On the Margins of Crusading. The Military Orders, the Papacy and the Christian World 2011015692, 9781409432173, 9781315598864

192 97 4MB

English Pages [224] Year 2016

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

On the Margins of Crusading. The Military Orders, the Papacy and the Christian World
 2011015692, 9781409432173, 9781315598864

Table of contents :
List of Figures
Notes on Contributors
1 A Jerusalem Indulgence: 1100/3
2 Fulfilling a Mediterranean Vocation: The Domus Sancte Marie Montis Gaudii de Jerusalem in North-West Italy
3 Templar Liturgy and Devotion in the Crown of Aragon
4 Gerard of Ridefort and the Battle of Le Cresson (1 May 1187): The Developing Narrative Tradition
5 Clement V and the Road to Avignon, 1304–1309
6 “Vox in excelso” Deconstructed. Exactly What Did Clement V Say?
7 Myths and Reality: The Crusades and the Latin East as Presented during the Trial of the Templarsin the British Isles, 1308–1311
8 La réforme de l’Hôpital par Jean XXII: Le démembrement des prieurés de Saint-Gilleset de France (21 juillet 1317)
9 The Search for the Defensive System of the Knights in the Dodecanese (Part I: Chalki, Symi, Nisyros and Tilos)
10 Kronobäck Commandery: A Field Study
11 Crisis? What crisis? The “Waning” of the Order of St Lazarus after the Crusades
Select Bibliography

Citation preview

On the Margins of Crusading

This page has been left blank intentionally

On the Margins of Crusading

The Military Orders, the Papacy and the Christian World

Edited by

Helen J. Nicholson Cardiff University, Wales, UK

First published 2011 by Ashgate Publishing Published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © 2011 Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East, Helen J. Nicholson and the contributors Helen J. Nicholson has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the editor of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data On the Margins of Crusading: The Military Orders, the Papacy and the Christian World. – (Crusades-Subsidia) 1. Military religious orders – History. 2. Papacy – History. 3. Church history – Middle Ages, 600-1500. I. Series II. Nicholson, Helen J., 1960 271.7’91-dc22 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data On the Margins of Crusading: The Military Orders, the Papacy and the Christian World / [edited by] Helen J. Nicholson. p. cm. – (Crusades-Subsidia ; v. 4) English; one contribution in French. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Military religious orders – Europe – History – To 1500. 2. Crusades. I. Nicholson, Helen J., 1960 CR4701.O6 2011 909.07 – dc22 2011015692 ISBN 9781409432173 (hbk) ISBN 9781315598864 (ebk)


List of Figures vii Abbreviationsix Notes on Contributors xi Prefacexiii Introduction1 Helen J. Nicholson 1

A Jerusalem Indulgence: 1100/3 Anthony Luttrell


Fulfilling a Mediterranean Vocation: The Domus Sancte Marie Montis Gaudii de Jerusalem in North-West Italy Elena Bellomo


Templar Liturgy and Devotion in the Crown of Aragon Sebastián Salvadó


Gerard of Ridefort and the Battle of Le Cresson (1 May 1187): The Developing Narrative Tradition Peter Edbury


Clement V and the Road to Avignon, 1304–1309 David Morrow Bryson


“Vox in excelso” Deconstructed. Exactly What Did Clement V Say? Anne Gilmour-Bryson


Myths and Reality: The Crusades and the Latin East as Presented during the Trial of the Templars in the British Isles, 1308–1311 Helen J. Nicholson


7 8


13 31

45 61

La Réforme de l’Hôpital par Jean XXII: Le Démembrement des Prieurés de Saint-Gilles et de France (21 juillet 1317)101 Jean-Marc Roger v




The Search for the Defensive System of the Knights in the Dodecanese (Part I: Chalki, Symi, Nisyros and Tilos) Michael Heslop


Kronobäck Commandery: A Field Study Christer Carlsson


Crisis? What crisis? The “Waning” of the Order of St Lazarus after the Crusades Rafaël Hyacinthe

139 167


Select Bibliography 195 Index203

List of Figures


Map of north-west Italy, showing locations mentioned in the text. Drawn by Elena Bellomo and revised by Nigel Nicholson

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

Bertrand de Got’s journey of May–July 1304 from Bordeaux to Bordeaux around the diocese of Agen. All maps in Chapter 5 drawn by David Bryson and revised by Nigel Nicholson Bertrand de Got’s journey around the diocese of Périgueux, September–November 1304 Bertrand de Got’s journey around the diocese of Poitiers, December 1304 and January–July 1305 Pope Clement V’s journey from Bordeaux to Lyon, September–November 1305 and from Lyon to Bordeaux, March–May 1306 Pope Clement V’s journey from Bordeaux to Poitiers, March–April 1307 and from Poitiers to Bordeaux, August–October 1308 Pope Clement V’s journey to Avignon, November 1308–March 1309


The opening of Vox in excelso from the Archivio de la Corona de Aragon, Barcelona: Barcelona Chancellery Reg. 291, fol. 33r. With thanks to the secretary Maria-Mercedes Costa, 24 January, 1977

8.1 8.2

Europe in the early fourteenth century, showing the Hospitaller priories and other locations mentioned in the text. Drawn by Nigel Nicholson 111 The Hospitaller commanderies in the area of modern France during the pontificate of Pope John XXII. Drawn by Nigel Nicholson 122

9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6

Hospitaller islands of the Dodecanese. Drawn by Michael Heslop Chalki and Alimnia, showing sight lines. Drawn by Michael Heslop Symi. Drawn by Michael Heslop Chorio. Photo: Michael Heslop Symi, showing sight-lines. Drawn by Michael Heslop Tilos. Drawn by Michael Heslop



62 63 65 67 68 70


139 142 143 145 146 147


List of FigUres

9.7 9.8 9.9 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13

The Hospitaller castle at Megalo Chorio. Photo: Michael Heslop Stavros Castle. Photo: Michael Heslop Tilos, showing sight-lines. Drawn by Michael Heslop Nisyros. Drawn by Michael Heslop The Castle at Parlettia, Nisyros. Photo: Michael Heslop Nisyros, showing sight-lines. Drawn by Michael Heslop The Knights’ defensive system: sight-lines between Kos and Rhodes. Drawn by Michael Heslop

10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4

Aerial photo of the former Hospitaller commandery at Kronobäck, showing the church, the stone cellar, the cemetery and the excavated area. Photo: Christer Carlsson The gravestone made for Laurens Axelsson Thott. This has been dated to 1482. The stone has now been restored and placed under a small roof. Photo: Christer Carlsson The medieval cellar. It was built in the Hospitaller period and can be dated to about 1482. Photo: Christer Carlsson One of the skeletons found at the site. The square hole in the face indicates that this man was killed by a crossbow arrow or a war hammer. Photo: Christer Carlsson

150 152 153 155 159 160 161

168 169 172 174


Cart Hosp Cartulaire général de l’Ordre des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, 1100–1310, ed. Joseph Delaville Le Roulx, 4 vols. (Paris, 1884–1906) Cart St Sép Le Cartulaire du chapitre du Saint-Sépulchre de Jérusalem, ed. Geneviève Bresc-Bautier, Documents relatifs à l’histoire des croisades 15 (Paris, 1984) MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica MO, 2 The Military Orders, vol. 2: Welfare and Warfare, ed. Helen Nicholson (Aldershot, 1998) MO, 3 The Military Orders, vol. 3: History and Heritage, ed. Victor Mallia-Milanes (Aldershot, 2008) MO, 4 The Military Orders, vol. 4: On Land and by Sea, ed. Judi Upton-Ward (Aldershot, 2008) Montjoie Montjoie: Studies in Crusade History in Honour of Hans Eberhard Mayer, ed. Benjamin Z. Kedar, Jonathan Riley-Smith and Rudolf Hiestand (Aldershot, 1997) RRH Reinhold Röhricht, comp., Regesta regni hierosolymitani (Innsbruck, 1894) RRH Add Reinhold Röhricht, comp., Regesta regni hierosolymitan: Additamentum (Innsbruck, 1904) ROL Revue de l’Orient Latin WT William of Tyre, Chronicon, ed. Robert B.C. Huygens, Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis 63–63A (Turnhout, 1986)


This page has been left blank intentionally

Notes on Contributors

Elena Bellomo is currently collaborating with the University of Genoa (Italy) and her research has been funded by the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. Her publications on medieval Genoa, the First Crusade and the Templars include A servizio di Dio e del Santo Sepolcro: Caffaro e l’Oriente latino (2003) and The Templar Order in North-West Italy: 1142–c.1330 (2008). David Bryson is a Fellow of the School of Historical Studies at the University of Melbourne (Australia). He has published numerous articles on the Templars and Hospitallers in south-western France, including “The Hospitaller and Templar houses of Périgord” and “Murder in the Preceptory?,” in The Military Orders, vols 3 and 4 (2008). Christer Carlsson is an archaeologist who obtained his PhD from the University of Southern Denmark in February 2010. He has published on historical and archaeological approaches to the military religious orders in medieval Scandinavia. He is currently working with research excavations and is also working as Assistant Field Officer in an archaeological consultancy company. Peter Edbury is Professor of Medieval History and director of the Centre of the Crusades at Cardiff University, Wales (UK). He has written extensively on the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem and Lusignan Cyprus. His publications include The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191–1374 (1991) and the edition of John of Ibelin’s Le Livre des assises (2003). He is currently re-editing the William of Tyre continuations. Anne Gilmour-Bryson is a Principal Fellow at the University of Melbourne (Australia) and has also taught at Trinity Western University, British Columbia (Canada). Her publications on the Templar trial include The Trial of the Templars in the Papal State and the Abruzzi (1982) and The Trial of the Templars on Cyprus: A Complete English Edition (1998). Michael Heslop is an Honorary Research Associate in Byzantine Studies at the Hellenic Institute, Royal Holloway. His recent research focuses on the Hospitaller Defensive Systems in the Dodecanese and related subjects – several articles have been published on this subject. He is the co-editor of Byzantium and Venice, 1204– 1453. Collected Studies of Julian Chrysostomides published by Ashgate in April,



NOtEs On COntributOrs

2011. Current projects include “The Countryside of Rhodes: 1306–1421” with Julian Chrysostomides, Anthony Luttrell and Gregory O’Malley. Rafaël Hyacinthe studied the Order of St Lazarus from the Middle Ages to the modern period for his PhD at the Sorbonne. He has published on medieval assistance in South Italy and the cult of St Lazarus, including L’ordre de SaintLazare de Jérusalem au moyen âge (2003). He is now in charge of the Hospitaller archives in the Archives départementales de l’Hérault, Montpellier. Anthony Luttrell has studied at Oxford, Madrid, Rome and Pisa, taught at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, Edinburgh, Malta and Padua, and served as Assistant Director and Librarian of the British School at Rome. He works and publishes extensively on the Hospitallers of Rhodes, on medieval Malta, on the English in the Levant and on various archaeological projects. Helen J. Nicholson is Reader in History at Cardiff University, Wales (UK), and publishes on the Military Orders, crusades, and various related subjects. Her books include Love, War and the Grail: Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights in Medieval Epic and Romance, 1150–1500 (2001), and The Proceedings against the Templars in the British Isles (2011). Jean-Marc Roger, palaeographical archivist, has published many studies on the Hospital of St John, the Templars, and other aspects of French ecclesiastical history during the late middle ages, including Le prieuré de Champagne des “chevaliers de Rhodes” (1317–1522) (doctoral thesis, 2001) and Nouveaux regards sur des monuments des Hospitaliers à Rhodes (2007, 2010). Sebastián Salvadó is currently a post-doctoral researcher at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (Trondheim). His current project explores the music and texts of saints’ offices (historiae) as vehicles of political ideology within the context of medieval Arago-Catalonia. He recently completed his PhD at Stanford University (2011) with the dissertation “The Liturgy of the Holy Sepulchre and the Templar Rite: Edition and Analysis of the Jerusalem Ordinal (Rome, Bib. Ap. Vat., Barb. Lat. 659) with a Comparative Study of the Acre Breviary (Paris, Bib. Nat., Ms. Lat. 10478).”


This volume contains the papers presented at the seventh conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East at Avignon, France, 28–31 August 2008, which did not deal with the conference subject “the papacy and the crusades” but instead discussed various aspects of a related subject, the military orders and the papacy. The papers explore some important and hitherto under-researched aspects of the history of the military orders, both in the orders’ relations with the papacy and in other aspects of their work throughout Europe and the Levant. For the benefit of researchers in the field it seemed convenient to publish them together in a separate volume in the series Crusades subsidia, alongside the main volume of papers from the Avignon conference. In this way, a collection of valuable pieces of specialised research will be made available to a wider audience. Two additional papers on related themes have been included from the “Military Orders: Politics and Power” conference at Cardiff in 2009. The editor is very grateful to Peter Edbury and Theresa Vann, who formed the editorial committee, and to Nigel Nicholson, who revised the maps for Chapters 2 and 5, drew the maps for Chapter 8 and produced the index. She is also very grateful to those at Ashgate Publishing who assisted with the production of this volume and to Ashgate’s anonymous reader for his/her valuable comments.


This page has been left blank intentionally

Introduction Helen J. Nicholson

The articles in this volume consider a variety of aspects of the history of the military religious orders, primarily the Orders of the Hospital of St John and the Temple, but also the Orders of Mountjoy and of St Lazarus. Six of the papers deal with the trial of the Templars and its aftermath, draw on evidence from the trial or reflect on the trial (Chapters 3–8), two consider archaeological evidence for the Hospitallers’ houses (Chapters 9 and 10), one considers an early indulgence offered to patrons of the Hospital (Chapter 1), and two consider largely overlooked smaller military orders, showing how their development was shaped by their patrons’ expectations (Chapters 2 and 11). None of these papers deal directly with the crusades – hence the title of this volume – but together they show the military religious orders working in various ways, often indirectly, in support of crusading and the defence of Christians and Christendom in the East. Anthony Luttrell’s article considers an indulgence offered in around 1100–1103 by Pope Paschal II and Gerald, “servus” of the Hospital of Jerusalem, to those who offered help to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and to the Hospital. In the author’s words, this appears to be an early instance of such indulgences “being written down as a document in order to assist collectors in raising funds” and is significant in being produced a very short period after the first crusade’s capture of Jerusalem, at a time when the Hospital was not yet independent of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It is important evidence for the Hospital’s early years and development, and particularly for the role of Gerald, credited with being the founder of the Hospital. Elena Bellomo then considers houses of the military Order of Montjoy in Italy. Founded to provide military aid to the Latin Christians in the Latin East, the main base of the Order of Mountjoy was in the Iberian Peninsula, and it never contributed to the military effort in the East; in fact, it does not even seem to have fought Islam in the Iberian Peninsula. Yet – thanks to the interests of the house of Montferrat in the kingdom of Jerusalem – the Order received property in Piedmont from Marquis William V of Montferrat. Bellomo suggests that William V hoped to use his donations to this military order to consolidate his control of local routes. Other donations to the Order in Piedmont were on the routes to Spain or the Holy Land. In addition, the houses in north-west Italy were directly involved in hospitaller activities, unlike the houses of Mountjoy in Spain. Bellomo argues that patrons saw the Order of Mountjoy as having a Mediterranean-wide vocation and hoped to 1

2 IntRoDUction

exploit this. Yet, as the Order failed to recruit members, in the thirteenth century its houses in north-western Italy were taken over by other religious orders. Sebastián Salvadó draws on the Templar regulations, and “surviving documentation on the Templars in Arago-Catalonia”, including the inventories taken at the time of the Templars’ arrests, to reconstruct their liturgy and religious devotion. The Templars’ liturgy has been discussed by Cristina Dondi, but Salvadó shows that much evidence remains to be investigated. He argues that, despite the fact that the majority of the Templars did not understand Latin, the Templars did interact with their rites, showing their piety visually in their chapel furnishings. He argues that their expressions of devotion were similar to those practised by the laity, as in a noble’s private chapel. His investigation indicates the potential of the surviving evidence to reveal the devotional lives of the military orders and the liturgies which they practised. Peter Edbury discusses the depiction of a famous episode, the Battle of the Spring of the Cresson (1 May 1187), in which the forces of the Hospitallers and Templars were destroyed by a Muslim army. He shows how the various versions of the event differ in the extent to which they assign blame for the disaster to Gerard of Ridefort, master of the Templars. The earliest version discussed here was compiled in the 1230s or earlier and presents a relatively objective account, but interpolations composed in the Latin East in the late 1230s or 1240s clearly blamed Gerard. A manuscript copied in 1295 blackens Gerard’s reputation further. Edbury suggests that “the fact that it is found in a manuscript copied just twelve years before the arrest of the Templars” could be “evidence that, in some circles at least, there were people who were eager to believe ill of the Order”. The texts in question are included in appendices to this chapter. The antecedents to the Templars’ trial are considered further in the next chapter. David Bryson traces the travels of Pope Clement V from May 1304, when (as Bertrand de Got, archbishop of Bordeaux) he set out on his pastoral visits of the dioceses of Agen, Périgueux and Poitiers. Over five years to 1309, he visited various places which would play an important role during the trial of the Templars, 1307– 12. The role of Pope Clement V in the Templars’ trial is a contentious question among historians of the military orders. Bryson sets some of the issues into their geographical context, showing that Clement had many opportunities to discuss “the Templars’ affair” before the trial actually began, that he consistently avoided entering territory which was under the direct control of the king of France, and that the English regarded him as an ally. He argues that Clement could have remained in the south-west of France, an area he knew and where “he was most comfortable”, but he chose to champion the crusade, attempt to reform the Hospital and Temple and to resist King Philip IV’s influence. Finally, by moving to Avignon, Clement put his court outside the influence of the kings of France and England. Anne Gilmour-Bryson moves on to consider the role of Pope Clement V during the trial of the Templars, and presents an in-depth discussion of the contents of the bull Vox in excelso, by which Clement dissolved the Order in 1312. She argues that

IntRoDUction 3

Clement considered the Templars’ affair very seriously and that he did not wish to dissolve the Order, nor did he find the Order or its members guilty as charged. Yet he was effectively compelled to dissolve the Order, to prevent King Philip IV of France bringing charges of heresy against Pope Boniface VIII. Helen Nicholson moves the discussion of the trial from a focus on the papacy to the proceedings themselves, using testimonies given during the trial of the Templars in Britain and Ireland to explore what the people of these islands actually knew about the Holy Land during the early years of the fourteenth century. Having discussed the problems of using such testimony evidence, she argues that there was a certain level of travel from Ireland to the eastern Mediterranean, and that some of those who spoke against the Templars did have a personal interest in the situation in the Middle East. That said, the evidence which is recorded reflects the expectations of the inquisitors and the witnesses’ own concerns rather than giving accurate information about the Templars or the crusade in the East. Jean-Marc Roger’s article returns to the papacy and discusses the aftermath of the Templars’ trial, exploring how Pope John XXII reformed the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem after the Order had obtained the Templars’ properties, and in particular how he reorganised the priories of Saint-Gilles and of France. Drawing on a vast range of evidence, much of which has not been published, he shows how “En prenant à bras le corps l’Hôpital, Jean XXII le sauva”. Without the efforts of Pope John XXII, he argues, the Hospital would not have survived to hold Rhodes for a further two centuries. The next two articles consider the work of the Hospitallers at the extremes of Latin Christendom in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: at Rhodes on the frontier with the Turks, and in Sweden, far from the Latin Christian frontier. Michael Heslop’s article considers, with the help of maps and photographs, the geographical relationship of the Hospitallers’ castles in the Dodecanese to each other. He explores how the brothers stationed in each castle would have been able to communicate with each other, and ultimately with their headquarters on Rhodes, by means of fire or mirror-signals. Christer Carlsson reports on archaeological excavations at a Hospitaller commandery in Sweden – one of the Order’s more distant commanderies from the Holy Land – and considers its role in its local context. The commandery church is very large for such a small commandery, and Carlsson discusses the possibility that the church also functioned as the local parish church. He argues that as the church was built next to a local route used by pilgrims, there is also the possibility that the commandery acted as a pilgrim hospice. Finally, Rafaël Hyacinthe considers the development of the Order of St Lazarus after the loss of the Holy Land in 1291 from an internationally based order focused on military support for the Holy Land to separate “national” Orders of St Lazarus. He argues that with the end of crusading to the Holy Land, the Order’s houses in western Europe had to find new roles, providing various spiritual and Hospitaller services for their patrons. With the connivance of the papacy, which recognised

4 IntRoDUction

an independent master of England in 1372 and an independent master in Capua in 1443, the former Order became effectively a series of separate small national orders. In 1498 Pope Innocent VIII amalgamated the Order of St Lazarus with the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, but this was never put into effect. Following the Protestant Reformation, two of these small national orders – in Italy and France – were reformed with papal approval into secular knightly orders, while others – in England and Germany – were dissolved. Hyacinthe argues that the Order survived, albeit in a fragmented form, because its members were ready to adapt quickly to local needs and to provide what those in power and authority required: whether better hospital care, or a prestigious military force. Only their semi-legendary history remained as a memory of their international origins in the Holy Land. Overall, these articles widen and enrich our insight into the operations and everyday life of the military religious orders in the medieval period. We see their geographical range: a Spanish military order is shown operating in Italy, while the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem is responsible for a parish church in rural Sweden. We see their varied activities: near the beginning of their history the Hospitallers offer written records of indulgences as part of their alms-raising activities; two centuries later, they are guarding fortresses on the islands of the Eastern Mediterranean. We see the Templars’ spiritual life, and their contemporaries’ depictions of them. We also see the papacy acting to administer, control or judge these religious orders. Throughout, they operate as part of medieval Catholic Christendom, sometimes controversial but always active in their vocation. Even if much of what they did was on the margins of crusading, crusading could not have operated without their support. As crusading itself changed and adapted in the early modern period, so the surviving military-religious orders, such as the Order of St Lazarus, also changed to meet new expectations and political needs.

1 A Jerusalem Indulgence: 1100/3


Anthony Luttrell

At some point during the years from 1100 to 1103 which followed the crusaders’ conquest of Jerusalem in July 1099, two collectors from Jerusalem were in southwest France seeking bequests to support the Holy Sepulchre and the nearby xenodochium or hospice in return for spiritual benefits. They carried a brief and evidently ungrammatical text which read:2 [In no]mine domini nostri Ihesu Christi et beati sepulcri ego papa Pascalis et ego Daigbertus patriarcha ego Geraldus qui sum seruus ospitali sancte Iherusalem necnon ego [ … ] et Geraldus qui sumus missi ab ipsis supra dictis, damus in penitentiam et in remissionem animarum parentum illorum qui auxilium prebuerint fratri nostro Petro Ramundi in opere salvationi ut sint absoluti et liberati a cunctis peccatis suis a deo patri omnipotenti et ab Jhesu Cristo filio ejus et ab spiritu sancto et beatissime virginis Marie et omnium sanctorum dei et damus talem partem in benefactis sancte Jherusalem illis qui eum receperint qualem nos desideramus adipisci a domino Jhesu Cristo.

This text was inserted in a small hand into a space in a very unequally shaped parchment approximately 14.5 by 36 cms, in which some 35 or more donors jointly gave lands for the foundation of a salvatio or sauveté, an arrangement designed to stabilize the population of an area with some kind of ecclesiastical immunity guaranteed by the local bishop. This sauveté was at Puysubran, some 60 kilometres south-east of Toulouse. Most of the donations were explicitly made either to the Holy Sepulchre, or to the Jerusalem hospice or to both. The parchment and the indulgence it contained were published by Joseph Delaville Le Roulx, but he inserted the indulgence at the end of the main text with no indication that in the parchment it stood by itself as a separate document. In the indulgence after the words necnon ego he placed five dots, unfortunately without indicating that there was a name which is not merely illegible but which has actively been scratched out; it is not now readable even with the use of a lamp. Delaville also placed five dots in the phrase elsewhere in the parchment where it read Ego 1

  Advice on particular points was very kindly provided by Bernard Hamilton.   Toulouse, Archives départementales de la Haute-Garonne, H Malte, Puysubran, liasse 12 no. 36. 2



Anthony Luttrell

… elemosinarius Sancti Sepulcri, again without indicating that there had been two words and that they had been scratched out.3 *** Bishops and others were granting primitive forms of indulgence during the eleventh century, and Pope Paschal II did announce indulgences of various kinds.4 The text of 1100/3 was apparently an early example of such declarations being written down as a document in order to assist collectors in raising funds. Who composed the brief indulgence of 1100/3 is unclear since it contained no formal titles or diplomatic apparatus, no dating formula and no validation; it could well have been confected in Jerusalem. Conceivably, given the lack of space on the parchment, the text was abbreviated in the copy. Paschal II was pope from August 1099 until 1118. Daibert was patriarch of Jerusalem from December 1099 until his deposition in October 1102, but a document in his name could have been used in the West during the months following his deposition. Geraldus had ruled the xenodochium before 1099 and did so until 1120.5 The whole parchment was confirmed by Isarn who was Bishop of Toulouse from 1072 until 1105, by Bertrand Count of Toulouse and by the Viscountess of Carcassonne. Bertrand was ruling the county for his father, the great crusading leader Raymond of Saint Gilles who was then in the East. The Viscountess of Carcassone was presumably Ermengarde who had longstanding and powerful interests in the area. She was alive on 22 June 1101 with her son Bernard Ato who was described as positus in itinere Sancti Sepulcri, which

  Cart Hosp, no. 6; Michael Matzke, “De Origine Hospitalariorum Hierosolymitanorum – Vom klösterlichen Pilgerhospital zur internationalen Organisation,” Journal of Medieval History 22 (1996), 20, and Michael Matzke, Daibert von Pisa: Zwischen Pisa, Papst und erstem Kreuzzug (Sigmaringen, 1998), p. 125, twice reproduced the text from Delaville’s version. 4  Nikolaus Paulus, Geschichte des Ablasses im Mittelalter vom Ursprunge bis zur Mitte des XIV. Jahrhunderts, 1 (Paderborn, 1922), pp. 87–88, 122–23, 157–58, 197 et passim; Paul Chevedden, “Canon 2 of the Council of Clermont (1095), and the Crusade Indulgence,” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 37 (2005), 253–322. 5   Alain Beltjens, Aux Origines de l’Ordre de Malte: de la Fondation de l’Hôpital de Jérusalem à sa Transformation en Ordre Militaire (Brussels, 1995), pp. 152–53, considers that the Geraldus, servus et minister of Cart Hosp, no. 18, present at Toulouse between 1109 and 1115, was the founder. Yet the founder is not otherwise known to have been in the West, while at least one other Geraldus active in the West is well known: Anthony Luttrell, “The Earliest Hospitallers,” in Montjoie, pp. 49–50; Beltjens, Aux Origines, pp. 141–42, 248–56; 265–66; 439–40. Furthermore, other brethren in the West were entitled servus Hospitalis Jherusalem: Cart Hosp, nos. 16, 19. 3

A Jerusalem Indulgence: 1100/3


meant that he was setting out for Jerusalem,6 and she apparently died soon after,7 possibly on 1 May 1103.8 The parchment may therefore be datable from 1100 to 1103. The other Geraldus acting as missus was probably the Geraldus described as hospitalarius et diaconus in 1114/6 when he was at Toulouse;9 he was active as a Hospitaller brother in southern France from 1100/2 onwards.10 Frater Peire Raimon apparently represented the Holy Sepulchre, though arguably not the xenodochium, as its local administrator. The elemosinarius of the Holy Sepulchre whose name was obliterated was not otherwise identified.11 The indulgence did mention penitence and it promised the donors the remission of their own sins and those of their family in the name of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, Mary and all the saints, together with participation in the “benefits” of Jerusalem, which was perhaps an allusion to the benefits of prayer. Some donations in the 1100/3 parchment explicitly mentioned the remission of sins.12 It was neither a crusading nor a pilgrim indulgence, but was intended for those making bequests to the Holy Sepulchre and the Jerusalem hospice; its canonical status must have been vague. That this was scarcely formal papal policy was suggested by the fact that when a decade later in 1113 Paschal II formally recognized the Jerusalem hospice and issued a separate letter appealing for donations to it, he then made much vaguer promises than those contained in the 1100/3 indulgence, merely stating that the Lord would make “all grace abound” towards the donors and that they would receive   Histoire générale de Languedoc, 3rd edn, eds Claude Devic and Jean Vaissète, 16 vols (Toulouse, 1872–1904), 5, pp. 770–71. Bernard Ato was in Tripoli by January 1103: Cartulaire de l’Abbaye de Saint-Victor de Marseille, ed. B. Guérard, 2 (Paris, 1857), pp. 151–53. 7   She was not again documented: Histoire générale de Languedoc, ed. Vaissète et al., 3, pp. 557. 8   If she was the Hermengardis vicecomitissa Narbonensis listed in the necrology of the abbey of Quarante as dying on 1 May (ibid., 5, p. 37), she lived until 1 May 1103 or later. Delaville, in Cart Hosp, no. 6 n. 6, suggests that the viscountess in the text died in 1101 and that the parchment should be dated to that year; many authors simply give 1101. Matzke, “De Origine,” 6; Matzke, Daibert, p. 112, wrongly has Ermengarde married to Bertrand of Toulouse and as dying in 1101; that would date the indulgence to 1101. 9   Luttrell, “Earliest Hospitallers,” p. 49, n. 78; cf. above, n. 4. 10   The other Geraldus may also have been the G. levita (deacon) who in 1121 was prior hospitii Iherosolimitani hujus terre, and possibly prior of the house at Saint-Gilles: ibid., 50; Beltjens, Origines, pp. 139–42, 247–56; Dominic Selwood, Knights of the Cloister: Templars and Hospitallers in Central-Southern Occitania 1100–1300 (Woodbridge, 1999), pp. 52, 56– 57. 11  No other elemosinarius of the Holy Sepulchre is known until 1128: Cart. St Sép., nos. 65–66. 12   If Charles Higounet in Annales du Midi 61 (1948–1949), 227–28, is correct in dating Cart Hosp, no. 62 item 26, to 13 August 1101, fiefs were already being granted to Deo et hospitali de Jherusalem et Geraldo et omnibus confratribus hospitalis pro remedio anime eorum et omnium parentorum suorum. 6


Anthony Luttrell

“eternal renewal”.13 While those who went to Jerusalem, whether as crusaders or not, certainly expected some kind of indulgence,14 the 1100/3 text granted spiritual benefits to people who were staying at home. The Puysubran parchment did not copy a series of charters but summarized the individual donors’ gifts and motives in a few lines, each group of lines commencing Ego. The text opened with a reference to the sufferings of the “poor of Christ” in Jerusalem, followed by biblical quotations and the names of some 35 or more donors and associates who, for the good of their souls, jointly gave the sauveté and villa of Puysubran and other lands, tenths, first fruits and so forth into the hands of Bishop Isarn et in manu prioris jerosolimitani Johannis Bonioli. The sauveté was taken under the “safety” or protection of the bishop. Johannes Bonioli was quite possibly the Prior of the Holy Sepulchre.15 He could have been the missus of the Holy Sepulchre whose name was scratched out in the brief indulgence or the elemosinarius whose name was obliterated in the parchment, or he may have been both;16 his name was perhaps left in another part of the roll because there he was described only as prior jerosolimitanus, so that whoever suppressed the names of representatives of the Holy Sepulchre did not think to cross out his name in that place. The donors explicitly mentioned the pope, the patriarch and the joint indulgence. Touching holy relics, including a piece of the lignum Domini or True Cross and certain “relics of the Holy Sepulchre” and of various saints which had presumably been brought from Jerusalem to encourage donations, the donors, acting for the remission of their sins, gave the honor of Puysubran to the Holy Sepulchre ad sepulcrum domini nostri Jhesu Christi vel ad dispendium peregrinorum fratrum qui odie sunt in Jherusalem vel in antea erunt; that is the gift was to support the Holy Sepulchre or the “pilgrim brethren who are today or will in future be in Jerusalem”. That was presumably a reference to those serving the pilgrims in the hospice there, and it implied that the donors in south-west France considered that the Jerusalem xenodochium was closely connected to the Holy Sepulchre and was situated next to it. There followed details of individual gifts and donors. One donation was made ad victum et ad vestitum clericis Sancti Sepulcri and another domino Deo et Sancti Sepulcri et clericis ejusdem loci; possibly these two gifts were made explicitly for the clergy of the Holy Sepulchre rather than for the laymen serving in the hospice.   Cart Hosp, no. 31, revised in Rudolf Hiestand, Papsturkunden für Templar und Johanniter: Archivberichte und Texte, 1, Vorarbeiten zum Oriens Pontificius 1, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen 77 (Göttingen, 1972), pp. 203, 424. Whether Paschal II himself knew of the 1100/3 indulgence is uncertain. 14   Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders: 1095–1131 (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 48– 52, 66–75 et passim. 15  Matzke, Daibert, p. 124. However, a Petrus Bonofilius was mentioned as a frater of the Hospital in a Catalan text of 1011: Cart Hosp, no. 21. 16  Beltjens, Origines, p.  157, and Selwood, Knights, pp.  52, 245, have him as a Hospitaller “Prior of Jerusalem,” but no such office is known at that time. 13

A Jerusalem Indulgence: 1100/3


A donor named Garin made his gift because he was unable to fulfil his promise to go on a peregrinatio or pilgrimage, perhaps to Jerusalem as a crusader. Some 20 persons added their signum to the parchment. On the back of it were recorded some nine other persons, further donations being made, presumably at a slightly later date, in two different hands. Other persons gave counsel or assent, or they put their signum. Three donations were designated to “God and the Holy Sepulchre”; one to the opus Sancti Sepulcri or “work of the Holy Sepulchre”; one to “the lord God and the hospital”; one to the church and clergy of Puysubran, and one to “God, to the Holy Sepulchre and to the church of Puysubran”, this last being followed by the signum of Peire Raimon and that of Raimon Pons capellanus of Laurac.17 These donations came to form the basis of the monasterium, the future commandery of the future Hospitaller order, at Puysubran where the parchment remained in its archive. The indulgence survived only as a copy. It can scarcely have been issued by all three of the authorities in whose name it was issued and it was in that sense a forgery, but the donors evidently saw and accepted it, as did Isarn Bishop of Toulouse, who had earlier accompanied Pope Urban II and Daibert on their precrusade journey from Toulouse to Nîmes in 1096, Puysubran being on or just off their route.18 Having read the indulgence, which was described as being from the pope and patriarch but with no reference at that point to Geraldus servus ospitali, the bishop confirmed the gift and the new foundation, the salvatio or sauveté, and commanded his clergy to serve God and to “obey” the Jerusalem hospice and those who served in it: et precipio clericis presentibus et futuris ut Deo serviant, et ospicio Jherusalem et ibidem servientibus obediant.19 The elemosinarius of the Holy Sepulchre, whose name was subsequently scratched out on both the indulgence and the main text of the parchment, committed the donations to Peire Raimon, who was mentioned in the indulgence, and to the capellanus Raimon Pons ad regendum et disponendum, ut faciant monasterium; that seemingly implied the creation of some sort of resident community. A note on the reverse of the parchment showed that Peire Raimon, Benet Vidal and Raimon Pons later pawned certain vineyards not for the profit of the hospice but for that of the Holy Sepulchre: ad opus Sancti Sepulcri. The donors evidently considered that they were endowing the Holy Sepulchre or perhaps the Holy Sepulchre and the hospice it included. The hospice had existed under its ruler Geraldus before the capture of Jerusalem in 1099, and very soon after that donations were being made to it as an independent entity.20 Yet the joint indulgence of 1100/3 and the donor’s reaction to it suggested that, while Geraldus  For tibi Ramundo Pontio, Cart Hosp, no. 6, wrongly gives ubi Ramundo Pontio.   Matzke, “De Origine,” 19; Matzke, Daibert, p. 124. 19   These clergy were presumably those of the bishop since the word obediant was followed by tamen salve obedientia nostra et S. Stephani, Saint Stephen being the saint to whom his cathedral was dedicated. 20   Luttrell, “Earliest Hospitallers,” pp. 41–42. 17



Anthony Luttrell

was sufficiently important to be one of those who issued it, the xenodochium was in some ambiguous sense still a part of the Holy Sepulchre or at least of its group of secular canons who depended on the patriarch.21 They all needed European support and Western donors made bequests or foundations for the Holy Sepulchre, a term often synonymous with Jerusalem itself, and they dedicated churches to it. Later on the hospice sought to acquire some of these bequests and even changed the dedications of churches initially dedicated to the Holy Sepulchre.22 The obliteration of the names of representatives of the Holy Sepulchre both in the copy of the indulgence and elsewhere in the parchment for Puysubran was part of that later process. Not until 1113 was the Jerusalem xenodochium recognized by the pope, still Paschal II, as an independent institution. Its remarkable success was ascribed by his contemporaries to the institutor Geraldus. At least for a few years immediately following the crusaders’ conquest of Jerusalem the xenodochium, previously a Benedictine hospice supported by Amalfitan merchants, was at least to some extent under the control of the newly-established Latin patriarch and the canons secular of the Holy Sepulchre. The Amalfitans were no longer predominant in a community controlled by Latins. Daibert was an ambitious and domineering patriarch, much concerned with financial considerations; he may have seen the importance of the xenodochium not just as a vital charitable and medical institution in Jerusalem and of course as a source of income for the patriarch himself, but also as a propaganda attraction in the West, and he may, therefore, have taken a leading role in organizing the collectors’ mission in search of donations in the West.23 The contemporary Albert of Aachen claimed that when in 1101 Roger of Apulia sent 1,000 bezants to the patriarch to be divided between the king, the Holy Sepulchre and the Hospital, the greedy Daibert had kept the money for himself.24 Daibert provoked widespread opposition and his deposition in October 1102 probably opened the way for the hospice to strengthen its independence in ways about which little precise is known. 21

  As noted ibid., pp.  43–44, and earlier by Rudolf Hiestand, “Die Anfänge der Johanniter,” in Die geistlichen Ritterorden Europas, eds Josef Fleckenstein and Manfred Hellmann, Vorträge und Forschungen 26 (Sigmaringen,1980), pp.  47–48, and others; the general point is not a new one. 22   Luttrell, “Earliest Hospitallers,” pp.  51–52; for amendments concerning the Holy Sepulchre church at Asti, Luttrell in Revue Mabillon 75 (2003), 301–302; on Brindisi and Barletta, Luttrell, “Gli Ospedalieri nel Mezzogiorno,” in Il Mezzogiorno Normanno-Svevo e le Crociate, ed. G. Musca (Bari, 2002); Luttrell, “Ospedale e Santo Sepolcro in Puglia dopo il 1099,” in Il Cammino di Gerusalemme, ed. Maria Stella Calò Mariani (Bari, 2002). 23   Matzke, “De Origine;” Matzke, Daibert, pp. 107–27; however, Matzke’s thesis that even before 1099 Urban II and Daibert had planned to convert the Hospital into a widely established international organization constituting part of the Western infrastructure of a carefully planned crusade project seems unlikely. 24   Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana, ed. Susan Edgington (Oxford, 2007), p. 574.

A Jerusalem Indulgence: 1100/3


From the beginning there was a search not only for contributions in cash but also for European endowments and there was an attempt to create permanent establishments with the administrative machinery they involved.25 Puysubran was part of a region which generated crusading enthusiasm, and within a year or so of the conquest of Jerusalem the hospice’s ruler Geraldus was seen by a considerable group of donors in south-west France to be acting alongside the pope and patriarch in the collection of donations and in the initial creation of a network of European houses established through the support of a public which largely stayed at home in the West but which strongly supported the Latins of Jerusalem. The curious text concocted in 1100/3 and preserved in the Puysubran parchment was neither a papal letter nor a crusade indulgence. It could have been composed by the Patriarch Daibert, or by Geraldus or by the two together. The indulgence reflected changes made very soon after the crusaders had taken Jerusalem. Under its ruler Geraldus, the Latin hospice there transferred its dependence on the Benedictines of Sancta Maria Latina to the newly installed Canons of the Holy Sepulchre with whom it acted jointly to raise funds in the West. Subsequent interferences with the parchment were evidently designed to eliminate donations made in favour of the Holy Sepulchre to the material advantage of the hospice. The epitaph of the hospice’s founder Geraldus declared: “He was a prudent man who acted correctly in many matters and dealt with numerous affairs; he expertly sought help from many parts and everywhere he gathered in what was needed to support his own people.”26

25   There were very early houses in south-west France, many donated formally to the Holy Sepulchre, to the Hospital, to Geraldus and so on; their dates are mostly lacking or debatable, and the whole group requires study. Forty-one documents are published and discussed in Paul Ourliac, Les Sauvetés du Comminges: Étude et Documents sur les Villages fondés par les Hospitaliers dans le Région des Côteaux commingeois (Toulouse, 1947). The charter for Poucharramet stated that it was founded on 25 April 1102, though it mentioned Bishop Emilius who was not Bishop of Toulouse until 1106: Cart Hosp, no. 26 item 3 (as 1112) = Ourliac, Sauvetés, no. 3 (dated at pp. 28 n. 1, 97 n. a). The foundation based on the fiefs at Saint-Pé d’Ares and Saint-Frejou was made to the Hospital and to Geraldus, Fortinus, Raimundus de Clauso et ceteris fratribus hospitalis, without mention of the Holy Sepulchre, on 21 December 1103: ibid., no. 10 and p.  28. For major donations at Gap from c.1105 onwards contained in another lengthy roll, Cart Hosp, no. 4; Luttrell, “Earliest Hospitallers,” pp. 45–46; Matzke, “De Origine,” 6–9; Matzke, Daibert, pp. 112–15. For a foundation at Rayssac c.1108 or later, Cart Hosp, nos. 12–14; Henri Blaquière, “Les Hospitaliers en Albigeois à l’Époque de la Croisade: la Commanderie de Raissac,” in Paix de Dieu et Guerre Sainte en Languedoc au XIIIe Siècle = Cahiers de Fanjeaux 4 (1969). 26   Corpus Inscriptionum Crucesignatorum Terrae Sanctae: 1099–1291, ed. Sabino de Sandoli (Jerusalem, 1974), p. 84.

This page has been left blank intentionally

2 Fulfilling a Mediterranean Vocation: The Domus Sancte Marie Montis Gaudii de Jerusalem in North-West Italy Elena Bellomo

During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the commitment of Christendom to the defence of the holy places and the expansion of Christian frontiers gave rise to the establishment of various military orders. These institutions, merging religious life and militancy, were diverse in observance and daily practices, but identical in their intent to fight the enemies of the faith. Some of these institutions, like the Temple, the Hospital, and the Teutonic Order, left an indelible mark on medieval history. Others only survived briefly, before being prematurely consumed in an impetuous but ephemeral impulse of devotion. This article aims at contributing to a better understanding of one minor military order, the Domus Sancte Marie Montis Gaudii de Jerusalem, also known as the Order of Mountjoy, by examining its settlements in north-west Italy. Mountjoy’s presence in the area has been mentioned in previous studies but a comprehensive analysis of the subject is still lacking. Moreover, a new survey of local primary sources has brought to light documentary evidence concerning a hospital belonging to the Order which was previously unknown. Finally, the study of military orders in Italy has long been neglected by scholarship and this research will be a step toward bridging this gap. The order of Mountjoy was established by Rodrigo Álvarez, count of Sarria in León.1 According to a later account, Rodrigo had promised to join the Temple if he ever decided to leave the communem vitam. However, he then changed his mind and became a member of the order of Santiago. Since this Order also admitted married knights, Rodrigo eventually decided to found a new religious community that would follow a more austere lifestyle. With this intent in mind, his Order affiliated 1

  I am grateful to Andrea Berto, Damien Carraz, Alan Forey, Alexia Grosjean, Nikolas Jaspert, Philippe Josserand, Valeria Polonio, Cristina Sereno, Aldo Settia, Fabrizio Spegis, Johanna Wagner Rossi, and Chris Wickham for their suggestions and comments. My thanks are also due to Martín Alvira Cabrer, Carlos Barquero Goñi, and Natalia Fernández Casado who helped me to find a charter kept at the Archivo Histórico Nacional in Madrid. The reconstruction of the birth and development of this Order is based on Alan J. Forey, “The Order of Mountjoy,” Speculum 46 (1971), 250–66, reprinted in Alan J. Forey, Military Orders and Crusades (London, 1994), article XI. 13


Elena Bellomo

with Cîteaux, partially adopting its rules and eventually gaining the approval of Pope Alexander III.2 Despite emerging from Spain, an important part of Mountjoy’s identity, its name, originated in the Latin East. In 1176–77 Rodrigo visited the Holy Land and received some donations from Baldwin IV, king of Jerusalem (1174–1185). These included property on the Mons Gaudii, the hill from which pilgrims first saw the holy city. Rodrigo ordered the construction of a chapel there and decided to name his Order after that place.3 In 1177 the count also obtained from King Baldwin the confirmation of some donations made by Reynald of Châtillon, the former prince of Antioch and lord of Transjordan and Hebron. The validation was granted on the condition that the Spanish noble should permanently commit himself to fighting the infidels in the East.4 In 1180, in Tuscolo, Alexander III confirmed upon Rodrigo the possessions already acquired by his Order and granted it some of the privileges that the Temple and the Hospital already enjoyed. These concessions placed Mountjoy under the direct tuitio pontificia. Any links with the Cistercians were also severed.5 Despite this promising beginning, already in 1186 the Order became the subject of a vain attempt at amalgamation with the Temple. Rodrigo died the following year6 and perhaps the unsuccessful union with the Templars was mooted while he   Papsturkunden für Templer und Johanniter, ed. Rudolf Hiestand, 2 vols, Vorarbeiten zum Oriens Pontificius 1–2, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissernschaften in Göttingen, 77, 135 (Göttingen, 1972–84), 1:278–80, doc. 89; Forey, “The Order of Mountjoy,” 251–52. See also Ángel Blásquez Jiménez, “Bosquejo histórico de la Orden de Monte Gaudio,” Boletín de la Real Accademia de Historia 71 (1917), 140–44; José M. Sánchez Pagín, “El conde don Rodrigo Álvarez de Sarria, fundador de la Orden de Monte Gaudio,” Compostellanum 28 (1983), 382–84; Carlos de Ayala Martínez, Las Órdenes Militares hispánicas en la Edad Media. Siglos XII–XV (Madrid, 2003), pp.  104–105; Nikolas Jaspert, “Transmediterrane Wechselwirkungen im 12. Jahrhundert. Der Ritterorden von Montjoie und der Templerorden,” in Die Ritterorden als Träger der Herrschaft: Territorien, Grundbesitz und Kirke, ed. Roman Czaja and Jürgen Sarnowsky, Ordines Militares – Colloquia Turonensia Historica 14 (Toruń, 2007), pp. 257–78, at p. 258. 3   Hiestand, Papsturkunden für Templer und Johanniter, 1:310, 317, docs. 122, 125; Forey, “The Order of Mountjoy,” 253. The chapel was never completed. On this hill there was also the Premostratensian church of St Samuel. Jaroslav Folda, The Art of the Crusaders in the Holy Land. 1098–1187 (Cambridge, 1995), p. 247. 4   Joseph Delaville Le Roulx, “Inventaire de pièces de Terre Sainte de l’Ordre de l’Hospital,” ROL 3 (1895), 61, doc. 119; RRH Add, no. 553a; Hans Eberhard Mayer, Die Kanzlei der lateiniscen Könige von Jerusalem, 2 vols, MGH Schriften 40 (Hanover, 1996), 2:875–76; Forey, “The Order of Mountjoy,” 253; Bernard Hamilton, The Leper King and his Heirs: Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 117–18. 5   Hiestand, Papsturkunden für Templer und Johanniter, 1:315–21, docs. 125–26; Joseph Delaville Le Roulx, “L’Ordre de Montjoie,” ROL 1 (1893), 51–54; Forey, “The Order of Mountjoy,” 252–55. 6   The hypothesis that Rodrigo went to the Holy Land after the fall of Jerusalem (1187) and died there (Sánchez Pagín, “El conde don Rodrigo,” 393–94) is not confirmed by any 2

Fulfilling a Mediterranean Vocation


was passing away. However, the absence of his name in the documents regarding this event could also indicate that he had distanced himself from his own Order. In fact, it seems that the general chapter of Cîteaux had already critically underscored Rodrigo’s lack of constancy in his choices of religious life.7 A clear sign of crisis in the Order was also that, after Rodrigo’s death, no new master was appointed by its members for one year. Even after Fralmo of Lucca was elected as the new head of Mountjoy, internal dissensions provoked a first schism in the Order.8 In 1188 Mountjoy merged with the Hospital of the Holy Redeemer, a charitable institution which targeted the ransoming of captives and was sponsored by King Alfonso II of Aragon, who had also been one of the first supporters of Rodrigo of Sarria.9 In 1196 the Hospital of the Holy Redeemer itself joined the Temple. This amalgamation, though, met with the resistance of some members of the charitable Order and caused further internal division that reached its climax when some of the dissidents created a new religious community. It was named the Order of Montfragüe after the castle in which they gathered. The dispute also led to the involvement of the military order of Calatrava with which Montfragüe later merged in the following century.10 After the demise of the Temple in 1312 it was suggested that the Order of Mountjoy should be revived and given the Aragonese Templar possessions. However, this proposal did not lead to the re-establishment of this Order, which had definitely ended its days once and for all. Even though Mountjoy was entrusted with the important stronghold of Alfambra in Aragon, it is impossible to determine whether it effectively contributed to the fight against the Muslims in Spain.11

evidence. 7   Forey, “The Order of Mountjoy,” 251, 255–58. 8   Forey, “The Order of Mountjoy,” 260. 9   The union was to be ratified by the Master of the Temple and the King of Aragon. Forey credibly argues that Alfonso boycotted the assimilation in order to prevent a further strengthening of the Templars in his kingdom: Alan J. Forey, The Templars in the Corona de Aragón (London, 1973), pp. 27–28; Forey, “The Order of Mountjoy,” 255–57; Alan J. Forey, “The Military Orders and the Ransoming of Captives from Islam (Twelfth to Early Fourteenth Centuries),” English Historical Review 104 (1989), 269, reprinted in Forey, The Military Orders and Crusades, article VI; Ayala Martínez, Las Órdenes Militares, pp. 104– 106; Jaspert, “Transmediterrane Wechselwirkungen,” p.  260; Alain Demurger, “Belchite, le Temple et Montjoie: la Couronne d’Aragon et le Temple au XIIe siècle,” in Knighthoods of Christ. Essays on the History of the Crusades and the Knights Templar, Presented to Malcolm Barber, ed. Norman Housley (Aldershot, 2007), pp. 123–35, at p. 133. 10   An analysis of the primary and secondary sources and a precise reconstruction of these events are in Forey, “The Order of Mountjoy,” 258–64. Also see Delaville Le Roulx, “L’Ordre de Montjoie,” 138–72; Ayala Martínez, Las Órdenes Militares, pp.  106–107; Jaspert, “Transmediterrane Wechselwirkungen,” p. 260; Demurger, “Belchite,” p. 133. 11   Forey, “The Order of Mountjoy,” 252, 256–57; Ayala Martínez, Las Órdenes Militares, p. 103; Jaspert, “Transmediterrane Wechselwirkungen,” p. 259.


Elena Bellomo

After the initial contacts, it did not settle in the Holy Land,12 and it has also been convincingly suggested that failure to recruit could be among the reasons for its disappearance.13 After the initial association with the Holy Land, which was retained only in the name of the Order, Mountjoy’s brief existence was centred almost exclusively in the Iberian peninsula. It was, however, in Outremer that Rodrigo found the patronage that enabled his Order to settle in north-west Italy as well. In 1177 Rodrigo also received towers, rents and lands in Ascalon from Sibylla, Baldwin IV’s sister and wife of William Longsword of Montferrat.14 The princess’s donation was made pro salute mariti sui but, unfortunately, it proved to be ineffective since William died of uncertain causes shortly after.15 The presence in the East of a member of the House of Montferrat, whose dominions were in north-west Italy, is connected to the ambitious international policy instigated by William Longsword’s father, William V, called the Elder. This dynastic strategy was characterized by a clear Mediterranean outlook and made the Montferrats protagonists of the politics of Byzantium and the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.16 William Longsword (d. 1177) married Sibylla, who was the heiress to the throne of Jerusalem since her brother Baldwin suffered from leprosy. Longsword’s premature death did not thwart the ambitions of the Montferrat. William the Elder left for Outremer in order to defend the interests


  Forey, “The Order of Mountjoy,” 255–56.   Alexander III granted the Order of Mountjoy the permission to accept Brabanzons, Aragonese and Basques as members. Hiestand, Papsturkunden für Templer und Johanniter, 1:319–20, doc. 126; Forey, “The Order of Mountjoy,” 256; Jaspert, “Transmediterrane Wechselwirkungen,” pp. 259–60. 14   Codice diplomatico del sacro militare ordine gerosolimitano, ed. Sebastiano Paoli, 2 vols (Lucca, 1733–1737), 1:63, doc. 63; RRH, no. 553; Mayer, Die Kanzlei, 2:383–85, 875– 76. For William Longsword see Walter Haberstumpf, Dinastie europee nel Mediterraneo Orientale. I Monferrato e i Savoia nei secoli XII–XV (Turin, 1995), pp. 31–42; Giuseppe Ligato, “Guglielmo Lungaspada di Monferrato e le istituzioni politiche dell’Oriente latino,” in Dai feudi monferrini e dal Piemonte ai nuovi mondi oltre gli oceani. Atti del congresso internazionale, Alessandria, 2–6 aprile 1990, ed. Laura Balletto (Alessandria, 1993), pp. 153–85; Hamilton, The Leper King, pp. 109–118; Giuseppe Ligato, Sibilla regina crociata. Guerra, amore e diplomazia per il trono di Gerusalemme (Milan, 2005), pp. 57–88. 15   Longsword’s death was attributed either to an illness contracted overseas or to poisoning: Ligato, Sibilla, pp. 68–71. The following year a donation was also received from the Prior of the Holy Sepulchre: Cart St Sép, appendix 5, pp. 355–56. 16   For a general picture of the Marquises’ connections with the East see Leopoldo Usseglio, I marchesi di Monferrato in Italia ed in Oriente durante i secoli XII e XIII, ed. Carlo Patrucco, Biblioteca della Società Storica Subalpina 100–101 (Turin, 1929); Walter Haberstumpf, Regesto dei Marchesi di Monferrato di stirpe aleramica e paleologa per l’Outremer” e l’“Oriente, Biblioteca della Società Storica Subalpina 205 (Turin, 1989); Haberstumpf, Dinastie, passim. 13

Fulfilling a Mediterranean Vocation


of his grandson, King Baldwin V (1185–1186),17 and in 1187 another of his sons, Conrad,18 arrived at Acre, where he learned that Saladin had recently conquered that port and Jerusalem as well. Then Conrad moved to Tyre where he became the leader of the Christian resistance. Married in 1190 to Princess Isabel, half-sister to Sibylla, Conrad successfully disputed the claim of Guy of Lusingan, Sibylla’s second husband, to the throne of Jerusalem. However, his reign ended prematurely in 1192 when two members of the Assassins sect murdered him.19 In the meantime William V had probably already died in Tyre (1191).20 William the Elder was the first patron of the Order of Mountjoy in the northern Italian region which is now called Piedmont. In 1180 Pope Alexander III promulgated two documents confirming the property already gained by Mountjoy: the first was issued in May and the second in November. The latter lists some property near Pontem de Amallone, cum domo sibi adiacente, et aliis pertinentiis suis, donated to the Order by the marquis of Montferrat and his wife.21 Alan Forey convincingly argues that William V may have been solicited by Rodrigo himself to support his Order. Since the property and house ad pontem de Amallone are listed


  Aldo A. Settia, “ ‘Postquam ipse marchio levabit crucem’. Guglielmo V di Monferrato e il suo ritorno in Palestina (1186),” in Il Monferrato: crocevia politico, economico e culturale tra Mediterraneo e Europa. Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Ponzone, 9–12 giugno 1998, ed. Gigliola Soldi Rondinini (Ponzone, 2000), pp. 93–110. 18   The Montferrats’ interest in the East was not limited to the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. Another of William V’s sons, Renier (d.1183), married the Byzantine princess Maria. In Byzantium he welcomed his brother Conrad whose aspirations were later fulfilled in Outremer: Haberstumpf, Dinastie, pp. 43–76. 19   David Jacoby, “Conrad, Marquis of Monferrat, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem (1187–1192),” in Dai feudi monferrini, pp.  187–238, reprinted in David Jacoby, Trade, Commodities and Shipping in the Medieval Mediterranean (Aldershot, 1997), article IV; Giuseppe Ligato, “Corrado di Monferrato e la corte di Saladino: il punto di vista islamico,” in Il Monferrato, ed. Rondinini, pp. 111–40. Mary of Montferrat, Conrad’s daughter born of his union with Isabel, remained the only heiress to the throne, perpetuating the links between the House of Montferrat and the royal dynasty of Jerusalem. It is also worth remembering that Boniface I (d. 1207), another son of William the Elder, played a very significant role in the Fourth Crusade, being then entrusted with the rule of part of the Latin Romania. For these events and the later presence of the Montferrats in Cyprus and Romania see Mario Gallina, “Fra Occidente e Oriente: la ‘crociata’ aleramica per Tessalonica,” in Piemonte medievale. Forme del potere e della società. Studi per Giovanni Tabacco (Turin, 1985), pp.  65–83; Haberstumpf, Dinastie, pp.  77–152; Walter Haberstumpf, “Due vocazioni dinastiche del marchesato di Monferrato: costruzione territoriale e spinta oltremarina,” in Dai feudi monferrini, pp.  239–48; Peter Lock, The Franks in the Aegean. 1204–1500 (London, 1995), pp. 43–50, 57–60, 68–69, 164–65, 175–76, 234–35; Roberto Maestri, Bonifacio di Monferrato ed i suoi rapporti in Oriente con la Repubblica di Venezia (Turin, 2005). 20   Settia, “Postquam ipse marchio,” p. 107. 21   Hiestand, Papsturkunden für Templer und Johanniter, 1:309–312, 315–19, docs. 122, 125 (in particular p. 317); Forey, “The Order of Mountjoy,” 254. i


Elena Bellomo

Figure 2.1

Map of north-west Italy, showing locations mentioned in the text

only in the second papal bull, it is very likely that Rodrigo went to Piedmont either in the summer or autumn of that year.22 The house and possessions which Rodrigo received were close to the confluence of the Amallonis (which is now named Mallone) and the Po rivers.


  Forey, “The Order of Mountjoy,” 254.

Fulfilling a Mediterranean Vocation


Fabrizio Spegis, a local scholar, suggests that this could be an ospedale di ponte,23 a building placed near a water crossing and targeted on assisting wayfarers and pilgrims.24 Unfortunately this very interesting hypothesis cannot be definitively confirmed by the vague text of the papal privilege. In Jerusalem Princess Sibylla made a donation to Mountjoy in the hopes of promoting the recovery of her husband, and in all likelihood this contributed to Rodrigo gaining the favour of William the Elder. William V’s direct acquaintance with another military order, the Hospital, during the Second Crusade had already been crucial to it obtaining the marquis’s favour.25 He had sponsored a mansio of the Hospital in Felizzano (located on the Tanaro River between Asti and Alessandria) which had also obtained papal protection in 1160.26 Then, in 1210, the first surviving reference occurs to a Hospitaller house at Morano (a place close to the Po River) which had probably been founded in the previous century with the direct support of the Montferrats.27

  Fabrizio Spegis, Presenza gerosolimitana a Verolengo. Fonti per una storia (Chivasso, 2004), p. 20, note 53. 24   For these kind of facilities see Thomas Szabó, “Costruzioni di ponti e di strade in Italia fra il IX e il XIV secolo. La trasformazione in strutture organizzative,” in Ars et ratio. Dalla torre di Babele al ponte di Rialto, ed. Jean-Claude Maire Vigeur and Agostino Paravicini Bagliani (Palermo, 1990), pp. 73–91; Giuliana Albini, “Strade e ospitalità, ponti e ospedali di ponte nell’Emilia occidentale (secc. XII–XIV),” in Studi sull’Emilia occidentale nel Medioevo: società e istituzioni, ed. Roberto Greci (Bologna, 2001), pp. 205–51, reprinted in Giuliana Albini, Carità e governo delle povertà. Secoli XII–XV (Milan, 2002), pp. 117–54. 25   In 1148 William V was in Acre with other crusader leaders and the Templar and Hospitaller Masters: WT, 2:760. The link between the Montferrats and this Order is confirmed by the fact that William Longsword was buried in Jerusalem in vestibolo ecclesie Hospitalis: WT, 2:978. The marquises of Montferrat had only sporadic contacts with the Temple in Piedmont: Elena Bellomo, The Templar Order in North-west Italy. 1142–c.1330 (Leiden and Boston, 2008), pp. 145–46. 26   Cartario alessandrino fino al 1300, ed. Francesco Gasparolo, Biblioteca della Società Storica Subalpina 113 (Turin, 1928), pp.  11–12, doc. 188; Renato Bordone, “I marchesi di Monferrato e i cavalieri di San Giovanni di Gerusalemme durante il XII secolo,” in Il Monferrato, pp. 73–87, at pp. 73–74; Settia, ‘Postquam ipse marchio,’ pp. 102–105. 27   I Biscioni, ed. Giulio Cesare Faccio, M. Ranno, Rosaldo Ordano, 6 vols, Biblioteca Società Storica Subalpina 145–46, 178, 181, 189, 211 (Turin, 1934–2000), 1/3:50–51, doc. 504; Settia, “‘Postquam ipse marchio”, pp. 103–107; Bordone, “I marchesi di Monferrato,” p. 85. For the multiple links between the Montferrats and this Order see Renato Bordone, “I cavalieri di San Giovanni ad Asti e nel Monferrato,” in Cavalieri di San Giovanni e territorio. La Liguria tra Provenza e Lombardia nei secoli XIII–XVII. Atti del Convegno, Genova-Imperia-Cervo, 11–14 settembre 1997, ed. Josepha Costa Restagno (Genoa, 1999), pp.  341–52; Renato Bordone, “San Pietro di Consavia e il priorato di Lombardia nel Medioevo,” in L’antico San Pietro in Asti. Storia, Architettura, Archelogia, ed. Renato Bordone, Anna Crosetto, Carlo Tosco (Asti, 2000), pp.  46–49; Bordone, “I marchesi di Monferrato,” pp. 73–87. 23


Elena Bellomo

The marquises’ patronage had not only pious motivations but was also linked to their ambitions in Outremer and the consolidation of their influence in Piedmont. Both aims could be pursued through patronage of a military order that was simultaneously active in the Holy Land and the West. The aforementioned Hospitaller houses were connected to significant locations under the lineage’s control. In a treaty between Asti and William the Elder the men of Felizzano were put under the obligation of guarding the road that connected Asti to the eastern part of the marquis’s domain. Asti openly wanted to get control of this route and, according to Renato Bordone, the Hospitaller house of Felizzano was actually founded in order to strengthen the marquises’ influence on this strategic itinerary.28 The Morano house probably performed a similar function, in this case with a view to holding back the expansion of the commune of Vercelli in the neighbouring area.29 Since the Montferrats’ patronage of the Hospitaller houses also aimed at consolidating the marquises’ rule over possessions connected to local rivers,30 the same motivations may have dictated William V’s donation to the Order of Mountjoy. Perhaps this gift was intended to keep a crossing point under the influence of the lineage. The house at Mallone was also close to the border of the Marches of Turin and Ivrea, two ancient provinces of the kingdom of Italy that had been broken up into minor districts in the eleventh century. It is possible that, thanks to the donation to the Order of Mountjoy, William also intended to consolidate his sphere of influence westwards, in an area that was a delicate boundary zone.31 Given the fragmented state of local primary sources, this remains a mere hypothesis and the lack of evidence unfortunately prevents a close investigation of the functions, not only religious, that the house of Mallone was possibly called on to perform. William V’s donation is not the only evidence regarding the Order of Mountjoy in Piedmont. On 30 March 1181 in civitate Secusia (Susa) Ascherius and his brother Peter, sons of Amadeus, castellan de palacio Secusie, granted the Order of 28

  Settia, “Postquam ipse marchio,” pp. 103–105; Bordone, “I marchesi di Monferrato,” p. 74. 29   Settia, “Postquam ipse marchio,” pp. 93–103; Bordone, “I marchesi di Monferrato,” p. 85. 30   The multiple functions (political, patrimonial, dynastic and religious) performed by the Piedmontese monasteries founded by laymen are well investigated in Cristina Sereno, “Monasteri aristocratici subalpini: fondazioni funzionariali e signorili, modelli di protezione e di sfruttamento (secoli X–XII),” Bollettino storico-bibliografico subalpino 96 (1998), 397–448, 97 (1999), 5–66. 31   Francesco Cognasso, Il Piemonte nell’Età sveva, Miscellanea di Storia Patria, IV series, 10 (1968), 135–55; Aldo A. Settia, Santa Maria di Vezzolano: una fondazione signorile nell’età della riforma ecclesiastica, Biblioteca della Società Storica Subalpina 198 (Turin, 1975), pp. 182–86. Aldo Settia and Fabrizio Spegis kindly pointed this out to me. For a description of the Montferrats’ dominions see Aldo A. Settia, “Geografia di un potere in crisi: il marchesato di Monferrato nel 1224,” in Dai feudi monferrini, pp. 29–51.

