CONFLICT GENERATED BY THE LAND DISTRIBUTION AFTER THE FEUDAL CONQUEST OF MAJORCA (1230-1244)

The distribution of property after the taking of the Ciutat de Mallorca in December 1229 was a complex process that lasted for over two and a half years. The difficulties given by researchers when explaining this include the complexity of measuring and distributing the land, the priority of finishing the conquest of all the island, and the tensions that arose between the king and the barons. This study analyses two other factors: the call by the king for the barons to return to the island in 1232, to face the threat of the Tunisian fleet reconquering it; and the unease that arose between the monarch and his porcioners (“shareholders”) when he decided to review the original letters of donation and reduce the area of land he had granted them.


Introduction 1
This article verifies the fairness of the diagnosis Josep Torró i Enric Guinot makes in the introduction to the volume dedicated to the distributions of land in the Crown of Aragon. 2 The editors write that els memorials, registres i minutaris que anomenem 'repartiments' encara es troben lluny d'esgotar les possibilitats que ofereixen, and assures that the historiographic theme of the distributions is not saturated or overcome.
The llibres de repartiment are frequently cited by researchers, few of whom have any deep knowledge beyond the toponym of the alquería or rafal 3 that interests them for a specific study, or the name of the genearch of a determined lineage. Consequently, one must agree with the above-cited authors that the documentation related to the distribution of real estate after the conquests can still be objecte de revisions i tractament sistemàtic susceptible de produir informacions cada vegada més refinades. 4 Mas and Soto state that the distributions, plantegen un bon nombre de qüestions insolutes i insolubles, sobretot pel que fa a l'estructura agrària. Regarding the specific case of Majorca, both assure that the Llibre del Repartiment is una font de dades incalculable, and sustain that malgrat els nombrosos estudis que s'hi han dedicat, és encara un document que planteja més interrogants que respostes. 5 On rare occasions, the research has focused on the codices of the distribution as documents in themselves. Their intrinsic nature has been timidly studied and not even a logical and satisfactory summary of their contents has been reached. In some cases, a very acceptable codicological description has been done, 6 while in others consensus has not even been reached about the critical interpretation. This has the pillage. The king suggested that it be done per quadrelles, 14 but lacked enough authority to impose his criterion. Finally, a generalised auction was held that enabled the bishops and rich men to use a certain fraud for their own benefit during the operations of inventory, evaluation and bidding. 15 The chaos this generated provoked the first social problems of the new realm when, believing themselves to have been swindled, the most disfavoured forcibly seized the houses of some barons. 16 The Llibre says nothing about real estate. Although the historiography is almost unanimous in considering that the distribution began at the same time as the division of the booty, ya que era inaplazable satisfacer las justas aspiraciones de los que habían tomado las armas bajo esta promesa, 17 these were independent processes. In this case, it was a question of distributing the rural and urban properties in the most beneficial way, based on the commitment to proportionality in the prior pacts and relative to the means contributed to the military operation. 18 The beneficiaries 14. "by squads". Although we still lack an in-depth study, the word quadrella -from the Castilian cuadrilla-is related to the quadriller, the officer in charge of dividing the booty obtained for the town from raids (cavalcades i algares) by the militia in the peninsular kingdoms during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Each urban estate, into which the medieval urban population was divided, designated its quadrillers. The booty was shared out proportionally to the armament supplied by each participant, after compensating for the harm suffered by the combatants, and a fifth was paid to the crown. They usually kept a detailed written register of both the arms and the booty. Murcia: Real Academia de Alfonso X el Sabio, 1994; Torró, Josep: "Viure del botí..."). Maria Teresa Ferrer defines the quadrella as les diferents partides de terra delimitades per característiques físiques o derivades de la presència humana, camins, sèquies, muntanyes, barrancs, etc. ("the different pieces of land delimited by physical characteristics or those derived from the human presence, roads, ditches, mountains, ravines, etc."), that the quadrillers shared out among their retinue. Ferrer, Maria Teresa. "Repartiments de terres a Oriola després de la conquesta de Jaume II". Acta Historica et Archeologica, 22 (2002): 509-535. The Partidas (II.25.2) set the compensations (erechas) that the combatants had to receive for the injuries suffered or limbs lost. On the other hand, Partidas (II.26.12) indicates that the quadrillers han de seer tomados faciendo quatro partes de la hueste o de la cabalgada, et escogiendo de cada quarto un hombre bueno que sea tal que sepa temer a Dios et haver en sí vergüenza ("they must be taken making four parts of the host or of the horse, and choosing from each quarter a good man who is such that he knows how to fear God and has in himself shame"). So they exercised their task with equanimity cada uno destos quadrilleros hobiesen en sí tres cosas; la primera que fuesen leales, la segunda de buen entendimiento, la tercera sofridos ("each of these quadrilleros had three things in them; the first that they were loyal, the second of good understanding, the third long-suffering"). Alfonso el Sabio. Las Siete Partidas del rey Don Alfonso el Sabio, cotejadas con varios códices antigues. Madrid: Imprenta Real, 1807. Digital version at <http://fama2.us.es/fde/lasSietePartidasEd1807T2.pdf> (Consulted 3 rd November 2018). 15. Torró, Josep: "Viure del botí...": 31. 16. Jaume I. "Crònica de Jaume I"...: 49-50 (chap. [89][90][91][92]. 17. "because it was impossible to put off satisfying the fair aspirations of those who had taken up arms under this promise". Salvá, Jaime. "Fundación del Reino…": 119. 18. Soto, Ricard. Còdex català del Repartiment de Mallorca. Palma: Govern Balear, 1984: 10. of the distribution were divided into five groups. These were headed by the king himself, Nunyo Sanç, the bishop of Barcelona, the Viscount of Bearn and the Count of Empúries. Each of the five was at the head of the list of one of the portions of property that he then had to share with the conquerors in his group. 19 This system was adopted to obtain a certain symmetry in the distribution of the lots and to facilitate their division, but without establishing any type of vassalistic submission between those involved. 20 On the other hand, there is also a historiographic consensus about the fact that the distribution was registered in a set of manuscripts globally called the Llibre del Repartiment.
In fact, the Llibre del Repartiment is not a single codex. In Mut's definition it was, The existence of three distinct codices, with their similitudes and differences, does not help to clarify the question. On the level of contents, the Catalan and Latin versions are very similar to each other. In contrast, the Latin-Arab version provides distinct and complementary information. The link between the three versions -and their respective posteriors copies-is the list of the alqueries and rafals adjudicated to the members of the king's portion. The list of knights and cavalry who were in the conquest also acts as a link, as does the reference to the number of armed knights that each had to supply for the future defence of the island.
