 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
The Knights Templars were the earliest founders of themilitary orders, and are the type on which the others are modelled. They are marked in history (1) by their humble beginning, (2) by their marvellous growth, and (3) by their tragic end.
Immediately after the deliverance ofJerusalem, theCrusaders, considering theirvow fulfilled, returned in a body to their homes. The defense of this precarious conquest, surrounded as it was byMohammedan neighbours, remained. In 1118, during the reign of Baldwin II, Hugues de Payens, aknight of Champagne, and eight companions bound themselves by a perpetualvow, taken in the presence of thePatriarch ofJerusalem, to defend theChristian kingdom. Baldwin accepted their services and assigned them a portion of his palace, adjoining thetemple of the city; hence their title"pauvres chevaliers du temple" (Poor Knights of the Temple). Poor indeed they were, being reduced to living onalms, and, so long as they were only nine, they were hardly prepared to render important services, unless it were as escorts to thepilgrims on their way fromJerusalem to the banks of theJordan, then frequented as a place of devotion.
The Templars had as yet neither distinctive habit nor rule. Hugues de Payens journeyed to the West to seek theapprobation of theChurch and to obtain recruits. At the Council ofTroyes (1128), at which he assisted and at whichSt. Bernard was the leading spirit, the Knights Templars adopted theRule of St. Benedict, as recently reformed by theCistercians. They accepted not only the three perpetualvows, besides thecrusader'svow, but also the austere rules concerning thechapel, the refectory, and the dormitory. They also adopted the white habit of theCistercians, adding to it a red cross.
Notwithstanding the austerity of the monastic rule, recruits flocked to the new order, which thenceforth comprised four ranks of brethren:
and two ranks of non-fighting men:
The order owed its rapid growth in popularity to the fact that it combined the two great passions of theMiddle Ages,religious fervour and martial prowess. Even before the Templars hadproved their worth, theecclesiastical andlay authorities heaped on them favours of every kind, spiritual and temporal. Thepopes took them under their immediate protection, exempting them from all otherjurisdiction, episcopal or secular. Theirproperty was assimilated to the church estates and exempted from all taxation, even from theecclesiastical tithes, while their churches andcemeteries could not be placed underinterdict. This soon brought about conflict with theclergy of the Holy Land, inasmuch as the increase of the landedproperty of the order led, owing to itsexemption fromtithes, to the diminution of the revenue of the churches, and theinterdicts, at that time used and abused by theepiscopate, became to a certain extent inoperative wherever the order had churches andchapels in whichDivine worship was regularly held. As early as 1156 theclergy of the Holy Land tried to restrain the exorbitantprivileges of themilitary orders, but inRome every objection was set aside, the result being a growing antipathy on the part of thesecular clergy against these orders. The temporal benefits which the order received from all the sovereigns ofEurope were no less important. The Templars had commanderies in every state. InFrance they formed no less than eleven bailiwicks, subdivided into more than forty-two commanderies; in Palestine it was for the most part with sword in hand that the Templars extended their possessions at the expense of theMohammedans. Their castles are still famous owing to the remarkable ruins which remain: Safèd, built in 1140; Karak of thedesert (1143); and, most importantly of all, Castle Pilgrim, built in 1217 to command a strategic defile on the sea-coast.
In these castles, which were bothmonasteries and cavalry-barracks, the life of the Templars was full of contrasts. A contemporary describes the Templars as "in turn lions ofwar and lambs at the hearth; roughknights on the battlefield,piousmonks in thechapel; formidable to the enemies ofChrist, gentleness itself towards His friends." (Jacques de Vitry). Having renounced all the pleasures of life, they faced death with a proud indifference; they were the first to attack, the last to retreat, always docile to the voice of their leader, the discipline of themonk being added to the discipline of the soldier. As an army they were never very numerous. A contemporary tells us that there were 400knights inJerusalem at the zenith of their prosperity; he does not give the number of serjeants, who were more numerous. But it was a picked body of men who, by their noble example, inspirited the remainder of theChristian forces. They were thus the terror of theMohammedans. Were they defeated, it was upon them that the victor vented his fury, the more so as they were forbidden to offer a ransom. When takenprisoners, they scornfully refused the freedom offered them on condition ofapostasy. At the siege of Safed (1264), at which ninety Templars met death, eighty others were takenprisoners, and, refusing to denyChrist, diedmartyrs to theFaith. This fidelity cost them dear. It has been computed that in less than two centuries almost 20,000 Templars,knights and serjeants, perished inwar.