Fulfilling a Mediterranean Vocation


Mountjoy all their property in Orgevalle,32 saving the servicium comitis, and five shillings, which they retained. If they also wanted to don the Order’s habit, they would have been free to do so.33 Susa was situated on the via Francigena, the road that connected Italy to France. In Piedmont it split into several routes. One of these descended from the Gran San Bernardo Pass, reached Ivrea, Vercelli and Pavia, passed the Po at Piacenza and then went south.34 Other routes of the Francigena descended from the Monginevro and Moncenisio Passes, reaching Susa. From there they went to Chieri, Testona and Asti.35 The donation made by Ascherius and Peter was thus located in a place visited by people that either came from or were bound for Spain or Outremer. It is also possible that Rodrigo of Sarria himself stopped there on his journeys. Moreover, it is worth noting that the aforementioned gift was addressed to an influential member of Mountjoy, Fralmo of Lucca, Rodrigo’s successor as the head of the Order. His presence in Susa can be associated with the favourable position of the city and the sources also show that in this period the military orders represented the kind of religious institution with which the inhabitants of Susa were familiar. The Hospital is first attested to in the neighbouring village of Chiomonte in 1173 and in Susa in 1185.36 That year the Templar brother William also appeared in a charter issued in Susa. This presence does not confirm the existence at this date of a Templar house here, although it is very likely that the Temple had already understood the importance of this place in connection to the road network.37 The Temple’s presence in this area is definitely documented in 1204.38 The last references to the Order of Mountjoy in north-west Italy concern its presence in Savona and have not been studied before by scholars interested in military orders. In August 1181 Alberto Terrino, a citizen of Savona, entrusted the   Scholars think that the name Orgevalles first indicated the wide territory between Chiomonte and Mattie, and then the land between the Lombarda and Gelassa streams in the communes of Chiomonte and Gravere: Piercarlo Pazé, “Lungo la strada di Provenza: i Gerosolimitani a Chiomonte,” in Esperienze monastiche nella Val di Susa medievale. Atti del XXXIV Convegno Storico Subalpino, ed. Luca Patria and Pio Tamburrino (Susa, 1989), pp. 179–212, here at p. 189, note 52. 33   Madrid, Archivo Histórico Nacional, Órdenes Militares, carpeta 582, no. 34; Delaville Le Roulx, “L’Ordre de Montjoie,” 45; Forey, “The Order of Mountjoy,” 255. Professor Forey has kindly given me the regestum of this charter. 34   On this road see Renato Stopani, La via Francigena. Storia di una via nel Medioevo (Florence, 1998). 35   Giuseppe Sergi, Potere e territorio sulla strada di Francia (Naples, 1981), pp. 31– 32, 42–45. 36   Pazé, “Lungo la strada,” pp. 46, 63, 78, docs. 1–2. 37  Ugo Berardo, a member of a local noble family, was a Templar brother (c.1150): Regesta Comitum Sabaudie, ed. Domenico Carutti (Turin, 1889), p. 112, doc. 305. 38   Cartario della certosa di Losa e Monte Benedetto dal 1189 al 1252, ed. Marisa Bosco, Biblioteca della Società Storica Subalpina 195 (Turin, 1974), p. 63, doc. 40. 32


Elena Bellomo

hospital that he had recently founded in his hometown extra portam Furam39 to two fratres Sancte Marie Montis Gaudii, Framundus and Blancus. According to the donor’s wishes, a member of the Military Order was to monitor constantly the activity of the hospital, while the control of its property was also entrusted to the local bishop.40 A few days after the investiture, Framus (we can thus be certain that the aforementioned Framundus was actually Fralmo of Lucca) et Blancus, fratres Sancte Marie Montis Gaudii de Ierusalem, witnessed a charter of Guido, bishop of Savona.41 In the course of the twelfth century Savona created a wide network of connections in which the role played by the Latin East was far more significant than that played by Spain. The first commercial privileges granted to the Genoese in Syria and Palestine extended to the inhabitants of Noli, Albenga and Savona. The mention of these cities has been considered proof of the falsity of such documents, through which the Genoese would have attempted to broaden their rights and to extend them to cities that became subordinate to the Genoese commune only by the middle of the twelfth century. In reality the reference to the ports of the Riviera di Ponente can be explained by acknowledging that the first crusader expeditions which set sail from Liguria were of a mixed composition and involved several cities of the Riviera.42 It is also worth noting that Adelaide, for a brief time the wife of King Baldwin I of Jerusalem (1100–1118), descended from the marquises   Il Cartulario di Arnaldo Cumano e Giovanni di Donato (Savona, 1178–1188), ed. Laura Balletto, Giogio Cencetti, Gianfranco Orlandelli and Bianca Maria Pisoni Agnoli, Ministero dei Beni culturali e ambientali. Pubblicazioni degli Archivi di Stato 96 (Rome, 1978), part 2, p. 24, doc. 45, p. 293, doc. 564, pp. 323–24, doc. 597, p. 405, doc. 760, p. 409, doc. 769. 40   Il Cartulario di Arnaldo Cumano, part 2, pp. 454–55, doc. 869, p. 543, doc. 1077. 41   Il Cartulario di Arnaldo Cumano, part 2, p. 455, doc. 870. 42   I Libri iurium della Repubblica di Genova, ed. Dino Puncuh, Antonella Rovere, Sabina Dellacasa, Elisabetta Madia, Maria Bibolini and Eleonora Pallavicino, Fonti per la Storia della Liguria 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17 – Pubblicazioni degli Archivi di Stato. Fonti 12, 13, 23, 27, 28, 29, 32, 35, 39 (Genoa and Rome, 1992–2002), 1/1:102, 183, docs. 61, 119. For the relations between Savona and the East see Sandra Origone, “Commercio marittimo nella Savona del XII secolo,” in Savona nel XII secolo e la formazione del comune (1191–1991). Atti del Convegno di Studi, Savona, 26 ottobre 1991, Bollettino Storico Savonese new series 30 (1994), pp. 51–61. Hans Eberhard Mayer and Marie-Luise Favreau, “Das Diplom Balduin I. fur Genua und Genuas Goldene Inschrift in dem Grabskirche,” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 55–56 (1976), 70– 72; Antonella Rovere, “i’Rex Balduinus Ianuensibus privilegia firmaverat et fecit.’ Sulla presunta falsità del diploma di Baldovino I in favore dei Genovesi,” Studi medievali 3rd series 37 (1996), 126–29; Elena Bellomo, A servizio di Dio e del Santo Sepolcro. Caffaro e l’Oriente latino (Padua, 2003), p. 153. On this subject also see Benjamin Z. Kedar, “Again: Genoa’s Golden Inscription and King Baldwin I’s Privilege of 1104,” in Chemins d’outremer. Études d’histoire sur le Méditerranée médiévale offertes à Michel Balard, ed. Damien Coulon, Catherine Otten-Froux, Paule Paugès and Dominique Valérian, 2 vols, Byzantina Sorbonensia 20 (Paris, 2004), 2:495–502. 39

Fulfilling a Mediterranean Vocation


of Vasto, lords of this area.43 At the beginning of the twelfth century the bishop of Savona, Grossolano (1097/98–1116), visited the Holy Land and Constantinople,44 and in 1139 the church of Sant’Ambrogio in Varazze was entrusted to the bishop of Bethlehem.45 In 1168 the marquis of Savona, Enrico Wert, was at Jubail,46 the lordship of a branch of the Embriaci, a Genoese family, who were the assignees of some Genoese property in the Latin East.47 Another important piece of evidence of the connection between Savona and the military orders is the election to the local episcopal see of Guido of Lomello (1163– 1184). In all likelihood, Guido was a relative of Lamberto, count of Lomello, who was responsible for the Hospitaller house of Genoa and held the post of missus et procurator Hospitalis maioris de Yerusalem in the 1150s.48 Later on the Master of the Hospital, Jobert (1171/72–1177), wrote to the citizens of Savona, requesting 43   Fedele Savio, “Il marchese Bonifacio del Vasto e Adelaide contessa di Sicilia, regina di Gerusalemme,” Atti della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 22 (1887), 87–105; Luigi Provero, Dai marchesi del Vasto ai primi marchesi di Saluzzo. Sviluppi signorili entro quadri pubblici (secoli X– XII), Biblioteca della Società Storica Subalpina 209 (Turin, 1992), pp. 79–80; Hubert Houben, “Adelaide del Vasto nella storia del Regno di Sicilia,” in Bianca Lancia d’Agliano. Fra il Piemonte e il regno di Sicilia. Atti del Convegno, Asti-Agliano 1990, ed. Renato Bordone (Alessandria, 1992), pp. 121–45; Henri Bresc, “Gli Aleramici in Sicilia,” ibid., pp. 147–63; Bernard Hamilton, “Women in the Crusader States: the Queens of Jerusalem (1100–1190),” in Medieval Women, ed. Derek Baker, Studies in Church History Subsidia 1 (Oxford, 1978), pp. 143–74, here at pp. 145–47. 44   Valeria Polonio, “La Chiesa savonese nel XII secolo,” in Savona nel XII secolo, pp. 63–92, here at p. 69 and note 28, reprinted in Valeria Polonio, Istituzioni ecclesiastiche della Liguria medievale, Italia Sacra 67 (Rome, 2002), 255–87. 45   Giovanni Vincenzo Verzellino, Delle memorie particolari e specialmente degli uomini illustri della città di Savona, ed. Andrea Astengo (Savona, 1885, repr. Bologna, 1974), 1:184; RRH Add, no. 188; Paul Riant, “L’église de Bethléem et Varazze en Ligurie,” Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria 17 (1885), 598–99, 645–47, doc. 1. 46   I Libri iurium, 1/2:156, doc. 339; Gabriella Airaldi, Blu come il mare. Guglielmo e la saga degli Embriaci (Genoa, 2006), pp. 131–32. 47   For the Embriaci see Sandra Origone, “Gli Embriaci a Genova fra XII e XIII secolo,” in Società e istituzioni del Medioevo ligure, Serta antiqua et medievalia 5 (Rome, 2001), pp.  67–81; Bellomo, A servizio di Dio, pp.  111–12; Airaldi, Blu come il mare; Gabriella Airaldi, “Je suis Bertrand de Gibelet,” in Chemins d’Outre-mer, 1:25–30. Enrico’s son, Otto del Carretto, married Alda, daughter of Ugo Embriaco de civitate Ianue. I Registri della Catena del Comune di Savona, ed. Dino Puncuh, Antonella Rovere, Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria, new series, 26 (1986), registro II, pp. 562–64, doc. 589; Airaldi, Blu come il mare, p. 161; Sandra Origone, “I Liguri sotto la dinastia toscana,” in Storia, arte, archeologia del Libano. Atti del Convegno, Genova, 22–24 gennaio 1996, ed. Gabriella Airaldi, Paola Mortari Vergara Caffarelli (Genoa, 1999), pp. 137–42, here at p. 141. 48   Le carte cremonesi dei secoli VIII–XII, ed. Ettore Falconi, 4 vols (Cremona, 1979–1988), 2:244–46, doc. 350. For the counts of Lomello see Roland Pauler, “I conti di Lomello,” in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII) I. Atti del primo convegno di Pisa, 10–11 maggio 1983, Nuovi Studi Storici 1 (Rome, 1988), pp. 187–99.


Elena Bellomo

their support for his Order.49 Probably thanks to this appeal, between 1179 and 1181, as shown in the cartulary of the local notary Arnaldo Cumano, a number of will bequests were made to the Hospital and other Jerusalem religious institutions.50 Thus, in Savona too the local population knew the Latin East and the military orders very well, while no significant attestation of contemporary connections with Spain survives. Unfortunately, it is not possible to know the exact destiny of the houses of Mallone and Savona and the property of Orgevalles. Acute frictions and repeated divisions certainly did not foster the positive development of these small houses, scattered across a very vast territory and furnished with limited resources. As often happened, they were probably taken over by other religious institutions. No evidence of the possessions donated to the Order near Susa survives. However, it is worth noting that in 1185 the Hospital of Moncenisio granted all its possessions located in Orgevalle to the Hospitallers of the nearby house of Chiomonte.51 Giuseppe Sergi has convincingly argued that the fratres of the Moncenisio hospital made this decision because these lands were too far away from them and very close to the Hospitaller house of Chiomonte.52 Given their proximity to the Hospitaller possessions, Mountjoy lands could have easily aroused the interest of the Hospital but, unfortunately, there is no documentary evidence that they actually came into Hospitaller possession. As for the house of Mallone, it is worth noting that in the Rationes decimarum of 1368 a Hospitaller church, S. Johannes de Amallone, is mentioned.53 Unfortunately no evidence confirms that this church is identifiable with the house donated to Rodrigo by William of Montferrat or was built on Mountjoy property, possibly handed over to the Temple after its incorporation of the Hospital of the Holy Redeemer and then transferred to the Hospital after 1312.54   Verzellino, Delle memorie particolari, 1:191–92; Elena Bellomo, “A Neglected Source for the History of the Hospital: The Letter of Master Jobert to the Citizens of Savona,” forthcoming. 50   Il Cartulario di Arnaldo Cumano, part 2, p. 104, doc. 205, p. 251, doc. 501, p. 268, doc. 528, p. 242, doc. 484, p. 257, doc. 509, p. 258, doc. 512, p. 284, doc. 549, p. 274, doc. 536, p. 279, doc. 543, p. 282, doc. 545, p. 293, doc. 564. 51   Pazé, “Lungo la strada,” pp. 190, 191, 198–99. 52   Giuseppe Sergi, L’aristocrazia della preghiera. Politica e scelte religiose nel medioevo italiano (Rome, 1994), pp. 137–39. 53   Rationes Decimarum Italiae nei secoli XIII e XIV. Lombardia et Pedemontium, ed. Maurizio Rosada, Studi e Testi 324 (Vatican City, 1990), p. 37, no. 1954; Domenico Garino, “Spigolature negli archivi vescovile e capitolare d’Ivrea riguardanti gli ordini religioso militari dei Cav. Templari e dei Cav. di Malta,” in Giuseppe Cesare Pola Faletti Villafalletto, La castellata di Rivara e il Canavese, 3 vols (Casale Monferrato, 1945), 3:233–45, here at pp. 240–42. 54   The church seems to have been destroyed by a flood of the Mallone in the XVII century: Spegis, Presenza gerosolimitana, pp. 20–21. 49

Fulfilling a Mediterranean Vocation


In Savona the Mountjoy hospital could count on the support of its founder. Alberto Terrino was not of noble stock but was a well-off citizen and had also been credendarius of the commune.55 Acutely aware that an isolated initiative stood little chance of having a lasting life, he sought to assure enduring success for his hospital by associating it to a recognized ecclesiastical order such as Mountjoy and involving the bishop in the control of its property’s management. However, given the rapid decline of Mountjoy itself, this decision proved not to be sound. Probably in 1182 Alberto specified that, if his hospital was to be sold, part of its possessions should go to the Hospital of Jerusalem.56 Thus, he seemed to be already aware of the weakness of the institution that he had founded and maybe also of the Order to which it was entrusted. Unfortunately, no other evidence of this hospital survives and it probably did not outlive its willing founder because of its affiliation with a short-lived order like Mountjoy. It would be interesting to reconstruct the journey of Fralmo of Lucca in 1181. We only know that, after receiving the aforementioned gift in Susa, he made his way south, reaching Savona probably by passing through Piedmont. One of the aims of Fralmo’s trip seems to have been that of expanding and consolidating the presence of Mountjoy in the area. It is also legitimate to ask what the final destination of his journey was. It should not be ruled out that he had been directed to central Italy where his native Lucca was a fertile basin of recruitment for the Order given that another brother, Hildebrand, originated from there.57 Unfortunately, we are not able to reconstruct in which way the first contacts between these citizens of Lucca and Rodrigo of Sarria occurred but it is most probable that the Spanish noble stopped at this place during his travels through Italy in 1180.58 Just like Savona, Lucca had early and deep-rooted relations with the Latin East rather than with Spain. Citizens of Lucca participated in the taking of Antioch during the First Crusade.59 A few decades later the Temple appears in 55   I Registri della Catena, registro I, p.  31, doc. 16, p.  65, doc. 38. Valeria Polonio suggests that Alberto, as often happened, went to live in the hospital he founded in order to be of effective help in its charity work. Alberto’s wife supported his initiative and may have followed him in the hospital located extra Portam Furam: Polonio, “La Chiesa savonese,” pp. 75 and 92, note 66. 56   Il Cartulario di Arnaldo Cumano, part 2, p. 505, doc. 986. 57   Forey, “The Order of Mountjoy,” 255–56. 58   Chris Wickham has informed me that Fralmo is a typical Lucchese aristocratic name. See, for instance, Regesto del capitolo di Lucca, ed. Pietro Guidi and Oreste Parenti, Regesta Chartarum Italiae 6, 9, 18, 18bis (Rome, 1910–1939), ad indicem; Liber maiolichinus de gestis Pisanorum illustribus, ed. C. Calisse, Fonti per la storia d’Italia 29 (Rome, 1904), pp.  21–22; Chris Wickham, Community and Clientele in Twelfth Century Tuscany. The Origins of the Rural Commune in the Plain of Lucca (Oxford, 1988), p. 135. Unfortunately, most of the Lucchese medieval documents are still unpublished and in the edited primary sources from the Lucchese archives no mention of the Order of Mountjoy has been found. 59   Epistula cleri et populi Lucensis ad omnes fideles, in Epistulae et Chartae ad historiam primi belli sacri spectantes quae supersunt aevo aequales ac genuine. Die


Elena Bellomo

the city. In 1138 Innocent II thanks Paganello de Porcaria and his wife Agnese for having donated to the Templars a plot of land in Lucca in a place called Ruca. Further evidences about the Military Order in the city are dated 1157. By 1190 the Hospital is also documented in Lucca,60 but the recruitment of this Order in the area had already been underway for some time, given that Brother Anselm of Lucca with all probability fought in the Battle of Hattin in 1187. He is then attested to be in Acre between 1180 and 1195 and in 1201 was treasurer of the Order.61 Moreover, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries merchants from Lucca maintained constant and profitable traffic with the East, overall connected to the silk industry.62 Despite the lack or fragmentation of primary sources the evidence from northwest Italy provides a significant contribution to the study of the Order of Mountjoy. The location of the Mallone and Savona houses and the possessions of Susa at nodal points in the transportation network mirrors the position of the major local Templar and Hospitaller houses.63 This settlement pattern was based on the need of these Orders to maintain constant contacts with the Holy Land and dispatch reinforcements and provisions there. Even though the later development of Mountjoy focused on the Iberian peninsula, Rodrigo’s possible search for William V’s patronage and the consolidation work effected by his close collaborators in Piedmont and Liguria leads one to assume that in the beginning Rodrigo and his successor Fralmo viewed the Order as an international institution aimed at making its own contribution to the fight against the infidels in the whole of the Mediterranean. This is why it also settled in northern Italy, a region that had always played a significant role in the links between continental and Mediterranean Europe and between East and West. Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahren 1088–1100, ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Innsbruck, 1902), pp.  165–67; Raul Manselli, “Lucca e lucchesi alla prima crociata,” Bolletino Storico Lucchese 12 (1940), 158–68, reprinted in Raul Manselli, Italia e italiani alla prima crociata (Rome, 1983), pp. 125–35. 60   Telesforo Bini, “Dei Tempieri in Lucca. Ragionamento storico,” Atti della Reale Accademia Lucchese di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti 10 (1840), 249–51, docs. 1–2; Regesto del Capitolo di Lucca, 2:96, doc. 1163, 3:64, doc. 1613. 61   Cart Hosp, nos. 579, 972, 1031, 1145, 1146; Judith Bronstein, The Hospitallers and the Holy Land. Financing the Latin East. 1187–1274 (Woodbridge, 2005), p. 147. 62   Marie-Luise Favreau-Lilie, Die Italiener im Heiligen Land vom ersten Kreuzzug bis zum Tode Heinrichs von Champagne. 1098–1197 (Amsterdam, 1989), pp.  186, 189, 206, 208; David Jacoby, “Silk crosses the Mediterranean,” in Le vie del Mediterraneo. Idee, uomini, oggetti (secoli XI–XVI). Genova, 19–20 aprile 1994, ed. Gabriella Airaldi (Genoa, 1997), pp. 55–79, at pp. 65–66; David Jacoby, “Mercanti genovesi e veneziani e le loro merci nel Levante crociato,” in Genova, Venezia, il Levante nei secoli XII–XIV. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi, Genova-Venezia, 10–14 marzo 2000, ed. Gherardo Ortalli and Dino Puncuh, Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria 41 (2001), pp. 213–56, at pp. 253–54. 63   For the settlement pattern of the Temple and the Hospital in this area see Bellomo, The Templar Order, pp. 59–68; Riviera di Levante tra Emilia e Toscana. Un crocevia per l’ordine di San Giovanni. Atti del Convegno, Genova-Chiavari-Rapallo, 9–12 settembre 1999, ed. Josepha Costa Restagno (Genoa, 2001): Cavalieri di San Giovanni.

Fulfilling a Mediterranean Vocation


Moreover, this ambitious project seems to be further confirmed by the fact that Mountjoy settled in places which shared continuous relations with the East rather than with Spain. Mountjoy was the first Spanish military order which reached the Holy Land. Its international vocation was originally connected to Rodrigo’s journey to the East. In his pilgrimage to the Holy Land he was following in the footsteps of his ancestors as his grandfathers, Rodrigo Velaz and Fernando Pérez de Traba, had both visited Jerusalem.64 However, another Spanish military order, Santiago, had already made international contacts in the 1180s.65 Perhaps also the presence in the 64

  Jaspert, “Transmediterrane Wechselwirkungen,” p. 259.   On the international vocation of the Spanish military orders see Eloy Benito Ruano, Estudios Santiaguistas (León, 1978); Philippe Josserand, Église et pouvoir dans la Péninsule ibérique. Les orders militaires dans le Royaume de Castille. 1252–1369 (Madrid, 2004), pp. 583–609; José Manuel Rodríguez García, “El internacionalismo de las órdenes militares ‘hispanas’ en el siglo XIII,” Studia historica 18–19 (2000–2001), pp. 187–209; Anna Mur i Raurell, “Relaciones europeas de las Órdenes Militares hispánicas durante el siglo XIII,” in España y el Sacro Imperio. Procesos de cambio, influencias y acciones recíprocas en la época de la “europeización”. Siglos XI–XIII, ed. Klaus Herbers, Karl Rudolf and Julio Valderón Baruque (Valladolid, 2002), 179–272; Ayala Martínez, Las Órdenes Militares, pp. 529–39; Philippe Josserand, “L’Ordre de Santiago en France au Moyen Age,” in Saint Jacques et la France. Actes du Colloque des 18 et 19 janvier 2001 à la Fondation SingerPolignac (Paris, 2003), pp. 451–68; Anna Mur i Raurell, “Relaciones europeas de las Órdenes Militares hispánicas durante el siglo XIV,” in Spanien und das römisch-deutsche Reich vom 14. Jahrhundert bis zum Beginn des habsburgischen Großreiches: Konstruktionen des Eigenen und des Fremden, ed. Klaus Herbers and Nikolas Jaspert (Münster-Berlin, 2004), pp.  135–84; Anna Mur i Raurell, “Gracia la inspiración y a pesar de la desconfianza: la Orden de Calatrava en el área germánica y este de Europa,” Cistercium 238 (2005), 213–52; Jaspert, “Transmediterrane Wechselwirkungen,” p. 261. On the presence of these Orders in Italy see Aurea Javierre Mur, “Un contacto de la Orden de Santiago con la Puglia en el tempo de Corrado de Scavia,” Archivio Storico Pugliese 13 (1960), 91–96; Rudolf Hiestand, “San Michele in Orsara. Un capitolo dei rapporti pugliesi-iberici nei secoli XII–XIII,” Archivio Storico Pugliese 44 (1991), 67–79; Cesira Raimondi, “Sulle tracce dei Cavalieri di Calatrava: cenni sulla presenza dell’ordine in età medievale con particolare riferimento alla Puglia,” Rivista cistercense 11 (1994), 207–25; Laura D’Arienzo, “San Saturno di Cagliari e l’ordine militare di S. Giorgio di Alfama,” in Actas del Congreso Internacional hispano-portugués sobre “Las Órdenes militares hispánicas en la Península Ibérica durante la Edad Media, Anuario de Estudios medievales 11 (1981), pp. 823–52, also in Archivio Storico Sardo 34 (1983), 43–80; Foiso Fois, “Cavalieri dell’Ordine di Santiago e il Castello di Villasor in Sardegna,” ibid., pp. 493–504; Ayala Martínez, Las Órdenes Militares, pp. 631–33; Anna Mur i Raurell, “Gli Ordini di Calatrava e di Santiago in Puglia nel secolo XIII,” in Sulle orme dei Calatrava. I rapporti tra la Spagna e l’abbazia Sancti Angeli di Orsara di Puglia nel XII e XIII secolo (Orsara, s.d.), pp. 5–60; Laura Sciascia, “Riccardo Passaneto e la Commenda dei Cavalieri di Santiago di Lentini,” in Santiago e la Sicilia. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Messina, 2–4 maggio 2003, ed. Giuseppe Arlotta (Perugia, 2008), pp.  145–54; Elena Bellomo, “Tra storia locale e ambizioni internazionali: gli ordini monastico militari di origine iberica in Capitanata (secoli XIII-XIV)” in Federico II e i cavalieri teutonici in 65


Elena Bellomo

Order of Mountjoy of brothers originating from Italy promoted the initial adoption of a Mediterranean outlook, and the leading role granted to Fralmo of Lucca further emphasizes this early international character. It is worth noting that he is the only master of a Spanish military order who was not from the Iberian kingdoms.66 By settling in north-west Italy, the Order of Mountjoy encountered circles that were already familiar with the military orders and enjoyed multiple links with Outremer. The Order was also involved in local dynamics. The Marquis William V of Montferrat, patronizing this military order, probably intended both to consolidate his relations with the Latin East and reinforce his control over a part of his domains by granting it to a religious order of his choice. Conversely, in Susa and Savona Mountjoy came to embody exclusively religious aspirations such as the possible desire of Ascherius and Peter to don the habit of the Order in future, and the charitable vocation of Alberto Terrino. All the evidence from north-west Italy is connected to hospitality in various ways,67 and it is worth noting that, before Mountjoy merged with the Hospital of the Holy Redemeer, no charitable activities are connected to this Military Order either in Spain or in the Latin East. Thus, in this respect, the evidence from northwest Italy deserves special attention. In Savona Mountjoy was directly involved in hospitaller activities, and perhaps the house near the Mallone, performed similar functions. In Orgevalles Mountjoy possessions were in an area in which hospitality was extensively offered and they were also adjacent to the Chiomonte Hospitallers’ and the Moncenisio Hospital’s property. All kinds of travellers constantly used the roads and visited the ports of north-west Italy. This region always had a marked hospitaller vocation and here hospitality was well organized and widely offered. However, a clear link between Mountjoy and charitable activities is documented only in Savona where the hospice founded by Alberto Terrino appears to have been a local undertaking which remained closely linked to its founder and the bishop even after its assignation to Mountjoy. Moreover, this hospital seems to have faced a very severe crisis shortly after being entrusted to the Spanish Military Order. Unfortunately, there is too little documentary ground for further speculations, and we cannot ascertain whether this difficulty was connected to the own weakness of this newly established institution or to its assignation to an order that was not able to sustain international expansion. The connection with hospitaller activity in north-west Italy confirms that Mountjoy did not develop a clear identity, and this was probably one of the main Capitanata: recenti ricerche storiche e archeologiche. Convegno internazionale, FoggiaLucera 10–13 giugno 2009, ed. Hubert Houben and Kristjan Toomaspoeg, forthcoming. 66   Alan Forey has proved that dissentions within Mountjoy had no racial character, and it is not possible to ascertain whether Fralmo’s nationality played any role in increasing the disputes with his brethren. 67   It should not be ruled out that this tendency was linked to Fralmo of Lucca, master of the military order at the moment of its union with the Hospital of the Holy Redeemer and then head of this second institution.

Fulfilling a Mediterranean Vocation


reasons for its failure.68 The Order’s affiliation with Citeaux met with opposition and was later rejected; its connection with the Holy Land was only nominal despite the fact that it was mentioned in the dedication of the Order itself; in north-west Italy an unprecedented connection with charitable activities is apparent even before the union with the Hospital of the Holy Redeemer. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that in 1186 Mountjoy, lacking recruits and a definite identity, was already planning to join another order and disappear. In conclusion, despite there being little in the sources on the presence of the Order of Mountjoy in north-west Italy, the evidence traced in this area significantly helps to outline a more comprehensive picture of this Order, placing a clear emphasis on its early international identity and Mediterranean vocation but also on its failure to fulfil this mission. While confirming that an international attitude was not an attribute exclusive to major military orders such as the Temple and the Hospital, this information also highlights that such a Mediterranean outlook was fully appreciated and valued in a strategic Mediterranean crossroads like northern Italy and emphasizes the importance of further research on the military orders in this area.

  Ayala Martínez, Las Órdenes Militares, p. 105.


This page has been left blank intentionally

3 Templar Liturgy and Devotion in the Crown of Aragon* Sebastián Salvadó

The publication of Christina Dondi’s article studying a sacramentary from the diocese of Piacenza has created an interesting set of problems for students of the liturgy of the military orders.1 The manuscript in question was used by the Knights Templar of Modena (Modena, Bib. Cap., ms. O.II.3). Forming the crux of her argument, Dondi demonstrates how the Modena sacramentary followed the use of a local monastic order.2 Her research contradicts previously held views concerning the kind of rite practised by Templars. Legras and Lemaître’s study of the liturgies of the Hospitallers and Templars argues that both of these Orders followed a canonic rite based on the use of the Holy Sepulchre.3 However, Dondi further supports her conclusions with the consideration of a Templar manuscript from the area of Cambridgeshire. Templars there likewise followed a local rite, not monastic but rather one from a canonic institution.4 Dondi’s later study of the liturgy of the church of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem further argues that Templars in the West practised different liturgies, while those commanderies in the Latin East followed the canonic rite of the Holy Sepulchre.5 Since the publication *   Previous portions of this paper were presented at the seventh meeting of the SSCLE Avignon, August 2008. I would like to thank Jochen Burgtorf for his comments on an earlier version of this paper, as well as the members of the SSCLE for their invaluable feedback. Notwithstanding, any shortcomings appearing in this article are my own. 1   Cristina Dondi, “Manoscritti liturgici dei templari e degli ospitalieri: le nuove prospettive aperte dal sacramentario templare di Modena,” in I Templari, la guerra e la santità, ed. Simonetta Cerrini and Fulvio Bramato (Rimini, 2000), pp. 85–133; Dondi, “L’Ordine dei cavalieri Templari in area modenese nei secoli XII–XIV, ” Aevum 68 (1994), 339–66. 2   Dondi, “Manoscritti,” p. 99. 3   Anne-Marie Legras and Jean-Loupe LeMaître, “La pratique liturgique des Templiers et des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jerusalem,” in L’Ecrit dans la société médiévale: divers aspects de sa pratique du XIe siècle au XVe siècle, textes en hommage à Lucie Fossier, ed. Caroline Bourlet et Annie Dufour (Paris, 1991), p. 83. 4   Dondi, “Manoscritti,” pp. 100–104. 5   Cristina Dondi, The Liturgy of the Canons Regular of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem: A Study and a Catalogue of the Manuscript Sources (Turnhout, 2004), p. 41.



SebastiÁn SalvadÓ

of her findings, various interpretations of which type of rite Templars actually celebrated are still held. Recent scholarship has accepted that Templars in the West did not all necessarily follow the use of the Holy Sepulchre and there is further consensus on their use of local pre-existing liturgical rites. However, whether they adopted canonic or monastic uses is still not clear. Some scholars have maintained Dondi’s conclusions that Templars at times adopted local canonic or monastic rites.6 In contrast, others have suggested that Templars adopted the liturgy only of the local canonical institutions.7 While this slight disagreement might not be important for studies focusing on other issues, the differences between these rites are quite significant. Whether Templars adopted the use of the local diocese or of a mendicant order, for example, has implications beyond those of what liturgy was celebrated in their chapels. Knowledge that Templars in the West adopted local rites of monastic or canonic institutions greatly changes received views of how military orders interacted with their liturgy. In contrast to what we now know of the Templars, surviving manuscripts demonstrate that the Hospitallers followed a very rigorous liturgical practice throughout their chapels.8 Every house was supplied with liturgical manuscripts copied from their central commandery and practised the same rite throughout Europe and the Latin East.9 This rigid adherence to a single liturgical tradition contrasts greatly with the plurality of liturgies celebrated by different Templar houses. This creates various challenges for the historian, especially since there are already many known striking institutional differences between the Hospitaller and Templar Orders.10 The Templars’ adherence to local rites, for example, opens new perspectives into the interactions they could have had with their immediate communities.11 Differences in adherence to canonic, monastic, or mendicant rites further complicates how historians should portray Templar religiosity. As I have discussed in a previous study, what rites a commandery celebrated had a significant impact on which viewpoints the brothers could be exposed to.12 The liturgy and hagiography of saints promoted among various rites

  Helen Nicholson, The Knights Templar: A New History (Stroud, 2001), p. 156.   Jonathan Riley-Smith, “The Structures of the Orders of the Temple and the Hospital in c.1291,” in The Medieval Crusade, ed. Susan Ridyard (Woodbridge, 2004), pp. 125–44. 8   Legras and LeMaître, “Pratique,” pp. 99–121. 9  Dondi, Liturgy of the Canons Regular, p. 42. 10   Riley-Smith, “Structures,” pp. 125–44; see Jochen Burgtorf’s recent contribution to this subject in his The Central Convent of Hospitallers and Templars: History, Organization, and Personnel (1099/1120–1310) (Leiden, 2008). 11   Jochen Schenk’s current work dealing with family involvement and the Templars’ use of relics, while not discussing liturgy per se, is very relevant for this discussion. 12   Sebastián Salvado, “Interpreting the Altarpiece of Saint Bernard: Templar Liturgy and Conquest in Thirteenth-Century Majorca,” Iconographica: Rivista di iconografia medievale e moderna 5 (2006), 48–63. 6 7

Templar LitUrGY and Devotion in the Crown of AraGon


can convey at times very different and significant meanings.13 Further differences concern the relation of brethren to their liturgical texts, the rigorousness of office prayers, kinds of sermons, the types of liturgical objects and art, and as mentioned even the house’s relationship with the surrounding community. Dondi’s findings demand further research into the local liturgical practices of Templar houses. At present it is difficult to pinpoint what specific rite was followed by different commanderies in Europe. Scholarship can no longer assume that Templars celebrated a uniform liturgy. Only a handful of extant liturgical manuscripts have been identified as belonging to the Templars.14 The inventory entries of Jaume II’s registers demonstrate that Templars in the Crown of Aragon had extensive quantities of liturgical manuscripts. However, in the aftermath of their dissolution these were distributed to various different religious houses.15 The current whereabouts of these manuscripts is not known. Notwithstanding this lack of textual evidence for the rites they practised, even when a manuscript does survive for a commandery, Templars stationed in a neighbouring region could still have practised greatly different liturgical rites and had widely varying degrees of relationships to these liturgies. In light of this recent research some of the following questions can be raised. Are we able to establish a common set of religious practices that were shared by all Templars, regardless of the liturgy they practised? With such apparent discrepancies among different commanderies’ religious rites, how did the Templars go about selecting their liturgy? Were the rites they practised influenced by the local standing of such religious institutions? Lastly, in what ways did they exercise their devotion? The present study aims to address these subjects in light of evidence from the Templars’ presence in the Arago-Catalan territories. In the following pages I will portray a more nuanced understanding of the Templars’ relationship to their liturgy, establish a means of discussing what rites they might have celebrated, and explore aspects of their devotion in light of these findings. The extensive work carried out on the Templars of the Crown of Aragon provides 13

  See the implications of these differences in the representative studies: Christoph Maier, Crusade Propaganda and Ideology: Model Sermons for the Preaching of the Cross (Cambridge, 2000); Beverly Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade in Occitania, 1145– 1229. Preaching in the Lord’s Vineyard (Woodbridge, 2001). 14   These manuscripts are the Templar Ordinal of the Holy Sepulchre (Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana., Barb. lat. 659), the Templar Breviary of Acre (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 10478), the Templar Rheims manuscript (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 15054), the Templar Sacramentary of Modena (Modena, Biblioteca Capitolare, MS O.II.13), the Templar Rule with liturgical calendar (London, British Library, MS Cotton Cleopatra, B.III (3)), the Templar Psalter (Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS 246), and the Templar Barcelona Sacramentary (Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. lat. 3547). My dissertation studies the Ordinal of the Holy Sepulchre and the Acre Breviary. 15   See J. Ernesto Martínez Ferrando, “La Cámara Real en el reinado de Jaime II (1291– 1327). Relaciones de entradas y salidas de objetos artísticos,” Anales y Boletín de los Museos de Arte de Barcelona 11 (1953–1954), 1–230.


SebastiÁn SalvadÓ

an excellent foundation for understanding the many factors associated with their religious life. The present discussion of the Templars’ liturgy does not suffer from lack of previous scholarship. Scholars have sought to reconstruct their daily religious observances from the references to religious practices found in the Templar Rule.16 The majority of discussions of these practices are embedded within larger surveys of the Templars as a military order, and few critical inquiries into the liturgical observations stipulated in their Rule have been carried out.17 The Templar Rule specified what feasts, fasts and processions needed to be observed, their conduct during religious celebrations, and finally the procedures of what brethren were to do in case Mass or the Divine Office could not be heard.18 Those portions outlining the feasts and fasts form only the very basic skeleton of a canonic calendar.19 The roughly 50 feasts mentioned do not provide any significant clues towards the character of Templar liturgy, as they are feasts universally adopted by the Church. The religious indications stipulated by the Templar Rule form only what can be considered a very fragmentary Templar ordinal. Ordinals are handbooks that outline how the liturgy is to be celebrated, delineate every text to be read for every calendar day, and how the celebrations are to be physically performed.20 Devoid of this type of specificity, the general rubrics in the Templar Rule should not be understood as representative of a complete liturgy. Although the Rule indeed specifies that Templars should follow the liturgy of the Holy Sepulchre, it lacks any specific insights into that particular rite.21 From a liturgically informed point of view the liturgical stipulations found in the Rule resemble instructions for somebody not familiar with the intricacies of its daily celebration. If one takes into account that the Templar Rule was used principally by the Templar commanders, then the rudimentary nature of these recommendations is explanatory.22 The Rule allows a commander not necessarily familiar with the details of the Mass and Office celebration a way to monitor the  Georges Bordonove, La vie quotidienne des Templiers au XIII siècle (Paris, 1975); Antonio Linage Conde, “Tipología de la vida religiosa en las Ordenes Militares,” Anuario de estudios medievales 11 (1981), 33–58. 17   Kaspar Elm has presented some very interesting observations: Kaspar Elm, “Die Spiritualität der geistlichen Ritterorden des Mittelalters,” in “Militia Christi” e Crociata nei secoli XI–XIII, Atti della undecima Settimana internazionale di studio Mendola, 28 agosto – 1 settembre 1989 (Milan, 1992), pp. 477–518. 18   The Rule of the Templars: The French Text of the Rule of the Order of the Knights Templar, trans. and intr. by J.M. Upton-Ward (Woodbridge, 1992), §340–65. 19  Upton-Ward, The Rule, §74–76, 352. 20   John Harper, The Forms and Orders of the Western liturgy: from the Tenth to the Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 1991), p. 60. 21  Upton-Ward, The Rule, §9, 40, 340–65. See the discussion that follows on this subject. 22   Alan Forey, “Literacy and Learning in the Military Orders during the twelfth and thirteenth Centuries,” in MO, 2, pp. 185–206. 16

Templar LitUrGY and Devotion in the Crown of AraGon


conduct of brethren.23 The Rule permitted him to establish the proper decorum to be observed during religious ceremonies as well as providing him with a guide to enable him to check whether the officiating priest was carrying out his duties correctly.24 Throughout the religious recommendations of the Rule there is an ambivalence regarding who is actually partaking in the recitation of the liturgy. In a monastic environment all monks were expected to sing the liturgical texts in unison with the celebrant. In the Templar Rule, however, some clauses state that brethren should remain silent and merely listen, while others seem to encourage their participation.25 The underlying tone throughout the various clauses, however, is that reciting the Office by brethren was not obligatory and that it was not common practice.26 Templars did not therefore partake in the singing of the actual liturgy as canons or monks did. They were bystanders to the priest’s actions and participated only by the silent recitation of paternosters necessary at specific points in the liturgy. Their relationship to the liturgy did not create an intimate knowledge of texts and chants as was normally fostered in monasteries through the practice of memorization.27 The only member of the Templar commandery who would actually officiate at the liturgy and recite all of its prayers was the resident priest. The rest of the Rule suggests the religious recommendations written provide only a common denominator to be observed by the house, not an actual expression of a particular liturgy. This is best understood by reviewing the directions given for members who could not be present during Mass or Office. In the Primitive Rule (c.1129–1135) when a knight had no access to hear the Offices as a result of active duty in the East, it was recorded that he was to recite the following number of paternosters: 13 for matins, 7 for each of the lesser offices, and 9 for vespers.28 Yet, in portions of the Rule written at a later date (c.1165–1187), whenever brethren could not listen to the Divine Office the afore-mentioned were expanded into the following: 26 for matins (13 for the Virgin Mary, and 13 for the day), 14 for the lesser hours (7 for the Virgin Mary, and 7 for the day), 18 for vespers (9 for the Virgin Mary, and 9 for the day), and 14 for compline (7 for the Virgin Mary, and 7 for the day).29 This raises the number of paternosters that would need to be recited from 50 up to 114. These figures do not take into account those required daily, as the 60 paternosters recited before nones (30 for the dead, and 30 for the living), those for the Office of Our Lady, one before and after each meal, and a final paternoster before sleep. To this quantity an additional number needs to be added to accommodate the   Cf. Upton-Ward, The Rule, §224–78, 386–543, 544–656, 657–86.   This is supported by the inclusion in the Rule of chapters §268–71. 25   Compare chapters §355 and §307. 26  Upton-Ward, The Rule, §282, §300, §307, §341, §348, §355, §359. 27   Anna Maria Busse Berger, Medieval Music and the Art of Memory (Berkeley, 2005). 28  Upton-Ward, The Rule, §10. 29  Upton-Ward, The Rule, §282, 284, 286, 300, 306, 342. 23 24


SebastiÁn SalvadÓ

100–200 paternosters requiring recitation in the event of a member’s or Templar Master’s death (in both cases to be recited for 7 consecutive days). In the aftermath of a crusading campaign this would have pushed the number of paternosters to well over 250. Although some studies have presented these stipulations as being carried out daily by the Templars, they were not.30 These recommendations in the Rule are given to emphasize the religious aspect of Templar life. Their vocation was that of living the monastic life; attending Mass and the Office were part of their daily expected duties. The reciting of paternosters when not attending to these duties was a way of punishing those who failed to listen to the liturgy, and through their recitation a means of maintaining their vows. Comparing the different religious recommendations of the Rule, a distinction is created between the practices followed by the brethren and those of the priest. This becomes evident when discussing the feasts and processions to be observed. After a listing of the feast days, clause §353 stipulates that “the brothers of the Temple should not observe any other fasts without permission”.31 Yet the celebration of a full calendar year would require more fast days than those mentioned by the Rule. The same pattern is repeated with required processions. After a note is given in clause §360 of the required days for procession, clause §361 stipulates “other processions are made in the Temple which are called private because the chaplain brother, the priest and the clerk make them privately without the other brothers”.32 Significantly, within the ensemble of Templar liturgical practices there were two separate rites being followed. There was that of the priest who followed the true complete liturgical cursus. Alongside him were the Templars who participated by listening to the Mass and Office, partook in confessions, but only observed their own selected number of feasting and fasting days, and participated in only a limited number of prescribed processions. The Templar Rule also fails to prescribe an important staple of every religious community: the recitation of the Psalter. Both secular and monastic observances required the weekly singing of the entire Psalter.33 The few references to psalm singing in the Templar Rule refer to their recitation only by the officiating priest.34 In this light, Templars behaved in terms of their religious devotion like conversi. Templars were observers and auxiliary participants whose lack of access to the written word created a relationship to the celebrated liturgy analogous to the type lay persons had within monasteries.35   Cf. Bordonove, La vie quotidienne; María Ledesma Rubio, Las órdenes militares en Aragón (Zaragosa, 1994). 31  Upton-Ward, The Rule, §353. 32  Upton-Ward, The Rule, §361. 33  Harper, The Forms and Orders, pp. 67, 258–59. 34  Upton-Ward, The Rule, §357, 341, 637. 35   See the very thorough bibliography provided in the critical apparatus of Chrysogonus Waddell’s Cistercian Lay Brothers: Twelfth-Century Usages with Related Texts (Brecht, 2000). 30

Templar LitUrGY and Devotion in the Crown of AraGon


The nature of religious experience created by the Rule makes Templar knights as especially devout spectators, but certainly not practising clergy. What type of interaction, then, did they have with the liturgy if they had not memorized the Psalter and the liturgical chants as monks and canons did? Not to be interpreted as a negative facet, this quality of spectator that I highlight did not hinder the fostering of an intimate relationship between the listener and the liturgy. This holds especially true since existing records demonstrate how Templars had their liturgical books translated into the vernacular, and some Templar priests also had to be interrogated during the trials in the vernacular.36 The high percentage of illiteracy in the Order’s members emphasizes the important role the celebration of the liturgy played.37 From their lack of access to written materials, Templars were entirely dependent on their priest for their religious education. As their role as bystanders suggests, the officiating priest potentially represented the most important source of religious viewpoints and knowledge. While I have discussed the Templars’ relationship to the liturgy, which liturgies were celebrated in their chapels by their priests has not been addressed. References in three clauses of the Rule point towards the celebration of the canonic liturgy of the Holy Sepulchre.38 Clause 9 from the Primitive Rule recommends the following: “strive everywhere with pure desire to hear matins and the entire service according to canonical law and the customs of the regular masters of the Holy City Jerusalem”.39 Such statements as these are further corroborated by explicitly stipulating the celebration of matins with nine lessons, a custom of the canonic liturgy.40 These indications in the Rule provide the reason why previous scholarship has assumed that Templars in Europe also followed the rite of the Holy Sepulchre. Yet, without an extant manuscript evidencing the rite practised at a commandery there is no way to know with certainty what rite they celebrated. Surviving documentation on the Templars in Arago-Catalonia demonstrates that the liturgy practised by each commandery was subject to a myriad of factors ranging from when the house was established, how many members it had, to the particular stipulations enacted by local bishops. As Josep Sans i Travé has noted, most of the early Templar settlements of

  Alan Forey, The Templars in the Corona de Aragón (London, 1973), p. 282; cf. Jules Michelet, Procès des Templiers, 2 vols (Paris, 1841–51), 2: 423–515. This practice was widespread; however, liturgical books in the vernacular were systematically destroyed by the Catalan church in the thirteenth century – see “La Iglesia en la España de los siglos VIII al XIV,” in Historia de la Iglesia en España, ed. Ricardo García Villoslada, vol. 2 (Madrid, 1979). 37   Forey, “Literacy and learning,” pp. 185–206; Alan Forey, “Novitiate and Instruction in the Military Orders in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” Speculum 61 (1986), 1–17. 38  Upton-Ward, The Rule, §9, 40, 363. 39  Upton-Ward, The Rule, §9. 40  Upton-Ward, The Rule, §355, 357. 36


SebastiÁn SalvadÓ

the twelfth century did not have their own officiating priests.41 Given that before the mid twelfth century when Tortosa and Lleida were still under Muslim rule and the Cistercians were only beginning their great flowering in the Crown of Aragon, the religious orders which could have officiated for Templars were few. The newly established houses would only have had the choice of attending the services of a secular or Benedictine priest. For the commandery in Montsó established in 1153, it is very possible that the brethren attended the rites of a local secular priest.42 This seems all the more probable since no Benedictine monasteries are found within the vicinity. The state of the early settlers in the Crown of Aragon provides two points of consideration for discussing Templar liturgy. Those Templars who settled in Aragon and Catalonia at the early date when the liturgical landscape was dominated by the Benedictine and secular orders could only have made recourse to local priests available from these two Orders. This observation provides a method of determining what liturgy they followed based on chronology. The commanderies created in Aragon and Catalonia would have had available liturgical orders different to those on the later thirteenth-century Valencian frontier.43 The other factor needing consideration is the size of each Templar commandery. Early Templar settlements would have been small and unable to maintain the services of a full-time private priest. Sans i Travé contends that Templars would have continued to make use of local priests well into the thirteenth century, simply because they could not afford to maintain one in residency.44 Acknowledging this lack of Templar priests is a decree issued by Pope Gregory IX in 1227 ordering bishops to allow those clergy who gave unpaid service to Templars to return to their churches without having their benefices jeopardized.45 This situation was exacerbated by the brief posts held by the few priests that did belong to the Order. As Alan Forey shows, the Templar priest Jaume de Montsó spent no more than four years in any one commandery. From 1260 to 1261 he officiated at Villel, from 1262 to 1263 in Castellote, from 1264 to 1268 in Tortosa, and the last mention has him returning to officiate at Castellote.46 Interesting enough, no indication has been found of whether Castellote, Tortosa or Villel brought in any other priest to replace Jaume de Montsó during his absence.47 41

  Josep Sans i Travé, “L’Orde del Temple als Països Catalans: la seva introducció i organització (segles XII–XIV),” in Actes de les Primeres Jornades sobre els Ordes ReligiosoMilitars als Països Catalans (segles XII–XIX) (Tarragona, 1994), p. 27. 42  Forey, The Templars, p. 92. See Upton-Ward, The Rule, §364, where provisions for such a scenario are made. 43   Robert Burns, The Crusader Kingdom of Valencia: Reconstruction on a ThirteenthCentury Frontier, 2 vols (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 197–213. 44   Sans i Travé, “L’Orde,” p. 27. 45  Forey, The Templars, p. 290. 46  Forey, The Templars, p. 275. 47   These preceding observations point towards the additional research needed to flesh out the identities of individual Templar priests. With further archival investigation important

Templar LitUrGY and Devotion in the Crown of AraGon


Pope Gregory IX’s decree highlights an existing tension between Templars and local canonic institutions. Many disputes between bishops and the Templars resulted from the great privileges accorded to the knights in 1139 by Pope Innocent II. The bull Omne datum optimum placed Templars under the direct jurisdiction of the pope, gave them sweeping economic exemptions, and permitted them to choose their own chaplains without making recourse to local ecclesiastical authorities.48 This capability of choosing their own chaplains resulted in the loss of ecclesiastical revenues for the dioceses. If Templars appointed their own priests both to their own commandery chapels and to those churches functioning within their lands, the corresponding tithes of the latter would not go to the diocese. Hence, the majority of documented interactions between Templars and the local ecclesiastical body records conflicts of this type.49 In the many documented cases Templars in the Arago-Catalan lands were forced to forfeit their papal exemptions in order to be allowed to colonize or take possession of new territories. These conflicts are illustrated both in Majorca and in Catalonia. When Templars were settling the northern portion of Majorca centred on Pollença the bishop of Majorca forced them to accept the following conditions: all priests for the town of Pollença were to be named by the bishop, and only the chaplains of their commanderies could be named by the Templars.50 By appointing the officiating priests in Pollença the diocese of Majorca was guaranteeing for itself a considerable portion of those churches’ income. The restrictions placed upon the commandery and landholdings of Miravet reflected these same concerns. Already from 1158 Templars in Miravet were only allowed to appoint a priest if it was for their own commandery chapel. In all of the other churches owned by the Templars the priests had to maintain formal obedience to the bishop.51 Ownership of a chapel therefore, did not necessarily entail an ability to dictate what liturgy was practised in it. The tensions experienced over the economic control of Templar chapels provides further ways of discussing the liturgy Templars practised. While the disputes do not reveal what rites were celebrated, they facilitate an important distinction between commandery chapels and those churches which existed within Templar landholdings. Those chapels which were owned by Templars but were not within their commandery would very likely have been subject to the control of the local diocese. The liturgy celebrated in them would have been that of the local cathedral. questions such as priests’ familial origins and religious education could be addressed. Any insights gained into their biography will further elucidate the dynamics present in the Templars’ religious life. 48  Nicholson, The Knights, pp. 153–56. 49   See Forey, The Templars, pp. 159–88. 50   Mateo Rotger y Capllonch, Historia de Pollensa, 2 vols (Palma de Mallorca, 1897– 1906; 2nd edn, 1967–1969), pp. 26–30. 51   Nikolas Jaspert, “Bonds and Tensions on the Frontier: the Templars in TwelfthCentury Western Catalonia,” in Mendicants, Military Orders, and Regionalism in Medieval Europe, ed. Jürgen Sarnowsky (Aldershot, 1999), pp. 19–45, at p. 33.


SebastiÁn SalvadÓ

In contrast, it is clear that Templars had the freedom to choose priests for their own commandery chapels as they saw fit. These observations allow the creation of a distinction between the liturgies celebrated in Templar commandery chapels and those chapels they owned but did not have liturgical control over. Nonetheless, even if Templars resided in a commandery where there was a resident priest, they could still have been exposed to varying liturgical rites. Those brethren who found themselves attending to business in a small town under their control would be obliged to perform the necessary number of paternosters or attend the liturgical services following the rite of the local church. Moreover, those Templars residing in a commandery which was small enough not to have a private chapel would very likely also have made use of a local priest’s services. Such scenarios provide further information on the types of interaction members of the Order could have had with different liturgical rites. A brief consideration of the testimonies recorded during the trial of the Templars in the early fourteenth century presents additional instructive points of reference. It is within these statements that the influence of the various religious orders present in the Arago-Catalan lands becomes noticeable. From the many testimonies given, a small group is valuable for recreating certain religious habits Templars had. The testimonies in question were given either by priests or Templars and make specific references to the practice of confession. Bartholomeo de Torre, a chaplain at the Templar commandery of Mas-Deu, is recorded to have stated that whenever a chaplain was not present brethren were to confess first to a Dominican, or a Franciscan. If either of these two were not present, only then would they go to a secular priest.52 This practice is corroborated by two Franciscans from Lleida who testified to having heard confession from Templars.53 A Templar sergeant likewise testified to confessing to friars because there were no Templar priests to officiate at this service.54 The Templars’ close relation to the mendicant orders is shown through the Templar Jaume de Garrigans, who had belonged to a mendicant order prior to his becoming a knight.55 The frequent economic feuds Templars had with dioceses might have been a factor influencing their preferred choice of confessor. In addition to revealing the very close relationship Templars had with the new mendicant orders, these testimonies also raise further questions. What religious services did they attend during the intervals between their confessions? Did Templars resort to reciting their paternosters during this time, or did they listen to a local liturgy and then confess to a priest of their choice? Although no concrete answer is available for these observations, they do highlight the religious practices of some Templars.

 Forey, The Templars, p. 274.  Ibid. 54   Alan Forey, The Fall of the Templars in the Crown of Aragon (Aldershot, 2001), p. 83. 55  Forey, The Templars, p. 281. 52 53

Templar LitUrGY and Devotion in the Crown of AraGon


Since Templars did not exercise an intimate relationship with the liturgy as expected from a monk or priest and the rites they practised could have varied from commandery to commandery, in what concrete forms was their religious devotion manifested? The extant inventories of Arago-Catalan chapels provide one preliminary answer to this question.56 Peppered throughout the often very detailed lists of chapel items are descriptions of altarpieces, chalices, plates, and candelabra that have Templar insignia prominently placed on them.57 At times, objects have both Templar insignia and the shields of commanders displayed together. Considered alongside the opulent liturgical vestments and utensils they owned, an image of how Templars interacted with the liturgy starts to form. As evidenced in Peñíscola, the commandery chapel became the stage where Templars prominently displayed their religious fervour for everybody to see.58 Through the liturgy’s furnishings Templars made a concerted effort to demonstrate the extent of their faith. Commissions of specially made altarpieces, such as a solid silver four-panel altarpiece prominently displaying Templar insignia alongside the four evangelists, demonstrates the zeal with which the Templars inserted themselves vicariously into the performance of the liturgy.59 During the performance of the Mass, Christ’s blood was sipped from chalices with Templar insignia and his body consumed from patens with Templar crosses. The chapel of Peñíscola, with its overly sumptuous décor, breaks with the Cistercian ideals codified by Saint Bernard in his Apologia to William of St Thierry and the ascesis of the new mendicant orders.60 Instead, the lavish decorations demonstrate a secular interpretation of how a proper solemn rite was to be furnished. Typified by Suger’s Libellus de consecratione written for Saint Denis, solemnity in liturgical rites was understood as the most sumptuously dressed and ornamented celebration possible.61


  For a fuller discussion of these inventories see: Sebastián Salvadó, “Icons, Crosses and the Liturgical Objects of Templar Chapels in the Crown of Aragon,” in The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314), ed. Jochen Burgtorf, Paul F. Crawford and Helen J. Nicholson (Farnham, 2010), pp. 183–97. 57   For example, Martínez, “La Cámara Real,” p. 42, doc. 32: ‘duas lanteas argenti cum catenis esmaltatis cum signis Templi, et fratris Berengarii de Cardona et fratris Arnaldi de Banyuls.’ 58   Templar commandery chapels were often was open to the public for various religious functions; see for example the role of the Templar commandery in Acre in the pilgrimage route: David Jacoby, ‘Pilgrimage in Crusader Acre: The Pardouns d’Acre,’ in De Sion exibit lex et verbum domini de Hierusalem: Essays on Medieval law, Liturgy, and Literature in Honour of Amnon Linder, ed. Yitzhak Hen (Turnhout, 2001), pp. 105–117. 59   Martínez, ‘La Cámara,’ p. 42, doc. 32, cf. doc. 77. 60   See Conrad Rudolf, The ‘Things of Greater Importance’: Bernard of Clairvaux’s Apologia and the Medieval Attitude toward Art (Philadelphia, 1990). 61  See Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St-Denis and its Art Treasures, ed., trans. and annotated by Erwin Panofsky (Princeton, 1946).


SebastiÁn SalvadÓ

Complementing this extant evidence of their activities within commandery chapels, information regarding Arago-Catalan Templars’ actions after the Order was dissolved sheds further light on the nature of their religious devotion. As Alan Forey shows, after the dissolution of the Order most Templars chose not to enter other religious houses.62 Of those who did, however, the choices they made are telling. A majority of the members that decided to enter religious institutions accepted the Cistercian habit. Guillermo de Lobera transferred to Santes Creus after four or five years in Templar service and the sergeant Bernardo de Rovira chose this monastery as well.63 An interesting contrast is made with the choice of Dalmacio de Rocabertí who opted to enter into the Augustinian priory of San Martín de Girona.64 These various knights who chose to enter a monastery after the dissolution of the Order should be compared to those that become part of either the Hospitallers, or the newly founded Order of Montesa. The Hospitallers absorbed those Templars roughly demarcated by the territories of Aragon, Catalonia and Majorca. The Montesa Order was created out of Templar holdings in the Valencia-Murcia region.65 Of special note is that the new Montesa Order followed the Cistercian liturgy, like the other Iberian military Orders of Calatrava and Saint George.66 This decision to create a new Order that practised the Cistercian liturgy is of interest both for what it suggests of the Arago-Catalan Templar liturgy previous to their dissolution, and for the influence that the Cistercians had over military orders in the region of Valencia. Notwithstanding all of the foregoing discussion of how the Templars interacted with the liturgy, the many factors affecting the rites they celebrated, and the types of religious expressions they manifested, it is necessary to highlight briefly the liberty some commanderies must have exercised in choosing their liturgical rite. As abundant care was given to furnishing chapels with the most opulent objects possible, it is reasonable to assume that Templars were just as careful when choosing the type of liturgical order to which they affiliated themselves. Templars accompanying King Jaume I (1213–1276) on his Valencian crusades could not have failed to notice that Jaume’s confessor and officiating priest was a Dominican, especially since he officiated at all of the daily and pre-campaign Masses out in the battlefield.67 In addition, Templar commanders surely understood the religious importance the Cistercian monastery of Poblet had for the Crown, since Jaume I had his battle standards blessed there before and after returning from his crusading  Forey, The Fall, p. 229.  Ibid., pp. 76, 228. 64  Ibid., p. 228. 65  Ibid., pp. 210–50. 66   See Bernd Schwenk, Calatrava: Entstehung und Frühgeschichte eines spanischen Ritterordens zisterziensischer Observanz im 12. Jahrhundert (Münster, 1992); Regina Sáinz de la Maza Lasoli, La Orden de Santiago en la Corona de Aragón: la Encomienda de Montalbán (1210–1327) (Zaragoza, 1980). 67  Burns, Crusader Kingdom, p. 203. 62 63

Templar LitUrGY and Devotion in the Crown of AraGon


campaigns.68 Together with the evidence of various Templars joining monasteries and the affiliation of the knights of the Order of Montesa to the Cistercian Order, these observations highlight the strong likelihood that a religious order’s prestige in a certain geographic area had considerable influence over the Templars’ choice of which liturgy they practised. In the preceding I have argued for a more nuanced depiction of the Templars’ interaction with their rites than has been previously presented. The relationship I stress is one based on multiple interdependent factors. The liturgical practices of any given Templar commandery depended on the specific timeframe under consideration, the house’s geographical location, its economic history, the number of brethren present, and in what liturgical context it existed. My examination of the Rule highlights what freedom Templars had in respect to the actual celebration of the liturgy. Nonetheless, surviving inventories demonstrate that the Templars still managed to express their devotion visually within their chapel furnishings. The picture that emerges from this discussion of Arago-Catalan Templars shows them to have had a non-uniform stance towards the rite they followed. Some commanderies such as that of Barcelona might have celebrated a Franciscan liturgy, while that of Palma de Majorca appears to have followed the Cistercian use, and many other commanderies certainly made recourse to local secular priests.69 Regardless of whether their liturgy was monastic or secular, ascetic or indulgent, evidence from Peñíscola shows Templars demonstrating their religious zeal in forms akin to lay expressions of devotion. Piety was manifested visually. The space of their chapel functioned in many regards the same way as it did for a noble’s private chapel: a space where both the liturgy and the décor worked to support the patron’s pious aspirations. The questions and observations I have raised regarding the Arago-Catalan Templars are equally valid when discussing other military orders. Very few systematic investigations have been carried out into the devotional lives of the Iberian Orders, and much work is still necessary for the Templars and Knights Hospitaller. Detailed studies into the rites of military orders permit a more precise identification of what liturgies were practised and provide valuable insight into the religious traditions associated with them. Such knowledge, I suggest, will permit the historian to gain a better understanding of the role religion had in shaping the actions and beliefs of the members of the military orders.


  Ibid., p. 215.   The Templar Barcelona Sacramentary (Vat. lat. 3547) contains the Franciscan rite adapted to the local Barcelona use. For a discussion of the Templars of Palma de Majorca, see footnote 12 above. 69

This page has been left blank intentionally

4 Gerard of Ridefort and the Battle of Le Cresson (1 May 1187): The Developing Narrative Tradition Peter Edbury

At the Military Orders Conference held in London in 2005, Malcolm Barber read a characteristically robust essay entitled “The Reputation of Gerard of Ridefort”.1 In it he surveyed what can be known of Gerard’s career from the surviving sources, pointing out inter alia how historians have had to come to terms with the contentious evidence presented by the various surviving versions of the narrative that came originally from the pen of Ernoul, a squire of Balian of Ibelin. As is well known, Gerard had a meteoric rise within the Templar Order: he had entered it at some point between the end of 1179 and 1183 and was elected master in 1185. He died fighting at the siege of Acre on 4 October 1189. A controversial figure in his own day, he has generally been seen in a negative light. In particular, he is remembered as the man who in 1187 used his position as a close adviser to King Guy of Lusignan to persuade the king to undertake the fatal attempt to relieve Tiberias and so precipitated the Christian defeat at Hattin.2 Ernoul’s original narrative, which seems to have concentrated on the middle years of the 1180s and extended as far as the end of 1187, does not survive. It described the collapse of the kingdom of Jerusalem while at the same time extolling the reputation of his master, Balian of Ibelin, together with that of Balian’s brother, Baldwin of Ramla. Eventually it was incorporated alongside other material into the anonymous text that since the nineteenth century has been known as La Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier. This work exists in three recensions, which close with the events of 1227, 1229 and 1231 respectively, and which all appear to date from the early 1230s. What then happened was that someone shaved off the pre-1184 sections of this work and stuck the remainder – about three-quarters of the whole – (plus a few earlier passages that were repositioned later in the narrative) on the end of the French translation of William of Tyre’s celebrated history. This   MO, 4, pp. 111–19.   For his career, see Jochen Burgtorf, The Central Convent of the Hospitallers and Templars: History, Organization and Personnel (1099/1120–1310) (Leiden, 2008), pp. 539– 42; Alain Demurger, “Gérard de Ridefort,” in Prier et combattre: dictionnaire européen des ordres militaires au Moyen Âge, ed. Nicole Bériou and Philippe Josserand (Paris, 2009), pp. 386–87. 1 2



Peter EdbUrY

development should probably be dated to the mid or late 1230s. The “Continuation of William of Tyre”, as this work had now become, was subsequently expanded and reworked by redactors in both western Europe and the Holy Land to provide us with the complex array of versions that survive to this day. Two particularly important later versions, the Colbert-Fontainebleau text which in the nineteenth century served as the base for the Recueil edition and the Lyon text, edited for the period 1184–97 by M.R. Morgan in 1982, originated in the Holy Land and would appear to date from the 1240s.3 It is important to establish how the various recensions relate to each other, since an understanding of their relationships should affect our approach to them and the stories they tell. In the medieval centuries the copyists of French vernacular texts regularly modified what was before them, changing the word order, rephrasing whole sentences, and also interpolating or omitting sections as they saw fit. These texts are no exception, and in addition they present various other problems. For example, there is good reason to suppose that some copyists switched exemplars, with the result that a manuscript may begin with a particular recension and then change abruptly to another; in some instances, especially with regard to Ernoul-Bernard, it would seem that the earliest versions of the text may only survive in comparatively late copies; trying to establish the original form of the work is therefore not as simple as we might wish. Bearing these hazards in mind, I want to examine how the texts, or, rather, how some of them, constructed the events surrounding the Battle of Le Cresson, which took place on 1 May 1187, and, in particular, how they present the role of Gerard of Ridefort. The story is well known. Ever since Guy of Lusignan came to power in 1186, Raymond of Tripoli had remained unreconciled to his exclusion from power and had been engaged in what were arguably treasonable dealings with Saladin. In the spring of 1187 it was agreed that a high-level delegation comprising Gerard, the Hospitaller master Roger des Moulins, Archbishop Joscius of Tyre, and two leading lay nobles, Balian of Ibelin and Reynald of Sidon, should go to Raymond, who was at his wife’s castle at Tiberias, in an attempt to bring about a rapprochement between him and Guy. It was at this precise moment that Raymond allowed a large Muslim military demonstration to pass through his land; as soon as Gerard, who had reached the castle of al-Fula on his way to Tiberias, learnt that there were Muslims in the vicinity, he got together as many knights as he could – the Ernoul narratives claim that there were 140, of whom 90 were Templars, 10 Hospitallers and 40 from the royal garrison in Nazareth – and battle was joined. Almost all the Christians were killed or captured as were a large number of the inhabitants of Nazareth who, allegedly at Gerard’s prompting, had come upon the field of battle in hope of plunder. Gerard himself was one of only three survivors.


  For further details, see Peter W. Edbury, “New Perspectives on the Old French Continuations of William of Tyre,” Crusades 9 (2010), 107–13.

