than he enjoys. Anywhere in thirteenth-century Europe such a record would have been remarkable, and in contrast with the lassitude of the archbishops of Toledo and Compostela of his day it is truly astonishing. With justice he has been described as 'one of the most important figures of the Catalan clergy of his age',⁽⁴⁾ but beyond that his achievement has received scant recognition since the sixteenth century when his archiepiscopal successor, Antonio Agustín, published some of the constitutions of his councils.⁽⁵⁾ Subsequently, a great deal more material has become available,⁽⁶⁾ but the councils and synods of the province of Tarragona, for which he was ultimately responsible, still await serious study. On more than one occasion Villanueva lamented the lack of such a work. 'How [55] admirably', he wrote, 'might a student employ his talents in elucidating the synodal decrees of the see of Valencia', where Pedro's brother, Andrés, was bishop for more than twenty years. But Villanueva himself was not that student. Having failed to verify the existence of a box of conciliar documents in the capitular archive at Tarragona, he left the job to be done. And it has still to be done.⁽⁷⁾ It will never be done if the elimination of the sort of difficulties which deterred Villanueva is to be regarded as prerequisite. Similar obstacles were encountered at the Lérida archive where only the most cursory, and tantalising, inspection was permitted, though it must surely contain material of great value for the present chapter. Nevertheless, it is possible to form from other sources an impression of Archbishop Pedro which the Lérida fonds might refine but is hardly likely to invalidate.

Pedro de Albalat was the spiritual heir of John of Abbeville. At his first council, in April 1239, he adopted entire the legate's programme of reform.⁽⁸⁾ It was ten years since John's legation, and nineteen months since the legate's death.⁽⁹⁾ But the two men had been in contact throughout the previous decade. It is highly likely that they met in 1229, when Pedro was sacrist of Lérida, at the Council which was to provide him at a later date with chapter and verse for the reform of his province, and that his fruitful relationship with Raymond of Peñafort, who was in the legate's entourage, dates from the same time. But it is certain that during the period after his return to the Curia, where he continued to concern himself with the affairs of the Spanish Church,⁽¹⁰⁾John retained the services of Pedro de Albalat as his agent in the kingdom of Aragon. And the issue which first engaged their joint attention was one in which, as archbishop, Pedro was to show the keenest interest: heresy.

The high incidence of heresy and unorthodoxy in mountainous [56] regions has frequently been noted,⁽¹¹⁾and in the kingdom of Aragon throughout the thirteenth century the Albigensian heresy was rampant in the Pyrenean see of Urgel. There had been a serious outbreak shortly before the legate's visit in the autumn of 1229, and at his Council in the following May Archbishop Sparago expressed grave concern.⁽¹²⁾ The see of Urgel was at that moment vacant, Pedro de Puigvert (about whose ability to deal with the crisis Honorius III had had his doubts) having resigned in the previous month, possibly in consequence of an unfavourable report submitted by the legate;⁽¹³⁾ and Sparago and the bishop of Lérida, Berenguer de Eril, were given joint charge of it until there should be an election.⁽¹⁴⁾ John of Abbeville was extremely interested in the outcome of this election, as is shown by a letter sent by him to Bishop Berenguer in April or May 1230, which has survived in the archive of Urgel Cathedral. The suitability of possible candidates exercised him greatly,⁽¹⁵⁾ and the weight of evidence suggests that the cardinal was being kept informed of developments by Pedro de Albalat. Perhaps it was Pedro who brought this letter from the Curia. Certainly he was an observer -- and a highly regarded observer, furthermore -- at the riotous process of election at Urgel in May 1230 which resulted in the promotion to the see of Bishop Berenguer's nephew, Ponce de Vilamur, who had been sacrist of Lérida immediately before Pedro himself. Another Urgel document, containing the version of these events submitted to an inquest into the election held soon after by various canons of the church, provides a vivid account of ecclesiastical party politics in thirteenth-century Catalonia. It is a tale of ambushes, bribery, torrid debate and strong-arm tactics. It has a flavour all its own,⁽¹⁶⁾ but the point of interest in the present context is the quite casual reference which it contains to Pedro who, while the beaten side were frogmarching their candidate to the altar, intoned the Te Deum which brought the pantomime to an end. Pedro did not escape unscathed. It was assumed that he was an advocate of Ponce, and Ponce's enemies, most [57] unsportingly, wreaked their vengeance by doing to death one of Pedro's mules and wounding another.⁽¹⁷⁾ And the desperadoes seem to have judged aright, for when Ponce's promotion suffered a further delay Pedro travelled to Rome, presumably for fresh consultation with John of Abbeville. While he was there he secured papal permission to retain the churches of Zaidin, Albalat and Soros together with the income from his office as sacrist.⁽¹⁸⁾

His visit seems to have disposed of all outstanding objections to Ponce. On 6 February 1231, shortly before he returned to Aragon, John of Abbeville furnished him with a letter addressed to Ponce as bishop, in which the sacrist of Lérida was described as his 'fidelis et sollicitus procurator' and Ponce was urged to prove himself 'acceptus minister Deo' and to nourish the flock which had been entrusted to him 'sacra doctrina pariter et exemplo'.⁽¹⁹⁾ It was not the only commission that he brought with him. Six days later he was appointed, together with the bishop of Lérida and the abbot of Poblet, to protect the chapter of Vich against the archbishop of Tarragona;⁽²⁰⁾ and the pope's rescript confirming the ex-legate's constitutions for Barcelona, which was issued two days before that, may also have been entrusted to him.⁽²¹⁾ The issue of substance, however, is that John's letter referred to Ponce as bishop fully two months before the archbishop of Tarragona received formal notice even of the election.⁽²²⁾ The affair had been stage-managed by John and Pedro, and the latter was an ecclesiastical power in the land eight years before his appointment as leader of the Aragonese Church.

It is curious, and even dramatically appropriate, that Pedro de Albalat's earliest recorded achievement should have been his successful campaign on behalf of Ponce de Vilarnur. For the bishop of [58] Urgel was to fall far short of John of Abbeville's high standards, and the reformers' white hope of 1230-1 was to be converted into their bête noire in the course of the next twenty years, and would dog Archbishop Pedro until his dying day. In the early 1230s, though, this all lay in the future, and Ponce's future career was as inscrutable to Pedro as Pedro's past career is still to us. Where magister Petrus had studied, and the truth of the unsubstantiated claim that he was a Cistercian monk,⁽²³⁾ are only two of the questions about him for which no certain answers are available. He was, like so many, de genere militari,⁽²⁴⁾ but all that can be said of his pre-episcopal period is that he was commissioned on at least three occasions to interest himself in the affairs of Aragonese religious communities: to defend the Dominican nuns of Zaragoza; to restrain a clique of Augustinian monks of Santa María de Mur, Urgel, from joining the Premonstratensian Order; and to visit Ripoll.⁽²⁵⁾ Until October 1236 he remains a shadowy figure.

In that month, however, his many virtues caught the attention of the canons of his own church of Lérida, and they elected him as the successor of Bishop Berenguer de Eril.⁽²⁶⁾ Pedro was bishop of Lérida for only fourteen months. Yet even in that short period he found time to issue an ordinatio which superseded the original ordinatio of 1168,⁽²⁷⁾displayed his distinctive blend of idealism and realism, and demonstrated his understanding of the practical obstacles which stood in the way of moral regeneration. John of Abbeville had had precious little sense of reality and had acquired none while traipsing round Spain, but Pedro, though no less convinced than the legate that regimen animarum was ars artium, realised also that it had to be the art of the possible. And so he concentrated upon the logistics of the [59] problem, upon the economics of reform. The archdeacons of Lérida could not afford to carry out their visitations, 'propter quod grave sequitur dispendium animarum et multa insolencia in subditis enutritur et dissolucio cumulatur': he therefore increased their income.⁽²⁸⁾ Having himself no pied-à-terre within range of the city of Lérida, 'ad quam valeat declinare', he purchased the castle of Boyera from the communis mensa;⁽²⁹⁾and to ensure a better attendance at cathedral services he created nineteen dimidiae porciones, one of which was earmarked for the support of a magister scolarum who was given the task of irrigating the intellectual desert thereabouts.⁽³⁰⁾

Pedro's Ordinatio Ecclesie Ilerdensis was issued on 11 December 1237. By then he was a prominent figure in the Aragonese Church which, since the death of Archbishop Sparago on 3 March 1233,⁽³¹⁾ had been leaderless. It was to him, together with Bishop Bernardo Calvó of Vich and Raymond of Peñafort, that Gregory IX referred cases of high ecclesiastical politics during 1237: the revocation of certain actions of the late King Pedro II which had been prejudicial to the rights of the Roman Church; the request of Ponce of Tortosa for permission to resign his see;⁽³²⁾ and appointment to the bishoprics of Majorca and Huesca.⁽³³⁾ Thus, in association with the holiest prelate of the province and the canonist-saint, he had a hand in the religious regeneration of the Aragonese Church even before his elevation to the archbishopric of Tarragona, which occurred in February 1238 after the chapter had resigned its rights of election to Gregory and the pope -- almost certainly on the recommendation of St Raymond [60] who had declined the position himself four years before⁽³⁴⁾-- designated Pedro, the bishop of Lérida of whom he had heard such excellent reports.⁽³⁵⁾

At the time of Pedro's promotion the Christian forces were massing for the final assault on the city of Valencia, and its capture that autumn provided the new archbishop with an opportunity of taking stock of those of his suffragans who were gathered there, in the royal entourage, in expectation of grants of territory. For five years they had had no archbishop to give them a lead, and Pedro could ill afford to lose time in asserting his authority. At 'a council' (as the witness, Ferrán Pérez de Torolio, remembered it), attended by his bishops and, significantly, by a number of friars, he stole a march on the archbishop of Toledo and appointed Berenguer de Castelbisbal as bishop of Valencia.⁽³⁶⁾ 'A council' held in those conditions, however, amidst the hurly-burly of military manceuvres,⁽³⁷⁾ was necessarily an ad hoc affair having little or nothing in common with the formal, full-dress assemblies of later years. Still, Pedro soon buckled down to his pastoral responsibilities. In 1239, during which year he was once described as a legate,⁽³⁸⁾ a start was made.