The CLA is made up of thirty-eight 315x110 mm sheets of paper numbered in pencil. In line with the actual numeration, it is divided into two parts. Sheets 1 to 20 are written in Latin, in Aragonese chancelleresque script. Sheets 29v to 37r, nine in total, are written in Arabic. The central sheets 21r to 29r are blank.
The part of the CLA written in Arabic is the oldest. Montilla was the first to describe, very correctly and by order of sheet, the information it contains. 22 With the aim of facilitating understanding, Busquets altered the order and grouped the contents into various sections instead of doing so by sheets. 23 In the same article 19. Pérez, Plàcid. "El repartiment feudal de Mallorca: la porció del comte d'Empúries". Bolletí de la Societat Arqueològica Lul·liana, 70 (2014): 51-73. 20. Soto, Ricard. "Los antiguos territorios de la Corona de Aragón: Aragón, Baleares, Cataluña, País Valenciano", Historia de los pueblos de España. Barcelona: Editorial Argos-Vergara, 1984: 120. 21. "a set of codices and manuscripts that contain, under the same generic denomination, on one hand, the text of the global distribution of the properties in the city and island of Majorca done between James I and the leading barons who participated in the conquest; and, on the other and more particularly, the donations granted to the bannerets supplied directly by the monarch himself". Mut, Antoni. "Llibre del Repartiment", Gran Enciclopèdia de Mallorca. Palma: Promomallorca S. A., 1988: XVI, 361-365. 22. Montilla, Fernando. "El manuscrito árabe…": 608-615. 23. Busquets, Jaime. "El códice latinoarábigo…": 248-250. and in an attempt to structure the text, he did a rather peculiar and, by no means fortunate, personal reorganisation. Despite that, this grouping by Busquets is the one that has been accepted by later scholars. Writing later, Rosselló 24 and Mut 25 extended the contents of the description notably, but maintained the structure.
The order and logical sequence that Montilla proposes is the most coherent. It is known that in Semitic languages, that are written and read from right to left, the first page of a document is the back one and the reader passes the pages from left to right. Consequently, the books are read starting from the last page. In contrast, in the Indo-European languages, the sequence is the complete opposite. This is a question that has not received the attention it merits. Indeed, from a careful reading of the facsimile of the CLA and the accompanying translation, 26 it can be deduced that the nine pages of Arab text have been interpreted as a set differentiated from the remaining pages written in Latin. On the other hand, the page numbering in pencil in the western style that accompanies it is modern in style and so there is no sense in giving it any probative value. Consequently, one should start to read this text from the end -as Montilla rightly does-, so that sheet 37v would be the first sheet, and sheet 29v would be the ninth. It is worth commenting, as the abovementioned authors have, that sheet 2r (or 36v) -and only this one-is misplaced, as its contents correspond to the beginning of the document.
The proposed sequence is the following: First, the Arabic part of the CLA was written in a notebook of sheets of paper folded in the middle. The characters are written from right to left, the first page being the back of the last numbered sheet, which is how pages are written and numbered in that language. They only filled the first nine sheets (in the Arabic page numbering). Two years later, the Latin part was written, reusing the same notebook. However, in this case, the writing went from left to right, the first page being the recto of the first sheet, as in Indo-European languages. It only filled the first twenty sheets (in the western page numbering). The extra pages in between were left in blank.
The original notebook must have been bound on the right, according to the Arabic practice. When it was bound, the parchment covers it still has must have been added, placing the stitching on the left to be opened according to the European practice.
In short, it is believed that the western-style page numbering in pencil is the cause of the perplexity the document has generated among the specialists. If the CLA had been numbered according to the Arabic logic, in other words, the opposite to the way it is now or, even better, with two different numerations, many doubts would probably have been saved. This shows that Montilla's analysis is impeccable and that, in contrast, the author of the modern numbering did not interpret correctly or misunderstood what the codex was about. 24 In line with this proposal, the structure of the Arabic text is reflected in Table 1: This way, the text acquires greater coherence and furthermore, it helps to resolve some of the unknown aspects highlighted. Among these is the explicit inserted in Latin at the end of the Arabic sheet 8v (30r of the original), which states, The initial word explicit corresponds to the impersonal verb that is exclusively applied in Latin to books to indicate the exact point where the work ends. As a term formed from one of the participles of the verb explico, it could also be interpreted as "was presented, explained or narrated", which the CCR translates with the expression explegat és. So, this is a note inserted by a scribe at a date after the drafting of the Arabic text, probably by the author who wrote the Latin part. It is a warning for readers who do not know Arabic to inform them and explain what the following sheets are about. The scribe perceived that the great majority of those who would handle the document would read it according to the Indo-European practice. This is precisely for why the note was placed at the end of the text in Arabic, although it coincides with the beginning of the text if it is read in concordance with the Indo-European languages. This is what must have led the specialists to think that this was a badly placed paragraph, outside the logical order, when it really fully fits the logic of the combination between the Indo-European and Semitic practices of writing and reading books.
Sheet 29v, the one before the explicit according to the original page numbering, is headed by another note that clearly dates from later: Hoc extravagans erat in fine predictis libri regis. 27 Just below this, in Arabic, is an approximate recount of the jovades in the districts of Majorca that belonged to Nunyo Sanç after the measurements had been concluded. In total, this accounted for 1,485 jovades. 28 This is an annex that, as Montilla states, no pertenece ya directamente al repartimiento, sino que es una hoja que se copió por haberla hallado suelta en el Liber Regis, el original árabe, probablemente en poder de don Nuño. 29 Thus, this annex is placed correctly according to the proposed Arabic system of page numbering and foliation: after the division of the island and without being part of it. However, for that reason, the scribe warned that it was misplaced at the end of the Llibre del Rei. This note is similar to the first explicit mentioned, to warn that the text in question is out of place.
In short, the explicit maintains all its vigour and must be taken at face value. In other words, the CLA does not deal exclusively with the royal portion, but rather with the division and adjudication of the island between the king and his people, and the barons and theirs. All the participants in the conquest appear in this repertory, at least through their respective barons who were the heads of groups. They all received their specific, univocal and defined part. Everything on the island was included: street, squares, bridges, baths, mosques, gardens, water mills and animal engines, cemeteries and other properties and public spaces in the city were included in the portion assigned to each. Also, outside the city, as well as farmland, there was land that was not farmed, springs, drains, mills, ovens, baths, mosques, cemeteries and small groups of houses or hamlets with streets and squares. These were also included in the district assigned to each group. There was nothing else left to share.