Gerard of Ridefort and the Battle of Le Cresson (1 MaY 1187)


There are two versions of the story printed at the end of this paper. The first is from the Chronique d’Ernoul. It is not what I believe to be the earliest form of this text, but is edited from those manuscripts which represent the closest recension to the one used in constructing the William of Tyre Continuation. What is noticeable about this version is the comparative absence of value judgements on Gerard’s actions. At sentences 13–15, we see Gerard’s prompt action to gather troops to counter a Muslim raid. If there is implied criticism, it is that – so we are told at sentences 18 and 30 – the Muslims had kept their side of their bargain with Raymond and had not done any damage. The Christians then attacked the much larger Muslim force – 140 Christians against 7,000 Muslims – and were soundly defeated (sentences 19–22). There is no apportioning of blame; the one thing that Gerard did which might be intended to be seen as reprehensible was to tell the men of Nazareth to follow in the hope of plunder – an action that was to have tragic consequences (sentences 24–26). Later, at sentence 62, the narrator allows Gerard to give his version of events. It is remarkably dispassionate. Even when Balian of Ibelin, Archbishop Joscius and Gerard set off from Nazareth for the last leg of their journal to Tiberias and Gerard turns back on account of his wounds, the narrator avoids commenting on the hatred Gerard and Raymond had for each other (sentence 66). It is only at sentence 68 when Balian and the archbishop meet Raymond that the narrator attributes the disaster to Gerard’s pride (orgueil). Even here there is ambiguity as to whether this is to be understood as the view of the author or as Raymond’s own perspective. If this were the only episode in which Gerard was mentioned and this was the only version to have survived, we would not immediately identify this text as being hostile to him. Any criticism is muted, and, after all, Gerard had led his men to a major defeat. The reader’s attention is drawn more to the ambivalent behaviour of Raymond that prepares us for Gerard’s subsequent assertion on the eve of Hattin that Raymond was not to be trusted, and the fortuitous sequence of events which meant that Balian of Ibelin avoided involvement and, in all likelihood, death in the defeat. Indeed, Balian, Ernoul’s master, holds centre-stage and emerges with his reputation unscathed, even although his chief role consisted of being somewhere else at the crucial moment. The second version of this narrative comprises a later recension. The text is based on that given by the so-called “Lyon Eracles”, the Lyon, Bibliothèque de la ville, MS 828, an Acre manuscript that has been dated to circa 1280. This has been compared with the two manuscripts, and a fragment of a third, of what is sometimes called the “Colbert-Fontainebleau Eracles”, and which formed the base for the edition that appeared in the nineteenth century in the Recueil des historiens des croisades: historiens occidentaux.4 For this episode the three manuscripts are 4

  The two manuscripts are: Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS français 2628 (Acre: c.1260) and Paris, BnF fr. 2634 (France: fourteenth-century). The other manuscript, Paris, BnF fr. 9086 (Acre: late 1250s), begins with the same version of this material but then,


Peter EdbUrY

closely in step with only minor variants, and a close analysis shows that, here at least, it is the Lyon text that preserves readings which are closer to those in the first version of the narrative as edited from the Ernoul-Bernard manuscripts. Shortly after this point in the narrative the Lyon Eracles goes its own way and preserves a distinctive version of the events for the period to 1197. What distinguishes these manuscripts from the Ernoul-Bernard version and all the other copies of the William of Tyre Continuation is a series of interpolations.5 These are shown below in bold type. It is important to notice that apart from the highlighted passages, these manuscripts give a text that keeps reasonably close to the Ernoul-Bernard version, making no substantive alterations to what is there. It would appear that these interpolations were composed in the Latin East in the late 1230s or 1240s, and that a significant element in their author’s agenda in adapting the earlier text was the apportioning of blame for the disasters of 1187. The two figures he has in his sights here are Reynald of Châtillon and Gerard of Ridefort. In the first and third interpolations (sentences 1a and 31a) Saladin’s invasion is said to have come about as a direct response to Reynald’s capture of a Muslim caravan; it was thus Reynald’s irresponsible and intransigent behaviour that set in train the events that led to the loss of Jerusalem. The Ernoul-Bernard narrative reports Reynald seizing caravans in 1179 and 1182, but only the three manuscripts of the Continuation under discussion (plus Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, manuscrit français 9086) report a further attack in 1186. That episode, and with it the claim that Reynald captured Saladin’s sister and then told the new king, Guy of Lusignan, that he would not return his plunder because “he was lord of his land as much as Guy was lord of his”, forms another addition made by the same redactor as was responsible for the interpolations in the description of the Battle of Le Cresson.6 It is the second interpolation (sentences 18a–18c) that concerns Gerard. The message is simple: just before the battle Roger des Moulins, the master of the Hospitallers, and Jacques de Mailli, the Templar marshal, cautioned prudence only to be roundly accused of cowardice, thereby goading them into joining in the fatal charge. Gerard is presented as being arrogant and impetuous, and the consequences were disastrous. What is more, the marshal’s counter-assertion – that it would be Gerard who would flee the field – would seem to be borne out by the fact that Gerard himself was one of the few survivors. It should be noted that Gerard’s quip that Jacques de Mailli was too much concerned with saving his own blond head is presumably because the copyist of this manuscript or of an antecedent changed exemplars at this point, switches to a different manuscript tradition. 5   Also these three alone have a chapter break between sentences 60 and 61. 6   La Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier, ed. L. de Mas Latrie (Paris, 1871), pp. 54–55, 96–97; L’Estoire de Eracles Empereur et la Conqueste de la Terre d’Outremer, in RHC Occ, vol. 1.2 (Paris, 1859), p. 34. That Reynald did raid a caravan in 1186 is confirmed by Muslim writers. See Bernard Hamilton, “The Elephant of Christ: Reynald of Châtillon,” in Religions Motivation: Biographical and Sociological Problems for the Church Historian, ed. Derek Baker, Studies in Church History 15 (1978), pp. 106–107 and n. 70.

Gerard of Ridefort and the Battle of Le Cresson (1 MaY 1187)


not in the Lyon manuscript and so could be a further embellishment. Blame for the defeat therefore lay with Gerard’s refusal to take advice and his lack of military discretion coupled with his pride. The interpolation thus shows Gerard’s behaviour in a much more dishonourable light. Whether blackening Gerard’s memory in this way is justified is a moot question: the Libellus de Expugnatione Terrae Sanctae, a much more contemporary source, records that Roger des Moulins enthusiastically endorsed the decision to attack the Muslims,7 and, although other sources mention his death at Le Cresson, as Jochen Burgtorf has recently shown, the interpolator’s statement that Jacques de Mailli was the Templar marshal is erroneous.8 It might be wondered how modern perceptions of Gerard of Ridefort (and also of Reynald of Châtillon) might differ had the interpolated manuscripts not survived. The point is that while the Ernoul-Bernard texts, with their more matterof-fact even-handed portrayals, are likely to date in their present from to the early 1230s but incorporate narrative material associated with an eyewitness, Ernoul, the interpolations would appear to be have been added some time later by an author who was striving for literary effect by painting the protagonists in more lurid colours. It is hard to know how authentic the memories they preserve may have been, and how much credence they deserve. It is quite possible that the same author also wrote the generally pro-Ibelin account of the 1230s to be found in these same manuscripts. If so, these additions were the work of someone who shared Ernoul’s loyalty to the Ibelin family and so was taking the opportunity to denigrate Balian of Ibelin’s political adversaries. Finally, there is a unique variant reading in another manuscript of the Old French William of Tyre and its continuations that merits attention. The manuscript in question was copied in Rome in 1295, but belongs in the textual tradition that would link it to the Acre scriptorium. A minor alteration to sentence 24 to be found in this manuscript changes the sense to meant that Gerard told the men of Nazareth to go to the battlefield after, and not before, his defeat. The addition of the two-word phrase “tot desconfit” has the effect of making his behaviour far more reprehensible.9 There is no knowing how far back in the manuscript transmission these words had been introduced, but is the fact that it is found in a manuscript copied just twelve years before the arrest of the Templars yet further evidence that, in some circles at least, there were people who were eager to believe ill of the Order?


  “Libellus de expugnatione terrae sanctae per Saladinum” in Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon anglicanum, ed. Joseph Stevenson, Rolls Series 66 (London, 1875), pp. 212–13. 8  Burgtorf, Central Convent, pp. 576–77. 9   Paris, BnF fr. 9082, fol. 276v (= RHC Occ., vol. 2, MS G).


Peter EdbUrY

Appendix I. The Battle of Le Cresson from the 1231 version of La Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier.10 F24 – Bern, Burgerbibliothek, MS 113, fols. 131r–132r F25 – Bern, Burgerbibliothek, MS 340, fols. 40r–42v F26 – Paris, BnF fr. 12203, fols. 40r–42v Or vos lairai atant des mesages, et si vos dirai d’un des fix Salehadin qui novelement estoit adoubés. 2Il manda al conte de Triple qu’il le laissast entrer en la terre as crestiens parmi sa terre et por faire une corsee. 3Quant li quens oi le mandement, si fu molt dolans, et si se pensa que, s’il li escondisoit cel don qu’il li demandoit qu’il perderoit l’aiue et le consel de Salehadin son pere, et, s’il li otrioit, grant honte et grant blasme en averoit de crestienté. 4Or se pensa aprés qu’il le feroit en tel maniere qu’il garniroit si les crestiens qu’il n’i perderoient noient, ne que li fix Salehadin malgré ne l’en saveroit. 5Donc manda li quens al fil Salehadin qu’il li donoit bien congié d’aler parmi sa terre et entrer en la terre des crestiens par tel covent que a solel levant passeroit le flun et iroit en la terre des crestiens, et de solel luisant riroit et repasseroit le flun ariere; ne que dedens vile ne dedens maison nule chose ne prenderoit ne damage n’i feroit. 6Ensi le creanta le fix Salehadin a faire et a tenir. 7Quant ce vint lendemain par matin, si passa le flun et vint par devant Tabarie et entra en la terre as crestiens. 8Et li quens de Triple fist fermer les portes de Tabarie que cil dedens n’en ississent por iaus faire damage. 9Or sot bien li quens de Triple le jor devant que li mesage le roi venoient a lui. 10Il fist faire letres et prist mesages si fist porter ses letres a Nasarel, a chevaliers qui la estoient en garnisons de par le roi, et par toute la terre qu’il savoit que li sarrasin devoient entrer, que por chose qu’il veissent ne qu’il oissent cel jor ne se meuissent des viles ne des maisons, car li sarrasin devoient entrer en la terre et que s’il se tenoient coi qu’il n’ississent des viles il n’aroient garde, et s’on les trovoit as cans on les prenderoit et ociroiot et quanque il troveroient as cans. 11Ensi garni li quens de Triple ciaus del pais. 12Aprés ala li mesages a le Feve al maistre de l’Ospital et al maistre del Temple et a l’archevesque de Sur, et si lor porta les letres de par le conte de Triple. 13Quant li maistres del Temple oi et sot que li sarrasin devoient lendemain par matin entrer en la terre, si prist .i. mesage et l’envoie batant al covent del Temple qui estoit a .iiii. liues d’iluec a une vile qui a non Caco. 14Et si lor manda par ses letres que, tantost com il aroient oi son commandament, montassent et venissent a lui, car lendemain par matin devoient li sarrasin entrer en la terre. 1

  Previously edited in La Chronique d’Ernoul, pp. 144–53. The manuscript numbers F24, F25 etc, refer to the numbering in Jaroslav Folda, “Manuscripts of the History of Outremer by William of Tyre: A Handlist,” Scriptorium 27 (1973), 90–95. 10

Gerard of Ridefort and the Battle of Le Cresson (1 MaY 1187)


Tantost com li covens oi le commandement del maistre, si monterent et vinrent la ainscois qu’il fust mie nuis, et se logiererent devant le chastel. 16Quant ce vint lendemain par matin, si murent et alerent a Nasarel. 17Et estoient chevalier .iiii.xx et .x. del Temple et .x. chevalier de l’Ospital qui estoient avec le maistre, et prisent a Nasarel .xl. chevaliers qui estoient en garnisons de par le roi. 18Et passerent Nasarel bien .ii. liues vers Tabarie et encontrerent les sarrasin a une fontaine c’om apele le Fontaine del Cresson, qui retornoient ariere por passer le flun sans damage faire les crestiens, car li crestien estoient ensi garni comme li quens lor avoit mandé. 19Dont vint li maistres del Temple et li chevalier ki avec lui estoient. 20Si se ferirent entre les sarrasin a l’encontre, et li maistres de l’Ospital ensement. 21Et li sarrasin les recoillirent hardiement et si les enclosent, si que li crestien ne parurent entr’aus, car li sarrasin estoient encore .vii. mile chevalier a armes et li crestien n’estoient que .vii.xx. 22La ot li maistres de l’Ospital la teste copee, et tot li chevalier del Temple et de l’Ospital ensement, fors solement li maistres del Temple qui eschapa, lui tierc de chevaliers, et li .xl. chevalier qui estoient es garnisons le roi furent tot pris. 23 Quant li escuier de l’Ospital et del Temple virent que li chevalier s’estoient feru entre les sarrasin, si tornerent en fuies a tot le harnas, si ke del harnas as crestiens n’i ot rien perdu. 24Or vos dirai que li maistres del Temple ot fait quant il ot passé Nasarel et il aloit encontre les sarrasin. 25Il envoia .i. sergant a cheval ariere batant et fist crier par Nasarel que tot cil qui poroient armes porter venissent aprés lui al gaaing, car il avoit les sarrasin desconfis. 26Lors s’en issirent de Nazarel tuit cil qui aler pooient, et viel et jovene, et corurent tant qu’il vinrent la u la bataille fu et troverent les crestiens mors et desconfis, et li sarrasin lor corent sus; si les prendent tos. 27Quant li sarrasin orent desconfis les crestiens et ocis et pris, si prendent les testes des chevaliers crestiens qu’il avoient ocis; et si les estechierent enson les fers de lor lances; si enmenerent les prisons loiés et s’en passerent devant Tabarie. 28 Quant li crestien, qui dedens Tabarie estoient, virent que li crestien avoient esté desconfit, et que li sarrasin portoient les testes des crestiens sor lor lances qui estoient ocis, et c’on les enmenoit pris et loiés, si orent si grant duel c’onques si grans duels ne fu vue en une cite, de cou qu’il veoient les testes de lor amis porter et trainer et les autres qui estoient pris mener et fer loiés pardevant iaus, et de cou qu’il ne les pooient secorre ne aidier ne vengier. 29Si en faisoient si grant duel que por poi qu’il ne se tuoient. 30Ensi passa li fix Salehadin de solel luisant ariere de jors, et il et ses gens, et bien tint al conte de Triple ses couenences; c’onques en chastel ne en vile ne en maison ne fisent point de damage, se de cou non qu’il troverent as cans. 31Cele bataille fu en venredi, et cel jor fu il feste S. Felippe et S. Jake, le premier jor de mai. 32 Or vos dirai de Balian qui a Naples estoit. 33Quant ce vint la nuit, si mut si com il ot en covent al maistre de l’Ospital et al maistre del Temple por aler aprés iaus. 34 Quant il ot erré .ii. liues et il vint a une cité qui a a non le Sabat, si se porpensa qu’il estoit molt haus jors et qu’il n’iroit avant ains aroit oi messe. 35Donc torna a le maison l’evesque; se le fist lever et sist avec lui et parla desci que la gaite trast le jor. 36Quant la gaite ot trait le jor, si fist li vesques revestir .i. sien chapelain et li fist 15


Peter EdbUrY

chanter messe. 37Quant Balians ot oi messe, si s’en ala grant aleure aprés le maistre de l’Ospital et del Temple et prist congié a l’evesque et erra tant qu’il vint al chastel de le Feve u li maistres de l’Ospital et del Temple avoient la nuit giut. 38La trova il dehors li chastel les tentes del covent del Temple tendues, et se n’i avoit nului. 39 Et il ala avant, si trova le porte del chastel overte et se n’i avoit nului. 40Adonc s’esmervella molt de ce qu’il ne veoit home a cui il demandast que cou pooit estre. 41/42/43 Donc fist descendre .i. sien vallet et l’envoia dedens le chastel por savoir et por enquerre s’il troveroit nului dedens le chastel qui li peust dire noveles que ce pooit estre.11 44Et li valles i entra et cerca et cria aval le chastel, ainc n’i vit home qui li poist dire novele, fors solement .ii. malades qui gisoient en .i. lit; cil ne li sorent rien dire. 45 Donc s’en revint ariere a son segnor et dist qu’il n’i avoit nului trové qui novele li seust dire fors .ii. malades qui ne li sorent rien dire. 46Dont li commanda ses sire qu’il montast et alast aprés lui, et il si fist; dont se partirent d’iluec, si s’en alerent vers Nasarel. 47Quant il orent .i. poi eslongié le chastel, si issi .i. freres del Temple a cheval et commenca a crier aprés iaus qu’il l’atendissent, et il l’atendirent tant qu’il vint a iaus. 48Dont vint Balian d’Ibelin; se li demanda, ‘Quels noveles?’, et il respondi, ‘Mavaises’. 49Et se li conta que li maistres de l’Ospital avoit la teste copee, et il et si chevalier, et tot li chevalier del Temple ensement tot ocis; n’en i avoit que .iii. escapés, le maistre del Temple et .ii. de ses chevaliers. 50Et li .xl. chevalier que li rois avoit mis a Nasarel en garnisons tot pris. 51Quant Balian d’Ibelin oi ces noveles, si commenca a crier et a braire et a faire grant duel, il et li chevalier qui avec lui estoient. 52Et apela .i. sien sergant; et l’envoia ariere a Naples a la roine sa feme por conter ces noveles et por dire qu’ele commandast tos les chevaliers de Naples qu’il fussent la nuit sor nuit aprés lui a Nasarel. 53Aprés cou que Balians ot envoié a Naples, si s’en ala grant aleure a Nasarel, et quant il vint a mains d’une liue de Nasarel si encontra les escuiers et le harnas les chevaliers del Temple, qui estoient escapé de le desconfiture. 54Et sachiez vos bien de voir que, s’il ne fust tornés al Sabat por oir messe, il fust bien a tans venus a le bataille. 55Quant Balian vint a Nasarel, si trova si grant cri et si grant plor en la cité por ciaus de la vile qui avoient esté mort et pris en la bataille, que poi i avoit des maisons qu’il n’en i eust u des mors u des pris. 56La trova il le maistre del Temple qui escapés estoit. 57La se herberga Balian et atendi ilueques desci que si chevalier fussent venu de Naples, qu’il n’osa aler avant desi qu’il fussent venu. 58Puis fist savoir a Tabarie al conte qu’il estoit a Nasarel. 59Quant li quens oi dire qu’il estoit a Nasarel et qu’il n’avoit mie esté a le bataille, si en fu molt liés. 60Quant ce vint lendemain, si i envoia bien jusc’a .lx. chevaliers encontre lui por lui conduire. 61Quant Balian ot trové le maistre del Temple a Nasarel si ala a lui et se li demanda de cele bataille, comment ele avoit esté. 62Et il li conta, et se li 11

  The other Ernoul manuscripts (with minor variants) read as follows:   41 Dont fist descendre .i. sien vallet qui avoit a non Ernous. 11   42 Ce fu cil qui cest conte fist metre en escrit. 11   43 Celui Hernoul envoia Balians de Belin dedens le chastel pour cerquier et pour enquerre s’il avoit nului dedens le vile qui li peust dire noveles que cou pooit estre. 11

Gerard of Ridefort and the Battle of Le Cresson (1 MaY 1187)


dist que molt si estoient bien prové, et molt avoient ocis si chevaliers des sarrasin, et estoient desconfit quant .i. enbussemens qu’il avoient deriere en une montagne les enclost par coi il furent desconfit. 63Donc prisent consel qu’il envoieroient la ou la bataille avoit esté por les cors des chevaliers faire enfoir. 64Dont fisent prendre tos les somiers de la cité et les envoierent por les cors, et les firent aporter a Nasarel et enfoir. 65Quant ce vint lendemain, si mut Balian et li archevesques de Sur et li maistres del Temple por aler a Tabarie. 66Quant il furent hors de la cité, si retorna li maistres del Temple, qu’il ne pooit chevaucier, si estoit dolereus des cols qu’il avoit eus en la bataille le jor devant. 67Et Balian et l’archevesque de Sur alerent a Tabarie. 68 Quant li quens de Triple oi dire que Balian et l’archevesques de Sur venoient, si ala encontre molt dolans et molt coreciés de l’aventure qui estoit avenue le jor devant par l’orguel le maistre del Temple. 69Quant li quens ot encontrés les mesages, si les rechut molt hautement et les mena avec lui en son chastel. 70Et a cel point vint avec Renaus de Saiete. 71Quant li mesage furent el chastel avec le conte, si conterent lor message, et li quens lor respondi qu’il estoit molt dolans et molt honteus de cele aventure qui avenue estoit, et quanque il diroient et feroient entraus .iii., il feroit, car il savoit bien qu’il ne le mesconselleroient mie. 72/73Dont li disent il qu’il mesist les sarrasin fors de la cité et quil les en envoiast, et si en alast avec aus al roi, car tot ensi com il s’estoit mis en aus .iii., si estoit li rois mis de le pais faire. Li quens fist tot ensi com il li disent. 74Quant li mesage orent l’otroi del conte, si envoierent.i. mesage batant al roi et li fisent savoir qu’il amenoient le conte avec iaus. Variants No new para in F24. vos lairai atant des] F25 F26: Atant vos lairai ores del le mandement] F24: cel mandement et si se] F25 F26: si demandoit] F25 F26: demandoit il se pensa consel] F25 F26: secors averoit] F26: avoit 4 F25 F26 begin new para. aprés] F25 F26: aprés le quens de Triple en tel] F24: sagement en cel garniroit] F25 F26: li garderoit saveroit] F25 F26: savoit 5 li quens] F25 F26 lack. des crestiens] F24: as crestiens riroit] F25 F26: iroit 6 F24 begins new para. tenir] F25 F26: dir 7 Quant] F25 F26: et qe 9 F25 F26 begin new para. le roi] F25 F26 lack. 10 prist] F24: si prist Nasarel] F25 F26: Nazareth (et passim) la estoient] F24: estoient veissent] F25: venissent car] F24 begins new para here. en la terre] F25 F26 lack. il n’aroient] F25 F26: des maisons qe il n’avroient s’on les trovoit] F25 F26: fise nos les tenroit quanque il troveroient] F25 F26: qant il troverent 11 F25 F26 begin new para. garni] F24: si garni 12 le Feve] F25 F26: la Feve (et passim) 13 sot] F25 F26: senti lendemain] F25 F26 lack. al covent] F25 F26: as chevaliers estoit] F25: estoient 14 tantost] F24: si tost 15 covens] F25 F26: quens 1 3


Peter EdbUrY

et .x. chevalier de] F25 F26: et .x. de Cresson] F25 F26: Kerson qui retornoient] F25 F26: et s’en retornerent quens] F25 F26: quens de Triple 19 F25 F26 begin new para. Dont] F25 F26: Lors 20 Si se] F24: Si 21 a armes] F25 F26 lack. 22 estoient] F24 repeats. le roi furent] F25 F26: en Nazareth de par le roy 23 F24 F25 F26 begin new para. de l’Ospital et] F25 F26 lack. le harnas si ke del] F25 F26: lor arnois car les 24 ot passé] F24 corrects from passa parmi 25 al gaaing, car il avoit] F25 F26: gaagnier q’il avoient 26 Lors] F24: dont de Nazarel tuit cil … pooient] F24: tot cil de Nasarel qui armes pooient porter corurent tant] F24: corirent tant 27 F25 F26 begin new para. si enmenerent] F24: et s’enmenerent 28 sor lor lances … ocis] F25 F26: qi estoient ocis sor lor lances pris mener et fet] F25 F26 lack. 30 F25 F26 begin new para. de solel luisant … jors] F25 F26: le flum ariere de soleil luisant 32 No new para in F24. dirai] F25 F26: dirons 34 et il] F25 F26 lack. Sabat] F25 F26: Sabast porpensa] F24: pensa avant ains] F25 F26: en avant si 36 sien] F25 F26 lack. 37 F25 F26 begin new para. Quant Balians ot oi messe] F24 lacks. Feve] F26: Fave avoient la nuit giut] F24: auoit giut la nen trova nul 38 F24 begins new para. La trova] F24: Ains trova 39 F25 F26 lack this sentence. 40 de ce] F25 F26 lack. home] F25 F26: nului home 41/42/43 descendre] F25 F26: crier laienz et l’envoia dedens le chastel] F25 26 lack. et por enquerre … nului] F25 F26: qe ce fust ne se il poroit trover peust dire] F25 F26: disist que ce pooit estre] F25 F26 lack. 44 F25 F26 begin new para. i entra et … chastel] F25 F26: entra el chastel et cerca et cria aval et amont poist] F25 F26: seust gisoient en .i. lit; cil] F25 F26 lack. 45 F24 begins new para. F25 F26 lack this sentence. 46 dont se] F25 F26: atant 47 crier] F25 F26: huier tant] F25 F26 lack. 48 F25 F26 begin new para. Dont vint Balian … demanda] F25 F26: Lors demanda Balians (F26: Balyans) au frere del Temple respondi] F24: dist 49 tot ocis; n’en i] F25 F26: et n’en chevaliers] F24: chevaliers avec lui 50 .xl.] F25 F26 lack. mis] F25 F26 lack. 51 Balian d’Ibelin] F25 F26: Balyas de Belin et a braire] F24 lacks. il et li chevalier] F25: si (F26: et si) chevaliers ensement 52 sien] F24 lacks. tos] F25 F26 lack. sor nuit] F25 F26: tuit 53 les chevaliers] F25 F26 lack. 54 sachiez vos bien] F24: bien saciés tornés al Sabat] F25 F26: bien tornez au Sabast a tans] F25 F26 lack. 17 18

Gerard of Ridefort and the Battle of Le Cresson (1 MaY 1187)


F25 F26 begin new para. mort et] F24 lacks. ilueques desci que si chevalier fussent venu] F25 F26: ses chevaliers desi qu’il vindrent qu’il fussent] F25 F26: che (F26:qe) si chevaliers s’estoient 58 conte] F25 F26: conte de Triple 59 n’avoit mie esté] F25 F26: n’estoit 61 F25 F26 begin new para. a Nasarel] F25 F26: en Nazareth 62 ocis si chevaliers] F25 F26: li cristiens ocis coi il] F25 F26: ou il les 64 Dont fisent] F25 F26: donc vindrent si firent 65 mut] F25 F26: vint Sur] F25 F26: Sur et li arcevesques del Temple de Sur (blundered reading). 65/66 por aler a … Temple] F25 F26 lack (haplography). 66 F24 begins new para. 68 F25 F26 begin new para. 69 les mena] F24: mena 71 feroient] F24: voroient .iii. il feroit] F25 F26: il tendroit 72/73 F24 begins new para. si en] F25 F26 lack. car] F25 F26 lack. li disent] F25 F26: s’estoit mis en aus et il distrent sanz contredit 74 25 F26 begin new para. conte] F25 F26: conte de Triple de li (F26: la) pais envoierent] F25 F26: envoient 55 57

II. The Battle of Le Cresson from the “Lyon” text of the French Continuations of William of Tyre12 F72 – Lyon, Bibliothèque de la ville MS 828 (= RHC. Occ., vol … 2 MS D), fols. 294v–296r F50 – Paris, BnF fr. 9086 (= RHC. Occ., 2 MS C), fols. 366v–367r (§§1–2 only) F57 – Paris, BnF fr. 2636 (= RHC. Occ., 2 MS A), fols. 317v–319v F73 – Paris, BnF fr. 2628 (= RHC. Occ., 2 MS B), fols. 252v–254r Un des fis de Salahadin, qui novelement estoit adoubés, que l’on nomoit Noredin Emirhali, qui puis fu sire de Domas, si estoit herbergié outre le flum. 1aSalahadin son pere li manda qu’il deust entrer en la terre des crestiens gagier les por la caravane que le prince Renaut avoit prise et por sa suer qu’il tenoit en prison qu’il avoit prise en la devant dite caravane. 1bPorce que il ne poeit entrer par autre part que par la terre de Thabarie, et la seignorie de Tabarie si estoit dou conte de Triple en cel tens, et por ce que le devant dit conte avoit trives a lui et avoit faites maintes ayes et maintes amors au devant dit Salahadin, ne vost 1

  Previously edited in La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr (1184–1197), ed. M.R. Morgan, Documents relatifs à l’histoire des croisades 14 (Paris, 1982), pp. 37–42; English version in Peter W. Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade (Aldershot, 1996), pp. 31–35. Cf. L’Estoire de Eracles Empereur, pp. 37–45. 12


Peter EdbUrY

entrer en la terre des crestiens sans son congié. 2Et porce qu’il savoit qu’il i avoit discort entre lui et le roi, porce manda il au conte de Triple qu’il le laissast entrer en la terre des crestiens parmi sa terre por faire une corse. 3Quant li cuens oi le mandement, si en fu molt dolent, et penssa que se il li escondissoit cel don que il le demandoit, que il ne perdist l’aye et le conseill son pere Salahadin, et que se il li otreiast, grant honte et grant blasme en avroit de la crestienté. 4Or pensa aprés que il le feroit en tel maniere que il garniroit si les crestiens que il n’i perdroient noient et que li fis Salahadin maugré ne l’en savroit. 5Donc manda au fis Salahadin que bien li donoit congié d’aler parmi sa terre et d’entrer en la terre des crestiens par tel covent que il au soleil levant passereit le flum et au soleill cochant retorneroit ariere en sa terre, ne ne girroit dou flum en vers soleill couchant; ne que dedens nule ville ne dedens maison nule chose ne prendreit ne damage ne fereit. 6Ensi le creanta li fis Salahadin a faire et a tenir. 7Quant ce vint a lendemain par matin, si passa le flum et vint par devant Thabarie et entra en la terre as crestiens. 8Et li cuens de Triple fist fermer les portes de Thabarie, que cil dedens n’en ississent por lui faire damage. 9 Or sot bien li cuens de Triple le jor devant que li messages venoient a lui. 10Si fist faire letres et prist messages et les envoia a Nazareth, as chevaliers qui la estoient en garnison, et par toute la terre ou il savoit que li sarazin devoient aler, que por chose que il veissent ne que il oissent ne se meussent cel jor de la ville ne de maison, car li sarazin devoient entrer en la terre; et que se il se tenoient coi que il n’en ississent des villes, il n’avoient garde, et, se l’on les trovoit as chans, l’on les prendroit et ociroit. 11Ensi garni li cuens de Triple ciaus dou pays. 12Aprés ala li messages au chastel de La Feve au maistre dou Temple et del Hospital et a l’arcevesque de Sur; si lor aporta les letres de par le conte de Triple. 13Quant le maistre do Temple sot que li sarazin devoient lendemain core et entrer en la terre, si prist .i. message batant et l’envoia au covent dou Temple qui estoit a .iiii. milles d’iluec a une vile qui a a non Caco. 14Si lor manda par ses letres que tantost come il avroient veu son comandement montassent et venissent a lui, que lendemain par matin devoient entrer li sarazin en la terre. 15Tantost com il orent oi le mandement dou maistre, si monterent et vindrent la ains qu’il fust mie nuit, et se logererent devant le chastel. 16 Et quant ce vint lendemain par matin, si murent et alerent a Nazareth. 17Si estoient li chevalier dou Temple. lxxxx. et .x. del Hospital, qui estoient avec le maistre, et pristrent a Nazareth.xl. chevaliers qui estoient en garnisson de par le roi. 18Et paserent a Nazareth bien .ii. milles vers Thabarie, et troverent les sarazins a une fontaine qui a a nom la fontaine dou Creisson; cil tornerent arieres por passer le flum sans damage faire as crestiens, car les crestiens se tenoient si garni come li cuens lor avoit mandé. 18aLe devant dit maistre estoit bon chevalier, et seur de son cors, et mesprisoit toutes autres genz come cil qui estoit trop outrecuidiés. 18b Il ne vost croire le conseill dou maistre del Hospital, frere Rogier des Molins, ne de frere Jaque de Mailli qui estoit mareschal dou Temple, ains le ranpona

Gerard of Ridefort and the Battle of Le Cresson (1 MaY 1187)


et li dist que il parloit come home qui baoit a fouir.13 18cDont le mareschal li respondi qu’il ne s’en fuiroit mie de la bataille, ainz remaindroit ou champ come preudome, et il s’en fuiroit come mauvais et recreant. 19 Donc vint li maistre dou Temple et li chevalier qui estoient aveques lui. 20Si se ferirent as sarazins, et li maistre del Hospital aussi. 21Et les sarazins le recurent lieement; si les forsclostrent si que les crestiens ne parurent entreaus, car li sarrazin estoient encores .vii.m. chevaliers armés, et li crestien n’estoient que .c. et .xl. 22 La ot le maistre del Hospital la teste copee, et tuit li chevalier dou Temple ausi, fors le maistre soulement qui eschapa touz seuls, soi tiers de chevaliers; et les .xl. chevalier qui estoient en garnisson de par le roi furent tuit pris. 23Quant li escuier dou Temple et del Hospital virent que les chevaliers se furent ferus entre les sarazins, si tornerent en fuie o tout le hernois as crestiens, si que del hernois as crestiens n’i ot riens perdu. 24 Or vos dirai que le maistre do Temple ot fait si come il pasa a Nazareth et il aloit contre les sarrzins.14 25Il envoia un sien serjant ariere batant a cheval et fist crier a Nazereth que tuit cil qui armes poroient porter venissent aprés lui au gaaing, car il avoit les sarazins desconfis. 26Lors s’en issirent cil de Nazereth, tuit cil qui aler i pooient, et corurent tant qu’il vindrent la ou la bataille avoit esté; si troverent les crestiens mors et desconfis, et li sarazin lor corurent sus; si les pristrent tous. 27Quant li sarazin orent desconfit les crestiens et ocis, si pristrent les testes des chevaliers crestiens qu’il avoient tué; si les atachierent sur les fers des lances; si enmenerent les prisons liez, et s’en passerent devant Thabarie. 28Quant li crestien qui dedens Tabarie estoient virent que li crestien avoient esté desconfit et que li sarazin porterent les testes des crestiens sor lor lances et que l’on les aveit pris et liez, si en orent grant duel porce qu’il veoient les testes de lor amis porter et les autres qui estoient pris mener liez par devant iaus. 29Si en firent tel duel qu’a poi qu’il ne se tuoient. 30Ensi passa li fis Salahadin des le soleill couchant le flum arieres de jor, et bien tint au conte de Triple ses covenances; ne onques en chastel ne en vile ne en maisson ne firent damage fors de ciaus qu’il troverent as chans. 31Ceste bataille fu faite par .i. venredi; celui jor fu feste Saint Jaque et Saint Phelippe, premier jor de mai. 31aCe fu par l’achaisson de la caravane que le prince Renaut avoit prise en la terre dou Crac; ce fu le comencement de la perte dou reaume. 32/33 Balyan qui a Naples estoit quant ce vint la nuit si mut si com il ot en covent au maistre dou Temple et au maistre del Hospital por aler aprés yaus. 34Quant il ot erré .ii. milles et que il vint a une cité qui a a nom Le Sabast, si s’apensa qu’il estoit molt haut jor, et qu’il n’en iroit avant tant qu’il eust oi messe. 35Donc torna a la maisson l’evesque; si le fist lever, et sist avec lui et parla tant que la gaite traist le jor. 36Lors fist li evesque revestir .i. sien chapelain et li fist chanter messe. 37Quant Balian ot oie 13   F57 and F73 add: … et li dist, “Vos amez trop cele teste blonde qui si bien la volez garder”. 14   Paris, BnF fr. 9082, fol. 276v: “Or vouz dirai que le maistre du temple fist quant il passa Nazareth tot desconfit. Il envoia a Nazareth .i. serjant …”


Peter EdbUrY

messe, si s’en ala grant aleure aprés le maistre dou Temple et ala tant que il vint au chastel de La Feve. 38/39trova hors dou chastel les tentes dou covent tendues; si n’en i avoit nului. 40Lors se merveilla qu’il ne trova nelui a cui demander que ce peust estre. 41/42/43Lors fist un sien valet entrer dedens le chastel enquerre s’il troveroit qui li deist que ce poroit estre. 44Le vaslez ala et cria par le chastel; onques n’i vit home qui li seust dire noveles que .ii. malades qui gisoient en une chambre, et cil ne li sorent riens dire. 45Lors vint a son seignor; si li dist qu’il n’i avoit nul trové qui noveles li seust dire. 46Donc vint ses sires; si li comanda qu’il montast et alast aprés lui; si alerent vers Nazereth. 47Quant il orent un poi esloignié le chastel, si s’en issi un frere dou Temple a cheval et cria que il l’atendissent; et il l’atendirent tant qu’il vint a eaus. 48Donc vint Balian; si li demanda quels noveles, et il dist, ‘Mauvaisses’. 49/50Si li dist que le maistre del Hospital avoit le chief copé, et tuit li chevalier dou Temple; si n’en i avoit que .iii. eschapez: le maistre dou Temple et .iii. de ces chevaliers, et les chevaliers que le roi avoit en garnisson a Nazareth tuit pris. 51Quant Balian de Ybelin oi ces noveles, si en fist grant duel. 52Si apela un sien serjant, et l’envoia arieres a Naples a la reyne sa feme conter ses noveles et dire que ele comandast a touz ses chevaliers de Naples que il fussent la nuit a Nazareth a lui. 53[ … ] si encontra les escuiers et le hernois des chevaliers dou Temple qui estoient eschapé de la desconfiture. 54Or sachiés de voir que, s’il ne fust tornés au Sabast por oir messe, il fust bien venus a tens a la bataille. 55Quant Balian fu venus a Nazareth, si oi si grant duel en la cité por ciaus de la vile qui avoient esté morz et pris en la bataille; que poi i avoit des maissons dom il n’i eust ou mors ou pris. 56La trova le maistre dou Temple qui eschapez estoit. 57La se herberga Balian et atendi ses chevaliers tant qu’il vindrent de Naples; car il n’en osa aler avant tant que ses chevaliers fussent venus. 58Puis fist savoir a Thabarie au conte que il estoit a Nazareth. 59Quant li cuens de Triple oi dire que il n’ot mie esté a la bataille, si en fu molt liez. 60Quant se vint a lendemain, si envoia bien jusques a .l. chevaliers por lui conduire. 61 Quant Balian ot trové le maistre dou Temple a Nazereth, si ala a lui; si li demanda de cele bataille, coment ele avoit esté. 62Et il dist que molt s’estoient bien provez, et molt i avoient li crestien ocis de sarazins et estoient ja desconfis quant un enbuschement que il avoient enclos et amenés en une montaigne les ensclostrent, dont il furent desconfit. 63Lors pristrent conseill que il envoieroient la ou la bataille avoit esté por les cors des chevaliers faire enfoir. 64Donc firent prendre toz les somiers de la cité et envoierent por les cors; si les firent porter a Nazereth por enfoir. 65 Lendemain vint Balian et l’arcevesque de Sur et le maistre dou Temple, si murent por aler a Thabarie. 66Quant il furent hors, si s’en retorna le maistre dou Temple, car il ne poeit chevauchier tant par estoit dolanz et dolerous des cos qu’il avoit reseus en la bataille le jor devant. 67Mais Balian et l’arcevesque de Sur alerent a Tabarie. 68 Quant li cuens de Triple oi dire que Balian et l’arcevesque de Sur venoient, si ala a l’encontre molt dolenz et molt corouciez de l’aventure qui estoit avenue le jor devant, et tout par l’orgueill dou maistre dou Temple. 69Quant le conte ot encontré les messages, si les resut molt hautement et les enmena avec lui en son ostel. 70En celui point vint Renaut de Sayete. 71Quant li messages furent el chastel avec le

Gerard of Ridefort and the Battle of Le Cresson (1 MaY 1187)


conte, si li distrent lor messagerie; li cuens lor respondi qu’il estoit molt dolanz et molt hontous de l’aventure qui avenue estoit, et quant que il diroient et atireroient entr’iaus il feroit, car il savoit bien que il ne le forsconseilleroient mie. 72/73Lors distrent que il meist les sarazins fors de la cité; puis s’en alast avec yaus au rey; tout ausi com il s’estoit mis en eaus .iii. s’estoit mis li rois de la pais faire. 74Si envoierent un message batant au roi, et li firent assavoir qu’il avoient le conte avec eaus. Variants Un des] F72: Noredin adoubés] F57 F73: adoubés a chevalier Noredin] F50 F57: Noradin Emirhali] F57 F73: Amirail Domas si ] F50 F72: Damas qui; F73: Domas si 1a gagier les] F57 F73: et gagier les crestiens Renaut avoit prise] F57 F3: Renaus prist 1b il ne poeit] F57: cil ne pooient; F72: il n’i poeit; F73: cil ne poeit si estoit] F57: si est; F72: estoit devant dit conte] F50 conte au devant dit Salahadin] F50: a Salaadin; F72: au deuant dit sarazin 2 qu’il savoit] F57 F73 lack. manda il] F72: manda corse] F57: chevauchié; F73: chevauchee 3 demandoit] F57 F73: demandoit (F57: et) il se doutoit son pere] F57 F73 lack. 4 Or pensa] F57 F73: Et pensa noient] F57 F73: riens et que li fis Salahadin maugré ne l’en savroit] F57 F73 lack. 5 chose] F57 lacks. 8 Thabarie] F57 F73: la cite 9 de Triple] F57 F73 lack. 10 n’avoient] F 57: n’avroient 12 au chastel de] F57 F73: a del Hospital] F57 F73: au maistre de l’Ospital 13 core et] F57 F73 lack. .iiii.] F57: .iii. 14 par ses letres] F57 lacks. par matin] F57 F73 lack. 15 il orent] F57 F73: li covens 17 li chevalier dou Temple] F57 F73 lack. lxxxx. et .x. del Hospital] F57 F73: cent meins dis et cil de l’Ospital .x. pristrent] F72 lacks. 18 Creisson] F57 F73: Croisson 18c et] F57 F73 lack. 21 lieement] F57 F73: molt lieement parurent entreaus ] F72: porent encontre yaus 22 ausi fors le maistre soulement] F57 lacks. qui eschapa touz seuls] F57 F73: dou Temple qui s’en eschapa garnisson] F57: garnison en Nazareth; F73: garnison a Nazareth de par le roi] F57 lacks. 23 se furent] F57: s’estoient; F73: se estoient as crestiens, si] F57 F73: si 24 F57, F72 and F73 all begin new paragraph here. ot fait] F57 F73: fist 25 sien] F57 F73 lack. a Nazereth] F57 F73: par Nazareth venissent] F57: alaissent; F73: alassent auoit] F73: avoient 28 avoient esté] F57 F73: estoient pris et des crestiens] F57 F73 lack. aveit] F57 F73: enmenoit 1


Peter EdbUrY

F57, F72 and F73 all begin new paragraph here. au maistre del Hospital] F57: a celui de l’Ospital 34 et que il] F57 F73: si tant qu’il eust oi messe] F57 F73: si avroit messe oye 35 Donc] F57 F73: Lors si l’evesque] F57 F73: de l’evesque sist] F57: s’assist; F73: se assist 37 messe] F57 F73: la messe 37/38 de La Feve … chastel] F57 F73 lack (haplography). 38 tentes] F72: tendes nului] F57 F73: nului dedens 40 merveilla] F57 F73: merveilla molt nelui] F57 F73 lack. 41/42/43 enquerre] F57 F73: por enquerre 44 en une chambre] F57 F73: dedens une chambre riens dire] F57 F73: dire noveles 46 montast] F57 F73: montast a cheval 47 il l’atendirent] F57 F73: il atendirent; F72: sil l’atendirent 47/48 a eaus. Donc vint] F57 F73 lack (haplography). 49/50 dist] F57 F73: conta chief copé] F57 F73: teste copee et .iii. de ces chevaliers] F57 lacks. roi avoit] F57 F73: roi avoit mis a Nazareth] F57 F73 lack. 51 que il] F57 F73 lack. 53 F57, F72 and F73 all appear lack the first half of this sentence as given by the other mss, apparently as a result of haplography following the word ‘Nazareth’. des chevaliers] F57 F73 lack. 55 si grant duel … vile] F57 F73: grant duel mener por ces (F57: ceulz) de la cité 57 ses chevaliers tant … tant] F57 F73 lack (haplography). 58 savoir a Thabarie] F57 F73: assavoir 59 Quant li cuens … dire] F57 F73: et 61 F57, F72 and F73 all begin new paragraph here. Balian] F57 F73: Balian (F57: Baliam) d’Ybelin 62 desconfis] F72: ocis desconfis enclos et amenés … ensclostrent] F57 F73: en une montaigne les forclost 63 faire] F57 F73 lack. 65 si murent] F57 F73 lack. 66 hors] F57 F73: hors de la cité car il] F57 F73: por ice qu’il dolanz et] F57 F73 lack. 68 oi dire] F57 F73: sot venoient] F57 F73: venoient a lui 69 en son ostel] F57 F73: en son chastel en son ostel 71 le forsconseilleroient mie] F57 F73: li conseilleroient mie a son damage 72/73 distrent] F57 F73: si li distrent tout] F57 F73: que tout .iii. s’estoit] F57: ausi estoit; F73: ausi si estoit 32/33

5 Clement V and the Road to Avignon, 1304–1309 David Morrow Bryson

The world of Pope Clement V was bounded by the Loire, the Rhone, the Mediterranean, the Pyrenees, and the Atlantic, and the serpentine maze shown on the accompanying maps within those boundaries is the record of his footprint on that world. In this article I will examine what happened on that long winding road from Bordeaux to Avignon. What were the consequences for the kings of England and France? For the Templars and the Hospitallers? For the pursuit of the crusades? What does this tortuous trail tell us about Clement’s destination? And about Clement himself, and his place in history? That trail begins at Bordeaux in May 1304, when Bertrand de Got, archbishop of Bordeaux since 1299,1 not yet Pope Clement, set out on his pastoral visits of the dioceses of Agen, Périgueux and Poitiers. For the record of those visits preceding his election, I am indebted to the work of Anne Gilmour-Bryson for her paper “On the Road with Clement V” given at Kalamazoo in 1987, and her article published in Italian in 1999 in Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia.2 The title of my own present article, “Clement V and the Road to Avignon” is intended to reflect my use of Gilmour-Bryson’s work as the base for its continuation in this article.3 From the outset in 1304–1305 until his death in 1314, it is important to bear in mind   Sophia Menache, Clement V (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 8–10 (hereafter cited as Menache). 2   Anne Gilmour-Bryson, “L’elezione di Bertrand de Got (Clemente V) e l’incontro a St Jean d’Angely,” Revista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 53 (1999), 429–34 (hereafter cited as “L’elezione”). 3   The primary sources are, for the period 1304–1305, prior to Clement’s election, the manuscript “Visite de Clément V,” G.264, held in the Archives of the Gironde in Bordeaux (hereafter “Visite,” ADG G.264). My argument for the authenticity of this sixteenth-(or seventeenth- or eighteenth-)century copy, for which no known original exists, is as follows: to have forged such an extremely intricate and consistent document, its author would have had to have had an intimate knowledge of the region and the period, and to have expended a great deal of work; and to what end? (On this, see J. Rabanis, Itinéraire de Clément V (Bordeaux, 1850), and the same author’s Clément V et Philippe le Bel (Bordeaux, 1858), and J. Boucherie, Inventaire des titres que se trouverent au trésor de l’archeveché de Bordeaux (Archives historiques du département de la Gironde, 1883); for a recent analysis of this question, see Gilmour-Bryson, “L’elezione.” Thereafter, for the period 1305–1309, from Clement’s election until his arrival in Avignon, the primary source is the Itinerary of the Register of Pope Clement V, Regestum Clementis Papae V, 7 vols plus index (Rome, 1885– 1



David Morrow BrYsoN

Figure 5.1 Bertrand de Got’s journey of May–July 1304 from Bordeaux to Bordeaux around the diocese of Agen the degree to which the arduous demands of Clement’s travels must have been exacerbated by his serious illness.4 I will return to this aspect in the concluding section of this article. II And so, to begin: on Pentecost Sunday 17 May 1304, Archbishop Bertrand began his journey by his visit through his diocese of Agen, shown on Figure 5.1, a journey (from Bordeaux via Agen to Bordeaux) of some 800 kilometres in 63 days, for an 88), and “Itinéraire de Clément V,” in Tables des Registres de Clément V, ed. Y. Lanhers (Rome, 1948), hereafter cited as Tables, ed. Lanhers. 4   On Clement’s illness, see Menache, pp. 32–33.

ClemeNt V aNd the Road to AvigNoN, 1304–1309


Figure 5.2 Bertrand de Got’s journey around the diocese of Périgueux, September–November 1304 overall average of 13 kilometres per day, or a typical actual day’s travel of about 25 kilometres.5 His final stop before returning to Bordeaux in July 1304 was his stay at the priory of Mas d’Agenais, the prior of which was Bernard Pelet, councillor of the king of England as duke of Aquitaine, and one of the four so-called “traitors of the


  Distances measured on maps have been increased by 10% to allow for the meanderings of medieval roads and tracks, as well as the differences between winter and summer routes. My estimates may be understated, in that they do not take into account Clement’s frequent moves within localities, or to places nearby. For example, in 1305–6, Clement moved 18 times between Bordeaux and his country residence at Pessac (now known as Château Pape Clément), 4 times from Bordeaux and Pessac to his family home at Villandraut, and, in 1307– 1308, he moved 15 times between Poitiers and the abbey of Ligugé (Tables, ed. Lanhers).


David Morrow BrYsoN

Temple” named in the Paris Papal Commission trial of 1309: Guillaume Robert, Esquieu de Floyrac, Bernard Pelet, and Gérard de Boyzol.6 After a brief stay in Bordeaux, Bertrand began his visit of the diocese of Périgueux (Figure 5.2) in September 1304 by staying for 2 nights at the Templar house of Bonnefare.7 The preceptor of all Templar houses in Périgord at that time was Gerard de Lavergne, whose important testimony was given at the Cahors trial in 1307.8 Three days later, Bertrand sent his visitors to the Benedictine priory of Monfaucon, the co-prior of which, the notorious Esquieu de Floyrac, was another of the “traitors of the Temple” named in the trial of 1309, and a third “traitor”, Guillaume Robert, was a monk of the nearby Benedictine priory of St Martin de Bergerac, where Bertrand stayed for the two days of 13 and 14 September.9 Then, from 18 to 20 September 1304, he waited at the house of the dean of Issigeac, while, a short distance to the north at the Hospitaller house of Saint Naixent, a confrontation took place between Renaud de Pons IV, lord of Bergerac, and Dragon de Mondragon, grand prior of St Gilles, the principal house of the Hospitaller Order in the south of France. On Sunday 20 September, Bertrand, presumably having been informed of the verdict that day in favour of the Hospital, continued on his way.10 When Bertrand returned to Bordeaux in November 1304, he had covered another 1,000 kilometres in 70 days. That was consistent, at 14 kilometres a day, with his overall average in the Agenais, and also at a normal pace of 20 to 25 kilometres a day when on the road. He had visited the houses of three of the four “traitors of the Temple” named in the Papal Commission trial of 1309,11 including that of the notorious Esquieu de Floyrac.12 I am not suggesting that there was any actual communication with Bertrand on the subject of Templar wrong practices during the course of these visits; only that there was the opportunity for – and therefore the possibility of – such discussions. And then, on 7 December 1304, Bertrand and his entourage set out on the visit of his most extensive and important diocese, of Poitiers, travelling from Bordeaux

6   Le procès des Templiers, ed. Jules Michelet, 2 vols (Paris, 1841–51), 1:36–37. On this, see David Bryson, “Three ‘Traitors’ of the Temple: Was Their Truth the Whole Truth?,” in The Debate on the Trial of the Templars, ed. Jochen Burgtorf, Paul F. Crawford and Helen J. Nicholson (Farnham, 2010), pp. 97–103. 7   Tuesday and Wednesday September 2 and 3, 1304 (“Visite,” ADG G.264). 8   Heinrich Finke, Papsttum und Untergang des Templerordens, 2 (Münster, 1907) (hereafter cited as Finke 2), p. 318. 9   Bryson, “Three ‘Traitors’ of the Temple.” 10   “Visite,” ADG, G.264. On this, see David Bryson, “Murder in the Preceptory?,” in MO, 4 (Aldershot, 2008), pp. 129–38 and David Bryson, “The Hospitaller and Templar Houses of Périgord,” in MO, 3 (Aldershot, 2008), pp. 167–73. 11  Michelet, Procès, 1:36–37. Clement did not visit the house of “Gérard de Boyzol.” 12   Bryson, “Three ‘Traitors’ of the Temple.”

ClemeNt V aNd the Road to AvigNoN, 1304–1309

Figure 5.3


Bertrand de Got’s journey around the diocese of Poitiers, December 1304 and January–July 1305

to Poitiers (Figure 5.3). By Christmas he was in Poitiers and celebrating Mass in the great church of Notre Dame.13 In early 1305, after a tour to the east of the city, he began a long swing westward to the Atlantic coast, and by 11 May 1305 had reached La Roche sur Yonne for an unusual stay of 10 days. Correspondingly unusually, as Gilmour-Bryson has shown, Philip IV was hunting in the region southwest of Paris during the same 10 days. Therefore, although Bertrand and Philip could not have met at St Jean d’Angely, as has long been claimed,14 they could have met in this region during this period in May 1305.15 Bertrand thereafter travelled northwest to the southern 13

  “Visite,” ADG, G.264.   Since the Nuova Cronica of Giovanni Villani, 1559. On this, see Gilmour-Bryson, “L’elezione,” 438–41. 15   Gilmour-Bryson, “L’elezione,” 441–43. 14


David Morrow BrYsoN

approaches to the royal castle of Chinon, at Faye la Vineuse, on 5 June 1305, the very day of his election as pope in Perugia.16 (Seven years later, in his bull Vox in excelso (1312), Clement would declare that close to the time of his election, 5 June 1305, he had received “secret intimations against the master, preceptors and other brothers of the Order of Knights Templar of Jerusalem and also against the Order itself”.)17 Never again would he approach so closely the territory under the direct control of the king of France.18 Although he cannot then have known that he had been elected pope, we have only to look at this convoluted maze for our eyes to tell us that Bertrand may have been awaiting confirmation of his election. From this point, he turned south. Bertrand was in Poitiers again by 14 June, and carried on until, on Saturday 19 June 1305, the message of his election as pope was delivered to him in letters by several couriers at the town of Lusignan, south of Poitiers.19 From there, his passage proceeds (Figure 5.3) via Saintes, from which on 6 July he was escorted for his protection by the English seneschal of Gascony, John of Havering, and his troops to his arrival at his archbishop’s palace of Lormont, across the river from Bordeaux, on 23 July 1305.20 Next day, Bertrand took the name Clement V in the cathedral of Saint André de Bordeaux.21 He granted his own residence south of the city in Pessac, still known to us as the great wine property of Château Pape Clément, to the new archbishop of Bordeaux.22 III Then, on 4 September 1305, Clement and his entourage left Bordeaux on the road south (Figure 5.4), escorted again beyond Agen to the limits of English Gascony by John of Havering, the English seneschal. 16

  16 Bertrand’s itinerary shows that he was at Faye-la-Vineuse (canton Richelieu, arrondissement Chinon) on 5 June 1305 (“Visite,” ADG, G.264). 17   See, in the present volume, Anne Gilmour-Bryson, “ ‘Vox in excelso’ Deconstructed. Exactly what did Clement V say?” 18   On the distinction between “castles, lands, towns and rights held directly by the king”, and the royal domain and the apanages, see Elizabeth M. Hallam, Capetian France 987–1328 (New York, 1980), pp. 247–51. 19   “Visite,” ADG, G.264. 20   J. P. Trabut-Cussac, L’administration Anglaise en Gascogne (Geneva, 1972), pp. 128–29. 21   Menache, p. 16. 22   On the matter of Clement’s residency at Lormont, and his grant of Pessac to the new archbishop, see M. Wade Labarge, Gascony, England’s First Colony, 1204–1453 (London, 1980), pp. 95–97. On Clement’s residences in the Bordeaux area at Lormont, Pessac,Villandraut and Uzeste, see Michel de la Torre, Guide de l’art et de la nature: Gironde, no. 33, ed. Berger-Levrault (Paris, 1979). i

ClemeNt V aNd the Road to AvigNoN, 1304–1309


Figure 5.4 Pope Clement V’s journey from Bordeaux to Lyon, September– November 1305 and from Lyon to Bordeaux, March–May 1306 Bound for his coronation, yes, but where? Clement, it has been said, had preferred Vienne,23 in the territory of the Holy Roman Empire, but continued to Lyon, in French territory, but the seat of his elder brother Béraud de Got, the archbishop of Lyon, where he arrived on the first of November 1305.24 After his coronation in Lyon on 14 November 1305, in the presence of Philip IV, Clement issued an encyclical that proclaimed his primary concern for the continuance of the crusade for the recovery of the Holy Land.25 And then, in   Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, 1st edn (Cambridge, 1978), hereafter cited as Barber, Trial (1st edn), p. 26, citing, in n. 78, C. Wenck, Clemens V und Heinrich XII (Halle, 1882), no. 1, p. 169; Regestum Clementis Papae V, year 1, no. 940, p. 174; and Georges Lizerand, Clément V et Philippe IV le Bel (Paris, 1910), pp. 46–47. 24  Trabut-Cussac, L’administration Anglaise, pp. 130–31. 25   Menache, pp. 16–18, citing Regestum Simonis de Gandavo, vol. 1, pp. 220–23. 23


David Morrow BrYsoN

Figure 5.5

Pope Clement V’s journey from Bordeaux to Poitiers, March–April 1307 and from Poitiers to Bordeaux, August–October 1308

March 1306, he set off on his return to Bordeaux (Figure 5.4) – this time via Cluny and Bourges, a route that took him far to the north of the usual and easy passage via Montluçon.26 And why? Because his archbishopric of Bordeaux had been subordinate to that of Bourges, and now he acted to remove the primacy of Bourges over Bordeaux.27 Then, in May 1306, Clement returned as pope to his Bordeaux palace at Lormont. Soon after, in early June, Clement proposed the union of the two Orders, Hospitaller and Templar.28 Was this the direct result of his meeting with Philip IV at Lyon, an attempt to unite his own ambition for the furtherance of the crusade with that of Philip (it would seem) for the takeover of the Templars? 26

  On the map, Monluçon would be along a direct horizontal line westward from Cluny, and so would have avoided the long northern half-circle via Bourges. 27   Wade Labarge, Gascony, p. 96. 28   On this, see Malcolm Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 283–86.

ClemeNt V aNd the Road to AvigNoN, 1304–1309


In any case, the call came in March 1307, and Clement left Bordeaux on the Royal Road from there north to Poitiers (Figure 5.5), arriving in Poitiers on Friday 14 April 1307. Thus, though Clement came back north toward the territory of Philip of France, he remained within his own region, while Philip had to come south into Clement’s. A week later, on 22 April, Philip arrived in Poitiers, and left after three weeks, on 15 May 1307. An act of 9 June 1307 at Poitiers shows that Clement then called into his presence the Templar Grand Master Jacques de Molay and the other Templar dignitaries Hugues de Peraud, Visitor of France, and Bernard de Larroque, Provincial Master, together with Gérard de Causse, the preceptor of Le Bastit in the Lot.29 Gérard was the fourth of the so-called “traitors of the Temple”, whose testimony was to be among the most damning of the Paris Trial.30 Clement’s meeting with the Templar dignitaries at Poitiers in June 1307 was followed closely by two momentous events: the death of King Edward I on 7 July 1307 and the accession of his son Edward II; and the arrest, on King Philip IV’s order, of the Templars in France on Friday 13 October 1307. Clement sent his angry letter of objection to Philip on 27 October 1307,31 and a second visit by Philip to Clement in Poitiers began on 26 May 1308. Clement received Philip in the Palais de Justice of the Ducal Palace, saying to him that he was about to depart for Rome,32 and wanted to talk to him about the crusade. Nevertheless, on 27 June, 72 Templars, selected by Philip’s representatives, began their confessions in Clement’s presence, which ended on 12 July.33 Soon after, on or about 24 July, Philip left Poitiers.34 Clement, having previously said that he was about to depart for Rome, now said he would go to Avignon, where he expected to be by 1 December.35 Surprisingly, Clement is recorded as having left Poitiers on 13 August 1308, despite the fact that he sent in his absence, the next day, three cardinals north to Chinon, who were to hear the confessions of the principal Templar dignitaries there   Regestum Clementis Papae V, no. 7183, 1 July 1311, confirming an act of 9 June 1307 at Poitiers. The Tables (ed. Lanhers), p. 2, show Clément to have been at Ligugé 8, 9 June 1307, Poitiers 10 June 1307; and also, confusingly, at Poitiers 9 June 1308. 30   For the testimony of Gérard de Causse, see Michelet, Procès, 2:290 (21 October 1307); 1: 28 (22 November 1309); 1:.81 (22 February 1310); and, especially, 1: 379–94 (12 January 1311). 31   On this, see Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 86–87, hereafter cited as Barber, Trial (2nd edn). 32  Barber, Trial, (1st edn), p. 109, n. 43, citing Blancard, pp. 417–18. 33   Anne Gilmour-Bryson, The Trial of the Templars in the Papal State and the Abruzzi (Vatican City, 1982), pp. 17–18. 34  Barber, Trial (1st edn), p. 109, n. 44, citing Philippi Quarti Mansiones et Itinera, p. 450; and Blancard. 35   Finke 2:157, and n. 1; and see Barber, Trial (1st edn), p. 110, and in n. 47 p. 275 adding that “In fact he did not arrive until March 1309.” See also Barber, Trial (2nd edn), pp. 129–31. 29


David Morrow BrYsoN

Figure 5.6

Pope Clement V’s journey to Avignon, November 1308–March 1309

four days later.36 Now, Clement remained in the area, at Ligugé, to await the return of the cardinals from Chinon – but why did he not go to Chinon himself? Plausible explanations have been given for this, such as, for example, the threatening presence of French troops37 – to which I will add one of my own: Clement, as ever, did not want to venture north into Philip’s territory.

  Finke 2: 324–29; Barbara Frale, Il Papato e il processo ai Templari Rome, 2003), Appendice, pp. 197–215, and “The Chinon Chart,” Journal of Medieval History 30 (2004), 109–34; see also Anne Gilmour-Bryson, The Trial of the Templars in Cyprus (Leiden, 1998), p. 8, and p. 86 n. 62; Barber, Trial (1st edn), Chronology, pp. 258–59, and p. 275, n. 50. Also, in Finke 2:188–201, a later letter of Clement to Philip from Avignon, 6 May 1309; on this, see also Barber, Trial (1st edn), p. 112, and p. 275, n. 53. 37   See Barber, Trial (1st edn), pp. 109–111. 36

ClemeNt V aNd the Road to AvigNoN, 1304–1309


IV Clement, having returned from Poitiers to Bordeaux in October 1308 (Figure 5.5), left with his entourage in November 1308, on the road south from Bordeaux via Uzeste, Villandraut and Lectoure to Toulouse (24 December to 8 January 1309), and (seemingly out of his way) St Bertrand de Comminges, where he had been bishop,38 precisely following, whether he knew it or not – the ancient Roman Itinerary of Antonin from Bordeaux to Rome (Figure 5.6).39 But, was Clement heading for Rome, or for the Holy Roman town of Avignon? And then Clement (according to Christophe),40 having moved forward to Carcassonne, Narbonne, Béziers and Montpellier, for whatever reason (did he doubt his destination?), doubled back to Béziers and Narbonne before moving forward again to Montpellier and then on to Nimes, thus travelling the same 100-kilometre stretch of road three times.41 However, the “Itineraire de Clément V” shows no such retracement; rather, it shows that Clement travelled from Montpellier to Orange (5–6 March 1309),42 well north of Avignon on the road to Vienne and Lyon, before turning back to Avignon. The question remains the same: Did he doubt his destination? Finally, on 9 March 1309, Clement and his entourage arrived at Avignon.43 V Since leaving Lusignan as pope in 1305, until his arrival in Avignon in 1309, Clement had travelled some 5,000 kilometres. Including his preceding 4,000 kilometres as archbishop of Bordeaux in 1304, Clement had, whatever his illness may have been, travelled on foot, horseback, and by unsprung cart, slogging over abominable unmade roads and tracks in every season no matter what the weather, some 9,000 kilometres, or about the distance from the coast of Ireland to the coast of China – the span, that is, of the then known world.44 Yes, we know of the sometimes violent efforts made by his often unwilling hosts to avoid the expense of his stays 38

  Menache, pp. 8–10.   Antonini Augusti, Itineraire d’Antonin (Paris, 1848), and see D. M. Bryson, “Labadie and the Baianès: The Landscape of a Village and Territory in Southwestern France 275–1578” (MA thesis, Department of History, School of Humanities, La Trobe University, 1993), pp. 47–53. 40   J.-B. Christophe, Histoire de la Papauté pendant le XIVe siècle (Paris, 1853), p. 215, citing (p. 215, n. 2), Histoire du Languedoc, 4:144–45. 41   1. Narbonne-Montpellier; 2. Monpellier-Narbonne; 3. Narbonne-Montpellier. 42   Tables, ed. Lanhers, p. 3. 43   On the question “Rome or Avignon?” see Menache, pp. 23–26. 44   Grosser Historischer Weltatlas (Munich, 1970), p. 101. 39


David Morrow BrYsoN

with his considerable entourage.45 But, on his part, what an amazing display of courage and fortitude. Conclusion What answers can be advanced to the questions posed at the beginning of this article about the consequences of what happened on Clement’s travels? What do his travels display about his relations with the kings of England and France? The English regarded Clement as their ally. The English seneschal of Gascony escorted him in safety to Bordeaux after his election in 1305, and then out of Bordeaux on the road to his election in Lyon. He remained safely under English protection in Gascony until he left Bordeaux on the road to Avignon in 1308. Clement was not a toady of Philip IV of France. Philip was received by Clement at his residence in Poitiers in 1307, and again in 1308. It is possible (but not provable) that Philip and Clement (as archbishop of Bordeaux) could have met during Clement’s visit of his diocese of Poitiers in 1305, but at no time, according to his itinerary, did Clement come north into royal France at Chinon and the Loire. Of course, by moving from Bordeaux to Avignon in 1308–1309, Clement made access to him and his court far more difficult for the kings of both England and France, but particularly so for the English king, Edward II. What were the consequences for the Templars and the Hospitallers? Clement’s visits in 1304 as Bertrand de Got, archbishop of Bordeaux, to his dioceses of Agen and, especially, Périgueux, placed him in contact with three of the four so-called “traitors of the Temple” named in the Papal Commission trial of 1309. While we do not know whether any exchange of information damaging to the reputation of the Temple actually took place, there was that possibility and opportunity. Similarly, his visit of the diocese of Poitiers in May of 1305 made possible a meeting between him and Philip IV prior to his election – though there is no evidence that such a meeting actually took place. Then, his return south through Poitiers after 5 June 1305 coincided with his election as pope. Thereafter, his meeting at Poitiers on 7 June 1307 with Philip of France, together with the Grand Master, the Visitor, and the Provincial Master of the Temple, and the fourth “traitor” of the Temple, Gérard de Causse, suggests that the seeds of Clement’s later declaration of the suppression of the Order on the grounds of its spoiled reputation may have been planted in his mind before the fait accompli of the arrest of the Templars in October 1307. 45

  For example, in the diocese of Périgueux, October 4 1304, at the priory of Cessac, near Domme, the prior used bloodshed against Archbishop Bertrand’s chaplain; and then on October 6 and 8, Bertrand’s visitors were refused reception. On subsequent visits, Bertrand excommunicated priors who had not received him properly (“Visite,” ADG, G.264).

ClemeNt V aNd the Road to AvigNoN, 1304–1309


As to the Hospitallers, Clement’s proposal for their union with the Temple given at Bordeaux in June 1306 having come to nought, the continuing independence of the two Orders left open the later possibility for both the suppression of the Temple, and the transfer of its assets to the Hospital. What were the consequences for the pursuit of the crusades? Clement’s original intention was for the pursuit of the crusades, not the destruction of the Templars, as expressed after his coronation in Lyon in 1305, but in this he was unable to persuade Philip IV. His failure at Bordeaux in 1306 to persuade the Templars and the Hospitallers to unite further weakened his support for a new crusade, as did his meetings with Philip and the Templar dignitaries at Poitiers in 1307, and again with Philip there in 1308. By then, his resolve for the crusades would seem to have been a lost cause. What, then, does the trail of Clement’s travels, as displayed on the maps, tell us about his destination? At Poitiers in May 1308, Clement seemed to have been determined to go to Rome, but, by August, he expected to go to Avignon. Nevertheless, after he and his entourage left Bordeaux on the road south in late 1308, his intended destination was by no means clear. There was, firstly, his detour from Toulouse to St Bertrand de Comminges in January 1309, followed by his apparent doubling-back from Montpellier to Narbonne, and then, most puzzlingly, his bypassing of Avignon and continued advance north to Orange in March 1309, before his return to, and entry into, Avignon on 9 March 1309. Finally, what does this tortuous trail tell us about Clement himself, and his place in history? Clement himself, whatever his illness, was, as the hardships and distance of his travels display, strong and intrepid, not weak and fearful.46 As to his place in history, Clement, wherever he thought he was going when he left Bordeaux for the last time on the road that led him to Avignon, had resisted the temptation to remain in isolation in the region in which he was most comfortable, and thus led the papacy back into the larger world. In spite of the view that Clement had taken the papacy on the road to Avignon as a move into a “Babylonian captivity”,47 it was, after all, only the first step on the road back to Rome.


  See also Menache, pp. 30–33.   See Menache, pp. 2, 13, 26, 35, 205, 278, 308.