These frequent hecatombs rendered it difficult for the order to increase in numbers and also brought about a decadence of thetruecrusading spirit. As the order was compelled to make immediate use of the recruits, the article of the original rule in Latin which required a probationary period fell into desuetude. Evenexcommunicated men, who, as was the case with manycrusaders, wished to expiate theirsins, were admitted. All that was required of a new member was a blindobedience, as imperative in the soldier as in themonk. He had to declare himself forever "serf et esclave de la maison" (French text of the rule). Toprove his sincerity, he was subjected to a secret test concerning the nature of which nothing has ever been discovered, although it gave rise to the most extraordinary accusations. The greatwealth of the order may also have contributed to a certain laxity inmorals, but the most serious charge against it was its insupportablepride andlove of power. At the apogee of its prosperity, it was said to possess 9000 estates. With its accumulated revenues it had amassed greatwealth, which was deposited in itstemples atParis andLondon. Numerous princes and privateindividuals had banked there their personalproperty, because of the uprightness and solid credit of such bankers. InParis the royal treasure was kept in theTemple. Quite independent, except from the distant authority of thepope, and possessing power equal to that of the leading temporal sovereigns, the order soon assumed theright to direct the weak and irresolute government of theKingdom of Jerusalem, afeudal kingdom transmissible throughwomen and exposed to all the disadvantages of minorities, regencies, and domestic discord. However, the Templars were soon opposed by theOrder of Hospitallers, which had in its turn become military, and was at first the imitator and later the rival of the Templars. This ill-timed interference of the orders in the government ofJerusalem only multiplied the intestine dessentions, and this at atime when the formidable power of Saladin threatened the very existence of theLatin Kingdom. While the Templarssacrificed themselves with their customarybravery in this final struggle, they were, nevertheless, partly responsible for the downfall ofJerusalem.
To put an end to this baneful rivalry between themilitary orders, there was a very simple remedy at hand, namely their amalgamation. This was officially proposed bySt. Louis at theCouncil of Lyons (1274). It was proposed anew in 1293 byPope Nicholas IV, who called a general consultation on this point of theChristian states. Thisidea is canvassed by all the publicists of thattime, who demand either a fusion of the existing orders or the creation of a third order to supplant them. Never in fact had the question of thecrusaders been more eagerly taken up than after their failure. As the grandson ofSt. Louis,Philip the Fair could not remain indifferent to these proposals for acrusade. As the most powerful prince of his time, the direction of the movement belonged to him. To assume this direction, all he demanded was the necessary supplies of men and especially of money. Such is the genesis of his campaign for the suppression of the Templars. It has been attributed wholly to his well-known cupidity. Even on this supposition he needed a pretext, for he could not, withoutsacrilege, lay hands on possessions that formed part of theecclesiastical domain. To justify such a course thesanction of theChurch wasnecessary, and this the king could obtain only by maintaining the sacred purpose for which the possessions were destined. Admitting that he was sufficiently powerful to encroach upon theproperty of the Templars inFrance, he still needed the concurrence of theChurch to secure control of their possessions in the other countries ofChristendom. Such was the purpose of the wily negotiations of this self-willed and cunning sovereign, and of his still more treacherous counsellors, withClement V, aFrenchpope of weakcharacter and easily deceived. The rumour that there had been a prearrangement between the king and thepope has been finally disposed of. Adoubtful revelation, which allowedPhilip to make the prosecution of the Templars asheretics a question oforthodoxy, afforded him the opportunity which he desired to invoke the action of theHoly See.
In the trial of the Templars two phases must be distinguished: the royal commission and thepapal commission.