[61] On the day appointed by John of Abbeville, Jubilate Sunday, he held his first provincial council at Tarragona. It was attended by seven of his suffragans⁽³⁹⁾ and lasted until the following Tuesday, three days, in accordance with the procedural instructions of the Forma de Sacro Concilio Tarracone Celebrando.⁽⁴⁰⁾The legate's ghost was also there. His legislation was reissued complete, and the point was rammed home by the reiteration of those themes that had been most dear to him: clerici concubinarii (predictably); pluralism; marriage within the forbidden degrees; clerical involvement in secular affairs; vagabond monks and canons; and the relaxation of monastic discipline.⁽⁴¹⁾ Yet Pedro had a mind of his own, and two of the items contained in the conciliar constitutions were his own contribution: the declaration of war against heresy, and the encouragement given to his staunchest allies in that war, the friars, whose founders were accorded solemn honours throughout the province.⁽⁴²⁾ Such was the archbishop's programme. All of the elements of the next twelve reforming years were defmed in 1239, and the bishops were left in no doubt about the energy with which he meant to pursue his end. Before he dismissed them, he reminded them once more of the Order of the Day -- the constitutions of the Fourth Lateran Council and of John of Abbeville -- and warned them that ignorance of those provisions would constitute no defence when he descended upon their churches, as he intended to do, absque alia praemonitione.⁽⁴³⁾

One of his hearers was able to certify that this was not a meaningless threat, for already, in January 1239, the church of Huesca had [62] received an archiepiscopal visitation.⁽⁴⁴⁾There was room for improvement at Huesca. The canons had become lax about their vows as regulars, and were rarely to be found in the refectory or dormitory. Cultus divinus was not celebrated properly, 'sine barbarismo et soloecismo'. They were reminded of John of Abbeville's statutes (whether those of the Lérida Council or a special set designed for them is not clear) about pawning their goods, wearing flashy clothes and spending the night in town. 'Omnia verbo ad verbum sunt domini Sabinensis', in short.⁽⁴⁵⁾ And the same may be said of the archbishop's constitutions for the church of Vich, which he visited in the following August.⁽⁴⁶⁾ Yet to this body of doctrine and code of discipline Pedro brought a new spirit of moderation. It is noticeable that on neither occasion did he reiterate the legate's thoroughgoing sanctions against concubinage. Instead, Vidal of Huesca was enjoined to proceed cum diligentia, and it was left to Bernardo of Vich to use his discretion in implementing the sentences authorised by John and Sparago.⁽⁴⁷⁾ Pedro felt able to trust their judgement, having had a hand in the appointment of the one and having personal experience of the saintliness of the other.

What did concern him, wherever he travelled in his province, was the state of parochial organisation and the removal of obstacles to popular devotion. In some places he was confounded by geography. His own cathedral church when he had been bishop of Lérida, for example, presented its parishioners with a steep climb, 'cum in monte consistat excelso iuxta quem dicta civitas est constructa', as they complained to Urban IV some twenty years later, requesting the provision of facilities for baptism and marriage at a lower altitude.⁽⁴⁸⁾ Likewise, [63] the parochial organisation of the diocese of Zaragoza, which he visited in March 1242, was hopelessly muddled, largely on account of its size -- cum sit latissima et diffusa -- and the inefficiency of its archpriests upon whom so much depended.⁽⁴⁹⁾ But Pedro was less accommodating than Urban IV, and the citizens of Zaragoza on that same occasion received little sympathy from him in their quarrel over tithes and the sacraments with the cathedral clergy.⁽⁵⁰⁾ He was a stickler for the rules. At Huesca he insisted on a strict definition of parish boundaries, which he found confusas et minime limitatas, and also on the sovereignty of each resident rector over parochial revenues.⁽⁵¹⁾ In the diocese of Tortosa he emphasised that the parish clergy had to be ordained and resident.⁽⁵²⁾ And though his main consideration when he visited Valencia Cathedral in June 1242 was that the divine office should be decently administered 'diurnis horis pariter et nocturnis' in the novella plantatio,⁽⁵³⁾there too he was hardly less concerned about the economic foundations of the recently established frontier parishes.⁽⁵⁴⁾ For all this, though, Pedro was a realist and was prepared, as John of Abbeville had not been, to make concessions to human frailty as a means of coaxing the clergy towards a better life. Thus, while both in his own cathedral church and at Valencia he penalised canons for absence from choir, he did allow them one morning each week when they might lie in and miss matins without loss of income.⁽⁵⁵⁾

Tireless though the archbishop seems to have been in visiting the sees of his province, it was upon the bishops that he had to rely if his reforms were to have any permanent significance. The task of admonishing, removing local anomalies and bringing the liturgical practice of each church into line with that of the cathedral of Tarragona, 'que ipsius est metropolis et magistra',⁽⁵⁶⁾ weighed upon them. So, [64] too, did the duty of attending the annual provincial councils and of passing on the message to their clergy at diocesan synods. By 1242 they seem to have been beginning to wilt under the strain, or perhaps the lack of a council in the previous year had broken the spell. For only three of them appeared at the council that May: a performance which elicited a characteristically firm warning for the future from Pedro. Bishops absent thereafter, 'excusationes frivolas pretendentes', would incur durance vile at Tarragona.⁽⁵⁷⁾ This had its effect, and, with the exception of the incorrigible Ponce of Urgel, they all either came or sent representatives to the 1243 Council.⁽⁵⁸⁾Gradually, as the incumbents died, Pedro was able to safeguard the future by filling the sees with -- or, rather, by influencing the electors to appoint -- churchmen who shared his outlook. Before investigating this group of prelates, however, it may be as well to consider the situation in the three sees which did not present the archbishop with such an opportunity: those of Tarazona, Tortosa and Urgel, the bishops of which survived from before 1238 until after his death.

Admittedly, none of them remained entirely apart from the mainstream of activity. Even García Frontón of Tarazona (1219-54⁽⁵⁹⁾), was represented at two of the councils, although he attended none of them in person,⁽⁶⁰⁾ and it may have been a similar anxiety to that of Pedro for parochial organisation which prompted him in July 1251 to seek papal permission to deal with the disorder of the Calatayud area, and three years later to implement Innocent IVs commission in pleno capitulo.⁽⁶¹⁾ But, equally, this may have been an instance of mere acquisitiveness rather than of disinterested pastoral zeal. In the [65] absence of the Tarazona documentation, destroyed long ago, there are no means of knowing. More, however, may safely be claimed for the second of the trio, Ponce of Tortosa, who by 1239 had already been bishop for a quarter of a century, having survived both his chapter's attempt to oust him for simony and perjury in 1218-19, and his own request to be relieved of office in 1237.⁽⁶²⁾ In spite of his years, he was the most assiduous of Pedro's suffragans, attending all but one of the councils,⁽⁶³⁾ and possessing a good business brain, as he himself claimed in December 1252 when he instituted an annual vestiarium payment of 150 solidi jaccenses for each of the canons of Tortosa.⁽⁶⁴⁾ In February 1250 the archbishop gained entrée to his church when the chapter invited him and the bishop jointly to prepare an ordinatio congrua of their rents and rations; and although their deliberations centred largely on the question of cakes and ale, joints of meat and jugs of wine, it was at least possible to oblige the dignitaries of the chapter to publish their accounts twice yearly in imitation of John of Abbeville's Tarragona statute.⁽⁶⁵⁾ That, though, seems to have been the extent of Pedro's influence at Tortosa. The wider dissemination of reforming practices and the holding of synods there had to await Ponce's death, and even then progress was not made without an extremely bitter struggle.⁽⁶⁶⁾

If the shortcomings of Ponce of Tortosa consisted in the very soundness of a pedestrian character long set in his ways, those of his namesake the bishop of Urgel, the third of the prelates who preceded and outlived the archbishop and whose election in 1230 had so concerned both John of Abbeville and Pedro himself, were truly spectacular. Since, however, Ponce's final decline occurred at the very end of Pedro's life, and because his destruction formed the crowning achievement of a hard core of episcopal reformers who shared the archbishop's views and owed their advancement to him, some account [66] of the formation of this party must come before the description of the later career of the hapless bishop of Urgel.

The three sees of Huesca, Calahorra and Pamplona may be considered apart. Though, like the bishops of Tarazona, Tortosa and Urgel, both Vidal de Canellas of Huesca and Aznar Díaz of Calahorra were in charge of their sees in 1238, they fall into a different category. The former owed his promotion partly to Pedro (as bishop of Lérida), and, while he was not flawless, having infringed John of Abbeville's pluralism legislation,⁽⁶⁷⁾ the Bologna-trained lawyer who was one of King Jaime's closest advisers nevertheless found time to attend all but two of the archbishop's councils.⁽⁶⁸⁾ He remained on good terms with Pedro, who awarded him various churches by way of financial relief;⁽⁶⁹⁾ and he held synods, though no first-hand version of his synodal constitutions has survived.⁽⁷⁰⁾ More, however, is known about the synod which Bishop Áznar Díaz, a nephew of Rodrigo of Toledo, held at Logroño in April 1240, two years after his election.⁽⁷¹⁾ Virtually every detail of the reform programme of John of Abbeville was included, though Áznar Díaz had missed Pedro's initial council of the previous year;⁽⁷²⁾ and special attention was accorded to clerical education: their income was guaranteed for three years to clerics who wished to study at the escuelas generales, Bologna, Paris, Toulouse or, more modestly, Calahorra itself.⁽⁷³⁾ On one item, though -- concubinage -- the bishop soft-pedalled. For though, in general terms, he insisted that his clergy 'vivan castamente e honestamente, segunt que mandan las constituciones de Letrán e las del Legado', he declined to invoke sentences of excommunication or suspension against them. Instead, he anticipated [67] by eleven years Cardinal Gil's reassessment, substituting a fine of sixty sueldos and concentrating upon securing from priests' sons the undertaking that they would not conspire against his church, just as the archbishop of Compostela had done in 1229.⁽⁷⁴⁾ Not that Áznar Díaz was uniquely permissive: Pedro himself had departed from the legate's hard line in the previous year when he had visited Huesca and Vich.

