278 April

Notes and Documents

The Templars and the castle of Tortosa in Syria: an
unknown document concerning the acquisition of the fortress'1

O N E of the best historians of Latin Syria recently pointed out that

the loss of the archives of the Templars made it impossible for him
to describe in detail the establishment of their great domain in the
north of the county of Tripoli.2 A document in the National
Archives in Madrid, here published for the first time, clarifies this
problem and provides precious new evidence for the history of the
county of Tripoli and the Order of the Knights Templar. It dates
from 1377 and is a copy of the confirmation, made in June 1157,
of an agreement drawn up after February 1152 between Master
Everard des Banes of the Temple and Bishop William of Tortosa.3
This concerned the construction of a new castle by the Templars
at Tortosa and the respective rights of bishop and Order in the
diocese. The evidence provided by it is so important that it can best
be treated under several sub-headings.

The Templars
The agreement between the Master of the Temple and the bishop
of Tortosa can be fairly accurately dated. It specifically mentioned
the capture of Tortosa by the Muslims and the destruction caused
by them; and it was drawn up in the presence of Count Raymond II.
Tortosa was temporarily occupied by Nur-ad-DIn sometime before
the middle of April 115 2, when the news of his conquest reached
Damascus.* Raymond II was assassinated in the same year.5 The
convention must therefore date from the months between February -
because Nur-ad-Din's occupation of the town could hardly have
taken place earlier - and the end of the year. It could have been
drawn up before 23 September, by which time Raymond IQ may
have succeeded to the county.6 An important result of this dating is
1. I am grateful to Dr. A. Forey who first saw this document and kindly gave me
permission to publish it; and to Professor L. H. Butler and Dr. J. K. Davies who gave
me much help in the preparation of the charter for publication.
2. J. Richard, Lt comti it Tripoli sous la dynastit toulousoint (1102-nSf), (Paris, 1945),
p. 66.
3. Tarsus: a small town on the Syrian coast, north of Tripoli.
4. Ibn-al-QalinisI, tr. H. A. R. Gibb (1932), p. 312.
5. William of Tyre, in Rsauil its biitoritns its cnisadts. Historiens occiicniaux i. 791.
6. R. Rohricht, Wtgtsta rtgni Hierosolymitani (Innsbruck, 1893-1904), no. 276. The
document is witnessed in Jerusalem by a Gaunt Raymond of Tripoli: probably Raymond
m.
 I969 TEMPLARS AND THE CASTLE OF TORTOSA- 279

that the chronology of the Masters of the Temple must be revised.

It has been believed that Everard des Barres, refusing to return to
the East from France, resigned the magistracy to take the habit of
Qteaux in 1150.1 But as he is to be found, still Master, in Syria in
1152, the date of his resignation must be altered to the months
between February 1152 and February n 5 3 , when Bernard de
Tremelai was already Master.2
Elsewhere I have described the establishment of the Hospitaller
'palatinate' around the castle of Crac des Chevaliers on the eastern
frontier of the county of Tripoli. In a series of charters, issued be-
tween 1144 and 1186, the counts gave the brothers of St. John a tract
of land stretching from Ba'rin in the north to the Lake of Homs in
the south with theoretical rights over the Muslim city of Homs
itself. These gifts set a standard in the northern crusader states
for the granting away of frontier territories to the Hospitallers;
and their characteristics might well be repeated here. The central
authority, for reasons of defence or in order to enlarge the area
under Christian control, would give the Order of St. John lands
exposed to the Muslims. Some or all of these territories would be
in enemy hands, the Hospitallers receiving privileges that would
encourage them to reconquer the lost lands. As their role would
be military, they were allowed favourable conditions for the sharing
of spoil and a free hand in their relations with neighbouring Saracens.
The ruler would surrender all his rights, jurisdictional and financial,
over the inhabitants of the estates.3
Professor Richard has attempted to describe the formation of
the Templar domain on the northern frontier of the county of
Tripoli. He has argued that Tortosa must have been acquired by
the Order between 1151, when Raynouard of Maraclea was its
lord, and 1169, when the first Templar commander is to be found.
He has suggested that the castle was given to the brothers' as a
result of the occupation of the town by Nur-ad-DIn and in this he
can now be seen to have been correct, although it was the bishop,
not the count, who made the gift.4 Richard has further suggested
that Arima and Chastel Blanc were given to the Templars after
the fortresses had been taken by Nur-ad-DIn in 1167.* The new
document, however, makes it clear that Chastel Blanc together
with most of the land in the diocese of Tortosa was already in
Templar hands and this castle must have been the nucleus around
which the original domain was built up. The document also pro-
vides evidence that the Order was carrying out military operations
1. Sec M. Melville, LA pie des Tsmpliers (Paris, 1951), p. 57.
2. William of Tyre, pp. 795-6. Everard also appears as witness to a document which
has been dated to 20 Apr. 1152. See Rohricht, Regesta {Additamentum), no. 291.
3. J. S. C. Riley-Smith, Tbe Knigbts of St. Jobn in JenuaJem and Cyprus c. iojo-ipo
(1967), PP- 55-57. 67-69, 465-6.
4. Richard, op. at. pp. 66-67. 5. Ibid. p. 67.
 280 THE TEMPLARS AND THE April