Although the document has no explicit date, 30 the Arabic version undoubtedly contains the early division of the Kingdom of Majorca between the king and barons, done in January/March 1230. It is another very different thing to know whether this document written in Arabic is the original. It is believed to be a copy, as the explicit expressly indicates, but one not very far off in time from the original. Furthermore, it is probably not complete, as suggested by an annotation repeated various times in Arabic, that refers to "that which is consigned in the original". 31 This original would be 27. This is out of place at the end of the indicated Llibre del Rei. 28. The jovada (plural: jovades) is a traditional measurement of area equivalent to 11.36 ha. 29. "does not then belong directly to the distribution, but rather is a sheet that was copied for having been found loose in the Liber Regis, the Arabic original, probably in the hands of don Nuño". Montilla, Fernando. "El manuscrito árabe…": 635. 30. The dating VI kal. Augusti Anno Dni. M CC XXX, 6 kal. Augusti 1230 annoted on the back of the cover and spread over three lines, is in modern italics and so it would be risky to grant it validity. 31. Other authors also consider this: Montilla, Fernando. "El manuscrito árabe…": 636; Busquets, Jaime. "El códice latinoarábigo…": 246; Mut, Antoni. "La documentació de l'època de Jaume I…": 174. Rosselló, Guillem. Documents cabdals del Regne de Mallorca. El Llibre del Repartiment…: 18. one that seems to have disappeared or, in Quadrado's words, yace en ignorado rincón. 32 As a hypothesis, Cateura and Mut relate this loss with the disbanding of the Order of the Temple in 1311, which had been tasked with preserving the document. 33 The fragment of the CLA in Latin consists of two clearly differentiated parts: The first only occupies sheet 19v and part of 20r. It is headed by the epigraph: Memoriale de omnibus christianorum caballarias que fuerunt in captione civitatis Maioricarum. 34 The content fits the title, but is not the subject of this article. It begins by mentioning the king and his shareholders, indicating the list of cavalleries assigned to each of them, as well as the armed contribution they had to make to the future defence of Majorca. After the partial sum, an annotation indicates that an armed horse had to be maintained for each 130 cavalleries. Then the same information referring to the rest of the barons, knights, military orders and religious institutions is reflected. The document concludes with the sum total of 13,446 cavalleries.
The second part occupies sheets 1r to 19r, and is perfectly defined, dated and bounded through explanatory statements. The one on the first page prays: After the heading, the farms in the limits of the Ciutat that remained in the royal portion are listed. This specifies the type of farm, the Andalusian name or toponym, the area in jovades, and the name of the beneficiary each was granted to. The beneficiary could be an individual knight or baron, a group of people or socii, the Jews, a military order, or a religious institution (Sant Feliu de Guíxols, Santa Margarita, the Premonstratensians of Santa Maria des Puig d'Artà, etc.). After finishing with the limits of the City, the list continues with the farms in the other town limits or districts of the island that belonged to the royal portion. They appear in the following order: Inca, Pollença, Sineu, Petra, Artà, Montuïri and les Muntanyes. At the bottom of sheet 19r, the closing annotation can be read: 32. "lies in some forgotten corner". Quadrado, Joaquín María. Historia de la conquista de Mallorca…: 434. 33. Cateura, Pau. "Urbanisme, societat i fiscalitat a Mallorca". Territori i Societat a l'Edat Mitjana. Història, Arqueologia, Documentació, 2 (1998): 212; Mut, Antoni. "La documentació de l'època de Jaume I…": 160. 34. "List of all the Christian cavalries who went to the taking of the Ciutat de Mallorca". ARM. Còdex s/n., ff. 19v-20r. 35. "This is the part of our lord the King, and the list of the holders and farms and of any inheritance acquired from the King is here named, in any way that they have and possess it in the limits of the Ciutat. That was ordered the first of July of 1232". ARM. Còdex s/n., f. 1r. 36. "It is known that this register was made in the presence of James, king of Aragon, and of Peter Prince of Portugal and lord of the Kingdom of Majorca under the mentioned king, the first of July of 1232. Done So, there are no doubts about the authorship, date and contents of the document. It was written by the royal scribe Pere de Sant Melió, on direct orders from the monarch and in the presence of Prince Peter of Portugal, on the 1 st of July 1232. It contains, exclusively, the list of farms from the royal portion, with an indication of the name of the individual beneficiary each of these was granted to. However, not all are there. Among those excluded are the powerful Order of the Temple, 37 the successors of Guillem de Montcada, Ramon Alemany and Guillem de Claramunt, the priest of Tarragona, the militias of numerous towns and cities, as well as small groups of combatants who fought beside their leader or adalil, like Berenguer de Mont-reial, Robert de Tarragona or Ramon de Medalla.
Leaving aside these very notable absences, the list of the individual shareholders in the CLA presents some remarkable traits: In first place, there are some seventy corrections and superimposed words that amend the names of the alqueries and rafals, as if they had been corrected to make them easier to understand. Secondly, among the farms described, there are at least 22 that have clearly been added between lines or at the bottom of the page. Despite this, the calligraphy of the additions seems contemporary to the rest of the writing. Finally, up to 76 of the alqueries and rafals listed are accompanied in the margin by escutcheons or shields with a variable number of dots inside them. Montilla guesses correctly when 38 he interprets the shield as a schematisation of the currency of Prince Peter, that includes the plates of the Quinas of Portugal. They indicate the farms that were adjudicated by the king to the Portuguese baron, as lord of the Kingdom of Majorca. 39 (See illustration 1) All these incidents only appear in this codex. The remaining synoptic recompilations, 40 both the CCR and the CLR, reproduce the text from the CLA in a literal but continuous form, in the way that the additions, superpositions, rectifications and amendments are not visible. Nevertheless, some omissions, errors of transcription and area, and even duplications attributable to the scribe are detectable.
Despite this, on 75 occasions the amanuensis implicitly or explicitly indicates that the holder is the king and that he cedes the farm to one or more shareholders, up to a maximum of three. Sometimes, he reserves part for himself. Then, the formula is the following: The writer uses two more significant types of annotation. The first shows that the farm now belongs to a certain beneficiary, but the king recovers part of it and gives it to another shareholder. Up to 18 examples of this have been found, the format for which is as follows: It can also be deduced from the second type that the king recovered part of the farm, although this is not explicitly stated. This formula appears 10 times, with some variants:  In short, the CLA describes three distinct situations: farms that already belonged to a determined beneficiary when added to the list; those that were still the king's and that, at that moment, he granted to someone; and those that had been adjudicated to someone but all or part of which the king now recovered and reserved for himself or ceded to a third party.
The so-called recuperacions, mentioned by Rosselló, 41 are no more than a euphemism that really hides the confiscation by the king of part of the farms from their first holders. The area confiscated in each case, expressed in jovades, mainly varied between 33.33% and 50%, in other words, between a third and a half of the total area of the farm. However, in five cases, the whole property was seized. These were the Alhoffra Aljauffia and the alquería Art Alain, both in the limits of Sineu, and the alqueries Beniagmira, Benihurrulatx and Benol Hatx in the limits of Artà.
Through these recuperacions, the monarch managed to take a total of 123 jovades of land that he then awarded to other shareholders. Those who most benefitted were Carròs, Prince Peter of Portugal and the men in his retinue. 42 The final result of the operation is summarised in Table 2.