Pedro's first opportunity to intervene in the appointment of a suffragan was provided by the death, in October 1238, of Bishop Pedro Remírez of Pamplona. The archbishop seized the chance and held a diocesan synod sede vacante at which the legate's sentences against pluralism were reiterated, and also, presumably, the rest of the reform programme.⁽⁷⁵⁾ On the emergence of two candidates for the see (which may have had some connexion with the claim of Rodrigo of Toledo that Pamplona was part of his province) Pedro opposed Guillermo de Onz who, as a creature of Teobaldo I of Navarre, 'representaba la política de condescendencia, docilidad y servidumbre hacia la corona', and in December 1239 when the pope commissioned him and Rodrigo jointly to nominate a bishop, they chose Pedro Ximénez de Gazolaz, 'el Gregorio VII del episcopado pamplones', as he has been described, with some justice, on account of his sturdy defence of libertas ecclesiastica.⁽⁷⁶⁾

Both Pedro Ximénez of Pamplona and Áznar Díaz of Calahorra were enthusiastic patrons of the Cistercians,⁽⁷⁷⁾ and their enthusiasm was shared by the archbishop whose affiliations with Poblet have led to [68] the belief that he was a member of the Order himself. An important role -- though a minor one -- was played in Pedro's reforming campaign by the White Monks, for whose vitality all over the Peninsula there is evidence throughout the thirteenth century. For this was 'l'âge d'or du Cîteaux portugais',⁽⁷⁸⁾ and though, in the Primera Partida, Alfonso X dwelt upon their having been corrupted by wealth, he was none the less anxious that they should found a house at Seville.⁽⁷⁹⁾In neither of these kingdoms can Pérez de Urbel's remark about the insignificance of the monastic contribution during this period⁽⁸⁰⁾ be applied to them. But it was in Aragon that their Indian summer proved most fruitful. In 1208 King Pedro II praised their 'astonishing virtues' and their attachment to 'true apostolic religion',⁽⁸¹⁾ and twenty years later they struck John of Abbeville as the one hopeful feature of Aragonese monasticism. There was, he informed Gregory IX, no hope of salvation for the Cluniacs there nisi ad Cisterciensem ordinem convertantur.⁽⁸²⁾ Two new foundations were established in the Tarragona province in 1223-4, at Santa Fe and La Baix.⁽⁸³⁾ Pedro's most reputable episcopal colleague, Bernardo Calvó, was a member of the Order and had been abbot of Santas Creus before his promotion to the see of Vich.⁽⁸⁴⁾ And Pedro himself was the Order's special darling. In 1244 the General Chapter directed every monk to commemorate the archbishop of Tarragona during the Mass of the Holy Spirit. For his part, Pedro favoured the Cistercian style -- implicitly, as in his instructions that the canons of Huesca and Vich should wear plain, simple garments, and explicitly in his Summa Septem Sacramentorum where he insisted that altar linen be kept 'munda et nitida. . . ad morem Cistercii'.⁽⁸⁵⁾ Two of his bishops were [69] Cistercians, and both were zealous pastors. His own successor at Lérida in April 1238, Raimundo de Ciscar, issued synodal legislation which, like the Summa, from a version of which it may have been derived, dealt fully with the administration of the sacraments and provided the diocesan clergy with ample information on the subject.⁽⁸⁶⁾ Vicente of Zaragoza -- whose election was hastily confirmed at the Valencia Council of May 1240 -- was equally enthusiastic. By March 1242, when the archbishop visited his diocese, he had held a synod, and before his death in 1244 he summoned at least one more.⁽⁸⁷⁾

Yet although the Cistercians were Pedro's partners in the reforming enterprise, they were unquestionably only the junior partners. Their seniors were the Dominicans. Between 1225 and 1250 the Order of Preachers was the dominant force throughout the Western Church. In Aragon, though -- where during the early 1230s heresy was rife⁽⁸⁸⁾ -- they were warmly welcomed and actively encouraged by the archbishop. So were the Franciscans, and this was rare.

Pedro de Alba!at's co-option of the friars stemmed directly from his close association with Raymond of Peñafort. There was a sort of spiritual relationship between them which may have owed something to their common patron, John of Abbeville.⁽⁸⁹⁾ During the year 1237, on Raymond's return from Rome to the Barcelona convent, broken in health after his work on the Liber Extra, the friar and the bishop of Lérida had been commissioned jointly to settle the succession in the sees of Mallorca, Huesca and Tortosa. But in the following [70] year Raymond was elected Master General of his Order and, albeit reluctantly, he accepted the office some three months after Pedro's promotion to Tarragona. In 1240, though, he resigned at the Bologna General Chapter, and returned once more to Aragon. His association with the archbishop -- who had already made plain his devotion to the friars -- was revived, and almost immediately it bore fruit -- appropriately enough, in Raymond's native city of Barcelona.⁽⁹⁰⁾

Bishop Berenguer de Palou died at the end of August 1241, and in the ensuing election the thirty-two canons of Barcelona failed to agree on a successor, nine favouring the prior of the local Dominican convent of Santa Catalina, Berenguer de Castelbisbal, while the majority, twenty-two, opted for their sacrist, Pedro de Centelles. But the choice was not between a friar and a non-friar, for Pedro de Centelles had also fallen under the Dominican spell and had only recently promised to join the Order as soon as he could wind up his secular affairs. The election, therefore, came as something of an embarrassment to him, as he explained to the archbishop who visited Barcelona in mid-October. Pedro de Albalat thought very highly of the sacrist, and on the 15th wrote to the pope praising him to the skies and urging that in spite of his promise he be promoted to the see. But Gregory IX, unbeknown to the archbishop, had died almost eight weeks before, so that the three canons who were despatched to the Curia with letters from Pedro, King Jaime and others, were made to wait until June 1243 for the election of a pontiff to whom they might appeal. Then the Barcelona affair was one of the first items of accumulated business with which Innocent IV dealt. On 4 July the archbishop was instructed to proceed as he thought fit, and in mid-October 1243, in the presence of Raymond of Peñafort, the sacrist was clothed a Dominican by Pedro de Albalat and, with the assembled chapter, quasi flentes, chanting 'talem volumus vos habere, talem volumus vos habere', was confirmed as bishop of Barcelona.⁽⁹¹⁾

Pedro de Centelles was the first Dominican bishop south of the Pyrenees and is, therefore, something of a landmark. The date to [71] note, however, is not October 1243. It is October 1241. For Archbishop Pedro had not allowed the papal vacancy to delay the reform of his province, and through him Dominican influence had been making itself felt at Barcelona during those two years. As at Pamplona in 1239, he seized the opportunity of holding a sede vacante synod at Barcelona during his visit to investigate the election process in the autumn of 1241. The synod -- of 18 October 1241 -- witnessed the publication of two didactic tracts which together comprise Pedro de Albalat's contribution to the history of the thirteenth-century Spanish Church, and, individually, reflect the influence upon him of Raymond of Peñafort.

The first is well enough known. It described the procedure for dealing with heretics and is regarded as 'le premier document digne du nom de manuel de procédure inquisitoriale'.⁽⁹²⁾ It was a business-like guide, the sort of A.B.C. that Guillermo de Mongrí had asked for when faced with the problem of apparent repentance on a large scale six years earlier; and scholars have not hesitated in ascribing authorship to St Raymond rather than to Pedro, the archbishop who promulgated it.⁽⁹³⁾ Its form and content suggest that they are correct. No such attention, however, has been given to the second tract published on the same occasion as part of the synodal constitutions, and which loomed at least as large as le manuel de l'inquisiteur in the Tarragona province during the 1240s and 1250s: Pedro de Albalat's Summa Septem Sacramentorum.

The Summa⁽⁹⁴⁾ was promulgated by Pedro both at Barcelona and in his own archdiocese at a synod of uncertain date.⁽⁹⁵⁾ In the form in which it was reissued, almost verbatim, by Pedro's brother Bishop Andrés of Valencia in October 1258, it was published by Aguirre in [72] the eighteenth century.⁽⁹⁶⁾ The text used by Andrés was that of the Barcelona synod of October 1241, to which he adhered fairly closely.⁽⁹⁷⁾ Yet it cannot be asserted that the Barcelona version was the editio princeps of the Summa, for Andrés refers also to the 'tract's' having been issued by his brother at a Lérida synod, and it is not clear from the context whether Pedro was bishop of Lérida or archbishop of Tarragona at the time of the said synod. Moreover, the confusion has been further confounded by Aguirre who miscopied his Valencia MS.⁽⁹⁸⁾ So this Lérida synod must have occurred either during Pedro's episcopate, October 1236 to February 1238, or sede vacante after the death of Pedro's successor there, Raimundo de Ciscar, in 1247 or 1248. Now it is true that Pedro was accustomed to intervening in the affairs of the sees of his province during episcopal vacancies, as at Pamplona and Barcelona, and that he had a direct hand in the appointment of Raimundo de Ciscar's successor at Lérida.⁽⁹⁹⁾Nevertheless, on balance, the later date would seem to be less likely than the other as the occasion of the synod mentioned by Andrés de Albalat -- who in September 1248 was himself at Lérida, as a member of the Dominican community.⁽¹⁰⁰⁾For by 1247-8 the diocese of Lérida had already received, from the late Bishop Raimundo, a sacramental treatise which compares favourably with Pedro's Summa.⁽¹⁰¹⁾