This page has been left blank intentionally

6 “Vox in excelso” Deconstructed. Exactly What Did Clement V Say?* Anne Gilmour-Bryson

I had long been interested in Pope Clement V. Who was this man, I wondered? Was he the evil devil portrayed by some scholars? Was he a mindless weakling as suggested by others? Did he deliberately end the Order of the Temple because of some secret reasoning connected with his reputation for nepotism?1 What did this man really know or care about the Order of the Temple and its members? Everything I read took one biased position or the other: he was totally manipulated by the wicked Philip IV, although basically innocent of any wrongdoing himself; or, he did nothing wrong at all, merely doing his duty to the Roman Catholic Church and its future.2 How does one attempt to ascertain what a pope thought 800 years ago? First, by reading all his bulls as published in his registers.3 Subsequently, I read everything available in many of the world’s great libraries4 but the question still remained: *   I would like most especially to thank the following persons and institutions for their help with my research into Clement V: Prof. Jacques Ménard, advisor for my MA and early years of my doctoral studies; the late Monsignor Leonard Boyle both at the Pontifical Institute for Medieval Studies in Toronto and as Prefect of the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana; Benoît Lacroix, O.P., and the late Hugues Shooner of the Institut d’études médiévales, Université de Montréal; the late John Brückmann of Glendon College; and the late Cardinal Alfons Stickler. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canada, and the University of Melbourne, Australia, contributed substantially to my research. 1   The most recent and complete work on this pope is Sophia Menache, Clement V (Cambridge, 1998). For one of the many non-scholarly works on Clement V, see A. Pujols, Clement V. Le pape maudit (La Brede, 1988), with mention of Vox in excelso, p. 181. 2   Much valuable information on the French king and Clement V is to be found in Jean Favier, Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1978), particularly chapter XII, “L’offensive pontificale.” For a traditional view of the pope, see Guillaume Mollat, Les papes d”Avignon (1305–1378) (Paris, 1912). 3   Regestum Clementis Papae V … nunc primum editum cura et studio monachorum ordinis sancti Benedicti, 8 vols (Rome, 1884–1894). I will be eternally grateful to the late Father Leonard Boyle for lending me several volumes and allowing me to take them back to Montreal for prolonged study. 4   Inter alia: the Pontifical Institute Library, St Michael”s College, University of Toronto; the first-rate library of the Dominicans in Montreal, the Bibliothèque Nationale de


This figure has intentionally been removed for copyright reasons. To view this image, please refer to the printed version of this book

Figure 6.1

The opening of Vox in excelso from the Archivio de la Corona de Aragon, Barcelona: Barcelona Chancellery Reg. 291, fol. 33r.

“Vox in excelso” Deconstructed. Exactly What Did Clement V Say?


Why did the pontiff put an end to the Ordo Militiae Templi? Did he really believe them guilty?5 My interest in the papal bull Vox in excelso, March 22, 1312, goes back 30 years. While working on the fall of the Order of the Temple, mandated at the Council of Vienne,6 I had discovered multiple references to Vox clamantis as the bull which ended the Order.7 For example, the entry for the Council of Vienne in the Catholic Encyclopedia, completed in 1914, states that “The [Templar] Bull of Suppression ‘Vox clamantis’ is dated 22 March 1312.”8 Yet I was unable to find any such bull in various episcopal archives, the Vatican Secret Archives and Library, the Bibliothéque Nationale in Paris. On the other hand, some scholars wrote that the bull of suppression was entitled “Vox in excelso,” and for a while I wondered whether there had there been two bulls.9 At last I was able to settle the question, when I obtained a photograph of a manuscript of Vox in excelso from the Archives of the Crown of Aragon.10 My article clarifying the problem, “Vox in excelso and Vox clamantis, Bulls of Suppression of the Templar Order, A Correction,” was published in Barcelona in 1978.11 How did the error over the bull’s title arise? The most important early reference to Vox clamantis came from Hefele’s Conciliengeschichte of 1890.12 It was repeated later in Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des conciles, in which the famous scholar quoted,

France; the Robarts Library, Toronto; the Vatican Library and libraries at Harvard and Yale. 5   See Jonathan Riley-Smith: “Were the Templars Guilty?” in The Medieval Crusade, ed. Susan J. Ridyard (Woodbridge, 2004), pp. 107–124. 6   On the Council of Vienne, for recent scholarship, see Menache, pp. 281–84, and note 51 below. 7   This incipit refers obviously to Isaiah 40:3 which appears in the Vulgate as “Vox clamantis in deserto parate viam Domini, translated in the King James Version as “the voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord,” or some version of that phrase in other translations. 8   Johann Peter Kirsch, “Council of Vienne (1311–12),” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 15 (New York, 1912), online at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15423a.htm [consulted April 29, 2008]. The entry for Pope Clement V gives the bull its correct title. 9   Modern scholars can consult important papal bulls in Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, ed. J. Alberigo et al., 3rd edn (Bologna, 1973) in which they will find some major Templar bulls, but obviously not the mythical Vox clamantis. 10   Archivo de la Corona de Aragón, a contemporary copy, Barcelona Chancellery Reg. 291, fols. 33–34v. For details on the bull in nineteenth-century printed copies, see Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner, 2 (Georgetown, Washington, 2000), p. 334 (hereafter cited as Tanner), and for the Latin and an English text, see ibid., pp. 336–43. Until recently most scholars used the Latin text from Jaime L. Villanueva, Viage litterario a las eglesias de España, 17 vols (Madrid, 1803–52), 3:208–21. 11   Studia Monastica 20 (1978), 71–76. 12   Carl Joseph Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, 9 vols (Freiburg, 1890), 6:534.

78 Anne Gilmour Bryson

in fact, a verbatim translation from Vox in excelso, not Vox clamantis.13 Pius Boniface Gams was at the origin of the mistake when on his return from Spain in 1854 he gave a copy of Vox in excelso to his master, Hefele, referring to it erroneously as Vox clamantis.14 In spite of the correction of 1876 many renowned scholars and more popular historians continued the error: Bordonove, Cambon, Dailliez, Fau, Legman, Ollivier, and Oursel, among others.15 Having clarified the title of the bull, let us turn to a consideration of its contents. In a close reading of Vox in excelso, many of Clement’s thought-processes are revealed and it is upon the bull itself that I intend to focus. The pope began with a quotation from Jeremiah: “Vox in excelso audita est lamentationis fletus et luctos”, or “A voice was heard from on high of lamentations and bitter weeping.”16 This quote was a perfect fit with the way the pope must have felt about the alleged horrific acts described by various members of the Order interrogated in most parts of Christendom except Cyprus, the Iberian Peninsula, England for the most part, Ireland, and Scotland. This statement illuminates just how conflicted Clement must have been when he first heard of the Templars’ alleged illicit acts. Since the members of the Order were “knights of Christ” or milites Christi, they were deemed to be as perfect as Bernard of Clairvaux had described them in “de laude novae militiae”. A new kind of knighthood seems recently to have appeared on the earth [ … ] one unknown in ages past. It indefatigably wages a twofold combat, against flesh and blood and against a spiritual host of evil in the heavens [ … ] for a man to gird himself with both swords [ … ] who would not consider this very worthy of great admiration [ … ] Be sure that neither life nor death can separate you from the love of God which is in Jesus Christ.17

How could these men possibly have become so thoroughly wicked, depraved, blasphemous and worse, as they came to be described? The pope continued, saying, “the time is coming [ … ] when the Lord shall complain through his prophet” [Jeremiah] used in this case as a reference to himself   Carl Joseph Hefele and Henri Leclercq, Histoire des conciles, 10 vols (Paris, 1907– 1921), 9:412. 14   Pius Bonifacius Gams corrected the error in print in 1876 in Die Kirchengeschichte von Spanien, 3 (Regensburg, 1876), p. 273. 15   For full details consult my article “Vox in excelso and Vox clamantis,” p. 75 and note 15. 16   The Latin comes from the Vulgate. The translation is from Malcolm Barber and Keith Bate, The Templars (Manchester, 2002), pp. 309–318, hereafter cited as Barber and Bate. 17   See Bernard of Clairvaux, In praise of the New Knighthood, A Treatise on the Knights Templar and the Holy Places of Jerusalem, trans. Conrad Greenia (Kalamazoo, 2000), new edn with an introduction by Malcolm Barber, pp. 33–34. 13

“Vox in excelso” Deconstructed. Exactly What Did Clement V Say?


as Vicar of Christ.18 It is God who orders the pope to complain. “This house [the Templar Order] has aroused my anger and wrath, so that I will remove it from my sight because of the evil of its sons, for they have provoked me to anger [ … ] setting up their idols in the house [ … ] to defile it.”19 “They have sinned deeply.”20 Idolatry is referred to in the official list of accusations, numbers 46–57, and the following four accusations suggest that the cords worn by Templars had been wrapped around an idol or head.21 The accusation of idolatry, one of the most serious, was rarely attested to with anything but what appeared to be flights of fancy invented to appease the inquisitors. This statement shifts the responsibility for the punishment of the Order and its members to God with Clement acting as his earthly vicar. I believe there is no doubt that Clement V believed that he was doing God’s will in ridding the earth of the Templar Order, at least at the outset. Possibly, he realised only later on that he was being manipulated by the French king. Clement explains how horribly upset he had been upon hearing of their infamous deeds explaining what had troubled him to such a degree: “When I heard of such deeds of horror, at the dread of such notorious scandal [adding from Isaiah 21: 3–4] “darkness overwhelmed me”.22 I read this statement as indicating that “scandal” was what the pope most feared. He knew of the scandal associated with Philip IV’s attack on Pope Boniface VIII.23 He wished to avoid scandal at all costs. Scandal attacking a pope put not only that particular individual in danger but the papacy itself, and obviously – radiating out from the pontiff – the whole Church. Having a pope declared a heretic was a terrible attack on the institution of the papacy.


  Tanner, p. 336: “tempus venit, quo per prophetam conqueritur Dominus;” Barber and Bate, p. 309. 19   Tanner, p. 336: “In fuorem et indignationem mihi facta est domus haec. Aufuretur de conspectu meo proper malitiam filiorum suroum, quia me ad iracundiam provacabant […] ponentes idola sua in domo, in qua invocatum est nomem meum ut polluerunt ipsam;” Barber and Bate, p. 309: a clear reference to Jeremiah 32: 31–35. 20   Tanner, p. 336: “Profunde peccaverunt;” Barber and Bate, p. 309, referring now to Hosea 9:9, which adds “he will remember their iniquity, he will punish their sins:” English citation from The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, RSV, ed. H.G. May and B. Metzger (New York, 1977). 21   See the accusations in my The Trial of the Templars in the Papal State and the Abruzzi (Città del Vaticano, 1982), pp. 74–84. On all aspects of the trials and/or hearings, see Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 2006). 22   Tanner, p. 336: “Ad tam horrendum auditum tantumque horrorem vulgatae infamiae …” – Isaiah 21: 3–4, “I am bowed down so that I cannot hear, I am dismayed so that I cannot see. My mind reels, horror has appalled me, the twilight I longed for has been turned for me into trembling.” The pope may also have been thinking of Ps. 55: 5: “Fear and trembling come upon me and horror overwhelms me.” 23   On all aspects of Boniface VIII and Philip IV”s attack on him, see the magisterial work by J. Coste, Boniface VIII en procès. Articles d’accusation et dépositions des témoins (1303–1311) (Rome, 1995).

80 Anne Gilmour Bryson

The Order is guilty of “fornication [ … ] immolating its sons [ … ] consecrating them to demons and not to God, to gods whom they did not know”.24 No testimony suggested that any neophyte Templar understood what “god” or “gods” he should be swearing allegiance to, if not the Christian God and Christ. Occasionally witnesses would mention “the god of the Saracens” although they did not appear to understand that reference fully. While most Templars admitted the denial of Christ at or after reception, they almost never admitted swearing allegiance to any other deity. Templar witnesses insisted that after the seemingly illicit ceremony they continued believing in all tenets of the Christian faith. The pope found 1 Kings 9:6–9 particularly relevant to the situation then present. In this passage the Lord warns Solomon of the penalty which will befall him if he “turn[s] aside from following me” or commits other serious offences. He and his people will be “cast out of my sight”. And this house will inevitably become a warning to all those who pass by of what happens to those who defy the Lord.25 And sadly, that is what did occur to the Templar Order and its men. And why was this done? According to the Bible, “Because they forsook the Lord their God [ … ] and followed instead Baal and other gods, worshipping and serving them. Therefore the Lord has brought all this evil upon them.”26 Clement appears to be foreshadowing the end of the Order since, according to allegations, it and its members had “turned aside from following [God]”. The destruction of the Order will, nevertheless, be an action ordered by God not man, with Clement V acting as God’s agent. Having set out the atrocious crimes attributed to the Order, the pope explains that close to the time of his election, 5 June 1305, before he was crowned on 14 November, he had received “secret intimations against the master, preceptors and other brothers of the Order of Knights Templar of Jerusalem and also against the Order itself”.27 In consequence, about two years before the first arrests and denouncements of October 1307, the accusations supposedly came to the ears of the pope. The pontiff insisted that the brethren had been sent overseas “for the defence of the patrimony of our lord Jesus Christ, and as special warriors of the Catholic faith


  Tanner, p. 336: “ Non enim parva est fornicatio eius immolantis filios suos, dantis illos et consecrantis daemoniis et non Deo, diis quos ignorabant;” Barber and Bate, p. 310. 25   Tanner, p. 336: “Si aversione aversi fueritis filiis vestri, non sequentis et colentis me sed abeuntes et colentes deos alienos et adorantes ipsos, proiciam eos a facie mea et expellam de terra quam dedi eis. et secuti sunt Baal et dios alienos et adoraverunteos et voluerunt. ”   26   Tanner, p. 336: “quia recesserunt a domino Deo suo, quia emit et redemit eos et secunti sunt Baal et dios alienos et adoraverunt eos et coluerunt. Idcirco induxit Dominus super ipsos hoc malum grande;” Barber and Bate, p. 310. 27   Tanner, p. 336: “secreta quorundam nobis insinuatio intimavit, quod magister, praeceptores et alii fratres ordinis Militiae Templi Hierosolymitani et etiam ipse ordo;” Barber and Bate, p. 310. On the accusers, see David Bryson, “Three ‘Traitors’ of the Temple: Was their Truth the Whole Truth?,” in The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314), ed. Jochen Burgtorf, Paul F. Crawford and Helen J. Nicholson (Farnham, 2010), pp. 97–103.

“Vox in excelso” Deconstructed. Exactly What Did Clement V Say?


and outstanding defenders of the Holy Land”.28 He had understood their function perfectly, not charitable work, not hospital work, but primarily military matters, defending the Holy Land. “It was against the Lord Jesus himself that they fell into the abominable vice of idolatry; the deadly crime of the Sodomites,29 and various heresies.”30 Clement, however, “[was] unwilling to lend our ears to insinuation and accusation against the Templars”.31 We understand then that Clement had been told terrible tales concerning both the Order itself and its members, tales which he could not believe, given the Order’s honourable beginnings. His next step was to exculpate the king of France, Philip IV, who, the pope insists, “was not moved by greed. The monarch had no intention of claiming or appropriating for himself anything from the Templars’ property [he in fact], released entirely his hold on their goods [in France].”32 Philip had acted entirely from “zeal for the orthodox faith”.33 Did the pope mean this exoneration of the king, or did he feel obliged to say it? The latter, I believe. We must remember that Philip IV had requested the masters of theology in Paris to answer various questions regarding the arrest and interrogation of the Templars and the crucial question of who should receive their properties.34 The theologians explained in March 1308 that a secular prince cannot legitimately institute the charge of heresy unless asked to so do by the Church.35 Concerning the properties, the masters insisted that since they had been given not to the Templars for their own use but to assist the Holy Land they must be carefully kept and eventually used only for that purpose.36 Clement then affirmed that a knight and important brother had confessed to him that he had denied Christ and spat on the cross at his reception, and, moreover, at an overseas reception with 200 brethren present, he had seen James of Molay 28

  Tanner, p. 337: “qui ad defensionem patrimonii domini nostri Iesu Christi fuereunt in transmarinis partibus constituti et speciales fidei catholicae pugiles et Terre sanctae praecipui defensores:” Barber and Bate, pp. 310–11. 29   Tanner, p. 337: “adiutrices contra ipsum dominum Iesum Christum in scelus apostasiae nefandae, detestabile idolatriae vitium, exsecrabile facinus Sodomorum, et haereses varias errant lapsi.” On the accusation of sodomy, see my article “Sodomy and the Knights Templar”, Journal of the History of Sexuality 7 (1996), 151–83. 30   Barber and Bate, p. 311. 31   Tanner, p. 337: “eiusmodi insinuationi et delationi ipsorum […] aurem noluimus inclinare;” Barber and Bate, p. 311. 32   Tanner, p. 337: “non typo avaritiae – cum de bonis Templariorum nihil sibi vindicare aut appropriare intenderit, immo ea in regno suo dimisit, manum suam exinde totaliter amovendo;” Barber and Bate, p. 311. 33   Tanner, p. 337: “sed fidei orthodoxae fervore;” Barber and Bate, p. 311. 34   For the Latin text and a French translation, see Georges Lizerand, Le dossier de l’affaire des Templiers (Paris, 1923, repr. 1964), pp. 62–70. 35  Lizerand, Dossier, pp. 64–65. 36  Lizerand, Dossier, pp. 68–69.

82 Anne Gilmour Bryson

receive a knight while insisting on the same illicit acts.37 Clement appears to have been forced to act by the general outcry in France, first of the king and the nobility and later the “clergy and people of the kingdom of France”.38 We can assume from this statement that the Templar affair was most certainly driven by Philip IV and not by the pope. Nevertheless, Clement asserted that: “We were duty-bound by our office to pay heed to the din of such grave and repeated accusations.”39 Any study of trials of the Inquisition makes it perfectly clear that public scandal or notoriety was usually given as the reason why the officials had to act. Clement then, reluctantly authorised the hearings of lesser brethren in Poitiers, held in June.40 Although the pope referred to having the notarised depositions read to “[each of] the knights […] in his own language”41 this statement ignores the fact that most witnesses in Poitiers were not knights but serving brothers.42 The pope also appears to have been influenced by confessions made by the master, high officials, and others “in the presence of many prelates and the inquisitor of heresy [ … ] edited as public documents and shown to us and our brothers”.43 Clement never heard a deposition from James of Molay, the grand master, or the other major dignitaries held at Chinon, identified as “the general master and the visitor of France, and of the overseas lands, and the grand preceptors of Normandy, Aquitaine and Poitiers,


  Tanner, p. 337: “Dixit etiam se vidisse, quod magister Militiae Templi, qui vivit adhuc, recipit in conventu dicti ordinis ultramarino quemdam militem eodem modo, scilicet cum abnegatione Christi et exspuitione super crucem, praesentibus bene ducentis fratribus eiusdem ordinis;” Barber and Bate, pp. 311–12. 38   Tanner, p. 338: “clericorum, quoque et populi dicti regni Francorum;” Barber and Bate, p. 312. 39   Tanner, p. 338: “Urgente nos ad id officii nostri debito, vitare nequivimus, quin tot et tantis clamoribus accomodaremus auditum;” Barber and Bate, p. 312. On the importance of rumour or scandal in mounting heresy enquiries, see James Given, Inquisition in Medieval Society (Ithaca, London: 1997), p. 22. 40   Barber and Bate, p. 313. On the Poitiers hearings, see Barber, Trial, 2nd edn, pp. 116–17, 120–21, 125, 130, 164, 307. 41   Tanner, p. 338: “legi facimus coram ipsis in suo vulgari cuilibet eorum exponi;” Barber and Bate, p. 313. Most of the manuscripts of depositions contain only Latin text. It would be very valuable to see the vulgar language versions read to the witnesses. 42   Witnesses included 9 knights, 22 serving brothers, and 1 priest. See Konrad Schottmüller, Der Untergang des Templer-Ordens, 2 (Berlin, 1887), pp. 9–71 and Heinrich Finke, Papsttum und Untergang des Templerordens, 2 (Münster, 1907), pp. 329–40. For information on other Poitiers witnesses, see Barber, Trial, 2nd edn, p. 331, n. 3. 43   Tanner, p. 338: “coram multis praelatis et haereticae pravitatis inquisitore et in publicam scriptam recdactas, nobisque et gratribus nostris ostensas;” Barber and Bate, p. 313.

“Vox in excelso” Deconstructed. Exactly What Did Clement V Say?


and certain others”.44 Allegedly, they were too ill to travel to Poitiers to appear before the pontiff.45 The next element in the Templar affair concerns the fact that Clement sent three cardinals to Chinon in August to interrogate the dignitaries mentioned above.46 The pontiff ordered the prelates to absolve these men from excommunication if they “humbly and devoutly requested” it.47 This statement indicates that the pope did not wish to excommunicate these men. He appears to have been strenuously attempting to find a way out of the horrible situation in which he found himself. The guilty pleas were duly written down and later given to the pope along with the cardinals’ version of their Chinon trip.48 As the pope had requested, the dignitaries had been absolved and returned to the Church after their confessions had been heard. It was because of the confessions Clement detailed above and since “such dreadful crimes could not and should not go unpunished without insult to almighty God” that on advice of other prelates he decided “to hold an enquiry into the above crimes and transgressions”.49 As we know, there really were two enquiries: one carried out by bishops and papal delegates into members of the Order, and a second undertaken by “prudent persons of our [ … ] choice” into the “Order as a whole”.50 Splitting the inquiry into two parts may reveal that the pontiff believed that while some men may have been guilty, the Order itself was not necessarily involved. The pope himself in certain cases, and various prelates and experts chosen by him, likely in September 1311, went through the results of all these interrogations.51 The Council of Vienne had already been postponed for a year and opened on 16 October 1311.52 Clement said that once he arrived, “there were assembled already very many patriarchs, archbishops, selected bishops, exempt and non44

  Tanner, p. 338: “ipsum generalem magistrum et visitatorem Franciae ac Terre ultramarines, Normanniae, Aquitaniae ac Pictaviae praeceptores maiores;” Barber and Bate, p. 313. 45   Tanner, p.  338: “Sed cum quidam ex eis sic infirmabantur tunc temporis, quod aequitare non potuerant nec ad nostram praesentiam commode adduci;” Barber and Bate, pp. 312–13; Barber, Trial, 2nd edn, pp. 120–21. 46   See note 44 above. Tanner: p. 338; Barber and Bate, p. 313. 47   Tanner, p. 339: “si absolutionem humiliter ac devote peterent ut debebant iuxta formam ecclesiae impensuri;” Barber and Bate, pp. 313–14. 48   Tanner, p. 339; Barber and Bate, p. 314. 49   Tanner, p. 340: “Attendentes autem, quod scelera tam horrenda transire incorrecta absque omnipotentes Dei […] decrevimus de fratrum nostrorum consilio;” Barber and Bate, p. 314. 50   Tanner, p. 340: “contra singulares personas ipsius ordinis necnon et contra dictum ordinem per certas discretas personas […] inquirendum;” Barber and Bate, p. 315. 51   Barber and Bate, p. 315. 52   On the council, its postponement, and its deliberations, see the brief discussions in Tanner, pp. 333–34 and bibliography on p. 335. See also Barber, Trial, 2nd edn, pp. 2–3 and index, p. 397. See also Helen Nicholson, The Knights Templar. A New History (Stroud, 2001), pp. 220–21.

84 Anne Gilmour Bryson

exempt abbots, other prelates of churches, and procurators of absent prelates and chapters”.53 Presumably, because of the high number of attendees, the pope could not meet all of them. Consequently, a smaller group of prelates was chosen by all those in attendance to discuss the Templar affair. Certain “attestations [ … ] [were] read publicly in the presence of the prelates and the procurators”.54 Unfortunately, we do not know which depositions were read out but there were so many that it took “several days” (plures dies) for this to occur in ecclesia cathedrali.55 After the reading, “the said attestations and the summaries made from them were considered and examined [ … ] with great care by many of our venerable brethren, by the patriarch of Aquileia, by archbishops and bishops [ … ] specially chosen and delegated for the purpose”.56 Seemingly worried as to what he should do next, the pope then held what he termed a “secret consultation [ … ] [on] how we should proceed”.57 He also stated that “certain Templars were presenting themselves in defence of their Order”.58 In spite of what most people believe, those accused often had the right to a defence, but not in all cases.59 Seemingly, almost all those in attendance agreed that “the Order should be given an opportunity to defend itself and that it could not be condemned on the basis of the proof provided thus far”.60 Others disagreed and insisted no defence should be offered since this action might be prejudicial “to the interests of the Holy Land”.61 It is noteworthy that the attendees did not seem to have wanted to find the Order guilty in spite of all the summaries of depositions, the vast majority 53

  Tanner, p. 340: “venissemus Viennam et essent iam quamplures patriarchae, archiepiscopi, episcopi electi, abates exempti et non exempti et alii ecclesiarum praelati necnon et procuratores absentium et capitulorum; ”  Barber and Bate, p. 315. 54   Tanner, p. 341: “praefatas attestationes . .coram ipsis praelati et procuratoribus […] publice legi facimus;” Barber and Bate, p. 315. 55  Ibid. 56   Tanner, p. 341: “et subsequenter per multos venerabiles fratres nostros, patriarcham Aquileiensem, archiepiscopos et episcopos […] cum magna diligentiae et sollicitudine, non perfunctorie sed moratoria […] electis propter praemissum negotium;” Barber and Bate, pp. 315–16. 57   Tanner: p. 341: “qualiter esset in eodem negotio procedendum […] in nostra praaesentia constitutis, facta per nos propositione et consultatione secreta;” Barber and Bate, p. 316. 58   Tanner, p. 341: “praesertim cum quidam Templarii ad defensionem eiusdem ordinis se offerrent;” Barber and Bate, p. 316. On Templars” efforts for the defence, see Barber, Trial, 2nd edn, pp. 175–84, and index entries, p. 385. 59   For an overview on the functioning of the inquisition, see E. Peters, Inquisition (Berkeley, 1989) and Barber, Trial, 2nd edn, pp. 28–29. See also my article, “The Templar Trials: Did the System Work?” The Medieval History Journal 3 (2000), 41–65. 60   Tanner, p. 341: “ipsi ordini defensio dari deberet et quod ipse ordo de haeresibus, de quibus inquisitum est contra ipsum;” Barber and Bate, p. 316. 61   Tanner, p. 341: “ex hoc ipsius negotii periculum at non modicum Terrae sanctae subsidii detrimentum sequeretur;” Barber and Bate, p. 316.

“Vox in excelso” Deconstructed. Exactly What Did Clement V Say?


of them confessing wrongdoing. The pope, clearly worried, added that although a definitive sentence against the Order of the Temple could not legally be pronounced, “the good name of the Order has been largely taken away by the heresies imputed to it”.62 Infamy and or notoriety were frequently cited in trials into heresy. The pope appears also to have been convinced of some degree of guilt by the large number of “spontaneous confessions” (confessiones spontaneas), including those of the grand master and other dignitaries.63 He must have wondered how indeed could the Order be considered innocent? Did he genuinely believe the confessions were spontaneous and true? The Order, he insisted, was: “very suspect, and the infamy and suspicion render it detestable to the holy Church of God”.64 Calling the Order “very suspect” does not provide any evidence or proof that Clement considered the Order proven guilty. The pontiff went on to suggest that no reasonable man would enter the Order in the future, in consequence, the Order “will be made useless to the Church of God and the carrying on of the undertaking to the Holy Land” for which it had been created.65 The primary need, as he saw it, was to prevent devastation, neglect, and or theft, of Templar property “given, bequeathed and granted by the faithful for the aid of the Holy Land and to oppose enemies of the Christian faith”.66 And once again this statement shows that the pope understood the function of the Order of the Knighthood of the Temple perfectly. The Order of the Temple existed for two reasons: to help the Holy Land and to oppose her enemies; and, by extension, to assist in one of Clement’s favourite projects, the crusades.67 Having set out the state of the situation as it appeared to him, Clement was faced by two opposing positions put forward by members of the assembly: 1. That “an immediate sentence should be pronounced, condemning the Order for the alleged crimes”.68 2. And objections “that from the proceedings taken up to now the sentence of condemnation against the Order could not justly be passed”.69 62   Tanner, p. 341: “quia tamen ordo de illis haeresibus, quae imponuntur eidem, est plurimum diffamatus;” Barber and Bate, p. 316. 63   Tanner, ibid.; Barber and Bate, ibid. 64   Tanner, p. 341: “et quia infamia et suspicio praelibatae dictum ordinem reddunt ecclesiae sanctae Dei […] abominabilem.” 65   Tanner: p. 341: “ipse ordo ecclesiae Dei ac prosecutioni negotii Terra sanctae, ad cuius servitium fuerant deputati, inutilis redderetur;” Barber and Bate, p. 317. 66   Tanner, p. 342: “bonorum Templi quae dudum ad subsidium Terrae sanctae et impugnationem inimicorum fidei christianae a Christi fidelibus data, legata et concessa fuerunt;” Barber and Bate, p. 317. 67   On the pope’s views and actions related to crusade and mission, see Menache, Clement V, pp. 101–128. 68   Tanner, p. 342: “ex nunc contra dictum ordinem pro dictis criminibus condemnationis sententiam promulgandam;” Barber and Bate, p. 317. 69   Tanner, p. 342: “ex processibus praehabitis contra dictum ordinem condemnationis sententiam iure ferri non posse;” Barber and Bate, p. 317. Referring to the crimes as “alleged”

86 Anne Gilmour Bryson

The pope faced a terrible quandary: how could he pronounce a sentence of condemnation if there was not enough evidence? Indeed, what could he rightfully do? After who knows just how much soul searching, Clement came to an answer after “long and mature deliberation [ … ] we elected to proceed by way of provision and ordinance” in order to avoid scandal and save Templar property “for the help of the Holy Land”.70 Clement said that he had been influenced by “the disgrace, suspicion, vociferous reports and other attacks mentioned above against the Order, also the secret reception [ … ], and the divergence of many of the brothers from the general behaviour, way of life and morals of other Christians”.71 Note that he did not say here or anywhere that he believed that Templars denied Christ, spat on the cross, worshipped idols, or practised sodomy. He agreed that secret receptions and swearing at reception not to leave the Order “creates an unfavourable presumption”.72 Since religious orders usually hold secret or closed chapter meetings, and since receptions often accompanied those meetings, secrecy may have stemmed from that source. But, let us remember that stability, remaining in a monastic order, or remaining in the same house for life, was common to the Benedictines and many other religious orders.73 The Hierarchical Statute no. 261 provides that a Templar leaving the house without permission may lose the habit.74 Most Templar witnesses, but not all, said that they had promised not to leave the Order without permission of the master. This was a perfectly normal and reasonable proviso. Clement discussed the scandal which had arisen once the people heard these charges against the Order and its members. In addition, he said: “We note also the danger to faith and to souls, the many horrible misdeeds of so many brothers of the Order, and many other just reasons and causes.”75 He was not, nevertheless, specific indicates that they had not been judicially proven. For an analysis of which allegations could properly be termed accusations of heresy, see my article “L’eresia e i Templari ‘Oportert et haereses esse’,” Ricerche di storia sociale e religiosa n.s. 24 (1983), 101–114. 70   Tanner, p. 342: “longa et matura deliberatione praehabita […] et ad utilitatem negotii Terrae sanctae respectum habentes […] viam provisionis et ordinationis duximus eligendam, per quam tollentur scandala;” Barber and Bate, p. 317. 71  Tanner, p. 342: “Considerantes itaque infamiam suspicionem, clamosam insinuationem et alia supradicta, quae contra ordinem faciunt supradictum, necnon et occultam et clandestinam receptionem fratrum ipsius ordinis differentiamque multorum fratrum eiusdem a communi conversatione, vita et moribus aliorum Christi fidelium;” Barber and Bate, p. 317. 72   Tanner, p. 342: “ex quibus contra eos praesumitur evidenter;” Barber and Bate, p. 317. 73   See, among many others, C.H. Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, 2nd edn (London and New York, 1994). 74   J.M. Upton-Ward, The Rule of the Templars: The French Text of the Rule of the Order of the Knights Templar (Woodbridge, 1992), p. 78. 75   Tanner, p. 342: “necnon et fidei et animarum pericula et quamplurimorum fratrum dicti ordinis horribilia multa facta et multas alias rationes;” Barber and Bate, p. 317.

“Vox in excelso” Deconstructed. Exactly What Did Clement V Say?


about precisely which of the 127 accusations and more than 900 confessions he believed were true. He stresses, although we have no proof of this, “The majority of the cardinals and of those elected by the council, a proportion of more than fourfifths, have thought it better, more expedient and advantageous for God’s honour and for the preservation of the Christian faith, also for the aid of the Holy Land […] to suppress the Order by way of ordinance and provision of the Apostolic See, assigning the property to the use for which it was intended” – not to the monarch.76 The Order of the Temple was ended by command of the pope, by papal privilege. No one was excommunicated or sent to prison in this statement. The property was not meant to go to nobles, kings, or princes, although some of it did. It was to continue to be used to assist the Holy Land. Provision was to be made for living brethren. In order, it seems, to justify his decision, the pope stated that “the Roman Church has suppressed other important orders for reasons of far less gravity than those mentioned above”.77 And this statement, in my view, is extremely weak. Apparently, this had not been an easy decision to make, since Clement mentioned his “sad heart” (non sine cordis amaritudine et dolore) in bringing the Order of the Temple to an end. “[W]e entirely forbid that anyone from now on enter the Order, or receive or wear its habit, or presume to behave as a Templar.” The penalty for so doing would be automatic excommunication.78 The pope insisted that he and the apostolic see would decide what would happen to the brethren and their property, making his decision “to the honour of God, the exaltation of the Christian faith and the welfare of the Holy Land,”79 and woe betide anyone who dared to interfere. Decisions already made by provincial councils or diocesan bishops would remain in force. Most Templars had confessed and been absolved in local hearings. In conclusion, close reading of this long bull impresses me with the seriousness with which Clement considered the long-drawn out Templar affair. The painstaking way in which he documented every step of this process from June 1305 until 22 March 1312 indicates his desire to ensure that all the facts were written down and preserved for all time. A bull to end the Order of the Temple had no need to be so 76

  Tanner, p. 342: “et maiori parti dictorum cardinalium et praedictorum ac toto concilio electorum, plus quam quatuor vel quinque partibus eorumdem, visum est decentius et expedientius et utilis pro Dei honore et pro conservatione fidei christianae ac subsidio Terrae sanctae multisque aliis rationibus validis sequendam fore potius viam ordinationis et provisionis sedis apostolicae, ordinem saepe fatum tollendo et bona ad usum, ad quem deputata fuerant;” Barber and Bate, p. 317. 77   Tanner, p. 342: “animadvertentes quoque, quod alias etiam sine culpa fratrum ecclesia Romana fecit interdum alios ordines solemnes ex causis incomparabiliter minoribus, quam, sunt praemissae, cessare;” Barber and Bate, p. 318. 78   Tanner, p. 342: “ne quis dictum ordinem de cetero intrare vel eius habitum suscipere vel portare aut pro Templario gerere se praesumat;” Barber and Bate, p. 318. 79   Tanner, p. 342: “Porro nos personas et bona eadem nostrae ac apostolicae sedis ordinationi et depositioni, quam gratia divina favente ad Dei honorem et exaltationem fidei christianae ac statum prosperum Terrae sanctae facere intendimus;” Barber and Bate, p. 318.

88 Anne Gilmour Bryson

lengthy and so detailed. He appears to have had two principal preoccupations: to help the Holy Land as much as he could, to further the possible future crusades, and more importantly, to prevent scandal from attaching itself to him or to the Church as a whole. I believe that he suffered greatly in having to bring the Order to a close and in having to forbid anyone to enter the Order in the future, thus ending its existence. We should never forget that the Templars had been described by Pope Martin IV in 1282 as “les fils aimés du pape”.80 My opinion of Clement V and on this bull remains basically the same as it did in 1973 when I first studied this question. I have, of course, been influenced by the hundreds of articles and monographs devoted to both the Templars and the pope. In spite of my research, I do not believe that Clement found the Order or its members guilty as charged. Had he done so he would have stressed the fact in Vox in excelso. I imagine he was not entirely sure just what was done by whom, where. He was, nevertheless, still under the fearful threat by Philip IV to declare Boniface VIII a heretic, and by extension himself and any future pope. The danger to the Church from that possibility was much greater than that resulting from ending a religious order which had little reason to continue to exist.

  Cited by Pierre-Vincent Claverie, L’Ordre du Temple en Terre Sainte et A Chypre au XIIIe siècle, 1 (Nicosia, 2005), p. 92. 80

7 Myths and Reality: The Crusades and the Latin East as Presented during the Trial of the Templars in the British Isles, 1308–1311 Helen J. Nicholson

Christopher Tyerman has shown that there was still considerable interest in crusading in England in the first decades of the fourteenth century, and some individuals set out for the East.1 The evidence from the trial of the Templars in the British Isles reinforces this to some extent, showing that even in distant Ireland there were individuals with personal knowledge of Cyprus and the East. This article will consider the information about the Latin East which was presented during the trial of the Templars in the British Isles, and ask how far it was based on actual events and how far it reflected only the myths about the crusades which had been circulating ever since the Templars’ beginnings.2 The testimonies given by the Templars during the investigation in the British Isles indicate that few of them had ever been in the East, let alone seen active service there. Only two brothers in the British Isles made much of their service in the East. Brother Henry Danet, grand commander of Ireland, stated that he had spent 2 years overseas, in ultramarinis partibus, where, according to two Irish friars, he had been the master’s socius (companion and special aide).3 Brother Thomas Totty   Christopher Tyerman, England and the Crusades, 1095–1588 (Chicago, 1988), pp. 240–46. 2   This article is taken from my research assisted by a British Academy/Leverhulme Trust Senior Research Fellowship in 2003–2004: “The Trial of the Templars in the British Isles.” An earlier version was presented on 29 June 2005 at the University of Reading Graduate Centre for Medieval Studies Summer Symposium: “ ‘Promisit succurrere terre sancte pro posse suo:’ allusions to the Crusades during the trial of the Templars in the British Isles, 1309–11.” 3   Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 454, fols. 139v, 151v: “fuit socius collat[er] al[is] + concubilaris magni mag[ist]ri ord[in]is in p[ar]tib[us] t[r]ansmarinis a quo magnu[m] honore[m] equitata vestib[us] + in alio app[ar]atu necno[n] + tocius ord[in]is in Hib[er] n[ia] ad vita[m] suam s[i] placu[er]it recepit et optinuit,” and fol. 153v: “maxi[m]e de fr[atr]e Henr[ico] Danet q[uod] cons[er]vabat[ur] cu[m] magno mag[ist]ro p[er] annu[m] + ampli[us] valde sp[eci]ali[ter] + familiarit[er] q[ui] recognov[i]t p[ro]ut bulla testat[ur] se co[m]misisse illa nephanda c[ri]mina in bulla contenta + id[e]m fr[ater] Henr[icus] creat[us] fuit p[er] d[ic]t[u]m magnu[m] mag[ist]r[u]m + magnu[m] p[re]ceptore[m] in Hib[er]n[ia]:” 1




HeleN J. NicholsoN

or Thoraldby, who was initially interrogated at Lincoln, claimed in the last of his three testimonies to have taken part in naval action against the Muslims in the East. I have recently discussed Henry Danet’s testimony at length, in the paper I contributed to Benjamin Kedar’s festschrift, so I will not discuss it again here.4 It is worth noting, however, that it does cast some light on Ireland’s links to the eastern Mediterranean. Henry Danet implied that he had travelled by sea from Cyprus to Ireland in late 1307/early 1308. I say “by sea” because he did not arrive in Ireland until 1 February 1308,5 by which time the Templars in France and England had been arrested, so he could not have travelled across either of those countries without risk of arrest.6 In any case, his testimony and the fact that three of the four lay witnesses who gave evidence against the Templars in Ireland had been in Cyprus recently, suggests that ships travelled regularly between Cyprus and Ireland.7 Thomas Totty confessed to some of the charges against the Order during his third and final testimony given in late June 1311.8 In the record of his testimony preserved in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 454, he claimed that he had three times seen the Templars in the East allow the Christians to be defeated in the field,9 when they fought alongside the king of Cyprus’s army and crusaders against the Saracens (Mamluks), and he described a naval battle off Cyprus and an engagement on the Syrian coast at Maraclea. In the naval battle, he said, the Templars hung back in their ships rather than sailing into the fray with the other Christian vessels; at Maraclea, the Cypriots and the crusaders were attacked on land by the Muslims, and the Templars were slow to disembark from their ships to help them. Both of these engagements could very well have occurred in the early Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae, ed. David Wilkins, 4 vols (London, 1737), 2:376, 378 (abridged; the final witness is omitted in Wilkins, Concilia, 2:379). 4   “The Testimony of Brother Henry Danet and the Trial of the Templars in Ireland,” in In Laudem Hierosolymitani: Studies in Crusades and Medieval Culture in Honour of Benjamin Z. Kedar, eds Iris Shagrir, Ronnie Ellenblum and Jonathan Riley-Smith, Crusades Subsidia 1 (Aldershot, 2008), pp. 411–23. 5   Bod. 454, fol. 139v (Wilkins, Concilia, 2:376); Bod. 454, fols 141r, 148r (Wilkins, Concilia, 2:376–77); Martin Messinger, “The Trial of the Knights Templar in Ireland,” unpublished MPhil thesis, University College, Dublin, 1988, p. 24. 6   He could have landed in north-west Italy, where the Templars had not yet been arrested in January 1308, or in Castile, where the Templars had not yet been arrested, or in Portugal, where it is not clear when the arrests occurred: Elena Bellomo, The Templar Order in North-West Italy (1142–c.1330) (Leiden, 2008), pp. 180–181, 182–83, 186, 188–89; Alan Forey, The Fall of the Templars in the Crown of Aragon (Aldershot, 2001), p. 10; Clive Porro, “Reassessing the Dissolution of the Templars: King Dinis and their Suppression in Portugal,” in The Debate on the Trial of the Templars, eds Jochen Burgtorf, Paul F. Crawford and Helen J. Nicholson (Farnham, 2010), pp. 171–82. 7   Bod. 454, fols. 153v–154r; Wilkins, Concilia, 2:379 (abridged). 8   For his testimonies see Bod. 454, fols. 114v, 161r–163v; Wilkins, Concilia, 2:367 (abridged), 384–87. 9   Bod. 454, fol. 163v.

MYths aNd RealitY: The Crusades aNd the LatiN East


years of the fourteenth century, but not necessarily as Thomas depicted them. His evidence is dubious because although the Hospitallers were prominent in military activity in the eastern Mediterranean at this time, Thomas never mentioned them: for example, the former secretary of Grand Master William de Beaujeu, the socalled “Templar of Tyre”, described an attack on Maraclea by the Hospitallers in 1300, which could very well have been the engagement Thomas described, except that Thomas talked only about the Templars.10 Thomas did not appear to be well informed about normal military discipline in the Order (for example, he did not know the reason for the prohibition on charging the enemy before the command had been given);11 and although he claimed to have been gonfanier (banner-bearer) in the Order, there is no record of this elsewhere. Some outsiders also referred to the Templars’ activities in the East during their evidence about the Order. The majority of these were friars or other religious, but in Ireland two laymen also gave evidence about the Order’s activities in the East. How were these witnesses found? The procedures for identifying potential witnesses were laid out in a document of 25 May 1310, in which Archbishop William Greenfield of York instructed his official to question the parish priests, monks and friars who used to hear the Templars’ confessions, clergy and laity who were in the Templars’ service, and their household servants and friends.12 If potential witnesses were found by officials asking around the area of a commandery, people who had had any sort of dealing with the Templars could find themselves under pressure to give evidence against them, even if they knew virtually nothing about the Order. So what would they say? If we look at other heresy trials in Europe, the answer is that they would say what the inquisitors expected them to say. The historian of heresy John Arnold has argued that inquisitorial records from medieval heresy trials show only the “truth” which the inquisitors wished to impose on those under interrogation, not necessarily what those under interrogation actually believed.13 James Given, considering the work 10   Cronaca del templare di Tiro: 1243–1314: la caduta degli stati crociati nel racconto di un testimone oculare, ed. Laura Minervini (Naples, 2000), pp. 302–303, section 619; The “Templar of Tyre:” Part III of the “Deeds of the Cypriots”, trans. Paul Crawford (Aldershot, 2003), p. 157, section 619. See also Silvia Schein, “The Templars: The Regular Army of the Holy Land and the Spearhead of the Army of its Reconquest,” in I Templari: Mito e Storia, ed. Giovanni Minnuci and Franca Sardi (Siena, 1989), pp. 15–25. 11   La Règle du Temple, ed. Henri de Curzon (Paris, 1886), sections 163, 613–15, translated by J.M. Upton-Ward, The Rule of the Templars: The French Text of the Rule of the Order of Knights Templar (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 59, 157–58; Il Corpus normativo templare: Edizione dei testi romanzi con traduzione e commento in italiano, ed. Giovanni Amatuccio (Galatina, 2009), pp. 96–8, 342–44, sections III.115, VIII.76–77. 12   The Register of William Greenfield, Lord Archbishop of York, 1306–1315, eds William Brown and A. Hamilton Thompson, 5 vols, Surtees Society 145, 149, 151–53 (1931–40), vol. 4, p. 286, end of no. 2271. 13   See Andrew P. Roach, The Devil’s World: Heresy and Society 1100–1300 (Harlow, 2005), p. 250; John H. Arnold, Inquisition and Power: Catharism and the Confessing Subject


HeleN J. NicholsoN

of the inquisitors in the Languedoc area of southern France, has described the trial of the Templars in France as “the most famous example of the inquisitorial ability to bend truth to its needs [ … ] the medieval inquisitors had perfected techniques by which the very fabric of reality could be altered”.14 If the inquisitors were in effect altering reality, the testimonies may tell us nothing about the real Order, but they do tell us what the inquisitors expected to hear. Pope Clement V had decided that in the episcopal investigations into the Templars, each bishop should be assisted by two canons (priests) of his cathedral church, two Dominican friars and two Franciscan friars.15 He also despatched to England two papal inquisitors, Dieudonné, abbot of Lagny in the diocese of Paris, and Sicard de Vaur, papal auditor. The evidence given would have had to be satisfactory not only to the papal appointees, but also to those drawn from the locality: the canons and friars – and so probably reflected their expectations. So far as I can ascertain, none of the inquisitors who took part in the Templars’ trial in the British Isles had ever been to the East, and had no first-hand knowledge of it, so any evidence given relating to the East would conform to contemporary “general knowledge” rather than their own experience. So, what did these witnesses say? The guardian of the Franciscan house at Bury St Edmunds echoed Thomas Totty’s accusation that the Templars were unenthusiastic about fighting the Muslims, stating that the Templars always warned the sultan of Christian attacks.16 Another Franciscan friar, John of Donington, made the story more specific, telling how while “King Edward of good memory” (Edward I) was at Acre during his crusade, the sultan’s seneschal wrote to him to warn him that the sultan was coming to attack him. The king was very pleased at the warning and showed the letter to the Templar master, who then warned the sultan that the king had been warned.17 While this scenario generally fits the account by the so-called “Templar of Tyre” that Brother William was in touch with Muslim leaders and received warning from them of imminent attacks,18 it is also true that according to contemporary military practice in western Europe a warrior should warn his enemy before an attack in order to give him the opportunity of defending himself.19 However, the accusation against the Templars appears to be an in Medieval Languedoc (Philadelphia, 2001), pp. 7–15, 76–78, etc. 14   James Given, “The Inquisitors of Languedoc and the Medieval Technology of Power,” American Historical Review 94 (1989), 336–59, here 351–52. The matter is also discussed by Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 308–309. 15  Barber, Trial of the Templars, 2nd edn, pp. 122–24. I am grateful to Dale R. Streeter for drawing this point to my attention. 16   Bod. 454, fol. 92v; Wilkins, Concilia, 2:359. 17   Bod. 454, fol. 99v; Wilkins, Concilia, 2:363. 18   “Templar of Tyre,” trans. Crawford, pp. 99, 103, 104–105, sections 474, 481, 487. 19   Matthew Strickland, “Provoking or avoiding battle? Challenge, duel and single combat in warfare of the High Middle Ages,” in Armies, Chivalry and Warfare in Medieval

MYths aNd RealitY: The Crusades aNd the LatiN East


assumption that when the Muslims were forewarned of Christian attacks, someone in the Christian camp must have betrayed them. This was an ongoing assumption by westerners, perhaps based on one or two renegades in the past. Roger of Howden in the late twelfth century and Matthew Paris in the mid thirteenth recorded stories of a Templar, or Templars and Hospitallers, who had gone over to the Muslims and fought for them, or who had betrayed a Christian leader to the Muslims.20 In fact Muslim generals had efficient information networks; there is no need to assume Christian betrayal.21 In Ireland, Michelm de Bras, a layman who indicated that he had been in Cyprus, had heard that Acre and many other cities and castles were lost because of the Templars’ defectum.22 Again, in Scotland a group of young men (domicelli), including the young William Sinclair had heard from “their ancestors” that if the Templars had been faithful the Holy Land would not have been lost.23 One of their ancestors who gave evidence, however, William’s father Henry Sinclair, said that as far as he could tell the late commander of Balantrodoch (Temple in Mid Lothian) had been a pious Christian.24 Richard Berards, rector, said that he had heard from Michael of Molton, bailiff of the earl of Lancaster, that 25 years ago, during a dispute between the mayor of London, Henry Galeys, and the Templars in the lord king’s exchequer at Westminster, the mayor called the Templars “traitors to Christianity”.25 Twentyfive years before would have been around 1285, when the Europeans had already suffered severe losses in the East for which some held the Templars, as a major independent military force, as primarily responsible. Henry Galeys (or “le Walleis”, Britain and France: Proceedings of the 1995 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. Matthew Strickland, Harlaxton Medieval Studies 7 (Stamford, 1998), pp. 317–43. 20   For brief discussion see Helen Nicholson, Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights: Images of the Military Orders, 1128–1291 (Leicester, 1993), p. 84; for examples see Roger of Howden, Gesta Regis Henrici secundi: The Chronicle of the Reigns of Henry II and Richard I, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols, Rolls Series 49 (London, 1867), vol. 1, p. 341; Chronica, ed. William Stubbs, 4 vols, Rolls Series 51 (London, 1868–71), vol. 2, p. 307; Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, ed. Henry Richards Luard, 7 vols, Rolls Series 57 (London, 1872–83), vol. 3, pp. 177–79, vol. 5 p. 387. 21   After the Battle of ‘Ayn Jālūt (1260), Baybars had built up an espionage service, which was continued by his successors: Reuven Amitai, “Mamlūk Espionage among Mongols and Franks,” Asian and African Studies 22 (1988), 172–81. It is not clear how far Baybars built on Ayyūbid practices: for example, see Malcolm Cameron Lyons and D.E.P. Jackson, Saladin: The Politics of the Holy War (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 297, 299, 311–13, 325–28 for the various sorts of intelligence information received by Saladin, from rumour to formal letters sent by Saladin’s officials in various towns and regions. 22   Bod. 454, fol. 154r; Wilkins, Concilia, 2:379. 23   Bod. 454, fol. 158v; Wilkins, Concilia, 2:382. 24   Bod. 454, fol. 158r; omitted by Wilkins, Concilia, 2:382. 25   Bod. 454, fol. 94v; Wilkins, Concilia, 2:361.


HeleN J. NicholsoN

the Welshman) was mayor in 1273–74, 1281–84 and 1298–99;26 his second period in office is presumably meant. Even though it was recounted second-hand, this story is not impossible. In fact, there is a possibility that another English commentator was recording an accusation of Templar treachery in the East at about the same time. The Chronicle of Bury St Edmunds Abbey blamed “the sedition of the Templars” for a Christian defeat in 1260, but gave the date as 1270, suggesting that the account was written long after the defeat and some time after 1270.27 If the Bury St Edmunds chronicler recorded this story in the mid 1280s, this would help to account for the error in the date. The accusation that the Templars had betrayed the Christians was a recurring one, reflecting western frustration at defeats in the East and a failure to understand the military difficulties faced by the Latin Christian forces there, coupled to a sometimes exaggerated awareness of the importance of the Templars’ military and political role in the area. Such accusations went back to the aftermath of the Second Crusade.28 Another story, this time repeated by four witnesses, was that good Templars – that is, good Christians who refused to agree to the alleged evil practices in the Order – were sent to the East and deliberately slain by the Order.29 One of these four witnesses was a Carmelite friar, Robert of Maidenesford.30 The Carmelite scholar Richard Copsey has suggested to me that this may possibly be the same man as the Brother Robert of Maydenford of the Order of Carmelites who was outlawed by a jury in Towcester in 1330 for his involvement in a murder plot.31 If this were the 26   Frédérique Lachaud, “Waleys, Henry le (d. 1302),” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, eds H.C.G. Matthew and Brian Harrison, 60 vols (Oxford, 2004), 56:799–800. 27   The Chronicles of Bury St Edmunds: 1212–1301; Chronica Buriensis 1212–1301, ed. and trans. Antonia Gransden (London, 1964), pp. 46–47; L’Estoire de Eracles empereur et la Conqueste de la Terre d’Outremer, in RHC Occ, vol. 2, pp. 444–45; “Annales de Terre Sainte,” Archives de l’Orient Latin 2 (1884), 449. 28  Nicholson, Templars, Hospitallers, pp. 44–48, 81–84; John of Salisbury referred to such criticism in the wake of the Second Crusade, but stated that King Louis VII of France always strove to exonerate the Templars: John of Salisbury, Historia Pontificalis, ed. and trans. Marjorie Chibnall (London, 1956), p. 57; cited by Malcolm Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple (Cambridge, 1994), p. 69. 29   Bod. 454, fols. 95r–v, 96r, 97v, 98r; Wilkins, Concilia, 2:362 (omits the testimonies of the first three witnesses). 30   Bod. 454, fol. 95r–v (Wilkins, Concilia, p. 361, omits this testimony). Richard Copsey also pointed out to me in a personal communication that this may be Robert Maydeford (Maideford, Maydeforde, Maydenford), who was ordained as acolyte on 18 Dec 1305 in the cathedral at Winchester, as subdeacon on 26 Feb 1306 in St Cross near Winchester, and as priest on 23 Dec 1307 at Fareham parish church (Registrum Henrici Woodlock, diocesis Wintoniensis A.D. 1305–1316, ed. Arthur Worthington Goodman, Canterbury and York Society 43 (London, 1940), pp. 774, 780, 801). 31   The Eyre of Northamptonshire, 3–4 Edward III. A.D. 1329–1330, ed. Donald W. Sutherland, Selden Society (London, 1983), vol. 1, pp. 158–59. My thanks to Richard

MYths aNd RealitY: The Crusades aNd the LatiN East


same man it might cast doubt on the accuracy of his evidence against the Templars, which he said he had heard from an unnamed servant. Roger of Ware and Robert of Dofield, both Dominican friars, told similar stories of men sent overseas for offending the Order, with the intention that they should never be seen again.32 I have not been able to find any other references to these men (presuming that the notaries copied their names correctly, because a Robert of Ware and Roger of Duffield do appear elsewhere) and so it is not possible to know whether they had ever been to the East.33 As Dominican friars, they could have known colleagues who had been to the East; but as neither named a source for their story, they could equally well have been adapting a popular tale to their needs. Both friars said that these good men who offended the Templars were given a letter to the commander in the East instructing that the bearer of this letter should be killed and one then said that the man in question found a clerk to read the letter to him and so learnt of the fate in store for him and escaped.34 This was a recurring plot in medieval stories, appearing in the thirteenth-century romance Silence,35 the fourteenth-century epic Florent et Octavien,36 and later in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. John of Bercia, a Franciscan friar in London, said: q[uo]d novit quemdam milite[m] vocatu[m] Walt[er]um Salvagg’ de familia quondam Comitis Warennie avi istius q[ui] nu[n]c est, qui ingressus ordinem Templar[iorum] fuit alienatus + ita s[u]blatus infra duos annos q[uo]d n[e]c Comes, licet requireret, n[e]c alij amici potuerent scire quid f[ac]t[u]m erat de eo.37 (He knew a certain knight called Walter le Sauvage of the household of the late Earl Warenne [John de Warenne who died 1304] who having entered the Order of the Templars was banished and carried away so far within two years that neither the Earl, although he inquired, nor his other friends could find what had been done with him.)

Copsey for this reference. 32   Bod. 454, fols 96r, 97v (Wilkins, Concilia, p. 362, omits these testimonies). 33  A Brother Robert of Ware of the Friars Minor entered the Grey Friars at Oxford between 1265 and 1268. One work by him survives, “Twenty-five discourses on the Virgin Mary,” which is dedicated to his brother John and includes a short autobiographical account (A.G. Little, The Grey Friars in Oxford (Oxford, 1892), pp. 211–12); but unless the copyist of Bod. 454 made a mistake in recording his Order, this cannot be the same man. A Roger of Duffield, Friar Preacher, was King Edward II’s confessor in 1321: G.R. Galbraith, The Constitutions of the Dominican Order, 1216 to 1360 (Manchester, 1925), p. 128 n. 6. 34   Bod. 454, fols. 95r–v, 97r. 35   Silence, ed. Sarah Roche-Mahdi (East Lansing, MI, 1992), lines 4315–873. 36   Florent et Octavien: chanson de geste du XIVe siècle, ed. Noëlle Laborderie, vol. 1 (Paris, 1991), lines 7174–78. 37   Bod. 454, fol. 98r; Wilkins, Concilia, 2:362.


HeleN J. NicholsoN

The fact that four witnesses agreed that the Templars sent brothers overseas so that they would be killed indicates that the inquisitors were happy to hear this story repeated and suggests that they did not think it was unlikely. The concept of being sent to the East as punishment derived from the old custom in the West of sending criminals and sinners on pilgrimage to Jerusalem as punishment or penance. After the establishment of the Templars some warriors in the West who were guilty of great crimes were sent to join the Templars as punishment.38 But these brothers were not deliberately killed by the Order; they died in battle against the Muslims. Yet it is not difficult to understand why people in the West would be willing to accept that the Templars had deliberately used this as a method of disposing of troublesome brothers. Obviously the Templars had urgently needed pious and skilful warriors in the East, and would probably have sent them overseas straight away when they joined the Order; those who were less able fighters or who were not warriors would be retained in the West to run the Order’s estates. However, the series of disasters suffered by the Latin Christians in the East over the last few decades meant that those who went East were likely to die there. The Order’s military force had been destroyed at Acre in 1291, and again on the island of Ruad (Arwad) in 1302. One of the outside witnesses in Britain remarked that a Templar, Walter of Skappe, whom he had seen received at Flaxfleet in Yorkshire, had been sent to Cyprus and died there.39 It is not clear how efficient the Order was at informing relatives when brothers were lost. After a defeat it would not always have been known whether brothers had been killed or captured, as the Order would have been driven from the battlefield and would not be able to return to retrieve the bodies of the slain. The fact that Templars were discovered alive and prisoner in the East long after the dissolution of the Order in the West (Malcolm Barber’s book on the Order opens with one such episode) indicates that the Order did not always know what had become of its lost members.40 It is possible that sometimes families in the West never discovered exactly what had become of their relations who had joined the Order and gone to the East. The complaint that good brothers were sent out to the East to die may well reflect the heavy losses that the Order suffered in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries – but it was a distorted reflection. None of these non-Templar witnesses had actually been in the East; they were only repeating what others had said. Three lay witnesses in Ireland had been on Cyprus in the past and had more detailed information about the Templars there than the English friars, although they had little to say about the war against the Muslims. One Thomas of Broughton, who had been a servant of the Templars on Cyprus, had heard about harsh punishments – Templars who broke the Rule were put into a sack and drowned in the sea, he said – and told a story of one Templar’s escape to   Examples in Helen J. Nicholson, Love, War and the Grail: Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights in Medieval Epic and Romance, 1150–1500 (Leiden, 2001), pp. 35–36. 39   Bod. 454, fol. 97r; Wilkins, Concilia, omits. 40  Barber, New Knighthood, p. 1. 38

MYths aNd RealitY: The Crusades aNd the LatiN East


the Hospitallers, but apparently he did not know what these brothers had done to be killed or locked up.41 Robert of Hereford had been on Cyprus, where (he said) he had heard it said that the Templars were irreligious, “male fidei”.42 Michelm of Bras, who has been mentioned earlier, had detailed knowledge of the Templars’ money-lending activities on Cyprus, but did not mention the military campaigns which had made it necessary for the Cypriot nobility to borrow from them.43 A final witness who had direct knowledge of the East was Brother Hugh of Doncelee of the Order of St Thomas of Acre, whom I have not been able to trace elsewhere.44 It is not clear when or why Hugh had come to England. He said that he had been commander of a certain house in Cyprus which is called the house of St Thomas of Acre, otherwise Stavros45 – probably near the famous Cypriot holy site at Stavrovouni.46 He had heard that an Englishman named Stephen had been servant to a Templar on Cyprus who was called Solomon,47 but because the Templar   Bod. 454, fol. 153v; Wilkins, Concilia, 2:379.   Bod. 454, fols. 153v–154r; Wilkins, Concilia, 2:379. 43   Bod. 454, fol. 154v; Wilkins, Concilia, 2:379. 44   It has not been possible to identify this person with any known commander of the Order of St Thomas of Acre on Cyprus. A Ranulph of Doumbe, master of the Order of St Thomas of Acre, appears in a document published by L. de Mas Latrie in his Histoire de Chypre, vol. 2 (Paris, 1852), pp. 81–82, and dated to the 1270s. “Doumbe” could possibly be a scribal variant on “Doncelee”, but Alan Forey, in his “The Military Order of St Thomas of Acre,” English Historical Review 92 (1977), 481–503, argued that this was a reference to Ralph of Coumbe, mentioned in the English government records in the 1320s, and that it was misdated by Mas Latrie: p. 498 and note 3. It seems unlikely that “Doncelee” is a scribal error for “Coumbe”. I am very grateful to Peter Edbury and to Pierre-Vincent Claverie for their advice and help in attempting to identify Hugh. 45   Staryng’ in Bod. 454, fol. 95r; Wilkins, Concilia, 2:361. 46   The place is mentioned by an English itinerary of around 1345, which described a journey across Cyprus. Setting out from Limassol, “Inde per multa casalia ivimus ad locum pulcherimum, ubi manet Magister Hospitalis sancti Thome Cantuariensis de Acon, usque pervenerimus ad montem habentum in ascensu duo miliaria: in crepidine cuius sunt Religiosi ut nigri monachi, et in ecclesia eorum stat crux boni Latronis, quam Elena Regina detulit de Jherosolimis et in eodem monte reposuit” (P. Girolamo Golubovich, Biblioteca Bio-Bibliografica della Terra Santa e dell’oriente Francescano, vol. 4 (Florence, 1923), p. 446 and note 9). The very high mountain with the relic of the cross found by St Helena is Stavrovouni (9 km from the Nicosia–Limassol road and 40 km from Larnaca); at this time the ancient Greek monastery on the summit had been taken over by Benedictine monks (Nicholas Coureas, The Latin Church in Cyprus, 1195–1312 (Aldershot, 1997), pp. 81, 198, 246, 255; see also on the Order of St Thomas of Acre pp. 178–80). This itinerary indicates that the Cypriot house of the Hospital of St Thomas of Acre was near Stavrovouni. I am very grateful to Alan Forey and Peter Edbury for their help in identifying this site. 47   See entries for “Soliman” in André Moisan, Répertoire des noms propres de personnes et de lieux cités dans les chansons de geste françaises et les oeuvres étrangères dérivées, 5 vols (Geneva and Paris, 1986), 1.2:897–98; although the variant “Salemon” could be either Christian or Muslim: ibid., pp. 866–7; and of course the full title of the Order of the 41 42


HeleN J. NicholsoN

wished to commit sodomy with him, he left his service. Neither individual can be further identified, and Stephen never came forward to give evidence. Hugh was asked whether he spoke out of hatred or enmity against the Templars. He replied that he did not, but said that the Templars had inflicted many injuries and damages on the Order of St Thomas of Acre and on other orders. During the last years of the reign of King Henry III of England and the reign of his son King Edward I there were moves to amalgamate the Order of St Thomas of Acre with the Templars, but the English kings objected to these and halted the merger.48 Perhaps Hugh felt that he needed to distance his Order as far as possible from the disgraced Templars. Interestingly, the Hospitallers in the British Isles did not speak out against the Templars, and neither did the Order of St Lazarus. The Templar trial proceedings in the British Isles indicate that there was general interest in the East, although there was little precise knowledge or understanding of the military situation there. The Templars had played an important role there, certainly, but few details were known. What was known was that many warriors had died, and the evidence given suggests that the families of those who had died were angry and resentful against the Order for having failed to protect its own members. There was also resentment that the Templars, of whom so much was expected, had failed to hold back Muslim advance into the Latin Christian territories in the Middle East. But although several witnesses referred to the Templars’ activities in the East, only four of them – a former servant of the Templars, two laymen and a commander of the Order of St Thomas of Acre – had actually been there. With a lack of first-hand experience to call upon, witnesses fell back on the old, recurring accusations of Templar treachery which had been in circulation since at least the 1150s. These clearly fitted the inquisitors’ expectations, as they were recorded in the three successive versions of the trial proceedings.49 Perhaps most people in the British Isles who had first-hand knowledge of the East did not wish to give evidence against the Templars, because they thought well of them. Certainly the Hospitallers did not give evidence, and no one claiming to be a former crusader spoke against them. Yet clearly witnesses had some interest in the East, and a few witnesses against the Templars did go to the East later in their lifetimes. William Sinclair, who blamed the Templars for the loss of the Holy

Temple was “the Order of the Knights of Christ of the Temple of Solomon”. For Solomon de Whytesand, see: Calendar of the Patent Rolls, Edward I, 1292–1301 (London, 1895), p. 20. 48   See Forey, “Military Order of St Thomas” for the past relations between the Templars and the Order of St Thomas, especially p. 494. 49   Bod. 454, fol. 92v; Wilkins, Concilia, 2:359; summarised in Vatican, Archivo Segreto Vaticano, Armarium XXXV, 147, fol. 4r (printed in Der Untergang des Templer-Ordens, ed. Konrad Schottmüller, 2 vols (Berlin, 1887), 2:84); further summarised in London, British Library Additional MS 5444, fol. 181v (printed in Annales Londonienses, in: Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II, ed. William Stubbs, Rolls Series 76, 2 vols (London, 1882), 1:187).

MYths aNd RealitY: The Crusades aNd the LatiN East


Land,50 would die in 1330 on crusade in Spain with James Douglas, while taking King Robert I of Scotland’s heart to Jerusalem. The Irish Franciscan friar Hugh le Luminour, who stated that all the Templars were guilty,51 in 1323–24 accompanied his fellow Franciscan friar Symon Simeonis on a journey to the Holy Land, and died on the way.52 In criticising the Templars’ failings, perhaps they were expressing their own interest in the Holy Land and their concern over its future.