in the area: loot is mentioned. The initiative in the establishment

of the Temple at Tortosa belonged to the bishop who begged the
Templars to take on the guard of the castle to assure his safety and
that of the townspeople and to allow the service of God to continue
in the cathedral. In spite of the fact that Templar Tortosa, like
Hospitaller Crac des Chevaliers, was acquired at the donor's request,
there is no sign of extraordinary feudal privileges. It is clear, how-
ever, that in a lost document the count gave additional land in
the town around the castle to the Order. This charter would no doubt
have contained important concessions from him. For his part, the
bishop gave ecclesiastical, not feudal, privileges to the Templars
who assumed the burden of the town's defence.
These ecclesiastical privileges are very interesting. Precious
evidence survives of the relations between the Hospitallers and the
hierarchies of Latin Syria in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries,'
but in this respect little is known of the Templars, who also had
been issued with general Bulls of exemption by the papacy. In
H 2 8 o n i 3 o they had been authorized to receive tithes from bishops
and laymen. The Bull Omm datum optimum of 1139 exempted them
from the payment of tithes against their will on movable goods
or on anything they owned. They were allowed their own chaplains
and were permitted to construct oratories and bury their brothers
in their convents, always savingthe episcopal rights of the bishops
'as much in tithes as in oblations and burial rights'. This last clause
was repeated in the Bull Milkia Dei, probably of 1145, and Pope
Eugenius III emphasized that he in no way wished to diminish the
rights of the bishops over the parishes in their dioceses.1
Ornne datum optimum- had given the Order a general freedom
from the payment of tithes, more comprehensive, it seems, than
the privileges of other exempt Orders, who were absolved from the
exaction of tithes levied on their demesnes and the produce of
'other estates destined for their own use. From 1155, however,
Pope Adrian IV restricted and redefined the privilege of full exemp-
tion, applying it only to tithes taken from newly cultivated demesne
lands, gardens, animals and produce from newly cultivated lands
which would be used by the religious themselves.2 Out document
is of interest because it is an agreement on tithes between a local
bishop and the Templars made in the period between the grant of
full exemption by Innocent II and the redefinition of Adrian IV.
But it has another importance, because it can be compared with
the many surviving tithe-agreements made by the bishops and the
Hospitallers in the East. I have pointed out elsewhere that, great

1. Marquis d'Albon, Cartulaire gfniral del'orire du Ttmple nifi-iijo (Paris, 1913),

Bullairt, nos. V, X ; G. Constable, Monastic Titbes from tbtir Origins to the Totlftb Century
(Cambridge, 1964), p. 187.
2. Constable, Monastic Titbes, pp. 278-88, 298-9.
1969 CASTLE OF TORTOSA IN SYRIA 281

though the privileges of the Hospitallers were, they were never

applied in full in Latin Syria, because of the exigencies of the colonies,
in which both bishops and religious Orders had to survive, and
because the Hospitallers were in a weak position when it came to
exercising their exemption from the payment of tithes on demesne
land. In the agricultural system of Latin Syria there was little
demesne, nearly all the territories of a village being cultivated by
the peasants themselves who paid a proportion of their produce
to the lord. The Hospitallers can be found engaged in a series of
extraordinary manoeuvres, changing the crops grown in their
villages so as to be able to claim exemption from tithes because
they made use of the agricultural produce.1
In the agreement of 1152, the bishop enjoyed full authority
over all churches and their parishes in the town of Tortosa and in
what must have been a suburb around the port, except for the
chapel of the Templars in the castle. Other churches in Templar
hands had the rights of parish churches, but were freed from the
bishop's jurisdiction: they included those in the Order's castles
and indeed all the churches outside Tortosa, except for those at
seven named places, two of which belonged to the Hospitallers. If
any of these were acquired by the Templars, they too would be-
come privileged. Although the agreement seems to cover only the
scattered Latin churches, the Temple must already have been in
possession of most of the land in the diocese. The Templars were
exempted from paying the Church of Tortosa tithes of the produce
raised from their demesne land. No tithes were to be exacted from
booty taken by them on military expeditions or from their animals
or gardens.2 Other tithes were shared by both parties, except in the
territory of Crac des Chevaliers, where the bishop had already made
what seems to have been a similar agreement with the Hospitallers.
The revenues and services exacted from'serfs and vassals would be
tithed in the accustomed way. Half would go to the bishop and half
to the Order; but tithes taken from the territory of Chastel Blanc
would go entirely to the Templars, and those taken at Maraclea
would go entirely to the see of Tortosa.
The agreement of 115 2 seems to have been similar to an earlier,
previously unknown, convention between the bishop and the
Hospitallers at Crac des Chevaliers, who were carrying out much
the same defensive duties as were the Templars on the northern
frontier of the county. In part, therefore, the agreement can be seen
as evidence of the desire of the bishop to define his relations with
the two great Orders in his diocese. But the freedom from episcopal
authority for Templar chapels was a very great privilege, and the
1. Riley-Smith, op. cil. pp. 391, 394-5, 405-9.
2. Here the 'minuciisdecimisanimaliurnsuorurnetortorum.' For 'decirnaeanimalium',
see Constable, Mtmaitit Titbts, pp. 236-7.
282 THE TEMPLARS AND THE April