Philip the Fair made a preliminary inquiry, and, on the strength of so-called revelations of a few unworthy and degraded members, secret orders were sent throughoutFrance to arrest all the Templars on the same day (13 October, 1307), and to submit them to a most rigorous examination. The king did this, it was made to appear, at the request of theecclesiastical inquisitors, but in reality without their co-operation.
In this inquiry torture, the use of which was authorized by the cruel procedure of the age in the case of crimes committed withoutwitnesses, was pitilessly employed. Owing to the lack of evidence, the accused could be convicted only through their own confession and, to extort this confession, the use of torture was considerednecessary and legitimate.
There was one feature in the organization of the order which gave rise to suspicion, namely the secrecy with which therites of initiation were conducted. The secrecy is explained by the fact that the receptions always took place in a chapter, and the chapters, owing to the delicate and grave questions discussed, were, and necessarily had to be, held in secret. An indiscretion in the matter of secrecy entailed exclusion from the order. The secrecy of these initiations, however, had two grave disadvantages.
As these receptions could take place wherever there was a commandery, they were carried on without publicity and were free from all surveillance or control from the higher authorities, the tests being entrusted to the discretion of subalterns who were often rough and uncultivated. Under such conditions, it is not to be wondered at that abuses crept in. One need only recall what took place almost daily at the time in the brotherhoods of artisans, the initiation of a new member being too often made the occasion for a parody more or lesssacrilegious ofbaptism or of theMass.
The second disadvantage of this secrecy was, that it gave an opportunity to the enemies of the Templars, and they were numerous, to infer from this mystery every conceivable malicious supposition and base on it the monstrous imputations. The Templars were accused of spitting upon theCross, of denyingChrist, of permitting sodomy, ofworshipping an idol, all in the most impenetrable secrecy. Such were theMiddle Ages, when prejudice was so vehement that, to destroy an adversary, men did not recoil from inventing the most criminal charges. It will suffice to recall the similar, but even more ridiculous than ignominious accusations brought againstPope Boniface VIII by the samePhilip the Fair.
Most of the accused declared themselves guilty of these secret crimes after being subjected to such ferocious torture that many of them succumbed. Some made similar confessions without the use of torture, it istrue, but throughfear of it; the threat had been sufficient. Such was the case with the grand master himself,Jacques de Molay, who acknowledged later that he hadlied to save his life.
Carried on without the authorization of thepope, who had themilitary orders under his immediatejurisdiction, this investigation was radically corrupt both as to its intent and as to its procedure. Not only didClement V enter an energetic protest, but he annulled the entire trial and suspended the powers of thebishops and their inquisitors. However, the offense had been admitted and remained the irrevocable basis of the entire subsequent proceedings.Philip the Fair took advantage of the discovery to have bestowed upon himself by theUniversity of Paris the title of Champion and Defender of theFaith, and also to stir up public opinion at the States General ofTours against the heinous crimes of the Templars. Moreover, he succeeded in having the confessions of the accused confirmed in presence of thepope by seventy-two Templars, who had been specially chosen and coached beforehand. In view of this investigation atPoitiers (June, 1308), thepope, until then sceptical, at last became concerned and opened a new commission, the procedure of which he himself directed. He reserved the cause of the order to thepapal commission, leavingindividuals to be tried by thediocesan commissions to whom he restored their powers.
The second phase of the process was thepapal inquiry, which was not restricted toFrance, but extended to all theChristian countries ofEurope, and even to the Orient. In most of the other countries —Portugal,Spain,Germany,Cyprus — the Templars were found innocent; inItaly, except for a few districts, the decision was the same. But inFrance the episcopalinquisitions, resuming their activities, took the facts as established at the trial, and confined themselves to reconciling the repentant guilty members, imposing various canonicalpenances extending even to perpetualimprisonment. Only those who persisted inheresy were to be turned over to thesecular arm, but, by a rigid interpretation of this provision, those who had withdrawn their former confessions were considered relapsedheretics; thus fifty-four Templars who had recanted after having confessed were condemned as relapsed and publicly burned on 12 May, 1310. Subsequently all the other Templars, who had been examined at the trial, with very few exceptions declared themselves guilty.