  Bod. 454 fol. 158v; Wilkins, Concilia, p. 382.   Bod. 454, fol. 151r; Wilkins, Concilia, 2:378. 52   See Marios Costambeys, “Symon Simeonis (fl. 1322–1324),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 53:589; Itinerarium Symonis Semeonis ab Hybernia ad Terram Sanctam, ed. Mario Esposito, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 4 (Dublin, 1960), pp. 24–25, 92– 97. 50 51

This page has been left blank intentionally

8 La réforme de l’Hôpital par Jean XXII: Le démembrement des prieurés de Saint-Gilles et de France (21 juillet 1317) *

Jean-Marc Roger

Le 21 juillet 1317, le pape Jean XXII expédia sous l’incipit Dum attenta meditatione tout un train de 25 bulles,1 par lesquelles il nomma 25 prieurs et commandeurs capitulaires de l’ordre de l’Hôpital. L’objet de cette communication est de présenter brièvement ces 25 bulles en mettant l’accent sur les principales mesures à long terme prises par Jean XXII: l’érection des prieurés de Provence et de Toulouse, d’Aquitaine et de Champagne par démembrement des prieurés de Saint-Gilles et de France. I. La crise de 1317–1319 Clément V mourut à Roquemaure le 20 avril 1314.2 Le 7 août 1316, après plus de deux longues années de vacance, fut élu son successeur, Jacques Duèse, originaire de Cahors,3 évêque d’Avignon. En dépit de son âge lors de son élection – 72 ans – il fut pape, sous le nom de Jean XXII, pendant plus de 18 ans, jusqu’à sa mort, le 4 *   Je remercie vivement Helen Nicholson pour l’attention qu’elle a portée à cet article, et son mari, Nigel Nicholson, d’avoir pris la peine de dessiner les cartes qui l’accompagnent. 1   Guillaume Mollat, Lettres communes du pape Jean XXII (1316–1334), 15 vols, Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 3e série. Lettres communes des Papes d’Avignon (Paris, 1901–39), nos. 4450–4472. Il y 25 bulles: Mollat, ibid., nos. 4464 et 4465, en a réuni plusieurs sous le même no. 2   Sur ses relations avec l’Hôpital, Sophia Menache, “The Hospitallers during Clement V’s Pontificate: The Spoiled Sons of the Papacy ?,” in MO, 2, pp. 153–62; Anthony Luttrell, “The Hospitallers and the Papacy, 1305–1314,” Forschungen zur Reichs-, Papst- und Landesgeschichte. Peter Herde zum 65. Geburtstage von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen dargebracht, éd. Karl Borchardt et Enno Bünz, 2 vols (Stuttgart, 1998), 2:595–622; reproduit dans Luttrell, Studies on the Hospitallers after 1306. Rhodes of the West, Aldershot, 2007, article V et Addenda et corrigenda, pp. 3–607, lire Prior of Saint-Gilles (f. Dragonet de Montdragon) au lieu de Prior of Provence. 3   Le 20 novembre 1320, l’Hôpital céda à Jean XXII, moyennant 2,000 florins, les biens du Temple dans la ville et au “détroit” de Cahors (Mollat, no. 14347).



Jean-Marc ROger

décembre 1334, à Avignon.4 Dans ses bulles Dum attenta meditatione du 21 juillet 1317, Jean XXII déclara porter affection et bienveillance particulières à l’ordre de l’Hôpital, insigne et noble (ordo tam insignis et nobilis, quem inter ceteros ordines in agro plantatos Eccelesie brachiis precipue dilectionis amplectimus et speciali benivolentia confovemus); il le montra par ses actes.5 Pendant sa longue histoire, l’ordre de l’Hôpital subit bien des crises. En 1317, il en traversa une particulièrement grave, qui menaça sa survie même. Elle fut réglée par Jean XXII à Avignon, à quelques centaines de mètres du lieu de ce colloque. La Chronique des maîtres de l’Hôpital en fait ainsi le récit:6 Aprés fut me Foulques de Villaret. Cestui fut homme de grant puissance. Avint que a la fin, par son grant couraige, fut mal volu de son couvent, et tant que les freres le cuiderent tuer a Rodigny une nuit en son lit, mais ung sien chambellan le sauva en la maniere qui s’ensuit: il s’en fuy au chastel de Linde, qui est en l’isle de Rodes, et en ceste place fut assiegés par le couvent. Et, le me estant en celui chastel, le couvent feïst autre me. Aprés peu de temps, pape Jehan xxii manda querre les deux mes pour venir en Avignon devant soy et, entenduez les partiez, il desposa le me fait par le couvent et releva frere Foulque a me. Aprés en celle annee le pape, par le conseil des cardinalz et les prudommes de la Religion, desposa arrieres frere Foulque et firent autre me. Cestui frere Foulque feïst assez de bien car il getta le couvent de Chippre et prist l’isle de Rodez et l’isle du Lango, et plusieurs autres isles d’environ, et tenoit moult de chasteaulx en Turquie, qu’il avoit conquis par sa prouesse. Et retourna en son temps les biens du Temple a l’Ospital et feïst d’autres grans biens assez, et feïst assez de bons et prouffitables establissemens. Et aprés morut povrement et fut enseveliz a Montpellier au Temple, et trespassa au chastel de Terramont. Aprés fut me Maurice de Pennat. Cestui fut cellui qui fut fait par le couvent quant frere Foulque fut desposé. Lequel usa petit en son magistere. Aprés fut me Elyon de Villeneufve. Cestui fut fait par le pape avec le conseil des prudommes de la maison. Et il fut moult prudomme et de grant vertu, et feïst assez de biens a sa Religion et l’acquitta par sa bonne discrection de grans debtez,   Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques (DHGE), éd. Alfred Baudrillart, Albert De Meyer et Roger Aubert (Paris, 1912–), fasc. 154, t. 26, cols. 1168–71 (R. Aubert). 5   Il conclut le 18 juin 1317 une convention avec les Bardi et les Peruzzi pour le transfert en Avignon des fonds apostoliques perçus en Orient (Mollat, no. 5507; Yves Renouard, Les relations des papes d’Avignon et des compagnies commerciales et bancaires de 1316 à 1378, Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 151 (Paris, 1941), p. 163). 6   Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 1079, fol. 187 r–v. Des versions en provençal ont été publiées par Marie Rose Bonnet et Ricardo Cierbide, Estatutos de la orden de San Juan de Jerusalén. Edición crítica de los manuscritos occitanos (s. xiv). Les statuts de l’ordre de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem. Édition critique des manuscrits en langue d’oc (xive siècle) (Bilbao, 2006), pp. 286–87, 299–300, 305–306. 4

La réfOrme de l’HÔpital par Jean XXII


et la mist en grant estament: plus que jamais la maison non fut trouvee quitte et plaine de tous biens comme a sa mort trouvé. Et en son temps fut reprise l’isle du Lango et la cité de Lismierre. Et fist moult de bons et proffitables establissemens, et vesqui longuement me de la Religion.

Il suffira de résumer l’histoire de cette crise.7 F. Foulques de Villaret, maître de l’Hôpital de 1305 à 1319, restera dans l’histoire pour avoir conquis l’île de Rhodes.8 Mais, de multiples façons, entre autres par sa hauteur, sa prodigalité, il s’aliéna le couvent de Rhodes, qui entra en lutte ouverte contre lui. Les rebelles, voulant l’assassiner, le surprirent en sa villégiature d’été de Rodini (Ροδίνη); il réussit à leur échapper, se réfugia au château de Lindos, où il fut assiégé par le couvent de Rhodes, qui le déposa, nomma à ses lieu et place le drapier, f. Maurice de Pagnac.9 Le 8 juillet, le nouveau maître et le couvent envoyèrent chacun une lettre à Jean XXII10 pour l’informer des événements, en chargeant f. Géraud de Pins de donner de vive voix toutes précisions utiles. F. Géraud de Pins apporta les lettres

7   Joseph Delaville Le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers à Rhodes jusqu’à la mort de Philibert de Naillac (1310–1421) (Paris, 1913) (désormais Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes), pp. 11–27; Anthony Luttrell, “Notes sur Foulques de Villaret, maître de l’Hôpital (1305–1319),” Des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, de Chypre et de Rhodes hier aux chevaliers de Malte aujourd’hui. Guillaume de Villaret, 1er recteur du Comtat Venaissin 1274 grand maître de l’ordre des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem Chypre 1296 (Paris, 1985), pp. 73–90; reproduit dans Luttrell, The Hospitallers of Rhodes and their Mediterranean World (Aldershot, 1992), article IV. 8   La chronologie de la conquête de l’île de Rhodes est difficile à établir. Celle proposée – non sans hésitations et réserves – par Joseph Delaville Le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers en Terre sainte et à Chypre (1100–1310) (Paris, 1904) (désormais Delaville Le Roulx, Terre sainte), p. 273–281, est précisée par Édouard Baratier, Histoire du commerce de Marseille, t. 2, (Paris, 1951), pp. 213–15; Anthony Luttrell, “The Greeks of Rhodes under Hospitaller rule: 1306–1421,” dans Rivista di Studi bizantini e neoellenici, n. s. 29 (1992), p. 193– 223; reproduit dans Luttrell, The Hospitaller State on Rhodes and its Western Provinces 1306–1462 (Aldershot, 1999), article III (et Addenda et corrigenda, p. 2), p. 194; Albert Failler, “L’occupation de Rhodes par les Hospitaliers,” Revue des études byzantines 50 (1992), 113–35, et Failler, “Pachymeriana alia,” Revue des études byzantines 51 (1993), 237–60; Anthony Luttrell, The Town of Rhodes: 1306–1356 (Rhodes, 2003), pp. 75–77. Voir aussi John Barker, “Byzantium and the Hospitallers, 1306–1421,” dans Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo franco-greco (xiii–xv secolo. Atti del Colloquio internazionale organizzato nel centenario della nascita di Raymond-Joseph Loenertz o. p. (Venezia, 1–2 dicembre 2000) (Venise, 2002), pp. 41–63 (pp. 43–46). 9   Francesco Amadi, Chronique, éd. René de Mas-Latrie dans Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, vol. 1 (Paris, 1891), p. 398; Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, p. 12. 10  Archivio Segreto Vaticano (hereafter cited as ASV), “Instrumenta miscellanea,” 616, éd. Sigmund Riezler, Vatikanische Akten zur Deutschen Geschichte in der Zeit Kaiser Ludwigs des Bayern (Innsbruck, 1891), nos 69, pp. 51–52, et 70, pp. 52–54.


Jean-Marc ROger

à Jean XXII sans doute à la mi-septembre.11 Mais f. Foulques de Villaret avait appelé au Saint-Siège de sa déposition, et le couvent n’avait pas tenu compte de cet appel. Jean XXII prit nettement parti contre les rebelles. Le 18 septembre,12 par quatre bulles, expédiees sous l’incipit Audivimus noviter, Jean XXII manda auprès de lui f. Foulques de Villaret,13 Maurice de Pagnac14 et quatre autres dignitaires de l’Hôpital;15 confia l’administration provisoire de l’Ordre jusqu’au règlement du conflit à f. Géraud de Pins, avec le titre de vicaire de par le Saint-Siège;16 envoya deux légats en l’île de Rhodes.17 Sans exonérer f. Foulques de Villaret de toute responsabilité dans ce schisme, qu’il avait “provoqué” par nombre de ses actes, Jean XXII blâma sans ambiguïté les rebelles:18 11   Au plus tard le 18 septembre. Le trajet entre Rhodes et Avignon pouvait donc se faire en 2 mois et 10 jours. Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, p. 127, a évalué la durée de ce trajet à 3 mois, mais la nef de l’Hôpital, Montjoie, partie en septembre 1307 du port d’Endoume, près de Marseille, arriva 30 jours plus tard en la baie de Lindos (Baratier, Histoire du commerce de Marseille, 2:213). 12   Jean XXII (1316-1334). Lettres communes. Tome deuxième, deuxième et troisième années: analysées d’après les registres dits d’Avignon et du Vatican, éd. Guillaume et G. de Lesquen, Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 3e série 1 bis, 2 (Paris, 1905) (désormais Mollat et Lesquen), nos 5579–5582; Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, pp. 14–15. Le 20 septembre, Jean XXII expédia, sous le même incipit Audivimus noviter, trois nouvelles bulles (Mollat et Lesquen, nos. 5592–5594; Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, p. 15); elles sont analogues à celles du 18 septembre. 13   Sebastiano Pauli, Codice diplomatico del sacro militare ordine Gerosolimitano oggi de Malta, t. 2 (Lucques, 1737), no. xliii, pp. 62–63; Mollat et Lesquen, no. 5579. 14  Pauli, Codice diplomatico, t. 2, no. xliiii, pp. 63–64; Mollat et Lesquen, no. 5582. 15   Mollat et Lesquen, no. 5580, ne les nomme pas: f. Simon de Ciraxeri, prieur de l’église conventuelle Saint-Jean de Rhodes, Fernán Rodríguez de Valbuena, grand commandeur et prieur de Castille, Bérenger de Orosio, maréchal, et Frédéric (Federigo) Malaspina, hospitalier. Sur Fernán Rodríguez de Valbuena, voir Philippe Josserand, “Fernán Rodríguez de Valbuena, prieur de l’Hôpital en Castille au début du xive siècle,” As relacões de fronteira no século de Alcanices. IV Jornadas luso-espanholas de historia medieval (Porto, 1997) (Porto, 1998), 2:1313–44, et Église et pouvoir dans la Péninsule ibérique. Les ordres militaires dans le royaume de Castille (1252–1369), Bibliothèque de la Casa de Velásquez 31 (Madrid, 2004), p. 888 (index). Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, p. 15, n. 2, appelle le maréchal f. Bérenger “Crosier,” mais il s’agit sans doute de f. Bérenger de Oros, qui fut en 1341 prieur de Barletta et visiteur en Espagne (ibid., pp. 120 et 434). 16  Pauli, Codice diplomatico, t. 2, no. xlv, pp. 64–65; Mollat et Lesquen, no. 5582. 17   Bernard de Moresio, docteur en décrets, prieur de Saint-Caprasy (Aveyron, arr. de Millau, con de Saint-Affrique, cne de Saint-Félix-de-Sorgues), ordre de Saint-Benoît, au diocèse de Rodez, et Bozzolo de Parme, chanoine de Tournai, chapelain du pape (Mollat et Lesquen, no. 5581). Le 29 septembre 1317, sous l’incipit Dolenter audivimus, Jean XXII expédia de nouvelles commissions à ses deux légats en l’île de Rhodes et à f. Géraud de Pins (ibid., nos 5655 et 5656). 18   Le texte transcrit ici est celui de la commission aux deux légats du 18 septembre 1317 (1317 (ASV, Registro vaticano (hereafter cited as Reg. Vat.) 67, ep. xvi, fol. 6r–v; Mollat et Lesquen, no. 5581).

La réfOrme de l’HÔpital par Jean XXII


Audivimus noviter, et non sine cordis molestia recensemus, quod dilecti filii … conventus ordinis Hospitalis Sancti Johannis Jerosolimitani contra dilectum filium, fratrem Fulconem de Villareto, Hospitalis prefati magistrum, ex nonnullis suis forsitan actibus provocati, nedum ab ejus se prorsus obedientia subduxerunt, quin etiam, ipsum quasi hostiliter prosequentes, ad locum de Rodani [sic], ubi tunc erat, armatorum coadunata cohorte de nocte venerunt, ipsum de persona capere et forsan offendere molientes, et, cum magister ipse, presentiens eorum adventum, confugisset ab inde ad castrum (de) Lindi, instantis causa vitandi periculi, ipsi, eum usque illuc furibundis ausibus insequentes, castrum ipsum fortiter obsederunt, ubi ad huc tenetur obsessus; deinde vero, cum magistrum ipsum ad Rodum, ubi conventus residet, solenniter evocassent, idem magister, propter conatus preteritos futuram probabiliter suspicatus offensam, illuc accedere timuit, et, ne in eum aliquid indebite novitatis attemptare presumerent, ad Sedem apostolicam appellationem emisit. Porro, conventus ipse, in Rodo pariter congregatus, appellationi predicte non deferens, dicto magistro deposito, dilectum filium, fratrem Mauricium de Pagnaco, in suum et Hospitalis prefati magistrum elegit.

Le 22 septembre, devant l’extrême détresse financière du couvent de Rhodes, Jean XXII autorisa f. Géraud de Pins à emprunter jusqu’à 15,000 florins.19 Le 1er octobre 1317,20 il envoya aussi à Rhodes un des dignitaires de l’Ordre les plus en vue, f. Pierre d’Ongle,21 qu’il qualifie encore de chancelier de  Bulle Licet in apostolicis (Pauli, Codice diplomatico, t. 2, no. xlvi, p. 65–66; Mollat et Lesquen, no. 5601). Voir aussi ibid., n° 5685, du 1er octobre 1317 (pénurie du couvent de Rhodes). 20   Cette bulle, Quia de dilecto (Pauli, Codice diplomatico, t. 2, n° xlii, p. 61), est bien du 1er octobre, et non du 10 (Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, p. 15). 21   Appelé en général “Pierre de l’Ongle” (Anthony Luttrell, “Notes on the Chancery of the Hospitallers of Rhodes: 1314–1332,” Byzantion 40 (1970), 408–20; reproduit dans The Hospitallers in Cyprus, Rhodes, Greece and the West 1291–1440 (Londres, 1978), article XV). Mais, d’après Jean Raybaud, Histoire des grands prieurs et du prieuré de SaintGilles, éd. César Nicolas, 3 vols (Nîmes, 1904–1905) [désormais Raybaud, Saint-Gilles], t. 1 (1904), p. 282, il était issu des seigneurs d’Ongles (Alpes de Haute-Provence, arr. de Forcalquier, con de Saint-Étienne-les-Orgues). De fait, “ fraire Pons d’Ongla, comandaires de Rocilhon ” [Roussillon, Vaucluse, arr. d’Apt, con de Gordes] est mentionné dans une charte en provençal du 15 décembre 1292 (Marie-Zéphirin Isnard, Livre des privilèges de Manosque. Cartulaire municipal latin-provençal (1169–1315) (Digne et Paris, 1894), no. xxxiii, p. 87). Commandeur de Narbonne [Aude, chef-lieu d’arr.] les 22 mai 1273 et 5 septembre 1274 (Cart Hosp, t. 3 (1899), nos. 3508, p. 291, et 3546, p. 310), f. Pons d’Ongle, sans doute oncle de f. Pierre, acquit par échange le 11 juillet 1273, au Puy, comme procureur ad hoc de f. Hugues Revel, maître de l’Hôpital, le prieuré de Notre-Dame des Échelles (ibid., nos. 3512, pp. 293–96, et 3519, pp. 300–301); commandeur de Saint-Pierre-Avez [Hautes-Alpes, arr. de Gap, con de Bibiers] le 24 juillet 1283 (ibid., no. 3839, p. 448), il était commandeur de Roussillon les 15 décembre 1292 et 4 octobre 1293 (ibid., nos 4204, p. 614, et 4233, p. 637). 19


Jean-Marc ROger

l’Hôpital.22 F. Foulques de Villaret arriva probablement en Avignon dans les premiers jours d’août 1318.23 Il y tint le 2 novembre 131824 une assemblée de l’Ordre, où assistaient, entre autres, f. Léonard de Tibertis, prieur de Venise, Bermond Maury, prieur de Saint-Gilles, Pierre d’Ongle, prieur de Toulouse, Bertrand de Malbosc, prieur de Barletta, Dominique “d’Acon” [d’Acre], bailli du commerce de Rhodes. Jean XXII cassa l’élection de f. Maurice de Pagnac, en lui accordant à titre de dédommagement, le 1er mars 1319, la commanderie d’Arménie et moitié de la grande commanderie de Chypre, à charge pour lui de payer à l’Hôpital 30,000 besants de responsion pour cette moitié.25 Jean XXII rétablit comme maître de l’Hôpital f. Foulques de Villaret, qui fit expédier en cette qualité une charte à Arles, le 12 avril 1319.26 Cette restauration ne pouvant rétablir la concorde au sein de l’Hôpital, Jean XXII convainquit f. Foulques de Villaret de résigner le magistère entre ses mains. Ce fut fait au plus tard le 29 juin 1319, jour où Jean XXII lui conféra le prieuré de Capoue.27 Il mourut le 1er septembre 1327, et fut enterré à Montpellier, en l’église Saint-Jean.28 Ainsi, f. Foulques de Villaret comme le couvent de Rhodes s’en remirent à Jean XXII, qui arbitra entre les parties. II. Les Hospitaliers en Avignon (juin-juillet 1317) La charte du 21 juin 1317 Le 21 juin 1317,29 l’Hôpital donna à l’Église tout ce que le Temple avait possédé au Comtat-Venaissin.30 Pour l’Hôpital stipulaient au premier chef f. Pierre d’Ongle, chancelier de l’Hôpital et prieur de Saint-Gilles, et Léonard de Tibertis, prieur


  Bien qu’il l’eût nommé prieur de Toulouse le 21 juillet 1317.   Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, p. 16. 24  Raybaud, Saint-Gilles, 1:260. 25   Mollat et Lesquen, no. 9023 (cf. ibid., no. 9953, du 13 août 1319); Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, p. 17. 26   Valetta, National Library of Malta, Archives of the Order of St John of Jerusalem (désormais NLM), Arch. 16, no. 10; Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, p. 17. 27  Bulle Dum ad personam tuam (Pauli, Codice diplomatico, t. 2, no. liv, p. 72; Mollat, nos. 9609 et 10264; Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, p. 18). 28   Ibid., p. 18. 29   Éd. Claude Faure, Étude sur l’administration et l’histoire du Comtat-Venaissin du xiiie au xve siècle (1229–1417) (Paris et Avignon, 1909), p. j. iv, p. 204–207. 30   Sur cette cession, voir aussi Damien Carraz, L’ordre du Temple dans la basse vallée du Rhône (1124–1312). Ordres militaires, croisades et sociétés méridionales (Lyon, 2005), pp. 536–37. 23

La réfOrme de l’HÔpital par Jean XXII


de Venise et visiteur de France.31 Ce dernier était un des principaux dirigeants de l’Hôpital: déjà prieur de Venise, il avait assisté f. Albert de Schwarzbourg32 dans les délicates négociations pour la dévolution des biens du Temple; le 3 novembre 1314,33 le maître Foulques de Villaret l’avait nommé remplaçant de f. Albert de Schwarzbourg. La charte précise qu’ils agissaient par l’autorité de f. Foulques de Villaret, maître, et du couvent de l’Hôpital, autorité que Jean XXII leur avait déniée puis restituée (auctoritate religiosorum virorum fratris Fulconis de Villareto, magistri, et conventus ejusdem Hospitalis, eis per dictum dominum papam ex certa causa fuerat interdicta): cette mise en cause par Jean XXII de l’autorité de f. Pierre d’Ongle et Léonard de Tibertis est un indice de sa suspicion envers l’Hôpital. Cette charte du 21 juin 1317 atteste la présence, pour l’Hôpital, de 54 frères:34 outre f. Pierre d’Ongle et Léonard de Tibertis, 18 commandeurs du prieuré de Saint-Gilles – f. Bertran d’Orange, commandeur d’Orange,35 Barral des Baux, commandeur de Gap, Hugues Eustache, commandeur d’Aix,36 Guillaume Pincard, commandeur de Marseille, Raymond d’Aulps, commandeur du Temple d’Orange, Raymond de Mereliis, commandeur d’Arles,37 Artaud de Chavanon, commandeur de Cahors ou plutôt de Quercy,38 Aycard de Miromonte, commandeur de Périgord, Foulques de Chaudeyrac,39 commandeur d’Albi, Pierre de Podeniaco, commandeur

  Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes (index, p. 448). Le 16 juin 1316 (Arch. dép. Meurthe et Moselle, B 670, n° 4), en tête d’une charte du chapitre provincial du prieuré de France, il s’intitulait “freres Leonars de Tybertes, de la saincte maison de l’Ospital Saint Jehan de Jerusalem, de reverent pere en Deu, nostre seignour frere Forque de Villeret, maistre de la dite sainte maison, leutenant en la prioré de Venise et visitours generaux en totes les parties deça les mons”. 32   Petit-fils de Günther VII et fils de Günther IX, comtes de Schwarzbourg (Stammtafeln zur Geschichte der Europäischen Staaten, 2e édn, t. 1, éd. Frank Baron Freytag von Loringhoven (Marbourg, 1965), table 65). Sur lui, voir Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes (index, p. 445), Luttrell, The Town of Rhodes (index, p. 303) et ci-dessous, p. 112. 33   NLM, Arch. 16, no. 11 (Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, p. 33, n. 5). 34   Leur liste a été publiée par Raybaud, Saint-Gilles, 1:252–54, mais des noms y sont omis et les fautes de lecture nombreuses. – Les commanderies dont beaucoup étaient investis étaient presque toutes de l’Hôpital ancien: c’étaient des hommes d’expérience, faits commandeurs avant la dévolution, récente, des biens du Temple. 35   Vaucluse, arr. d’Avignon, chef-lieu de deux cantons. 36   Auj. Aix-en-Provence, Bouches-du-Rhône, chef-lieu d’arr. 37   Bouches-du-Rhône, chef-lieu d’arr. 38   D’après Raybaud, Saint-Gilles, 1:256, il succéda à f. Bermond Maury comme commandeur d’Espédaillac [Lot, arr. de Figeac, con de Livernon], appelé par la suite Durbans [Lot, mêmes arr. et con] et de la Tronquière [auj. Latronquière, Lot, arr. de Figeac, chef-lieu de con], “ou autrement de Quercy”. 39   D’après Raybaud, Saint-Gilles, 1:249–50, le 5 janvier 1316 (n. st.), f. Pierre de Chaudeyrac, lieutenant de maître au prieuré de Navarre, fit son frère, f. Fouques de Chaudeyrac, commandeur d’Albi, son lieutenant en la commanderie de Sainte-Eulalie. 31


Jean-Marc ROger

du Temple d’Agen, Élyon de Villeneuve, commandeur de Manosque,40 Hugues Cornut, commandeur des Omergues,41 et Guillaume de Reillanne, commandeur de Saint-Pierre-Avez,42 Raybaud de Bonzono, commandeur de Montélimar,43 Pierre de Chaudeyrac, “commandeur de Navarre”,44 Guy de Belcastel, commandeur de Trignan,45 Bernard Robaud, commandeur du Temple de Montpellier, Guillaume de Ortimo, commandeur d’Andrivaux46 – , et 34 autres frères de l’Hôpital: f. Raymond d’Olargues, socius du maître, f. Foulques de Villaret,47 Guérin de Châteauneuf48 (Castronovo), socius du chancelier, f. Pierre d’Ongle, et Guillaume Boyssonade, son chapelain, Bertran et Fortenier de Gourdon, du diocèse de Cahors, et Raymond d’Angles; Martin Pérez d’Oros, châtelain d’Emposte; Rodrigo Sanctii de Vergaz, vice-chapelain dudit châtelain, Raymond de Timor et García Gonzáles,49 du prieuré de Castille; Richard de Pavely, prieur d’Angleterre, Jean de “Rechebi”, camerarius de l’Hôpital, et Mathieu de Sancto Leonardo, tous trois frères du prieuré d’Angleterre; Artaud de Saint-Romain, commandeur de Lyon, Pons de Brion, commandeur de Saint-Paul,50 Aimery Marchès, commandeur de


  Alpes de Haute-Provence, arr. de Forcalquier, chef-lieu de con.   Alpes de Haute-Provence, arr. de Forcalquier, con des Noyers-sur-Jabron. 42   Hautes-Alpes, arr. de Gap, con de Ribiers. 43   Drôme, arr. de Valence, chef-lieu de con. 44   En fait, f. Pierre de Chaudeyrac était lieutenant du maître, f. Foulques de Villaret, au prieuré de Navarre (Raybaud, Saint-Gilles, 1:249). Le prieuré de Navarre s’étendait de part et d’autre des Pyrénées: la commanderie d’Irissarry (Pyrénées-Atlantiques, arr. de Bayonne, con d’Iholdy), sur le versant nord, fut longtemps disputée entre les langues de Provence et d’Espagne. 45   Ardèche, arr. de Privas, con de Bourg-Saint-Andéol, cne de Saint-Marcel d’Ardèche. 46   Dordogne, arr. de Périgueux, con de Brantôme, cne de Valeuil. 47   Qui, après la mort à Aix, le 22 janvier 1311 (n. st.), de f. Dragonet de Montdragon, prieur de Saint-Gilles, le nomma son lieutenant en ce prieuré (Raybaud, Saint-Gilles, 1:234– 35, 240–44, 247–49, 253). 48   Futur prieur de Navarre en 1346, de Barletta en 1356 et 1360, commandeur de Monópoli (Anthony Luttrell, “Change and Conflict within the Hospitaller Province of Italy after 1291” dans Mendicants, Military Orders and Regionalism in Medieval Europe, éd. Jürgen Sarnowsky (Aldershot, 1999), pp. 185–99 (reproduit dans Luttrell, Studies on the Hospitallers after 1306, article XV), pp. 196–97). 49   Sans doute faut-il l’identifier avec f. García Gonzáles Bugía, dont Josserand, Église et pouvoir, pp. 579–80, n. 338, écrit qu’originaire d’Aragon, il était commandeur d’Ascó en 1347, quand il fut nommé commandeur de Población de Campos, au prieuré de Castille, avant d’être lieutenant de maître en ce prieuré. 50   Auj. Saint-Paul-lès-Romans, Drôme, arr. de Valence, con de Romans-sur-Isère II. 41

La réfOrme de l’HÔpital par Jean XXII


Bourganeuf,51 Renaud de Faÿ, commandeur de Devesset,52 Jean de Saint-Bonnet, commandeur de Buxeria,53 et Girard de Combaria, curé de Tortebesse,54 tous les six frères du prieuré d’Auvergne; Henri de Mesnils,55 commandeur de Meaux,56


  Creuse, arr. de Guéret, chef-lieu de con. F. Aimery Marchès ou Marchais était le 13 octobre 1310 commandeur des maisons, de l’Hôpital ancien, de Bourganeuf et du Breuilaufa (Arch. dép. Haute-Vienne, 39 H 38: religioso viro, fratre Aymerico March., preceptore domorum Hospitalis Sancti Johannis Jherosolimitani de Burgo novo et de Brolhio Ffagi) – sur le Breuilaufa (Haute-Vienne, arr. de Bellac, con de Nantiat), voir Jean-François Boyer et Véronique Notin, “L’église hospitalière de Breuilaufa et ‘l’Image de Notre-Dame en bosse de bronze doré, fort biau’,” Bulletin de la Société archéologique et historique du Limousin. 130 (2002), 55–90. F. Aimery Marchès était issu d’une vieille famille noble du Limousin, où le prénom d’Aimery était héréditaire. Elle avait déjà donné Aimery Marchès, chanoine d’Aureil (Haute-Vienne, arr. de Limoges, con de Limoges-Panazol) en 1210 et le 30 octobre 1218 (Arch. dép. Haute-Vienne, D 679), et f. Guillaume Marchés, présent à Bourganeuf le 30 octobre 1218, commandeur de Cahors et arbitre à Bourganeuf en 1234/1236 avec son neveu Aimery, chanoine d’Aureil, pour ce prieuré et l’Hôpital (ibid.: Willelmum Marchés, magistrum Hospitalis Jerosolimitani Caturcensis, et Aimericum Marchés, canonicum Aureliensem, nepotis [sic] ejusdem Willelmi, viros providos ac discretos). F. Aimery Marchès, commandeur de Bourganeuf en 1310–1317, devait être frère de Pierre Marchès, prieur d’Aureil en 1302–1336 (Gaston Denis de Senneville, “Cartulaires des prieurés d’Aureil et de l’Artige en Limousin,” Bulletin de la société archéologique et historique du Limousin 48 (1900), 394–95) et arrière-grand-oncle du fameux Aimery ou Mérigot (diminutif) Marchès, né vers 1351 au château de Beaudéduit, à 4 lieues de Limoges, que son père, Aimery Marchès, chevalier (1340, 1354), tenait en fief de l’évêque de Limoges : “nobles homs et de noble ligniee,” “soubtil et appert pour embler et eschieller forteresses” mais chef de routiers, ayant semé la terreur en Auvergne, trahi par son cousin germain Tournemine, Mérigot Marchès fut, “comme gentilhomme,” exécuté et écartelé à Paris le 12 juillet 1391 (Registre criminel du Châtelet de Paris du 6 septembre 1389 au 18 mai 1392, éd. Henri Duplès-Agier, t. 2 (Paris, 1864), pp. 177–213; Jean Froissart, Chroniques, éd. Kervyn de Lettenhove, t. 2 (Bruxelles, 1872), pp. 159–212; Henri Moranvillé, “ La fin de Mérigot Marchès ,” dans Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des chartes 53 (1892), pp. 77–87). 52   Ardèche, arr. de Tournon-sur-Rhône, con de Saint-Agrève. 53   Auj. Buxières-sous-Montaigut, Puy-de-Dôme, arr. de Riom, con de Montaigut? 54   Puy-de-Dôme, arr. de Clermont, con d’Herment. 55   Premier prieur de Champagne, du 21 juillet 1317 à l’automne 1330 (Jean-Marc Roger, Le prieuré de Champagne des “chevaliers de Rhodes” (1317–1522), t. 1 (Paris, 2001), pp. 291–93; Roger, “Les sceaux de l’Hôpital en Champagne jusqu’à l’”oppugnation” de Rhodes (1253–1522),” dans Les sceaux, sources de l’histoire médiévale en Champagne. Actes des tables rondes de la Société française d’héraldique et de sigillographie (Troyes, centre universitaire, 14 septembre 200; Reims, demeure des comtes de Champagne, 9 octobre 2004) (Paris, 2008), pp. 53–83, p. 75 et fig. X, 17. 56   Seine-et-Marne, chef-lieu d’arr.


Jean-Marc ROger

Simon Le Rat,57 commandeur de Saint-Maulvis58 et de Brie,59 Pierre de Mailg,60 commandeur de Loudun,61 Renaud de Villiers, commandeur de Fieffes,62 Ferry de Fougerolles,63 commandeur de Cerisiers,64 Guillaume de Citry,65 commandeur de Saint-Amand,66 Jean de Treris, commandeur de Plaincourault,67 Robert de Cerisiers, chapelain dudit f. Simon Le Rat, Jean de Lapion, chapelain dudit f. Pierre de Mailg, et Jacques de “Perwees”, chapelain dudit f. Léonard de Tibertis, tous les 10 frères du prieuré de France; f. Napoléon de Tibertis, commandeur de Faenza,68 Theobaldino de Vignali, commandeur de Trévise,69 et Paul da Modena,70 commandeur du Temple de Forlivio,71 tous trois frères du prieuré de Venise; et enfin f. Jean de Torilzem et Jean de Cologne, tous deux frères du prieuré d’Allemagne. Depuis, Loudun et Plaincourault ressortirent au prieuré d’Aquitaine, Saint-Amand 57

  Chevalier du prieuré de France, ancien maréchal de l’Hôpital, en 1299, 1303, 1306– 1310 (Delaville Le Roulx, Terre sainte, p. 411), il succéda comme prieur de France à f. Ytier de Nanteuil. Encore à la tête du prieuré le 25 juin 1318 (Louis Douët d’Arcq, Inventaires et documents publiés par ordre de l’Empereur sous la direction de M. le comte de Laborde. Collection de sceaux, t. 3 (Paris, 1868), no. 9892), il mourut peu après. 58   Somme, arr. d’Amiens, con d’Oisemont. 59   Sans doute la Croix en Brie, Seine-et-Marne, arr. de Provins, con de Nangis. 60   Sur f. Pierre et Guillaume de Mailg, voir Jean-Marc Roger, “F. Jean de Vivonne, prieur d’Aquitaine (1421–1433),” Revue historique du Centre-Ouest 7 (2008), 287–400 (317–18). Chevalier du prieuré de France, f. Pierre de Mail ou Mailg appartenait à une famille qui donna plusieurs de ses membres à la Religion. Sans doute tenait-elle son nom du château de Mailg, en Île-de-France, au-dessus d’Argenteuil (Val d’Oise, chef-lieu d’arr.), entre cette ville et Franconville (Val d’Oise, arr. de Pontoise, chef-lieu de con). 61   Vienne, arr. de Châtellerault, chef-lieu de con. F. Pierre de Mailg en était commandeur dès le 22 novembre 1315 (BnF lat. 9035, fol. 33). 62   Auj. Fieffes-Monstrelet, Somme, arr. d’Amiens, con de Domart-en-Ponthieu. 63   Second prieur de Champagne, de 1330 à au moins 1356 (Roger, Le prieuré de Champagne, 1:293–98), il cumula – fait unique – ce prieuré avec celui d’Aquitaine en 1340. 64   Cerisiers, Yonne, arr. de Sens, chef-lieu de con. 65   Le 12 juin 1317, f. Guillaume de Citry était aussi commandeur “de la meson jadis du Temple de Paris” (Arch. dép. Bouches-du-Rhône, 56 H 4090). Successeur de f. Simon Le Rat, il fut prieur de France de 1318 à sa mort, le dimanche 6 avril 1337 (n. st.) à Corbeil (auj. Corbeil-Essonnes, Essonne, arr. d’évry, con de Corbeil-Essonnes-Est; Roger, Les sceaux de l’Hôpital en Champagne, p. 76). 66   Auj. Saint-Amand-sur-Fion, Marne, arr. de Vitry-le-François, con de Vitry-leFrançois-Est. 67   Indre, arr. du Blanc, con de Tournon-Saint-Martin, cne de Mérigny. 68   Italie, prov. de Ravenne, chef-lieu de district. 69   Italie, chef-lieu de prov. 70   Compagnon de f. Léonard de Tibertis, il échoua en Thuringe pour être étranger au pays (Karl Borchardt, “The Hospitallers, Bohemia and the Empire, 1250–1330,” dans Mendicants, Military Orders, éd. Sarnowsky, pp. 201–31 (pp. 222, 224–26). 71   Sans doute Forli, Italie, chef-lieu de prov.

Figure 8.1

Europe in the early fourteenth century, showing the Hospitaller priories and other locations mentioned in the text


Jean-Marc ROger

à celui de Champagne: le 21 juin 1317, ces deux prieurés n’étaient donc pas encore démembrés de celui de France. Des chefs de l’Hôpital le principal absent était f. Albert de Schwarzbourg, peutêtre déjà de retour à Rhodes. Le 1er mars 1319, Jean XXII lui conféra tout à la fois la moitié de la commanderie de Chypre, à charge de 30,000 besants par an,72 l’île du Lango,73 à charge pour lui de la reconquérir,74 et l’office de grand commandeur du couvent de Rhodes;75 il remporta une bataille navale sur les Turcs le 23 juillet 1319 à Chio,76 fut nommé commandeur de Thuringe et de Saxe le 12 janvier 1323,77 prieur d’Allemagne78 puis se remit au service de Louis de Bavière79 jusqu’à sa mort, le 16 mars 1327.80 Les Hospitaliers étaient censés résider soit au “couvent” ou siège de l’Hôpital pour la “défense et tuition” de la foi chrétienne, soit en leurs commanderies du Ponant, pour les mettre en valeur, en tirer les revenus nécessaires à l’entretien du couvent de Rhodes. La défense auprès de la Curie des intérêts de l’Hôpital ne nécessitait la présence en Avignon que de quelques frères. Si la mention en Avignon le 21 juin 1317 de 18 commandeurs du prieuré de Saint-Gilles pourrait s’expliquer par l’importance du don à l’Église de biens de ce prieuré, l’argument ne vaut pas pour les 10 frères du prieuré de France. Le nombre extraordinaire, voire exorbitant, des frères de l’Hôpital en Avignon au printemps et à l’été 1317 ne me paraît s’expliquer que par le fait que, dans la grave crise que traversait alors la Religion, ils y demandaient le secours de Jean XXII.

 Bulle Ex dissencione preterita (Mollat et Lesquen, no. 9022).   Appelée par les Grecs Kos (Κως). 74  Bulle Dum pressuras graves (Mollat et Lesquen, no. 9025). 75  Bulle Dum ex suscepte (Mollat et Lesquen, no. 9026). Jean XXII fait son éloge: nobilitas generis, honestas morum, vita laudabilis aliarumque virtutum merita. 76   Lettre à Jean XXII de f. Albert de Schwarzbourg, humilis magnus preceptor cismarini conventus, du 3 septembre 1319; puis il reprit le château très fort de Léros, que les Grecs avaient livré à l’empereur byzantin en massacrant la garnison de l’Hôpital (Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, pp. 8–9 et p. j. ii, pp. 365–67). 77   NLM, Arch. 16, no. 5 (Borchardt, “The Hospitallers,” p. 226, n. 86). 78   De 1324 à 1328 d’après Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, p. 74, mais il mourut le 16 mars 1327. 79   Borchardt, “The Hospitallers,” pp. 226–27. 80   Il fut inhumé en sa commanderie de Würzburg (Die Würzburger Inschriften bis 1525, éd. Theodor Kramer, Franz-Xaver Hermann et Karl Borchardt, Die Deutschen Inschriften 27 (Wiesbaden, 1988), no. 50, p. 34, et Borchardt, “The Hospitallers,” p. 227, n. 91). 72 73

La réfOrme de l’HÔpital par Jean XXII


La supplique du 20 juillet 1317 Le 20 juillet 1317, les frères des sept langues de l’Hôpital présents à la Curie d’Avignon81 remirent une supplique solennelle à Jean XXII. Elle était présentée par f. Pierre d’Ongle et Léonard de Tibertis et 18 représentants des sept langues: dans l’ordre de la supplique,82 pour la langue d’Angleterre f. Richard de Pavely, lieutenant de maître au prieuré d’Angleterre, et Mathieu, son socius; pour la langue de France f. Simon Le Rat, commandeur de Brie et de Saint-Maulvis, et Pierre de Mailg, commandeur de Loudun; pour la langue d’Auvergne f. Eudes de Montaigu, lieutenant de maître au prieuré d’Auvergne, et Artaud de Saint-Romain, commandeur de Lyon; pour la langue de Provence f. Aimery de Tury, commandeur de Puysubran,83 Artaud de Chavanon, commandeur de Cahors, Bermond Maury, commandeur de Salom,84 Guigues de Belcastel, commandeur de Viviers,85 Élyon de Villeneuve, commandeur de Manosque, et Hugues Eustache, commandeur d’Aix; pour la langue d’Espagne f. Martin Pérez d’Oros, châtelain d’Emposte, et García [Gonzáles] Bugía,86 commandeur de Horta;87 pour la langue d’Allemagne f. Paul da Modena et Gilles de Passavant, tous deux commandeurs; et pour la langue d’Italie f. Napoléon de Tibertis, commandeur de Faenza, et Theobaldino de Vignali, commandeur de Trévise. En somme, deux frères pour chaque langue, sauf celle de Provence, représentée par six:88 ce nombre de représentants de la langue de Provence souligne sa prédominance au sein de l’Hôpital en la première moitié du xive siècle, où le pape résidait en Avignon, siège d’une des commanderies de la langue. Ces frères ne portent pas le titre de “procureurs” de leur langue, mais en faisaient office. Aucun de ces Hospitaliers ne résidait officiellement en Avignon. Leur réunion auprès du pape était bien exceptionnelle, exigée par la situation exceptionnelle de l’Hôpital. Leur nombre, leur rang montrent l’importance que l’Ordre attachait à cette démarche auprès de Jean XXII.


  F. Géraud de Pins n’est pas nommé dans cette supplique: il n’était pas arrivé en Avignon. 82   Les langues n’y sont pas citées dans leur ordre hiérarchique: Provence, Auvergne, France, Italie, Espagne, Angleterre et Allemagne. 83   Auj. Pexiora, Aude, arr. et con de Castelnaudary; futur prieur de Saint-Gilles. 84   Membre de la commanderie d’Espédaillac d’après Raybaud, Saint-Gilles, 1:265. 85   Ardèche, arr. de Privas, chef-lieu de con. 86   Nommé f. García Gonzáles comme témoin de la charte du 21 juin 1317 (voir cidessus, p. 108). 87   Espagne, prov. Tarragone, ress. de Gandessa (châtellenie d’Emposte). 88   F. Aimery et Artaud pouvaient représenter le futur prieuré de Toulouse, f. Bermond et Guigon celui de Saint-Gilles, f. Élyon et Hugues le futur prieuré de Provence: en ce cas, la supplique des Hospitaliers du 20 juillet préfigurerait les nominations de Jean XXII du lendemain, ce qui me paraît très vraisemblable.


Jean-Marc ROger

Dans cette supplique, scellée des sceaux des 20 Hospitaliers, si f. Martin Pérez, châtelain d’Emposte, est bien désigné avec son titre, f. Richard de Pavely se qualifie de lieutenant de maître au prieuré d’Angleterre, f. Simon Le Rat de commandeur de Brie et de Saint-Mauvis, f. Eudes de Montaigu de lieutenant de maître au prieuré d’Auvergne, alors qu’ils étaient respectivement prieurs d’Angleterre, de France et d’Auvergne: les Hospitaliers remettaient à Jean XXII la nomination des prieurs, même déjà installés. Les Hospitaliers insistaient sur le poids des dettes qui écrasaient la Religion, demandaient à Jean XXII de nommer pour 10 ans des prieurs qui régiraient les prieurés et conféreraient pendant 10 ans aussi les commanderies à des frères, qui pourraient s’obliger envers les marchands créanciers de l’Hôpital jusqu’à remboursement complet de ses dettes. En d’autres termes, ils demandaient à Jean XXII de nommer des prieurs qui s’obligeraient envers ces marchands et euxmêmes confieraient les commanderies à des frères qui s’obligeraient à leur tour, le tout jusqu’à extinction des dettes de l’Hôpital. Ou encore, que Jean XXII transférât le poids de la dette, écrasante, de l’Hôpital, qui devait permettre aux prêteurs d’imposer des intérêts prohibitifs, aux prieurs et commandeurs, qui tenaient des biens de la Religion et pouvaient, en les engageant, emprunter et rembourser cette dette. La supplique soulignait le caractère exceptionnel de ces nominations: au terme de ces 10 ans, la nomination des prieurs reviendrait aux maître et couvent de l’Hôpital, suivant ses bons statuts et coutumes. La supplique ne demandait pas la création de nouveaux prieurés. Mais, en mettant l’accent sur la nécessité de transférer le poids de la dette sur les prieurs, elle y poussait. Jean XXII avait une propension personnelle aux démembrements. Moins d’un mois plus tard, le 13 août 1317, il érigea les nouveaux évêchés de Luçon et de Maillezais par démembrement du vieil et vaste évêché de Poitiers,89 et on sait qu’il créa de nombreux évêchés dans le Midi de la France. La tendance naturelle de Jean XXII rencontrait une vieille pratique de l’Hôpital: quatre démembrements successifs du prieuré de Saint-Gilles avaient déjà permis à l’Hôpital d’adapter ses structures locales en Ponant à l’accroissement de son patrimoine.90 La supplique n’en fait pas état, mais chacun devait l’avoir présent à l’esprit: au sein de l’Hôpital, la crise (dissidium) couvait depuis longtemps. Le 8 juillet 1317, f. Maurice de Pagnac, le nouveau maître élu par le couvent de Rhodes, et celui-ci saisirent par dépêches et par émissaire Jean XXII. Le 21 juillet, s’il n’était pas encore officiellement informé de la rébellion du couvent de Rhodes, les dissensions qui minaient la Religion ne pouvaient lui être inconnues, il savait certainement que f. Foulques de Villaret n’y avait plus d’autorité. Jean XXII crut devoir se substituer

  Lettres secrètes et curiales du pape Jean XXII (1316-1334) relatives a la France, éd. Auguste Coulon, Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 3 (Paris, 1906–1972), no. 353. 90   Voir ci-dessous, pp. 119–133. 89

La réfOrme de l’HÔpital par Jean XXII


au magistère défaillant pour prendre les mesures énergiques qu’appelait la situation de l’Hôpital.91 III. Les bulles Dum attenta meditatione du 21 juillet 1317 Le lendemain de la supplique, 21 juillet 1317, Jean XXII fit expédier sous l’incipit Dum attenta meditatione 25 bulles,92 nommant pour 10 ans le châtelain d’Emposte – qui avait rang de prieur, pour l’Aragon – , 21 prieurs proprement dits, chacun à la tête d’un prieuré, voire deux pour Philippe da Gragnana, prieur de Rome et de Hongrie, et trois commandeurs des commanderies capitulaires93 italiennes94 de Saint-Étienne de Monópoli,95 Sainte-Euphémie96 et la Trinité de Venosa.97 Donc, en tout, 25 hauts responsables de l’Hôpital en Ponant. Comme le demandait la supplique du 20 juillet, chacun d’eux devait faire payer par son prieuré ou sa commanderie la part de la dette de l’Hôpital envers les compagnies des Bardi et Peruzzi ou autres créanciers, à laquelle ce prieuré ou cette commanderie était taxé, outre, bien entendu, la responsion due chaque année au Commun Trésor de la Religion, rappelée dans la plupart des bulles. Le tableau cidessous indique, pour chacun de ces prieurés et commanderies capitulaires,98 le nom du titulaire et le montant de la taxe. Suivant les cas, ces sommes sont exprimées en florins, livres tournois ou marcs.99 On remarquera les énormes différences, traduisant celles des ressources, entre les prieurés de Toulouse (17,500 florins)100 et de Venise (4,000 florins) ou d’Allemagne (1,000 florins), ou encore ceux d’Auvergne (20,000 livres tournois) et de Navarre (1,000 livres tournois).   Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, pp. 19–26 (qui inclut des bulles de Clément V).   Mollat, nos. 4450–4472; Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, p. 22. 93   Il y avait une autre commanderie capitulaire: celle de la Morée, c’est-à-dire du Péloponèse franc. 94   Pour l’Italie, voir Luttrell, “Change and Conflict within the Hospitaller Province of Italy,” pp. 185–199. 95   Italie, prov. et district de Bari (voir ci-dessous, p. 118). 96   Italie, prov. de Reggio di Calabria, district de Palme. Sainte-Euphémie était en 1301, avec la Trinité de Venosa et la Morée, une des commanderies tenues par des “baillis par chapitre general desa mer” (Cart Hosp, nos. 4549, § 2, et 4672, § 5). C’est par erreur que la bulle pour Sainte-Euphémie (Mollat, no. 4469) l’intitule prieuré. 97   Italie, prov. Potenza, district Melfi. Réunie à l’Hôpital par bulle Inter cetera de Boniface VIII du 22 septembre 1297 (Cart Hosp, no. 4387), la Trinité de Venosa était en 1301, avec Sainte-Euphémie et la Morée, une des trois commanderies tenues par des “baillis par chapitre general desa mer” (ibid., nos. 4549, § 2, et 4672, § 5). 98   Sauf les trois nouveaux prieurés de France, d’Aquitaine et de Champagne, taxés in solidum à 20,000 livres tournois. 99   Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, p. 22, n. 3, a proposé des équivalences. 100   Et non 7,500 comme l’écrit G. Mollat, no. 4457 (Arch. Vat., Reg. Vat. 66, fol. 338). 91 92


Jean-Marc ROger

Taxe des prieurés et commanderies capitulaires de l’Hôpital (21 juillet 1317) Prieurs et commandeurs

Prieurés et commanderies

Sommes taxées

Martin Pérez

Châtellenie d’Emposte

17,000 florins

Léonard de Tibertis

Prieuré de Venise

4,000 florins

Grégoire de Parme

Prieuré de Pise

6,000 florins

Jacques de Cannellis

Prieuré de Lombardie

6,000 florins

Philippe da Gragnana

Prieurés de Rome et de Hongrie

8,000 florins

Richard de Riparia

Com. de la Trinité de Venosa

1,500 florins

Artaud de Chavanon

Prieuré de Navarre

1,000 livres tournois

Pierre d’Ongle

Prieuré de Toulouse

17,500 livres tournois

Eudes de Montaigu

Prieuré d’Auvergne

20,000 livres tournois

Fernán Rodríguez

Prieuré de Castille et Léon

15,000 florins

Étienne Vasques

Prieuré de Portugal

1,500 florins

Élyon de Villeneuve

Prieuré de Provence

10,000 livres tournois

Bermond Maury

Prieuré de Saint-Gilles

12,500 livres tournois

Henri de Mesnils

Prieuré de Champagne

Pierre de Mailg

Prieuré d’Aquitaine

Simon Le Rat

Prieuré de France

Richard de Pavely

Prieuré d’Angleterre

Roger Outlaw

Prieuré d’Irlande

300 marcs sterling

Berthold [VI] von Henneberg

Prieuré de Bohême

1,000 florins

Eberhard von Kestenberg

Prieuré de Dacie

100 marcs

Hermann von Hachberg

Prieuré d’Allemagne

1,000 florins

Foulques de Paucapalea

Com. de Sainte-Euphémie

100 florins

Bertrand de Malbosc

Prieuré de Barletta

6,000 florins

Jousselin de Mareriis

Prieuré de Capoue

4,000 florins

Guillaume Bismatua

Com. de S.-Étienne de Monópoli

1,500 florins


20,000 livres tournois

3,000 marcs sterling

La réfOrme de l’HÔpital par Jean XXII


Cette nomination par le pape le même jour de 25 hauts responsables de l’Hôpital en Ponant, valant leur renouvellement quasi-général,101 n’est pas seulement exceptionnelle: par son ampleur elle est tout simplement unique dans toute l’histoire, multi-séculaire, de l’Hôpital. Bien que toutes expédiées le même jour, 21 juillet 1317, sous le même incipit, Dum attenta meditatione, ces 25 bulles présentent de grandes différences, avec des renvois aux bulles déjà enregistrées – la préposition usque indiquant où s’arrête la citation. Trois bulles, la troisième très abrégée, concernent les trois prieurés issus du démembrement du prieuré de France:102 France, Aquitaine et Champagne. Mais chacune de ces trois bulles est adressée aux trois prieurs, f. Simon Le Rat, Pierre de Mailg et Henri de Mesnils. Deux bulles furent expédiées aux prieurs d’Angleterre et d’Irlande ensemble, f. Richard de Pavely et Roger Outlaw,103 mais les taxes de leurs prieurés respectifs sont précisées. Ces nominations sont de nature très différente. Plusieurs étaient de simples confirmations: ainsi, celles de f. Martin Pérez de Oros comme châtelain d’Emposte, Fernand Rodríguez de Valbuena prieur de Castille,104 Étienne (Estêvão) Vasques prieur de Portugal,105 Jacques de “Cannellis” 101

  Le train de bulles omet au moins le prieuré de Messine, en Italie, et la commanderie capitulaire de la Morée, mais celle-ci était assimilée au “couvent” de Rhodes. 102   Mollat, nos. 4463 et 4465; il a regroupé sous le no. 4465 deux bulles très différentes: la première (Arch. Vat., Reg. Vat. 66, ep. 4224) est très développée, la seconde (ibid., ep. 4226) très abrégée. 103   F. Roger Outlaw, qui défendit l’Irlande contre les Écossais d’Édouard Bruce et fut nommé chancelier d’Irlande en 1322, resta prieur d’Irlande jusqu’au moins juillet 1338 (Helen Nicholson, “The Knights Hospitallers on the frontiers of the British Isles,” dans Mendicants, Military Orders, éd. Sarnowsky, pp. 47–57 (pp. 53–54). 104   Voir ci-dessus, p. 104, n. 15. 105   Fils de Vasco Martins Pimentel et de sa seconde femme, Maria Gonçalves de Portocarreiro, succédant à f. Garcia Martins, grand commandeur d’Espagne, mort le 13 janvier 1306 (Mário Jorge Barroca, Epigrafia medieval portuguesa (862–1422), vol. 2, t. 2 (Lisbon, 2000), no. 505, pp. 1288–94), il fut prieur de Portugal pendant 30 ans, de 1306 à sa mort, le 14 mai 1336; il fut inhumé en l’église de l’Hôpital de Leça do Balio, qu’il fonda (fundans) et acheva (perfecit), avec, sur une lame de bronze, une longue épitaphe métrique, composée par son petit-neveu – par sa grand’mère, Urraca Vasques Pimentel, demi-sœur, du premier lit, de f. Étienne – et successeur, f. Álvaro González Pereíra, qui rappelle ses ambassades en Avignon pour Denis Ier, roi de Portugal, auprès des papes Clément V et Jean XXII: Bernardo Vasconcelos e Sousa, “Entre Portugal e Castela. Precursos e destino de una linhagen portugesa (os Pimentéis, séculos xiii–xiv),” dans As relacões de fronteira no século de Alcanices. IV Jornadas luso-espanholas de historia medieval (Porto, 1997), éd. Luis Adao da Fonseca, t. 2 (Porto, 1998), pp. 1425–31; Barroca, Epigrafia medieval portuguesa, vol. 2, t. 2, pp. 1580–93, dont tabl. gén. p. 1593, et est. clxxix, no. 1, t. 3, p. 480; Josserand, Église et pouvoir, p. 887 (index). Son nom est écrit dans son épitaphe Velascy, à peu près comme dans les registres pontificaux.


Jean-Marc ROger

prieur de Lombardie.106 Nouveau prieur de Navarre, en la langue d’Espagne, f. Artaud de Chavanon était jusque-là commandeur de Cahors, au prieuré de Saint-Gilles. Sa nomination à la tête d’un prieuré ne dépendant pas de sa langue d’origine doit s’expliquer par les origines cahorcines de Jean XXII; en outre, la Navarre, dont la reine était alors la très jeune Jeanne,107 était dans l’obédience française. F. Pierre d’Ongle, Élyon de Villeneuve, Pierre de Mailg, Henri de Mesnils furent nommés prieurs des nouveaux prieurés de Toulouse, Provence, Aquitaine et Champagne. Saint-Étienne (San Stefano) de Monópoli était un ancien monastère de l’ordre de saint Benoît. Sa situation sur la mer Adriatique, vers Rhodes, offrait de grands avantages à l’Ordre. Jean XXII le réunit à l’Hôpital le 13 juin 1317108 et en fit une commanderie, qui prit rang de commanderie capitulaire. F. Guillaume Bismatua, nommé par Jean XXII le 21 juillet 1317 commandeur de Saint-Étienne (San Stefano) de Monópoli, en fut sans aucun doute le premier commandeur. Pour la langue d’Allemagne les nominations de Jean XXII à ses quatre prieurés d’Allemagne, superior (Souabe, Brisgau, Alsace) et inferior (Cologne, Steinfurt, Utrecht), de Bohême, de Dacie et de Hongrie, ont été étudiées par Karl Borchardt.109 Cette étude est résumée ci-dessous car elle montre aussi les limites pratiques des nominations de Jean XXIII dans l’Empire, du fait du conflit entre Louis de Bavière et les Habsbourg. Ces limites furent particulièrement étroites au prieuré de Bohême. F. Berthold [VI] de Henneberg,110 cousin germain de f. Albert de Schwarzbourg, était dès 1313 prieur de Bohême, Pologne et Autriche mais la noblesse du prieuré le contraignit à retourner en Franconie, dont il était originaire, et f. Foulques de Villaret nomma un lieutenant au prieuré, le Silésien f. Michel, commandeur de Tinz; le 21 106

  Déjà prieur de Lombardie le 21 juillet 1315 (Arch. dép. Bouches-du-Rhône, 56 H 4087). 107   Fille de Louis X, roi de France et de Navarre, décédé le 5 juin 1316, et de Marguerite d’Artois, sa première femme; Jeanne de Navarre, née le 28 janvier 1312 (n. st.), mourut le 6 octobre 1349 (Anselme de Sainte-Marie, Histoire genealogique et chronologique de la Maison royale de France, 3e édn, t. 1 (Paris, 1726), pp. 91–92). 108   Par sa bulle Dum diligenter attendimus (Pauli, Codice diplomatico, t. 2, no. xxxix, pp. 58–59; Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, p. 25). Sur cette commanderie, voir Anthony Luttrell, “Le origini della precettoria capitolare di Santo Stefano di Monopoli,” dans Fasano nella storia dei Cavalieri di Malta in Puglia. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi (Fasano, 14–15–16 maggio 1998), éd. Cosimo D’Angela et Angelo Sante Trisciuzzi, Melitensia 7 (Tarente, 2001), pp. 89–100; reproduit dans Lutrell, Studies on the Hospitallers after 1306, article XIV et Addenda et corrigenda, p. 5. 109   Borchardt, “The Hospitallers”. 110   Ibid., pp. 204, 221–24, 226, 228–230. Il était fils de Berthold V, comte de Henneberg, et de Sophie, fille de Günther VII, comte de Schwarzburg (Europäische Stammtafeln: Stammtafeln zur Geschichte der europäischen Staaten, éd. Wilhelm Karl von Isenburg, Frank Baron Freytag von Loringhoven et Detlev Schwennicke, t. 3, 2e édn (Marbourg, 1958), tabl. 77: Henneberg-Schleusingen).

La réfOrme de l’HÔpital par Jean XXII


juillet 1317, Jean XXIII confirma à la tête du prieuré f. Berthold [VI] de Henneberg, partisan de Louis de Bavière. Il ne put faire en Bohême qu’un court séjour en 1319 mais garda son titre de prieur de Bohême jusqu’à sa mort, le 21 août 1330.111 Pour l’Allemagne superior et inferior, Jean XXII nomma f. Hermann de Hachberg;112 bien que partisan des Habsbourg, il resta prieur d’Allemagne jusqu’à sa mort, en 1321.113 Au prieuré de Dacie, Jean XXII nomma f. Eberhard von Kestenberg, qui fut en conflit avec les rois Éric VIII de Danemark et Haakon de Norvège.114 À la tête du prieuré de Hongrie Jean XXII nomma le prieur de Rome, f. Philippe da Gragnana, mais cette nomination fut contestée par f. Mieszco de Beuthen,115 et f. Philippe de Gragnana eut un lieutenant au prieuré de Hongrie en la personne de f. Gérard da Gragnana;116 le 13 janvier 1325,117 Jean XXII nomma au prieuré de Capoue, en remplacement de f. Foulques de Villaret, f. Philippe da Gragnana, toujours prieur de Hongrie le 25 novembre 1329.118 On ne s’étendra pas davantage ici sur ces nominations pour attirer l’attention sur deux des mesures les plus importantes arrêtées le 21 juillet 1317 par Jean XXII: les démembrements des prieurés de Saint-Gilles et de France. IV. Les démembrements des prieurés de Saint-Gilles et de France Le cinquième démembrement du prieuré de Saint-Gilles Dès le tout début du xiie siècle, l’Hôpital de Jérusalem eut de nombreuses possessions en Europe occidentale. La bulle du pape Pascal II, Piæ postulatio voluntatis, du 15 février 1113,119 qui lui donna le caractère d’un ordre religieux en plaçant sous le patronage du Saint-Siège ses dépendances tant delà que deçà la mer, en Asie et en Europe, cite Saint-Gilles parmi ses xenodochia sive ptochia 111

  D’après sa pierre tombale: il fut inhumé en la commanderie de Würzbourg (Die Würzburger Inschriften bis 1525, éd. Kramer et al., no. 54, p. 36 et fig. 30, pl. xiv; Borchardt, “The Hospitallers,” p. 228, n. 95). 112   Ibid., p. 225. 113   Sans doute le 12 avril d’après sa pierre tombale, jadis, elle aussi, en la commanderie de Fribourg (ibid., p. 225, n. 82). 114   Bulles du 4 septembre 1320 (Mollat, nos. 12002–12003; Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, p. 70; Borchardt, “The Hospitallers,” p. 225). 115   Mollat et Lesquen, nos. 6549 et 7284 (10 mars et 23 mai 1318); Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, pp. 71–72; Borchardt, “The Hospitallers,” p. 225. 116   Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, pp. 71–72. 117   Ibid., p. 18. 118   Ibid., p. 71, n. 6. 119   Papsturkunden für Templer und Johanniter, Neue Folge, éd. Rudolf Hiestand, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, Dritte Folge 135 (Göttingen, 1984), no. 1, pp. 194–98.


Jean-Marc ROger

d’Occident. La bulle de son successeur Calixte II, Ad hoc nos disponente, du 19 juin 1119,120 nomme aussi dans le Midi de la France les villas de Saint-Christol121 et Puysubran. Ces biens, droits connurent un extraordinaire accroissement au cours du xiie siècle, surtout tout autour de la Méditerranée mais aussi dans la France du Nord. Cet accroissement fut tel, si rapide que le très vaste prieuré de Saint-Gilles122 fut démembré dès le milieu du xiie siècle: Gautier était prieur d’Angleterre dès 1152 au plus tard;123 entre le 4 novembre 1153124 et le 4 juin 1157125 les maisons du prieuré de Saint-Gilles en Catalogne et Aragon en furent démembrées sous le nom de châtellenie d’Emposte.126 Jusqu’en 1178, les biens de l’Hôpital en France étaient tous du prieuré de Saint-Gilles. En 1178/1179, un troisième démembrement


  Ibid., no. 2 (pp. 198–201), p. 200.   Hérault, arr. de Montpellier, con de Lunel. Saint-Christol appartenait donc à l’Hôpital au moins 30 ans avant la charte d’octobre 1149 présentée comme le premier acte sur SaintChristol par Léon Nourrit, Mille ans d’histoire en Bas-Languedoc. Saint-Christol (Hérault), ancienne commanderie de l’Ordre souverain, militaire et hospitalier de Saint-Jean-deJérusalem, de Rhodes et de Malte, 2e édn (Béziers, 1999), pp. 36–38. 122   Sur les origines du prieuré de Saint-Gilles, voir, entre autres, Pierre Santoni, “Les deux premiers siècles du prieuré de Saint-Gilles de l’ordre de l’Hôpital de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem,” dans Des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, pp. 114–83; Maguelone, Le grand prieuré des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem et les Templiers de Saint-Gilles: origines et douzième siècle (Paris, 1993). 123   Voire 1150: d’après Cart Hosp, 1:cxlviii, n. 4, qui s’appuie sur une charte pour la maison de l’Hôpital de Londres d’Arnaud, prieur de Saint-Gilles (Arnaldus, Jerosolimitani Hospitalis servus, et S. Egidii prior), scellée de son sceau, et de Gautier, prieur d’Angleterre (Gualterus, prior fratrum qui in Anglia sunt), ratifiant une charte du même Gautier (Gualterus, Jerosolimitani Hospitalis servus, et fratrum qui in Anglia sunt prior), scellée du sceau de Gautier (ibid., nos. 148 et 149); or Arnaud était prieur de Saint-Gilles en septembre 1143 et septembre 1150 mais ne l’était plus le 1er octobre 1152 (Delaville Le Roulx, Terre sainte, p. 365, n. 1, 415 et 425). K. V. Sinclair, The Hospitallers’ Riwle (Miracula et Regula Hospitalis Sancti Johannis Jerosolimitani), Anglo-Norman Text Society 42 (London, 1984), p. xlviii, date ce démembrement du prieuré de Saint-Gilles de vers 1185: la dédicace de l’église Saint-Jean du prieuré eut lieu le 10 mars 1185 (William Dugdale, Monasticon anglicanum, 2e édn., t. 4.2 (London, 1830), p. 799). 124   Cart Hosp, no. 220 (don par le Temple du quint du château d’Emposte, presente Gauzelino d’Adilano, priore Hospitalis S. Egidii atque Ispannie). 125   Cart Hosp, nos. 251 (Gaufridi de Bresilg, prioris Emposte) et 257 (in manu venerabilis Gaufredi de Braydil, magistri Emposte). 126   Delaville Le Roulx, Terre sainte, pp. 380–81. 121

La réfOrme de l’HÔpital par Jean XXII


en démembra le prieuré de France;127 vers 1243, entre 1242 et 1245, un quatrième démembrement le prieuré d’Auvergne.128 De par les origines géographiques de ses fondateurs, l’ordre du Temple avait des positions particulièrement fortes dans la France du Nord-Est. Mais il avait aussi beaucoup de maisons dans la France du Midi.129 Sur ordre de Charles II, et comme en France le 13 octobre 1307, les Templiers de Provence furent arrêtés le 24 janvier 1308.130 En dépit de la bulle Pastoralis praeeminentie de Clément V du 22 novembre 1307, Charles II fit mettre les biens du Temple sous séquestre par ses agents.131 Ni lui ni, après sa mort (mai 1309), son fils Robert Ier ne mirent de zèle à se dessaisir des biens du Temple.132 En exécution de la célèbre bulle Ad providam Christi de Clément V, du 2 mai 1312,133 furent réunies au prieuré de Saint-Gilles de nombreuses maisons du Temple.134 Le roi Robert Ier s’y conforma de mauvaise grâce, et Jean XXII dut intervenir: par la bulle Scimus, dilectissime fili, du 21 septembre 1317,135 il enjoignit au roi de hâter la dévolution à l’Hôpital des biens du 127

  Joseph Delaville Le Roulx, “Fondation du grand prieuré de France de l’ordre de l’Hôpital,” dans Mélanges Julien Havet. Recueil de travaux d’érudition dédiés à la mémoire de Julien Havet (1853–1893) (Paris, 1895), pp. 283–89 (repris dans Delaville Le Roulx, Mélanges sur l’ordre de S. Jean de Jérusalem (Paris, 1910), article XIII). Voir ci-dessous, pp. 130–33. 128   Jean-Marie Allard, “Complément sur les origines du prieuré d’Auvergne de l’ordre des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem,” Bulletin de la Société archéologique et historique du Limousin 130 (2002), 91–97. 129   Dominic Selwood, Knights of the Cloister. Templars and Hospitallers in CentralSouthern Occitania (c.1100–c.1300) (Woodbridge, 1999); Carraz, L’ordre du Temple dans la basse vallée du Rhône. Le 5 septembre 1309, Clément V désigna les archevêques d’Arles et d’Embrun comme curateurs des biens du Temple au comté de Provence et demanda au roi Robert Ier de les leur remettre (Arch. dép. Bouches-du-Rhône, B 156). 130  Carraz, L’ordre du Temple dans la basse vallée du Rhône, pp. 523–30. Voir aussi Benoît Beaucage, “La fin des Templiers en Provence: l’exemple de la viguerie d’Aix,” dans De Provence et d’ailleurs. Mélanges offerts à N. Coulet: Provence historique 49 (1999), 79–91. 131  Carraz, L’ordre du Temple dans la basse vallée du Rhône, p. 533, qui suit Benoît Beaucage, “La saisie des biens provençaux de l’ordre du Temple,” Normes et pouvoir à la fin du Moyen Âge: actes du colloque “La recherche en études médiévales au Québec et en Ontario,” 16–17 mai 1989, Montréal, éd. Marie-Claude Déprez-Masson (Montréal, 1989), pp. 85–103. 132  Carraz, L’ordre du Temple dans la basse vallée du Rhône, pp. 533–34. 133   Regestum Clementis Papae V … nunc primum editum cura et studio monachorum ordinis sancti Benedicti, 8 vols (Rome, 1884–1894), no. 7886. 134   Sur l’ “héritage” du Temple, voir Anthony Luttrell, “Gli Ospitalieri e l’eredità dei Templari, 1305–1378,” dans I Templari. Mito e storia (Atti del Convegno di studi alla maggione templare di Poggibonsi-Siena, 29–31 maggio 1987), éds Giovanni Minnucci et Franca Sardi (Sinalunga-Sienne, 1989), pp. 67–86; reproduit dans Luttrell, The Hospitallers of Rhodes and their Mediterranean World, article III. 135  Pauli, Codice diplomatico, t. 2, no. xl, pp. 59–60. i


Figure 8.2

Jean-Marc ROger

The Hospitaller commanderies in the area of modern France during the pontificate of Pope John XXII mentioned in the text.