It compares favourably, and there many points of comparison since both Raimundo's statutes and the Summa owe the greater part of their material to that common source of so much synodal [73] legislation of Western Europe at this period: the statutes attributed to Eudes de Sully, bishop of Paris (1196-1208).⁽¹⁰²⁾ Of the two, Raimundo's statutes appear to have followed the Paris statutes rather more closely than does the Summa, and to have introduced considerably less that was original.⁽¹⁰³⁾ But what is of greater interest here is that there are some grounds for arguing that Raimundo also had access to a version of the Summa which had been issued at the Lérida synod to which Andrés de Albalat referred in 1258. For a while Raimundo's statutes and the Summa have in common a number of phrases which the Paris statutes lack,⁽¹⁰⁴⁾ the former do not contain the distinctive passages on the sacraments and patronage of the friars which appear in the 1241 Summa.⁽¹⁰⁵⁾ The Lérida statutes bear no date, but assuming that they were issued before 1241 -- an assumption for which there is some support⁽¹⁰⁶⁾ -- it may be suggested that they were based on an earlier version of the Summa promulgated by Pedro while he was bishop of Lérida -- which we may identify as Summa I -- and, further, that this version had incorporated Eudes de Sully's statutes without adding very much fresh material. Within this hypothesis the final section of the Lérida statutes -- for almost all of which no parallel passages may be found either in the Paris statutes or in the Summa -- would be regarded as comprising Bishop Raimundo's [74] own original contribution.⁽¹⁰⁷⁾ But this is only a hypothesis. The terrain is notoriously difficult to negotiate; delusions are legion; a single manuscript as yet undiscovered might easily upset it entirely; and -- most substantially -- no manuscript of Summa I has been produced.

Leaving aside the putative Summa I we are on firmer ground with the Summa promulgated at Barcelona in October 1241, the earliest known example in the Spanish peninsula of the liber sinodalis which contemporaries regarded as the hallmark of an outstandingly zealous prelate.⁽¹⁰⁸⁾ In October 1261 the clergy of the diocese of Valencia were ordered to furnish themselves with copies of the Summa by the following Christmas,⁽¹⁰⁹⁾ and though neither the Barcelona nor the Tarragona version contains explicit proof that it had any such didactic purpose in those places, it may nonetheless be assumed that 'las escelentes constituciones sobre sacramentos, vida clerical, etc.' which Villanueva noticed at Barcelona but did not bother to analyse, were promulgated as such by Pedro himself.⁽¹¹⁰⁾

The Summa is not a strikingly original work. It is far from being a landmark in the literature of pastoral theology. Like the Lérida statutes, it leans heavily on Eudes de Sully, and such texts of the Fourth Lateran Council as are accorded mention are remembered not in the terminology of 1215 but in that of 1229 as they had been transmitted by John of Abbeville at the Lérida Council.⁽¹¹¹⁾ Yet though the content of the Summa was only very occasionally Pedro's own, positive credit may be given him for the pattern which he imposed on material not his own. It is the arrangement of the Summa that distinguishes it from its main source. Whereas the Lérida statutes had followed the Paris statutes indiscriminately and had departed from that model only in their pell-mell rearrangement of the jumble of miscellaneous communia praecepta,⁽¹¹²⁾the Summa conflates the old material, [75] introduces some that is new, stresses that which Pedro deemed in need of being stressed, and contrives a brief and orderly handbook containing a section on each of the seven sacraments -- in a different sequence from that previously adopted -- introduced by instructions De ordinatione sinodi, which depart hardly at all from Eudes de Sully; and followed by two further sections -- Qualiter Christiani orare debent, based on nos 10 and 32 of the communia praecepta, and De vita et honestate clericorum, which also makes use of the communia praecepta as well as of additional fresh material. Even when the Paris statutes are most closely followed Pedro adapts them to his own requirements and sub-edits freely. Such is the case in the sections on Baptism, Confirmation and Extreme Unction. In the first, the lapidary sentences are shuffled; further details about godparents are supplied; it is explained that baptism by the child's parents is permitted (which neither the Paris nor the Lérida statutes had mentioned although the practice was tolerated elsewhere at an earlier date) ;⁽¹¹³⁾ and provision for the baptism of an infant delivered by caesarean section -- with which both the other sets of statutes had dealt⁽¹¹⁴⁾ -- is omitted. Further on, the special efficacy of Confirmation is stressed,⁽¹¹⁵⁾ and the point is made that neither that sacrament nor Baptism was to be repeated, even if the Christian had meanwhile embraced the Jewish or Moorish faith -- a problem of immediate concern for the parish clergy of Southern Aragon though not for those of Northern France. Likewise Pedro addresses himself to the sacrament of Extreme Unction since 'nichil in ecclesiis observabatur', and provides for the annual renewal of chrism by the parish priests.⁽¹¹⁶⁾

The Paris statutes constantly obtrude, but there are some passages in the Summa which, as far as that source is concerned, do seem to be original. The list of penances in the section De Penitentia and the quotation from the Fourth Lateran Council via John of Abbeville ;⁽¹¹⁷⁾ the description of the sacrament of Matrimony involving Pedro and [76] Berta;⁽¹¹⁸⁾ certain passages on the Mass ;⁽¹¹⁹⁾ the liturgical instructions appended to the section De vita et honestate clerico rum ;⁽¹²⁰⁾ and the instructions regarding ordination:⁽¹²¹⁾ for these Eudes de Sully offers no precedent. Were they, though, of Pedro de Albalat's own invention? Or did he derive them from some other contemporary source? There were many in circulation, and the question which immediately poses itself is whether the most celebrated of them all, Raymond of Peñafort's Summa de Poenitentia, is the missing link or one of the missing links. Certainly the same severely practical aim inspires both Summae, Raymond's and Pedro's. Both were compiled for the instruction of the clergy in the parish, and particularly in the parish confessional, rather than in the schools.⁽¹²²⁾ Pedro chose the same tag from St Jerome to preface his piece on Penance as did Raymond.⁽¹²³⁾ The friars are accorded special honour by Pedro and recommended as confessors.⁽¹²⁴⁾ And Raymond is known to have been at hand when Pedro's Summa was promulgated at Barcelona in 1241 and to have co-operated with the archbishop on the inquisitorial manual.

For all this, though -- and, in truth, it does not amount to very much -- it cannot reasonably be maintained that the archbishop's Summa must have been inspired by Raymond, except in the sense that Pedro and Raymond breathed the same air and shared the same pastoral concern. Apart from the passages on penance, Raymundian literature offers no obvious source for those few sections of the Summa which depart from Pedro's normal authority.⁽¹²⁵⁾ It is just possible that [77] one of the verse Summulae, based on Raymond's work and in circulation by about the middle of the century, provided some of the material for the eucharistic section.⁽¹²⁶⁾ But it is highly implausible when the man himself was there, and furthermore, it is both pointless to speculate and graceless to imply that the archbishop -- Master Pedro -- was incapable of stringing together a series of fairly commonplace sentences without assistance, simply because he was surrounded by such a wealth of talent. What is both certain and important is that the archbishop was a friend of the canonist of and the Order, and that he sympathised with those developments in pastoral theology which, in the case of confession, considered the merits and personality the sinner when it came to imposing a penance upon him.⁽¹²⁷⁾ For this approach, with its attention to possibilitas and associated concepts, was what distinguished Pedro de Albalat from the morality of the market-place enshrined in the old penitentials which Raymond of Peñafort, although fully aware of the difficulties involved, was in favour of abandoning.⁽¹²⁸⁾ Not that the Dominicans enjoyed a monopoly of this spirit of emancipation from the letter that killeth.⁽¹²⁹⁾ Still it was the Dominicans, rather than the well-scrubbed Cistercians, who were Pedro's main props -- as may be seen by passing from the hazardous thickets of amateur textual criticism into the sunlit and more productive pastures of hard fact.

[78] By 1248 the province of Tarragona had five Dominican bishops, four of whom were closely associated with the convent of Santa Catalina at Barcelona, Raymond of Peñafort's base and the powerhouse of the Aragonese Church.⁽¹³⁰⁾ The year 1243, in which Pedro de Centelles was installed as bishop of Barcelona, saw also the death of the bishop of Vich, Bernardo Calvó, whose removal from the scene marked the end of an epoch. Though his personal sanctity was not in question, Bishop Bernardo had proved rather too other-worldly for the rough and tumble of a Catalan diocese, remaining so much of a Cistercian that he refused to make a will 'cum simus monachus',⁽¹³¹⁾ and presiding with his high principles intact over the financial shipwreck of his see. In July 1242 the archbishop had gone bail for him when he had been unable to raise a thousand solidi in payment of the papal quinta.⁽¹³²⁾ He was succeeded by Bernardo de Mur, archdeacon of Tremp in the church of Urgel, a man who had studied at Bologna and who followed the example of Pedro de Centelles by becoming a Dominican, apparently soon after his election.⁽¹³³⁾ The neighbouring see of Gerona was the third to receive a Dominican bishop when in December 1245 the chapter chose Berenguer de Castelbisbal, the prior of Santa Catalina, who twice already had come within touching distance of a bishopric -- as caretaker of Valencia before the dust had settled there in 1238, and as the beaten candidate at Barcelona in 1241.⁽¹³⁴⁾[79] He was King Jaime's confessor, and in the year after his election he became something of a celebrity when he allowed his tongue to wag too freely and the king caused it to be cut out.⁽¹³⁵⁾ It is not known whether the archbishop was active in the promotion of the bishops of Vich and Gerona, but the capitular choice can hardly have displeased him, for when, in 1248, he was twice presented with an opportunity of appointing suffragans, a Dominican received the palm on each occasion. At Lérida, with the assistance of Raymond of Peñafort, he nominated Guillermo de Barberá, prior of Santa Catalina, to succeed his own successor. That was in March.⁽¹³⁶⁾ And seven months later when, on the translation of Arnaldo de Peralta to Zaragoza, the chapter of Valencia entrusted the appointment of a successor to him and two of their canons, stipulating that if it were to be an outsider then they must confine their choice to a short-list of nine, at the head of which was the archbishop's brother, Andrés de Albalat, Andrés it was who was selected.⁽¹³⁷⁾