bishop went further, renouncing his rights over parishes attached

to churches in the Order's castles and estates. It is unthinkable
that he would have granted this exemption had not the Templars
already received some Bull of privilege from Rome which has
not survived. On the other hand, it is interesting to notice that even
before the pontificate of Adrian IV the Templars were not enjoying
full freedom from the payment of tithes. Their rights of exemption
already seem to have been limited in practice to freedom from the
payment of tithes of the produce of demesne lands, which in the
circumstances cannot have meant much, of gardens and of animals.
The document clarifies other matters in Templar history. It has
been believed for a long time that the Order was freed from the
authority of the patriarch of Jerusalem by the Bull Omne datum
optimum1; and William of Tyre is witness to" the fact that freedom
from patriarchal jurisdiction came by papal privilege.2 But it is
now certain that this exemption must date from after 115 2, because
in the agreement with the bishop of Tortosa the Templars clearly
regarded themselves as still answerable to the patriarch of Jerusalem.
In 1156 or 1157, probably the latter year, the convention was
confirmed by Count Raymond HI and Master Bertrand de Blancfort.
Some previously unknown brothers appear as witnesses to this con-
firmation ; and it is worthy of note that the Order's priests witness
the document even before the Master himself, while there are to be
found the names of a chaplain and a notary of the Master. The
chaplains of the Master first appeared in the Order of St. John in
1157, although the Hospitaller Prior of St. Gilles already had a
chaplain in 1153.3 Notaries were employed by the brothers of
St. John in the thirteenth century, but none are to be found as
early as this.*

Tortosa: Town and Diocese

The agreement provides us with the names of some unknown
canons of Tortosa. It also contains interesting information about
the town and diocese.
In 1151 the lord of Tortosa had been Raynouard of Maraclea.6
He clearly held the castle as a vassal of the bishop not, as has been
believed, from the count of Tripoli who nevertheless owned a
good deal of land in the town. We can reconstruct from our
document the events that followed the temporary occupation of
Tortosa by Nur-ad-Din. Raynouard surrendered the castle, now in
1. Melville, La pie des Templitrs, p. 37. See also H. Prutz, Die geistlitbtn Rjtterorden
(Berlin, 1908), p. 209, who believed that Ornnt datum optimum dated from 1163.
2. William of Tyre, p. 521.
3. Riley-Smith, op. cit. p. 234, n. 4; p. 235.
4. Ibid., p. 285.
5. J. Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulain gMraJ de Vordre des Hospitaltirs di St. Jean de
Jerusalem (TIOO-IJIO) (Paris, 1894-1906), no. 199.
1969 CASTLE OF TORTOSA IN SYRIA 283