La réfOrme de l’HÔpital par Jean XXII


Temple en Provence; encore le 17 décembre 1319136 il ordonna à nouveau la remise de ces biens, et ce n’est qu’alors que Robert Ier se résigna à obtempérer. Cet afflux de nouvelles maisons entraîna un nouveau démembrement du prieuré de Saint-Gilles – le cinquième, après ceux du prieuré d’Angleterre, de la châtellenie d’Emposte, des prieurés de France puis d’Auvergne. Le 21 juillet 1317, en nommant f. Bermond Maury prieur de Saint-Gilles, Pierre d’Ongle prieur de Toulouse, Élyon de Villeneuve prieur de Provence, Jean XXII démembra implicitement le prieuré de Saint-Gilles en trois: le nouveau prieuré de Saint-Gilles, gardant le nom de l’ancien mais d’étendue réduite, et les prieurés de Toulouse et de Provence, nouveaux prieurés, démembrés de l’ancien prieuré de Saint-Gilles. Le nouveau prieuré de Saint-Gilles conservait le centre du prieuré primitif, dont le Rouergue et la chambre priorale de Sainte-Eulalie.137 Le prieuré de Toulouse, sur la partie ouest, avec la commanderie de Bordeaux, s’étendait du Languedoc à l’Atlantique, de la Gironde aux Pyrénées. Le prieuré de Provence reprenait la partie est, “deçà Rhône”. Le prieuré de Toulouse Si le prieuré de Provence fut éphémère, celui de Toulouse perdura jusqu’à la Révolution. Déjà au xiie siècle est nommé un prieur de Toulouse,138 mais, à supposer qu’il ait été un temps à la tête d’une circonscription, ce fut éphémère,139 et Toulouse resta ou redevint du ressort du prieuré de Saint-Gilles jusqu’en 1317. Antoine du Bourg vit bien dans la création du prieuré de Toulouse une conséquence de la dévolution des biens du Temple:140 Cet accroissement de possessions dût forcément amener une division dans les circonscriptions de l’Ordre de Saint-Jean. Le grand prieuré de Saint-Gille [sic], trop considérable désormais pour être confié à une seule administration, fut divisé en deux parties; la partie occidentale en fut détachée pour former le Grand prieuré de Toulouse (1315). Cette nouvelle circonscription comprenait les domaines de l’Ordre situés dans le haut Languedoc, la Guyenne, la Gascogne, la Bigorre, la Biscaye, le comté de Foix; tandis que la Provence, le bas Languedoc, l’Albigeois, le Rouergue, le Quercy continuaient à faire partie du Grand-Prieuré de Saint-Gille.


  Arch. dép. Bouches-du-Rhône, 56 H 4052 et 5166.   Auj. Sainte-Eulalie-de-Cernon, Aveyron, arr. de Millau, con de Cornus. 138   Cart Hosp, no. 484: Petro S. Andree, priori Hospitalis Iherosolimitani Tolose (octobre 1175). 139   Discussion dans Delaville Le Roux, Terre sainte, p. 365. 140   Antoine du Bourg, Ordre de Malte. Histoire du grand-prieuré de Toulouse et des diverses possessions de l’ordre de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem dans le Sud-Ouest de la France, Languedoc, Pays de Foix, de Comminges, de Béarn, Gascogne, Guyenne, Périgord, Quercy, Albigeois, Rouergue (Toulouse, 1883), p. 10. 137


Jean-Marc ROger

Le premier grand-Prieur de Toulouse fut Pierre de l’Ongle, chancelier de l’Ordre, un des membres les plus distingués et les plus dévoués de son conseil.

Du Bourg date donc l’érection du prieuré de Toulouse de 1315, mais entre parenthèses.141 Cette date de 1315 a été reprise par Delaville Le Roulx,142 AnneMarie Legras.143 En fait, la création du prieuré de Toulouse, par démembrement de celui de Saint-Gilles, se fit non en 1315 mais le 21 juillet 1317. Ce ne fut pas une initiative séparée mais une des mesures de la grande réorganisation de ce jour. Le premier prieur de Toulouse fut bien f. Pierre d’Ongle, nommé le 21 juillet 1317 par Jean XXII à ce nouveau prieuré. Le prieuré de Provence Comme celui de Toulouse, le prieuré de Provence fut démembré le 21 juillet 1317 du prieuré de Saint-Gilles. La nomination à la tête du prieuré de Provence de f. Élyon de Villeneuve s’imposait: le maître de l’Hôpital, f. Foulques de Villaret, qui voyait peut-être en lui son successeur, l’avait, le 5 novembre 1314, pourvu144 des commanderies de Manosque et de Puimoisson145 et institué son lieutenant général au prieuré de SaintGilles in partibus citra Rod[a]num146, c’est-à-dire dans la partie du prieuré, deçà Rhône, qui allait, moins de trois ans plus tard, être érigée en prieuré de Provence.

141   Il prend soin de préciser, ibid., p. 10, n. 1: “La bulle d’érection du Grand-Prieuré de Toulouse n’existe pas dans ses archives”. 142   Cart Hosp, 1:xxxvii, et Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, p. 49. Ibid., p. 52, il a bien daté ce démembrement du prieuré de Saint-Gilles, mais ce second passage a été éclipsé par le premier. Cette surprenante contradiction, à deux pages d’intervalle, s’explique-t-elle par le fait que le livre, paru en 1913, est posthume? – Delaville Le Roulx mourut le 4 novembre 1911 (Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes 72 (1911), 722–25). 143   Anne-Marie Legras, Les commanderies des Templiers et des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem en Saintonge et en Aunis (Paris, 1983), p. 14, n. 14; repris dans L’enquête pontificale de 1373 sur l’ordre des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, éd. Jean Glénisson, vol. 1, L’enquête dans le prieuré de France, éd. Anne-Marie Legras (Paris, 1987), pp. 73–74. La date de 1315 a été reprise aussi par Nelly Pousthomis-Dalle, “Histoire et archéologie de la commanderie-grand prieuré des hospitaliers de Saint-Jean à Toulouse: état de la recherche,” dans Cahiers de Fanjeaux 41, Les ordres religieux militaires dans le Midi (xiie–xive siècle) (Toulouse, 2006), pp. 239–64 (p. 239), et Theresa M. Vann, “The assimilation of Templar properties by the Order of the Hospital” in The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314), éd. Jochen Burgtorf, Paul F. Crawford and Helen J. Nicholson (Farnham, 2010), pp. 339–46 (p. 343). 144  Isnard, Livre des privilèges de Manosque, no. lii, p. 185 (au chapitre général de Rhodes). 145   Alpes de Haute-Provence, arr. de Digne-les-Bains, con de Riez. 146  Isnard, Livre des privilèges de Manosque, no. lii, pp. 185–87.

La réfOrme de l’HÔpital par Jean XXII


Dans le train des bulles Dum attenta meditatione celle le concernant147 est la seule donnant quelques indications, il est vrai sommaires, sur ses limites: te in priorem prioratus ejusdem Hospitalis in provincia Provincie de mandato nostro, prout infra describitur limitato, videlicet sicut labitur a Valentia magnum flumen Rodani, cum omnibus insulis, usque ad castrum Furcarum et a dicto castro Furcarum in Argentia sicut labitur brachium dicti fluminis Rodani quos transit ante Sanctum Egidium usque ad mare Imperii et carissimi in Christo filii nostri, Roberti, Scicilie regis illustris, Provincie comitis, dominium sequendo ac de ipso mari usque ad Niciam et de Nicia sequendo montes usque Secutiam et de Secutia transeundo per Scalas et ad dictum locum Valentie redeundo.

En bref, le prieuré de Provence, tirant son nom du comté, s’étendait sur la partie orientale, rive gauche du Rhône, de l’ancien prieuré de Saint-Gilles. À partir de Valence, d’après cette bulle, sa limite suivait le Rhône jusqu’au château de Fourques148 puis Argence149 et le Petit-Rhône en laissant Saint-Gilles au prieuré de ce nom, suivait en Provence du roi Robert la côte de la Méditerranée jusqu’à Nice, de là traversait les Alpes jusqu’à Suse150 et, par les Échelles,151 regagnait Valence. La commanderie des Échelles, très excentrée, était une enclave au sein du prieuré d’Auvergne, et la limite nord était difficile à définir. La bulle ne le précise pas: le prieuré de Provence comprenait la commanderie d’Avignon, à laquelle Jean XXII, naturellement, portait une attention particulière. Si l’on en croit Jean Raybaud, avocat et “archivaire” du prieuré de Saint-Gilles,152 le prieuré de Provence avait comme chef Manosque et comme chambres priorales les deux commanderies de f. Élyon de Villeneuve, Manosque et Puimoisson, celle de Rue,153 la quatrième étant constituée de Ginasservis154 et Vinon,155 membres de la commanderie d’Aix. Toujours d’après Raybaud, f. Élyon de Villeneuve tint le chapitre provincial du prieuré de Provence le dimanche 23 juillet 1318 à Aix.156 F. Foulques de Villaret s’étant démis du magistère, Jean XXII trouva tout naturel de nommer son successeur. Au mois de juin 1319, il réunit en “consistoire 147

  Arch. Vat., Reg. Vat. 66, ep. 4220, fol. 339; Mollat, no. 4461.   Gard, arr. de Nîmes, con de Beaucaire. 149   Gard, arr. de Nîmes, con de Beaucaire, cne de Bellegarde (voir la carte des commanderies de Camargue dans Édouard Baratier et Madeleine Villard, Archives départementales des Bouches-du-Rhône, Répertoire de la série H, 56 H: Grand prieuré de Saint-Gilles des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem (Marseille, 1966), p. [xii]). 150   Italie, province de Lombardie. 151   Savoie, arr. de Chambéry, chef-lieu de con. 152  Raybaud, Saint-Gilles, 1:256. 153   Var, arr. de Draguignan, con de Salernes, cne de Villecroze. 154   Var, arr. de Brignoles, con de Rians. 155   Auj. Vinon-sur-Verdon, Var, arr. de Brignoles, con de Rians. 156  Raybaud, Saint-Gilles, 1:259. 148


Jean-Marc ROger

secret” f. Simon Le Rat, Henri de Mesnils, Eudes de Montaigu, Pierre d’Ongle, Fernand Rodríguez, Étienne Vasques, Artaud de Chavanon, Léonard de Tibertis, prieurs respectivement de France, de Champagne, d’Auvergne, de Toulouse, de Castille et de Léon, de Portugal, de Navarre, Venise, et autres prieurs et frères de l’Hôpital alors résidant en Avignon (tunc apud Sedem apostolicam residentes). À l’unanimité ils supplièrent Jean XXII de nommer f. Élyon de Villeneuve au magistère de l’Hôpital comme étant le chevalier le plus capable. Après cette consultation, Jean XXII nomma donc maître de l’Hôpital, le 18 juin 1319, f. Élyon de Villeneuve, toujours prieur de Provence.157 F. Élyon de Villeneuve semble avoir été le seul prieur de Provence: quand il fut promu au magistère, il ne paraît pas s’être nommé de successeur à la tête du prieuré de Provence. D’après Raybaud,158 il le “retint à sa main”, se contentant d’y nommer un lieutenant en la personne de f. Isnard de Grasse, et se démit du prieuré de Provence au chapitre général de Montpellier, en se réservant le droit d’en disposer.159 Ce chapitre général du 24 octobre 1330 nomma prieur de Saint-Gilles jusqu’à la Saint-Jean-Baptiste 1331 et le decennium suivant f. Pierre d’Ongle, en réunissant à ce prieuré ceux de Toulouse160 et de Provence “comme autrefois”,161 c’est-à-dire avant le démembrement du 21 juillet 1317. Toujours suivant Raybaud, le maître f. Élyon de Villeneuve tint le chapitre du prieuré de Provence le 10 mars 1331 à Aix.162

 Bulle Inter curas innumeras (Pauli, Codice diplomatico, t. 2, Giunta, no. vi, pp. 399–401; Mollat et Lesquen, no. 9577; Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, p. 51, n. 1). 158   D’après Raybaud, Saint-Gilles, 1:264, f. Élyon de Villeneuve donna à f. Isnard de Grasse la commanderie de Rue, qui était une de ses chambres (“branches”!), et “retint” ses autres chambres priorales; établit f. Guillaume d’Anfous [Amphoux] son lieutenant en sa chambre de Manosque et à celle de Ginasservis et Vinon, et maintint f. François de Puyaigut son lieutenant en sa chambre de Puimoisson. 159   Ibid., pp. 281–82. 160   Le chapitre général de Montpellier, le 24 octobre 1330, permit au maître, f. Élyon de Villeneuve, de retenir à sa main la “Province dela Rosne” et de disposer des frères et baillies: “Item, le maistre retient a sa main la Province de la Rosne, que il en puisse ordener de freres et des baillies qui hi sont e[t] retenir a sa main ces que a lui plaira, et donner les baillies au terme des autres” (NLM, Arch. 280, fol. 12v). 161   Ibid., fol. 2; Charles L. Tipton, “The 1330 Chapter General of the Knights Hospitallers at Montpellier,” Traditio 24 (1968), 293–308 (avec beaucoup de fautes de transcription), p. 301: fratrem Petrum de Ungula priorem Sancti Egidii, unitis et adjunctis sibi prioratibus Tholose et Provincie, prout fuit antiquitus consuetum; Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, p. 52, n. 6. Le chapitre général fixa à 14,000 florins or le montant de la responsion due par les trois prieurés de la langue de Provence, réunis comme autrefois (NLM, Arch. 280, fol. 6v: Item, prioratus Sancti Egidii et Tholose ac prioratus Provincie, quos nunc unimus prout antiquitus fuerat consuetum: flor. auri xiiiim). 162   Lors de ce chapitre il fit sa grande fondation en l’église Saint-Jean d’Aix (Raybaud, Saint-Gilles, 1:284). 157

La réfOrme de l’HÔpital par Jean XXII


La réunification du prieuré de Saint-Gilles fut provisoire: elle cessa à la mort de f. Pierre d’Ongle.163 Le 30 août 1332, le maître, f. Élyon de Villeneuve, et le chapitre général de Rhodes nommèrent pour cinq ans prieur de Saint-Gilles f. Guillaume de Reillanne,164 en y ajoutant le prieuré de Provence deçà Rhône, sous la responsion de 8,000 florins or:165 Et subsequenter idem dominus magister, una cum dictis bailliviis, fratribus et proceribus conventus ipsius, et ipsum generale capitulum, deliberato consilio, ordinaverunt fratrem Guillelmum de Rallania priorem Sancti Egidii, addito dicto prioratui prioratu Provincie citra Rodanum, videlicet ad quinque annos, sub responsione annua viiim flor. auri.

Le même jour, ils nommèrent prieur de Toulouse, toujours pour 5 ans, f. Sicard de Gabarret, sous la responsion, moindre, de 6,000 florins or:166 fratrem Sicardum de Gavarretto ordinaverunt pariter ad quinque annos priorem Tholose, sub responsione annua vim flor. auri.

Le prieuré de Provence, lors de sa grande visite de 1338,167 avait à sa tête168 le 163   Après avoir séjourné en Allemagne à la fin de 1328 et en 1329 comme nonce de Jean XXII (Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, p. 74, n. 3), il mourut, “prieur de Saint-Gilles et de Toulouse,” en Avignon, sans doute au mois de mai 1332, juste avant (nuper) le 25 (Pauli, Codice diplomatico, t. 2, no. lxiii, p. 81). 164   Que le chapitre général de Montpellier, le 24 octobre 1330, avait nommé grand commandeur (magnum preceptorem) jusqu’à la Saint-Jean-Baptiste 1331 et le decennium suivant (NLM, Arch. 280, fol. 2; Tipton, “The 1330 Chapter General,” p. 301). 165   NLM, Arch. 280, fol. 22. 166   Ibid., fol. 22v. Le total des responsions des prieurés de la langue de Provence était toujours de 14,000 florins or, comme l’avait fixé le chapitre général de Montpellier le 24 octobre 1330. Le 15 septembre 1335, maître et chapitre général de Rhodes nommèrent prieur de Toulouse f. Aycard de Miremont, sous la même responsion de 6,000 florins (ibid., fol. 33v: fratrem Aycardum de Miramonte, priorem Tholose, ad quinque annos, sub responsione sex milium florenorum). 167   Arch. dép. Bouches-du-Rhône, 56 H 123; éd. Benoît Beaucage, Visites générales des commanderies de l’ordre des Hospitaliers dépendantes du grand prieuré de Saint-Gilles (1338) (Archives départementales des Bouches-du-Rhône, 56 H 123) (Aix-en-Provence, 1982). F. Pierre Corneilhan, futur maître de l’Hôpital (1353–1355), était alors commandeur de Beaulieu (Drôme, arr. et con de Nyons, cne de Mirabel-aux-Baronnies). Sur ce procèsverbal de visite, voir aussi Claude-France Hollard, “Les Hospitaliers du Sud-Est de la France en 1338: la vocation de l’ordre à la mesure des comptes,” Provence historique 45 (1995), 75–86; Benoît Beaucage, “L’organisation du travail dans les commanderies du prieuré de Provence en 1338,” dans La Commanderie. Institution des ordres militaires dans l’Occident médiéval, éd. Anthony Luttrell et Léon Pressouyre (Paris, 2002), pp. 107–123. 168   Le début du procès-verbal de visite précise bien qu’il s’agit du prieuré de Provence et non de celui de Saint-Gilles: super informatione bonorum omnium … bajuliarum et


Jean-Marc ROger

prieur de Saint-Gilles, f. Guillaume de Reillanne.169 Bien qu’il fût alors sous l’autorité du prieur de Saint-Gilles, il jouissait encore d’une certaine autonomie puisque cette enquête porte sur le seul prieuré de Provence, comprenant alors 33 commanderies.170 Le 12 décembre 1344, au chapitre général de Rhodes, le maître, f. Élyon de Villeneuve, retint à sa main le prieuré de Provence, qui était donc encore une entité autonome:171 Item, retent mossenhor a sa man lo priorat de Proensa, e que tant del dit priorat com de las baylias daquel ambe conselh dels prodes homes sobre anneya per auctoritat del capitol ne pueyxa ordenar a vida o a temps.

Le prieuré de Provence fut réuni à celui de Saint-Gilles au chapitre général de Rhodes de 1347 (n. st.) suivant les provisions de ce prieuré du maître, f. Dorde de Gozon, et du couvent pour f. Guillaume de Reillanne, prieur de Saint-Gilles, du 12 janvier 1347 (n. st.):172 prioratum nostrum Sancti Egidii supradictum necnon prioratum Provincie citra Rodanum, quem auctoritate nostri presentis generalis capituli prioratui Sancti Egidii annexamus, incorporamus … La réunion du prieuré de Provence à celui de Saint-Gilles eut donc lieu au milieu du xive siècle, qui vit se fixer, dans ses grands traits, l’organisation de l’Hôpital durant le temps de son séjour à Rhodes. Même s’il n’eut qu’une vie éphémère en tant que prieuré autonome, ayant à sa tête un prieur particulier, la notion même de prieuré de Provence perdura. Comme l’ont remarqué Delaville Le Roulx173 et Benoît Beaucage,174 si le prieuré de Provence fut bien réuni à celui de Saint-Gilles, jusqu’au xve siècle au membrorum omnium dicti Hospitalis in prioratu Provincie (Beaucage, Visites générales, p. 2). Les commanderies visitées le confirment: ce n’est pas, comme il a été écrit, un “procèsverbal de visite générale de l’ensemble du grand prieuré de Saint Gilles”. 169   Qui portait les armes de sa famille, d’azur à un fer ou soc de charrue d’argent mis en bande (Ernest de Rozière, Table et armorial du Nobiliaire de Provence (1900), p. 126). Déjà le 24 décembre 1261 est cité f. Geoffroy de Reillanne, de l’Hôpital (Arch. dép. Bouches-du-Rhône, 56 H 4090). 170   Par ordre alphabétique: Aix, Arles, Avignon, Beaulieu (Dauphiné) et Beaulieu (Provence), Calissane, Claret, Comps, la Croix, les Échelles, Fos, Gap et Embrun, Lardiers, Manas, Mallemort, Manosque, Marseille, Monteil, Nice, Orange, Poët-Laval, Puimoisson, Rossillon, Rue, Saint-Jean de Trièves, Saint-Maurice de Régusse, Saint-Pierre d’Avez, Saliers, Thoronne, Trinquetaille, Valdrôme, Valence, Venterol (identifications dans Beaucage, Visites générales, et cartes, ibid., pp. xv-xxii). 171   NML, Arch. 280, fol. 52v. 172   NLM, Arch. 316, fol. 14r–v. Les “establissemens” de ce chapitre général ne font pas état de cette réunion. Le terme presentis empêche d’y voir un rappel du chapitre général de Montpellier du 24 octobre 1330. 173   Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, pp. 52–53, 143, n. 4, 216. 174  Beaucage, Visites générales, p. iii–iv, xi, n. 13.

La réfOrme de l’HÔpital par Jean XXII


moins les biens de l’Ordre rive gauche du Rhône continuèrent à être considérés comme une entité à part du prieuré de Saint-Gilles proprement dit. D’après Raybaud, le chapitre général de Rhodes du 1er mars 1379 institua deux receveurs du Commun Trésor au prieuré de Saint-Gilles: un en la Grande Provence, l’autre en la Petite Provence;175 les cahiers de comptes du xve siècle séparent commanderies de “Grande Provence” et de “Petite Provence”. Un cahier de papier non daté, de 1425 ou plutôt 1426,176 donnant l’état des commanderies de la “Petite Provence” et de leurs commandeurs à cette époque, dénombre 30 commanderies:177 par ordre alphabétique Aix, “Amergues”,178 Arles,179 Avignon, “Belloc” en Provence,180 “Belloc” en Dauphiné,181 Claret,182 Comps,183 la Croix,184 les Échelles, Fos,185 Gap, Mallemort,186 Manosque, Marseille, Manas,187 Montélimar,188 Nice, Poët-Laval,189 Puimoisson, Roussillon,190 Rue, Saint-Maurice,191 Saint-Pierre d’Avez, Saliers,192 Trièves,193 Trinquetaille,194 Valdrôme,195 Valence et Venterol.196 Encore en 1441, se  Raybaud, Saint-Gilles, 1:343. Les “establissemens” de ce chapitre général, tenu par f. Bertran Flote, élu lieutenant de magistère en l’absence du maître, f. Jean Fernández de Heredia, “qui estoit en la main des ennemis en Albanye,” n’en font pas état. 176   Cahier de papier de cinq pages, Arch. dép. Bouches-du-Rhône, 56 H 4099: “S’ensuient les commanderies de la Petite Provence et lez noms des commandeurs qui tiennent lesd. commanderies”. Beaucage, Visites générales, p. xi, n. 12, indique aussi un document analogue, de 1428 (Arch. dép. Bouches-du-Rhône, 56 H 310). 177   Soit seulement trois de moins qu’en 1338: seules “les plus vulnérables” des commanderies de 1338 (Beaucage, Visites générales, p. vii) avaient été réduites au statut de simples membres de commanderies plus importantes. 178   Auj. Les Omergues, Alpes de Haute-Provence, arr. de Forcalquier, con de Noyerssur-Jabron. 179   Bouches-du-Rhône, chef-lieu d’arrondissement. 180   Auj. Beaulieu, Var, arr. de Toulon, con et cne de Solliès-Pont. 181   Auj. Beaulieu, Drôme, arr. et con de Nyons, cne de Mirabel-aux-Baronnies. 182   Alpes de Haute-Provence, arr. de Forcalquier, con de la Motte-du-Caire. 183   Auj. Comps-sur-Artuby, Var, arr. de Draguignan, chef-lieu de con. 184   Auj. la Croix-sur-Roudoule, Alpes-Maritimes, arr. de Nice, cne de Puget-Théniers. 185   Auj. Fos-sur-Mer, Bouches-du-Rhône, arr. d’Aix-en-Provence, con d’Istres. 186   Bouches-du-Rhône, arr. d’Arles, con d’Eyguières. 187   Manas, arr. de Valence, con de Marsanne. 188   Drôme, arr. de Valence, chef-lieu de con. 189   Drôme, arr. de Valence, con de Dieulefit. 190   Vaucluse, arr. d’Apt, con de Gordes. 191   Auj. Saint-Maurice de Régusse, Var, arr. de Draguignan, con de Tavernes, cne de Régusse. 192   Bouches-du-Rhône, arr. d’Arles, con d’Arles-Est, cne de Saint-Martin de Crau. 193   Auj. Saint-Jean d’Hérans, Isère, arr. de Grenoble, con de Mens. 194   Bouches-du-Rhône, arr., con et cne d’Arles. 195   Drôme, arr. de Die, con de Luc-en-Diois. 196   Drôme, arr. et con de Nyons. 175


Jean-Marc ROger

tint à Arles une assemblée des commandeurs de la Petite Provence, c’est-à-dire de l’ancien prieuré de Provence.197 Si les frères résidant au couvent de Rhodes étaient répartis par langues, à raison d’une auberge par langue, celle de Provence faisait exception: pendant au moins un demi-siècle, de 1390 au plus tard à 1440 voire 1442, les frères du comté de Provence et du Comtat Venaissin, c’est-à-dire de l’ancien prieuré de Provence, eurent leur propre auberge, de la Petite Provence, deçà Rhône, différente de l’auberge de la Grande Provence ou de Saint-Gilles, des frères du prieuré de Saint-Gilles de la rive droite du Rhône et du prieuré de Toulouse.198 Le démembrement du prieuré de France Les biens de l’Hôpital en France ne formèrent qu’un seul prieuré, le prieuré de Saint-Gilles, jusqu’en 1178, où Odin, prieur de Saint-Gilles, tint son chapitre provincial aux confins de la Champagne et de la Bourgogne, à Cerisiers,199 en Othe, très loin de Saint-Gilles. Dans deux chartes non datées mais de 1162/1163,200 intervient f. Jocelin, provisor de l’Hôpital en France. Ainsi, l’Hôpital faisait déjà une place à part à la France du Nord.201 En 1179 est nommé f. Anseau de Corbeil, qualifié de “premier prieur de France”.202 Le prieuré de France fut donc institué en 1178/1179,203 par troisième démembrement du prieuré de Saint-Gilles. Il s’étendait sur tout le Nord de la France, de l’Aunis, de la Saintonge et du Poitou à la Flandre, de la Bretagne à la Lorraine; de la Gironde au Rhin et à la Moselle. Bien qu’issu du démembrement du prieuré de Saint-Gilles, le prieuré de France était d’une telle étendue que dès la fin du xiie siècle des divisions territoriales y apparurent. Vers 1191, maître Hélier était commandeur des baillies de l’Hôpital


  Arch. dép. Bouches-du-Rhône, 56 H 311.  Raybaud, Saint-Gilles, 1:233, 342–43, 379–80; Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, pp. 52–53; Jean-Marc Roger, Nouveaux regards sur des monuments des Hospitaliers à Rhodes (II). Les auberges, le bailliage du commerce, la maison de f. Hieronimo de Canel (Poitiers, 2010), pp. 14–29. 199   Cart Hosp, no. 528 (assensu fratrum nostrorum qui interfuerunt capitulo de “Ceresiers”. Parmi les témoins, S. Ansermi, preceptoris. S. Radulfi de Dinai, prioris Anglie … S. Ernulfi de Spina: f. Anseau [de Corbeil] et Arnoul de l’Épine sont deux futurs prieurs de France. 200   Jean-Marc Roger, “Le prieuré de Saint-Jean-en-l’Île-lez-Corbeil,” Paris et Île-deFrance, Mémoires 60 (2009), 177–291 (182–83). 201   Comme l’a écrit Delaville Le Roulx, Terre sainte, pp. 367–68. 202   Cart Hosp, no. 552 (sancto Hospitali Ierusalem et fratri Anselmo, ejusdem domus primo priori in Francia). Parmi les témoins, Guy, fils dudit f. Anseau (Guidone, filio fratris Anselmi, prioris Gallie). 203   Delaville Le Roulx, “Fondation du grand prieuré de France de l’ordre de l’Hôpital”. 198

La réfOrme de l’HÔpital par Jean XXII


de Lorraine et de Troyes, c’est-à-dire de Champagne.204 Surtout, f. Guillaume de Vendelain, prieur de Bourgogne en novembre 1298,205 tint le chapitre provincial du prieuré de Bourgogne le mercredi après la Saint-Barnabé, 17 juin 1299, à Normiers.206 Ce prieuré de Bourgogne, qui scellait d’un chef de saint JeanBaptiste,207 s’étendait sur la Bourgogne, le Champagne et certainement la Lorraine. Ce prieuré de Bourgogne fut éphémère, mais c’est une anticipation du prieuré de Champagne institué moins de 20 ans plus tard, le 21 juillet 1317. Le 21 juillet 1317, Jean XXII nomma f. Simon Le Rat prieur de France, Pierrre de Mailg prieur d’Aquitaine et Henri de Mesnils prieur de Champagne. Pour f. Simon Le Rat, c’était une simple confirmation. En revanche, f. Pierrre de Mailg et Henri de Mesnils étaient de nouveaux prieurs, à la tête de nouveaux prieurés. Ces deux créations n’étaient pas ex nihilo. Le prieuré d’Aquitaine s’étendait de l’Aunis et de la Saintonge au Maine et au Vendômois, de l’Angoumois à la Bretagne, c’est-à-dire, en gros, le ressort de la commanderie d’Aquitaine ou du Poitou du Temple jusqu’en 1307;208 toutefois, Bordeaux, qui était de la commanderie d’Aquitaine ou de Poitou du Temple, passa après son abolition à la langue de Provence, au prieuré de Toulouse. Quant au prieuré de Champagne,209 il s’étendait sur la Lorraine de langue française, le duché de Bourgogne, la partie orientale de la Champagne, quelques paroisses de Franche-Comté:210 donc, en gros aussi, le ressort du prieuré de Bourgogne de 1298–1299. Les nouveaux prieurés ainsi démembrés étaient de propos délibéré d’étendue, de richesse, d’importance très inégales, afin de permettre d’ultérieures promotions d’un prieuré à un autre, “meilleur”211 comme les “ améliorissements “ de commanderies. Pour prendre l’exemple de la langue de France, le nouveau prieuré de France était 204

  Jean-Marc Roger, “Une bulle inédite du pape Lucius III pour l’ordre de l’Hôpital (4 novembre 1183),” Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes 132 (1974), 97–100. 205   Arch. dép. Yonne, H 2247 (Roger, Le prieuré de Champagne, 1:184–85). 206   Cart Hosp, n° 4470 (auj. Normier, Côte d’Or, arr. de Montbard, con de Précy-sousThil). 207   Roger, “Les sceaux de l’Hôpital en Champagne,” pp. 53–83 et fig. X.14. 208   Jean-Marc Roger, “La prise de possession par l’Hôpital de maisons du Temple en Poitou et en Bretagne (mai 1313),” Revue historique du Centre-Ouest 7 (2008), 215–43. 209   Jean-Marc Roger, “Les différents types de commanderies du prieuré de Champagne au xve siècle,” dans La Commanderie, éd. Luttrell et Pressouyre, pp. 29–56. 210   Mais non la Franche-Comté dans son ensemble, comme Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, p. 49, l’a laissé entendre. 211   Les deux premiers prieurs d’Aquitaine, f. Pierre et Guillaume de Mailg, furent promus au prieuré de France (Roger, “F. Jean de Vivonne, prieur d’Aquitaine,” pp. 317–18) comme, le 29 janvier 1359 (n. st.), f. Jean de Nanteuil (Roger, “F. Jean de Nanteuil, prieur d’Aquitaine, amiral de France,” Revue historique du Centre-Ouest 7 (2008), 245–86 (273). Mais en 1416, contre f. Pierre de Bauffremont, f. Ayme d’Oiselay ne réussit pas à obtenir cette promotion (Roger, “Ayme d’Oiselay, prieur d’Aquitaine, et sa brigue du prieuré de France en 1416,” Bulletin de la Société des Antiquaires de l’Ouest 5e série 6 (1992), 91–124).


Jean-Marc ROger

le premier des trois nouveaux prieurés.212 La capitale du royaume, Paris, était son cœur; il était de beaucoup le plus vaste, le plus riche: il s’étendait de la Normandie, le Vendômois, la partie occidentale de la Bourgogne et de la Champagne, à l’actuelle Belgique et même, outre-Escaut, quelques paroisses des Pays-Bas avec la commanderie de la Braque.213 Le second, celui d’Aquitaine, autour de Poitiers et d’Angers, s’étendait de l’Aunis et la Saintonge à la Bretagne et au Maine, soit en gros un peu moins de 100,000 km2. Le troisième, celui de Champagne, était une sorte de bande assez étroite, autour de Langres,214 de Chalon215 à Metz, avec les autres évêchés de Langres, Châlons, Toul216 et Verdun,217 soit quelque 42,000 km2.218 Cette grande différence hiérarchique se traduit dans l’échelle des responsions: le chapitre général de Montpellier du 24 octobre 1330219 les fixa pour les trois prieurés de la langue de France à respectivement 13,000 florins pour le prieuré de France,220 6,000 pour celui d’Aquitaine, et seulement 2,000 pour celui de Champagne. Pendant des décennies, les chapitres provinciaux des nouveaux prieurés de la langue de France continuèrent à se tenir en des maisons de l’Hôpital ancien: au prieuré de Saint-Jean-en-l’Île-lez-Corbeil jusqu’en 1353 pour le prieuré de France,221 en la maison de Bar-sur-Aube222 de 1320 à 1356223 pour le prieuré de Champagne. Pour le prieuré d’Aquitaine, le premier chapitre connu fut célébré par f. Ferry de Fougerolles le 14 juin 1340 à la Vausseau,224 les suivants pour la plupart à l’Hôpital ancien d’Angers.225 Ce n’est que plus tard qu’ils se tinrent de façon régulière dans des maisons du Temple, meilleures que celles de l’Hôpital ancien: à

 Voir L’enquête pontificale de 1373, vol. 1, éd. Legras.   Auj. Ter Braken, Pays-Bas, Brabant-septentrional, dép. d’Alphen. 214   Haute-Marne, chef-lieu d’arr. 215   Auj. Chalon-sur-Saône, Saône-et-Loire, chef-lieu d’arr. 216   Meurthe-et-Moselle, chef-lieu d’arr. 217   Meuse, chef-lieu d’arr. 218   Sur l’étendue du prieuré de Champagne je renvoie à Roger, Le prieuré de Champagne, 1:263–80. 219   Tipton, “The 1330 Chapter General,” 304. 220   À titre de comparaison, la responsion de la commanderie de Troyes, au prieuré de France, montait en 1333 à 518 l. 9 s. 6 d. (Jean-Marc Roger, “Les commandeurs de Troyes au xive siècle,” Mémoires de la Société académique de l’Aube 134 (2010), 145–79 (160). 221   Roger, “Le prieuré de Saint-Jean-en-l’Île-lez-Corbeil,” p. 195. 222   Aube, chef-lieu d’arr. 223  Roger, Le prieuré de Champagne, 3:1650. 224   Auj. Lavausseau, Vienne, arr. de Poitiers, con de Vouillé; de l’Hôpital ancien. 225   Roger, “F. Jean de Vivonne,” pp. 325–26. 212 213

La réfOrme de l’HÔpital par Jean XXII


partir de 1354 au Temple de Paris pour le prieuré de France,226 de 1360 à 1399227 au Temple de Châtillon-sur-Seine228 pour celui de Champagne, et même à partir de 1523 à Poitiers en l’hôtel de Montgauguier229, membre de la commanderie de Saint-Georges,230 pour celui d’Aquitaine.231 V. Observations sur la réforme de juillet 1317 Le 21 juillet 1317, Jean XXII nomma 25 prieurs et commandeurs. Il s’agissait sans doute de parer au plus pressé en nommant des hommes qui concourussent au salut de l’Hôpital. Ces nominations individuelles ne sauraient masquer de l’érection des structures administratives de l’Hôpital, mise en œuvre par ses bulles Dum attenta meditatione du 21 juillet 1317. Cette réorganisation, faite dans l’urgence, semble avoir été dans une large mesure improvisée. À ma connaissance, aucun texte du xive siècle ne définit les limites, ni même les commanderies des quatre nouveaux prieurés créés implicitement par les bulles Dum attenta meditatione du 21 juillet 1317: seule celle pour f. Élyon de Villeneuve et le prieuré de Provence232 donne quelques précisions. Pour la langue de France, les limites des trois prieurés de France, d’Aquitaine et de Champagne ne tiennent compte ni de celles des diocèses ni de celles des principautés territoriales,233 comme le montre l’exemple de la Champagne. Au point de vue ecclésiastique, si le vaste diocèse de Langres était presque tout entier du prieuré de Champagne, une frange, à l’Ouest, était du prieuré de France; à l’inverse, si le diocèse de Reims, lui aussi fort étendu, était presque tout entier du prieuré de France, quelques paroisses, autour d’Épernay,234 étaient du prieuré de Champagne. Au point de vue politique, si la majeure partie du comté de Champagne faisait bien partie du prieuré du même nom, la capitale du comté, Troyes, resta du prieuré de France, tout comme Reims.

226   Roger, “Le prieuré de Saint-Jean-en-l’Île-lez-Corbeil,” pp. 198–99. C’est aux alentours de la mort de f. Jean de Nanteuil, vers le début de 1359 (n. st.), que le chef du prieuré de France fut transféré définitivement au Temple de Paris (Roger, “F. Jean de Nanteuil,” pp. 272–73). 227  Roger, Le prieuré de Champagne, 3:1650–52. 228   Côte d’Or, arr. de Montbard, chef-lieu de con. 229   Auj. Maisonneuve, Vienne, arr. de Poitiers, con de Mirebeau. 230   Auj. Saint-Georges-les-Baillargeaux, Vienne, arr. de Poitiers, chef-lieu de con. 231   Roger, “F. Jean de Vivonne,” pp. 326–27. 232   Voir ci-dessus, pp. 124–30. 233   Dans le même sens, Luttrell, “Change and Conflict within the Hospitaller Province of Italy,” pp. 186–87. 234   Marne, chef-lieu d’arr.


Jean-Marc ROger

Cette surprenante délimitation territoriale fut source de difficultés, mais en petit nombre.235 Le 26 juillet 1319, Jacques II, roi d’Aragon, démembra la châtellenie d’Emposte, de la langue d’Espagne, en créant le prieuré de Catalogne, dont le chef était à Barcelone;236 avec d’autres intentions que Jean XXII, il allait dans le même sens. Peut-être créé ad personam par Jean XXII pour f. Élyon de Villeneuve, le prieuré de Provence fut réuni à celui de Saint-Gilles par le chapitre général de Rhodes de janvier 1347 (n. st.). Mais les nouveaux prieurés de Toulouse, d’Aquitaine et de Champagne subsistèrent presque tels quels jusqu’en 1792.237 À l’épreuve des siècles, la réorganisation territoriale de l’Hôpital du 21 juillet 1317 paraît donc justifiée. Le but premier de la création en 1317 des prieurés de Provence et de Toulouse, d’Aquitaine et de Champagne, par démembrement de ceux de Saint-Gilles et de France, était de remédier à l’endettement, écrasant, de l’Hôpital. Dans l’immédiat, cette situation financière, catastrophique, ne s’améliora guère.238 Le 29 mars 1320,239 la dette de l’Hôpital montait à 575,900 florins, outre 10,000 livres à la république de Gênes. Mais f. Élyon de Villeneuve était l’homme de la situation. Au prix d’années d’efforts opiniâtres, avec l’appui indéfectible de Jean XXII,240 il réussit à rétablir les finances de l’Hôpital, en remboursant aux créanciers des sommes considérables.241 Le 21 mai 1321,242 l’Hôpital devait encore 133,000 florins aux Bardi,243 191,000 aux Peruzzi.244 Mais, le 15 septembre 1335, sa crise financière était, semble-t-il, 235

  La seigneurie des Échelles, au diocèse de Grenoble, avait été léguée le 8 novembre 1260 à f. Féraud de Barras, grand commandeur de l’Hôpital “deçà mer” (citra mare) par Béatrice de Savoie, veuve de Raymond-Bérenger IV, comte de Provence (Cart Hosp, no. 2965), et elle resta à la langue de Provence jusqu’au xve siècle. Les Échelles étant en Savoie, en principe du ressort de la langue d’Auvergne, celle-ci, au terme de bien des litiges avec celle de Provence (Raybaud, Saint-Gilles, 1: 356–57, 372), finit par lui arracher cette commanderie. Si Jean XXII ne mit pas fin à cette difficulté, ce n’est pas lui qui la créa. 236   Cart Hosp, 1:cxxxviii. 237   Jean-Marc Roger, “L’ordre de Malte et la gestion de ses biens en France du milieu du xvie siècle à la Révolution,” dans Flaran 6: Les ordres militaires, la vie rurale et le peuplement en Europe occidentale (xiie -xviiie siècles) (Auch, 1986), pp. 169–203. 238   Norman Housley, The Avignon Papacy and the Crusades, 1305–1378 (Oxford, 1986), p. 284. 239   Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, pp. 23–24. 240   Ibid., pp. 57–59. 241   Ibid., pp. 21–24, 53–57. 242   Mollat, nos. 13408 et 13409 (Bardi), 13407 et 13410 (Peruzzi); Renouard, Les relations des papes d’Avignon, pp. 68 et 541–42. 243   Le 8 janvier 1319, l’Hôpital leur devait 9,500 florins (Mollat et Lesquen, no. 8791; Delaville Le Roulx, Rhodes, p. 23). 244   Sur les liens entre les Hospitaliers, en particulier f. Élyon de Villeneuve, et les Peruzzi, voir Armando Sapori, I libri di commercio dei Peruzzi (Milan, 1934), pp. 24, 100; Anthony Luttrell, “Interessi fiorentini nell’economia e nella politica dei cavalieri Ospedalieri di Rodi nel Trecento,” Annali della Scuola normale superiore di Pisa: Lettere, storia e

La réfOrme de l’HÔpital par Jean XXII


surmontée. En 1346, après la faillite des grandes compagnies florentines, l’Hôpital avait des créances sur les Bardi, Peruzzi et Acciaiuoli.245 Conclusion Le bilan de la réforme du 21 juillet 1317 apparaît très largement positif. Les bulles Dum attenta meditatione du 21 juillet 1317 exposent que Jean XXII reprit les propositions de f. Pierre d’Ongle, Léonard de Tibertis et leurs confrères qui scellèrent la supplique de la veille. F. Léonard de Tibertis, visiteur “deçà les monts”, administrateur avisé, de grande expérience, prit sans aucun doute une très grande part aux mesures promulguées le lendemain par Jean XXII. Les Hospitaliers présents en Avignon, loin du maître et du couvent de Rhodes, n’avaient pas autorité pour prendre des mesures aussi énergiques. En 1317, la situation financière de l’Hôpital était si grave que, non obstant ses statuts, ses privilèges, il remit son sort entre les mains de Jean XXII. Ce recours au Saint-Siège fut justifié par l’événement: Jean XXII permit à l’Hôpital de surmonter la crise qui risquait de l’engloutir. Jean XXII, il est vrai, se substitua au maître, au chapitre général, au conseil de l’Hôpital. Mais, depuis la bulle de Pascal II de 1113, l’Hôpital était sous la protection du Saint-Siège. À situation exceptionnelle, mesures exceptionnelles. En prenant à bras le corps l’Hôpital, Jean XXII le sauva. Si l’Hôpital put se maintenir à Rhodes encore plus de deux siècles, il le dut, dans une large mesure, à Jean XXII. Les 25 bulles Dum attenta meditatione du 21 juillet 1317 y sont pour beaucoup. Pièce justificative 1317, 20 juillet. – Avignon. Supplique au pape Jean XXII de f. Pierre d’Ongle, chancelier, Léonard de Tibertis, visiteur deçà les monts, et des dix-huit représentants des sept langues de l’ordre de l’Hôpital de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, le suppliant, devant le poids des dettes qui écrasent la Religion, de nommer des prieurs, qui régissent les prieurés pendant dix ans et confèrent les commanderies à des frères, qui puissent s’obliger envers les créanciers de l’Hôpital jusqu’à remboursement complet de ses dettes; filosofia, 2e série, t. 28 (Pise, 1959), pp. 317–26 (reproduit dans Luttrell, The Hospitallers in Cyprus, article VIII); Paolo Pirillo, “Terra santa e ordini militari attraverso i testamenti fiorentini prima e dopo la caduta di San Giovanni d’Acri,” dans Acri 1291. La fine della presenza degli ordini militari in Terra Santa e i nuovi orientamenti nel xiv secolo, éd. Francesco Tommasi (Pérouse, 1996), pp. 121–35. 245  Renouard, Les relations des papes d’Avignon, p. 546.


Jean-Marc ROger

la nomination des prieurs devant ensuite revenir au maître et au couvent de l’Hôpital, suivant ses bonnes coutumes et statuts. A. Original, scellé des sceaux de Pierre d’Ongle, chancelier, Léonard de Tibertis, visiteur deçà les monts, et des dix-huit procureurs des sept langues de l’Hôpital, perdu. B. Transcription dans les provisions de f. Martin Pérez, châtelain d’Emposte, du lendemain, 21 juillet 1317, enregistrées en chancellerie pontificale d’Avignon, Vatican, ASV, Registra Avenionensia (Reg. Aven.) 7, fol. 533. C. Transcription dans les mêmes provisions, enregistrées en chancellerie pontificale de Rome, ASV, Reg. Vat. 66, fol. 309, ep. 4120. D. Transcription dans les provisions des prieurs de France, de Champagne et d’Aquitaine du lendemain, 21 juillet 1317, enregistrées en chancellerie pontificale d’Avignon, ASV, Reg. Aven. 7, fols. 582v–583. E. Transcription dans les mêmes provisions enregistrées en chancellerie pontificale de Rome, ASV, Reg. Vat. 66, fol. 341r–v, ep. 4222. Supplicant Sanctitati vestre devoti filii vestri, fratres ordinis Hospitalis Sancti Johannis Jerosolimitani lingue Alamanie, Anglie, Francie, Alvernie, Provincie, Ispanie et Italie, hic in Curia existentes, communiter et concorditer, quod, cum dictus Ordo sit in pluribus et diversis debitis obligatus, de quorum debitorum obligatione comode exire non potest, nisi per Sanctitatem vestram ordinentur rectores et priores, qui prioratus ipsius Ordinis gubernenta et regant ex auctoritate et concessione vestra per decem annos continuos et completos, ac bajuliasb ipsorum prioratuum dicti Ordinis concedant fratribus suis ad dictos decem annos et se obligent efficaciter mercatoribus, quibus ipse Ordo obligatus existit, pro solutione dictorum debitorum et quantitatibus eis debitis donec ipsa debita totaliter fuerint persoluta, quatenus de benignitate Sedis apostolice et gratia speciali dignemini eis quibus volueritis de fratribus lingue cujuslibet prioratus ad dictum tempus ipsos prioratus ejusdem Ordinis concedere, et eis licentiam et potestatem dare concedendi bajuliasb fratribus suis ad prefatum etiam tempus et quod possint se obligare efficaciter dictis mercatoribus pro pecuniarum summis et quantitatibus eis debitis usque ad satisfactionem predictorum integram debitorum, et quod ab hac vice in antea placeat Sanctitati vestre quod potestas ordinandi et concedendi dictos prioratus ad magistrum et conventum Hospitalis predicti more solito et secundum bonas consuetudines et statuta ejusdem Ordinis libere revertantur. Et nos, fratres Petrus de Ungula, cancellarius, et frater Leonardus de Tibertis, visitator citramontanus, una cum infrascriptis fratribus ejusdem Ordinis, videlicet fratre Richardo de Pavelino, locum magistri tenente in prioratu Anglie, et fratre Matheo, ejus socio, pro lingua Anglie, fratre Symone Rati, preceptore Brie et Sancti Movilii, et fratre Petro de Mallio, preceptore de Lauduno, pro lingua Francie, fratre Oddone de Monteacuto, locum magistri tenente in prioratu Alvernie, ac fratre Artaldo de Sancto Romano, preceptore Lugdunensi, pro lingua Alvernie, fratre Aymerico de Turinoc, preceptore Podii Suiranid, fratre Artaldo

La réfOrme de l’HÔpital par Jean XXII

de Chavenono, preceptore Caturcensi, fratre Bermundo Maurini, preceptore de Salomo, fratre Ghuigone de Bellocastro, preceptore Vivariensi, fratre Heliono de Villanova, preceptore Manoasce, et fratre Hugone Eustachii, preceptore Aquensi, pro lingua Provincie, fratre Martino Petri de Ros, castellano Emposte, et fratre Garzia Bugia, preceptore Beate Marie de la Orta, pro lingua Ispanie, fratre Paulo de Mutina, preceptore Erfordie, et fratre Egidio de Passavant, preceptore in Ghocheme, pro lingua Alamanie, acf etiam fratre Neapoleone de Tibertis, preceptore Faventie, et fratre Theobaldino de Vignali, preceptore Tervisii, pro lingua Italie, sigilla nostra huic supplicationi duximus apponenda, ut predictis majorem dignetur Vestra Sanctitas dare fidem. Scripta Avinione, die vicesima mensis julii anno Domini m° ccc° decimo septimo, pontificatus vestri anno primo. a. ordinent C. – b. balivas E. – c. Tourino D. – d. Surrani E. – e. Gethehem E. – f. et E.


This page has been left blank intentionally

9 The Search for the Defensive System of the Knights in the Dodecanese (Part I: Chalki, Symi, Nisyros and Tilos) Michael Heslop

Remarkably, given their small number and the nearness of their enemies on the Turkish mainland, the Hospitallers were able to defend Rhodes against attack for over 200 years (1309/1310–1522). Even more impressively they succeeded in defending several smaller islands to the north of Rhodes (Figure 9.1).

Figure 9.1

Hospitaller islands of the Dodecanese

The purpose of this paper is to examine how fixed fortified points on the islands of Chalki, Symi, Tilos and Nisyros,1 several of them never described before, 1

  A subsequent paper will examine the defensive system of the Hospitaller islands lying to the north of the ones examined here, namely Leros, Kalymnos and Kos, and will include 139


Michael HeslOp

contributed to an integrated defensive system and enabled the Knights to preserve the boundaries of their island state.2 The strategic importance of these four islands was that they helped control the sea-lanes to the second most important territory of the Knights, the island of Kos, as well as providing early warning of potential enemy ships that might threaten Rhodes itself. The history of Chalki, Symi, Tilos and Nisyros under Byzantine rule is poorly documented.3 It is assumed that all the islands were subject to Arab attacks, and possibly even temporary occupation, during the seventh, eighth and ninth centuries, while late in the eleventh century they were frequently raided by the Seljuks. It is likely that Leon Gabalas, the independent governor of Rhodes after 1204, extended his rule to occupy the islands, but that at some time, probably in 1246, the islands were recovered by the Nicaean empire. The history of the second half of the thirteenth century is very confused in the region, with the Genoese and Venetians both seeking to occupy space poorly defended by the Byzantines, particularly after 1282. Nevertheless, it can be presumed that the Knights took possession of all four islands from the Greeks.4 Chalki and Alimnia The castles of Chalki and Alimnia have been discussed in an earlier paper on southern Rhodes,5 showing how both islands formed an integral part of the defensive system of the western coast of Rhodes. The island of Chalki, practically rectangular in shape, is hilly and barren. The northern, western and southern coasts are steep and difficult of access, while the eastern coast at Emboreio6 provides the best landing place. The harbour there had been abandoned by the Byzantines in the seventh century in the face of repeated pirate attacks. The known history of the

Bodrum. My visits to the four islands covered here took place in 1978, 2005, 2006 and 2007. 2   Kastellorizo is a somewhat different case, and will be included in a future paper on islands only temporarily occupied or targeted by the Knights. 3   Both Tilos and Nisyros were under the control of the theme based in Samos (founded between 842/843 and 899), while Chalki and Symi were part of the Kibyrraiot theme, which consisted of an early eighth-century development of the former Karabisian theme in southwestern Anatolia. I am indebted to Professor Alexios Savvides for this information. 4   G. Bosio, Dell’Istoria della Sacra Religione et Illustrissima Militia di S. Giovanni Gierosolimitano, 2nd edn (Rome, 1629), p. 35, hereafter Istoria, suggests that the four islands were occupied within a few years of the conquest of Rhodes. 5   “The Search for the Defensive System of the Knights in Southern Rhodes,” in MO, 4, pp. 189–200. 6   Anna-Maria Kasdagli has kindly provided transliterations of Greek place-names.

Search fOr the Defensive SYstem Of the Knights in the DOdecanese 141

island under the Knights largely followed that of Tilos.7 Like the other islands it was abandoned on several different occasions.8 The castles of Chalki and Alimnia were constructed by the Knights on Hellenistic foundations. Both have been well surveyed by Gerola,9 Spiteri10 and Losse.11 The ancient large dressed stones of the elongated oblong site of the castle of Chalki, above Chorio, are well preserved, particularly in the lower courses. Significant improvements were ordered by the Master, d’Aubusson, between 1476 and 1489,12 and consisted of strong western walls with a parapet, bound together with an abundance of plaster and lime. The weaker eastern walls, now almost entirely collapsed, were interspersed with two towers, one rectangular and one polygonal. Altogether the interior of the castle would have sheltered a substantial number of the local inhabitants, while its position ensured that it was a vital pivot for defending the western coast of Rhodes. Viglai13 also exist in various parts of the island and form key links in the early-warning system14 (Figure 9.2). 7

  It is known, for instance, that the island was granted to Borello Assanti in 1366 (Valetta, National Library of Malta, Archives of the Order of St John of Jerusalem, Codex (hereafter cited as Malta, Cod.) 319, fols. 299r–299v) and leased to Dragonetto Clavelli in 1385 (Malta, Cod. 323, fol. 202v), on both occasions along with Tilos. 8   For instance in 1475 and 1480 (Istoria, pp. 350 and 398, respectively). 9   G. Gerola, “Monumenti Medievali delle Tredici Sporadi,” Annuario della regia Scuola Archeologica di Atene 2 (1914), 195–200. 10   Stephen Spiteri, Fortresses of the Knights (Malta, 2001), pp. 158–160. 11   M. Losse, “Burgen und Befestigungen der Johanniter-Ordens auf den DodekanesInseln Tilos, Chalki und Alimia (Teil II),” in Burgenforschung aus Sachsen 18 (2005), 147– 157, hereafter cited as Losse 2005. 12   His escutcheon, just next to the main entrance of the castle, is quartered with those of the Order, but does not reveal the cardinal’s hat he was awarded in 1489. 13   The word vigla means lookout post. Some may have been fortified towers or pyrgoi, while in other cases the term viglai may only refer to positions, usually on a hill close to the coast, from which enemy movements could be seen. 14   A hill named Vigli is the connection between Kephali and Andronas where tradition notes both an upper and a lower vigla. The dominant position in the centre of the island is Mount Merovigli which rises to a height of some 600 metres and is linked to two satellite viglai at Voukephalos and Vardia, which both overlook a potential landing place on the north side of the island. Viglimilia, to the north of Emboreio, may well have been a tower if the map of Piri Re’is is to be believed: Kitab-i Bahriye of Piri Re’is (Ankara, 2002), p. 199. A further Vardia can be found near the north-eastern corner of the island. All the above locations are noted in M. Skandalides, Ta toponymia tes Chalkes Dodekanesou [The PlaceNames of the Dodecanese Chalki] (Rhodes, 1982). The remains of several towers also exist, two of them being certainly Hellenistic. The round tower of Kephali, at the north-western tip of the island, is the fortified point of a Hellenistic settlement, surrounded by vestiges of houses occupied until the middle of the twentieth century, threshing floors and mill presses. It was the focal point for communicating with Tilos to the north. A round tower at Agriothalassa, (“Wild Seas”), locally thought to be the remains of a mill, was more probably an observation point connecting the western half of the island to the castle. The walls still


Figure 9.2

Michael HeslOp

Chalki and Alimnia, showing sight lines

The castle at Alimnia, located some 6 kilometres to the north-east of Chalki and a bit further from the Rhodian coast, was not built within sight of the castle of Chalki, but just below the summit of the tallest mountain ridge or, as Gerola15 puts it, ‘on the brow of the hills’ surrounding the harbour. As already noted, the Hospitaller castle was erected on Hellenistic16 foundations at a height of 179 metres, and consisted of a rectangular fortification built on part of the original fortress. There is a small, high rectangular gate on the north-east side. A hole in the southern wall may have contained d’Aubusson’s escutcheon. Although an order had originally been given in 1366 for the construction of a tower,17 this had either never been done or it had stand to 1.7 metres, while the whole circumference totals 13.3 metres. A further Hellenistic round tower survives at Zyes, on the edge of a valley just inland from the eastern coast. It is impossible to say how many of these sites were still used during the period of the Knights, but it is tempting, when connecting all the sight-lines of these positions, to believe that the local Greek inhabitants were required to perform guard duty in most, if not all of them, to ensure the prompt relaying of messages throughout the island. 15   Gerola, “Monumenti Medievali,” 199. 16   The marvellous harbour was used as a naval base for guard-ships of Hellenistic Rhodes. There also appears to have been a significant coastal maritime settlement there in the Early Christian period: D. Blackman and A. Simosi, “Researches on the island of Alimnia near Rhodes,” Tropis 7 (2002), 139–149. It was a base for Italian submarines in the Second World War. 17   In conjunction with Borello Assanti being assigned the lease of Chalki that year, he undertook to build a strong tower on Alimnia with a castellan and a water cistern of a

Search fOr the Defensive SYstem Of the Knights in the DOdecanese 143

fallen into such disrepair that in 1475 another order was issued for the construction of a new tower.18 Symi Visible from Alimnia on a clear day, Symi (Figure 9.3) hovers practically encircled by the Turkish coast, which lies some 8 and 7 kilometres to the north and east respectively.

Figure 9.3


The irregularly shaped island is riven by a deeply indented shoreline, with precipitous cliffs and numerous small bays with pebble beaches. There is relatively little flat land, and water supplies now have to be imported. The two principal harbours are at Yialos, the capital in the north, and Panormitis in the south, but certain size. The keep appears to contain the remains of a collapsed vaulted cistern, while a Hellenistic cistern stands just outside the eastern wall. The island was apparently abandoned in 1479 due to a grave lack of water (Istoria, p. 396). It is not known if, and when, it was reoccupied before 1522, but presumably it must have been to prevent occupation by the Turks. 18   Mention is made in 1476 of a big Genoese ship taking materials to the island for the construction of the tower (Istoria, p. 360).


Michael HeslOp

the numerous other landing places must have meant that Symi would be a difficult island to defend.19 Not much is known about Symi under Byzantine rule, and not much more is known about the Hospitaller period. There was a raid in 1411,20 before the Ottoman attacks, which probably started in 1457.21 Further raids are known to have occurred in 1460, 1476, 1485 and 1505.22 Of these attacks, that of November 1460 is best known, as apparently 100 Symiots, with little or no support from the Knights, managed to hold out for 10 or perhaps 14 days against a force of 7,000 Turks.23 Given the indented nature of the coast, it is hardly surprising that Hellenistic defence works are to be found at several points on the shore, such as at Faneromeni, Louria and Maroni. Inland defences can be found at such locations as Aghia Marina, near Kokkimidis.24 The principal Hellenistic fortification, however, was at Chorio25 where, at a height of 154 metres, they built an acropolis on a hill overlooking the main harbour and settlement. The Byzantines developed the site so that their castle, of a polygonal plan, followed the shape of the rocky summit. Although Chorio was never a strategic site, as it was enclosed by mountains to the south, west and east but was fully approachable from the north, the Hospitallers clearly did repair the Byzantine walls and made adaptions for artillery by constructing a semi-circular 19

  The place-names given to the bays of Sarakinogialo and Tourkogiali commemorate corsair and Turkish raids. 20   The raid also attacked other Hospitaller islands: see Malta, Cod. 339, fol. 269v. Luttrell suggests that these unidentified Turks were probably from the emirate of Menteshe: Anthony Luttrell, “The Hospitallers of Rhodes Confront the Turks: 1306–1421,” Christians, Jews and Other Worlds: Patterns of Conflict and Accommodation, ed. P.F. Gallagher (Lanham, 1988); repr. in Anthony Luttrell, The Hospitallers of Rhodes and their Mediterranean World (Aldershot, 1992), article II, 104, hereafter cited as Luttrell 1992. 21   Istoria, p. 256; but Bosio may have confused this attack with that of 1460, which he does not refer to. A useful summary of Hospitaller relationships with the Muslim world is given in Alexios Savvides, “Polemos kai diplomatis. Hoi scheseis ton Ioanniton Hippoton tes Rhodou me ton mousoulmaniko kosmo (Tourkomanos, Mameloukos, Othomanous)” [War and diplomacy. Relations of the Hospitaller knights with the Muslim world (Turkomans, Mamluks, Ottomans)], in A. Savvides and N. Nikoloudes, Ho hysteros mesainikos kosmos, 11os–16os ai. [The later medieval world, 11th–16th centuries] (Athens, 2007), no. XXII, pp. 353–366. 22   Istoria, pp. 359, 490 and 584 respectively for the last three dates. 23   The pertinent documents are reviewed by Z.N. Tsirpanlis, He Rhodos kai hoi Noties Sporades sta chronia ton Ioanniton Hippoton, 14os–16os ai [Rhodes and the Southern Sporades at the time of the Knights of St John, 14th–16th c.] (Rhodes, 1991), pp. 125–132, hereafter cited as Tsirpanlis 1991. 24   I am grateful to Michael Domocos for his help in locating sites on Symi. It should be noted that there are many other Hellenistic sites on the island apart from the ones noted here. 25   Described by Gerola, “Monumenti Medievali,” 189–192, Spiteri, Fortresses, pp. 161–163 and M. Losse, “Die mittelalterliche Burg im Chorio auf der Agäis-Insel Symi,” in Zeitschrift des Schweizerischen Burgenvereins 7 (2002), 81–93.

Search fOr the Defensive SYstem Of the Knights in the DOdecanese 145

Figure 9.4


bastion in 150726 (Figure 9.4). A watch-tower at the summit of the site would have been used for limited communication. There exist no published documentary records of the Knights or contemporary travellers that refer to other Hospitaller fortifications on the island, except for Buondelmonti’s reference to a deserted oppidum somewhere in the hills.27 I am not aware of any work28 that has identified this location, but conceivably it is the area around Kokkimidis. This is now a monastery, positioned on a height of nearly 600 metres, with superb sight-lines covering the Turkish mainland, as well as all the islands running north from Rhodes to Kos. A castle and a late eighteenthcentury monastery occupy part of a plateau at the northern end. The surrounding


  As evidenced by the escutcheon of the Master, d’Amboise (1503–1512), juxtaposed next to that of the Order with the date of 1507. Earlier work by the Knights is similarly referenced as being completed on 10 April 1456 during the mastership of de Milly (1454– 1461), and also during the rule of Zacosta (1461–1467). 27  Cristoforo Buondelmonti, Liber Insularum Archipelagi, ed. and trans. into French by E. Legrand, Description des Iles de l’Archipel Grec (Paris, 1897: reissued Amsterdam, 1974), p. 186. The reference is repeated in many of the subsequent travel accounts. 28   Except that Francesco Piacenza wrote that “on the eastern tip of the island, another castle entirely ruined, can be seen from afar at the top of a hill”. This is marked on his map as a ruin: L’Egeo redivio o’ sia chronographia dell’ Archipelago (Modena, 1688).


Michael HeslOp

Figure 9.5

Symi, showing sight-lines

walls, made of local stone and unworked, still stand to a height of 2 metres; there is evidence of a parapet.29 The supposition that this was an important mediaeval area is further supported by the remains of houses to be found to the south-west of Kokkimidis at an area called Kastrouli. A tower at this site,30 probably Byzantine on top of Hellenistic foundations, suggests that the whole area was of significance until it was abandoned some time before Buondelmonti wrote at the beginning of the fifteenth century. It is likely that the Knights retained an observation post at Kokkimidis, given its excellent sight-lines. The position could be linked with Chorio by a further observation post on Mount Vigla, at 616 metres the highest point on the island, 29

  E. Kollias refers to the fortified tower of the monastery and the remaining traces of a drawbridge and machiolation: “Oikismoi, Kastra kai Monasteria tes Mesiaonikes Ko” [Settlements, Castles and Monasteries of Mediaeval Kos], Historia-Techne-Archaiologia tes Ko (Athens, 2001), pp. 291–320, here at 293. 30   The tower has a side door with a small barbican entrance and walls about a metre high and 0.6 metres thick. It is surrounded by large inner and outer baileys, with the remains of several threshing floors.

Search fOr the Defensive SYstem Of the Knights in the DOdecanese 147

Figure 9.6


while to the south the best observation point would have been at Stavros Polemou31 (Figure 9.5). At 533 metres it looks down over the sea and shares Kokkimidis’ wonderful sight-lines, which include a view of the island of Tilos. Tilos Tilos (Figure 9.6) is an elongated island some 15 kilometres to the north of Chalki and 15 kilometres to the south of Nisyros.