The promotion of Dominicans to these five sees reflected the extraordinary vitality of the Order. They were working wonders on the frontier.⁽¹³⁸⁾ It also provided a basis for further expansion. Berenguer of Gerona followed the archbishop's example by founding a convent in his own episcopal city.⁽¹³⁹⁾ But it was as pastoral bishops, as heads of reform, that the friars contributed most. At Barcelona a diocesan synod was held even before the election of Pedro de Centelles had been confirmed. On the feast of St Luke 1242 -- the first anniversary of the archbishop's synod -- the archdeacon issued a set of constitutions concerned mainly with annual confession and the detection of heresy.⁽¹⁴⁰⁾ Encouraging though this activity was, however, it was as nothing in comparison with that of Pedro de Centelles who in March 1244, within five months of his induction by the archbishop, [80] held a synod which dealt with the whole gamut of reform, and ordered the parochial clergy to secure copies of the statutes of John of Abbeville and of the archbishop and to have learnt them by the following June. In January 1245 he issued another lengthy set of synodal statutes in the same vein, and published new legislation of his own which dealt with a great variety of issues, amongst which were markets, pimps and prostitutes -- particularly those who plied for hire in the streets, who were given eight days to pack their bags and leave.⁽¹⁴¹⁾Clerici concubinarii received short shrift, as was consistent, and were reminded of the legate's penalties -- suspension and excommunication.⁽¹⁴²⁾ The same old problem engaged the attention of Bishop Guillermo of Lérida, though in his diocese a system of fines was introduced.⁽¹⁴³⁾ At Vich Bernardo de Mur concentrated upon liturgical matters,⁽¹⁴⁴⁾ and at Valencia Bishop Andrés managed to combine his activity in the royal chancery with his pastoral role by summoning various synods at which he waged a relentless if losing battle against clerics who drank more than was good for them, wore outrageous clothes, bequeathed church property to their children and grew their hair so that it covered their ears.⁽¹⁴⁵⁾ If, alone, Berenguer of Gerona failed to distinguish himself in one way or another, allowance must be made for him as a victim of royal persecution which (as he at least appears to have thought) coveted more of him than just his tongue.⁽¹⁴⁶⁾
 

[81] At the Council of Lérida in 1229 John of Abbeville had ruled that the annual provincial council be held three weeks after Easter, on Jubilate Sunday, and the diocesan synod on the feast of St Luke, 18 October.⁽¹⁴⁷⁾ In general this rule was observed. But as regards the synod its inflexibility was a severe disadvantage, for when 18 October fell on a Sunday -- as in 1243 and 1248 -- it had the effect of depriving the faithful of their mass. Priests could not be in two places at once, in their parish churches and at the bishop's synod. In 1242 the archdeacon of Barcelona obeyed instructions to the letter, with the result that the diocesan clergy were away from their parishes at the weekend:⁽¹⁴⁸⁾ an arrangement which missed the point stressed in the Summa -- that the people should not lack pastoral care and the sacraments.⁽¹⁴⁹⁾ The synod was planned to last three days, according to the provincial formulary which seems to belong to this period ;⁽¹⁵⁰⁾ and since, as the Lérida statutes testify, there was a tendency for clerics to make something of a holiday of it,⁽¹⁵¹⁾ John of Abbeville's directive was normally modified in order to avoid such a clash.⁽¹⁵²⁾

The pastoral consequences of holding the provincial council on a Sunday were far less serious, and with one exception -- the council of January 1244 or 1245⁽¹⁵³⁾ -- Pedro de Albalat adhered to the legate's [82] ruling until the year 1247. The council too was a three-day affair, and in accordance with the provincial formulary the conciliar statutes were issued on either the Monday or the Tuesday after Jubilate Sunday⁽¹⁵⁴⁾ down to 1247, when for entirely practical reasons, the customary date was shifted back six weeks. Three weeks after Easter was also the date of the Tarragona fair, and the cathedral city simply lacked sufficient accommodation to cope with both events at the same time. So the council was moved.⁽¹⁵⁵⁾

During the last four years of his life Pedro's provincial councils seem to have been less concerned with the issue of reform upon which his earlier assemblies had concentrated. At least no such constitution has survived from these years.⁽¹⁵⁶⁾ But this apparent interruption does not imply any cooling of enthusiasm or hardening of the arteries. Quite the contrary, it is an indication of Pedro's achievement. By 1247-8 the inheritance which he had received from John of Abbeville could be passed on with confidence to the new trustees, the bishops of the province, whose own testing time came in July 1251 when the death of their master exposed them to an entirely different climate. That climate and their performance are considered in the following chapter.

1. VL, XIX, 259.

2. Argáiz, Soledad laureada, II, fo. 53 vb.

3. Below, p. 161.

4. Beer, Handschriften, 69.

5. Cf. VL, XX, 32 ff.; Arco, El arzobispo don Antonio Agustín.

6. Tejada, Colección, III, 349 ff.; VI, 29 ff., in addition to the works of Marca, Aguirre and Villanuño. Cf. also Fita's perceptive article in BRAH, XL, correcting discrepancies in the dating of the councils of 1248-50.

7. VL, I, 84-5. Cf. ibid. X, 195-213; XX, 72-6. Neither Finke's Konzilienstudien nor Valls i Taberner's article in AST, XI, does more than provide a résumé of Tejada.

8. Tejada, VI, 30: De constitutionibus domini Sabinensis servandis.

9. Frizon, Gallia Purpurata, 213.

10. He was auditor of the charges against the bishop of Vich in 1232, and of disputes between the archbishop of Toledo and the Order of Santiago, and between the bishop of Barcelona and the monastery of San Cugat del Vallés: above, p. 43; Lomax, Hispania, XIX, 334-5; Ríus Serra, Cartulario de San Cugat, III, 450.

11. Cf. H. R. Trevor-Roper, Religion, the Reformation and Social Change (London, 1967),104-13.

12. Ventura Subirats, BRABL, XXVIII, 88.

13. VL, XI, 72; Reg. Hon. III, 1958, 2466-7(MDH, 215,286-7).

14. VL, loc. cit.

15. AC Seo de Urgel, d.s.n., publ.. Linehan, AEM, forthcoming.

16. AC Seo de Urgel, d.s.n., several extracts published in Linehan, loc. cit.

17. Ibid.: 'Et finto Te Deum Laudamus dicta fuit oratio per sacristam Ilerdensem'; 'Gombaldus de Acuta. . . dixit quod fama publica est in ecclesia Urgellensi quod sacrista [Urgellensis] fecit interfeci unam mulam et alteram vulneran magistni P. deAlbalato.'

18. AC Lérida, caj. 202, no. 569: Cum a nobis, 23 Dec. 1230.

19. AC Seo de Urgel, d.s.n., publ. Linehan, AEM, loc. cit. The letter is dated Roma in crastina Cinerum. It is clear from the context that it must belong either to 1231 or 1232; and the morrow of Ash Wednesday (6 Feb.) 1231 maybe preferred, since on the corresponding day in 1232 (25 Feb.) the Curia was not at Rome. Cf. Potthast, I, 743, 762 (ad dies 29 Jan.-7 Feb. 1231; 21-8 Feb. 1232).

20. AC Vich, 37-1-17: Ex parte.

21. Potthast, 8659.

22. Vida del Illmo SrD. Felix Amat, appendix, 162-3.

23. Though Finistres in the eighteenth century had shown that Pedro was not a member of the Order, Villanueva thought it necessary to disprove what he took to be the contrary view of 'los historiadores de aquella casa'; and in 1967 Burns referred to him as 'a Cistercian monk': Historia de Poblet, II, 242; VL, XVI, 135; Crusader Kingdom of Valencia, I, 215.

24. ES, XLVII, 22-5.

25. Reg. Greg. IX, 1888 (April 1234); 2838 (Nov. 1235); Beer, Handschriften, 68, n. 2. For Pedro as apostolic visitor of exempt monasteries in the early 1230s, see Tobella and Mundó, Analecta Montserratensia, X, 427 ff.

26. VL, XVI, 294-6, describing him as 'hominem utique cui aetatis maturitas, morum gravitas et competens quinnimo eminens litterarum scientia suifragatur'.

27. Ibid.115; J. Lladonosa Pujol, 'Proyección urbana de Lérida durante el reinado de Alfonso el Casto', VII. CHCA, II(1962), 200-2.

28. AC Lérida, caj. 218: Constitutiones Ecclesie Ilerdensis, fos. 2v-5r (another copy in AC Seo de Urgel, cod. 2119, fos. 45v-9r), at fos. 3r, 4V. This refers to the 'generalem ordinationem concernentem fundamentum et universum statum Ecclesie Illerdensis tam in capite quam in membriis', which Sáinz de Baranda failed to locate (ES, XLVII, 24), but which was mentioned by Villanueva (VL, XVI, 136).

29. Ibid.fo.4v.

30. Ibid. fos. 3v-4r: 'Statuimus eciam quod dimidia porcio uni magistro scolarum perpetuo concedatur qui in grammatica regat et doceat et cuius deffectum non modicum imminere nunc usque inventum est studere volentibus detrimentum.'