Altogether, it gives the sensation of great dynamism, as if the document had been written in a period of frenetic activity. It seems to be a provisional and transitory list, being worked on and constantly modified: the king dona ("gives") some properties that were his, recupera ("recovers") others that were not and torna donar ("again gives") them to new beneficiaries, while introducing and overwriting the names of new farms and awardees in the cartulary.
The set of circumstances enumerated to here allows the hypothesis to be sustained that, unlike the Arabic part, this capbreu in Latin is the actual document with which James I worked to conclude the distribution in the summer of 1232.
The operation of relocating these alqueries and rafals took place before the beginning of July 1232, because they are reflected in the three codices of the distribution. Otherwise, they would not be there. Logically, the new adjudications were accompanied by the corresponding notarial documents of donation, emitted individually in favour of each of the donors. We know some of these. Three of these diplomas are dated some days after the date on the royal capbreu, 43 which would indicate that the king had committed himself to the cession inscribing it in the 41. Rosselló, Guillem. Documents cabdals del Regne de Mallorca. El Llibre del Repartiment...: 55. 42. The territorial portion adjudicated by the king to Prince Peter and his 21 shareholders has been analysed by Santamaría (Santamaría, Álvaro. "Alba del reino...": 28-43). In the light of this article, the area in jovades estimated in that study should be recalculated, and reduced by approxiumately a third. 43. These were the ones he did on 15/07/1232 to Pere Laí, Martí Ferrandis, (Pérez, Lorenzo. "Corpus Documenta Balear. Reinado de Jaime I". Fontes Rerum Balearium, II/1 [1978]: 11-13 [docs. 118 and 120]) and Ramon Laí (ACM-3043. Cúria del bisbe. Llibre extraordinari, s/n). On 08/07/1232, a donation to memorial and, some days later, the notary authenticated the copy in parchment. From that moment, the king thus concluded the distribution with the beneficiaries of his portion. The distribution was terminated and no more inscriptions were done in the codices.
However, an instrument of cession of properties signed by James I, that is not reflected in the codices has also been found. One must think that this was an omission by the scribe, because the document was held to be valid. With this diploma, dated from the 15 th of July 1232, 44 James I granted a free allodium to the brothers Martí and Gil Garcès of various farms that he had earlier given to another shareholder:

The dispute between Romeu Durfort and Ramon d'Olzina
A parchment in the Archivo Histórico Nacional 50 provides the key to understanding the meaning of the above-mentioned changes of hand of farms. This parchment contains the claim by Romeu Durfort, citizen of Barcelona, against Ramon d'Olzina, for the ownership of the alquería Almoandez, in the limits of Sineu, as well as the judicial procedures this led to.
The controversy began on the 24 th of May 1244, with the presentation of a complaint by Durfort. The claimant alleged that the mentioned alquería belonged to him through royal donation and demanded that Olzina give it back to him, as he held it unjustly. The defendant argued, in contrast, that he did not believe the 45 alquería belonged to Durfort, although he had the document of donation signed by the king. In his defence, Olzina stated that part of the alquería had been assigned to him for his own cavalleries and was from the portion that corresponded to the cavalleries of the men of Girona; while he had purchased the other part from other people who had also obtained assets in the portion of the Gironan militias. Finally, he argued that, by law and the customs in force on Majorca, having the document of royal donation did not grant greater legal preference over the assets in question and that were only written in the capbreu, but quite the opposite. As documentary proof, Olzina presented a partial copy of the codex of distribution, in which it appeared that effectively the alqueries Almoandez and Beninaceem, both of 8 jovades, had been adjudicated to the cavalleries of the men of Girona. 51 Not being in agreement, the two parties agreed to accept the opinion of a neutral arbitrator, on pain of a fine of 50 morabatins. 52 The arbitrator chosen was the bishop of Majorca, Ramon de Torrella. Following the judicial procedure, on the 31 st of May the bishop began the preliminary proceedings and called on Olzina to present the declarations relevant to the defence of his posture. Between the 13 th and 15 th of June, this led to the defending party presenting the bishop with 30 declarations by other people who stated they had witnessed the events. Their confessions were registered in the manuscript, and all support the hypotheses defended by Olzina. Given this overwhelming number of arguments against him, the plaintiff must finally have abandoned his case, because the document does not contain any sentence.
The statements by the witnesses are very revealing: Joan de Caldes, from Montuïri, explained that King James I made too many donations of property at first, so that he was finally unable to satisfy the total number of cavalleries for his retinue due to a lack of land. 53  Torró states that els partidors locals de la terra eren els responsables finals de la distribució d'heretats i, en tant que concessionaris reials d'aquestes operacions, tenien capacitat per emetre albarans o títols de donació. També, és clar, havien d'enginyar-se-les per encabir les donacions reials que els arribaven mentre enllestien la seva tasca ("the local dividers of the land were those finally responsible for the distribution of inhertitances and, as holders of the royal concession for these operations, they had the power to emit albarans or titles of donation. Of course, they also had to come up with a way to include the royal donations that reached them while they carried out their work"). Torró, Josep. "Guerra, repartiment i colonització al regne de València (1248-1249) cities went to the king to demand their portion, the latter took many jovades of land and other honors 56 from some beneficiaries to give them to the cavalleries vilatanes ("municipal cavalry"), while ordering that everything should be reflected in a capbreu or memorial. 57 Bernat de Moranta manifested that, with these interventions, many knights obtained alqueries and honors in proportion to their contribution in cavalry. 58 Arguing from the negative point of view, Bernat Espanyol assured that many others lost what they had received by royal donation in the Ciutat and the island, while Bernat s'Escala declared that many lost the fiefs, and Domènec de Rubió stated that many were expelled from their homes and inheritances due to the cavalleries of the cities. 59 The language used by the witnesses when narrating the events leaves no doubt about the procedure used. They explain that, initially, the king dedit ("gave") a certain property to a given person or institution and then abstulit ("took it back") to give it to another settler. Consequently, the first holder amisit ("lost") the property and the latter obtinuit, adquisivit, fuit lucratus ("obtained it, acquired it or profited from it").
The casuistic supplied by the witnesses shows that the redistributions happened in any of the districts that belonged to the king and, in this sense, it was not a localised question in a specific place, but rather a generalised conflict. Thus, Joan de Caldes and Bonaventura de Moranta admitted that he obtained the alquería Ginyent in the limits of Pollença and part of the alquería Leo in Inca, that were initially destined for the men from Barcelona. Master Rotlan manifested that he received an alquería in the limits of Montuïri from the king, and that this then passed into the power of the cavalleries of Tarragona. Master Joan, canon of the See of Majorca, received the alquería Aria in the limits of Petra from Bartomeu d'Ozona. Robert de Tarragona declared that he had obtained the rafal Carutxcha, near the square in Sineu, which had previously belonged to Gil of the Hospital of Sant Antoni.