  A view shared by D. Chavarias, “Meletai peri tes nesou Symes” [Studies on the island of Symi], Vizantiiskii Vremennik 12 (1906), 186–187 and M.Volonakis, The Island of Roses and the Eleven Sisters (London, 1922), p. 11. Papachristodoulou indicates that the ruins of a tower, possibly of a watch-tower, were still extant over 30 years ago. He also suggested that the monastery of Megalos Sotiris was a watch-post: Ch. I. Papachristodoulou, “Toponymia Symis” [Place-names of Symi] Ta Symaika 1 (Athens, 1972), pp. 61 and 45, respectively. Koutelakis believes that the Roukkouniotis monastery was fortified about 1480 (unpublished article).


Michael HeslOp

The Knidos peninsula is the nearest part of the Turkish mainland to Tilos, 20 kilometres away to the north-east. The island of Tilos, though fertile with rich volcanic soil, has seen its inhabitants largely abandon agricultural pursuits; the hillside terraces, once known as the breadbasket of the Dodecanese, lie bereft of the grain fields which were once characteristic of the island. There are still two harbours in use, the main one at Livadia in the south and the other at Aghios Antonios in the north. Nevertheless, the heavily indented coastline provides several opportunities for landings, while the wide Bay of Eristos sanctions easy access to what were originally the most populated parts of the island. Little is known about the history of the island under Byzantine rule,32 though probably it followed a pattern similar to that of the better-known history of Nisyros. The history of the period under the Hospitallers is also fragmentary, as documentary references are either scanty or not yet published.33 Most of my references are therefore taken from Bosio. Few facts appear to have surfaced about the island’s history in the fourteenth century. Bosio describes how in about 1320, following an abortive Turkish attack on the island of Rhodes, the surviving attackers fled to a small island offshore Rhodes, probably Tilos, where they had left their families, so confident were they of victory. The Knights, with 10 galleys and 6 fustes, pursued them to the island and ‘killed the old and sold the young as slaves’.34 An indication about the governance of the island first occurs on 20 May 1366 when Borrello Assanti, a relative of the family ruling Nisyros at that time, received Tilos and Chalki for life.35 In 1385, again together with Chalki, the island was leased to Dragonetto Clavelli.36 More is known about the fifteenth century, particularly following the beginning of the serious Ottoman threat halfway through the century. Before then, however, there is a reference to a visit by Guy de Domagnac and Ettore d’Alemagna in 1444,37


  The Abbot Daniel story about Tilos, written in 1106/1107, is in reality about Nisyros: “Vie et Pèlerinage de Daniel, Hégoumène Russe,” Itinéraires Russes en Orient, trans. B. de Khitrowo (Geneva, 1889), p. 8. 33   Tsirpanlis’ next volume of documents, covering the period 1453–1481, remains unpublished. 34   Istoria, p. 54. See also Luttrell 1992, article II, pp. 86–87. 35   Assanti was to pay 200 florins per annum, but the Master reserved the superior dominion, the island’s falcons and the rights of wreck (Istoria, p. 105). Hopf, Chroniques Gréco-Romanes (Paris, 1873; repr. Brussels, 1966), p. 491, mentions that Assanti only lived another 6 years. 36   See n. 7 above. 37   Malta, Cod. 356, fol. 218. They also inspected Chalki, Symi and Nisyros.

Search fOr the Defensive SYstem Of the Knights in the DOdecanese 149

just after the Egyptian attack on Rhodes in 1444. Ottoman attacks are recorded in 1475,38 1479 (twice),39 1485,40 and 1505.41 Despite the availability of several potential landing places, it is strange that the Byzantines did not inherit a more extensive Hellenistic defensive system such as was to be found in Symi. Indeed only two Hellenistic fortifications42 are to be found on Tilos, the first at Kastellos and the second at the acropolis of Megalo Chorio. Kastellos lies at about 8 metres above sea level on a long thin steep ridge, overlooking the Bay of Livadia, and may well have bordered the sea itself before the sea receded. Although stretches of ancient walls and the foundation remains of a round tower are discernible, there is no evidence that the site was restored by either the Byzantines or the Knights, though it could have continued in use as an observation post.43 Probably the most dramatically-sited Byzantine fortification in the Dodecanese is to be found on Tilos at Palaiokastro. Situated in the north-west corner of the island, on a rocky outcrop nearly 400 metres above sea level on Mount Prophitis Elias, the castle dominates the Bay of Eristos and overlooks the castle at Megalo Chorio. Nothing seems to have been published about the location, which is hardly surprising given its virtually inaccessible position. The exception is a reference to its alternative names, Stou Kolatza or Kastro tis Tsiknos, which apparently reflect a tradition about pirates slaughtering islanders so that their blood seethed.44 In all probability the castle was built around the same time as Aghios Konstantinos45 on Telendos, and Kitala and Erimokastro46 in southern Rhodes, namely during the second half of the seventh century, when Arab raids commenced in the area. The site may have continued to be occupied until the end of the twelfth century,   Istoria, p. 350.   In the first attack the raiders were apparently all captured and killed except for one man sent to Rhodes, while in the second one, which took place in December, the castle, presumably Megalo Chorio, was besieged for 8 days without success (Istoria, pp. 393 and 397, respectively). 40   Istoria, p. 490. 41   Istoria, p. 584. 42   But see n. 61 below concerning two Hellenistic towers. 43   The site is described by R.M. Dawkins and A.J.B. Wace (“Notes from the Sporades, Astypalaea, Telos, Nisyros, Leros,” BSA 12 (1905–1906), 163) and R. Hope Simpson and J.F. Lazenby (“Notes from the Dodecanese II,” BSA 65 (1970), 66–68). The Italian map of 1929 refers to the site as Monte Castelpiccolo. I am obliged to Iain Fulton who let me see a facsimile of this map. 44   Ch. Koutelakis, Symvole ste melete ton toponymion tes nesou Telou [Contribution to the study of place-names of the island of Tilos] (Athens, 1982), p. 74. 45   Described by M. Koutellas “Ta vyzantina kastra tes Kalymnou” [The Byzantine Castles of Kalymnos], Corpus (June 2005), 67–68. 46   Kitala and Erimokastro are described in my essay “The Search for the Byzantine Defensive System in Southern Rhodes,” Byzantinos Domos 16 (2008), 69–81. 38 39


Michael HeslOp

Figure 9.7

The Hospitaller castle at Megalo Chorio

particularly during the period of the Seljuk threat at the end of the eleventh century. The inhabitants of the island must have been terrified to have considered retreating to this impregnable site – there is no visible approach, and the very steepness would have proved daunting to old people and children. The site will be described in more detail in a forthcoming article on the Byzantine fortified sites of the Dodecanese, but the remains include walls, collapsed towers, a chapel and a large cistern. The sight-lines are spectacular, extending over the entire island and its neighbours. The Hospitaller castle at Megalo Chorio has been described in detail by Gerola,47 Short,48 Spiteri49 and Losse.50 As already observed, the castle was constructed on the remains of the Hellenistic acropolis, which may be seen at several points of the structure, most notably in the massive gate-tower (Figure 9.7). The site, 295 metres above sea level, was presumably occupied by the Byzantines, but no overt traces of their work survive, nor are there any escutcheons to tell us when various improvements and new building were carried out by the 47

  Gerola, “Monumenti Medievali,” 202–205.   R. Short, “Two Hospitaller Castles on Tilos,” Castle Studies Group Newsletter 15 (2001–2002), 96–99. 49  Spiteri, Fortresses, p. 164. 50   M. Losse (2005), 136–139. He also refers briefly to Mesaria and Stavros in the same article. 48

Search fOr the Defensive SYstem Of the Knights in the DOdecanese 151

Knights. The approach to the castle is up a steep path and passes through a jumble of cisterns, house foundations and derelict chapels of the mediaeval town. The remains of what appears to be an artillery platform survive, but the site effectively relies upon the strength of its natural features. The sight-lines, although impressive, do not match those of Palaiokastro and, as a result, the Knights may have retained an observation post at the latter. Although Megalo Chorio could presumably have absorbed most if not all of the inhabitants of the eponymous town, a further settlement, Mesaria,51 about halfway between Megalo and Mikro Chorio, needed its own fortress. Built on a low spur at a height of 125 metres, the circumference walls of the castle enclose the remnants of houses, cisterns, churches, streets, a possible barbican entrance and perhaps, at the highest point facing south, a gun platform. Again there are no obvious clues to dating but, like the other castles on the island, a date in the first half of the fourteenth century appears to be most likely, as this was when attacks on the islands recommenced.52 To the south of Mesaria is Mikro Chorio,53 until recently the second largest settlement, but deserted until the advent of modern tourism. It was Gerola’s opinion that this was a fortified village enclosed by a rectangular wall, with four towers, one at each corner. If so, only one tower still stands, but the whole settlement appears Cycladic in nature, with an amphitheatric circle of houses arranged above a spring. The semi-circular surviving tower still rises to a considerable height, while traces of collapsed walls can be seen at the north-western corner of a small bailey from where entrance to the tower can be gained across a narrow neck of land. It is not a particularly dominant site, but perhaps it did not need to be, as it was largely hidden from the sea. In full sight of the sea is the castle of Agriosykia, which looms over the Bay of Livadia at a height of 371 metres. The only published descriptions of the castle known to me are by Short54 and Losse.55 Short’s plan and account need to be corrected in one important respect, however, for he supposes that the entrance to the castle would have been located at its southern end. In fact the barbican entrance is in the north-east corner of the castle, where two short lengths of wall act as revetments to support the entrance trail56 along the edge of the sheer cliff face. Also 51

  Described by Gerola, “Monumenti Medievali,” 205.   The exception would be Mikro Chorio where the stone work is of a higher quality and may date from the second half of the fifteenth century. 53   Described by Gerola, “Monumenti Medievali,” 206–207, Spiteri, Fortresses, p. 165 and Ch. Koutelakis, Mikro Chorio, Tilos (Athens, 2006). 54   Short, 99–100. Ch. Koutelakis has now published his monumental Tilos Nisos [The Island of Tilos] (Athens, 2008); it contains an excellent chapter on the castles of the island. 55   M. Losse, “Burgen und Befestigungen der Johanniter-Ordens auf den DodekanesInseln Tilos, Chalki und Alimia (Teil I)” in Burgenforschung aus Sachsen 17 (2004), 98– 129, here at 125. He locates the entrance correctly. 56   Well spotted by my colleague Michael du Pré. 52


Michael HeslOp

Figure 9.8

Stavros castle

unnoticed by Short is a vaulted cistern at the southern end of an ovoid triangular shaped interior. Nearby are the remains of a ruined church and a spring. While little more than an observation post, the sight-lines are quite effective. Another castle overlooks the southern edge of Livadia Bay, but of this one, at a height of 221 metres, there remain only vestigial traces of the original design. It is known locally as Roukouni or Kastro Faneromeni.57 Walls a metre thick enclose a high promontory of Mount Mastichies, facing north-west and shaped like the prow of a galleon. Dotted around are whimsical cairns built by shepherds and hikers. The interior seems divided into cells, with cross-walls. There is no sign of a cistern. A chapel, with a particularly intact vault, stands on a ledge below the northern wall. Far below lies a little port, called Aghios Stephanos. The final castle on the island, and in many ways as impressive as Palaiokastro, is Stavros or ‘tou Lambrou to kastro’. Shaped like a plough-share, it is perched on the spur of a high hill pointing south over the island’s southern bays (Figure 9.8). Access is extremely difficult, requiring a trackless climb up a steep hill, and then a wind-buffeted, hands-and-knees crawl across a ridge, 50 metres long but only 2 metres wide, with vertiginous disaster on either side.58 The castle has only


  The site has not been described in any published account as yet, apart from Losse in the same article noted in n. 55 above. 58   I am indebted to Michael Wright for leading the way where others feared to follow.

Search fOr the Defensive SYstem Of the Knights in the DOdecanese 153

Figure 9.9

Tilos, showing sight-lines

been described so far by Koutelakis59 and Losse.60 The entrance was probably in the north-east corner, adjacent to the ridge, and leads to a small interior area surrounded by walls standing in part to a height of 2.5 metres and some 1 metre thick, bound by lime mortar containing tiles. The southern edge of the walls has collapsed, but there appear to be the remnants of a postern gate on the eastern side, with a possible cistern roughly hewn into the rock in the middle of the northern wall. The crumbled stonework is reminiscent of that at Agriosykia and Roukouni. The sight-lines, covering practically the whole island and all the adjacent islands, are superb. In totality, the sight-lines of the seven castles, plus Kastellos,61 criss-cross the island to provide early warning of any enemy approach to the most likely landing places (Figure 9.9).  Koutelakis, Mikro Chorio, pp. 16–17.   See n. 50 above. 61   There is an observation point at Mount Vigla, just above Mikro Chorio. The remains of two Hellenistic towers are also to be found. The first is on Mount Koutsoumpas near the church of Taxiarchis Mikhalis at Lithos, just to the south-east of the deserted village of Gera. The second is at the peak Vedeta above Mesaria on Mount Profitis Elias, the mountain in the north-eastern part of the island. Most of the remains of the latter tower have been utilized to 59 60


Michael HeslOp

In addition, Tilos is a pivotal centre in the communication links between Rhodes and Kos, with good views of Nisyros, the Turkish mainland, Symi, Chalki, Alimnia and, on a clear day, Rhodes itself. Given that no published documents speak of the castles of Tilos, further information has to be sought from the scanty accounts of contemporary travellers, although these accounts are not particularly helpful. Buondelmonti62 mentions that there is a strong oppidum in the north with a port and a plain, presumably Megalo Chorio, and in the west another oppidum named Zucalora, which he says is in a very sorry state. Could this be Palaiokastro? He goes on to say that there are two other strong villages on the island, both in bad condition, perhaps Mikro Chorio and Mesaria.63 Without naming them Adorno mentions that there are four castles on the island.64 Piri Re’is is more helpful in confirming that there are four castles, two of which are in ruins, with the other two in good condition apparently at the time of the end of the rule of the Knights.65 He gives the Turkish names of all four castles. Ilniko is presumably Megalo Chorio, and the other one in good condition, Iliado, is Mikro Chorio.66 The third one is Limbi, possibly Stavros, while the fourth, Porio, ruined by a lightning strike, may have been Mesaria. Nisyros To the north of Tilos lies Nisyros, a round island shaped like a truncated cone with a central depression (Figure 9.10). It is 16 kilometres from Kos and the same distance from the nearest point of the Turkish coast. The island is dominated by a ring of hills surrounding a plain with volcanic hydrothermal craters and hot sulphur springs.67 Despite the lack of natural water,68 the island is fertile due to the extensive volcanic soil. Access from the sea is not easy, as there are only two shallow harbours, Mandraki and Paloi, both on the northern coast. Landings could be made at several points on the southern and build a refuge for hunters, which is somewhat unfortunate given that hunting has now been banned on the island. The above information has been kindly supplied by Charis Koutelakis. 62   Buondelmonti, p. 187. 63   The extant Buondelmonti maps of the island show Zucalora marked in the west and an unnamed castle, probably Megalo Chorio, in the north-east. 64   Itinéraire d’Anselme Adorno en Terre Sainte (1470–1471), ed. and trans. J. Heers and G. Groer (Paris, 1978), pp. 370–371. 65   Piri Re’is, p. 200. 66   As demonstated by Koutelakis, Mikro Chorio, pp. 11–12. 67   As described by G. Vougioukalakis in Blue Volcanoes: Nisyros (Nisyros, 1998). 68   Dawkins and Wace, 171, noticed only two springs of fresh water, one near Paloi and the other just below Emboreio.

Search fOr the Defensive SYstem Of the Knights in the DOdecanese 155

Figure 9.10 Nisyros eastern coasts, but there are no secure anchorages to be found here, and Piri Re’is warned about the dangers of trying to anchor, even on the northern coast.69 The documentary history of the island really begins in 1306 with the information that a small fleet under the command of Jacopo Barozzi, Venetian ruler of Santorini, was unsuccessful in its attempt to capture the castle of ‘Nixari’, presumably from its Greek defenders.70 At some stage, however, Nisyros fell under the control of the Hospitallers in the wake of their conquest of Rhodes in 1309/10. On 15 August 1316, the Knights enfeoffed the island to the two Assanti brothers,71 who


  Piri Re’is, p. 202.   The document, relating to the “Deliberazione del Maggior Consiglio,” is cited by Luttrell in A. Luttrell “Venice and the Knights Hospitallers in the Fourteenth Century,” Papers of the British School at Rome XXVI (London, 1958), 196; repr. in Luttrell, The Hospitallers in Cyprus, Rhodes, Greece and the West 1291–1440 (Aldershot, 1979; repr. 2001), article V, hereafter Luttrell 1979. The document has been published in Tsirpanlis 1991, pp. 27–28. 71   Martoni tells the story that the Assanti brothers had originally received Nisyros as a ransom for a Turkish lord they had captured with their galley “de corsa”: Io Notaio Nicola de Martoni, ed. Michele Piccirillo (Jerusalem, nd.), pp. 22–23. 70


Michael HeslOp

were originally from Ischia.72 The Assanti family ruled Nisyros until about 1386, when the last Assanti ruler of the island died without any male heirs.73 Thereafter Nisyros was held by a series of three individuals, namely Alemagna (1386–1392), Brancaccio (1392–1401) and Clavelli (1401–1415), before being sold to the Master, de Naillac.74 Then there followed a succession of governors, the most famous, or rather infamous of whom, the Hospitaller Fantino Quirini, was given the island for life in 1433, but not as a vassal. Although Nisyros may well have been raided by the Turkish emirates on the mainland in the early years of the fourteenth century, it was not until the middle of the fifteenth century that the threats from the Ottomans, whether corsairs or otherwise, became serious. Raids are recorded in 1449,75 1455,76 1457,77 1471,78 1478,79 148380 and 1505.81 Fortunately, evidence for the defensive system of the Knights on the island can be deduced from documents, old maps, travellers’ accounts and archaeology. As in Tilos, the Byzantines had inherited a Hellenistic fortress, Palaiokastro, but as on Chalki and Symi, monumental remains exist to show that they also benefited from a number of watch-towers82 scattered around the coast, the whole forming an


  They might have felt at home in their new possession as Ischia, apart from the volcano, is almost an exact smaller version of Nisyros topographically. 73   Istoria, p. 137. 74   See Luttrell 1979, article III, “Feudal Tenure and Latin Colonization at Rhodes: 1306–1415,” repr. from English Historical Review 85 (1970), 762–765. 75   A monk by the name of Gregorius reported invasions by armed bands on Nisyros (and Kalymnos) in which the towns were burnt and pillaged: R. Economakis, Nisyros. History and Architecture of an Aegean Island (Athens, 2001), p. 84. 76   An Ottoman fleet led by Hamza Bey attacked the island and carried off many of the inhabitants: Economakis, p. 84. 77   Houses, walls and crops were devastated after an attack by a fleet of 60 Ottoman warships (Istoria, p. 256). 78   Istoria, p. 324. 79   Istoria, p. 381. Slaves were also taken from Tilos. 80   Many inhabitants are recorded to have been killed: Economakis, p. 85. 81   The corsair Kemal Re’is Camali came close to capturing the island but apparently encountered fierce resistance and decided to withdraw (Istoria, p. 584). 82   Watch-towers are to be found at Skopi on the north coast near Loutra, at Elleniko on the north-east cape, at Ta Ellenika near Avlaki, at Ta Ellenika south of Argos, at a further Ta Ellenika near Drakospilo, (the cave, partly hewn in the rock, was used as the shelter for those responsible for lighting the beacons, namely the viglatores), on Cape Lefkos and Pyrgoi above the western coast. All of the above are noted in Economakis, as are the remains of a small classical fortress dominating the eastern coast at Pigi. Dawkins and Wace, 170 thought that the Elleniko watch-tower on the north-east cape might be mediaeval.

Search fOr the Defensive SYstem Of the Knights in the DOdecanese 157

integrated defensive system. These observation points were also supplemented by positions on the offshore islands of Pyrgoussa and Pachia.83 Palaiokastro is one of the most formidable and impressive Hellenistic fortresses to be encountered in the whole of Greece. Situated on the north-west coast, it was constructed exclusively of basaltic andesite, one of the hardest rocks of the world. Extensive remains of a gate, towers, walls and flights of steps survive, with the sides of the huge blocks all perfectly aligned. The ruins of the ancient town can be seen on the terraced hillside below. It would seem likely that the site remained occupied during the Byzantine period, and it is probable that Palaiokastro was the fortress besieged by Barozzi in 1306.84 We know that it remained in use in the early years of the fifteenth century because Buondelmonti85 describes it as one of the two principal oppida of the island, the other one being Mandraki. There are, however, no signs of any Byzantine or Hospitaller improvements, which testifies to the strength of the original classical fortress. It is not known what other castles might have been in existence when the Assanti occupied the island, but the 1316 grant to the family refers to the ‘castles’ of the island.86 Perhaps the castles of Emboreio and Nikia were standing at that time, as pirate raids had forced the inhabitants of Paloi and Chorio to retreat inland to more easily defensible positions on the rim of the crater. In 1394 the traveller Martoni87 refers to three castles on the island, one near the coast, presumably Mandraki,88 and two high up in the mountains. These two castles are probably Emboreio and Nikia. The castle at Mandraki, the capital of the island on the north-west coast, has been well described by Gerola,89 Spiteri90 and Losse.91 It overhangs the town and reveals 83   As visited by Ludwig Ross, Reisen auf den griechishen Inseln des ägäischen Meeres II (Stuttgart and Tubingen, 1843; repr. Hildesheim, 1985), p. 58 and noted by Dawkins and Wace, 171. The latter and Gerola, “Monumenti Medievali,” 215, understood that there might be a fort on the islet of Strongyli, but by personal observation the remains there appear to be old threshing floors and cisterns from the time that farmers from Emboreio worked on the islet. The islet of Kandeliousa, to the west of Nisyros, means the place where fires are lit or oil lamp. 84   The Venetian document (n. 70 above) refers to the “castle of Nixari”. Tsirpanlis 1991, p. 28, thinks that this must be Palaiokastro as it was the only castle on the coast capable of being attacked by a fleet, if it is assumed that the castle at Mandraki was not built until later. 85   Buondelmonti, p. 188. 86   J. Delaville Le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers à Rhodes jusqu’à la mort de Philibert de Naillac (1310–1421) (Paris, 1913), p. 362. 87   Martoni, pp. 24–25. 88   Tsirpanlis 1991, p. 37, thinks that this is Palaiokastro. 89   Gerola, “Monumenti Medievali,” 212–214. 90  Spiteri, Fortresses, pp. 168–171. 91   M. Losse, “Johanniter-Ordensburgen auf den Dodekanes Inseln Kalymnos und Nisyros,” in Burgen und Schlosser 37 (1996), 120–122. He also covers Emboreio and Argos in 122–124 of the same article.


Michael HeslOp

various stages of construction, including a stretch of a Hellenistic wall, either a self-standing defensive work or an extension of the circuit wall of Palaiokastro. In any case the original mediaeval circuit wall, possibly constructed by the Knights after the Assanti period, was certainly supplemented under de Milly by a gateway containing his arms. Later works, no doubt to withstand potential artillery attacks, bear the arms of the Masters Orsini (1467–1476) and d’Aubusson (1476–1503), as well as those of a Governor of the island, Galceran da Luge (1471–1473). Although positioned on the summit of a promontory, the castle’s sight-lines only look north to Kephalos and Andimachia on Kos, and north-east to the Turkish coast. Indeed the castle was not a large one, and can never have held more than a small garrison. Perched on a hill-top at a height of 350 metres the castle at Emboreio, as Gerola92 observes, bears more resemblance to the compact defensive collection of houses to be found in Astypalia and the Cyclades, than a castle. Nevertheless, the position on a rocky outcrop, facing inwards over the crater and outwards down the sloping terraces to the coast, is a substantial one, and would have served as a reasonable place of defence against corsair raids. There are two gates on the western and eastern sides of the site, but the other sides are far less well defended due to the steepness of the rock. The sight-lines are excellent to the other three castles surrounding the crater and also to Kos and the Knidos peninsula. However they are non-existent towards Mandraki and certain parts of the north-eastern coast. This lack of visibility points to the need to utilize the Hellenistic towers at Skopi and Elleniko and to take advantage of some other vigla point of observation to receive messages from Mandraki and report any landings on the north-eastern coast.93 The remains at Nikia are fragmentary. They are built on high rocks at the top of the village in the areas of the village named Kantouni94 and Pyrgos. Originally the village was probably surrounded by circuit walls on the southern and eastern side, but most of the western and northern edges of the village would have required little in the way of defence as they bordered a vertigo-inducing drop to the caldera of the volcano. The sight-lines take in the other adjacent castles as well as the island of Tilos. The fifth oppidum mentioned by Buondelmonti was that of Argos on the south-western edge of the crater. The site was visited by Ross95 and has been described by Tsirpanlis.96 It appears to have been constructed on a Pelasgic base,   Gerola, “Monumenti Medievali,” 215. Spiteri also makes the same point, Fortresses, p. 171. Much of the original wall was apparently torn down by the Italians for reasons of safety following an earthquake in 1933. 93   The peak of Akimaronas, just above the church of Aghios Athanasios, would be the likely site for such a vigla. 94   Kantouni means the corner of a building or castle. 95   Ross, pp. 67–68. Ross found two old country churches and a multitude of small ruined houses. 96   Tsirpanlis 1991, pp. 211–212, visited the site in connection with an article that he was writing about a 1454 document relating to a lawsuit concerning Argos. 92

Search fOr the Defensive SYstem Of the Knights in the DOdecanese 159

Figure 9.11 The Castle at Parlettia, Nisyros but the mediaeval walling was largely removed to construct the eighteenth-century monastery of Stavros. Nevertheless, a corner-tower survives to a height of over 3 metres and a variety of heaps of stones are to be found throughout the site. The monastery still exists: it overlooks the crater with views also to Tilos. The remaining castle on Nisyros is at a place called Parlettia,97 half-way between Emboreio and Nikia on the eastern edge of the crater. Like a romantic version of a Gothic castle it crowns the top of a lava cone about 240 metres above sea level (Figure 9.11). The northern and western sides require little defence because of their steepness, while access through the jumbled, collapsed walls, originally a metre thick, is from the south-east side facing Nikia. At the summit is to be found a rock-hewn plastered cistern, as well as the remains of a chapel. Dating is difficult, but a 1453 document98 survives which discusses the need to strengthen Perva, ‘where an ancient and old castle stood, dedicated and strong, in the middle of the island’. Since the Knights refer in the same document to five other castles of the island, but without naming them, it can probably be assumed that these five sites are the same ones as those named by Buondelmonti and that Parlettia is Perva. This belief is reinforced by the reference in the same document to the need to make furnaces for lime, as a fallen section of the walls shows that the stonework was set in lime mortar. 97

  Economakis, p. 83.   Tsirpanlis 1991, pp. 155–159 and 195–200, respectively.



Michael HeslOp

Figure 9.12 Nisyros, showing sight-lines When the various sight-lines are superimposed onto the map of the island (Figure 9.12), it can be seen that there was a well-established series of links between the four interior positions of Emboreio, Parlettia, Nikia and Argos. None of these four sites could communicate directly with Mandraki or Palaiokastro or observe all the coastline, although Tilos can be seen clearly from Nikia, Argos, Kos and the Turkish mainland from Emboreio. This probably means that the Knights used the Hellenistic towers mentioned earlier, as well as other potential viglai to cover the circumference of the island.99


  See Ch. I. Papachristodoulou, “Toponymia tes Nisyrou” [Place-names of Nisyros], Nisyriaka 3 (1969), 230–268 and L.K. Kontoveros , “Onomata topeion kai peripherion ton trion penochon tes nesou Nisyrou” [Names of the localities and regions of the three districts of the island of Nisyros] Nisyriaka 1 (1963), 136–160, for further details.

Search fOr the Defensive SYstem Of the Knights in the DOdecanese 161

Figure 9.13 The Knights’ defensive system: sight-lines between Kos and Rhodes Conclusion We can now put the totality of the Knights’ fixed defensive positions together. Figure 9.13 summarizes the information already shown for each island but adds the inter-visible links between the four islands and, where appropriate, the western coast of Rhodes. In conditions of fair to good visibility100 the resulting network of sight-lines was comprehensive enough to make it difficult for enemy shipping to approach any of the Hospitaller islands unseen.101 Crucial to the success of the Knights’ overall defensive system was the role played by spies and the Hospitaller navy. Intelligence was gathered about the almost annual plans of the Ottoman fleet preparing to sail from Constantinople and Gallipoli, sometimes using Turkish spies. Nearer to home, for example, a spy was 100   With excellent visibility one can see for distances in excess of 30 kilometres, e.g. from Symi to all the other islands and the island of Rhodes. With sea haze, or other types of poor conditions, however, it can be difficult to see even 5 kilometres. 101   Bosio refers to signals being lit in 1475 at “Castelnuovo,” (his name for the castle of Kastellos on the western coast of Rhodes), and the islands between Rhodes and Kos: Istoria, p. 351.


Michael HeslOp

sent aboard a Greek vessel in January 1513 to determine the strength of an Ottoman fleet massing along the Anatolian coast.102 The navy103 played its part by regularly patrolling the sea lanes around the islands, particularly in response to news of potential enemy activity. Vatin104 cites frequent archival mention of occasions between 1490 and 1503 when one or more galleys were so instructed. The Hospitaller fleet was used to carry reinforcements to Symi and other islands in 1488 and 1492.105 Not all these incidents ended happily for the Knights’ ships, as when in September 1501 two galleys lost a nocturnal battle against Turkish fustes near Symi.106 A document to be published by Dr Anthony Luttrell gives a fascinating glimpse of how the Master and his council acted on three fire signals transmitted from Symi. In that instance defenders manning fixed defences, intelligence agents and naval forces combined to make possible an effective response.107 Given the importance of the many fixed points of defence, it is hardly surprising that the Knights paid careful attention to maintaining their major fortifications and coordinating defensive arrangements with local inhabitants. Bosio recounts how a survey was commissioned of all the lesser islands in 1444,108 whereby the islanders were encouraged to restore and reinforce existing castles. Further inspection visits took place in 1449, 1452, and 1453, while a 1433 order to Quirini survives, instructing him to keep the strongholds in his care well guarded, provisioned and

102   Cited by P. Brummett, “The Overated Adversary: Rhodes and Ottoman Naval Power,” The Historical Journal 36.3 (1993), 520 and 537, respectively. 103   The Assanti were supposed to maintain, by the terms of their 1316 enfeoffment, a galley of 120 oars, but subsequent references in 1347 and 1374 indicate that their descendants at least were able to commute their obligations for a financial settlement: Luttrell 1979, article III, “Feudal Tenure and Latin Colonization at Rhodes: 1306–1462,” English Historical Review 85 (1970), 761 and 762. A son of one of the original brothers, however, certainly had access to at least one ship as he was condemned in 1341 to be dispossessed of his half of Nisyros due to his piratical attacks on Cypriot shipping (Istoria, p. 64). 104   Nicolas Vatin, L’Ordre de Saint-Jean-de-Jérusalem, l’Empire ottoman et la Méditerranée orientale entre les deux sièges de Rhodes, 1480–1522 (Louvain and Paris, 1994), p. 140. 105   Vatin, p. 182. 106   Vatin, p. 260. In October of the same year three triremes were sent to investigate reports of Turkish raiders, again in the waters around Symi: Vatin, p. 262. 107   I am grateful to Dr Luttrell for sight of an early draft of his article. Incidentally Rottiers recounts how he was shown the site of a vigla on Symi with three distinct bonfire areas. The fires would be lit, he was told, either separately or simultaneously, depending upon the number of ships being signalled: Colonel B. Rottiers, Description des monumens de Rhodes (Brussels, 1830), p. 22. 108   The visit to Tilos has already been noted n. 37 above, as has the 1453 survey of the castles on Nisyros in n. 98 above, which resulted in instructions being given for the repair of an old castle.

Search fOr the Defensive SYstem Of the Knights in the DOdecanese 163

repaired.109 The overwhelming concern was to prevent the Ottoman occupation of any island – hence Orsini’s 1471 instruction to the knight Galceran da Luge to prevent the raiders from returning to use Nisyros as a military base.110 The advent of artillery, however, and the need to conserve scarce resources, resulted in fewer castles being well maintained.111 Limited manpower was also an issue – Nisyros apparently had only two Hospitaller milites on the island in 1433,112 and on several occasions the Knights determined that the best course of action was to evacuate the inhabitants of the lesser islands to Rhodes, leaving behind enough local manpower to defend the important strongholds.113 Of interest also is the 1475 evacuation from Tilos, caused not only by the need to strengthen defences there, but also by there not being enough food on the island.114 Indeed the inhabitants of Mandraki on Nisyros had to be ordered to return to their homes following their evacuation in 1471.115 Maintaining the economy of the small islands was always a problem, particularly from the middle of the fifteenth century onwards. Although Symi was famous for its wine,116 and Tilos117 and Nisyros118 for their fruit, the situation on Nisyros was so dire in 1475 that the newly appointed bishop, Pietro Utino, quit the island in haste shortly after his arrival because he found all the towns deserted.119 Nor was the lot of the Greek inhabitants on Nisyros improved by the action of the Hospitaller Treasury. In 1453 they allowed Louis de Serra to lease the island for some 600   Z.N. Tsirpanlis, Anekdota eggrapha gia te Rhodo kai tis Noties Sporades apo to archeio ton Ioanniton Hippoton [Unpublished Documents concerning Rhodes and the SouthEast Aegean Islands from the Archives of the Order of St John] (Rhodes, 1995), hereafter cited as Tsirpanlis 1995, pp. 258–260. 110   Istoria, p. 326. 111   Sonetti, in his Isolario for instance, names Mandraki and Palaiokastro as still worthy of defence in 1480, but mentions that the other three castles on Nisyros were of little value. Piri Re’is, p. 202, suggests that only two castles were still in use at the time of the Ottoman occupation, namely Mandraki and Emboreio. Overall there was a focus on maintaining just one or two castles on each of the smaller islands. 112   Referred to in the same document mentioned above, n. 109. As already noted, there are no references to any forces of the Knights being engaged in the defence of Symi in 1460. 113   Nisyros was evacuated in 1457, 1471, 1480 and 1483 as were probably the other islands dealt with here. Bosio specifically mentions that a small garrison was left behind in Nisyros in 1480 (Istoria, p. 398), while in 1457 evacuees did not return until the garrison had been strengthened, despite the fact that the Ottoman raid of that year did not attack any of the castles: Istoria, p. 256. Occasionally, however, as on Symi in 1488, the inhabitants were instructed to flee to pre-arranged refuges (Vatin, p. 205). 114   Istoria, p. 350. 115   Istoria, p. 324. 116   As evidenced by Buondelmonti, p. 186, Thenaud, Le Voyage d’Outremer, ed. C. Schefer (Geneva, 1971), p. 135 and Piri Re’is, p. 93. 117   Adorno, pp. 370–371. 118   Commented on by Martoni, pp. 22–23 and Buondelmonti, p. 188. 119   Istoria, p. 348. 109


Michael HeslOp

florins per annum. He promptly attempted to earn a profit by sub-leasing yearly rights for 900 florins.120 Difficulties were also caused by natural disasters, such as earthquakes121 and plague,122 while the Turkish raids were invariably designed to damage crops and property,123 as well as carry off inhabitants to use or trade as slaves. Nevertheless the Knights were prepared on occasions to lighten burdens on the local inhabitants by reducing or eliminating taxes, such as they did for Symi in 1351124 and Nisyros in 1471.125 In 1480 d’Aubusson went further and cancelled all the debts of the four islands considered here. He also sent the inhabitants 2000 modia of grain from storage in Rhodes.126 This solicitude for their Greek subjects distinguished the Hospitallers from other Latin rulers in mediaeval Greece. In 1366, when Borello Assanti received the islands of Chalki and Tilos for life, he was ordered not to impose new services or obligations on the servi and villani of these islands.127 Tsirpanlis has shown128 the care and attention displayed by the Knights in a 1454 legal case involving jus patronatus on Nisyros when de Lastic ruled in favour of the local inhabitants of Argos against Louis de Serra and the Treasury of the Order. This incident also revealed the leading role of the Greek clergy in local affairs,129 despite the Knights having taken over control of the Greek Church.130 As a consequence of the prudence exercised by the Hospitaller authorities, there appears to have been only one incident of rebellion in these islands on Nisyros in 1347, and that was more a case of dissatisfaction with the rule of the local Assanti family representative 120

  Tsirpanlis 1995, pp. 673–675, 688–689, 749–750 and Tsirpanlis 1991, pp. 200–203.   Luttrell describes these in “Earthquakes in the Dodecanese: 1303–1513,” Natural Disasters in the Ottoman Empire, ed. E. Zachariadou (Rethymnon, 1999); repr. in Luttrell, Studies on the Hospitallers after 1306: Rhodes and the West (Aldershot, 2007), article. X, 145–151. 122   In 1451 the Master de Lastic (1437–1454) prohibited ships from approaching Symi, apparently because of plague (Tsirpanlis 1995, p. 580). 123   Camali’s raid on Symi in 1504 was reported to have done exactly this: Istoria, p. 584. 124   The inhabitants were exempted from the need to pay the mortuaria tax: A. Luttrell, “Lindos and the defence of Rhodes,” Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici XXXII–XXXIII (Rome, 1985–1986); repr. Luttrell 1992, article VII, 323. 125   The islanders were freed from the obligation to pay 300 gold sovereigns as rent: Istoria, p. 326. 126   Malta, Cod. 76, fols. 56r–56v. 127   Malta, Cod. 319, fols. 299r–299v. 128   Tsirpanlis 1991, pp. 206–221. 129   Of the five Greek witnesses to the document, three were priests. 130   This did not stop the 1433 requirement that any Hospitaller Bishop of Nisyros had to speak Greek: quoted by A. Luttrell, “The Greeks of Rhodes under Hospitaller Rule,” Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici NS 29 (Rome, 1992); repr. in Luttrell, The Hospitaller State on Rhodes and its Western Provinces, 1306–1462 (Aldershot, 1999), article III, 208 n. 86. 121

Search fOr the Defensive SYstem Of the Knights in the DOdecanese 165

than of problems with the Knights themselves.131 As a result, by 1460 the Master Jacques de Milly could laud the men and women of Symi for their heroic defence of the castle at Chorio.132 Such was the goodwill established by that time that the Knights appointed a Greek, Nikolaos Petritis, as Castellan of the islands of Symi, Chalki and Tilos between 1461 and 1470.133 Confident of support from the local population, the Hospitallers could concentrate on offensive or defensive operations. Their defensive arrangements were considerably facilitated by their control of all military structures.134 This enabled them, unlike other Latin rulers in mediaeval Greece, to achieve an integrated defensive system. The outlying string of islands, scattered like a necklace across the south-eastern Aegean, contributed to maintaining the political and territorial integrity of the Order’s island state. It is a tribute to the success of their defensive system that the Knights did not permanently lose any castle or island during the more than 200 years of their sovereignty. With their main stronghold Rhodes town under siege in 1522, however, the leaders of each island knew that their future was in jeopardy and, one by one,135 came to Rhodes to surrender to the Sultan. The defensive system of the Knights in these four islands became the defensive system of the Turks.


  The representative was named Novello Manochia of Ischia. The rebellion had to be put down by the Preceptor of Kos at the time, one Bertrando de Cantesia (Malta, Cod. 317, fol. 242v). The rebellious nature of the Nisyrians manifested itself again when, in the winter of 1571/1572, a visiting Turkish official was killed by five or six local miscreants (Insularités Ottomanes, ed. N. Vatin and G. Veinstein, Paris, 2004, p. 83). 132   The Tsirpanlis reference is given above in n. 23. The Knights not only wrote fine words of appreciation and gratitude but also acted promptly to reduce the annual tax from the island down from 750 to 400 florins (Malta, Cod. 370, fols. 217v–218r). Adorno, pp. 370– 371, noted later that the Symiots had such a ferocious reputation that the Turks would refuse to buy them as slaves, preferring instead to release them. 133   According to a document to be published by Tsirpanlis (see reference in Tsirpanlis 1991, p. 132, n. 1). 134   With the exception of the periods already noted when Chalki, Tilos and Nisyros were leased out. 135   Chalki surrendered on 15th August, Tilos on 2nd September and Nisyros on 6th September 1522. Symi surrendered sometime in June 1522.

This page has been left blank intentionally

10 Kronobäck Commandery: A Field Study Christer Carlsson

In September 2007 a small field study was carried out at Kronobäck, a medieval Hospitaller-commandery on the Swedish east coast. Situated some 40  km north of the city of Kalmar this late-medieval Hospitaller complex was founded in the fifteenth century. The foundation letter from 1479 is preserved, which reveals in detail how the land came into the possession of the Hospital.1 According to the letter, some of the richest families in late-medieval Sweden contributed to its foundation. Powerful families, such as the Thott and the Sture, apparently supported the idea of a new Hospitaller-commandery close to the Danish border.2 The Hospital could be a reliable ally in the ongoing conflicts with the Danes. We know from the surviving written sources that battles between Danish and Swedish troops took place in the region surrounding the commandery at the beginning of the sixteenth century and that the brethren in Kronobäck supported the Swedish group during these conflicts.3 The commandery existed, however, only for some 50 years before the Swedish king Gustav Vasa confiscated all its land. The remains of the former Hospitaller complex that can be seen on the site today are dominated by the ruins of the commandery church (Figure 10.1). This building was about 60 metres long and 20 metres wide, one of the largest monastic churches in medieval Scandinavia. The shape of the church is very elongated, a result of its long and complicated building history. The walls of the church were mainly constructed of natural stone, but with finer brick details surrounding some doors and windows. In many places the walls were about 1 metre thick in order to support the weight of the vaults that once spanned the church. On the west, a massive bell-tower with the main entrance was finally erected. Further entrances, leading between the church and the former courtyard, can be found in the southern wall. Some 8 metres south of the church there is also a stone cellar with a preserved barrel-vault.4 Like most Hospitaller commanderies, Kronobäck should also have   Johan Gustav Liljegren, Diplomatarium Suecanum I–II (Stockholm, 1829–37), DS. 30763. 2   The southern part of Sweden was in the 15th-century still controlled by Denmark and the border was only some 100 km away from Kronobäck. 3   Diplomatarium Suecanum, DS. 35163 4   Nils Lagerholm, “Johanniterordens klosterkyrka i Kronobäck,” Stranda. Stranda hembygdsförenings årsskrift 1949–51(Stockholm, 1951), pp. 31–50. 1



Christer Carlsson

Figure 10.1 Aerial photo of the former Hospitaller commandery at Kronobäck, showing the church, the stone cellar, the cemetery and the excavated area had a number of farm buildings and its own hospital. No traces of such buildings have, however, so far been detected in the area. A georadar investigation was carried out some 50 metres north of the complex in the spring of 2007, but gave only indications which are hard to interpret since no houses can be identified on the radar pictures.5 Among the earliest historians of Kronobäck was Per Gustav Berggren, whose work about the site, published in 1904, contains some important remarks concerning the history of the commandery. Berggren refers to the priest Petrus Johannis who, in 1636, only some 100 years after the Reformation, claimed that little was known about the appearance and history of the former commandery. The rapid decay can, according to Berggren, partly be explained by the fact that building material from the commandery was reused in the nearby church of Mönsterås, which was under construction at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Berggren also mentions that a number of skeletons had been found south of the commandery church and finds it likely that this was the location of the medieval cemetery.6 5

  The georadar-investigation was made by SAGA-Geological Surveys. Published by Glenn Envall at SAGA (Skandinavisk Arkeologisk Geofysik AB). Borlänge 2007. A copy of the report is in the archives of Kalmar Länsmuseum. 6   Per Gustav Berggren, “Kronobäcks kloster,” Meddelande från Kalmar läns fornminnesförening IV (Stockholm, 1904).

Kronobäck Commandery: A Field Study


Figure 10.2 The gravestone made for Laurens Axelsson Thott has been dated to 1482. The stone has now been restored and placed under a small roof In the 1940s archaeologist Nils Lagerholm began the first excavations on the site. At the beginning of the twentieth century there was still a great deal of stone rubble inside the church, from the vaults that had collapsed shortly after the Reformation. Lagerholm removed this material in order to clear up the interior of the chapel. He also identified and dated several building phases in the walls of the chapel and collected a large number of smaller artefacts such as pieces of pottery, coins and liturgical items from the cultural layers inside the church. Among the objects was a beautiful gravestone from the grave of Laurens Axelsson Thott, dating from 1482 (Figure 10.2).7 Since the stone was found in front of the high altar this indicates that Laurens could have been one of the noblemen behind the foundation of the commandery. We also know that he supported the Swedish king in the ongoing battles against Denmark. The excavations in the 1940s were, however, mainly concentrated on the chapel, the best preserved part of the complex, and no traces from other buildings in the area were ever identified. It is, however, likely that the living-quarters for the brethren were situated south of the chapel.8 This is the area where the stone cellar with the barrel vault is located, but that structure was never dated or discussed in more detail by Lagerholm. Another problem with Lagerholm’s material is that 7

  Lagerholm, “Johanniterordens klosterkyrka,” pp. 50–57.   Ibid., p. 31.



Christer Carlsson

few artefacts were tied to specific cultural layers. Studies of the standing walls from the commandery church, however, helped Lagerholm to make some general conclusions about the building history of the site.9 Many of his results were therefore very helpful when planning the new investigations in 2007. One of the most important results from Lagerholm’s studies was that the commandery seemed to be not the first, but the second, building on the site. According to Lagerholm, a smaller chapel, dating from the thirteenth century, had been integrated into the later commandery church to serve as its choir. It is clear that the masonry in the east belongs to a different building period than the rest of the church. In the east the stones in the walls are a lot smaller and the walls thinner. This older chapel is most likely the very same building that is mentioned in a source from 1292, when it belonged to a hospital for travellers and pilgrims.10 This indicates that some kind of building should have been present in the site about 200 years before the Hospitaller commandery was founded. Therefore we simply have to trust that Lagerholm’s interpretation of the layers inside the chapel is correct and that he is right in saying that the building activity in especially the fifteenth century was extensive.11 As we shall see later in this article, new studies of the standing walls in September 2007 partly confirm Lagerholm’s conclusions. In the 1950s further excavations were carried out at Kronobäck prompted by construction works on the former cemetery east of the chapel.12 During these excavations some late-medieval skeletons were found. Most of the skeletons showed signs of recovering from severe war-injuries. These individuals must therefore have lived for weeks after the injuries were inflicted. It is therefore likely that these persons had been treated in the commandery for some time before they finally died from infections.13 If this is the case, if studied in more detail by a pathologist the skeletons may be able to tell us something about the medical skills that existed among the brethren of St John. Maybe some of the skeletons can be identified as Danish or Swedish soldiers who participated in the battles in the sixteenth century? This is the background to the history of Kronobäck as it was known when, in September 2007, the new excavations began on the site. The excavations were financed by the European Union and administrated by Kalmar Länsmuseum and myself. Early on in the project three questions of particular importance were identified: 1. Is it possible to date the stone cellar and to find out if it has ever formed a part of the commandery complex? 9

  Ibid., pp. 31–50.   Diplomatarium Suecanum, DS. 1078. 11   Lagerholm, ‘Johanniterordens klosterkyrka, pp. 65–66. 12   Länsstyrelsen i Kalmar, “The Kronobäck Infirmary Church,” in Information about Kronobäck Commandery (Kalmar, 1999), p. 4. 13   Ibid. 10

Kronobäck Commandery: A Field Study


2. Is it possible to find out if the cellar has ever been linked to the commandery church? (Today there is a gap of about 8 metres between the chapel and the cellar.) 3. Are there more preserved graves in the cemetery? Can these skeletons in that case be dated and the size of the former cemetery estimated? Like most archaeological investigations, the Kronobäck project started with an extensive work in the local archives. A number of maps were also used in the planning of the project, but the oldest maps from the region could only give limited information about the landscape that once surrounded the commandery. There is, nevertheless, a map preserved from the 1630s which shows the layout of the complex in the seventeenth century. On the map a building can clearly be identified just south of the chapel. This building has exactly the same location as the stone cellar that can still be seen today. This indicates that the cellar is from at least the seventeenth century and could have formed a part of the medieval commandery complex (Figure 10.3). If the cellar was built by the Hospitallers there could also have been a oneor two-storey building above it. Such a building could have contained the livingquarters of the brethren.14 If this was the case, the cellar could have served as a storeroom while the brethren had their living quarters on the first or second floor. A smaller Hospitaller house, such as that in Kronobäck, probably had a rather limited number of brethren, perhaps no more than between 5 and 10. One single stone building, with a double function as storeroom and living-quarters, would in that case have been enough to cover most of the needs of such a small group of brethren. Most monastic institutions probably started as rather small-scale communities and were only expanded when the economic situation permitted new buildings to be erected. The main buildings in Kronobäck should in any case have been positioned rather close to the church. Bearing in mind the harsh Scandinavian climate and the many hours of service that the brethren had to attend each day, the distance between the chapel and the living-quarters would not have been too long. The position of a building in the area where the cellar can be found today would therefore make much sense.15 In order to investigate if the cellar was medieval or contemporary with the map from the seventeenth century, the first examinations of the building took place during the early spring of 2007.16 Inside the cellar are still a preserved barrel vault and the walls consist partly of medieval bricks. Soon a wooden beam 14

  Report on the C14 samples from Lund University. Sample number: LuS7702 (Lund, 2008). 15   Lagerholm, “Johanniterordens klosterkyrka,” pp. 31–50. 16   The building antiquarian Örjan Molander from Kalmar Länsmuseum visited Kronobäck in April 2007 and claimed that the masonry in the cellar gave a medieval impression.


Christer Carlsson

Figure 10.3 The medieval cellar was built in the Hospitaller period and can be dated to about 1482

Kronobäck Commandery: A Field Study


was also discovered that seemed to run deep into the masonry. The beam appeared to be of some antiquity and a number of samples were collected in order to date it. Dendrochronological tests showed that the tree from which the beam had come had been cut down around 1482.17 This result was also checked by C14-dating, which gave the intervals of AD 1425–1620 (one sigma) and AD 1410–1635 (two sigma). This result corresponded well with the dendrochronological date of 1482. Even if the timber was reused in the cellar the most likely explanation is that the cellar and the building that once stood above it are indeed medieval and formed a part of the former commandery. Apart from the church, the cellar is therefore the first building unit on the site that can be dated to the Hospitaller-period. Another important question was to find out why there is a gap of about 8 metres between the church and the cellar when it would have been more convenient to have had direct access to the chapel. To find out if there were still any traces of foundations for an eastern wing preserved beneath the ground, a number of smaller trenches were opened up in the area between the church and the cellar. Soon these excavations showed that medieval graves were present in all the four smaller trenches and in the test pits between the chapel and the cellar. All of the skeletons had been buried in an east-west position and were most likely medieval. In total six individuals and a number of bone fragments were found, but no traces of buildings or foundations. This indicates that the two buildings had never been linked together and that the gap has been there ever since the Middle Ages. In addition to the skeletons, smaller finds of pottery, iron and slag were also collected from the trenches. The position of the skeletons is interesting since this result fits well together with Berggren’s conclusion from 1904, when he claimed that the cemetery was placed on the southern side of the church. Taking into account that skeletons were also found east of the choir in the 1950s this indicates that the cemetery stretched from the choir in the east all the way to the bell tower in the west. As shown above, some of the bodies from the investigations in the 1950s had severe injuries. Therefore it is interesting that one of the skeletons from the 2007 investigations had similar injuries. This skeleton was found less than 4 metres from the cellar and was very well preserved. A squared hole in the skeleton’s right cheek had probably been caused by a crossbow-arrow or a war-hammer (Figure 10.4). It is therefore possible that this man died during the conflicts between Swedes and Danes that we know took place in the region in the late medieval period. Most of the buried individuals were probably men, but further studies of the bones have to be done before any more definitive conclusions can be drawn. It is likely, however, that at least some female skeletons can be found in the cemetery when considering the size of the church. The commandery church in Kronobäck is actually very large for a small Scandinavian Hospitaller complex which only 17

 Report about the Dendrochronological samples from Lund University. Sample number: CATRAS 61026 (Lund, 2008).


Christer Carlsson

Figure 10.4 One of the skeletons found at the site. The square hole in the face indicates that this man was killed by a crossbow arrow or a war hammer

Kronobäck Commandery: A Field Study


existed for about 50 years. The reason for the considerable size could be that the church also functioned as the parish church for the surrounding countryside. In the fifteenth century, the closest village was about 5 kilometres away from Kronobäck and a parish church in the commandery was perhaps, for that reason, necessary. The size of the church could, however, also be explained by the fact that it was built next to the important medieval road that linked the coast with the inland. We know that a large number of pilgrims would have used this road, especially in the summer, and that they could have stayed at Kronobäck to pray and seek shelter for the night. If the pilgrims were sick or wounded they would also most likely have stayed at Kronobäck to consult the brethren about their diseases. If they were very sick or old perhaps pilgrims also chose to live in the commandery for some time to benefit from the care that the hospital could offer. There must in any case have been very few similar institutions in the area in the fifteenth and early sixteenth century. The individuals buried at Kronobäck may therefore be a combination of Hospitaller-brethren, soldiers, pilgrims and local people. Another important aspect of the investigations at Kronobäck is the possibility of making comparisons with other Hospitaller commanderies in late medieval Scandinavia and the rest of northern Europe. Even if the layouts of the medieval Hospitaller houses, as far as we know today, did not follow any strict rules, comparisons with similar sites are still important. We still lack information about important parts of the complex that would enable us to fully understand the daily life of the Hospitaller brethren that once lived in Kronobäck. The position of the farm buildings, such as stables and barns, still needs to be identified. Another important task is to identify the exact position of the hospital that must have been located somewhere in the area. Further investigations may reveal such information. To sum up, the Kronobäck project has so far contributed much new information about a largely forgotten site in medieval Scandinavia. By opening up just a limited number of trenches and placing them in strategic positions, we have been able to obtain much new information concerning the history of this former Hospitaller commandery. Studies of the masonry in the standing walls, with the application of modern dating methods, have also contributed to a much better understanding of the layout of the medieval complex. Combining traditional historical studies with methods provided by modern archaeology has proved to be a very successful way of studying the history of the Military Orders. It is therefore my intention to use this method to study similar sites in the near future.

This page has been left blank intentionally

11 Crisis? What crisis? The “Waning” of the Order of St Lazarus after the Crusades Rafaël Hyacinthe

The Order of St Lazarus was an integral part of institutional welfare in the Holy Land during the twelfth century.1 During the thirteenth century the legendary “leper knights” also developed a role focused on warfare.2 The brothers’ specific feature, leprosy, and its dimension within medieval conceptions and perceptions have been thoroughly discussed.3 Yet, little has been said about the Order after the crusades. This subject has been widely studied in relation to the other military-religious orders, be it the dramatic end of the Templars, the evolution of the Hospitallers of St John across the Mediterranean Sea, or the development of the Teutonic Knights in Prussia.4 Though the military-religious orders lacked any positive popular imagery during the first decade following the loss of Jerusalem,5 they remained 1

  Shulamit Shahar, “Des lépreux pas comme les autres: l’Ordre de Saint-Lazare dans le royaume latin de Jérusalem,” Revue historique, 267 (1982), pp. 19–41. More recently, Piers Mitchell, “An Evaluation of the Leprosy of King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem in the Context of the Medieval World,” in Bernard Hamilton, The Leper King and his Heirs (Cambridge, 2000); Alain Demurger, Chevaliers du Christ: les ordres religieux-militaires au Moyen Age (111e–15e siècles) (Paris, 2001), pp. 43–45; Rafaël Hyacinthe, L’Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem au Moyen Age (Millau, 2003). 2   David Marcombe, Leper Knights: The Order of St Lazarus of Jerusalem in England, c.1150–1544 (Woodbridge, 2003), pp. 6–11. 3   Rafaël Hyacinthe, “De domo Sancti Lazari Milites Leprosi: Knighthood and Leprosy in the Holy Land,” in The Medieval Hospital and Medical Practice, ed. Barbara S. Bowers (Aldershot, 2007), pp. 209–24; Rafaël Hyacinthe, “ L’Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jerusalem dans le contexte spiritual des croisades: une réévaluation,” in Religiones militares: Contributi alla storia degli Ordini religioso-militari nel medioevo, ed. Anthony Luttrell and Francesco Tommasi (Castello, 2008), pp. 43–59. See also Rafaël Hyacinthe, “Living for the ‘Dead of Jerusalem: Medical Isolation and Holy Deeds in the Leprosarium of Jerusalem during the Crusades,” paper presented at the 5th International conference of the International Network for the History of Hospitals, on the theme “Hospitals and communities,” Barcelona, April 1st 2009 (forthcoming, 2012). 4   Norman Housley, The Later Crusades: 1274–1580 (Oxford, 1992), pp. 209–17 and 323–49. 5   Helen Nicholson, Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights: Images of the Military Orders (Leicester, 1993), pp. 125–35. 177


Rafaël Hyacinthe

widespread organizations with military, political and religious power and settled in new territories: Jerusalem and Acre gave way to Cyprus, Rhodes, Venice and Marienburg. However, the Order of St Lazarus did not follow this pattern. What happened? What position did it find among the reformed crusading institutions? How did it justify its continuing existence, with its original combination of warfare and welfare? This is the theme on which this chapter will focus. 1291: The end of the crusades? After the loss of the final mainland “crusader” territories in the year 1291, the role of the military-religious orders went through what can only be described as a crisis. Commentators suggested that if there had been one unique and international order the pooling of all their resources might have led to a different result; and many believed it could still do so. The unification of all the military-religious orders had already been seriously considered by the papacy during the Second Council of Lyon in 1274. The matter became urgent after the summer of 1291. Provincial councils were convoked throughout Europe to discuss the project and Pope Nicholas IV gathered global approval. Numerous proposals and treatises were produced to make the concept concrete.6 What kind of order would be involved in the proposed unification? Clearly, all those orders which were currently involved in military activity linked to crusading, such as the Templars and the Hospital of St John, were included. But the treatise sent to Charles of Anjou in 1292 also included the hospitaller orders that had emerged during the same period: it cited the Order of Altopascio and that of the Holy Spirit.7 These were orders basing their activities on welfare, but whose ideals were not very far from those who had led to the institutionalization of warfare.8 The Order of Altopascio provided protection and care for pilgrims in North Italy, and the Holy Spirit managed several hospitals throughout Western Europe.9 These smaller institutions, which used their resources to provide local assistance, were


  For details, see Alan J. Forey, “The Military Orders in the Crusading Proposals of the Late Thirteenth and early Fourteenth Centuries,” Traditio 36 (1980), 317–45. 7   Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 6049, fol. 185v; G.I. Bratiano, “Le Conseil du roi Charles,” Revue historique du sud-est européen 19 (1942), 291–360. 8   Alan J. Forey, “The Militarisation of the Hospital of Saint John,” Studia Monastica 26 (1984), 75–89. More globally, A. Vauchez, La Spiritualité du Moyen Age occidental (Paris, 1975). 9   Rafaël Hyacinthe, “L’implantation des institutions de charité du royaume de Naples au Moyen Age: nouvelles perspectives dans l’histoire de l’assistance,” in Hôpitaux et maladreries au Moyen Age: espace et environnement, ed. Pascal Montaubin (Amiens, 2004), pp. 291–310.

Crisis? What crisis?


more charitable than the crusading institutions, and were granted distinct privileges by the papacy in 1290.10 What was the position of the Order of St Lazarus? We find mention of “the master and brethren of the Knights and hospital of St Lazarus of Jerusalem” within those latter hospitaller orders. Yet the Order was also included among the “abusive” military orders which were accused of diverting income away from the Holy Land. In his treaty De Recuperatione Terre Sancte, sent to the king of France in 1306, Pierre Dubois denounced the fact that none of the resources given to the military orders was being used to help the Holy Land. He added that he would not be able to choose between a “house of the Templars, a house of the Hospital, or even a priory of St Lazarus” if he had to decide which one was most guilty of such abuses.11 However, we find no trace of the Order of St Lazarus in the other treatises. This may have been due to the fact that it was much smaller than the Orders of the Temple and Hospital, but we must also consider other perspectives. The Order was certainly not comparable to the other crusading institutions, whether it be in terms of finance, military power or even recruitment throughout Europe. Yet its omission may also have been due to its capacity to adapt quickly, rapidly turning into a number of small local organizations, distinct and independent from one another. For nothing much came out of all those projects to recover the Holy Land. Only the larger military-religious orders continued to operate on an international scale. Until its trial and suppression, the Temple maintained its reputation in all respects, either approval or progressive scepticism and criticism.12 The Hospitallers of St John kept their reputation as they withdrew first to Cyprus and then to Rhodes, and the Teutonic Knights found a new focus in north-eastern Europe.13 However, the smaller orders were subject to what we would call national identification: each part of these orders had to work with distinct, sometimes opposed, national orientations. In order to retain their territorial base, they had to evolve, to fit into individual contexts. Rather than speaking of “decadence”, recent research prefers “adaptation”. This was particularly true for the Order of St Lazarus of Jerusalem. In 1291, the last year of Latin presence in the Holy Land, the Order was settled at Acre and had been since 1244. There are but few references to the brothers in other places in the Holy Land, except for a tower in Pain Perdu near Caesarea, mentioned in 1265.14 This small force received logistical support from a number of preceptories which progressively formed a network in Europe. Each country had its own provincial head (called “prior” or “master”) organizing and administrating   Archivio Segreto Vaticano (ASV), Registro Vaticano (Reg. Vat.) 45, fol. 4v; Registres de Nicolas IV, ed. E. Langlois (Paris, 1905), 2:410. 11   Pierre Dubois, De Recuperatione Terre Sancte, ed. C.V Langlois (Paris, 1891), p. 84. 12   Nicholson, Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights, pp. 125–35. 13   Housley, The Later Crusades, pp. 214–17. 14   Itinéraire à Jérusalem et descriptions de la terre Sainte, ed. H.V. Michelant and G. Raynaud (Geneva, 1882), p. 236. 10


Rafaël Hyacinthe

the different components. In England, the house at Burton Lazars, in Leicestershire, had responsibility for six other preceptories. In the Holy Roman Empire there were two networks: the first in Thuringia, with four houses subject to the master of Gotha; and the second in the future Swiss confederation with two houses subject to the master of Seedorf. Only three houses are known in the kingdom of Sicily, with a master in Barletta, one of the main crusading ports for the East. In France, there were six dependencies of the conventual house of Boigny. There was one isolated house in Hungary at Gran. All in all, the presence of the Order of St Lazarus in Europe was thus limited to 27 houses.15 This is a relatively small network compared to the enormous territories assembled by the Templars or the Hospital of St John. In 1291, a “house of St Lazarus” was most commonly a preceptory, a modest rural lordship based on an agricultural income. It practised religious devotions for local donors, and eventually a hospitaller function, developing from the shelter of pilgrims and passers-by to care for people afflicted by leprosy. Political support in the kingdoms of Sicily, England and later in the Catholic Kings’ kingdom of Spain allowed the Order’s activities and name to be perpetuated, mostly through welfare. A new identity emerged progressively through the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, culminating in the disappearance of its original function and its division into separate national “Orders” of St Lazarus at the beginning of the modern period. 1370–1498: The old Order In 1370, James de Besnes, “Master of the Order of St Lazarus,”  sent a petition to the pope. He presents the Order as a “hospital founded for Christians coming to Jerusalem,” composed of “knights and chaplains living under the Rule of St Augustine,” all placed under the authority of a master, to whom they were supposed to pay their yearly dues during a general chapter. But he complained that, for more then 20 years, brethren from “England, Apulia and Hungary” had not come to the annual chapter held at Boigny in France, and they had not paid their contribution to the head of the Order. He denounced many cases of usurpation, and the fact that some of these brothers had abandoned the institution to return to secular life.16 The initial ideals thus seem to have been abandoned by 1370 and the single hierarchical structure broken. By 1456, William Desmares, master of Boigny, repeated the complaint to the Apostolic See, using the very same words.17 These were the 15   For complete maps of the network throughout Europe: Hyacinthe, L’Ordre de SaintLazare de Jérusalem, pp. 69, 74 and 78. 16   ASV, Reg. Vat. 260, fol. 60v; summary in Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers: Papal Letters, eds W.H. Bliss, C. Johnson and J.A. Twemlow, 14 vols (London, 1893–1960), 4 (1362–1404), p. 84. Transcription in Hyacinthe, L’Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem, pp. 206–207. 17   ASV, Reg. Vat. 458, fols. 302–305, and Registri delle Suppliche 493, fol. 66.