At the same time thepapal commission, appointed to examine the cause of the order, had entered upon itsduties and gathered together the documents which were to be submitted to thepope, and to thegeneral council called to decide as to the finalfate of the order. The culpability of singlepersons, which was looked upon as established, did not involve the guilt of the order. Although the defense of the order was poorly conducted, it could not beproved that the order as a body professed anyhereticaldoctrine, or that a secret rule, distinct from the official rule, was practised. Consequently, at theGeneral Council of Vienne in Dauphiné on 16 October, 1311, the majority were favourable to the maintenance of the order.
Thepope, irresolute and harrassed, finally adopted a middle course: hedecreed the dissolution, not the condemnation of the order, and not by penal sentence, but by anApostolic Decree (Bull of 22 March, 1312). The order having been suppressed, thepope himself was to decide as to thefate of its members and the disposal of its possessions. As to theproperty, it was turned over to the rivalOrder of Hospitallers to be applied to its original use, namely the defence of the Holy Places. InPortugal, however, and inAragon the possessions were vested in two new orders, theOrder of Christ inPortugal and theOrder of Montesa inAragon. As to the members, the Templars recognized guiltless were allowed either to join anothermilitary order or to return to the secular state. In the latter case, apension for life, charged to the possessions of the order, was granted them. On the other hand, the Templars who had pleaded guilty before theirbishops were to be treated "according to the rigours ofjustice, tempered by a generous mercy".
Thepope reserved to his own judgment the cause of thegrand master and his three first dignitaries. They had confessed their guilt; it remained to reconcile them with theChurch, after they had testified to their repentance with the customarysolemnity. To give thissolemnity more publicity, a platform was erected in front of the Notre-Dame for the reading of thesentence. But at the supreme moment the grand master recovered hiscourage and proclaimed the innocence of the Templars and thefalsity of his own alleged confessions. To atone for this deplorable moment of weakness, he declared himself ready to sacrifice his life. Heknew thefate that awaited him. Immediately after this unexpectedcoup-de-théâtre he was arrested as a relapsedheretic with another dignitary who chose to share hisfate, and by order ofPhilip they were burned at the stake before the gates of the palace. Thisbrave death deeply impressed the people, and, as it happened that thepope and the king died shortly afterwards, the legend spread that thegrand master in the midst of the flames had summoned them both to appear in the course of the year before the tribunal ofGod.
Such was the tragic end of the Templars. If we consider that theOrder of Hospitallers finally inherited, although not without difficulties, theproperty of the Templars and received many of its members, we may say that the result of the trial was practically equivalent to the long-proposed amalgamation of the two rival orders. For theKnights (first ofRhodes, afterwards ofMalta) took up and carried on elsewhere the work of the Knights of the Temple.
This formidable trial, the greatest ever brought to light whether we consider the large number of accused, the difficulty of discovering thetruth from a mass of suspicious and contradictory evidence, or the many jurisdictions in activity simultaneously in all parts ofChristendom fromGreat Britain toCyprus, is not yet ended. It is still passionately discussed byhistorians who have divided into two camps, for and against the order. To mention only the principal ones, the following find the order guilty: Dupuy (1654), Hammer (1820), Wilcke (1826), Michelet (1841), Loiseleur (1872), Prutz (1888), and Rastoul (1905); the following find it innocent: Father Lejeune (1789),Raynouard (1813), Havemann (1846), Ladvocat (1880), Schottmuller (1887), Gmelin (1893), Lea (1888), Fincke (1908). Without taking any side in this discussion, which is not yet exhausted, we may observe that the latest documents brought to light, particularly those which Fincke has recently extracted from the archives of theKingdom of Aragon, tell more and more strongly in favour of the order.
APA citation.Moeller, C.(1912).The Knights Templars. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm
MLA citation.Moeller, Charles."The Knights Templars."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 14.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1912.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Sean Hyland.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.