20 of privilege rather than a token of reoo^piition *

There ia no record of the o«ieua being paid by Ut Mary of the Latins, even when the abbey received its privilege of exemption in 1173, but Mount bion paid a census of one gold florin a year.^^* Joaaphat, on the other hand, first paid a cenaue of one ounce of gold from 1140 when its churches at Legio in Galilee and Fatemo in Sicily were taken under the direct jurisdiction of the Holy See. In 11)4 Pope Anastaaius XV exacted the eenaua when he grsmted that privilege

22

to the mother-abbey. * But in the middle of the thirteenth c#itury Joaaphat*8 exempt status was seriously threatened. In 1260 the patriarch of Jerusalem, James fantaleon, was at the lloly See and had complained to Pope Alexander IV that the monastery had tried to withdraw from his

jurisdiction, citing a pi^al privilege of exemption. In reply the Pope denied all knowledge of and belief in the existence of such a privilege

21

and declared that even if one did exist, it was now revoked. In the

20. A. irliohe, a. f'oreviilesnd J. ttousset de i ina, *)u prcaiier concile du i V w m m M à t d'lMwwBi i n U , pp.31-245,301-2, U.S. lim*. y«>ia dWMM»#. to $h, uiddl. 1, pp.61-62.

21. 'Chartes du uont bien', p*)1.

22. *Über die Fapsturkunden fur Josephat', no.4f Chartes de Terre Sainte, no.28# Le 'Liber Censuuat*. p«238.

23# Alexander IV, no.3123# This may have been oonneoted with a dispute between Joaaphat and the dean of Jaffa over tithes. (Amico, Meg.fcl. nos# 340,341)# The patriarch had given judgment in the case, appa­ rently in the dean's favour, and the abbot of Joaaphat had gone to

Home to appeal to the pope. He was there by June 12)9 co4 was followed at the end of that year by the patriarch, who went to ask the pope to revoke the gift of St Lasarus of Bethany to the

light of Alexander IV* a previoua oorreapondanoe with the monaatery this is a most surprising statement. in 12)4 he had assured Joaaphat, vhioh belonged ad Momanam eeolesiam nullo medio, that although it had been unable to exercise the liberty granted to it by the papacy because it had had to move to another site, it should once again enjoy its iibertatem pristinaa and all its former privileges of freedom. The next year, although there «as no nullo medio clause, he confirmed papal protection, exacting the census, ad indicium autern huius percepts a

Sede Apostolica Libertatis. and shortly after that declared that although the monastery, which belonged to the Holy See nullo medio, had lost mmay of its charters, its privileges should nevertheless have the force of

the originals. Yet only five yeais later in 1260 he disclaimed all knowledge of a privilege of exemption. Within a few days of this he instructed a canon of Ancona, Cosmo, to collect payments due to the papacy from the latin Church in the Holy Land, which wwre several years in arrear. In ^eptsmber Cosmo demsnded from Josaphat five ounces of gold, representing the census for the previous four years and the current year, paid in return for a privilege of exemption. Cosmo undertook to trsnsmit the money to the Holy See, but he promised to return it if the rumour that the pope had just revoked the privilege proved to be true.^^* Joaaphat, then, believed it possessed a papal privilege exempting if from patriarchal authority# this privilege had in fact been confirmed on several occasions by the Holy See. /or the privilege

24. Chartes de Terre Sainte. noe.48,)0# Alexander IV, no.129.

2). Amico, Heg. fol. no. 344. Payment of the census was often irregu­ lar and arrears were not unoommon. At this tigs oany churches of Latin ^yria were behind with payments to the Holy See.

it paid tha oaoaua aaeh yaar and had avidantly dona #o without inter­ ruption until about 12)6. And by claiming the oenaua in 1260 the papacy must still have had documentary evidence that the monastery's claim to exemption was genuine. The confusion may have been due

either to sn error at the papal chancery, where previous correspondence with the abbey was overlooked, or to the pope's anxiety to conciliate Patriarch James who, as we can see from the number of papal letters that followed his appointment and his actions while he held office, was a jealous guardian of patriarchal rights. The outcome of the dispute is uncertain. There is no evidence that once James had been raised to the papal throne in 1261 he used his authority to clarify Josaphat *s relationship to the church of Jerusalem one way or another. The privileges of Popes Gregory X in 1274 and Nicolas XIX in 1278 and 1279 and of fourteenth century popes continued to declare that the abbey was subject nullo medio to the Holy bee, although in 12@9 the patriarch of

26