The dimensions or type of crop on the farm did not have anything to do with the conflict. Whole alqueries and rafals were redistributed, but also pieces of land and honors without specifying. Berenguer de Ripoll confessed that he had six jovades of land by royal concession from the militias of Sant Llorenç de la Ciutat, but half was taken from him and adjudicated to the Tarragonese militias. Similarly, simple orchards and plantations of vines underwent similar exchanges. This was the case of Ramon Guillem, who lost the orchard he had been granted and which went to Guardiola; or Berenguer de Girona, a butcher, who received a vineyard that had belonged to Ferrer de Granada. Nor were houses excluded: Rotlanet de Marsella confessed that with his brothers he gained some houses that had previously 56 belonged to Carròs from the king; and Guillem des Graner obtained others that had been held by Quintana.
The majority of those interviewed claimed that these incidents had occurred between nine and thirteen years earlier, in other words, between 1231 and 1235. Pere Escrivà stated that they happened at the same time as the king had his capbreu drawn up. 60 Joan de Mont-rós and Peironet Rabassa said that they came about when the king renewed or confirmed the capbreu, and Domènec de Rubió assures that it happened 12 years before, when the cavalleries were first being distributed. 61 When the bishop asked Joan de Caldes when the events had taken place, he contested: Quando Rex venit ista ultima vice in Maioricis, quando dominus Infans obtinuit dominium terre iste. 62 Domènec Clavell, finally, indicated that the king had the capbreu written when he wanted to return to Catalonia. 63 All this evidence enables the events to situated coherently between May and July of 1232, when James I was on Majorca. So, it has to be interpreted that they were referring to the list of alqueries and rafals drawn up by the notary Pere de Sant Melió in early July 1232.
Joan de Caldes offers additional information in claiming that the king had a general council, 64 in which he declared the perpetual validity of the capbreu, despite the documents of donation done earlier, that the assets inscribed in the capbreu would always take precedence over those that were not although the holder had an earlier document of donation, and, consequently, that no document of donation would have greater legal value than the cavalleries inscribed in the capbreu or memorial. 65 Domènec Clavell confirms that the king decreed that the capbreu he left written was permanent, and that no earlier donation would have any validity over its contents. 66  letter of donation. 67 From then on -the interviewees claimed-it was the custom of Majorca that the cavalleries took preference over the donations. 68 Rotlanet de Marsella indicates that, Prince Peter of Portugal later used this argument to seize those farms that were not annotated in the capbreu. 69 Master Rotlan declares that he was one of Peter's victims, the latter having taken an alquería that was not inscribed in his name in the capbreu. 70 The place where this council was held is also not free of doubt. Many of the witnesses assure that it took place in Ciutat de Mallorca. Pere Escrivà specifies that it was in the Almudaina. Ramon de Casals and Domènec Clavell say that, when the king returned from Inca and Pollença, he gathered the settlers before the church of Santa Eulàlia in the Ciutat and ordered that no one, except the council of eminent citizens, should dare to touch or contravene the capbreu he left written. He also had the edict proclaimed in the towns of Inca and Pollença. The, finally, he threatened them stating that if anyone violated it, he would immediately return to Majorca from Aragon to redress the situation. 71 It is easy to deduce that the decision adopted by the advisory council and the consequent actions provoked many conflicts between the royal administration and the beneficiaries of the earlier donations. The majority of those involved accepted the monarch's orders, renounced litigation with the new holders and resigned themselves to losing the possessions they had previously been awarded. 72 The rest of the barons also backed the monarch's actions. As an example, Ramon Bonafós stated that when he presented himself before the king to protest because he had had half of the almudaina of Artà taken from him to give to the Premonstratensian friars, Nunyo Sanç, who accompanied the king and the other barons, responded that if anyone took property from someone else, the latter had no other choice but to accept it. 73 However, not all the beneficiaries submitted to the royal council's resolution so meekly. Some rebelled albeit without violence. This passive resistance was resolved through the courts and sometimes required more than one sentence. The witnesses from these case supply four examples. However, it must be mentioned that in all the cases cited, the justice inclined in favour of the king and found in 67 favour of the greater legal power of the capbreu over the primitive donations. Two witnesses explained that the militias of the city of Manresa obtained the alqueria Benigalip in the limits of Montuïri. When the Manresans entered it, they found the sign of the Marseilles, Pere Sanç. When the later discovered this, he reclaimed the alquería on the basis of the document of donation he held. When the Manresans paid him no heed, he denounced them before the royal curia. Then, not managing to assert his rights, he kept quiet and did not bother them more, restricting himself to marking the lands next to the alquería to delimit them. Master Joan, canon of the See of Mallorca, declared that he had a dispute with Bartomeu d'Ozona for the alquería Aria. In a similar fashion, master Joan won two favourable sentences from the courts, because his donation was annotated in the capbreu and the other's was not. Finally, Robert de Tarragona and Berenguer de Girona respectively confessed to having obtained a rafal and a vineyard through a sentence.
The redistribution of the alqueries, rafals and other properties not only caused conflicts between the interested parties and the royal administration, but also between the same beneficiaries. Five of them reveal how Ramon de Castellbisbal lost the farms he had received in the limits of Inca and Pollença because they were adjudicated to men from the cities of Barcelona, Marseille and Tarragona. Castellbisbal became very angry and threatened them, and this led to his enmity with Robert de Tarragona and Pere Martell.
The possession of a given property by a given shareholder was shown by placing heraldic symbols and emblems over the doorways of the houses and on the limits of the land. It was an effective measure aimed at protecting the barons' assets and, at the same time, an expression of their seigneurial power. When these properties changed hands, the new owner eliminated the previous attributes and emblems and replaced them with his own. The case of Pere Sanç has been seen above. Bernat Espanyol also stated that the Order of the Holy Sepulchre lost an alquería where they had already put their motto. The new holder, Ferrer de Sant Martí, immediately violently eliminated the symbols of the Sepulchre, but shortly after resold it to the prior for 1,200 Melguiel deniers. Ramon de Bonafós and Gerard Caiol claimed that they and other eminent citizens from Marseille received half of the citadel of Artà from James I. After three years, at the request of the Premonstratensians of Bellpuig, the king transferred this half to the monks. Then, the eminent citizens from Marseilles took their crosses off the houses and the friars put up their own ones. Table 3 summarises the 36 cases of farms that changed owner, according to the declarations by the above-mentioned witnesses: from Girona. 79 Finally, the 8 jovades of the alquería Castelo/Castel in Pollença went to the Temple and its shareholders. 80 However, two exceptions have to be noted. The alquería Hortella in Inca, of 8 jovades, continued to appear in the CCR (f. 54va) and CLR (f. 63) as belonging to the men of Barcelona, while Pere Escrivà assured that it was for the militias from Lleida. Unlike the declaration of the testimony, it does not appear that the combatants from Lleida did not obtain any farm in Inca. Nor does the alqueria Aria coincide. As he Master Joan himself stated, he obtained it from Bartomeu Ozona by court order. In the CLA (f. 15vb), the alquería Arian of 8 jovades, in the limits of Petra, is overwritten on the list as assigned to Bartomeu de Aulona. It is possible that, given the similitude of the lineage, there is possible confusion between Ozona and Aulona. In contrast, no Master Joan appears anywhere in the distribution.
