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 neighbors, 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:
1.
the knights, equipped like the heavy cavalry of
the Middle Ages;
2.
the serjeants, who formed the light cavalry;
3.
and two ranks of non-fighting men:
a.
the farmers, entrusted with the administration
of temporals;
b.
and the chaplains, who alone were vested with
sacerdotal orders, to minister to the spiritual needs of the order.
Their marvelous 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 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, 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.
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 judgment 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 favor of the order.
No comments:
Post a Comment