|
The Knights Templars (1911
Catholic Encyclopedia)
The Knights Templars were the
earliest founders of the military 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.
(1) THEIR HUMBLE BEGINNING
Immediately after the deliverance of Jerusalem, the Crusaders,
considering their vow fulfilled, returned in a body to their
homes. The defense of this precarious conquest, surrounded as
it was by Mohammedan neighbours, remained. In 1118, during the
reign of Baldwin II, Hugues de Payens, a knight of Champagne,
and eight companions bound themselves by a perpetual vow, taken
in the presence of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, to defend the
Christian kingdom. Baldwin accepted their services and assigned
them a portion of his palace, adjoining the temple of the city;
hence their title "pauvres chevaliers du temple" (Poor
Knights of the Temple). Poor indeed they were, being reduced
to living on alms, and, so long as they were only nine, they
were hardly prepared to render important services, unless it
were as escorts to the pilgrims on their way from Jerusalem to
the banks of the Jordan, 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 the approbation of the
Church and to obtain recruits. At the Council of Troyes (1128),
at which he assisted and at which St. Bernard was the leading
spirit, the Knights Templars adopted the Rule of St. Benedict,
as recently reformed by the Cistercians. They accepted not only
the three perpetual vows, besides the crusader's vow, but also
the austere rules concerning the chapel, the refectory, and the
dormitory. They also adopted the white habit of the Cistercians,
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:
the knights, equipped like
the heavy cavalry of the Middle Ages;
·the serjeants, who formed the light cavalry;
and two ranks of non-fighting men:
·he farmers, entrusted
with the administration of temporals;
·and the chaplains, who alone were vested with sacerdotal
orders, to minister to the spiritual needs of the order.
(2) THEIR MARVELLOUS GROWTH
The order owed its rapid growth in popularity to the fact that
it combined the two great passions of the Middle Ages, religious
fervour and martial prowess. Even before the Templars had proved
their worth, the ecclesiastical and lay authorities heaped on
them favours of every kind, spiritual and temporal. The popes
took them under their immediate protection, exempting them from
all other jurisdiction, episcopal or secular. Their property
was assimilated to the church estates and exempted from all taxation,
even from the ecclesiastical tithes, while their churches and
cemeteries could not be placed under interdict. This soon brought
about conflict with the clergy of the Holy Land, inasmuch as
the increase of the landed property of the order led, owing to
its exemption from tithes, to the diminution of the revenue of
the churches, and the interdicts, at that time used and abused
by the episcopate, became to a certain extent inoperative wherever
the order had churches and chapels in which Divine worship was
regularly held. As early as 1156 the clergy of the Holy Land
tried to restrain the exorbitant privileges of the military orders,
but in Rome every objection was set aside, the result being a
growing antipathy on the part of the secular clergy against these
orders. The temporal benefits which the order received from all
the sovereigns of Europe were no less important. The Templars
had commanderies in every state. In France 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 the
Mohammedans. Their castles are still famous owing to the remarkable
ruins which remain: Safèd, built in 1140; Karak of the
desert (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 both monasteries and cavalry-barracks,
the life of the Templars was full of contrasts. A contemporary
describes the Templars as "in turn lions of war and lambs
at the hearth; rough knights on the battlefield, pious monks
in the chapel; formidable to the enemies of Christ, 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 the monk being added to the discipline of the soldier. As
an army they were never very numerous. A contemporary tells us
that there were 400 knights in Jerusalem 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 the Christian forces.
They were thus the terror of the Mohammedans. 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 taken prisoners,
they scornfully refused the freedom offered them on condition
of apostasy. At the siege of Safed (1264), at which ninety Templars
met death, eighty others were taken prisoners, and, refusing
to deny Christ, died martyrs to the Faith. This fidelity cost
them dear. It has been computed that in less than two centuries
almost 20,000 Templars, knights and serjeants, perished in war.
These frequent hecatombs rendered it difficult for the order
to increase in numbers and also brought about a decadence of
the true crusading 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.
Even excommunicated men, who, as was the case with many crusaders,
wished to expiate their sins, were admitted. All that was required
of a new member was a blind obedience, as imperative in the soldier
as in the monk. He had to declare himself forever "serf
et esclave de la maison" (French text of the rule). To prove
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 great wealth
of the order may also have contributed to a certain laxity in
morals, but the most serious charge against it was its insupportable
pride and love of power. At the apogee of its prosperity, it
was said to possess 9000 estates. With its accumulated revenues
it had amassed great wealth, which was deposited in its temples
at Paris and London. Numerous princes and private individuals
had banked there their personal property, because of the uprightness
and solid credit of such bankers. In Paris the royal treasure
was kept in the Temple. Quite independent, except from the distant
authority of the pope, and possessing power equal to that of
the leading temporal sovereigns, the order soon assumed the right
to direct the weak and irresolute government of the Kingdom of
Jerusalem, a feudal kingdom transmissible through women and exposed
to all the disadvantages of minorities, regencies, and domestic
discord. However, the Templars were soon opposed by the Order
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 of Jerusalem
only multiplied the intestine dessentions, and this at a time
when the formidable power of Saladin threatened the very existence
of the Latin Kingdom. While the Templars sacrificed themselves
with their customary bravery in this final struggle, they were,
nevertheless, partly responsible for the downfall of Jerusalem.
To put an end to this baneful rivalry between the military orders,
there was a very simple remedy at hand, namely their amalgamation.
This was officially proposed by St. Louis at the Council of Lyons
(1274). It was proposed anew in 1293 by Pope Nicholas IV, who
called a general consultation on this point of the Christian
states. This idea is canvassed by all the publicists of that
time, 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 the crusaders been more eagerly taken up than
after their failure. As the grandson of St. Louis, Philip the
Fair could not remain indifferent to these proposals for a crusade.