James I was very satisfied with this solution and his wit, to the extent that he explains the manoeuvre in the Llibre dels Feyts and recommended it, six years later, to the dividers of the city of Valencia. According to this narrative, given the ineptitude of the representatives of the nobility and the clergy to share out the land equitably, the king appointed his own dividers. The task was assigned to Assalt de Gúdar and Eiximèn Peris de Taraçona, to whom he gave the following advice:

Nós vos mostrarem ara a partir la terra, e farets-ho així com se féu a Mallorques, que d'altra manera no es pot fer: vós baixats la jovada a sis cafiçades, e haurà nom jovada, e no ho serà; e, d'altra part, que d'aquells a qui n'havem massa dat, que els torn hom a mesura segons la valor que han (...) E dixem-los nós, encara, que demanassen les cartes de les donacions, e nós, segons que veuríem, dar-n'híem a aquells segons que llur valor seria: e feeren ho, e així partí's la terra. 81
Thus, taken as a whole, the lawsuit analysed above explains adequately the partial recovery of land by certain shareholders and, consequently, it facilitates the names of some of the previous holders of alqueries and rafals who lost their farms due to royal confiscation. However, other specific cases appear in which the primitive donee lost all the lands he had received. So, these people do not appear in the definitive distribution. Names like Agregó Rotlan or master Rotlan, the priest, Guillem Perelló, Bonafonat Saig, Tolosa, Bartomeu Ozona, or Quintana were unknown until then and would have continued to be so if it were not for this litigation. So, these were people who lost everything. Pere de Muree/Moret, Eiximèn de Filera and Llop d'Eslava also lost everything, as shown in . "I shall show you how to divide the land, and you shall do so as was done on Majorca because it cannot be done any other way: reduce the value of the jovada (11.36 ha) to only six cafiçades (3 ha), and it shall still be called jovada but it will not be one. And, on the other hand, that those who have been given too much land, return it to us. And also: from those who have too much land request the documents of donation that I (the king) gave them, to review them; and, after having verified them, we shall adjust the amount of land to the quantity that really corresponds to them. And they did so, and the land was divided this way". Jaume I. "Crònica de Jaume I"...: 115 (chap. 289). these cases, the royal argumentation is not applicable through incongruence, as it does not justify the complete confiscation of the primitive donation from one shareholder to give it to another. So, another type of explanation must be sought.

The confirmation of Ramon de Medalla to Bernat Eimeric
In the different codices of the distribution there are very few duplications of farms granted to distinct shareholders. One of these is the alquería Cut Alcastel, the rafal Abnanabex and the alqueria Abenjulux, in the Sineu district, that always appear associated in a single block: On one hand, according to the list of alqueries and rafals in the CLA (f. 7v), these three properties jointly covered 12.5 jovades that were adjudicated in a block to the Barcelonan Bernat Eimeric (Haymirig). The annotation appears as one of the additions at the bottom of the page. The CLR (f. 11) includes them without any kind of reservation or distinction as belonging to Bernat Haymirius of Barcelona. The CCR (f. 10rb) reproduces the Latin version, but the lineage has been scratched out and someone has written 'Aimelio' over it at a much later date.
On the other hand, when enumerating the farms that corresponded to the king's shareholders in the limits of Sineu, the CLR (f. 74) annotates the following description: As can be seen, the two adjudications differ in the total number of jovades: 12.5 jovades in the first case and 10.5 in the second. However, what draws attention is that the three identical alqueries are adjudicated, in the same codex, to two different shareholders. At first glance, this could appear to be an error by the scribe. Despite that, a document inserted into the Yellow Book and Green Book of the Chapter Archive in the See of Majorca 83 helps to decipher the structure. As the document states, Ramon de Medalla declared that, for his cavalleries, he received the alqueria Curalcastel, the Raal Abnanaber and the Caria Abeniulux, in the limits of Sineu by donation and concession from James I. Later, the king decreed that each and every one of those who had received possessions on the island and who had not returned to Majorca before the feast of the Mother of God in August six years earlier would lose the possessions they had acquired. 84 The document is dated on the 10 th of the Calends of April 1238 that, according to the style of the Florentine dating, would correspond to the 23 rd of March 1238. Thus, it refers to the latest date conceded to the shareholders to return to the island on the 15 th of August 1231. Perhaps the monarch was already thinking about enfeoffing the Kingdom of Majorca to Prince Peter of Portugal, as he did in September, and wanted to conclude the distribution as soon as possible. However, perhaps Ramon de Medalla was a year out in his calculations, and that would be more congruent with the line of this study.
Whatever the truth, at the same time as he admits that he did not go back or obey the decree, he confesses that the king stripped him of all his possessions. 85 This was not the only reason that de Medalla adduces for having lost the assets he acquired in the conquest. The other reason that he adds is not having been present at the defence of the island when the news spread that the fleet of King Abu Zaqaria Ibn Hafs of Tunis aimed to recapture Majorca, an event that caused James I to cross the sea to help the kingdom. 86 Once again, the Llibre dels Feyts (chap. 108) helps to clarify to question. In mid-April 1232, while in Vic, James I was informed that news reached Barcelona that the king of Tunis must be in Majorca. A boat from the island confirmed the news. Then, the king decided that pus Deus la ens ha donada (l'illa), no'n la perdrem per perea ne per coardia, car nós hi volem esser a l'acórrer. 87 Following the advice of his assessors, James I ordered to those who went with him to take Majorca, and notified by letter those Aragonese whoever has honors from him or are from his retinue que ens vinguin acórrer ab ço que han ni poden haver, e dins tres setmanes que sien ab nós al port de Salou. 88 This call was aimed at mobilising those nobles and knights to obligatory military service who had fiefs in his name, invoking them to servicia debita ("due service") 84 87. "as God has given us (the island), we shall not lose it either through laziness or cowardice". Jaume I. "Cronica de Jaume I...": 202. 88. "come to help us with everything they can find, and within three weeks let them be with us in the port of Salou". Jaume I. "Cronica de Jaume I... ": 203. in return for the fief and that was implicit in the act of vassalage. 89 The base for these duties was the pacts from prior to the conquest of Majorca in December 1228 and September 1229, in which all the beneficiaries of the distribution had received their part under obedience to the king and the uses and customs of Barcelona. 90 Although the story does not specify it, James I must have warned them that he would disinherit all those who failed to answer his call. 91 In mid-May, 250 knights gathered in that port to cross to Mallorca in groups. On arrival, they were joined by 50 horsemen who had remained on the island. The majority of the barons who had participated in the conquest were part of the host, as was Prince Peter of Portugal and his retinue. 92 The only leading barons missing were the ones from the portion of the Count of Empúries. 93 On reaching the island, they found the situation was calm and there was no news about the fleet of the king of Tunis.