Crisis? What crisis?


laments of the head of the old Order of St Lazarus, whose perspective had not changed despite the loss of Acre in 1291. However, since that date, most houses of St Lazarus in Europe had experienced difficult times. More than half of the preceptories had been leased out by the brethren, who were unable to exploit the properties directly themselves. Some had gone to court to fight against the usurpation of other abandoned property. The network set up by 1290 had slowly diminished, leaving small concentrations of properties grouped together on territorial and political grounds.18 While it made good economic sense to concentrate direct management on the more profitable domains and to lease out distant and isolated possessions, it was also true that fewer donors wanted to give alms or land to those military orders who had failed to keep hold of the Holy Land. The reason for their very existence had to be reviewed, especially for smaller institutions such as the Order of St Lazarus. It had to adapt to local expectations. In England, the Order concentrated more on its charitable and hospitaller activities. The income from lands and revenues were no longer for military activities overseas, as was still officially the case in 1256.19 In texts and documents relating to the few remaining preceptories, they call themselves hospitals. Such was the case for the house of Harehope in 1331, and for the main house of Burton throughout the fourteenth century.20 It seems as if in the contemporary mind a religious house sheltering sick people held more appeal than a house supporting the crusade. In 1299, in order to settle a grant given by King Henry II, King Edward I gave the master of Burton the hospital of St Giles of London. The conditions were clear: the master must use its revenues and alms to shelter the poor and the sick who presented themselves there.21 The gift had more to do with forcing the old military institution into the realm of local assistance than sustaining its original justification of holy war. This can be interpreted as an attempt to give the Order a rebirth on a more local scale.22 Other texts show us that the hospital of St Giles, administered from that time by the brethren of St Lazarus in England, did perform such a role. A petition sent to the pope in 1355, asking for alms in order to face financial difficulties, mentioned the sustenance of fourteen lepers.23 In 1373, a document insisting on   Hyacinthe, L’Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem, pp. 106–22.   Calendar of the Close Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office, prepared under the superintendence of the Deputy Keeper of the Records (London, 1892–1963), AD 1256– 1259, p. 130. 20   Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, prepared under the superintendence of the Deputy Keeper of the Records (London, 1891–1986), AD 1330– 1334, p. 75; see also the Burton Lazars Cartulary: London, British Library, MS Cotton Nero C xii. 21   Calendar of Patent Rolls (1292–1301), p. 404. 22   Marcombe, Leper Knights, p. 161. 23   Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland, 1: Petitions to the Pope, (1342–1419), ed. W.H. Bliss (London, 1896), p. 270. 18 19


Rafaël Hyacinthe

the necessity of isolating a sick clerk indicates that he had found shelter there.24 The Lazarites leased out the lands around the hospital in 1375, in order to ensure a regular income for such care for the sick.25 By 1401–1402, the number of lepers sheltered there had been reduced to only five.26 Even though St Giles was not immune from the general criticism about the efficiency of medieval charitable institutions at that time,27 it was the main location where the Order of St Lazarus managed to maintain a certain visibility and justification for existence in the eyes of both the local and royal authorities. The political desire to strengthen its individual territorial identity from that time is obvious. In 1347, the king ordered the seizure of the apportum, the contribution the brethren of England were supposed to pay to the master of Boigny.28 In 1372, the papacy recognized the authority of Nicolas de Dover as master of the Order in England, with a ban on claims from the rest of the Order “beyond the sea”.29 The concept of an international hierarchy was thus completely swept aside. This may be explained by the diplomatic tensions between the two countries at the time, which finally extinguished any lingering hopes of such arrangements. The new situation was confirmed in 1389–1390 when the master of Burton, Nicholas de Dover, sent a request to the Chancery, asking for a confirmation of his authority over the houses in England. He did not mention the global authority of Boigny in France, although this had been documented elsewhere since the withdrawal of the Order from the Holy Land. Whereas in the Order’s original thirteenth-century statutes there are references to the election in the Holy Land of a Lazarite responsible for managing the Order’s possessions overseas,30 Nicholas de Dover’s text claimed that, since the foundation of Burton in the twelfth century, only the brethren in England had elected their master. That election was supposed to have been merely confirmed by the “meistre generall” of the Order. A ceremony is described, during which the master of England is orally approved by the “meistre generall”, saying “nous le voulons” and thus leaving no written record. The head of the Order is described as being first in Cyprus and then in Rome. Since travelling

  Calendar of Patent Rolls (1370–1374), p. 358.   Calendar of Patent Rolls (1374–1377), p. 99. 26   Calendar of the Letter-Books Preserved among the Archives of the Corporation of the City of London at the Guildhall. Letter Book I, 1400–1422, ed. Reginald R. Sharpe (London, 1909), pp. 13–44. 27   Rotuli Parliamentorum: ut et petitiones et placita in Parliamento, compiled by R. Blyke, P. Morant, T. Astle and J. Topham, edited by J. Strachey, 6 vols (London, 1767–77), 1:135. 28   Calendar of Close Rolls (1346–1349), p. 338, and Calendar of Patent Rolls (1345– 1348), p. 408. 29   Calendar of Close Rolls (1369–1374), pp. 78 and 432. 30   “Die ältesten Statuten für die Lazaritenklöster Seedorf, im Gfenn und in Slatte,” ed. P.G. Morel, Der Geschichtsfreund 4 (1847), 143. 24 25

Crisis? What crisis?


was now more and more dangerous, the master of Burton asked simply for the king’s approval alone.31 Yet, the presence of the Order of St Lazarus in Cyprus or in Rome was not mentioned in any other document. We obviously are dealing here with the first falsification of the history of the Order, aiming to adapt to the contemporary situation. Indeed, according to the request sent to Rome by James de Besnes in 1370, it had been 20 years since the brethren of England had appeared at the annual chapter in Boigny.32 Complete independence from the head of the Order and dependence to the Crown were slowly brought together. By 1439, after the end of the Hundred Years War, the master of Burton’s election was directly confirmed by the papacy.33 Between 1450 and 1479, the king of England alone gave such confirmation,34 without relying on Boigny or any other authority. This hierarchical evolution reflected the diplomatic gap between the king of England and the king of France, and then with the Apostolic See, which would lead in years to come to the Reformation. The situation clearly shows how political considerations influenced the situation of the Order in England. The case of the kingdom of Naples is another good example. The Order of St Lazarus had a network that spread from Sicily to Capua. But the Sicilian Vespers in 1282 and the separation of Sicily to becoming an Aragonese possession marked the loss of the Hospital of Messina, administered subsequently by lay authorities.35 In the rest of the kingdom, still under Angevin authority, in 1311 the king recognized the Order as the only hospitaller institution in charge of the segregation of lepers throughout the kingdom.36 A few small local hospitals were then founded, such as Campobasso in 1319.37 A detailed study of the network administered by the Order in the fourteenth century shows how it had been used by the Angevins to establish a Latin presence in their newly conquered territory in south Italy. After the Benedictine monasteries 31

  Kew, The National Archives: Public Record Office, SC 8/302–15081; transcription in Hyacinthe, L’Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem, pp. 208–209. 32   ASV, Reg. Vat. 260, fol. 60v; summary in Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers: Papal Letters (1447–1455), p. 181; transcription in Hyacinthe, L’Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem, pp. 206–207. 33   Calendar of Patent Rolls (1436–1441), p. 362. 34   ASV, Reg. Vat. 547, fol. 77; summary in Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers: Papal Letters (1362–1404), p. 84; transcription in Hyacinthe, L’Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem, pp. 213–15. 35   S. Bottari, “I lebbrosi di Messina,” in Lazzaretti dell’Italia meridionale e della Sicilia: atti della Giornata sui lazzaretti, Messina 21 dicembre 1985 (Messina, 1985), pp. 19–29. 36   Archivio storico dell’Ordine Mauriziano (Turino), Fondo San Lazzaro, Mazzo 6, document 1; Hyacinthe, L’Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem, p. 116. 37   Archivio storico dell’Ordine Mauriziano (Turino), Fondo San Lazzaro, Mazzo 11, document 33; transcription in Hyacinthe, L’Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem, pp. 205– 206.


Rafaël Hyacinthe

and just before the emergence of the charitable lay confraternities, Lazarite hospitals emerged as one of the territorial marks of the Angevin kings’ authority. It is striking to note how, in the months following the capture of each city by the royal army, a cathedral and a hospital were built there. This seems to have been a means of attaching local power to the new hierarchy, whether it were ecclesiastical or, in the case of the Lazarites, hospitaller. The case of Barletta is interesting. It was formerly the port from which many crusaders had embarked for the East, and hence in the thirteenth century it sheltered houses of most military Orders. Thanks to the political support of the emperor, the Teutonic Knights and the Hospitallers of St John of Jerusalem had important convents there, around which extensions of the city developed. Grants were then made to sustain the crusading cause they represented. But by the fourteenth century the new suburbs were being built around the hospital of St Anthony and that of St Lazarus, outside the walls of the medieval town. Regular donations to these institutions, newly imported by the Angevins, contributed to local welfare and religious life.38 The Lazarites were overseen locally by the master of Capua, who was responsible for taxes and disciplinary problems within these new houses.39 He had, in all matters, a complete independence from the rest of the Order of St Lazarus. He was confirmed by the papacy in 1443, “notwithstanding preceding statutes or apostolic confirmation given to the Order.”40 The Aragonese kings went on to give similar confirmations after their own conquest of the kingdom of Naples in 1444, first in 1479 and then again in 1481.41 We are, once again, dealing with the emergence of an autonomous national institution. Through welfare, and thanks to the political support it found in the successive Angevin and Aragonese reigns, the Order of St Lazarus in south Italy gained a renewed identity, more fitted to the local background. A similar process occurred in Germany, but here the lay authorities took over the medieval institution. The network in Thuringia was progressively abandoned. Preceptories and domains were sold during the fourteenth century,42 the main activity of the Order concentrating around the main hospital of Gotha. It was consecrated by the bishop of Mainz in 1314 and then again in 1404, for the use


  Hyacinthe, “L’implantation des institutions de charité du royaume de Naples au Moyen Age,” pp. 291–310. 39   Rationes Decimarum Italiae nei Secoli XIII e XIV: Campania (Vatican, 1942), pp. 78, 182, 187 and 210. Rationes Decimarum Italiae nei Secoli XIII e XIV: Apulia, Lucania, Calabria (Vatican, 1939), pp. 29, 49, 31 and 54. Codice Diplomaticao Brindisino, ed. A de Leo (Trani, 1946), 2:20–21. 40   Archivio storico dell’Ordine Mauriziano (Turino), Fondo San Lazzaro, Mazzo 1, document 4; transcription in Hyacinthe, L’Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem, p. 212. 41   Archivio storico dell’Ordine Mauriziano (Turino), Fondo San Lazzaro, Mazzo 6, documents 4 and 5; Hyacinthe, L’Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem, p. 143. 42   Hyacinthe, L’Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem, pp. 114–15.

Crisis? What crisis?


of the poor of the city.43 However, in 1444 the emergence of the city council as a political power interfered with this, and with the agreement of the landgrave the hospital was placed under its supervision. In 1482 it was placed directly under the city council’s guardianship. From that time, the Lazarites disappeared from the records of the hospital, replaced by the local lay authority.44 The final example is that of the three houses located in the Swiss districts. By 1315, these had grown politically into a new territorial identity. Yet, it was not the hospitaller role of the Order which allowed them to survive, but rather their religious nature, which evolved in an original way. In 1321, the master of the main house of Seedorf, before his death, ruled that the Order’s houses be converted into monasteries for nuns. Sigfrid of Schlatt gave a new definition to these Lazarite houses, which was confirmed in 1377: from that time they were to welcome sisters only. Under the supervision of an elected meisterin, the sisters were to live in prayer and penance in the convents, respecting the liturgical Hours and regular fasts. Discipline would be regulated during chapters held each week, and a kellerin was in charge of the resources of the monastery.45 This new orientation was a success. Grants started being given again from local donors, eager to be mentioned in the sisters’ prayers. A liturgical calendar of those convents produced at that time lists the names of the numerous beneficiaries, from all parts of local society.46 As strange as it may seem, the authority of Boigny was still existent here in 1413. In a letter addressed to the convents, Pierre des Ruaulx complained about “war and schisms” which brought division within the Order of St Lazarus, but nevertheless approved the new rules of the convents, thus recognizing their evolution as independent religious elements.47 These convents may thus be considered as affiliates of the Order, with a common history but with a new mission and perspective. By 1443, the convent of Seedorf was attributed to the cathedral of Zurich48 and from then on the monasteries were included within the religious components of the district. The Order of St Lazarus, subject to the local evolutions of political changes, had thus evolved into separate local entities. Some relied on their involvement in hospitaller activities to find a role in local assistance. We must remember just how unsuccessful the Order had been as a hospitaller institution in Europe during the thirteenth century. Even though in 1265 the papacy ordered ecclesiastical   W.E. Tentzel, Supplementum Historiae Gothanae (Gotha, 1702), pp. 623 and 703.   Hyacinthe, L’Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem, pp. 141–42. 45   “Die ältesten Statuten,” ed. Morel, pp.  121–23. Peter Kay Jankrift, Leprose als Streiter Gottes (Munster, 1996), pp. 108–15. 46   Documents published in “Jahrzeitbücher des Mittelalters: der St Lazarus Brüder und Schwestern in Seedorf,” ed. J. Schenller, in Der Geschichtsfreund 12 (1856), 52–67, and “Urkunden aus Uri, 2,” ed. A. Denier, Der Geschichtsfreund 42 (1887), 5–10. 47   “Urkunden aus Uri, 1,” ed. A. Denier, Der Geschichtsfreund 41 (1886), 71–73. 48   “Aelteste Urkunden des St Lazarus Spitals zu Seedorf im Lande Uri,” ed. P.G. Morel, Der Geschichtsfreund 12 (1856), 44–47. 43 44


Rafaël Hyacinthe

and lay authorities to recognize it as the only network responsible for the care of lepers, numerous legal challenges and objections brought this project to failure. Ecclesiastical and secular authorities obviously did not accept the intrusion of an international independent Order in their local affairs.49 But after 1291 the waning of the institution’s original dimension changed their perspective. Land and properties were no longer used for foreign causes overseas: the Orders’ houses each had to operate in its own way within its own local political situation. In this context, it is interesting to note that the Order of St Lazarus was not present in the Spanish Reconquista. Even though its name appeared in local nineteenthcentury research concerning leprosy, original medieval documents do not mention it. Obviously the Aragonese Crown did not need to import it to occupy the newly conquered territories. Instead, it consolidated the classical ecclesiastical network and regulated the influence of military orders by supporting national institutions such as Santiago, Calatrava and Alcantara.50 Yet, after the political union enacted by the Catholic kings in the second half of the fifteenth century, a hospitaller network was created for the administration of leprosaria. The Crown named Examinadores and Alcades Mayores who were to take over the medieval hospitals of most towns (Toledo, Cordoba, Madrid, Burgos, and so on), in which they were to place all patients suspected of leprosy. These hospitals were, from that time onwards, called Casas San Lazaro, and the whole organization was named the Orden of St Lazarus. Its members, nominated by the Crown, were sent throughout the kingdom to administer local leprosaria.51 They were to enforce the segregation of leprosy victims, in the same way as Jews and heretics.52 There was no institutional link between this new Orden and the crusading Order which is the subject of this chapter. This new welfare institution, set up and supported by the Crown, was intended to compensate for the ineffectiveness of the townships and clergy in the control and regulation of leprosy patients at that time. This was welfare reform, using locally the name and attributions of the international military Order. As the Catholic kings had authority in the kingdom of Naples at that period, it may be possible that they received inspiration for this project from the existing organization in south Italy.53 But the project did not last for long: by the sixteenth century, the word Orden and the affiliation with the name of St Lazarus   Hyacinthe, L’Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem, pp. 77–78.   Derek W. Lomax, The Reconquest of Spain (London, 1978). 51   J.L. Brouard Uriarte, “Hospitales, casas de San Lazaro, de San Anton y de Innocentes en la España del Siglo XV,” Asclepio 24 (1972), 421–30. ; R. Hyacinthe, “La Couronne, les villes et l’Ordre de Saint-Lazare: les tentatives de réformes hospitalières de l’époque moderne (Espagne, France),” in Ciudad y Hospital en el Occidente Europeo (1300–1700) (Lleida, 2012). 52   John Edwards, Religion and Society in Spain (Aldershot, 1996), pp. 626–32. 53   Hyacinthe, L’Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem, pp. 196–98. 49 50

Crisis? What crisis?


had been abandoned.54 Legal challenges forced the Crown to recognize the lay and ecclesiastical authorities’ rights over these medieval hospitals. It was a temporary monopoly, linked to the royal desire to reorganize the newly-built Spanish nation throughout the disparate territories inherited from earlier centuries. There was no longer a single military Order of St Lazarus, as was well illustrated by the suppression ordered by Pope Innocent VIII in 1498. Wishing to use all available resources to help the Order of St John rebuild against the Turks in the Mediterranean, he considered that the Order of St Lazarus had failed in its initial mission. Lazarites were from that time supposed to join the Hospital of St John, and their properties were to be administered for the use of the renewed crusade.55 This project yet again failed to be universally enforced, for by that time it was evident that the old Order had been replaced by several new orders, each with its own new territorial identity and power. This evolution would allow these new orders to face a changing world. 1498–1604: The New Orders At the dawn of the sixteenth century, the Order of St Lazarus was surely not to be considered in the same light as during earlier centuries. Compared to the other great military-religious orders which managed to survive along with their original ideals, the Order of St Lazarus might have seemed more like a series of small religious entities functioning like parasites, which had submitted to the events of modern history.56 Yet, as we have started to consider in the preceding pages, the documentation shows a more pragmatic approach, each part of the Order adapting itself to the expectations of the territory where it had settled. Except for a few chivalric pretensions kept as tradition by the French master of Boigny, and which re-emerged in the twentieth century,57 the Order henceforth consisted of hospitals and convents, and its goods were administered for such purposes. It is as such that it would have to evolve from then on, with many consequences within its local political, social and religious milieus. The Order in Switzerland and England had to deal with the Protestant Reformation which emerged in most north European territories at that time. Violent criticism arose progressively, challenging the justification of most religious houses. In 1516, 54   Catalogo del Archivio de Simancas: Registro general del Sello 11 (Valladolid, 1970), pp. 52, 221, 276, 289 and 468. 55   Paris, Archives nationales, L 326; transcription in Hyacinthe, L’Ordre de SaintLazare de Jérusalem, pp.  215–18. For the general crusading context: Housley, The Later Crusades, pp. 217–35. 56   Marcombe, Leper Knights, pp. 21–22. 57   Marcombe, Leper Knights, pp. 24–25. R. Bagdonas, The Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem: its History and Work (Nottingham, 1989).


Rafaël Hyacinthe

the bishop of Constance confirmed the existence of the two convents at Gfänn and Seedorf, granting them a 40 days indulgence so as to encourage donations.58 Yet, by 1526 the Reformation movement spread by Zwingli from Zurich had reached them, and the nuns living in the convent of Gfänn were told to leave the house, while their goods and lands were given to the nearby hospice of Spanweid.59 However, the convent of Seedorf was situated in an area which remained Catholic. The Counter Reformation gave it yet another dimension for, by 1559, Benedictine nuns were settled there, and the whole building was being rebuilt. The house even found positive echoes in its close surroundings, for the leading local families each had a member placed in the monastery. But this house had nothing more to do with the original military Order. Only its foundation legend, described on eighteenth-century paintings which even today still decorate the refectory, commemorates part of its history. One painting shows a crusader knight coming back from the Holy Land in 1107 and being asked by divine intervention to found a monastery in that place. Another painting shows a visit made by the leper king Baldwin IV. Though a little rearranged, these are the last iconographical souvenirs of the existence of this military Order in Switzerland.60 The same thing occurred in England. By the early sixteenth century, the Lazarites were specializing in the use of confraternity letters and indulgences, selling them through pardoners to individuals, families and even whole villages throughout the kingdom, all with the benediction of the papacy. In this way, they followed the emergence of new expressions of spirituality at that time.61 But in 1535, following the schism with Rome, all this activity ceased.62 The spread of the Protestant Reformation resulted in the suppression of all military and religious Orders in England by the early 1540s. In 1546, the last houses of the Order of St Lazarus were closed, their lands leased to new tenants and the larger domains sold to noble families. The main preceptory at Burton became farmland; some of the stonework can still be found in the gardens and the houses of the village of Burton Lazars.63 If these two cases show clearly that in these countries, the dissolution of the Order had more to do with its religious identity, the example of Gotha in Germany gives a hint as to the progressively fragile position the Order held in the modern context of welfare. Since the second half of the fifteenth century, reforms of hospital organization had been spreading from one country to another, the idea being to 58

  “Aelteste Urkunden des St Lazarus Spitals,” p. 50.   A. Nuscheler, “Die Lazariterhaüser im Gfenn bei Dübendorf und Schlatt,” Mittheilungen der Antiquarischen Gesellschaft in Zürich 9 (1856), 115–17. 60   Hyacinthe, L’Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem, pp. 166–67. 61   Numerous letters of such kind have been preserved: for example, London, British Library, Additional charters, 37362 and 53710; Stowe charters 619 and 620. 62   Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, vol. 8, ed. J. Gairdner (London, 1885), p. 242. 63   Marcombe, Leper Knights, pp. 241–44. 59

Crisis? What crisis?


concentrate resources on a single city hospital, rather than on the multitude of small hospitals inherited from earlier centuries. The earlier small hospitals were then sold and their income used to improve the efficiency of the main hospital. This desire to rationalize was behind the Senate of Gotha naming the ancient Lazarite house as the city hospital in 1523 and subsequently gaining complete control over it. The whole building was rebuilt in 1541, new personnel were recruited on a lay basis, and dozens of poor people were cared for in a more up-to-date way.64 These extinctions and secularizations came about as the values expressed by the Order, or at least by its existence, were progressively abandoned. Spirituality and welfare were undoubtedly to evolve, and the institutional actors involved were to change. The old orders could no longer meet public expectations. As charity was progressively replaced by assistance organized and assumed by lay institutions, the religious orders inherited from the Middle Ages had to evolve also. It was only by following the ongoing evolution that the remaining Lazarites would succeed in reviving, rather than merely surviving. The reforms in assistance also applied in the Aragonese kingdom of Naples. But in answer to the threat of dissolution, Mucio d’Accia, the master of Capua, initiated his own reform within the Order itself. In a project initiated during the chapter held in December 1558, he proposed to secularize the Order by establishing a lay confraternity of noblemen. They would express their religious and charitable zeal by caring for the sick within lay general hospitals that they were to sustain by personal donations.65 The project was sent to the papacy and to the king for approval.66 In France also, the master François de Salviati gathered the remaining brethren together in a chapter at Boigny in 1578. He proclaimed the necessity of new statutes, in order to rebuild the Order after the heavy losses and usurpations of land which had taken place during the recent religious troubles. In the same way as in the kingdom of Naples, the members were to be lay brethren living according to religious principles. They sent their project to the king of France, asking for confirmation, but moreover proposing their services as a military faction of armed noblemen.67 The orientation here was more military than in Naples. Hence, both these remaining groups of the last Lazarites waited for the lay and ecclesiastical powers to confirm their new orientation. But by this time the papacy’s interest lay more in the emergence of what could be called the “new Crusade”. It was represented by the brethren of St John who, on Malta, still formed an international military power. The notion of defending the   S. Dietrich, “Das Hospital Maria Magdalena zu Gotha,” Zeitschrift des Vereins für Thuringische Geschichte und Alterthumstunde 3 (1859), 312. 65   Archivio storico dell’Ordine Mauriziano (Turino), Fondo San Lazzaro, Mazzo 6, document 45. 66   Hyacinthe, L’Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem, p. 176. 67   Paris, Archives Nationales, S 4866, document 23, fols. 1–7. 64


Rafaël Hyacinthe

faith was revived by the victory of the Order against the Turkish army at Lepanto in 1571.68 Just as in 1498, the papacy wished to maximize resources in this cause. Still, instead of trying to unify all the orders, as his predecessors had done, the pope diplomatically preferred to continue the creation of national institutions, each fighting to the same end but within their own territorial means and factions. In order to avoid the possibility of institutional and jurisdictional trouble around the ancient institution and its patrons, he preferred to give these national institutions a new name. Thus, in 1564 Pope Pius IV recognized the reform initiated by the Italian master Mucio d’Accia. He also added to the duties of the Lazarites an involvement in the struggle against the “pirates and enemies of the Christian Religion”.69 His successor Gregory XIII then initiated the Order of St Maurice in 1572. Placed under the authority of the duke of Savoy, it had statutes which strikingly resembled those given to the Italian Lazarites eight years before, but emphasizing warfare much more than welfare. In the same year, the pope encouraged the master of Capua, Jeannot de Castillon, to give up his title in favour of the duke. Both Orders were to be united, with the common name of the “Order of St Maurice and Lazarus”. The properties of the old Order were to serve the goals of the new one.70 The popularity of the new institution was immediate. During the first five years of its existence, about 300 knights joined the Order, and by 1604, there were 49 “commanderies” established in the north of Italy (Piedmont and Savoy).71 Two galleys were put to sea at Nice in 1573, and two grand hospitals were built in Torino and Aoste.72 The new Order was from then on representative of the military, hospitaller and religious engagement of the local nobility and gentry, in line with the precepts of the recent Council of Trent. As an echo of modern society’s expectations, the Order thus succeeded in regaining a certain popularity. The duke of Savoy, encouraged by this success, dreamt of spreading his new Order beyond national frontiers. Sustained and protected by the papacy, he saw himself at the head of an international institution, similar to those of the earlier crusading period, but modernized in its form and values. He tried unsuccessfully to negotiate with the Spanish Crown to gain control of the ancient Lazarite houses of the kingdom of Naples, as well as those created a century before in Spain by the Catholic kings. But King Philip II of Spain refused to accept that a foreign power   Housley, Later Crusades, pp. 131–50.   Bullarum Privilegiorum ac Diplomatum Romanorum Pontificum Amplissima Collectio, ed. C. Coquelines, vol. 4.2 (Rome, 1745), pp. 215–17. 70   Bullarum Privilegiorum ac Diplomatum Romanorum Pontificum Amplissima Collectio, ed. C. Coquelines, vol. 4.4 (Rome, 1749), p. 99; Biblioteca Reale de Torino, Ms Storia Patria 437, p. 144. 71   Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Codice Vaticano Latino 11742, fols. 29–50. 72   L. Cibrario, Précis historique des Ordres religieux et militaires de Saint Lazare et Saint Maurice (Lyon, 1860). 68 69

Crisis? What crisis?


should have authority on men and goods within his realm.73 The duke of Savoy also tried to claim authority over the French Lazarites,74 but King Henry IV also refused. In France, by that time, the Crown was developing its competence in many domains, as the administration of religious, hospitaller and military affairs was taken over by royal officers, who arbitrated the necessary reformation of most of these institutions. This was also to be the case for the military orders. The representatives of the French hierarchy of the Order of Malta were chosen from among the members of the court. The French Lazarites’ link with the king was also tightened. In 1604 Henry IV sent a diplomat to Rome, who managed to negotiate successfully with the papacy.75 Pope Paul V did the same as his predecessors did in the Italian case: in 1608 he created the Knights of “Notre-Dame du Mont Carmel”, to which he united the French Lazarites in a single institution called the “Order of Notre-Dame du Mont Carmel and Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem”. The new Order was to serve the papacy and the king in the defence of the Faith.76 Yet this aim would soon be reduced to meet only royal needs. The Order armed two galleys in the war against England in 1666. Its military engagement thus served only the national cause, rather than active crusading. Indeed, from then on, it more resembled a “royal order”, such as that of St Louis, supplying funds and goods used to reward Catholic soldiers and officers of the royal army in return for their services. The patron of the Order was the king himself, and the title of master was from then on reserved to a member of the royal family. Until the time of the French Revolution, the Order consisted of a sort of military nobility that stood out during Parisian ceremonies held in the École Militaire. The exemplary students of the Order were distinguished from the others through their title, and formed the elite of the royal army.77 The link with the royal power was complete. The credibility of the institution in areas other than military waned quickly. King Louis XIV tried to use the Order in yet another hospitaller reform of leprosaria in France in 1672. The past history of the Order of St Lazarus provided the perfect justification to unite to it the goods and domains of the then useless ancient hospitals of the realm, since leprosy had long disappeared. Leprosaria were numerous, and a map covering the whole territory of the kingdom showed that many new “commanderies” were to be created with this reform. Lands and 73   Archivo de Simancas (Valladolid), Papeles de Estado, 1233 (fol. 42), 1238 (fol. 110), 1248 (fol. 89), 3631 (fol. 6). 74   Paris, Archives Nationales, S 4866, document 23, fol. 30. 75   Recueil de lettres missives de Henri IV, ed. Jules Berger de Xivrey, vol. 7 (Paris, 1858), pp. 424–25. 76   Bullarum Privilegiorum ac Diplomatum Romanorum Pontificum Amplissima Collectio, ed. C. Coquelines, vol. 5.3 (Rome, 1739), p. 297. 77   H.-M. de Langle and J.L. de Treourret de Kerstrat, Les Ordres de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem et de Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles (Paris, 1992).


Rafaël Hyacinthe

buildings were leased, and rents were given to the members of the new Order.78 But this policy attracted severe criticism, since it benefited only Parisian noblemen and officers. Once again, opposition from local ecclesiastical and lay authorities was so great that the project was totally cancelled 20 years later. The title of “knight of St Lazarus” was finally limited to an honourable military distinction, which disappeared at the Revolution along with the privileges of the French monarchy.79 These two cases – in Italy and France – show how the medieval institution evolved into its modern form. The seventeenth- and eighteenth-century knights of St Lazarus formed lay confraternities linked to a political power, giving them a role remodelled according to the ideals of that period. Both had their statutes reformulated according to the spiritual principles of that time. Both changed the original green cross into an eight-branch cross symbolizing the eight catholic virtues a knight was supposed to have. Both had representatives among the noblemen of the court, whether under the authority of the king of France or of the duke of Savoy. They were by then closer to the expectations of European nobility. Unlike the Order of St John, which managed to maintain an individual destiny in Malta, independent from specific national aims, the Order of St Lazarus was subject to the political evolutions of the territories where it had settled during the Middle Ages. Lacking a single identity or distinctive power, the Order’s various provinces developed into distinct institutions, more adapted to their time. As for most Orders which survived the “waning of the Middle Ages”,80 their common origins were remembered as a necessary commemoration of the past. Whether it was in Italy or in France, official historians of these Orders put together family trees going back to the first centuries of Christianity, including St Basil, St Augustine, Charlemagne, St Louis, and so on.81 They hence drew a line from their present situation back to past glorious times, which were given the aura of legendary foundation and justification. Yet the history of the Order of St Lazarus in the modern period makes sense in the religious and economical context of the end of the Middle Ages. National political changes forced each territorial entity to advance new perspectives. The Order had to adapt to the local evolution of warfare, welfare and religious 78

  Paris, Archives Nationales, M 22.   F. Dissard, La réforme des hôpitaux et maladreries au XVIIe siècle (Paris, 1938). Hyacinthe, “La Couronne”. 80   J. Huizinga, The Waning of the Middle Ages, trans. F. Hopman (New York, 1924). 81  Ordre militaire de Notre-Dame du mont Carmel et de Saint-Lazare: mémoires, statuts, rituels (1649) (Rouvray, 1992), pp.  17–49; Toussaint de Saint Luc, Mémoires en forme d’abrégé historique de l’institution de l’ordre royal des chevaliers hospitaliers de Notre-Dame du Mont Carmel et Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem (Paris, 1681) ; Gautier de Sibert, Histoire des ordres royaux hospitaliers-militaires de Notre-Dame du Mont Carmel et SaintLazare de Jérusalem (Paris, 1772); L. Cibrario, Précis historique des Ordres religieux et militaires de Saint Lazare et Saint Maurice (Lyon, 1860); P. Bertrand de la Grassière, Histoire des chevaliers hospitaliers de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem (Paris, 1932). 79

Crisis? What crisis?


expression. From the “malaise” of 1291 onwards, a single historical definition of the Order is not possible. In each country, the Order redefined its role within its economical and institutional frame. Whereas until the fifteenth century the Order was included in the initiatives led by the Church, in most parts of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Europe it submitted to the requirements of the emerging control of national governments on their territories. In different ways, it found its way to disappearance, or to renaissance.

This page has been left blank intentionally

Select Bibliography

Primary sources Cartulaire général de l’Ordre des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, 1100– 1310, ed. Joseph Delaville Le Roulx, 4 vols (Paris, 1884–1906). Codice diplomatico del Sacro Militare Ordine Gerosolimitano oggi di Malta, ed. Sebastiano Pauli, 2 vols (Lucca, 1733–1737). La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr (1184–1197), ed. M.R. Morgan, Documents relatifs à l’histoire des croisades 14 (Paris, 1982), trans. in Peter W. Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade (Aldershot, 1996). Cronaca del templare di Tiro: 1243–1314: la caduta degli stati crociati nel racconto di un testimone oculare, ed. Laura Minervini (Naples, 2000). English translation: The “Templar of Tyre”: Part III of the “Deeds of the Cypriots,” trans. Paul Crawford (Aldershot, 2003). Diplomatarium Suecanum I-II, ed. Johan Gustav Liljegren (Stockholm, 1829–37). Le Dossier de l’affaire des Templiers, ed. Georges Lizerand (Paris, 1964). L’enquête pontificale de 1373 sur l’ordre des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, vol. 1, L’enquête dans le prieuré de France, ed. Anne-Marie Legras (Paris, 1987). L’Estoire de Eracles empereur et la Conqueste de la Terre d’Outremer, in RHC. Occ, vol. 2. Papsttum und Untergang des Templerordens, ed. Heinrich Finke, 2 vols (Münster, 1907). Procès des Templiers, ed. Jules Michelet, 2 vols (Paris, 1841–51). Papsturkunden für Templar und Johanniter: Archivberichte und Texte, ed. Rudolf Hiestand, 2 vols, Vorarbeiten zum Oriens Pontificius 1–2, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissernschaften in Göttingen, 77, 135 (Göttingen, 1972–84). The Rule of the Templars: The French Text of the Rule of the Order of the Knights Templar, trans. J.M. Upton-Ward (Woodbridge, 1992). The Templars, trans. Malcolm Barber and Keith Bate (Manchester, 2002). The Trial of the Templars in Cyprus, ed. and trans. Anne Gilmour-Bryson (Leiden, 1998). The Trial of the Templars in the Papal State and the Abruzzi, ed. Anne GilmourBryson (Città del Vaticano, 1982). Der Untergang des Templer-Ordens, ed. Konrad Schottmüller, 2 vols (Berlin, 1887).



SelecT BIblIographY

Visites générales des commanderies de l’ordre des Hospitaliers dépendantes du grand prieuré de Saint-Gilles (Archives départementales des Bouches-duRhône, 56 H 123), ed. Benoît Beaucage (Aix-en-Provence, 1982). Secondary sources Ayala Martínez, Carlos de, Las Órdenes Militares hispánicas en la Edad Media. Siglos XII–XV (Madrid, 2003). Barber, Malcolm, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple (Cambridge, 1994). Barber, Malcolm, The Trial of the Templars, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 2006). Baudrillart, Alfred, Albert De Meyer and Roger Aubert, eds, Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques (Paris, 1912–). Bellomo, Elena, The Templar Order in North-west Italy. 1142–c.1330 (Leiden and Boston, 2008). Beltjens, Alain, Aux Origines de l’Ordre de Malte: de la Fondation de l’Hôpital de Jérusalem à sa Transformation en Ordre Militaire (Brussels, 1995). Berggren, P.G., Kronobäcks kloster. Meddelande från Kalmar läns fornminnesförening IV (Stockholm, 1904). Bériou, Nicole and Philippe Josserand, eds, Prier et combattre: dictionnaire européen des ordres militaires au Moyen Âge (Paris, 2009). Bourg, Antoine du, Ordre de Malte. Histoire du grand-prieuré de Toulouse et des diverses possessions de l’ordre de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem dans le Sud-Ouest de la France, Languedoc, Pays de Foix, de Comminges, de Béarn, Gascogne, Guyenne, Périgord, Quercy, Albigeois, Rouergue (Toulouse, 1883). Bryson, David, “The Hospitaller and Templar Houses of Périgord,” in The Military Orders, vol. 3: History and Heritage, ed. Victor Mallia-Milanes (Aldershot, 2008), pp. 167–73. Bryson, David, “Murder in the Preceptory?,” in The Military Orders, vol. 4: On Land and by Sea, ed. Judi Upton-Ward (Aldershot, 2008), pp. 129–38. Bryson, David, “Three ‘Traitors’ of the Temple: Was their Truth the Whole Truth?,” in The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314), eds Jochen Burgtorf, Paul F. Crawford and Helen J. Nicholson (Farnham, 2010), pp. 97–103. Burgtorf, Jochen, The Central Convent of Hospitallers and Templars: History, Organization, and Personnel (1099/1120–1310) (Leiden, 2008). Burgtorf, Jochen, Paul F. Crawford and Helen J. Nicholson, eds, The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314) (Farnham, 2010). Carlsson, Christer, “The Religious Orders of Knighthood in Medieval Scandinavia: Historical and Archaeological Approaches,” Crusades 5 (2006), 131–42. Carlsson, Christer, “A New Chronology for the Scandinavian Branches of the Military Orders,” in The Military Orders, vol. 4, On Land and By Sea, ed. Judi Upton-Ward (Aldershot, 2008), pp. 57–62.

SelecT BIblIographY


Carraz, Damien, L’ordre du Temple dans la basse vallée du Rhône (1124–1312). Ordres militaires, croisades et sociétés méridionales, Cahiers d’histoire et d’archéologie médiévales 17 (Lyon, 2005). Claverie, Pierre-Vincent, L’Ordre du Temple en Terre Sainte et à Chypre au XIIIe siècle, 3 vols (Nicosia, 2005). Delaville Le Roulx, Joseph, “L’Ordre de Montjoie,” Revue de l’Orient latin 1 (1893). Delaville Le Roulx, Joseph, Les Hospitaliers en Terre sainte et à Chypre (1100– 1310) (Paris, 1904). Delaville Le Roulx, Joseph, Les Hospitaliers à Rhodes jusqu’à la mort de Philibert de Naillac (1310–1421) (Paris, 1913). Demurger, Alain, “Belchite, le Temple et Montjoie: la Couronne d’Aragon et le Temple au XIIe siècle,” in Knighthoods of Christ. Essays on the History of the Crusades and the Knights Templar, Presented to Malcolm Barber, ed. Norman Housley (Aldershot, 2007), pp. 123–35. Devic, Claude and Jean Vaissète, eds, Histoire générale de Languedoc, 3rd edn, 16 vols (Toulouse, 1872–1904). Dondi, Cristina, “Manoscritti liturgici dei templari e degli ospitalieri: le nuove prospettive aperte dal sacramentario templare di Modena,” in I Templari, la guerra e la santità, eds Simonetta Cerrini and Fulvio Bramato (Rimini, 2000). Dondi, Cristina, The Liturgy of the Canons Regular of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem: A Study and a Catalogue of the Manuscript Sources (Turnhout, 2004). Edbury, Peter W., The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191–1374 (Cambridge, 1991). Edbury, Peter W., “New Perspectives on the Old French Continuations of William of Tyre,” Crusades 9 (2010), 107–13. Elm, Kaspar, “Die Spiritualität der geistlichen Ritterorden des Mittelalters,” in “Militia Christi” e Crociata nei secoli XI-XIII, Atti della undecima Settimana internazionale di studio Mendola, 28 agosto – 1 settembre 1989 (Milan, 1992), pp. 477–518. Forey, Alan J., “The Order of Mountjoy,” Speculum 46 (1971), 250–66. Forey, Alan J., The Templars in the Corona de Aragón (London, 1973). Forey, Alan J., “The Military Orders in the Crusading Proposals of the Late Thirteenth and early Fourteenth Centuries,” Traditio 36 (1980), 317–45. Forey, Alan J., “The Militarisation of the Hospital of Saint John,” Studia Monastica 26 (1984), 75–89. Forey, Alan J., “Novitiate and Instruction in the Military Orders in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” Speculum 61 (1986), 1–17. Forey, Alan J., “The Military Order of St Thomas of Acre,” English Historical Review 92 (1977), 481–503. Forey, Alan J., Military Orders and Crusades (London, 1994).


SelecT BIblIographY

Forey, Alan J., “Literacy and Learning in the Military Orders during the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” in The Military Orders, vol. 2: Welfare and Warfare, ed. Helen Nicholson (Aldershot, 1998), pp. 185–206. Forey, Alan J., The Fall of the Templars in the Crown of Aragon (Aldershot, 2001). Gerola, G., “Monumenti Medievali delle Tredici Sporadi,” Annuario della regia Scuola Archeologica di Atene 2 (1914), 195–200. Gilmour-Bryson, Anne, “Vox in excelso and Vox clamantis, Bulls of Suppression of the Templar Order, A Correction,” Studia Monastica 20 (1978), 71–76. Gilmour-Bryson, Anne, “L’eresia e i Templari ‘Oportert et haereses esse’ ,” Ricerche di storia sociale e religiosa new series 24 (1983), 101–114. Gilmour-Bryson, Anne, “L’elezione di Bertrand de Got (Clemente V) e l’incontro a St Jean d’Angely,” Revista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 53 (1999), 429–34. Gilmour-Bryson, Anne, “The Templar Trials: Did the System Work?” The Medieval History Journal 3 (2000), 41–65. Gilmour-Bryson, Anne, “Priests of the Order of the Temple: What Can They Tell Us?” in The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314), eds Jochen Burgtorf, Paul F. Crawford and Helen J. Nicholson (Farnham, 2010), pp. 327– 38. Heslop, Michael, “The Search for the Defensive System of the Knights in Southern Rhodes,” in The Military Orders, vol. 4: On Land and by Sea, ed. Judi. UptonWard (Aldershot, 2008), pp. 189–200. Heslop, Michael, “The Search for the Byzantine Defensive System in Southern Rhodes,” Byzantinos Domos 16 (2008), 69–81. Hiestand, Rudolf, “Die Anfänge der Johanniter,” in Die geistlichen Ritterorden Europas, eds Josef Fleckenstein and Manfred Hellmann, Vorträge und Forschungen 26 (Sigmaringen, 1980). Housley, Norman, The Avignon Papacy and the Crusades, 1305–1378 (Oxford, 1986). Hyacinthe, Rafaël, L’Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem au moyen âge (Millau, 2003). Hyacinthe, Rafaël, “De domo Sancti Lazari Milites Leprosi: Knighthood and Leprosy in the Holy Land,” in The Medieval Hospital and Medical Practice, ed. Barbara S. Bowers (Aldershot, 2007), pp. 209–24. Hyacinthe, Rafaël, “ L’Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jerusalem dans le contexte spiritual des croisades: une réévaluation,” in Religiones militares: Contributi alla storia degli Ordini religioso-militari nel medioevo, eds Anthony Luttrell and Francesco Tommasi (Castello, 2008), pp. 43–59. Jaspert, Nikolas, “Transmediterrane Wechselwirkungen im 12. Jahrhundert. Der Ritterorden von Montjoie und der Templerorden,” in Die Ritterorden als Träger der Herrschaft: Territorien, Grundbesitz und Kirke, eds Roman Czaja and Jürgen Sarnowsky, Ordines Militares – Colloquia Turonensia Historica 14 (Toruń, 2007), pp. 257–78. ι

SelecT BIblIographY


Lagerholm, Nils, “Johanniterordens klosterkyrka i Kronobäck,” Stranda. Stranda hembygdsförenings årsskrift 1949–51(Stockholm, 1951), pp. 31–50. Legras, Anne-Marie, Les commanderies des Templiers et des Hospitaliers de SaintJean de Jérusalem en Saintonge et en Aunis (Paris, 1983). Losse, M., “Johanniter-Ordensburgen auf den Dodekanes Inseln Kalymnos und Nisyros,” in Burgen und Schlosser 37 (1996), 120–22. Losse, M., “Burgen und Befestigungen der Johanniter-Ordens auf den DodekanesInseln Tilos, Chalki und Alimia (Teil II),” in Burgenforschung aus Sachsen 18 (2005), 147–57. Luttrell, Anthony, The Hospitallers in Cyprus, Rhodes, Greece and the West 1291– 1440 (London, 1978). Luttrell, Anthony, “The Hospitallers of Rhodes Confront the Turks: 1306–1421,” in Christians, Jews and Other Worlds: Patterns of Conflict and Accommodation, ed. P.F. Gallagher (Lanham, 1988). Luttrell, Anthony, “Gli Ospitalieri e l’eredità dei Templari, 1305–1378,” in I Templari. Mito e storia (Atti del Convegno di studi alla maggione templare di Poggibonsi-Siena, 29–31 maggio 1987), eds Giovanni Minnuci and Franca Sardi (Siena, 1989). Luttrell, Anthony, The Hospitallers of Rhodes and their Mediterranean World (Aldershot, 1992). Luttrell, Anthony, “Change and conflict within the Hospitaller province of Italy after 1291,” in Mendicants, Military Orders and Regionalism in Medieval Europe, ed. Jürgen Sarnowsky (Aldershot, 1999), pp. 185–99. Luttrell, Anthony, “The Hospitallers and the Papacy, 1305–1314,” Forschungen zur Reichs-, Papst- und Landesgeschichte. Peter Herde zum 65. Geburtstage von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen dargebracht, eds Karl Borchardt and Enno Bünz, 2 vols (Stuttgart, 1998), 2, 595–622, repr. in Anthony Luttrell, Studies on the Hospitallers after 1306: Rhodes and the West (Aldershot, 2007). Luttrell, Anthony, and Léon Pressouyre, eds, La Commanderie, institution des ordres militaires dans l’Occident médiéval (Paris, 2002). Mallia-Milanes, Victor, ed., The Military Orders, vol. 3: History and Heritage (Aldershot, 2008). Marcombe, David, Leper Knights: The Order of St Lazarus of Jerusalem in England, c.1150–1544 (Woodbridge, 2003). Matzke, Michael, “De Origine Hospitalariorum Hierosolymitanorum – Vom klösterlichen Pilgerhospital zur internationalen Organisation,” Journal of Medieval History 22 (1996), 1–23. Matzke, Michael, Daibert von Pisa: Zwischen Pisa, Papst und erstem Kreuzzug (Sigmaringen, 1998). Menache, Sophia, “The Hospitallers during Clement V’s pontificate: the spoiled sons of the Papacy ?,” in The Military Orders, vol. 2, Welfare and Warfare, ed. Helen Nicholson (Aldershot, 1998), pp. 153–62. Menache, Sophia, Clement V (Cambridge, 1998).


SelecT BIblIographY

Nicholson, Helen, Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights: Images of the Military Orders, 1128–1291 (Leicester, 1993). Nicholson, Helen, ed., The Military Orders, vol. 2: Welfare and Warfare (Aldershot, 1998). Nicholson, Helen J., The Knights Templar: A New History (Stroud, 2001). Nicholson, Helen J., “The Testimony of Brother Henry Danet and the Trial of the Templars in Ireland,” in In Laudem Hierosolymitani: Studies in Crusades and Medieval Culture in Honour of Benjamin Z. Kedar, eds Iris Shagrir, Ronnie Ellenblum and Jonathan Riley-Smith, Crusades Subsidia 1 (Aldershot, 2008), pp. 411–23. Nicholson, Helen J., The Knights Templar on Trial: The Trial of the Templars in the British Isles, 1308–1311 (Stroud, 2009). Pirillo, Paolo, “Terra santa e ordini militari attraverso i testamenti fiorentini prima e dopo la caduta di San Giovanni d’Acri,” in Acri 1291. La fine della presenza degli ordini militari in Terra Santa e i nuovi orientamenti nel xiv secolo, ed. Francesco Tommasi (Perugia, 1996), pp. 121–35. Renouard, Yves, Les relations des papes d’Avignon et des compagnies commerciales et bancaires de 1316 à 1378 (Paris, 1941). Riley-Smith, Jonathan, The First Crusaders: 1095–1131 (Cambridge, 1997). Riley-Smith, Jonathan, “The Structures of the Orders of the Temple and the Hospital in c.1291,” in The Medieval Crusade, ed. Susan Ridyard (Woodbridge, 2004), pp. 125–44. Roger, Jean-Marc, “L’ordre de Malte et la gestion de ses biens en France du milieu du xvie siècle à la Révolution,” in Flaran 6: Les ordres militaires, la vie rurale et le peuplement en Europe occidentale (xiie–xviiie siècles). (Auch, 1986), pp. 169–203. Roger, Jean-Marc, Le prieuré de Champagne de “chevaliers de Rhodes” (1317– 1522) (Paris, 2001). Roger, Jean-Marc, “Les sceaux de l’Hôpital en Champagne jusqu’à l’‘oppugnation’ de Rhodes (1253–1522),” in Les sceaux, sources de l’histoire médiévale en Champagne. Actes des tables rondes de la Société française d’héraldique et de sigillographie (Troyes, centre universitaire, 14 septembre 200 ; Reims, demeure des comtes de Champagne, 9 octobre 2004) (Paris, 2008), pp. 53–83. Salvadó, Sebastián, “Interpreting the Altarpiece of Saint Bernard: Templar Liturgy and Conquest in Thirteenth-Century Majorca,” Iconographica: Rivista di iconografia medievale e moderna 5 (2006), 48–63. Salvadó, Sebastián, “Icons, Crosses and the Liturgical Objects of Templar Chapels in the Crown of Aragon,” in The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307– 1314), eds Jochen Burgtorf, Paul F. Crawford and Helen J. Nicholson (Farnham, 2010), pp. 183–97. Sarnowsky, Jürgen, ed., Mendicants, Military Orders and Regionalism in Medieval Europe (Aldershot, 1999).

SelecT BIblIographY


Selwood, Dominic, Knights of the Cloister: Templars and Hospitallers in CentralSouthern Occitania 1100–1300 (Woodbridge, 1999). Spiteri, Stephen, Fortresses of the Knights (Malta, 2001). Tipton, Charles L., “The 1330 Chapter General of the Knights Hospitallers at Montpellier,” Traditio 24 (1968), 293–308. Tyerman, Christopher, England and the Crusades, 1095–1588 (Chicago, 1988). Upton-Ward, Judi, ed., The Military Orders, vol. 4: On Land and by Sea (Aldershot, 2008). Vatin, Nicolas, L’Ordre de Saint-Jean-de-Jérusalem, l’Empire ottoman et la Méditerranée orientale entre les deux sièges de Rhodes, 1480–1522 (Louvain and Paris, 1994).

This page has been left blank intentionally

Index Acre, 17, 26, 45, 47, 49, 92, 93, 96, 178, 179, 181 Adelaide, wife of Baldwin I of Jerusalem, 22 Adorno, Anselme, 154 Agen, 61, 62, 64, 66, 72, 108 Agriosykia, 151, 153 Aimery de Tury, 113, 136 Aix-en-Provence, 107, 125, 126, 129 Albenga, 22 Albert of Aachen, 10 Albert de Schwarzbourg, 107, 112, 118 Alberto Terrino, 21, 25, 28 Albi, 107 Alcantara, Order of, 186 Alfambra, 15 Alfonso II, of Aragon, 15 Altopascio, Order of, 178 Alimnia, 140–43, 154 Amalfi, 10 Anatolian coast, 162 Andrivaux, 108 Anseau de Corbeil, 130 Anselm of Lucca, 26 Antioch, 25 Antonin, 71 Apulia, 180 Aquileia, 84 Aquitaine, 82, 101, 117, 118, 131, 132, 133, 134 Arabs, 140 Arago-Catalonia, 33, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43 Aragon, 15, 38, 42, 183, 184, 186, 189 Argos, 158, 160, 164 Arles, 106, 107 Armenia, 106 Arnold, John, 91 Artaud de Chavanon, 107, 113, 118, 126 Artaud de Saint-Romain, 108, 113 Arwad, see Ruad Ascalon, 16 Assanti family, 155–56, 164 Assassins, 17 Asti, 20

d’Aubusson, Pierre, grand master of the Hospital, 141, 142, 158, 164 Augustinian canons, 42 Auvergne, 115, 121, 123, 126 Avignon, 61, 69, 71, 72, 73, 101–2, 106–14, 113, 125, 126, 135 Aycard de Miromonte, 107 Balantrodoch, 93 Baldwin IV, of Jerusalem, 14, 16, 188 Baldwin V, of Jerusalem, 17 Baldwin of Ramla, 45 Balian of Ibelin, 45, 46, 47, 49 Barber, Malcolm, 45, 96 Barcelona, 43 Barletta, 106, 184 Barozzi, 157 Barral des Baux, 107 Bartholomeo de Torre, 40 Beaucage, Benoît, 128 Belgium, 132 Benedictines, 10, 11, 38, 64, 86, 184, 188 bequests, 5, 7, 10, 24 Béraud de Got, 67 Bergerac, 64 Berggren, Per Gustav, 168, 173 Bermond Maury, 106, 113, 123 Bernard of Clairvaux, 41, 78 Bernard de Larroque, 69 Bernard Pelet, 63–64 Bernard Robaud, 108 Bertran d’Orange, 107 Bertrand de Got, see popes, Clement V Bertrand de Malbosc, 106 Bethlehem, 23 Béziers, 71 Boigny, 180, 182, 183, 185, 187, 189 Bonnefare, 64 Borchardt, Karl, 118 Bordeaux, 61, 62–64, 66, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73 Bordone, Renato, 20 Bosio, Giacomo, 148, 162 du Bourg, Antoine, 123–24 Bourges, 68 British Isles, 89, 92, 96, 98




Buondelmonti, Cristoforo, 145, 146, 154, 157, 160 Burgtorf, Jochen, 49 Burton Lazars, 180, 181–82, 183, 188 Bury St Edmunds, 92 Chronicle of, 94 Byzantines, 140, 144–46, 148, 149, 150, 156, 157 Byzantium, 16 Cahors, 101, 107 trial, 64 Calatrava, Order of, 15, 42, 186 Cambridgeshire, 31 Capua, 106, 183, 184, 189 Carcassonne, 6, 71 Carmelite friars, 94 Castellote, 38 Castile, 108, 117, 126 Catalonia, 33, 38, 39, 42 Caesarea, 179 Chalki, 139–43, 147, 148, 154, 156, 164, 165 Champagne, 101, 117, 118, 126, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134 chapels, 2, 14, 32, 37, 39–43, 150, 151, 152, 159, 169–71, 173 Charles II, of Naples, 121 Charles of Anjou, king of Sicily, 178 Chinon, 66, 69–70, 72, 82, 83 Chiomonte, 24, 28 Chios, 112 Chorio, 141, 144, 146, 157, 165 Christians, 46, 47, 90, 92–93, 94, 98 Christophe, J.-B., 71 Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier, 45–55 Cistercian monks, 14, 38, 41, 42, 43 Cîteaux, 14, 15, 29 Cluny, 68 Colbert-Fontainebleau Eracles, 46, 47 communications, 20–21 Conrad of Montferrat, 17 Constantinople, 23, 161 Copsey, Richard, 94 Counter Reformation, 188 Cresson, battle of the, 46, 48, 49 crusades

First, 25 Second, 19, 94 Cyprus, 78, 89, 90, 93, 96–98, 106, 112, 178, 179, 183 Daibert, patriarch of Jerusalem, 6, 9, 10, 11 Delaville Le Roulx, Joseph, 5, 124, 128 Denmark, 167, 169–70, 173 Dieudonné, abbot, 92 Dominican friars, 40, 42, 92, 95 Dominique d’Acre, 106 Domus Sancte Maria Montis Gaudii, see Mountjoy, Order of donations, 5, 7–11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20–21, 24, 26, 184, 188, 189 Dondi, Christina, 31–33 Dragon de Mondragon, 64 Edward I, of England, 69, 92, 98, 181 Edward II, of England, 69, 72 Egypt, 149 Elleniko, 158 Élyon de Villeneuve, grand master of the Hospital, 108, 113, 118, 124, 125, 126–27, 128, 133, 134 Emboreio, 140, 157, 158, 159, 160 Embriaci family, 23 England, 61, 63, 72, 78, 89, 90, 92, 96, 97, 120, 123, 180, 181–83, 187, 188, 191 Eracles, 46, 47 Éric VIII, of Denmark, 119 Ernoul, 45, 47, 49 Esquieu de Floyrac, 64 Étienne Vasques, 117, 126 Ettore d’Alemagna, 148 Eudes de Montaigu, 113, 114, 126 Europe, 32, 46, 181, 186, 187, 192–93 Fantino Quirini, 156 Faye la Vineuse, 66 feast days, 34, 36 Felizzano, 19, 20 Fernand Rodríguez de Valbuena, 117, 126 Ferry de Fougerolles, 110, 132 Flaxfleet, 96 Forey, Alan, 17, 38, 42 Foulques de Chaudeyrac, 107


Foulques de Villaret, grand master of the Hospital, 103–7, 108, 114, 118, 119, 124, 125 Fralmo of Lucca, 15, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28 France, 5, 7, 8, 11, 61, 72, 82, 90, 101, 107, 112, 114, 117, 119, 120, 121, 123, 126, 130–33, 134, 180, 183, 187, 189, 191–92 Franciscan friars, 40, 43, 92, 99 al-Fula, 46 Gallipoli, 161 Gams, Pius Boniface, 78 Gap, 107 Gascony, 66, 72 Genoa, 22–23, 140 Geraldus, ruler of the Hospital, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 Gérard de Boyzol, 64 Gerard de Lavergne, 64 Gerard of Ridefort, master of the Temple, 45–47, 48–49 Géraud de Causse, 69, 72 Géraud de Pins, 103–5 Germany, 112, 115, 118–19, 184, 188 Gerola, G., 141, 142, 150, 151, 157, 158 Gilmour-Bryson, Anne, 61, 65 Given, James, 91 Gotha, 185 Grande Provence, 129, 130 Greece, 140, 155, 162, 164 Guigues de Belcastel, 113 Guillaume de Ortimo, 108 Guillaume Pincard, 107 Guillaume de Reillanne, 108, 127, 128 Guillaume Robert, 64 Gustav Vasa, king of Sweden, 167 Guy de Belcastel, 108 Guy de Domagnac, 148 Guy of Lusignan, 17, 45, 46, 48 hagiography, 32 Haakon, king of Norway, 119 Hattin, battle of, 26, 45, 47 Hefele, Carl Joseph, 77 Hellenistic fortresses, 141, 144, 149, 150, 156, 158, 160 Henri de Mesnils, 109, 117, 118, 126, 131


Henry II, of England, 181 Henry III, of England, 98 Henry IV, of France, 191 Henry Danet, 89–90 Henry Sinclair, 93 Holy Land, 16, 20, 26, 27, 29, 46, 67, 81, 84, 84–87, 93, 98, 99, 177, 179, 181, 182, 188 Holy Redeemer, Hospital of the, 15, 24, 28, 29 Holy Roman Empire, 67, 180 Holy Sepulchre, 5, 7, 9–10, 31–32, 37 Canons of the, 11 Frater Peire Raimon of the, 7 relics, 8 Holy Spirit, Order of the, 178 Hospital of St John of Jerusalem (Rhodes, Malta), 5–11, 13, 14, 19, 20, 23, 24–25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 42, 43, 46, 48, 64, 68, 72, 73, 91, 93, 98–99, 101–35, 139–65, 167–75, 177–80, 184, 187, 189, 190, 192 Hugues Cornut, 108 Hugues Eustache, 107, 113 Hugues de Peraud, 69 Hungary, 180 Iberian Peninsula, 16, 26, 28, 42, 43, 78 idolatry, 79, 81, 86 indulgences, 5–7 inquisitor, 79, 82, 91–92 Ireland, 78, 89–91, 93, 96, 99 Isabel of Jerusalem, 17 Ischia, 156 Issigeac, 64 Italy, 13, 16, 21, 26, 28, 29, 178, 184, 190, 191, 192 Jacopo Barozzi, 155 Jacques II, of Aragon, see Jaume II Jacques Duèse, see popes, Jean XXII Jacques de Mailli, 48–49 Jacques de Milly, grand master of the Hospital, 158, 165 Jacques de Molay, master of the Temple, 69, 81–82 James de Besnes, 180, 183 James of Molay, see Jacques de Molay



Jaume I, of Aragon, 42 Jaume II, of Aragon, 33, 134 Jerusalem, 5, 6, 8, 11, 17, 19, 27, 37, 48, 96, 99, 177–78, 179, 180 Hospital of, see Hospital of St John; xenodochium, kingdom of, 16, 45 Jobert, master of the Hospital, 23 John of Donington, 92 John of Havering, 66 Joscius of Tyre, archbishop, 46, 47 Jubail, 23 Kastellos, 149 Knidos peninsula, 158 Kokkimidis, 146, 147 Kos (Lango), 112, 140, 145, 154, 158, 160 Koutelakis, Ch., 153 Kronobäck, 167–75 Lagerholm, Nils, 169–70 Lagny abbey, 92 La Roche sur Yonne, 65 Latin East, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 31, 32, 89–98 see also Jerusalem Le Bastit, 69 Leclercq, Henri, 77 Lectoure, 71 Legras, Anne-Marie, 31, 124 Lemaître, Jean-Loupe, 31 Léonard de Tibertis, 106, 107, 110, 113, 126, 135 Leon Gabalas, 140 Lepanto, 190 Libellus de Expugnatione Terrae Sanctae, 49 Ligugé, 70 Liguria, 22, 26 Lindos, 103 liturgy, 2, 31–43 Livadia, 148 Lleida, 38, 40 London, 93, 181 Lormont, 66, 68 Losse, Michael, 141, 150, 151, 153, 157 Louis XIV, 191 Louis de Bavière, 112, 118, 119 Lucca, 25, 26

see also Fralmo of, Anselm of Lusignan, 66, 71 Luttrell, Anthony, 162 Lyon, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73 Second Council of, 178 Lyon Eracles, 46, 47–48, 49, 55–60 Majorca, 39, 42 Mallone, 18, 20, 24, 26 Malta, 189, 192 Order of, see Hospital Mandraki, 154, 157, 158, 160, 163 Manosque, 108, 125 Maraclea, 90–91 Marienburg, 178 Marseille, 107 Martin Pérez d’Oros, 108, 113, 114, 117 Mas d’Agenais, 63 Mas-Deu, 40 matins, 35, 37 Matthew Paris, 93 Matthieu de Sancto Leonardo, 108, 113 Maurice de Pagnac, 103–4, 106, 114 Mediterranean, 16, 26, 28, 29, 90–91, 120 Megalo Chorio, 149, 150–51, 154 Mesaria, 151, 154 Messina, 183 Mikro Chorio, 151, 154 Miravet, 39 Modena, 31 Moncenisio, Hospital of, 24, 28 Monfaucon, 64 monks, 35, 37, 38, 41, 64, 86, 91, 184 Montélimar, 108 Montesa, Order of, 42, 43 Montferrat, marquises of, 19, 20, see also Conrad, William V, William Longsword Montfragüe, Order of, 15 Montpellier, 71, 73, 106, 108, 126, 132 Montsó, 38 Morano, 19, 20 Morgan, Margaret Ruth, 46 Mountjoy, Order of, 13–29 Muslims, 15, 38, 46, 47, 48–49, 90, 92–93, 96, 98 Naples, 183, 184, 186, 189, 190


Napoléon de Tibertis, 110, 113 Narbonne, 71, 73 Navarre, 108, 115, 118, 126 Nazareth, 46, 47, 49 Nicaean empire, 140 Nice, 190 Nicolas de Dover, 182 Nikia, 157, 158, 159, 160 Nîmes, 9, 71 Nisyros, 139–40, 147, 148, 154–60, 163–64 Noli, 22 nones, 35 Omergues, 108 Orange, 71, 73, 107 ordinals, 34 Orsini, Giovanni Batista degli, grand master of the Hospital, 158, 163 Outremer, 16, 20, 28 Ottomans, see Turkey Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 454, 90 Pachia, 157 Palaiokastro, 149, 151, 152, 154, 156–57, 158, 160 Palestine, 22 Palma de Majorca, 43 Paloi, 154, 157 papal bulls, 18 Ad hoc nos disponente, 120 Ad providam Christi, 121 Audivimus noviter, 104 Dum attenta meditatione, 101, 115, 117, 125, 133, 135 Omne datum optimum, 39 Pastoralis praeeminentie, 121 Piæ postulatio voluntatis, 119 Scimus, dilectissime fili, 121 Vox clamantis, 77–78 Vox in excelso, 66, 77–78 Paris, 69, 81, 132, 192 Parlettia (Perva), 159, 160 paternosters, 35–36 Paul da Modena, 110, 113 Peñíscola, 41, 43 Périgord, 64, 107 Périgueux, 61, 64, 72


Perugia, 66 Perva, see Parlettia Pessac, 66 Petite Provence, 129–30 Philip II, of Spain, 190 Philip IV, of France, 65, 67–73, 75, 79, 81–82, 88 Philippe da Gragnana, 115, 119 Piacenza, 31 Piedmont, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 190 Pierre de Chaudeyrac, 108 Pierre Dubois, 179 Pierre de Mailg, 110, 113, 117, 118, 131 Pierre d’Ongle, 105, 106–7, 108, 113, 118, 123, 124, 126, 135 Pierre de Podeniaco, 107 pilgrimage, 9, 27, 96 Piri Re’is, 154, 155 Poblet, 42 Poitiers, 61,64–65, 66, 69, 71, 72, 73, 82, 114 Pollença, 39 popes Alexander III, 14, 17 Boniface VIII, 79, 88 Calixtus II, 120 Clement V, 61–73, 75, 78–88, 92, 101, 121 Gregory IX, 38, 39 Gregory XIII, 190 Innocent II, 26, 39 Innocent VIII, 187 Jean XXII, 101–35 Martin IV, 88 Nicholas IV, 178 Paschal (Pascal) II, 6, 7, 10, 119, 135 Paul V, 191 Pius IV, 190 Urban II, 9 Portugal, 117, 126 priests, 35–43, 91 Provence, 101, 118, 123, 124–30, 131, 133, 134 Puysubran, 5, 8, 9, 11, 120 Pyrgoussa, 157 Quercy, 107 Quirini, 162



Raybaud, Jean, 125, 126, 129 Raybaud de Bonzono, 108 Raymond d’Aulps, 107 Raymond de Mereliis, 107 Raymond of Saint Gilles, 6 Raymond of Tripoli, 46, 47 Recueil des historiens des croisades: historiens occidentaux, 47 Reformation, 168, 169, 183, 187–88 remission of sins, 7 Renaud de Pons IV, 64 Reynald of Châtillon, 14, 48, 49 Reynald of Sidon, 46 Rhodes, 103–5, 106, 112, 114, 118, 127, 128, 130, 134, 135, 139–42, 145, 148, 149, 154, 155, 161, 163, 164, 165, 178, 179 Richard de Pavely, 108, 113, 114, 117 Robert I, of Naples, 121–23 Robert I, of Scotland, 99 Rodrigo Álvarez, count of Sarria, 13–19, 24, 25 Roger of Apulia, count of Sicily, 10 Roger of Howden, 93 Roger des Moulins, master of the Hospital, 46, 48–49 Roger Outlaw, 117 Rome, 49, 69, 71, 73, 183, 188, 191 Roquemaure, 101 Ross, Ludwig, 158 Ruad (Arwad), 96 St Augustine, Rule of, 180 Saint Bernard see Bernard of Clairvaux St Bertrand de Comminges, 71, 73 Saint George, Order of, 42 St Giles, hospital of, 181–82 St Gilles, 64, 101, 106, 107, 112, 119–23 St Jean d’Angely, 65 St John of Jerusalem, Order of, see Hospital St Lazarus, Order of, 98, 177–93 St Louis, Order of, 191 St Martin de Bergerac, priory of, 64 St Maurice, Order of, 190 St Naixent, 64 Saint-Pierre-Avez, 108 St Thomas of Acre, Order of, 9798 Saintes, 66

Saladin, 17, 46, 48 San Martín de Girona, 42 Sancta Maria Latina, hospice of, 10, 11 Sans I Travé, Josep, 37, 38 Santiago, Order of, 13, 27, 186 Santorini, 155 Saracens (Mamluks), 90 Savona, 21–25, 26, 28 Savoy, duke of, 190, 191, 192 Saxony, 112 Scandinavia, 167, 171, 175 Scotland, 78, 93 Second Crusade, 19 Seljuks, 140, 150 Sentes Creus, 42 Sergi, Giuseppe, 24 Short, R., 150, 151–52 Sibylla of Jerusalem, 16, 17, 19 Sicard de Vaur, 92 Sicilian Vespers, 183 Sicily, 180, 183 Sigfrid of Schlatt. 185 Simon Le Rat, 110, 113, 114, 117, 126, 131 Skopi, 158 Spain, 14, 22, 24, 25, 27, 78, 99, 180, 186–87, 190 Spanish Reconquista, 186 Spegis, Fabrizio, 19 Spiteri, Stephen, 141, 150, 157 Stavros, 97, 152, 154, 159 Stavrovouni, 97 Suger, abbot, 41 Susa, 20–21, 24, 25, 26, 28 Sweden, 167, 169–70, 173 Switzerland, 180, 185, 187–88 Symi, 139–40, 143–47, 149, 154, 156, 162, 163–64, 165 Syria, 22, 90 Templar insignia, 41 Templar of Tyre, 92 Temple, Order of the, 13, 14, 15, 21, 24, 25–26, 29, 31–43, 45, 46, 48–49, 63–64, 66, 68, 69, 72, 73, 75, 77, 78–88, 89–99, 106–8, 121–23, 132–33, 177–80 Rule, 34–37, 43, 97 Teutonic Order, 13, 177, 179, 184


Theobaldino de Vignali, 110, 113 Thomas Totty (Thoraldby), 89, 90–92 Thuringia, 112, 180, 184 Tiberias, 45, 46, 47 Tilos, 139–41, 147–55, 156, 158, 159, 163, 164, 165 Tortosa, 38 Toulouse, 5–9, 71, 73, 101, 106, 115, 118, 123–24, 126, 127, 131, 134 Trignan, 108 Tsirpanlis, Z.N., 159, 164 Turkey, 112, 139, 143, 144, 145, 148, 149, 154, 156, 158, 160, 161–64, 165, 190 Tuscolo, 14 Tyerman, Christopher, 89 Tyre, 17 Uzeste, 71 Valencia, 38, 42 Valencia-Murcia, 42 Varazze, 23 Vatin, Nicolas, 162 Venice, 106, 107, 115, 126, 140, 155, 178


vespers, 35 Vienne, 67, 71 Council of, 77, 83 Villandraut, 71 Villel, 38 William V, the Elder, 16–17, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28 William de Beaujeu, master of the Temple, 91 William Desmares, 180 William Greenfield, archbishop of York, 91 William Longsword, 16 William Sinclair, 93, 98–99 William of Tyre, 46 Continuation of his chronicle, 46, 47–49, 55–60 Old French translation, 49 xenodochium, hospice in Jerusalem, 5, 7, 8–10, and see Hospital of St John Geraldus, ruler of, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 Zurich, 185, 188