31. VL, XIX, 180; Junyent, AST, XXIII, 150.

32. Reg. Greg. IX, 3708; 3776

33. Ibid. 3775 (=orig. reg. Pérez Martínez, AA, XI, 164, no. 3: publ. VL, XXI, 286-7); 3777 (publ. Rius Serra, San Raimundo: Diplomatário, 50-1; Junyent, Diplomatari de Sant Bernat Calvó, no. 109). They chose Raimundo de Torrelles (cf. VL, XXI, 125 ff.) and the distinguished lawyer, Vidal de Canellas, respectively. Arco assumed that Vidal was elected by the chapters of Huesca and Jaca: BRABL, VIII, 465-6. Cf. Durán Gudiol, HS, XII, 299-300.

34. Raymond's refusal occurred after Gregory IX, in Feb. 1234, had rejected the chapter's election of Bishop Berenguer of Barcelona, and Cardinal Gil Torres had declined in the following June: VL, XIX, 180-1. The account of later developments in Morera Llauradó, Tarragona cristiana, II, 272-3, requires revision. By Sept. 1234 Guillermo de Mongrí, ex-sacrist of Gerona, was archbishop-elect (Reg. Greg. IX, 2103); but he too was uninterested, and preferred to return to Gerona and the enjoyment of what he had been awarded for leading the assault on Ibiza (Chronicle of James of Aragon, 219-20). This was granted in April 1236 (Reg. Greg. IX, 3093), not April 1238 (as Morera, II, appendix 21) or Aug. 1237 (as Fita, BRAH, XL, 339- 40). However, Guillermo continued as procurator of the church until Feb. 1237 when St Raymond was directed to take charge and make arrangements for election by the chapter (Reg. Greg. IX, 3473-4). Two days before, on 5 Feb., Guillermo had been granted as spoil the property of those who traded illicitly with the Moors, and it is significant that he arranged for the address of the rescript to be amended to mark his definitive break with Tarragona: 'Petit quod scribatur sacniste Gerundensi eodem modo quo Mc scribitur procuratoni electo Tarraconensi/ Supp(licat) sacrista Gerundensis' (AE Gerona, caixa 6-16 Reg. Greg. IX, 3491). Burns assumes that Guillermos 'prelacy' continued until 1238: I, 38.

35. Reg. Greg. IX, 4072.

36. Sanchis Sivera, La diócesis valentina, II, 364.

37. Fita dates Berenguer's appointment 28 Sept., the very day on which the city was taken, according to Ibn al-Abbâr: BRAH, XL, 351 Ghedira, Al-Andalus, XXII, 33; Ubieto Arteta, Ligarzas, I, 161 ff.

38. In an indulgence which he granted to the church of S. Sepulcro, Calatayud: Sagarra, AST, V, 198; Lafuente, ES, XLIX, 416. Sagarra suggests that the unusual form dei gratia (rather than dei gracia) may mean that the seal, upon which he is so described, is a forgery. In the summer of 1968 the document, unfortunately, could not be found in the Archivo Histórico Nacional. On no other occasion is Pedro described as legate.

39. Namely, the bishops of Barcelona, Gerona, Vich, Urgel, Lérida, Tortosa and Huesca: a good turn-out, since the sees of Zaragoza and Pamplona were vacant, and the bishop of Valencia was in the throes of organisation. There were only two culpable absentees: the bishops of Tarazona and Calahorra.

40. AC Gerona, Llibre Vert, fo. 300r-v; AC Barcelona, Libro de la Cadena, fo.46ra-b.

41. Tejada, VI, 30-1. Tejada also published a set of constitutions 'ex MS. Colbertino' which he took to be John of Abbeville's constitutions as reissued in 1239; III, 367-73. But from internal evidence they must be regarded as a later concoction, as was realised by Finke, who dismissed them as a Mischmasch: Konzilienstudien, 68.

42. Ibid. cap. 7-8.

43. Ibid. VI, 32.

44. The record of which was published by Arco, BRABL,X-XI, 85-7, but with the date -- 'II non. januarii anno domini MCCXXXoctavo' -- misinterpreted as 1238, before Pedro's promotion. Similarly, idem, BRABL, IX, 227; Durán Gudiol, HS, XII, 301.

45. Ibid. 86. Cf. Lér. c. 24-6 for exact parallels; and above, p. 24, for the legate's visit to Huesca.

46. AC Vich, 37-I-19:publ. VL, VII, 249-51.

47. BRABL, X-XI, 87; 'ordinationes vero. . . vestro arbitrio duximus relinquendas, ut in executione ipsarum, secundum quod procedendum videritis, procedatis': VL, VII, 250.

48. AHN, 2249/19: decree Significarunt, 29 April 1262. The new cathedral was not established, however, until the eighteenth century when, according to Richard Ford, it was not the laity who pressed for change. 'The steep walk proved too much for the stall-fed canons, whose affections were not set on things above': Handbook for Travellers in Spain (London, 1845), II, 971. Cf. M. Herrera y Gés, La catedral antigua de Lérida (Lérida, 1948).

49. AA Zaragoza, 5/1/7.

50. Arruego, Catedra episcopal, 724-7.

51. Arco, BRABL, X-XI, 87.

52. AC Tortosa, caj. Constituciones, 4 (dated 28 Feb. 1244, addressed to Bishop Ponce, and referring to a recent visitation).

53. AC Valencia, doc. 2310 (reg. Olmos Canalda, Pergaminos,88).

54. Ibid. He confirmed the bishop and chapter's ordinatio super divisione patrimonii et creacione dignitatum, 'hoc excepto: quod primicie omnes parrochialibus ecclesiis relinquntur ut rectores earum inde valeant commode sustentan'.

55. AHA, Thesaurus, fo. 463: constitution De divino officio observando (31 Jan. 1249); AC Valencia, doc. 2310. Similar allowance was made at Zamora by Bishop Martín, 'nisi sit festum': AC Zamora, Líber Constitutionum, fo. 8rb.

56. AC Valencia, doc. 2310. Cf. 1242 Council, c. 4, De celebratione officii: Tejada, VI, 35.

57. Ibid.VI,36.

58. Ibid.VI, 37. Bishop Ferrer of Valencia would have been there, had he not been intercepted by Moors while en route and murdered: Burns, I, 24.

59. Cf. Lafuente, ES, XLIX, 166 ff. He was, however, still alive in November 1254: García Larragueta, El Gran Priorado, II, 358.

60. In 1243 and 1249. His proctor on the earlier occasion was the archdeacon of Tarazona, Martín Pérez, who was one of the outsiders whom the chapter of Valencia were prepared to accept as bishop in Oct. 1248. In 1244-5 he was tercius iudex in lawsuits concerning the monasteries of Leyre and San Millán de la Cogolla: AC Valencia, doc. 1318 (Olmos,190); Reg. Inn. IV, 444 (=AHN, 1407/9) Férotin, Recueil des chartes de l'abbaye de Silos, 189.

61. AHN, 3592/ 16. The date of Innocent's letter Cum sicut -- 'Perusii, 2 non. julii armo 9' -- may have been miscopied. Cf. Potthast, II,1185, 1208.

62. VL, V, 86-90; Reg. Hon. III, 1643; 2294; 2480 (MDH, 191; 259; 288).

63. It was not until 1250 that be spoiled an unbroken record; and the 1250 Council was essentially a political assembly, summoned to excommunicate the king of Navarre: Tejada, VI, 47-8; Fita, BRAH, XL, 444.

64. 'Attendentes quod redditus et proventus camere eiusdem ecclesie sunt per nos adeo augmentati': AC Tortosa, caj. Común del Cabildo I, 31. In 1270 the payment was increased to 170 solidi: ibid. 25.

65. AC Tortosa, caj. Del Camarero, 12; caj. Del Sacrista I, 39 (27 July 1250).

66. See Ch. 5 below. The earliest record of a Tortosa synod dates from 1274: VL, V, 283-4.

67. AC Huesca, 2-317; publ. Arco, BRABL, VIII, 514.

68. Arco, BRABL, VIII, 463 ff; idem, BRABL, IX, 221 ff.

69. Reg. Inn. IV, 2703; 3240; AC Huesca, 6-189 (reg. Durán Gudiol, AA, VII, no. 75).

70. His successor, Domingo de Sola, incorporated Vidal's constitutions in his own legislation: Ramón de Huesca, Teatro histórico, VI, 236. Vidal borrowed and quoted the constitutions of Bishop Vicente of Zaragoza's 1243 synod: AC Jaca, Libro de la Cadena I, fo. Ir. Cf. Arco, BRABL, IX, 89.

71. Reg. Greg. IX, 3977; Hergueta, RABM, XVII, 415-16; Bujanda, Episcopologio calagurritano, 16.

72. Tejada, VI. 30. The legislation is published by Bujanda, Berceo, I, 121 ff. It includes provisions concerning clerical dress (c. 12, 18-20, 33); pastoral responsibility; annual penance; knowledge of the Pater Noster and Credo (c. 4-5, II, 13-14); pluralism (c.25); tithes (c. 9, 32, 36, 38-42, 44); clerical involvement in secular affairs (c. 48-9); monastic seizure of parochial income (c. 43); and custody of the Sacrament (c. 51).

73. Ibid. c. 31.

74. Ibid. c. 15-16, 52; and c. 2, 6, 8, 17, 29.

75. In the course of a hearing of the Ordinatio Valentina by Cardinal Otto of Porto at Lyons, 17 March 1246, the Tarragona proctor mentioned that 'archiepiscopus Tarraconensis celebravit synodum apud Pampilonam sede vacante de consensu capituli Pampilonensis' at which pluralists had been excommunicated 'iuxta constitutionem domini Sabinensis editam in concilio Ylerdensi': AC Toledo, X.2.K.I.12. It may be inferred from AHN, cod. 987B, fos. 171vb, 174vb, that the synod occurred before the provincial council of April 1239.

76. Reg. Greg. IX, 5020 (the Register entry is written over an erasure); Goñi Gaztambide, Príncipe de Viana, XVIII, 95-7. The Toledo claim had been discussed at the Tours Council of 1163, and was certainly revived in 1244: Chronica Roberti de Torigneio, 219-20; AHA, Index dels Indices, fo. 31v.