Despite that, the monarch decided to carry out the measures announced for those who had not obeyed him. Consequently, Ramon de Medalla would lose his assets propter meas absencias ("due to my absences") in 1231 and 1232.
Then, as Ramon himself explained, the king granted the three farms to Bernat Eimeric of Barcelona. 94 Faced with the situation created, the two parties in the conflict attempted to reach a satisfactory agreement. Ramon de Medalla, who had shown the little interest he had in maintaining the assets he had been granted by the monarch, formally renounced the three farms. Then, together with his wife Saura and their son Pere, he praised, conceded and confirmed the royal donation to Bernat Eimeric, in exchange for compensation of 305 Barcelona shillings from Eimeric. The confirmation was formalised before Pere de Bages, the city's notary. 95 This was thus a third way. If, faced with the royal dispossession, those involved in the lawsuit analysed above automatically gave up their assets, or entered into a lawsuit with the new holders -one that they irrevocably lost-, they now entered into an agreed transaction. In short, this was a financial agreement that acquired all the symptoms of a forced sale, concealed as a letter of confirmation.

The absence of the men from Vic
It is necessary to highlight that some witnesses of the above court case mentioned two cases of plunder that had some special characteristics: On one hand, Pere Escrivà explained that Guillem Hug obtained an alquería in the limits of Muro from Berenguer de Sant Melió, and that it later went to the cavalleries of the Count of Empúries. Guillem Hug was a knight in the host and house of Count Hug of Empúries, and one of the witnesses who signed the codicil the latter dictated on the 16 th of February 1230. 96 For his contribution to the conquest, he was rewarded by the count's son and heir, Ponç Hug, with some houses and cellar in the Ciutat, various alqueries, rafals and honors in the district of Murûh and on the Catí plain, as well as some vineyards and a mill in the valley de Sóller. In August 1232, 97 the new count appointed him procurator and administrator of the barony he had on Majorca, a post he held until the day he died. In September 1234, his wife, Guillema des Pedrer, dictated her will in the town of Castelló d'Empúries. 98 Among other legacies, she made a bequest for the purchase of a chalice for the See, gave 500 Melguiel deniers to the Franciscan convent to acquire a Bible and other books, and another 200 shillings to build the convent of the Predicadors de Mallorca. She left 1,400 shillings to her sister Beatriu, the wife of the knight Bernat de Pedardell, and the rest of her assets in suffrage for her soul. All the donations had to be paid out of the assets she held in the Catalan towns of Vilafranca and Peralada. Guillem Hug made his will on the 13 th of December 1239, in Majorca. 99 103 showed that a hard-core of combatants sent by the city also took part. Vic was then partly under the seigneurial domain of Viscount Guillem de Montcada and partly under the city's bishop, a situation that provoked continuous jurisdictional controversies that often degenerated into open fighting. 104 So, it should be no surprise that the Vic militias were included in the part of the Viscount of Bearn and not in the royal portion. The men from Vic received various farms from the sacristan of Barcelona, who was the procurator for Garsenda, Countess of Bearn, and his son Gastó, successors to the viscount Guillem, who died in the Battle of a Portopí. Among these was the alquería of Palmer, in the parish of Alaró, that had initially been awarded to the Order of the Holy Sepulchre and later handed over to the militias from Vic, and that remained under their domain, as the witnesses assured. 105 Those from Vic also obtained the alquería Raal Albagal -later called Rafal del Mul-in the limits of the Ciutat, the alquería Bitax in Canarossa, and the alquería Benissalem, also in Canarossa, where there were some Saracen houses and a mosque. 106 They also obtained at least one mansion inside the walls of the Ciutat. 107 After they had obtained their part, the men from Vic who were living on the island elected Bernat de Gozells/Gozellis as their divider. 108 His task was to assign and distribute the lands and houses in allodium among the people who promised to settle on them. 109 Complying with this task, Gozells called the interested parties to appear in a certain period. Despite this summons, the beneficiaries from Vic did not bother to present themselves or even send an emissary to receive their portion, even though they were summoned three times. 110 In view of the little interest shown by the conquerors from Vic installed on the island, 111 the jurisdictional lords decided to take action. First, Prince Peter of Portugal, then lord of Majorca, ratified the appointment of Bernat Gozells as a divider. Then, with the advice of the council of the university of the town of Vic and the procurator of the Viscount of Bearn, he was granted power to distribute and award the alqueries, rafals and other properties belonging to the militias from Vic in freehold allodium to anyone, even though he was not a settler from the town.
Empowered by that authorisation, around 1233, Bernat de Gozells began the distribution of the lands. The area of each of these alqueries is unknown, but some details have been uncovered: • Berenguer de Terrades obtained one jovada, Llorenç Clavell two jovades and Arnau de Santacília four more in free allodium in Palmer, with whom he instituted an ecclesiastical benefice to the altar of Santa Cecília in the church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Ciutat. Total: 7 jovades. 112 • Ramon Caiol bought a jovada in the alquería Benissalem from Guillem de Guàrdia and Ferrer de Roquet, plus two that were adjudicated to him in allodium on which he built a wine cellar. Ramon de Boscanes obtained another, Bernat Pauli two more and Berenguer de Terrades, four in this same alquería. Sum: 10 jovades. 113  What is special about the examples of Muro and the men of Vic mentioned above is that this was not on royal lands, but rather on land belonging to the Count of Empúries and Viscount of Bearn, respectively. In other words, given the shortage of enough land to satisfy all those who had participated in the conquest, the confiscation of alqueries and rafals from the previous holders became generalised. Once the barons had managed to assemble a sufficient amount, they set the beneficiaries a time limit to go to receive their portion. The limit was stipulated jointly by the king and the other barons and settlers, as the documents show. 115 Those who did not present themselves were definitively excluded from the distribution.