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 necesary 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, without
sacrilege, lay hands on possessions that formed part of the ecclesiastical
domain. To justify such a course the sanction of the Church was
necessary, 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 the property
of the Templars in France, he still needed the concurrence of
the Church to secure control of their possessions in the other
countries of Christendom. Such was the purpose of the wily negotiations
of this self-willed and cunning sovereign, and of his still more
treacherous counsellors, with Clement V, a French pope of weak
character and easily deceived. The rumour that there had been
a prearrangement between the king and the pope has been finally
disposed of. A doubtful revelation, which allowed Philip to make
the prosecution of the Templars as heretics a question of orthodoxy,
afforded him the opportunity which he desired to invoke the action
of the Holy See.
(3) THEIR TRAGIC END
In the trial of the Templars two phases must be distinguished:
the royal commission and the papal commission.
First phase: The royal 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 throughout France 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 the ecclesiastical 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 without
witnesses, 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 considered
necessary and legitimate.
There was one feature in the organization of the order which
gave rise to suspicion, namely the secrecy with which the rites
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 less sacrilegious of baptism or of the Mass.
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 the Cross, of denying Christ, of permitting
sodomy, of worshipping an idol, all in the most impenetrable
secrecy. Such were the Middle 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
against Pope Boniface VIII by the same Philip 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 is true, but through fear of it; the threat
had been sufficient. Such was the case with the grand master
himself, Jacques de Molay, who acknowledged later that he had
lied to save his life.
Carried on without the authorization of the pope, who had the
military orders under his immediate jurisdiction, this investigation
was radically corrupt both as to its intent and as to its procedure.
Not only did Clement V enter an energetic protest, but he annulled
the entire trial and suspended the powers of the bishops 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 the University of Paris the title of Champion
and Defender of the Faith, and also to stir up public opinion
at the States General of Tours against the heinous crimes of
the Templars. Moreover, he succeeded in having the confessions
of the accused confirmed in presence of the pope by seventy-two
Templars, who had been specially chosen and coached beforehand.
In view of this investigation at Poitiers (June, 1308), the pope,
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 the papal commission, leaving individuals
to be tried by the diocesan commissions to whom he restored their
powers.
Second phase: The papal commission
The second phase of the process was the papal inquiry, which
was not restricted to France, but extended to all the Christian
countries of Europe, and even to the Orient. In most of the other
countries -- Portugal, Spain, Germany, Cyprus -- the Templars
were found innocent; in Italy, except for a few districts, the
decision was the same. But in France the episcopal inquisitions,
resuming their activities, took the facts as established at the
trial, and confined themselves to reconciling the repentant guilty
members, imposing various canonical penances extending even to
perpetual imprisonment. Only those who persisted in heresy were
to be turned over to the secular arm, but, by a rigid interpretation
of this provision, those who had withdrawn their former confessions
were considered relapsed heretics; 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 the papal commission, appointed to examine the
cause of the order, had entered upon its duties and gathered
together the documents which were to be submitted to the pope,
and to the general council called to decide as to the final fate
of the order. The culpability of single persons, 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 be proved that the order as a body professed any heretical
doctrine, or that a secret rule, distinct from the official rule,
was practised. Consequently, at the General Council of Vienne
in Dauphiné on 16 October, 1311, the majority were favourable
to the maintenance of the order.
The pope, irresolute and harrassed, finally adopted a middle
course: he decreed the dissolution, not the condemnation of the
order, and not by penal sentence, but by an Apostolic Decree
(Bull of 22 March, 1312). The order having been suppressed, the
pope himself was to decide as to the fate of its members and
the disposal of its possessions. As to the property, it was turned
over to the rival Order of Hospitallers to be applied to its
original use, namely the defence of the Holy Places. In Portugal,
however, and in Aragon the possessions were vested in two new
orders, the Order of Christ in Portugal and the Order of Montesa
in Aragon. As to the members, the Templars recognized guiltless
were allowed either to join another military order or to return
to the secular state. In the latter case, a pension for life,
charged to the possessions of the order, was granted them. On
the other hand, the Templars who had pleaded guilty before their
bishops were to be treated "according to the rigours of
justice, tempered by a generous mercy".
The pope reserved to his own jugment the cause of the grand master
and his three first dignitaries. They had confessed their guilt;
it remained to reconcile them with the Church, after they had
testified to their repentance with the customary solemnity. To
give this solemnity more publicity, a platform was erected in
front of the Notre-Dame for the reading of the sentence. But
at the supreme moment the grand master recovered his courage
and proclaimed the innocence of the Templars and the falsity
of his own alleged confessions. To atone for this deplorable
moment of weakness, he declared himself ready to sacrifice his
life. He knew the fate that awaited him. Immediately after this
unexpected coup-de-théâtre he was arrested as a
relapsed heretic with another dignitary who chose to share his
fate, and by order of Philip they were burned at the stake before
the gates of the palace. This brave death deeply impressed the
people, and, as it happened that the pope and the king died shortly
afterwards, the legend spread that the grand master in the midst
of the flames had summoned them both to appear in the course
of the year before the tribunal of God.
Such was the tragic end of the Templars. If we consider that
the Order of Hospitallers finally inherited, although not without
difficulties, the property 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 the Knights (first of Rhodes, afterwards of Malta)
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
the truth from a mass of suspicious and contradictory evidence,
or the many jurisdictions in activity simultaneously in all parts
of Christendom from Great Britain to Cyprus, is not yet ended.
It is still passionately discussed by historians 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 the Kingdom of Aragon, tell more and more
strongly in favour of the order.
|