77. For the former's efforts to replace the Black Monks of Leyre with Cistercians, cf. Goñi Gaztambide, Príncipe de Viana,XVII, 116 ff. In 1248 the General Chapter of the Order considered the latter's request 'de uno monacho et tribus conversis secum habendis': Canivez, Statuta, II, 329. Cf. also, Hergueta, RABM, XVII, 416.

78. Cocheril, SM, I, 82; idem, AEM, I, 238-9.

79. Part. 1.7.27 (Academy ed. I, 315): BM Add. MS. 20787, fos. 59rb-va; Canivez, III, 201 (ad an. 1280).

80. 'La Reconquista avanza pero los monjes no tienen mucho empeño por descender hacia el sur' : Los monjes españoles, II, 527. Cf. Cocheril, Études sur le monachisme, map after p. 440.

81. Cit.. Defourneaux, Les Français en Espagne, 52.

82. RAH, MS. 9-24-5/4558, fo. 193v.

83. Eydoux, Cîteaux in de Nederlanden, V, 175, whose list of foundations corrects that of Janauschek in Originum Cisterciensium, 299 ff. See also Cocheril, 372-6; Burns, I, 214 ff.

84. Junyent, Diplomatari de Sant Bernat Calvó, XXXVIII.

85. Canivez, II, 276; AC Barcelona, Libro de la Cadena, fo.129ra.

86. Raimundo died at Lyons in 1247, en route for the General Chapter at Cîteaux, according to Finistres, II, 311.

87. AA Zaragoza, 5/1/7: 'Item constat nobis per episcopum et per alios fidedignos quod clerici in sinodo fuerant amoniti ut in suis ecclesiis residerent'; Argáiz, II, 219r-v. For his election, see Vida del.. .D. Felix Amat, 158 (appendix); for the constitutions of the 1243 synod, Arco, BRABL, IX, 89.

88. See Llorente, Historia de la Inquisición, I, 51-3; Lea, History, II, 162-6; Maisonneuve, Études sur les origines, 275-7. Archbishop Sparago expressed concern in 1230 and received assistance from the Carthusians: Tejada, VI, 28; VL, X1X, 3 10-11. Not even the Cistercians were above suspicion (Canivez, II, 159), and in Feb. 1235 King Jaime issued legislation on the subject: Tejada, III, 362-6 (the date of which cannot have been Feb. 1234, as in Tejada, since Guillermo de Mongrí was present as archbishop-elect: cf. VL, XIX, 180). In AA Zaragoza (1/2/2) there is an exemplar of Gregory IX's capitula of Feb. 1231 'contra hereticos et fautores heresum'. Cf. Reg. Greg. IX, 539; Maisonneuve, 245-6.

89. Morder, Histoire des Maîtres Généraux, I, 274-5.

90. Ibid. I, 276 ff.

91. VL, XVII, 337-41; Reg. Inn. IV, 3; Puig y Puig, Episcopologio de la sede barcinonense, 200-2. The date of Bishop Berenguer's death is variously given, as 23 Aug., 24 Aug. and 1 Sept: Puig, 198; VL, XVII, 211, 337. The king's approval of Bishop Pedro had been withdrawn by Sept. 1244; ACA, Bulas, leg. VII-3 (reg. Miquel Rosell, Regesta, 112).

92. Dondaine, AFP, XVI, 96. The synod would seem the likeliest occasion for its publication. Douais published the document in Moyen Âge, m, 3 15-25, and dated it late 1241-early 1242; Lea, II, 167, and Maisonneuve, 287, favour 1242; and Valls i Taberner, Obras selectas, I, ii, 305, places it 'en la segunda mitad del año de 1241, O, acaso, en 1242'.

93. Douais, 313, and Lea, loc. cit., suggest that it was a joint enterprise; Valls i Taberner, loc. cit., makes Raymond the outright author. For Guillermo's difficulties, see Reg.Greg. IX, 2531; Lea, 164.

94. Ed. Linehan, HS, XXII, 9 ff., q.v., for description of the MSS. See also Linehan, Studies in Church History, VII, 101-11. References to the Summa in the following pages are to the copy in AC Barcelona, Libro de la Cadena, fos. 127ra-30va.

95. RAH, MS. 9-24-5/4558, fos. 171r-8v.

96. Collectio Maxima Conciliorum, V, 197-202.

97. Ibid. 202: 'Ista mandavit dominus archiepiscopus Tarraconensis observari in synodo per eum celebrata in sede Barchinonensi, sede vacante, anno domini 1241 in die S. Lucae Evangelistae.' For variations in the Valencia version, see ed. cit., HS, XXII. One of the more interesting is the reduction from three to two of the number of  godparents permitted: a restriction designed to promote the growth of the Christian population on the frontier by minimising the bonds of spiritual affinity.

98. 'Idem per omnia dicimus et sub eadem poena fieri mandamus de tractatu septem sacramentorum edito per venerabilem archiepisopum praedecessorem dominum P.... Tarraconensis ecclesiae': BC Valencia, MS. 163 (cf. Olmos, Códices, 122). Aguirre, V, 197, has praedecessorem domini, viz. Archbishop Sparago or Guillermo de Mongrí. I am grateful to Don Ramón Robles, canónigo archivero of Valencia, for verifying this point for me.

99. Cf. VL, XVI, 141-2, 308-10.

100. Reg. Inn. IV, 4172. The date of his profession is not known, but the Lérida convent was founded 'much before' 1230, according to Diago, Historia de la Provincia de Aragón, fo. 147v.

101. Publ. VL, XVI, 297-308 (undated).

102. Cf. Cheney, English Synodalia, 55-6, 82-4; idem, EHR, LXXV, 1, ff.

103. Of note, among the passages in Raimundo's statutes which figure neither in the Paris statutes nor in the Summa, is the chapter De racionariis which dealt with a particular local abuse -- the lay prebendary: VL, XIV, 303. See above, p.44.

104. E.g. to the injunction that the sacrament be kept 'sub clave' (Paris, cap. V. 7 [PL. 212, 60C]), both add 'si fieri potest' (Summa, fo. 128vb; VL, XVI, 299); abstention ' ab omni peccato' rather than 'ab omni mortali' as condition of absolution (Summa, fo. 128ra; VL, XVI, 300. Cf. Paris, cap. VI. 8 [PL. 212, 61C]); annual rather than six-monthly synods (Summa, fo. 127rb; VL, XVI, 297. Cf. Paris, cap. II [PL.212, 58C]).

105. Summa, fos. 128rb, 130ra. There are many instances of verbal parallels between the Lérida statutes and the Paris statutes which do not occur in the Summa and some instances of parallels between the Summa and the Paris statutes which do not occur in the Lérida statutes. E.g. -- respectively -- the obligation on the clergy to come to the synod 'et si gravi infirmitae detenti, aut alia necessitate inevitabili, venire non potuerint' to send their chaplains (Paris, cap. II 6[PL. 212, 59A]; VL, XVI, 2970, but 'necessitate canonica' in Summa, fo. 127rb; the hearing of confession 'in spiritu lenitatis' in Paris, cap. VI. 3 [PL. 212, 61A]; Summa, fo. 127vb. (actually 'in spiritu levitatis' in MS.), but 'in spiritu humilitatis' in VL, XVI, 300. But we may acccount for these apparent inconsistencies by assuming that both Raimundo and Pedro, independently, had the Paris statutes before them.

106. Sáinz de Baranda, in ES, XLVII, 175, dates them 1240.

107. VL, XVI, 307-8. The injunction that each priest have 'unum manutergium. . .circa altare ad tergendum os et nares, si fuerit necesse' is, however, based on Eudes de Sully, Communia praecepta, 27. Cf. PL. 212, 65D.

108. Artonne, BEC, CVIII, 71. See also Cheney, Synodalia, 40 ff.

109. Aguirre, V, 206.

110. VL, XVII, 212.

111. Fo. 128rb: 'Alioquin procedat in pena secundum formam concilii generalis, que talis est: Vivens arcebitur ab introitu ecclesie et moriens carebit ecclesiastica sepultura.'Cf. IV Lat. can. 21 and Conc. Lérida, can.II (ES, XLVIII, 314): 'et viyens ab ingressu ecclesiae arceatur, et moriens christiana [Lérida: ecclesiastica]careat sepultura'.

112. E.g. the Lérida prohibition on priests who treat the annual synod as an occasion for an illicit holiday among the flesh-pots of the cathedral city appears (felix culpa!) in the section headed De multis infortuniis quae eveniunt in celebrando: VL, XVI, 305. Cf. Paris, Communia praecepta, 26 [PL. 212, 65C-D]. The Lérida statutes deal with the sacraments in the same order as the Paris statutes; the Summa adopts a different order.

113. E.g. Westminster, 1200, c. 3: D. Wilkins, Concilia Magnae Brittaniae et Hiberniae, I (London, 1737), 505; Canterbury I, 1213/14, c. 29: Powicke-Cheney, Councils and Synods, I, 31.

114. PL. 212, 63D; VL, XVI, 303-4.

115. Summa, fo. 127vb.

116. Fo. 128va.

117. Fos. 128ra, 128rb.

118. Summa, Fo. 129rb.

119. Fos. 128vb-9ra. Here though, certain features of the Paris statutes have been incorporated, and others which had been incorporated in the Lérida statutes have been excluded. Spitting, for example, did not concern Pedro. Cf. PL. 212, 65D-6A; VL, XVI, 306 (the celebrant to abstain from spitting after his communion; 'sin autem in piscina suaviter spuatur').

120. Fo. 130ra-b.

121. Fo. 129va-b.

122. Summa de Poenitentia, prologue Ad lectorem: '...ut si quando fratres ordinis nostri, vel alli circa judicium animarum in foro poenitentiali forsitan dubitaverint, per ipsius exercitium, tam in consiliis quam in judicibus, quaestiones multas et casus varios ac difficiles et perplexos valeant enodare'. See also Teetaert, AST, IV, 141 ff.; P. Michaud Quantin, 'A propos des premiéres Summae Confessorum', RTAM, XXVI (1959), 264-306; García y García, REDC, XVIII, 238: 'no es un manual para las aulas universitarias, sino para los confesores'.