Recapitulations
The documents reviewed above supply previously-unknown data regarding the process of distribution of the island of Majorca after its conquest. These new elements are important enough to allow new hypotheses about these developments to be proposed: The taking of the Ciutat de Mallorca was followed by the distribution of the moveable booty. The Llibre dels Feyts (chap. 89) justified the royal decision with the tumultuous demands of the knights, foot soldiers and the rest of the retinue, although the monarch would have preferred to subjugate the Andalusian resistance beforehand. The distribution of property took place approximately around the same dates, no later than March 1230, when the island had still not been fully conquered. The rural and urban property on the island were split into five portions and each adjudicated to one of the barons who were heads of lists. In theory, each portion was proportional to the contribution made to the conquest in material, men and supplies, evaluated by cavalleries. It was received as a fief and under free allodium, only submitted to the eminent domain of the king according to the custom of Barcelona. 116 This first division is vaguely reflected in the part of the CLA written in Arabic, although it is a copy of an original that must have been more extensive but that has been lost.
The barons were in charge of distributing the respective mass of property among the members of their quadrella, as well as of working the land. This process of subdivision began the same year of 1230. In the specific case of the royal portion, James I quickly began to make donations to institutions and individuals and to establish land for the settlers who were coming to colonise the island. 117 The rewards for the beneficiaries included in the royal portion -a combination of military orders, ecclesiastic dignitaries, second-line barons, adalils with their socii, the Jewish community and individual knights-was carried out randomly and without any apparent order, probably on request from the interested parties. 118 It was the monarch himself who carried out and signed the donations, which were formalised with unique and specific letters, closed and sealed by the royal scribe. The Llibre dels Feyts (chap. 105) explains that, at the end of October, James I left Majorca and delegated the administration of the new kingdom to his lieutenant Bernat de Santa Eugènia, who held the post for a year. From May to October 1231, the king was back on the island and, on leaving again, he appointed Assalt de Gúdar as his new lieutenant. During monarch's periods of absence, they continued to issue the documents of retribution in the king's name for the beneficiaries of the rural properties, while the bailiff, Berenguer de Mont-reial, dealt with the donations of urban property.
Confidential information reached the island in mid-April 1232 warning of an imminent disembarkment of the Tunisian fleet. The purpose of this would be to recoup the territory for their co-religionists who were holding out in the most inaccessible mountains. The alarm provoked the king to call up immediately all the fighters who had taken part in the seizure of the island two years earlier. He threatened those who failed to comply with his requirement with the loss of everything he had graciously granted them. This call led to an important mobilisation of troops and the transfer to the island of a large part of the barons who had domains on Majorca. When James I arrived for the third time, in May 1232, he saw that the news was false and nothing was known about the Tunisian armada. Far from remaining inactive, the monarch took the opportunity to quell the last Andalusian resistance holding out in the Serra de Tramuntana.
In those dates, the royal distribution was still seriously delayed and far from being completed. 119 Once free of the military obligations of conquest, James I decided to tackle the question definitively. He was spurred on by the urgent need to hand over the Kingdom of Majorca to Prince Peter of Portugal, to whom he had enfeoffed it in September 1231. However, he suddenly realised he had been excessively magnanimous with his shareholders, and this was clearly expressed by Bernat d'Empúries, one of the two dividers who had been appointed expressly to respond to the petitions from the militias of the towns and cities. Bernat explained to him that there was not enough land remaining to be shared to fulfil the pending commitments, and the king agreed to adopt the necessary palliative measures. The first provision consisted of demanding that all the holders who had received farms had to show the original letters of donation. When these had been analysed, he proceeded to reduce the concessions, trying to adjust them proportionally to the contribution each had made to the conquest. The operation affected 30 (6%) of the 495 farms consigned in total and left a mass of 123 jovades in the monarch's hands and that could be redistributed among other shareholders. For those affected, this meant a reduction of between 33% and 50% of the area of each alquería or rafal. All the process of review is reflected in the well-known list of alqueries and rafals that the scribe Pere de Sant Melió put in Latin in the CLA (f. 1r-19r), full of rectifications, over-writings and additions. The later reproduction of the capbreu in the CCR (f. 1ra-24va) and the CLR (f. 1-23) cleared the manuscript of all stains and eliminated the most recognisable traces of the review carried out by the monarch. The second provision consisted of carrying out the threat he had made to those who had not answered his call to defend the island. Obviously, those who did not rush to cross the sea did not present the original document and consequently were stripped of the holding they had received for having failed to attend to their feudo-vassalistic relations. It is unknown how many shareholders found themselves in this tessiture and, so, the effects are impossible to quantify.
The accumulation of territories recovered through the strategy explained above, added to the farms that still remained in his hands, enabled the monarch to endow Prince Peter of Portugal and the knights of his retinue, as well as to provide for those urban groups and adalils who had still to receive their part. It must be emphasised that the solution was not applied only to the royal territories, but also to the noble portions. The reason was the same: the lack of enough farms to satisfy all the participants in the conquest. We have seen how Count Nunyo Sanç gave explicit support to the decision taken by James I, and even recommended resignedness for those harmed by the plunder. Thus, the feudal links and relations of power between the barons and the knights and vassals remained firm and stable. Both the king and the barons convoked the shareholders who had still not been rewarded, conceding them time to reclaim and receive their respective portion. Those who did present themselves, like the militias of Vic, were left without reward and their assets ended up in other hands. Regarding the royal portion, a large part of these complementary donations also appear in the Latin section of the CLA, but there are others that do not. For example, the concessions granted to the Order of the Temple, the provost of Tarragona and the militias of the towns and cities, must be traced to the distinct epigraphs in the CCR or the CLR.
The operation of reviewing and redistributing part of the territories that James I had already granted was easily defensible on the basis of the criteria of proportionality agreed in the preparatory meetings for the conquest held in Barcelona and Tarragona. Despite this, the royal actuation created a lot of unrest and provoked a certain social conflictiveness. Some of those affected accepted the monarch's decision with more or less submission. Others, however, rebelled against what they considered a usurpation and reacted, peacefully, with resort to the ordinary courts. This option was useless given that in a very high proportion of cases the judges found in favour of the royal patrimony.
The process of distributing the royal portion finished at the start of July 1232. The definitive cartulary was approved by the notary Pere de Sant Melió and signed jointly by James I and Prince Peter of Portugal as the feudal lord of the Kingdom of Majorca. Then, the king conferred it with legal validity. After listening to the members of the council of eminent citizens, he warned that this document had to be considered definitive, and ordered that nobody should ever dare to contradict this. This was solemnly communicated to the settlers gathered in the Plaça de Santa Eulàlia in the city, and also proclaimed in the towns of Inca and Pollença. He also decreed that, in case of discrepancy with any document granted previously, the contents of the capbreu would be of higher legal status. That means that the royal letters of donation prior to July 1232 and discrepant with the contents of the codices of the distribution had no legal value. The capbreu or cartulary would be guarded zealously by notaries in the court of Peter of Portugal and the kings of the Crown of Majorca, and brandished as a document of reference for all later actuations. In the following decades, any copy or repair of a letter of concession, either because of loss, destruction or deterioration, had to be requested from the bailiff or the royal vicar. This official would never authorise a duplicate to be issued without having previously checked that the farm in the concession was duly inscribed in the codices.