a ruined state, to the bishop who asked the Templars to take

possession of it. They agreed, wanting not only to rebuild it,
but also to enlarge it. The bishop, therefore, gave them part of
the town, reaching as far as the Gate of St. Helen, and to this Count
Raymond II added a further area of ground around. It is probable
that the original castle stood by the sea, where the remains of the
great keep can still be seen, and that the lands given by the bishop
and the count corresponded to the vast area now covered by the late
twelfth-century outworks. These reach almost to the surviving
gate in the north wall of the town, which might be identified
as the Gate of St. Helen.1 The new gift and agreement was wit-
nessed by the previous lord of Tortosa.
The bishop had jurisdiction over churches in the town and in the
port area, which, since it was regarded as being outside Tortosa
itself, must have been surrounded by a suburb. His diocese stretched
north as far as Maraclea, east to La Colde, Eixserc and Lo Camel
and south to Lacum, containing among its parishes Chastel Blanc
and 'Castrum Novum.'2 The Templars already seem to have owned
most of the estates within these boundaries. The diocese had
absorbed what remained of the neighbouring see of Rafania, whose
centre had been lost to the Muslims in 1137, for. Crac des Chevaliers,
previously in that diocese, had already answered to the bishop's
jurisdiction. This is surprising because Gerald, bishop of Rafania
before 1137, continued to use his title until 1163, while the dioceses
were not formally joined until 1263, when a dispute arose between
the bishop of Tortosa and the Hospitallers over rights which the
brothers claimed to have enjoyed from Rafania before the union.3
It is possible that after the fall of Rafania the diocese remained in
being, but was administered for a time by the bishop of Tortosa.

The county of Tripoli

The document provides us with a new act of Raymond II, made
just before his assassination, and a new act of Raymond m . It
confirms Richard's belief that the gift of Tortosa to the Templars,
like that of Crac des Chevaliers to the Hospitallers, was conditioned
by the military necessities of the county.4 It contains place-names
and two lists of witnesses, many of whom are already well-known to
us. But there also appear unknown clerics, knights and burgesses
of the county, the most important being a Bishop William of Tripoli.
1. See E.-G. Rcy, iiSuiU sur Us monuments di1'arthitettnrt militairt its croisis (Paris, 1871),
pp. 71,212-13.
2. Of these places, Eixserc has been tentatively identified and 'Castrum Novum' is
unknown. The rest arc all identified. The island of Ruad was also in the diocese.
3. Richard, op. cit., p. 59, Riley-Smith, op. tit., pp. 418-19. From its position, it
is possible that Lo Camel hiA also been in the diocese of Rafania.
4. Richard, op. tit. p. 67.
284 . THE TEMPLARS AND THE April

The Hospitallers
The document contains the terms of a lost agreement between
the bishop of Tortosa and Raymond du Puy, Master of the Order
of St. John. It was concerned with the tithes of the territory of
Crac des Chevaliers; and it is clear that it was similar to the arrange-
ments made with the Templars in 115 2.
University of St. Andrews J O N A T H A N RILEY-SMITH

1157.1 11 June. Tripoli. Confirmation by Count Raymond III of

Tripoli and Master Bertrand de Blancfort of the Temple of a
convention drawn up after February 115 2 between Bishop William
of Tortosa and Master Everard des Barres of the Temple. At the
request of the bishop, the Templars take over custody of the ruined
castle of Tortosa which they intend to rebuild. They are given
land in the town by the bishop and agreement is reached over
tithes and episcopal rights in the diocese. (Ms. Archivo Nacional,
Madrid. Or denes Militares. Montesa: documentos particulares 1,
No. 2. Copy made in 1377.)*
In nomine sancte et individue trinitatis, patris et filii et spiritus
sancti, amen. Hec est scriptura privilegii pads et concordie que
facta est inter Gmlklmum dei misericordia tortusanum episcopum3
et ebrardum eiusdem gratia templi magistrum4 et predicte aecclesie
canonicos et templi fratres venerandos de aecclesiis et decimis
ipsius episcopatus et de constructione novi castri in urbe et de
pontificatus* dignitate cum parrochia sicut inferius est scriptum.
Pateat igitur cunctis legentibus tarn presentibus quam futuris quod
civitas tortosa, a turcis capta et combusta miserabiliter, reman-
sit deserta et destructa et, quod est gravius, altaribus prostratis
loca sancta iniquis prophanacionibus, proh dolor, fuerunt contam-
inata.5 Quapropter prelibatus episcopus Gmllelmus, communicato
sibi suo capitulo cum domino Raymundo comite tripolitano pondi comitis
filicfi necnon sue curie baronibus ac burgensibus aliisque quam
pluribus deum timentibus, venerabilem magistrum ebrardum nomine
fratresque suos deprecatus est ut in eadem urbe pro amore dei
sancteque christianitatis facerent novum castrum ad habitandum ut
predictus episcopus suique successores et homines in eadem urbe

1. The confirmation is dated 1156; but the numbers of the indiction and the cycle
of nineteen years point to the date being 1157.
2. An introductory sentence and the three witnesses to the copy inform us that it was
made on 5 Mar. 1577, clearly for the Order of St. John.
3. See Rohricht, Kcgtsta, nos. 211-12, 236.
4. Everard des Barres.
5. A reference to the occupation of Tortosa by Nur-ad-Din. See Ibn-al-QalanisI,
p. 312.
6. Count Raymond II of Tripoli, son of Count Pons.
a. MS. pontificalus.