123. Summa, fo. 127vb; Summa de Poenitentia, I: 'Quia penitentia est secunda tabula post naufragium.'

124. Fos. 128rb, 130ra.

125. Summa de Poenitentia, 463-4, deals with the question of interrogation of the penitent and satisfaction, and urges the priest to teach the penitent the basic Christian prayers. Cf. Summa, fos. 127vb-8ra, 129vb. But this material could equally well have been derived from Eudes de Sully: PL. 212, 60D-1A.

126. See, for example, the verse Summula (Cologne, 1495, begins: '[S]ummula de Summa Raymundi prodiit ista: non ex subtili sed vili scnibimus istam'), xxx(r) ff., on the procedure to be followed if the consecrated host is vomited; which problem also engaged St Raymond and Pedro de Albalat: Summa de Poenitentia, 476; Summa, fo. 129ra. Raymond's Summa was written in 1222-5 and revised in 12346 (see Kuttner in ZSSR, kan. Abt., XXXIX, 419 ff.), and it is not clear whether metrical versions were current as early as 1241. One of the earliest of these versions was the work of the Cistercian, Arnoul de Louvain, c. 1250: Chronica Villariensis monasterii, ed. G. Waitz, MGH, Scriptores XXV (Hanover, 1880), 208.

127. Summa, fo. 128ra: 'in iniungendis penitentiis caveant sacerdotes quod secundum qualitatem culpe et possibilitatem confitentium eis iniungant...'.

128. Summa de Poenitentia, 472-3, 478: 'et hanc ultimam opiniarem videtur amplecti consuetudo: prima tamen est tutior, licet difficilior.' For the morality of the marketplace in contemporary Castile, see below, p. 319.

129. It was present, for example, in the Liber Poenitentialis written soon after 1215 by the Victorine Pierre de Poitiers. See C. R. Cheney, 'La date de composition du "Liber Poenitentialis" attribué à Pierre de Poitiers', RTAM, IX (1937), 401-4.

130. Diago, Historia de la Provincia de Aragón, fo. 103r ff.; Denifle, ALKG, II, 202-3 241-8; Kaeppeli, AFP, XXXVII, 47-80.

131. VL, VII, 256-7; Junyent, 250 ff.

132. Junyent, 238. In Jan. 1234 he was forced to borrow from Pedro Mironis and Raimundo de Cardona of Vich 'tria milia solidorum barcinonensium.. . ad solvendum pecuniam quam nos pro facto nostri et monasterii Rivipulli (Ripoll) debemus mercatoribus florentinis', which debt was due for repayment at Easter (12 April). By then his resources were slender, to judge by the security offered 'equum Raymundi de Vallforti de pilo tag [?] et equum Bernardi de Plano de pilo nigro et mulam Peyroni. . . et nostram capellam et viginti quinque marchas argenti' AC Vich, 6-II-66. Pedro de Albalat had all the goods of the mensa episcopalis as security, and the debt to him was still unsettled in Dec. 1250: Junyent, 257; AC Vich, 6-III-5.

133. VL, VII, 33; Diago, fo. 109v. He had succeeded Ponce de Vilamur as archdeacon Tremp on the latter's promotion to Urgel in 1230 (AC Vich, 6-II-77; 6-II-84): a reward, doubtless, for having withstood the efforts of the sacrist of Urgel to wean him from Ponce's party at the time of the election, 'cum si hoc faceret magnum commodum esset ipsius B. de Muro et posset semper facere quicquid vellet in ecclesia Urgellensi' - as Berenguer de Mediano remembered having heard the sacrist promise: AC Seo de Urgel, d.s.n. (cit. above, p. 56).

134. VL, XIII, 174.

135. VL, XIII, 175-7; Reg. Inn. IV, 1992. Matthew Paris got wind of the incident: Chronica Majora, IV, 578-9.

136. VL, XVI, 141-2, 308-l0.

137. AC Valencia, doc. 1318 (reg. Olmos, Pergaminos, 190). The second and third names on the short-list, it may be noted, were both those of Cistercians -- the abbots of Veruela and Benifazá.

138. 'Propter terre novitatem et sacerdotum raritatem' (Bishop Ferrer's words in a charter of Nov. 1242 to the Order of the Sepulchre), there was plenty for them to do there; and plenty was done by very small numbers: AD Barcelona, Pergaminos de S. Ana, d.s.n; Burns, Crusader Kingdom, I, 174-5; idem, Speculum, XXXV, 346, 350.

139. VL, XIII, 177-8; XIX, 311-12 ('ad instantiam et preces fratris Andreae de Albalato', Nov. 1248).

140. AC Barcelona, Libro de la Cadena, fo. 133ra-b.

141. Publ;. VL, XVII, 341-50; but lacking the later part of the second synod, the constitutions of which are in AC Barcelona, Libro de la Cadena, fos. 132va-3ra, q.v. for the prohibition on prostitutes and on the hiring of premises -- operatoria -- to them (fo.132vb).

142. VL, XVII, 346.

143. VL, XVI, 311. Whether this was done before or after Cardinal Gil's decision of 1251 is not clear.

144. AC Vich, cod. 147. fo. Ir-v (Feb. 1252).

145. Aguirre, V, 205 ff.

146. Berenguer had taken refuge at the Curia by Nov. 1246, to judge by the endorsements on papal privileges in his favour which were renewed at that time (AE Gerona, 6/59; 6/60). He was neither present nor represented at the provincial council of April 1247 (Tejada, VI, 44). He died at Naples, still with the Curia, on 6: Feb. 1255, not 1254 -- as Eubel, Hierarchia, I, 261, following VL, XIII, 178 -- or 1264 -- as Burns, I, 22. Cf. his will, publ.(and misdated) in ES, XLIV, 21, 277-9, and the Libri Anniversariorum of the Dominican convent of Gerona (which he founded) and of Barcelona: Garganta, AIEC, VI, 143 Alcalde, Homenatge a Antoni Rubió i Lluch,. II, 529. The set of synodal statutes which are attributed to him by Pontich, Synodales gerundenses, 145-9 Villanueva, RAH, MS. 62 (9-19-4), sin. pag; and Merino and La Canal, ES, XLIV, 18-20, were in fact published by his successor, apparently for the first time, in Oct. 1257: Mansi, XXIII, 927-31.

147. ES, XLVIII, 309.

148. 18 Oct. 1242 being a Saturday: AC Barcelona, Libro de la Cadena, fo. 133ra.

149. Summa, fo. 130ra.

150. Forma de sancta sinodo celebranda: AC Gerona, Llibre Vert, fo. 300r; AC Barcelona, Libro de la Cadena, fo. 46rb.

151. '...ne nimis festinent venire Ilerdam occasione synodi, nec magnam faciant moram sic se visitando et reficiendo tam in via quam in civitate': VL, XVI, 305. See also Summa, fo. 127rb.

152. At Valencia the synod was held 'tertia feria post festum S. Lucae' in 1255, 1258, 1261 and 1262: Aguirre, V, 197, 205-6. At Gerona 'synodus semper celebretur in IV feria ante festum B. Lucae': Mansi, XXIII, 931. For practice elsewhere, and further literature, see Cheney, Synodalia, 15-19.

153. Valls i Taberner, AST, XI, 258, maintains that the council which Tejada, VI, 39-41, dates 12 Jan. 1244, occurred in fact in Jan. 1245. There is evidence both for and against this revision. In Dec. 1251 the abbot and convent of Veruela referred to its constitution Cum quidem (against lay aggression on ecclesiastics) as 'constitutionem editam apud Tarrachonam in concilio provinciali ... prid. id. januarii anno domini MCCXXXXIIII', i.e. 1245: ARN, 3767/14. However, when, sometime in the period 1309-15, the chapter of Valencia acquired authorised copies ('scriptis et registratis in registro domini :Tarraconensis archiepiscopi') of both Cum quidem and Olim excommunicasse (May 1246: Tejada, VI, 43), the former was said to have been issued 'in quinto concilio Tarraconensi celebrato anno domini millesimo ducentisimo quadragesimo tertio, prid. id januarii', i.e. 1244: AC Valencia, doc. 8987 (reg. Olmos, Pergaminos, 127, misdated). To whichever year it belonged there must have been some special reason for holding a council in the unaccustomed month of January. The reason may have been royal taxation of the church, and in this regard there is support for the earlier date, 1244, in Innocent IVs letter of May 1244 reprimanding King Jaime for demanding monetagium from the Aragonese Church, 'licet idem archiepiscopus (Pedro de Albalat) affectatis sibi quibusdam suifraganeis suis' had urged him not to do so: ACA, Bulas, leg. VII-I (reg. Miquel, 110).

154. Monday 18 April 1239; Tuesday 8 May 1240; Tuesday 13 May 1242; Tuesday 5 May 1243; Tuesday 1 May 1246; Monday 22 April 1247: Tejada, VI, 29 ff.;. Qualiter debeat celebrari concilium Tarraconense: AC Gerona, Llibre Vert, fo. 300V; AC Barcelona, Libro de la Cadena, fo. 46rb. A second assembly was held in the year 1240: the hearing of the appeal of the twelve priests of Gerona was postponed from 30 July to 16 Aug. 'propter absentiam domini episcopi qui oportuit in Ylerdam ad concilium sive colloquium ibidem celebratum': AC Gerona, Causa del Any 1240, fo. 26ra. But nothing further is known of this meeting.

155. Tejada, VI, 45; Fita, BRAH, XL, 445.

156. For the political nature of the post-1247 councils, see Fita, BRAH, XL, 446 ff., and below, p. 119.